Telling ‘Noble Cause Lies’ About Climate Change Will Backfire

truth-and-lies[1]Essay by Tom Harris, originally published in PJMedia

Over the past twenty years, we’ve been subjected to a barrage of catastrophic climate change forecasts and prophecies that would put Moses to shame. Coastal communities will be submerged due to rapid sea-level rise caused by soaring temperatures and glacier melt. Record heat waves, droughts, floods, insect infestations, and wildfires will result in millions of climate change refugees fleeing their ruined homelands. Competition over increasingly scarce water resources will lead to armed conflict. About all that has been missing from these doom and gloom predictions is alien invasion.

Like Moses’ warnings to Pharaoh in the Bible, we are told there is a high price to pay if we are to avoid climate change-driven “death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods,” to quote from the March 31 report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We must reduce our carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 70% by 2050 to keep so-called global temperature from exceeding 2° C above pre-industrial levels, the IPCC claims.  This will require massive cuts in our use of coal, oil, and natural gas, the sources of 87% of world primary energy consumption. What’s also needed, according to yet another IPCC report, Climate Change 2014 – Mitigation of Climate Change, released on April 12, is nothing less than:

a tripling to nearly a quadrupling of the share of zero‐ and low‐carbon energy supply from renewables, nuclear energy and fossil energy with carbon dioxide capture and storage [CCS, a technology the IPCC admit is currently problematic], or bioenergy with CCS by the year 2050.

Former Vice President Al Gore tells us that “the survival of civilization as we know it” is at risk if we don’t take these kinds of actions.

While historical evidence increasingly suggests that cataclysm really did follow Moses’ prophesies, modern-day forecasts of climate Armageddon are not coming true. The reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) reveal that there is nothing extraordinary about late twentieth century warming, a temperature rise that stopped over 17 years ago. The NIPCC explains that ice cover “is not melting at an enhanced rate; sea-level rise is not accelerating; and no systematic changes have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme meteorological events.”

Contrary to the IPCC’s warnings, the NIPCC report released this month, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, shows that long-term warming and CO2 rise are benefitting nature and humanity, “causing a great greening of the Earth.”

Faced with such good news, what are global warming activists to do?

Read the entire analysis here: http://pjmedia.com/blog/telling-noble-lies-about-climate-change-will-backfire/

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate_change, Noble Cause Corruption. Bookmark the permalink.

136 Responses to Telling ‘Noble Cause Lies’ About Climate Change Will Backfire

  1. cnxtim says:

    There are no “noble cause lies” this false ethic is for rogue politicians and dictators. If the truth is too painful for you, , say nothing at all, better still if you are a CAGW follower – say nothing except “sorry” – we have heard more than enough of your false prophecies…

  2. Ano says:

    Anybody read this. It is possible to over inform.

  3. Noble Cause Corruption is far more insidious than you write, as it can blind to believer into not being able to perceive information contrary to their belief, creating the ultimate in Confirmation Bias.

    To update the old joke:

    What’s the difference between a Climate Scientist and a Used Car Salesman?

    The Used Car Salesman knows when he’s lying.

  4. Janice Moore says:

    The comparison with Moses while not exactly on point (ahem)… is an apt one: just as the Egyptians wanted to retain the economic benefits of the slave labor of the Jews,

    so, too,

    the Enviroprofiteers (and their henchpersons, the Envirostalinists) want to gain (or retain) the economic benefits (for the elite) of any socialist system that has ever blossomed into full flower — the bulk of the citizens become serfs.

    “Equality for the world” and “save civilization as we know it” are mere euphemisms for a harsh, bitter, existence for the many to benefit the few.

    (to quote with an edit Winston Churchill — from memory, only)
    “Capitalism: the unequal sharing of blessings.
    Socialism: the equal {except for the elite} sharing of misery.”

    *****************************************************
    *****************************************************

    You make many good points, Mr. Harris, this, however is not one of them:

    “… we do indeed face a long-term energy crisis… .”

    Unless you are a prophet (like Moses really was), you do not know this. Moreover, historical evidence tells us that such doomsaying conjecture is highly likely to be wrong. You are forgetting, dear sir, that human ingenuity lives! Malthus predicted famine…. there was going to be a big copper wire shortage…. and robots were going to take away all the jobs……and on and on.

    I will not believe, Mr. Harris! No, I will not believe your prophecy, for I have far too much FAITH IN OUR WONDERFUL ENGINEERS AND CHEMISTS (have you even looked at what nanotechnology is doing, esp. re: synthetic petroleum products?) to believe for one second that our fuel needs will not be met …. or redefined.

    And not one government regulation is necessary. Free markets will do it all.
    So, take heart!

    On Good Friday, things looked pretty bleak for a bunch of Jewish followers of a certain Jewish rabbi 2,000 years ago… GOOD THINGS LIE AHEAD!

    REJOICE!
    #(:))

  5. Jimbo says:

    We must reduce our carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 70% by 2050 to keep so-called global temperature from exceeding 2° C above pre-industrial levels, the IPCC claims. This will require massive cuts in our use of coal, oil, and natural gas, the sources of 87% of world primary energy consumption.

    You are dealing with a bunch of idiots. They think they can tell everyone what to do. What if I pointed out that increased deforestation would be the result of concerted international ‘action to tackle climate change?’ They would say that I am wrong. How can I be wrong when deforestation is taking place right now? Even in wealthy Germany some have started stealing wood from the forests due to high energy prices. What the heck should a poor country like Haiti do? Did I mention Indonesia’s massive deforestation in order to make way for oil palms for biofuels?

    How the heck can we adjust the temperature control knob for Earth’s temperature? The whole thing is a sham and a con.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100114-haiti-earthquake-landslides/
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/tree-theft-on-the-rise-in-germany-as-heating-costs-increase-a-878013.html
    http://greece.greekreporter.com/2012/01/24/greeks-fell-trees-for-warmth-amid-economic-chill/

  6. Janice Moore says:

    @ Charles the Mod — LOL.

    And, very true. Sad, but TRUE.

  7. albertalad says:

    The most noble of causes to exposing the the climate scam for the scam that it is.

  8. Robert in Calgary says:

    +2 for Charles.

  9. Janice Moore says:

    MISTER JIMBO!

    Thank you.

    You’ve been ALL OVER WUWT recently (and over the years!) with GREAT information.

    WAY — TO — GO!

  10. Bob Tisdale says:

    The Noble Lies led to the Nobel Prize.

  11. Janice Moore says:

    A truly noble cause neither requires nor desires to be defended by l1es.

    Plato was wrong.

  12. Jimbo says:

    Former Vice President Al Gore tells us that “the survival of civilization as we know it” is at risk if we don’t take these kinds of actions.

    Al Gore is now world famous for his astonishing level of brazen, bare faced hypocrisy. What is a mansion and an $8 million villa with 6 fire places between friends? Private jet flights? TV station sale to an oil funded broadcaster called Al Gore Zeera? Let us look away and pretend that Al Gore is not a hypocrite and a liar.

  13. Greg says:

    Oh crap, you should not have mentioned alien invasion. I fully expect a peer reviewed paper in the next month claiming that aliens will invade and destroy earth because they want to take our excess CO2

  14. Konrad says:

    charles the moderator says:
    April 18, 2014 at 3:52 pm
    ———————————-
    “The Used Car Salesman knows when he’s lying.”
    ————————————————————-
    This may be true for many of the global warming fellow travellers, but not all. Between 1990 and 1995 it appears a decision was made to push on with the “useful crisis”, despite the growing evidence against it. Some of the key players clearly did know they were lying. I would go as far as raising serious questions about the actions of some well before this. Tom Karl’s 1985 paper on TOB adjustment is one such concern.

  15. Jimbo says:

    Contrary to the IPCC’s warnings, the NIPCC report released this month, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, shows that long-term warming and CO2 rise are benefitting nature and humanity, “causing a great greening of the Earth.”

    For the doubters it is backed up by the peer review HERE.

  16. Konrad says:

    As this sorry hoax collapses, there will be many who will try to use the claim of “noble cause” to excuse their vile assault on science, reason, freedom and democracy. “we thought we were saving the planet”, “precautionary principle”, “but we have to get of “fossil” fuels anyway”, blah, blah blah..”

    Good news! None of it is going to work.

    You don’t get to use “noble cause” as an excuse when you vilified sceptics to silence them.

    “holocaust deniers”
    “equivalent of paedophiles”
    “comparable to Hitler appeasers”
    “Flatearthers”
    “Anti-science”
    “big oil shills”
    “using big tobacco tactics”
    “conspiracy ideation”

    The Internet remembers. Forever.

  17. Jimbo says:

    The survey showed that people care far more about unemployment and the economy than they do about climate change. After years of overplaying their hands, climate activists now find themselves tuned out by a large fraction of the population.

    They are in the minority because of the silent majority. That’s why WUWT and other sceptical blogs kept on winning the blog Bloggie Awards. That is the only explanation. Leo Hickman of the Guardian sounded shocked by this because he continues in his echo chamber thinking that there is a global movement when it DOES NOT EXIST in the public. It only exists in the minds of carbon opportunist traders, ministers and the failed media.

    Even after Leo got his wish and the science category was removed the sceptics still won. What a shame.

    Leo Hickman – GUARDIAN – 1 March 2013
    The absurdity is compounded further still. I probably follow the online climate debate closer than most, but I genuinely had never even heard of some of these climate sceptic blogs
    Best Science or Technology Weblog
    australianclimatemadness.com
    bishop-hill.net
    chiefio.wordpress.com
    climateaudit.org
    climatedepot.com
    drroyspencer.com
    joannenova.com.au
    judithcurry.com
    mashable.com
    motls.blogspot.com
    notrickszone.com
    scienceisbeauty.tumblr.com
    skepticalscience.com
    stevengoddard.wordpress.com
    tallbloke.wordpress.com
    techcrunch.com
    wattsupwiththat.com
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/mar/01/climate-sceptics-capture-bloggies-science

    I told ya so.

  18. Col Mosby says:

    I heartedly disagree with the claim that we need to “find cheap sources of non-fossil fuel energy.”
    We already have it. It’s called nuclear energy. Been around for over 50 years. Perhaps the writer has swallowed the anti-nuke claims that nucear is expensive. Right this minute I can cite 20 examples of new nuclear build around the world, including the U.S., where the cost of a Generation 3+ nuclear plant is between $4 and $6 billion USD, fixed price contract. This new architecture has a more-or-less guaranteed lifespan of 60+ years, and a capacity of 1200 to 1600MW, performing , on average at over 95% capacity. Do the math and you’ll find the amortized cost of the plant is roughly between .7 and 1 cent per kWhr of power produced, or less,
    depending upon its actual lifespan, and nameplate capacity. Fuel costs are roughly 3/4 cent and costs will not rise anytime soon. Operation and maintenance costs average 1.40 cents per kWhr in the U.S. Nucear waste disposal costs are less than 1/10th of a cent. Decommissioning costs would likely be less than 2/10th of a cent. All this makes nuclear power as cheap as any produced by fossil fuels. What IS expensive is the initial build cost, and the fact that it requires 3 years to build.
    When utilities need extra capacity, the cheapest and fastest way to go, in the short run, is to build a gas turbine generator. But gas prices simply will not remain as low as they are today and have been rising because so many have switched from coal to natural gas.We are also exporting a lot of LNG to other countries, especially China. Nuclear power costs are virtually a known commodity well into the distant future. And since nucear fuel costs are such a small part of the total costs of nuclear power, their prices can rise significantly without having much effect on overall costs. Gas driven power, on the other hand, is dominated by the cost of natural gas that it uses, so any increases in gas prices will have a dramatic effect on gas generated electricity. Quite frankly, if Obama or his energy secretary had any sense, they would have taken one of his trillion dollar toilet flushes and provided no-interest loans to build 200 nuclear plants, which would have
    provided over 50% of our power demand, and, added to the current 20% nuclear power , have resulted in at least 70% carbon free electric power from nuclear alone, with another 11% from existing hydro. Loan payback at 1 cent per kWhr produced.
    Now, that wasn’t so difficult , was it?

  19. Mike Smith says:

    I think the “Noble Cause” issue drives a lot of warmist followers. However, it’s not really in play with the warmest leaders. They’re just in this for a quick buck!

  20. Alan Robertson says:

    Jimbo says:
    April 18, 2014 at 4:11 pm

    Contrary to the IPCC’s warnings, the NIPCC report released this month, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, shows that long-term warming and CO2 rise are benefitting nature and humanity, “causing a great greening of the Earth.”

    For the doubters it is backed up by the peer review HERE.
    ____________________
    One of the NASA spinoffs, either JPL or GSFI, formerly maintained a webpage showing how the earth was greening and the biosphere increasing. Now, they’ve gone full- on political and any information about the planet greening is couched in “sky is falling” climate change rhetoric, such as this link shows:
    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/growth-shift.html

  21. M Seward says:

    Aahh, the “noble lie”. Just like what the cops do when they round up the usual suspects, especially people of a certain race say and fit them up with a convenient set of truths, made to measure.

    An essential element of democracy is its evidence based discourse both informal such as a public debate, and formal such as in our representative congresses/parliaments through to our courts. Lies are fundamentally toxic to such processes so, like digging implements, lets just call a lie, a lie or if we are going to embellish the nature of the lie with an adjective, how about “goddamned” in stead of “noble” so that the adjective is an honest one also.

  22. Bob Bajini says:

    The NIPCC can make the IPCC look sober and moderate. That’s the problem: two groups of people with competing positions yelling over each other with red faces.

  23. Jimbo says:

    Yet, because of the current obsession with lessening CO2 emissions to solve the supposed climate crisis, billions of dollars are wasted on useless projects such as CCS and the widespread deployment of unsustainable technologies such as wind power.

    Right there is a con. Carbon capture? What a load of horse manure. How much can capturing relatively tiny amounts of co2 make to the Earth’s temperature? This is an out and out fraud. Many people are lining up to make lots of money from this fraud. Al Gorzeera tried then backed off. He subsequently decided that the way to save the planet was to sell his current TV station to the oil funded Al Jazeera. What’s not to like? THIS IS A FRAUD, and it’s time the police were called.

    2012
    “Al Gore bails from green-energy investment ”
    http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/al-gore-bails-from-green-energy-investment/

  24. Thanks, Tom. Good article.
    “We must reduce our carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 70% by 2050 to keep so-called global temperature from exceeding 2° C above pre-industrial levels, the IPCC claims.”
    But most probably the climate sensitivity is low, and that would happen anyway, moreover, there is nothing we could do to keep it from happening, if the Earth goes back into a warming mode.
    And it should, just because it is very cold right now, if you look back some 5,000 years.

  25. Dave the Engineer says:

    It is a Cult (yeah me again) It will collapse when the prediction the never happens gets old enough that even the cult members realize it. Then we might see some suicides, sadly. It is a Cult, you will see that I am right.

  26. Jimbo says:

    Alan Robertson says:
    April 18, 2014 at 4:33 pm

    Jimbo says:
    April 18, 2014 at 4:11 pm
    ………………….
    One of the NASA spinoffs, either JPL or GSFI, formerly maintained a webpage showing how the earth was greening and the biosphere increasing. Now, they’ve gone full- on political and any information about the planet greening is couched in “sky is falling” climate change rhetoric, such as this link shows:
    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/growth-shift.html

    Yeah I know but I try to keep to the peer review in certain circumstances otherwise Warmists have an easy target. Claims about the greening of the globe requires peer review and nothing less. My references were up to papers published in 2013.

    WUWT – 2008
    Surprise: Earths’ Biosphere is Booming, Satellite Data Suggests CO2 the Cause
    …..See an animation of the Earth;s Biosphere: 512×288 (30 fps) MPEG-1 10 MB. More here at NASA SVS…..

    Why the increase? Their 2004 study, and other more recent ones, point to the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, a gas indispensable to plant life.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/

  27. DanJ says:

    The latest IPCC reports demonstrate that many are following a strategy taught in law school: “if the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the facts are not on your side, pound the table.”

    The way I heard it is more apropos to the current situation: “If the facts are in your favor, argue the facts. If the facts are against you, argue the law. If all else fails, attack the plaintiff.’

  28. Jimbo says:

    I have a simple question but first these points.

    • Co2 is a greenhouse gas.
    • Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas.
    • Water vapor is short-lived in the atmosphere.
    • Water vapor is constantly being replenished.

    What causes most of the increase or decrease in the most important greenhouse gas?

    IPCC – Climate Change 2007: Working Group I
    Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one. ”

  29. philjourdan says:

    @Bob Tisdale – an empty victory that will not help in the end.

    Some people want to be lied to. We see them in society all the time – the old woman in Zimbabwe that holds onto the $100 trillion Zimbabwe note because Mugabe promised it would be worth something.

    But they are not the majority. Most hate lies as it is not only a betrayal of trust, but a violation of the person’s trust and personal ego.

    The only reason CAGW retains the level of support that it does is due to those who desperately want to believe. The rest either don’t or are wary of ANY lie.

    I agree with Tom Harris. The lie will backfire. The best way to alleviate the situation is to come clean now. But the “team” has too much invested – their very livelihood. They will not come clean.

  30. Mark Luhman says:

    No a bad job Tom I do take issue with you on one point:

    ” If the science is so certain, the public are bound to eventually ask, why should we fund climate research at all? We supposed know what the future holds in store for us, so public funding of climate research can be terminated. In reality, the science is so immature that we do not even know if warming or cooling lies ahead. So continuing climate research is important if we are to eventually develop the tools we need to predict climate change so as to prepare for whatever nature throws at us next.”

    While I do agree we need to fund climate science, and not the climate religion we now have. I will take you to task on the last line, I feel that most of climate is chaotic and it may have a cycle component. If that is true we may be able to have broad guess where climate is going but they will alway remain guess. I personal believe the best we may be able to do is only predict trends not what the weather is going to be next week, next month, next year, or many years down the road. Climate and weather will alway have too large of a chaotic component to be able reliably predict if beyond a few hours.

    The real question that need to be study is can we predict climate accurately and what degree of accuracy, that is the question that does need to be answered, rather than if we don.t change X we are all going to die, as been the case the last few years. Since you and both know that statements about the climate and the direction it been going and would continue to go the last few years was not science. Since first science requires a far larger degree of proof than they ever had and one who makes such predictions need to be a lot humbler if they are to consider themselves as scientist.

    Of course it is hard to blame them in a way, it a good con game while it lasts and if you are without conscience you just stand in line and collect the money and shovel out the male bovine fecal mater and watch the press and politicians eat it up.

  31. gregole says:

    From the post:

    “Coastal communities will be submerged due to rapid sea-level rise caused by soaring temperatures and glacier melt. Record heat waves, droughts, floods, insect infestations, and wildfires will result in millions of climate change refugees fleeing their ruined homelands. Competition over increasingly scarce water resources will lead to armed conflict. About all that has been missing from these doom and gloom predictions is alien invasion.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/275040/global-warming-may-cause-alien-invasion-updated-greg-pollowitz

    Alien invasion has indeed been covered by the alarmists.

  32. Andrew says:

    “I probably follow the online climate debate closer than most,…”

    LOL! Writes for a publication that exists almost entirely as an alarmist mouthpiece. But never read WUWT or JoNova, and presumably never read any warmist blogs that spend half their time abusing “deni@l!st” blogs either. Or read Loonandowski, or any of the commentary on the well-named “Hoax” paper. It seems the only thing ever read is from the IPCC and Flannery. That might explain a few things.

  33. Tsk Tsk says:

    Scientists and others who knew this but promoted the deception for what they considered good reasons will be disgraced. Then no one will believe them when wolves really are at our doors.

    I disagree on the last point. Those who have promoted this are either enthralled with a political agenda (“social justice”, inequality, etc.), are too lazy to actually look at the data compared to the predictions and are thus poor scientists, or are simply incapable of understanding the science to begin with. In any of these cases they won’t be the ones to warn us about the real wolves.

  34. Janice Moore says:

    And I wholeheartedly agree with you, Col. Mosby (4:29pm) and:
    “disagree with the claim that we need to ‘find cheap sources of non-fossil fuel energy.’

    We already have it. It’s called nuclear energy.”

    GO, NUCLEAR POWER!!

    Yeah!

  35. eyesonu says:

    Very good essay.

  36. Louis says:

    “About all that has been missing from these doom and gloom predictions is alien invasion.”

    Oops! Somebody forgot to use Google. The alien invasion angle has been covered. From The Guardian in 2011 comes the following gem:

    “Rising greenhouse emissions could tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report…

    Shawn Domagal-Goldman of Nasa’s Planetary Science Division and his colleagues compiled a list of plausible outcomes that could unfold in the aftermath of a close encounter, to help humanity “prepare for actual contact”. …

    Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth’s atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilisation growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/aug/18/aliens-destroy-humanity-protect-civilisations

  37. mandrake9 says:

    “While historical evidence increasingly suggests that cataclysm really did follow Moses’ prophesies . . . ” Uh . . . Pardon me? What?

    Why in God’s name (a suitable epithet) toss this completely unforced error into a reasonable and middle-of-the-road argument that might have a broad appeal? Bizarre. Frankly, stupid.

  38. John F. Hultquist says:

    Konrad says:
    April 18, 2014 at 4:09 pm
    “. . .TOB adjustment is one such concern. ‘

    TOB might be unknown to some readers.
    http://climateaudit101.wikispot.org/Time_of_Observation_Bias

  39. pat says:

    the writer is not easy to pigeon-hole politically:

    18 April: Discovery Institute: EvolutionNews: Wesley J. Smith: Global Warming Hysterics’ War on the Destitute
    The Green misanthropes that are corrupting environmentalism want to keep the world’s destitute in squalor to “save the Earth.” It’s so cruel. Rather than electrifying Africa, for example, we are told that has to wait until it can be done by solar or other renewable sources — decades away, if ever. Meanwhile, people live in misery.
    Then, as some kind of penance, the developed world is supposed to transfer hundreds of billions to the destitute, which would make us much poorer, while much of that wealth would go into private pockets, creating a culture of dependency that would be hard to escape. Like I said, it’s all very cruel.
    Support for my disgusted view comes now from a scientist with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
    From the BBC story:
    But a lead author told BBC News that this focus on cutting CO2 was ignoring the development needs of the poor. “The narrative, the language, the views of the ‘IPCC still marginalises the developing country perspectives,” Dr Chukwumerije Okereke, from Reading University, told BBC News. Dr Okereke was a lead author on chapter four of the new report, dealing with sustainable development and equity. He believes that there has been a fundamental shift in the discussions because the issue of historical responsibility for carbon emissions has been watered down by richer nations who are more concerned with the future than the past.”‘…
    ‘In effect, this is shifting the burden onto the developing countries and is holding them down from developing; quite frankly this is reinforcing historical patterns of injustice and domination.’
    But Okereke is wrong too. His approach would require us to stifle our already shaky economies, which would be as foolish as throttling growth and preventing the exploitation of resources in the developing world. Both proposals are a radical call to self-flagellation in the name of a neo-Earth religion or imposition of “nature rights.”
    Even if one believes global warming is a crisis — count me as dubious, given virtually no warming in 18 years — Bjorn Lomborg’s approach is best. Prosperity is required to develop the technology to make the transition the warming believers claim we need.
    “De-growth,” Draconian Malthusianism, humans depicted as “maggots” or “cancer” on the Earth, throttling growth, etc., will just generate more misery and promote increased conflict. That’s known as a war on humans coming and going.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04/global_warming084611.html

  40. Louis says:

    After posting about The Guardian article on aliens attacking us over our CO2 emissions, I read some of the comments at the end. Someone implied that if the aliens read the article, their heads would explode. But my favorite comment was this one:

    “If I were an alien reading this article I would not effing bother attacking.”

  41. bushbunny says:

    Well done everyone.

  42. David L. Hagen says:

    Moses had an amazing sequence of prophecies that were fulfilled.
    See God’s Track Record of Fulfilled Prophecy By Don W. Olson 2005 pp 9-12

  43. bushbunny says:

    David. The Israelis (Jews) have a problem with Moses. Especially the 40 years in the wilderness.

  44. Felix says:

    “While historical evidence increasingly suggests that cataclysm really did follow Moses’ prophesies, modern-day forecasts of climate Armageddon are not coming true.”

    I’m always a little skeptical of people who accept biblical literalism and reject modern science. But, you all believe as you like.

  45. Barry DAY says:

    (QUOTE) What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the XXright thingXX anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.(END QUOTE)
    ————————
    NO!!!!! IF THE CAP FITS, WEAR IT!! ALL YOU AL GORE and AGW ALARMISTS
    YES! Expensive Energy Kills Poor People
    Artificially increasing energy prices for any reason harms, impoverishes, and kills the poor.

    Yes, kills. People die from the cold. If the women of Maseru have to pay more for coal, they have less money to pay for food. So they will buy a bit less coal and a bit less food, and somewhere in there, in the hidden part that far too many people don’t want to think about, kids are dying. It’s already happening. The World Bank and the US are currently refusing to fund coal-fired power plants around the world … rich people refusing cheap energy to poor people, on my planet that is disgusting and criminal behavior.

    Expensive Energy Kills Poor People
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/27/expensive-energy-kills-poor-people/
    Posted on September 27, 2013 by Willis Eschenbach

  46. Louis says:

    Mike Smith says:
    April 18, 2014 at 4:30 pm
    I think the “Noble Cause” issue drives a lot of warmist followers. However, it’s not really in play with the warmest leaders. They’re just in this for a quick buck!

    To some people, making a quick buck IS a “Noble Cause.” Besides, it may be hypocritical to seek to impoverish the world for a cause you believe in while at the same time using that cause to enrich yourself, but those activities are not mutually exclusive. Just ask Al Gore. He gave up spreading the word about climate change on his cable channel to pocket a few hundred million dollars of “dirty” oil money. But he still preaches the cause on other outlets.

  47. bushbunny says:

    Dirty gore, eh? Well he has a reputation to fulfill as a messiah of sorts. Well you know what happened to them? I suspect that Gore is feeling isolated and me thinks ‘The lady she complainith toooo much’. Oil generator, well that is polluting too.

  48. RobRoy says:

    Hey Felix.
    I believe the government of my country lies to me.
    They are working an agenda contrary to the benefit of their constituents.
    They violate their oaths of office.
    I suppose you believe the government is truthful.

  49. Pat Frank says:

    I’d like to know how much the COP conferences cost. There have been, what, 19 of them so far? Who’s paying for those? How much has been spent on the salaries and expenses of the participants? Who’s paying for them?

    How much has already been spent on mitigation of a non-problem? How much for pointless “carbon-capture” projects? How much has been squandered on the IPCC? How much paid for climate scientists to meet several times a year?

    How much money has gone to subsidies for solar and wind farms that merely parasitize the productive economy? How much in tax money has gone to subsidize the Teslas that are just toys for rich people?

    Someone should total up how much money has been squandered on the idiocy of anthropogenic global warming.

  50. Louis says:

    mandrake9 says:
    April 18, 2014 at 6:20 pm
    “While historical evidence increasingly suggests that cataclysm really did follow Moses’ prophesies . . . ” Uh . . . Pardon me? What?

    There’s a big difference between “evidence” and “proof.” Both the Bible and the Koran document the Ten Plagues. Such ancient documents don’t “prove” an event happened, but they do provide historical evidence for it. (The fact that the Passover is still being commemorated after more than 3000 years is also evidence.) People can be open to such evidence, or they can close their minds to it. But they ought to have honest reasons for doing so, not just naked bias against the Bible or against religion in general.

  51. thingadonta says:

    Science has to drive policy, and not the other way around. If the science is uncertain, such as climate sensitivity, then drastic action is not required.

  52. dbstealey says:

    Bob Bajini says:
    April 18, 2014 at 4:42 pm
    The NIPCC can make the IPCC look sober and moderate. That’s the problem: two groups of people with competing positions yelling over each other with red faces.

    You equate the NIPCC — an organization primarily composed of volunteers, and which does not get one-thousanth the operating income that the UN/IPCC gets — with an organization that is purely political in nature, and which is highly paid to produce the narrative that its paymasters desire?? The UN/IPCC has nothing to do with real science. IPCC ‘science’ is simply a veneer that allows them to appear credible to the average person.

    The Co-Chair of one of the IPCC Working Groups, Ottmar Edenhofer, made this comment in a moment of regrettable candor:

    “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

    You should not equate the NIPCC with the UN/IPCC. The first is an honest skeptical organization trying to bring some probity back into the discussion, while the UN/IPCC is a throughly political body with an agenda: redistribution of the West’s wealth to people who never earned it.

    Is that A-OK with you? I welcome the NIPCC. They fill a real need, and they should be commended and supported. They are one of our few bulwarks against official pickpockets.

  53. RACookPE1978 says:

    bushbunny says:
    April 18, 2014 at 7:19 pm

    We have long used the enviro’s CAGW beliefs as a “religion” worshiping GAIA in all her pagan atheism as a metaphor for their faith and (in some) their earnest but otherwise empty lives of desolation and worldly concerns. For most, the ecological-religious fervor of the indoctrinated is merely a convenient “hook” for the bureaucratic pinworms and parasites infesting the body of the world.

    But, an ecological religion is not so far-fetched as it used to seem ….

  54. SC_Conservative says:

    Unfortunately, while we may be winning majority of popular opinion, in the US, our voters are to apathetic to slow our government down as it races to use AGW as the lever to pry many many $billions from the US economy. The economic damage is already set in play.

  55. David M says:

    While I don’t doubt the serious amount of alarmist nonsense spouted about AGW, i’m sorry, but you lost me as soon as you suggested that Moses made predictions that were more accurate. There are so many things wrong with that I don’t even know where to begin, and only serves to diminish your credibility..

  56. bushbunny says:

    Well there is evidence that Rameses II chased the Israelites out of Egypt considering that territory was huge then. But they were in bondage that proved to be like slavery. As punishment they could not use straw to make bricks, and they went on strike. Good story though. It is possible that Moses just timed the his exit right, as Egypt did suffer famines etc., but the Passover is a bit hard to believe. Yet an important convention in the Jewish faith to remember their obvious freedom from a tyrant and eventual settlement in the Levant. I can’t remember but the old testament and Exodus was not written then, and the first Holy Bible was transcribed in Greek. I know when I was a young Roman Catholic the old testament was not used as a guide to our faith, as it was Jewish born, so to speak. Only the New Testament. My father forbid me from doing religious studies at school, but I had to sit in the class. I would have passed the exam with flying colours if allowed to sit in my GCE ‘o’ levels. Such was religious prejudice in England in the 1950s.

  57. Alex Hamilton says:

    You are totally wrong in thinking that carbon dioxide is a primary cause of warming.

    Radiation in just a few spectral bands from carbon dioxide can never cause a warmer surface to increase in temperature. It can have a minuscule effect slowing down radiative cooling, but virtually all the slowing of surface cooling is by conduction at the surface-atmosphere boundary. The energy thus absorbed primarily by nitrogen and oxygen molecules subsequently finds its way by diffusion into water vapor, carbon dioxide and other radiating molecules, all of which act like holes in the nitrogen-oxygen blanket, radiating energy out of the atmosphere.

    There is no need for any warming by radiation anyway. It is now well-known and proven empirically that a thermal gradient forms at the molecular level in the tropospheres of any planet with a significant atmosphere. On Earth the surface temperature would be a few degrees hotter if there were no water vapor, but it is cooler because water vapor and other radiating molecules (carbon dioxide included) help to cool the lower troposphere by radiating energy to higher altitudes and to space.

    That is what physics tells us. From my reading of what climatologists have assumed, I find their writings to be a complete travesty of physics.

  58. bushbunny says:

    Totally agree, and one doesn’t need to a climatologist to know the physics and the forces involved in climate changes, and what weather patterns we can expect. Although they should before they produce papers on the subject.

  59. bushbunny says:

    Having been in the political arena for years, sometimes the truth of a situation politically speaking sometimes takes years to come out. And politicians are renown for hiding the real truth of a situation, by throwing in a red herring. I have been amazed that this climate change AGW has gone so far and cost so much money to implement a lie.

    I can’t say am a scientist but I do hold a degree in archaeology and palaeoanthropology and a graduate certificate in Arts (GCA) a halfway towards a MA. We studied evolution and geology and climate changes between interglacial and glacial and the impact this had on human beings and other living organisms. The mega fauna demise or adaptation to smaller genus’.

    I have always wondered if governments already fear another glacial period is on the horizon. However, a glacial period will impact more on the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern hemisphere. This would impact greatly on the world’s economy and energy output that we developed nations are heavily dependent on. They have grasped at straws to try to prove global warming is a reality but the causation factors are what is driving their argument.

    The thing is that the planet always warmed before a glacial or mini ice age, and one of my geology tutors said,”… we are at the mercy of nature and natural disasters. But we are still an ice planet and believe it or not, we are thriving better in an interglacial than we have in a glacial or mini ice age… ‘Humans propose and nature deposes’ and their very little we can do other than adapt.
    I wonder, just speculating that if a meteor or asteroid was heading for earth from the sun, it would not be spotted early enough to give a warning, would they announce it was coming and there was nothing we could do to prevent it? Instant panic and social upheavals, anarchy etc. People committing suicide or trying to buy as much food as they could, even stealing others resources, the mind boggles of what outcome this could have on humans generally.

    Is it possible, and I believe it is, that governments are trying to tell people there isn’t going to be another ice age in our life time, and you should worry as the planet is warming, that it isn’t?

  60. MarkW says:

    While it is true that we will some day begin to run out of fossil fuels, that day is at least several hundred years in the future.
    Planning for it now is a complete waste of time as the technology and societal needs of that far distant future are completely unknowable, and any plans made now stand as much chance of making things worse than of making things better.

  61. pat says:

    Australia’s Attorney-General – whose party was at least partly elected to dismantle CAGW legistlation – which they have so far failed to do because they don’t have the numbers in the Senate until July – has weighed into the CAGW sceptics/believers debate. yet, what a bizarre argument to be making, when you go on to suggest CAGW proponents engage with sceptics intellectually and show them why “they are wrong”! surely he would have served his argument better by stating: whilst i “believe” in AGW, that doesn’t mean the debate/science is settled.

    unfortunately, his party is still sticking to the line that they believe in it, but will fix it differently!

    18 April: SMH: Lisa Cox: Climate change proponents using ‘mediaeval’ tactics: George Brandis
    George Brandis has compared himself to Voltaire and derided proponents of climate change action as “believers” who do not listen to opposing views and have reduced debate to a mediaeval and ignorant level…
    While he says he believes in man-made climate change, the Queensland senator tells the magazine he is shocked by the “authoritarianism” with which some proponents of climate change exclude alternative viewpoints…
    “He (Brandis) describes as ‘deplorable’ the way climate change has become a gospel truth that you deny or mock at your peril, ‘where one side [has] the orthodoxy on its side and delegitimises the views of those who disagree, rather than engaging with them intellectually and showing them why they are wrong’.”…
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-change-proponents-using-mediaeval-tactics-george-brandis-20140418-zqwfc.html

  62. Roger Sowell says:

    Col Mosby on April 18, 2014 at 4:29 pm is absolutely wrong on each point.

    The best thing about nuclear power is it raises electricity price so that renewable energy sources become more attractive, and sooner.

    France, with its much-touted nuclear energy-supplied grid, has higher power prices than does the US, and that is with France subsidizing its electricity prices. In 2011, per the IEA, France industrial power price was 11.6 cents per kWh compared to US at 6.7 cents, and France residential price at 17.5 cents per kWh compared to US at 11.9 cents per kWh. For the facts on France’s nuclear power, see

    http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part.html

    Nuclear power plants in the US cannot compete, even with old, paid-for plants that must only recoup their on-going costs of operation. They cannot survive with sales at 3.2 cents per kWh, per this article: http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-one.html

    Facts, not wishful dreams about how nuclear power will someday save us all.

    After fully 50 years of commercial operation, nuclear power has managed to provide only 11.7 percent of all the electric power in the world (source: IEA). If the technology was any good, one would expect that nuclear would provide 80 to 90 percent of the power produced.

    In fact, nuclear has not replaced oil-fired power around the world. Oil-burning power plants produce almost 5 percent of the world’s electricity (source, IEA for 2011). If nuclear power is so cheap, why are utilities around the world still generating power by burning expensive oil? With oil at $100 per barrel, the utilities are paying approximately $17 per million Btu for oil. With a power plant that achieves 40 percent thermal efficiency, the cost for fuel alone is 14 cents per kWh. Yet, those plants are not replaced with nuclear power. In 50 years, those plants still burn oil.

  63. bushbunny says:

    pat, Brandis is being political, I had an email from Julie Bishop a few years ago, when the report from CERN was published. She told me her party was committed to cutting greenhouse gases.
    I replied, which one? Surely not water vapor, in Australia, we need more thanks. Brandis is also getting flack on changes to freedom of speech legislations, that’s a bleedin’ debatable point, and won’t pass legislation I think. Human activity creates pollution for sure, but that won’t change the climate.

  64. bushbunny says:

    I have to go folks keep at it, I need some food, rump steak, mushrooms, potatoes, veggies and gravy. And I have very low cholesterol but eat lots of bananas.

  65. phlogiston says:

    Carbon capture such as the North Sea project just launched in the UK, will eventually be recognised as the most expensively pointless action in human history.

  66. Roger Sowell says:

    Re Carbon Capture technologies, not only is it here but it is commercially viable. From the press release in 2013:

    AUSTIN, Texas –Sept. 30, 2013 – Skyonic Corporation is hosting a groundbreaking event today at its Capitol SkyMine plant in San Antonio. Once fully operational in 2014, the plant, which is the first of its kind in the United States, is expected to capture 300,000 tons of CO2 annually
    through the direct capture of 75,000 tons and additional 225,000 tons that will be offset by the production of green products. The plant is expected to turn a profit within three years from the sale of the products including sodium bicarbonate, HCl, and bleach.

    http://skyonic.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Skyonic-Groundbreaking-Release-September-30-2013.pdf

  67. jauntycyclist says:

    Plato’s Republic as it says itself is not a political science book but a method of examining self knowledge and using the analogy of the city state for the soul and to magnify some aspects of it. In the days before printing such methods were used as a mnemonic to fix a system of ideas with a pictorial method. Images, usually of families or journeys, were used to attach ideas and make them memorable.

    Plato wasn’t into lying which is why he said the mythologies were only for experts [in symbolic analogies] because they had the gods doing all sorts of bad things which gave the wrong impression to those without training. The worst thing you can do in the ancient system is tell lies to your self because that results in a pathalogos [false ideas about yourself and reality]. http://noeticsociety.org/the-signs-of-a-pathalogos-problem/

    The university system hasn’t done Plato any favours with their literalistic [and thus comical] take on it Plato is a form of symbolic yoga which is how things were communicated before printing. The Platonic dialogues are a careful examination of truth and the debunking of those who think they know the truth. Socrates is called wise because he says he is ignorant.

    As for moderns using Plato as an excuse to lie people who want to lie will use any excuse.

  68. SAMURAI says:

    An excellent post, Tom.

    Thank you!

    Even as Plato’s disciple Socrates sipped his hemlock, he realized that Plato’s “Philosopher King” Utopia was a failed Utopian dream, and that democracies are ultimately and inextricably ruled by kleptocrats who form kleptocratic regimes designed to enslave and rob its citizens.

    One need only look at the puke-inducing “leaders” we have running our countries into the dirt to realize Plato’s worst fears were an inevitability; I give you Nancy Pelosi… Enough said…..

    Any human institution based on “Nobel Lies” will eventually collapse under the weight of reality it’s built to obfuscate.

    Doing a quick back-of-the-bar coaster calculation, if the world were to spend $10.5 trillion dollars in building Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors over the next 30 years ($350 billion/yr or 0.4% of world annual GDP, for you math majors), CO2 emissions could be cut to near ZERO and total world energy costs would be roughly cut 1/3rd of current expenditures…

    Instead, the IPCC suggests spending $3.2 QUADrillion to “avert” 1C of CO2 induced warming…. That’s 305 TIMES the cost of “solving” the “problem” with LFTRs AND would IPCC’s “solution” would kill BILLIONs of people through energy and food starvation AND wind/solar energy would cost 10 TIMES as much/kWh… Oh, my…

    Here’s the $3.2 quadrillion calculation explained:

    http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/#prettyPhoto%5Bflash%5D/0/

    So, we can replace almost all our fossil fuel consumption with LFTRs at a cost of around $10.5 trillion and get cheap, safe, clean, efficient and unlimited energy, or spend $3.2 quadrillion and get expensive, clean, unreliable, inefficient, diffuse, intermittent and severely limited energy that will kill billions of folks with energy/food starvation….

    Hmmmm…

  69. jauntycyclist says:

    “Plato’s disciple Socrates”

    lol

  70. The big lies.They insult my intelligence.

  71. The problem with nuclear is these thieves can’t make money from it.

  72. M Simon says:

    The actual law school dictum:
    “If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side pound the law. If neither is on your side, pound the table.”

  73. Pointman says:

    You see, the price of forever living in fear of something is to become indifferent to it in the end, and once you realise you’re still alive anyway, you’ll never fear that particular bogey man again.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/why-isnt-the-alarmist-propaganda-working/

    Pointman

  74. Dodgy Geezer says:

    There are undoubtedly many advocates of such objectives who doubt, or are agnostic about, human-caused climate change. However, they see benefits to promoting, or at least going along with, the climate scare because it furthers their objectives in other fields that they regard as beneficial to society.

    I am inclined to support the concept of AGW. Because I believe that when society comes to its senses, it will reject ALL the green environmentalist fanatics in a huge counter-revolution, and that will be good for society…

  75. Tennex says:

    What a great essay.

    Sums up my thoughts perfectly

  76. rogerthesurf says:

    AGW is only the softener for UN Agenda 21. Its great the AGW is getting the stick it deserves, but the poison is already laid. While a frog will jump out of already boiling water, we are the frogs who are being heated slowly and unless we realise that the water is already too warm we are going to be cooked by the UN’s real agenda, which is Agenda 21.

    Check my blog http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com.
    Please read all the posts and check the links. Check your local government’s website for ICLEI. Check what your children are being taught at school. You wont be telling me I’m wrong.
    Cheers,
    Roger
    http://www.thedemiseofchrstchurch.com

  77. rogerthesurf says:

    Sorry the last link should read http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

  78. KenB says:

    The liars have much to fear as they have fed a “liars line” to a carefully cossetted and guided by propaganda generation, that will suddenly realise the jobs and opportunities have been squandered along with Trillions of wasted precious tax dollars. What anger, as they wake up to the reality that in their lifetime the warming trend ceased and they were told otherwise. That immediate generation, have been sold the lie but, as they realise they have been conned by the educators, the media and the green political gravy train you will see a real climate change! That is the desperate reality, well may the guilty lie and connive, but truth will out. The shift in public opinion will be harsh when that reality sets in. Mark my words..

  79. Jim Bo says:

    Meanwhile, in the empirical world…

    !…Record low temperature set at LaGuardia NY…

    a record low temperature of 35 degrees was set at LaGuardia NY yesterday. This breaks the old record of 36 set in 2003.

  80. Jimbo says:

    Felix says:
    April 18, 2014 at 6:56 pm

    “While historical evidence increasingly suggests that cataclysm really did follow Moses’ prophesies, modern-day forecasts of climate Armageddon are not coming true.”

    I’m always a little skeptical of people who accept biblical literalism and reject modern science. But, you all believe as you like.

    I too am very sceptical. I suspect what happened in some cases was events would occur. Later those events were then woven into the Bible showing a prophet ‘causing’ those events. A bit like the chicken and the egg.

    Sometimes science does not need to be rejected but used when people make extraordinary claims. Read about the ‘Jewish’ Lemba tribe in southern Africa and subsequent genetic tests.
    http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/050999lemba-jewish-genes.html
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1914832/
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707634399

  81. Martin 457 says:

    The bible, in it’s old testament, 6500 years ago, there was a garden of eden. We can look back to that time and see that the climate was warmer then. Then, there was a drastic cooling period. Doesn’t surprise me at all it rained for 40 day’s and nights. The atmosphere cooling like that can’t hold that amount of moisture any longer. DUH! Why that happened, un-explained.

    The “not-see’s” are driving their cult away by sheer ignorance. Let them.

  82. Margaret Smith says:

    All this talk of carbon dioxide capture scares me. The Lake Nyos event is a warning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos
    I would be ‘relaxed’ about fracking near where I live but would not want to be even in the same county as such a dangerous thing. Deliberately pumping CO2 underground under pressure? But, of course, nothing ever goes wrong….does it?

  83. Jimbo says:

    David M says:
    April 18, 2014 at 7:54 pm

    While I don’t doubt the serious amount of alarmist nonsense spouted about AGW, i’m sorry, but you lost me as soon as you suggested that Moses made predictions that were more accurate…..

    I think he was mocking Warmists. For example I can say that Pinocchio is more honest that Al Gore. Well actually he is. LOL.

  84. Jimbo says:

    Roger Sowell says:
    April 18, 2014 at 11:36 pm

    Re Carbon Capture technologies, not only is it here but it is commercially viable. From the press release in 2013:

    AUSTIN, Texas –Sept. 30, 2013 – Skyonic Corporation is hosting a groundbreaking event today at its Capitol SkyMine plant in San Antonio. Once fully operational in 2014, the plant, which is the first of its kind in the United States, is expected to capture 300,000 tons of CO2 annually
    through the direct capture of 75,000 tons and additional 225,000 tons that will be offset by the production of green products. The plant is expected to turn a profit within three years from the sale of the products including sodium bicarbonate, HCl, and bleach.

    http://skyonic.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Skyonic-Groundbreaking-Release-September-30-2013.pdf

    If that is what companies want to do then good on them. But the idea that such puny levels of capture will make any difference to the temperature of the Earth is a cruel joke indeed. Please do not attempt to spread such false hopes. I am not accusing you of doing it now but don’t even consider it.

    As for the profit we will have to wait and see.

    PS OIL companies have been pumping co2 into oil wells to extract residual oil for decades now and making a profit.

  85. Jimbo says:

    Thanks for the tip Margaret Smith.
    Be very wary of carbon capture. Imagine if a gas fired power station did the following. Eco-Nuts would go eco nuts about it.

    BBC Horizon – Killer Lakes
    …..In 1986, before research into the Monoun disaster was made public, it all happened again. The tragedy of Lake Nyos, also in Cameroon, made headlines around the world when almost 1,800 people sleeping in houses around the lake suffocated in their sleep. The team of scientists that went to investigate concluded that carbon dioxide, trapped at the bottom of the lake, had suddenly risen to the surface, killing everything within 25km. They called their theory lake overturn……
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/killerlakes.shtml
    =========================
    Guardian
    Gas threat grows from Cameroon’s lethal lakes
    •  Scientists warn of danger of another disaster
    •  Action plan urged to release CO2 build-up
    Perched among the highlands of western Cameroon, bordered by green mountains and cliff faces, Lake Nyos is a scene of breathtaking beauty. But the picture is deceptive. A detailed study reveals that without emergency measures, the lake could release a lethal cloud of carbon dioxide, capable of wiping out entire communities around its shores.
    =======================
    The warning, from a team of scientists, comes nearly 20 years after the lake belched an estimated 80m cubic metres of CO2 into the atmosphere. Heavier than air, the cloud of gas rolled down surrounding hillsides, engulfing villages. Silent, odourless and invisible, it starved the air of oxygen, asphyxiating hundreds of cattle and claiming the lives of more than 1,700 people up to 26km away……
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/sep/27/naturaldisasters.climatechange
    ======================
    BBC
    …….
    Scientists warn more pipes must be put in place to avert the danger of further catastrophic releases of gas……..
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4285878.stm

  86. Hoser says:

    The next politician comes along, and is not really impeded by the previous bastard in office. It will go something like: I was lied to by that last guy too. He really messed things up. Here’s what we need to do to get it right this time.

    Democrats and Communists have used this method for almost a century and there is no sign another gullible crop of people won’t be available in the future. The left crave being the elite non-working class overseeing the masses of workers, where they in government make all the decisions. For now, that translates to creating more voter dependency on government. Wreck the economy to make more Democrats.

    Republicans are mostly spineless and self-serving, but not quite that devious. They just want to keep things stable and predictable for business, no matter how bad it gets for the rest of us. In effect, they don’t really care about Democrat power games despite the rhetoric during election season. I wonder what it would take for Boehner to do anything mildly effective.

    Perhaps there is a method to the madness. When Reps nothing, it allows the Dems to hang themselves with their own rope. Too many voters are believers; they need the lies to be true. Unfortunately for them, the great Ponzi scheme can’t go on. The big question is, what will happen after the system goes broke, or breaks? The climate will take care of itself, but we will be in big trouble. We might be better off if the government crash happens sooner rather than later. There is simply no guarantee what kind of country we will be living (or not) in afterwards.

    That’s why academic bickering and nit-picking gets a little tiresome for me. The arguments can be an escape to an insulated and relatively orderly world. Does it ever lead to action? Unfortunately, we are facing some very serious consequences of greedy, deceptive, and psychologically disturbed leaders taking us down unnecessary and very dangerous paths.

    A deliberately misinformed and uneducated population will not be able to make good decisions. So where does that leave us? Is this how the Republic ends, everyone fighting each other to eat the seed corn? Perhaps our only hope is to take back the schools at all costs. How can we do that? Or, is there an alternative non-government solution using modern technology? Maybe we don’t actually need classrooms and centralized mass-produced phony education-info product. In other words, could we go around the problem rather than try to fight the battle directly?

    Climate lies and power games are just a small facet of a much bigger problem.

  87. Mervyn says:

    One major climate change alarmist, former Australian prime minister, Kevin “rising seal levels” Rudd, preached the dangers of rising sea-levels at a time he bought an expensive sea-front property. And he hasn’t been the only climate change charlatan to have done this. Hypocrites!!!!

  88. Gunga Din says:

    bushbunny says:
    April 18, 2014 at 8:00 pm

    …..I can’t remember but the old testament and Exodus was not written then, and the first Holy Bible was transcribed in Greek….

    =====================================================================
    Not to start a holy war here but if you’re interested, may I suggest “How We Got the Bible” by Neil R. Lightfoot.

    More info on Dr. Lightfoot
    http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/325147.Neil_R_Lightfoot

  89. nigelf says:

    Dave the Engineer says:
    April 18, 2014 at 4:51 pm

    It is a Cult (yeah me again) It will collapse when the prediction the never happens gets old enough that even the cult members realize it. Then we might see some suicides, sadly. It is a Cult, you will see that I am right.
    I agree Dave, it is a cult. Where I disagree is about the suicides bringing sadness. Anything that takes these liars off the face of the earth is a good thing for humanity. I’ve often stated I wished they would have a “Jim Jones” revelation

  90. ralfellis says:

    Jimbo says: April 18, 2014 at 4:02 pm
    You are dealing with a bunch of idiots. …. Even in wealthy Germany some have started stealing wood from the forests due to high energy prices.
    _______________________________

    Hey, Jimbo, it is worse than you thought.

    On the orders of the Greenie EU idiots, the UK is in the process of converting Drax into a wood-burning stove ! Drax is one of the largest power stations in Europe — 4 gw no less — which will now be burning every single tree in North America:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drax_power_station

    Drax power has now become Drax the Destroyer:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drax_the_Destroyer

    Enjoy those woodland walks while you can, because we are about to decimate US wildlife ….. ;-)

    Ralph

    P.S. Does the Eu have a white cat, and laugh manically?
    http://regmedia.co.uk/2012/10/18/blofeld.jpg

  91. Janice, as usual, you are spot on. I was hoping for more comments about how we don’t need any “funding” for climate research, etc., as that implies govt money given out to people to pursue their agendas with money taken forcibly from all of us.

    If private companies/individuals want to fund these efforts in pursuit of their goals, that’s great. And if there’s any real value in that pursuit they most assuredly will do so. But govt as so distorted our economy, and caused huge and destructive misallocation of resources, that it’s hard to know what a true free market would come up with. Wouldn’t it be great to see the advances that would be made without govt’s heavy hand in the mix?

  92. Mike M says:

    “Like Moses’ warnings to Pharaoh in the Bible” Bad analogy, there’s some archeological evidence that a few of Moses’ warnings were correct and happened.

    Stick to “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”, it’s a much better analogy especially in the broad sense that climate alarmism is destroying scientific credibility in general which could be a very bad thing in the future.

  93. Roger Sowell says:

    @ Jimbo on April 19, 2014 at 5:48 am re Carbon Capture and reuse by Skyonic.

    If that is what companies want to do then good on them.”

    Yes. Free enterprise at work. Profitably, too.

    But the idea that such puny levels of capture will make any difference to the temperature of the Earth is a cruel joke indeed.”

    I know this, and many other skeptics know this, but the profit is there for the taking for those clever enough to build a Skyonic-style plant.

    Please do not attempt to spread such false hopes. I am not accusing you of doing it now but don’t even consider it.”

    That reads like a threat. Won’t work. Go threaten somebody else. And quit being a coward when you make a threat. Use your real name.

  94. Dipchip says:

    Col Mosby:
    I hate to see misleading info on WUWT. It tends to reduce the credibility.
    “We are also exporting a lot of LNG to other countries, especially China.”

    USA exports Zero NG to any nation other than Mexico and Canada. US Exports in 2013 were 1.572 trillion Cu FT and US Imports were 2.883 trillion Cu FT while total US dry production was 24.279 trillion Cu FT. The USA in 2013 was still a net importer of NG.
    So what is all this nonsense we here about shipping NG to Europe? We do import a small amount of LNG from a few countries: Trinidad, Nigeria and Norway. See below.

    Import data: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_impc_s1_m.htm
    Export data: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_expc_s1_m.htm

    At the end of each data line there is a long history for that line.

  95. Gunga Din says:

    Mods, I had a comment that was in moderation earlier but is now gone. Was it a spam filter thing or was it snipped? If it was snipped, no need to explain.
    I’m not complaining but I am curious.

  96. Gunga Din says:

    Mods, now it’s there again but still in moderation.

  97. emsnews says:

    Nuclear power is not cheap. It is so expensive it can’t be insured against accidents. As we see in Chernobyl and Fukushima any sort of accident that causes a melt down leads to bankrupting a nation trying to cope…often fruitlessly…with the meltdowns.

    The damage is immense and lasts for generations. One accident can wipe out entire cities rendering these uninhabitable for immense lengths of time. I can’t imagine a worst way to fuel civilization.

  98. clearsky says:

    Cutting 40 to 70% of CO2 is impossible without replacing it with another energy source. With this level of cutting there will be massive economic and social disruptions bringing consequences far outstripping the perceived threat. The only way to make it work is to reduce the demand ie. number of humans on Earth. If the eco-activists win we will be looking at a new eco driven totalitarianism. History proved that totalitarianism is fully capable of mass murder to further its ideology, and there is no more noble cause than to save the Earth. Humans as the enemy of life on Earth is the leading motive in eco narrative. Some of them talk about shutting down skeptics and locking them up in jail just as a good start.. As far fetched as it sounds, as long as people are fed catastrophic visions of the future they may bring political forces promising decisive action to power.
    That’s how Hitler did it. Once this gene is out of the bottle we will face the real collapse of the civilization.

  99. DirkH says:

    clearsky says:
    April 19, 2014 at 8:23 am
    “As far fetched as it sounds, as long as people are fed catastrophic visions of the future they may bring political forces promising decisive action to power.
    That’s how Hitler did it. ”

    No; he didn’t have to; the present at the time under the Versailles treaty was catastrophic enough.

  100. DirkH says:

    emsnews says:
    April 19, 2014 at 8:19 am
    “Nuclear power is not cheap. It is so expensive it can’t be insured against accidents. As we see in Chernobyl and Fukushima any sort of accident that causes a melt down leads to bankrupting a nation trying to cope…often fruitlessly…with the meltdowns.”

    What bankrupts Japan is their demographic decline and Keynesian economics; not Fukushima. 20 km from the reactor the radiation level is 3 times the normal background radiation. Nothing catastrophic.

  101. Skiphil says:

    here is more Alarmst hysteria from people who understand neither climate nor (their comparison) the causes of World War One:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/04/david_titley_climate_change_war_an_interview_with_the_retired_rear_admiral.html

  102. Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
    The arrogance of the Warmists leads them to lie “for the greater good.” Trouble is, for them and their cause, Nature is not cooperating and people are seeing through the lies.

  103. jolly farmer says:

    DirkH:

    “What bankrupts Japan is their demographic decline and Keynesian economics; not Fukushima. 20 km from the reactor the radiation level is 3 times the normal background radiation. Nothing catastrophic.”

    I agree with your point on demographics and economic policy. However, some time reading

    http://enenews.com

    might change your mind about “nothing catastrophic.”

  104. Michael Moon says:

    Skyonic, meh. I wonder how many people who read this blog do not realize that rotting vegetation produces Gigatonnes of CO2 every year? Mother Nature puts in 97% and we put in a paltry 3%. Mother Nature is also extremely erratic, with her production and consumption annually varying more than our contribution.

    The atmosphere is large, the oceans are far larger, and we are small…

  105. Nik says:

    “People from across the political spectrum are starting to realize the immorality of such an approach.”

    Maybe there are such people, but unless they start speaking soon, and loudly, those that have been taxed and carbon credited into poverty just might get some thick staves and turn the offices of NGOs into warehouses.

  106. jolly farmer says:

    I am surprised by the support for nuclear fission on this site.

    This is from NHK, Japan’s state broadcaster, and subject to the country’s new and draconian state secrecy law:

    http://vimeo.com/90436659

    The EPA would agree with DirkH’s “nothing catastrophic” comment. I do not trust the EPA.

  107. Janice Moore says:

    Thank you, Onlooker! Your very generous, kind, compliment (at 7:36am) was such a welcome sight this morning. Hope all is happy or, at least, peaceful, in Troy.

    Janice

    *******************************

    And….

    GO, NUCLEAR POWER!! Heh, heh, heh.

    For a little truth about nuclear power see:

    1. http://www.cfact.org/2013/10/12/physicist-there-was-no-fukushima-nuclear-disaster/

    2. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/14/nuclear-power-perspective/
    (See especially the Comments)

  108. Clovis Marcus says:

    Bob Bajini says:
    April 18, 2014 at 4:42 pm
    The NIPCC can make the IPCC look sober and moderate. That’s the problem: two groups of people with competing positions yelling over each other with red faces.

    +1 for this.

    The non-alarmist argument is best served by the facts.

  109. Jim Francisco says:

    Concerning what KenB says:
    April 19, 2014 at 3:36 am
    The liars have much to fear as they have fed a “liars line” to a carefully cossetted and guided by propaganda generation, that wil…

    I hope that the liars would at the very least be embarrassed when the hoax is finally realized but I’m afraid that they will just shrug their shoulders like Lee Marvin did at the end of the movie Paint Your Wagon. Lee and his partners doug tunnels under most of their town looking for the gold dust that fell through the cracks of the floors of the saloons and adult playgrounds. They were shocked when the town collapsed. It is a great movie.

  110. catweazle666 says:

    About all that has been missing from these doom and gloom predictions is alien invasion.

    Ahem…

    Aliens Could Attack Earth to End Global Warming, NASA Scientist Frets

    A team of American researchers have produced a range of scenarios in which aliens could attack the earth, and curiously, one revolves around climate change.

    They speculate that extraterrestrial environmentalists could be so appalled by our planet-polluting ways that they view us as a threat to the intergalactic ecosystem and decide to destroy us.

    The thought-provoking scenario is one of many envisaged in a joint study by Penn State and the NASA Planetary Science Division, entitled “Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/08/19/aliens-could-attack-earth-to-end-global-warming-nasa-scientist-claims/

    It’s worse than we thought!

  111. ysupp says:

    Curious to see if this post is allowed given that it expresses an opinion that is sceptical of those here ;-)…

    I assume most readers follow general scientific opinion on a host of other issues, but am curious to know why not this one?

    Take second hand smoke for example. As with AGW, there is strong scientific evidence for it being damaging, but a few scientists disagree and their views are loudly touted by those with financial interests in tobacco (NB the same scientists also often disagree with climate change, e.g. those involved in the NIPCC, e.g. Dr. S. Fred Singer Dr. Frederick Seitz). On that note, whilst the NIPCC is being positioned by the Heartland Institute as an alternative to the IPCC, it seems to have no scientific articles to its name.

    To look more widely at how small a portion of scientific opinion the NIPCC represents, only 2 articles disagreeing with AGW were published in 2013, out of 10,885: http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html

    I’d imagine for the most part, readers when when faced with the choice of who to believe on health matters follow the vast majority of scientists. In the case of AGW, as this article rightly notes there are important co-benefits (such as reducing fuel insecurity and wastefulness) to reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, and I don’t have a problem if they are talked about too.

  112. Tom Harris says:

    Col Mosby: I support nuclear power in appropriate applications. However, the World Nuclear Association are making a critical mistake trying to boost nuclear as a “solution” to man-made climate change. Many people I know in the nuclear field are also uncomfortable with their highly unscientific, opportunistic approach, one that will come back to haunt them someday, I am convinced.

  113. bushbunny says:

    O/T This will interest you all, Brandis our Attorney General really fired a shot at alarmists (choke on your Easter Egg Flannery, I am out of time to give details but it is on ABC and news.com.au on line. He said, ‘The science is not settled!” And attacks and vilification of deniers (?) was not on, they (them) should engage intellectually with deniers. Oh I wonder if he will put that in his legislation. Hope so. Have a pleasant Easter folks.

  114. Janice Moore says:

    Happy Easter to you, too, dear Bush Bunny (what a perfect name for the day, smile).

  115. bushbunny says:

    And to you Janice, actually a bush bunny in the context I use as a gravatar is actually usually with a photo of me, with a Akrubra hat and means I live in the bush, not a city. Well a regional town with two cathedrals and one university. Armidale is up high on the tablelands of Northern NSW. Very much like a county town in UK, and with lots of deciduous trees, rather than gums. And greener than most places that’s why it was named New England.

  116. Santa Baby says:

    “Former Vice President Al Gore tells us that “the survival of civilization as we know it” is at risk if we don’t take these kinds of actions.”

    If we take these kind of actions the Death of the Western civilization as we know it is certain?

  117. Lil Fella from OZ says:

    If only you would believe our lies. Yeah right!!

  118. A hard hitting but true analysis. And sad also.

  119. Steve Keohane says:

    ysupp says: April 19, 2014 at 2:34 pm

    Curious to see if this post is allowed given that it expresses an opinion that is sceptical of those here ;-)…

    I assume most readers follow general scientific opinion on a host of other issues, but am curious to know why not this one?

    Take second hand smoke for example. As with AGW, there is strong scientific evidence for it being damaging, but a few scientists disagree and their views are loudly touted by those with financial interests in tobacco (NB the same scientists also often disagree with climate change, e.g. those involved in the NIPCC, e.g. Dr. S. Fred Singer Dr. Frederick Seitz). On that note, whilst the NIPCC is being positioned by the Heartland Institute as an alternative to the IPCC, it seems to have no scientific articles to its name.
    You left off the ‘/sarc’ tag

  120. Jimbo says:

    Roger Sowell says:
    April 19, 2014 at 7:45 am

    @ Jimbo on April 19, 2014 at 5:48 am re Carbon Capture and reuse by Skyonic.
    …………………..
    “ Please do not attempt to spread such false hopes. I am not accusing you of doing it now but don’t even consider it.”

    That reads like a threat. Won’t work. Go threaten somebody else. And quit being a coward when you make a threat. Use your real name.

    1) If I used my ‘real name’ how would you know it is actually my real name?

    2) You are wrong about the ‘threat’ – it was not a threat. How can I make a threat against someone I don’t know?

    Next time please engage your brain before opening your back orifice. It stinks.

  121. Jimbo says:

    Roger Sowell is an attorney and he thinks I made a threat. Your clients should ask for their money back. You are not a good attorney. Please read what I said. Sheesh! You must be money mad!

  122. Jimbo says:

    Is this a threat?

    “ Please do not attempt to spread such false hopes. I am not accusing you of doing it now but don’t even consider it.”

    Sowell is a mind reader I guess but not a good attorney. By the way my name is John Parfitt or James Hansen or Paul Jones or Michael Mann or Martin Greene. You see I can put any bloody name up and you cannot be the wiser. Please think before you attack me again. THIS IS NOT A THREAT. NO, NO, NO.

  123. Jimbo says:

    Finally, I don’t use my real name because I live in a country that stands to gain from the global warming con. We have secret police, detentions, disappearances without trial etc. So if that makes me a coward then yes I am as I don’t live in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Let’s swap places and see if some people would use their real names. Did I hear cowardice? Just do it.

  124. Jimbo says:

    In anticipation of a possible comment by Sowell

    2) You are wrong about the ‘threat’ – it was not a threat. How can I make a threat against someone I don’t know?

    How do I know that the name you use is yours? Anyone can insert a name with a website and email. I don’t live in the USA so please sleep tight. I have more important things to do than to threaten a bald legal eagle.

  125. Steve Meikle says:

    I have been saying for years that hyping the AGW scare as they have been doing will discredit any decent green initiatives and in fact encourage the Big Polluters to have a field day after the AGW scare has found its way to the dustbin of history. I am glad that some others know this also

  126. bushbunny says:

    Folks, I think Willis started it against me and Janice, but there will be trolls watching this site, and the last thing we want is to become angry with one another. You know the old saying…”Divided we fall..’ The writing is on the wall, in Australia. Since when is wood burned to create electricity. Never in the history has it been used. Only oil, gas and coal, brown and black or coke.
    They have a generator in Australia that burns sugar cane refuse. But there are ads on our TV that encourage people to use more timber, as it locks in carbon and benefits the environment (and climate?)

  127. bushbunny says:

    Jimbo calm down, Roger was thinking with a legal mind, and Roger we don’t use our real names, but Anthony knows them, and he runs this blog. If I were to put in an essay or legal letter or article on this blog, I would use my real name. But I am politically in agreement with WUWT most of the time. But it is good that our Federal Attorney General George Brandis, has stated that the science (of climate change) is not settled. And he wishes that the alarmists would engage politically with deniers, rather than vilifying them that he thought was somewhat medieval. (Paraphased). They want the carbon tax and mining tax repeal to be passed by our senate, that the labor and Greens are holding back. With some senators taking over in July 1st we will no doubt see this.

  128. bushbunny says:

    NB. He said to engage intelligently with deniers. Sorry.

  129. Doug UK says:

    In Plato’s day – the “Noble Lie’s” coming from authority had no check – no counter balance – the Noble Lie concept relies upon the argument of authority.

    But thanks to modern technology – the Noble lie from authority is soon seen for what it is. Those who persist in trying to use such a tactic simply underline the fact that their lives and beliefs exist in a relatively small “bubble”.

  130. Ed Chombeau says:

    Just go to nuclear power; most of France uses it. Me thinks the petroleum interests “allow” the nuclear scare. If the USA was 70% nuclear energy; we would have no need to worry about so called “carbon pollution”.

  131. The people who tell these “Noble Cause” lies will keep getting a paycheque, largely out of my unwilling pocket. I strongly doubt they care if their statements are held in utter contempt at some vague point in the future, they’re getting what they want right now.

  132. TonyG says:

    ysupp says:
    Curious to see if this post is allowed given that it expresses an opinion that is sceptical of those here ;-)…

    As you see, it was allowed. WUWT doesn’t censor differing opinions, unlike warmist blogs. Might want to think on that a bit.

    I assume most readers follow general scientific opinion on a host of other issues, but am curious to know why not this one?

    I suggest you read the archives (with an open mind) if you really want an answer. Opinion is often wrong. In science, facts are what matter.

  133. We need to put an emissions tax on any intestinal flatulence based on the decibel level of the escaping gasses! Monitoring stations could be created that would contain high amp microphones that would pinpoint any abrupt animal discharges of methane gas. NSA could oversee the technical operations and Homeland Defense could then arrest the miscreants and round up the animals. Studies have shown that most of the methane flatulence comes from Washington DC! We need to tax the government first until they cannot print anymore money and then every living thing that breaks wind. Soon liberal progressives will decriminalize drug crime, rape and child molestation and use the money they save to conquer global warming!

  134. bushbunny says:

    A bubble, yes a money making exercise. Those who remember British history, remember the
    South Sea Island bubble, that hundreds put money into. The Prime Minister at the time, withdrew his money before the bubble burst, and hundreds were bankrupted. It happens, and I worry about those who have honestly invested in carbon credits or clean energy.

  135. rogerthesurf says:

    floydhowardjr ,

    Don’t worry, the government of my country has already spent milliions of tax payers money in research grants to find out why sheep and cattle fart. Pressure from the UN I suppose.
    It is also doubly puzzling though because the cattle and sheep do not eat fossil foods such as coal or propane gas. The grass and therefore the methane they produce is entirely natural. Was a good excuse for maintaining taxation at NZ’s typical high rate though.
    Cheers

    Roger
    http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

  136. bushbunny says:

    Roger nice to see you here, well the Greens in Australia had some idea to tax beef and sheep per head to save the climate and methane production. If I remember rightly it was $11 a head for cattle, and $7.00 a head for a sheep. It would have ruined our wool and beef industry and bi products. They forgot goats. Can you imagine, we have over a billion sheep in Australia! That’s 7 billion at least a year! They are nuts. And of course turn us unwillingly into vegetarians.

Comments are closed.