Guest opinion by Arkady Bukh, Esq
The apocalypse of an alleged climate change shares many of Jones’ cult-like qualities.
Jim Jones, the People’s Temple leader, led over 900 persons to commit suicide 32 years ago. Jones was charismatic and knowledgeable of both Scriptures and human behavior.
After the mass murder/suicide and the murder of U.S. Congressman, Leo Ryan, Jones and his followers were on the news every day for weeks. Jones, who built his cult around a “doomsday” scenario — convinced his followers that the world was past due for an apocalyptic ending very soon.
The apocalypse of an alleged climate change shares many of Jones’ cult-like qualities.
There are other similar traits, but here are four:
1. Climate doomsayers believe they possess truths about the past, present and future and their truths cannot be disputed by anyone.
2. Doomsayers refuse to debate their belief. They call their dogma “settled science” and attack any critics that dare to whisper in the dark.
3. Just like a cult, doomsayers has a formal doctrine-setting body — not unlike the Jones’ circle of advisors. The reports by the “ruling” body are thought to be the main source of authority and the texts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are quoted as unholy scripture.
4. Staying with the Jonestown analogy, the climate change alarmists have created mythologies intentionally built on lies and half-truths. The fallacy can be ascribed as an appeal to everyday experiences, giving the listener some sense of truth-based teaching to mix with the soup of confusion.
Just as Jones and his small leadership group built lies on a foundation of lies and misinformation, the “sky-is-falling-crowd” spreads hoaxes to support their form of theology.
Hoaxes
By now it’s been all over the news that 2015 was the hottest year ever. If, in fact, 2015 was the hottest year of all time, there should be enough calamities happening to inspire a dozen movies. Instead, the opposite is occurring.
1. Record Ice
There was record sea ice in Antartica. In truth, a global warming expeditionary ship got stuck in the ice. Artic sea has been making a nice comeback, and the Great Lakes had record ice with only three ice-free months. If it were the hottest year, the ice should be melting.
2. Record Snow
The 2014/2015 winter saw record snowfall across the country. It wasn’t that long ago that scientists said that global warming would make the snow disappear, and children wouldn’t have any idea what snow is.
3. Record Cold
The winter saw many cold records crash. Remember the Polar Vortex?
4. Rising Oceans
Al Gore and company predicted that oceans would rise twenty-feet by 2100. So far the oceans are on track to lift by 12-inches. Many tidal gauges are showing no rise in sea level and practically none show any increase over the past two decades.
5. Polar Bears
Polar Bears are thriving. If this had been the hottest year on record, the Polar Bears would be in danger of disappearing.
6. Moose
When the moose population in Minnesota dropped observers were quick to blame global warming. Then a study was completed which found it was wolves that were killing the moose.
7. 99% of Scientists
99% of scientists don’t believe in man-made global warming. The 99% figure came from a study where only 75 scientists said they see global warming occurring. In another poll, over 30,000 scientists have signed a petition saying they don’t believe in catastrophic, man-made global warming.
8. Nature and CO2
Nature generates much more CO2 than humans. In 2014, [NASA] launched a satellite that measures CO2 levels globally. The assumption was that most of the CO2 would come from the over-industrialized northern hemisphere. They were surprised to learn it was coming from the rainforests of South America as well as Africa and China.
9. It’s Not the Warmest Year
Looking at the satellite data, it has not been the warmest year ever. The figures show there has been no global warming for almost two-decades. Continuing to use the ground weather station data which is influenced by the Urban Heat Island effect provides the reason for scientists calling it the warmest year on record.
10. Hypocrisy
Look at the lifestyles of those who preach global warming. If the main purveyors of global warming believed their propaganda, they would modify their lifestyle. They all own multiple large homes, yachts and private jets. Some individuals, such as Al Gore, profit from Carbon Taxes and other “green energy” laws.
Few Accusations of Fraudulent Behavior – So Far
Climate change is a scientific issue. Rejoinders to climate change are policy matters. Lying — or fabricating hoaxes — about science and policy are typically accepted.
Each side of the debate has stayed busy pointing accusatory fingers at their antagonists and yelling fraud. Fraud about scientific methods, data, interpretation of data and so on. So far charges of fraud for monetary gain has been few and far between.
Despite the length of time that climate change has been debated, there have been zero — zero — instances of individuals being successfully indicted on fraud charges dealing specifically with climate change.
Only one individual, a climate-change guru with the Environmental Protection Agency, has been charged with lying and fraud. Those charges weren’t even about his work at the EPA, but rather lies about being on the CIA payroll.
John Beale will spend 30 months in federal prison for bilking the EPA out of over $1 million in salary and other benefits while claiming to be “deep undercover” for the Central Intelligence Agency in Pakistan.
That may be starting to change.
As the science of climate change begins its fourth decade, some businesses and individuals are caught up in more than just perpetuating hoaxes and are being brought to task for lying and fraud.
Exxon
Exxon may be in trouble over lying about climate change. If Exxon Mobile knowingly funded misleading research as a part of a plan to convince American voters, their lie goes beyond policy statements and morphs into a business decision.
Prosecutors are after Exxon for lying to people who might not have bought gasoline if they knew the true story behind climate change. If Exxon Mobile began disclosing the business risks of climate change when it understood them will be a focus of the New York case currently underway.
The company has begun disclosing potential environmental risks recently, but whether those disclosers are sufficient is a matter of public debate and maybe a centerpiece for the trial.
Climategate
In 2009, climate change alarmists scrambled to save face after hackers stole hundreds of emails from a British university and released them online.
Pirated from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, the documents purported to reveal researchers were engaging in fraudulent reporting of data to favor their own climate change agenda. As a matter of fact, fraud is a Federal offense punishable by long prison time.
The good thing is that false scientists, and their alarmism, will be countered now with their own words. Reliable researchers are still compiling the information for a publication that could shake the nation’s foundation on climate change.
RICO Charges
A group of 20 university professors want to get the federal government to prosecute climate change doubters. The group posted a letter to the White House in September and matched those who are doubtful concerning man-made global warming to the tobacco industry.
The group’s idea are similar to those used against the tobacco industry from 1999 until 2006. That RICO investigation played a role in preventing the tobacco industry from maintaining the deception of Americans about the hazards of smoking.
If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that are becoming apparent as in the Exxon case, it is important that the misdeeds be stopped so that America can get on with the important business of finding the truth about climate change.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“If Exxon Mobile began disclosing the business risks of climate change when it understood them will be a focus of the New York case currently underway.”
The main business risk of climate change is alarmism and its potential to cause the US Federal Government to place unrealistic burdens on energy companies.
Since such policies are irrational, no company could possibly have foreseen the risk that a US President would make anti-energy policies a major component of his policies.
Besides, Exxon Mobile just couldn’t have known the facts back when they are being said to know them. In fact, even today, the evidence, the factual evidence and empirical data clearly shows there’s no man made global warming. That’s not all, the science shows such an effect on climate in the future is just not possible. Exxon Mobile was right back then and wrong to jump on the band wagon now.
“Prosecutors are after Exxon for lying to people who might not have bought gasoline if they knew the true story behind climate change” They must be kidding. How would those people have heated their homes, driven their cars, travelled by air, used their PCs, tablettes and smartphones if not by consuming directly or indirectly fossil fuel? Even their lunch box is made with fossil fuel.
Not to mention how many millions of gallons of Jet-A consumed by the executive branch officials riding in style in their government jets. Then there is the matter of how big an airplane the Air Force used to return House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to her home in California, a selection that appeared to pivot at least in part with how many refueling stops would be required to make the trip.
Jet-A for me but not for thee.
jim jones had the right idea. if only he had enough kool-aid to go around he could have eliminated the nasty human race and saved the planet.
Wow, hate much? Sounds like you’ve guzzled the eviron-mental koolade.
I think you missed the implicit “” tag.
that is, “sarc” tag.
Chaam: If you forget to add the tag people around here will assume that you are an idiot. Those with brains know that you are being sarcastic, but you must understand that there are zealots who would make that statement with absolute sincerity, and would exterminate the human race – to preserve nature! – if they could.
Easy, Bruce, he’s one of us.
Chaam, you’d think that religions around the world would be denouncing the “model fellowship of Mann” as a false, self-aggrandizing, pseudo-prophetic cult, after so recently witnessing the Jones tragedy of mass mind control.
The one difference that stands out, is that the “church of the omnipotent greenhouse in carbon” uses computers to “read” the future and leaves it up to man to save the planet from an “out of control human infestation”. Somehow religious leaders are sucked in by the technology and believe that they can use this ideology of moral culpability to their advantage, in righting the world’s wrongdoings.
“One of us…one of us…one of us….” 🙂
[Mods: my comment somehow ended up out of order]
(Reply: This is an ongoing WordPress problem. Please contat them; we’ve tried. Maybe if they hear from enough readers they will fix it. And sorry, we have no way of placing comments in the correct order. WordPress controls that. –mod)
A the mod , a suggestion, maybe people should start their comments with the addressee’s name and time? It could stop some of the crossover problems. I have complained at WordPress but no answer yet.
asybot
Many of us do that. I prefer to use the “blockquote” html codes around the other writer’s words, since that indents and highlights the words I am quoting.
It was “Flavor Aid.”
Exxon Mobile. Where does the army get the fuel for their fighters in Syria from? What fuel is the presidential aircraft using?
yup same as Ben asks
and the enviro wallop when missile go boom?
is mil fuel bunker oil whatever they use on the fleet added to the total etc?
how good is WP for the environment
let alone the poor buggers it was used on..
etc etc
huge carbon etc saving if the mil complex got their supply stopped
globally
lets see how they go with stick n stones:-)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-25/meet-man-who-funds-isis-bilal-erdogan-son-turkeys-president
Words fail me in regards to the idea that people want to prosecute Exxon for the reasons they stated.
I’m not a Dr. and I don’t play one on TV but these people are completely mental.
It makes perfect sense. ExxonMobil has deep pockets. Guilt or innocence is such an outdated concept in “The Brave New World”. All that matters is ability to pay.
Martin
I try not to let it infect my thought process, but I’d be remiss to think that Exxon is not hedging its ability to make a profit. Afterall, their first obligation is to the shareholder.
I see this in the same fashion that Goldman was hedged during the financial crisis. It’s their responsibility to protect the profits to the shareholder.
In this case, Goldman has recently quadrupled its alternative energy investments but at the same time they see that the BRICs will be building mucho coal fired energy sources so are starting to build up positions in depressed coal prices.
I try not to go too far down the rabbit hole concerning corporate strategy because it can often just be a distraction concerning the evidence supportng the validity of a fact like temperatures over the past 5000 years.
CAGW is nonsense.
Is it being used to shake up the flow of money ? Definitely.
Are there new winners and losers ? Definitely.
Reminds me of the con game where the most important indicator of success is who is holding the bag of sh_t last.
It’s cult-like, but oh so much worse. Warmist ideology, thinly disguised as “science” has permeated and tainted all branches of human knowledge, industry, and politics. The description of meme-plex seems to cover it best. Humanity has never seen anything like it before, and hopefully, when finally stamped out, never will again.
“Humanity has never seen anything like it before, and hopefully, when finally stamped out, never will again.”
Sorry that is bollocks Bruce.
History shows many outbreaks of Mass Hysteria.
The scheme is as old as language, the con promises to convince the storm gods to spare you, as long as you pony up.
This latest outbreak is Eugenics packaged, just as Phrenology was “science”.
The difference here is that CAGW seems to have been created, orchestrated and is still being protected from investigation. By our state bureaucracies.
When following the money our governments figure prominently.
Kleptocracy ; a word the Greeks bequeathed us, corrupt and out of control bureaucrats seem to be a feature in every country where the Global Warming Scheme is dominant.
So the Cult of Calamitous Climate is far worst than cult like, it is run by committee.
Eugenics repackaged…
JR
“So the Cult of Calamitous Climate is far worst than cult like, it is run by committee.”
IMO, one of the early important victories of CAGW was based on a strategy that originators such as Maurice Strong may have stumbled upon.
After WWII the people fell in love with scientists. So much so that if a scientist said so, it must be true.
During the 70s stagflation many professionals suffered. Originators such as Mr Strong resurrected the careers of insignificant scientists such as Hansen and then many followed.
Hoffer describes the above group (forgotten professionals) as one of the vulnerable groups to a mass movement. Because I’m a knuckle dragging man, I equate it to what happens when a formerly good looking woman loses her looks and seeks attention.
CAGW will never be the last hoax. It is currently in the top 5 and perhaps worse, it is teaching future mimicers how to apply its successes to future ruses.
Sorry, no sale. Eugenics is certainly a good example, but nowhere near the worldwide scale of the Climate Campaign. There was no “Intergovermental Panel for the Prevention of Racial Impurity”, for example.
@ur momisugly John, 9.50 am, It is way worse it is world wide and seems to involve all people, religions and the various political stripes.
Bruce @ur momisugly 5:37
You could read Charles MacKay’s book:
Exxtraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.”
[1841].
You might be surprised at the extent and scope of some of the Delusions
he reports on such as The Witch Hunts. They were International and lasted
about 200 years. The present CAGW Delusion only differs from the ones
MacKay describes by its sheer size. Its only lasted about thirty years. so far.
but has achieved global reach.
The Witch Hunts tainted human Society just as thoroughly right down to the
inclusion of governments and this was without the modern high speed electronic
communications.
MacKay’s book needs updating. It needs a new section about
Anthropogenic Global Warming, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global
Warming and Climate Change.
The US Constitution and system of democratic government with all its checks
and balances was an earnest attempt to ensure that could never happen again.
It’s full text is available from Gutenberg and many other Internet sources.
I believe your embedded link for #7 is not correct. Nor is the 99% reference. I believe you are referring to the Doran study with respect to 75 respondents. See link below.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
I hope the prosecutors and all those highly paid lawyers and government officials all walk to work and to the courthouse for the trial instead of driving in their BMWs and Mercedes Benzs.
I’m not sure I like the term “hoax” in this context (although I admit I’ve used the term myself). In a hoax, doesn’t the perpetrator usually/eventually jump up and say, “Ha ha, fooled you!”?
PaulH. I’m afraid that if the originators of CAGW did admit to it, they would not be believed. It happened to the originators of the crop circles.
One of the traits not mentioned here was his propensity towards Marxism/Communism:
Before forming a church, Jim Jones had become enamored by communism and frustrated by the harassment communists received in the U.S.[2] This, among other things, provided a seminal inspiration for Jones; as he himself described in a biographical recording,[2][3]
“I decided, how can I demonstrate my Marxism? The thought was, infiltrate the church. So I consciously made a decision to look into that prospect.”
I read one of the many books about Jonestown (about 5 years ago) and did find many similarities with the CAGW doctrine. They also wanted money from Russia to back the church.
Refs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Temple
and
http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=31910 –
I forget which book. It was by a woman who was the sister of one of the Jonestown members.
From the Wikipedia ref above:
“Jones and the Temple received the support of, among others, Governor Jerry Brown, Lieutenant Governor Mervyn Dymally, Assemblyman Willie Brown, San Francisco mayor George Moscone, Art Agnos, and Harvey Milk.[63 ….. After his rise in San Francisco political circles, Jones and Moscone met privately with Vice Presidential Candidate Walter Mondale in San Francisco days before the 1976 Presidential election.[66] Jones also met First Lady Rosalynn Carter on multiple occasions, including a private dinner, and corresponded with Mrs. Carter.”
And, my guess (thanks for the research, J. Philip Peterson) is that those politicians supported Jones not only because they sympathize with his statist views, but, sadly, a high percentage of the people Jones fooled were: black. “Vote for me! I like blacks!”
Jones preyed (as do all socialists, including the Envirostalinists) on the poor, the under-educated, and especially, those who feel like they do not “belong.”
The cult gives them, inter alia:
1. a place where they belong (“Join us!” — “Be a part of the solution”);
2. good deeds to do, satisfying the basic human need for some kind of “religion,” some Golden Rules of Life (even atheists demonstrate a fairly complex personal ethos);
3. since all cults are based on l1es (mixed with truth), which ALWAYS fall, in the end, for truth wins, every time, the cult must introduce pressure on its members so they will not fall away over time: the “us versus them” (for The AGW Cult, “us v. den1ers”) mentality (the USSR used this very effectively for decades) — Note: the main reason that the AGW leadership calls those for truth in science “den1ers” is not to sneer at them, it is to create the “enemy;” and
4. cults don’t try to get everyone to join, they carefully pick their potential members based on several vulnerability factors, one of which is the “authoritarian” (LIKES/PREFERS to be bossed around) personality, i.e., cults provide a strong leader.
**********************************************
Take heart, nevertheless, all who love truth in science,
there is hope.
While the end is very sad for the cult members who never get out, most do, for the majority of people just don’t go for that kind of thing for long (whether through an intellectual epiphany or just loss of interest). Even those who cling tenaciously to it, unless permanently brainwashed (only some are), get out, for the cult self-destructs in the end, as does any scheme based on l1es.
Go, WUWT! Keep on! Truth — will — win!
Heh. It already has. Why do you think the AGWers shriek so loudly?
RICO (what a JOKE) charges — completely bogus legal reasoning… = the tactic of a cornered rat.
Thanks Janice, but my research is incomplete. I will find that book and the quotes from within. I hope the thread is still open when I find them. I was very moved by that book, and I really did find links to the Global Warming alarmismin this book. If the thread is still open, I will post the Jim Jones things that reminded me of this debate.
[The thread will be open for a while, but be aware that fewer readers will rejoin old ones. .mod]
Here Is what I found:
“Seductive Poison”: A Jonestown Survivor’s Story of Life and Death in the Peoples Temple
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seductive_Poison
Required Reading. A vaccine for the human mind…Deborah Layton’s “Seductive Poison”
Writing a review of Deborah Layton’s “Seductive Poison” is not easy for me, because I can’t think of any words that will be superlative enough to do justice to this book and to compliment the author on being so courageous and for so eloquently sharing intimate details of her experience of life in and her escape from a destructive cult.
Seductive Poison helped me understand what a cult is and made me realize that I cannot try and deal with the situation I was faced with using the rules I knew so far. The rationalism and logic that you would expect to always be present and help a person make their own informed decisions and judgments are sometimes suspended – and always suspended when an individual is under a situation of being under the control of a destructive mind-control group or even an the influence of an individual. I never realized that until I read Deborah Layton’s experience.
Seductive Poison should be required reading in high-schools / colleges, just so more people are aware of the dangers lurking about them. I have personally bought over a dozen copies of this book to hand out to friends and family (Amazon must really love me by now!) and I don’t think I’m done handing it out to people yet, because in my opinion, this book is a vaccine for the human mind and it is critical for *any* person living in today’s society – in any country, in any environment – to develop some level of immunity which allows them to recognize a destructive situation before they get sucked in too deep.
I’ll end with a quote from an email I sent shortly after reading Seductive Poison and co-relating events in my life: “The mind is a very fragile thing, and I strongly believe that no stimulus and no words can go by without affecting a person — I don’t claim to know more or less about what is true or not, but I do believe in being pragmatic and using ones own judgment and critical thinking to set the boundaries for our actions.”
And last but not least, to Deborah Layton – thank you from the bottom of my heart for sharing your experience with all of us and thank you for being the amazing person I know you are.
— Manu Kumar, PhD. An Amazon Reader’s 5-Star Review
What on earth is this!!!!!
Where are the references for
1. They are scientists no scientist know the TRUTH about the past or future and I challenge you to find a published document that says differently
2. settled science – no science is settled. GHG actions are understood to a very high level of confidence but settled science is generally used by climate change contrarians.
3. The knowledgeable body is made up from climate scientists. The sky dragons would find it difficult to publish (as would flat earthers) in the same way as iron sun/sky dragon/zero point perpetual motion would find publishing on WUWT difficult.
4. just speechless! where is the evidence for the claims?
In terms of fraud there is no doubt in my mind that there has been systematic alteration of data in many of the global weather bureaus and institutions to facilitate the global warming myth. I find its strange how many of the old records have been adjusted down whilst more recent records adjusted up when logically with the urban heat island effect influencing many sites the adjustments should’ve been the other way . Whatever the arguments in relation to these adjustments there is no doubts that such adjustments have been deliberately and fraudulently made to perpetuate the warming narrative including the attempt to eliminate the inconvenient pause. I actually believe that because the consequences of such fraud and manipulation feeds into global policy and the repercussions of that policy that many thousands perhaps millions of people are at risk of dying from energy poverty these fraudsters should be tried for the equivalent of war crimes. I really believe that the impact of policies based on these frauds will kill unknown numbers in the future deprived of government funds diverted from health and welfare programs.
As I have said before Global Warming alarmism is the greatest moral dilemma of our time.
The difference of course is that Jim Jones wasn’t receiving grant money and his activities served no purpose to the agenda of the radical left. In general, those who deny the existence of evil are the most prone to serving it.
http://www.petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php
is as far as I can google one of the first uses of the Term “settled science” wrt climate – not from a warmist site as far as I can see
Al Gore used the term first. In the public’s mind anyway.
From the petition site linked: ‘…Mr. Gore and his supporters at the United Nations and elsewhere have claimed that the “science is settled” –…’
The quote marks are fairly clear indication that the site is quoting others, probably including “Mr. Gore,” therefore this is quite obviously NOT one of the first uses of the term in climate hoax coverage.
It was from the Vice President of the United States in 1997-
http://clinton2.nara.gov/Initiatives/Climate/weatherrel.html
Oct 1 1997-
President of the United States Bill Clinton-
“First, I am convinced that the science is solid, saying the that climate is warming at a more rapid rate, that this is due in large measure to a dramatic increase in the volume of greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere, and that nobody knows exactly what the consequences are going to be or when they’re going to be manifest, but, on balance, it won’t be all that long and they won’t be good. That is sort of a summary of what the prevailing scientific opinion is.”
Then scroll down to the questions and answers with the press to Al Gore’s comments-
“Q (Off mike) — John Fisher from — (off mike) — South Bend, Indiana. There is a — it seems to me there’s still a debate about the effect that humans have on the contribution to global warming and global climate change, yet both in remarks you made and in remarks by the president you seem to dismiss them as a big minority. You just referred to the ones on your side, if you will, of “mainstream scientists”. Is the debate on that issue (within ?) the administration over?”
“VICE PRESIDENT GORE: On the fact that there is a human factor in causing this? Yes. And not only in the administration, in the international panel on climate change, which has, what, 2,500 scientists from every country in the world, they have studied this for several years now. And just a couple of years ago they found what they call “the smoking gun” and came out with this consensus statement that there is now a discernible impact from human causes. Now, one of the other obstacles to broadening the consensus on that is that as you all know better than everybody, the noise level in the system is so profound that there are going to be very, very big changes just in the natural course of events. You take hurricanes. Back in the 1930s, as y’all can say better than me, there was a string of powerful hurricanes, more frequent, more powerful than what we’re experiencing now. And there are other extremes that are natural. But out of that noise level, this consensus international scientific process has now said that they believe that debate is over, that yes, the human cause is now discernible. And as these concentrations grow it will become more profound and a much more significant part of the cause.”
“Q And the administration accepts that fact that that debate is over.”
“VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. On that one point, yes, sir. Here, and then there. ”
It went from there.
Listening to US Presidents, or Vice Presidents, is pretty pointless as they all have one thing in common….they’re not very bright!
I agree. Just pointing out what was said and when
Mod: typo alert in 8. “In 2014, HASA launched a satellite…” Shouldn’t the emboldened be “NASA”?
[Good eyes. Fixed. .mod]
Mod: another typo alert, The Jonestown massacre took place in 1978, which is 37 years ago, not 32 years ago.
Yet another typo alert: Second to last word in the 7th paragraph would read better as “holy” versus “unholy”.
“Holy HASA” has a ring though.
sorry, couldn’t resist.
i’m feeling perky today
Good observations. I like to use the argument: “how many times has the end of the world been announced as a certainty, and how many times has it actually occurred?” That sometimes gets through even to people who absolutely refuse to trust their own lying eyes on the empirical evidence.
Well, one thing Jim Jones did was felicitate “the end of the world” for 914 victims.
“He had promised a “socialist paradise” and a “sanctuary” away from the nasty corporations that were getting much larger, and their influence was growing within the US government….”
Did you mean “facilitate”?
Jonestown was, indeed, typical of ‘socialist paradises’ all over the world.
@ur momisugly Skidance – Yes, I did a spell check and came up with the wrong word. I meant facilitate. – Thanks for pointing that out.
@J. Philip Peterson
I do find that spell check/auto correct, etc. are nearly always incorrect, which is why I seldom use them at all. Is there some way to edit those incorrect corrections? It can be confusing and jarring, and in some cases, might even change the meaning of a sentence. It almost seems that these programs are intended to subvert language rules, doesn’t it? Thus, confusion rules.
The one advantage the Church of AGW has is that the doomsday prophesies can always be pushed on down the road into the future when they don’t come true in the present. They can also take any natural climatic or natural phenomena, like rain, snow, sleet, storm, drought, forest fire, etc. and blame it on “cliamte change”. The gullible loons that worship at the Church immediately agree and demand action, like somehow none of those events ever occurred prior to the Age of Coal and Oil.
This post is confusing. The author seems to be equating the NY prosecutors’ charges that Exxon attempted to deceive the public by denying the alleged “dangers” of fossil fuels and global warming, with Climategate and RICCOgate, which reveal Climatist chicanery and misdeeds, and he even links to Bill McKibbon’s approving New Yorker article about Exxon. Is the author himself confused about which side is which? Or is it just an example of a piece that should have been edited before publication?
/Mr Lynn
I’m a little confused as well. The second part seems a little crazy. I realize that Exxon has taken some heat, but only from the crazies. No sane person has ever suggested Exxon could seriously be in danger of being sued.
If any climatephobes are reading this, “don’t drink the Kool-Aid”.
I’m not real knowledgeable about the RICO statues, but isn’t the real possibility for a case against those perpetrating the hoax of global warming?
Could you post a picture of a RICO statue? I’ve never seen one! LOL
http://hazaah.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Funny-Dog-Statue-resizecrop–.jpg
Its really pushing it there.
Your going to far.
Maybe, Knute. However this is what the climate fraudsters, the one percenters and their lawyers are doing to the entire world. I have had personal experience of their fraudulent agenda. Let’s hope the Parisian farce provides endless comic relief. Ridicule is a powerful weapon.
I loved the image AB.
I didn’t mean the context.
I was intentionally trying to mess up my grammar in order to have fun with Skidance.
Didn’t come through over the blog. Ugh, the shortcomings without the smirk.
OK, here’s another take on that public statue. We are the dog and the building is Greenpeace HQ. 😁
Same same – Shame shame GK
‘The cause’ does indeed have many aspects that suggest that it is reality a ‘religion’ and one of them is the need to create and maintain an ‘evil other ‘ , that is to appear to be ‘good ‘ you must paint others has bad . And so we seen CAGE sceptics declared not merely as ‘wrong’ , but mad or bad or even both and lots of BS claims about how they do not care about the planet at all, hate children and black people and ‘reactionary’
Lew paper’s, work is very much in this vain , has he uses the toxic mix of psychobabble and second rate lies he attempts to claim that any how doubt ‘the cause ‘ most be conspiracy nuts . This is given a double irony in the way he and the CAGW ‘faithful ‘ constantly refer to ‘evil fossil funded ‘ conspiracies, and how often we find that these faithful are also 9/11 truthers and frim believers in the idea that ‘the man is out to get them’
It’s basically Judeochristianity rewritten.
Mankind was in a state of paradise. Capitalism tricked them into eating the forbidden apple of fossil fuels. Now they must remove “carbon” (Satan) from the world by “converting” to “miracle” technology (wind, solar, nuke) in order to prevent the End of Days. Only then can humanity be “saved” from the “original sin” of fossil fuels.
Anyone who does not convert is a “denier”…we deny the Gospel Truth. We’re infidels, heretics, or in the case of those who speak out, agents of Satan (fossil fuel industry).
Of course, the fact that CO2 is one of the most important molecules for life does not matter. The High Priests (IPCC) have declared it demonic and it must be captured and imprisoned deep under ground (sequestration). The fact that fossil fuels has given mankind the power to have such a large population, to be at a high level of technology, and to have the highest standard of living in human history is also ignored. Fossil fuels are demonic, the companies that produce or use them are Satan himself, and when you ask them how they will provide the same standards at the same level using current non-fossil technology, they say the same thing…a miracle of new technology will provide!
They’re religious whackjobs.
Andy
I enjoyed the analogy.
Thought provoking and well written
Debuting in Paris will be C-Fact’s “Climate Hustle”.
The Koolade krowd should love it. Love how it uses their own schtick to poke fun at them.
Thumbs up on that film, Bruce.
Great truthful commentary, Arkady Bukh, Esq, ….. I loved it.
Satan knows the scripture too and he’s the leader of ALL cults.
And where is Satan’s fire cave exactly? Downstair’s from Jesus’ cloud? Or down the block?
Satan’s fire cave is directly above the one reserved for apostrophe abusers.
Dante would agree.
If there is a hell, the manipulator of weakness for personal gain burns the hottest.
IE. The Shaman who manipulates the young insecure girl into seduction.
CAGW preys on the false guilt of the more economically secure. It meshes half truths with personal stories to hook the endorphins in your brain. Your brain can’t do “sentimental” stranded polar bears and logical rigor at the same time. The result is its easier to suspend the intellect and go with the heart. The brain produces happy chemicals and you’ve just established a repeatable routine of false happiness. And it takes less work, Voila’, The introduction of the hoax, the con.
It appears to me that the solution to rewiring that emotional appeal is a sledgehammer approach to smoking guns such as some of the ones that were introduced in Siegel’s article https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace#.nd2yw730v
CAGW is a no brainer, BS hook once you clearly see the warming that took place over the past 5000 years without the influence of man …. and we did quite well thank you. The rest of the spin is just part of the hook, the easy creation of emotional appeals that trigger the happiness in the brain.
Objectively speaking, it’s brilliant. It’s so good that people will imitate its success and try those strategies with other hoaxes.
I couldn’t agree more. I think my new signature will be it’s=it is.
I do wonder how many “climate scientists” bother to check the underlying premises of their work, as most people do not bother to learn or follow language rules. Instead, reliance is upon how everyone else does things.
Keep on the path it appears that you are on, Leland Neraho, and you will find out.
So as you weathermen and women all know, heat rises, correct? So it’s good that I’d be below the fire, wouldn’t it? He music is probably better down there too.
I think the iPad likes abusing apostrophes.
@ur momisugly Janice – seriously? You think all that brimstone stuff is real? Eternity?
Satan doesn’t have a fire cave. I have read the Bible many times, and have seen nothing about any fire cave.
If you want to criticize Christianity, at least make a respectable stab at it.
Looks like we’ll need more lube for the circle…
(…Snip. You were warned before to stop with comments like that. -mod)
Leland
Religion is belief.
Science is not.
It’s okay to be excited and passionate about both.
It’s NOT okay to claim a fact is true because you believe it. You need evidence.
CAGW evidence is sorely lacking and your good will is being taking advantage of.
My hope is that you continue to read sites like this. It shows your curiosity hasn’t died.
Knutesea– Well stated, so thank you for your good will and hospitality. I do continue my curiosity, but like Thanksgiving dinner with my family, I am skeptical since the conversation never changes, nothing is learned, Muslims can now be swapped with Jews, etc. I suspect (no facts whatsoever) that the correlation between tea-party leaning types and climate change skeptics/deniers is quite high. That to me smells like bias, bullishness, etc. Like Cubs fans. As for facts, does this not appear to be the highest level temperature El Nino coming upon us? Ever? Would that not imply warming, and warming above the preferred start date of “the pause”, otherwise known as picking a cherry? So science can become a belief if you only look at data that supports the result you want, which is indirectly not having the government not telling you what to do. Take a poll, how many posters on this site voted for Clinton? I’m pretty sure I didn’t, so that’s one.
Leland – Hypothetically, just suppose that the pattern of global temperature consists of a random walk about a constant temperature (ie, no overall trend). Then every once in a while there will be a “highest ever” temperature. These will not be uniformly spread, so there will even be clusters of “highest ever” temperatures. So, a “highest ever” temperature does not demonstrate that there is a rising trend. A better way of testing the predictions of dangerous warming is to see whether the actual temperature trends at the predicted rate. It doesn’t. Not even close.
Okay, some of those replies were sharp, interesting or pithy, but Mike– yours was the dumbest ever. We can’t even predict our housing market when we control most of the levers and instead watch it crash all around us and drag the world economy down with it. So any human crafted models, yours or theirs, is the last thing I would rely on. But a trend is a trend, and higher levels increase the average and confirm the trend, until it stops. The real issue is whether 7 billion people and how many more cows and pigs and other obese slobs are contributing, generating, or accelerating the warming we are seeing now, not 5000 years ago cuz that’s not where we are now. We are in the present. And Jesus don’t fly. Models, and the people who create them though, are almost always flawed. Except Donald. He is the finest human specimen. Trump for President!
Leland
Are you afraid of climate change ?
Leland N:
Mike Jonas is very much up to speed on this subject. You could learn a lot from him, but when you respond like that it indicates that your mind is closed, and thus you are not capable of learning. But you’re up to speed on snark, I’ll give you that.
You say “a trend is a trend”. I agree. Satellite measurements provide the most accurate temperature data we have. Here is the global temperature trend, which has been flat for almost twenty years now:
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ScreenHunter_9549-Jun.-17-21.12.gif
According to you, that flat trend will continue, until it doesn’t.
And finally, there is no problem with 7 billion humans — or with 10 billion, for that matter. You’re new here, but we had this discussion several years ago. The planet’s current population could easily fit within a one-kilometre sphere, with room to spare. There are similar metrics, which all show that the planet is very sparsely populated.
The problem is that people all want to live in the same desirable places: on the beach, or in cities with lots of jobs and short commutes, or on rivers, or in temperate climates. But most of the planet is sparsely populated. You can live in Alask on forty acres very inexpensively. But would you want to? There’s also Siberia, and Mongolia; vast areas with alomost no people.
The “overpopulation” scare is just another false alarm. Try being skeptical for a change. It will put your mind in gear, and force you to think.
Leland Neraho says:
“As for facts, does this not appear to be the highest level temperature El Nino coming upon us? Ever?”
No. Wrong.
Your “facts” are nonsense. Global temperatures have been far higher in the past. During those times the biosphere flourished with life and teemed with diversity. And CO2 has been much higher in the past; up to 20X today’s levels, which caused no runaway global warming (or any global warming, for that matter).
You are just looking for factoids (like “the highest EVAH!!”) which are really non-facts that you cling to in your confirmation bias. Those factoids support your eco-religious belief in the “dangerous man-made global warming” hoax.
Rather than trying to shoehorn the thousands of well educated readers here into your “tea party” nonsense, you would be better off listening to what’s being said: there is no measurable evidence that supports the ‘dangerous AGW’ scare. That scare is based on opinions, not measurements.
I can boil down this skeptic’s position to a couple of short sentences:
There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening. Everything observed now has happened repeatedly in the past, and to a much greater degree.
Unlike your beliefs, those are verifiable facts. Temperature extremes in the past have been much higher, and much lower, than now. In fact, over the past century we have enjoyed the most benign climate in recorded history — but the alarmist crowd still tries to convince people that there is a crisis.
They are either ignorant of facts, or they are being deceptive. I don’t know which you are, but it’s one or the other. If it’s the latter, you can stick around here and learn the truth. Because if you believe what you’re writing, it’s clear you have been fed plenty of misinformation.
Dear Leland Neraho,
It appears that you at this point only “suspect” … and have not actually studied many (if any) of the science articles on WUWT. If you would like to investigate the facts for yourself, here are some (along with a career climate scientist’s lecture) you can read to learn and make an intellectually honest judgment:
{Due to WordPress weak link-support code, I post only 2 links per comment}
1. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/20/believing-in-six-impossible-things-before-breakfast-and-climate-models/ {you’ll need to watch the video to fully understand the post}
2. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/06/climate-modeling-epic-fail-spencer-the-day-of-reckoning-has-arrived/
3. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/27/another-uncertainty-for-climate-models-different-results-on-different-computers-using-the-same-code/ {Note: the comments are the best part of this post}
4. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/14/an-engineers-take-on-climate-change-2/
5. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/17/climate-and-human-civilization-over-the-last-18000-years/
6. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/07/climate-change-is-dominated-by-the-water-cycle-not-carbon-dioxide/
7. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/new-easy-to-use-reference-book-for-el-nino-and-global-warming/
8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0
(youtube)
Dr. Murry Salby, Hamburg, 2013 (in English after introduction) — clear teaching, thorough, yet, understandable to a non-technical major such as myself (I had to watch it more than once, though
Knute– I am not afraid of climate change. I suffer from Reynaud’s so would gladly welcome a whole lot of warming. However, I do find it despicable that we would leave an 18 trillion dollar deficit to the next generations, as well as an environmental systems deficit of unknown proportions. So I worry about our greedy ethics, the dice we are rolling. The future is uncertain, but a good majority of sound minded institutions– Shell, Chevron, Walmart, Cisco, Google, GM, Berkshire, Apple, Unilever… I can go on and on and on and on– recognize the cost benefit analysis tilts strongly in favor of some action.
Facts are facts, but one way you absolutely cannot support them — Janice–is to cite your own little website. This site is a blog for like minded, self-centered people that Anthony fees with little daily doses of articles to rile you up– it is a religion in itself with no room for debate. Is not a scientific source. Germans don’t cite this place. Scientists don’t cite it, it’s just you guys and one or two gals, that banter back and forth the same way. Same way 5 years ago, same way 2 years ago, and same way now. But things are a melting, droughts are spreading and tides in Florida are ruining the chrome rims while the vortex untethers and dives and dumps just enough snow for an idiot from Oklahoma without a college degree to pick up a snowball and say there is a hoax. A hoax, like a prank, like a religious story on par with Santa Claus, rather than a true scientific debate on probable outcomes and their costs.
Knute– I am not afraid of climate change. I suffer from Reynaud’s so would gladly welcome a whole lot of warming. However, I do find it despicable that we would leave an 18 trillion dollar deficit to the next generations, as well as an environmental systems deficit of unknown proportions. So I worry about our greedy ethics, the dice we are rolling.
Worry is the calm person’s description of fear.
You worry that the world you participate in is greedy and unethical and that greed is putting future generations at risk.
It’s important that you understand what you fear because your fears will make you vulnerable to con artists.
Dear Mr. Neraho,
A dash of cold water seems called for after your overheated exaggerations above:
You are an intellectual sloth, Mr. Neraho. If you had even read ONE of the articles I cited, you would have realized that to say that referring you to those articles was “citing” this site as a source was nonsensical. You would have to also say that to cite the articles of author’s x, y, and z, all published in the Encyclopedia Britannica, was to cite the Encyclopedia Britannica’s editors.
Your ignorance of the science at issue in the AGW debate is very obvious. I cited some basic reading so that you could learn.
And I’m still glad I did. You may be too lazy to read, but, there may one or two others, genuinely seeking truth, who will.
btw: your writing reeks of envy… . Are you happy? If not — DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Your happiness is your choice. We can’t change what happens to us all the time, but, we can control one thing: our attitude.
Hoping that my prayers will be answered for you,
Janice
@ur momisugly Leland Neraho – November 27, 2015 at 2:23 pm
What’s next, Leland?
Are you going to be telling us that you ARE NOT a highly partisan Democrat and that you never voted for Obama either time?
Your above “rantings” infer that you have just recently experienced the self-realization that you have been miseducated, hoodwinked and lied to by those you trusted the most and you are now venting your mental pain, anguish and frustrations on everyone and everything rather than recognizing and accepting the blame for your own faults and mistakes.
“Facts are facts”, ….. and averting your eyes and your mind to them because of your mental anguish and frustrations “serves no good purpose” for you or anyone else.