By Nancy Thorner – 

When it comes to human-caused global warming, most people think there are two camps: “alarmists,” those who acknowledge it, and “deniers,” those who deny it. But this is far from true.  There are credible scientists – such as those at The Heartland Institute’s latest climate conference (ICCC-12) last month – that accede to the existence of some global warming taking place, but question to what extent man is to blame.

For instance, participants and scientists at Heartland’s conference, S. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, maintain that a warmer planet will be beneficial for mankind and other species on the planet and that “corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.” Meanwhile, other reputable scientists attending ICCC-12 believe a period of cooler weather looms ahead in the not-too-distant future because of the lack of sunspots.

Now there is another camp, the “lukewarmers” as defined by Dr. Pat Michaels and Paul “Chip” Knapperberger. Both are recognized environmental climate scientists who believe that man-made global warming is real, but they refuse to buy into the politicized pseudoscience that has increasingly been used to buttress the case that global warming is also likely to be dangerous. In their book, Lukewarming: The New Climate Science That Changes Everything, Michaels and Knappenberger, refer to themselves as “lukewarmers,” and expose many myths about climate change.

In a way the lukewarming view of climate change set forth by Michaels and Knappenberger relates to the English Fairy Tale, The Story of The Three Bears. Goldilocks, in tasting the porridge that had been left to cool by the bears while they took a walk in a forest, found the Great Big Bear’s porridge too hot, the Middle-sized Bear’s porridge too cold, while the Little Wee Bear’s porridge was neither too hot or too cold.

The too-hot temperature of the Great Big Bear’s porridge is the same claim made by climate change alarmists like Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who falsely predict catastrophic occurrences unless drastic measures are taken. The lukewarming concept of climate science introduced by Michaels and Knappenberger, represents the neither too hot or too cold porridge of the Little Wee Bear – or, just the right approach.

Michaels, the director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, explained all this as a featured speaker April 19 at The Heartland Institute where he talked about his book. Michaels is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. He is the author or editor of six books on climate and its impact, and he was an author of the climate “paper of the year” awarded by the Association of American Geographers in 2004.

While introducing Michaels, Heartland Institute President Joe Bast expressed with apparent delight, three happenings of note in the past 100 days:  1) The election of Donald Trump as president, whose accomplishments are acceding expectations – such as Trump cutting EPA spending by 31 percent, which was long overdue. 2) Heartland’s latest climate conference (ICCC-12) held in Washington, D.C. in March – which attracted 300 participants without a formal invitation being sent. The conference featured 40 speakers attracted 55 members of the media, most of whom heretofore had not been interested in what Heartland had to say on the topic. 3) Heartland sending some 350,000 copies of Why Scientists Disagree with Global Warming to science teachers in K-12 and colleges, as well as 400 CEOs. The message: There is no consensus on global warming. The media and some activist teachers organizations have chosen to respond with accusations that Heartland’s mailing is an attempt at brainwashing – a notion Bast thoroughly rebutted.

 Michaels Explains his Lukewarmer Thesis

Michael’s remarks, tailored to his slide presentation, showed time and again the misuse of the flawed, always too-hot climate models, and the tremendous incentives that exist for their continued misuse. So it follows that unreasonable and unnecessary climate policies have been based on the too-hot and frequently manipulated climate models. Clearly, he said, if the climate models can’t properly simulate the past, they can’t be relied upon for the future – and are a terrible basis for energy and economic policy.

Other aspects of the Michael’s Lukewarmers Camp include:

  • Life thrived on Earth through hot time and cold, mostly with much higher CO2 concentrations and warmer temperatures than we are experiencing in the current era. This enhanced CO2 allows plants to take advantage of warmer temperature. Tropical rain forests have greatly increased because of the increase in CO2.
  • Market forces compel adaptation to all kinds of change, including slight changes in climate. Even if the United States continues to burn half of its corn production, the rest of the world still is able to produce tremendous amounts of food to meet the needs of its growing population.
  • Health effects of climate change on the U.S. are negligible and are likely to remain so. Forty-six percent of all U.S. deaths directly attributable to weather events from 1993 to 2006 were caused by excessive cold; 28 percent were from excessive heat.
  • After 75 years of rapidly increasing CO2 emission, hurricanes have responded only lukewarmly. Severe weather is a characteristic of earth’s atmosphere and every day some kind of story or extreme event will (and likely will) be associated with global warming. Even if the issue of the day were global cooling, such extreme weather events could be made to fit that paradigm, too.
  • Arctic ice has declined before, even in the last century before humans had put very much CO2 into the atmosphere. The Arctic was even ice free for long stretches, both before the end of the last ice age and afterwards.  The Washington Post on November 11, 1922 reported of hitherto unheard-of temperature in the Arctic zone. The seals were finding the water too hot and great masses of ice had been replaced by moraines of earth and stones. Nevertheless, there’s always plenty of ice in the Arctic Ocean, even in the beginning of the fall when it reaches its minimum extent.
  • As for the survival of the iconic polar bear, the polar bear has weathered – and maybe even prospered – during many periods when the Arctic summer’s end was ice free.
  • The Paris Climate Treaty is an unenforceable document that requires its signatories to prepare new “determined contributions” every five years, counts all warming since the Industrial Revolution as having been caused by greenhouse gas emissions, uses the mean sensitivity of the UN climate models, and requires an immediate cessation of all carbon dioxide emissions (fossil fuels) to meet its aspirational goal of keeping future warming below 1.5 degree C. This reduction in potential warming is operationally meaningless, and would result in a lukewarm agreement meant for a lukewarm world, in which only the United States and the EU stand to be harmed.

Michaels predicted a new warming of only six-tenths to a quarter degree by the end of the 21st century.  Accordingly, it makes no sense to plan for and then take measures to prepare for an event that has only a finite chance of happening, but which would greatly reduce our standard of living and further destroy this nation’s economy.

To watch the entire presentation by Michaels, click here.


Screen Shot 2017-03-31 at 8.45.56 AM
Heartland Institute’s President and Founder Joe Bast

By Nancy Thorner – 

The Obama administration used concern over “global warming” as a false flag operation to advance it’s left-wing agenda to “transform” the country’s energy sector. This makes global warming policy — not global warming itself — the greatest threat facing this nation. This was one of the themes of The Heartland Institute’s Twelfth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-12), held in Washington D.C. on March 23-24, 2007.

According to Heartland President Joseph Bast in opening remarks, the election of Donald Trump on November 8 opened a new chapter in the global warming debate, creating hope that a new pro-environment, pro-energy, and pro-jobs agenda will be created to benefit the American people.  ICCC-12 was the first major conference on climate change to take place after Trump’s election, and its 40-some speakers presented the science and economics that are the foundation of that new agenda.  Speaker after speaker rejected the policies and claims of President Barack Obama and showed optimism about the possibility of dismantling these policies now that Donald Trump is in office.

Of note is that four special awards were presented to those who had made huge contributions to the Climate Debate.

  • Col. Walter Cunningham is best known as pilot of Apollo 7, the first manned flight test of the Apollo Program to land a man on the Moon. 
  • J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D., a professor at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, was applauded for his research on forecasting.
  • Myron Ebell, director of energy and environment policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute and chair of the Trump administration’s EPA transition team.
  • Dr. John Barrasso, M.D. (R-WY) is chairman of the Senate Committee on Environments and Public Works (EPA).  Unfortunately Barrasso was unable to attend to receive his award in person because of the House debate on replacing Obamacare.

Three Republican legislators were scheduled to appear at ICCC-12, but only Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) could attend in person.  Senator Barrasso, M.D., a reward recipient, received his award In absentia, while Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma made his remarks through a video presentation. Unfortunately, many legislators were tied up in their respective Chambers during ICCC-12, House members with repealing Obamacare and Senate members in dealing with Chief Justice nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch.

Joseph Bast, president and CEO of The Heartland Institute welcomes guests

Joseph Bast, president and CEO of The Heartland Institute, welcomed an enthusiastic group of 300 attendees. The meeting included eleven panels and five plenary sessions offering views on such topics as climate science, environmental economics, and the relationship between fossil fuels and human prosperity, the environment; human health; and world peace.

On Heartland’s agenda was an impressive group of keynote speakers including Lord Christopher Monckton for his wit and humor as well as mastering of mathematics and statistics; Patrick Michaels, a climate scientist with the Cato Institute who has written numerous books on the subject; Roger Helmer, a member of the European Parliament; and Heartland Science Director Jay Lehr, who delivered a presentation he and others at Heartland had prepared to deliver to President-elect Trump in person.

Bast related how EPA Director, Scott Pruitt, recently remarked on CNBC that human activity is not the primary activity of the global warming that we see. More good news followed when Bast recounted a remark made by Trump’s budget director when announcing that global warming activities were not going to be funded because the president doesn’t think the issue is important. 

Climate “realists” have won the public opinion debate, Bast claimed. He cited survey data showing most Americans don’t believe human activity is responsible for most global warming, further stating that “42% of Americans don’t want to spend a dollar more to prevent global warming.”  Bast then related how the Trump administration has proposed cutting EPA funding by 1/3, and how the subsidies shoring up the wind and solar industry are soon to be on the cutting block. Without those subsidies, wind and solar energy would be unaffordable. Britain, Spain, Germany, and Australia are all cutting back on their sustainable energy funding, Bast said.

Breakfast, Thursday, March 23:  Keynote Address, Jay Lehr, Ph.D., Senior Fellow and Science Director of The Heartland Institute  

Following opening remarks, Joe Bast spoke about the 20-minute presentation The Heartland Institute was asked to prepare and present to explain global warming to President-elect Trump. Jay Lehr, PhD. was selected to share Heartland’s compilation of facts based on sound scientific research to President-elect Trump. Lehr’s direct presentation never happened, but Heartland’s message was shared with others in the Trump administration.   

With this in mind, Mr. Bast called Dr. Jay Lehr to the podium to present Heartland’s slide presentation as prepared for President-elect Trump. Lehr, who delivers one or two addresses a week all across the country, was described by Bast as the most popular speaker expressing climate change realism in the country today. 

Dr. Jay Lehr’s Powerpoint Keynote Breakfast presentation addressed the elimination the EPA and turning its functions back to the states to legislate.  Dr. Lehr playfully suggested that he might be paying penance for a 1971 crime, for when joining the Nixon administration he helped create the EPA. As Dr. Lehr remarked:  “For 10 years the EPA did some good work, but since 1980 no good has come from the EPA.” 

As to devolving the EPA, Dr. Lehr states the following reasons:

  • The states are eminently capable of, and should be responsible for, the protection of our air land water.
  • His plan migrates that responsibility from the EPA to the states over a 5-year plan, and thereby materially alters the existing structure of the EPA, which is worthy of serious consideration.

Lehr went on to explain how there are 14 separate offices within the EPA, each having their own staff and budgets, but only 5 of the offices deal with the environment:  1) Office of Water; 2) Office and Air and Radiation; 3) Office of Chemical Safety and Emergency Response; 4) Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response; and 5) Office of Research and Development. 

What’s more, two of the offices belong in the Bureau of Indian Affairs 1) Office of American Indian Environmental Affairs and 2) Office of International and Tribal Affairs, while seven more of the offices within the EPA are entirely non-scientific in nature: (Office of Policy; Office of General Council; Office of Chief Financial Officer; Office of Environmental Information; Office of Administration and Resource Management; Office of the Enforcement and Compliance Management; and Office of the Administrator).

According to Dr. Lehr, only 4 useful pieces of EPA legislation were created in its first ten years of existence from 1971 to1980.  They are:  

1.  Water Pollution Control Act (later renamed as the Clean Water).

2.  Safe Drinking Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recover Act, Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (which covers deep mining too).

3.  Clean Air Act, Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). 

4.  Comprehensive Environmental Response compensation and Liability Act (Superfund).

As to the reach and size of the EPA, Lehr cited 15,000 employees spread between Washington DC and 10 regional offices and a few research centers, with a total budget of $8.2 billion.  Most importantly, what are taxpayers getting for the $8.2 billion budget of the EPA?  No actual environmental protection is produced.  This is all done by the 50 State Agencies. 

Given such a dismal record by the EPA, these stated conclusions are sound and need to be implemented by the Trump administration:  

  • We must aggressively trim, restructure and eliminate multiple programs within the federal system that have any association with the god of Sustainability, especially and starting with the EPA. 
  • It is incumbent upon use to strive to deliver the truth to the American people with good science, properly constructed legislation, and policy-making that is grounded in the Iron Law of Regulation.

Dr. Lehr asked each participant to set a target to change the minds of 5 people in a year who believe in global warming. With 200 individuals in the room, 1,000 individuals would be reached.

An addendum to article  

President Donald Trump on Tuesday, March 28, 2017, issued an “energy independence” executive order to undo several of the Obama administration’s climate change regulations. 

Happening so soon after Heartland’s successful ICCC-12 event in Washington, D.C., Trump’s sweeping executive order on Climate Policy, sorely needed, was greeted with much acclamation and applause.   

  • Orders the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review and repeal, or revise, the Clean Power Plan is the backbone of President Barack Obama’s climate agenda, requiring states to transform their electricity mix away from conventional fuels toward renewables.
  • Eliminates the use of the “social cost of carbon.” This figure, called the “social cost of carbon,” is a dollar amount that federal agencies apply to different regulations to calculate the “climate benefit” of abated co2 emissions. In 2015, the social cost of carbon was said to be $36 per ton.
  • Rescinds moratorium on new coal leases and methane emissions from oil and gas operations on federal lands. Under Obama, the Department of Interior would not issue new coal mining leases on federal lands until the agency conducted a more comprehensive environmental review that included the estimated effects the lease would have on global warming.
  • Repeals guidance on agencies taking global warming into account when conducting National Environmental Policy Act reviews.  The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to conduct comprehensive environmental assessments for a wide range of projects, including permitting of infrastructure.

Live stream archives:  All sessions and speakers at ICCC-12 can be viewed here at Heartland’s Live Stream Archives.

Future articles by Nancy Thorner dealing with Heartland’s ICCC-12 will cover Fossil Fuels and Human Prosperity, Fossil Fuels and World Peace, Climate Politics and Policy, and Sustainability.

Monday, September 12, 2016

By Nancy Thorner – 

As previously discussed, (read it here) renowned scientist, speaker, author and Heartland Institute Science Director Dr. Jay Lehr and Colorado State University Atmospheric Science Professor Dr. Scott Denning debated two film clips from Al Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. The debate was hosted by The Heartland Institute on Wednesday, August 31, 2016, to determine how the movie has fared through the test of time on its 10th anniversary.

The first two film clips debated in Part 1 were; “Solar Radiation in the Form of Light Waves Passes Through the Atmosphere,” and “The Coral Reefs Off the Coast of Australia Are Being Bleached and Destroyed Due to Global Warming.” (View the entire debate here.) In Part 2, I will recount how Lehr and Denning debated the final four of the six featured film clips.

Film Clip #3: Fresh Meltwater is Tunneling Straight Down Through Greenland.

Claim: Tony Blair’s Scientific Advisor said in 2005 that if Greenland breaks up (even half of it) maps will have to be withdrawn because the Netherlands and other low lying areas would be covered with water. Among areas affected would be San Francisco Bay, Beijing, Shanghai, and Calcutta.

Denning: Sea level rising has gotten much worse because of melting ice. Ice can melt very fast with a huge impact, such as in property loss and the creation of a refugee crisis worse than the one that exists today.

Lehr: This is fear mongering at its worst, a global warming fraud that is casting an extremely negative impact on the future of the world. Between 1000 and 1250 there was farming in Greenland during a mini warming period. Corn and barley were grown. As far as loss to our economy, billions have already been squandered trying to develop green energy to replace fossil fuels. Why? Because green energy sources are more expensive to operate and maintain.

Film Clip #4: Polar Bears Are Endangered Because Ice Is Melting.

Claim: Polar bears have drowned when having to swim 60 miles to find ice and food.

Lehr: Polar bears can swim 100 miles. This cuddly little icon of global warming was a poor choice for Gore. Polar bears have been around for 500,000 years and are thriving today, with ample evidence population is increasing. Some 10,000 visitors come every year to view the polar bears feed at Churchill Matoba (Hudson Bay) where polar bears have been studied for 21 years. Polar bears coming to feed at Churchill increase every year.

Denning: Denning didn’t deny the increase in polar bear population at Churchill, but as ice is the habitat of the polar bear, due to melting ice there is less habitat available for polar bears. As Denning did when he spoke about the exposure of the Great Coral Reef as being a side issue to global warming, he likewise considered the polar bear a side issue in the overall discussion of climate change. Economics once again became the dominant issue for Denning as he reiterated the lost economic growth that would take place if 10 times more fossil fuel were burnt as has occurred to date.

Film Clip #5: Are We Capable of Rising Above Ourselves and History?

Claim: After all, freedom and self-determination was established here in the U.S. and spread around the world. We landed on the moon and defeated fascism.

Denning: We are fortunate global warming is a problem that is not all that expensive to solve. Our problems today aren’t as difficult to deal with as were some that faced our forefathers. Our grandparents did well for themselves by building roads, bridges and highways. Our generation built the Internet. The American people are capable of solving problems. We know how to do it. Economics was again cited: A 1 percent reduction in GPD over the next century beats a 25 percent reduction if we fail to deal with the global warming problem now.

Lehr: The mention of economics by Denning raised his dander. Lehr mentioned that we have already spent well over $1 trillion with zero results in trying to develop alternate salable and affordable sources of energy to reduce CO2. The U.S. and France were cited as the only countries that have reduced CO2 levels: France because of using nuclear energy, and the U.S. because of scrubbers installed on coal plants. As a nation, we are capable of doing great things. However, the so-called global warming crisis is fear mongering, which hasn’t yet, nor will ever, come true.

Film Clip #6: Gore compared a photo of Mt. Kilimanjaro in Africa taken 30 years ago with one recently taken.

Claim: Human-caused global warming is causing the famed Snows of Kilimanjaro to disappear.

Lehr: Lehr had no quibble about the photos. At 19,340 feet high, Kilimanjaro was losing ice long before man began pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Since the temperature at the top of Kilimanjaro has never risen above freezing, why then is the ice melting? Lehr attributed the melting to what is known in physics as “sublimation” from solid to gas. Because of deforestation over the centuries at lower levels, the resulting dry air rises up the mountain and causes ice to go from solid to gas. Like the polar bear, Dr. Lehr considered Kilimanjaro a poor choice by Al Gore to include in his movie.

Denning: The melting is not just happening at Kilimanjaro, but at every mountain in the world. 70 million people depend on water from melting mountain snow. In Colorado, a state Denning is familiar with, snow pack is down 20 percent since 1980, and this has happened with only 1 degree F of global warming. What will happen if 10 times more fossil fuel is burnt?

Debate Wrap up

Denning: He noted again his three S’s of climate change: Simple, Serious, Solvable. In referencing how Lehr denies climate change is taking place even if 10 times as much fossil fuel is used, Denning challenges Lehr’s inability to explain why. According to Denning, it’s very easy to explain: heat in, heat out. When six-and-a-half watts was added to the world for 100 centuries, the sea rose hundreds of feet. When either heat or cold is added, temperature changes occurs as they did during the Medieval warming period and the mini ice age which followed.

If we deal with the problem now, it will cost our kids a hundred times less than if we fail to take immediate steps to solve global warming. Denning strongly suggested that as a free market think tank The Heartland Institute must become involved or else the Left will take over completely. The market system is not weak. We must be brave. Modern free-market solutions must be applied. As civilization comes from inside us, this nation will be just fine if our kids remain creative and hardworking.

Lehr: In offering a critique of his challenger, Lehr questioned how it was possible to like someone yet disagree so much with everything he says? Lehr spoke of global warming as a political ploy to gain power. Global cooling was tried during the ’70s, but that didn’t scare the world. Global warming is not about the environment; it is about reducing individual freedom. It’s also about the elimination of fossil fuels. But why eliminate fossil fuels when they are improving the quality of live all across the world? This nation is awash in shale gas. In Colorado, for instance, there is more oil and gas reserves than in all of Saudi Arabia. Yet the push continues to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar power when both require backup energy sources.

Climate alarmists are predicting how the weather will be much warmer 100 years down the road with possible catastrophic results, even though predicting the weather one week ahead is risky to attempt. Eliminating the generous subsidies given to developers of wind and solar power will bring out new and better things. As an self-described extremely optimistic person, Lehr opined how the future is always better than what went before, but this still doesn’t prevent a new scenario of doom and gloom from being offered up during next year’s Earth Day celebration.

Debate Finale

Jim Lakely, communications director at The Heartland Institute, fielded question for Lehr and Denning from event participants and from those watching the live-stream on YouTube. (Click here to view.)

Not disputed was what is considered our most valuable resource which is found between our ears, the human mind.

Notable is that global warming is near the bottom of the list of concerns people have around the world. And global warming deserves to be near the bottom of the list. As related in this recent, hard-hitting and credible article about climate change posted on September 2, 2016, Tens of Thousands of Scientists Declare Climate Change A Hoax, a staggering 30,000 scientists have come forward saying man-made climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the elite in order to make money.

One of the experts is Weather Channel Founder John Coleman, who warns that huge fortunes are being realized by man-made climate change proponents such as Al Gore. In a recent interview with Climate Depot, Natural News reports:

“Al Gore may emerge from the shadows to declare victory in the ‘global warming’ debate if Hillary Clinton moves into the White House. Yes, if that happens and the new climate regulations become the law of the land, they will be next to impossible to overturn for four to eight years.”

Monday, September 12, 2016 at 10:30 AM | Permalink

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Friday, February 20, 2015


By Nancy Thorner and Bonnie O’Neil – 

Obama and UN seek to transform

The following commentary by Ben Zycher on the United Nations’ top climate change official, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), tells how the goal of UNFCCC is to “intentionally transform” the world’s economic development model. In Christina Figueres own words, spoken on February 4th:

This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model.  This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for the last 150 years; since the industrial revolution.

Instead of focusing on the central issue which is addressing the cost effectiveness of the global warming issue, the main focus continues to be on the nearly irrelevant causation issue. Neither does Christiana Figueres seem to understand that a transformation of the “economic development model” is a repository of consequences unintended but predictable; foremost among them, the impoverishment of many millions of people.

Africa in the crossfire with other 3rd world countries 

Much rides on the UN Kyoto Protocol of 1992 that legally binds developed countries to emission reduction targets. The Protocol’s first commitment period started in 2008 and ended in 2012. The second commitment period began in January 2013 and will end in 2020.

Regarding CO2 emissions in Africa: Carbon emissions are estimated to be lower compared to western and emerging countriesIn so far as South Africa is so addicted to coal and dependent on coal, the country itself has very high emissions – 13th biggest emitter in the world — in contrast to the rest of the continent, where most countries have very low emissions, or even zero emissions.

The irony is that those who are behind the U.N. Agenda 21 road map, claim all of the changes they want forced upon us are for the good of our planet and people.  That simply is not true, and South Africa is a case in point.  The cost to switch from coal towards renewable energy in South Africa would be significant.  Energy needs in Africa and other developing countries will increase as countries become more industrialized and prosperous. Restricting or reducing CO2 emissions in places such as South Africa, to those below its position of 13th in the world, would cause much hardship and limit overall the growth within the African Continent. Even in this day and age heating and cooking is widely done by African natives with animal dung patties, which is a source of unhealthful pollution.

 Questions as to why the push for a successful UN Kyoto Protocol by 2020

Some brave souls have begun questioning whether there are more sinister and self-serving reasons that the UN Kyoto Protocol be successful by 2020.  Could one covert reason be to reduce populations by making life even more difficult for third world poor populations to prosper?  In 2009 a report was published by Scientific America, first appearing in Earth Talk produced by E/The Environmental Magazine, which questioned whether the rate of people reproducing needed to be controlled in order to save the environment. They postured that human population growth is a major contributor to global warming, as humans use fossil fuels to power their increasingly mechanized lifestyles.  According to the United Nations Population Fund, human population grew from 1.6 billion to 6.1 billion people during the course of the 20th century.  It was that unprecedented increase that began to concern people, who then began looking for ways to control our population. The United Nations Population Fund, likewise predicts that fast-growing, developing countries will contribute more than half of global CO2 emissions by 2050, thereby erasing other countries’ adoption of long held over-consumptive ways.

This article also published in 2009, began raising the question as to whether, given population and sustainability, the planet could avoid not limiting the number of people (or slowing the rise in human numbers) to save the planet.

Alex Epstein, in his book “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels” — adapted from a published review by Jay Lehr, Director of Science at the Heartland Institute — “lays out a clear story that the use of fossil fuels in the less developed world has dramatically increased life expectancy and reduced infant mortality.  Epstein further states that “millions of individuals in industrialized countries finally have their first light bulb, their first refrigerator, their first decent paying job, their first year with clean drinking water or a full stomach.” Hence, the moral case for fossil fuels is ultimately not about fossil fuels; it is the moral case for using cheap, plentiful, reliable energy to amplify our abilities to make the world a better place for human beings.

Shame on our leaders for proposing massive bans on fossil fuels with the promise that these radically inferior technologies will be their replacements, reflecting either an ignorance or indifference to the need for efficient cheap reliable energy for 1.3 billion people without electricity and over 3 billion who do not have adequate electricity.

In summing up his moral argument, Epstein made this excellent and common sense statement:

We don’t want to save the planet from human beings; we want to improve the planet for human beings. We need to say this loudly and proudly. We need to say that human life is our one and only standard of value.  And we need to say that the transformation of our environment, the essence of our survival, is a supreme virtue.  We need to recognize that to the extent we deny either, we are willing to harm real flesh and blood human beings for some antihuman dogma.

In a message to media and legislators:  “We will no longer take it!”

The time has come for truths to be told, and for the media to provide facts and articles by skeptics. We no longer are confident in the reporting on this important issue, nor do we have confidence in those who have already proven to have reported misinformation.  It is imperative that the unreported agendas of those at the highest level of government be fully documented by credible sources and revealed for what they portend for future generations of Americans.

While we are grateful more climate scientists and experts from other related fields have begun to carefully study these important issues and are finding fault with highly reported conclusions, we must demand their work be printed and reported. The views of skeptics are important for us and future generations, so that any misrepresented figures, deceptions, and mistakes are widely reported and revealed to the public.

It may become necessary for an enlightened public to demand that the media cease their practice of only publishing material that reflects the views of the U.N. and those of the ilk of Al Gore.  Accordingly, when so-called “established” facts are refuted, they must be reported as such by a media that has proven itself highly prejudiced to only one viewpoint.  The public deserves a two-sided debate, and it may come to the point citizens may have to demand it.

It is up to informed citizens, scientists and other experts to investigate and report false or questionable information about global warming in order to set the record straight.  Those with opposing opinions and fact must write letters and articles to newspapers and other offending media sources. Any media source that refuses to publish credible material should be exposed.  Derelict and biased media sources, and our elected legislators, must know that anything less is unacceptable to a concerned public.

Bravo to The Heartland Institute  for being the leader in the field of education by getting facts out to legislators here in the US, and individuals worldwide, about the false premise of global warming which has been and continues to be pushed worldwide as proposed by UN Agenda 21.

Thorner & O’Neil:  Fighting climate change through compact cities without cars (Part 1)

Thorner & O’Neil:  UN promotes Global Warming consistent with Agenda 21 (Part 2)

Thorner & O’Neil:  Man’s folly to curb CO2 emissions continues to advance unabated (Part 3)

Thorner & O’Neil:  Will Agenda 21 continue to go forward despite proven deception (Part 4) 

Thursday, February 19, 2015

It was on September 27 that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) delivered to massive media coverage an unsettling message: Climate change is real, humans are the main cause of it, and unless we stop the warming of the planet, in 50 years life as we know it will be no more.

A little more than a week before, on Sept. 18, a dueling climate change report was issued (published by Chicago’s Heartland Institute) by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science.

The NIPCC report, in keeping with past precedent, was not accorded the same fanfare as received by the UN’s IPCC report upon its release. To the contrary, media attention for Heartland’s NIPCC report was practically nonexistent as was observed at the Sept. 18 press conference held by Heartland in Chicago to announce the release of its report.

As a skeptic of global warming, a welcome mat does not exist in Chicago for The Heartland Institute as its message goes against the accepted media message of the Chicago Tribune, etc., that global warming is man-made with CO2 as the main culprit.

A slew of scathing reports followed the release of Heartland’s NIPCC report, such as this from Climate Science Watch:

The discredited Heartland Institute is attempting to present its new NIPCC report, Climate Change Reconsidered, as a legitimate alternative authority to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the NIPCC report is not a credible scientific undertaking, and the Heartland Institute has no credibility, scientific or otherwise.

To protect the stellar credentials of The Heartland Institute, President Joseph Bast offered the following essay:

We urge the public to compare and contrast these two reports on what is probably the most important public policy issue of our age. The NIPCC report was produced by a team of independent scientists with no agenda other than to find the truth. . . . The IPCC study, in contrast, is produced by a government agency, part of the United Nations. That agency’s mission is to find a human impact on climate. . . .

The NIPCC report finds the human impact on climate is very small, and as a result, any warming that may be due to human greenhouse gas emissions is likely to be so small as to be invisible against a background of natural variability. The authors of the NIPCC study do not believe man-made global warming is a crisis, or that scientists know enough about how the climate works to make policy-relevant recommendations to the world’s government leaders.

Without question President Obama and his administration are in lock step with the UN’s highly flawed report that calls for action now to fight climate change before time runs out. Accordingly, it’s full steam ahead for Obama and his administration.

On November 1, Obama offered a presidential directive to “enhance climate preparedness and resilience.” The directive calls for an interagency Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience in partnership with state, county, local and tribal governments, by which Obama aims to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 17% by 2020 from 2005 levels. Even the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline hinges upon a determination of what will be the net effects of the pipeline’s impact on our climate.

But what do the American people think? Might they be seeing through the story they are being fed by the mainstream media? According to the Pew Research Center’s policy priorities survey, this year the American public ranked dealing with global warming at the very bottom of 21 listed priorities. Even so 35% of Republicans, 53% of independents, and 75% of Democrats believe there is solid evidence of rising temperatures on earth.

According to Michael Bastasch, the American people should be holding their champagne glasses high this holiday season as the end of 2013 marks the 17th year without global warming. Explaining away the 17-year hiatus in global despite the setbacks noted below, can be achieved only if political ideology is permitted to trump proven scientific facts.

The following top seven global warming alarmist setbacks of 2013 were posted on December 20 by Mr. Bastasch from content compiled by The Daily Caller News Foundation:

1) Studies show that the world was warmer than it is today during the Roman Empire and when the Vikings were plundering Europe and North America. In fact, even in the 19th Century, there were discussions surrounding the fact that the Vikings could settle the northernmost reaches of Greenland and North America because there was less ice coverage.

2) During the second week in December, the U.S. saw more than 2000 record low temperatures and record snowfalls, according to the National Weather Service and HamWeather records center. There were 606 record low temperatures, 1,234 low maximum temperatures and 285 record snowfalls across the country. In the meantime there were only 98 high temperature records and 141 high minimum temperature records.

3) Satellite data shows that the polar bears have at least one reason to be happy this year – Arctic sea ice coverage was up 50 percent over last year’s record low coverage. Contrary to Al Gore’s prediction that there would be no polar ice cap by this year, sea ice coverage spanned nearly 2,100 cubic miles by the end of this year’s melting season, up from about 1,400 cubic last year.

4) Global cooling is on the way, according to an increasing number of scientists. German scientists have predicted that based on declining sunspot activity and natural climate oscillation the world will cool over the next century. Temperatures will eventually drop to levels corresponding with the “little ice age” of 1870.

5) Other scientists have also been coming around to the global cooling side of things. The BBC reported that Professor Mike Lockwood of the Reading University predicts that at the current rate of decline in solar activity, another “Little Ice Age” could envelope Northern Europe.

6) The United Nations climate bureaucracy’s latest global warming report was called “hilarious” by a leading scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Richard Lindzen said the UN’s report “has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence” because they continue to proclaim with ever greater certainty that mankind is causing global warming, despite their models continually being wrong.

“Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,” Lindzen said. “However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.”

7) The Senate testimony of Dr. Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado completely undercut environmentalists and Democrats trying to claim that global warming was causing “extreme weather.”

“It is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally,” Pielke said. “It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.”

The other witnesses on the panel did not refute Pielke’s data.

Will the Dec. 28 saga of a dramatic spectacle of climate researchers trapped in Antarctic ice (which has expanded massively during 2013) help free the mainstream media of the false global warming ice narrative? A Chinese ice breaker sent to rescue climate researchers who became trapped in ice on Christmas Day is now itself waiting and is hoping to push aside some of the ten foot thick ice preventing it from reaching the trapped researchers. An Australian ice-breaking ship got stuck in the ice, too.

Hardly so, because the story doesn’t fit the unflinching template held by the mainstream media, just as the same has disregarded John Coleman (founder of The Weather Channel) and various other critics who have called the theory that human use of carbon-based fossil fuels will lead to catastrophic global warming or climate change a hoax, despite an added warning that purposeful deception to mislead might be criminal.

Even if more adults do see through the hoax that is global warming, what about our youth?

The Common Core Science Curriculum teaches children that humans are dangerous to the planet, that man made global warming is an accepted incontrovertible fact even though it is not, and that government action is required to fix global warming even though the taxes the Obama administration would like to impose on carbon dioxide producers would have a negligible effect on global warming but would have a devastating effect on a crumbling economy.

Are parents in the know up to countering the false propaganda being taught their children? And what about the many parents who have no idea or little interest in what their children are being taught in the public schools by way of the new Common Core curriculum.

Only time will tell, but the situation doesn’t offer much hope.

Nancy Thorner writes for Illinois Review.

Tuesday, October 01, 2013

51lxWOavgQL._By Nancy Thorner –  

How appropriate that Rupert Darwell and his book, The Age of Global Warming:  A Historyshould be featured by The Heartland Institute at its Author series on Thursday, September 26, the day before the release of the UN IPCCreport on global warming.  The UN’s 2013 report followed the same set hypothesis as in prior years; namely, that the root cause of global warming was man-made and that its cause was CO2.  Unexplained was how the probability factor of man-made global warming was cited as 95% in the 2013 IPCC report, while in the 2007 report it was five points lower at 90%.

About Rupert Darwell, he read economics and history at Cambridge, after which he worked at the Conservative Research Department and then in the City as an investment analyst and in corporate finance.  He has written or leading publications in the UK and the US and for London-based think tanks.

This brief synopsis of Rupert’s book appears on its dust jacket:

Rachel Caron’s epoch-creating Silent Spring marked the beginnings of the environmental movement in the 1960’s, its “First Wave” peaking at the 1972 Stockholm Conference. The invention of ‘sustainable development’ by Barbara Ward,  along with Rachael Carson the founder of the environmental movement, created an alliance of convenience between First World environmentalists and Third World set on rapid industrialization.

The First Wave crashed in 1973 with the Yom Kippur War and a decade long energy crisis.  Revived by a warming economy of the 1980s, environmentalism found a new political champion in 1988 with Margaret Thatcher.  Four years later at the Rio Earth Summit, politics settled the science.  One hundred and ninety-two nations agreed that mankind was causing global warming and carbon dioxide emissions should be cut.  Rio launched rounds of climate change meetings and summits, with developing nations refusing to countenance any agreement restraining their greenhouse gas emission — their blanket exemption from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol leading to its rejection by the United States that year, and again twelve years later in Copenhagen.

In the absence of The Heartland Institute’s CEO and president Joe Bast and Communications Director Jim Lakely (Both were out-of-town making appearances in Washington, D.C., New York, Tampa, and St. Louis promoting Heartland’s published September 17th NIPCC report based on a “null” hypothesis that global warming is caused by natural factors.), Donn Dears introduced author Rupert Darwall.  Dears, one of many Heartland experts and a retired General Electric executive and Energy Expert, prefaced his introduction with a few remarks of his own.

Stressed by Donn Dears was this fact:  Concern over global warming in this nation started in 1992 at the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro, out of which came the UN treaty which was ratified by the U.S. Senate.  Continuing, Dears offered this remark:  We are now committed to stopping global warming, whatever that it!

After expressing his delight at being in Chicago on such a beautiful day, and applauding the great work of The Heartland Institute, Rupert Darwallwasted no time in getting to the “meat” of his book. Fundamental is how debate and argument form the lifeblood of a democracy and for those who believe in objectivity and freedom.  As such, global warming is a question of truth and freedom.

To demonstrate how opinions of global warming alarmist are unaffected even after experiencing a happening that should at least made them a bit curious, Darwall related a story as published on Sept.18th of this year in the Valdez Star. Four adventurers and believers of climate change attempted to row through the Northwest Passage, only to have to abandon their journey due to winds and an ice-clogged passage from Cambridge Bay northward.

In another example, when a report in May of 2009 noted that temperature had remained level since 1998, those invested in global warming called for another 15 years to ascertain whether this was an actual trend or just a time out period.  This is akin to a doctor telling a person he has a serious disease, only to tell him to come back in 15 years to see if it’s really so!

When oceans don’t rise, more time must be given for climate model predictions to come true.   When surface temperature of oceans don’t rise, it is because the warming is now in the deep ocean.

Most scientists knew that the Hockey Stick graph — a plot of the past millennium’s temperature that shows the drastic influence of humans in the 20th century — developed by Michael Mann in 1998 was bad; nevertheless, they all lined up behind it. The lack of curiosity by scientific bodies to investigate what they knew was untrue could only be called incredulous behavior.  This is what happens when science is based on what scientists want the message to be, so as not to tinker with what the public already believes and thinks is true.

These three men played an important part in the history of global warming, Bacon, Locke, and Popper:

  • Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was a medieval philosopher who advocated a scientific foundation to engage in discovering the knowledge of causes.  For Bacon, knowledge about nature was not to be acquired for its own sake, but for the purpose of enabling man to use nature to better his material conditions of life.
  • John Locke (1632-1704) based his views on the Socratic insight that to err is human.  The framers of the American constitution followed Locke:  Checks and balances and the separation of powers are an implicit repudiation of the assumption that ‘the people’, or, at any rate, a majority of them, cannot not err.  Page 8 of The Age of Global Warming
  • Karl Popper (1902-1994), a leading twentieth century thinker on the theory of science, viewed science theories as being provisional, only valid until they’ve been refuted, which conflicts with the political need to characterize the science of global warming as settled.

Rupert Darwall described global warming for the true believers as a mission to save the world.  In so doing Darwall likened those passionate about man-made global warmer to Don Quixote, who obsessed with the chivalrous ideals in the books he has read, decides to take up his lance and sword to defend the helpless and destroy the wicked to honor one who was but a figment of his imagination.  Friends realizing that Don Quixote was crazy, and attributing Quixote’s madness to his books, destroyed his book by burning. However, unlike the story of Don Quixote, the belief in global warming does have human and financial consequences.

In a question about climate change markets, Darwall called them phony markets, riddled with corruption, that don’t work and never will.

Regarding what the future holds for global warming, Mr. Darwall opined that the scenario, although deposing and fraying because of predictions that are wrong time and again, will still be around for some time simply because political interests and financial capitalists are invested in it.

Diane Bast, Executive Editor and Finance Manager of The Heartland Institute, asked those present to go to where reviews of organizations are listed for donating and volunteering.  As The Heartland Institute is controversial to those who do not think warmly about the organization’s stance as a recognized worldwide skeptic of global warming, Bast asked that positive comments be posted to counter the negativity expressed.

Heartland Author Series event in October will feature:

Wednesday, October 2 – Henryk A. Kowalczyk:  “Why do we have such a big immigration Problem?”

Thursday, October 17 – Donald J. Devine:  “Ameica’s Way Back – Reclaiming Freedom, Tradition, and Constitution”

Thursday, October 24 – Travus G. Brown:  “How Money Walks”

Wednesday, October 30 – Mark Q. Rhoads:  “Land of Lincoln, Thy Wondrous Story”

For more information about the events, all 312/377-4000 or visit

Tuesday, October 01, 2013 at 07:13 AM | Permalink

Technorati Tags: , , ,


Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Th-13By Nancy Thorner – 

 In Part 1, published Monday, September 23, titled, Thorner: Global warming debate emphasizes vast scientific opinion differences, details were related about the nature and scope of a debate about global warming held on Monday, September 16, at the Wilmette Public Library between Kent Taylor, Al Gore trainee, and Steve Goreham, author and researcher on environmental issues.

In Part 2 the “nitty gritty” (or the “nuts and bolts”) of the Wilmette debate are documented. The comments made by each debater are accordingly noted as they relate to one of three question arbitrarily written by me.   The first name of Mr. Taylor was used not to confuse Kent Tayor with James Taylor, J.D., who is a Senior Fellow at The Heartland Institute and Managing Editor of Environment and Climate News.

Question 1:  If no action is taken now what will happen?

Kent Taylor:  If we wait until all is certain, it will be too late.  We can’t just sit it out and hope that global warming doesn’t happen.  We have to listen to the “smart” people.  Every major scientific body agrees with my position.  It’s a matter of physics.  Two things must be taking place for global warming to be denied:  1) Something unknown is suppressing the greenhouse effect.  2) Something unknown is causing the global warming that mimics its effect.  As for a leveling out of temperature over the past 16 years, this can be true only if data is cherry-picked.  1998 produced the hottest temperatures in history.  It is a matter of physics that as CO2 increases in the atmosphere, temperature go up.  Dr. James Hansen, a climate scientist who recently stepped down from his NASA post after almost 50 years, agrees and suggests that global warming has not stalled and is but a “diversionary tactic” from “deniers” who want the public to be confused about climate change.

Goreham:  There is no evidence that we are in danger.  Empirical evidence shows that climate models are wrong and are not good predictors of temperature changes.  As the rise of CO2 levels lags temperature rise, this results in rises of temperature that are observed centuries later.  In refuting the remark that 97% of scientists accept man-made global warming, noted was the return of a much larger mailing by the IPPO which requested  a two-question response.  While 3,000 responses were returned, only seventy-seven were selected to calculate the 97% consensus figure of scientists who accept man-made global warming.  Global temperatures have been flat for the last 16 years, contradicting the 44 climate models used by IPCC  that called for a temperature rise.

Question 2:  How do CO2 levels affect temperature change?

Kent Taylor:  Atmospheric CO2 has been steadily rising since the Civil War, and its increase has been solid since 1960.  Since the Industrial Revolution greenhouse gasses are up by 40%.   During the 20th century the Earth’s average temperature rose one degree Fahrenheit, faster than at any time since the end of the last Ice age 11,300 years ago.  As far as the future:  Our living atmosphere is only 6 miles deep.  As we are producing 90 million tons of CO2 a day, we could easily fill up our living atmosphere with it.  With no place to go, as more and more CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the earth will heats up.  Both daytime and nighttime temperature records are being broken, but more records are being broken at night because greenhouse gasses aren’t assisting in making nighttime temperatures less severe.

Goreham:  Changes in temperature have occurred in regular cycles for millions of years.  During the Medieval Warm Period (900 – 1300) the temperature was warmer than it is today.  Consider Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period when trees flourished and farming was productive. In the Little Ice Age (1300 – 1850) temperatures cooled, resulting in shorter growing period and a shortage of food, while In Europe Frost Fairswere held on the Thames River.  Just described were but two of the natural cycles of temperature fluctuations.  Antarctica ice is expanding, and with 90% of the earth’s ice, it’s also getting thicker.  Ice in the Arctic comes and goes.  Consider the story of the “Glacier girl” where a WWII P-38 Lightning lay buried under arctic ice for 50 years when it crashed trying to cross Greenland in1942. The plane was finally pulled piece by piece from under 268 feet of ice on October 26, 2002.

Predicted by Al Gore and Dr. James Hanson was that should all the ice melt in the north and south poles, sea levels would rise as much as 20 feet by 2,100 to flood coastal cities, etc.  This, however, is based on circumstantial evidence only, which is consistent with the hypothesis embraced by global warming believers.  The global average sea-level continues to increase, but only at its long-term rate of 1-2 mm/year globally.

Question 3:  Is CO2 the main culprit of climate change?

Kent Taylor:  “Red herrings” are being used to convince people otherwise that global warming is not CO2 produced.  Using slides to present examples of red herrings, U. S. Representative Dana Rohrbacher was seen stating that solar activity was a cause of global warming. (Denied by Taylor:  Solar forcing has a negligible effect to climate change); Speaker John Boehner was seen blaming volcanoes because they emit large quantities of CO2. (Denied by Taylor:  Volcanoes emit only a pittance of CO2); Glen Beck was shown making fun of CO2 as a source of global warming when he exhaled repeatedly emitting CO2.  (Dismissed by Taylor as an example of sheer nuisance on the part of Beck, for, according to physics, CO2 traps heat and lots of it!)

In Taylor’s view these are individuals trying to discredit the consensus that CO2 is the cause of global warming by attacking the messenger, the “smart” people who are in the know.  Two scientists were cited who likewise have concluded that CO2 is the culprit for global warming: 1) Svante August Arah found that temperatures rise as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere.  The greenhouse effect of trapped CO2 can generate a temperature increase of 5 or 6 degrees. 2) Roger Revelle began measuring CO2 in the atmosphere in the 50’s and likewise found that as CO2 goes up temperature has to follow.  On our present course it will be by 3 – 10 degrees.

In Taylor’s words:  “To deny global warming is to deny the Carbon Cycle, a sequence of events that are key to making the Earth capable of sustaining life.”  Humans are impacting the Carbon Cycle. Our desire to extract as as much oil from the ground as possible shows intent to put CO2 into the atmosphere with no natural place for it to go.  If we don’t change our habits we will see CO2 rising, coupled with the rising of both ocean levels and temperatures.  I doesn’t matter about the CO2 spewed froth from volcanoes or other natural source, because we are overwhelming our natural resources.

Goreham:  CO2 is only a trace gas.  The IPCC U.N. models predicted hot spots in the atmosphere, but none were found.  What natural sources produce CO2?  75% of CO2 release is from water vapor.  Consider that the Pacific Ocean covers 46% of the earth.  Other natural sources of CO2 emissions come from Methane and other gasses and volcanoes, yet a small trace of CO2 in the atmosphere is being blamed for causing global warming  Then there is the sun. The lack of solar activity and observed cycle patterns suggest planetary cooling could occur over the next few decades.

Another thoughts to ponder:  Despite an increase in atmospheric CO2 by 8% — representing 34% of all extra CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution — the Earth has not warmed significantly for the past 16 years.  Instead, temperatures have remained flat, despite published IPCC projections since 1990 that a doubling of CO2 could cause a rise in temperature by up to 6 degrees Centigrade by 2100.  In reality, the doubling of CO2 from natural sources would only raise the temperature by one degree. Temperatures are described from 2000 to 2009 as the warmest.

The media picks this up and runs with it, without noting what has happened in the past.  Short term variation of temperatures (dips and rises) can be seen within a longer straight line which indicates that a recovery of  temperature has taken place from the Little Ice Age. This is indicative of a 60 year-modulation cycle of temperature which corresponds to the warming/cooling induced in the ocean.  About violent weather, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes have not been more frequent in this nation or have the number of tropical storms.

Presently there is a 40 year low in hurricanes, and it’s been 23 years since a category 3 hurricane has hit the US.  Furthermore, over the last century there have been no decisive trends showing an increase of droughts or floods in the U.S.

The Wilmette debate demonstrates the passion on both sides of the global warming argument with this question remaining paramount:  “How much do humans contribute to climate change?”  Although Steve Goreham believes that climate change has happened and will continue to happen in cycles through natural causes with no reason for concern, Kent Taylor believes that global warming is man-made, that it’s happening, and that drastic steps must be taken to curb the amount of CO2 released into the air to save mankind and civilization.

Even so the debate ended with a cordial hand shake.

CO2 has become increasingly vilified since that fateful day on December 7, 2009, when it was declared a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Even so, the Heartland Institute considers it a badge of honor to have been called by the Economist on May 26: 2012:, The World’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change.

All throughout the month of September The Heartland Institute has been conducting a series of phone calls about Climate Change Reconsider II. The final call took place on Tuesday, September 24, at 1:00 EST/Noon CST.  It’s topic: Response to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report. Thorner will listen to the call and will follow up with a writeup for Illinois Review.

With the United Nation’s IPCC AR5 report due to be released at the end of this week, the already released NIPCC report of a week ago by The Heartland Institute is certain to come under fire for its stance against the IPCC’s claim that dangerous global warming is occurring, and will keep occurring, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions.  A summary of the NIPCC report, Climate Change Reconsidered II:  Physical Science, can be read at

It would be wise to listen to what Apollo moonwalker Dr. Buzz Aldrin, NASA Astronaut has to save about climate:   

I think the climate has been changing for billions of years,” he said.

“If it’s warming now, it may cool off later. I’m not in favour of just taking short-term isolated situations and depleting our resources to keep our climate just the way it is today.

“I’m not necessarily of the school that we are causing it all, I think the world is causing it.

 What should the temperature rise a few degrees due to rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, would this be the end of the world?  To the contrary, among the benefits would be an increase in the quantify and quality of food produced to meet the rising food consumption needs of a larger, future population.

Tuesday, September 24, 2013 at 09:07 PM | Permalink


Monday, September 23, 2013

Part 1

Th-13By Nancy Thorner –

On Monday, September 16th, a debate took place in the Wilmette Public Library on the topic of Global climate variations:  A looming crisis or natural changes. The debate was between Steve Goreham, a speaker and researcher on environmental issues and author of two books, the most recent, The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania, and Kent Taylor, a long-time resident of the Chicago area, a 20-year volunteer at the Shedd Aquarium as a lecturer on coral reef ecology, and now an Al Gore-trained presenter through Gore’s Climate Reality Project to spread Gore’s message of anthropogenic (manmade) global warming.

Of interest was how Ken Taylor became an Al Gore global warming presenter.  It all started when Taylor and his wife visited St. John’s National Park.  A year later, when again exploring the same reef formations, they found that over a period of just one year 50 to 60 percent of the reef had been lost, prompting Mr. Taylor to conclude that if nothing were done St. John’s coral reef formations would be lost.  In 1996, learning that Al Gore was seeking volunteers to be presenters for The Climate Project, Taylor applied and was chosen to participate in a three-day training session in Nashville, Tennessee, to master Al Gore’s global warming slide presentation.

The Wilmette debate was a timely one given the release a day later, September 17th, of the newest volume in the Climate Change Reconsidered series by the Heartland Institute and members of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which challenges the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC – AR5) report scheduled for release tomorrow, Sept. 24, in Stockholm, Sweden. The U.N. IPCC AR5 is supported by governments in almost every county in the industrialized world, including the Democrats in America and the Obama administration.

Despite leaked conclusions of the 2013 IPCC report to The Daily Mail in England contradicting many of the doom and gloom scenarios projected in the lauded 2007 U.N. IPCC report, what might the odds be that the new findings will throw a monkey wrench to alter the thinking of alarmists who believe that the science of global warming is settled — that the debate is over — as physics tells them so?

No chance, as the leaked 2013 IPCC report, although admitting that most of its major conclusions in 2007 were incorrect, still holds firmly to the belief — with a certainty of 95% or more — that human action was the cause of half of the warming occurring from 1957 – 2001.  Kent Taylor wavered very little in the debate as the presenter of Al Gore’position on global warming.

The rules of the debate were set by Robert Armbruster, President of Armbruster Company, specializing in new works and restoration of historic concrete.  Taylor and Goreham were each given 30 minutes to advance their positions on global warming, accomplished through detailed slide presentations.  Following the presentations, a 10-minute rebuttal period was allotted each to counter the facts presented by their challenger. The event ended with a question and answer period.

Robert Armbruster cautioned those in attendance that he expected the debate to be civil in nature, which left no room for rabble rousing in keeping with Wilmette’s image and its people.

For the most part Armbruster’s caution was heeded, although the announcement to end the event to honor the closing time of the library did bring some vocal protestations from those who still had questions to ask of Goreham and Taylor.  Evident was that the index card system used to note questions, which were then screened, was not well received by all.

For those present at the Wilmette debate who had knowledge of the global warming debate and all of its twists and turns, and who likewise have  experienced the animosity and name-calling that goes along with being a skeptic who doesn’t accept the “science is settled argument” spewed forth regularly by the media, the debate was a no-brainer.

For readers who are less knowledgeable about global warming and the arguments used in trying to convince the public that global warming is either happening or it isn’t, the views expressed by Kent Taylor’s and Steve Goreham will be noted below each other in Part 2 so the two divergent and opposite viewpoints can readily be observed and evaluated.

Part 2 will explore three question through contrasting the global warming statements made by Kent Taylor (a believer) and Steve Goreham (a skeptic) during the course of the debate.

1.  If no action is taken what will happen?
2.  How do CO2 levels affect climate change?
3.  Is CO2 the main culprit of climate change?

Related articles

Monday, September 23, 2013 at 09:00 AM | Permalink