Thoughts on economics and liberty

Category: Science

Hundreds of fascist Al Gore’s lies exposed – in great detail. The man is an EXTREME SCOUNDREL.

Now that I have realised (see this) that Al Gore is a vicious fascist intent on deliberately telling lies to confuse people, I checked whether there has been any analysis of his lies. And yes, there has been significant analysis by experts of his lies.

Two extracts, below. This is enough.

SOURCE 1:  Thriving with Nature and Humanity

First, worth noting the fabricated Mann hockey stick graph:

FACT Initially claimed as proof that human activity causes global warming, the ‘Hockey Stick’ temperature graph by Mann et al (1998) is the foundation for Al Gore’s movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ and of the argument that human activity caused global warming. It was used extensively in UN IPCC reports only to subsequently be proved an unscientific fabrication and dropped by the UN IPCC—after the UN IPCC used the graph to foster world-wide the unfounded illusion of rapid, unusual rising of global temperatures.

FACT The graph’s construction bypassed peer review processes and without proof contradicted hundreds of scientists by falsely purporting Earth’s recent temperatures to be far hotter than at any time in the previous 1,000 years. It is a fabrication discredited by scientists worldwide. Many scientists have validated two Canadian statisticians McKitrick and McIntyre in exposing unscientific and error-filled processes used to manipulate data and fabricate the hockey stick graph. Michaels (2005 chapter 2), Singer (2008), McIntyre and McKitrick (2005), Wegman in chapter 2 of the book by Canadian environmentalist Solomon (2008).

FACT Recently, it was confirmed (Jolis, 2009 and McIntyre, 2009b) that the other similar graph by Keith Briffa was fabricated through selective and misleading use of data. With appropriate data selection the purported elevation of recent temperatures disappears.

KATRINA

Katrina was falsely used by the extreme environmental movement as ‘proof’ of global warming. Significantly, Al Gore’s movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ played alarmingly and fearfully on Katrina. Records show previous hurricanes have naturally extended far further into North America, reaching Canada.

BRITISH HIGH COURT’S VIEW

In its ruling, the British High Court (Taylor, in Newswire, 2007) as reported by the BBC and The Heartland Institute, ruled that ‘An Inconvenient Truth is a political work containing numerous factual inaccuracies. Some detailed reports of the ruling claim virtually every assertion Al Gore makes in his movie has been strongly contradicted by sound science.

MARLO LEWIS’S DEMOLITION OF AL GORE’S LIES

Marlo Lewis (2007) provides an outstanding, detailed analysis of the book written by Al Gore and entitled ‘An Inconvenient Truth. The books content is close to that of the movie of the same name. Unlike Al Gores book, Lewis Congressional Working Paper contains 324 references, mostly scientific, including web sites so readers can readily check Lewis’ findings for themselves. Lewis analysis exposes the books 99 duplicitous statements:

  • Wrong statements, false statements 19;
  • Misleading statements 17;
  • Exaggerated statements 10;
  • One sided statements 25; and
  • Speculative statements 28.

Detailed measurement and analysis of Al Gore’s movie

My careful analysis reveals:

  • 234 images of natural and everyday events falsely depicted as unnatural and inferred to be caused by global warming;
  • 71 images and instances of unscientific, unfounded mixing of projections with actual data to imply future climate;
  • 59 instances of comments/images out of context or misrepresenting reality;
  • 74 instances of using the ‘crowd effect’; and,
  • 0 valid data supporting the movies claim that human production of CO2 drives temperature. All this packed with cleverly orchestrated repetition into less than 90 minutes.

Lord Monckton (2007a) has cited 35 serious scientific errors and distortions in ‘An Inconvenient Truth all pointing to invention of a threat that does not exist at all, or exaggerations of phenomena that do exist.

Al Gore claims ice core data showed CO2 drove global temperature increase. Yet in reality, with improved technology enabling finer time resolution of ice cores, the data showed temperature rose 400-800 years before CO2 and drove higher CO2. This emerged in 2003 two years before Al Gores movie was made. Evans (2008b).

Lack of any peer-reviewed data proving human activity causes global warming. None.

Czechoslovakian President Vaclav Klaus (2007) exposes the movies subtle and deliberately deceptive methods and misrepresentations.

SOURCE 2: Essay by Roy Spencer.

One of Gore’s favorite tactics is to show something that happens naturally, then claim (or have you infer) that it is due to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions. As I discuss in the book, this is what he did in his first movie (An Inconvenient Truth), too.

Gore is also shown jumping across meltwater streams on the Greenland ice sheet. No mention is made that this happens naturally every year. The fact that receding glaciers in Alaska are revealing stumps from ancient forests that grew 1,000 to 2,000 years ago proves that climate varies naturally, and glaciers advance and recede without any help from humans.

Some of what Gore claims is just outright false. He says that wheat and corn yields in China are down by 5% in recent decades. Wrong. They have been steadily climbing.

Gore does not consider government subsidies when he talks about the “cost” of renewable energy sometimes being cheaper than fossil fuels. Apparently, he hasn’t heard that the citizens pay the taxes that then support the alternative energy industries which Gore, Elon Musk and others financially benefit from.

I present a powerful case that most of what he presents is, at the very least, very deceptive.

LIES EXPOSED BY MARC MORANO.

Gore sequel claim:  9/11 Memorial Flooding in NYC: The Inconvenient Sequel features video of the 9/11 Memorial in New York City flooding from Hurricane Sandy in 2012. The video clips are used as vindication of Gore’s warning in his first 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth” that NYC was going to flood due to rising sea levels.

Reality Check: First off, scientists have rejected a Sandy/Climate Link. Second, Gore is completely conflating two different events and tricking viewers into thinking he accurately called it.  As Fox News reporter John Stossel explained: “Gore claims ‘the most criticized’ part of the film was his assertion that the 9/11 memorial site would flood. Then, during Hurricane Sandy, it did! But Gore creatively misremembers his own movie. He had claimed the World Trade Center would flood because of a permanent 20-foot sea-level rise. Actual scientists called that nonsense. It would take hundreds of years for such a thing to possibly happen. But since the area flooded, briefly, Gore spins that as confirmation of his exaggerations.”

Statistician Bjorn Lomborg, weighed in: “Gore still trying to scare you into saving the world…Gore’s prescriptions—for New York and the globe—won’t work. He claims the answer to warming lies in agreements to cut carbon that would cost trillions of dollars. That would not have stopped Sandy. What New York really needs is better infrastructure: sea-walls, storm doors for the subway, porous pavement.”

Gore sequel claim: Global warming causing fish to swim in streets of Miami – Gore: “I went down to Miami and saw fish from the ocean swimming in the streets on a sunny day. The same thing was true in Honolulu just two days ago, just from high tides because of the sea level rise now.”  Gore in his sequel and in numerous media interviews hypes the fact that Miami has “fish from the ocean” swimming in “the streets of Miami-Dade and Delray, Ft. Lauderdale.” The film features Gore walking around the flooded streets of Miami wearing big boots.

Reality Check: As Chapter ?? reported, sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended more than 10,000 years ago and there is currently no acceleration in sea level rise. But Gore very cleverly tries to present his “science by anecdote” in his sequel. Instead of showing scientific charts revealing the alleged acceleration of sea levels in Miami due to man-made global warming, Gore instead has a man in the film just say he has lived there all his life and never saw anything like it. That is Al Gore’s version of “scientific truth.” But the scientific data trumps a man’s personal recollection of 40 years ago.

Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer debunked Gore’s claims on Miami and sea level. “One of Gore’s favorite tactics is to show something that happens naturally, then claim (or have you infer) that it is due to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions,” Spencer wrote. “For example, sea level rise. Gore is seen surveying flooded streets in Miami Beach,” Spencer added.

Spencer explained “that flooding is mostly a combination of (1) natural sea level rise (I show there has been no acceleration of sea level rise beyond what was already happening since the 1800s), and (2) satellite-measured sinking of the reclaimed swamps that have been built upon for over 100 years in Miami Beach.”

Spencer concluded: “In other words, Miami Beach was going to have to deal with the increased flooding from their ‘king tides’, with or without carbon dioxide emissions.” “Miami Beach occurs during high tides called ‘king tides,’ due to the alignment of the Earth, sun and moon. For decades they have been getting worse in low-lying areas of Miami Beach where buildings were being built on reclaimed swampland,” Spencer added.

Miami Herald warmist columnist Andres Oppenheimer was not impressed with Gore’s Florida sea level claims. “In his new book, Truth to Power, the Nobel Prize winner projects that the sea level in South Florida will rise by half a foot by 2030, two feet by 2060 and ‘up to seven feet or more’ by 2100,” Oppenheimer wrote. “Most scientists I’ve asked about the future of Miami Beach — full disclosure: I live in a beachfront apartment in Miami Beach — tell me that this city won’t disappear under the water, nor will it become another Venice.”

When UK Spectator journalist Ross Clark challenged Gore about his sea level rise claims in Miami, Gore was not tolerant, abruptly ending their Q and A session.  “As soon as I mention professor [Shimon] Wdowinski [a Miami flooding expert at the Florida International University] name, [Gore] counters: ‘Never heard of him — is he a denier?’ Then, as I continue to make the point, he starts to answer before directing it at me: ‘Are you a denier?’ When I say I am sure that climate change is a problem, but how big a one I don’t know, he jumps in: ‘You are a denier.’ That is a strange interpretation of the word ‘deny’, I try to say. But his PR team moves in and declares ‘Time’s up’, and I am left feeling like the guy in Monty Python who paid for a five-minute argument and was allowed only 30 seconds. On the way out, a frosty PR woman says to me: ‘Can I have a word with you?’ I wasn’t supposed to ask difficult questions, she says, because ‘this is a film junket, to promote the film.’” “You must swallow whole the apocalyptic vision he presents – or else,” wrote Clark.

Gore sequel claim: Greenland is melting away causing dangerous sea level rise – “Greenland, for example, has been losing one cubic kilometer of ice every single day,” Gore said. Gore hypes one warm day in Greenland in 2016 to back up his claims, along with successive images of cyclical melting Greenland ice.

Reality Check: Greenland is not in any threat of melting away. Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer refuted Gore’s Greenland claims. “Gore is also shown jumping across meltwater streams on the Greenland ice sheet. No mention is made that this happens naturally every year,” Spencer wrote. “Sure, 2012 was exceptional for its warmth and snow melt (which he mentioned), but then 2017 came along and did just the opposite with record snow accumulation, little melt, and the coldest temperature ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere for a July,” Spencer added.

“The fact that receding glaciers in Alaska are revealing stumps from ancient forests that grew 1,000 to 2,000 years ago proves that climate varies naturally, and glaciers advance and recede without any help from humans. So, why is your SUV suddenly being blamed when it happens today?” Spencer asked.

Gore sequel claim: The roads are melting due to global warming! – Roads are melting somewhere in the world due to rising temperatures. In his talks promoting his film, Gore features images from India to show how global warming is melting roads.

Reality Check: Australian climate skeptic Jo Nova rebutted Gore’s claims. Nova wrote: India’s “NDTV shows a video where this man’s shoes stick to the hot road and fall off.  Call me a skeptic. I’ve bounded across searing bitumen roads here in Australia, and this man is not behaving as if the pavement is blisteringly hot. Would you put your hand down? Note the “Highlights” in the NDTV story: “Tar on roads melts in Valsad, Gujarat, temperature was only 36 degrees C” ( 96.8F).  Yeah. yeah. That’s ‘body temperature’. Terrifying.”

Nova continued: “Most likely the melting roads are due to sloppy road construction and cheap materials instead of our fossil fuel emissions. Tar was melting at just 40C in India, according to the Times of India, due to ‘improper mixing of bituminous’ materials. ‘According to the UK-based Road Surfaces Treatment Association, most roads will start melting at a temperature of 50 degrees celsius. Roads in the United Arab Emirates are made of special ‘polymer modified binders’ which keep them solid up until around 80 degrees celsius.”

 

Gore sequel claim: Gore claims that wheat and corn yields are down in China by 5% in recent decades.

Reality Check: Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer challenged Gore’s claims. “Some of what Gore claims is just outright false. He says that wheat and corn yields in China are down by 5% in recent decades. Wrong. They have been steadily climbing, just like almost everywhere else in the world,” Spencer wrote.

Gore sequel claim: Renewable energy like solar and wind are cheaper and ready to take over now for fossil fuels.

Reality Check: Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer debunks Gore’s energy claims. “It is obvious that Gore does not consider government subsidies when he talks about the ‘cost’ of renewable energy sometimes being cheaper than fossil fuels. Apparently, he hasn’t heard that the citizens pay the taxes that then support the alternative energy industries which Gore, Elon Musk and others financially benefit from. If and when renewable energy become cost-competitive, it won’t need politicians and pundits like Mr. Gore campaigning for it,” Spencer wrote.

Bjorn Lomborg was blunt about Gore’s renewable energy claims: ‘The global economy is far from ready to replace fossil fuels with solar and wind. The International Energy Agency, in its 2016 World Energy Outlook, found that 0.6% of the world’s energy is supplied by solar and wind. Even with the Paris accord fully implemented, that number would rise only to 3% in a quarter-century,” Lomborg explained.

Continue Reading

Even in 1996 Julian Simon’s sharp mind pierced through the “global warming” fraud – Extract from Ultimate Resource 2

Julian Simon was perhaps the most significant practical economist of the 2nd half of the 20th century. He died too early but left behind significant material that throws light on the litany of scams and hoaxes mankind has gone through.

This portion from his 1996 book, The Ultimate Resource 2 is illuminating. I’ll also scan and OCR other bits as and when I find time.

I should have re-read this portion in 2008 when I started researching “climate change”. Fortunately, the overall teaching of Simon was always in my mind so I was able to take a very critical approach to this issue and arrived at precisely his conclusion – that this whole thing needs to be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

===SIMON===

Global Warming

Along with acid rain and the ozone hole (addressed below), the supposed greenhouse effect and global warming must be mentioned in this book because it is so salient in public thinking. I am not an atmospheric scientist, and I cannot address the technical issues. I can, however, try to put these issues in reasonable perspective.

Given the history of such environmental scares—over all of human history—my guess is that global warming is likely to be simply another transient concern, barely worthy of consideration ten years from now should I then be writing again of these issues. After all, when I first addressed environmental matters in the late 1960s and 1970s, the climatological issue of major public concern was still global cooling. These quotations collected by Anna Bray illustrate the prevailing thinking about climate in the early 1970s, only a decade before the hooha about warming began in earnest.61

[Climatologist J. Murray Mitchell, then of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, noted in 1976: “The media are having a lot of fun with this situation.
Whenever there is a cold wave, they seek out a proponent of the ice-age-is-coming school and put his theories on page one. . . . Whenever there is a heat wave . . . they turn to his opposite number, [who predicts] a kind of heat death of the earth.”

The cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor nations. It has already made food and fuel more precious, thus increasing the price of everything we buy. If it continues, and no strong measures are taken to deal with it, the cooling will cause world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come by the year 2000. (Lowell Ponte, The Cooling, 1976)

The facts have emerged, in recent years and months, from research into past ice ages. They imply that the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind. (Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist and producer of scientific television documentaries, “In the Grip of a New Ice Age,” International Wildlife, July 1975)

At this point, the world’s climatologists are agreed. . . . Once the freeze starts, it will be too late. (Douglas Colligan, “Brace Yourself for Another Ice Age,” Science Digest, February 1973)

I believe that increasing global air pollution, through its effect on the reflectivity of the earth, is currently dominant and is responsible for the temperature decline of the past decade or two. (Reid Bryson, “Environmental Roulette,” Global Ecology: Readings Toward a Rational Strategy for Man, John P Holdren and Paul R. Ehrlich, eds., 1971)

Bryson went so far as to tell the New York Times that, compared to the then-recent “decade or two” of cooling, “there appears to be nothing like it in the past 1,000 years,” implying that cooling was inevitable.62

Indeed, many of the same persons who were then warning about global cooling are the same climatologists who are now warning of global warming—especially Stephen Schneider, one of the most prominent of the global-warming doomsters.*

It is interesting to reflect on the judgments that would be made in (say) 1996 of past decisions if the world had followed the advice of the climatologists only two decades years earlier who then urged the world to take immediate steps to head off the supposed cooling threat. Should we not be glad that

* When described as a former advocate of the cooling view by George Will (Washington Post, September 7, 1992, op-ed page) and Richard Lindzen (Regulation, vol. 15, no. 2), Schneider violently denied it. He referred to Will’s assertion as “false and possibly malicious” (Washington Post, September 26, 1991, A19) and objected to Lindzen’s statement in a strong “personal note” (Regulation, Summer 1992, p. 2), in both places asserting that his earlier book was “relatively neutral” on the subject. Therefore it behooves me to quote this summary from that earlier book in the section entitled “What Does It All Mean?” (1976, p. 90): “I have cited many examples of recent climatic variability and repeated the warnings of several well-known climatologists that a cooling trend has set in—perhaps one akin to the Little Ice Age—and that climatic variability, which is the bane of reliable food production, can be expected to increase along witht he cooling.” There is no qualification or rebuttal in the following text.

governments did not listen to the anti-cooling advice they were given in the 1970s? And therefore, is it reasonable now to trust the forecasts of those very scientists who have been systematically wrong in every doomsaying prediction that they have made—as is true of the environmental spokespersons of the past two decades, who are up in arms about global warming?

Curiously, within days after I first wrote the above paragraph, there appeared a newspaper story entitled “Volcano Reverses Global Warming: Scientists Expect Mean Temperature to Drop 1 Degree over 2-4 Years.”63 The event in question was the eruption in June 1991, of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines. Then within a few days more there appeared a scholarly article finding that smoke particles may lead to cooling rather than warming, as had previously been assumed.’ Or do I have it backwards? No matter.

Whether the climate models will be right about Mount Pinatubo or not, and about the cooling effect of smoke particles, is in question, of course. The problem here, as with the global warming issue generally, is that our planet contains many forces about which we as yet know very little, and which we can predict little if at all—for example, volcano eruptions. It is an act of hubris and great imprudence to proceed as if we know much more than we do when a single article in a single journal can undermine our basic conclusions.

All that can be done within the scope of the available space and of my nonexpert’s knowledge is to give the following quick list of propositions about the issue.65 Before the “concerned” reader concludes that the following treatment is simply a whitewash, it would be fair to examine the state of one’s own knowledge on the subject—what you know about technical facts, and the sources of the supposed information. The basis of most people’s thoughts on the subject is simply general newspaper stories that assert that a problem exists. (In the following summary of the facts I rely heavily on Balling’s book.)

1. All climatologists agree that dire has been an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in recent decades. But there is great disagreement about the implications (if any) of the CO2 trend for global temperature. In the late 1980s the range of thinking ran from those who believed that there will be warming of up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the next mid-century to those who argued that the evidence is so mixed that one cannot predict any warming at all; by 1994, the range had come down somewhat at the top, but there is still great disagreement.

2. Even those who predict warming agree that any likely warming would not be great relative to year-to-year variability, and would be swamped by long-run natural variability over the millennia.

The high-end-estimate climatologists have also scaled back their estimates of a possible rise in sea level (due to glacial and polar ice melting) from several feet to at most a few inches.

3. Those who foresee warming rely heavily on computer simulation models. Many of those who foresee little or no warming rely on the temperature data for the
past century. And many of the skeptics of global warming believe that the simulation models lack solid theoretical basis and are built on shaky ad hoc assumptions. Skeptics also point to the absence of correlation between past carbon dioxide buildup and the temperature record.

4. Even if warming will occur, it is likely to be uneven in time and place. More of the effect would be at night than day, more in the low-sun season and less in the high-sun season, and more in the arctic regions than in the tropical parts of the world. It should be noted that these effects are less unwelcome than if the effects were in the opposite parts of the daily cycle and the planet’s geography

5. If there is warming, it will occur over many decades, during which period there will be much time for economic and technical adjustment.

6. Any necessary adjustments would be small relative to the adjustments that we make during the year to temperature differences where we reside and as we travel. A trip from New York to Philadelphia, or spring coming a day or two earlier than usual, is not very different than the temperature gradient for any likely warming within the next century

7. The necessary adjustments would be far, far smaller than the effects of the advent of air conditioning in any of the places in this world where that device commonly is found. The alterations that air conditioning—let alone central heating—make in the environment in which we spend our hours dwarf any alterations required by any conceivable global warming.

8. If there is warming, and if one is worried about it, the clear policy implication would be the substitution of nuclear fission for the burning of fossil fuels. This would have other benefits as well, of course, especially the lives saved from air pollution and coal mining. [Sanjeev: Of course, this is one thing the climate fascists don’t want]

Does this calm assessment differ from the impression you get from the news? One can gauge the effectiveness of the mass media in creating public opinion on global warming and other doomsday subjects by the increase in just a single year in the proportion of the public that were “aware of the global warming issue”—from 59 percent in 1988 to 79 percent in 1989.66 There is no way that individuals can measure for themselves the extent of global warming. Hence their thinking is labile and easily influenced by television and newspapers. Then the politicians and the environmental activists who give scare stories to the press cite public opinion as a reason to change public policy.

Assessing global warming seems more and more like assessing the likely availability of raw materials: every alarm about scarcity has been a case of speculative theory not fitted to the historical data. The alarm about greenhouse warming seems to come from those who pay attention only to various theoretical models—just as the alarm about global cooling came only from theoretical models in the 1970s (and from some of the same persons who were alarmed then)—whereas those who focus on the historical temperature record seem unconvinced that there have been unusual changes and are quite un-worried about the future. With respect to natural resources, the conclusion is inescapable that those who have believed the historical record have been correct, and those who have believed theories without checking them against the record have been in error. Is it not likely that this will be the case with global warming, too?’

Continue Reading

List of climate scientists to study

Nature journal has done us a favour by creating a list of the most influential climate scientists (as opposed to the climate deniers who are part of IPCC). I had not heard of James Inhofe or Rick Perry, and many others. Now I’ll start paying attention to them as well. People whose work I’m familiar with are in blue, below.

[For those not aware of this fiasco by Nature, see this Nature article, and its discussion here].

  1. MARC MORANO
  2. JAMES INHOFE
  3. RICK PERRY
  4. JUDITH CURRY
  5. ROY SPENCER
  6. RICHARD LINDZEN
  7. CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON
  8. LAMAR SMITH
  9. BJORN LOMBORG
  10. JOHN CHRISTY
  11. WILLIE SOON
  12. ANTHONY WATTS
  13. ROGER PIELKE JR
  14. FRED SINGER
  15. PATRICK MICHAELS
  16. REX TILLERSON
  17. BOB CARTER
  18. DAVID ROSE
  19. MICHAEL FOX
  20. STEVE MCINTYRE
  21. MYRON EBELL
  22. MARK STEYN
  23. JAMES TAYLOR
  24. ROBERT DAVIS
  25. DAVID DOUGLAS
  26. KENNETH GREEN
  27. JAMES DELINGPOLE
  28. EDWARD DAVID
  29. TOM HARRIS
  30. ROBERT BRADLEY
  31. RICHARD TOL
  32. HARRISON SCHMITT
  33. DON EASTERBROOK
  34. MAURICE NEWMAN
  35. MIKE PENCE
  36. GEORGE ALLEN
  37. MATT RIDLEY
  38. NIGEL LAWSON
  39. FREEMAN DYSON
  40. STEVEN HAYWARD
  41. ROSS MCKITRICK
  42. JOHN COLEMAN
  43. JOHN CHARLES
  44. TIM BALL
  45. MALCOLM ROBERTS
  46. JOSEPH BAST
  47. CHRIS HORNER
  48. DAVID LEGATES
  49. PATRICK MOORE
  50. BENNY PEISER
  51. IAN PLIMER
  52. CRAIG IDSO
  53. DAVID KREUTZER
  54. CHIP KNAPPENBERGER
  55. ANDREW BOLT
  56. WILLIAM HAPPER
  57. DAVID EVANS
  58. ROGER PIELKE SR
  59. SCOTT PRUITT
  60. CHRISTOPHER BOOKER
  61. SALLIE BALIUNAS
  62. HENRIK SVENSMARK
  63. JOE BASTARDI
  64. DANA ROHRABACHER
  65. MARLO LEWIS
  66. STEVE MILLOY
  67. STERLING BURNETT
  68. DAVID WHITEHOUSE
  69. RONALD BAILEY
  70. CHRIS DE FREITAS
  71. MICHAEL KELLY
  72. WILLIAM KININMONTH
  73. VACLAV KLAUS
  74. PAUL DRIESSEN
  75. DONNA LAFRAMBOISE
  76. ART ROBINSON
  77. SCOTT ARMSTRONG
  78. WILLIAM GRAY
  79. ROBERT FERGUSON
  80. LARRY BELL
  81. ROBERT BALLING
  82. GEORGE TAYLOR
  83. VINCENT GRAY
  84. ANDREW MONTFORD
  85. PIERS CORBYN
  86. LAWRENCE SOLOMON
  87. STEVE GOREHAM
  88. ROBERT MICHAELS
  89. IVAR GIAEVER
  90. NIR SHAVIV
  91. ALEX EPSTEIN
  92. INDUR GOKLANY
  93. JIM MARTIN
  94. STEVEN GODDARD
  95. MADHAV KHANDEKAR
  96. NICK MINCHIN
  97. JOHN HINDERAKER
  98. ROGER HELMER
  99. JOANNE NOVA
  100. FRITZ VAHRENHOLT
  101. CALVIN BEISNER
  102. TIM PHILLIPS
  103. JIM SENSENBRENNER
  104. JENNIFER MAROHASY
  105. RUDY GIULIANI
  106. TIMOTHY PATTERSON
  107. GARTH PALTRIDGE
  108. SEBASTIAN LUNING
  109. DAVID WOJICK
  110. WILLIAM BRIGGS
  111. JAN ERIK SOLHEIM
  112. ROBERT GORDON
  113. CHRISTOPHER ESSEX
  114. JACK GERARD
  115. DENNIS AVERY
  116. ALAN CARLIN
  117. PHELIM MCALEER
  118. DAVID HENDERSON
  119. RICHARD COURTNEY
  120. CORY BERNARDI
  121. ROBERT BRYCE
  122. NICOLA SCAFETTA
  123. JOHN STOSSEL
  124. RUPERT DARWALL
  125. RON ARNOLD
  126. WILLIAM ALEXANDER
  127. JAY LEHR
  128. ROBERT MENDELSOHN
  129. KESTEN GREEN
  130. SHERWOOD IDSO
  131. RUSSELL COOK
  132. PAUL CHESSER
  133. DAVID BELLAMY
  134. GARY SHARP
  135. ROGER COHEN
  136. ROBERT MURPHY
  137. DAVID ARCHIBALD
  138. CRAIG RUCKER
  139. VIV FORBES
  140. IAN CLARK
  141. SYUN ICHI AKASOFU
  142. GEORGE CHRISTENSEN
  143. FREDERICK SEITZ
  144. EDWARD WEGMAN
  145. IAIN MURRAY
  146. WILLIS ESCHENBACH
  147. WALTER CUNNINGHAM
  148. ART POPE
  149. STEWART FRANKS
  150. SONJA BOEHMER CHRISTIANSEN
  151. MITCHELL TAYLOR
  152. CRAIG LOEHLE
  153. GRAHAM SMITH
  154. GARY ENGLAND
  155. ANN MCELHINNEY
  156. MARITA NOON
  157. CHRIS LANDSEA
  158. BENJAMIN ZYCHER
  159. PAUL REITER
  160. DAN LEWIS
  161. SCOTT DENNING
  162. LEIGHTON STEWARD
  163. FRED GOLDBERG
  164. BRYAN LEYLAND
  165. ALBERT JACOBS
  166. RICHARD KEEN
  167. NILS AXEL MORNER
  168. ANTHONY LUPO
  169. JACK BARRETT
  170. HOWARD HAYDEN
  171. KIMINORI ITOH
  172. DAVID SCHNARE
  173. CLAUDE ALLEGRE
  174. ART HORN
  175. SAM KAZMAN
  176. JOSEPH CLARK
  177. JOHN DALE DUNN
  178. GEORGE KUKLA
  179. BEN LIEBERMAN
  180. TODD MYERS
  181. SUSAN CROCKFORD
  182. NIGEL CALDER
  183. JULIAN MORRIS
  184. GERRIT VAN DER LINGEN
  185. CLIFF OLLIER
  186. RAY EVANS
  187. NORMAN ROGERS
  188. BURT RUTAN
  189. BRIAN SUSSMAN
  190. MIKE NOEL
  191. LEWIS PAGE
  192. LEE GERHARD
  193. DAVID DEMING
  194. TOM MCCLINTOCK
  195. JOHN O’SULLIVAN
  196. TERRY DUNLEAVY
  197. REID BRYSON
  198. JOSEPH D’ALEO
  199. HENDRIK TENNEKES
  200. TODD WYNN
  201. PETR CHYLEK
  202. JAN VEIZER
  203. HABIBULLO ABDUSSAMATOV
  204. EIGIL CHRISTENSEN
  205. JAMES O’BRIEN
  206. DAVID TUERCK
  207. TOM SEGALSTAD
  208. RODNEY NICHOLS
  209. JEFF CONDON
  210. HANS LABOHM
  211. EZRA LEVANT
  212. ANDREI ILLARIONOV
  213. ZBIGNIEW JAWOROWSKI
  214. LAURENCE GOULD
  215. JOEL SCHWARTZ
  216. JAMES MCGRATH
  217. DOUGLAS HOYT
  218. DANIEL SIMMONS
  219. PETER FERRARA
  220. JOHN SHADE
  221. JOHN DROZ
  222. JAN BRESLOW
  223. GERRIT VAN KOOTEN
  224. CHARLES BATTIG
  225. BOB FOSTER
  226. ANTHONY SADAR
  227. YURI IZRAEL
  228. ROY CLARK
  229. OWEN MCSHANE
  230. KEN HAAPALA
  231. GERD RAINER WEBER
  232. STEVE BANNON
  233. STANLEY GOLDENBERG
  234. JEFF KUETER
  235. DAVID BOWEN
  236. ROY INNIS
  237. RALPH ALEXANDER
  238. PETER DIETZE
  239. KILEZ MORE
  240. KEVIN DAYARATNA
  241. ISAAC ORR
  242. RICHARD FINK
  243. KENDRA OKONSKI
  244. HAROLD DOIRON
  245. GRAEME SWINDLES
  246. FRANK CLEMENTE
  247. DAN GAINOR
  248. WILLIAM COTTON
  249. WIBJORN KARLEN
  250. PAUL COPPER
  251. MICHAEL LIMBURG
  252. GREGG EASTERBROOK
  253. BARRY BRILL
  254. WILLIAM KAY
  255. VINCENT COURTILLOT
  256. TAD MURTY
  257. KEITH IDSO
  258. JOANNE SIMPSON
  259. JIM JOHNSTON
  260. JAMES SPANN
  261. FERENC MISKOLCZI
  262. BRIAN VALENTINE
  263. BOB ARMSTRONG
  264. WILLEM DE LANGE
  265. OLAVI KARNER
  266. KEITH LOCKITCH
  267. HUGH ELLSAESSER
  268. FRED MICHEL
  269. ARTHUR RORSCH
  270. TOM TANTON
  271. THOMAS WYSMULLER
  272. RUSSELL SEITZ
  273. MIKLOS ZAGONI
  274. MICHAEL ECONOMIDES
  275. KEITH HAGE
  276. JOEL WOOD
  277. GERALD MARSH
  278. DONALD RAPP
  279. BONNER COHEN
  280. TERRENCE FLOWER
  281. ROY CORDATO
  282. ROGER TATTERSALL
  283. ROBERT ESSENHIGH
  284. MICK MULVANEY
  285. MICHAEL JUNGBAUER
  286. JOHN H SUNUNU
  287. JAMES PEDEN
  288. HOWARD MACCABEE
  289. GABRIEL CALZADA
  290. DONN DEARS
  291. CLAES JOHNSON
  292. ANTONINO ZICHICHI
  293. VIJAY KUMAR RAINA
  294. RANDY SIMMONS
  295. LEON LOUW
  296. JOHN HUMPHREYS
  297. HARRY PRIEM
  298. GERHARD GERLICH
  299. FRIEDRICH KARL EWERT
  300. DENNIS HEDKE
  301. UTZ TILLMANN
  302. ROB SCAGEL
  303. RICHARD RAHN
  304. PAUL WAGGONER
  305. NIGER INNIS
  306. MIKE CATANZARO
  307. MARCUS ERNST
  308. HELEN ROE
  309. GEOFFREY DUFFY
  310. BORIS WINTERHALTER
  311. ASMUNN MOENE
  312. VICTOR MANUEL VELASCO HERRERA
  313. REBEKAH MERCER
  314. PAMELA GORMAN
  315. MARY HUTZLER
  316. JOHN NOTHDURFT
  317. JOE FONE
  318. JEROME ARNETT
  319. JAMES WANLISS
  320. HENRI MASSON
  321. FRANCO BATTAGLIA
  322. EVELYN BROWNING GARRISS
  323. DOUGLAS LEAHEY
  324. DOUG DOMENECH
  325. DAVID PADDEN
  326. BARUN MITRA
  327. ARUN AHLUWALIA
  328. ANDREAS PROKOPH
  329. AL PEKAREK
  330. ALEXANDRE AGUIAR
  331. WOLFGANG MULLER
  332. WERNER WEBER
  333. TOMASZ TELUK
  334. ROGER BEZDEK
  335. ROBERT SHOUP
  336. JOSEF REICHHOLF
  337. JAMES ENSTROM
  338. GORDON SWATERS
  339. FRANCISCO CAPELLA
  340. DONALD BOUDREAUX
  341. CARLO STAGNARO
  342. BRUNO WISKEL
  343. BECKY NORTON DUNLOP
  344. AUGUST AUER
  345. ANTON URIARTE
  346. NATHALIE ELGRABLY LEVY
  347. MARTIN HOVLAND
  348. KEN MALLOY
  349. JOSEPH CONKLIN
  350. HORST JOACHIM LUDECKE
  351. HOLGER THUSS
  352. DON KEILLER
  353. BRUCE EVERETT
  354. BO NORDELL
  355. BETTE GRANDE
  356. AVRIL TERRI JACKSON
  357. ARTHUR MIDDLETON HUGHES
  358. ALISTER MCFARQUHAR
  359. ALEX FITZSIMMONS
  360. ALEXANDRA LIDDY BOURNE
  361. ALAN MOGHISSI
  362. WALTER FETT
  363. SÖREN FLODERUS
  364. SAMUELE FURFARI
  365. RONALD RYCHLAK
  366. RICHARD TRZUPEK
  367. REYNALD DU BERGER
  368. PAAVO SIITAM
  369. MICHELLE MICHOT FOSS
  370. MICHAEL GOETZ
  371. KLAUS ANGERER
  372. JOHN LOEFFLER
  373. JIM PUPLAVA
  374. JACOB NORDANGARD
  375. HUBBEL RELAT
  376. HELMUT ALT
  377. GUNTER EDERER
  378. GERTRUD HOHLER
  379. GERNOT PATZELT
  380. DOUGLAS SOUTHGATE
  381. DONALD HERTZMARK
  382. DANIEL SUTTER
  383. CARL RIBBING
  384. AUGUSTO MANGINI
  385. ANNE DEBEIL
  386. AARON STOVER
Continue Reading

If you deny these climate science charts, YOU are the CLIMATE DENIER

 

 

 

 

 

 

Continue Reading