This press release was provided by Sandia National Labs:
In an effort to shed light on the wide spectrum of thought regarding the causes and extent of changes in Earth’s climate, Sandia National Laboratories has invited experts from a wide variety of perspectives to present their views in the Climate Change and National Security Speaker Series.
Predictions by climate models are flawed, says invited speaker at Sandia
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen, a global warming skeptic, told about 70 Sandia researchers in June that too much is being made of climate change by researchers seeking government funding. He said their data and their methods did not support their claims.
“Despite concerns over the last decades with the greenhouse process, they oversimplify the effect,” he said. “Simply cranking up CO2 [carbon dioxide] (as the culprit) is not the answer” to what causes climate change.
Lindzen, the ninth speaker in Sandia’s Climate Change and National Security Speaker Series, is Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology in MIT’s department of earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and is the lead author of Chapter 7 (“Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks”) of the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Third Assessment Report. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a fellow of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society.
For 30 years, climate scientists have been “locked into a simple-minded identification of climate with greenhouse-gas level. … That climate should be the function of a single parameter (like CO2) has always seemed implausible. Yet an obsessive focus on such an obvious oversimplification has likely set back progress by decades,” Lindzen said.
For major climates of the past, other factors were more important than carbon dioxide. Orbital variations have been shown to quantitatively account for the cycles of glaciations of the past 700,000 years, he said, and the elimination of the arctic inversion, when the polar caps were ice-free, “is likely to have been more important than CO2 for the warm episode during the Eocene 50 million years ago.”
There is little evidence that changes in climate are producing extreme weather events, he said. “Even the IPCC says there is little if any evidence of this. In fact, there are important physical reasons for doubting such anticipations.”
Lindzen’s views run counter to those of almost all major professional societies. For example, the American Physical Society statement of Nov. 18, 2007, read, “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.” But he doesn’t feel they are necessarily right. “Why did the American Physical Society take a position?” he asked his audience. “Why did they find it compelling? They never answered.”
Speaking methodically with flashes of humor — “I always feel that when the conversation turns to weather, people are bored.” — he said a basic problem with current computer climate models that show disastrous increases in temperature is that relatively small increases in atmospheric gases lead to large changes in temperatures in the models.
But, he said, “predictions based on high (climate) sensitivity ran well ahead of observations.”
Real-world observations do not support IPCC models, he said: “We’ve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing) and that has produced very little warming.”
He disparaged proving the worth of models by applying their criteria to the prediction of past climatic events, saying, “The models are no more valuable than answering a test when you have the questions in advance.”
Modelers, he said, merely have used aerosols as a kind of fudge factor to make their models come out right. (Aerosols are tiny particles that reflect sunlight. They are put in the air by industrial or volcanic processes and are considered a possible cause of temperature change at Earth’s surface.)
Then there is the practical question of what can be done about temperature increases even if they are occurring, he said. “China, India, Korea are not going to go along with IPCC recommendations, so … the only countries punished will be those who go along with the recommendations.”
He discounted mainstream opinion that climate change could hurt national security, saying that “historically there is little evidence of natural disasters leading to war, but economic conditions have proven much more serious. Almost all proposed mitigation policies lead to reduced energy availability and higher energy costs. All studies of human benefit and national security perspectives show that increased energy is important.”
He showed a graph that demonstrated that more energy consumption leads to higher literacy rate, lower infant mortality and a lower number of children per woman.
Given that proposed policies are unlikely to significantly influence climate and that lower energy availability could be considered a significant threat to national security, to continue with a mitigation policy that reduces available energy “would, at the least, appear to be irresponsible,” he argued.
Responding to audience questions about rising temperatures, he said a 0.8 of a degree C change in temperature in 150 years is a small change. Questioned about five-, seven-, and 17-year averages that seem to show that Earth’s surface temperature is rising, he said temperatures are always fluctuating by tenths of a degree.
As for the future, “Uncertainty plays a huge role in this issue,” Lindzen said. “It’s not that we expect disaster, it’s that the uncertainty is said to offer the possibility of disaster: implausible, but high consequence. Somewhere it has to be like the possible asteroid impact: Live with it.”
To a sympathetic questioner who said, “You are like a voice crying in the wilderness. It must be hard to get published,” Lindzen said, adding that billions of dollars go into funding climate studies. “The reward for solving problems is that your funding gets cut. It’s not a good incentive structure.”
Asked whether the prudent approach to possible climate change would be to prepare a gradated series of responses, much as insurance companies do when they insure cars or houses, Lindzen did not shift from his position that no actions are needed until more data is gathered.
When another Sandia employee pointed out the large number of models by researchers around the globe that suggest increases in world temperature, Lindzen said he doubted the models were independently derived but rather might produce common results because of their common origins.
The Climate Security lecture series is funded by Sandia’s Energy, Climate and Infrastructure Security division. Rob Leland is director of Sandia’s Climate Security Program.
Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin company, for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration. With main facilities in Albuquerque, N.M., and Livermore, Calif., Sandia has major R&D responsibilities in national security, energy and environmental technologies and economic competitiveness.
h/t to Marc Marano
Bill Tuttle says: @ur momisugly July 28, 2012 at 3:23 am
…..It most certainly is not cherry-picking. According to warmist doctrine, the Arctic is the bellweather…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bill, here is your real Arctic Bell Wether
HenryP, Gail Combs – Regarding ocean pH: http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/oa/description/oaps_intro_oa.html
Whether you consider it acidification (the correct term for a solution becoming less basic and more acidic, a decreasing pH, much as moving in any direction from the South Pole is considered moving Northward) or prefer to argue/nitpick over terminology, the pH of the oceans _is_ changing quite quickly. Although this is rather off-topic for the thread, that is what the data shows: “…will likely double over its pre-industrial value by the middle of this century, representing perhaps the most dramatic change in ocean chemistry in over 20 million years [Feely et al., 2004 http://iod.ucsd.edu/courses/sio278/documents/feely_et_al_04_co2_ocean_science.pdf ].”
—
Various re: 2000 meters – That data (http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/) is for 0-2000 meters, not 1000-2000. While not as complete as anyone would like (average ocean depth is ~3790 meters), it’s the best data we have on the oceans, which are >90% of the thermal mass of the climate.
—
Various re: aerosol effects – Several people seem to be claiming that aerosols have no effect, or a positive forcing, or otherwise just don’t matter (quite frankly, I’m having trouble following _what_ is being claimed): Take a look at John N-G’s blog, where he shows volcanic aerosol effects from Pinatubo and Agong eruptions with nothing more complicated than Excel (http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/04/about-the-lack-of-warming/), or do a bit of Googling on industrial aerosols such as scholar.google.com/scholar?q=china+aerosol+climate+observations – aerosols have a net negative forcing, and Lindzen’s assumption of “zero” is unwarranted.
—
Finally, Will Nitschke: I do not hold with Argument from Authority, but rather prefer that my words stand on their own merits. Lindzen has made statements that are contradicted by the data, and hence I consider those statements of little worth. I’m also far from the only person to have come to that conclusion. I have not guessed at or attributed motivations or character, although you appear to be more than ready to do so in my case. Too bad – look at the data.
—
At this time I feel I’ve made my point: Lindzen’s statement on doubling CO2 forcing and insufficient warming is contradicted by the data, and I believe I’ve pointed that out. The thread is now wandering far afield, so:
Adieu.
Gail Combs says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/25/lindzen-at-sandia-national-labs-climate-models-are-flawed/#comment-1046243
Thanks! Good quote.
Water absorbs strongly in the UV region and because it is liquid it passes the <0.4 um quickly as heat in the top layers.
."…The changes so far are not enough to reverse the course of global warming"
Here, they seem to rely on observations of various datasets showing about +0.2 C warming since 2000. However my dataset is showing -0.2 C since 2000.
0.2 is not a lot either way, in fact my son laughed at me worrying about it, seeing that the walls in my house differ by more than 0.5 and the accuracy of most thermometers is around 0.2.
However, I believe my dataset is less dependant on calibration and therefore I will rather stick to my own dataset. Somebody is trying to rig the results or somebody is messing up with the calibration procedures. My dataset also shows that cooling will accelerate, so it will not be too long before people will begin to notice it.
HenryP says:
July 28, 2012 at 9:14 am
@ur momisugly me: That is an impressive paper you gave.
Thanks, Henry, but I’m not smart enough to have given it, just to have found it (and bookmarked it).
Gail Combs says:
July 28, 2012 at 10:23 am
Bill, here is your real Arctic Bell Wether.
Gail, I don’t know what’s scarier — that you knew where to find that pic or that you knew it existed in the first place…
KR says:
July 28, 2012 at 10:42 am
Lindzen has made statements that are contradicted by the data, and hence I consider those statements of little worth. I’m also far from the only person to have come to that conclusion.
Adieu.
Translation: “All my talking points have been thoroughly skewered, so I’ll declare victory and run away.”
KR says (again)
the pH of the oceans _is_ changing quite quickly….
Henry says
Rubbish. Where? How is this calculated globally in terms of volumes?? How do you reckon it is related to CO2 sinking (see my quoted chemical reactions earlier in a post) unless there is massive sinking of CO2? (there has not been a lot of cooling yet – but from my results so far I can predict it is coming)
Bill Tuttle says: @ur momisugly July 28, 2012 at 11:30 am
Gail, I don’t know what’s scarier — that you knew where to find that pic or that you knew it existed in the first place…
____________________________
I knew it had to exist. Wethers (castrated male goats) are belled and used to lead flocks of sheep and to defend them in third world countries where there is no fencing. I had a friend chased up onto the hood of the car by a very irrate wether in Mexico. The sucker must have weighed a good 250 lbs. Biggest goat I have ever seen and I owned one that was 40″ at the shoulder.
HenryP,
I am inclined to agree that we are seeing the top of the curve and that is why the temperature have been flat for 10 to 15 years. The ocean oscillations are going cold, ENSO is changing to a more La Niña dominated mode (maybe see Bob Tisdale on ENSO.) The sun has gone quiet and they have finally figured out that while TSI maybe relatively constant the ratios of the wavelengths are not. also the atmospheric wind circulations seem to be going from zonal to meridional with blocking Highs like what caused the drought in Russia last year and the drought in the USA this year. I live on the top of a windy ridge (no mosquitos) and the change in wind direction has been very apparent. It is no longer always out of the west.
You might like to read E. M Smith’s article Of Turbulence, Hadley / Ferrel Cells, and Loopy Jet Streams and Stephen Wilde’s new climate model
ANyone who still thinks warming will continue is naive and that is why the mad push to get carbon trading and carbon taxes in place before the population understands they have been “sheared like sheep” for no good reason.
Bill, pls also note that your misspelling of “bellwether” has been corrected. A “wether” is a male sheep, and a bellwether is a male sheep wearing a bell and leading a flock. Nothing to do with “weather”.
Bil Tuttle notes:
Adieu.
Translation: “All my talking points have been thoroughly skewered, so I’ll declare victory and run away
Adieu is used either by the French or Belgium/Holland
KR is not French. French people are not great at English. His English is too good.
\ Belgium people are not regarded as very clever by the Dutch people…
(I was born in Holland – I hope KR is not Dutch…)
Brian H says:
July 28, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Bill, pls also note that your misspelling of “bellwether” has been corrected.
Heh — if I’d had my third pot of coffee on time, I wouldn’t have misspelled it in the first place…
HenryP says:
…KR is not French. French people are not great at English. His English is too good.
\ Belgium people are not regarded as very clever by the Dutch people…
_________________________
ROTFLMAO, I lived in Europe for a while and that comment brings back some ‘interesting’ jokes about their cleverness.
On the wether/weather, I was trying to be nice about the spelling correction and give a good visual of the difference. It is a common mistake because the meaning of the term wether is not well known outside of sheep and goat farmers. Lots of interesting terms used in every day language that most people do not connect to the origins.
KR Wrote:
Finally, Will Nitschke: I do not hold with Argument from Authority, but rather prefer that my words stand on their own merits. Lindzen has made statements that are contradicted by the data, and hence I consider those statements of little worth. I’m also far from the only person to have come to that conclusion. I have not guessed at or attributed motivations or character, although you appear to be more than ready to do so in my case. Too bad – look at the data.
===============================
In your opening post you wrote:
“his [Lindzen’s] claim is (IMO) utter nonsense. Lindzen keeps making the same set of bad arguments over and over and they continue to be unsupportable….”
Yet you now write “I have not guessed at or attributed motivations or character [to Lindzen]”.
Seriously?
How can you claim a scientist from MIT is writing ‘utter nonsense’ and repeating unsupportable claims “over and over” while at the same time asserting you are not implying bad motivations? At best you are being disingenuous and at worst reprehensible. (Besides obviously back peddling away from your original claims or introducing ‘adjustments’ to them with each subsequent posting.)
OK, but look at this exchange from my point of view. This thread is discussing the perspective of an MIT climate researcher who is an expert in climate sensitivity issues with 240 published papers to his credit. He may, or may not, be wrong of course.
In contrast, there are a couple of anonymous posters here rubbishing his work that go by the name of “KR”, “Wombat”, etc. Their ‘evidence’ seems to consist of expressing lots of opinions based on their air chair interpretation of the data, plus several links to an amateur climate blog…
Who to believe?
Possibly if you linked to a critique by someone from the other side, i.e., a James Hansen, or Andrew Dessler? If Lindzen is so obviously wrong that he is in effect intentionally misleading the public, why don’t these guys speak up and correct him publicly? Why does it seem always left to these anonymous posters on the internet to attack scientists? And they always do so in a very arrogant and nasty way… (sigh)
Will Nitschke – A brief response, as I will be occupied by other things for the next while: If, as you seem to require (“Possibly if you linked to a critique by someone from the other side…?”) an Argument by Authority, you might find it worth reading Gavin Schmidt’s discussion of Lindzen’s House Of Lords testimony, where Lindzen gave many of the same arguments he presented in speaking to Sandia Labs:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/richard-lindzens-hol-testimony/
Schmidt discusses multiple papers, links to multiple references, to _actual data_ (which you have not presented), on and on. If you wish papers, I would suggest going to Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/) and looking up some of:
Hartmann & Michelsen (2002), Harrison (2002), Lin et al. (2002), Fu et al. (2002) [eh, not a great paper IMO, actually], Del Genio & Kovari (2002), Chambers et al. (2002), Lin et al. (2003), Lin et al. (2004), Rapp et al. (2005), Trenberth et al. (2010), Lin et al. (2010), Murphy (2010), Dessler (2010), Dessler (2011).
Those are _all_ peer-reviewed direct rebuttals of Lindzen’s various works.
However, I find rather _odd_ that while accusing me of selectively favoring argumentum ad verecundiam, you are the one requesting it…
KR – I do not accept your story – you may believe it, but I do not.
What is your predictive track record? Do you have one?
I hope it is better than the IPCC’s track record – they have not yet been correct in ANY of their dire predictions.
The IPCC has a perfect record, but in the negative – the IPCC has been 100% wrong.
KR says:
July 28, 2012 at 7:16 pm
Will Nitschke – A brief response, as I will be occupied by other things for the next while: If, as you seem to require (“Possibly if you linked to a critique by someone from the other side…?”) an Argument by Authority, you might find it worth reading Gavin Schmidt’s discussion…[snipped link to 2006 RC article]…Schmidt discusses multiple papers…
What Teh Gav says:
Schmidt is demanding proof of the Null Hypothesis, which is a false argument and he *knows* that. The Null is the Null — it’s up to him to falsify it, rather than demanding proof of it.
…links to multiple references, to _actual data_ (which you have not presented), on and on.
Why are you suddenly demanding Will provide you data when there are at least eight other commenters on the thread who have already done so?
KR, I appreciate that Dessler, et al., are critical of Lindzen.They are made fools of if they do not defend themselves, that much is obvious. I was referring to *your* claims and *your* assertions that Lindzen was a repeat liar or crank. Do you have any links to academics who defend the point of view that you have expressed here? It’s dishonest to do a Gish Gallop by tossing in a heap of unrelated links to unrelated arguments if they don’t support the specific assertions you have made here. I’m sorry to sound harsh but why can’t you even use your real name? Why hide behind initials? What qualifications in this field do you have? Even if you have none, that’s fine, but what links can you provide (other than amateur blogs or un-peer reviewed claims also from blogs) that support the specific claims you are making?
E.g., By referencing Dessler (2011) I’m guessing you are referring to Desseler’s paper “Cloud variations and the earth’s energy budget”. What has this got to do, if anything, with the claims *you* have made in this thread? Can you demonstrate via peer reviewed links that you are not, in fact, a crank?
In hindsight, maybe KR is french Canadian.
OTOH
Most Canadians that I have met are very clever.
Either way, clever people never break possible ties
Au revoir is always better than adieu.
Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and I published an article in the PEGG in 2002:
Here is what we predicted a decade ago:
Our eight-point Summary* includes a number of predictions that have all materialized in those countries in Western Europe that have adopted the full measure of global warming mania. My country, Canada, was foolish enough to sign the Kyoto Protocol, but then wise enough to ignore it.
Summary*
Full article at
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
Kyoto has many fatal flaws, any one of which should cause this treaty to be scrapped.
1. Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.
2. Kyoto focuses primarily on reducing CO2, a relatively harmless gas, and does nothing to control real air pollution like NOx, SO2, and particulates, or serious pollutants in water and soil.
3. Kyoto wastes enormous resources that are urgently needed to solve real environmental and social problems that exist today. For example, the money spent on Kyoto in one year would provide clean drinking water and sanitation for all the people of the developing world in perpetuity.
4. Kyoto will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and damage the Canadian economy – the U.S., Canada’s biggest trading partner, will not ratify Kyoto, and developing countries are exempt.
5. Kyoto will actually hurt the global environment – it will cause energy-intensive industries to move to exempted developing countries that do not control even the worst forms of pollution.
6. Kyoto’s CO2 credit trading scheme punishes the most energy efficient countries and rewards the most wasteful. Due to the strange rules of Kyoto, Canada will pay the former Soviet Union billions of dollars per year for CO2 credits.
7. Kyoto will be ineffective – even assuming the overstated pro-Kyoto science is correct, Kyoto will reduce projected warming insignificantly, and it would take as many as 40 such treaties to stop alleged global warming.
8. The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.
[end of excerpt]
______
P.S.:
In a separate article in the Calgary Herald, also published in 2002, I (we) predicted imminent global cooling, starting by 2020 to 2030. This prediction is still looking good, since there has been no net global warming for about a decade, and solar activity has crashed. If this cooling proves to be severe, humanity will be woefully unprepared and starvation could result. This possibility (probability) concerns me.
______
P.P.S.:
In 2008, I published that dCO2/dt varied ~contemporaneously with average global temperature, and atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged temperature by ~9 months. This CO2-lags-temperature observation is consistent with longer lag times observed (on longer cycles) in the ice core data. I concluded in 2008 that temperature drives CO2, not the reverse. This conclusion is opposite to the conventional “wisdom” of BOTH sides of the rancorous global warming (CAGW) debate. I now predict that within ten years, temperature-drives-CO2 will be the newly accepted scientific premise of the climate science community.
Full article at :
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
My paper was published two years before Murry Salby presented the same conclusion, with more supporting evidence, at:
______
Finally, I conclude that the entire global warming crisis has been a huge waste of scarce global resources (see prediction #3 above) that could have been used to solve real environmental and social problems that exist today, such as providing clean drinking water and sanitation systems in the third world. In the ~25 years that the world has obsessed with alleged dangerous humanmade global warming, over 50 million children below the age of 5 have died from drinking contaminated water. That is more people (of all ages and from all sides) than were killed in World War 2. That is the “nominal” cost of the misguided obsession with global warming mania. And that reality also concerns me.
No man is an island, alone unto itself;
every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is diminished,
even as a promontory were,
even as a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were:
every man’s death concerns me, because I am concerned with mankind,
and therefore send not to know for whom the bells tolls;
it tolls for thee.
— John Donne (1624)
From Meditations, XVII
Will Nitschke – The articles I listed discuss Linzen’s various arguments for low climate sensitivity, including the recent Lindzen and Choi 2011 paper (a repeat of the errors in LC09). His arguments in this regard are thoroughly dismissed.
If you don’t follow or trust the math I presented (and nobody on this forum has shown any issues with that – other than claims that all of the data is wrong) discussing the particular point of his repeated claim that we haven’t seen as much warming as the models predicted (which ties into that sensitivity claim of his), I would suggest Rahmstorf 2008 (http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf) or Coby Beck 2006 (http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/06/observations-show-climate-sensitivity/). These are direct rebuttals to this line of argument, and to Lindzen in particular.
I do, however, find it quite disappointing that you have ignored my simple math re: warming and sensitivity, demanding an Argument from Authority before you consider it seriously. From my point of view, if you cannot dig into a subject enough to evaluate methods and reasoning, you have little standing to express an opinion regarding the work of those who do.
Rahmstorf’s “Personal Postscript” sums up many of my feelings:
Allan McRae says
1) I concluded in 2008 that temperature drives CO2, not the reverse.
2) In a separate article in the Calgary Herald, also published in 2002, I (we) predicted imminent global cooling, starting by 2020 to 2030. This prediction is still looking good, since there has been no net global warming for about a decade, and solar activity has crashed. If this cooling proves to be severe, humanity will be woefully unprepared and starvation could result. This possibility (probability) concerns me.
Henry@Allan
Allan, good comment!
1) This is what I have been saying since I started my investigations in 2009
I learned this from Fred Haynie who sadly seemed to have passed away last year.
There is a continuous process of outgassing- due to heat- and sinking of CO2 – due to cold- going on, I gave the chemical reactions earlier on in this thread.
2) It seems nobody who is anybody in climate science is plotting maxima>
YET it is exactly the maxima data that gave me a breakthrough on the warming and cooling cycles.
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
You can clearly identify a parabolic relationship. From this, I saw for sure that there are 50 or 51 year warming and cooling cycles. Since 1995 we are on our path cycling back to the climate as it was in 1944. We will be there in 2045.
Because the cooling is still so small, you are probably correct in assuming that most people on earth will only notice it around 2020. By that time a few clever people will have invented the idea that it must be the CO2 that is causing the global cooling….
Allan MacRae says: @ur momisugly July 29, 2012 at 7:17 am
……In the ~25 years that the world has obsessed with alleged dangerous humanmade global warming, over 50 million children below the age of 5 have died from drinking contaminated water. That is more people (of all ages and from all sides) than were killed in World War 2. That is the “nominal” cost of the misguided obsession with global warming mania. And that reality also concerns me.
____________________
It was deliberate. Despite all the propaganda, the politicians, financiers and UN bureaucrats have deliberately sabotaged development in third world countries.
Sir Julian Huxley was the first Director of UNESCO, a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund and president from 1959–1962 of the British Eugenics Society. UNESCO is the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
The UNESCO propaganda says UNESCO’s “Strengthening Capacity to Combat Drought and Famine in the Horn of Africa” project aims to ease the water and food shortages faced by some nine million people …“ So I wonder how much the loans from the World bank/IMF are going to be for this project…. I wonder how much profit the corporations building dams, desal plants, doing remote sensing and digging wells are going to make?
So what is the price tag? Notice how no one ever mentions the price tag and who will actually be paying it and who will benefit.
The Founder’s statement:
It has been over sixty years, three generations, and the quality of life for many Africans has not changed from that of thousands of years ago despite the billions of dollars pored in. Cui Bono? It certainly was not the people of Africa.
This is not a subject I have done in-depth research on, but what little bit I have read indicates there is a stinking nasty mess under the glowing propaganda of the UN and World Bank.
KR quotes
CO2 is not the only factor effecting (sic) the global temperature and in fact there is a phenomenon often called Global Dimming which is counteracting greenhouse gas warming.
Henry says (earlier on)
By that time (when people will start feeling that it is getting cooler) a few clever people will have invented the idea that it must be the CO2 that is causing the global cooling….
Henry says now
What did I tell you? They already have a story ready when you and all are going to feel the global cooling. It is going to be AGD or AGC due to AGD.
KR quotes
CO2 is not the only factor effecting (sic) the global temperature and in fact there is a phenomenon often called Global Dimming which is counteracting greenhouse gas warming.
Henry says (earlier on)
By that time (when people will start feeling that it is getting cooler) a few clever people will have invented the idea that it must be the CO2 that is causing the global cooling….
Henry says now
What did I tell you? They already have a story ready when you and all are going to feel the cold. It is going to be AGD or AGC due to AGD
Gail Combs says: July 29, 2012 at 8:58 am
Interesting comments Gail.
You ascribe to deliberate design those sad consequences, particularly in the third world, that I have long ascribed to utter incompetence.
However, I recently began changing my opinion, such that it could become more consistent with your own.
This new (to me) hypothesis explains a lot, in that it is difficult to believe that otherwise intelligent people are truly THAT incompetent.
Best, Allan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/12/some-progress-on-the-skeptic-vs-denier-ugliness/#comment-1032384
My point is we have been ASSUMING that the radical enviros share our human values and THAT assumption is FALSE.
The radical enviros are anti-human and consistently oppose moves to increase supplies of economic energy that will improve the wellbeing of humankind. This explains their apparently nonsensical opposition to oil and gas pipelines, hydraulic fracturing, the Canadian oilsands, etc. and their apparently irrational support for inefficient, ineffective and environmentally destructive wind and solar power schemes.
The radical enviros stance is NOT primarily about the environment – that is a smokescreen – their objective is to increase energy costs, cause energy starvation and reduce human population. Their seemingly nonsensical positions are all consistent with this theme and are also consistent with their following statements.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/28/newsbytes-world-cooling-to-global-warming/#comment-1020878
(h/t to Wayne for the following quotations)
”My three goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!
”A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Ted Turner,
Founder of CNN and major UN donor
”The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
”Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
”The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
Sir James Lovelock,
BBC Interview
”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
Lead author of many IPCC reports
”Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
Sir John Houghton,
First chairman of the IPCC
”It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
Paul Watson,
Co-founder of Greenpeace
”Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
David Brower,
First Executive Director of the Sierra Club
”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
”The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
Emeritus Professor Daniel Botkin
”Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong,
Founder of the UN Environmental Program
”A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-Development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
”If I were reincarnated I would wish to return to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh,
husband of Queen Elizabeth II,
Patron of the Patron of the World Wildlife Foundation
”The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these third World countries right where they are.”
Michael Oppenheimer
Environmental Defense Fund
”Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
Professor Maurice King
”Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
Maurice Strong,
Rio Earth Summit
”Complex technology of any sort is an assault on the human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
Amory Lovins,
Rocky Mountain Institute
”I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. it played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
John Davis,
Editor of Earth First! Journal
**********************************