Global Warming is a Scam

U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

The cat’s out of the bag. There is no approaching ecological calamity. The aim is to destroy capitalism.

As Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace wrote:

"The collapse of World Communism and the fall of the Berlin Wall led to the environmental movement being hijacked by the political and social activists who learned to use green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anticapitalism and antiglobalization than with science or ecology."

Click to expand...

Scott M on February 15, 2015 at 11:55 am

I have gradually changed from a believer to a skeptic to a denier(manmade GW) over the last 15 years, of course climategate was a milestone. Even today though the fear mongering occasionally gives me a scare, then I look at it with a critical eye. It reminds me as a kid being told by my mother that god will strike you down if I did…whatever she didnt want me to do. The money has really corrupted the entire issue, so I understand why there are a lot of believers in positions of power(and money), if the money disappeared this would fall into the same category as talking about the weather.

Click to expand...

Matti Ressler on February 15, 2015 at 12:09 pm
It is clear that the global warming scare is highly politicised with the motives of the UN/IPCC unashamedlty and publicly being being global social/economic change rather than anything to do with the climate, the most recent being the following: Figueres: First time the world economy is transformed intentionally

In the light of this I am highly skeptical of any push for alarm over global climate. I find the lack of evidence for such simple things as CO2 radiative “forcing” in the temperature record to be apalling, considering how much undue weight it is given. We are constantly told that places like Florida will soon be under water, neglecting the fact that these places are sinking. West Antarctica glaciers are melting due to geothermal heat, not warmer oceans which clearly could not carry record sea ice were they warmer.

I could go on all day……..

There is simply too much alarmist nonsense.

Click to expand...

Lance wallace on February 15, 2015 at 12:30 pm
Lance Wallace

Physicist, Ph.D. in Astrophysics, City University of New York


Taught physics and astronomy (Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology) for 2 years.
Environmental scientist at US EPA Office of Research and Development for 27 years (1977-2004). Concentrated on studies of human exposure to environmental pollutants. Directed studies showing that most human exposure occurs at home due to consumer products (solvents, paints, fire retardants, plasticizers such as phthalates and bis-phenol), indoor combustion, building materials (formaldehyde), water treatment (chloroform), smoking (benzene), cooking (fine and ultrafine particles), air “fresheners” (para-dichlorobenzene, alpha- and beta-pinene), etc.
Researcher at NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) (2005-2010)
Independent researcher (2010-present)

Publications (150 or so) can be found at ResearchGate

Lurker here for the last 5 or so years. I read every post. Start to read the comments but quickly stop upon encountering your regulars, who are able (and anxious) to comment on every topic regardless of their demonstrable lack of knowledge on most. It’s too bad that this happens. Somehow Climate Audit and Bishop Hill do not have the same problems. WUWT also escapes some of your persistent gabby commenters. However, your blog is one of the scarce rays of light in our situation of being buried by the UN, world leaders, the media, politicians…beating the drum for climate change.

Became interested in climate change when it was still called global warming. Noticed that research grants could increasingly be obtained only by linking the research to climate change. Turned off by the posturizing, end-of-world claims of Hansen, Mann, Schmidt, etc. Began reading the literature on CO2, paleo, read Plimer, discovered WUWT, Climate Audit, and Bishop Hill. Climategate and the Hockey Stick Illusion confirmed my skepticism.

I accept the radiation physics indicating CO2 acts as a filter for certain electromagnetic frequencies, and also the estimate of 1 degree C of warming per doubling of CO2 in the absence of feedback. However, like the spherical cow, absence of feedback has never existed. In an immensely complicated perhaps chaotic system, which nevertheless has been semistable for some billions of years, it seems to me that feedback must normally be negative, leading to less than 1 degree of warming. (The recent lowering of climate sensitivity from 3 degrees to something on the order of 1.6 degrees in multiple studies is a welcome development.)

Sometimes I get pretty depressed about turning corn into fuel, whacking eagles out of the sky by blades or frying them by reflecting light into a parabolic concentrator, demonizing clean safe cheap nuclear power, killing the poor by the hundreds of thousands perhaps millions by denying them food and cheap energy. I do expect the Chinese will get things right eventually, and perhaps the West will relearn from them the lessons we have forgotten.

Whoops, it sounds like I am adopting the End is Near! outlook of the alarmists.

If we can eventually turn things around, it will be due in large part to you, Judith, and your partners in the Roll of Honor: Lindzen, McIntyre, McKitrick, Watts, Montford, Nic Lewis, Laframboise, Jo Nova, Ridley, Lomborg…

Click to expand...

David Small on February 15, 2015 at 1:11 pm

I started a PhD program in Environmental Engineering because I worried about climate change. It didn’t take long for me to become a skeptic.

My first paper, a study about precipitation intensity over the U.S., was rejected by reviewers because it contradicted the climate model projections. Though they could find nothing wrong with the methodology, they decided observational data must be flawed because climate models couldn’t possibly be wrong and wrote that the paper could not be published. I then started reading the atmospheric science literature about precipitation trends. It was clear to me that the theory about changes in precipitation intensity were designed to explain climate model results that didn’t mesh with observations. When I found that changes in observed precipitation were largest in autumn, and did not find the same patterns of precipitation in climate models outputs, I really became skeptical about the use of climate models.

When I started working with climate models and saw how poorly they reproduce precipitation patterns, I was forced into the realization that the “science” was being fit to the models and that the models were not very realistic.

From my perspective, this runs contrary to the scientific method. After finishing my PhD in Environmental Engineering, I earned a M.S. in Atmospheric Science and started working on a PhD. As I learned more about meteorology and atmospheric dynamics, I started to see the contradictions in the climate change discussion.

I had another paper refused by a high profile journal because it showed that cold air is required to produce the conditions that cause storm surges in the western Canadian arctic. That suggestion really seemed to upset the editor (an engineer) who wouldn’t even send it out for review.

My later research has shown the importance of strong jets and cold air in building the blocking ridges that cause the extreme weather we’ve seen over the last two autumns/winters. The claims that are being made that a warming of the arctic will lead to warmer conditions in the mid-latitudes because it will cause more blocking are preposterous because strong jets are needed to support the blocking ridges. I received dozens of letters saying my published paper must be wrong because I suggest that strong jets, not weak jets, cause blocking. Most of the claims being made by climate change advocates appear to run contrary to basic meteorology.

As I’ve been attacked personally and professionally for offering contrary views, I decided to leave the field. I will defend my Atmospheric Science PhD thesis and walk away. It’s become clear to me that it is not possible to undertake independent research in any area that touches upon climate change if you have to make your living as a professional scientist on government grant money or have to rely on getting tenure at a university. The massive group think that I have encountered on this topic has cost me my career, many colleagues and has damaged my reputation among the few people I know in the field.

I’m leaving to work in the financial industry. It’s a sad day when you feel that you have to leave a field that you are passionately interested in because you fear that you won’t be able to find a job once your views become widely known.

Until free thought is allowed in the climate sciences, I will consider myself a skeptic of catastrophic human induced global warming.

Click to expand...