Guest post by Thomas Fuller
Like a supervillain from Marvel Comics, a new threat to civilization has emerged. It is Climate Disruption, the result of a rebranding exercise announced by U.S. Science Czar John Holdren.
George Orwell understood the importance of controlling the terms of political debate, and predicted this level of Newspeak long before John Holdren joined with Paul Ehrlich to demand the U.S. ‘de-develop,’ a Newspeak way of calling for a return to medieval life.
But this one is a real beaut. Climate change, which morphed into ‘global warming’ for political reasons and later re-emerged after the globe stubbornly refused to warm fast enough, is now climate disruption.
What this means is that any unusual event–or even usual events, like walruses showing up on Alaskan beaches, which they do every year–can be called climate disruption in action, and blamed on human activity.
We are fulfilling Orwellian requirements in other respects as well: Cameras everywhere, recording everything (including dust devils that can inflate tornado statistics)? Check. Intrusive software following us around? Check. A devaluing of the English language to suit political objectives? Double check.
Take the term ‘denier.’ Please. It is hate speech, pure and simple. It was dragged into the climate debate specifically to compare skeptics with skinhead thugs who denied the Holocaust occurred. It has persisted despite it being pointed out as hate speech because those who use it are thugs themselves, needing to devalue any contribution from their enemies and because it gives them an almost sexual sadistic thrill.
But ‘climate disruption’ is more dangerous–it is a potent political weapon. There are no terms of reference, there is a certainty that it will be misused and it will cheapen any attempt to objectively observe our climate and to accurately describe what is happening to it.
Where’s the Silver Surfer when you really need him?
It will have little effect, because the average citizen now sees through the scam and realizes these warmistas are truly now flailing around. Panic mode.
Being a star trek fan the word “disruptor” just makes me think of the klingon weapons and since “resistance is futile” is the catch phrase of the borg i have no doubt that the enterprise will save us from this impending disaster.
I agree with you on this one, Tom. It makes any weather event proof of the evil of CO2…. More hurricanes than normal? Bad, and CO2 done it. Fewer huricanes than normal? Bad, and CO2 done it. Is there a good operational definition for climate disruption? It’s whatever they want it to mean.
I love “Climate Disruption”…early frost? disruption: cold winter? disruption: big return of Sockeye salmon to the Fraser River? disruption.
Any minor blip is ever more evidence of “disruption”. Does not matter if the next twenty to thirty years are, well, cooler than the climatology. That’s disruption and mankind is obviously the cause.
This lets policy cut the anchor to that pesky science which seems to be more than a little inconclusive. With “disruption” an unexpected hailstorm or more Arctic ice or a really hot day in Chicago pushes the “mankind is bad” narrative forward.
Of course, the one tiny problem with the rebranding is that almost no regular person was buying the old brand. Calling a “buggy whip” a “horse enhancer” is unlikely to create more sales of an unnecessary item.
I don’t think you need to be a conspiracy theorist to realise that there is a lot of stuff coming out at the moment in order to prepare the ground for the Cancun Climate meeting in a couple of months.
http://www.global-energy.org/international/cancun-climate-summit/conference-news
How about this super-intelligent piece from the UK?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/britain-must-adapt-to-inevitable-climate-change-warns-minister-2077175.html
(And just check out the “authority figures” the authors of this drivel have canvassed for their comments at the end of this piece!)
Again, note that they seem to be throwing all the weight into pointing at any “climate dispruption” and claiming that this means we have to do something NOW.
This will (they hope) pave the way for acceptance of the huge hike in energy costs and taxation which they have lined up for us.
It looks like a last desperate attempt to stop the public at large laughing about their increasingly far fetched prognoses. But will it work?
I’m hoping for the peasants with pitchforks and flaming torches turning up at their ivory towers real soon.
The Surfer is unavailable at the moment, he is busy in another galaxy with Galactus.
[note spelling] 😉
Ah well, you had to be there I guess! I mean ‘there’ in those early Fantastic Four comics (issue #48 I believe).
You invoke Marvel comics, the Silver Surfer, and then “Galacticus”?
Blasphemy! It’s Galactus!
Thanos wishes to show you some real global warming, afterwards Mephisto would like to know if you find things “lukewarm”…
The way in which Holdren continues to heap praise upon the ‘remarkable’ ideas present in the work of his pal Harrison Brown (The Challenge of Man’s Future), it’s almost tempting to infer that it may be Holdren himself who is the real Holocaust ‘denier’.
Did he just completely skip WWII?
Thank you for stating the obvious, Mr. Fuller, but I can’t dispute your words.
Where is Dark Phoenix when we need her? Being able to destroy suns she could kick Galactus’ behind, no problem. ;0)
Completely agree, Tom
‘There shall in that time be rumours of
things going astray, erm, and there shall be a great confusion as to
where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth
those little things wi-with the sort of raffia-work base, that has an
attachment. At that time, a friend shall lose his friends hammer,
and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by
their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night
before, about eight O’clock.’ – Monty Python’s Global Climate Disruption!
This could back-fire on them even faster than “Climate Change”. Crying wolf so much in the past has already cause credibility overload and to paraphrase Shakespeare “AGW by any other name is still unbelievable”.
How many surfers on this site are silver on top??
Nice ‘un
One of the unsuspected consequences of the third rebranding of ‘Global Warming is that it has provided a basis for one or more almost irresistible ‘d’-words to characterize AGW or ACD alarm proponents. I think this is unfortunate because this issue should be decided on who has the most compelling facts on their side rather than those who have the most clever irrelevant put-down tag for the other side.
CO2 doesn’t cause disruption, it causes (some) warming. If it’s not warming, there is no conceivable basis to blame it on CO2.
Maybe we could blame it on, I don’t know… weather?
I quite like this new term Climate Disruption. I think it is their biggest mistake yet:
1. This is the third rebranding exercise in a decade. Not only is the brand image tarnished, but it is clear nobody wants to buy the product.
2. The whole theory is thrown into question by this re-branding. The theory goes: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. CO2 increases temperature. More CO2 means higher temperature. For the last two decades this theory has used graphs showing CO2 increases and causes increases in temperature in lock step with CO2. This relationship has failed in the last decade. At no time at all during the last two decades was any reference made to Climate Disruption. Where are the ‘peer reviewed’ papers over the last two decades pointing towards disruption rather than warming?
3. Climate ‘Disruption’ finally breaks the already tenuous link between CO2 and Temperature and that it is the major source of ‘forcing’: There is only one thing that CO2 is supposed to do and that is warm the planet. Side effects may well be droughts here, more storms there etc. But if the planet doesnt warm? What then? The Gods are angry? We need to placate them?
The public aren’t daft. Only the gullible and the warmist running dogs will fall for this.
No, this latest attempt makes them look like the cheap scoundrels that they are. Where can they go after the public laughs this one off? – And the public are already laughing.
Always remember: That is THREE rebranding exercises in a decade. AGW / CC / CD. They are grasping at straws.
A disruption is a brief event, after which comes a longer period during which things will settle down as close to their previous rhythms as possible, although there may be permanent changes.
Global Climate Disruption? A large asteroid strike would count. Will they now work at preventing those?
Nah, they decided NASA doesn’t need to get to space on their own so we can’t do interceptions. Maybe they can outsource it to India. They seem better set up to make rapid advances in space technology than we are. All that cheap non-green energy sure helps.
☺
Power-driven ClimateFraud is a part of the red-greens’ attempt at a slow-moving coup d’état on a global scale. It is so much easier to enslave the masses slowly with indoctrination followed by legislation than to try and conquer them by force of arms.
Fortunately, even apathetic people have a tipping point where they get fed up with being taken for fools. Then the worm turns and the perpetrators are usually put to the sword…
The red-greens’ increasing desperation is a sign that day may not be too far away…
Climate Disruption as a paint job will not work.
Why? Because it comes too soon on the heels of the previous paint job, Climate Change.
It’s sloppy. There is no difference between Global Warming causes Global Cooling and all Weather Extremes are signs of Climate Disruption.
It sounds like a desperate & hasty excuse. Anybody with half a brain knows that weather extremes happen every year somwhere. Just watch the nightly news check out the ‘worst since 19XX’.
Never interfere with a politician or beaurocrat that is hanging themselves in the public eye.
Holdren’s new term falls flat in the public arena. To me “disruption” is something that is very manageable and temporary, and will soon go away. And so the people will view it as if it’s a common cold, which everyone knows quickly goes away. “Disruption” sounds quite benign actually.
A more forceful term would have been “climate volatility” or “extreme climate instability”. Or how about “climate convulsions”?
Still, we all know what Dr. Sterilization Holdren is implying: Humans are disruptors on the planet, and as soon as they go away, the earth will get back to its beauty and natural state.
whatever happened to “climate chaos”?
AGW’s New Strategy Against Skeptics
Alas, they got us – the skeptics…
When Americans agreed (intentionally or not) to “homeland security” which belongs to the same category of Newspeak as “climate disruption” they were doomed.
A recent discussion on Alex Jones Radio Talk Show clearly described the dangers of the so called “homeland security” which should be rather called a “national defense”. That the DHS’s naming ambiguities opened road for full implementation of the US Police State is known to everybody (who reads and thinks).
The same road to the Citizens’ Hell can be found in Europe. Have you ever heard about European “marches against violence”? The same stuff.
How can anyone deal with ABSTRACT issues? It’s impossible and ludicrous. Alas, most people still buy every s***speak…
What worse. If there is a Law there must be an “execution”. The Law without executive forces is only a lawlessness. Using the analogy – “climate disruption” as a pejorative statement cannot be thought of without a full force of the (existing) Law behind it.
Eco Youth Brigades? Check.
Eco Propaganda in Kindergartens and Schools? Check.
Eco Police and Green Police? Check.
MSM(‘s) Censorship? Check.
Eco County Vigilante Patrols? Check.
International (via Interpol?) Warrants? Not yet?
Prison Sentences? Soon.
BTW. It is being said that China’s recent agreement to “Carbon Games” (aka Carbon Trade) was won at the price of Taiwan. Who knows?
Regards
Our hypothesis of climate fluctuations every 20 – 50 years are also instrumental in solving a psychological problem which we pointed out at the beginning of our study. We described the clash of opinions about the issue of climate change, some predicting a dryer or warmer climate, others claiming that it will be moister or colder, and finally a 3rd group predicting no change. The identification of climatic fluctuations resolves at least some of these contraditions. In fact, in our opinion, climate does change in one direction for a certain time and then again in the other — so it depends on when the prediction was made as to what the prediction will be.
The table below shows the number of articles advocating a change of climate (wetter or dryer) for the current century…according to the time of publication….It is quite evident that during each dry period — and particularly at the end of it and at the beginning of the succeeding wet period — many voices were raised assessing a tendency towards a dryer climate, which then grow silent again in the course and at the end of the wet period. They are replaced by authors arguing for a tendency towards a wetter climate…
Almost all the studies confirming the link between deforestation and a decrease in rainfall are produced during dry periods, and those attributing an increase in rainfall to reforestation during wet periods. Blanford’s findings belong into this category because his increase in (local) rainfall due to reforestation falls exactly into a time period when rainfall in general increased over global land masses. In the (dry) 1830s, 1860s and the (dry) beginning of the 1870s it is common opinion that deforestation reduces the water levels in rivers; in the 1850s, however, the view prevails that it is deforestion which increases the water level.
The most drastic change of opinion took place in Australia. As common as it was 20 years ago at the end of the last dry period to blame deforestation for the increasing drought, as sommon was the view in the 1880s, that deforestation in particular was to blame for Australia’s wet climate. ‘Protect the Forest’ used to be the slogan; ‘ Down with the Forest’ it is today.
Eduard Bruckner’s closing remarks in his argument against anthropogenic climate change in Klimaschwankungen seit 1700 (Climate Change since 1700), 1890, based on trans in Stehr & von Storch 2000
You have to be completely out of your mind to claim some sort of governmental conspiracy behind AGW. Stuff like this is the reason the word “denialist” is used, much harsher words apply very well too.
It is especially ironic that his kind of thing comes from people whose favorite way to kill time is to write posts accusing climate scientists in not doing good science. How about doing some good science yourself and checking your conspiracy theory against the data – if it was correct, we would have rationed fossil fuels, instituted a nearly complete moratorium on births for a few decades, invested all available resources in energy technology development, etc. Note that if we were doing the above, it wouldn’t mean that the conspiracy theory is correct, these are the kind of kind of things you do if you really have a serious sustainability problem in front of you. But we aren’t doing anything remotely approaching that kind of seriousness towards the problem, in fact we are doing absolutely nothing as the world is pretty much on BAU path.
So the conspiracy theory is clearly falsified by the data. Then why do we have to keep hearing it every day if it’s not a secret???
“Climate change, which morphed into ‘global warming’ for political reasons…”
That is backwards. It was global warming first.
John M Reynolds
And when that does not happen what will he call it? Holdren is certifiable and certainly is operating beyond his level of expertise.