Professor’s fellowship terminated for speaking out on global warming in the Wall Street Journal


“Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd declaring ‘the left wants to stop industrialization—even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false’. Prof. Caleb Rossiter: ‘Just two days after I published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be allowed the ‘all of the above’ energy strategy we have in the U.S., the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) terminated my 23-year relationship with them…because my analysis and theirs ‘diverge.’

IPS email of ‘termination’ to Rossiter: ‘We would like to inform you that we are terminating your position as an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies…Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of U.S. policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours’

In an exclusive interview with Climate Depot, Dr. Rossiter explained:

“If people ever say that fears of censorship for ‘climate change’ views are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be allowed the ‘all of the above’ energy strategy we have in the U.S., the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship with them…because my analysis and theirs ‘diverge.’”

“I have tried to get [IPS] to discuss and explain their rejection of my analysis,’ Rossiter told Climate Depot. “When I countered a claim of ‘rapidly accelerating’ temperature change with the [UN] IPCC’s own data’, showing the nearly 20-year temperature pause— the best response I ever got was ‘Caleb, I don’t have time for this.’””

Read from the source here:

Obama Tones It Down From Previous Democrats

Why are we talking about Obama’s sea level rise propaganda? His administration is using global warming related propaganda to get a carbon tax past on energy so that they get more tax dollars.

These global warming scare tactics are not real but simply employed to get public opinion on the side of taxing your energy. It may seem like a good idea to those who believe he is protecting the environment but wait 5 years and see how well you like your electric bill.

Steven Goddard – “This might seem slightly aggressive, but is toned way down from previous Democrats who predicted 10 feet of sea level rise and seven degrees warming by 2000.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan Warned Nixon To Act On Global Warming, New Documents Show

Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the administration, urged the administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public’s attention.

There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.

“This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit,” he wrote. “This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.””

Daniel Patrick Moynihan Warned Nixon To Act On Global Warming, New Documents Show


UN IPCC AR5 climate reports: Conjecture disguised as certainty

real world climate change data

Do you want to fight against a false crisis known as global warming being pushed by politicians to shrink our economy and grow the tax pool to increase the current size and scope of an already enormously bloated American government?

Fight against the politically fabricated climate change propaganda that wants to gain public support for the largest tax increase in American history by taxing your electric service.

Share this information and get the word out!

UN IPCC WG report process fails to integrate critical information

Written by by Larry Hamlin

The world has experienced over the last 15+ years a remarkable absence of increasing global temperatures despite huge and growing increases in global CO2 emissions by the globes developing nations and despite claims by the UN IPCC that global temperature increases are dangerously out of control because of increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. This embarrassing dichotomy is demonstrated in the diagram below.

The UN IPCC has completed its three part (WGI, WGII, WGIII) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) process where future climate findings are portrayed using “level of confidence” and “assessed likelihood” qualifiers that attempt to cast these outcomes in a cloak of scientific certainty.

Much of the analysis underlying these “level of confidence” and “assessed likelihood” climate findings are based upon the computer output obtained through the use of climate models identified as Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP’s) cases 2.6, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.5 scenarios. Climate model RCP2.6 represents a low future CO2 emissions scenario case and climate model RCP8.5 represents a high future CO2 emissions scenario.

Read the rest of this story here:

Deciding an energy carbon tax is justified simply because a consensus among scientists has been reached

About trying to decide truth by majority vote, it’s hard to improve on what Michael Crichton said on consensus science.

Don’t let this false argument sway you and the the rest of the voting population to accept the largest ever energy tax politicians have ever devised.

Michael Crichton on consensus science

Note: This is a good response to someone who says, “But all those scientists can’t be wrong!” Crichton was referring to science in general, not specifically climate change, but what he says is apt for climate change. Dr Crichton had a career in science and medicine before he became a famous writer. He wrote some well-known science fiction novels such as The Andromeda Strain and Jurassic Park, and the long-running TV medical drama ER.

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
[Crichton gave a number of examples where the scientific consensus was completely wrong for many years.]
“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
Source: Crichton, Michael, Aliens cause Global Warming, 17 January 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology ( or or

About Dr Michael Crichton (1942–2008): Educated at Harvard University A.B. (summa cum laude) 1964 (Phi Beta Kappa). Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964–65. Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. Graduated Harvard Medical School, M.D. 1969; post-doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences, La Jolla, California 1969–1970. Visiting Writer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1988. The books he has authored have sold over 200 million copies. Source:

A Window into the Future of a Potential Carbon Tax in the USA

The below article excerpt is a great resource of information on the severity of the EPA’s attempt at using a created crisis known as global warming or climate change to exact a new tax on energy. The activist EPA is involved in a lawsuit because of the many false assumptions made about global warming to create this energy tax.

Regardless of the complete lack of proof that man’s small amount of addition in CO2 levels to this already trace greenhouse gas is causing all kinds of global climate worries the EPA pushes on to hopefully bring about a carbon tax that would drastically raise the price you pay for your electric service.

In reality the “climate change” crisis is nothing more than a pre-planned crisis headed up by the United Nations with many of the world leaders backing this agenda in order to create a tax that one day could reshape the socio-economic aspect of all countries involved in these UN mandates.

Global warming actually does not exist and you can find a lot of good, credentialed resources that prove this out ( and are two good ones). In fact the earth has been in a cooling period going on 17 years now which is considered a major problem for these politicians who wish to have you believe the earth is warming. Well respected people from all over the world have refuted the consensus claim and the alleged facts that surround the fake crisis.

This lawsuit is a must read because it gets into where the legal falsehoods reside and makes it easier for people to follow the trail from these falsehoods and read up on the facts that show just how big of a lie this “climate change” really is.

Posted on February 24, 2014 by Anthony Watts

“It is important to read this because it provides a window into the future of a potential carbon tax in the USA.

A look at the behind the scenes legal battle with the EPA over the ‘social cost of carbon’ and looming carbon tax

WUWT has been granted exclusive first access to this new legal document challenging the EPA’s proposed use of calculations on SCC.

While this submission to OMB from Attorney Menton may look forbiddingly legalistic document to many WUWT readers, a number of you may well have signed one or more of the Amicus Briefs and other materials cited in it.It is important to read this because it provides a window into the future of a potential carbon tax in the USA.

I consider it a “must read” for those of you who are very concerned about the EPA’s current and proposed CO2 –related regulations. EPA uses its Social Cost of Carbon estimates to justify all such regulations. And, these estimates are also being used as recommended starting points for future carbon taxes. Enough said as to why it makes sense to read and think about the submission?
If not, you will note it begins by showing that using IPCC’s own words, its estimates of Climate Sensitivity must be treated using what the mathematics of decision theory would call “under “Complete Ignorance Uncertainty.” Therefore, EPA’s reliance on IPCC is hardly justified.

Next, it argues that, in the court room, EPA’s own Endangerment Finding was predicated on three easy to understand “Lines of Evidence,” where each has now been shown to be invalid.”

The three lines of evidence used by the EPA are A. B. and C.

Read the rest of this story here:

Electricity Bid helps you find an electric rate and provider to save you money and keep life simple.

Get in touch with us!