Why did you change your views on climate change ?

Why did you change your views on climate change ?

Boyd's views challenge some, are denigrated by others - and show how far from certainty of divine revelation the church of anthropogenic climate change really is. Other comments are worth absorbing - and contrasting. My problem is very simple. There is no way conditions which are proposed can confirm theories. That would take observation and measurement at a basic minimum.

I was an anti-corporation, anti-oil, politically left person who was also regularly depressed and thoroughly freaked out about climate change since first reading about it in 1998.

So I jumped at the chance in 2015 to put my advertising creative skills to work on a voluntary project where I created a viral campaign concept to promote climate change and renewable energy. I spent almost a year developing the concept, using my spare time and money and doing vastly more reading on the subject than I had before, including many things about CO2.

Here are some of the conclusions I personally came to, slowly at first, then eventually all at once in the following few years after the project, and some salient points I read along the way:

  • There is an element of 'predatory green capitalism' to the movement that makes money out of scaring the public and politicians and who keep the scare going, despite none of their apocalyptic predictions coming true for the last 30 years.

  • Whilst it is unlikely scientists are getting rich out of researching CO2–caused catastrophic climate change – many jobs, university departments, tenured professorships, mortgages and college funds now depend on the money governments give to it continuing to flow.

  • An atmospheric physicist or meteorologist who now comes out against the theory of human caused ‘climate emergency’ (as it is now called) will have their careers, livelihoods and reputations destroyed, rather than having their science objectively considered.

  • Much of the public’s belief or disbelief of the theory is more about their political ideology and continuous microdosing of the message in the media than any significant research into the subject, and I would have included myself in this categorisation a few years ago.

  • There is still no directly observed evidence that CO2 causes catastrophic climate change, only correlations and extrapolations. Any graph or chart you see about temperature trends or sea level rise is often fraudulently presented, still has no demonstrable link to CO2 and may be entirely due to natural cycles. The location of New York city used to be under roughly one mile of ice only 20,000 years ago, after all.

  • We still don't know enough about how all of the terrestrial and extraterrestrial factors from clouds, multi-decadal ocean current oscillations, cosmic rays, sun activity, water vapour, forests, urban heat island effect, Milankovitch Cycles, undersea geothermal activity, the strength of earth’s magnetic field and natural CO2 variability to name just a few, interact with each other in a myriad of ways to be able to make any claims about climate trends, and there is no computer model powerful enough to calculate it, even if we understood all of the interactions.

  • Atmospheric physicists who have been in the field for decades, long before the theory of CO2–caused catastrophic climate change became widespread, used to study around 22 drivers of climate (a few of which are mentioned above), the least of which was CO2 as it was known to have a very weak influence.

  • The UN's IPCC predictions are all based on computer models, which contain large errors or omit major influencing factors.

  • There are enough highly qualified and credible scientists who don't believe that CO2 can cause catastrophic climate change to be able to confidently question the hypothesis.

  • “A profound fact is that only a very small change, so small that it cannot be measured accurately with the currently available observational devices, in the global cloud characteristics can completely offset the warming effect of the doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide…” Dr. Mototaka Nakamura.

  • Of the 0.9 degrees C warming that has occurred since the turn of the last century, half could be attributed to human activity. Of that half, 0.225 degrees C could be caused by the urban heat island effect. The remaining 0.225 degrees C of warming is theoretically possible to have been caused by our additional CO2.

  • The 0.6C of warming that occurred from 1910 to 1945 took place when when the additional CO2 added to the atmosphere by human activity is estimated to have been just 18 parts per million (going from 280ppm pre-industrial to 298ppm) - acknowledged as being far too small to have had any impact in any way. Therefore what caused early 20th century warming had to have been caused by something else, and could still be causing warming, if any, today.

  • Wind and solar are not capable of providing the energy and resources we require to live a modern life. They also create immense problems and inefficiencies for power grids with their constant peaks and troughs in output. Only because we keep traditional forms of power generation in ‘spinning reserve’ can we absorb or balance out the problems of intermittency with renewables, and only when used on a small scale – from Obama’s own former renewable energy guru.

  • A battery or batteries big enough to store electricity to power northern hemisphere populations through winter even for just one full day, would be so huge, so expensive and so resource–intensive to manufacture, that they’re practically in the realm of fairytales.

  • Coal and oil are single-handedly responsible for lifting humanity out of a brutal, hard manual labour, 18th century agrarian lifestyle where 85% of the population were required to farm, with little or no leisure time, no access to cheap affordable medical care and where most of us were dead by 40. They are both still responsible for maintaining our long, healthy, comfortable lives.

  • No matter how ‘green’ you try and live, everything you touch, hold, wear, eat, drink, every activity, every holiday, every minute of leisure time, everything you ride in, sit on, every place you live in or work in, every medicine and medical procedure still has oil and coal at the heart of its lifecycle — by powering your activity directly, by providing the energy to be manufactured and delivered cheaply to your door from across the world or your country, and in the case of oil, is directly made from it.

  • Whilst they do have environmental issues we should continue trying to resolve, rapidly removing oil and coal from our energy and raw materials mix as some advocate will result in an immediate and painful deindustrialisation and depopulation of the planet – which people often piously say is a good thing, until they realise it will likely include themselves, their children, friends, family and just about everyone they know and love.

  • A subset of extreme environmentalists who are also driving the ‘climate emergency’ narrative know that the above point is the case, but actually think there should be no more than around 1 billion people on the planet living a lifestyle similar in terms of technology to that of the Amish community. However, a sudden move away from coal and oil use will not result in a nice smooth transition to some idyllic pastoral existence, as some might imagine.

  • Wind turbines, solar arrays and electric cars are far from 'green' to manufacture - with the mining and refining for renewables of the truly gargantuan quantities of rare earth elements, steel, concrete, copper cabling, fibreglass (and also land use and wildlife destruction) required to build enough of them, to even attempt to replace our current global energy production capacity, creating a very real and tangible environmental catastrophe in its own right.

  • Naturally occurring water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere, is more powerful at trapping heat than CO2 and is often 25 times more prevalent than CO2 in certain times and places.

  • CO2 has been widely measured since the early 1800’s as a result of the mining industry and factory worker safety laws. Measurements of CO2 levels taken around the countryside in the UK and Europe during this period regularly returned samples as high as 380ppm, even 540ppm, and in Greenland as high as 700ppm. This means that the commonly promoted pre industrial levels of 280ppm is just an arbitrarily low number chosen by climate change alarmists. But it also means that natural variation in CO2 levels may be much bigger that currently acknowledged, and by comparison, human contribution may be nothing more than marginal.

  • CO2 has regularly been many multiple times higher in earth’s history and did not lead to an uninhabitable planet. For example, during the Devonian period between 400 and 360 million years ago when CO2 was around eight times higher at an estimated 4000 parts per million, modern C3 and C4 vascular plants species first began to evolve and thrive. Far from being an extinction event, it appears life flourished during this time.

  • Plants struggle to survive or reproduce when CO2 is at or below 150 parts per million – which is why outspoken environmentalist, scientist and former harsh critic of humanity James Lovelock changed his view, from seeing us as a kind of parasite on earth to its potential unwitting saviours by unlocking much needed CO2 for plants – which in earth’s geological time frame is currently extremely low.

  • CO2 only absorbs 15% of the infrared spectrum (heat) and quickly becomes saturated with infrared energy - radiating some of it back down to earth, but of course much of it also passing back into the cold vacuum of space.

  • Each molecule of CO2 is surrounded by over 2400 molecules of non-heat trapping nitrogen, oxygen and argon, making it impossible to form a ‘blanket’ as we were once told - especially at high altitudes where wind speeds can reach 200 mph.

  • Research indicates that CO2’s warming effect is ‘diminutive’. Meaning that doubling its quantity in the atmosphere does not double its warming effect.

  • The additional amount of CO2 we have added as a percentage of total atmospheric gases could be somewhere between 0.008 and 0.012 of a percent. The lesser amount when said as words is ‘eight thousandths of one percent’. Do we really think this will cause catastrophe on earth when CO2 has been many times greater naturally?

My advice is to continue to recycle, buy less junk, give money to charities who try and prevent deforestation and remove plastic from the oceans, support initiatives to create more fishing–free zones around the world, support initiatives to educate and bring energy to developing nations, support public transport, support new forms of nuclear energy, buy an electric car if you want, or don’t – but above all enjoy your life and stop worrying about human caused catastrophic climate change.

We may just be scaring ourselves to death due to a lot of BS, a misunderstanding, an insidious conspiracy, political ideology, greed and egos, by humanity’s predisposition to a cataclysmic mindset, or all of the above.

“What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled“

Noted Articles #44

Traits of Best ManagersPeter Ridd raises $500 million to fight University appeal of wrongful dismissal judgement : suppression of opinion
Mexican hospital,US surgeon, and a check
Streaming TV is about to get expensive
Amnesty International travel advisory : US ,due to shootings
Huawei's Ark Compiler can port Android apps to its OS
Moreno facing corruption probe,impeachment
The de-platforming of non Establishment voices
Australian telecos block access to 4chan and other websites
YouTube is deleting videos on Nazi history as part of its 'hate speech' crackdown
Fallujah Forgotten 13 Seconds, 13 Casualties

Vaccine Safety Pledge

Jen E Marion


I Pledge to Follow the CDC's Recommended Adult Vaccine Schedule and believe the following........

1. I believe that vaccines are Safe and Effective, and I am fully aware that vaccinating can cause: Lupus, Multiple Sclerosis, Insomnia, Eczema, Allergies, Influenza, Vertigo, Arthritis, Earaches, Anaphylactic Shock, Bronchospasms, Multiple Neurological Issues, Vasculitis, Seizures, Myalgia, Fainting, Encephalitis, Thrombocytopenia, Hair Loss, Meningitis, Measles, Anemia, Agitation, Apathy, Hemorrhaging, Deafness, Tumors, Chickenpox, Tremors, Dermatitis, Alzheimer's, SIDS, Herpes, Thrush, Pneumonia, Death and Many other Diseases.

2. I believe that vaccines are safe and effective. However, in the case of injury or death, I am aware that I can NOT sue the vaccine manufacturer. I believe NOT being able to sue the manufacturer is justifiable and that any claim I may have will go before the Vaccine Injury Court which has already awarded $3.7 Billion to vaccine injured individuals.

3. I believe vaccines do not cause autism, despite being listed as an adverse reaction on the manufacturers insert. I acknowledge the multiple vaccine-induced autism cases already awarded in court and the thousands of cases in line.

4. I believe that the unvaccinated spread disease, even though the vaccine inserts admit that vaccines shed those very same diseases being vaccinated against. I am aware that over 90% of people involved in "outbreaks" are vaccinated.

5. I believe that vaccines are so safe and effective that injecting aborted fetus DNA into my body is totally acceptable. I believe this practice trumps other religious beliefs and it is our constitutional right to choose.

6. I believe vaccines are safe and effective, even though they’re not tested for Cancer, DNA mutation, or infertility.

7. I believe that injecting: Weed Killer, Formaldehyde, Aluminum, Mercury, Monkey Kidney Cells, Salt, Glucose, Fungus, Acetone, Alcohol, Antibiotics, Disinfectant, Castor oil, E.coli, Guinea Pig Cells, Urine, Pig Protein, Canine Cells, MSG, Germicide, Yeast, Shark Liver oil, Human and Cow Blood, Tar, Methanol, Antacid, Chloroform, Acids, Vitamins and Aborted Fetus DNA into my body is completely safe.

8. I believe we should trust the CDC, an independent company that owns several vaccine patents even though they have been caught lying and falsifying documents.

9. I believe that vaccines are safe and effective, even though the Department of Health and Human Services has been sued (and lost) because they have not filed a vaccine safety study in the last 32 years.

10. I believe the (maybe) two hours of vaccine education doctors receive in medical school is sufficient. I believe doctors lie and bully parents into vaccinating because deep down inside they really care. I believe that the $40,000 bonus they receive for vaccinating patients is not a factor for them.

11. I believe and trust our government is honest and transparent. I also believe that the media is never manipulating and we can trust in those whom we can NOT hold liable.

12. I believe that the vaccines my children receive "Save Lives," so therefore, I agree to do my part and get the 88 or more vaccines recommended for Adults by the CDC (in order to “catch up”).

I acknowledge the 2011 U.S Supreme Courts ruling declaring vaccines "Unavoidably Unsafe”

NAME: _____________
DATE: _____________

The 'discussion' of 'climate science'

Understanding the climate movement: the impotence of science.

Guest post by Dr Paul Rossiter.

Like many other ethical and well-meaning scientists, I am becoming increasingly frustrated with the climate “science” debate. By resorting to rigorous measurement and analysis of real data, we have a reasonable (but perhaps naïve) expectation that the facts will determine the outcome of the AGW argument. And yet, despite the huge amount of information available, much of it through sites such as WUWT, it appears that the popular debate is clearly being won by the alarmists. Seemingly reputable organisations like IPCC, WHO, WWF, NASA, NOAA, CSIRO, EPA keep issuing reports heralding pending climate doom that appear to be at odds with any unbiased examination of the facts. And when they do, they are immediately picked up by an opportunistic mainstream press and amplified through social media, leading to widespread fear amongst the population, clearly evident in the recent “strikes for the climate”. Ill-informed adolescents become the new Messiahs, preaching the climate doom gospel and given standing ovations in the fact-free climate gab-fests. School children are now the upset victims of corporate (i.e. fossil fuel) greed and government stupidity.

Splendid article, suitably depressing. As one more example, this comment below has been “detected as spam” by the Disqus algorithm on multiple sites. It lasts only a few minutes.
>>It has been a recurring incantation that climate is a chaotic non-linear dynamic system. This has been presented as a challenge for us to eliminate the uncertainties and come to a satisfactory understanding allowing reliable predictions and determinations of causality.

There are recurring murmurs that the uncertainty is not only in the details of the data, but in the process itself. And this has been shown to be correct by a careful statistical analysis comparing temperature and precipitation records at multiple sites in the world and in the USA with the predictions of prestigious climate models* (GCM). All stations spanned at least 100 years of data.
Stations selected for (a) temperature (b) precipitation.

Scientists at the U of Athens, Greece presented their findings and concluded:
“Besides confirming the findings of a previous assessment study that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially integrated projections are also poor…In a large number of stations, the correlation coefficient has low or even negative values for both temperature and precipitation…At all stations examined, there is not a single model run that successfully reproduces the time series of all variables examined…At the Durban station, South Africa, not a single model output shows the 1.5°C fall in mean annual temperature during 1920–1960; instead, all model outputs show a constant increase…

We think that the most important question is not whether GCMs can produce credible estimates of future climate, but whether climate is at all predictable in deterministic terms. Several publications, a typical example being Rial et al. point out the difficulties that the climate system complexity introduces when we attempt to make predictions. “Complexity” in this context usually refers to the fact that there are many parts comprising the system and many interactions among these parts. This observation is correct, but we take it a step further. We think that it is not merely a matter of high dimensionality, and that it can be misleading to assume that the uncertainty can be reduced if we analyse its “sources” as nonlinearities, feedbacks, thresholds, etc., and attempt to establish causality relationships.”

As a species we are very uncomfortable with uncertainty and we are willing to believe the most arrant nonsense in order to decrease and hopefully eliminate it. As C.S. Peirce said, “It is easy to be certain. One has only to be sufficiently vague.”
(So as information content diminishes, certitude increases until finally, at the limit, we can be absolutely certain about nothing. Thus the attraction of Zen Buddhism.)

Scientists are supposed to be inherently comfortable with uncertainty. And many are, as long as it does not interfere with funding. Thus we note the often profound differences, in scientific papers that have material importance, between the cautious and qualified conclusions and the Summary for Executive Action. Others are simply not immune to the incompatibility of uncertainty with emotional equilibrium.

Noted Articles #43

Zuckerberg controls which political opinions are allowed
Google removed natural health sites from Search
Search : "jordana cutler" and leak
Pressure Congress to restore Net Neutrality
'Conspiracy Theorists' shut down per campaign
More diversity in Venezuela's 'muzzled media' than US press
Representatives sneak through $38 bn for Israel, anti-BDS

Climate and Media-Promoted Dogmas

Understanding the Climate Movement : the Impotence of Science
att's Up With That


Two great religions fell in the 20th century, Christianity and Marxism-Leninism. Though holdouts of each remain here and there, they are both mostly finished in the West. These falls created a huge gap in our self-conception and search for moral answers. They have been exploited by neo-Marxian Environmentalists who have constructed a new religion for the West (and the world). It has rituals (that make no sense like recycling), saints (like Rachel Carson), dogma (climate change), priests (“scientists” like Michael Mann and his buddies), and all of this shoved down our children’s throats is government schools in as complete a marriage between church and state as has ever existed. The Inquisition would have loved to have as much control of youngsters’ minds as the Green Church does today. Into this world has come a *moral panic* similar to the great moral panics of the past, whether it was witches, or prohibition, or anti-drug hysteria, or the McMartin Preschool hysteria, or the hysteria surrounding Dungeons and Dragons, or even Harry Potter. Moral Panics exist when there is a strong religious undercurrent against what the religious authorities believe to be something standing in their way of creating a righteous society on Earth mirroring whatever heavenly society they intend to create. Today’s moral panic is about the almost entirely fictitious phenomenon of “white supremacy,” because it was primarily white people who voted for and elected a person standing in the way of the neo-Marxian environmental totalitarianism that this new religion wants to impose.

The white supremacy moral panic started with real racists (though not white supremacists, of which there are none), and has moved to everyone else who disagrees with the new church’s dogma. This website (which I’ve been reading for years) has never once said anything about race, so one would think it was immune from charges of white supremacy, yet that is not how the new religious totalitarians think. Anthony is white. Anthony provides the number one web site that argues that climate change is not an imminent threat. Therefore, Anthony, and all who help him and read him must be white supremacists. That’s the logic, and while it may not have come yet, it will come soon. WUWT will be put on some list of “hate groups” by the SPLC or ADL or other thought police organization. Your ISP will be petitioned to dump you. You will be banned from Facebook and Twitter and Youtube. Paypal will dump you. And you will have to scramble to find a new digital home. The reason you have not been attacked yet is that the modern Inquisition is opportunistic and is going after easier targets first. But make no mistake, they WILL come after you. Have a plan in place. Have a backup site in place. Previous moral panics have cost thousands or even millions of people their lives. The idea that this moral panic will leave a website like WUWT alone is ridiculous. Look at their masked black-shirted terrorists roaming our streets shutting down debates, lectures, universities, and governments. For people who brain their opponents with bike locks or punch them in the face on live television, shutting down a website is peanuts.

Have a plan.

Only half of meteorologists think human emissions change climate

In 2016 67%  of meteorologists said that humans have caused most or all climate change and The Guardian headlined that there was a Growing Consensus among Meteorologists. In 2017 that fell to only 49%. The Guardian said nothing.

In 2016 29% of  meteorologists thought climate change was largely or entirely man-made, but that fell to only 15% this year.

Figure how this result fits with the idea of the overwhelming evidence and 97% consensus. Which group on the planet after climate scientists should be the second profession to “get it” — how about  meteorologists?

So either:

1. meteorologists are really stupid, or

2. meteorologists know how hard it is to predict the climate.

From Comments


I wonder how
many people including meteorologists would consider Global Warming, now
Climate change was man made if it was known that the 50% CO2 increase in
the last 120 years is natural?

It is amazing that this is not something anyone debates. Even people
who dispute man made Global Warming always start by stating explicitly
or implicitly that mankind has increased CO2 and CO2 is a greenhouse
gas. They also implicitly accept that CO2 emitted stays in the
atmosphere for a very long time. This is despite the fact that it is
not true. The lifespan of CO2 was thought to be a few years in the
1950s. We now know that it is 14 years but still the IPCC declares the
half life to be 80 years.

So I wonder how many people would accept man is changing the
atmosphere if this was better known. Without the premise of man made
CO2 rise, there is no argument. Whether CO2 is a significant Greenhouse
gas becomes a moot point.


  • TdeF

    It was also
    amazing that not one of Australia’s Climate Commissioners was a
    meteorologist. Chief Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery’s undergraduate
    degree was in English and his PhD in dead kangaroos. Some engineers,
    administrators. Only Will Steffen was a scientist, an industrial
    chemist who clearly did not want to work on cheese, wine, rubber, paint
    or explosives.

    Then 350 full time scientists from the CSIRO, ‘the problem solvers’
    working full time on proving Climate Change, when we already paid for a
    Bureau of Meteorology? Obvious Climate is not about the weather. Of
    course they failed to find Climate Change and went on to researching how
    Australians could cope with what they could not find. Hundreds of
    millions of dollars and hundreds of lives to prove nothing, achieve
    nothing, all at our expense?

    Certainly none of the famous promoters of Climate Change are
    meteorologists and many have no science at all, most notably Al Gore.
    Michael Mann could not get a PhD in physics but finally managed a highly
    contentious one studying tree rings? These are not the best and
    brightest scientists.

    Even the concept of a scientist has been so diluted over the last
    fifty years that questions the very idea of Rational science. Science
    by rote when a real scientist is a sceptic who wants everything proven
    beyond doubt by facts and experiment. Not the new scientist. They
    simply agree with each other and claim consensus is truth and facts are
    irrelevant. Even the 97% number is unscientific nonsense fabricated
    from an emasculated survey where deniers were omitted by claiming they
    were not ‘climate scientists’, a very exclusive bunch.

    The proliferation of science free environmental studies since the
    1980s has created a whole new class of people who call themselves
    climate scientists but have little or no knowledge of basic science.
    The most egregious are the various psychologists who use surveys and
    statistics to prove anything they want. If enough people believe
    something is true, it must be true.

    So what happened to Rational science and the Enlightenment, when
    people were freed from having to conform to Church dictates? We now
    have the Church of Climate Change. Anyone who dares disagree is a
    Denier of the faith and meteorologists are not even to be consulted on
    the climate. Only the high priests know the truth about the climate and
    now 75% of meteorologists are deniers?

How did the cause of climate change become a political question?

How did the cause of climate change become a political question?

It did not become a political question. It is and always has been politically driven.

It a little involved, a lot of history to take into account, I’ll put it in bullet points, and suggest the terms to Google to learn more:

  • The Middle East has always had lots of oil.

  • There were 7 major oil companies that were extracting it, and giving the Middle East countries a pittance for the privilege. The price of oil was below $3 per barrel.

  • The Middle East countries said, “Hey WTF. It’s our oil, if we form a group, we could control the price of oil, extract it ourselves, and keep way more of the money!!”. So they formed the Arab-OPEC Oil Cartel.

  • They formed oil companies, took control of their oil fields, and became the world's masters of oil. A very necessary resource in all industrialized countries. They controlled 85% of the world’s oil production.

  • The Arab-OPEC cartel started jacking the price.

  • The US played a dirty trick. They went off the gold standard. No longer backing their currency with gold on demand. This meant their treasury could print billions extra to buy the oil at higher prices without too much impact on their economy.

  • This pissed off the Arabs. It meant they weren’t really getting as much for their oil. They jacked the price some more.

  • The Arab countries didn’t like Israel. And kept attacking them. The US, UK, Japan, Netherlands and Canada kept defending Israel. The Arab countries did not like that. They decided to give those countries less oil, and, of course, jack the price up even more.

  • The embargoes caused a gas shortage and an energy crisis.

  • OPEC ended the embargoes, jacked the price some more, and kept waving the threat of embargoes over the head of the countries that defended Israel.

  • The price of oil over the past ten years, had now risen from $3 per barrel. To a whopping $42 per barrel.

  • By 1977 the US was importing 16 million barrels per day, at $42 per barrel.

Jimmy Carter, the president, came up with a plan. The US Energy Independence Plan. It called for drastic conservation. Carter wanted to reduce OPEC imports from 16 million bbl per day down to 6 million.

National Energy Program Fact Sheet on the President's Program.

His plan called for investment in alternative energy technology development, and the implementation and embracing by the US public. Wind. Solar. Geothermal. Biofuels. And others.

His plan called for the installation of solar panels on 2.5 million homes.

It called for programs to encourage homeowners to increase energy efficiency. Better insulation, better windows and doors, replacement of old energy hog appliances.

It called for penalties on gas-guzzlers, credits for fuel-efficient cars, and credits for electric vehicles. (even though there were no electric vehicles in production).

It called for smart meters and time of use billing.

It called for new taxes on gas that would increase, unless national consumption decreased. Exactly like a carbon tax.

All of these things in his plan were for one reason, and one reason only. OPEC.

In Carter’s plan, he also innocently put a line that said, “the president will allocate $3 million to research whether there are any impacts on the atmosphere from CO2 emissions”.

In the same and in the following year, Carter bumped up the budget of the EPA by $4.7 billion dollars. A huge increase of 700%. Oddly their staff went up only 25%. Leaving a whole whack of extra cash to spend. Over $4 billion dollars per year, that was not to pay staff.

And then the climate alarm claims began. Global Cooling. Acid Rain. Ozone Hole. Global Warming. Sea Level Rise. Catastrophic Climate Change. Ocean Acidification. Coral Bleaching. Biodiversity Loss. Beepocalypse. Strawmageddon. Extreme Weather Events. Ice Cap Melt. Increased Flooding. Increased Droughts. Impending Global Famine. Basically every type of scare you could imagine. Insect born disease spread. Melting Permafrost Methane Release. Melting Permafrost Ancient Disease Release. Cow Methane Release.

You name it, they claim it.

It is very like the Story of Noah’s Ark, the Ten Plagues of Egypt, and the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse rolled into one story.

Climate change has always been a politically driven claim.