IPCC now too moderate for professional scaremongers | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
What happened to “listen to the science”?
A GLOBAL lobby group has distributed a “spin sheet” encouraging its 300 member organisations to emphasise the link between climate change and extreme weather events, despite uncertainties acknowledged by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
An “action pack” distributed by Global Campaign for Climate Action said members “shouldn’t be afraid to make the connection”, despite the sometimes low level of confidence in the official documents of the IPCC. The action pack, which was produced to coincide with the release of the latest full IPCC report into the link between climate change and extreme weather events, rekindled claims that overstating the case damaged the credibility of the science…
The full report … presented a cautious appraisal and said it was unable to answer confidently whether climate was becoming more extreme.
But GCCA told its member organisations to “use the precautionary principle to argue that we must take potential risks seriously even if the science doesn’t offer high confidence”.
“Generally, all weather events are now connected to climate change, because we have altered the fundamental condition of the climate, that is, the background environment that gives rise to all weather,” the action plan said.
GCCA has about 300 members worldwide including Greenpeace, Oxfam, WWF, Environment America, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Amnesty International and Pew Environment Group.
What’s important to these extremists is not the evidence but the scare.
It is amazing how folks like the above can NOT understand what a published paper says.
2+2=5 The new kinda fuzzy warm math.
Well they did the same with nuclear energy and it’s very profitable for them. Germany is as hysterically antinuclear as ever and our greens NEVER debate numbers – dosages, halflife, risk assessments, it’s NEVER a factual debate and ALWAYS a TOTAL rejection, so they will do the same with CAGW and refuse ANY… wait for it… COAL fired plant or SHALE GAS drilling (but, and they will be very silent about this, they will not protest against NatGas plants running on imported Russian NatGas…)
Does the lightbulb go on yet?
Is the BBC part of the Global Campaign for Climate Action because the once great Horizon programme has just aired “Global Wierding”
Despite the fact that hurricane increase claim is not supported by the facts
A great thread!
Congratulations for taking personal responsibility about climate change/political topics where you have strong comptetence. Stay on that path and get the charlatans out of the way so you can go back to science.
It took me a while, but I found the source document:
http://tcktcktck.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/TckTckTck-SREX-Full-Report-Action-Pack.pdf
Of course, the precautionary principle would indicate the release as much GHGs as possible, to avert a possible ice age. An ice age is demonstably more destructive than a few degrees of warming…..
Oxfam? Amnesty I.? I thought they were working toward feeding the hungry (CO2 good) and springing dissidents out of prison.
CAGOW = Catastrophic Anthropogenic Good Old Weather
Les,
from your link March 31, 2012 at 9:01 am
“These SREX findings are presented with RATHER HIGH LEVELS OF SCIENTIFIC CONFIDENCE. Other findings
are presented with lower or medium levels of confidence. However, it is important to note that low or
medium scientific certainty don’t always mean low risk, and we should use the PRECAUTIONARY
principle to argue that we must take potential risks seriously even IF THE SCIENCE DOESN´T OFFER HIGH CONFIDENCE.”
This is to say that IPCC asks all nations in the world to return to superstition as a guiding principle for all societies.
Les Johnson: Thank you for the link I was just looking for that so called Action Pack. I always read their rubbish. Also I like a good laugh.
Know the enemy.
Who enables this climate hoax, amongst others the state sponsored media and the left wing press?
I would like to see all state sponsored broadcaster Like the BBC in the UK. ABC in Australia. CBC in Canada and other public broadcaster else were de funded and no longer supported by taxpayers. Let them go out into free market broadcasting and see if they are competitive and can they bring a product that the public really want? Of course they can’t they are over staffed by socialist elite that pontificate from on high. They would not exists without Public/government money, much like Wind power and solar grants and artificial per Kwh rates. It’s all one big scam!!!!
Hilarious. Exactly what the Heartland Institute was accused of doing in the forged memo.
Using their execrable logic then someone could say that since al-Qaida is a threat we should nuke all the islamic countries to ensure our safety. Precautionary principle right? When fanatical faith allows you to lie to support your beliefs you’ve lost all claims being treated with anything but contempt.
From the BBC quote above: “In the past few years we have shivered through two record-breaking cold winters and parts of the country have experienced intense droughts and torrential floods. It is a pattern that appears to be playing out across the globe.”
I’m in my mid sixties and I can tell you that compared to the winters we used to have in the fifties and sixties, any recent ones have been pretty mild – and certainly no record-breakers in any sense. We had a few very cold snaps, most of them pretty short, and barely enough to kill bugs inc mosquitos.
But the BBC long ago lost any semblance of impartiality – it puts out propaganda pure and simple. The shocking thing is that it’s still so trusted round the world, not least by Americans
Slowly but surely, some of the CAGW promoters are conducting a tactical retreat.
DaveG says: March 31, 2012 at 10:03 am
“Who enables this climate hoax, amongst others the state sponsored media and the left wing press?”
IMO you got it wrong. Being a Swede I can assure you that the support of CAGW are massive from all parties from the left to conservatives (who are now in power in Sweden). It is a similar situations in all Europe. The Party lines are not what´s most important. To scare to obedience is far more important to secure the ruling by the politcal class and tohave the option to rise taxes on behalf of an imaginary threat and accepted by guilt. State employed scientists have to be obedient to keep their jobs also in US.
In US there is one polititican that I respect about climate politics and that is senator Inhofe. He has been fighting for years to inform about what science tells about CAGW but he seems quite alone.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
“shouldn’t be afraid to make the connection”, is code for ignore the science and write up our narrative anyway.
“Despite the sometimes low level of confidence in the official documents of the IPCC,” is code for we don’t know how the climate will change, and we don’t even know if any change will be deleterious.
And despite this, they wish to instruct their members to carry on regardless and make up complete fabrications upon something that they know next to nothing about. And then there’s this little gem: “Generally, all weather events are now connected to climate change, because we have altered the fundamental condition of the climate, that is, the background environment that gives rise to all weather,”
Say what? So what the “science” comes down to then, is a sort of Pythonesque parody of Parmenedian logic (who famously tried to prove that motion is impossible because of an infinite number of ever decreasing distances). Weather is, ehrm connected to climate and thus extreme weather is connected to climate change, which is our fault because we have altered the “fundamental condition of the climate,” or something. No room for doubt there then – fundamental. And I thought it was all a matter of degree. After all, CO2 was there before us.
And in a moment of unintended irony, they call us “anti-science.” Who’s anti-science now?
You couldn’t make this stuff up.
Alter the facts, spin the results, ignore the inconvenient, exaggerate a non-problem and then scare, scare, scare………………..
‘Climate scientists’ mantra #1.
How many more times does this have to be demonstrated?
Does anyone know who authorized the change from global warming to climate change by the alarmist group?I find it hard to accept that the change was just spontaneous.
The precautionary principle is not a scientific principle because it is based on possibility rather than probability.
I propose that all true believers should hereby lose the right to use electricity in any way shape or form or to benefit from it in any way whatsoever.
That is after all what theyre ultimately proposing for the rest of us is it not?
A life of feral existence?
So, lets see them as the first wave and show us how its done.
Cmon guys, you believe in all of this, so its money where your mouth is time.
Ok, hand over your phones, ipad/pods, watches, laptops? sorry hand it over, Tv? nooo no tv for you guys, books? yes you can take books with you, dont forget lights out at dusk though.
Yes i know you need a hot bath, shame to break a lifetimes habit though, boil some water on a fire…oh the irony of doing that.
You know if there was a village idiot contest running theyd all win it because they didnt enter their names. Duh!
“But GCCA told its member organisations to “use the precautionary principle to argue that we must take potential risks seriously even if the science doesn’t offer high confidence”.”
Ooo! Such tonic invocation of principle in human affairs lays ground for a renaissance based upon a rekindling of the principle that genocidal rationing lately termed “statistical murder” is a punishable sin worthy of tar and feathering. Best use of resources, all around boys, cheer it on! Let a beacon of diamond sharpness point all around in full circle fashion, revealing the flow of money, er “resources”, away from vital hope down into pits of festering grubby handed skullduggery that forces the poor to prostitute their kids and chomp bushmeat instead of blog their stories and inventions.
Les Johnson says:
March 31, 2012 at 9:01 am
…..Of course, the precautionary principle would indicate the release as much GHGs as possible, to avert a possible ice age. An ice age is demonstably more destructive than a few degrees of warming…..
_________________________
Yes and there is even a PEER REVIEWED PAPER warmist scientists to support that view point.
Not to mention a report from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
A few years ago Joe Romm over at Climate Progress stated:
“Absent human emissions, we’d probably be in a slow long-term cooling trend due primarily by changes in the Earth’s orbit — see Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, “seminal” study finds…”
Joe Romm maybe rooting for the next Ice Age but I rather have it nice and warm with lush plant growth.
They don’t just say to make the connection, they go on to brazenly say “Generally, all weather events are now connected to climate change”, so even as they continue by saying “That makes climate change one of the contributing factors to extreme weather trends, along with natural variation and other drivers.”, the emphasis is on the ‘climate change’ part, implicitly meaning anthropogenic. This is re-enforced by the first ‘proactive talking point’, “Talking about links between extreme weather events and climate change”, i.e. nothing about natural drivers here, or the relative sizes of CC and natural!
They also insist “that the IPCC report confirms”, yes, their prejudices and bias. No doubt they are looking at the SPM, which, yet again, is different to the actual report. Same old, same old.
When will they learn?
Some time ago (probably over a year) I listened to a ABC radio “Science Show” that had a scientist who was basically saying increased impact of weather events was not because of more extreme weather but because of more dense populations meaning that such disasters have more impact. I have gone back and tried to find the story, however it appears to have vanished (obviously didnt meet the agenda). Does anyone recall the story and can they find it? If it has indeed vanised – makes me even more skeptical…
Hans Jelbring says:
March 31, 2012 at 11:18 am
IMO you got it wrong. Being a Swede I can assure you that the support of CAGW are massive from all parties from the left to conservatives (who are now in power in Sweden). It is a similar situations in all Europe. The Party lines are not what´s most important. To scare to obedience is far more important to secure the ruling by the politcal class….
____________________________
You have got it. The real dividing lines are us vs our “rulers.” Dr. Evans has a very good article on the topic over at JoNova’s: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/climate-coup-the-politics/
Universities in US, and in the West, as well as, Technical Universities in US, and in the West are foremost today rooted in the Political Correctness/Cultural Marxism doctrine – therefore their advocating for Global Warming Hoax, and the Environmentalism agenda, Multiculturalism, Feminism, and appeasment of Islam.
US Universities, and Universities in the West/US Technical Universities, and Technical Universities in the West are NOT Universities/Technical Universities, but: Global Warming Hoax Institutes, Multiculturalism Institutes, Feminism Institutes, and Appeasment of Islam Institutes.
Real Universities are: The Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, and The Heartland Institute.
Real Technical Universities are: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Glock.
SAY NO TO GLOBAL WARMING HOAX
SAY NO TO JUNK SCIENCE
SAY NO TO GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
SAY NO TO EVIL
Does anyone else actually get quite angry reading things like this?
Edward Sikk says:
March 31, 2012 at 12:55 pm
Does anyone know who authorized the change from global warming to climate change by the alarmist group?I find it hard to accept that the change was just spontaneous.
_________________________________
Spontaneous? No the whole thing is too well orchestrated.
I did some research on another issue three or four years ago and from that info my bet would be on Stanley Greenberg, pollster, strategist and master manipulator of the public. He is husband of Congresswoman DeLauro(D-Ct)
Here is a bit about him and you see why he would be my pick.
One of their companies, Greenberg, Carville, Shrum directed Campaigns in 60 countries, including Tony Blair’s in the UK and Bill Clinton’s in the USA. Stan Greenberg “…specializes in research on globalization, international trade…” Any wonder that we see all the same junk happening all across the world?
So he is working on the Global Warming “Campaign” as well as working for NGOs
Greenberg writes for the Democratic Strategist and also formed Democracy Corps
From reviews of his book:
Simon Wood (@smimon) says:
March 31, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Does anyone else actually get quite angry reading things like this?
_________________________
I vary between thoughts of tar and feathers and Madame Guillotine at times but I am hoping we can do what needs to be done through the voting box, e-mails, letters and comments on the Federal Register. http://www.regulations.gov/#!home
Violence plays directly into their hands since the goal is a world wide dictatorship with “democratic” local government to keep the “Great Unwashed” from thinking about revolting.
Thes are the Executive Orders you can couple with the Patriot Act and Homeland Security here in the USA: http://standeyo.com/News_Files/Exec.Orders/EOs.html
“Generally, all weather events are now connected to climate change, because we have altered the fundamental condition of the climate, that is, the background environment that gives rise to all weather,” the action plan said.
*******************************************************************************************
Sounds like they took a page from Obama’s playbook. The one which states he will “fundamentally change” the USA. Well, he’s been doing that alrighty. Just not the kind of change we were expecting. Cancer is a fundamental change – of a formerly healthy and whole person. Seems like the progressives have been metastasizing.
Three links to speeches by Dr. Steven J. Milloy, Mr. James Delingpole, and Senator James M. Inhofe (R-Okla) at The Heritage Foundation against Global Warming Hoax, and the Environmentalism agenda:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/285232-1
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/300308-1
http://www.heritage.org/events/2012/03/the-greatest-hoax
Sam The First says:
March 31, 2012 at 10:59 am
Cold?
Floods? how about we built on flood plains? There’s a clue in the name.
Nothing outside my 59 year experience.
DaveE.
Greenhouse gases causing more extreme weather?
I have 2 issues with this: One is that in the northern hemisphere, bad
winter storms, nontropical windstorms, and major tornadoes are fueled
mainly by the temperature gradient between the tropics and the Arctic.
The Arctic has warmed more than the rest of the world. If anything, these
storms should be getting slightly milder in the northern hemisphere.
Another issue is that extreme weather is not new. There were the
droughts and heatwaves of the 1930’s, and many USA states have
statewide alltime high temperatures from early July 1936 still standing.
The last time a Category 3 hurricane hit the East Coast north of Virginia
was 1938. No year after 1974 was worse for tornadoes F3/EF3 and
greater. Places hit hard by the 1962 Nor’Easter have not had an equal
or greater storm since. Some locations in northeastern USA still have yet
to get a blizzard worse than the March 1888 one.
One weather item that *may* be favored by increase of greenhouse
gases: Thundersnow. However, thundersnow appears to me not to have
been part of most of the record-setting snowstorms of the past 2 decades,
and has occurred in the 1980’s, 1970’s and 1960’s.
@ Gail Combs
Or anyone else that might be interested.
The 2012 Project on National Security Reform – Vol. 2: Case Studies Working Group Report has just been released, and is very comprehensive in it’s evaluation of the U.S National Security System. It is very critical in many areas, and offers suggestions for improvements, although some may disagree with the specifics.
It covers the time from Eisenhower to present day with many case studies discussed in detail.
Over 1000 pages, about 4mb pdf download. http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=1100
================================================================
Brief Synopsis
The case studies in this volume confirm the conclusions of other PNSR analyses that the performance of the U.S. national security apparatus in inconsistent. Although some cases illustrate relatively clear, integrated strategy development, unified policy implementation, and coherent tactical planning, coordination, and execution; others depict flawed, divided, contradictory, and sometimes nonexistent strategy promulgation and enactment. Similarly, the U.S. national security system can provide resources efficiently, but it also can do so inadequately and tardily. Flawed responses recur in issue areas as diverse as biodefense, public diplomacy, and military intervention. They also occur across many presidential administrations, from the onset of the Cold War to the present day. The piecemeal organizational reforms enacted to date have not fostered improved policy outcomes or decisionmaking, while capability building, especially in the civilian national security agencies, remains less than optimal.
“GCCA has about 300 members worldwide including Greenpeace, Oxfam, WWF, Environment America, the ‘Union of Concerned Scientists’, Amnesty International and Pew Environment Group.”
————
Not the UCS oh no
Someone needs to talk to their dog, and pronto.
This post has been cut and pasted directly from Andrew Bolt’s blog which he cut and pasted directly from Junkscience who cut and pasted directly from who knows where? None of them have actuially seen this alleged document, which if it does exist, has more than likely been misrepresented as [SNIP: Check the site rules and learn some manners. -REP] mobs are wont to do. Why don’t any of these bloggers actually type an original word? It really is very sad, but what is sadderis the way the people who follow these blogs take everything at face value and refuse to critically evaluate the voracity of the claims. Whether that is because they lack the ability or choose wilful ignorance because it suits their needs I don’t know, but either way it is sad.
[Moderator’s Note: The word you were looking for is “veracity”. The document in question is here. -REP]
Gail Combs says: March 31, 2012 at 2:40 pm
“You have got it. The real dividing lines are us vs our “rulers.” Dr. Evans has a very good article on the topic over at JoNova’s: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/climate-coup-the-politics/”
“IMO you got it wrong. Being a Swede I can assure you that the support of CAGW are massive from all parties from the left to conservatives (who are now in power in Sweden). It is a similar situations in all Europe. The Party lines are not what´s most important. To scare to obedience is far more important to secure the ruling by the politcal class…”/HJ.
Many thanks for directing me to this high quality article written by a man who jumped off the bandwagon himself and who. It should be read by everybody. It is scary to grasp the background and realise that CAGW is a vehicle in a power game.
You asked for any single person more responsible for this development than any other. Professor Bert Bolin, Stockholm University, was the first head of IPCC and is a good candidate as a very active supporter of the CAGW concept. He was the main scientific adviser for the Swedish government for more than 20 years (regardless of ruling party) almost until his death. He was also my tutor in my BSc meteorology exam and a lousy scientist.
When I later was opposing CAGW publicly in Sweden based on facts and science methods he had one comment about what I presented: “Jelbring is talking nonsens”. That is the way authority talks when facts are lacking.
or its the way authority speaks if you are in fact talking nonsense. just sayin
But GCCA told its member organisations to “use the precautionary principle to argue that we must take potential risks seriously even if the science doesn’t offer high confidence”.
Well, whatever you decide to do, member organisations, I hope you have scrupulously applied the PP to your own actions concerning this advice with a full consideration as to how the very act of your arguing anything whatsoever, or not, might seriously put at risk “the delicate web of life”.
After all, when it comes to disastrous results, the ipcc itself has high confidence that anything is still possible, especially because its own mainstream “scientific” confidence is completely subjective and now that even its own “physics” and “science” has been a complete bust! So whatever your decision is here, be afraid, be very afraid. Both the PP and the ipcc say that whatever course you pursue concerning this particular advice just ‘might-could’ lead to “the destruction of creation”!
DirkH says:
March 31, 2012 at 8:47 am
“Well they did the same with nuclear energy and it’s very profitable for them. Germany is as hysterically antinuclear as ever”
What I don’t understand in the nuclear development & accidents – is why we do not make use of remote controlled robots to clean-up the mess?
I read somewhere that there are fully automated mining operations in Australia where the humans stay above ground just supervising and commanding the machines operating in the underground. With today’s technology it is not a problem.
So why don’t we have a stand-by operational unit which could go into the buildings and clean-up fast? Why don’t we have an organised pick-up and collect of the radioactive spots in the area? We talk about technology to extract minerals from the ocean where they are much more diluted, so extracting from the soil should be doable?
So why on earth do we not make full use of the available technology?
Mike says
April 1, 2012 at 2:45 am
or its the way authority speaks if you are in fact talking nonsense. just sayin
——————————————————————-
Mike, you are more then just sayin, you are demonstrating nonsense. What do you disagree with?
The fact is that the IPCC neutrality in this matter is, in and of itself, an abuse of science, because the science says there is no discernable upward trend in ALL weather related disasters. This being scientifically true, the IPCC should be saying that so far CAGW, is completly missing the C. Instead they say well, um, um, you know, theoretically there may be an increase in hurricanes, ((pick your disaster de jour) but now we cannot prove it.
The IPCC should be BLAZING the following to media around the world, if they were interested in the science.
Several new peer reviewed studies show no increase in hurricanes; http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2010/jun/25jun2010a3.html
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2012/jan/10jan2012a2.html
And one recent study examining 22 peer reviewed studies on various weather-related natural hazards, such as storms, tropical cyclones, floods, and small-scale weather events such as wildfires and hailstorms, found that increases in exposure due to growth and wealth are by far the most important drivers for growing disaster losses” and that no trend could be attributed to anthropogenic climate change.
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/may/31may2011a1.html
And even more good news;
The oceans are not warming in the last 6 to 7 years
http://www.real-science.com/goto/http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-warming-missing-energy-row-erupts-as-new-research-says-oceans-are-cooling.html
And Sea Levels have been almost flat as well. http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/PaintImage1170.jpg
And the global average temp has been flat for over a decade… http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2012.png
And, in further shocking news, the IPCC talks about the massive KNOWN and PROVEN benefits of pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere,
CO2- and Climate-Induced Effects on Terrestrial Plant Production
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2010/jul/01jul2010a2.html
The Long-Term Response of Plant Photosynthesis to Elevated CO2
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2010/jul/01jul2010a6.html
Elevated CO2 Boosts Iron’s Positive Impact on Phytoplanktonic Productivity
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2010/jul/01jul2010a5.html
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2010/jul/15jul2010a2.html
Then, after journalist and enviromental magazines such as Greenpeace and the WWF all rejoice at the good news, Goverments around the world celebrate the savings of trillions of dollars, which can then be freed to employ millions in the free market, making every product cheeper, moving third world countries to first world status, thereby reducing population growth and now, being wealthy, the world has the capacity to address real enviromental problems, real disease, etc.
Well, a man can dream can’t he?
That is an excellent description of those who peddle the notion that reducing our CO2 emissions will lead to economic catastrophe despite the best evidence from the IPCC and other organizations to the contrary.
Well Joel, here is your evidence for California,
In Feb 2012 income tax receipts are down $328 million y-o-y, or 16.5%. Ouch!
What about retail sales taxes? CA had a “temporary” sales tax hike of one cent that expired last July. Adjust the data to reflect that change, it looks like sales taxes in February are $400 million y-o-y +/-, a decline of about 12.4%. Double ouch!
As goes Calif, so goes the nation.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Funionwatch.org%2Fcalifornia-tax-revenue-drops-businesses-leaving%2F&ei=WUh2T5bdD4qTiALb2c2nDg&usg=AFQjCNHQga-MWhZ0u8sJi6NM124Z5tX1GA&sig2=eZBQ3gdNwEMqrdxF8_1xvw
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fu
http://www.google.com
David A,
And Climate will be predicted accurately at an 85% confidence level. What a wonderful world we will enjoy without CAGW scare campaigns. I could not get a direct URL to this conference presentation by Piers Corbyn. It is worth listening to.
Lunar dynamics is a prime factor in climate variation according to Piers Corbyn and I agree with him. It would be cheap for UK and the rest of the world the replace IPCC with Corbyn´s Weather Action and the result would be useful for planners, too.
See video at http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/possible-terrestrial-amplification-of-celestial-climate-driver-found/ adolfogiurfa says: March 31, 2012 at 9:49 pm
“CME´s , SF´s and Coronal Holes not considered in TSI yet are considered in Piers Corbyn forecasts.”
Hans Jelbring says: @ March 31, 2012 at 11:57 pm
Professor Bert Bolin, Stockholm University was a tool. Another high powered tool to look into is Maurice Strong. with connections to the YMCA international (supposedly where he got the idea for the international NGOs from) the United Nations, chair of the 1972 First Earth Summit and Kyoto (thanks to Pres. Bush!), Big Oil, Global Governance….
The other person to check is Pres. Bill Clinton’s Mentor,Carroll Quigley historian of the “Power Mongers”
Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time’, PDF: http://archive.org/download/TragedyAndHope_501/CarrollQuigley-TragedyAndHope.pdf
The Modern History Project is sort of a Wiki of history.
Bankrolling the Bolshevik Revolution is interesting reading: http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=NoneDare&C=4.0#Bolshevik
DavidA: I’m not really sure what your contribution was meant to illustrate about what I was talking about, besides showing that the alarmism I spoke of is part of a much larger campaign by ideologically-right-wing think-tanks to cherry-pick data.
Lars P. says: @ April 1, 2012 at 3:59 am
What I don’t understand in the nuclear development & accidents – is why we do not make use of remote controlled robots to clean-up the mess?…..
So why on earth do we not make full use of the available technology?
___________________________________________
Because the Power Mongers do not want the Great Unwashed to have Access to Energy.
We have substituted electrical and mechanical energy for human and animal labor. The increase in productivity led to abolishment of slavery, serfdom, and child labor and most recently the emancipation of women in the West. This has lead to greater personal wealth, a longer life expectancy, literacy and above all else an independent thinking middle class. The SAME middle class that is now under attack.
“It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle-class… involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, ownership of motor vehicles, small electric appliances, home and work place air-conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable… A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmental damaging consumption patterns.” Chairman Maurice Strong, 1992 Earth Summit Conference Report:
Maurice Strong was also the Chairman of the First Earth Summit in 1972.
Yet an INCREASE in access to energy to leads lower birth rates and much better care of the environment. You only have to look at Africa, China and India vs The USA and Australia.
Henry Kissinger in 1970 stated very plainly what the actual goal was.
“Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.” ~ Henry Kissinger 1970
Follow what has happened to the control of our money supply, control of our food supply and now control of our energy.
And then look up Pascal Lamy, Director of the World Trade Organization and read what he has to say about :Global Governance” and an “international monetary system” and on Food
Hello Anthony,
Given that the Union of Concerned Scientists is a member of GCCA, have you noticed any change in Kenji’s position? Is he showing and additional concern regarding CAGW and extreme weather events? Has he taken to peeing on the UCS literature more (or less) often? Has he shown any desire to use (or retaliate against) his UCS mousepad?
“Enquiring minds want to know”,
wermet
[As regular reader might remember, Kenji Watts is a full dues paying member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Kenji is also Anthony’s dog.]
”Both the PP and the ipcc say that whatever course you pursue concerning this particular advice just ‘might-could’ lead to “the destruction of creation”!”
Blimey, 1st law of thermodynamics fully broken – Nothing is created or destroyed.
joeldshore says:
April 1, 2012 at 5:55 am
What’s important to these extremists is not the evidence but the scare.
That is an excellent description of those who peddle the notion that reducing our CO2 emissions will lead to economic catastrophe despite the best evidence from the IPCC and other organizations to the contrary.
—————————————————————————————————–
From you comment I take it to mean that you do not think reducing our CO2 will have negative economic impacts.
I linked to a study of what the affect in California has been so far.showing that In Feb 2012 income tax receipts are down $328 million y-o-y, or 16.5%. Ouch!
What about retail sales taxes? CA had a “temporary” sales tax hike of one cent that expired last July. Adjust the data to reflect that change, it looks like sales taxes in February are $400 million y-o-y +/-, a decline of about 12.4%. Double ouch!
As goes Calif, so goes the nation.
Now I could have linked to several studies in Europe showing the economic disaster of clean energy policy, or I could have appealed to common sense that when energy prices skyrocket, all costs go up in what is a deeply regressive tax. In your Orwellian world IPCC models must be reality, whereas facts on the ground, are scare tactis.
Setback for the extremists?
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/019754.html
Edward Sikk says:
March 31, 2012 at 12:55 pm
Does anyone know who authorized the change from global warming to climate change by the alarmist group? I find it hard to accept that the change was just spontaneous.
Google Books has a feature called Ngram Viewer, which creates graphs of word frequencies in books, magazines, and journals over time. (The web page only says “books,” but I’ve run searches that have turned up magazines and journals as well. On the other hand, I don’t know how comprehensive is the coverage of magazines and journals.)
Here’s a graph of the frequencies of “global warming” and “climate change” from 1970-2008. (2008 seems to be the latest year that Ngram Viewer covers.)
From 1970 to 1988, “climate change” appeared slightly more frequently than “global warming.” About 1985, both terms began to appear more frequently, and their frequency continued to increase until 2008. “Global warming” caught up with “climate change” in 1988, and the two ran stayed roughly equal until about 1992, when “climate change” got ahead and continued to get further and further ahead, until 2008.
I think most of us have the impression that there was a fairly pronounced switch, and that it occurred far more recently than 1992, but the graph shows that’s not true of books, magazines, and journals. So what is it that happened? I can think of several possibilities:
1. Threshold effect. We didn’t notice that “climate change” was ahead until the difference became great enough.
2. The frequencies in books, magazines, and journals differ from the frequencies in the media, and perhaps there was a fairly recent time when the media suddenly corrected itself to conform to the literature.
3. (2), with the additional feature that the frequency difference is substantially greater in the media than in the literature.
So, Since humans have altered the climate, all weather events can be linked to climate change. What does this tell us about nice weather? AGW is good.
“But the end result, the true genius of the plan, was the fear. Fear became the ultimate tool of this government, and through it, our politician was appointed to the newly created position of High Chancellor. The rest, as they say, is history… ”
– V (from V for Vendetta)
The Norsefire group uses religious zealotry to hide their true motives… the only difference between them and the Greens are the religions they believe in.
Hans Jelbring says:March 31, 2012 at 9:43 am
……important to note that low or medium scientific certainty don’t always mean low risk, and we should use the PRECAUTIONARY principle to argue that we must take potential risks seriously even IF THE SCIENCE DOESN´T OFFER HIGH CONFIDENCE.”
You have to admire the way they can use statistical definitions and in the same sentence advocate blithely ignoring the whole concept.