DeGrasse Tyson: Climate Deniers ‘Unraveling’ ‘Informed Democracy’

During a wild segment of MSNBC Live on Wednesday morning, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson railed against climate change skeptics. He questioned their education, intelligence, and claimed they were participating in “the unraveling of an informed democracy.” And it was all said to the glee of MSNBC co-hosts Ali Velshi and Stephanie Ruhle.

These are shots across our bow,” Tyson claimed about the recent hurricanes. And to have people still saying I choose not to follow what the consensus of observations and experiments give us,” he huffed in complete disbelief.

He then chastised the skeptics, claiming they were irresponsible and willfully putting people’s lives at risk. “Well, so, first, anyone who wants to base policy on what might be research papers that are not in the consensus of what other observations have shown, that is risky. That is — no, it’s irresponsible,” he angrily proclaimed.

To say here is one research paper, that’s the truth because it fulfills my political, cultural, religious, economic philosophies,” he spat. “people cherry-picking science in the fringes of what is otherwise the emerging consensus of observation and experiment. So, that’s disturbing to me.

What’s really disturbing was that a scientist (Tyson) would cherry-pick the scientific explanations he would listen to, because their conclusions didn’t fulfill his political, cultural, religious, economic philosophies.



In fact, there were plenty of climate scientists that believed either that it’s too soon to tell if climate change was the cause or that climate change didn’t play a role at all. According to environment analyst Nicolas Loris:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in its most recent scientific assessment that “(n)o robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes … have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin,” and that there are “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency.”

Loris also noted that the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) believed “it is premature to conclude that human activities” played a role in causing the hurricanes this season. NBC’s own Al Roker once explained that since 2017 was a non-El Nino year there was less wind shear at higher altitudes, thus allowing the storms to get stronger.

All of that was science Tyson denied was real. Which was ultimately par for the course for Tyson considering he’s known for making vastly inaccurate statements and using false quotes. He recently appeared on CNN where he claimed Abraham Lincoln was alive in 1963. The 16th U.S. president was assassinated in 1865.

<<< Please support MRC’s NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>

Tyson’s conclusion apparently triggered Ruhel because she immediately began to slam those who disagree with her guest. “It goes beyond denying science, it’s about good long-term decision making. But people aren’t making good long-term decisions whether you’re talking about business or science,” she exclaimed. “But people aren’t necessarily adding thoughtfulness to their calculation. Because isn’t what shareholders are looking for and it’s not what voters look for.

That is the unraveling of an informed democracy,” Tyson declared, to Ruhel’s excitement.

Clearly, that “analysis” by Tyson was just political opportunism. He was exploiting a tragedy to push climate change when other believers in the theory say they aren’t sure yet.

Transcript below:

September 20, 2017
11:38:46 AM Eastern


NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: This could be just an unlucky year to have so many intense storms. By the way, how many people are reminded that tropical depressions are named alphabetically? Right?


Sign Up for MRC Newsletters!

We’re up to “M” and often they don’t make it up to hurricane status. So, you see hurricanes in sequence, they’re not necessarily consecutive in the alphabet.


TYSON: That could just be unlucky. However, consider that when you warm the planet the capacity of the air to retain moisture goes up.

STEPHANIE RUHLE: You’re referencing climate change.

TYSON: Yes. Generally, when we think of weather, we don’t think of clear blue skies. We think of what water is doing in the atmosphere. Is it snow, sleet, hail, rain, wind driven. When we think of weather, that’s what we think of.


And so these are shots across our bow. And to have people still saying I choose not to follow what the consensus of observations and experiments give us.


TYSON: Well, so, first, anyone who wants to base policy on what might be research papers that are not in the consensus of what other observations have shown, that is risky. That is — no, it’s irresponsible. To say here is one research paper, that’s the truth because it fulfills my political, cultural, religious, economic philosophies.

ALI VELSHI: How do you reconcile this? Why are we having this debate? It is not a global phenomenon, by the way. It’s a uniquely American—some people in the U.K.—were we got the strength of argument that suggests that science should not be trusted.

RUHLE: And I cannot imagine that someone who’s studying astrophysics would have considered religion or philosophy would be a roadblock to research.

TYSON: Or economics or whatever it is to people cherry-picking science in the fringes of what is otherwise the emerging consensus of observation and experiment. So, that’s disturbing to me.


RUHLE: But to both of you. It goes beyond denying science, it’s about good long-term decision making.


But people aren’t making good long-term decisions whether you’re talking about business or science.


RUHLE: But people aren’t necessarily adding thoughtfulness to their calculation. Because isn’t what shareholders are looking for and it’s not what voters look for.

TYSON: That is the unraveling of an informed democracy.

RUHLE: Say that one more time!


Source Article from

Nonprofits That Tie Hurricanes to Climate Change Got $341M in Two Years

Left-wing environmental groups peddle global warming alarmism all the time, especially during major hurricane devastation. Turns out those same green groups saw a lot of the other kind of green in the past two years — $341 million in donations to just seven organizations.

Groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Democracy Now! And Union of Concerned Scientists, which get big bucks from billionaires like George Soros and the Rockefellers, all tried to link Hurricanes Harvey and Irma to manmade climate change from carbon dioxide and “fossil fuels.”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the very agency that monitors and forecasts hurricanes, said on its website “it is premature” to link hurricane intensity to climate change. That didn’t stop those liberal nonprofits from declaring there was a connection.

During Harvey and Irma, the Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, Union of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace, and Democracy now! made sweeping assertions about climate change, including “climate change made Hurricane Harvey more deadly” and fossil fuel use “supercharges” hurricanes. even advocated creating a new Category 6 for “super storms that are emerging in our changed climate.”

These groups were able to promote their alarmist messages to a wide audience because they are backed by millions of dollars from powerful donors. The seven groups received at least $341,015,472 in donations in 2014 and 2015 alone.

Some of the most notable donors included Open Society Foundations and Open Society Institute (two foundations run by left wing billionaire George Soros), the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Tides Foundation. Many of those foundations gave to multiple left-wing, environmental non-profits. In fact, Union of Concerned Scientists was the only one of the seven organizations Rockefeller groups did not fund in in 2014 and 2015.

Open Society Foundations and several Rockefeller foundations provided early funding for anti-ExxonMobil journalism campaigns that began in 2015. Since then, smearing the fossil fuel industry went hand in hand with linking climate change to natural disasters like hurricanes.

But the same government agency responsible for hurricane forecasting acknowledged the lack of scientific proof that carbon dioxide emissions are impacting hurricanes. NOAA’s geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory said, “It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.”

Greenpeace, which received more than $17 million in 2014 and 2015, directly contradicted NOAA’s statement on Aug. 28..

“While we cannot say definitively that climate change caused Hurricane Harvey, science tells us with confidence that it has increased the impact of the flooding and heightened the intensity of the storm,” Greenpeace blog editor Ryan Schleeter wrote.

As proof, Schleeter cited climate alarmist Michael Mann, the Penn State meteorology professor responsible for the infamous “hockey stick” graph. also cited Mann in fearmongering Tweets saying “Climate Change made Hurricane Harvey more deadly.”

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) went beyond the hurricanes to claim climate change also increased the hurricanes’ storm surges.

“This increasing phenomena is due, in large part, to sea level rise, which is triggered by human-caused global warming as warmer ocean water expands and land ice melts,” EDF’s senior climate scientist Scott Weaver said on Aug. 25.

On Sept. 8, days before Irma made landfall in Florida, EDF senior communications director of Climate, Health and Political Affairs Keith Gaby said, “We’ve always had hurricanes, but climate change is making them stronger.” Gaby blasted Trump’s EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt for saying it was “insensitive” to push the climate change agenda during devastating hurricanes.

“The fact is, it’s insensitive to deny climate reality right when people are being so badly hurt by the impacts of it. It’s like telling people to shut up about germs during a flu epidemic,” Gaby wrote.

ThinkProgress, a blog of the Center for American Progress (CAP), also criticized Pruitt, calling his statements “exactly backwards.”

“As horrible as Harvey was — and as Irma is shaping up to be — recognizing the role climate change is playing in this year’s superstorms must help guide recovery and resiliency efforts,” ThinkProgress claimed on Sept. 7.

CAP received more than $39.8 million in 2014 and 2015, but donation records did not reveal how much of was directed to ThinkProgress.

Two days before Irma struck the Keys, the “largest nonprofit environmental law organization” EarthJustice encouraged readers to donate specifically to its “partners on the frontlines,” rather than encouraging donations to neutral relief organizations.

“Right now, millions of people are feeling the effects of the massive storms, flooding and fires of the last few weeks—painful reminders that climate change is real and is already wreaking destruction on communities around the world,” EarthJustice’s Vice President of Development Mollie Fager wrote.

On Twitter, EarthJustice also connected climate change and hurricanes multiple times.

The Soros-funded Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) outdid other environmental groups by claiming fossil fuel use specifically “supercharges” hurricanes.

“As we’ve seen time and again, those who pay the ultimate price for climate inaction are not the people driving this crisis. They are not the CEOs overseeing the reckless burning of fossil fuels, which supercharges storms like Hurricanes Harvey and Irma,” NRDC said on Sept.8. “The people who have always suffered the most from environmental disasters are Black, Brown, poor, and the least resourced to cope with a climate changed world.”

The NRDC received more than $91.6 million between 2014 and 2015, including $709,000 from Soros’ foundations.

Between Harvey and Irma, Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) published a blog asking “What’s the Connection Between Climate Change and Hurricane Harvey?” It then cited warmer ocean temperatures and sea level rise which it said was caused by climate change.

On Twitter, UCS said the media “must make connection” between climate change and hurricanes. went beyond writing blog posts linking climate change to hurricanes. It created a petition to “tell your members of Congress: Harvey is a climate change disaster.”

It also shared fearmongering memes on Twitter including asking if Hurricane Irma was “the new normal” and proposing “Cat 6” for “the new super storms that are emerging in our changed climate.”

Far-left online television program Democracy Now! helped spread those messages further by interviewing founder Bill McKibben on Sept. 7. McKibben told viewers, Harvey was “the kind of storm that’s only possible now that we’ve remarkably affected the climate.”

Of course, that was absurd since there were horrific, intense and deadly major hurricanes in 1900 and 1935 and many more even earlier. Galveston, Texas was decimated in 1900 by a hurricane with winds between 130 and 140 miles per hour (Category 4) and a 15 foot storm surge.

That reality didn’t stop Democracy Now! Host Amy Goodman from encouraging McKibben to slam fossil fuels by asking “what does the whole fossil fuel industry have to do with the kind of severe weather we’re experiencing now around the world?”

McKibben accused the fossil fuel industry of “unreason” and “its inability to deal with the fact that its business model has to change.”

Other liberal climate change nonprofits like DeSmog Blog, InsideClimate News, Grist, and NextGen America (formerly NextGen Climate) also linked hurricanes Harvey and Irma to climate change, but their full donor information was not publically available.

Source Article from

Climate Change Science Implodes As IPCC Climate Models Found To Be Totally Wrong – Temperatures Aren’t Rising As Predicted – Hoax Unraveling

A stunning new science paper authored by climate change alarmists and published in the science journal Nature Geoscience has just broken the back of the climate change hoax. The paper, authored by Myles R. Allen, Richard J. Millar and others, reveals that global warming climate models are flat wrong, having been deceptively biased toward “worst case” warming predictions that now turn out to be paranoid scare mongering.

The paper, entitled, “Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C,” concludes that the global warming long feared and hyped by everyone from Al Gore to CNN talking heads was based on faulty software models that don’t stand up to actual measured temperatures in the real world. In technical jargon, the paper explains, “We show that limiting cumulative post-2015 CO2 emissions to about 200GtC would limit post-2015 warming to less than 0.6°C in 66% of Earth system model members.”

In effect, the current global warming software models used by the IPCC and cited by the media wildly over-estimate the warming effects of CO2 emissions. How much do they over-estimate warming? By about 50%. Where the software models predicted a 1.3 C rise in average global temperatures, only a rise of about 0.9 C has actually been recorded (and many data points in that average have, of course, been fabricated by climate change scientists to push a political narrative). In other words, carbon dioxide emissions don’t produce the warming effects that have been blindly claimed by climate change alarmists.

“Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong,” reports the UK Telegraph. “New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.”

In other words, the climate change threat has been wildly overstated. The fear mongering of Al Gore and the government-funded science community can truly only be described as a “junk science hoax.”


Climate alarmists suddenly find themselves admitting they were wrong all along

“The paper … concedes that it is now almost impossible that the doomsday predictions made in the last IPCC Assessment Report of 1.5 degrees C warming above pre-industrial levels by 2022 will come true,” writes James Delingpole. He goes on to say:

One researcher – from the alarmist side of the argument, not the skeptical one – has described the paper’s conclusion as “breathtaking” in its implications.

He’s right. The scientists who’ve written this paper aren’t climate skeptics. They’re longstanding warmists, implacable foes of climate skeptics, and they’re also actually the people responsible for producing the IPCC’s carbon budget.

In other words, this represents the most massive climbdown from the alarmist camp.

Are we about to see climate change alarmists owning up to the fact that real-world data show their software models to be rooted in junk science? The unraveling has begun, but there is so much political capital already invested in the false climate change narrative that it will take years to fully expose the depth of scientific fraud and political dishonesty underpinning the global warming hoax.


Climate change software models were deliberately tweaked to paint an exaggerated doomsday picture in order to scare the world into compliance panic

What’s clear from all this is that IPCC software models were deliberately biased in favor of the worst-case “doomsday” predictions in order to terrorize the world with a fake climate change hoax. But now the fake science is catching up to them, and they’re getting caught in their own lies.

The software models, by the way, were fraudulently programmed with dishonest model “weights” to produce alarming warming predictions no matter what temperature data points were entered into the system.

This is best explained in this Natural News article which goes into great detail, covering the IPCC global warming software modeling hoax:


Hacking the IPCC global warming data

The same left-wing media outlets that fabricated the “Russian hacking” conspiracy, curiously, have remained totally silent about a real, legitimate hacking that took place almost two decades earlier. The IPCC “global warming” software models, we now know, were “hacked” from the very beginning, programmed to falsely produce “hockey stick” visuals from almost any data set… include “random noise” data.

What follows are selected paragraphs from a fascinating book that investigated this vast political and scientific fraud: The Real Global Warming Disaster by Christopher Booker (Continuum, 2009). This book is also available as an audio book from, so if you enjoy audio books, download a copy there.

Here’s what Booker found when he investigated the “hacking” of the temperature data computer models:

From “The Real Global Warming Disaster” by Christopher Booker: (bold emphasis added)

Nothing alerted us more to the curious nature of the global warming scare than the peculiar tactics used by the IPCC to promote its orthodoxy, brooking no dissent. More than once in its series of mammoth reports, the IPCC had been caught out in very serious attempts to rewrite the scientific evidence. The most notorious instance of this was the extraordinary prominence it gave in 2001 to the so-called ‘hockey stick’ graph, mysteriously produced by a relatively unknown young US scientist, which completely redrew the accepted historical record by purporting to show temperatures in the late twentieth century having shot upwards to a level far higher than had ever been known before. Although the ‘hockey stick’ was instantly made the central icon of the IPCC’s cause, it was within a few years to become one of the most comprehensively discredited artefacts in the history of science.

Similarly called into serious doubt was the reliability of some of the other temperature figures on which the IPCC based its case. Most notably these included those provided by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Dr James Hansen, A1 Gore’s closest scientific ally, which were one of the four official sources of temperature data on which the IPCC relied. These were shown to have been repeatedly ‘adjusted’, to suggest that temperatures had risen further and more steeply than was indicated by any of the other three main data-sources.

…Out of the blue in 1998 Britain’s leading science journal Nature, long supportive of the warming orthodoxy, published a new paper on global temperature changes over the previous 600 years, back to 1400. Its chief author was Michael Mann, a young physicist-turned-climate scientist at the University of Massachusetts, who had only completed his PhD two years before. In 1999 he and his colleagues published a further paper, based only on North America but extending their original findings over 1000 years.

Their computer model had enabled them to produce a new temperature graph quite unlike anything seen before. Instead of the previously familiar rises and falls, this showed the trend of average temperatures having gently declined through nine centuries, but then suddenly shooting up in the twentieth century to a level that was quite unprecedented.

In Mann’s graph such familiar features as the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age had simply vanished. All those awkward anomalies were shown as having been illusory. The only real anomaly which emerged from their studies was that sudden exponential rise appearing in the twentieth century, culminating in the ‘warmest year of the millennium’, 1998.

As would eventually emerge, there were several very odd features about Mann’s new graph, soon to be known as the ‘hockey stick’ because its shape, a long flattish line curving up sharply at the end, was reminiscent of the stick used in ice hockey. But initially none might have seemed odder than the speed with which this obscure study by a comparatively unknown young scientist came to be taken up as the new ‘orthodoxy’.

So radically did the ‘hockey stick’ rewrite all the accepted versions of climate history that initially it carried all before it, leaving knowledgeable experts stunned. It was not yet clear quite how Mann had arrived at his remarkable conclusions, precisely what data he had used or what methods the IPCC had used to verify his findings. The sensational new graph which the IPCC made the centrepiece of its report had been sprung on the world out of left field.

…Yet when, over the years that followed, a number of experts from different fields began to subject Mann’s two papers to careful analysis, some rather serious questions came to be asked about the basis for his study.

For a start, although Mann and his colleagues had cited other evidence for their computer modelling of historical temperatures, it became apparent that they had leaned particularly heavily on ‘proxy data’ provided by a study five years earlier of tree-rings in ancient bristlecone pine trees growing on the slopes of California’s Sierra Nevada mountains. ‘Proxies’ used to calculate temperature consist of data other than direct measurement, such as tree rings, stalactites, ice cores or lake sediments.

According to the 1993 paper used by Mann, these bristlecone pines had shown significantly accelerated growth in the years after 1900. But the purpose of this original study had not been to research into past temperatures. As was made clear by its title – ‘Detecting the aerial fertilisation effect of atmospheric C02 enrichment in tree-ring chronologies’ – it had been to measure the effect on the trees’ growth rate of the twentieth-century increase in C02 levels.

Tree rings are a notoriously unreliable reflector of temperature changes, because they are chiefly formed during only one short period of the year, and cannot therefore give a full picture. This 1993 study of one group of trees in one untypical corner of the US seemed a remarkably flimsy basis on which to base an estimate of global temperatures going back 1000 years.

Then it transpired that, in order to show the twentieth-century section of the graph, the terrifying upward flick of temperatures at the end of the ‘hockey stick’, spliced in with the tree-ring data had been a set of twentieth-century temperature readings, as recorded by more than 2,000 weather stations across the earth’s surface. It was these which more than anything helped to confirm the most dramatic conclusion of the study, that temperatures in the closing decades of the twentieth century had been shooting up to levels unprecedented in the history of the last 1,000 years, culminating in the ‘warmest year of the millennium’, 1998.

Not only was it far from clear that, for this all-important part of the graph, two quite different sets of data had been used. Also accepted without qualification was the accuracy of these twentieth-century surface temperature readings. But the picture given by these was already being questioned by many expert scientists who pointed to evidence that readings from surface weather stations could become seriously distorted by what was known as the ‘urban heat island effect’. The majority of the thermometers in such stations were in the proximity of large and increasingly built-up population centres. It was well-established that these heated up the atmosphere around them to a significantly higher level than in more isolated locations.

Nowhere was this better illustrated than by contrasting the temperature readings taken on the earth’s surface with those which, since 1979, had been taken by NASA satellites and weather balloons, using a method developed by Dr Roy Spencer, responsible for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Centre, and Dr John Christie of the University of Alabama, Huntsville.

Surprisingly, these atmospheric measurements showed that, far from warming in the last two decades of the twentieth century, global temperatures had in fact slightly cooled. As Spencer was at pains to point out, these avoided the distortions created in surface readings by the urban heat island effect. The reluctance of the IPCC to take proper account of this, he observed, confirmed the suspicion of ‘many scientists involved in the process’ that the IPCC’s stance on global warming was ‘guided more by policymakers and politicians than by scientists’.

What was also remarkable about the ‘hockey stick’, as was again widely observed, was how it contradicted all that mass of evidence which supported the generally accepted picture of temperature fluctuations in past centuries. As was pointed out, tree-rings are not the most reliable guide to assessing past temperatures. Scores of more direct sources of proxy evidence had been studied over the years, from Africa, South America, Australia, Pakistan, Antarctica, every continent and ocean of the world.

Whether evidence was taken from lake sediments or ice cores, glaciers in the Andes or boreholes in every continent (Huang et ai, 1997), the results had been remarkably consistent in confirming that the familiar view was right. There had been a Little Ice Age, across the world. There had similarly been a Mediaeval Warm Period. Furthermore, a mass of data confirmed that the world had been even warmer in the Middle Ages than it was in 1998.

The first comprehensive study to review this point was published in January 2003 by Dr Willie Soon and his colleague Dr Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. They had examined 140 expert studies of the climate history of the past 1,000 years, based on every kind of data. Some had given their findings only in a local or regional context, others had attempted to give a worldwide picture. But between them these studies had covered every continent. The question the two researchers had asked of every study was whether or not it showed a ‘discernible climate anomaly’ at the time of (1) the Little Ice Age and (2) the Mediaeval Warm Period; and (3) whether it had shown the twentieth century to be the warmest time in the Millennium.

Their conclusion was unequivocal. Only two of the studies they looked at had not found evidence for the Little Ice Age. Only seven of the 140 studies had denied the existence of a Mediaeval Warm Period, while 116 had confirmed it.

On the crucial question of whether or not the twentieth century had been the warmest of the past thousand years, only 15 studies, including that of Mann himself, had unambiguously agreed that it was. The vast majority accepted that earlier centuries had been warmer. The conclusion of Soon and Baliunas was that ‘Across the world, many records reveal that the twentieth century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.’

But if Mann and his colleagues had got the picture as wrong as this survey of the literature suggested, nothing did more to expose just how this might have come about than a remarkable feat of analysis carried out later in the same year by two Canadians and published in October 2003. (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick, 2003, ‘Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy databse and northern hemispheric average temperature series’, Energy and Environment, 14, 752-771. In the analysis of McIntyre and McKitrick’s work which follows, reference will also be made to their later paper, McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005b, ‘The M & M critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere climate index, Update and applications’, Energy and Environment, 16, 69-99, and also to McKitrick (2005), ‘What is the “Hockey Stick” debate about?’, op. cit.)

Stephen McIntyre, who began their study, was a financial consultant and statistical analyst specialising in the minerals industry, and was later joined by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at Guelph University. Neither made any pretensions to being a climate scientist, but where they did have considerable expertise was in knowing how computers could be used to play around with statistics. They were also wearily familiar with people using hockey sticklike curves, showing an exaggerated upward rise at the end, to sell a business prospect or to ‘prove’ some tendentious point.

Intrigued by the shape of the IPCC’s now famous ‘hockey stick’ graph, in the spring of 2003 McIntyre approached Mann and his colleagues to ask for a look at their original data set. ‘After some delay’, Mann ‘arranged provision of a file which was represented as the one used’ for his paper. But it turned out not to include ‘most of the computer code used to produce their results’. This suggested to McIntyre, who was joined later that summer by McKitrick, that no one else had previously asked to examine it, as should have been required both by peer-reviewers for the paper published in Nature and, above all, by the IPCC itself. (This account of the ‘hockey stick’ saga is based on several sources, in particular Ross McKitrick’s paper already cited , ‘What is the “hockey stick” debate about?’ (2005), and his evidence to the House of Lords Committee on Economic Affairs, ‘The Economics of Climate Change’, Vol. II, Evidence, 2005. See also David Holland, ‘Bias and concealment in the IPCC Process: the “Hockey Stick” affair and its implications’ (2007), op. cit.)

When McIntyre fed the data into his own computer, he found that it did not produce the claimed results. At the heart of the problem was what is known as ‘principal component analysis’, a technique used by computer analysts to handle a large mass of data by averaging out its components, weighting them by their relative significance.

One of the first things McIntyre had discovered was that the ‘principal component analysis’ used by Mann could not be replicated. ‘In the process of looking up all the data sources and rebuilding Mann’s data set from scratch’, he discovered ‘quite a few errors concerning location labels, use of obsolete editions, unexplained truncations of various series etc.’ (for instance, data reported to be from Boston, Mass., turned out to be from Paris, France, Central England temperature data had been truncated to leave out its coldest period, and so forth).

But the real problem lay with the ‘principal component analysis’ itself. It turned out that an algorithm had been programmed into Mann’s computer model which ‘mined’ for hockey stick shapes whatever data was fed into it. As McKitrick was later to explain, ‘had the IPCC actually done the kind of rigorous review that they boast of they would have discovered that there was an error in a routine calculation step (principal component analysis) that falsely identified a hockey stick shape as the dominant pattern in the data. The flawed computer program can even pull out spurious hockey stick shapes from lists of trendless random numbers. ’ (McKitrick, House of Lords evidence, op. cit.)

Using Mann’s algorithm, the two men fed a pile of random and meaningless data (‘red noise’) into the computer 10,000 times. More than 99 per cent of the time the graph which emerged bore a ‘hockey stick’ shape. They found that their replication of Mann’s method failed ‘all basic tests of statistical significance’.

When they ran the programme again properly, however, keeping the rest of Mann’s data but removing the bristlecone pine figures on which he had so heavily relied, they found that the Mediaeval Warming once again unmistakably emerged. Indeed their ‘major finding’, according to McKitrick, was that Mann’s own data confirmed that the warming in the fifteenth century exceeded anything in the twentieth century.44

One example of how this worked they later quoted was based on comparing two sets of data used by Mann for his second 1999 paper, confined to proxy data from North America. One was drawn from bristlecone pines in western North America, the other from a tree ring chronology in Arkansas. In their raw state, the Californian series showed a ‘hockey stick’ shape; the other, typical of most North American tree ring series, showed an irregular but basically flat line with no final upward spurt. When these were put together, however, the algorithm emphasised the twentieth-century rise by giving ‘390 times as much weight’ to the bristlecone pines as to the trees from Arkansas.45

In other words, although Mann had used hundreds of tree ring proxies from all over North America, most showing a flattish line like that from Arkansas, the PCAs used to determine their relative significance had given enormously greater weight to those Californian bristlecones with their anomalous ‘hockey stick’ pattern.

Furthermore, McIntyre and McKitrick found that Mann had been well aware that by removing the bristlecone pine data the ‘hockey stick’ shape of his graph would vanish, because he had tried it himself. One of the files they obtained from him showed the results of his own attempt to do this. The file was marked ‘Censored’ and its findings were nowhere mentioned in the published study.

What, however, concerned McIntyre and McKitrick as much as anything else about this extraordinary affair was what it revealed about the methods of the IPCC itself. Why had it not subjected Mann’s study to the kind of basic professional checks which they themselves had been able to carry out, with such devastating results?

Furthermore, having failed to exercise any proper quality control, why had those at the top of the IPCC then gone out of their way to give such extraordinary prominence to ‘the hockey stick data as the canonical representation of the earth’s climate history. Due to a combination of mathematical error and a dysfunctional review process, they ended up promoting the exact wrong conclusion. How did they make such a blunder?’

Continue reading The Real Global Warming Disaster by Christopher Booker (Continuum, 2009), available at, and


Conclusion: The global warming “hockey stick” is SCIENCE FRAUD

What all this reveals, of course, is that the global warming “hockey stick” is fake science. As Booker documents in his book, data were truncated (cut off) and software algorithms were altered to produce a hockey stick trend out of almost any data set, including random noise data. To call climate change “science” is to admit your own gullibility to science fraud.

The IPCC, it turns out, used science fraud to promote global warming and “climate change” narratives, hoping no one would notice that the entire software model was essentially HACKED from the very beginning, deliberately engineered to produce the alarming temperature trend the world’s bureaucrats wanted so they could terrorize the world into compliance with climate change narratives.

The Russians didn’t hack the 2016 election, in case you were wondering. But dishonest scientists really did hack the global warming modeling software to deceive the entire world and launch a whole new brand of climate change fascism that has now infected the minds of hundreds of millions of people across the planet. Everything they’ve been told about climate change, it turns, out, was all based on a software hack.


Source Article from

Pentagon Ignores President Trump And Continues Preparing For Climate Change

By Amanda Froelich Truth Theory

The Trump administration may peddle the notion that climate change is a “hoax” invented by the Chinese, but the industrial military complex isn’t willing to ignore the fact that 97 percent of reputable climate scientists agree that the phenomena is real.  Because climate change will directly affect the United State’s ability to protect itself as a result of worsening natural disasters, rising sea levels and unprecedented flooding, the Pentagon has decided to follow the plan for climate change which was developed under the Obama administration.

Shortly after his inauguration, President Trump rescinded all federal climate change programs initiated by Obama during his two terms. Basically, he ordered the Pentagon to stop preparing for climate change. Fortunately, they have ignored him.

In 2014, the Department of Defense (DoD) published what it called a “climate change roadmap.” This is essentially a blueprint to handle the predicted storms which will result from global warming. The document explained how the military needs to adapt to the world which is fast-approaching. Reportedly, the report concluded that American citizens could be helped out more, too. It reads: “The military could be called upon more often to support civil authorities… in the face of more frequent and more intense natural disasters.”

Equipped with this information, the DoD issued a directive entitled “Climate Change Adaption and Resilience.” This roadmap was initiated, and climate change was deemed a certified threat to national security, reports IFLScience.

The Trump administration is presently assessing whether the directive should be rescinded, along with the outlined roadmap. Military Times reports that to abide by Trump’s executive order, the Pentagon is altering its language to match the administration’s. Without stating that climate change is fueled by human activity — a key denial point for the Trump administration, the Pentagon is recognizing global warming as a clear threat whose disastrous effects are largely preventable.

To follow what makes scientific and militaristic sense, the Pentagon will continue using “careful” language. Obviously, the scenario is less than ideal. Fortunately, action is being taken by the U.S. military industrial complex to address the threat of climate change and prepare for impending natural disasters.

Read more: US Media Silent About Climate Change As Successive Natural Disasters Hit The Globe

IMAGE CREDIT:boscorelli / 123RF Stock Photo


I am Luke Miller, content manager at Truth Theory and creator of Potential For Change. I like to blend psychology and spirituality to help you create more happiness in your life.Grab a copy of my free 33 Page Illustrated eBook- Psychology Meets Spirituality- Secrets To A Supercharged Life You Control Here

Source Article from

Jail the climate deniers: It could be YOU


The Canadian government launched a full year investigation into Friends of Science, International Climate Science Coalition and the Heartland Institute because of a complaint by EcoJustice. Billboards around Montreal that asked you to look at the reason for the 17 year pause in global warming temperature rises and that CO2 wasn’t the “main” driver of the climate that the Sun was. A full year in a criminal investigation using tax payer money in Canada. I will let the facts show you want the global eco-fighters dont want you to see, their tactics and the facts of the climate.


Source Article from

Patti Smith, rising above and fighting climate change with art

In a press conference for an upcoming Carnegie Hall concert, Smith and the founders of Pathway to Paris talk about art, community, and keeping the spirit up for climate action.

Inspired by the People’s Climate March and its hundreds of thousands of participants, Rebecca Foon and Jesse Paris Smith founded Pathway to Paris in 2015. Created as a way to keep the momentum alive, the organization is a collaboration between musicians, artists, cities and activists to help turn the Paris Agreement into real action. A way to “celebrate the efforts of everyone who took part in the march,” Smith says. “To help people realize how important their role is, no matter how big or small.”

And Pathway to Paris’s main vehicle driving this momentum? Musical events in cities around the globe.

One of those events will be the Concert for Climate Action, November 5 at Carnegie Hall, the day before the global COP23 climate conference in Bonn, Germany. And it’s going to be spectacular. The concert will be the third collaboration between Pathway to Paris, and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) on climate action; the first concert coincided with the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015.

Smith’s mother, Patti, will be performing along with Joan Baez, Michael Stipe, Flea, Talib Kweli, Cat Power and more.

The lineup was confirmed at a press conference at the United Nations Headquarters on September 15. Boon and the younger Smith also revealed that they will be launching the “1000 Cities Initiative.” Jesse Paris Smith explained, “1000 Cities is built on the premise that if 1000 cities come together and commit to becoming 100 percent renewable and transition off fossil fuels by 2040, we can turn the Paris Agreement into action. Pathway to Paris is committed to supporting cities to get there.”

While the press conference was ostensibly meant to focus on the concert and new initiative, some of the attendees couldn’t resist asking about the current state of politics … and how to deal with what feels like a constant assault of climate denial handed out by those sitting in the big boy seats.

Among a river of poetic points offered by the senior Smith, she stressed the importance of not giving into the gloom; of how to use a positive attitude as a tool of resistance.

“When I worked with Ralph Nader, one of the things that he taught us was that nothing productive comes from negativity or pessimism,” she said. “So it’s important not to be drawn into a state of pessimism or paralysis, one has to take a breath and rise above it. I’m not saying that as rhetoric, I’m saying it as an action, as what I have to do myself. I feel the same way that you feel, that everyone else feels, but I refuse to be trampled by it, I refuse to be demoralized; I just keep on doing my work, our work.”

“And even something such as this concert, it makes me feel that each thing that we do, whether we did a concert yesterday, or we’re doing this November 5, we’re partnering with each other, we’re connecting the dots,” she added. “So we have to sometimes not turn a blind eye, but keep our eyes on what we’re trying to do, not on what is being done to dismantle our efforts.”

Noting that artists have a unique role, “to entice and incite,” Smith echoed her daughter, who earlier in the briefing explained how important the role of art is in times of crisis, “it’s the lifeblood of the movement.”

And thus, how fitting that this group of passionate, positive artists will be gathering with a passionate, positive audience on November 5. Taking breaths, rising above, and pushing forward to ensure that the goals of the Paris Agreement become a reality. The people have the power, and it’s a bright and beautiful thing.

For tickets, visit Carnegie Hall.

Source Article from

Beyoncé, Stevie Wonder Push Climate Change During Telethon; Deniers Are ‘Blind or Unintelligent’

Tuesday night’s telethon Hand In Hand: A Benefit for Hurricane Relief was bursting at the seams with celebrities, moving musical performances, and journalists from ABC, CBS, and NBC, so it was all the more disappointing when Beyoncé and Stevie Wonder promoted climate change as having caused Harvey and Irma.

Both lowered the bar when Stevie Wonder deemed those who don’t believe in global warming as “blind or unintelligent” while Beyoncé suggested that earthquakes like the one in Mexico were related to climate change.

Stevie Wonder led off the commercial-free, hour-long broadcast with a performance but not before he declared that “[w]e’ve come together today to love on the people that have been devastated by the hurricanes.”

He added how, “[w]hen love goes into action, it preferences no color of skin, no ethnicity, no religious beliefs, no sexual preferences, and no political persuasions.”

Wonder concluded that “we should begin to love and value our planet” and asked God to “please save us all” as there are people who don’t accept this environmental position: “[A]nd anyone who believes that there is no such thing as global warming must be blind or unintelligent.”

Just past the 8:14 p.m. Eastern mark, Beyoncé appeared with a video message in support of the telethon. She began by lamenting:

During the time where it’s impossible to watch the news without seeing violence or racism in this country, just when you think it couldn’t possibly get worse, natural disasters take precious life, do massive damage, and forever change lives, leaving behind contaminated water, flooded hospitals, schools, and nursing homes, and countless families are now homeless. 

She noted that Houston is her hometown, that they’re heavily in need of various necessities, and those struggling represent all types of people because “[n]atural disasters don’t discriminate.”

<<< Please support MRC’s NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>

“They don’t see if you’re an immigrant, black or white, Hispanic or Asian, Jewish or Muslim, wealthy or poor. It doesn’t matter if you’re from Third Ward or River Oaks. We’re all in this together. Seeing everyone of different racial, social, and religious backgrounds put their own lives at risk to help each other survive restored my faith in humanity,” Beyoncé added.

A brief news clip then aired before the Queen Bey came back to rightfully state that “[t]rue healing is in helping” and “give what you can.”

Next came the climate change reference and the argument that one consequence is earthquakes: “The effects of climate change are playing out around the world every day. Just this past week, we’ve seen devastation from the monsoon in India and 8.1 earthquake in Mexico, and multiple catastrophic hurricanes.”

Yikes. If you thought Beyoncé was the first liberal celebrity/journalist to say this, you’d be sadly mistaken. 

Nine years ago, Joy Behar was a co-host on ABC’s The View when she told the May 19, 2008 audience that climate change must be “look[ed] into because we seem to be having a lot of earthquakes and a lot of things going wrong.”

Speaking of Behar, Vagina Monologues creator Eve Ensler was on Behar’s now-cancelled HLN show on February 8, 2010 and made the same claim:

ENSLER: And I think we just kind of have to walk around the world at this point and look at what is happening to nature and earthquakes and tsunamis.

BEHAR: Right.

ENSLER: And weather changes to just feel it. But I think that idea that she doesn’t believe in global warming and she could actually run for vice president, and we have a country where that is possible, it seems insane.

“Irma alone has left a trail of death and destruction from the Caribbean to Florida to southern United States. We have to be prepared for what comes next. So tonight, we come together in a collective effort to raise our voices to help our communities, to lift our spirits and heal. Thank you,” she concluded.

Other celebrities like Drake were more veiled in their political references, expressing hope that “it’s truly amazing to see our generation be conscious and aware” even though there’s “so much happening in the world.” He stated that people will need to speak up and step up, but Tuesday was a day to “give.”

Scooter Braun spoke about the Hand In Hand initiative as a way to make a difference amid a world he’s been frustrated with:

Over the past years, many of have us been frustrated. We’ve been bombarded with images and news of hate and division. Many of us are trying to figure out how to help, what’s going to be our purpose. We want to know that we can still live by the American ideal that we are our brother and sister’s keeper.

Giving credit where credit is due, Robert De Niro and former Daily Show host Jon Stewart also alluded to the country’s divisions, but used that to make a broader point about who we are as a country:

ROBERT DE NIRO: There are those who say that we are a nation divided, that we are unsure of our way, that we have lost touch with the relief, the beliefs that make us strong. 

JON STEWART: But we say this tonight, we’re all united, and we’re sure of who we are and what matters, and that we’re committed to once again help those in need, even those that we’ve never met. 

DE NIRO: It was on a September day like this just 16 years ago when we joined hands to help and to heal in midst of a deep crisis. We showed the world and each other the enduring values that truly define us as a people. 

STEWART: And it’s only been five years since Hurricane Sandy struck New Jersey and New York and across America, during that time, people had our backs. Well, now it’s time we show the people of Texas and Florida that we have their backs, as well. So dig deep, and make a difference. Thank you. 

In the end, things could have been a lot worse when it came to celebrity telethons. Just ask the networks how things went when Kayne West attacked President George W. Bush in 2005 during the Katrina telethon.

Here’s the relevant transcript from the Hand In Hand: A Benefit for Hurricane Relief telethon on September 12:

Hand In Hand: A Benefit for Hurricane Relief
September 12, 2017
8:00 p.m. Eastern

STEVIE WONDER: We’ve come together today to love on the people that have been devastated by the hurricanes. When love goes into action, it preferences no color of skin, no ethnicity, no religious beliefs, no sexual preferences, and no political persuasions. It just loves. As we should begin to love and value our planet, and anyone who believes that there is no such thing as global warming must be blind or unintelligent. Lord, please save us all. 


8:14 p.m. Eastern

BEYONCÉ: During the time where it’s impossible to watch the news without seeing violence or racism in this country, just when you think it couldn’t possibly get worse, natural disasters take precious life, do massive damage, and forever change lives, leaving behind contaminated water, flooded hospitals, schools, and nursing homes, and countless families are now homeless. In my hometown city of Houston, people need food, clothing, cleaning supplies, blankets, shoes, diapers, and formula for babies, and of course, clean water. The elderly need wheelchairs, and kids need books and toys so they can continue to dream. Natural disasters don’t discriminate. They don’t see if you’re an immigrant, black or white, Hispanic or Asian, Jewish or Muslim, wealthy or poor. It doesn’t matter if you’re from Third Ward or River Oaks. We’re all in this together. Seeing everyone of different racial, social, and religious backgrounds put their own lives at risk to help each other survive restored my faith in humanity.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE JOURNALIST: And we’re continuing to see people going in with boats. Many of them are official — acting in their official capacity. Many of them are volunteers. 

BEYONCÉ: True healing is in helping. Please give what you can. The effects of climate change are playing out around the world every day. Just this past week, we’ve seen devastation from the monsoon in India and 8.1 earthquake in Mexico, and multiple catastrophic hurricanes. Irma alone has left a trail of death and destruction from the Caribbean to Florida to southern United States. We have to be prepared for what comes next. So tonight, we come together in a collective effort to raise our voices to help our communities, to lift our spirits and heal. Thank you. 

Source Article from

MSNBC Hosts Fret There’s Not Enough ‘Climate Change’ Discussion

11:37 a.m. ET

ALI VELSHI: The fury of Hurricane Irma comes close on the heels of the powerful Hurricane Harvey, and right behind that is a category four hurricane, Jose. Is this climate change at work? For more on how climate change may be playing into this, I’m joined by former EPA environmental justice leader Mustafa Ali; Tom Steyer, founder of of NextGen Climate; and NASA research meteorologist Scott Braun. … Scott, let me start with you. Donald Trump’s EPA chief, the administrator, Scott Pruitt, said, in an interview, amid hurricanes, now is not the time to talk about climate change. 

A lot of people who disagree with that, including the mayor of Miami — a Republican, by the way — who says now is exactly the time to talk about climate change because on a sunny day Miami has water coming up from its drains because of rising sea level, and if we don’t take this seriously when things like this happen, we don’t tend to take it seriously when nobody can feel climate change.

SCOTT BRAUN, NASA METEOROLOGIST: That’s right, and you got to separate the problems, for example, with rising sea levels, which can exacerbate problems with major storms like this versus what the impact of climate change may be on the hurricanes themselves. …

VELSHI (after noting measurements have shown sea levels have increased since several decades ago): …What do you say, Mustafa, to people who say this isn’t the time for the conversation, or people like Rush Limbaugh who said this is media hype to advance a climate change agenda?

MUSTAFA ALI: Well, I’d tell them that they’re being disingenuous. There is no better time than this moment now. Actually, the conversation should have been started as soon as the new administration came in so that they could begin to think critically about the gaps that may be existing inside some of the policies that they were trying to move forward on and also to help them to make sure that they’re making better decisions about the budgets and the impacts that happen especially in our most vulnerable communities when we’re not being inclusive.

Also making sure that we’re thinking about having the right science in place so if we have a couple of decades still of information that’s needed to be garnered, let’s make sure that we’re supporting science so that we can make sure that we’re doing the proper analysis in that space. So, you know, to them I’d say at best you’re being disingenuous, and you’re putting people’s lives at risk.

VELSHI: Tom, I’m a money guy, and we are constantly talking about moneyed interests that are working for their profitability at stifling discussions on climate change because it’s going to cause them to do things that are going to cost money. You’re on the other side of that — you are probably the biggest money guy who is trying to get people to talk about these issues. What are you up against? And are you succeeding in your efforts?

TOM STEYER, NEXTGEN CLIMATE: Look, the fossil fuel interests are intent on keeping the energy system that we have now which is creating climate change. And the politicians who take money from the fossil fuel interests and then lie about what’s happening are now watching what’s happened as a result. So really the way I think about this is: Of course they don’t want to talk about climate change right now because they’re the people who have enabled the additional problems to happen.

We’re not just looking at Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Irma, Hurricane Jose — we’re also looking at record wildfires across the West. So, to me, this is like a drunk driver after an accident telling me, “Let’s not talk about drinking and driving.”


8:08 p.m. ET

CRAIG MELVIN: We’re of course still recovering from Harvey, there’s still Jose that’s sitting out — Jose is out there, Katia tore through Mexico, and here we are talking about Hurricane Irma. We should point out, again, we’re not even at the peak of hurricane season, National Weather Service promised us a busier hurricane season than usual. It would seem to me that one of the things that’s been a bit absent from the conversation the past few days: climate change. It’s hard to believe that all of this can be purely coincidental. I don’t want to put you on the spot as I put you on the spot.


8:53 p.m. ET

MELVIN: There has been a part of this conversation — at least it has seemed to me there has been noticeably absent over the last few days — and I know this is a cause that is near and dear to your heart, climate change, and the fact that what we are seeing play out this summer can’t just be a coincidence.

CHRIS HAYES: You know, there’s a few things that we know about how climate change affects extreme weather. One thing we know is that sea levels are rising, right? So when Bill (Karins) talks about that storm surge — and storm surges are the most deadly part of any kind of catastrophic storm — we know sea level rise is adding to that the same way that high tide does. …

We also know that that water is warmer because ocean temperatures are rising. They’re about the hottest they’ve ever been right now, and warmer water produces stronger storms. We also know, third, and this connects to Harvey, we have seen more extreme rain events. We have seen more and more flooding. 

And a lot of the times, the focus is on the hurricanes, and there was a long period of time when we didn’t have a lot of hurricanes — this somewhat flummoxing hurricane drought that confused a lot of people and a lot of the modelists. But we do know, though, is that during that same period of time, an intensification and higher frequency of extreme rain, which is why we see more and more flooding in places like Houston even before Harvey getting several one-in-500-year storms. All of that now is as more energy is being put into the climate and into the atmosphere by those heat-trapping gases that come from carbon pollution.

And this is, you know, extreme weather is when it rears its head, right? It’s easy to sort of say, “Well, it’s a little warm today for March,” or something like that, but the real tail risk, the real scary stuff is what happens to all the climate equilibriums when you keep forcing more and more energy into the atmosphere.

MELVIN: Chris Hayes, in Naples, Florida. It would be irresponsible for us to talk about the effects without talking at least about part of the cause as well. Chris, thank you.

Source Article from

No link between a warming climate and the war in Syria

The latest issue of the journal Political Geography explores the alleged link between a warming climate and recent armed conflicts.

A study by Professors Jan Selbya, Omar S. Dahib, Christiane Fröhlich and Mike Hulme, shows that it is beyond any doubt whatsoever, that there is no link between climate change and the war in Syria.

From the beginning of the “Arab Spring”, a number of experts have declared that these events were provoked by different factors such as sudden migratory movements or, for Syria, a warming climate. Western politicians have encouraged the dissemination of these theories either to mask how Western Secret Services had planned these pseudo revolutions or to justify the urgency in abandoning sources of fossil energy. However, the publication of Thierry Meyssan’s book, Sous nos yeux (Right before our eyes) has introduced into the public domain a clear picture of how these events were conceived in Whitehall in 2004, based on the model of the Arab Revolt of 1915 (Lawrence of Arabia); how Tony Blair “sold” this plan to George W. Bush Jr, and how the plan was then implemented jointly by the MI6 and the CIA [1].

Between 2006 and 2009, it was the case that there were several particularly dry seasons in Syria, provoking an exodus of peasant families to the cities. This issue did not involve shifting 1.5 million peasants but only 40 – 60,000 families. And there is nothing that permits us to make a connection between the displacement of this population and the attempt to topple the Syrian Arab Republic by the Muslim Brotherhood. On the contrary, a roadblock is placed in our thinking process by the fact the neighbourhoods that welcomed these populations, provided no shelter for the jihadists.

The authors of the study Political Geography are astonished that the theory presenting a link between changes in the climate and the war in Syria could be so well accepted. This is because to their minds it lacks any foundation whatsoever.

Source Article from

‘US taboo’: Assange rubbishes climate change denial in hurricane tweet

READ MORE: Hurricane Irma on track for direct hit on Miami (LIVE UPDATES)

Quoting a tweet from UN Climate Action, Assange broke down the climate change process, describing it as a “US taboo.”

In another tweet, the WikiLeaks editor linked to NOAA research on global warming and hurricanes.

The research concluded that climate warming was likely to cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense globally and to have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes.

“In our view, there are better than even odds that the numbers of very intense (category 4 and 5) hurricanes will increase by a substantial fraction in some basins, while it is likely that the annual number of tropical storms globally will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged.”

In May, Assange tweeted that “climate change was very probably true,” noting the trove of documents WikiLeaks have published on various elements of the issue.

Florida is currently bracing itself for Hurricane Irma to hit early Sunday after claiming at least 21 lives in the eastern Caribbean. Currently at category 4, the storm is expected to strengthen before moving on to the US.

Irma looms as Texas recovers from Hurricane Harvey, which killed 70 people when it struck last month. The state’s governor says the clean-up could cost up to $120bn.

READ MORE: Stream of planes flees Florida ahead of Hurricane Irma (IMAGES)

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly denied global warming, dubbing it a hoax, and pulled the US out of the United Nations Paris Agreement on climate change in June.

French Environment Minister Nicolas Hulot also made a dig at the president’s climate policy on Friday, saying: “What will change in the United States are the federal states, the cities, a whole section of society. I think that is what will make up for the reservations of the American president on the links between cause and effect.”

US environmental chief Scott Pruitt meanwhile told CNN that now is not the time for discussion about climate change.

Source Article from