Our real manmade climate crisis

John Kerry - Caricature

John Kerry – Caricature (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)

The crisis is due not to climate change, but to actions taken in the name of preventing change

Guest Post by Paul Driessen

In his first address as Secretary of State, John Kerry said we must safeguard “the most sacred trust” we owe to our children and grandchildren: “an environment not ravaged by rising seas, deadly superstorms, devastating droughts, and the other hallmarks of a dramatically changing climate.”

Even the IPCC and British Meteorological Office now recognize that average global temperatures haven’t budged in almost 17 years. Little evidence suggests that sea level rise, storms, droughts, polar ice and temperatures or other weather and climate events and trends display any statistically significant difference from what Earth and mankind have experienced over the last 100-plus years.

However, we do face imminent manmade climate disasters. Global warming is the greatest moral issue of our time. We must do all we can to prevent looming climate catastrophes.

But those cataclysms have nothing to do with alleged human contributions to planetary climate systems that have always been chaotic, unpredictable and often disastrous: ice ages, little ice ages, dust bowls, droughts and monster storms that ravaged and sometimes even toppled cities and civilizations.

Our real climate crisis is our responses to Mr. Kerry’s illusory crises. It takes four closely related forms.

Influence peddling. Over the past three years, the Tides Foundation and Tides Center alone poured $335 million into environmentalist climate campaigns, and $1 billion into green lobbies at large, notes Undue Influence author Ron Arnold. Major US donors gave $199 million to Canadian environmental groups just for anti-oil sands and Keystone pipeline battles during the last twelve years, analysts Vivian Krause and Brian Seasholes estimate; the Tides Foundation poured $10 million into these battles during 2009-2012.

All told, US foundations alone have “invested” over $797 million in environmentalist climate campaigns since 2000! And over $19.3 billion in “environmental” efforts since 1995, Arnold calculates! Add to that the tens of billions that environmental activist groups, universities and other organizations have received from individual donors, corporations and government agencies to promote “manmade climate disaster” theories – and pretty soon you’re talking real money.

Moreover, that’s just US cash. It doesn’t include EU, UN and other climate cataclysm contributions. Nor does it include US or global spending on wind, solar, biofuel and other “renewable” energy schemes. That this money has caused widespread pernicious and corrupting effects should surprise no one.

Politicized science, markets and ethics. The corrupting cash has feathered careers, supported entire departments, companies and industries, and sullied our political, economic and ethical systems. It has taken countless billions out of productive sectors of our economy, and given it to politically connected, politically correct institutions that promote climate alarmism and renewable energy (and which use some of this crony capitalist taxpayer and consumer cash to help reelect their political sponsors).

Toe the line – pocket the cash, bask in the limelight. Question the dogma – get vilified, harassed and even dismissed from university or state climatologist positions for threatening the grants pipeline.

The system has replaced honest, robust, evidence-based, peer-reviewed science with pseudo-science based on activism, computer models, doctored data, “pal reviews,” press releases and other chicanery that resulted in Climategate, IPCC exposés, and growing outrage. Practitioners of these dark sciences almost never debate climate disaster deniers or skeptics; climate millionaire Al Gore won’t even take questions that he has not preapproved; and colleges have become centers for “socially responsible investing” campaigns based on climate chaos, “sustainable development” and anti-hydrocarbon ideologies.

Increasingly powerful, well-funded, unelected and unaccountable activist groups and bureaucracies use manmade global warming claims to impose regulations that bypass legislatures and ignore job and economic considerations. They employ sweetheart lawsuits that let activists and agencies agree to legally binding agreements that leave out the parties who will actually be impacted by the court decisions.

The green behemoth wields increasing power over nearly every aspect of our lives and liberties, with no accountability for screw-ups or even deliberate harm to large segments of our population. All in the name of controlling Earth’s temperature and preventing climate change

Climate eco-imperialism impoverishes and kills. Climate alarmism and pseudo science have justified all manner of regulations, carbon trading, carbon taxes, renewable energy programs and other initiatives that increase the cost of everything we make, grow, ship, eat, heat, cool, wear and do – and thus impair job creation, economic growth, living standards, health, welfare and ecological values.

Excessive EPA rules have closed numerous coal-fired power plants, and the agency plans to regulate most of the US hydrocarbon-based economy by restricting carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles, generating plants, cement kilns, factories, malls, hospitals and other “significant” sources. Were it not for the hydraulic fracturing revolution that has made natural gas and gas-fired generation abundant and cheap, US electricity prices would be skyrocketing – just as they have in Britain and Germany.

EU papers carry almost daily articles about fuel poverty, potential blackouts, outsourcing, job losses, economic malaise and despair, and deforestation for fire wood in those and other European countries, due to their focus on climate alarmism and “green” energy. California electricity prices are already highest in USA, thanks to its EU-style programs. The alarms are misplaced, the programs do nothing to reduce Chinese, Indian or global emissions, and renewable energy is hardly eco-friendly or sustainable.

Wind energy requires perpetual subsidies and “backup” fossil fuel power plants that actually produce 80% of the electricity attributed to wind, and blankets wildlife habitats with turbines and transmission lines that kill millions of birds and bats every year. In fact, industrial wind facilities remain viable only because they are exempted from many environmental review, wildlife and bird protection laws that are enforced with heavy penalties for all other industries. Solar smothers habitats with glossy panels, and biofuels divert crops and cropland to replace fuels that we have in abundance but refuse to develop.

Now climate activists and EPA want to regulate fracking for gas that was once their preferred option.

By far the worst climate crisis, however, is eco-imperialism perpetrated against African and other poor nations. When their country was building a new power plant that would burn natural gas that previously was wasted through “flaring,” President Obama told Ghanaians they should use their “bountiful” wind, solar, geothermal and biofuels energy, instead of fossil fuels that threaten us with dangerous global warming. Meanwhile, his Administration refused to support loans for South Africa’s critically needed, state-of-the-art Medupi coal-fired power plant, which the Center for American Progress, Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club and other radical groups stridently opposed.

The actions ignored both the livelihoods and living standards that electricity has brought the world, and the millions of deaths from lung infections and intestinal diseases that these power plants would prevent.

Ready-made excuse for incompetence. Hurricane / Superstorm Sandy proved how “dangerous manmade climate change” can give politicians a handy excuse for ill-considered development decisions that increase storm and flood risk, failure to prepare their communities for inevitable severe weather events, misleading storm warnings, and slow or incompetent responses in their aftermath. Blaming carbon dioxide emissions and rising seas is always easier than manning up and shouldering the blame for Bloombergian failures. Citing IPCC computer forecasts of nastier storms and flooded coastlines likewise gives insurers a convenient excuse for hiking insurance rates.

When the conversation next turns to climate change, discussing the real climate crisis – and the true meaning of environmental justice – could open a few eyes.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate News, Opinion. Bookmark the permalink.

81 Responses to Our real manmade climate crisis

  1. I will say again: If people want to be full of superstition regarding weather and climate, so much so that they essentially take leave of their senses, that has real consequences on grown-ups around the world. However, among the ways that this holiday from reality does the very most damage is the effect that it has on children! No one exemplifies the AGW comfort level with terrorizing the very young than James Hansen with his unconscionable Storms of My Grandchildren.

    Is it too much to ask that the young be given an accurate idea of the storms of their great-great-grandfathers? Is it too much to ask that grownups be grownups? (I know it is.)

  2. Ilma says:

    Of the funds poured into the environmentalist and activist movements, does anyone know whether Bill McKibben received any, whether directly or via any organisation such as 350.org?

  3. A C Osborn says:

    This is a great rebuttal to so called “denier” dirty Oil funding.
    Just think what good that money could have been used for instead of being wasted as it has been.

  4. oldspanky says:

    The political class seem to have no qualms at all about ripping up the sacred trust not to burden our children and grandchildren with a monstrous debt that exists beyond any shadow of a doubt. Why then do they get all dewy-eyed about taking care not to “burden” them with scarely discernable changes in the weather which in any case seem not to be developing?

    I guess you can’t fail when you try to fix a problem that doesn’t exist so there’s no harm is making a fuss about what a hero you are for all the steps you’re taking. You can’t lose.

  5. johnmarshall says:

    These Gestapo style tactics must be highlighted.
    The worst catastrophy imposed on the environment is the environmentalist Nazis.

  6. johnmarshall says:

    My post was refused presumably because I used the ”N” word.
    Call them what they are and expose their hypocrisy.

  7. The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:

    Mr Kerry hasn’t gone down too well here in England after his visit. Not only did he fail to take the opportunity to chastise Argentina over its Falklands stance, but failed to show any support at all for the islanders right to vote! He is, what would unpolitely be called here, a pratt.

  8. RockyRoad says:

    This is exactly why I call those who believe in CAGW the CAGW:

    Catastrophic (this is truly a castrophie: a momentous tragic event ranging from extreme misfortune to utter overthrow or ruin)

    Anthropogenic (defined as: resulting from the influence of human beings on nature)

    Genocidal (defined as: the deliberate and systematic extermination of a racial or national group–in this case the global poor by making food scarce and expensive but also extends to birds and bats by the millions.)

    Warmistas (defined as: “the warmist cult”, or “the religion of warmism”).

    May their efforts prove futile and their crimes be heaped on their heads!

  9. lurker passing through, laughing says:

    Anthony,
    This is one of the best opinion pieces you have ever written.
    The out of control NGO industry and hiding incompetence and malfeasance behind climate excuses are damaging us all.
    You have summed it up- with documentation- very well.

  10. Doug Huffman says:

    Echoing Michael Crichton’s 2003 Caltech Michelin Lecture “Aliens Cause Global Warming” . In which, in the spirit of his science fiction writing, Crichton details the fallacies relative to global warming alarmism. http://www.tsaugust.org/images/Lecture_by_Crichton_at_Caltech.pdf

    Thet/we didn’t listen then, why now?

  11. coeruleus says:

    I’m glad that nothing about this post is in any way alarmist.

  12. daved46 says:

    Excellent! Not that those who should be reading this and taking it to heart will actually do so. But at least it’s here and we can link to this article for anyone who starts spouting the alarmist line.

  13. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    Modern environmentalism. . . All the democracy you can buy.

  14. greg holmes says:

    The man is a muppet, knows not a lot, just learns his script.

  15. Nigel S says:

    I see a boat heading up a **** creek to the sound of the Doors’ ‘The End’.

    “The Horror… the Horror…”

  16. J. Murphy says:

    Instead of using a newspaper article from someone reckoning to know what the British Met Office said, supposedly from a Met Office report (which doesn’t exist), why not ask the Met Office themselves ? Or link to their response to the article : http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/#comments

  17. J. Murphy says:

    A better Met Office link – to the article itself, rather than the comments :

    http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

  18. Coach Springer says:

    Love the article. Fighting a changing climate that naturally changes unpredictably is “our most sacred trust”? Fighting demagogues would be more like it.

  19. _Jim says:

    In his first address as Secretary of State, John Kerry said we must safeguard “the most sacred trust” we owe to our children and grandchildren: “an environment not ravaged by rising seas, deadly superstorms, devastating droughts, and the other hallmarks of a dramatically changing climate.”

    Are you sure this isn’t from The Onion, or maybe something extracted from history (about the time they burned witches and such?)

    During a former precognitive (literally: before curious human observation/investigation), pre-science era?

    One wonders what ‘age’ this elder statesman lives, thinks.

    .

  20. highflight56433 says:

    Well…its all coming together with leadership that has no boundary. Combined with the power given to use a plethora of agencies to regulate and fee monger. A health tax that is going to strip the economy. Pile on the guilt trip that mankind causes climate disasters with global tax schemes as a stand off remedy. More storms, need more taxes to assure mediation. All promoted by a media that is in step with any and all the b.s. from our beloved whited house imperialist.

    The camps are ready for those who need mental help to realign their anti agenda attitudes. Especially climate skeptics. Maybe there is a slight chance of some awakening. But…Not going to rely on it.

  21. lsvalgaard says:

    Since we elect the politicians the fault is our own. We get the policies we deserve.

  22. Mike says:

    Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
    The REAL manmade climate crisis: politicized science and corruption.

  23. bruce ryan says:

    greg, it saddens me that you don’t wish to accept verifiable realities.

  24. John F. Hultquist says:

    John Kerry met his wife at an environmental event when she was the wife of the now deceased Sen. John Heinz – so SofS Kerry is not new to the views expressed at the top of the post.
    ——————————————–

    @ lurker – Anthony did not write this – go back to the beginning.
    ———————————-

    Washington State’s new Gov. – Jay Inslee, is also clueless about science. Just more proof that this issue is not about science.
    http://www.komonews.com/news/local/195412831.html

  25. Bruce Cobb says:

    coeruleus says:
    March 8, 2013 at 5:23 am

    I’m glad that nothing about this post is in any way alarmist.

    The truth hurts, huh.

  26. Chris B says:

    Nigel S says:
    March 8, 2013 at 6:10 am
    I see a boat heading up a **** creek to the sound of the Doors’ ‘The End’.

    “The Horror… the Horror…”
    ___________________

    With Hansen as Colonel Kurtz?

  27. Jeff Alberts says:

    lurker passing through, laughing says:
    March 8, 2013 at 5:09 am

    Anthony,
    This is one of the best opinion pieces you have ever written.
    The out of control NGO industry and hiding incompetence and malfeasance behind climate excuses are damaging us all.
    You have summed it up- with documentation- very well.

    Anthony didn’t write this. It’s a guest post.

  28. ferd berple says:

    Doug Huffman says:
    March 8, 2013 at 5:14 am
    http://www.tsaugust.org/images/Lecture_by_Crichton_at_Caltech.pdf
    ============
    Well worth reading. Hits the nail right on the head.

  29. Jeff Alberts says:

    John F. Hultquist says:
    March 8, 2013 at 7:07 am
    ———–
    None of the comments so far support what he’s doing either, lol. Not that there are many comments, and two of them are yours and mine ;)

  30. Tom J says:

    ‘In his first address as Secretary of State, John Kerry said we must safeguard “the most sacred trust” we owe to our children and grandchildren: “an environment not ravaged by …a dramatically changing climate.”’

    I couldn’t agree more and I think one of his first acts should be to bicycle over to Egypt and tell Morsi to install solar panels on those Abrams tanks and F16 fighters we so responsibly sold to them. While he’s at it, he could advise them to use ecologically responsible explosives when they blow up the pyramids and sphinx (you know, no bad influences on people’s minds or the environment).

    Then Sec of State Kerry could make a little detour over to Iran and have a pleasant face-to-face chit chat with Ayatollah Khameini. Perhaps Kerry could explain to him that he need not fear any damage to Iran’s Fordo nuclear facility so long as they produce ‘green’ nuclear weapons: After all, the U.S. is opposed to mountain top removal schemes.

    One place our hardy diplomat should avoid when he bicycles and sailboats (the sail boat part is actually probably a bit true) back home is Benghazi. He’ll want to avoid that at all costs.

  31. Robin says:

    Ilma-350 is affiliated with the New Economics Institute that used to be known as the Schumacher Society. NEI and the Global Transitions 2012 agenda that carried over after the new year gets Ford Foundation funding.

    A lot of the research I have done into the real definitions of Global Citizenship and systems thinking and a new type of capitalism that is in no way, shape or form about free markets or consumer choice always seems to track back to a prof with a Ford endowed professorship at some well-known institution. In fact if I had the time I might cross reference who has those endowed professorships with what they are really pushing.

    Also the Aspen Institute pushes a lot of these ideas but it in turn gets funded by the big foundations. But it sounds better to say something is supported by the Aspen Institute rather than the Annie B Casey or Hewlett Foundation.

  32. ferd berple says:

    In his first address as Secretary of State, John Kerry said we must safeguard “the most sacred trust” we owe to our children and grandchildren:
    =============
    To borrow against their future so that some can life high on the hog today. To leave our children and grandchildren a lifetime of debt from which they will never escape. To sell them into slavery, with the deed held by the banks. The plantation owners of old dressed in banker’s clothing.

    In 1865 Lincoln freed the slaves. 150 years later the entire nation had been sold into slavery – only they didn’t yet know it. Having kept interest rates low, the chains were applied without anyone noticing. Only as interest rates began to rise did the chains begin to bite.

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Scat_VEIW9I/URrH6UrACXI/AAAAAAAABqs/I6shP2ednNo/s1600/U.S.+Treasury+Bond+Interest+Rate+History.jpg

  33. highflight56433 says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    March 8, 2013 at 6:51 am
    Since we elect the politicians the fault is our own. We get the policies we deserve.

    Amen…

  34. pottereaton says:

    coeruleus says:
    March 8, 2013 at 5:23 am

    I’m glad that nothing about this post is in any way alarmist.
    —————————————————————————-

    Sometimes alarmism is necessary. Paul Revere comes to mind.

    The point of the essay is that contrived and exaggerated alarmism in this case is exploitative and destructive. I think you might have missed that.

  35. mojo says:

    Kerry is a self-absorbed idiot. It’s why he got the job. Or else he’s in cahoots with the Goreacle, lookin’ for a big payday.

  36. Mindert Eiting says:

    Paul Driessen is close to a fact, discovered in psychological experiments decades ago. Seeing is not believing but believing is seeing. A friend of mine often goes to Indonesia. For years he said that the climate there was disrupted. When I asked him how, I never got an answer, but something was wrong. You could see it. More recently he stopped with these messages. Perhaps Lewandowsky could have a look at the work of his former colleagues when he is ready with his conspiracy theories.

  37. Doug Danhoff says:

    I first met Kerry in Viet Nam. A very clever self promoter with little real intelligence. He has always had his eye on the main prize…..leadership of this country. Pray that he does not acheive his dfream..

  38. mimosasatgucci says:

    Very true.

  39. ferd berple says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    March 8, 2013 at 6:51 am
    Since we elect the politicians the fault is our own. We get the policies we deserve.
    ==========
    Nowhere on the ballot does it say “none of the above”. Instead we have a choice between a crook or an incompetent. The tens of millions it costs to run a political campaign to win a job that pays a hundred thousand effectively prevents the honest citizen from entering politics.

    Every ballot should have “none of the above” as the last item on the ballot. If “none of the above” wins, then everyone else on the ballot should be barred from holding public office for a period of 10 years. This would very quickly clean up the political system.

    Electoral reform starts with giving the people voting a real choice. “None of the above” would do this. If all candidates are bad, then you should be free to reject all of them.

  40. ferd berple says:

    Had “None of the Above” been a choice of the last presidential election, who would have won?

  41. cRR Kampen says:

    [snip - too snarky to bother with given your history here -mod]

  42. Thanks Paul, good article.
    Yes, it is man-made, and yes, it is a real crisis!

  43. ferd berple says:

    If someone was to legally change their name to

    None_of_the_Above Zzzz

    Then they would appear as the last selection on the ballot as;

    Zzzz, None_of_the_Above

  44. commieBob says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    March 8, 2013 at 6:51 am

    Since we elect the politicians the fault is our own. We get the policies we deserve.

    That statement might be true if democracy were working properly. It isn’t.

    Congress has been “corrupted” by its members’ dependence on money from lobbyists—and from the special interests hiring those lobbyists—to fund their reelection campaigns. … Members of Congress now spend between 30 and 70 percent of their time raising money rather than deliberating as they were elected to do. http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/07/a-radical-fix-for-the-republic

    The folks you voted for aren’t working for your benefit. They are working for the benefit of those who paid for their campaigns. Any other course of action would guarantee that they would not be re-elected and no politician will risk that.

  45. A Lovell says:

    This may be a cheap shot, but it’s not often a caricature is better looking than the real thing.

  46. Tim B says:

    Maybe a bit off-topic but the UK “Daily Mail” chart of the MET office “peaked” my curiosity. Has anyone done a regression on the peaks of the anomalies to see if they favor a season? I would presume that steady warming should produce peaks of “above normal” temperatures randomly without regard to a season. For example, if the average temperature increased a 0.5 degree globally, their will be random peaks above that (independant of season) and below that. But if the peaks favor a season (i.e. a statistically significant number of peaks are in Northern Hemisphere summers), that would seem to indicate a signal beyond “Global Warming” and could be things like Land vs. Sea temperature stations, Urban Heat Island effect, temp station weighting, etc. Has anyone ever seen such a regression. A seasonal or X day average warming binning by year regressed against other years shouldn’t have any correlation.

  47. The situation that is described by Mr. Driessen is a product of the deceptive argument called the “equivocation fallacy.” To draw a conclusion from an argument in which a term changes meanings in the middle of this argument is the equivocation fallacy. By logical rule, to draw such a conclusion is improper.

    An example is:

    Major premise: A plane is a carpenter’s tool.
    Minor premise: A Boeing 737 is a plane.
    Conclusion: A Boeing 737 is a carpenter’s tool.

    That the term “plane” has the dual meanings of “carpenter’s plane” and “airplane” leads to the false conclusion that “A Boeing 737 is a carpenter’s tool.”

    Climatologists use the equivocation fallacy in making arguments about the methodologies of their studies. A consequence is for people like Secretary of State Kerry to be duped into concluding that the methodology of science is being employed in climatological studies when this conclusion is not true. Scientists and skeptics are among the many who are duped by the same deceptive argument.

  48. pottereaton says:

    I noticed that Paul Driessen’s wiki page describes him as a “Lobbyist.” Wonder if that is a Connolley construct.

  49. john robertson says:

    As the US dollar disappears into Zimbabwe equivalencies, more people will pay attention,for abstract policies, that sound odd but do not seem to effect me, are ignored until they hurt.
    Good post, nice commentary, I’m with Rocky Road on this, Genocide for sure.
    Poverty is a vicious wake up call. The longer the one world bureaucracy, anti-humanist eco-phonies, believe they are winning the more we get to see their true nature.
    Their religion(the cause) runs contrary to human nature, history and physical nature.
    But faith will overcome and the end justifies the means?
    Seems like after all that money spent on promoting the cause, protecting the message and persecuting inquirers, communicating the cause, is still failing.
    The most recent posts here on WUWT indicate the promoters of the “Cause” are doubling down on their message, displaying an obsession with the message, a contempt for the intelligence of the public and a desperation that indicates they know they are failing but do no comprehend why.
    The best expression of that was a statement, last year, complaining about sceptics obsession with discussing the science, as if that was idiotic behaviour.
    I may be wrong, but I love the smell of desperation inherent in these hysterical proclamations from the media, academia and selected politicians.
    Extreme weather??
    When caught on a series of lies, restore credibility by lying louder, faster, more repetitiously?
    The “Cause” was cloaked in a thin veneer of science, due to their contempt for the taxpayer, the team “knew” that no one would check or could check,i.e.; we lost the data?
    Now that pretence of science has come back to bite the faith, nature cycles on and human nature says payback will happen.
    I can understand the desperation of the faithful, a policy of abuse, personal attack and deceit could leave one suffering from projection terrors. Given the behaviour they have displayed, one can only imagine the savagery they fear.
    I wonder if the UN has computer models, projecting the reaction of the taxpayers to their revealed mendacity ?

  50. tony nordberg says:

    Given that the climate has stopped changing, the only other measurement that the Great Hoax now depends on, is the series of CO2 readings from the Mauna Loa volcano. As I understand it, there is one instrument used for producing the reference gas, and another one on the top of the volcano.
    As the world’s economy is directly affected by the readings of these two instruments, plus the post-processing of the data, it would seem obvious that there has been a really critical study of the the design and performance of these instruments and their place in the whole process of CO2 measurement and reporting.

    Can anybody point to such a report?

  51. Tom J says:

    “highflight56433 on March 8, 2013 at 7:47 am
    lsvalgaard says:
    March 8, 2013 at 6:51 am
    Since we elect the politicians the fault is our own. We get the policies we deserve.

    Amen…”

    Hate to say it but I wouldn’t be quite so certain about that. Remember, Obama got his start in Chicago. He was lured here by the ‘fixer’ Tony Rezko who arranged for Obama’s purchase of a home in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood. Rezko’s now in prison. In his formative years in Chicago, Obama was taken under the wing of Alice Palmer; Illinois State Senator in the capital in Springfield. Her district was the poor south side ghetto and, I believe, Hyde Park. Mel Reynolds was the U.S. Washington congressional rep for that district. He had to vacate his seat ’cause he went to prison. Alice Palmer maneuvered to run for Reynolds’ seat but was deterred when Jesse Jackson Jr. announced his candidacy. Palmer couldn’t compete with the Jackson name or war chest so she went to return to her state senate seat (Jackson now appears headed for prison). Barack Obama barred his former mentor from returning to her seat by allegations of voter fraud on Palmer’s part (the Chicago way) so her slithered into her senate seat un opposed. A few years later Illinois’s governor, Rod Blagoyevich would go to prison for attempting to sell Obama’s seat when he vacated it for the presidency. Got any ideas about Illinois politics? I don’t think these are the voter’s choices.

    I don’t have the numbers in front of me anymore so I’m relying on my ageing memory but I believe 59 precincts in Philadelphia delivered around 16,000 votes to Obama and not one…not one…to Romney. That’s a physical impossibility. That’s fraud. In Chicago, I believe 37 precincts delivered about 13,000 votes to Obama and not one…not one…to Romney. A friend of mine who works for a bordering village of Chicago told me he had a co-worker tell him he voted 3 times for Obama. Now let’s talk about what’s been emerging from Ohio: double votes, triple, gosh, even sextuple votes.

    Do you really think the voters have spoken?

  52. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    In reply to Leif,

    We only elect our politicians from the select few that are pre-selected to be allowed to run for office. The average American has no control whatsoever over who becomes President, and no control whatsoever over who is appointed to the Cabinet.

    If anything, you can blame the people for allowing the politicians to shred the Constitution, but you cannot completely blame them for who gets elected. When you are continually given a choice of two idiots, one of the two idiots is bound to be elected, unless no one votes for either of them, which is what I would prefer to happen, but you aren’t ever going to see it ACTUALLY happen.

    On a national level, the politicians who run for office are selected by their own parties, not by the people. In countries other than the USA, it is even worse than this. Blaming the people may be convenient for you, but it ultimately doesn’t assess, address, or help to SOLVE the actual problem.

  53. Patrick B says:

    I hereby commit to use no more electricity than John Kerry and his wife use in their five or so mansions, no more fuel than he and his wife use in their private jet and yacht.

    God, I feel virtuous.

  54. 3x2 says:

    This is something frequently missed by alarmists.

    One could be totally convinced by the ‘science’ and yet ‘resistant’ because you don’t see ‘green’ as the only solution. How did acceptance of the radiative properties of CO2 morph into unconditional acceptance of every whacked out scheme of ‘Big Green’? Or indeed acceptance of the schemes of every SIF on the Planet?

    @ lsvalgaard
    Since we elect the politicians the fault is our own. We get the policies we deserve.

    While I respect your opinion where Science is concerned – you could be stepping out on a limb with that one Leif. Then again there are a great many sites to which we might move the argument. Not here at WUWT though eh?

  55. geran says:

    tony nordberg says:
    March 8, 2013 at 9:03 am
    (…..)
    Can anybody point to such a report?
    ———————-
    A great point. I have often wondered about the predictable sinusoidal rise of the CO2.

    Years ago, about 1978 to be exact, I was doing CO2 measurements with an old “sniffer” device. I was testing boiler flue gases. Even though the fuel flow was constant, I had a hard time getting consistent CO2 readings. Maybe I did not have the “latest and greatest” equipment, but the rising CO2 graphs seem a little too perfectly repeatable to me.

    Just look at the inaccuracies that been found with temp data….

  56. [snip - sorry, but your name calling doesn't do anything useful here, and if you want to call someone a cretin, at least learn to spell it correctly. - Anthony]

  57. David L says:

    oldspanky says:
    March 8, 2013 at 4:13 am
    The political class seem to have no qualms at all about ripping up the sacred trust not to burden our children and grandchildren with a monstrous debt that exists beyond any shadow of a doubt. Why then do they get all dewy-eyed about taking care not to “burden” them with scarely discernable changes in the weather which in any case seem not to be developing? ”

    Very well said!!!!

  58. Laurie Bowen says:

    Just to be circumspect . . . He also said: “”

    We cannot talk about the unprecedented changes happening on our planet, moreover, without also talking about the unprecedented changes in its population, another great opportunity at our fingertips. In countries across North Africa and the Middle East, the majority of people are younger than 30 years old – 60 percent under 30, 50 percent under 21, 40 percent under 18, about half of the total under 20. And you know what? They seek the same opportunities and the same things that you do: opportunity. We have an interest in helping these young people to develop the skills that they need to defeat the mass unemployment that is overwhelming their societies so that they can in fact start contributing to their communities and rebuild their broken economies rather than engaging in some other terrorist or other kind of extremist activity. For the first time in human history, young people around the world act as a global cohort, including many of the people in this room. They’re more open-minded. They’re more proficient with the technology that keeps them connected in a way that no generation in history has ever been before. We need to help all of them, and us, to use this remarkable network in a positive way.””

    http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/02/205021.htm

    Got to admit it took me a while to find “an environment not ravaged by rising seas, deadly superstorms, devastating droughts, and the other hallmarks of a dramatically changing climate.”

    But must point out that they are not hallmarks of dramatically changing climate . . . . unless he is saying “dramatically changing climate” was is and probably always will be the norm. How fast changes have come has always been a contention within science. Just like plate techtonics, which affect climate more than anthing I know of in the long term. . . . And as we have seen in geological time they can be very slow or very “dramatic”!

    Like the speech, but can it be delivered . . . .

    He does mention “But our work is far from over. Seven of the ten fastest growing countries are on the African continent. And China, understanding that, is already investing more than we do there. Four of the five biggest oil and natural gas discoveries happened off the coast of Mozambique last year alone. Developing economies are the epicenters of growth, and they are open for business, and the United States needs to be at that table.”

    I do not see what the problem is Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow?

  59. k scott denison says:

    coeruleus says:
    March 8, 2013 at 5:23 am

    I’m glad that nothing about this post is in any way alarmist.
    —————————————————————————-
    The point of the post is the PURPOSE behind the alarmism.

    On the one hand you have Mr. Driessen arguing, in an alarming way, about the use of climate alarmism to cause real harm to societies.

    On the other hand, Mr. Driessen’s alarmism doesn’t have any motive other than to warn against that harm, i.e. his in not proposing taxes, prices hikes, new forms of governments, etc.

    The difference seems clear to me.

  60. DavidG says:

    Fred Berple: Emancipation proclamation was in 1862, not 1865. Big difference.

  61. DavidG says:

    Doug Huffman; thanks very much for Crichton’s address. He’s the perfect guy to write that excellent piece.

  62. Chuck Nolan says:

    I think Kerry is the same as Romney.
    In love with the dollar and so self-justified in their upper-crust existence.
    Two peas in a pod.
    Bland with no swagger.
    cn

  63. DavidG says:

    Leif is under the delusion that there are free elections here. I’d like to give him a course in history to wake him up.

  64. Jimbo says:

    That this money has caused widespread pernicious and corrupting effects should surprise no one.

    It certainly doesn’t surprise me. Money corrupts. Al Gore made a documentary telling the world about a planetary emergency caused by c02, He then takes oil money from Qatari oil backed Al Jazeera and buys 2 large homes is not a surprise. It’s always been about the money, scientific status and the green agenda. An unholy alliance of bankers, big oil, greens, journalists and politicians. Never in World history have so few been up against the might (and money) of so many and yet the many are failing so miserably.

  65. Jimbo says:

    Read and weep. [bold mine]

    Eisenhower’s Farewell Address to the Nation
    January 17, 1961

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

    The problem with the last sentence is that it should add the environmental green movement. Future generations will be sickened by the display of bare faced greed and lies.

  66. Jimbo says:

    News just in via nofrakkingconsensus, the IPCC is looking for ‘Expert Reviewers’.

    “The scientists who are organizing this process ask for voluntary contributions from experts across all sectors, from scholars to business people or NGO representatives.”

    Greenpeace activists anyone? WWF activists anyone? The system is political and it has been gamed from the start. Expect more howlers like glaciergate.

    References:
    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/03/06/ipcc-invites-in-the-activists/
    http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/in-short/ipcc-calls-for-expert-reviewers

  67. Jimbo says:

    By far the worst climate crisis, however, is eco-imperialism perpetrated against African and other poor nations………………….South Africa’s critically needed, state-of-the-art Medupi coal-fired power plant, which the Center for American Progress, Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club and other radical groups stridently opposed.

    Imagine in your home town if you had electricity but your 3 friends had not access to electricity. Imagine the same for the USA? Here are the shocking figures [no pun intended].

    WORLD BANK
    Low access and insufficient capacity – Some 24 percent of the population of sub-Saharan Africa has access to electricity versus 40 percent in other low income countries. Excluding South Africa, the entire installed generation capacity of sub-Saharan Africa is only 28 Gigawatts, equivalent to that of Argentina.

    Poor reliability – African manufacturing enterprises experience power outages on average 56 days per year. As a result, firms lose 6 percent of sales revenues in the informal sector. Where back-up generation is limited, losses can be as high as 20 percent.

    High costs – Power tariffs in most parts of the developing world fall in the range of US$0.04 to US$0.08 per kilowatt-hour. However, in Sub-Saharan Africa, the average tariff is US$0.13 per kilowatt-hour. In countries dependent on diesel-based systems, tariffs are higher still. Given poor reliability, many firms operate their own diesel generators at two to three times the cost with attendant environmental costs.
    http://tinyurl.com/c3lesz7

    I want to hear from some of our regular green alarmist friends what they have to say about this scandal and what they propose as a viable solution. Solar? Wind? It’s smoke and mirrors with lots of hot air. Grrrrrr.

  68. David L says:

    “That this money has caused widespread pernicious and corrupting effects should surprise no one.”

    There’s also an interesting effect I’ve noticed that I can’t classify. Those that preach about Global Warming and that we must do something about it can also live very wastefully, drive an SUV, live in a large house, don’t donate to charities, and screw their neighbors every chance I get yet they would be seen as honorable people who cares about the planet and therefore all of humanity. But if a person questions Global Warming on i’s scientific merit, but drive an electric car, live in a small home and heat with wood, give generously to charities, and help every neighbor that they can, they are labelled as a denier, someone who is destroying the planet and doesn’t care about children’s future, and should be despised.

    Can someone trained in psychology clue me into what this is called?

  69. Ian W says:

    tony nordberg says:
    March 8, 2013 at 9:03 am

    Given that the climate has stopped changing, the only other measurement that the Great Hoax now depends on, is the series of CO2 readings from the Mauna Loa volcano. As I understand it, there is one instrument used for producing the reference gas, and another one on the top of the volcano.
    As the world’s economy is directly affected by the readings of these two instruments, plus the post-processing of the data, it would seem obvious that there has been a really critical study of the the design and performance of these instruments and their place in the whole process of CO2 measurement and reporting.

    There are actually multiple sites measuring CO2 and even some satellites – so you are looking in the wrong place.

    Whenever you are given a hypothesis or a paper/report on scientific research, always look for assumptions; they should be listed but they are often glossed over.

    The prime assumption made by CAGW proponents is that before ‘industrialization’ taken as AD1750 the atmospheric CO2 levels were low ~250ppm and the current levels of CO2 are ‘unprecedented’. This is based on cherry picked metrics.

    The low levels of CO2 claimed to be ‘normal’ or ‘before the industrial age’ are based on bubbles in ice cores where the chemistry and diffusion of CO2 under pressure in ice for hundreds or thousands of years has been ignored as has the possibility of bubbles forming by gassing off as the cores were brought up to atmospheric pressure. There was also quite a lot of ‘Mike’s Nature Trick’ type playing with the dates of the cores to get the CO2 levels from the cores to match with the measured CO2 levels (one report was 75 years slip had to be ‘found’).

    But there were many measurements of atmospheric CO2 before the ice cores. The levels can be found from plant remains by the density and size of stomata in their leaves and in the 19th and early 20th century many scientists including Nobel laureate chemists among others measured atmospheric CO2 using chemical means. These scientists had results showing concentrations that were not dissimilar to the current levels.

    A German scientist Ernst George Beck collated these CO2 metrics (and that is all he did – collate other scientists metrics) and pointed out that the fundamental claim of ‘unprecedented CO2 levels’ since AD1750 appeared to be flawed. Thus the basis of the CAGW hypootheses was fatally flawed. For this Beck was excoriated by ‘the team’ to a level that even now truly scientific skeptics avoid using any references that include his name. This was totally unfair as it was not his research he was publishing but a collation of previous research.

    See:
    http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf

    http://rense.com/general75/0223_inconvenient_gore.pdf

    http://www.philosophical-investigations.org/Historical_CO2_levels

    The CAGW community would love to debate Mauna Loa as it obfuscates a major and fundamental flawed assumption in their CAGW hypothesis.

    (I would expect any response to my post here to be litttered with ad hominem against Ernst Beck but have no scientific arguments against the multiple historic metrics from other scientists that he reported. )

  70. Bruce Cobb says:

    @ David L; It’s a relatively new disease or syndrome known as Algoreiousupusrectumus Disease, or AD for short. I don’t think Obamacare covers it yet.

  71. A.D. Everard says:

    Great article, Paul. The thing that keeps me optimistic is knowing that although the alarmists are still raking in the cash, they are losing on-the-ground support hand over fist. We know this, or they wouldn’t have to fudge their viewing numbers, send out their bots or have their trolls come in, each pretending to be more than one person.

    More and more ordinary citizens are waking up to the sham every day, so it’s only a matter of time.

    Frankly, I’m waiting for the masses to rise up. It will be ugly, but I fear necessary. I hope I’m wrong, but I cannot see any other way to get those mitts out of the cookie jar. These people are not going to willingly pull back.

  72. CodeTech says:

    David L,

    Can someone trained in psychology clue me into what this is called?

    Okay, I’m not trained in psychology, but I know what I call this: modern leftism. It’s the same thing that is going on when someone is all about “racial equality” but considers people of other colors to be suitable only for servants and menial labor. In a similar vein, it’s an entire political movement that somehow believes that Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell weren’t actually black when they were associated with the Republican party.

    I could list a lot more examples, and I’m sure you could too. In the old days it was called hypocrisy, but that word has now been judged by the “politically correct” crowd to only apply to some vague stereotype involving religious types and the people who actually do the work that runs the planet.

    For those few who actually care, yes, this is what leftism has become. Maybe you lean politically left but aren’t like this… but this is what is waiting at the bottom of that long slide.

  73. Paul Driessen said, “Even the IPCC and British Meteorological Office now
    recognize that average global temperatures haven’t budged in almost 17
    years.”

    In recent months, many at WUWT have been bandying about this stuff
    about no warming in 16 or 17 years. However, smoothed HadCRUT3
    and UAH if similarly smoothed only show lack of warming for 11-12 years.

  74. James at 48 says:

    The US East Coast where the huge concentration of media and political power give the region outsized influence is indeed drowning. It’s been gradually drowning since the Great Melt and this is exacerbated by the tectonic subsidence there. People who live there assume all coasts are experiencing something similar. The Green Mafia take full advantage of it.

  75. Jimbo says:

    I read above about the following:

    Over the past three years, the Tides Foundation and Tides Center alone poured $335 million into environmentalist climate campaigns, and $1 billion into green lobbies at large, notes Undue Influence author Ron Arnold.

    Does it do similar funding programs as the following:?

    The Climate Works Foundation, though, is of special interest as it was in 2008, awarded $460,800,000 from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, a grant-making organisation with assets of $7.2 billion, which disbursed $353,400,000 in grants in 2011. It has made another grant to Climate Works only last week of $100 million – bringing the total grants to this organisation to just short of $600 million
    http://mrworthing.blogspot.com/2012/02/funding-imbalance.html

    I think we need a financial flow chart to show how the hundreds of millions are flowing into green eco-fascist propaganda. I’m sure Heartland’s large $6.5 million will feature prominently.

    In today’s world there are at least 2 groups who know what’s going on in this global financial scam. The global warming sceptics and the establishment of climate scientist whores, bankers, oil companies, governments, hypocritical ‘greens’ and Hollywood ‘stars’. There is a third group, they are known as the ordinary members of the public – worldwide. They are being screwed for all its worth.

  76. _Jim says:

    Chuck Nolan says March 8, 2013 at 11:05 am

    I think Kerry is the same as Romney. …

    I *do* wish ppl would even just lightly research a subject before commenting, well, blindly … truly, this exemplifies “low information” posting.

    a) Who turned around the 2002 Winter Olympics?

    b) Who married “into money”?

  77. Jeff Alberts says:

    Tom J says:
    March 8, 2013 at 9:17 am

    A friend of mine who works for a bordering village of Chicago told me he had a co-worker tell him he voted 3 times for Obama. Now let’s talk about what’s been emerging from Ohio: double votes, triple, gosh, even sextuple votes.

    Some people will believe anything anyone tells them, as long as it suits their preconceived notions.

  78. Laurie Bowen says:

    Jeff: “”A friend of mine who works for a bordering village of Chicago told me he had a co-worker tell him he voted 3 times for Obama. Now let’s talk about what’s been emerging from Ohio: double votes, triple, gosh, even sextuple votes.””

    That could be true, without being illegal or wrong . . . . over a long period of time. Once in the primaries, once in 2008 presidential election and once in the 2012 election . . . .!!! just sayin’ . . . . Had him & you goin’ . . . . there, huh?

  79. tony nordberg says:

    re Ian W’s remarks on Ernst Beck’s work, I concur.

    However, I was proposing a rigorous scientific investigation of the CO2 measurement and data-reduction process.

    I know that these kinds of systems contain many potential sources of error, and so they can be analysed via the scientific method of looking for ‘falsifications’. i.e. looking for errors in subsystems that would be needed in order to produce the same result, and checking to see whether these sources of error are properly compensated for in the system as a whole.

    For example, the battery of tests could include the effects of non-linearity in the ADC process; dimming of the lightsource, corrosion in the gas vessels, variation in the constituents of the reference gases, the effect of the accumulation of concrete at the site(s), the effect of increasing transport patterns, the local heating of the ocean, and so on.

    So, can anyone point to such studies into this most important subject?

Comments are closed.