I couldn’t possibly recommend the following new book enough: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.
It is authored by the person whom leading German center-left “intellectual” weekly Die Zeit once portrayed (black vs white) as the Godfather of the global warming denial and doubt syndicate: Marc Morano of CFACT’s Climate Depot.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change
The book has since rocketed to the No. 1 seller position in a variety of categories. That’s no surprise considering I read the first 188 pages nonstop in the first sitting alone before putting it down for the first time.
Marc Morano: the climate science Prince of Darkness
Viewed as the Prince of Darkness by climate-protection activists, Morano in his new book describes how he is in fact a real environmentalist and who, as almost every skeptic does, truly cares about the real environmental problems we face. However, one day back in 1992 the movement left him disenchanted after recognizing how leading green activists wildly exaggerated the situation in the Amazonian Forest and intentionally fabricated false stories of a world in environmental peril.
For Morano, all the fabricated doom and gloom was just too much to take. The data didn’t fit, and the characters behind the movement were clearly driven by dogma.
He has since become a hardened climate science skeptic – precisely the kind needed to critically research and expose the outright scandalous activism, deception, politicization, gross distortion and fear-mongering that climate “science” is fraught with. His book has done just that and with profound eloquence and success.
Humorous, chock-full of data and inconvenient facts
Having received an advance copy, Marc’s renowned, upbeat attack-style comes through in full color. Not only is the book humorous, but it’s also chock-full with data, facts and recent hard scientific findings that will make the Al Gore-acolytes cringe in embarrassment.
The book presents the strong arguments over a wide range of climate related issues – from energy, to natural climate factors, to weather anomalies, to sea level rise, etc. – in an easy to understand manner. It’s the book to go to if you’re having doubts about the alarmist science and the “green” direction we are being steered into.
Green hypocrisy exposed
Morano’s book exposes the hypocrisy of jet-setting, yachting limousine billionaire leftist elitists, who lead pampered lives in energy-guzzling mansions and private jets while preaching to the rest of us trying to make ends meet about the need to forego fossil fuels.
I’m also honored to note that NoTricksZone is mentioned multiple times in the book:
Only one rational conclusion
After reading this book, there is only one conclusion a rational reader could possibly draw: Climate science is corrupt, wildly exaggerated and a hoax propagated by a cabal of leftist elitists. The climate issue is the greatest distraction of our generation and among the most monumental waste of resources in human history.
“Warmists’ worst nightmare”
In the final chapter “On The Way Forward”, Morano writes climate sanity was restored to the United States with Trump’s election, and that Trump is: “The warmists’ worst nightmare: the first Republican presidential nominee who ever staked out a strongly science-supported skeptical position not only on climate change claims but also on the socalled ‘solutions’.”
Great progress in a long fight
Morano, however, does think Trump needs to do more because in his view “there is a huge vacuum when it comes to administration officials actually challenging climate change claims,” and that “this silence may result in only half-hearted measures to reverse Obama’s climate policies“.
Morano, the man behind Climate Depot, warns that the fight is far from over and that now is not the time for skeptics to let their guard down:
The green movement essentially put all of their chips onto the climate scare, and it is unlikely that they will back down anytime soon.”
Yet, after reading Morano’s book, the skeptic warriors and climate realists can rest assured that a lot of things are going their way on a number of fronts. The climate scam is moving well beyond its best-before date.
It’s the perfect present for your local pols, representatives, senators, children or a climate bedwetter you know who is losing sleep over the end of the climate.
The sad thing is that people exist, that really believe “climate change is a hoax” (just read the Amazon reviews). What a world we are living in … conspiracy thinking is “chic” again :/
The sad thing is that people have great difficulties understanding plain language. No skeptic believes “climate change is a hoax” We know climate change is real. We merely dispute over what is causing it today. Can-you-finally-grasp-that?
Thank you for demonstrating just that, I guess?
I was referring to the Amazon.com reviews, don’t know how to write that more clearly:
“Man-made climate change is a hoax. Unfortunately many Americans have become brain-washed by the media and the media’s deliberate lies. This superb study will inform you.”
Sebastian, he was referring to MAN MADE climate change as being a hoax, which is correct.
“Man-made climate change is a hoax.”
Skeptics have long know that climate changes and there has been warming since the late 1600’s.
Your complaint is as usual poor.
People like Sebastian increases my effort to continue the debate and to buy Marc Morano’s book. I will go to Barnes and Noble today to get it.
Seb has poor reading skills, obviously.
Make sure to put the book clearly on display if you have to at the B&N shelf.
““Man-made climate change is a hoax.””
Seems a pretty straight-forward statement to me.
Do you have any empirical evidence to prove that human released atmospheric CO2 is having any affect on the climate, seb?
Or will you continue to remain TOTALLY EMPTY in your non-attempts to PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE.
No evidence……
.. its just a fantasy, a fabrication..
Its more than a hoax, with the funds involved it is tantamount to massive FRAUD against human kind.
AND YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE, do you seb.
@AndyG55 6. March 2018 at 10:24 PM
One of the many laughable things about the chatbot is how he refuses to show data in support of his contentions, claiming he’s already given us the information. But he has no problem endlessly repeating the same fact-free negative nonsensical talking points, even after they have been shown to be wrong, often on multiple occasions. He’s such a tiresome boor.
The reality distortion field is strong with you guys …
@yonason:
what is the point in showing you data (again)? You will call it fake anyway or dismiss it or whatever you do to justify living in that fantasy denier world.
This endless “you have no evidence” babble is the boring thing. It doesn’t become real the more often you chant this phrase.
“what is the point in showing you data “
You have NO DATA showing that CO2 causes warming of anything.
YOU ARE BORINGLY EMPTY.
You live in a rancid AGW nightmare of your own making.
I am assuming with “you” you mean climate scientists? Why would you think that there is no data showing this? Because there is no experiment that shows that variations in CO2 concentration over a body of water causes a change in heat content as Kenneth likes to put it?
Poor seb..
….still RUNNING and HIDING from producing any REAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
That is because…
HE KNOW THERE ISN’T ANY.
sorry, typo
“HE KNOWS THERE ISN’T ANY”
I have been examining the pattern of Seb’s interjections and have arrived at the conclusion that he may not be as “antisceptic ” as he tries to pretend to be.
The trend is for the author of the post to present a sceptical essay backed up by numerous references,most from legitimate and respected journals, which are, within seconds countered by trivial, and reference – lacking comments from Seb.
That then produces an avalanche of comments supporting the original post, having the effect, for the lay reader, that the post is well supported by the science and contrary arguments are fatuous.
It is almost as if Seb has bravely taken on the role of Devil’s Advocate, at some cost to his personal reputation, to present a weak argument, easily countered, to demonstrate that that is the best that the Warmists can do. I suspect that he is a covert sceptic.
Good one, I hope any normal person that stumbles upon this blog can recognize the level of nonsense arguments presented here that “appear” to be based on scientific discoveries, but really aren’t.
The skeptic world is all made up fantasy and the skeptics living in it even go so far as to describe everything else fake. It is hilarious and sad at the same time.
Anyway, if you think of me as the Devil’s Advocate, so be it. So far this hasn’t succeeded in “bringing out the best” on the skeptic side. Nothing “well supported by the science” if you imagining that to be the case 😉
I am a skeptic, a skeptic of people trying to explain the world with fantasy and made up “contradictions” that they feel exist and “definetly destroy the notion of AGW” (or something similar to that).
Don’t take this skeptic thing too seriously guys. At the end it’s about the science, not your opinion of why it’s all fake anyway.
Yes, it is almost as if SebastianH is our prop. We get to expose the weakness of the beliefs he espouses in just about every article. It’s a this-is-the-best-the-other-side-has-to-offer thing. He helps us out…even though he actually believes he’s undermining us.
And, it turns out, much of what he writes is the same thing that’s written on the SkepticalScience blog. (I know…I read it regularly.) In other words, just about every thing he writes has been thought up by the activists. He even repeats the CO2-is-like-poison (arsenic) meme. It’s like debating climate science with John Cook himself.
“I hope any normal person that stumbles upon this blog can recognize the level of nonsense arguments presented “
All they have to do is read your manic anti-science rantings to know that AGW is NOTHING. but an EMPTY religion.
” At the end it’s about the science”
Of which seb has been absolutely determined to NEVER produce any of.
We are all STILL WAITING for the poor little AGW sympathiser to produce some actual empirical science to back up the atmospheric CO2 warming FARCE.
NAD, NONE.. EMPTY !!!
“people trying to explain the world with fantasy and made up “contradictions”
Ahhh.. the seb way..
Its all he has, we can expect nothing more.
Certainly we can NEVER expect him to produce any real science to support any of his parrot-like AGW religious sqawkings.
If believing that makes you feel better… Of course your lunatic base feels affirmed when you post endless lists of quotes. Because nobody in this community bothers to actually check the papers you quote from.
Nope, I never wrote that. It’s one of those instances where you freely interpret things into stuff so you can argue against it from a different angle. Seems to work for you, since everyone here is cheering in on such nonsense.
Person A says “look, CO2 is so insignificant with it’s 3 parts of 10000, what can a change to 4 parts really do?”, Person B replies with an example of a process where far lower concentration changes have devastating effects to demonstrate that this form of reasoning is nonsense.
The skeptic crowd replies with “CO2 is not a poison” and begins to claim that Person B said “CO2 is like a poison”. That is pathetic, AndyG55 …
He even repeats the CO2-is-like-poison (arsenic) meme.
tomOmason: “We still have 10,000 particles (molecules and atoms if you must) of normal air but now we have 4 particles of CO2 in there, the sun shines on them, and PAP!! suddenly for some weird and dumb reason people believe this amount of CO2 will now start to overheat the rest of the air!”
https://notrickszone.com/2018/02/24/seismic-shift-in-climate-science-ipcc-co2-induced-warming-estimate-far-too-high-in-a-free-fall/#comment-1253345
”
Where does SebastianH get this comparison between the effects of poison on the body vs. the effects of CO2 on the Earth’s climate system? Why, the SkepticalScience blog, of course.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm
“Saying that CO2 is ‘only a trace gas’ is like saying that arsenic is ‘only’ a trace water contaminant.”
“A doubling of the trace molecule CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm is still a trace, but just like with arsenic, the difference between a small trace and a larger trace is fatal.”
Neither I nor the author at the SkepticalScience blog says CO2 is like poison. Wth is wrong with you that you need to interpret it like this to be able to argue against it?
Apparently showing you other processes where even smaller traces make a difference is so problematic that you need to employ this strategy to resolve your cognitive dissonance.
Like they do on the SkepticalScience blog, you directly compared the potency of a trace amount of CO2 to the potency of a trace amount of poison. You characterized this comparison of CO2 and poison as a demonstration of how small changes in CO2 and poison can have “dramatic effects”.
And you think this equals saying CO2 is like poison and enables you to argue against this demonstration of other low ppm counts having effects, with “CO2 is not like poison”?
You’ve done this with most analogies people have come up with. Your standard reply is always “your analogy is not XY therefore you are wrong”. Kenneth, analogies are used to explain mechanisms, often in a simpler more understandable form. It’s about the math used, the concepts. Of course those things are not the same thing. A bank account is not the climate system, poison is not CO2.
But if you can sleep better telling yourself that your opponents are equating CO2 with poison … so be it. Do what a good skeptic does, ignore everything that contradicts your fantasy.
They’re neither the same thing, nor are they “alike” enough to offer a valid comparison. Comparing CO2 to poison is not even reasonable in this context. But you go right on ahead and continue claiming they are alike enough to demonstrate your points. We’ll disagree.
Climates ALWAYS change.
That’s why its called “weather”.
Scientists knew fifty years ago we are at the end of a mini ice age.
My first-grade teacher told us FIFTY years ago that when we all grew up, the world would be a degree or two warmer.
But it’s not.
So shove your climate change propaganda up your anus.
The sad thing is that people exist who think the unit of “work” is the “watt”
Such IGNORANCE seems to abound amongst AGW sympathisers.
Is that what I have written? Performing work results in a Watt output. Taking the time the work is performed into account results in Joules.
Your claim was that the chair is constantly performing work, therefore the Joules after 2h should differ from the Joules after 1h. They obviously don’t. Even you should have noticed that strain energy is a one time output of Joules and incapable of causing a temperature increase that lasts.
“Is that what I have written?”
Yes, that is EXACTLY what you wrote.
Everybody saw it.. But you will continue to DENY even that.
Now the pathetic attempt to back-pedal from your ignorance.. HILARIOUS.
“that strain energy is a one time output of “
WRONG !!
Your understanding of strain energy is basically NON-EXISTENT… EMPTY like the rest of your brain-hosed sludge.
Whenever you are sitting on that chair, the strain energy is present, comprehend??
No, OF COURSE YOU DON’T. !!
When you draw back a bow, does the strain energy in the bow magically disappear once the bow is fully drawn???
Do you REALLY think that is what happens… BIZARRE thinking, to say the least, and TOTALLY DEVOID of reality.
Your TOTALLY INABILITY to grasp simple concepts of physics is really QUITE HILARIOUS..
…and really does mark you as someone sadly lacking in even base-level education.
—–
“Your claim was that the chair is constantly performing work, therefore the Joules after 2h should differ from the Joules after 1h. They obviously don’t.”
ROFLMAO..
So the Joules are constant, is that what you are saying. (as would be the kinetic energy at the bottom of the atmosphere), right seb !
Do you even realise that you are saying is that there is CONSTANT work being done !!!!
WELL DONE seb, you have finally got there, albeit by total ignorance of any actual physics..
Your innate cognitive dissonance and incredible LACK of understanding is totally HILARIOUS……
…dig deeper and deeper, little headless chook !!
So you agree that the amount of Joules is fixed. “Constant” as you put it. Good. It’s not far from where you are to realize that this means that such a process can’t possibly cause a surface temperature above the equilibrium level.
It’s the same as with inflating a bicycle tire. It warms from the initial compression, but it quickly loses the additional energy to the surroundings. Same happens in planetary atmospheres, the energy from the initial compression is long gone. Since the atmosphere doesn’t get compressed further, there is no way this can cause a higher temperature.
I really don’t know why you can’t make that connection.
Really simple question, do you think the increase in temperature from the chair being compressed by me or you sitting on it is a lasting thing? Because hey, the strain energy is still there, right? So if the initial compression caused a 0.1°C increase in chair temperature, will this increase still be present 2 hours later?
“do you think the increase in temperature from the chair ”
Making things up as usual. You are bat-s**t crazy, seb !!
HALLUCINATING about what was said, because your base-level ignorance will not allow you do to anything else.
So sad, so PATHETIC so IGNORANT…. so seb.
What are the units of work. seb?
What are the units of strain energy, seb?
What are the units of kinetic energy, seb,
What does kinetic energy generally translate to in terms of atmospheric measurements, seb?
Your failed junior high FIZZICS and brain-hosed cranial sludge are is stunting your mental growth and stopping any possibility of anything but a pre-pubescent understanding of basically ANYTHING., you poor NIL-educated little trollette.
So, still not answering the question. Why are you evading?
How – in your oppinion – can a one time effect cause continued increase of the heat content and thus surface temperatures? You can’t be possibly thinking that the movement of air parcels and their decompression and later compression is a process that results in an increase of the heat content and somehow balances out at today’s observed levels? Can you?
ROFLMAO.
Your complete lack of understanding of anything to do with physics is totally HILARIOUS.
Why are you still not answering these questions, which can be done with one word. !
What are the units of work. seb?
What are the units of strain energy, seb?
What are the units of kinetic energy, seb,
Instead you come up with idiotic questions that show your complete and utter inability to comprehend the connection between work, strain energy and kinetic energy.. Its quite HILARIOUS to say the least.
What does kinetic energy generally translate to in terms of atmospheric measurements, seb?
Have you ever drawn back a bow (as in bow and arrow) and found that the “strain energy” in the bow just magically disappears after you have fully drawn the bow ?? That “stain energy” is a form of “work” being done by the bow… What units is that work measured in, seb ?
You have made it quite clear that you DO NOT have the mental capacity to understand.
You seem to think that the chair just supports you against the force of gravity, by doing “nothing”… Quite bizarre, and VERY anti-physics.
Have you ever held out a weight at arms length and found it takes “nothing at all” to hold it there? REALLY ??????
Your really do live in a MAGICAL little FANTASY world, seb.
The gravity thermal gradient exists, and there is NOTHING your little fantasies can do about it, seb.
The increase in temperature as you go lower in the atmosphere comes from static gravitational compression of that atmosphere, as predicted by the ideal gas law itself. The low altitude molecules have decreased mean free path, higher collision rate, thus an increase in temperature as you get closer to surface.
Its BASIC PHYSICS, to anyone but seb.
DNFTT
Seb, you seem to think that we evolved in a Goldilocks metastable environment and that by increasing CO2 by an infinitesimal amount, we have tipped our environment across to a zone where positive feedback will alter climate beyond anything previously experienced.
By this thinking, it is you and your like who are the climate change sceptics. Those who have some understanding of physics, ecology and environment know that climate changes is a continual process and that the variation you are spreading panic over is well within the norms of the interglacial period that our species has existed within. When the interglacial ends, then we will face some serious climate change (if we’re still around).
Please don’t assume what I think or don’t think.
No.
Strawman with a strange conclusion.
Not spreading any panic, so no.
If you imagine that … except we are just at the beginning of this interesting journey of artificially altering the climate. It’s not like it stops at todays state. Unfortunately, with anything changing slow enough, people aren’t going to notice the change. I guess there will even be deniers if the temperature increases by 3, 4, 5 or 10 degrees. All completely natural, they will say 😉
P.S.: No, I don’t think the temperature will increase by 3, 4, 5 or 10 degrees. Overall mankind isn’t stupid and even with enduring the nonsense from the lower half of the IQ bell curve I have confidence that doing the right thing will always prevail.
“Seb, you seem to think”
Sorry, Analitik….It is patently obvious that he DOESN’T. !!
“I have confidence that doing the right thing will always prevail.”
Yep this idiocy of wasting huge amounts of money on ANTI-CO2 Agenda, will come to an end soon.
Sanity will prevail when people realise that the atmosphere need MORE CO2, not LESS,
… and that the littering the landscape with ugly avian death traps is akin to a monumental criminal act against life on Earth.
People that are GULLIBLE enough to fall for the anti-CO2 AGW scam are VERY DEFINITELY in the lower half of the IQ bell curve.
That would be YOU, seb.
The Godfather has spoken!
“The climate scam is moving well beyond its best-before date.”
But they sure aren’t going down without a fight. They never tire of recycling the same old imaginary catastrophes over and over and over again.
This climate Change excrement was on the news feed of my homepage when I got up this morning.
“Disturbing before-and-after images show what major US cities could look like in the year 2100”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/disturbing-before-and-after-images-show-what-major-us-cities-could-look-like-in-the-year-2100/ss-BBJD7VN?ocid=spartanntp#image=1
As long as a scam makes money it will continue.
How exactly do you guys make money keeping up this “skeptic” fantasy thing?
P Gosselin “We know climate change is real” is nonsense. The fact is old temperature data has been manipulated using an excuse that it had to be “adjusted” due to inferior measuring equipment used to collect the data. But even if we assume data is true temperature increase in the lest 100 years is within an error which means it might increase, stay the same or delrease
ted, (6:02)
You seem to be writing about things that have happened recently.
You seem NOT to be writing about things that happened, say 20,000 to 12,000 years. See Vashon Glaciation
Both the weather and climate change. These are not the same thing.
So true , ted,
The climate is probably pretty much the same as it was around 70-80 years ago.
NH temps pretty similar when you look at actual temperature readings (not mal-adjusted agenda driven farce)
SH, probably cooler now than around 1900.
If there is any trend in extreme weather events, it is almost certainly downwards towards a more benign climate.
No sign of any manmade influence on real temperatures except in localised urban areas.
No sign of any of this mythical CO2 warming in the whole of the satellite temperature era.
So-called “climate change” is pretty much a NON-EVENT !!
[…] Climate Science’s Dark Knight, Marc Morano, Body Slams Climate Agenda In New Bestseller […]
“…one day back in 1992 the movement left him disenchanted after recognizing how leading green activists wildly exaggerated the situation in the Amazonian Forest and intentionally fabricated false stories of a world in environmental peril…”
George Monbiot, a writer for the left wing UK Guardian wrote an apology for misleading the world over nuclear energy. Green credibility is in tatters…
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/
The problem should be recognized as ” climate is real” but what I want is real climate science. This is not been done, real truthful reports on this effect was observed, creating that outcome. Sadly, that is missed. If climate science is not corrected and made truthful, what will our children miss in the future? The real driver’s of climate. Or some shills opinion.
I became doubtful about man made climate change after reading Professor Ian Plimer’s… Heaven and Earth about 20 yrs ago. A massive work with about 3000 references. It got slammed by the Greens because he worked for BHP,and why wouldn’t he given he was a Geologist and lecturer at Adelaide Uni.
What would he know? Who does he think he is Al Gore? or even SebH?
N.B I am a defender of the environment. I do not have much of a problem with so called alternative energies if they are left to private enterprise.
Basically the Greens are a bunch of fascists and grossly misinformed ideologues. As such you can never convince them of the errors in their thinking.
As such you can never convince them of the errors in their thinking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
http://ecofascism.com/article18.html
Sorry, can’t take anyone serious who calls something fascist that clearly isn’t.
poor seb has his own little fantasy definitions for just about everything, based on his non-existent education.
Poor little fascist trollette is a pitiful joke, even amongst AGW sympathisers.
So SebH you did not read that wiki article or maybe you did but failed to understand.
Mate..go get a life.
You’re a waste of fresh air.
Who is paying you to post all the wrong info.??
What an eloquent and well thought through reply …
Explain how you think Greens are a bunch of fascists and how they compare to what is described in that Wikipedia article (or any other description of fascism). I am curious.
Or are you just some AWM who needs to insult others because he feels threatened by something undefined?
Ha ha. Sorry about the repeat .
Al Gore takes in the shorts again.
Thanks for the recommendation. I have just ordered two of them, one to read and one to pass around.
[…] “The book has rocketed to the No. 1 seller position in a variety of categories. That’s no surprise considering I read the first 188 pages in the first sitting alone before putting it down for the first time.” Morano’s renowned, upbeat attack-style comes through in full color. Not only is the book humorous, but it’s also chock-full with data, facts and recent hard scientific findings that will make the Al Gore-acolytes cringe in embarrassment. — Pierre Gosselin, No Tricks Zone website. […]
Darn Amazon are SLOW
ordered 3rd March, just got an email
“Your new estimated delivery date is: Friday, March 23, 2018 – Wednesday, March 28, 2018”
How annoying.
“Not only is the book humorous, but it’s also chock-full with data, facts and recent hard scientific findings”
So the antithesis of a seb post. 🙂
[…] Climate Science’s Dark Knight, Marc Morano, Body Slams Climate Agenda In New Bestseller […]
[…] New Best Selling Book ‘Body Slams Climate Agenda In New Bestseller’ […]
[…] P Gosselin, March 6, 2018 in […]
[…] New Best Selling Book ‘Body Slams Climate Agenda In New Bestseller’ […]
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2018/03/06/climate-sciences-dark-knight-marc-morano-body-slams-climate-agend… […]
[…] New Best Selling Book ‘Body Slams Climate Agenda In New Bestseller’ […]