Top Physicist Bolts from AGW ....

Global Warming Crap

Top Physicist Bolts from Man Made Global Warming ‘Consensus’ And Says Obama Backed ‘Wrong Side’ .... * Freeman Dyson is a 91-year-old theoretical physicist who was a contemporary of Einstein at Princeton, has received multiple international awards for his scientific efforts, and has published numerous books and papers on a wide range of topics. “That is to me the central mystery of climate science. It is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts? ... I’m 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.” Dyson is criticizing scientists who advance what he describes as an ‘agenda-driven’ perspective on global warming. In an interview with The Register, Dyson responded to questions about the forward he just wrote for a scientific paper that confronts the “overrated” concerns about CO2 in the atmosphere: “That is to me the central mystery of climate science. It is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?” Dyson, who describes himself as 100% Democrat, strongly disagreed with President Obama: “It’s very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people’s views on climate change]. I’m 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.” Part of the issue, according to the interview and the CO2 paper, is that the scientific models that have been used to predict climate outcomes have been wrong: “What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what’s observed and what’s predicted have become much stronger. It’s clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn’t so clear 10 years ago. I can’t say if they’ll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable.” For example, NASA has admitted that it is unable to explain a 17-year hiatus in an average global temperature increase, which has led to 95% of manmade global warming projections being false. Explaining why this refusal of scientists to adjust their opinions when confronted with facts that seemingly refute their manmade global warming hypothesis, Dyson gives a couple of reasons. He suggests that there has been a confusion between “pollution,” something definitely man-made and solvable, and “climate change,” a feature of nature and mostly beyond the control of humanity. Furthermore, he also asserts that there’s not only a “large community of people who make their money by scaring the public,” but an element of groupthink at play, as well: “Real advances in science require a different cultural tradition, with individuals who invent new tools to explore nature and are not afraid to question authority. Science driven by rebels and heretics searching for truth has made great progress in the last three centuries. But the new culture of scientific scepticism is a recent growth and has not yet penetrated deeply into our thinking. The old culture of group loyalty and dogmatic belief is still alive under the surface, guiding the thoughts of scientists as well as the opinions of ordinary citizens.” Dyson concluded with an assertion and an appeal to dispassionately evaluating facts: “Climatic effects observed in the real world are much less damaging than the effects predicted by the climate models, and have also been frequently beneficial. I am hoping that the scientists and politicians who have been blindly demonizing carbon dioxide for 37 years will one day open their eyes and look at the evidence.” If anything, Dyson’s disputation of manmade global warming just adds to the list of scientific voices who are bucking the received “consensus” on temperatures.   (cuzzin ricky) At 91-years of age, the very idea that " a whole generation a fair percentage of climate science academia" could be corrupted—as they so utterly have been—by the lure of (Liberal) government grant money (with their acquiescence hinging on it), is too new school for Mr. Dyson to contemplate. Hell, I still have a hard time getting used to it.   * No, Mr. Dyson, Obama is backing his group's side of the AGW gambit.

Goodnight Chet ...

Washington, D.C. — Today, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal), a 501 (c) (3) watchdog group, released an investigative report, Private Interests & Public Office: Coordination Between Governors, the Obama White House and the Tom Steyer-“Founded and Funded” Network of Advocacy Groups to Advance the “Climate” Agenda (and anappendix of source documents), revealing a vast, coordinated, three-track effort by public officials and private interests to promote EPA’s expansive, overreaching and economically devastating greenhouse gas rules, specifically the section 111(d) regulation to shut the nation’s fleet of existing coal-fired power plants, as well as the December Paris climate treaty President Obama is expected to sign to replace the Kyoto Protocol. “Our report pulls the curtain back on a carefully planned and heavily funded ‘orchestration’ by individuals who have placed their personal interests ahead of the public interest,” said Chris Horner, E&E Legal’s Senior Legal Fellow and the report’s author. The scheme took shape at a meeting in the White House in December 2013, after which the Obama administration launched coordinated with the “core group” of activist Democrat governors to design one of what we see are three tracks to promote the climate agenda The report is the product of open records requests over the course of a year at the federal level and nearly 30 offices in over a dozen states. The exposé contains appendices with over a hundred pages of source emails and attachments. It details a campaign to use public offices, in very close collaboration with wealthy benefactors, to advance and defend President Obama’s climate change regulatory and treaty agenda. This quasi-governmental campaign involves more than a dozen governors’ offices, with a parallel advocacy network and political operation funded and staffed by activists paid through ideologically , economically and politically motivated donors. The report released today points to emails obtained by E&E Legal’s campaign without litigation, but also in federal district court; others are the subject of oral arguments made last week in court in Richmond, Virginia, and a new suit just filed against the Governor of Kentucky. The latter complaint objects to a false “no records” claim — about records that this report proves do in fact exist, and even quotes from, but which are being kept from the public by a governor who claims to be appalled by EPA rules his office was quietly a “core group” promoter of for the past two years. This report is timely given President Obama’s ongoing tour to promote the same EPA rules that these governors and “major environmental donors” scheme to promote in the correspondence released today. This includes a stop today at Harry Reid’s “clean energy economy” conference, curiously also sponsored by the same donors as those playing a leading role in today’s report. Indeed these emails E&E Legal uncovered also show this campaign was developed with the early, active support and participation of the White House, which went beyond enthusiastically embracing the plan and follow up meetings and calls, to even directing the governors to what one green trade-press outlet calls a “shadowy group” affiliated with then-Chief of Staff John Podesta. The White House’s followup actions , as one governor’s aide praised them, were “moving dials”. Podesta also convinced the governors’ offices that their plan should be broken into separate, complementary pillars. The latest email obtained, from May of this year, shows the governors’ campaign arranging to coordinate with the State Department. The scheme took shape at a meeting in the White House in December 2013, after which the Obama administration launched coordinated with the “core group” of activist Democrat governors to design one of what we see are three tracks to promote the climate agenda. One was run by the Steyer network and left-wing foundations. Another is run by governors with green groups, which are “useful” but whose “standard NGO shaming strategy might not deliver”. A third, run by the White House includes, in the words of a senior aide, “a few other tracks with private sector and unusual allies”. Nearly every aspect of this effort, from the key early players to the funders and even the director the governors’ campaign hired — housed by some state’s taxpayers in the Hall of States in Washington, DC, overhead paid for by as-yet unknown means — has direct ties to a scandal involving “clean energy” donors and conflicts of interest, one which felled Oregon’s sitting governor earlier this year. In what is possibly the most intriguing element, seemingly out of an episode of “House of Cards”, Democratic governors’ aides repeatedly reference a plan of “creative engagement” to “compel” certain electric utilities — those subject to their jurisdiction whose businesses cross lines into states led by Republicans — to bring “red state” governors around to support the EPA rules: “[B]ecause there are key utilities whose service territories cross red and blue states Governors in these states could quietly engineer a breakthrough strategy that compels utilities in key red states to lead the charge to win over a key Governor, rather than rely on a standard NGO-shaming strategy that might not deliver.” The “core group” of governors also coordinated with Democratic mega-donor Tom Steyer and his managing partner, Ted White, who directed them to “affiliated groups that we founded and fund (such as NextGen Climate Action, or Next Generation, or AEE [Advanced Energy Economy]” . Those groups in turn underwrote consultants and activists to hand-hold governors through implementing the Obama EPA’s rules, keeping them from the clutches of the “just say no” states. This core group soon expanded to more than a dozen states, coast-to- coast, embracing a four-point plan which they soon called the Governor’s Climate Compact or GCC, which was ultimately rebranded as the Governors’ Climate Accord or GCA and now goes by the name of the Governors Clean Energy Initiative (none of which have any internet footprint whatsoever, and begging the question who is indeed paying for its director and other overhead). The emails do reflect an awareness that the agenda’s lack of popularity in the “flyover states” necessitated a flexible timeline and keeping some offices’ involvement quiet, specifically citing elections as a concern. “This is the 5th transparency report in a series that E&E Legal has published on the ‘green movement’ and its network of public, private, and business interests, and what is clear is that 1%-ers are using ‘climate’ policies to destroy politically disfavored industries in order to transfer wealth to the politically preferred,” said Craig Richardson, E&E Legal Executive Director. “The campaign by self-serving individuals must be made known to the public as policymakers consider this plan that will destroy parts of our economy and ruin the most efficient, affordable, and clean energy system ever created.” [WATTS Full  Megillah] Bear with me here.  That story documenting more Climate Change fraud is almost hum-drum for us who monitor the green turds climate activists litter the landscape with.  For some mysterious reason, the first parallel that came to mind this morning was Bobby Baker, because this is symptomatic of real cancer. In August 1963 when Bobby Baker, the Secretary to the Majority Leader of the Senate and a protégé of Johnson's, came under investigation by the Senate Rules Committee for allegations of bribery and financial malfeasance. One witness alleged that Baker had arranged for the witness to give kickbacks for the [then] Vice President. Baker resigned in October, and the investigation did not expand to Johnson. (Compare to Spiro Agnew's experience) If you lived through the LBJ era, and especially if you've read Robert Caro's magnificent four volume LBJ biography, you know that he's the third most corrupt president in our history (or thereabouts).  The Bobby Baker scandal was nightly news fodder for what seemed like forever back then.  It bored me silly, and I didn't look into the particulars.  All I knew was that, like IKE's Chief of Staff's Vicuna Coat, that cost him his job, the smallest impropriety could topple the powerful (I had yet to read Caro).  It's what we all expected. So today we have—what?  The, 4th? or 10th? revelation of major fraud by radicals intent on foisting new taxes and controls on energy, and in the process gain control over our every movement?   We have a government, this government, that even by LBJ standards is so over the top corrupt that we, who once watched black and white televised, 15 minute long  nightly news, are in shock.  It's useless to compare how Huntley-Brinkley might have reported on things Obama back then, because Obama could never—ever have been nominated with his nebulous background—even of he was Irish Catholic!  So, that's the journey I've taken.  Hell, it's the journey taken by every American since 1776, up until 1992ish. You are what you eat. As for me, I will find some comfort in these words from Thomas Jefferson, as I interpret them, and realize how fortunate a life I've had. "Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."  If this means that the populace are reduced to being hedonistic twats, so be it.  They have the right to go fuck themselves. Goodnight America.  Unless ... .

An ignorant man name Brown says stupid stuff

and other goofy bastards

California Gov. Jerry Brown said in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" that Republican Texas Senator Ted Cruz's position on climate change makes him "absolutely unfit to be running for office." Responding to comments made by Cruz on "Late Night with Seth Meyers," Democratic Governor Brown said of Cruz, "That man betokens such a level of ignorance and a direct falsification of the existing scientific data. It's shocking and I think that man has rendered himself absolutely unfit to be running for office." Unhappily, as a result of the mediocre quality of science education, many people do not know how to evaluate either a scientific hypothesis in general, or AGW in particular -- and irrespective of whatever anyone might think, because of how it is framed and evaluated, AGW is no more than a hypothesis. Let's be clear here, for the umpteenth time.   Gov Moon Beam is talking about AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming).  That is, he claims man causes global warming by using hair spray, fossil fuels, and blowing farts (I am not making that up), and that is scientific fact. Bullshit.  His is science without Scientific Method.  It's pop science, and not true.  It is bunch of old communists trying to use the issue to gain absolute control of any economy.  This left-wing movement is populated by some very dangerous ass-holes too (Google "kill climate change deniers");  so Jerry Brown is, at best, a smug but ignorant Liberal twat playing with fire.  At worst, he makes false and incendiary statements for political gain and ought be arrested.  That's also true of anyone you know who pushes AGW. Tell them.  Call them now, and tell them. Unless it's someone you're trying to seduce, then wait until that thrill is gone.

Real Science and AGW Science

and other lying  bastards

“ Scientists abandon highly publicized claim about cosmic find Brian Keating-Real Scientist NEW YORK- Scientists who made headlines last March by announcing that they'd found long-sought evidence about the early universe are now abandoning that claim. "It's disappointing," he said in a telephone interview Friday after the European Space Agency publicized the results. "It's like finding out there's no Santa Claus. But it's important to know the truth." That signal is what the researchers claimed they had found in observations of the sky taken from the South Pole, in a project called BICEP2. But now, in a new paper submitted for publication, "we are effectively retracting the claim," said Brian Keating of the University of California, San Diego, a member of the BICEP2 team. Read more here: “ Phony climate scientists trade empirical processes for cash and communism. Phony scientist Michael Mann and another liar Climategate Files Climate Fail Files Climate Liar Files Climate Reference Files ” ”

Beating Dead AGW Whores

and other goofy bastards

“ Climate change PROVED to be 'nothing but a lie', claims top meteorologist THE debate about climate change is finished - because it has been categorically proved NOT to exist, one of the world's leading meteorologists has claimed. For the umteenth time skoonj The Climate State Okay, the BIG LIE is still being propagated by the media, if only by neglecting to report the myriad scandals plaguing the AGW scam.  And, yes, too many dull-witted activist school teachers are still shilling for the movement, and plumping their charges' brains with climatecrap—and have been for so long that many of them are now of voting age. Still, at some point,  people who still buy into the leftist, man-caused climate change scam must be held accountable for what is nothing less than their willful ignorance, which if not stopped will bring a nation to economic ruin, and enslavement on the Liberal plantation.  Yes moms and dads, it's time FOR YOU to tell your brats that climate change is ongoing, natural, and unchangeable! And anyone who says differently is evil, which will come out from under their beds at night and and eat them. Because  they will.  Sheesh! ”

Robert "Snoozy" Hunziker pulls the Koch pin

and other goofy bastards                          Is America’s radical, underground climate change countermovement threatening the nation’s pivotal national interests? Is this debatable? Or, is their behavior prima facie evidence of a radical terrorist threat? -Robert "Snoozy" Hunziker

“ A progressive's case for climate change, a.k.a. bunch of made-up shit " .... one has to wonder how the future will play out, assuming America’s radical, underground climate change countermovement prevails, especially considering how they bully Congress, blocking any semblance of a national renewable energy policy.  After all, in their eyes: The “visual pollution” of wind turbines and solar panels lowers property values! But, this story is much deeper than the selfish interests and infamy of the Kochs and much deeper than what appears on surface. For example, the climate deniers are so paranoid that they go so far as to intimidate scientific journals that publish relatively innocuous articles vis a vis their countermovement, and on occasion, successfully, by way of threatening legal action, they cause retractions of peer-review scientific papers that they find offensive. This is symptomatic of a paranoia-plus personality type, very similar to the mentality of terrorists cell members found throughout Al-Qaeda’s network. It’s not new news that a well-funded effort to destroy the sanctity of scientific evidence of climate change has persisted in America for many, many years. It is out in the open and written about in countless articles, the Koch brothers and too many others to name, highjack the news and plant stories wherever and whenever possible, all funded by deep pocket billionaires. It’s a blatant right-wing sell-out of everything democracy ever stood for. And, it’s remarkable that everybody knows all about it! It’s absolutely remarkable, but caution is in order because it’s the unknowns behind their intentions that’s most threatening.  (Oh, there's more) I've been 30+ years following climate alarmists.  It's T.O.E. may generally be described as  (1)Communists, (2) True Believers, and (3) Lo Info's who tend to be students, or college dropouts.  Since Hunziker (MA, economic history, DePaul University) is a noted fellow of the Progressive (Communist) coalition, I'd say he's one of the mule drivers.  What I find interesting here, is the introduction of the Koch Brothers as the new (to me anyway) bogey-men responsible for ... what?  All the (too many to count) exposes that haunt these so called "Climate Sciencers?"  I'm guessing they're trying to transfer results from their long-running Koch smear campaign to help the ailing climate science grab. If Hunziker wants honest debate,  start here.  If you can win a debate there, you'll have my attention.  As it is, I can find no reference of his ever challenging the Watt's guys.

SNAILGATE

the Royal Society                                                                          gAWkER

“ SNAILGATE: THE SLIME TRAIL LEFT BY THE ROYAL SOCIETY'S VANISHING CREDIBILITY The story of the "extinct" giant snail - supposedly killed by global warming, but recently found alive and well on the same Indian Ocean atoll it has inhabited for the last 80,000 years - is developing into a major environmental scandal. A scandal that obviously deserves the title Snailgate. As we reported ten days ago under the heading Extinct Giant Snail Killed By Climate Change Crawls Back From The Dead, the sorry tale began in 2007 with the publication in one of the Royal Society's journals Biology Letters of a "peer-reviewed" study by Justin Gerlach. Gerlach's study claimed that the Aldabra Banded Snail (Rhachistia aldabrae) had gone extinct in the late 1990s due to climate change. However, this was immediately disputed by four experts in the field, led by Oxford University ecologist Clive Hambler who argued that there simply wasn't enough evidence to justify to claim, and urged Biology Letters to print their prepared rebuttal. It said: "The vast majority of the habitat is virtually inaccessible and has never been visited. It is unwise to declare this species extinct after a gap in known records of ten years. We predict ‘rediscovery’ when resources permit.” Had Biology Letters published this, it would have spared itself the embarrassment of being proved wrong this year when the snail was indeed rediscovered, alive and well, on its island home. Instead, Biology Letters refused to publish the rebuttal on the grounds that it had failed to pass "peer-review." Thanks to new research by Times environment correspondent Ben Webster, we now have an inkling as to how this may have happened. The two "peer-reviewers" who accepted the erroneous J Gerlach paper were the same two referees who rejected the subsequent rebuttal paper. Though their reasons for doing so are unclear, one evident possibility is that they did not wish to make themselves look foolish by accepting a paper explicitly rejecting the one they had so recently approved. None of this would have come to light if the snail had stayed conveniently "extinct." Unfortunately for the Royal Society, Biology Letters, J Gerlach and those two "peer-reviewers", the resurrection snail has come back to haunt them by raising some very awkward questions. Like: .... We are at the point as a society where the Big Lie chasm betwixt truth and fiction is more or less unbridgeable.  What chance that people like the Gawker's Adam Weinstien, who calls for the arrest of people who don't subscribe—by virtue of their common sense and examination of the facts—to man caused climate change; what chance that this nerf-ball will even allow himself to be educated on the matter?  Slim to none. Rabid dog. Click-Click. Skoonj ”

Michael E Mann comes clean ...

Global Warming Fade-Out

“ Michael E Mann; Climate Twat “an opportunity to denounce capitalist greed.” "an opportunity to denounce capitalist greed.”” “Instead of discrediting Erlich, his work, somehow, gave birth to what Mann calls “environmental politics.” Continuing, Mann asserts that Earth Day “became an opportunity to denounce capitalist greed.”” Climate change a symbolic battle against an unpleasant, toxic way of life Mann is obviously a believer in anthropogenic (or man-made) climate change. Much of his essay is spent deriding the left for its unrestrained rhetoric that it uses to “scare Americans into action.”  He says: “the chatter itself, I would argue, has done its share to stall progress.” Within his argument is some history and context that is illustrative for those who see climate change as cyclical — something natural that has happened before and will happen again, rather than something that is new, scary, and human-caused. Those of us who believe the climate changes, but that human activity is, certainly, not the primary driver, struggle to understand the cult-like following of alarmists like Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org (“A group that seeks to create a mass movement against climate change”) — who Mann spends several paragraphs criticizing. While I doubt that this is Mann’s intent, a careful reader will realize that today’s climate hysteria has less to do with the climate and more to do with control and economic change. (Hockey Stick) Mann starts his history lesson with Paul Erlich, author of The Population Bomb — whom I wrote about in June. Mann calls Erlich’s book “a foundational text in the environmental movement” — yet, he points out that Erlich’s “predictions didn’t pan out.” Instead of discrediting Erlich, his work, somehow, gave birth to what Mann calls “environmental politics.” Continuing, Mann asserts that Earth Day “became an opportunity to denounce capitalist greed.” Using acid rain as an example, Mann points out: “environmentalists meanwhile found out the problems were less dire than they had claimed” and that “Today, most scientists have concluded that the effects of acid rain were overstated to begin with.” Because I follow the politics of energy policy, I found this point Mann makes most interesting: “Environmental issues became ways for politicians to signal their clan identity to supporters.” He observes: “As symbols, the ideas couldn’t be compromised.” And, he states: “climate change is perfect for symbolic battle.” He calls carbon dioxide “a side effect of modernity.” Addressing the charts and graphs that so frequently accompany the climate change hyperbole, Mann says: “In the history of our species, has any human heart ever been profoundly stirred by a graph? Some other approach, proselytizers have recognized, is needed.” Read more at NetRightDaily And there's this from James Watt: What’s wrong with climate activism and some climate scientists in one ugly nutshell ”

Now they're clubbing us seals, so to speak

GREEN NAZIS                                     “ Global warming’s public relations gambit By Rick Manning Get ready America, many of the world’s largest public relations firms are creating a climate change litmus test by asserting that they will not work for companies or organizations that don’t buy the global warming mantra that is being used to destroy the free market system. What these PR geniuses apparently fail to realize is that by taking this action, any company or group that they currently represent has to be assumed to hold the same global warming position that they so lovingly cling to, making them prime economic boycott targets by those who oppose the climate change agenda. One wonders if they have already gone to their clients in the energy field and informed them that they will no longer represent them unless they sign a note certifying that they corporately bow to the PR firm’s political beliefs? This decision opens the door for a new group of public relations firms who aren’t hamstrung by global warming dogma, and the corporate behemoths that currently dominate the landscape will either collapse of their own self-important weight or quietly change their policy Will they drop representing a company’s interests on real estate matters, because the company supports free market groups that oppose the global warming mantra? Will they refuse to represent investment groups that have holdings of energy companies that are fighting against the global warming agenda? Will they force all their employees to sign an oath of fealty to the global climate change gods? To enforce their edict they would have to do all of these things, but none of them matter.  The market system allows people and companies to make choices about whom they hire to provide public relations advice, and it would be counter to a company’s interest to hire a public relations firm that opposes their core, underlying business.  If corporate decision makers act rationally, they will seek out public relations firms that message to as broad of a group of people as possible rather than limiting themselves to those who mindlessly bleat to the same hype. Read more at NetRightDaily.com: More importantly, who's bankrolling this mind altering adventure?  Ahem.  And what do  backers stand to gain?  Ahem.  I don't see this folly going much further than, say, George Soro's desk.  ”

Kerry- What will we have lost?

GREEN NAZIS                                     “ We are asked to believe that humans are drastically changing the earth’s climate by burning fossil fuels. The problem with their theory is very simple: It is NOT true. Kerry: If We're Wrong on Climate Change, 'What's the Worst That Can Happen?' What if '97 percent' of scientists are wrong? Duplicitous wording and mendacious babble Insidious plotting by  dishonest rabble, White paper cunning by dishonest turds These are a few of my favorite words to describe John effing Kerry, a man whose entire public life is bereft of even a single example of selflessness or humility.  What will we have lost?  Another great chunk of our freedom, that's what.  Ceded to this cunningly deceitful organism called the Obama Administration.  Scientists Respond to the Obama Administration’s 2014 National Climate Assessment The National Climate Assessment - 2014 (NCA) is a masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts. With hundreds of pages written by hundreds of captive scientists and marketing specialists, the administration presents their case for extreme climate alarm. This is a rebuttal drafted by 14 independent meteorology and climatology experts. As independent scientists, we know that apparent evidence of “Climate Change,” however scary, is not proof of anything. Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration’s version of “Global Warming,” “Climate Change,” “Climate Disruption,” or whatever their marketing specialists call it today. We are asked to believe that humans are drastically changing the earth’s climate by burning fossil fuels. The problem with their theory is very simple: It is NOT true. Here we address the administration’s basic thesis and the essential evidence that they claim support extreme concern. The theory of ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming’ (CAGW) is based on a string of inferences that begins with the assumptions that carbon dioxide is a ‘greenhouse gas’ and that we are slowly driving up the atmospheric concentration by burning fossil fuels. It is therefore claimed as self-evident that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) has already risen significantly and will continue to do so. Higher GAST is then presumed to lead to all sorts of negative consequences, especially Extreme Weather. They promote their ‘Climate Models’ as a reliable way to predict the future climate. But these models dramatically fail basic verification tests. Nowhere do they admit to these well-known failures. Instead, we are led to believe that their climate models are close to perfection. This document is structured around a “fact-check,” where we quote a number of the government’s key claims in the NCA and show each to be invalid. The first three claims involve their three crucial scientific arguments (Three Lines of Evidence or 3 LoE), which, if valid, would satisfy a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for making their case. But each is easily shown to be false; and because each is crucial, their entire theory collapses. That means that all of the overblown “Climate Disruption” evidence that they mention, whether true or not, cannot be tied back to man’s burning of fossil fuels. Hence, efforts to reduce or eliminate Extreme Weather by reducing the burning of fossil fuels are completely nonsensical. NCA CLAIM #1: “First ‘Line of Evidence’ (LoE) – Fundamental Understanding of GH Gases” Go to What's Up With That for a step by step and real scientific examination.  And henceforth  post this— http://tinyurl.com/lh2hw27— as your comment to any and all  further AGW gibberish .  Sheesh ”