Profile image
By The Pete Santilli Show
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

The Pete Santilli Show – 1/2 Truth + 1/2 Truth = Lie – Episode 1146

Monday, December 4, 2017 13:32
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

Headline: Bitcoin & Blockchain Searches Exceed Trump! Blockchain Stocks Are Next!

1/2 Truth + 1/2 Truth = Lie

Episode #1146 – The Pete Santilli Show – DAY OF WEEK December 04, 2017

By Pete Santilli, The Pete Santilli Show

The Pete Santilli Show is a widely distributed social media broadcast that is hosted by Pete Santilli and Deb Jordan. The show has made groundbreaking strides in the field by outperforming Mainstream Media with the flow of information during breaking national news. The show can be seen Sunday thru Friday beginning @ 7:00 PM EST.

TONIGHT’S FEATURED GUEST Tom Harris: Tom Harris: The ICSC (International Climate Science Coalition) aims to help create an environment in which a more rational, open discussion about climate issues emerges, thereby moving the debate away from implementation of costly and ineffectual “climate control” measures. ICSC encourages assisting vulnerable peoples to adapt to climate variability and continuing scientific research into the causes and impacts of climate change. 

Tom Harris lives and works in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. He has 30 years’ experience as a mechanical engineer/project manager, science and technology communications professional, and technical trainer. Tom calls himself a climate denier and the ICSC a climate realist group.

The Heartland Institute describes Harris as “perhaps the most frequently cited and interviewed critic of exaggeration and alarmism in the global warming debate, appearing thousands of times on online news forums and being regularly published in newspapers in Canada and the U.S. and occasionally in Australia, New Zealand, the U.K., and other countries.” 

The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), of which Harris is Executive Director, offers the following as its “Core Principles”:   ICSC on Climate Science

1. Global climate is always changing in accordance with natural causes and recent changes are not unusual.

2. Science is rapidly evolving away from the view that humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ are a cause of dangerous climate change.

3. Climate models used by the IPCC* fail to reproduce known past climates without manipulation and therefore lack the scientific integrity needed for use in climate prediction and related policy decision-making.

4. The UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers and the assertions of IPCC executives too often seriously misrepresent the conclusions of their own scientific reports.

5. Claims that ‘consensus’ exists among climate experts regarding the causes of the modest warming of the past century are contradicted by thousands of independent scientists.

6. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant – it is a necessary reactant in plant photosynthesis and so is essential for life on Earth.

7. Research that identifies the Sun as a major driver of global climate change must be taken more seriously.

8. Global cooling has presented serious problems for human society and the environment throughout history while global warming has generally been highly beneficial.

9. It is not possible to reliably predict how climate will change in the future, beyond the certainty that multi-decadal warming and cooling trends, and abrupt changes, will all continue, underscoring a need for effective adaptation.

10. Since science and observation have failed to substantiate the human-caused climate change hypothesis, it is premature to damage national economies with `carbon’ taxes, emissions trading or other schemes to control ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions.

* United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ICSC on Energy

1. Carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions from human activity—energy production, transportation, cement production, heating and cooling, etc.—appear to have only a very small impact on global climate.

2. So-called “new renewable energy technologies” are extremely expensive and rely on huge subsidies. To use such intermittent and diffuse power sources requires that the consumer pays between three and ten times the price of power from conventional sources (coal, oil, natural gas, hydro and nuclear). Regardless, it is not currently possible to safely replace a significant fraction of our conventional energy supplies with alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and most biofuels.

3. New renewable energy technologies have only a minimal effect on carbon dioxide emissions because none of them can be relied upon to be available when needed. Therefore, conventional fossil fuel-fired power stations must be kept on standby in case the wind drops or a cloud passes over the Sun. This leads to additional emissions of carbon dioxide that, to a large extent, offset the reductions made by the renewable energy technologies.

4. “Energy independence” is not a good reason for promoting new renewable energy technologies.Energy independence is more easily–and much more cheaply–attained by exploiting abundant national fossil fuel reserves, and spending some of the wealth created on research into potential new energy technologies.


JOIN US STREAMING LIVE STARTING @ 7:00 PM EASTERN:

 

FACEBOOK:

 

 

YOUTUBE:  SHARE LINK URL: https://youtu.be/7y7ceuKh8ms 


 

 AudioNow 

 


Want to see more articles like this one? Please consider becoming a supporter of our work & check out the following links:


Important Disclaimer: Pete Santilli & Deb Jordan are radio talk show hosts who share and comment on trending political news and current events with a listening audience. The information is obtained by way of public domain and their opinions are merely shared or distributed as a service to subscribers and the general public. It is impossible to screen every listener and/or those who participate by subscribing, commenting in a chatroom, or calling into their live broadcasts. Some of the topics and language used may be steeped in controversial theory, and the opinion of the hosts may be deemed by some as offensive. However, they fully support a person’s right to unsubscribe, not engage, or have an opposing view. While they may indulge in thought provoking conversation and agree or disagree with a guest or audience member who has been stimulated to an emotional response, it is not their intention to incite a person or group of people to any action that would be deemed illegal in the eyes of law enforcement.

Links to today’s article: http://sbn.buzz/headlines

Visit Our Website:  http://sbn.buzz

BeforeItsNews.com Articles: http://sbn.buzz/news

Important Links to Share: http://sbn.buzz/links

Daily News Headlines: http://sbn.buzz/headlines 

Subscribe To Our Youtube Channel: http://sbn.buzz/youtube

Audio Download: http://sbn.buzz/podcast

Daily Live Show:  http://sbn.buzz/live

Support The Pete Santilli Show:  http://sbn.buzz/insider

Like Our Facebook Page: http://sbn.buzz/facebook

Follow Us on Twitter: http://sbn.buzz/twitter

 

 

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Total 1 comment
  • Bob DD

    Harris is correct, in E. CT. solar panel farms are being installed as I write. Along the main road adjacent to Groton/New London Sub Base, here in Lebanon Ct, on both sides of the main road, with more farm land already fenced in for more installation. As Harris says: solar farms are expensive and rely on huge subsidies, and the consumer pays between 3 & 10X’s electricity costs. Just shopped for electricity supplier and I will pay 20 to 25% more vs. former rate last year, with more increases to come. These solar panel farms take up land, are unsightly, and cost We the Taxpayers$$$. Some politicians must be getting kick backs? There’s a hydroelectric plant nearby, that’s been in business for at least 55 years, great, but NONE ARE ALLOWED anymore, due to the govt not allowing diversions of the H2O. And, of course, there are no kickbacks on them. Guess Barry (BHO) wasn’t kidding when he said he would raise energy costs?

Top Stories
Recent Stories
 

Featured

 

Top Global

 

Top Alternative

 

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.