The Great Global Warming Swindle

This video is a little dated and more than an hour long but is the best explanation yet of the science behind global warming. It also reveals the tragic consequences of the climate hysteria movement that you will never hear on mainstream media. 

In the video you will hear from more than a dozen scientists, many of whom are world renowned, award-winning, scientists among the most preeminent in their fields. Some have left the IPCC for their unscientific reports, and the use of their names even when they disagreed with the reports. 

It explains the impossibility of CO2 being the progenitor of climate change, and what are the real drivers of global warming. 

Grab a tea and enjoy - it's worth the watch.

As the last ten minutes or so reports, 3rd world countries will undoubtedly remain in poverty for much longer than they need to if fossil fuels were available to them. One of the consequences of poverty is a dramatically higher level of child sexual abuse. Child rape, child brides, forced marriages are far more prevalent in poorer countries than in developed countries.

One of the more recent consequences of the climate hysteria movement is the dramatically increased anxiety that it is producing in children. Leaving kids questioning whether there is any point to life is extremely damaging and a cruel form of child abuse.

Another consequence is the politicization of science. No longer is it open to debate or rigorous testing by other scientists. Questioning science, even when the science is wrong, is no longer acceptable and results in very unscientific name-calling and exclusion of such scientists from IPCCs massive research funding. This is not a sane or mature way to teach children to communicate and make decisions.

How MSM and the Climate Change Lobby Distort the Debate

Carbon dioxide not ‘primary contributor’ to global warming, EPA chief says

© Peter Andrews / Reuters

Scott Pruitt, President Trump's new administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency, does not think carbon dioxide is the primary contributor to global warming, a belief his own agency contradicts.

On Thursday, CNBC “Squawk Box” host Joe Kernen asked Pruitt if he believes that carbon dioxide has been proven to be the “primary control knob” for climate change.

“I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” Pruitt said.

"But we don't know that yet. ... We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis," he said.

Pruitt’s statements run contrary to the EPA website, which definitively states: “Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to recent climate change.”

This is where MSM loses credibility. Here they compare apples to oranges and criticize Pruitt for not believing they are the same thing. The question he asked was - is CO2 the primary cause of global warming. Then the RT reporter (and a bunch of liberals on Twitter) go a little nuts and claim he is contradicting his own web site. But what does the web site actually say? 

“Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that is

contributing to recent climate change.”

It does not say that it is the primary cause of climate change, but only that it is primary among greenhouse gasses. I agree with that statement and I suspect Pruitt would too.

Scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) also disagree with Pruitt.

“The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere,” NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies reported in January, based on NASA and NOAA data.

Just once, I would like top hear one of these guys say that they have eliminated sun-spot activity as the main driver in climate change and why.

The two agencies also said that global temperatures in 2016 were the warmest ever recorded.

It was also the strongest or 2nd strongest El Nino ever recorded, so that's what you would expect.

In response Thursday, Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), co-chair of the Senate Climate Action Task Force, called Pruitt’s views “extreme” and “irresponsible.”

"Anyone who denies over a century's worth of established science and basic facts is unqualified to be the administrator of the EPA. Now more than ever, the Senate needs to stand up to Scott Pruitt and his dangerous views," he said in a statement.

There is a century worth of science proving greenhouse gasses are responsible for climate change? Wow! How did I miss that? It's only been in the last few decades that science has even considered that greenhouse gasses may be contributing to climate change. In fact, it's been less than 50 years since most climate scientists decided that the planet was warming rather than cooling.

It doesn't help your cause to make such inflammatory and unscientific statements. It 'outs' you as being as 'scientifically illiterate' as the one you criticize.

Schatz says that that lawmakers will hold Pruitt accountable through the appropriations process, through oversight of the EPA, and by making sure that the agency follows the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.

“He is still obligated to follow the law,” Schatz said.

Several other Democrats and climate scientists took to Twitter in protest of Pruitt’s comments.

In the interview, Pruitt said that the EPA should focus on reducing regulatory uncertainty, which he said has put a “paralysis on development.”

“Regulatory certainty is something we need to focus on at the EPA and that’s what we’re trying to re-instill in the agency presently,” Pruitt said. “This idea that if you're pro-environment you're anti-energy is just something we've got to change, so that attitude is something we're working on very much.”

Pruitt also called the Paris Agreement, an international accord to mitigate the impacts of climate change, “a bad deal” and said that he would soon be making an announcement on changes to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which set the average fuel economy for new cars and light trucks.

Lest you think I am partial here, (don't laugh), I find the above two paragraphs a little concerning. CAFE standards drive innovation and there is always room for improving air quality when it comes to vehicle emissions. (I don't automatically relate air quality to climate change but to healthy people and environments). Makes you wonder who Pruitt is working for, the people, or the oil industry?