Remember: The Billionaire Climate Change Agenda is for Power and Wealth Redistribution

Time and again, we see how the billionaires pushing for austerity based on climate change are hypocrites who’s predictions have all been false and are based on paid-for politicized science.

Fake News Polar Bears Global Warming Climate Change

Let’s do follow the climate money!

By December 30th, 2018

… climate computer model forecasts are completely out of touch with real-world observations. There is no evidence to support claims that the slight temperature, climate and weather changes we’ve experienced are dangerous, unprecedented or caused by humans, instead of by the powerful solar, oceanic and other natural forces that have driven similar or far more serious changes throughout history.

More importantly, the CCI “solutions” would cause unprecedented disruption of modern industrialized societies; permanent poverty and disease in poor countries; and serious ecological damage worldwide.

Nothing that is required to harness breezes and sunshine to power civilization is clean, green, renewable, climate-friendly or sustainable. Tens of billions of tons of rock would have to be removed, to extract billions of tons of ores, to create millions of tons of metals, concrete and other materials, to manufacture millions of wind turbines and solar panels, and install them on millions of acres of wildlife habitats – to generate expensive, intermittent energy that would be grossly insufficient for humanity’s needs. Every step in this process requires fossil fuels – and some of the mining involves child labor.

How do CCI alarmists respond to these points? They don’t. They refuse to engage in or even permit civil discussion. They rant that anyone “who denies climate change science” is on the fossil fuel industry payroll, thus has a blatant conflict of interest and no credibility, and therefore should be ignored.

Read More:

New “politically incorrect” climate change book sells out everywhere; “point-by-point take down” of global warming nonsense


Global Warming Marvelous Excuse Supra-National Socialism - Margaret Thatcher

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

(Natural News) Proving once again that the Left’s claims about human-caused “climate change” and “global warming” are anything but universal, a new book disputing their progressive nonsense has shot to number one on bestseller lists while selling out all over the place.

The appropriately named tome, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change,” by Marc Morano, has rocketed to No. 1 on Amazon’s Climatology, Environmental Science, Nature and Ecology list, and is maintaining a solid ranking among Amazon’s Top 100, having already sold out once. Retail giant Walmart is also selling the book now.

A reported by Climate Depot, a website dedicated to exposing the fraud that is man-caused global and climate change edited by Morano, both Target and Walmart list the book “out of stock” on their websites, as of this writing.

He notes that the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which publishes Climate Depotdoes have copies of Morano’s book, however. 

A description of the book notes:

Less freedom. More regulation. Higher costs. Make no mistake: those are the surefire consequences of the modern global warming campaign waged by political and cultural elites, who have long ago abandoned fact-based science for dramatic fearmongering in order to push increased central planning. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change gives a voice — backed by statistics, real-life stories, and incontrovertible evidence — to the millions of “deplorable” Americans skeptical about the multibillion dollar “climate change” complex, whose claims have time and time again been proven wrong.

Sponsored solution from CWC Labs: This allows you to test almost anything for 20+ heavy metals and nutritive minerals, including lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, aluminum and more. You can test your own hair, vitamins, well water, garden soil, superfoods, pet hair, beverages and other samples (no blood or urine). ISO accredited laboratory using ICP-MS (mass spec) analysis with parts per billion sensitivity. .

The book is winning plaudits from readers and pundits alike. 

Talk host Mark Levin, a former Justice Department official in the Reagan administration and co-founder of CRTV, called Morano a “one-man general” leading the effort against the climate hoaxers.

“Marc Morano and he’s a terrific guy and he has written a brand new book ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.’ — I can’t possibly in this segment give this book the attention it deserves or give you the attention you deserve. You are like a one-man general fighting this effort and you have a complete comprehension of it. I want to strongly encourage my audience [to read it] — it’s digestible, it’s in plain English,” he said during a recent interview.

Conservative pundit and author Cal Thomas noted, “Read this book and you will become an informed climate change denier, armed with arguments and facts to counter the propaganda being pushed by climate change fanatics.” (Related: UN official actually ADMITS that ‘global warming’ is a scam designed to ‘change world’s economic model.’)

“I took everything Al Gore did in his books and movies and tried to do the exact opposite: use humor, entertainment and fun,” Morano told the Washington Times.

The paper further noted: 

That makes his ideological foes even angrier…The liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America once dubbed him “Misinformer of the Year.” The 2015 documentary “Merchants of Doubt” portrayed him as a mustache-twirling villain. The progressive news/opinion website The Daily Kos slammed him as “evil personified.

In his book Morano essentially refutes the Left-wing climate doom-and-gloomers, noting that no, the sky isn’t falling, and no, there is no hard-and-fast, replicable evidence to ‘prove’ that our SUVs, cattle farts, and technology is sabotaging the planet.

The fact is, despite the claim on the Left that “97 percent of climate scientists agree” with the man-caused premise, it’s simply not true. That statistic is based on a hugely flawed sampling that was given overly broad ‘authority’ after then-President Barack Obama tweeted on May 16, 2013: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous.”

No one really disputes that the earth has warmed about a degree over the 100 or so years. No one really disputes that our climate is “changing.”

Where the alarmists lose people is when they blame it on just about every facet of life.

See more of the nonsense at

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for and, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources include:

Read More:

Orwell’s Nightmare: Temperature Adjustments and Climate Change

Who controls the temperature datasets controls the past, and who controls the past controls the future. Welcome to the Orwellian world of temperature adjustments and climate alarmism. Sit up straight and buckle up tight, because this is consensus science as brought to you by Big Brother.



What Is The Average Global Temperature?

The Global Warming Pause Explained

Roy Spencer’s Prediction

Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998

A satellite-derived lower tropospheric atmospheric temperature dataset using an optimized adjustment for diurnal effects

FAQ about the RSS V4.0 TLT Update

Systematic Destruction Of The Temperature Record

Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of Recent Warming’ In Climate Data Sets

On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data

New Satellite Data Still Shows Less Global Warming Than Climate Models

How They airbrushed out the Inconvenient Pause

Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry

climate science

It is often said that non-scientists must rely on “expert opinion” to determine whether claims on alleged “catastrophic man-made global warming” are true. Putting aside the fact that there is no global-warming “consensus” among experts, one does not have to be a scientist, or even proficient in science, to be able to review past predictions, and then form an informed opinion regarding the accuracy of those predictions.

Suppose, for example, you regularly watch a local TV weatherman forecast the weather for your area. Would you need a degree in meteorology in order to decide for yourself how reliable, or unreliable, the weatherman’s forecasts are?

Warnings have been issued for many decades now regarding catastrophic climate change that forecasted certain trends or occurrences that we should already have witnessed. Yet such predictions have turned out to be very, very wrong. This was certainly the case with the alarmist predictions of the 1960s and ’70s that man’s activities on Earth were causing a catastrophic cooling trend that would bring on another ice age. And it is also the case with the more recent claims about catastrophic global warming.

What follows is a very brief review of these predictions compared to what actually happened.

Read More:


Reader Comment on this article by “Richard Urban:”

“Scientist’s, real scientist’s, like myself, we know what we don’t know, we know, that we only understand about 20% of all the forces that affect climate. So ask yourself this? How can any “Real” scientist’s make computer predictions, that are extremely prone to exaggerating any errors, when they only understand about 20% of the topic?

When weather predictions, aka, mini climate models, that’s what they are, but because the models only look out about 10 days, we call that weather, but they are essentially mini climate models or similar enough for my example. So, how can anyone claim they can predict things out to say 100 years, when often times the weather models get the very next day wrong? Why do they get the next day wrong, on occasions? Because all the needed information that must go into theses models is not available, or simply not understood.

Did you know we Meteorologists have to pick between about 10 different types of weather models, to make a forecast. Why is that? It’s true. This is only to make predictions out for several days, imagine 10 or 20 years, and the complexity required for that?

Note: Many times it’s better not to use any models. Often we can beat the computers just by looking at the stack. (Observations in the Troposphere)

‘Why don’t you skeptics download them, study the code or even try running them based on changes in greenhouse gases.”

And this questions defines how a climate Nazi’s brain works. There is only one variable “Greenhouse gases” What about the hundreds of other variables? You know, the variables that are never even programmed into any of the climate models? It’s true!

When weather models start becoming accurate enough to predict weather several months in advance, and we understood how to make computer models well enough that we can put them all together and just have one, then maybe, just maybe we would have the knowledge to create some basic climate models that work well.

I can hear some of you saying, “But some of these climate models have been correct” To that I say, “Even a broken clock is right twice a day, or even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while” Overall, climate models have not been accurate.

The only reason weather models improve, is because we get to see the answer only a few days later. There is only so much that can be done with hind-casting on something that is as complicated as the earth’s climate, and by the time we see if the climate models were in fact correct, or incorrect, say 20-50 years, well then everything has already changed. The people that made the programs are likely dead, so it is impossible with our 20% understanding, at this time, to make climate models. Does that mean we stop? Of course not,

Because of all of this, I am forced to go back to things we understand better, for example, we know how much water/ice, is on the earth, and we know how much energy it takes to alter it’s temperature. We know it takes 27 times more energy to change water temperature than it does to change air temperatures. Simple stuff compared with trying to put one model together, that takes into account all the earth’s variables.

We can use the climate scientists theories on the amount of heat, from additional CO2, affecting greenhouses gases, is creating. The theory is, that the increased CO2 from man, (Which is just a theory, it could be coming from the earth, volcanic activity on the ocean floor, and so on, but I will play along) is increasing the energy on the earth the same as if the sun’s energy went up by 2%. Now we can take that worst case scenario, meaning we are assuming mankind added the CO2 to the atmosphere, and we are assuming that the added CO2 only creates heat, meaning no negative feedbacks, which you can’t do, but that’s okay, because we are just trying to find out if it’s possible to alter the earth’s climate in any meaningful (Or drastic) way, so I’ll play along.

Side note: Nobody knows the correct temperature for the earth, which is most beneficial to mankind. In other words, the earth is now at 288.8 K, give or take a degree, (When we calculate the earth’s mean temperature, we have an error of +/- 1 K) maybe mankind would do much better if the earth was at 291.8 K? Nobody knows this, but that’s okay, I’ll still play along.

So now we calculate the amount of energy it would take to heat the oceans, a degree or two. (In order to alter climate you first have to change the temperature of the entire ocean, because the ocean (average 2.5 mile depth) mixes thoughout over relatively short periods of time, it takes a long time and a lot of energy to change all the water.

We have all seen this relationship, we have all experienced this in our everyday lives. For example, you store your box of 30 beers in the garage during the winter (1 C) then you bring it into the house and put it in the hallway (20 C) , you were supposed to put in in the refrigerator , but you forgot. Half a day later you go to grab a beer from the refrigerator, Crap, no more beer in there, so you ask your wife, “Honey where is that beer I brought in from the garage?” She says, “I put it in the closet” Crap now I don’t have any cold beer! Yes you do!!!! Just take a can out of the middle of the box, it will still be cold enough to be refreshing.

In college we students had to calculate in class, (This was a word problem in the back of our physic book) how long it would take to heat the oceans, aka, change the climate, if we increased insulation (The sun) by 10 %?

Do any of you Climate Nazi’s out there, think it took less than 1,000 years? The way you talk, you think it takes about 10-15 years to change ocean temperatures.

There is no such thing as rapid climate change or temperature change. History and physic’s has shown that meaningful change takes hundreds of thousands, and even millions of years.

Anyone care to break that argument? Good luck.”