The Climate Resistance

Occasionally the skeptics break through to get a fair hearing.
Debate: Is Global Warming an Emergency
Charles Rotter
Kudos to the podcast hosts at Newsweek for giving this topic a fair and even-handed airing. . . .

 

Resistance is forming. The IPCC has helped bring it about.
Aussie PM Pushback Against UN Code Red Climate Declaration: “I won’t be signing a blank cheque”
Eric Worrall
Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison appears to be finally showing some backbone, in the face of outrageous UN demands he gut the Australian economy by halting all coal and fossil…

 

Bjorn Lomborg has called out the unfounded hype.

Bjorn Lomborg Excoriates Climate Hysterics

Rick Moran, PJ Media

". . . You can see what Lomborg’s argument is. There are two sides to the issue of climate change, and one side is being brutally and systematically suppressed. Lomborg advocates for a longer-term solution to the threat, as some short-term effects on the climate are beneficial. But the trillions of dollars that the West has spent so far and will spend in the future should perhaps be directed to developing economies rather than being wasted on useless climate mitigation efforts."

 

The BBC has resorted to lies and fraud, but they have been caught and called out. I hope people are paying attention.
BBC’s Fake Climate Audit Screengrab
Oct 25, 2021 – 9:13 PM
On October 18, 2021, BBC (producer Owen Sheers) aired a “conspiracy thriller” entitled The Trick – though a more complete title would have been The Trick… to Hide the Trick to Hide the Decline. In a forthcoming post, I’ll do a longer analysis of the trick in which, to borrow a phrase from Climate Audit past, we will watch the pea as Sheers and colleagues use a trick to hide the “trick to hide the decline”. In today’s post, I’m going to parse a short scene in which BBC created a fake Climate Audit screengrab (shown below) in order to introduce me and Climate Audit. In the scene, a police forensic specialist is “explaining” his discoveries to supervising detective inspector Julian Gregory, telling the inspector that this is where the first link to the emails was posted.

But the screen grab is not from Climate Audit, but a fake imitation. While the comments in the screen grab do relate to comments on a Climate Audit article, they are from a different article, with the “A miracle just happened” comment being spliced from the original thread into this thread from a different article. But the BBC didn’t stop the fabrication there: they replaced contents of several comments from the original thread with fabrications that appear intended to ridicule the commenters. Then finally, they altered the “A miracle just happened” comment itself by adding link in the comment, but to a website that did not exist at the time, while concealing the actual website at which the email zipfile was originally posted (realclimate.org). I’ll show this in detail: it’s quite bizarre. . . .

 

And climate change alarmists claim the model is imminent.

 

The overt LYING only deepens my position in seeing that the AGW backed climate change scam is real and insulting the intelligence of rational people who are not trying to make an illegitimate buck out of it.

The BBC was caught red handed on this one but will the Warmist/alarmists care?

 

The Resistance make their case via facts and logic, to counter the emotional hype of the AGW alarmists.
Book Review: Patrick Moore, ‘Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom’
Guest Blogger
…he poses a question. He asks the reader to ponder why it is that so many of the so-called proofs of the warming hypothesis are based on things that are…

". . . In chapter after chapter Patrick dismantles the false claims with withering logic. He supports his case by reference to published scientific studies and multiple maps and graphs.

All this is done generally without rancour and personal attacks – a refreshing change to what you will hear on much of the media about the fear of global warming. I say ‘generally’ because there is one major instance where he drops his reluctance to make it personal and this comes in the last chapter. For fear of spoiling the ending by telling everyone the bizarre situation in the last chapter, I will not reveal it. I’ll just advise readers to get the book and read it for yourselves – you will not be disappointed. . . . "

 

The Resistance will not be silenced.
WATCH: Heartland Pushes Back Against Climate Alarmism at COP26
UNCATEGORIZED NOVEMBER 4, 2021

 

Dissident voices will not be silenced.
Studying the Role of the Sun on Climate
Guest Blogger
Willie Soon, astrophysicist and aerospace engineer takes the stage at the 14th International Conference on Climate Change to discuss the role of the sun on climate change.

 

Says it all really

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon

Look I get it - it is like a conspiracy theory- you feel all tingly when you find what you think is some sort of “secret truth” but guys like willie Soon have no valid reputation in scientific circles. They are NOT “brave souls speaking out against the establishment” but ********s that have sold out to polluters like the Koch Bros

 

Heartland?? Really???

I suggest you do a little digging for yourself about who funds an AstroTurf site like Heartland

Mate - they are in it for the money!

 

That episode resulted in huge embarrassment for the New York Times and complete exoneration for Soon. It was a smear that backfired.
Greenpeace enlists Justin Gillis & John Schwartz of the NY Times in Journalistic Terrorist Attack on Willie Soon - Miss Target, Hit Smithsonian Instead
2015 › 02 › 23 › greenpeace-enlists-justin-gillis-john-schwartz-of-the-ny-times-in-journalistic-terrorist-attack-on-willie-soon-miss-target-hit-smithsonian-instead
the so-called “supporting” documents offered by Greenpeace speak for themselves. Their [non-]journalist ... that the contracts are between the Smithsonian (not Soon) and Southern and if they had stretched themselves

 

Not much digging required. Heartland is quite open. Several links within this text.
"During 2019, The Heartland Institute raised approximately $4.6 million in support from approximately 2,000 individual, foundation, and corporate supporters. Its 2019 income came from the following sources: Foundations 67%, individuals 27%, corporations 5%. Over the years, no corporate donor has contributed more than 5% of Heartland's total receipts.

The Heartland Institute’s books are audited annually by the accounting firm of Tighe, Kress, & Orr, PC. You can review our latest audit here and our most recent (2020) IRS Form 990 here.

People contribute to The Heartland Institute because they share our belief that better information and understanding can improve public policies in such important areas as education, environmental protection, and health care. Since our founding in 1984, Heartland researchers and writers have discovered and promoted free-market solutions to social and economic problems.

The Heartland Institute enforces policies that limit the role donors may play in the selection of research topics, peer review, and publication plans of the organization. These policies ensure that no Heartland researcher or spokesperson is subject to undue pressure from a donor. We do not take positions in order to appease or avoid losing support from individual donors. We have, in fact, a long record of standing behind our research even when it means losing the support of major donors.

Heartland does not make public the names of its donors. The reasons we adopted that policy are presented here. For corrections and replies to false and inaccurate statements about our funding sources, please visit our Reply to Our Critics page."

 

Their fear and hate of Dr. Soon is breathtaking and irrational too since they lie about him a lot which makes me want to read more of his stuff which they rarely bother to counter without bigotry.

 

Hubris can be expensive. Score a win for the Resistance.
Stanford prof fights efforts to make him pay at least $75,000 in legal fees after dropping defamation suit

Mark Jacobson

A Stanford University professor who tried to sue a critic and the journal that published an unfavorable view of his work is opposing a judge’s order that he pay $75,000 in legal fees generated in the case.

In 2017, Mark Jacobson, an engineer who studies energy at the California institution, sued Christopher Clack and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) after the journal published an article which cast doubt on some of the conclusions in a 2015 paper Jacobson had written in PNAS. The amount of the defamation claim? $10 million from each of the two parties, plus punitive damages and “any and all relief.”

Jacobson withdrew his lawsuit, which also demanded a retraction, in 2018, at which point Clack and the journal fired back. They filed their own suit grounded in the anti-SLAPP — short for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation” — statute, in which they asked for Jacobson to pay their legal fees.

Continue reading

 

The Resistance has struck a hard blow.
RPA Climategate Remix: CHERRY PICKING
Charles Rotter
Why do so many believe global warming is a hoax? To find the answer, we tell the story of the biggest science heist in history. . . .

Stephen McIntyre

 

The Resistance calls out the alarmist/advocates.
Help, what is happening with our universities?
Guest Blogger
By Prof. Dr. IR. Guus Berkhout This is an English translation of a letter by Guus Berkhout of CLINTEL that was published in De Telegraaf, the largest newspaper in The…

 

Every now and then the Resistance wins one.
CNN and Other Media Outlets Are Admitting What Climate Realism Has Long Noted, Madagascar’s Food Crisis Is Not Caused by Climate Change
ALARMIST MESSENGERS/CLAIMS DECEMBER 2, 2021

 

Yeah, they're real angels according to their own brochure. Weren't they the same guys that tried to discredit scientific findings about tobacco smoking. Real nice guys.

Also, Heartland stop disclosing it's funding sources, so it's all just pie in the Sky. Anyone with more than a dozen neurones to rub knows they're up to their eyeballs in fossil fuel money and other slimy scumbaggery.

 

Sorry, but you've simply been completely taken in by propaganda.
JULY 23, 2021
Heartland Institute Responds to Fake News About its Funding in Slate Article
By Jim Lakely
As is common, the activist (as well as the leftist outlet Slate) lied about The Heartland Institute’s work and its relationship with Exxon.

And in general:
For many years, The Heartland Institute provided a complete list of its corporate and foundation donors on our website. We stopped doing this for several reasons. First, because people who disagree with our views sought to smear and defame us by selectively disclosing the names of donors they thought were especially unpopular. Second, groups including Greenpeace and Center for American Progress systematically attack and demonize anyone they identify as being a donor to The Heartland Institute. Third, we frequently take positions at odds with those of the individuals and companies who fund us, so it is unfair to them to mention their funding when expressing our point of view.

Disclosure of funding sources is important in some circumstances, but not in this one. No corporate donor gives more than 5 percent of our total annual receipts, and most give far less than that. And we have procedures in place that protect our writers and editors from undue influence by donors. This makes the identities of our donors irrelevant.

Keeping confidential the identities of donors is very important for organizations that speak truth to power, since such disclosure can be used to defame and intimidate the individuals and organizations that support such organizations. A landmark Supreme Court case, NAACP v. Alabama (195, protects the anonymity of those who financially support nonprofit organizations for exactly this reason. Regrettably, organizations such as The Heartland Institute that support individual liberty and limited government now find themselves in need of such protection.

 

The Resistance is sometimes hard for the alarmists to understand because the alarmists are misled by their own assumptions.
John Cook: “Machine learning holds a key to combating [climate] misinformation”
Eric Worrall
After training a computer to look for online climate “misinformation”, John Cook was surprised that people don’t trust the proposed solutions. . . .

 

Another Resistance victory.
Youngkin says he will take Virginia out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative to save ratepayers money

• By Laura Vozzella

". . . “RGGI describes itself as a regional market for carbon. It is really a carbon tax that is fully passed on to ratepayers,” he said. “It’s a bad deal for Virginians. It’s a bad deal for Virginia businesses. And as governor, I will withdraw us from RGGI by executive action. I promised to lower the cost of living in Virginia, and this is just the beginning.”

Del. Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah), who is slated to become House speaker when Republicans take back control of the chamber in January, cheered the news, saying RGGI’s impact on climate change has been “negligible at best.”

“Virginia was reducing carbon emissions from power plants at a rate comparable to RGGI states before joining the cap and trade group,” Gilbert said in a written statement. “When a policy costs the public a significant amount of money for no tangible benefit, that policy should be examined carefully, and if practical, rolled back.”. . . "

 

The Resistance is on a roll.
BOMBSHELL: In court filing, Facebook admits ‘fact checks’ are nothing more than opinion
Anthony Watts
Facebook has admitted in a court of law that such fact checks are not factual at all, but merely opinions. People send me stuff. As we have previously reported, journalist…

 

So, which is it?

Fact Check or he he....... ha ha ha..... Opinion Check.

It is another leftist pile of turd I gave up long ago when it became obvious it was run by ideological goofballs.

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

 

Every now and then the Resistance gets published.
Physicist Dr. Ed Berry rips UN IPCC’s ‘climate fiction’ – Explains ‘why the IPCC is wrong’
Guest Blogger
But the physics model shows IPCC’s basic assumption, and therefore IPCC’s ice-core assumption, contradict IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data. . . . .