March 31, 2016

Dion: Climate change played significant role in emergence of ISIS, Islamic revolutions

Jonathan D. HaleviRebel Blogger

Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion focused his most recent speech at the Canada in Global Affairs Conference at the University of Ottawa on the deep implications of climate change on security issues and regional instability, including by creating a fertile economic and social environment for Islamic unrest, Islamic revolutions and the emergence of Islamic global terrorist movements that have openly declared war on Western civilization.

Without mentioning the words “Islam” and “terrorism”, Dion provided his own theory (based on the “best experts”) to the “Arab Spring” (the series of uprisings lead by radical Islamic movements that have been rattling the Muslim world since 2011), the civil war in Syria between the radical Shiite–Alawite Muslim coalition and the radical Sunni Muslim groups, and the civil war in Somalia in which Islamic radical groups took control over large swaths of the country.

“How many people really know [the role of climate change on security]? For most, conflict and unrest have nothing to do with climate change. Yet look at the facts,” said Dion.

The following are excerpts of Dion’s speech (March 29, 2016):

Climate change effects in Egypt:

“Five years ago, when hundreds of thousands of Egyptians filled Tahrir Square during the Arab Spring, they were not shouting 'climate change'. They shouted 'down with injustice, corruption and poverty'. But the motto on the square was 'bread, freedom, social equality'.

“Bread. It accounts for almost 40 percent of the Egyptian diet. And food accounts for roughly 40 percent of Egyptians’ household budget. With serious land and water scarcity issues, the country cannot produce enough wheat for domestic demand. Egypt is the world’s largest wheat importer.

“In the winter of 2010 and 2011, China—the world’s second-largest wheat producer—was struck by a 'once-in-a-century' drought. At the same time, wheat production in Russia, Ukraine, Australia, Pakistan and Canada also fell dramatically due to drought, wildfires, floods and abnormal weather.

“With global wheat supplies down and protectionist measures up, the Egyptian government failed to balance its massive subsidies, and market prices shot up. At the time of the uprisings in early 2011, food prices had increased by 20 percent, and 40 million Egyptians—about half of the population—were receiving food rations.”

Climate change effects in Syria:

“Look at Syria. The 2007-2010 drought in Syria was the worst drought on record, causing widespread crop failure and a mass migration of farming families to urban centres. A United Nations Development Programme report found that nearly 75 percent of farmers in northeastern Syria experienced total crop failure and herders lost 85 percent of their livestock. Another United Nations report found that more than 800,000 Syrians lost their entire livelihoods as a result of the droughts.

“This environmental disaster and resultant migration put significant strain on Syria’s economically and water-stressed cities. Displaced farmers had to compete for jobs, housing and services.”

Climate change effects in Somalia:

“Somalia is also a case in point. As a result of frequent droughts, civil war and disrupted livelihoods, pastoralist communities in Somalia increasingly turn to charcoal production as an alternative source of income. Charcoal production in Somalia not only causes significant deforestation, environmental degradation and communal conflict, it also provides steady revenues for rebel groups, such as al-Shabaab, which control the distribution of this resource. Yet, at a recent international summit on Somalia that I attended in Istanbul, potential permanent lack of water as a cause of tension was hardly mentioned.”

Dion concluded:

“Climate change did not cause the Syrian civil war; climate change did not cause the Arab Spring; climate change did not cause the Egyptian uprising. The cause of the political turmoil was multi-faceted, with a democratic deficit playing the leading role. But climate change amplified the risks. It exacerbates droughts and other disruptive natural phenomena. It is undeniable that the food prices spike had a catalytic effect in Egypt, and we know that climate change will render this kind of situation more salient and more frequent.”

Dion failed to explain how his theory reconciles the fact that the minorities (mainly Kurdish and Christian) in all three countries that were mentioned in his speech (Syria, Egypt and Somalia) have suffered the very same effects of climate change, but have not resorted to violence and extremism.

This article originally appeared on CIJ News and is republished with permission

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-04-06 23:08:59 -0400
It is too bad that Mr. Kokes does not heed his own Prolific advice.
commented 2016-04-06 21:58:20 -0400
Stupidest thing i have ever heard there Dion!
commented 2016-04-06 08:25:28 -0400
As I have stated time and time again. It is “better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt”. And to dumb that phrase down for some noted Neanderthals who just don’t get it, it’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and confirm to all that you are.
commented 2016-04-05 21:59:17 -0400
This is the clincher, when the alarmists keep repeating this line, you know their argument is weak and they are losing steam, " I believe some are already seeing it my way and the way of the 97% of scholarly peer reviewed scientists see it around the world."
Because everyone now knows the 97% number was just plain spin. The story of the ‘97%’ is well known and understood as bullshit. There is no consensus.

Pop Tech, good rebuttle, a must read.
commented 2016-04-05 16:48:45 -0400
If some of you Neanderthals would like to evolve in your thinking than please look at the following links. The science on global warming/climate change caused by human activity is indeed settled. Settled by 97% of the renowned, scholastic and peer reviewed scientists from around the world and it’s unequivocal. The remaining 3% are either idiots or paid by corporate America.

Here is the evidence:
Anthropogenic Climate Change Theory – The Evidence

The 97% consensus on global warming.
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations,5&q=human+activity+has+resulted+in+increased+levels+of+CO2

Scholarly Articles in support of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

The Keeling Curve:
The Keeling Curve is a graph which plots the ongoing change in concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere since 1958. It is based on continuous measurements taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii that began under the supervision of Charles David Keeling.

Fifteen of the 16 hottest years on record have all been this century, with 2015 being significantly warmer than the record-level temperatures seen in 2014. Underlining the long-term trend, 2011-15 is the warmest five-year period on record.
Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Last year was the first time the global average temperatures were 1 degree Celsius or more above the 1880-1899 average.

6th Warmest Year on Record: NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information
Sixteen Warmest Years (1880–2015)

World Meteorological Organization
Geneva 25 January 2016 (WMO) – The global average surface temperature in 2015 broke all previous records by a strikingly wide margin, at 0.76±0.1° Celsius above the 1961-1990 average. For the first time on record, temperatures in 2015 were about 1°C above the pre-industrial era, according to a consolidated analysis from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
They might actually be right about long term changes and those time periods, but they are conveniently overlooking one simple fact: We’ve applied combustion to tens or hundreds of millions of years worth of fossil fuels in just 150 years to power the Industrial Revolution, so “long periods of time” and “800 years” don’t apply to current changes. This sort of environmental change is unprecedented. It produces both heat AND carbon dioxide. Even the rise of the first photosynthetic organisms didn’t change the atmosphere this fast. In fact, the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide content and temperature move in lockstep, and have for at least 800,000 years.
Yes. Earth’s average surface air temperature has increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) since 1900, with much of this increase taking place since the mid-1970s (see Figure 1a). A wide range of other observations (such as reduced Arctic sea ice extent and increased ocean heat content) and indications from the natural world (such as poleward shifts of temperature-sensitive species of fish, mammals, insects, etc.) together provide incontrovertible evidence of planetary-scale warming.

PBS Global Warming The Signs and the Science

For those who are still non-believers, just read the above credible information from reputable government and NGO sites. Just don’t be a hand dragging Neanderthal who just listens to what their fellow Neanderthals tell them. Global warming is serious stuff, it’s real and it’s happening faster than expected. The truth may be difficult to swallow but it is the truth nevertheless.

Read, learn and get educated by the intellectuals not the simpletons who think they know better. Watch the news of late and be informed. Don’t let the puppet masters at corporate America manipulate you. They are motivated by money and will tell you fairy tales to please their shareholders. They are ruthless, cunning and dishonest. And while you drown in the swelling oceans, dispose of the sea creatures on shore, try to grow crops in the droughts and fight the fires around you, the corporate elite will be flying executive class to safety.
commented 2016-04-05 15:27:20 -0400
Yep, clearly the science is all in. All scientists agree on anthropogenic climate change. If nothing else Kokes proves there are a lot of questions by a lot of credible scientists out there regarding the validity of man made influence. Its amazing how much time he has on his hands to do all that spin in an attempt to discredit every expert, his own being the only sources worthy of consideration.
This is the crap economic and social policy is being based on. People are getting more than a little testy about the sense any of it makes and want governments to hold up. Lets have a proper investigation of the economic and social ramifications of such policy. Lets talk about the true motives, lets talk about foreign funding.
Scientists do not agree, there is no consensus.
commented 2016-04-05 14:26:52 -0400
LOL you come back as yourself, quoting your own propaganda website. Surely you jest. I doubt most of the Neanderthals in here would buy your rhetoric. Just one question before I get started, is that you Andrew. :) is a denier website
Andrew has complained about the title, but he’s only supported it from his recent contributions. That’s right, is a website written by a person who denies AGW, and when asked if he’ll ever change his mind, he’s never admitted so.

As for “how can it be accurate”, let’s try switching the term.

“This website is a one who teaches website” from “this website is a teacher website”
I could add a “‘s” to show “a teacher’s website” or “website by one who teaches”.
“This is a writer website” to “this is a one who writes website”.

But, just as a car and a driver are inseparable for practical purposes, so is a website and a webmaster.

So, “ is a website that denies” or “a website of one who denies” is what I meant to communicate. (Andrew’s problem isn’t the grammar and order or spelling, he’s just not happy with the word DENIER used on him)

I could change the title to “ is a website by and for deniers of AGW”, but I’d have to check it with Andrew first:)

On with the original post :

When asked to provide any scientific research or opinion which questions global warming (or specifically, anthropogenic global warming). Many people can predictably point to the obvious canned responses :

a) 30K scientists in Petition Project
b) for 800 peer reviewed papers
c) ClimateGate
d) it’s the sun!
e) Hal Lewis resignation

We will discuss all responses when time allows. But for this post, we will show the fact that is written by a DENIER, rather than a skeptic or scientist.

In fact, Andrew K being so familiar with Penn & Teller’s videos should know, the key difference between a denier and a skeptic, is that a skeptic DEMANDS TO BE CONVINCED, whereas a denier admits he will never be convinced.

Where’s just one exchange he’s had on a political message board none other than

(Andrew K webmaster of ‘s words are in BOLD) There is no objective criteria to determine who is a climate scientist. Again you lie as I do not deny anything that has been empirically proven, as AGW has never been empirically proven. When asked whether Al Gore, or himself can be considered climate scientists, or climatologists, he says : Some people consider Al Gore a climatologist, like I said subjective. When asked what counts as “empirically proven”, he could not give an answer. When asked at what point does the “debate” on AGW end, he says It never ends if the science is unproven as AGW is. He was asked again, what would it take to convince him AGW is true. He responds : Empirical evidence not modeled results. (apply his standard, why should anybody consider reconstructions of MWP as empirical evidence?) Just to test whether he’s a denier or a person who actually is willing to consider evidence, he was asked “So you’d have to see a person pumping CO2 into a chamber and the temperature immediately rising?” Pumping CO2 into a chamber does not prove that man-made emissions of CO2 are causing climate change. So what DOES?? Please provide a testable experiment and an expected result. It is not my job to prove the theory you support. When you have empirical evidence let me know. (We already know it’s not Andrew’s job to prove, or even support a theory he doesn’t hold. They’re asking him what would ever convince him AGW is true, or what would settle the question scientifically. Clearly, he’s dodging the question, or just doesn’t know. This makes a denier, rather than a skeptic. He can’t even HYPOTHETICALLY think of what constitutes empirical evidence, so as soon as you got something, don’t show him, he can conveniently deny that it’s empirical evidence. PATHETIC!) When asked, whether one requires to actually witness his birth from his mom’s womb, he shies away from the “empirical evidence” demand. Not a strawman just stupid. Your weak minded knee jerk use of the word denial continues to make me laugh. When asked “what is not purely subjective” His best answer was : 1+1=2 Even though he wants you to believe that A defining characteristic of a zealot is to use the word denier. I accept empirical evidence and reproducible results. (yet he won’t tell you what that is) A common characteristic of a denier, is a person who tells you you are wrong, but never telling you his own position. This is shown when asked, whether his 800 articles have a coherent, scientifically defensible theory. He responds : Again it is to, “provide a resource for the skeptical arguments being made in peer-reviewed journals and to demonstrate the existence of these papers. It is not supposed to be a single argument but rather a resource for all of them.” & “No, all the papers on the list support the purpose of the list they “support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW”. I don’t discriminate against competing skeptical positions. “(In other words, no theory he’s willing to test in skepticism or alternative to AGW, because he probably knows, under the standards he holds to AGW proponents, denier arguments are much worse) Let’s try again, get down to what Andrew actually BELIEVES. My position is simple, there has been a mild warming since the end of the little ice age but there is no acceptable evidence that this warming is worse than the MWP and no conclusive evidence of how much if any is caused by man. [A paper he cites from Energy & Environment] provides evidence that the recent warming is not outside natural variations. Just to be safe, he was asked again, how he defines “natural variation” and what would ever constitute “man-made” climate or temperature change. Is it simply “because MWP was warmer, then it happened before, so it’s not impossible naturally”? I never defined natural variation as such. Evidence of a warmer MWP is evidence that the current warming is not unusual. It does not support your argument for the current warming being caused by humans. Ready? Here it comes! A change in temperature no matter the amount does not justify AGW and thus cannot justify AGW alarmism. And there you have your denier. He admits that nothing in terms of temperature change would ever justify AGW, making his previous mentions of MWP, or other peer reviewed papers, empirical evidence, ALL IRRELEVANT!!!!

As for the other two sites you posted, namely;

This site contains a number of journal papers but I don’t see any that are peer-reviewed. Perhaps you conveniently forgot what “peer review” means but it doesn’t mean agreement between corporate american industry lads. I did a quick search on global warming and found 97% of the documents come from Science Watch.

Science Watch, again a name to imply the best intentions like Friends of Science but used to spew rhetoric in denial of global warming as ANYONE can submit papers and often they are not peer reviewed.

The other useless link you posted ( describes what the site is all about and I quote:
“Nobel Lectures
Nobel Lectures is an English-language series of all the Nobel Lectures from 1901, along with related biographical notes, prize citations and presentation speeches.

The following were translated into English:
Physics 1901-1970 4 vols.
Chemistry 1901-1970 4 vols.
Physiology or Medicine 1901-1970 4 vols.
Literature 1901-1967 1 vol.
Peace 1901-1970 3 vols.

Not only is this information dated (1970 lmfao) but none contain any information on global warming.
All you have done Andrew is use the same tactics I referred to earlier in that, the deniers pick and choose the information they want, twist the information, suggest some links in support which is just a deflection, all in an attempt to fool the masses.

Again, you are going to have to try a lot harder to convince a learned individual like myself with your rhetoric. You like to think you sound impression but you don’t. Frankly, judging by what little you know, you will never achieve convincing me of anything. But sooner or later, I will convince others to see what the real truth is. I believe some are already seeing it my way and the way of the 97% of scholarly peer reviewed scientists see it around the world.
commented 2016-04-05 11:58:02 -0400
Mr. Kokes spammed a bunch of propaganda.

The over independent sources that reference Popular have nothing to do with the fossil fuel industry. Popular is an impartial, highly cited website referenced by over 300 independent sources throughout more than 25 countries in books and scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major and regional news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, political institutions, on radio and by the technology community.

International Journal of Modern Physics is not a “puppet” but a peer-reviewed science journal (ISSN: 0217-9792) listed in Thomson Reuters (ISI) Science Citation Index.

IJMB’s publisher World Scientific is so well respected they are responsible for publishing the Nobel lectures

Lets put things in their actual perspective:

Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?

In an article titled, “Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil” from the environmental activist website The Carbon Brief, former Greenpeace “researcher” Christian Hunt failed to do basic research. He made no attempt to contact the scientists he unjustly attacked and instead used biased and corrupt websites like DeSmogBlog to smear them as “linked to” [funded by] ExxonMobil.

To get to the truth, I emailed the scientists mentioned in the article the following questions;

1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?

2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?

3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?

4. Please include any additional comment on the article,

13,950 Meaningless Search Results

In the never ending quest for alarmists to one up their incompetent friends they continue to seek out new ways to demonstrate their own computer illiteracy. Enter James Powell who in a meaningless analysis is apparently ignorant that the ‘Web of Science’ database does not have a “peer-reviewed” filter and the existence of a search phrase in a returned result does not determine it’s context. Thus, all that can be claimed is there were 13,950 meaningless search results not “peer-reviewed scientific articles” for a query of the ‘Web of Science’ database – with 24 chosen by strawman argument.

1. The context of how the “search phrases” were used in all the results was never determined.

2. The results are padded by not using the search qualifier “anthropogenic”.

3. The 13,950 results cannot be claimed to be peer-reviewed as the Web of Science does not have a peer-reviewed filter.

4. It is a strawman argument that skeptics deny or reject there has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age.

The Truth about Skeptical Science:

Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook (who apparently pretends to be a Nazi). It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored, while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site’s oxymoronic name “Skeptical Science” is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions.

The Truth about DesmogBlog:

DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by “dirty money”. Since its creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dare oppose an alarmist position on global warming. Their articles frequently reference unreliable sources such as Wikipedia and Sourcewatch since they are unable to find any fact based criticisms of those they attack in respected news sources.

The Truth about SourceWatch:

SourceWatch is a propaganda site funded by an extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate organization, the Center for Media and Democracy. Just like the untrustworthy Wikipedia the content can be written and edited by ordinary web users. Users who all conveniently share an extreme left-wing bias. SourceWatch is frequently cited by those seeking to smear individuals and organizations who do not share their extreme left-wing bias since they cannot find any legitimate criticisms from respected news sources.
commented 2016-04-05 11:21:13 -0400
“climatefallacy commented 22 hours ago
Follow Patrick Moore and read his tweets for all the counterevidence.
The truth will set you free.
Come to the light side and escape the propaganda.

Here’s what I found about your hero, Patrick Moore"
In 1991, Patrick Moore established a consultancy business called Greenspirit Enterprises “focusing on environmental policy and communications in natural resources, biodiversity, energy and climate change.” 3

According to a statement by Greenpeace, “Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace.” Here is their link:

After he left Greenpeace, Moore began work with the Nuclear Energy Institute front group, the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy). Moore stepped down from his leadership role at CASEnergy in January 2013, however said he would remain an active member. 16, 38, 39

Moore has also worked for the mining industry, the logging industry, PVC manufacturers, the nuclear industry, and in defense of biotechnology. In October 2008, Greenpeace issued a statement distancing itself from Moore, saying he “exploits long gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes.”

Moore is the “chairman and chief scientist” of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd., a PR company that “work with many leading organizations in forestry, biotechnology, aquaculture and plastics, developing solutions in the areas of natural resources, biodiversity, energy and climate change.”

As of 2014, Moore was listed as a Board Member of NextEnergy, a Canadian energy services company.

Moore has been criticized for his relations with “polluters and clear-cutters” through his consultancy and has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily through consulting and publicly speaking for a variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute. 7, 8
Refusal to Drink Pesticide that “Won’t Hurt You”

Just after the World Health Organization released a study concluding that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, is “probably carcinogenic,” Pat Moore told a French filmmaker that glyphosate is safe to drink. Upon being offered some glyphosate to try, Moore refused to take up his own suggestion, ending the interview and telling the filmmaker, “I’m not an idiot.”

Stance on Climate Change “We do not know if we are a small or large part of the present global warming. It is not possible through science to determine an exact answer to this question. Certainly the natural factors, and there are many, that have acted to change the climate many times through the history of the Earth, are still operating today. They have not gone away. But human emissions of CO2 is a new (natural) factor. So it is very unlikely that we are the only factor causing the present global warming but we may be one of the factors.” 9 According to one article, “Moore contended that global warming and the melting of glaciers is positive because it creates more arable land and the use of forest products drives up demand for wood and spurs the planting of more trees. He added that any realistic plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and the emission of so-called greenhouse gases should include increased use of nuclear energy.” 10

Nuclear Energy Institute — Runs the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, of which Moore is chair. 4
Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy) — Past Co-chair (Stepped down in January, 2013, but said he would remain an active member). 16, 38, 39
Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. — Founder, Chair and Chief Scientist. 17
Frontier Center for Public Policy (FCPP) — Chair of the Energy, Ecology and Prosperity program. 27
The Heartland Institute — “Expert.” 28
CO2 Coalition — Member, Board of Directors 29

Patrick Moore’s “Past Clients” include: 18
Asian Pulp & Paper (APP). 19
B.C. Hazardous Waste Management Corporation (1991-92).
Canadian Pulp and Paper Association (1992-96).
Westcoast Energy and BC Gas (1993-1994).
BHP Minerals (Canada) (1993-94, 1996).
Canadian Mining Association and the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (1996).
National Association of Forest Industries (Australia), speaking tour of Australia, (1996).
IPEX, “Canada’a largest manufacturer of PVC, to intervene in the environmental policy of the Toronto 2008 Olympic Bid”, 2001.
On Drinking Monsanto’s Roundup Pesticide Ingredient. In an interview with French filmmaker Paul Moreira, Patrick Moore claimed that drinking glyphosate was safe, then immediately refused to drink some himself when presented with the opportunity.

On pharmaceuticals in water. In a January 20, 2009, op/ed in the Seattle Times, Moore wrote that it is “inevitable that a small amount of ingested pharmaceuticals will eventually show up at trace levels in wastewater,” Greenpeace activist turned industry PR consultant Patrick Moore writes in an op/ed. "The Pharmaceutical Assessment and Transport Evaluation (PhATE) model has been developed by industry as a tool to estimate concentrates of pharmaceutical residues in surface waters.

On mining. At the May 2007 “New York Hard Assets Investment Conference,” Moore was a keynote speaker. He told attendees, “Since my entry into the global environmental movement in 1971, mining has contributed significantly to a more sustainable world economy, and key beneficiaries of this progress are mining workers, families and communities,” according to Resource Investor.

On PVC. In December 2007, Moore slammed “anti-PVC activists” for “pushing retailers toward untested, less affordable and potentially riskier materials” with a “fear-mongering campaign.” His comments came two days after “Sears Holdings Corporation, parent of the Sears and Kmart retail chain stores, said it will work to phase out use of PVC in its packaging and merchandise,” reported ICIS

Wow, he defends corporate America well and gets paid pretty good in the process.
Who are the founders of Greenpeace? Not Patrick Moore.

Patrick Moore is a Hippie for Hire. He makes the claim that he co-founded Greenpeace, and charges a fee to show up at conferences or other venues, or sit on boards, to provide a story that anti-environmentalists, global warming deniers, and others, like to hear. The part where he takes your money to lie, as far as I can tell, is true. The part about how he co-founded Greenpeace is apparently not true.

Patrick Moore, a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry, frequently cites a long-ago affiliation with Greenpeace to gain legitimacy in the media. Media outlets often either state or imply that Mr. Moore still represents Greenpeace, or fail to mention that he is a paid lobbyist and not an independent source…

For more than 20 years, Mr. Moore has been a paid spokesman for a variety of polluting industries, including the timber, mining, chemical and the aquaculture industries. Most of these industries hired Mr. Moore only after becoming the focus of a Greenpeace campaign to improve their environmental performance. Mr. Moore has now worked for polluters for far longer than he ever worked for Greenpeace.

And it goes on and on about his affiliations with any industry that will pay him money.

And I believe you are holding the strings to the puppets here climatefalsy. You link enough bullshit to feed these Neanderthals for years. But as I have proven over and over again with, you are wrong. Your message is tainted by corporate America, you lack any real understanding of the environment and your continued propaganda is a disservice to humanity. You should be ashamed of yourself.
commented 2016-04-05 11:05:56 -0400
“Robert Hewgill commented 15 hours ago
Tim Ball has published plenty of it, and there is all kinds of it on all kinds of sites. What doesn’t exist is any real climate science to prove what you say. Man made global warming exists entirely in the phony computer models and fraudulent temperature data adjustments.">"

I have already chastized Ball in my previous comment to you but obviously you have a hard time understanding the truth about this guy. How convenience for you! You wear your ignorance well.

As for the populartechnology site, here is their byline:
Internationally recognized by over 300 independent sources including Forbes, the International Journal of Modern Physics and the United States Senate.

What a joke! How typical that they use names that imply they actually know what they are talking about. When you look past the bull, the independent sources are fossil fuel industry driven whose members include the Heartland (why am I note surprised), Forbs, etc.. Sources also contain many right wing conservative news organizations like Fox News. Modern Physics is a puppet as well not a climatology science and the United State Senate is full of Republicans. Geesh, I wonder what their motivation is and who sponsors that motivation?

Have a read here:

Then if the words are too complicated for understanding, here is a video:
Consensus of Scientists
You can also read more here.

Here’s some information on who funds the anti-science consensus:

Now, let’s put things into perspective.
Exxon Mobil is not only the world’s largest private oil company, but also one of the largest publicly traded companies in the world, having been ranked either #1 or #2 for the past 5 years. They are also (of course) denying climate change, and there has been a rumour going on that they have been paying or offering some kind of reward to researchers who also deny climate change. But until now this was only an unconfirmed rumour.

A recent analysis conducted by Carbon Brief investigated no less than 900 published papers, all of which cast doubts on climate change, or even speak against it. After concluding this investigation, they found that 9 out of 10 of the most prolific ones had some sort of connection with Exxon Mobil. You can find a link to these papers at the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

The results showed that out of the 938 papers cited, 186 of them were written by only ten men, and foremost among them was Dr Sherwood B Idso, who personally authored 67 of them. Idso is the president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, an ExxonMobil funded think tank. The second most prolific was Dr Patrick J Michaels, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, who receives roughly 40% of his funding from the oil industry.

The thing is, a significant amount of these studies don’t focus on human driven climate change, which is why it’s extremely easy to misquote their results. If you take for example an article written by Professor Richard Zeebe, University of Hawaii, you’d find an interesting conclusion: feedbacks such as increases in other greenhouse gases were responsible for a substantial part of global warming, alongside the direct impact of carbon dioxide. Here’s what Professor Zeebe had to say:
“Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading.”

A paper by Meehl et al, also placed on the list, discussed the effects of the 11 year solar cycle on the tropical Pacific. The author of the paper, Gerald Meehl, of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), said: “It’s odd that our 2009 paper is on a site about global warming. Our paper addressed specifically the climate system response to the 11-year solar cycle. Thus it is about decadal timescale climate variability. “It said nothing about long-term warming trends, and in fact, in the last sentence of the paper, we state, ‘This response also cannot be used to explain recent global warming because the 11-year solar cycle has not shown a measurable trend over the past 30 years.’”.

But what about the others, the ones who get their funding from oil giants and then write dubious papers, misquoting other people’s work and misinforming the general public? These are not researchers, they are puppets.

It’s clear that E&E’s papers are cited relatively infrequently – suggesting the inclusion of a substantial number of them on the ‘900+’ list does not demonstrate widespread disagreement with the scientific consensus on climate change, but rather that these views are confined to a small climate skeptic lobby.

And finally, here are the numbers:
Contrary to Popular Belief Scientists are united on Climate Change by Dr. James Powell.

By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17 percent or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here.

The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to “global warming,” for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17.

Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science.

Global warming deniers often claim that bias prevents them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. But 24 articles in 18 different journals, collectively making several different arguments against global warming, expose that claim as false. Articles rejecting global warming can be published, but those that have been have earned little support or notice, even from other deniers.

Incidentally, Powell is also the executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, a partnership among government agencies and laboratories, industry, and higher education dedicated to increasing the number of American citizens with graduate degrees in the physical sciences and related engineering fields. This article is cross-posted with permission with the Columbia University Press blog.

So in summary, you Neanderthals are puppets on a string being fed bullshit at every opportunity. And I got tons more links and information on the subject but I think you’ll have enough to read before the lights go out.
commented 2016-04-04 14:03:34 -0400
Kokes wrote, “She uses profanity to drive her ill-conceived thoughts”, well that certainly is evident. Anyone can see how profane I am when I comment. If you mean when I posted F.O. when you started with the sexist comments I won’t deny that’s what I posted.

Instead of playing games why don’t you tell us why John R. Christy, Patrick J. Michaels, Richard S. Lindzen, Roy W. Spencer, S. Fred Singer, and Sherwood B. Idso’s credentials and opinions are not legitimate? Six very serious scientists who question the legitimacy of anthropogenic climate change.
commented 2016-04-04 12:54:06 -0400
“climatefallacy commented 22 hours ago
Follow Patrick Moore and read his tweets for all the counterevidence.
The truth will set you free.
Come to the light side and escape the propaganda.

You however do not deserve 24 hours but I will wait nevertheless with great pleasure to show you the biggest fool of all.
commented 2016-04-04 12:50:47 -0400
“Drew Wakariuk commented 15 hours ago
Mr Kokes i mean actual proof not more BS from bought and paid for sheep.”

Ahhh, looks like I’m be hitting two dumb birds with one stone. How nice! As stated, I’ll see you Neanderthals in 24 hours. I’m so excited.
commented 2016-04-04 12:47:20 -0400
“Robert Hewgill commented 15 hours ago
Tim Ball has published plenty of it, and there is all kinds of it on all kinds of sites. What doesn’t exist is any real climate science to prove what you say. Man made global warming exists entirely in the phony computer models and fraudulent temperature data adjustments.

I’m going to be kind to you Robert and give you 24 hours to recant the above information. I am only giving you this option because I see you are not only ignorant but naive as well. So please recant or I will show you the fool that you are, unequivocally.

As for the one that hangs off your every testicle – Lisa Rose-Coloured Glasses, I have nothing to say to her. She uses profanity to drive her ill-conceived thoughts and that is not in keeping with a productive discussion. Moreover, I believe she was cracked too many times on the head with a club by her Neanderthal tribe. So as far as I am concerned, she can talk to my hand.

In any case Robert, you got 24 hours. I would advise you to do some research during this period so you can recant in some dignity, however, I do know that sheep like you have a stubborn mindset just as your “earth is flat” ancestors did. And I’m counting on that. :)
commented 2016-04-03 23:17:26 -0400
This article states, " These studies all suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration could raise the planet’s mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4°C. Even this modicum of warming may never be realized…"
Inter-Research Climate Research
commented 2016-04-03 22:14:14 -0400
Robert Hewgill, that is a find. Thanks for that link.
commented 2016-04-03 22:04:44 -0400
Mr Kokes i mean actual proof not more BS from bought and paid for sheep.
commented 2016-04-03 21:11:04 -0400
Tim Ball has published plenty of it, and there is all kinds of it on all kinds of sites. What doesn’t exist is any real climate science to prove what you say. Man made global warming exists entirely in the phony computer models and fraudulent temperature data adjustments.

Mr. Kokes commented 8 hours ago
Let’s see some “real” scientific studies that suggest otherwise what I have said. Show me one shred of evidence whereby a creditable, scholarly and peer reviewed scientist has stated unequivocally in what you believe, in that, there is no human induced global warming. But you won’t because you have been given several opportunities to do so by me and you have yet to come to the plate on this.
commented 2016-04-03 21:05:56 -0400
Mr. Kokes commented 8 hours ago
Let’s see some “real” scientific studies that suggest otherwise what I have said. Show me one shred of evidence whereby a creditable, scholarly and peer reviewed scientist has stated unequivocally in what you believe, in that, there is no human induced global warming. But you won’t because you have been given several opportunities to do so by me and you have yet to come to the plate on this.
commented 2016-04-03 15:53:42 -0400
So what. The energy industry has every right to fund who ever they want, and be advised by anyone they want to get the truth out. The energy industry is one of only five industries in the etire world that can create original wealth, as all original; wealth comes from the ground because there is nowhere else for it come from. You and your like are nothing but shills for the murdering alternative energy scams that such the life out of the economy and kill the old seniors in the UK and make power unavoidable millions of others. Mostly those who already power and can no longer afford. The cure for this democide is the rope.

Mr. Kokes commented 2 hours agoMr. Kokes commented 2 hours ago

Sorry Robert but you are an ignorant fool. Tim Ball was a “scientific advisor” to the oil industry funded Friends of Science, an organization well known for its climate skepticism and politically charged attack ads.
commented 2016-04-03 14:30:56 -0400
Can we get Al Gore and Lenny Duh Caprio back on stage and prove once and for all time that climate change is nothing more than a fucking scam to raise money. Even the UN is not trying to hide the truth anymore.
Guys like Kokes come on here wasting their time thinking they are hot shit and are going to convince the world their new religion is real. He wants you to quote a scientist that debunks climate change bullshit yet he can’t even publish his own real name nor state his credentials. LMFAO.
He will burn out just like all the rest. God I miss the old days of Jimmy Duh Silva.
commented 2016-04-03 14:28:10 -0400

Follow Patrick Moore and read his tweets for all the counterevidence.
The truth will set you free.
Come to the light side and escape the propaganda.

commented 2016-04-03 13:31:17 -0400
“climatefallacy commented 8 hours ago
Those interested in stamping out the fraud that is the catastrophic global warming propagandization racket, follow Patrick Moore… @ecosensenow
No rational human could read his tweets for two week and still believe this fraudulent crime against humanity. His research is based on REAL science, verified facts, unadulterated data, sound evidence, robust statistics, rational logic.
As opposed to the fake and disproved consensus crap that doesn’t even exist and fails any test of repeatability thus nonscientific; and the fraudsters’ scaremongering and other appeals to the emotional heartstrings of the public they’ve resorted to, because of the zero-empirical evidence plight they are in.
Luckily, there are lots of reasons to be optimistic that this climate cult will be crushed soon.
Once the Republicans take office, they vow to stop and defund this nonsense;
plus put the U.N. back in it’s place; which has gone wayward.
Hold strong folks; we’ll crush this dark force!

Let’s see some “real” scientific studies that suggest otherwise what I have said. Show me one shred of evidence whereby a creditable, scholarly and peer reviewed scientist has stated unequivocally in what you believe, in that, there is no human induced global warming. But you won’t because you have been given several opportunities to do so by me and you have yet to come to the plate on this.

I hope when you face your maker He will forgive you for your indiscretions towards humanity in the garbage you spew. Not only are you an oxymoron but a complete moron as well. Because you are wrong on so many levels.
commented 2016-04-03 13:22:40 -0400
“Robert Hewgill commented 5 hours ago
Nothing you have said changes anything about Tim Ball. He is still what I said he is, and has publish paper after paper, which appear on many sites around the internet including his own, discrediting the man made global warming scam from well known scientific historical fact. If you are a climatologist. it is of the Mann and Hansen type. Both of who are discredited by their own actions. Friends of science is one of many excellent scientific sites on climate, and I’ll remind you that smear is not science, nor is junk science, misleading inform, or outright lies.”

Sorry Robert but you are an ignorant fool. Tim Ball was a “scientific advisor” to the oil industry funded Friends of Science, an organization well known for its climate skepticism and politically charged attack ads.

[In August, 2006] The Globe and Mail revealed that the group had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry, including a major grant from the Science Education Fund, a donor-directed, flow-through charitable fund at the Calgary Foundation. The donations were funnelled through a University of Calgary trust account research set up and controlled by U of C Professor Barry Cooper. The revelations were based largely on the prior investigations of, which had reported on the background of FoS scientific advisors and Cooper’s role in FoS funding. In the course of an internal review and audit begun in March of 2007, the University determined that some of the research funds accepted on behalf of the Friends of Science “had been used to support a partisan viewpoint on climate change”, and unspent grant money was returned on September 10, 2007, according to a Calgary Foundation statement. As a consequence, the University advised FoS “that it would no longer accept funds on the organization’s behalf”, according to an email from University legal counsel Elizabeth Osler sent on December 24, 2007. On February 17, 2008, CanWest News Service reported that U of C officials had shut down Cooper’s “‘Research on Climate Change’ trust account” …

In its heyday, Friends of Science managed to funnel hundreds of thousands dollars in non-taxable charitable donations to projects run by two of the top PR disinformation specialists in Canada: Tom Harris, then of APCO Worldwide, co-ordinated the production and dissemination of the FoS video, Climate Catastrophe Cancelled. The film featured several former and current FoS “scientific advisors”, including Tim Ball, Tim Patterson and Ross McKitrick. Morten Paulsen, lobbyist and Conservative Party organizer, ran an anti-Kyoto radio ad campaign during the 2005-6 federal election campaign, targeting several key close ridings (electoral divisions) in the province of Ontario. Paulsen, in a new role as Alberta vice-president for PR giant Fleishman-Hillard, lobbied the the Canadian government (ostensibly on behalf of Friends of Science), from March 2006 up to August 2006.

Here is the corresponding part of the grant history of the Scientific Education Fund as of early last year (from an official Calgary Foundation statement in April 2008). Grant History $100,000 11/15/2005 University of Calgary $100,000 03/15/2006 University of Calgary To support academic research in the science of climate change $25,000 06/07/2007 University of Calgary <$25,000> 09/10/2007 University of Calgary returned This donation was returned due to U of C investigation that found the funds supported a partisan viewpoint on climate change.

The timing of the first two “academic research” grants, totaling $200,000, indicates clearly that they were directed to support the above-mentioned activities of Morten Paulsen (i.e. the Ontario ad campaign in 2005-6 and lobbying efforts in 2006).

However, the grant history also shows that since the Globe and Mail revelations of 2006 and subsequent internal U of C investigations, Friends of Science activities have been greatly constrained. In 2007, a proposed Heartland-style climate conference, to be organized by Barry Cooper and Tim Patterson, was postponed and eventually cancelled. Presumably, the returned $25,000 grant had been earmarked for this purpose.

But it appears that is all about to change, as detailed in the latest FoS newsletter, released at the end of June. The newsletter makes the political motivation and policy objectives of the two new projects very clear: Public support for an alarmist driven agenda has been waning as evidence for a warming atmosphere has not materialized. But still Canadian media such as the CBC and the Globe & Mail continue to stress the coming climate disasters: rising sea levels, greater incidence of malaria, extensive droughts, etc…. The Friends have lobbied politicians in an attempt to encourage a debate between the two sides of the climate change issue. But we have failed. It has become clear that our “leaders” are reluctant to adopt a stance which they fear is politically incorrect. If change is to be accomplished it must be driven by the “man on the street”. We won’t change the way politicians act until we change what the majority of Canadians believe. The Friends feel that steps should be taken to make the Canadian public better aware of actual climatic events which render IPCC predictions unacceptable as a basis for government policy. To that end we are planning two projects: a Canada-wide speaking tour by Lord Christopher Monckton and a radio blitz which will direct the listener to the Friends of Science web page. [Emphasis added]

After all, that’s the only reasonable explanation for the group that calls itself “Friends of Science”. Because friends certainly don’t act the way they do. Ignoring all of science and then saying whoppers about it isn’t something I’d consider exactly friendly to science."

So with friends like this, how needs any enemies?
commented 2016-04-03 13:20:20 -0400
Climatefallacy,"Luckily, there are lots of reasons to be optimistic that this climate cult will be crushed soon.
Once the Republicans take office, they vow to stop and defund this nonsense;
plus put the U.N. back in it’s place; which has gone wayward.

Hold strong folks; we’ll crush this dark force! "

I’m counting on it , we had all better hope you are right, Climatefallacy.
commented 2016-04-03 13:18:17 -0400
“Glenn Craig commented 13 hours ago
“Mr Kokes…I sense that was heartfelt and I will carefully examine this….but may I say this to you…assuming that you are a younger man than me….I was around when the word “ecology” was introduced into the vernacular vocabulary…..I was a friend of the son of the first professor in Canada to profess it…..
I have attended the end of the world too many times to get into a panick about it…..:-)
I am not a Bible pounding Christian….not any more…probaly passed that point before you were born….but I remember once being in despair about the state of the world…and I did what is the most universal “superstition”…I consulted “auspicious co-incidence” …now this is the antithesis of science….yet I caught even my older brother…a professor of neuclear physics…admitting to this….when you just don’t know you seek it.
I am no longer a Christian ….but I find these words harbour a profound truth….at the time I was really worried…with good scientific reason….that the world was going to duke it out nuclear…..
But He was in the hind part of the boat, asleep on a pillow; and they awoke Him and said unto Him, “Master, carest thou not that we perish?”

Nice to see that you have come down from that high horse to tell your story as one would do in an addictions meeting. Firstly, respecting your statement, “I was around when the word “ecology” was introduced into the vernacular vocabulary”. The term “ecology” dates back to the mid 1800s so I doubt you can be that old. So some advice, try to be more accurate in what you say so people would take you more seriously. Secondly, I may indeed be just as old or older than you.

I will admit that I: have attended the end of the world too many times to get into a panic about it; am not a Bible pounding Christian, and although I am not a practicing Christian believe that faith has merit.

However, I would like to elaborate on the “end of the world” comment. Never in all my years have I believed in any of that which was mostly perpetuated by the Christian extremists. In university I became aware of environmental issues and thought it would take centuries to get there. This was certainly not a concern for me at the time. Through the years I became inundated as many have with environmental concerns being front and centre. At first I ignored them as “end of the world” thinking. Al Gore came to mind and I believed at that time he was talking about things that would take centuries.

Then in the last few years I began an earnest attempt to be objective and to look at the issue again through my learned eyes. Admittedly I was not that committed in this endeavour when the Kyoto Protocol emerged in the early 90s. Just was busy with life and had more important thing to do. But then more recently I found myself defending my point of view on the environment with a few friends. Being that I have the credentials to speak directly to these issues I immersed myself into the information before me. And what I have found was alarming. In fact, every year since I’ve been monitoring the situation and it’s only getting worse. I believe in my heart of hearts that within this century we are going to face difficult times and those times will only get worse for our grandchildren. I worry that things have escalated too fast and that we are way behind the eight ball on this. It may not be the “end of the world” within the century but the world will look totally different.

In our hemisphere and depending how high you are above sea level, we will be enjoying weather that the southern states have been enjoying for years. The oceans will be 27 feet or so higher inundating coastal regions and contaminating our fresh water with the salty sea. Water and food will be cherished resources as drought conditions will be prolific around the world. Insects will mutant with the heat and bring in new diseases. Huge die offs of our sea creatures will occur with the red tides becoming more frequent. And I am not trying to sound like Armageddon as many of us in the northern hemisphere should do okay for a while. But how are we going to hold back the riptide of all those who want to migrate here. If you think the Syrian crisis is bad, just wait.

And I’m being honest here. I do not have a horse in the race. I am not paid by an environmental group or am I a member of one. I have just looked at the scientific observations with learned eyes and what I saw causes me deep concern. And the UN’s adaptive management initiatives will be buried under the sea like Atlantis.
commented 2016-04-03 09:49:34 -0400
Rae Fraser commented 3 hours ago
I hear tell that Justin is making a deal with Obama. He will give the oil sands to the USA if this can be the new Canadian National anthem——-

Canada—- We embrace euthanasia. — We have NO Identity —We have NO Culture —-We have NO Religion — our Children have NOTHING to live for —our Children have NOTHING to die for — Our Children are SAFE Vote LIBERAL— Praise JUSTIN !

Do you ever get that ‘deja vu’ feeling deep inside? — Mr Kokes The same LOST feeling that the Natives endure. That same Feeling that Justin wants Canadians to embrace. We will become just a Place on the Map. – We will have NO Culture – We will have NO Identity — We will have NO Religion

Rae Fraser is smoking cow shit and has lost his mind.
commented 2016-04-03 08:08:24 -0400
Nothing you have said changes anything about Tim Ball. He is still what I said he is, and has publish paper after paper, which appear on many sites around the internet including his own, discrediting the man made global warming scam from well known scientific historical fact. If you are a climatologist. it is of the Mann and Hansen type. Both of who are discredited by their own actions. Friends of science is one of many excellent scientific sites on climate, and I’ll remind you that smear is not science, nor is junk science, misleading inform, or outright lies.

Mr. Kokes commented 9 hours ago
commented 2016-04-03 06:30:06 -0400
I hear tell that Justin is making a deal with Obama. He will give the oil sands to the USA if this can be the new Canadian National anthem——-