Notes from a 'mole' in Al Gore's Climate Leadership Training

climate-reality-leadership-corps-190x240[1]A person who is actually a climate skeptic (and WUWT regular) applied for and was granted a training slot in Chicago this week. http://climaterealityproject.org/leadership-corps/ and has graduated as one of the 1500 people that attended the event.

For obvious reasons, I can’t reveal the person’s name, but I can reveal the communication I received last night.

The ‘mole’ writes:

I’m now a card-carrying, official Gore-bot.

(I took copious notes)

a) This was a super-liberal “kum-bay-ya” crowd as I predicted.  I kept many of my opinions to myself. The event truly did have a “religious cult programming” feel to it, similar to an Amway meeting I attended years ago – carefully timed applause, audience call & response etc.  Very bizarre.

b) Al Gore himself went through the entire slide show that we are supposed to use as his “Climate Leaders.”  Quite honestly, there is nothing new here, EXCEPT that there is no trace of the “hockey stick” graph that was so central to “An Inconvenient Truth”!! Amazing, considering how central that was to their arguments!

c) Instead, Al lumps data together year-by-year or decade-by-decade to show an ever increasing rise in temps.  He poo-pooed measurement inaccuracies, specifically mentioning UHI effects and saying that the scientists determined these were insignificant.

d) A couple graphs stood out – one showed the documented rise in temperature PRECEDES the rise in CO2 which he brushed aside as “typical variation.”  The only hockey stick was one that projected atmospheric CO2 over time, jumping up drastically in coming years.  I didn’t have time to write units down, but it was a big jump.  It could be a realistic rise with China & India bringing new coal plants online, I’d have to check any citations.

e)  Al’s presentation was heavy on his new concept of “dirty weather,” see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/24-hours-of-reality-dirty-weather_n_2130344.html

To summarize, I didn’t see anything new or ground-breaking in this mess.  Most slides were BS, typical “this is due to climate, not weather” type stuff we kick around on WUWT all the time.  Hurricane Sandy, torrential rains in Pakistan etc.

Personal observations:

a) We skeptics ain’t liked much with them folks.  The “d” word (denier) was used liberally, and I queried several participants, some of who were very cool folks, about it.  Al Gore and his speakers used “Denier,” “Denial Industry” and other terms I found objectionable. Lousy salesmen, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

b) Nothing new was presented, technically speaking.  This thing was “An Inconvenient Truth” redux, with much of the controversial stuff (hockey stick & drowning polar bears) deleted.  Al got our message, he doesn’t seem to want to engage folks like us.

c) Al gave some insights into his own choices for low-carbon technologies, with a focus upon photovoltaics & wind power.  He doesn’t like BWR nukes and objects because of financial reasons, which I agree with (particularly post-Fukishima).  He mentioned that Oak Ridge National Labs in TN is testing a variety of nuclear reactor designs which sound promising (thorium maybe?) but didn’t elaborate.

d) Stuff I’m interested in, like ocean acidification, were only briefly touched upon.  Al didn’t discuss the diplomacy challenges of engaging China and India, although he did mention their growing carbon output.

Quick summary: 

Al is a polished speaker, and looked trim & in shape.  Very impressive command of his speaking material.  Decent speakers lined up, including some sustainability folks from private industry.  I’m told the health/climate breakout session was terrible & am glad I took a pass on it.

==============================================================

UPDATE: Since many of the Gore followers are arriving here, I welcome you to answer this question that nobody would ask Mr. Gore this week:

If the position and science is so strong, why did Mr. Gore have to fake the results of his experiment in the Climate 101 video (which you may have seen and is still on the climate reality web page).

You can see the experiment recreated here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

For the few of you brave enough, thanks for taking the time to answer that question – Anthony

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

350 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 2, 2013 8:20 pm

“Lousy salesmen, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.”
So you will agree that the insane reds-under-the-beds rants about socialists, liberals (whatever that means), watermelons, etc., that regularly pollute the comments sections of sceptic blogs are not doing a lot to help spread Global Warming scepticism?

August 2, 2013 8:26 pm

What I haven’t done is seen any empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that increasing CO2 will cause catastrophic consequences, or seen evidence that Al Gore is intelligent, honest and believable. That is why many ridicule him and by association, the true believers in CAGW.
##############################
In my time on the internet in discussions with other skeptics its quite easy to see that they don’t understand or want to understand that co2 is the main reason for the earth’s warming in the last 150 years.
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/human-caused
How do we know humans cause global warming?
Many are still asking is this global warming human caused? The idea that global warming is natural is not an absurd question. In the natural cycle, global warming is natural. The better question is, ‘is this global warming natural’? There are multiple lines of evidence that point us to the origin of our current warming:
1.Greenhouse gases trap infrared heat energy.
2.The isotopic signature clearly shows that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is from fossil fuels.
3.We are no longer in the natural cycle. We have largely departed from the natural course of climate and there is no natural mechanism that explains it.
4.The models and the observations match.
5.There is simply no other mechanism that can explain the significantly altered climate path and the changes in the radiative forcing other than human causes.

Sweetcry20
August 2, 2013 8:32 pm

So, just so I understand. You went to a climate conference held by Al Gore’s initiative to what….bash it? The dates on their website indicate that it was a 3-day shindig. Did you actually go through a whole process of applying and traveling to Chicago to attend this thing so you could ride your superiority soap-box on this website?
Do you not have a job?
Or anything better to do?
Regardless of what anyone thinks of Al Gore, it’s pretty easy to surmise that you’re just pathetic.
REPLY: This person went through all three days, is a certified engineer with a job, is actually “green” in deeds, and found the idea necessary because Al Gore keeps these things in secrecy, not allowing the press, not sharing the materials to allow the outside world to examine their validity.
Just look at the agreement you signed: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/the-climate-reality-project-online-training-agreement2.pdf
It reads like a gag order. – Anthony

jeanparisot
August 2, 2013 8:36 pm

John, said wrt ORNL nukes:
“They should be safer and cheaper per amount of electricity produced, and if you don’t need as much electricity as the standard huge nuke that requires economies of scale to even begin to be economic, you can order a modular nuke that produces 1/10 the power at (hopefully) something like 1/15th the cost.”
In the context of the “AGW/climate change” discussion, the importance is that these units may not require work in progress financing for the regulated utilities. As such, they don’t need a “price for carbon” to fluff up the costs of fossil fuel alternatives in the trade-off studies. This would undercut a key promoter of AGW and funding for the climate change crowd – the utilities.
Additionally, the construction on ORNL provides some legal cover and government contractor defense – which has a positive cost and schedule effect.

August 2, 2013 8:40 pm

The alarmist crowd started out with their premise reversed. But the correct premise is that ∆T causes ∆CO2 — not vice-versa, as they originally believed. When your premise is wrong, your conclusion will necessarily be wrong.
#########################
There are equations that point out just say doesn’t. There is a lag caused by the oceans which are incredibly slow to heat up.
Strangely enough there is so much evidence that co2 is the cause of the warming, it is the skeptics that need to prove through the scientific process that it is something else. There in lies a cosmic black hole of nothing accomplished by skeptics. The best explanation wins and a very poor explanation fails.
##########################
This is just from today’s co2. Tomorrows co2 can be a lot more or hopefully a much much lower amount.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/
CO2: RF = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig)
5.35 ln (400/280) = 1.9 watts/meter*2
Step 6: Radiative forcing x climate sensitivity is a significant number
Climate sensitivity is .75*C/ watts/meter*2
1.9watts/meter*2 ( .75*C/ watts/meter*2) = 1.4 *C
We have warmed .8*C so far and have .6*C left in the pipeline of fast feedbacks. Slow feedbacks are also mostly positive and will take several hundred more years adding a little more to the surface temperature.

rogerknights
August 2, 2013 8:40 pm

Here’s what I’ve added to my house in Seattle to avoid energy-intensive air conditioning.
• A thermostatically controlled exhaust fan, at one end of the attic, with weighted louvers on the outside.
• Fiberglass insulation in the rafters.
• Blown-in wall insulation.
• Wide “Sunsetter” awnings, high on the sunny sides of the house.
• Lexan (or Plexiglas) outer-window-covering.
• An in-wall exhaust fan, in the dormer.
If the gov’t wants to cut the use of energy, reduce joblessness, and stimulate the economy, why not offer homeowners long-term, zero-interest loans for such improvements? And why not also offer loans for earthquake-resistant improvements such as I’ve made, namely:
• Half-inch plywood sheathing, using many long screws in every stud and sill, around the upper basement wall.
• Metal roofing, which reduces an earthquake’s impact.
These all add value to your house beyond their cost.

August 2, 2013 8:54 pm

Try this new peer-reviewed paper for starters: The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
http://www.skepticalscience.com/humlum-at-it-again.html
Humlum’s work seems to be easily debunked.
REPLY: We aren’t talking about Humlum or the SkS kidz, we are talking about Al Gore. Of course if he wasn’t such an intellectual coward, he’d make his slides available for critique, but he can’t risk doing that. – Anthony

August 2, 2013 9:05 pm

In fact, the natural rise in global warming has remained on the same long term trend line for hundreds of years. Global warming has not accelerated — whether CO2 was low, or high. In fact, global warming has stopped for the past decade and a half, even as CO2 levels continue to rise.
############################
93% of the heating goes into the oceans and it is showing. When this finally gets to the atmosphere, we will feel the heat.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/new-research-confirms-global-warming-has-accelerated.html
New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
Posted on 25 March 2013 by dana1981
A new study of ocean warming has just been published in Geophysical Research Letters by Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013). There are several important conclusions which can be drawn from this paper.
•Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically.
•As suspected, much of the ‘missing heat’ Kevin Trenberth previously talked about has been found in the deep oceans. Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012), this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is unprecedented over at least the past half century.
•Some recent studies have concluded based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade that the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect is somewhat lower than the IPCC best estimate. Those studies are fundamentally flawed because they do not account for the warming of the deep oceans.
•The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security.

August 2, 2013 9:09 pm

REPLY: This person went through all three days, is a certified engineer with a job, is actually “green” in deeds, and found the idea necessary because Al Gore keeps these things in secrecy, not allowing the press, not sharing the materials to allow the outside world to examine their validity.
Just look at the agreement you signed: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/the-climate-reality-project-online-training-agreement2.pdf
It reads like a gag order. – Anthony
###################################
I have signed and am not worried in the least.

August 2, 2013 9:18 pm

There is no testable, falsifiable scientific evidence showing that human CO2 emissions cause global warming. None. Scientific skeptics are not required to prove a negative; to prove that man made global warming does not exist. Rather, the onus is entirely upon the climate alarmist crowd to demonstrate conclusively that human emissions are the main cause of global warming. But they have failed.
#############################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=109
In science, there’s only one thing better than empirical measurements made in the real world – and that is multiple independent measurements all pointing to the same result. There are many lines of empirical evidence that all detect the human fingerprint in global warming:

CRS, DrPH
August 2, 2013 9:29 pm

This was the event for Al Gore’s “Climate Un-Reality Project” – interesting, the “Gore Effect” visited Chicago when he was here, as it was unseasonably chilly!
http://m.prnewswire.com/news-releases/al-gore–the-climate-reality-project-welcome-1500-new-climate-leaders-217769101.html

jeanparisot
August 2, 2013 9:33 pm

There are multiple lines of evidence that point us to the origin of our current warming:
1.Greenhouse gases trap infrared heat energy. OK, why is CO2 more important then water vapor?
2.The isotopic signature clearly shows that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is from fossil fuels.
Cool, who cares
3.We are no longer in the natural cycle. We have largely departed from the natural course of climate and there is no natural mechanism that explains it.
Wow. We’ve departed from natural cycles we can’t define or explain – how do we know that, whats the “natural” temperature for 2015 supposed to be in Norway or India?
4.The models and the observations match.
Your going to have to define how your using the terms observation and match here, because they aren’t coincidental with my understanding of those terms. Do the models “match” themselves?
5.There is simply no other mechanism that can explain the significantly altered climate path and the changes in the radiative forcing other than human causes.
I went outside today, you know the big blue room with the really bright light, and I looked up and saw clouds, then the sun, and it was humid — hmmmm.

jeanparisot
August 2, 2013 9:37 pm

Hey look, its been dark outside for a few hours – its about time the renewable batteries flatline.

temp
August 2, 2013 9:56 pm

RoHa says:
August 2, 2013 at 8:20 pm
“Lousy salesmen, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.”
“So you will agree that the insane reds-under-the-beds rants about socialists, liberals (whatever that means), watermelons, etc., that regularly pollute the comments sections of sceptic blogs are not doing a lot to help spread Global Warming scepticism?”
The truth is never liked by those who don’t want it spoken…

temp
August 2, 2013 10:12 pm

To renewableguy
I’m sorry but the SkS posts you make make alot of claims which are simply not supported… you as well.
First you claim the heat is going into the oceans… we have little data on this and thus its a near impossible thing to say. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that this is correct…. THIS COMPLETELY DISPROVES global warming. At no time until after the pause to find the “missing” heat did anyone say the heat would go into the oceans outside of the standard “everything goes up at the same time”. This means that global warming was proven wrong even if we argue that heat really did go into the oceans as it was not predicted to do as such.
Then we have the
“In science, there’s only one thing better than empirical measurements made in the real world – and that is multiple independent measurements all pointing to the same result. There are many lines of empirical evidence that all detect the human fingerprint in global warming:”
The SkS piece you post claims alot about sat data but the sat data doesn’t support those claims. Once again even if we assume for the sake of argument that the sat data does showing CO2 warming… its only inline with the concept of tested in lab CO2… aka ZERO FEED BACK. Thus we are only looking at tops a 3 degrees of warming for about 10k ppm CO2.
sks has a habit of twisting info into supporting an argument neither those that support global warming made until after the fact or debunking strawman that never existed in the first place.
Add in that due to the fact cultists have literally made millions of claims/predictions/said everything proves global warming…. even the rare times they are right is meaningless. If the science is settled then you should be able to predict before something happens… not 5 years after it happens such as with the oceans “suddenly” sucking up all the heat.
Add in the fact the south pole for some reason isn’t sucking up any heat into its oceans kind of makes that argument worthless on its face.
I ask you a simple question… explain to me what would prove global warming wrong? The IPCC supposedly the bible of the cult has had its predictions proven wrong. So what else is left to prove wrong?

Reply to  temp
August 2, 2013 11:02 pm

[snip – off topic as warned before this isn’t a thread about what skeptical science thinks – mod]

August 2, 2013 11:17 pm

climate oscillations, changes in solar activity, variations in the Earth’s orbit, and volcanic activity.
The above are natural variations of the climate and all are tending toward cooling. What is left is human influence on the climate which is completely responsible for the warming.
This is a pretty extensive summation of the science of the recent warming to the earth. If you choose open the link and read on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
The dominant mechanisms (to which recent climate change has been attributed) are anthropogenic, i.e., the result of human activity. They are:[1]
…increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases
…global changes to land surface, such as deforestation
…increasing atmospheric concentrations of aerosols.
There are also natural mechanisms for variation including climate oscillations, changes in solar activity, variations in the Earth’s orbit, and volcanic activity.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that “[most] of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”[2] The IPCC defines “very likely” as indicating a probability of greater than 90%, based on expert judgement.[3]
Attribution of recent climate change to human activities is based on multiple lines of evidence:[4]
A basic physical understanding of the climate system: greenhouse gas concentrations have increased and their warming properties are well-established.[4]
Historical estimates of past climate changes suggest that the recent changes in global surface temperature are unusual.[4]
Computer-based climate models are unable to replicate the observed warming unless human greenhouse gas emissions are included.[4]
Natural forces alone (such as solar and volcanic activity) cannot explain the observed warming.[4]

Chad Wozniak
August 2, 2013 11:18 pm

@Scott –
I recommend you start with Steve Goreham’s Climatism, then go to Bob Carter’s The Counter Consensus. These will give you a graded start, as it were, with the issue and prepare you to dig deeper. Dr. Klaus is more on the political aspect of CAGW, and is also an important read here. And if you really want to get PO’d at the alarmists and the greens generally, read Paul Driessen’s Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death. It made me want to do something to those worms with my hands.

Scott aka mindlabmedia
Reply to  Chad Wozniak
August 4, 2013 2:37 pm

OK – just ordered both books suggested by Chad Wozniak, plus a slew of others. I’m probably going overboard here, but here’s my overly ambitious reading list, courtesy of Amazon and a lot of used bookstores:
The Inquisition of Climate Science – Powell, James Lawrence
The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change – Gore, Al
Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming – James Hoggan
Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity – Hansen, James
Climatism!: Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic – Goreham, Steve
The Two-Mile Time Machine: Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and Our Future – Alley, Richard B.
The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds) – MONTFORD, A.W
Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming (Vintage) – Lomborg, Bjorn
Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Updated and Expanded Edition – S. Fred Singer
The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines – Mann, Michael E.
What We Know About Climate Change (Boston Review Books) Emanuel, Kerry
Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam – Sussman, Brian
I’ll report back in, what, a year or two? 🙂

August 3, 2013 12:06 am

Val,
The Soviet Union and every other bloody brainwashing totalitarian regime in the world stood upon the shoulders of people “passionate do-gooders” like you.
When I read posts like yours, I feel ashamed of being human.

Reply to  Alexander Feht
August 3, 2013 7:23 am

Bruce Cobb says:
August 3, 2013 at 2:48 am
@renewablegorebot, they have trained you well, haven’t they? You are simply spouting disinformation and junk science, which has turned your brain (if you ever had one) to mush. You obviously have no clue what you are even talking about. The obvious reason the climate models can’t explain the warming, much of which has been exaggerated, is that they are junk. They are not based on reality.
##############################
In essence I am a normal person like you are. I have a family to help raise, go to work every day, go to church to help celebrate life on earth.
Al Gore hasn’t really influenced my science knowledge. Its really just for the networking.

knr
August 3, 2013 12:28 am

renewableguy the day the IPCC says its not man to blame is the day before there is longer an IPCC for without this its got no reason to exist . Think about that before you take anything they say without question.

Reply to  knr
August 3, 2013 3:38 pm

renewableguy the day the IPCC says its not man to blame is the day before there is longer an IPCC for without this its got no reason to exist . Think about that before you take anything they say without question.
###############################
Humans have changed the earth in this manner. Do you agree?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
The dominant mechanisms (to which recent climate change has been attributed) are anthropogenic, i.e., the result of human activity. They are:[1]
increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases
global changes to land surface, such as deforestation
increasing atmospheric concentrations of aerosols.
####################
Do you think any of the natural mechanisms below have caused this warming?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
There are also natural mechanisms for variation including climate oscillations, changes in solar activity, variations in the Earth’s orbit, and volcanic activity.
######################
When scientists put out a statement like this, they have done a great deal of homework because they don’t like to be wrong. This is a big statement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
Attribution of recent climate change to human activities is based on multiple lines of evidence:[4]
A basic physical understanding of the climate system: greenhouse gas concentrations have increased and their warming properties are well-established.[4]
Historical estimates of past climate changes suggest that the recent changes in global surface temperature are unusual.[4]
Computer-based climate models are unable to replicate the observed warming unless human greenhouse gas emissions are included.[4]
Natural forces alone (such as solar and volcanic activity) cannot explain the observed warming.[4]

Bruce Cobb
August 3, 2013 2:48 am

@renewablegorebot, they have trained you well, haven’t they? You are simply spouting disinformation and junk science, which has turned your brain (if you ever had one) to mush. You obviously have no clue what you are even talking about. The obvious reason the climate models can’t explain the warming, much of which has been exaggerated, is that they are junk. They are not based on reality.

Tucci78
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 3, 2013 3:53 am

At 2:48 AM on 3 August, Bruce Cobb had written:

@renewablegorebot, they have trained you well, haven’t they? You are simply spouting disinformation and junk science, which has turned your brain (if you ever had one) to mush. You obviously have no clue what you are even talking about. The obvious reason the climate models can’t explain the warming, much of which has been exaggerated, is that they are junk. They are not based on reality.

Hm. When I’d run through this schmuck’s cut-and-puke, I’d had precisely the opposite reaction, thinking that they’d “trained” him rather less effectively than the average pet owner housebreaks the family pooch.
Which same he’s been screwing repeatedly.
I can’t read something like this Watermelon serial spew of stupidity without having Wolfgang Pauli’s remark come to mind:

“Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig,
es ist nicht einmal falsch!”

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 3, 2013 4:33 pm

@renewablegorebot, they have trained you well, haven’t they?
######################
I knew 98% of it before I got there. Seeing that you don’t like what the data in science says, do you just go with anything that isn’t AGW.

Gail Combs
August 3, 2013 3:24 am

renewable guy says: @n August 2, 2013 at 8:14 pm
Speaking of engineering and science books.
……The conclusion, to summarize, is that a high-penetration solar and wind utility
system is possible…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh great, they want to make my state another guinea pig but didn’t bother to take a look at the fiasco in the European Union.
Of course this has always been about power and money and nothing else even as the Elite speak of ‘Social Justice’ ‘Global Governance’ ‘Interdependence’ and efficiency hampered by the Westphalian order and the primacy of sovereign nation-states that comes with it…
From the IMF

….New convergence and strengthened interdependence coincide with a third trend, relating to income distribution. In many countries the distribution of income has become more unequal, and the top earners’ share of income in particular has risen dramatically. In the United States the share of the top 1 percent has close to tripled over the past three decades, now accounting for about 20 percent of total U.S. income (Alvaredo and others, 2012)….

In the 20th century, they tried the brute force method of totalitarian government (The Soviet Union and others) and the people never accepted their serfs collars so now they are trying to institute a system similar to that of the EU where ‘Governance’ is given a glaze of legitimacy. WTO Director-General Lamy identified “the three pillars of governance — leadership, efficiency and legitimacy — are split among various structures. Where the UN has an undeniable comparative advantage is in terms of legitimacy. “ He also states the decision to have a world government was made in the 1930’s

….Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life?….
Half a century ago, those who designed the post-war system — the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) — were deeply influenced by the shared lessons of history.
All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty — rooted in freedom, openness, prosperity and interdependence…..
http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=9174

“Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life?”
Sounds great until you think about it. What is being said is the elite think the ordinary citizen in the USA, Canada, Australia and the EU have too much wealth and they want to take it from us under the guise of providing others with a ‘decent living standard’ Decent by whose measure? The starving African in a mud hut or the soccer mom in the suburbs? Of course the Elite with the tripling of their wealth really don’t care what the soccer mom thinks.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” ~ Winston Churchill
We have been trying these ‘experiments in socialism’ since 1600s.

…In his ‘History of Plymouth Plantation,’ the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with “corruption,” and with “confusion and discontent.” The crops were small because “much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable.”
In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, “all had their hungry bellies filled,” but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death….
After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, “they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop.” They began to question their form of economic organization.
This had required that “all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means” were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, “all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock.”
…To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.
link

It didn’t work then and it didn’t work in the Soviet Union. But that is all right, the elite are sure to get it right this time….

Gail Combs
August 3, 2013 3:53 am

renewableguy says:
August 2, 2013 at 8:26 pm
….How do we know humans cause global warming?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Because that was the original IPCC mandate.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

Humans were tried and found guilty BEFORE the IPCC ever looked at a scientific fact. The IPCC mandate is not to figure out what factors effect the climate but to dig up the ‘facts’ needed to hang the human race. This is why water vapor is not a ‘Forcing’ but a ‘Feed back’ otherwise CO2 would be a non starter. The IPCC assumed the role of prosecution and and the skeptics that of the defense but the judge (aka the media) refuses to allow the defense council into the court room.
Of course the bankers control the media link And the bankers have a vested interest in ‘Global Warming’ so much so that a world bank employee, Robert Watson was chair of the IPCC.
The banker’s stake in CAGW

World Bank Carbon Finance Report for 2007
The carbon economy is the fastest growing industry globally with US$84 billion of carbon trading conducted in 2007, doubling to $116 billion in 2008, and expected to reach over $200 billion by 2012 and over $2,000 billion by 2020

This is a fraud that produces nothing but poverty. It does not produce a single penny of wealth and instead acts as a short circuit across the advancement and wealth of an entire civilization.
Wall Street has always been behind ‘Socialism’ Robert Minor’s cartoon Dee-Lighted! makes that clear. It shows Karl Marx surrounded by an appreciative audience of Wall Street financiers such as John D. Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, and Morgan partner George W. Perkins. Right behind Karl Marx is Teddy Roosevelt, of the Progressive Party. Minor was a member of the American Communist Party. link
Just for the record, as a civilized being I think we should take care of our fellow humans. That is what makes us civilized. My beef is with the financiers who use ‘Socialism’ as a long con for lining their pockets from the sweat of the poor.
Mother Jones and OPedNews have two very good articles showing exactly what I am talking about. So does this socialist.

Gail Combs
August 3, 2013 4:54 am

renewableguy says:
August 2, 2013 at 11:17 pm
climate oscillations, changes in solar activity, variations in the Earth’s orbit, and volcanic activity.
The above are natural variations of the climate and all are tending toward cooling. What is left is human influence on the climate which is completely responsible for the warming….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And we should hope like heck that is the case.
From Peer-Reviewed papers.
Older:

Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception (2007)
….Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….

Within the past year:

Determining the natural length of the current interglacial
P. C. Tzedakis, J. E. T. Channell, D. A. Hodell, H. F. Kleiven & L. C. Skinner
Affiliations
Contributions
Corresponding author
Nature Geoscience (2012) doi:10.1038/ngeo1358
Received 23 May 2011 Accepted 28 November 2011 Published online 09 January 2012 Corrected online 10 January 2012
….The glacial inception during Marine Isotope sub-Stage 19c, a close analogue for the present interglacial, occurred near the summer insolation minimum, suggesting that the interglacial was not prolonged by subdued radiative forcing…..
[ABSTRACT only]

I emphasized the quote “was not subdued by radiative forcing”. What is meant by this is since this interglacial was at a minimum node of eccentricity and precession index oscillation, insolation did not go down to as low a level as one normally expects to be needed to set off glaciation. But glaciation started anyway.
(The actual paper without corrections?)

Determining the natural length of the current interglacial
P. C. Tzedakis, J. E. T. Channell, D. A. Hodell, H. F. Kleiven & L. C. Skinner
Past interglacials can be used to draw analogies with the present, provided their duration is known. Here we propose that the minimum age of a glacial inception is constrained by the onset of bipolar-seesaw climate variability, which requires ice-sheets large enough to produce iceberg discharges that disrupt the ocean circulation. We identify the bipolar seesaw in ice-core and North Atlantic marine records by the appearance of a distinct phasing of interhemispheric climate and hydrographic changes and ice-rafted debris. The glacial inception during Marine Isotope sub-Stage 19c, a close analogue for the present interglacial, occurred near the summer insolation minimum, suggesting that the interglacial was not prolonged by subdued radiative forcing7 . Assuming that ice growth mainly responds to insolation and CO2 forcing, this analogy suggests that the end of the current interglacial would occur within the next 1500 years, if atmospheric CO2 concentrations did not exceed 240 ± 5 ppmv….
….Climate modelling studies show that a reduction in boreal summer insolation is the primary trigger for glacial inception, with CO2 playing a secondary role3,5 . Lowering CO2 shifts the
inception threshold to higher insolation values….

Even Joe Romm over at Climate Progress stated:
“…Absent human emissions, we’d probably be in a slow long-term cooling trend due primarily by changes in the Earth’s orbit — see Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, “seminal” study finds…”
And if you forget the decadal wiggles and look at centuries:

Norway Experiencing Greatest Glacial Activity in the past 1,000 year
…..recently there was a nice study in Quaternary Research that did a study on glacial activity in Norway for the past ~8,000 years….

ABSTRACT:
We explore the possibility of building a continuous glacier reconstruction by analyzing the integrated sedimentary response of a large (440 km2) glacierized catchment in western Norway, as recorded in the downstream lake Nerfloen (N61°56′, E6°52′). A multi-proxy numerical analysis demonstrates that it is possible to distinguish a glacier component in the ~8000-yr-long record, based on distinct changes in grain size, geochemistry, and magnetic composition. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) reveals a strong common signal in the 15 investigated sedimentary parameters, with the first principal component explaining 77% of the total variability. This signal is interpreted to reflect glacier activity in the upstream catchment, an interpretation that is independently tested through a mineral magnetic provenance analysis of catchment samples. Minimum glacier input is indicated between 6700-5700 cal yr BP, probably reflecting a situation when most glaciers in the catchment had melted away, whereas the highest glacier activity is observed around 600 and 200 cal yr BP. During the local Neoglacial interval (~4200 cal yr BP until present), five individual periods of significantly reduced glacier extent are identified at ~3400, 3000-2700, 2100-2000, 1700-1500, and ~900 cal yr BP.

The authors simply state that most glaciers likely didn’t exist 6,000 years ago, but the highest period of the glacial activity has been in the past 600 years.….

Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic
….Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ca 11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3° C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present… As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers reestablished or advanced, sea ice expanded, and the flow of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean diminished. Late Holocene cooling reached its nadir during the Little Ice Age (about 1250-1850 AD), when sun-blocking volcanic eruptions and perhaps other causes added to the orbital cooling, allowing most Arctic glaciers to reach their maximum Holocene extent

The real controversy is will the Holocene be ending now (we are near the half precession point) or will the Holocene be a double precession interglacial. You can find a synopsis in a comment from WFM (William McClenney?) http://www.cejournal.net/?p=3305#comment-7191

… 5 of the last 6 interglacials all lasted about half of a precessional cycle… Well that 6th one was MIS-11…. MIS-11 has long been shown to consist of at least two insolation peaks, a fairly sharp one soon after glacial termination, and a long, fairly broad one after an interval of cooling. But if you take the time to closely inspect all of the figures presented here, you will likely note that they are not all the same everywhere and in every study.
At the risk of repetition from “The Antithesis”, Lisiecki and Raymo (2005) state:

“Recent research has focused on MIS 11 as a possible analog for the present interglacial [e.g., Loutre and Berger, 2003; EPICA community members, 2004] because both occur during times of low eccentricity. The LR04 age model establishes that MIS 11 spans two precession cycles, with 18O values below 3.6o/oo for 20 kyr, from 398-418 ka. In comparison, stages 9 and 5 remained below 3.6o/oo for 13 and 12 kyr, respectively, and the Holocene interglacial has lasted 11 kyr so far. In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398-418 ka as from 250-650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be artificially stretched. However, the June 21 insolation minimum at 65N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘double precession-cycle’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence.”

link

Also MIS-19 appears to have had at least 3 abrupt warming events during the descent into glaciation so a ‘warming spike’ doesn’t mean diddly squat.
Now tell me why ‘the fact CO2’ is keeping us out of glaciation is not making front page news. Could it be because you can’t use that to scare the masses into giving up more of their wealth and freedom?

Gail Combs
August 3, 2013 5:08 am

renewableguy says:
August 2, 2013 at 11:17 pm
….https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Wikipedia’s Climate information is ruled by William Connelley. Wikipedia climate revisionism by William Connolley continues
He was banned but it did not stick.
Posted on October 13, 2010 Wikipedia climate fiddler William Connolley is in the news again
October 14, 2010 William Connolley, now “climate topic banned” at Wikipedia
You can put Wikipedia in the WUWT search engine for the other posts on Wikipedia mangling science.

August 3, 2013 5:13 am

I find the vapid, repetitive emotional appeals of the warmists posted above genuinely terrifying. It is a salutary reminder that the sort of useful idiots that supported the murderous, genocidal totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century are still being churned out.

1 6 7 8 9 10 13