Heads up: Important climate change "Save That Date" in 17 days

AP Photo/Jason DeCrow

We’re all done for.

Bet you forgot.


I’m trying to decide how to handle it if it goes badly for Greta’s side – you know. Like, we’re all still here?

I’d use “The Great Disappointment,” but The Millerites already stole that one. At least I have a couple weeks to think of something snappy.

In the meantime, how we lookin’?

Contrary to the hyperbole on the evening broadcast and the Weather Channel’s penchant for naming every breeze that goes by, we are not in bad shape at all.

Screencap @_ClimateCraze

Although the media has upped their graphics game to match the current CLIMATE EMERGENCY. Red makes everything more dramatic, so maybe the Luddites will pay attention to our shrieking now.

I saw that Jazz had done a piece on those poor Irish cows the climate loons want to slaughter – what happens to those touchy feely Kerry Gold commercials then?

The idea is not really catching on with the Irish themselves, either. “The Green Party’s got to go” is not a ringing endorsement for your reelection prospects.

Then I listened to Australian Alan Jones asking basically the same question.


Why? Why are we doing ANY of this?

Carbon dioxide is .04% of a percent of the atmosphere. That is over the whole world. Human beings create only 3% of that .04% over the whole world. In Australia human beings, manufacturers, factories, cows breaking wind, bush fires, are responsible for 1.3% of the 3% of the .04%. Is anyone seriously suggesting that we should stand the economy on its head, force up energy prices, damage businesses, jeopardize employment because .04% of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide?

Well, yes, they are, all over the world, and they want your cows dead, too. For Science™ that two papers as recently as a year and a half ago said was pretty much manufactured bunk.

Two important papers have recently been published that question the extent to which humans are causing global warming by burning fossil fuel and releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The works will of course be ignored by mainstream media outlets, but they represent further evidence that a more nuanced view of human-caused or anthropogenic warming is gaining traction among scientists, tired of working within the political constraints of ‘settled’ science.

In a paper to be published next month in the journal Health Physics, three physics professors led by Kenneth Skrable from the University of Massachusetts examine the atmospheric trail left by CO2 isotopes and conclude that the amount of CO2 released by fossil fuel burning between 1750 and 2018 was “much too low to be the cause of global warming”.

Three carbon isotopes are found in the atmosphere, 12C, 13C and 14C. The latter is produced by cosmic rays and is in a constant state of activity but the other two are contained in the gas entering the atmosphere. The carbon in living matter has a slightly higher proportion of 12C. Although only about 4% of CO2 entering the atmosphere every year is produced by human activity, it is said very slightly to alter the balance of the other atmospheric isotopes. As a result it is often used as ‘proof’ that rising CO2 levels are primarily the result of fossil fuel burning.

But the Massachusetts team found that claims of the dominance of anthropogenic fossil fuel in the isotope record have involved the ‘misuse’ of 12C and 13C statistics to validate such suggestions. They conclude that the assumption that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is dominated by or equal to the anthropogenic component is “not settled science”.

Furthermore, they go on to state: “Unsupported conclusions of the dominance of the anthropogenic fossil component of CO2 and concerns of its effect on climate change and global warming have severe potential societal implications that press the need for very costly remedial actions that may be misdirected, presently unnecessary, and ineffective in curbing global warming.”


Yet, here we are. And “ignored” by the media? They never saw the light of day. When you’re going as far as controlling people’s thermostats remotely, choosing their mode of transportation when you allow them to travel, and killing their livestock at will, oh, hay-yull, no! No one gets to read anything remotely like those papers from reputable actual scientists (without a ™). Narrative, narrative, narrative whilst crush any and all dissent.

The fellow in this video was fired by Al Gore for basically asking, “Where’s the beef evidence?”

It’s a cabal.

Speaking of mainstream media outlets taking their climate marching orders, I saw the neatest course offering from AFP, the European news bureau today. I am so tempted…


Sounds like me, doesn’t it?

I can see me now, introducing myself in my best Bond voice to all those Bond villains at Davos,


Maybe I could take the course and even make up a Mary Poppins song about it.

I’ll clear it with Ed first.

But I’d better hurry – we only have two weeks left.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on HotAir Videos