Skip to content

Climate Alarmist Professors: Vote Hillary or the Planet Will Fry!

September 23, 2016

By Paul Homewood 




From Dellers:


Hundreds of members of the US National Academy of Sciences have signed an open letter in support of Hillary because global warming.

The signatories – 375 in all – don’t actually mention Donald Trump by name. But it’s pretty clear that that’s whom they’re getting at when they deliver their hectoring screed about certain candidates during the Presidential primary campaign who claimed “that the Earth is not warming, or that warming is due to purely natural causes outside of human control.”

Calling themselves Responsible Scientists, they warn:

Human-caused climate change is not a belief, a hoax, or a conspiracy. It is a physical reality. Fossil fuels powered the Industrial Revolution. But the burning of oil, coal, and gas also caused most of the historical increase in atmospheric levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. This increase in greenhouse gases is changing Earth’s climate.

Our fingerprints on the climate system are visible everywhere. They are seen in warming of the oceans, the land surface, and the lower atmosphere. They are identifiable in sea level rise, altered rainfall patterns, retreat of Arctic sea ice, ocean acidification, and many other aspects of the climate system. Human-caused climate change is not something far removed from our day-to-day experience, affecting only the remote Arctic. It is present here and now, in our own country, in our own states, and in our own communities.

And so on.

If it sounds like stuff you’ve heard a thousand times before from the usual shrill, grant-troughing, rent-seeking, data-fudging, jet-setting, money-grubbing, scientific-method-abusing, FOI-dodging, lying, cheating, climate alarmist scum bags, that’s because you have.

The list of signatories is like a Who’s Who of the very worst perpetuators of the man made global warming scare. (Well almost: it seems they couldn’t quite bring themselves to associate themselves with figures as tainted as Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann or NASA GISS’s resident data-adjuster Gavin Schmidt). Their livelihoods depend on this scam – or hoax or conspiracy: it’s both those things too, whatever they may state – and the last thing they need is a Donald Trump presidency coming to slaughter their milch cow.

Next to their names are their seats of academe: Columbia, Johns Hopkins, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, and so on.

As a disinterested reader, you’re supposed to be impressed by the lofty distinction of such credentialled expertise.

But to anyone who knows about what’s been happening in the field of climate science and related environmental studies these last few decades, a more natural response is sheer disgust.

How did every one of our learned institutions get captured by these charlatans?

How do all these tenured professors and PhDs and beneficiaries of taxpayer largesse have the nerve and gall and bravado to append their names to a public statement so dishonest and unscientific?

The first two paragraphs, quoted above, make a mountain out of a mole hill. While few scientists doubt that there may be some anthropogenic influence on climate, all the evidence suggests that such difference as we humans make to it is so trivial as to be meaningless.

It is a flat-out lie to claim, as these ‘Responsible Scientists’ do in the paragraph below, that the debate is over:

We are certain beyond a reasonable doubt, however, that the problem of human-caused climate change is real, serious, and immediate, and that this problem poses significant risks: to our ability to thrive and build a better future, to national security, to human health and food production, and to the interconnected web of living systems.

And the rest – which warns of the terrible consequences if Trump were to become US president and fulfil his threat to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement – is pure politicking.

If the US did pull out of the Paris climate agreement the effect on “global warming” would be zero – not least because, being toothless and non-binding the agreement at Paris does not commit its 190 signatories to doing anything other than make soothing noises about their good intentions.

As for this next bit: it could have been written by Enron – or George Soros. It’s nothing more than a one world government masterplan for a new economic order in which energy users are obliged by state fiat to treat carbon dioxide as a menace – despite the glaring lack of scientific evidence that it is anything other than a harmless and beneficial trace gas.

The United States can and must be a major player in developing innovative solutions to the problem of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Nations that find innovative ways of decarbonizing energy systems and sequestering CO2 will be the economic leaders of the 21st century.

Can and must? Says who?

The man-made global warming scare is the most expensive and large scale fraud in scientific history. The sooner someone prominent on the international stage has the courage to point this out, the sooner the house of cards that is the decarbonisation industry will come tumbling down and the global economy can readjust itself to producing stuff that people actually want and need and that doesn’t require being bailed out by massive taxpayer subsidies.

Whoever does this will require balls of steel and no loyalty whatsoever to the establishment elite.

That person’s name is probably not going to be Hillary.

  1. marlene permalink
    September 23, 2016 4:45 pm

    Vote Trump or the people will fry!

    • AlecM permalink
      September 24, 2016 9:53 am

      Vote Climate Change or The Granny gets it……….

  2. September 23, 2016 5:10 pm

    Includes the ubiquitous Paul Ehrlich:

    “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 (Quote from 1969)”

    • Graeme No.3 permalink
      September 23, 2016 5:18 pm

      This quote says it all, just change provincial to blinkered, or self serving or leave it out. And change city to University.
      “The provincial view you get from someone living in some wealthy American East Coast city is wildly different from reality”.

      By the way, what happened to his string of predictions about the oil running out soon?

  3. September 23, 2016 5:22 pm

    Based on polling directions, if Trump does well in Monday’s upcoming debate (defined as no goof ups and presidential demeanor) it could well be election game over. Where Clinton draws 300, Trump draws 3000 or more. Those folks names are being taken and can be mobilized for the ground game. 2.1 million donations under $200 in just 3 months. Clinton has 2.3 million in over 18 months. Then climate research spending gets cut and these signatories will have to get real jobs.

  4. CheshireRed permalink
    September 23, 2016 5:52 pm

    It’s going to be a bad few months for Liberals. Labour thrashed by the Tories, Brexit (!) and next Trump will be in the White House. Will he get access to US government email servers? Could make Climategate look like a warm-up act before the real thing. (I also harbour hopes Russian hackers could spill the beans, too. That would be nice)

  5. September 23, 2016 6:04 pm

    In other words, they need to keep the climate change grants rolling in.

  6. bushwalker permalink
    September 23, 2016 6:08 pm

    I notice Hansen is a signatory. So he hasn’t completely blotted his copybook with his promotion of nuclear.

  7. TinyCO2 permalink
    September 23, 2016 6:28 pm

    Gove had it right, the public are sick of experts, not because they don’t respect expertise but because the experts have been going beyond their remit. They’re using their status to influence things they don’t have any right to influence. This idea of being a major player is a generosity stemming from people that feel they can afford it. I’m fairly sure the average American doesn’t feel they owe the rest of the World and as surveys show, even the believers refuse to spend a fraction of what CO2 removal would take. The public have worked out that like their leaders, the scientists will sell the publi out at every turn. And then have the gall to tell them it’s for their own good.

  8. September 23, 2016 7:12 pm

    ‘Climate Alarmist Professors: Vote Hillary or the Planet Will Fry!’
    should read:
    ‘Climate Alarmist Professors: Vote Hillary or we Professors Will Fry!’

    Better believe it Profs.

  9. Broadlands permalink
    September 23, 2016 8:07 pm

    What Trump ought to do is agree, Yes, our added CO2 has risen more than 40% and it has resulted in a temperature rise of less than one degree Celsius and a sea level rise of a few inches, less than a foot…. in 200 years. If this has created damage to the environment it was caused by weather (as it always has) not by our added CO2. Then he should point out that we humans cannot possibly capture, remove and re-bury from the atmosphere the carbon we extracted and used for our energy over the last 30 years. That’s 50 parts-per-million which translates into 100,000 million metric tons, an enormous amount? Even if we had the technology where would we put it…safely? How long will it take? Will re-burying all that carbon lower the global temperature? Certainly the continued “hand-wringing” about model driven predictions and the “catastrophic” future their “crystal-ball” sees will do nothing.

    Makes one wonder why all those professors have given so little serious thought to what we should do to prevent this dangerous future. All they seem to want to do is talk about how bad the “denialists” have been, how we are ignoring this “clear” problem, and in making scientific skepticism a term of derision and ridicule.

  10. Rowland Pantling permalink
    September 23, 2016 9:18 pm

    “The fundamental art of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”. H L Mencken

  11. September 23, 2016 10:38 pm

    Vote Trump just to watch these professors fry

  12. September 23, 2016 10:47 pm

    Its the luke-warmers who are the problem. They say we don’t know the extent of the warming due to CO2. In fact there is none.

    The Southern Hemisphere exhibits no warming at all in the month of December over the last seven decades. There is no countervailing force to negate the impact of the supposed greenhouse effect in December! One instance of failure should be sufficient to discard the hypothesis.

    Natural modes of climate change yield different rates of change, according to location, both increasing and decreasing, according to the month of the year.

    There are three ways to look at the data to verify this assertion, two relating to raw data and the third relating to the variations from the whole of period average for each month of the year:

    • September 24, 2016 8:57 am

      Maybe they haven’t got round to ‘adjusting’ the SH data yet 😉

      • Broadlands permalink
        September 24, 2016 3:39 pm

        NASA/GISS doesn’t have any SH data? NOAA has none for either hemisphere, the land only. East Anglia has destroyed their “raw” data.

        Please tell me if any of this is wrong.

  13. Bloke down the pub permalink
    September 24, 2016 10:20 am

    Johnson + Weld, standing on the Libertarian ticket are also no fans of cagw troughers and so this letter may be aimed at them as well.

  14. September 24, 2016 10:27 am

    Concerned “scientists” are shouting “Vote Hillary”.

    What they are really concerned about is the danger of their money-grubbing scam been exposed.

    • CheshireRed permalink
      September 24, 2016 12:30 pm

      They’re howling now because they know Trump is a confirmed sceptic and there’s a better-than-decent chance of a Trump presidency. We could be just a couple of months away from the beginning of the end of the scare. They realise danger to their gravy train – unlike to the planet via their mythical ‘climate change’, is real.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        September 25, 2016 10:57 am

        it could be a pincer movement. Trump on one side and solar minimum bringing cooling on the other.

  15. September 26, 2016 10:39 am

    Broadlands, for the data go to kALNAYS REANALYSIS AT

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: