I have been remiss at posting reviews on several books that people have sent me. I hope to get some of them up in the next week. Dr. Spencer’s announcement below is a start, though his is the one book I don’t have. – Anthony
============
The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists
By Dr. Roy Spencer
Today (April 20) is the official release date of my new book entitled: “The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists“, published by Encounter Books.
About one-half of Blunder is a non-technical description of our new peer reviewed and soon-to-be-published research which supports the opinion that a majority of Americans already hold: that warming in recent decades is mostly due to a natural cycle in the climate system — not to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning.
Believe it or not, this potential natural explanation for recent warming has never been seriously researched by climate scientists. The main reason they have ignored this possibility is that they cannot think of what might have caused it.
You see, climate researchers are rather myopic. They think that the only way for global-average temperatures to change is for the climate system to be forced ‘externally’…by a change in the output of the sun, or by a large volcanic eruption. These are events which occur external to the normal, internal operation of the climate system.
But what they have ignored is the potential for the climate system to cause its own climate change. Climate change is simply what the system does, owing to its complex, dynamic, chaotic internal behavior.
As I travel around the country, I find that the public instinctively understands the possibility that there are natural climate cycles. Unfortunately, it is the climate “experts” who have difficulty grasping the concept. This is why I am taking my case to the public in this book. The climate research community long ago took the wrong fork in the road, and I am afraid that it might be too late for them to turn back.
NATURE’S SUNSHADE: CLOUDS
The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.
How could the experts have missed such a simple explanation? Because they have convinced themselves that only a temperature change can cause a cloud cover change, and not the other way around. The issue is one of causation. They have not accounted for cloud changes causing temperature changes.
The experts have simply mixed up cause and effect when observing how clouds and temperature vary. The book reveals a simple way to determine the direction of causation from satellite observations of global average temperature and cloud variations. And that new tool should fundamentally change how we view the climate system.
Blunder also addresses a second major mistake that results from ignoring the effect of natural cloud variations on temperature: it results in the illusion that the climate system is very sensitive. The experts claim that, since our climate system is very sensitive, then our carbon dioxide emissions are all that is needed to explain global warming. There is no need to look for alternative explanations.
But I show that the experts have merely reasoned themselves in a circle on this subject. When properly interpreted, our satellite observations actually reveal that the system is quite IN-sensitive. And an insensitive climate system means that nature does not really care whether you travel by jet, or how many hamburgers or steaks you eat.
CARBON DIOXIDE: FRIEND OR FOE?
The supposed explanation that global warming is due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide from our burning of fossil fuels turns out to be based upon little more than circumstantial evidence. It is partly a symptom of our rather primitive understanding of how the climate system works.
And I predict that the proposed cure for global warming – reducing greenhouse gas emissions – will someday seem as outdated as using leeches to cure human illnesses.
Nevertheless, despite the fact that scientific knowledge is continually changing, it is increasingly apparent that the politicians are not going to let little things like facts get in their way. For instance, a new draft climate change report was released by the U.S. yesterday (April 19) which, in part, says: “Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced … Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases.”
You see, the legislative train left the station many years ago, and no amount of new science will slow it down as it accelerates toward its final destination: forcibly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
But in Blunder I address what other scientists should have the courage to admit: that maybe putting more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing. Given that it is necessary for life on Earth, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is surprisingly small. We already know that nature is gobbling up 50% of what humanity produces, no matter how fast we produce it. So, it is only logical to address the possibility that nature — that life on Earth — has actually been starved for carbon dioxide.
This should give you some idea of the major themes of my new book. I am under no illusion that the book will settle the scientific debate over global warming.
To the contrary — I am hoping the debate will finally begin.
I checked the reviews at amazon.com and one person gave him two stars for this book because the man had the audacity to believe in God and argue for intelligent design. (*GASP*) How dare a scientist believe in God! (end sarcasm)
Enneagram (13:10:28) :
“It is hubris combined with ignorance that drives ideology
No, I don’t think so, that could be if you refer to the servants (like charlatan Al) but not to the masters, for them it is just cold blooded calculated agenda”
I’m in complete agreement with Enneagram.
I have a relative who often remarks ‘Never attribute to malice, that which can be attributted to stupidity’, this, I think is a mental crutch for many people – the idea that a select group of people (AGW architects) would really plan to socially engineer on such a global level, is too big and threatening to entertain.
I would say the planners actions are self evident, fully disclosed and hardly secretive. A quick read of Thomas Paine lays bare the machinations of those who would be Emperors.
Add to that a groomed and primed public, in part superstitious, in part educated to be gullible, and in part adherents to millenial doom/death cult religions. Add a dash of cruelty – playing on the genuine concern people have for their love ones, manipulate compassion, corrupt their children across every spectrum – isolate them from traditional roles/values/support – and give them a new club/cult/group to belong too – sustained by that oldie but goodie – the need to belong. Steam for one generation, serve cold to the next.
Thank you Roy, Steven, Willis, the two M’s and Anthony, the moderators and others, for keeping the candle lit.
Phil M. (12:32:19) : “Is a corallary to the skeptical viewpoint one that condones boundless consumption of natural resources?”
No, Phil, sceptics do not “condone boundless consumption of natural resouces”. Mankind, including supporters of the AGW hypothesis, is causing unacceptable destruction of the Earth’s finite resouces in many ways: e.g. deforestation, destruction of habitat, water polution, biofuels, wind turbines, etc, etc. We should seek to conserve energy as a matter of economic prudence while developing better, less polluting (e.g. not batteries or windmills), more efficient alternatives. We have plenty of time to do this and must not allow greed and puerile politics to drive us into a wild, destructve panic. “Condoning boundless consumption of natural resources” would be stupid and cannot be described as a corollary to the proposition that increases in atmospheric CO2 will not lead to a world-wide climate catastrophe.
Enneagram (13:57:46) :
No, that train is the legislative laws and acts that are going to be crammed down our throats to de-construct our modern way of life, and for no real, physical reason.
“But in Blunder I address what other scientists should have the courage to admit: that maybe putting more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing. ”
I remember watching a show on one of the cable science-oriented channels where the likely demise of the life on Earth was put forward. The conclusion was that it would be due to CO2 depletion long before the Sun became too hot. The notion was that we had maybe 200 million years left before CO2 became so scarce in the atmosphere that the plants would be dead and the animals would be dead. It was said that this would happen very gradually with one species after another becoming less and less successful until they finally die out.
We can already see evidence of that with gymnosperms where a 2x increase in ambient CO2 results in a 10x increase in seed production. Clearly current CO2 levels are not optimal for gymnosperms, once the dominant forest group.
If nature takes half the CO2 we inject, and then if we double our rate of production and nature *still* takes half of it, that should tell you right there that life on Earth is starved of CO2 and wants to take more.
George E. Smith (12:34:10) :
“IT’S THE WATER; DUMMIES!”
yup – except that it’s not about climate and never was – so who are the dummies? Same rules as ever – who ends up with the cash when the music stops.
Who paid for all this? Who are the dummies? The know they are getting buggered and they giggle over chatting points while the shaft is sunk. Who are the dummies?
CRS, Dr.P.H. (11:38:32) :
“Check out the presentation slides from Dr. John Holdren’s talk at the Chicago Grand Challenges Summit, I can’t recommend them enough for you folks to see where the Obama administration is taking this (nowhere that you want to go, believe me)”
Holdren is a terrible alarmist and his presentation is simply dishonest. It’s scary that this man has the ear of President Obama.
His slides in PDF form are here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/jph-chicago-04212010.pdf
Holdren says, in the context of Climategate:
“Nothing that has come to light in e-mails or controversies about the IPCC rises to a level that would call into question the core understandings from climate science about what is going on…the key findings from climate science have been subjected to an absolutely unprecedented multiplicity and depth of peer reviews. It’s therefore very unlikely that new data or insights will alter these findings in a fundamental way. Policy makers should not bet with the public’s welfare against such long odds, and the public should punish at the polls those who do.”
I’m sure those familiar with the history of science will feel rather nauseated by such a comment.
So that’s it folks: nothing shakes the confidence of the true believers, and nothing ever will. It’s now an inviolable dogma to be believed by all the faithful; civil government must enforce the infallible pronouncements of the Church of Global Warming; and all disobedient heretics must be silenced and punished.
As Dr Spencer says, “it is increasingly apparent that the politicians are not going to let little things like facts get in their way…You see, the legislative train left the station many years ago, and no amount of new science will slow it down as it accelerates toward its final destination: forcibly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”
The role of clouds in influencing temperature was discovered by yours truly long before the good doctor began his education. When I was about 8 years old (56 years ago) I arrived at that conclusion as I noticed whenever my view of the sun was blocked by a cloud it felt cooler, only to have the reverse occur when the cloud no longer blocked the sun. Then again this was not a peer reviewed observation. Oh well.
Phil M. (12:32:19) :
“Is a corallary to the skeptical viewpoint one that condones boundless consumption of natural resources?”
No. I am a skeptic of AGW, and I do not condone boundless consumption. I in turn resent the arrogant and self righteous attitude of the core of AGW believers, particularly when merely questioning is treated with such hostilaty.
“Wise though he may be, Dr. Spencer is clearly not an ecologist. To say that the Earth has historically been CO2 limited and, therefore, an increase in CO2 is a beneficial thing is ridiculous. If this were true, shouldn’t excess N and P in terrestrial waterbodies also be beneficial to humans? Instead, we get algal blooms, which have all sorts of negative impacts on human systems.”
No again. Why do you draw a straight line between attitudes towards CO2 and excess N and P? If I agree with the idea that the Earth has been CO2 limited, why would I then think that excess N and P is beneficial?
“As usual, what ruffles my feathers is not the fact that sceptics feel the way they do about AGW. It’s everything else they have to say.”
Who is “they”?
You have a valid point about excess but please don’t pick the extreme sceptics as speaking for all, unless that is what you want. You could argue that also applies to proponents of AGW, but the difference is AGW has managed to bring about political action that is built on a hypothesis that doesn’t like criticism. That in itself is enough for me to be cynical and critical. And do you think it is healthy to stifle questioning, disagreement, dissent?
I am somewhat angry about AGW because I think far from helping raise awareness of the world around us (I loathe that expression) it has created strong partisan view points, when what we really really need is open and free thinking.
For me Easter Island is an incredible example of what happens when we humans do not comprehend that there are limits. They (Easter Islanders) must have been so fixated on fighting each other, probably brought about by running out of space, that they cleared all the trees. Once they had achieved that they could no longer catch the fish that supplemented their diet, because they couldn’t build any boats, and then it must have got a whole lot worse. I can imagine one of the islanders being sceptical about following the course they were on and how they would have been treated. Well, we know what happened. They just had to keep on building those statues, and making them bigger and bigger, because that is the way we are.
A lot of our problems a far simpler than the complexity of a runaway warming caused by a trace element that occupies 3% of 1% of the atmosphere, that after the sun;s heat has hit the earth and bounced back up, this trace element catches this reflected heat and sends it back down again and then the earth really starts to warm up. We should deal with the simple problems first.
I have ordered my copy.
While I agree that one should never ascribe to malice what is adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity, there is a class of operators in politics whose goals are sheer power. They will use any available tool to achieve power.
This book is needed.
We need to support politicians who clearly understand that any form of coercion is a warning flag.
Kindle version please. Don’t need a (rather expensive) Kindle — rather I use the free Kindle PC software.
After decades of computer use, I prefer to read blogs, news, and books off the screen now.
Kindle book delivery is instantaneous and a couple bucks cheaper than printed media. Nothing not to like, for me. I could be reading right now.
Epistemic Closure (12:54:07) :
I suggest you examine the difference between energy and temperature. You can start by looking at the constant pressure specific heat capacity of water vs. the constant pressure specific heat capacity of air.
Layne Blanchard (11:52:01) :
The AGW movement isn’t even about reducing C02. It’s a swirling vortex of Marxist/Communist Ideologues, Religious zealots, anti Capitalist/ Anti American /Anti Industrial Nutballs, Rent seekers and idiots. Did I forget anyone?
______________________________________________________________________________
Yes! You forgot the key people who want complete control, the central banksters.
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome,
“We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis…”
– David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member
the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march
towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty
of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable
to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
– David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member
The Danish text
The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after d
developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents…
The draft hands effective control of climate change
finance to the World Bank…
John Vidal
guardian.co.uk
Tuesday 8 December 2009
I suggest reading A PRIMER ON MONEY: by US House Committee on Banking and Currency and History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job The bankers are very good at gradually grabbing control of what they want.
Well if you worked your way through my Birdseye thougth experiment above, you should have a process of continuing increase in atmospheric water vapor, and also increasing atmospheric temperature, but the increasing water vapor will absorb an increasing amount of incoming sunlight which will further warm the atmosphere but further cool the surface, by lowering the ground level insolation. The continually warming moist atmosphere, whether warmed by incomeing solar absorption, or by increasing absorption of outgoing LWIR emissions from an increasingly warm surface, will rise through the colder upper layers bring moisture to ever higher atmospheric layers, and increasing cloud formation which will further lower the ground level insolation.
It is conjectured that the diminishing ground level insolation, and increasing cloud cover will eventually bring the warming to a halt at some unknown temperature and atmospheric ,moisture condition. I say this is a conjecture, because I have never done the actual experiment so I can’t say for sure that it ever stops warming.
So that is why we should now do the Venus Experiment; which is the complete opposite of the Birdseye Experiment. In the Venus experiment we want to establish complete cloud cover over the entire earth essentially from the ground to say 20 Km height; pick a number. We want full saturated vapor pressure of water vapor, and nano water droplets forming a single complete cloud from teh ground to 20 km bordering on precipitation. To get even more water into the atmosphere, we warm the atmosphere from the surface up to say out 20 km up to + 50 deg C; unless some place is already hottere than that; in which case it retains its present temperature. We did this so fast that no snow or ice on the ground or ocean has melted; and only the air adjacent to the surface is at 50 deg C. I really don’t care if you make it 99 deg C; if we are trying to emulate Venus; we aren’t concerned whether any life exists. Well all the people and animals can go inside; where it is anormal temperature.
So now we let reality set in.
Th earth albedo is now much higher; probably higher than 0.8, since the thick clouds are highly reflective in the solar spectrum. so not a lot of the solar spectrum enters the clouds where it is highly scattered.
With 20 km of this total saturated atmosphere; it’s a fairly safe bet that virtually no solar radiation reaches the surface, which is near total darkness.
The top of the clouds being at 50 deg C (or 99) will be quite strongly radiating LWIR thermal radiation at double or more the average 390W/m^2 that we get at 288 K; and with the clouds reflecting 80% of the 1366 W/m^2 TSI we are capturing less than 275W/m^2 from the sun; with maybe 700 going out.
So the upper atmopshere is cooling, and convection and conduction is transporting heat from the surface to the top of the clouds; so the surface too is cooling.
Since we postulated that the atmosphere is everywhere saturated and even nano droplets of liquid exist (part of the cloud); we can hypothesize that some sort of precipitation should start to occur. Given that we started with +50 deg C (or 99), this is most likely in the form of rain.
It might rain for 40 days and 40 nights; but precipitation in some form, is going to start removing vast amounts of excess H2O molecules from the atmosphere, so the cloud density is going to thin. Some of the water vapor, will even start to form new droplets, and the atmospheric temperature will continue to fall, since even at 288 K it should be losing 390 W/m^2, while the albedo is only allowing 275 or less back in from the sun.
Well as the cloud density reduces, the absorption of solar spectrum energy diminishes, and some sunlight starts to reach the ground, which will slow the cooling rate of the surface due to LWIR emissions.
Eventually, the clouds will start to break up, as the moisture content diminishes with all the precipitation, and the upper reaches of the clouds may eventually reach the local freezing point so that ice crystal clouds can also form, and eventually snow and maybe even hail will precipitate.
As precipitation continues, the amount of cloud cover diminishes, and more sunlight reaches the ground so the cooling process continues to slow, and the surface temperature may eventually stop falling.
It is conjectured that at some point the amount of sunlight reaching the ground is enough to halt the cooling and a stable amount of cloud cover is established. But I have never actually done this experiment; so I do not know for sure that that is what happens; which is why we should do the Birdseye experiment; to see if the earth can cool withoug limit as this Venus process continues.
Without proof, it is my thesis that the Birdseye experiment reaches a stable temperature (the Birdseye Temperature) where further heating results in more evaporation and cloud which blocks enough extra sunlight to halt the warming. It is also hypothesized that in the Venus Experiment, the cooling process eventually stops when further cooling results in the precipitation of more water, thus reducing the cloud amount by enough to let more sunlight in to stop the cooling. This would stop at the Venus Temperature.
I have no way of knowing if the Venus Temperature, and the Birdseye Temperature are the same value. Presumably the Venus Temperature would be equal to or greater than the Birdseye Temperature.
If those two temperatures are in fact distinct; then presumably an atmospheric state at a Temperature warmer than the Birdseye Temperature, but Colder than the Venus Temperature is inherently unstable, and the system would be drive either up to the Venus Temperature; or down to the Birdseye temeprature.
However it is also possible that there could be more stable Temperature conditions intermediate between these two. They shoud occur in pairs, and each pair would either boud a stable region or an unstable region, with stable and unstable zones alternating.
So right now, we don’t know whether planet earth is at or near either of my two special temperatures; or is indeed in transition between them.
I know of absolutely no experimental observed evidence, that any more stable atmospheric Temperatures and corresponding states, besides the Venus, and Birdseye Temperatures, actually exists; nor am I aware of any theoretical basis for believing that the Birdseye and Venus Temperatures are in fact different.
It seems to me, that the results of these mental experiments suggest that so long as the general orbital and solar TSI conditions remain generally in the present range; that neither thermal runaway to an increasingly hot state; or an increasingly cold state is even possible.
The starting points of each of these two mental experiments, are so hostile to stable existence; that it is inconceivable that either one can ever exist or that our planet can ever be driven to either state.
So i will reiterate, what I believe to be true; and have been saying in one form or another for at least five years.
The range of comfortable temperatures on planet earth are a direct result of the Physical, Chemical and probably Biological properties of the H2O molecule; and so long as we have those oceans, we can neither raise nor lower the temperature of the planet; even if we wanted to.
Leif is always hinting that he doesn’t think the sun (TSI) is a controlling factor of earth climate (or words to that effect).
And eons of geological history proxies suggest that CO2 has very little effect either.
The mechanisms described in these two thought experiments show that variations in both of those variables is easily compensated by the feedback control, due to the co-existing three phases of H2O in the earth atmosphere.
So I am interested to see what Dr Spencer has revealed in his book; all I have done is doodle in the sand on a desert island with a stick.
Thanks for the book. I’ll put it on my list. I appreciate that your comments and articles always seem balanced to me. First and foremost, I am interested to see the science done right, regardless of political persuasion.
This is not Spencer’s new angle on clouds, but this quote from a CRU scientist does remind us that, with this debate, when it comes to the account for clouds and moisture in the GCMs it is plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose:
Climate Present, Past and Future Vol 2, 1977 by H. H. Lamb (1913-97), founding director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
1/ Leeches are extremely useful medical devices and are essential to limb re-attachment procedures!
2/Satellites show a 4% decrease in cloud cover, a forcing of about 3.5W/m2.
This is almost the same as from a doubling of CO2 (3.7W) yet the temperature only rose by 0.4deg C, not 3 to 4 deg.
Without negative feed back the temp should have gone up by at least 1 degC
Clearly Negative feedback dominates and the IPCC estimate is out by a factor of ten.
3/We are in a “Carbon drought!”
Much more catchy than trying to say the world is starved of carbon 🙂
Phil M. (12:32:19) :
Indulge me in setting the global warming discussion aside for a moment:
…..Should we be telling our children that eating five pounds of corn-fed, hormone-laced beef everyday is just fine by us, and Nature? Has anyone here been paying attention to the statistics on obesity in the USA?…..
_____________________________________________________________________________
I suggest you read History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job
Eating beef is NOT the problem. That is just as much of a hoax as CAGW. I lost thirty pounds by eating lots of grass & corn fed beef and a tiny salad. The real problem is the high fructose corn syrup and salt put in everything as well as the soft drink and candy machines placed in the schools. All that salt makes everyone buy more drinks full of corn syrup. Fat actually curbs my appetite, perhaps that is why we have the well publicized no fat campaign to make people hungry.
Then take the current craze for recycling plastics. Recycling chops the chain length making the plastic weak so now a pair of rubber muck boots last less than three months before they crack, while my old ones are over 15 yrs old. The same goes for the muck buckets. I have old ones that are fifteen years old and the new ones break in three to six months. As far as I am concerned “GREEN” is a big sales promotion for the corporations to make more money off of us.
No one here is suggesting we should all live like Al Gore. Heck I was a member of Greenpeace and Sierra Club back in the sixties. That does not mean I think that a totalitarian government is what we need to “SAVE THE PLANET” and THAT is the ultimate goal of the people behind the green curtain.
“”” berniel (16:16:04) :
This is not Spencer’s new angle on clouds, but this quote from a CRU scientist does remind us that, with this debate, when it comes to the account for clouds and moisture in the GCMs it is plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose: “””
So just who was it that gave these chaps the authority to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and yet keep both the amount of cloud cover and the relative humidity caonstant ? Who gave them such control over the laws of Physics ?
And why did they not simply hold all the temperatures constant, while they increased the CO2 so they could see what the climate effect of that is ?
Here’s an interesting quote relevant to the tendency for experts (whose social standing etc. depends on their “knowing better” than what’s obvious to Joe Schmoe) to go off half-cocked with some outré, ass-backwards interpretation of what’s happening (from Anthony Standen’s Science Is A Sacred Cow):
Johnny D (12:32:55) :
CRS, Dr.P.H. (11:38:32):
” … in my chosen field of public health …”
What if the air quality co-benefits (reduced ozone, PM, and air toxics concentrations) for public health of a GHG reduction policy outweighed some/all of the costs? How would you feel then?
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/1/014007
——-
REPLY: Well, that is exactly what I work on! My own emphasis is upon neurotoxic metals, and most of the mercury in our seafood originated in coal-fired utilities. That is the source of the surge in autistic disorders we are seeing.
Illinois high-sulfur coal is selling very well, as utilities are upgrading their sulfur scrubbers in order to burn this inexpensive source of fuel. Our mines haven’t had such good business in many decades.
However, there is a difference between these toxic elements, which are relatively easy/inexpensive to control, and carbon dioxide, which is not. The emphasis of the climate community and their political patrons is upon re-engineering societies habits, energy consumption patterns and transportation choices.
If you doubt me, look at Hanson’s powerpoint slides, above.
Anthony,
Would having an “Amazon” link on your site be a worthwhile revenue generator for you?
AGW was a Reign of Fear* with its inquisitors from the AGW Inquisition* of the UN/IPCC.
The fear was the Fear of our planet being cremated in an apocalyptic fire-hell ignited by AGW, aka a man-made disaster as O would say.
“*Chapter 11”
“*The Threat of Knowledge”
“Thus silence has been imposed upon the learned;
and as for those who ran to the call of science, as you say,
great terror has been inspired in them (the Skeptics).”
Fear’s sister was Hope; the Hope of the remission of the Mann-made Devil CO2, including indulgences, aka carbon credits. Thus, the CO2 apocalypse would be avoided.
Underneath was the left-liberal urge for totalitarian Power and central control of the entire world population by the United Nations.
The Torquemada’s included Hansen, Gore, Mann, Jones, Suzuki, de Boer, Pachauri, Merkel, and Canadian Maurice Strong, et al.
Their torture chamber was at the CRU.
H/T:
“*Inquisition”
“The Reign of Fear”
Toby Green(sic)
Pan Books 2007
The mirror image of the AGW Fear/Hope is the Hope/Fear of Obama, et al.