The timing of the 100% fraudulent IPCC report this weekend was intentional, and was intended to corrupt the US election. It was synchronized with Tom Steyer’s massive purchase of fraudulent climate ads in states like Colorado.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
- Toto Has Moved!
- Cooling Nuuk
- Escape The Heat At Your Local Movie Theater
- Charles Butler Interview – May 2, 2016
- Massive Greenland Fraud Is Rapidly Growing
- More Detail On The NSIDC Disappearing Ice
- 1995 IPCC Report Showed No Troposphere Warming From 1958 To 1995
- More On The NSIDC Disappearing Ice
- Climate Hustle Today
- On The Air Monday
- NOAA Quadrupling Radiosonde Temperatures By Data Tampering
- Skiing Is A Thing Of The Past
- Alarmist Brains Depleted Of Oxygen
- Climate Scam Being Driven By Politicians/Actors/Journalists
- 1905 : Valdez, Alaska Relocated Due To Glacial Melting
- Today’s Climate Fraud Winners – Science News
- Most Influential Climate Denier On Twitter
- SCIENCE : 230 Years Of Blaming White Men For Climate Change
- Battling Climate Misinformation In Santa Fe
- 1906 : Belief In Climate Change Is Due To Defective Memories
- Oswald’s Rifle?
- The Arctic Is Ice Free – How Can Sea Ice Be Declining?
- Climate Hustle Next Monday – One Night Only
- The Surface Temperature Record Is A Farce
- NASA – Doubling Sea Level Rise By Data Tampering
Join 1,961 other subscribers
It also shows a gross misunderstanding of the elections. I am sure the zealots care. But no one else does. The unusual snow around the east this past weekend may have something to do with that.
Now even the boring, bluffing, blame-pointing progressive Piers Morgan says he’s fed up with the boring, bluffing, blame-pointing progressive Barack Obama (though we shouldn’t forget Morgan has a new source of income):
Thank God for John Coleman…
“CNN has taken a very strong position on global warming, [saying] that it is a consensus. Well there is no consensus in science. Science isn’t a vote. Science is about facts…[Man-made climate change] has been become a big political point of the Democratic Party and part of their platform, but the science is on my side.”
I listened to him. He was forceful and effective. It’s clear he knows he’s not addressing geniuses by getting on CNN.
He strongly objected being called a denier and said he’s a skeptic. He ridiculed the very idea of consensus in science and he chose to not confront the idiotic sources of the 97% number. Instead, he said the government is getting what it’s paying for.
CNN viewers and people who don’t have a clue—I know I repeat myself—will understand it better if they understand anything at all. He made it as simple as possible for the simpletons.
It’s amazing when an eloquent speaker, who knows his subject inside out, gets the opportunity to address a broad audience with a very basic message – i.e. Climate Science is a fraud. It cuts through and sticks, because 97% of people don’t trust their government. That unelected cabal at the UNIPCC, and the rest of the Obama, Al Gore et al brigade, have reached their use by date. Without a couple of Katrina’s or the sinking of San Francisco, their message is dead in the (not rising) water. They’ll be naming snow flurries next in desperation.
The UN IPCC is an instrument of the iNT’L left.
The UN WHO used the same type of BS to foist socialized medicine on the USA. If the USA has the supposed 37th best medical “system” in the world why aren’t coutries like those listed below spearheading the ebola response?
3 San Marino
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
36 Costa Rica
The biggest problem the IPCC and Tom Steyer have is that the people they excite with those ads and propaganda are already in the AGW camp. They can’t wrap their twisted heads around the fact that real people are not particularly worried about the climate as shown in consistent polls. Real people also don’t believe that the economy is getting better or that the country is headed in a sane direction and that is what they are worried about. In fact, experience has shown that running a campaign based on global warming can lose you an election. Progressives don’t learn lessons from history. So let them crank it up.
The real danger with this propaganda is the federal government is still going to cram its wicked agenda down our throats no matter what the outcome of the election. If Washington DC is closed down by snow and foot thick ice for a month these people will still be pushing the agenda while thousands are freezing to death. The truth is they wouldn’t care.
That’s why Goddard’s broad take is correct. I have sympathy for the good people who oppose this AGW fraud dispassionately and scientifically, but we must remember that many good people tried to fight the same way against “Scientific Communism” and lost, with horrific consequences for hundreds of millions.
This is not some isolated scientific fight but one of many political battles in the worldwide defensive war of freedom-loving people against vicious progressive onslaught.
Steyers is not stupid. He knows he is not reaching real people. He does not intend to. He wants to do exactly what he is doing – influence the politicians. Why? Because he stands to make billions on any legislation they pass that hurts the domestic industries.
“The timing of the 100% fraudulent IPCC report this weekend was intentional, and was intended to corrupt the US election.”
How much does the UN and it’s NGOs get from the US?
How much does it stand to win (or lose) with the US vote?
Big power, influence, and money — that is what the UN is about. And us, the little people, are an irritation to the UN’s elitist insiders.Think about what the UN is, and what it said it would or could do. Then ask yourself ‘What has the UN actually done for me and my country?’ before you vote.
Before Australia repealed the Carbon Tax, we were sending billions (more than our defence budget) to the London Carbon Credit scamsters who directed slush funds to the UN. The Australian Treasury projected that by 2030, Australia would spend $50 billion annually in carbon credits, which would have been 3-4% of our GDP – in other words a Global Consumption Tax. This is why they HATE Tony Abbott and those who voted for him.
If the US government passed a carbon tax, 3-4% of US GDP would be $450-600 Billion per year. which also is almost the same as the US defence budget. That same money could pay off all university student debt in 2 years. It could solve the homeless problem in the US in one year. It could do a lot of good things.
At the UN? They would be the fattest unelected pigs with their snouts in the biggest trough. Stalin himself would be jealous of them.
So right, it is to our shame that no one has done a ‘due process’ or ‘fitness for business’ audit and report on these UN scamsters before anyone throws our (tax-payers) money at them.
Of course it was. Leftards do nothing better than coordinate their lies and sh*t spews. Credit where credit is due!
on the results of an ABC Radio on line poll
“Is the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change right that, on current fossil use ‘projectories’, we are heading for a global warming of four or five degrees by century’s end?
At 6:45AM East Australian time, posted in case the link vanishes.
“Turtle of WA
November 4, 2014 at 12:09 am · Reply
Poll result 1AM EST: 89% No 11% Yes
At this rate the SKEPTICS will have a 97% consensus by morning tea time.
Unless the ABC pulls it:
Please note: ABC NewsRadio reserves the right to remove any poll, current or archived, where we reasonably believe irregular voting activity* has occurred.
*For ‘irregular voting activity’ read ‘an undesirable result’.
I have a screencap of that result. 90%:10% For the record.11.21pm WST – Jo”
The poll closed at No 91% to Yes 9%.
It has been replaced with a poll about a horse race – something far more important to many Australians.
The United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. From the Principles Governing IPCC Work, “…to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.” [bold mine]; See:
The IPCC reports do what they do because that is what the UN has charged them to do. The reports have to show human-induced climate change or the travel and partying in exotic locations ceases.