Category Archives: L1

Climate Alarmism Command

Do you still believe that climate alarmism is a grassroots movement?  Do you still believe it is based on science, or possibly exaggerated or misunderstood science?  No, it is a centralized command & control structure with aspirations to become a “global governance” (they shy away from the phrase “global government”). Read what they say and think again.

*** James Gustave Speth [Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality in the Executive Office of the President, 1979-1981], Peter Haas. 2013. Global Environmental Governance: Foundations of Contemporary Environmental Studies:

The challenge of the global environment is fundamentally one of effective governance—global environmental governance.

Global environmental governance is the intersection of global governance with environmental affairs.
Continue reading Climate Alarmism Command

Climate Alarmism is like a Deadly Virus

Climate Alarmism can be compared to the HIV virus.  After entering a society, it attacks the main defense of the society against itself and similar threats – the scientific enterprise.  After the scientific enterprise was weakened enough, the society becomes defenseless against any pathogenic agenda, alleging scientific justification.  Climate Alarmism brings with it a number of such agendas, from shutting down the national energy infrastructure to banning free speech to submitting to the UN.  America became infected in 1992 through Al Gore and Timothy Wirth.

The World Wildlife Fund, having annual income around $800M, is one of the main culprits.  Continue reading Climate Alarmism is like a Deadly Virus

William Happer’s 2009 Senate Statement

Statement to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee by William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University, made on February 25, 2009.  Excerpts:

Sometimes the obsession for control of the climate got a bit out of hand, as in the Aztec state, where the local scientific/religious establishment of the year 1500 had long since announced that the debate was over and that at least 20,000 human sacrifices a year were needed to keep the sun moving, the rain falling, and to stop climate change.
Continue reading William Happer’s 2009 Senate Statement

Richard Lindzen, 2010 House Testimony

Global Warming: How to approach the science.
Richard Lindzen. Testimony at House Subcommittee on Science and Technology hearing on A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response. November 17, 2010. Selected quotes, emphasis is mine.

“In my long experience with the issue of global warming, I’ve come to realize that the vast majority of laymen including policymakers do not actually know what the scientific debate is about. In this testimony, I will try to clarify this. Some of you may, for example, be surprised to hear that the debate is not about whether it is warming or not or even about whether man is contributing some portion of whatever is happening. I’ll explain this in this testimony. Unfortunately, some part of the confusion is explicitly due to members of the scientific community whose role as partisans has dominated any other role they may be playing.”

Continue reading Richard Lindzen, 2010 House Testimony

Richard Lindzen on IPCC and climate dispute, 2001

From Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 2 May 2001

“I have been involved in climate and climate related research for over thirty years during which time I have held professorships at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. I am a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and the author or coauthor of over 200 papers and books. I have also been a participant in the proceedings of the IPCC (the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The questions I wish to address are the following: What can we agree on and what are the implications of this agreement? What are the critical areas of disagreement? What is the origin of popular perceptions? I hope it will become clear that the designation, ‘skeptic,’ simply confuses an issue where popular perceptions are based in significant measure on misuse of language as well as misunderstanding of science. Indeed, the identification of some scientists as ‘skeptics’ permits others to appear ‘mainstream’ while denying views held by the so-called ‘skeptics’ even when these views represent the predominant views of the field.”

Continue reading Richard Lindzen on IPCC and climate dispute, 2001