Can comedy be used to inspire true political change? That is to say, can a simple comedian be dangerous to the status quo or political ruling class? The answer to this question is a resounding “yes!”
Controversial French comic Dieudonné M’Bala M’Bala has been rattling the cages of the political establishment of France for the better part of a decade with various sketch comedy routines and monologues. His defiant, politically incorrect satire highlighting the African slave trade and the Jewish experience during WW2 has resonated with disaffected youths and minorities, while offending a certain coterie of France’s most powerful Jews. Dieudonné’s performances have prompted World Jewish Congress head Ronald Lauder to call on the French government to disrupt his ability to generate an income and shut his performances down for good.
While much has been already been written about the embattled comic, most Americans may be unaware as to exactly what was said that caused this hysterical response from the Jewish media establishment across the Western world. Readers looking to get a sampling of Dieudonné’s act should watch his one-man performance, “Mahmoud,” which is a nod to former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, currently available on YouTube with English subtitles.
In Mahmoud, Dieudonné admits his frustration with Hollywood’s constant portrayal of the “the crying Jew in pajamas, begging for a slice of bread.” He explains that he wants Hollywood to portray more of the Jews that we don’t see very often; “the Rambo Jew,” the Jewish terrorist that shoots up a ship full of peace activists, white collar criminals like “the Madoff Jew,” and child sexual predators like the “Polanski Jew,” along with Woody Allen and Jeffrey Epstein.
For addressing these disturbing facts and eliciting laughter from his audience all over France, Dieudonné has been branded a racist, a hate criminal by Jewish media and banned from performing throughout France. Download or have a listen to an interesting mp3 podcast on the Dieudonné controversy.
While there are a few comedians on the stand-up circuit who may dabble in politics and politically incorrect humor, the arena of political comedy in America is tame in comparison to the satire of Dieudonné. Take Jewish name-changer John Stewart (born Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz) for instance, who is currently America’s top political satirist. Stewart has had an extremely successful career lampooning mainstream media outlets and various politicians from both the left and right. His well developed shtick is pointing out the absurd in global politics, presenting current events in an amusing, yet seemingly truthful fashion, and often pretending to be a sort of opposition to the status quo.
His brother, Lawrence Leibowitz, is currently Chief Operating Officer of NYSE Euronext. If you need any more evidence that Stewart is a true insider, consider all the times that he’s used his program his platform to allow various politicians and policymakers to defend their decisions to destroy Iraq in 2003. Stewart’s uses the particularly simple yet effective tactic of taking extremely serious issues and presenting them jokes to his gullible liberal viewers. In the process, all Stewart has to do is to make a funny face and criminal malfeasance, treason and and war crimes are reduced to mere incompetence by the government and the crowd eats it up. Jon Stewart like his brother on Wall Street, is an operative and a sickening individual.
The rest of America’s political comedy comes from Saturday Night Live, the likes of radio shock jock Howard Stern and the fake independent, super liberal Bill Maher, who donated a $1 millions dollars to a superPAC supporting President Obama’s re-election. In truth, America’s entire upper echelon of the comedy industry is predominately Jewish, and has been for many years as noted in the 2013 documentary “When Comedy Went to School.”
Download or have a listen to this mp3 podcast to learn more about how comedians like Sarah Silverman, Adam Sandler, Jerry Seinfeld, and Larry David have given us our humor and help shape America’s cultural landscape.
Part of Dieudonné’s appeal with the youth of France appears to be a gesture he created called “the quenelle,” of which loosely translates in English as “up yours, about this far.” Dieudonné’s original intention of the gesture is said to be anti-establishment in its meaning, however that hasn’t stopped the people from using the quenelle in scenarios ranging from the hilarious, to situations which many Jews and philosemites consider to be vile and tasteless.
The most famous use of the quenelle was made in at the end of December 2013 by Nicolas Anelka, a black French soccer player who plays for West Brom, a premier league team in the UK. Anelka made the gesture in front of thousands of live spectators after scoring a goal, and he said that his gesture was a special dedication to his friend Dieudonne. This enraged the Jews, and Jewish sponsors have put pressure on West Brom and the Football Association (FA) to have Anelka severely punished for his transgression.
Around the same time that Anelka made the infamous gesture , French media published photos of France’s interior minister, Manuel Valls, posing with a group of students who were making the quenelle. As the hilarious photo made it into English news outlets, journalists were unable to convey the photo’s humor to its readers. The photo was spun into a “shame-shame” political correctness issue and bundled along side the attack on Anelka and Dieudonné. The fact that the smiling interior minister was unknowingly the butt of an inside joke likely fueled Valls intense efforts to ban Dieudonné’s routines the following month.
Across France, the political, economic and societal landscape threatens to rapidly unwind and bring with it the violence and turmoil that visited Paris in 2005, and then again in 2007. Tens of thousands of protests regularly take to the streets of Paris, voicing their displeasure on issues such as gay marriage, théorie du genre or gender theory, and their president François Hollande. One recent mass protest against Hollande included a faction of Dieudonné supporters and others shouting slogans such as “Juif casse-toi, la France n’est pas a toi” (“Jews you flaws, France is not yours”), “Juif! Juif! Juif! Juif!” (“Jews! Jews! Jews! Jews!”), “Juif, Licra: on n’en veut pas” (“Jews, Licra: We don’t want you”), “Juif, hors de France” (“Jews, out of France”) and “Faurisson a raison! Chambres á gaz c’est du bidon” (“Faurisson’s right! Gas chambers are bullshit”).
There is every indication that an uncontrolled resistance movement is growing in France and the Jewish establishment, along with their unpopular puppet Hollande, have got to be feeling powerless as to how to stop it from spreading across Europe and beyond. Although the quenelle is a seemingly insignificant part of this uprising, world Jewry knows that containing the quenelle is key to containing the popular uprising.
Back in the US, economic conditions and the many corrupt elected officials have made politically aware adults just as angry and disgusted as the French, but Americans are demoralized, off-balance and seem to be affected with a certain of hopelessness. Adults who are not politically aware are trapped inside of the broadcast media’s mind-warping womb of non-stop distractions; their soft minds nourished by hyper-sexual titillation, violence and mindless sports .
A recent study by McAfee revealed that 50% of Americans have used their smartphones to send sexually suggestive photos, and risqué e-mails and text messages. Reports and warnings of the NSA spying on all phone and internet communications is not likely to stop this casual obsession. Since upcoming generations have grown less susceptible to media lies and propaganda thanks to the Internet, it could be argued that hope in overturning the current system lies with the youth of America. The youth in general are however, mostly a national embarrassment. Many teenagers and young adults, especially females, seem to have developed an alarming pre-occupation with their rear ends, and they spend a considerable amount of time and energy “twerking,” posting “selfies” and pictures of their buttocks on social networks.
Aside from the cultural rot, Americans are also too divided along the racial and political divides. For example, conservative French and the nationalist types, who are normally ideological opposed to Muslims and African immigrants, seem to be smart enough to put their differences aside and find enough common ground to protest together on certain cultural issues. After the 2008 financial crisis, Americans on the left and the right couldn’t even come together to protest about the looting of the economy by the Jewish plutocrats of Goldman Sachs. There were two opportunities in fact, for Americans to come together over the issue of the economy. In 2009, conservative and libertarian types rose up to protest mostly corruption on Wall Street along the Affordable Care Act, another economic issue, but the left did not. Liberal media outlets like the Huffington Post and MSNBC were quick to label the Tea Party protesters as racists and bigots who just hated having a non-White president. Likewise, during the Occupy Wall Street protests of 2011, fake opposition news front, FOX News portrayed all protesters as dirty hippies, lazy hipsters and Che Guevara worshiping Communists and many conservatives appeared to avoid the demonstrations.
During the height of the Occupy protests, political commentator and radio broadcaster Mark Dankof, appeared on Iran’s Press TV along with Sara Flounders and Debra Sweet, two activists who claimed to speak for the entire Occupy Wall Street movement. Dankof argued that there was a certain dialog that was absent from the narrative being put forth by the protestors and the movement’s leaders. Dankof went on to highlight the thirty-plus Pro-Israel political action committees, along with the policies of the Federal Reserve and other Jewish banking institutions and their role in helping bring down the US to the state in which it exists.
The women denied that America’s economic woes had anything to do with the Israeli political wing of the organized Jewish community, and much like Dieudonné, the Occupy activists tried to dismiss Dankof as “racist, anti-Semitic, and divisive.” Mr. Dankof would never be invited on any mainstream radio station or television program in US to say what he said on Press TV. The irony is that he endured the same attacks for opposing Wall Street corruption by the very people claiming to be the opposition to Wall Street corruption is astounding and underscores an important point.
In a nutshell, the exchange on Press TV describes the rather simple dilemma that Americans face; the inability to name the true enemy without facing ridicule by their peers, and the inability to put minor ideological differences aside. A simple gesture has the ability to completely override the political divide and anti-free speech policies that cause self-censorship in our society. Viva la quenelle!
I have to admit that I almost fell for this, and I was about to post this article about scientists admitting that global warming was a fraud over at Current.com, Al Gore’s website, until I noticed that it was still April Fools day.
The Christian Science Monitor reported that a press release from the committee from Rajendra Pachauri, the UN climate panel’s chair, stated that he was the victim of a “cunning deception spanning decades”. When you click on the source you then realized that you’ve just been “rickrolled” (ha ha very funny) and the joke’s on you. Or is it?
I am not a scientist, and I admit that for a while that had fallen hook line and sinker for the propaganda that humans cause global warming until I took a look at both sides of the argument. And since I cannot prove conclusively that man has causes so called global warming (and neither can the scientists), I leave it up to people who can back up their claims with relevant evidence. I got the information below from a plusaf, a member from Current.com. Again, I do not claim that this information is 100% accurate, but it has not yet been debunked on Current and debunkers are welcomed to post their rebuttals here.
The IPCC’s failure of predicting the temperature change during the first decade…
“The chart … shows the general trend since the end of the little ice age, with the normal “multi-decadal” oscillation superimposed. The green arrow shows where we are now.
The multi-decadal oscillation is caused by a combination of factors related to the Sun. Most important driver is the Sunspot cycle. Orbital dynamics is also a factor.”
You see, yes, there is an uptrend, but no, it’s not a straight line, because there are multiple driving factors.
Look again for the green arrow and the red dot: “YOU ARE HERE.”
And yes, there’s been global warming in the past, but that’s the danger in extrapolating into the future from the “average slope” of the history….
From this graph, it’s darned easy to show that we’re on the downslope [ie, cooling trend slope] of an overall uptrend.
Even the overall trend is only a half degree 90 years from now, and cycles are expected to continue, but the deviations from the slope appear cyclical, and to deny that is to …. well, in the end, make yourself look kinda silly.
Ok, denier-deniers and gore-apologists, start your attacks… feel free.
The chart above shows the recent (200 year) history of CO2 measures. The ones circled are the ones used in the UN IPCC report. When they cherry picked the data and then applied exponential weighting, it produced the hockey stick graph that Al Gore used in the movie. Exponential weighting will produce a hockey stick graph from random data. Actual trend is slightly down. “Early CO2 data ‘cherry-picked’ to prove humanity was causing a massive increase. (Tim Ball, Univ of Winnipeg climate scientist)”
And on the subject of Obama’s ludicrous notion that global warming is a threat to national security:
Few challenges facing America and the world are less urgent than combating the non-problem of “global warming”.
On all measures, there has been no increase in global mean surface temperatures since 1995; and, according to the University of Alabama at Huntsville, near-surface temperatures in 2008 will be lower than in 1980, 28 years ago, the first complete year of satellite observations. On all measures, global temperatures have been falling for seven full years since late 2001. The January-to-January fall in temperatures between 2007 and 2008 was the greatest since global temperature records were first compiled in 1880, 128 years ago. The rate of new Arctic sea-ice formation in mid-October 2008 was among the fastest since satellite records began almost 30 years ago. There has been no decline whatsoever in the total global extent of sea ice since satellite records began. New records for the extent of northern-hemisphere snow cover were observed by the satellites in the winter of 2001 and again in 2007. This year, many ski resorts are opening early as Arctic weather strikes. Many temperature stations in the northern hemisphere recorded record low temperatures in October/November 2008.
“Global warming” does not, cannot, and will not represent the slightest threat to the national security of the United States. On this too, Obama is not correct. Not only has the planet not warmed for 13 years (or perhaps even for 28 years): even if it were to warm as much as the UN imagines, the consequences would not be as severe as Obama and others have suggested. For instance, the UN projects that global temperatures will rise by 3.3 Celsius at doubling of CO2 concentration: however, much of that increase in concentration and in temperatures has already occurred over the past century, and sea levels rose by just 8 inches. The UN expects sea level in the 21st century to rise by just 1ft 5in. It is also generally accepted that even a global temperature increase of 2 Celsius would not harm agriculture: indeed, it would be likely to increase agricultural and forestry yields. A temperature increase of more than 2 Celsius as a result of increasing CO2 concentration is highly unlikely, and is founded upon mere speculation by the UN’s climate panel. Even if such a temperature increase were to occur, it would be largely harmless and beneficial.
Global warming skeptics linked with Holocaust denial
Climate ‘denial’ is know a mental disorder
Carbon the currency of a new world order
UK evironmental minister plans carbon trading ‘credit cards’ for everyone
Obama’s Nightmare “Green Agenda” Officially Unveiled
Obama’s New World Order Part 3: The War On Global Warming
‘Greens’ movement may have darker agenda
The Obama Deception: About the film
The Obama Deception is a hard-hitting film that completely destroys the myth that Barack Obama is working for the best interests of the American people.
The Obama phenomenon is a hoax carefully crafted by the captains of the New World Order. He is being pushed as savior in an attempt to con the American people into accepting global slavery.
We have reached a critical juncture in the New World Order plans. It’s not about Left or Right: it’s about a One World Government. The international banks plan to loot the people of the United States and turn them into slaves on a Global Plantation.
Covered in this film: who Obama works for, what lies he has told, and his real agenda. If you want to know the facts and cut through all the hype, this is the film for you.
Watch the Obama Deception and learn how:
- Obama is continuing the process of transforming America into something that resembles Nazi Germany, with forced National Service, domestic civilian spies, warrantless wiretaps, the destruction of the Second Amendment, FEMA camps and Martial Law.
- Obama’s handlers are openly announcing the creation of a new Bank of the World that will dominate every nation on earth through carbon taxes and military force.
- International bankers purposefully engineered the worldwide financial meltdown to bankrupt the nations of the planet and bring in World Government.
- Obama plans to loot the middle class, destroy pensions and federalize the states so that the population is completely dependent on the Central Government.
- The Elite are using Obama to pacify the public so they can usher in the North American Union by stealth, launch a new Cold War and continue the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The information contained in this film is vital to the future of the Republic and to freedom worldwide. President Barack Obama is only the tool of a larger agenda.
To purchase a copy click here
My review forthcoming…
Could environmental education be crossing into environmental indoctrination? Some critics say yes, as schools boast that such curricula simply is teaching children ways of caring for the earth.
Being a “good” student at Western Avenue Elementary School in Flossmoor, Ill., means more than just doing reading, writing and arithmetic well. It also means trying to save the planet.
“It’s really important to help the earth and save the polar bears,” 9-year-old Duree Everett said, as she colored a “go green” sign at her desk.
The students are taking part in what’s called “National Green Week,” organized by the Green Education Foundation. Schools across the country are encouraged to teach children about recycling, global warming and carbon footprints.
“It’s important to start creating habits now, while children are young, because it can add up over a lifetime to make huge monumental consequences to the environment,” said Victoria Waters, president of the Green Education Foundation.
Children as young as 5 years old are told to avoid plastic water bottles, carry lunches in reusable containers, to conserve water and reduce their trash, both at school and at home. They’re also taught that planet earth is in trouble and animals’ lives could be in danger.
While that may seem politically correct to many people, all the talk of “green” is making some people see red. Critics say using public schools as a means to change habits and opinions on things such as ecology and global warming, amounts to environmental religion, because the beliefs of some are being forced on all children. The kids are then pressured to bring that information home and impose it on their families.
Angela Logomasini, from a free-market environmental policy group called the Competitive Enterprise Institute, says it’s political indoctrination.
“I think children should not be forced to take one set of values over another,” Logomasini said. “This isn’t simply about controlling litter, like we had in the ’70s. It’s more about recycling, living organically — it’s a lifestyle choice that is being forced on students whether they like it or not, whether parents like it or not.”
Logomasini said this type of teaching doesn’t belong in taxpayer funded schools — students should be “learning science and they should be learning different perspectives from which they can make a critical analysis,” rather than being taught that there’s only one viewpoint.
Many school districts across the country are now offering teacher’s lesson plans on environmental issues. Students in Los Angeles, Ohio and Texas are all practicing waste reduction in the classroom.
Western Avenue Elementary School principal Jennifer Camilleri insists students aren’t pressured to make changes, just taught information that makes them want to change.
“They really weren’t aware of the amount of trash they were producing based upon their snacks and their lunch, until we had the experiment where we weighed all the trash we collected from the classrooms and the kids,” she said. “It was as if a light went on in their heads.”
She said for these kids, the lessons will last much longer than just the seven days of National Green Week because teachers talk about environmental issues all year long.
Several parents at the elementary school say they support the program and have learned “green” measures from their children. They’ve even formed a “green team” to educate other parents and children about their environmental concerns.
Teachers say they hope the lessons from National Green Week will keep being recycled, as students pass along the information to others, forming habits they claim will lead to greener pastures for planet earth in the future.
Washington, DC – Award winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who was reportedly fired by former Vice President Al Gore in 1993 for failing to adhere to Gore’s scientific views, has now declared man-made global warming fears “mistaken.”
“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken,” Happer, who has published over 200 scientific papers, told EPW on December 22, 2008. Happer made his remarks while requesting to join the 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report from Environment and Public Works Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) of over 650 (and growing) dissenting international scientists disputing anthropogenic climate fears.
Note: Joining Happer as new additions to the Senate report, are at least 10 more scientists, including meteorologists from Germany, Netherlands and CNN, as well as a professors from MIT and University of Arizona. See below for full quotes and bios of the new skeptical scientists added to the groundbreaking report, which includes many current and former UN IPCC scientists.
“I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly,” Happer said this week. Happer is a Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.
Happer, who served as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy in 1993, says he was fired by Gore in 1993 for not going along with Gore’s scientific views on ozone and climate issues. “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy,” Happer explained in 1993.
In 2008, Happer publicly dissented from man-made warming fears. “I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow. Based on my experience, I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken,” Happer explained. “Mistakes are common in science and they can take a long time to correct, sometimes many generations. It is important that misguided political decisions do not block science’s capacity for self correction, especially in this instance when incorrect science is being used to threaten our liberties and wellbeing,” Happer added.
“Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past. We are currently in a warming cycle that began in the early 1800’s, at the end of the little ice age. Much of the current warming occurred before the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were significantly increased by the burning of fossil fuels. No one knows how long the current warming will continue, and in fact, there has been no warming for the past ten years,” he continued.
“Carbon dioxide is a natural constituent of the atmosphere, and calling it a ‘pollutant’ is inaccurate. Humans exhale air containing 4 to 5 per cent carbon dioxide or 40,000 to 50,000 parts per million. Plants grow better with more carbon dioxide. The current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are about 380 parts per million, exceptionally low by the standards of geological history. Over the past 500 million years since the Cambrian, when fossils of multicellular life first became abundant, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been much higher than current levels, about 3 times higher on average. Life on earth flourished with these higher levels of carbon dioxide,” he added.
“Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility. There is little debate that the direct effects of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations would be very small, perhaps 1 to 2 C of warming. To generate alarming scenarios, computer modelers must invent positive feedback mechanisms that increase the greenhouse effect of water vapor, which is responsible for over 90 percent of greenhouse warming. Observations indicate that the feedback is very small and may actually be negative. Changes in atmospheric water vapor and cloud cover may diminish, not increase, the small direct effects of carbon dioxide,” he concluded. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)
“I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow,” Happer said this week. “Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past,” he added.
“Over the past 500 million years since the Cambrian, when fossils of multicellular life first became abundant, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been much higher than current levels, about 3 times higher on average. Life on earth flourished with these higher levels of carbon dioxide,” he explained. “Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility,” Happer added.
Senator Inhofe said that the continued outpouring of prominent scientists like Happer — who are willing to publicly dissent from climate fears — are yet another strike to the UN, Gore and the media’s claims about global warming. “The endless claims of a ‘consensus’ about man-made global warming grow less-and-less credible every day,” Inhofe said.
Below are the full entries of the scientists just added to the 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report: “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”: (Updated December 22, 2008)
Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Dr. W. M. Schaffer, Ph. D., of the University of Arizona – Tucson, past member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, who has authored more than 80 scientific publications and authored the paper “Human Population and Carbon Dioxide,” dissented in 2008.
“My principal objections to the theory of anthropogenic warming are as follows:
1) I am mistrustful of ‘all but the kitchen sink’ models that, by virtue of their complexity, cannot be analyzed mathematically. When we place our trust in such models, what too often results is the replacement of a poorly understood physical (chemical, biological) system by a model that is similarly opaque,” Schaffer told EPW on December 19, 2008.
2) I am troubled by the application of essentially linear thinking to what is arguably the ‘mother of all nonlinear dynamical systems’ – i.e., the climate.
3) I believe it likely that “natural climate cycles” are the fingerprints of chaotic behavior that is inherently unpredictable in the long-term. As reviewed in a forthcoming article (Schaffer, in prep), these cycles are “dense” on chaotic attractors and have the stability properties of saddles. Evolving chaotic trajectories successively shadow first one cycle, then another. The result is a sequence of qualitatively different behaviors – what climatologists call “regime shift” – independent of extrinsic influences. Tsonis and his associates discuss this phenomenon in terms of network theory and ‘synchronized chaos,’ but these embellishments are not necessary. To be chaotic is to dance the dance of the saddles,” Schaffer explained.
“The recent lack of warming in the face of continued increases in CO2 suggests (a) that the effects of greenhouse gas forcing have been over-stated; (b) that the import of natural variability has been underestimated and (c) that concomitant rises of atmospheric CO2 and temperature in previous decades may be coincidental rather than causal,” he added. “I fear that things could easily go the other way: that the climate could cool, perhaps significantly; that the consequences of a new Little Ice Age or worse would be catastrophic and that said consequences will be exacerbated if we meanwhile adopt warmist prescriptions. This possibility, plus the law of unintended consequences, leads me to view proposed global engineering ‘solutions’ as madness.
‘First do no harm’ should be the watchword of those who propose policy; the fate of Icarus, the example uppermost in their minds,” he continued. “I believe that the enthusiasm of many of my colleagues for the ‘consensus’ view of climate change is partly motivated by considerations outside of science. If I am correct, the truth of the matter will inevitably become widely known and the consequences to science, severe. Think Lysenko and the demise of Soviet genetics,” he concluded. (LINK) (LINK)(LINK)
CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers, an meteorologist for 22 years, certified by the American Meteorological Society, spoke out against anthropogenic climate claims in 2008. “You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,” Myers said during a December 18, 2008 appearance on CNN’s “Lou Dobbs Tonight.” “Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure,” Myers explained.
“But this is like, you know you said – in your career – my career has been 22 years long. That’s a good career in TV, but talking about climate – it’s like having a car for three days and saying, ‘This is a great car.’ Well, yeah – it was for three days, but maybe in days five, six and seven it won’t be so good. And that’s what we’re doing here,” he added. “We have 100 years worth of data, not millions of years that the world’s been around,” Myers concluded. (LINK) (LINK)
Engineer and Physicist J.K. “Jim” August, formerly of the U.S. Navy nuclear power program, and former chair of professional standard committees in both the American Nuclear Society and the American Society of Mechanical Engineering, dissented from climate fears in 2008. “Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth is not scientifically based,” August wrote in a December 15, 2008 analysis titled “An Inconvenient Truth, or a Calculating Deception.” “
The book denies the legitimacy of science for review. The irony is, of course, the treatise that Mr. Gore uses to make his points, which could only have any value based on some scientific certainty basis, is not based on science nor the scientific method — nor can scientists even use science to review it, or follow its logic,” August explained.
“Gore argues we’re morally obliged to support his conclusions, precluding objective review with the same scientific methods that he claims to have supported his work. Presenting consequences as facts, he categorically rejects their testing with the same scientific method. Should we be surprised, then when Mr. Gore says that anyone who doubts this must be morally corrupt?” August added. “Fighting religion with reason, we scientists sadly can’t contest. Mr. Gore even shared a Nobel Prize with the IPCC. So, isn’t it ironic? The only truth that’s inconvenient here is that Mr. Gore’s successfully sold his message as if it were science!” he added. (LINK)
Biologist and Neuropharmacologist Dr. Doug Pettibone, who has authored 120 scientific publications and holds ten patents and is a past member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, dissented in 2008. “There is currently no satisfactory answer to the central question: ‘What is the actual proof that humans are causing catastrophic global warming?’ All of the climate computer models in the world do not provide the proof,” Pettibone wrote to EPW on December 11, 2008.
“It boils down to a matter of faith that the 30-year positive correlation between man-made CO2 and global temperature provides the proof. But correlations are not proof of cause-and-effect. Blaming global warming on human activity is terribly premature and any legislation designed to curtail CO2 will likely be misguided, costly and ineffective based on the available evidence. Since there has not been any significant increase in global temperatures in the last decade, it is not even clear where temperatures are going to go from here,” Pettibone explained. (LINK)
Meteorologist Tom Wysmuller, former weather forecaster at Amsterdam’s Royal Dutch Weather Bureau whose “Polynomial Regression algorithm is embedded in every high-end Texas Instruments calculator sold today,” dissented from man-made global warming fears and predicted a coming global cooling in 2008. Wysmuller said during his two-hour presentation of his latest scientific research titled “The colder side of global warming on December 6, 2008. Wysmuller believes that temperature increases of today are distinct from carbon dioxide levels. “Carbon dioxide is increasing but not dragging the temperatures up,” Wysmuller said. “If we controlled pollution now, we still wouldn’t stop the ice cap from melting,” he explained. “The largest contributor to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the warming oceans,” he continued.
The December 11, 2008, article explained, “Wysmuller argues that the current spike in temperature and carbon dioxide levels are approaching levels that existed just prior to the most recent ice age. What that means, he said, is that we are nearing a period when temperatures will actually start to decrease and weather patterns dramatically change.” Wysmuller’s research shows that open water at the Arctic will generate an abundance of “ocean effect” snow, similar to the lake effect snow that hits the upstate New York area. “The Arctic will have massive amounts of ocean effect snow,” Wysmuller said. “The accumulated snowfall increases reflecting light, so temperatures will cool.” (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)
MIT Scientist Dr. Robert Rose, a professor of Materials Science and Engineering at MIT with approximately 50 years of experience teaching various scientific, linked warming and cooling cycles to the “orbit and the tilt and wobble of the axis of the Earth’s spin.” Rose also questioned climate model predictions on July 8, 2008, by stating, “Clearly, these are not ‘facts.’ They are computer models. They may be correct or at least lead us to the correct answer, but the earliest model appears to be incorrect,” Rose wrote. “Cooler heads [are] needed in global warming debate,” Rose wrote.
“Global warming is occurring as it has many times in the past; and it will continue for some years before the cooling cycle begins and the glaciers take over, also as they have in the past. We are trying very hard to develop computer simulations to predict the contribution our activities are making to the warming, and the going has been difficult. These models can’t be tested experimentally (unless we can find another planet on which to conduct our experiments) and are tested mostly by fitting them to past behavior, pretty much the same approach as handicapping horse races. (LINK)
Climate researcher Dr. Craig Loehle, formerly of the Department of Energy Laboratories and currently with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvements, who has published more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers, attended the skeptical 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City in March 2008. “The 2000-year [temperature] trend is not flat, so a warming period is not unprecedented,” Loehle said during the skeptical conference in March 2008.
“The 1500-year [temperature] cycle as proposed by [Atmospheric physicist Fred] Singer and [Dennis] Avery is consistent with Loehle climate reconstruction,” Loehle explained. “The 1500-year cycle implies that recent warming is part of natural trend,” he added.(LINK) (LINK) (LINK)
Loehl published a November 2007 study in Energy & Environment that found the Medieval Warm Period to be “0.3C warmer than the 20th century.” The study was titled “A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies.” (LINK) & (LINK)
German Meteorologist Dr. Gerd-Rainer Weber, a Consulting Meteorologist, attended the skeptical 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City in March. “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis. The rational basis for extremist views about global warming may be a desire to push for political action on global warming,” Weber said during the conference. (LINK)
Weber also endorsed the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change, sponsored by the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) in 2008. The declaration reads in part, “There is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.”
Atmospheric Scientist Robert L. Scotto, who has more than 30 years air quality consulting experience, served as zone-wide QA Manager on a $300 million EPA Superfund contract, is co-founder of Minnich and Scotto, Inc., a full-service air quality consulting firm and a past member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Scotto, a meteorologist who has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports, joined the 650 international scientists dissenting from man-made warming claims in 2008. “Proponents of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) analyses of recent surface temperature records which are suspect at best, as they clearly contradict much more reliable satellite data,” Scotto told EPW on December 22, 2008. According to satellite data, “the Earth has been cooling since 1998,” Scotto wrote.
“This discrepancy is due principally to the spatially unrepresentative nature of the surface records, owing first to the fact that rural stations are increasingly being replaced by urban stations and, second, to the frequent failure of these new urban stations to meet basic siting criteria,” Scotto explained. “Based on the laws of physics, the effect on temperature of man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is minuscule and indiscernible from the natural variability caused in large part by changes in solar energy output. Acknowledgment of this true science is critical to implementation of much-needed practical measures for increasing domestic energy and world food supplies,” he added. (LINK) (LINK)
Atmospheric Scientist Timothy R. Minnich, who has more than 30 years experience in the design and management of a wide range of air quality investigations for industry and government, specializes in the application of optical remote sensing (ORS) to a wide range of air-related issues. Minnich has worked with EPA as a Superfund contractor, is co-founder of Minnich and Scotto, Inc., a full-service air quality consulting firm. Minnich, who holds a masters degree in meteorology and taught courses at Rutgers University and University of Michigan, is a past member of the American Meteorological Society, specializes in issues like acid rain and ozone and has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports.
“I choose to take President-elect Obama at his word when, upon his appointment of John Holdren as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, he promised to “[protect] free and open inquiry . . . ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology,’” Minnich told EPW on December 22, 2008. Clearly the best means to fulfill on this commitment is to appoint to the Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, over which Dr. Holdren will preside, several of the more than 650 distinguished and renowned scientists who have openly questioned the “consensus” on AGW in Senator Inhofe’s 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report,” Minnich explained.
“The late Michael Crichton said it well: ‘Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. . . . Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus [which] is the business of politics. . . . What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus,’” Minnich added. (LINK) (LINK)
Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences, dissented from warming fears and requested to be added to Senate dissenting scientist report in 2008.