One who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived. Niccolo Machiavelli
Alarmist: “Someone who is considered to be exaggerating a danger and so causing needless worry or panic.”
Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball
Richard Tol resigned from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) because their latest report was too alarmist. His action proves that the latest IPCC Report (AR5) raised the level of alarmism without justification. He complained about the problem back in 2010 in a guest post for Roger Pielke’s Jr, but did nothing. Apparently they crossed some threshold of alarmism that scared adherents.
IPCC controllers realized the new level was required as polls showed little public concern for climate change, politicians were asking questions and, more alarming, cutting funding while global temperature continued its 17-year lack of increase. Failures of IPCC predictions (projections) indicate the failure of their science. Instead of re-examining the science they did what they’ve always done, increased the level of alarmism.
Tol as a member of IPCC since 1995 should have known the entire exercise was deliberately alarmist from the start. Apparently he did not know what was going on because he did not understand climatology. He simply accepted what the science people said in the IPCC Report The Physical Science Basis. Even those who knew the science accepted it without question as Klaus Eckert Puls courageously confessed.
“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”
Reasons for the blind faith include: an assumption that scientists are apolitical, the funding was attractive, it was a career opportunity, a desire to save the environment, an affinity for the political slant of offsetting inequality, an interest in punishing polluters, reining in profiteers, and a naive trust in government, among others. Some believed in all of them. Maurice Strong, who organized the entire political and scientific process of the IPCC, exploited all of these vulnerabilities as he has throughout his career.
IPCC Structure To Promote And Exploit Alarmism
The IPCC was created to predetermine a scientific result and amplify it through alarmism. This meant creating a controlled and directed political structure, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and a politically controlled scientific structure, the IPCC.
Sir John Houghton, formerly head of the UK Met Office (UKMO) and first Co-Chair of the IPCC denies saying “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.” A vigorous campaign was launched to claim he did not say it. Why? Because it was the standard established along with the transition of the 1995 Report to a purely political objective. In the forefront of that campaign was Bob Ward, former employee of the Royal Society. Yes, the same Ward who launched the recent shameful attack on Richard Tol for quitting the IPCC because of alarmism. Ward’s rigorous defence of Houghton smacked of protesting too much, especially since it happened four years after it was first cited.
But consider the alarmism in Houghton’s comment about why we need to deal with climate change.
A special responsibility that God has given to humans, created in His image, is to look after and care for creation (Genesis 2:15). Today the impacts of unsustainable use of resources, rapidly increasing human population and the threat of climate change almost certainly add up to the largest and most urgent challenge the world has ever had to face – all of us are involved in the challenge, whether as scientists, policy makers, Christians or whoever we are.
You can’t appeal to a higher authority (Ad Verecundiam) than that.
The switch from the reasonable 1990 Report to the alarmist 1995 Report is critical and driven by what happened at Rio 1992. An illustration of the change was the urgency in counteracting the troubling 1990 Figure 7c with its Medieval Warm Period (MWP) because it contradicted their claim that temperatures were the warmest ever. Their concern was to show it was inaccurate. McIntyre exhaustively examined the origin and travails of this diagram.
 |
IPCC 1990 Report Figure 7c
But Figure 7c triggered another form of raising alarmism, namely altering the record to make events more extreme than reality. Later it was McIntyre again who exposed the rewriting of history by the elimination of the MWP in the 2001 Report.
This pattern of rewriting records also appeared when modern instrumental records were adjusted to make earlier daily temperatures colder than actually measured. Every adjustment increased the rate of warming thus increasing alarmism; it’s more and faster than we thought.
IPCC Working Group Structure; Progressive Alarmism
Three IPCC Working Groups all build on alarmism. Working Group I (WG I), The Physical Science Basis was limited, by the UNFCCC definition, to only human causes of global warming/climate change; effectively only CO2. It also meant they did not have to put the possible human impact in the context of natural variability. As soon as that is done the alarmism is removed immediately. They produced climate models programmed to guarantee a temperature increase with CO2 increase. They produced annual measures of increasing CO2 thus raising alarmism every year.
WG I’s results became the sole starting assumption for Working Group II (WG II), Impact, Adaptation and Vulnerability. They became the source of speculated alarmism that focussed only on negative impacts. Like the Stern Report it was a cost without the benefit study. There was no good news.
WG II’s amplified alarm becomes the basis of proposals from Working Group III (WG III), Mitigation. They provide policy with singular directives for politicians all involving more government.
To achieve the original predetermined objective of blaming human produced CO2 so governments would limit industry and development, they created the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). It raises the level of falsehoods and alarmism created by working Group I then takes them directly to the public. The SPM is released before the Science Report because the difference between the two is deliberately wide to ramp up alarmism.
An early example of SPM increased alarmism occurred with the 1995 Report. The 1990 Report and the drafted 1995 Science Report said there was no evidence of a human effect. Benjamin Santer, graduate from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and shortly thereafter lead author of Chapter 8, changed the 1995 SPM for Chapter 8 drafted by his fellow authors that said,
“While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”
to read,
“The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”
As planned the phrase “discernible human influence” became the headline. This was deliberate and carefully orchestrated alarmism. Professor Fred Singer and Dr Frederick Seitz identified what was going on, but the PR machine, such as the one run by Bob Ward, kicked in. The attacks were ferocious and nasty, which has become a measure of proximity to the truth.
Stanford University
It is fitting that those chosen to raise the recent IPCC alarmism to another level were identified by Rob Jordan’s WUWT article as a group from Stanford University led by Chris Field. Stephen Schneider of Stanford set the tone and justification for deception in his comment to Discover magazine in 1988.
And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the publics imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
There is no decision. Schneider was involved from the start and remained involved, especially when the IPCC deception was failing. These comments parallel the argument of the end justifying means more formally justified because of peer-review in the recent article Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements.
Stanford was the birthplace of alarmism and deception about overpopulation, climate and human impacts. Central to the overpopulation claim was Stanford faculty member Paul Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb and Dennis Meadows Limits to Growth. Co-author with Ehrlich on Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment was PhD Stanford graduate John Holdren. Now Obama’s Science Czar Holdren has used the White House to raise alarmism with new titles like Climate Disruptions or Climate Catastrophes and his recent laughable video on The Polar Vortex. The global warming scare evolved at Stanford University as a central issue framed by the Club of Rome (COR), whose ideas became the foundation of UN Agenda 21 and the UN Framework Committee on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In 1991The First Global Revolution was published and identified “the threat of global warming”.
“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.”
Another example of the end justifies the means was Peter Gleick’s actions as a protégé of Schneider at Stanford. He falsely obtained documents from the Heartland Institute (HI) and used them to vilify that organization. Presumably it was because HI dared to hold international conferences presenting the other side of the climate debate.
The IPCC was and remains about alarmism. Fortunately, the blindness of ‘the end justifies the means’ approach results in extremism. That makes people look more closely and they are finding, as did Klaus-Eckert Puls, that the IPCC claims and methods do not bear investigation. Unfortunately, they will not abandon the strategy because it has been effective, so the cost of lies, deceptions and alarmism will continue.
Government does not ask science to find the truth. They tell them to justify their conclusions. That is not new. Eisenhower told us that 60 years ago.
The InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was designed to expand GOVERNMENT power – Get out!
“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”
This applies to so much in life it’s completely ridiculous, and so many live in the first sentence of that paragraph, and will never leave it.
There is an “invisible barrier” between the first and second sentences that can only really be crossed one way. Someone can cross that barrier and find you, but you can’t pull them through it.
Unfortunately, this is not merely an academic discussion, lives depend on it.
“Lies, Deception and Alarmism” is what the IPCC was designed to “create and promote” to shaft humanity and whack Mother Nature in the name of “saving the planet”.
Poor Get Shafted
http://wp.me/p7y4l-lnm
Mother Nature Gets Whacked:
http://youtu.be/5igyXyJKL_0
http://youtu.be/RnbaIF6gJY0
http://www.examiner.com/article/green-energy-solar-farm-cooks-birds-mid-flight
“Richard Tol resigned from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) because their latest report was too alarmist. His action proves that the latest IPCC Report (AR5) raised the level of alarmism without justification.”
No, it does not. The only thing it proves by itself, is that one man on the inside was convinced the report is too alarmist. I wish WUWt posters would be more careful. How about a resident WUWT editor to check for obvious misstatements? .
[But, exactly which of the 1,245,867 replies posted to date contain obvious misstatements that require correction? 8<) mod]
There was created an IPCC, read (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).
Some will wish it was only a crazy nightmare, that an awakening might dispel.
Others don’t want it to end.
using the MSM to create the headlines:
9 April: Guardian: John Abraham: Years of Living Dangerously – a global warming blockbuster
This new Showtime climate change documentary is a nonfiction thriller you won’t want to miss
In full disclosure, I am jealous that I did not get a chance to work on this – perhaps the most important climate change multimedia communication endeavor in history.
Climate change really is a made-for-TV story. It has all the drama of Hollywood, with real-life villains and heroes thrown in. We scientists struggle everyday to communicate the importance of climate change to the world. It is great to see communication experts come in and accomplish what scientists alone cannot.
That’s why I’m excited about the biggest climate science communication endeavor in history. Airing this spring in the US (Showtime), a cast of the world’s best climate scientists team up with the world’s best politicians and actors to tell the stories of real people from across the planet affected by climate change in Years of Living Dangerously. The first episode is available here…
The brainchild of veterans from 60 Minutes (Joel Bach and David Gelber), the series has very high standards of accuracy. Along with the blockbuster style of James Cameron, Jerry Weintraub, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, this endeavor is committed to combining great science with compelling story telling. Behind the scenes is best science team you could imagine, including Drs. Heidi Cullen, Joe Romm, Jim Hansen, Katherine Hayhoe, Michael Mann, Michael Oppenheimer… the list goes on and on…
Arnold Schwarzenegger, one of my personal heroes on climate change for showing that the subject should not be a liberal or conservative issue, leads the “Fire Line” segment. He joins an elite team of wild-land firefighters as they battle infernos. He discovers a hidden secret that may be a bigger danger to national forests than fires…
There are many more segments covering extreme heat waves and human health, methane and future energy supplies, ice in the arctic, coming political instability with climate change, future energy choices and others. Correspondents include Matt Damon, Harrison Ford, Thomas Friedman, Lesley Stahl, and a very long list of other concerned public figures…
***The producers wanted to ensure this series had a long reach…
The production team was very selective about the composition of the team. The many famous correspondents did not just give cameos; they are truly committed to the project…
The show premiers Sunday April 13th at 10pm on SHOWTIME, I think I’m going to get cable TV just for this.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/apr/09/years-of-living-dangerously-global-warming-blockbuster
if only the CAGW alarmists had a sense of humour:
9 April: Kashmira Gander: UK Independent: ‘Do smelly emissions from baked beans contribute to global warming?’ Viscount Simon asks Energy Minister
73-year-old Labour peer Viscount Simon raised his concerns about the gasses bean-eaters are contributing to the Earth’s atmosphere as Energy Minister Baroness Verma answered questions in the Upper House on how the Government was tackling climate change.
“In a programme some months ago on the BBC it was stated that this country has the largest production of baked beans and the largest consumption of baked beans in the world,” said the peer who has been a member of the House of Lords for more than 20 years.
To laughter from peers, he asked Lady Verma: “Could you say whether this affects the calculation of global warming by the Government as a result of the smelly emission resulting therefrom?”
Lady Verma described his question as “so different” but added: “You do actually raise a very important point, which is we do need to moderate our behaviour.”…
His question comes the same week that a study was published suggesting that eating beans offers a range of health benefits, including lowering cholesterol and cutting the risk of heart disease, according to researchers…
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/do-smelly-emissions-from-baked-beans-contribute-to-global-warming-viscount-simon-asks-energy-minister-9249179.html
It’s interesting that heightening the sense of alarm only produces backlash and not increased support for a particular cause. Nordhaus and Schellenberger discussed this yesterday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/opinion/global-warming-scare-tactics.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
When even the Pew Centre concludes that heightening the alarm only brings forth greater opposition and polarization, that should tell the warmists that something is fundamentally wrong with their approach. Whether or not the theory of man-made global warming is true, their tactics can only produce contrary to what they wish.
U CAN SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING!
9 April: Think Progress: Joe Romm: The Brutally Dishonest Attacks On Showtime’s Landmark Series On Climate Change
George Marshall, “an expert on climate and communication,” — who is also often a critic of climate messaging — wrote me:
– What impressed me about the two episodes I watched was the respect that it showed to conservatives, evangelicals and ordinary working people…. it is still the best documentary I have seen. –
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/09/3424593/showtime-years-dangerously-response/
***Bauer’s opening line belies the headline:
9 April: TheDetroitNews: AP: David Bauder: Showtime’s ‘Years of Living Dangerously’ tries to transcned (sic) politics
***Producers of a Showtime series on global warming said it was crucial to get celebrities and Republicans involved to spread the stories beyond people who already believe it’s an important issue…
(CLOSING PARA) The series will run for about eight or 10 episodes, Gelber said. Although the series is being shown on a pay cable network, one of its participants, “The Vampire Diaries” actor Ian Somerhalder, said he and other celebrities will try to spread its message through social media.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140409/ENT10/304090011/Showtime-s-Years-Living-Dangerously-tries-transcned-politics
9 April: NYT Dot Earth: Andrew C. Revkin: The Uphill Climate Challenge in ‘Years of Living Dangerously’
Joe Romm, the Center for American Progress climate blogger who’s also one of two chief science advisers for the forthcoming Showtime climate series, “Years of Living Dangerously,” sent a query last night after seeing a Twitter note I posted. My note was about an Op-Ed article in The Times by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus of the Breakthrough Institute…
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/the-uphill-climate-challenge-in-years-of-living-dangerously/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
all of us are involved in the challenge, whether as scientists, policy makers, Christians or whoever we are.
=================================================
The underlying deep-green alarmists’ assumption is there was a Gaia-given atmospheric consistency and average global temperature at some time in the past prior to industrialisation and any human influence, a priori, must be bad.
There was nothing ideal about a CO2 atmospheric concentration of 280 ppm or av. global temperature of ~13C any more than the positions and shapes of the continents or Earth’s axial tilt.
They just happened to have been the circumstances at the time.
They denigrate sceptics as anti-science and couple them with intelligent design believers, whereas they have much in common with them as both beliefs are teleological, as ‘superorganism’ believer Tim Flannery happily admits: http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2011/04/27/human-superorganism-tim-flanneryevolution/
“Reasons for the blind faith include: an assumption that scientists are apolitical, the funding was attractive, it was a career opportunity, a desire to save the environment, an affinity for the political slant of offsetting inequality, an interest in punishing polluters, reining in profiteers, and a naive trust in government, among others”.
I would add an emotional attachment to a belief that gives people an attachment to a peer group of people of like mind, which also benefits the individual both socially and economically.
Tim Ball, you should check this website: Reading the 1970s augmented in 1986 book by Sir Crispin Tickell, a UNEP stalwart from the beginning into the climatic affair, and uber alarmist, explains in very plain and clear terms the creation of what will be known as the IPCC and all what should be done about CO2.
So indeed, this crisis has been manufactured 40 years ago by the Strong, Tickell and other UN bureaucrats.
These IPCC reports remind me of a determination to enact the UN’s Bariloche Model from the 70s, without admitting that’s the game plan. That 1976 model envisioned a world “in which human needs and human rights, rather than desires to consume and to accumulate wealth, would become the basis for resource allocation.” That philosophy always squelches any incentive to provide more resources.
I talked about the Club of Rome’s First Global revolution in my book. Much like Chapter 20 of the recent IPCC Report that document was full of plans to use education to reframe worldviews, including targeting the unconscious. These schemers have such plans for us and have had for many decades. Now it is all coming together or exploding, depending on who you ask.
While there is no guarantee that some species alive today will not potentially become victims of climate change in the future, the truth remains that ‘we’ are all evolutionary evidence of the very species who had the genes to have survived it in the past.
Stampeding the herd, for personal gain, usually works short term.
Then the payback begins.
I believe in human nature.
It seems to have stayed fairly constant for generations.
We are easily fooled, we want to believe & trust our peers.
So we are easily conned.
The UN is built on this.
However the more we are asked to pay, the more we judge the value being claimed.
So by my standards, the debate about man made climate change is only about to begin.
The matter has been a background noise to the majority of taxpayers, a minor inconvenience, until now.
Now the costs are coming home to roost, on the pay check of the citizen.
Now is the time that the conversation beings.
This scheme to enrich the well connected few at everyone else’s expense, is about to get interesting.
What a strange game of poker we seem to be witnessing!
In a real game of poker, when a person is bluffing, even though they have a hand full of junk and not even a pair of deuces, you can call their bluff. They have to show their hand, and all see they have nothing but junk.
However, as the IPCC plays the game, they never have to show their hand. They just keep doubling their bets, hoping all other players won’t have enough chips, and all will have to fold.
However they are running into a problem, and the problem is this:
That is not how the game is played.
The truth is all they have is junk, and the audacity of an almighty bluff.
Don’t fold. Call their bluff, over and over and over again.
My sister, my older sister, owns a dog; a Cavalier King Charles. A Cavalier does not shed. It is a ‘hair’ dog, and a hairy dog it is. She must take it to get it groomed. One thing I discovered, thanks to this dog, is that dogs have glands flanking the anus.
Now that I’ve got your attention I will briefly describe these glands. Now, we’ve all heard the old saying in regards to computers: garbage in, garbage out. But a biological organism, on the other hand, may not always be garbage in, but it’s definitely always going to be garbage out. The purpose of these anus flanking glands is to enhance the garbage coming out. Let us understand that by enhancement I mean ickier. One need look no further than a skunk as an example to illustrate (or, smell) what these glands are supposed to do. Dogs have wee versions of this glandulationism. Except, of course, for my older sister’s St. Charles where those glands are, well, enhanced. This is how I found out they exist. And this is how my older sister enhances (uh, maybe I should use a different word) my knowledge of life.
Believe me, I’ll get around to the UN IPCC pretty soon, but let us return to the dog grooming part. One of the more disagreeable jobs of the dog groomer is to get rid of the foul glop which collects in these glands. Needless to say, my sister felt compelled to explain this whole process to me just as I was about to sit down to dinner: a little bit like the way the media assaults us with foul stories of climate hysteria on prime time right as we get home from work preparing to relax before dinner. (See, I guess I am sort of tying this story into the blog post after all.)
Anyway, the way the dog groomer gets rid of the foul glop stuffing these glands is to use their thumbs, pressing either side of the dog’s anus, and voila, out pops the weasel. And they actually refer to this procedure as ‘expressing’ the dog: the dog is being ‘expressed.’ Garbage disposal is now an expression.
And, now, this walks us smack dab into the UN IPCC. Now, granted, we all know the IPCC climate warriors rely on computers, but unlike normal computers, these computers are more like biological organisms than computers because, regardless of whether or not there’s garbage going in (and some of the inputs of unadjusted raw data may actually be pretty good), they are always, always, going to have garbage coming out. And, as ‘cavalier’ as many IPCC members may be with facts, the process still finds it necessary to appoint a “peculiar” group to write a Summary for Policymakers (i.e. Summary for Lawmakers, Enforcers, and Regulators). This SPM group is much like those glands on either side of a dog’s anus. They take the garbage that is heaving and sliding their way, and glandulate that foul, fecal garbage into something that is even more dramatically ickier, stinkier, and more foul still. And, it is at this point, that the Mainstream Media is employed in much the same manner as a dog groomer. It should go without saying that it is not the MSM’s job to actually groom this IPCC canine. No, it is the MSM’s job to ‘express’ this dog. Now, I was going to say it’s the media’s job to ‘express’ this for public consumption but then I thought that might be a bridge too far. I don’t need to be held liable for vomit on computer screens. Aw, what the heck, I’ve just done it. And, there’s no denying that their job is, in the end, nothing more than to feed us a bunch of sh…
In the end, I can’t pretend to know what the moral of this whole story is. Suffice it to say, we can learn much more about the truth behind life from a tail wagging, slobbering, lap dog, and my sister, then we ever could from banks of computers, the self serving, opportunistic, bureaucrats at the IPCC, and the MSM that expresses them.
john robertson says:
“This scheme to enrich the well connected few at everyone else’s expense, is about to get interesting.”
My belief as well. Common sense and facts will win over stilted media any day when the people start feeling it in their pockets and standard of living.
Tom J says:
April 9, 2014 at 7:55 pm
++++++++++++++++++++
…. and there was I thinking that the saying “You can’t polish a turd, but you can roll it in glitter” would never be surpassed when describing current cAGW propaganda !!!!
I apologize if this is considered off-topic, but I have to comment after reading the tripe that pat – hat tip to him – is posting in reference to the Years of Living Dangerously. It all reads like something out of the Twilight Zone.
It appears the premise is that the climate “scientists” are working so hard to ‘communicate’ a message. Why? Duh! Cuz, like, that’s the objective of a ‘scientist’…once you don’t have any facts to stand on. To counter this, no doubt to great hilarity, they are going to try getting it through to us simple folk once again, but don’t worry! It’s a star-studded cast!
Yes, folks a cast of actors and actresses who are truly, TRULY committed. So commited, in fact, that they left their mansions and flew around the world, staying in resorts along the way no doubt, to tell us, the simple, groveling individual, that I, the viewer, am the problem. Oh please, sayer of truths Matt Damon, heal me!
Don’t you look away, ‘cuz there’s more! A wonderful cast of climate scientists who, shockingly, are all spouting the same drivel about how we are all going to die! 😀 Thank goodness there isn’t a single skeptic or even lukewarmer among them to bring down the party. After all, actors and pretentious left-wing alarmists truly are representative of the public.
You don’t believe me? Just read the article! They took into consideration the ‘little people’: farmers, the religious, and so on. The sad, misguided, dullards who just have lost their way. Such great care was taken that 97% of actors and left-wing alarmists think that they aren’t being patronizing, not one bit. Sure, the propagandists aren’t actually including the input from anyone who disagrees, but whether you’re a RINO and a CAGW proponent, or a CAGW proponent and a RINO, can’t we all just get along?
To top it all off, the name: Years of Living Dangerously, a tale told by the people…who are living the life you will never have…telling you how your life is endangering the planet…all the while not at all getting the transcendant levels of hypocrisy they are registering.
I am gobsmacked. There may be hope, though. The zealots are so clearly unable to see that they are continuing to lose the public’s support, that this may actually end up turning more people off than getting them on board the Grant Express!
Choo-freakin’-choo.
For those who haven’t,,,,,,,Read It!
The climate debate is just a symptom of desired global policy. The plow to cultivate such, if you will.
http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&nr=23&type=400
There needs to be much more exposure of UN Agenda 21 and ICLEI as drivers of CAGW so folks can see WHY this nonsense is taking place and the very frightening end if we don’t get it stopped soon. I fear for my grandchildren’s future. Will they be allowed to live even?
While respecting Dr Ball’s long contribution to skepticism there are nonetheless some places where his account lampoons with distortions and oversimplifications. Here are some quick responses:
“Tol as a member of IPCC since 1995”
Members of the IPCC are the country delegates. They change over the years and so membership is quite fluid. If one is looking for a controlling body they should look to the UNEP, the WMO and the IPCC exec leadership. Tol not held membership of the IPCC in any meaningful sense. He has only ever been an expert author. It was earlier, in 1993 that Tol was asked by his PhD supervisor to make a substantial contribute to a WGIII chapter — mostly using the research in the phd he was writing along with the work of another Phd.
“Maurice Strong, who organized the entire political and scientific process of the IPCC”
I dunno where this claim comes from. Maurice Strong is important but not in this specific way.
“The IPCC was created to predetermine a scientific result and amplify it through alarmism. This meant creating a controlled and directed political structure, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).”
This is true except that it failed. The UNEP plan was defeated. In Dec 1990 an independent negotiating committee was created instead, and there was friction between the two.
“Working Group I (WG I), The Physical Science Basis was limited, by the UNFCCC definition, to only human causes of global warming/climate change; effectively only CO2.”
It is true that the UNFCCC document introduced this new definition of the term ‘climate change’ in 1992, but there was a protest against this definition and a call to make clear to policy makers the difference in use by the IPCC. This succeeded with a footnote in the SAR Summary that John Zillman of Australia managed to get up at the approval plenary in Madrid. See also the Glossary of the Summary.
“WG I’s results became the sole starting assumption for Working Group II (WG II), Impact, Adaptation and Vulnerability. They became the source of speculated alarmism that focussed only on negative impacts. Like the Stern Report it was a cost without the benefit study. There was no good news.”
Dr Ball should be careful in likening the IPCC reports to the Stern Report in the same essay where he discussing Tol’s contribution to the IPCC since 1995. It was the moderate outcome of the cost/benefit analysis that cause all the problem with for Tol’s contribution to SAR.
“Richard Tol resigned from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) because their latest report was too alarmist. His action proves that the latest IPCC Report (AR5) raised the level of alarmism without justification.”
This claim of “proof” doesn’t hold H2O. I wish the writer had been more careful because it really damages the credibility of an otherwise quite interesting piece.
***welcome to the “dragon’s den”:
9 April: Bloomberg: Reed Lanberg: U.K. Creating Climate Finance ‘Lab’ to Meet UN $100 Billion Goal
The U.K. government said it’s forming a “lab” to study ways to boost funding for climate-protection projects, part of a United Nations-led effort to channel $100 billion a year into the industry by 2020.
Energy Minister Greg Barker said government officials and investors from around the world will meet in London on June 3 to open a “global innovation lab for climate finance.” Norway, France, Japan and Denmark are involved, he said…
“The outlook for climate investment is looking up,” Barker said at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance conference in New York today. “Mankind might just prove capabale of rising to the greatest challenge of our century.”
Barker said the finance lab would work like a ***“dragon’s den” for investments, stress-testing ideas to make sure they work before giving them the green light for government and private funding to flow…
Barker said he’s optimistic that poltical attention is returning to protecting the environment because U.S. President Barack Obama will meet his Chinese counterpart in New York in September to discuss climate.
“Very few global leaders have been investing big political capital in climate action,” Barker said. “They simply would not be going near this issue if both parties didn’t see there was some chance of progress, real progress.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-09/u-k-creating-climate-finance-lab-to-meet-un-100-billion-goal.html
keep a careful watch on your retirement funds:
9 April: RTCC: Sophie Yeo: US, UK, Germany canvass private sector on boosting climate finance
World Bank and Merrill Lynch among those working on ‘Climate Finance Lab’ to speed up $100bn fundraising goal.
The US, UK and Germany will invite the private sector to propose ways to raise the billions needed to tackle climate change, in an initiative that UK minister Greg Barker will launch in New York today. The Global Innovation Lab for Climate Finance – or ‘The Lab’ – has been designed to spur private sector investments into projects to help developing countries prepare for a warmer world, although it will stop short of offering any new fundraising targets. Despite a pledge from rich countries in 2009 to provide poor nations with US$ 100billion a year from 2020, these funds have so far dribbled in slowly…
The ability of governments to leverage private sector investment will be vital in enabling developed countries to deliver on their $100 billion promise, which is key to maintaining trust between developed and developing countries…
Among the investors and development banks that will comprise the membership of the Lab are the World Bank, Bank of America and Merrill Lynch. Bringing together public and private partners is essential in delivering the large amount of money required, with public funds expected to be used to leverage large amount of private capital. According to Greg Barker, the UK has a “direct national interest” in supporting international action on climate change, as around two thirds of greenhouse gases are projected to come from the developing world by 2020…
“There has never been a more important time to convert CLIMATE FINANCE IDEAS and knowledge into action,” said Elizabeth Littlefield, CEO of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the US development finance institution, who will serve on the Lab…
http://www.rtcc.org/2014/04/09/us-uk-germany-canvass-private-sector-on-boosting-climate-finance/
Dr. Ball,
Very nice essay, thanks for more “inside the dugout” perspective.
You wrote;
“The attacks were ferocious and nasty, which has become a measure of proximity to the truth.”
My father was a P-51 pilot in the US Army Air Force escorting bombers over occupied Europe in 1944. He always said; even if it was cloudy and you could not see the ground you could always tell when you where over the target because the FLAK starting flying (towards you).
Nice job, thanks again. Kevin.
Email subject “Your App Could Help Climate Change” from ESRI geographic information system company invites submissions of climate relilience Apps. The link goes to Hacker League hackathon in support of “The Climate Action Plan” and the Climate Data Initiative.
https://www.hackerleague.org/hackathons/esri-climate-resilience-app-challenge-2014
“In June 2013 as part of The Climate Action Plan, President Obama announced the Climate Data Initiative, an effort to encourage tech innovators to use data about climate change risks and impacts in compelling ways to help citizens, businesses, and communities makes smart choices in the face of climate change.”
His action “helps” to prove…..ok nitpickers….I am canceling showtime. Docudrama
Pure propaganda from a cast of morons
Dr. Tim Ball began his essay by claiming:
Tim, with all due respect, while I appreciate that you have the best of intentions, this is a totally inaccurate assertion.
First of all, the IPCC is comprised of “governments” – not scientists of any kind or persuasion, nor economists, nor any of the myriad other so-called “professionals” and/or authors who might “lead” – or “contribute to” – the writing and formulation of any IPCC report. Ergo, only “governments” can “resign” from the IPCC. To the best of my knowledge, none have done so.
I would not dispute that some governments may well choose to designate any of the above as one of their official delegates (cf Maldives and Mark Lynas in the past). Nor would I dispute that some of the people who participate in the writing (or in Bob Ward’s case, the so-called “expert reviewing”) of an IPCC report may believe – as does Myles Allen, for example – that they are the IPCC! But this does not make it so.
Tol did, indeed, withdraw his name from the list of “Drafting Authors” of AR5 WGII’s Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) because he believed (quite correctly, IMHO) that the SPM was too alarmist. But this is not equivalent to “[resigning] from the IPCC”.
In fact Tol confirmed this in a comment responding to my query on Bishop Hill a few days ago:
The powers that be at the IPCC do an admirable job of spreading fog in all directions (aided and abetted occasionally by the U.K. Met Office’s IPCC-nik, Richard Betts.) Not the least of which is exemplified by their March 31/14 Press Conference, during which I had observed that both IPCC Chair, Rajendra Pachauri and WGII Co-Chair, Chris Field succeeded in increasing the fog by using SPM and “the report” almost interchangeably.
In short, Tim, I don’t mean to criticize, but I do believe it is very important that we (unlike Les Warmerables [h/t Mark Steyn]) be totally committed to “truth in posting”. And I very much regret that your opening assertion does not meet such a commitment.
Hillary???????hockey stick hansen not a scientist? You need to get your facts straight
@Tim Ball
See Hilary Ostrov’s remarks above.
I do not think I was naive. Organizations like the IPCC are best reformed from the inside. At the start of AR5, a number of people had the scandals of AR4 fresh in their mind and worked hard to avoid repetition. That sense disappeared over time.
The first draft of the SPM had a clear message: Many of the worst impacts of climate change are really symptoms of underdevelopment and mismanagement. It was the first time that this statement had broad support.
This message disappeared from subsequent drafts as chapters started to compete for the headline conclusion.
I think Chapter 10 is fine. I also think I helped to improve a few other chapters. I even think that the SPM would have been worse without me.
What sort of dissonance must you be creating to 1) believe that there is an issue 2) realise that the data does not support your belief and then 3) lie about what the data is saying?
There are some dark dark corners in the human mind!
‘ it was a career opportunity,’
That is an main driver for some of its prophets , climate ‘science’ went form little know and less cared about cousin of the physical science to main stream , head-line garbing one with more funding then it knew what to do with and lots of new jobs with pick up the phone access to politically leaders.
Its no surprise to find those whose career was ‘made’ by AGW are fighting for all their worth to keep ‘the cause’ on track for it they have not got that what have they got ?
in a report titled “Tamiflu: Millions wasted on flu drug, claims major report” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26954482
we read
“Carl Heneghan, Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford and one of the report’s authors, told the BBC: “I think the whole £500m has not benefited human health in any way and we may have harmed people. ”
“The system that exists for producing evidence on drugs is so flawed and open to misuse that the public has been misled.”
If the system for drugs is wide open for misuse then why do people think climate science is the ‘gold standard’. Is it it not possible that the system climate science uses for producing evidence is also ‘open to misuse’?
Seems climate science is more untouchable than medical science [where angels fear to tread]?
The most revealing point for me is John T. Houghton. Houghton is currently Honorary Scientist of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at the Meteorological Office
He is called a ‘green christian’ and believes in reducing co2 and thinks ‘ There is a Christian imperative for this’: and views “This lack of will is a spiritual problem ” and “that not to care for the earth is a SIN” http://www.christian-ecology.org.uk/houghton.htm
He says his belief “has been a great source of strength to me in my work with the IPCC. I felt this particularly strongly as a few of us met for prayer during the very demanding IPCC Plenary in Shanghai.” and ” If human communities are to be fulfilled and creative, they not only need goals related to economic performance but also moral and spiritual goals. Care for the overall health of the planet is such a goal. ” http://www.jri.org.uk/resource/climatechangeoverview.htm
‘Caring for the planet’ is an ego inflated patrician mindset. A science mindset cares for the truth not indulging in private fantasy.
This for me explains everything. Climate science and the Met Office has been hijacked and under the dominion of religious crusaders. Of course there is ‘no debate’.
Given the climate reports are heavy on the ‘predictions’ is it not a sin to ‘bear false witness’ too?
Only thanks to the IPCC did I learn about the MWP, as more and more accounts of it appeared on the web. Blowback.
And suddenly all of European history made sense to me – the fall of Rome, the Dark Ages, the rise of the Holy Empire, the building of cathedrals, the crusades, the Black Death epidemics etc.
Today you can use the warmists as negative oracles; much like Eurocrats or Keynesian economists.
Halfway into your article I had to take a break. What you were exposing was all too depressing, and I was in no doubt only more deliberate CAGW fraud was about to be revealed. Depressing indeed. Hopefully one day not too long into the future the tide will turn and the fraud will be washed down the sewer where it and its proponents, those who knew they were manipulating and not being entirely truthful, belongs. Brilliant article, thanks.
I am intrigued about this upcoming American TV series, which I suspect will have the exact opposite effect to what is desired.
I have many friends who are indifferent to the subject of man made climate change, so we rarely discuss it. The exceptions occur when something supposedly scary happens and they often turn to me for advice, as being “someone who knows about this stuff”.
For example, the Philippines hurricane which was supposedly the strongest ever, but when you point out that this was estimated from a satellite when it was still offshore, but when it came onshore it was a Category 4, then it is like a light going on, and you can visibly see the reaction of: “OK, so it’s just more global warming BS.”
Another example is fracking; in Europe, the green activist groups and Gazprom have persuaded the left that fracking is dangerous because it supposedly pollutes groundwater and causes earthquakes. If that really was the case, then why is the US sinking circa 70,000 new fracking holes a year, plus look what it has done to the US economy and strategic security. Once you explain that, the same light goes on as above.
And finally the IPCC report, I usually sum this up by saying, “What would all these guys do if they said there was no global warming and why is it necessary to have conclusions (written by politicians’ appointees) that are so different from what is written by ‘scientists’ in the guts of the report?” If the point needs hammering home, then a quick discussion on the manipulation of GISS’s pre-satellite era temperature statistics normally does the trick.
Yep, the bells are starting to Tol.
IPCC report.
Its all rabid dog expressions.
I think many skeptics have taken a journey similar to Tol’s.
For me, mild skepticism turned into full rejection because of AR4, whose SPM said that the debate was over and the evidence was incontrovertible, but upon reading WG1 The Physical Science Basis one realized that they had nothing solid, just speculation.
Then Climategate turned rejection into fury at their self-professed dishonesty.
What’s left now is just to enjoy watching The Cause crumble and die.
“But, exactly which of the 1,245,867 replies posted to date contain obvious misstatements that require correction?”
Oh, you don’t have to go to the comments. As the good professor has dropped by to point out, the very opening sentence of the article is not particularly accurate, nor did Houghton ever say ‘Unless we announce disasters’.
You could start there. Shame that it doesn’t seem possible to write an article like this without ‘making stuff up’, but there it is. Perhaps you could belatedly add a ‘not to be taken seriously’ disclaimer as you did with poor old Stephen Wilde’s article ….
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/fabricated-quote-used-to-discredit-climate-scientist-1894552.html
“But, exactly which of the 1,245,867 replies posted to date contain obvious misstatements that require correction? 8<) mod"
****
Why so defensive? How many are too many? If it were my blog, I'd want as close to none as possible. Granted, this is a particularly egregious exercise in poor logic. But I do see others. Other kinds of mistakes as well, including lousy syntax and misleading titles,
“In short, Tim, I don’t mean to criticize, but I do believe it is very important that we (unlike Les Warmerables [h/t Mark Steyn]) be totally committed to “truth in posting”. And I very much regret that your opening assertion does not meet such a commitment.”
***
Hillary, well said. I hold our side….as we all should…to a higher standard.
Dr. Tim Ball,
Thank you for the informative essay and reminder as to the political and so-called “scientific” undertakings within the IPCC. It needs to be repeated often.
——
Richard Tol, thank you for standing for principle. That is a virtue missing to a large degree in the scientific fields today, most prominently anything related to global warming and species extinction risks of which seem to share the same ideological bed.
Are they really alarmed? Is it just crocodilian tears? You decide.
Thanks for the global warming alarmism leading to a backlash article.
I have heard of similar studies as well as the one that showed people changing channels en masse when global warming was mentioned. I can’t find it now.
They keep repeating the same thing over and over again thinking it will work eventually – a sure sign of madness. Alarmism is the sceptics’ best friend.
I have often said the same thing about alarmism and ‘solutions’.
If you believe that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying the biosphere, then why not pick the lesser of two evils ie coal V natural gas? Nuclear?
As Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski said of the IPCC’s 2007 Summary for Policymakers (The Greatest Scandal of Our Time’ – ERI Science 16 March 2007):
“The first ‘Summary for Policymakers’ statement on the man-made increase of CO2, is a cornerstone of the IPCC report, and of the global warming edifice. This statement is a manipulation and a half-truth. It is true that CO2 is ‘the most important anthropogenic [trace] greenhouse gas’, but a much more important greenhouse factor is the water naturally present in the atmosphere, which contributes some 95% to the total greenhouse effect. This basic fact is not mentioned at all in the ‘Summary for Policymakers’. Also not mentioned is the fact that 97% of the total annual emission of CO2 into the atmosphere comes from natural emissions of the land and sea; human beings add a mere 3%. This man-made 3% of CO2 emissions is responsible for a tiny fraction of the total greenhouse effect, probably close to 0.12%. Propositions of changing, or rather destroying, the global energy system because of this tiny human contribution, in face of the large short-term and long-term natural fluctuations of atmospheric CO2, are utterly irresponsible.”
How so right he was!
I took your meaning as pertaining to head posts only, not comments.
I see most of the head posts as opinion pieces anyway, unless backed up by verifiable data.
Maurice Strong is a former oil man full of mystery and intrigue. The following happened to me just last week. I was checking my bank statement and up popped $1 million. I gave it back.
“I took your meaning as pertaining to head posts only, not comments.
I see most of the head posts as opinion pieces anyway, unless backed up by verifiable data.”
Ah, now I get you, Jeff. No wonder you were a tad, what, bemused? No, just speaking about blog posts, not comments which I agree would of course be absurd. I was only being half serious about the editor idea anyway.. Something antithetical to the free flow of ideas and all that. Still, if I were Anthony I would not want blog posts to include manifestly incorrect leaps of logic. Nor would I want misleading titles.
Hey, I’m a perfectionist and as I said above, I hold our side to a higher standard. Mistakes, fallacious statements, misleading titles, and even fuzzy writing are all potential fodder for the warmists.
[Just] to add, I include “fuzzy writing”. because it can easily be misconstrued, perhaps deliberately, to the other sides advantage
From the Wall Street Journal:
It should come as no surprise that academia is dominated by alternative energy accolites and global warming alarmists. There is no balance in academic coverage, studies or research on these topics.
“The SPM is released before the Science Report because the difference between the two is deliberately wide to ramp up alarmism.”
That’s the first thing I noticed back in 2001, when I was just starting to look at CO2CAGW: the release of the SPM [or at least a lot of the conclusions] without releasing the science allegedly leading to the conclusions. I’d never seen that before in real science! And the time lag until the release of the body of the TAR was both untenable…and I was just not very happy. Red Flags…
“WG I’s results became the sole starting assumption for Working Group II (WG II), Impact, Adaptation and Vulnerability. They became the source of speculated alarmism that focussed only on negative impacts. Like the Stern Report it was a cost without the benefit study. There was no good news.”
Now that ‘really made me blow my stack’: no benefits! No possible benefits, either, which was impossible!
The point is that you don’t need to know much Climate Science to see some of its telltale Red Flags. And of course now we have the coup de grace, 0 correct predictions, which is what I’m telling everyone to prove CO2CAGW is wrong=”falsified” according to the principles of real science. That’s all you really need.
Of course a lot of people have no idea what I’m talking about because they don’t understand real science, and even the “mainstream” Climate Scientists are still up and about spouting more nonsense, after committing suicide by delivering the coup to themselves! And to compound our real malady- also “as seen on TV” – now we are learning that all those Wal Mart workers we see walking around are not getting a “living wage”: more Zombies!
I appreciate Richard Tol’s response and efforts with regard to completion of the Summary Report. Unfortunately and ironically, he both misses and proves the point of my article. If he read and understood what was being said in WG I “Physical Science Basis Report” he would know there is no justification for any speculated impact or remedial action. I explained some of the problems in this article;
http://drtimball.com/2012/climate-change-of-the-ipcc-is-daylight-robberyclimate-change-of-the-ipcc-is-daylight-robbery/
These problems are sufficient to cancel any proposed policies or actions. They are evidence not to act when put with the absolute failure of all IPCC predictions (projections). More important, it is evidence it is time to close the IPCC completely.
This makes sense as the subject of a book. It’s like the kind of expose by ex spies, or political insiders to shadowy events. If it is so, let Stanford wear the tail pinned on it. That Erlich’s classic failure with global cooling and mass starvation still bears this kind of fruit tells much about the lack of intellectual independence of an institution even across generations. What does it also say about integrity of their scientists when the late S. Schneider still guides their philosophy. Write a book and put some feet to the fire.
I can’t see where Sir John Houghton’s reference to Genesis 2:15 says anything about Man being good steward of the Earth (though I am no biblical expert). It talks about creating the Universe, the Earth and all it contains, Man and Woman. On the contrary, there are commands that Man till the Earth and have dominion over the land, sea and its animal resources.
There is the Hebrew expression Tikkun Olum, which suggests humanity’s shared responsibility to “heal, repair and transform the world”. (Per Wiki) the expression tikkun olam is used in the Mishnah in the phrase mip’nei tikkun ha-olam (“for the sake of tikkun of the world”) to indicate that a practice should be followed not because it is required by Biblical law, but because it helps avoid social disharmony.
Conspiracy ideation and denial of climate science by Dr Ball. Someone should do some research on that, eh?
[snip – sorry, smear videos not allowed, if you have an issue with Dr. Ball, take it up with him yourself, and please use your name when you start telling everyone how unqualified he is to speak. -Anthony]
Tom J says: @ April 9, 2014 at 7:55 pm ….
>>>>>>>>>>>
Now every time I read a news article I am going to think of ‘Expressing the Dog’ what a wonderful analogy.
I am going to have to send this to my Brother-in-law who runs a paper. (then duck and run.)
pokerguy says: @ April 10, 2014 at 7:44 am
“I took your meaning as pertaining to head posts only….
Hey, I’m a perfectionist and as I said above, I hold our side to a higher standard. Mistakes, fallacious statements, misleading titles, and even fuzzy writing are all potential fodder for the warmists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The problem is Anthony does not have the time to do the in-depth research to check every sentence of every post.
The power of WUWT is if a mistake is made (even in grammar or spelling) The audience quickly jumps on it like a pack of vicious dogs. If it is one of Anthony’s own articles it gets corrected (for spelling or grammar) or an addemdum or note is added. In some cases a simple line is used to cross out the incorrect material before correction in the main text.
THIS is the difference between WUWT and Warmist sites. Mistakes are allowed, acknowledged and corrected. Mistakes are not covered up at all costs including outright censorship in the supposed “Free Press.”
There is an exciting feature film to be made here, if we can find a producer with the guts to go up against the left-wing ideologues of Hollywood:
A cabal of wealthy oil-men, bankers, government apparatchiks, and technocrats hatch a plot to scare the world into forming a totalitarian world government and controlling all the world’s resources, by convincing everyone that Mankind is a plague upon the innocent Earth, and about to wreak infinite havoc with CO2 ‘pollution’ and ‘climate change’. With the governments of the West naively pouring billions of dollars into supporting this scheme, it looks about to succeed. But then, a rag-tag community of scientists and lovers of individual freedom emerges. . .
One could contrive different climactic (and climatic) endings. Perhaps the technocrats come up with a device that will efficiently remove vast quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere. Only it works too well, and forests and agriculture begin to die. The rag-tag skeptics rise up to tear down the devices, and turn the tables over on the totalitarians, saving Humanity, the Earth, and Freedom.
Their slogan: CO2 IS GOOD FOR PLANTS, GOOD FOR THE EARTH, AND GOOD FOR YOU!
/Mr Lynn
This from James Delingpole is scary:
SCHOOLCHILDREN TERRORISED AND BRAINWASHED BY GREEN PROPAGANDA SAYS DAMNING SURVEY
by JAMES DELINGPOLE 8 Apr 2014 93 POST A COMMENT
British schoolchildren are being brainwashed by a deep green environmental curriculum which fills their heads with “confusion, ignorance and fear”, says a new study by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
The report, by science writer Andrew Montford and statistician John Shade, finds that “eco-activism” hasbeen given free rein within schools for at least three decades. Children are being encouraged to become “little political activists” with a duty to “save the planet” not least by putting pressure on their parents.
This agenda can be found in teaching across the board – not just in obviously relevant subjects like science and geography but even in unrelated areas like French, Maths and English. It affects everything from field trips (often with an environmental theme, such as “sustainability”) to projects and film screenings (An Inconvenient Truth; The Age Of Stupid; The Day After Tomorrow) and even how well children perform in exams (with marks given automatically to children who “correctly” identify Carbon Dioxide as a major environmental threat).
The rot can be traced back at least as far as 1984, when Herbert London wrote Why are they Lying to our Children?
In his introduction, London wrote:
One evening more than a year ago I came home from university to find my elder daughter – then 13 – with tears streaming down her cheeks… When I gently inquired why she was crying, Staci said, ‘Because I don’t have a future’. [She] produced a mimeographed sheet suggesting that a dismal future – or none at all – is what awaits her…widespread famine…overpopulation…air pollution so bad everyone will wear gas masks…befouled rivers and streams…melting of the polar ice caps and world-wide devastation of coastal cities…an epidemic of cancer brought on by damage to the ozone layer…
This brainwashing became more widespread after the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, aided and abetted by useful idiots in John Major’s Conservative government such as former Environment Secretary John Selwyn Gummer (now Lord Gummer, a prominent eco-activist and investor in green technologies); then made even worse under Tony Blair’s Labour government which established a quango to advise on “sustainable” education and resulted in the study of sustainable development being made a compulsory part of teaching in geography, science, design and technology and citizenship.
Environmental initiatives described in the report include the Climate Change Schools Project, which encouraged children to police their parents like junior Stasi operatives. An evaluation report, published in 2009, said:
A really successful activity in this area was the “Climate Cops” event run by nPower. After an interactive event at a school, students were given police officer style notebooks, and they could ‘book’ themselves, friends or family members if they saw them wasting energy or performing other ‘climate unfriendly’ actions.
Subject areas which have been corrupted by environmental propaganda include:
Geography
Sample paragraph from a GCSE revision guide
Climate change isn’t something that is going to happen in the future – it’s happening now! Disasters, like the severe droughts in Niger, in sub-Saharan Africa, in 2005–6 and 2009, are wrecking people’s lives more and more frequently. And it’s going to get worse.
English
From a GCSE revision guide
Adjectives describe Things and People
‘Global warming is bad’ – Too boring – zero marks alert
‘Global warming is a serious and very worrying issue’ – Much better – the adjectives will impress the examiner
French
From an A level French text (with translation)
Plus personne ne peut le nier, les scientifiques sont unanimes, et nous le constatons chaque jour: jamais dans l’histoire de l’humanité, les menaces n’ont été aussi grandes…Ce sont l’air, l’eau, le sol, le climat…les animaux que nous sommes en train de massacrer méticuleusement.
Toi et tes ami(e)s, vous avez rendez-vous avec l’histoire. Devenez des consomm’acteurs’ avertis…et soyez avocats de la vie et citoyens de la Terre…
Nobody can deny it, scientists are unanimous and we see it every day: never in the history of humanity have the dangers been so great…We are in the course of meticulously destroying the air, the water, the climate…and the animals.
You and your friends have a rendezvous with history. Become responsible consumers…and be advocates for life and citizens of the Earth…
Economics
Sample question:
Explain why developed rich countries should provide money to poorer, developing countries so that they can reduce their CO2 emissions.
Religious Studies
Sample questions:
Explain two reasons why many religious believers are concerned about climate change
Explain actions religious people might take to look after the planet.
Physics
GCSE sample answer, deemed worthy of full marks by AQA examining board:
I think wind turbines are a good idea as global warming from burning coal is an increasing problem and needs to be stopped.
The report’s authors conclude:
The seriousness of what we have seen is hard to overstate. The fact that children’s ability to pass their exams – and hence their future life prospects – appears to depend on being able to demonstrate their climate change orthodoxy is painfully reminiscent of life in communist-era Eastern Europe or Mao’s China. Politicians seem to have given the nod to this process, effectively handing much of the curriculum to green activists. The question of whether what is taught in the classroom is scientific or political, balanced or biased, true or false seems to have gone unexamined.
The Michael Mann legal battle rages on and how can you help? Buy Tim’s bestselling book…
http://www.stairwaypress.com/bookstore/the-deliberate-corruption-of-climate-science/
The UN and its useful idiots won’t stop pushing alarmist scary scenarios until they achieve global communism-marxism-lenninism, which must never-ever be allowed. The threat is very real.
Freedom to too important to hand it over to UN liars and propagandists.
The IPCC: Bar the Media, Welcome the Activists…
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2014/04/12/the-ipcc-bar-the-media-welcome-the-activists/
De-fund the IPCC.