People Starting To Ask About Motive For Massive IPCC Deception

Update: A guest post response, along with a comment from me has been posted, please see A big (goose) step backwards

Guest Opinion: Dr.Tim Ball

Skeptics have done a reasonable job of explaining what and how the IPCC created bad climate science. Now, as more people understand what the skeptics are saying, the question that most skeptics have not, or do not want to address is being asked – why? What is the motive behind corrupting science to such an extent? Some skeptics seem to believe it is just poor quality scientists, who don’t understand physics, but that doesn’t explain the amount, and obviously deliberate nature, of what has been presented to the public. What motive would you give, when asked?

The first step in understanding, is knowledge about how easily large-scale deceptions are achieved. Here is an explanation from one of the best proponents in history.

“All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.”


Do these remarks explain the comments of Jonathan Gruber about legislation for the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare? Do the remarks fit the machinations of the founders of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the activities of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) disclosed in their 6000 leaked emails? It is instructive to know that Professor Gruber’s health care models are inaccessible, protected as proprietary.

The author of the quote was a leader whose lies and deceptions caused global disaster, including the deaths of millions of people. In a complex deception, the IPCC established a false result, the unproven hypothesis that human CO2 was causing global warming, then used it as the basis for a false premise that justifies the false result. It is a classic circular argument, but essential to perpetuate the phony results, which are the basis of all official climate change, energy, and environmental policies.

They successfully fooled the majority and even though many are starting to ask questions about contradictions, the central argument that CO2 is a demon gas destroying the planet through climate change, remains. There are three phases in countering what most people understand and convincing them of what was done. First, you have to explain the scientific method and the hypothesis they tried to prove, instead of the proper method of disproving it. Then you must identify the fundamental scientific flaws, in a way people understand. Third, you must anticipate the next question, because, as people grasp what is wrong and what was done, by understanding the first two stages, they inevitably ask the basic question skeptics have not answered effectively. Who did it and what was the motive? You have to overcome the technique so succinctly portrayed in the cartoon (Figure 1).

The response must counteract all the issues detailed in Adolf Hitler’s cynical comments, but also the extremely commendable motive of saving the planet, used by the IPCC and alarmists.


Figure 1

There are several roadblocks, beyond those Hitler identified. Some are inherent to individuals and others to society. People want to believe the best in people, especially if they have certain positions in society. Most can’t imagine scientists would do anything other than honest science. Most assume scientists avoid politics as much as possible because science is theoretically apolitical. One argument that is increasingly effective against this concern is funding. Follow the money is so basic, human greed, that even scientists are included.

Most find it hard to believe that a few people could fool the world. This is why the consensus argument was used from the start. Initially, it referred to the then approximately 6000 or so involved directly or indirectly in the IPCC. Later it was converted to the 97 percent figure concocted by Oreske, and later Cook. Most people don’t know consensus has no relevance to science. The consensus argument also marginalized the few scientists and others who dared to speak out.

There were also deliberate efforts to marginalize this small group with terminology. Skeptics has a different meaning for science and the public. For the former they are healthy and necessary, for the latter an irritating non-conformist. When the facts contradicted the hypothesis, namely that temperature stopped rising while CO2 continued to increase, a more egregious name was necessary. In the latter half of the 20th century, a denier was automatically associated with the holocaust.

Another form of marginalizing, applied to minority groups, is to give them a unique label. In climate, as in many other areas where people keep asking questions for which they receive inadequate answers, they are called conspiracy theorists. It is why I prefer the term cabal, a secretive political clique or faction, named after the initials of Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley and Lauderdale, ministers to Charles II. Maurice Strong referred to the cabal when he speculated in 1990,

What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?…In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?

The motive emerged from the cabal within the Club of Rome around the themes identified by their founder, scientist Alexander King, in the publication The First Global Revolution. They took the Malthusian argument that the population was outgrowing food resources and said it was outgrowing all resources. The problem overall was bad, but was exacerbated and accelerated by industrialized nations. They were later identified as the nations in Annex 1 of the Kyoto Accord. The objective to achieve the motive was to reduce industrialization by identifying CO2 as causing global warming. It had to be a human caused variable that transcended national boundaries and therefore could only be resolved by a world government, (the conspiracy theory). Two parallel paths required political control, supported by scientific “proof” that CO2 was the demon.

All this was achieved with the political and organizational skills of Maurice Strong. Neil Hrab explains how Strong achieved the goal.

How has Strong promoted concepts like sustainable development to consume the world’s attention? Mainly by using his prodigious skills as a networker. Over a lifetime of mixing private sector career success with stints in government and international groups, Strong has honed his networking abilities to perfection. He can bring presidents, prime ministers and potentates from the world’s four corners to big environmental conferences such as the 1992 Rio Summit, an environmental spectacle organized by Strong and attended by more than 100 heads of state.

Here is a simple flow chart of what happened at Rio.


The political structure of Agenda 21 included the environmental catch-all, the precautionary principle, as Principle 15.

In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

What reads like a deep concern for doing good, is actually a essentially a carte blanche to label anything as requiring government intervention. The excuse for action is the unassailable “protect the environment”. Who decides which State is capable? Who decides what is “serious” or “irreversible”? Who decides what “lack of full scientific certainty” means?

Maurice Strong set out the problem, as he saw it, in his keynote speech in Rio in 1992.

“Central to the issues we are going to have to deal with are: patterns of production and consumption in the industrial world that are undermining the Earth’s life-support systems; the explosive increase in population, largely in the developing world, that is adding a quarter of a million people daily; deepening disparities between rich and poor that leave 75 per cent of humanity struggling to live; and an economic system that takes no account of ecological costs or damage – one which views unfettered growth as progress. We have been the most successful species ever; we are now a species out of control. Our very success is leading us to a dangerous future.”

The motive was to protect the world from the people, particularly people in the industrial world. Measure of their damage was the amount of CO2 their industry produced. This was required as scientific proof that human CO2 was the cause.

From its inception, the IPCC focused on human production of CO2. It began with the definition of climate change, provided by the UNFCCC, as only those changes caused by humans. This effctively sidelined natural causes. The computer models produced the pre-programmed results and everything was amplified, and exaggerated through the IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The deception was very effective because of the cynical weaknesses Hitler identifies, the natural assumption that nobody could deceive, on such an important issue, and on such a scale, but also because most didn’t know what was being done.

People who knew, didn’t think to question what was going on for a variety of reasons. This situation makes the statement by German meteorologist and physicist Klaus-Eckert Puls even more important.

“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.”

Puls commented on the scientific implications of the deception when he said,

“There’s nothing we can do to stop it (climate change). Scientifically, it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob.”

Now, as more and more people learn what Puls identifies, they will start to ask, who did it and what was the motive. When you understand what Adolf Hitler is saying in the quote from “Mein Kampf” above, you realize how easy it was to create the political formula of Agenda 21 and the scientific formula of the IPCC. Those responsible for the formation, structure, research, and final Reports, easily convinced the world they were a scientific organization making valid scientific statements. They also quckly and easily marginalized skeptics, as the leaked CRU emails exposed.

Do you have another or better explanation of a motive?


Disclaimer [added]: This post is entirely the opinion of Dr. Tim Ball, it does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Anthony Watts or other authors who publish at WUWT. – Anthony Watts

Update: A guest post response, along with a comment from me has been posted, please see A big (goose) step backwards

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 23, 2014 12:34 pm

It is a waste of time to speculate about motives of corrupt scientists and better to focus on why the science is wrong.

Reply to  Philip Lee
November 23, 2014 1:12 pm

Not really – the most common indignant question I get from believers is, “WHY? Why would so many people lie about it? What’s their goal? Your conspiracy theory is stupid”.
I was last asked that by someone making about a quarter million per year designing “sustainable” homes. Nope, he just can’t figure out why anyone would lie about environmental issues.

Peter Osborne
Reply to  CodeTech
November 23, 2014 2:20 pm

The “climate change” crowd want money and power. There are hundreds of billions up for grabs IF you spout the party line. Power, there are many would be global autocrats among us just looking for a cause. Always have been, always will be. We must reject them. The ordinary true believer is a dupe, and will go to great lengths to avoid facing the fact that they’ve been duped. Human nature.

Reply to  CodeTech
November 23, 2014 3:48 pm

Because he, like they, have a vested interest in perpetuating the meme. Even if he doesn’t realize it consciously, which borders on being self-delusional, at some level, he knows it’s better if he supports this than not.

Proud Skeptic
Reply to  CodeTech
November 23, 2014 4:04 pm

I agree. I’ve been having a debate on this with an intelligent and well meaning friend for about ten years now. The debate is truly a thing to behold…sometimes calm, sometimes so emotional I suggest we take a break and discuss something less controversial…like abortion.
He reads less about the subject than I do and freely admits to not having the time to understand the science.
The one point he comes back to…and I have a hard time cracking the argument…is that he will change his mind when NOAA and NASA change theirs.
In an environment like ours, where we respect each other but pound away at each other for years, his having the “official” agencies on his side makes it tough to win the argument.
No derogatory comments about my friend, please. He has a remarkable mind and is worthy of great respect.

Doug Allen
Reply to  CodeTech
November 23, 2014 5:52 pm

Proud skeptic shows the respect required to deserve the trust of those with whom you disagree, for instance, those who find it almost impossible to acknowledge that NOAA and NASA may be wrong. I find it so sad and counterproductive that many here assume the worst motives and lack of intelligence of those for those who disagree, and think their put-downs and ad hominems will make the situation better. Thank you Proud Skeptic for charity toward your misguided friend.

Reply to  CodeTech
November 23, 2014 7:54 pm

The AGW religion acknowledges only the less relevant shade of green.
“CalSTRS CEO Jack Ehnes, Generation Investment Management Co-Founder David Blood and’s Bill McKibben have a lively conversation about how investors can influence the transition to a low-carbon economy.” Ehnes also serves on the Ceres board of directors. Prior to co-founding Generation Investment Management, David Blood served as the co-CEO and CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management.”
David Blood is GIM co-founder with Al Gore. Obama is co-founder of the Chicago Carbon Exchange with Al Gore. Obama arranged the financing – a Grace Foundation loan.

Olaf Koenders
Reply to  CodeTech
November 24, 2014 12:28 am

Proud skeptic, have you asked your friend to look into the living habits of those that espouse the IPCC CO2 meme, such as the Goreacle and ask him to believe in their cause when they act like they believe in it themselves? I mean, Goreacle buying up beachfront property for one thing and a massive home with energy bills the size of a small town..
I respect your friend and accept his intelligence on your word alone, however your friend accepts the word of the CO2 soothsayers that live as plush as they like, whilst telling your friend to tighten his belt.

Proud Skeptic
Reply to  CodeTech
November 24, 2014 1:13 am

Olaf Koenders – My friend doesn’t give any credence to Gore (on the one hand) or WUWT (on the other). He is very specific that he feels that NASA and NOAA have no ax to grind and can be trusted. His point remains that until these agencies change their story on “climate whatever”, who is he to think otherwise?
I have come at him from every angle imaginable and WUWT has been a tremendous source of information and therefore a huge help.
I have reminded him that scientists gotta eat, just like everyone else and should be regarded like people with failings like the rest of us. I have presented him with graphs and charts showing the flattening of temperatures for the last 18 years. I have sent him graphs showing the divergence of climate model temperature predictions from actual temperatures. I have sent him information on hurricane and drought histories that contradict the common wisdom of increased violent weather that climateers present us with daily.
I have specifically not sent him anything that smacks of conspiracy theories for obvious reasons. I have never, though I would love to, posed the following question: If the solution to climate change were to decrease the size of government and retract the tentacles of government regulators, do you think that President Obama would be all over this like he is? Cynical arguments don’t help here.
In the final analysis the trick to winning this debate (which is literally ten years running) is to find a way to explain why he should believe the likes of Anthony Watts and not NOAA or NASA. You have to admit that for the average person, that is a tough sell. His position is completely understandable. He finds the thought of global warming and the predictions of disaster disconcerting and, in his own words, “would like nothing better than to believe it isn’t happening.”
I bring up my friend because I think this is the best example I know of the difficulties in fighting the climate information war.
Got a magic bullet? I’m listening.

Reply to  CodeTech
November 24, 2014 1:45 am

Why? Its simple….when you lie, cheat, deceive, and conspire with others, so that you push through false papers to enhance your academic status, where these papers are then used to support your claims for funding, and then used to support your case to win fat salaries and tenured jobs, and all this is done all for nothing other than personal gain… its called FRAUD.
What is it with you people, you think that you have to be a bank robber to go to jail? That only blue collar people are dishonest and corrupt and should be punished and sent to prison? This is pure and simple white collar crime, how about stopping the snobbery here and start dealing with the real issue here, class prejudice and class snobbery. A crime is a crime. Global warming is a fraud. You think that every single paper that is published, is pure and clean from lies? Give me a break. As a referring who tried for many years to stop this nonsense (my rejection rate was over 90%), I know how the game is played, its a joke.
We have serious and I man SERIOUS problems in science. Scientists lie, and they don’t get punished. Referees of papers and editors are failing their jobs and let this rubbish be published. How about lifting the standard here guys. You lie, you get kicked out from your job and can never publish again. You fail in your duties as a referee, you get black listed from referring again.
What we need are standards, and some organization to police them. There is too much money involved and the dishonest and criminal elements of science are now taking advantage of the system. It is time to police science. All this mamby pamby talk of treating these liars as miss understood or more laughably poorly understood scientific geniuses is just bogus talk, for you don’t want to admit the truth, for if you did, you know you all would have serious problem, and it would require a lot of hard introspection, and not to mention, many so called elites to be kicked out of science.
What is the real fear ladies and gentlemen? Or should I ask, what and where is the real shame!
This is all ridiculous head-in-the-sand talk. You, we, every body knows the real problem. The scientific community is no different to any other community of human society, it has corruption. The only difference is that, the scientific community is too ashamed, or too delusion, or too cowardly to do anthing about it.

M Courtney
Reply to  CodeTech
November 24, 2014 3:01 am

…is that he will change his mind when NOAA and NASA change theirs.

So the question isn’t why do NOAA and NASA hold such an opinion; the question is what would make NOAA and NASA hold change an opinion?
Your friend must know enough about the subject to know that CO2 absorbs … we all know the hypothesis. And the warming of the 20th Century fit the hypothesis… until it didn’t.
Yes, you can go for the:
1) The rate of warming pre 1950 was the same as the rate of warming post 1950 so the impact of greater emissions isn’t big.
2) How come no-one ever shows GASTA vs CO2 emissions? That is the hypothesis of cause and effect so why is it never publicised, hmm?
3) The pause wasn’t predicted – the models are systematically wrong (IPCC AR5 Box 9.2).
But that is countering why NOAA and NASA hold such an opinion.
To address why they don’t change ask him (or her) about their career – when did admitting being wrong help?
When did the institution they work for admit it was wrong – was it a crisis? Did it lead to improved reputation and thus continued prestige and funding? It never does).
If he or she won’t accept that NOAA or NASA could ever have made a mistake then he or she presumably believes in phlogiston and epicycles… but you say he or she’s not an idiot so don’t worry about that.
Thus the question remains – why would NOAA or NASA change their minds before they have to?
It is pressure from outside that move institutions. Institutions do not move themselves. And if he or she thinks about that from his or her own experience – they know that.

Phil R
Reply to  CodeTech
November 24, 2014 6:31 am

Proud Skeptic

Got a magic bullet? I’m listening.

Maybe not a magic bullet, but does your friend agree that some people (even people in positions of authority) may have strong biases, and that these biases can influence their research (not saying they are dishonest, could be a subconscious influence). If so, you might have a discussion with him about James Hansen (Scientist by day, extreme activist by night), formerly of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and why, IIRC, the NASA GISS temperature record conveniently and coincidentally tends to run hotter than the others.
Perfect example that NASA and NOAA may not be inhabited by the apolitical, trustworthy, truly objective scientists that he thinks they are. Again, not a magic bullet, but unless your friend is the type of person who just has an unshakeable belief in the infallibility of people in authority, maybe this could start him questioning his position. Maybe he should ask himself (or you could ask him), what would make NASA and NOAA change their positions if they are run by believers and activists like Hansen and their funding may largely be dependent on promoting the global warming meme?

Proud Skeptic
Reply to  CodeTech
November 24, 2014 6:38 am

M Courtney
“Thus the question remains – why would NOAA or NASA change their minds before they have to?”
I asked this question in a different way. I asked if he thought that once the “accepted science” was proven wrong NOAA and NASA would just come out and say “Ooops! My bad!” and admit they were wrong. He admitted that it would take them a while to come down off their high horse.
ANYWAY, thanks for the input. I think we all know that there is no magic bullet argument here. My ongoing debate with my friend is a great example of the problem we face.
My personal opinion is that there is something sneaky going on with the climate alarmists. I certainly don’t trust the UN IPCC as far as I could throw Pachauri. As for NOAA and NASA, I think it is a combination of the advocacy getting ahead of the science and, at least for the last five or six years, there being a desire by the administration to push this in order to consolidate more power in DC.
Thank you, Anthony for providing us with up to date information on this.

Reply to  CodeTech
November 24, 2014 6:45 am

In their own words:
“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on
human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to
discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy,
because of what we might do with it.”
– Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the
worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
– Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another
United States. We can’t let other countries have the same
number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US.
We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
-Michael Oppenheimer,
Environmental Defense Fund
“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty,
reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
-Professor Maurice King
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
-Al Gore,
Climate Change activist
“It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
“The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and
spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest
opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level.”
-Al Gore,
Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech
“We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis…”
– David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member
“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place
for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and
plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams,
free shackled rivers and return to wilderness
millions of acres of presently settled land.”
– David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!

Reply to  CodeTech
November 24, 2014 7:35 am

For those that believe that climate scientists have been corrupted globally, I have a question – why hasn’t this same kind of global corruption happened in other areas of scientific research? For example, cancer research, HIV/AIDs research, research on ALS or Alzheimer’s?

Reply to  Chris
November 24, 2014 7:57 am

Follow the money. The power. The politics of the REASON behind the politicization of “controlling the world’s energy” ..
If there were ten trillion in money in ALS research, if there were 7 billion people’s lives in HIV research (instead of the “mere few billion” available to be exploited) then those too would be exploited by the immoral, unethical, and power-grabbing elites. Which, in HIV/AIDS research, in some parts of the cancer fields, and in today’s White House of Michelle’s “weight control” programs, ARE being exploited for money, power, and research domination.
there is, for example, many thousands of articles about HIV/AIDS showing the same propaganda by the same agencies and the same people and the same politicians as in CAGW propaganda. But that field has much MORE money than hundreds of others many times more important BECAUSE of its associated political power and influence through the homosexual communities now in power and in the press.

M Courtney
Reply to  CodeTech
November 24, 2014 7:50 am

Good question Chris.
It states:

Concerned that human activities have been substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, that these increases enhance the natural greenhouse effect,
and that this will result on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere and may adversely affect natural ecosystems and humankind

And also

Recognizing that steps required to understand and address climate change will be environmentally, socially and economically most effective if they are based on relevant scientific, technical and economic considerations and continually re-evaluated in the light of new findings in these areas

The other examples you gave were being researched because of observations of reality.
AGW is researched because it is funded due to a political decision. The “relevant scientific, technical and economic considerations” is a gravy train that assumes that the concern is justofoed.
But if it isn’t then… wel, – it was always political simnce the funding started. lok at how many edclogy courses antedate 1992.

M Courtney
Reply to  CodeTech
November 24, 2014 7:51 am

Correcting my typos at the end of the last comment:
AGW is researched because it is funded due to a political decision. The “relevant scientific, technical and economic considerations” is a gravy train that assumes that the concern is justified.
But if it isn’t then… well, – it was always political since the funding started. Look at how many ecology courses antedate 1992.

Reply to  CodeTech
November 24, 2014 11:21 am

Proud Skeptic,
I sympathize with you. I have a cousin that I debate with in much the same way. My new tactic, one in which I think I making the most inroads is to go after the credibility of the organization/person he holds in such high regard. There is plenty of ammunition within this site that can be used to chip away at their credibility.
Anecdotally, with my cousin, he reads climate articles, but not as prolifically as many of us here do, so he is not as well-equipped to debate successfully and relies on organizations like NOAA or NASA. He also likes his local meteorologist, that he has listened to for the last 30 years. When he mentioned his local guy, once, in referencing El Nino and snowfall and said that snowfalls would be greater with El Nino (he lives in the midwest), I replied that El Nino’s in his neck of the woods, would cause warmer, drier winters with less snowfall. He went to look it up to prove me wrong, but learned his trusted “friend”, the local meteorologist he’d listened to for decades was the one that was, in fact, wrong. It was one of many eye-opening experiences for him. So, my suggestion: go after their credibility and do it as specifically as possible. Charts showing trend lines leave open interpretation for some people. Specific, unarguable facts, directed to destroy the credibility of someone they thought was an authority is very powerful.

Reply to  CodeTech
November 24, 2014 11:37 am

“Your friend must know enough about the subject to know that CO2 absorbs … we all know the hypothesis. And the warming of the 20th Century fit the hypothesis… until it didn’t.”
Well, it kind of fit the hypothesis. There was similar warming both early in the 20th Century and late in the 20th Century. One warming period fit the hypothesis and the other one didn’t.

Reply to  CodeTech
November 24, 2014 1:05 pm

Read “The Trouble with Physics” by Lee Smolin. Also, look at the amount of problems being found in medical research. It happens in other branches of science, for other reasons. And it so often seems related to funding.

Frederik Michiels
Reply to  CodeTech
November 25, 2014 3:19 am

with all respect to your friend’s belief in NOAA and NASA
When you try to debate this “why” you go into assumptions there are as many reasons with all the data at hand to believe they are biased and processing the data incorrect, as to believe they are. We are not in their offices, we don’t know how they work or what they exactly do with all the data they gathered.
My two cents: it is better to explain through paleoclimatologic facts that it has been much colder and hotter then today, that temperature made jumps that so to speak you can be born in an ice age and die in an interglacial, or the other way around.
Even if this whole site is wrong and AGW does exist as the IPCC says… in ALL paleoclimatologic facts life on earth thrived gloriously during warm episodes so why needs there to be this scare mongering? It is even scientifically proven that if you would be able to “pick up and drop” the antarctic ice sheet straight on the equator it would take thousands of years to melt it completely. so even the global sea level rise will go at a steady state with enough time to evacuate the danger zone.
the point is: “What exactly do we considder as the norm for a stable climate?” Would we be so actively debating this climate change if we had 3000 years of reliable data? Would NASA then state what it states today? i have my doubts. It is part of the learning curve of this very young science that climatology and weather observation is.
this is why the “why” matter is not a real big thing. the real big thing is what 100% of true scientists will say: “we don’t know if climate change is due to AGW and CO2 there is not enough date to support pro or contra for the full 100% of scientific certainity” all that is observed is a 0.8°C of warming in 150 years time.

Reply to  CodeTech
November 27, 2014 2:22 pm

Proud Skeptic
Have you tried pointing out that NOAA and NASA will be just as ethical and incorruptable as the DOJ, the EPA and IRS.

Reply to  CodeTech
December 7, 2014 11:08 am

U.N. Official Admits: We Redistribute World’s Wealth by Climate Policy
“([OTTMAR] EDENHOFER [, UN IPCC OFFICIAL]): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”

Reply to  Philip Lee
November 23, 2014 1:16 pm

I disagree. Many ignore the science contradicting or disproving AGW pointed, because the idea of such a vast AGW “conspiracy” seems impossible to them. Dr Ball proves that the “conspiracy” is not only possible, it appears to have been relatively easy to promote.

Reply to  RLande
November 23, 2014 1:33 pm

delete “pointed”

Reply to  RLande
November 23, 2014 3:50 pm

When we are talking about the confluence of economic and political power, using the term ‘conspiracy’ is simply the wrong word. It hints at an Orient Express coordinated stealth effort instead of what history shows consistently to be what empowered people with no real downside will do if there are no obstacles.
The US Constitution was supposed to be an obstacle. Real science should be.
This is an openly declared coordinated effort full of conflicts of interest. Again describing it as a conspiracy concededs much of the descriptive power of what is actually being attempted.

Reply to  RLande
November 23, 2014 5:01 pm

I’ve come to use the word “complicit” in that the MSM appear to be complicit in promoting the AGW big lie.

Reply to  RLande
November 23, 2014 8:09 pm

Most people are unaware of the science contradicting or disproving AGW. A minority of non-scientists is aware of the extent of censorship, both in publications and deletion of comments – it’s a more serious problem than ignoring a conspiracy. The 97% consensus scam is universally accepted, but you’re correct; the meme that scientists who don’t support AGW are funded by oil companies is preferable to belief in the monumental fraud.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Philip Lee
November 23, 2014 5:00 pm

Tim Ball you didn’t address the biggest conundrum: why were societies, such as the American Physical Society, the American Institute of Physics, the Royal Society, and all the others, so easily swept along?
That the UN is corrupt through-and-through is plainly evident. Anyone else remember the diverted money of the UN-mediated Iraqi oil-for-food program? Kofi Annan’s family somehow and coincidentally became very rich. So, corrupt practice in a UN climate agency is only to be expected. The shamefully corrupt culture of the UN has spread even to the World Health Organization. No surprise anymore in any of that.
But national institutional science is another matter. Remember how the APS came down with both skeptical feet on cold fusion? Where was their equivalent due diligence on CO2-induced climate warming?
So, Tim Ball, if you’re reading this: how did it happen that all the major scientific societies rolled right over when it came to AGW?
I still don’t understand it.
And I don’t think it was just about grants and money. It’s something much more basic and profound than that. But exactly what, escapes me.
Maybe one day, when it’s all over, we’ll get testimony by guys such as Ralph Cicerone (US NAS), Tom Karl (NCDC), and past presidents of the APS, on why they so uncritically believed.

Jim Francisco
Reply to  Pat Frank
November 23, 2014 6:10 pm

Boy Pat you hit the nail on the head. I have been wrestling with your question for quite awhile. My latest conclusion is that the people of the prestigious organizations you mentioned are really concerned about the problems that will occur when the fossel fuels run out and we don’t have any alternatives in place. If they can’t think of anything they think no one else can either. So they go along with the lie in the hope that a huge government program like the Manhattan Project and the Moon landing will come up with something.

Doug Allen
Reply to  Pat Frank
November 23, 2014 6:15 pm

You ask important questions that no one can answer with certainty. Part of the answer, suggested by Tim Ball, was understood by Dwight Eisenhower when he wrote his Farewell Address, but another part is the desire and hope to make the world a better place. Most of my friends would be, derogatively, called, bleeding heart liberals. Sure, they’re naive. Their naivete is a type of idealism and of trust. They believe the simplistic slogans and model projections that the IPCC and the science academies parade as the science. They genuinely want to commit to the means prescribed by the IPCC and science academies to prevent the bad consequences they keep reading about. It’s very, very difficult to get a handle on climate science and its conundrums, and it is pretty self-righteous for any of us to demean their intelligence or motivation just because they haven’t spent the tens, probably hundreds of hours, most of us here have devoted to understanding.

Reply to  Pat Frank
November 23, 2014 6:47 pm

The list of honours this guy has received is amazing especially for someone whose formal education was limited to high school
eg. Fellow Royal Society, Fellow Royal Society of Canada
Date: Dec. 3, 2003
Maurice F. Strong Is First Non-U.S. Citizen To Receive
Public Welfare Medal, Academy’s Highest Honor
WASHINGTON — The National Academy of Sciences has selected Maurice F. Strong to receive its most prestigious award, the Public Welfare Medal. Established in 1914, the medal is presented annually to honor extraordinary use of science for the public good. The Academy chose Strong, a Canadian and the first non-U.S. citizen to receive the award, in recognition of his leadership of global conferences that became the basis for international environmental negotiations and for his tireless efforts to link science, technology, and society for common benefit.
It is difficult to conceive of any actual science that Maurice Strong produced at all, let alone something that could in the wildest imaginations justify his awards.
However, what he certainly did contribute was helping funnel massive amounts of money to supposed science to enhance and promote the prestige of Science as a “Source of Authority”
I think that is the answer to why all the supposedly Learned Societies have gone along
Enhanced Prestige, and money.
“I never aspired to be in business. I went into business because I only have a high-school education, and I couldn’t get jobs that required higher qualifications. I went into business quite reluctantly, because it was the only place I could get a job.”

Reply to  Pat Frank
November 23, 2014 6:53 pm

Mention is often made that various academies of science around the world support the CAGW hypothesis; what is not stated is that their respective support is not necessarily based on a vote by its constituent members but may be rather a policy decision taken by the academies’ executive members. It may well be that it is in the academies’ interest to support the CAGW hypothesis in the furtherance of scientific funding or other vested interests. For example, whilst the IPCC itself does not directly fund research United Nations subsidiary organisations are funded according to IPCC recommendations.
Over time the selective use of information with a particular tendency will create beliefs biased in that direction. As Underdal stated in “Science and politics: the anatomy of an uneasy partnership” (in Andresen et al. 2000, pp. 1-21):
“The need to make decisions on the basis of uncertain knowledge is typical of much environmental politics. As it is expressed in a [then] recent book on Science and Politics in international environmental regimes, “precautionary action will usually have to rely at least as much on tentative hypotheses and unsubstantiated beliefs as on ‘core knowledge’”.
This is the use of the precautionary principle. The real problem with the precautionary principle is that it doesn’t necessarily require facts, logic, evidence, or even evaluation of the supposed benefits versus the risks. It makes it possible to ignore one risk and to emphasise another thus justifying a predetermined point of view. This means it is open to manipulation, as well as being potentially misleading if not downright dishonest. In other words it is a handy tool to initiate change, for whatever reason, by playing on people’s ignorance, beliefs or gullibility, especially if applied using obfuscation through omission, or the lie of omission.
I suspect this has some bearing on the societies you mentioned.

Reply to  Pat Frank
November 23, 2014 7:15 pm

Perhaps we can talk about the Bilderberg group that has secret meetings of many powerful, influential people, royalty, bankers, etc.
The super elites of the world. They pick and choose what things they want us to think about and pursue and obey. For example, the owners of the New York Times attend these meetings. They picked out global warming because frankly, it is a really easy way to tax everyone and tell people with a straight face, they are taxing us to save the planet earth!
While cutting their own taxes, of course! This is why they all live in palaces, fly private jets, own yachts, etc. etc. spewing CO2 nonstop for themselves…see?
But then we are supposed to make fun of people who talk about the Bilderberg gang. By the way, want to be banned from major media sites? Talk about or ask questions about the Bilderberg guys.

Reply to  Pat Frank
November 23, 2014 7:32 pm

Richard Lindzen
How Science can be Politically Useful
Alarming Global Warming: What Happens to Science in the Public Square. Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Science and Politics : Global Warming and Eugenics
Lindzen 1995

Reply to  Pat Frank
November 24, 2014 2:55 am

They saw it as a chance to be “relevant”?

Paul 767
Reply to  Pat Frank
November 24, 2014 3:16 am

The ground was laid for this “clean sweep” of the institutions in the birth of philosophy by [Plato], with his postulate that we should be ruled by “philosopher-kings”, who would rule “benevolently” for the good of their people (kings that are smarter than us – kinda like Obama). It was furthered in the 18th century by Immanuel Kant, who in 1776 published the book “Critique of Pure Reason”. In it, he postulated that the average man cannot know reality, that his senses distort it, and that only elites like himself can determine the “true truth”.
Further to his philosophy, his postulated Ethics stated that “an action is not moral unless you derive no benefit from it whatsoever” Named “Altruism”, this moral code has taken over the world, and has now permeated the U.S. Although Kant’s foundation for his philosophy has been rejected, his moral code lives on and is endemic to all our institutions; education, the arts, politics and media.
This moral code is the foundation for all the socialist/communist/collectivist movements in history and notice that it took 140 years before it was accepted enough to take over a major nation (Russian Revolution).
The moral code literally means that if your intentions are pure (sacrifice for your fellow man), then you may accomplish you goals by any means necessary. Lying, cheating, stealing and killing are de riguer. (The communist nations have killed upwards of 100 million people in the last century – you would think some self-reflection would cause them to question their moral code.
Notice the march through our institutions in this country, especially education.
The belief that man is too selfish to practice “morality”, that businessmen are evil because their only motive is profit (even though they are the most beneficent for humankind; enabling the average man to live a life proper to a man).
The communist revolution was dying, having been proven wrong about prosperity, then proven wrong about war; the only thing left was “Capitalism despoils the countryside!”. Even though the opposite of that is true! Communism destroys nature.
Look no further than the moral code accepted by both Conservatives and Progs.
I recommend the book “Return of the Primitive – The New Left, the Anti-Industrial Revolution” or “Philosophy, Who Needs It?” by Ayn Rand.
We are not being destroyed by conspiracies, we are being destroyed by Ideas that all have accepted.

Reply to  Pat Frank
November 24, 2014 6:37 am

“why were societies, such as the American Physical Society, the American Institute of Physics, the Royal Society, and all the others, so easily swept along?”
I think because of article fifteen, the Precautionary Principle. The world is in peril due to the activities of man, principally from his industry and growing numbers. A lot of people can easily be convinced of that without firm scientific proof. People who are convinced the world is in peril can overlook the nasty solutions proposed namely totalitarian socialism, a huge reduction in population and the elimination of heavy industry. Some might even embrace them. They can overlook the bad science by rationalizing that even though the science doesn’t prove the ultimate demise of the world due to the activities of man, it can’t disprove it either and the possibility is way too important to ignore. So they choose to believe the bad science and promote the UN scheme.

Reply to  Pat Frank
November 24, 2014 7:35 am

You are all asking the wrong questions, namely why does NOAA etc need to take a “position” on age in the first place.
If the science was clear there would be no need to take a position because the science would speak for itself.
The only reason there is to take a position is when something is unclear as in religion.
The scientific method does not take political positions or need popularity to do its job.
All that is required is the science itself.
As in cagw especially, positions are needed for the sole reason that the science behind it is so shaky. So therefore the answer as to why NOAA needs to have a position is because they are not a scientific organization but rather a political organization that does not know that science has no need for positions.
Which goes to the question of why would NOAA for instance have a position on the science? Because it’s a pseudoscientific organization.
You can therefore safely ignore anything they say

Reply to  Philip Lee
November 23, 2014 5:18 pm

It is Lynsenkoism, but on a much larger scale.

Lysenkoism is used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives

The IPCC variant involves many world governments, and the mainstream media (who have become willing propagandists), and of course virtually every scientific research organizations receiving funding, to promote the theory that virtually every severe weather outbreak is a climate catastrophe caused by manmade CO2.
Skeptics agree that water vapor (CO2) are major (minor) factors in greenhouse warming, which warm our planet above the black-body temperature expected by Stefan’s Law.
If you believe that rain is caused by elves. Then everytime it rains you see proof of elves. Likewise, if you are taught that severe weather is caused by manmade CO2, then every severe weather outbreak will seem like “proof of CAGW”.
But there is no compelling proof of CAGW, that manmade CO2 causes climate catastrophes.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Philip Lee
November 23, 2014 6:00 pm

No, with all respect you are in error.
Many people I talk with raise just this issue – :So, it is all a conspiracy? ha-ha?”
I can only respond “Yes” and I need to explain Rio (God, what an amazing city) and the evil Canadian Maurice Strong (who lives in China to avoid prosecution). Goebbels was right: the bigger the lie, the harder to disbelieve it.
Yes, Virginia, there are evil Canadians.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 24, 2014 5:13 am

The route to the truth for most people is not so easy as to go from A to B. Many of us sceptics took years to get to the point where we see the big picture and see where the science was corrupted by Maurice Strong.
That might be the truth, and the best answer is to paint he simplistic picture, put a few kinks in the armor of AGW and let them come to the conclusions themselves.
People are not going to grasp the big picture that us sceptics took years in some cases to realize…and they are not going to grasp the entire story in one day. Or in one argument. You see, a larger problem of AGW is that its more likely that those “EVIL” Canadians actually believe that they are saving the world and getting rich while doing something so noble is just payment for their “tireless work.”
You must understand this: people normally do not see themselves as evil. A select few might be realistic about what they are, but people are very good at putting layers on themselves much like an onion and wrapping their original delusional belief with layers of respectful “science”.
Look at Maurice…do any of us have any evidence that the man does NOT believe that he is saving the world? You see, when you paint a picture of conspiracy by ASSUMING the man is evil and not just plain crazy or stupid, you are making an assumption about him that may or may not make sense.
To us, it appears to be fraud because as we sceptics see it, no one could be stupid enough to believe in such fantasies. The idea of a man seriously thinking over-population and resource degradation is a serious thing to worry about is comical because most of us have read Julian Simon or similar and came to the same conclusions that those better authors came to….that the logic of resource deprivation is so flawed as to be comical….and that the future is going to be fine even with people consuming 10 times what they do today when the world population STABILIZES in 2070.
But some people have stupid beliefs, and that is probably where people like Maurice Strong and Al Gore come into play. These people have beliefs akin to religion that says this planet is over-populated and that we will run out of resources. Nevermind the fact that we HAVE NEVER ran out of anything we can mine thus far in human history, but they still believe and no amount of argument is going to convince them of their beliefs.
Fast forward to other true believers who are “supposedly intelligent.”
The only way you will ever convince most people is to convince them that the ideas of running out of fossil fuels are bunk or that overpopulation is another issue that is terrible. You see, when people believe that the correct course of action is to do what the carbon police want, they will never be convinced that they are lying. Because, the ends justify the means in their hearts and they might not admit that part of it, but they do see their beliefs as trumping the truth. And so they appeal to authority such as NOAA and let that issue settle itself out. Because, they like the clowns heading our NOAA believe that a serious issue that needs consideration is over-population and resource degradation.
Yes, Virginia…they are all morons and they are all stupid with such illogical beliefs. They need to broaden their reading and actually comprehend what people like Julian Simon are saying. Until they do that and rethink their beliefs, you will never convince them that they are wrong or that they are wrong on this issue.
I too have tried the logic and the facts to convince intelligent people about AGW. But it just does not work with people who let others think for them. Until someone is willing to actually think outside of their SAFE little box, you will never convince them that AGW is a huge fraud or that its something that is just a lie…. Because most of these people are so delusional that they believe that even if the theory of AGW is false, these people are leading us down the correct path policy wise.
But yea, if you can convince them that the policy sucks in relation to over-population or running out of resources you might also convince them like that, but that is probably much more difficult than just convincing them to read one book by Julian Simon or likewise. Didn’t mean to write this much, but figured I would add some more to is.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 27, 2014 3:15 pm

No, a conspiracy is people meeting in secret to divvy up the swag. That’s government.
CAGW is a gravy train. It is propagated in public, you can present as a virtuous person while getting richer. With a natural preference for compatible advice, you can believe that you are a virtuous person. Altogether better.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 27, 2014 3:17 pm

The best gravy trains sell intangibles and endure for millenia.

Chip Javert
Reply to  Philip Lee
November 23, 2014 6:42 pm

If you think the public, after having ben conned by “bad scientists”, are going to sift thru the evidence to figure out who the good guys and bad guys are, you’re nuts. All scientists will be tarred by this fraudulent science brush.
Yea, it’s not fair, but that’s life.

oebele bruinsma
Reply to  Philip Lee
November 24, 2014 3:54 am

Because it is not science, proving a hypothesis!

Reply to  Philip Lee
November 24, 2014 10:31 am

Well, many people have explained why the science is wrong.
The need is to get people to
Emphasizing the effect on life, from family budgets here to poor people in Mexico and worse around the world is a good approach.

Reply to  Keith Sketchley
November 24, 2014 10:37 am

The need is to get people to understand that it is wrong.
Getting their attention to the fact that there are sound rebuttals to alarmist claims that media publicize is key. (Tim, I’m thinking on how to get the attention of editors of the Times Climatealarmist newspaper, buttonholing Glacier Media executives may be one way – they’ve been told but the impact on their business hasn’t sunk in.)

Santa Baby
Reply to  Philip Lee
November 24, 2014 10:38 am

Reagan and Thatcher liberalized The Western World with freedom and choice. The motives are among many. 1 Establish Global Government. 2 reintroduce the Plan Society, get rid of capitalism. 3. International Socialism.

Reply to  Santa Baby
November 24, 2014 1:42 pm

Uh. Reagan ramped up Prohibition. One of the most evil policies devised by man. And yes he did some very good things too.

David Ramsay Steele
Reply to  Philip Lee
November 24, 2014 3:34 pm

I agree that it’s better to focus on why the catastrophist theory is wrong. But catastrophists do not have to be “corrupt’. They can merely be mistaken. Most of them really do believe what they are saying, so it is unhelpful to use words like “lying” which implies that they know they are wrong. Enthusiastic belief systems which attract adherents who zealously promote them, viewing the evidence very selectively, are a common phenomenon throughout history and this phenomenon does not require any assumption that willful deceit is involved. This can be seen in various religious movements, and in systems like psychoanalysis and Marxism. It is not fruitful to vilify the believers or attribute evil motives to them.

Reply to  Philip Lee
November 26, 2014 8:08 am

It’s very important to question the motive, as when you do, people begin to smell a rat, and when people do, the MSM (the ultimate sheep) will follow suit. As soon as the MSM start to seriously question the motives of those leading ‘the cause’, that’s when they start having to give answers and justification, and when the public see that they have no answers, that’s when they will realise that they have been taken for a massive ride, and treated as fools. They will not like it. Peter Osborne completely summed it up – “human nature”.
If any still believe the IPCC and their claims, I would point to Donna Laframboise’s book “…Delinquant Teenager…”, a damning critique of the IPCC. If any still think the GHE is real, I would point to (although AW will probably moderate this because of that pointer).

Reply to  Philip Lee
November 26, 2014 1:16 pm

It is not a waste of time. Scientists are employed by Universities and Government. Much of their funding is by grants. All grants associated with climate are available under condition that the work support AGW. If a scientist wants to get a grant to objectively study climate, it will be refused. So a climate scientist must toe the political line to get funding and work.

Reply to  Philip Lee
November 28, 2014 12:10 pm

This thing is too big just to ignore the issues that Dr. Ball is raising. My only objection is that the connection with other instances of totalitarian thinking is probably a good deal more subtle than the outline given here. I also find that the explanations given by skeptics (just like those about skeptics given by warmists) tend to be too dramaturgical in nature.

Reply to  rw
November 28, 2014 1:53 pm

“Dramaturgical in nature is the idea rw: “floods and extremely hot and dry weather were directly, intersubjectively, experienced by large numbers of people. In effect, we bring the social construction of reality down to the social construction of daily reality and experience for the average member of a society and its compounding effects on belief”. (Bray and Shackley, 2004)
Bray and Shackley of the Tyndall Center are widely published. Their paper of 2004 (a Tyndall work in progress) cites Berger and Luckmann’s book of 1966, which outlined the use of public relations to create theatrical “fronts” for “Dramatic Realization”. This technique produces public discourse for generating pre deter-mined social, political and economic outcomes. “We need to understand and simulate the point at which related perspectives and beliefs concerning the issue coalesce” (Bray and Shackley p. 3).

Reply to  Philip Lee
November 29, 2014 4:00 pm

You are naive, the bottom line is, what is the political component of the discussion and how is it going to effect me. Now you can jerk around and swap and counter swap “scientific” factoids but the bottom line is how is this discussion going to effect me, or more specifically my bottom line. This cite is generating quasi scientific factoids and counter factoids, and it is becoming a “Star Trek” convention where a bunch of geeks get together and debate really unimportant crap all the while missing the big picture. The point is, this is not a discussion about “science” it is in fact all about politics and an Agenda. This is not a discussion about science driven policy, rather an agenda driven science, that’s the reality, get over it. Now I want someone to explain to me how and addition of CO2 on the order of 2.6 to 3.o TEN THOUSANDS OF A PERCENT annually can possibly affect the climate. After your inability to explain this basic question then explain to me why globally developed countries are expending a 1 Billion US dollars a day on a non event. We have a population that consists of worker bees and parasites. Unfortunately the political ideologues, rent seekers, grant chasers and general an all around political class, pandering to a constituency, are winning the debate and they are sucking the life blood out of our economy. Go forth and prosper.

Reply to  alpha2actual
November 29, 2014 4:20 pm

+1 Nice rant.

November 23, 2014 12:35 pm

No, I don’t, Dr. Ball.
I, too, have researched the science and the politics of CAGW and years ago came to the inevitable conclusion that climate was chosen as the weapon to beat us into a socialist world government. It is not about science.
You, Sir, have put my feelings into words far better than I might have done had I tried.
Thank you.

ego veritas
Reply to  Mardler
November 23, 2014 2:40 pm

I too went down that rabbit hole Mardler and agree without any doubt that your conclusion is correct. The more recent CO2 push was probably started by Roger Revelle and Hans Suess 1957, the Political drive appears to have come predominantly from the leading lights of the Socialist International and all its aligned groups with their commanding position within the United Nations.
I have just about given up attempting to put focus on the drivers of the global control fraud, that built on a New Socialist Fabian Totalitarian system that encompasses all aspects of peoples lives by placing an external price with wealth redistribution over all resource and energy use in advanced capitalist economies. The absolute lack of any ambition to once and for all end the fraud by the LNP highlights a bipartisan position has been adopted that transcends leaders.
We need to tackle the player not just chase the ball or we are forever two steps behind the play.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” George Santayana.

Reply to  ego veritas
November 23, 2014 3:55 pm

Are you familiar with the World Order Models Project that began in the early 70s with Carnegie and Rockefeller financing? I have written about it and have many of the books over the decades. What is openly admitted to is beyond what most of us could ever imagine.

Jim Francisco
Reply to  ego veritas
November 24, 2014 9:26 am

Another one from George Santayana that seems pertinent to the CAGW fanatics. “Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim”.

Reply to  ego veritas
November 27, 2014 11:54 am

Its really very very simple — “The New Reds are the Greens” — as observed by Vaclaw Klaus the Post — Commie President of the Czech Republic — he saw it from the inside as the Soviet Union expired circa 1990 the IPCC was born
An All American version of the above — simply understand that even traditional environmental organizations such as the National Wild Life Federation that were once Green as a Cucumber have become Red as a watermelon

Jim Francisco
Reply to  Mardler
November 25, 2014 8:50 am

Mardler.. I think you are right but I think we should then ask why would these people want a socialist world government.

November 23, 2014 12:36 pm

Usually I am cynical of conspiracy theories because the agenda is to discredit/hide the truth or promote their own form of truth. I don’t believe this is a conspiracy theory but rather fact. There is no other explanation. The UN needs to be censured.

Reply to  markl
November 23, 2014 1:03 pm

No, it’s a conspiracy theory. There is no account of how the secret cabal overcame the resistance of everybody else in the whole wide world.
Yes, we should ask “Why?”
No, this is not the answer.

Reply to  MCourtney
November 23, 2014 2:12 pm

MCourtney, lalalalalalalalalalala much??

Reply to  MCourtney
November 23, 2014 2:23 pm

As in most things, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Some scientists have, without a doubt, knowingly been caught up in promoting the “Noble Lie”. I can definitely state that many of my liberal friends, with whom the subject has been broached, readily volunteer that they really don’t care about the science, because to them, the policy is what matters.
Others have just gone with the flow, swept up in The Madness of Crowds. But, many have benefited enormously, and it strains credulity to imagine that none of them are doing so from selfish motives.
And, some are just plain dumb, unable to reason things out for themselves, and seeking safety in the herd.

Sun Spot
Reply to  MCourtney
November 23, 2014 2:55 pm

:first there was no secret cabal it was a very public cabal, second everyone else’s resistance was over come by using fear. Fear of melting ice caps, fear of droughts, fear of acidic oceans, fear of rising sea levels, fear of floods, fear of weather, fear of WMD’s,fear fear fear and more fear! MCourtney you remember how fear of none existent WMD’s overcame all resistance to start one of the dumbest wars of all time, oh and wasn’t fear of Jews used to perpetrate the holocaust. Using fear and the big lie is the most effective method ever devised to stampede sheeple in the direction you wish them to go.
I could also detail how using fear and combining it with the lever of money amplifies the big liars effectiveness!

David A
Reply to  MCourtney
November 23, 2014 3:45 pm

How do you explain the may accurate quotes from the Malthusian centrist like Maurice Strong…””Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong,
Founder of the UN Environmental Program? (as well as supporting statements listed below)
How do you explain away their role in promoting CAGW?
How do you fail to understand the dangers of organized central power structures? Have you read the studies of , hope I get it right Rummel on democide, “death by Government?
“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family, tradition, national patriotism and religious dogmas…
…”The re-interpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith in the certainties of old people, these are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy”. (Brock Chisholm, first Director General of the World Health Organisation
”My three goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!
”A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Ted Turner,
Founder of CNN and major UN donor
”The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
”Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
Lead author of many IPCC reports
”Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
Sir John Houghton,
First chairman of the IPCC
”It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
Paul Watson,
Co-founder of Greenpeace

Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
David Brower,
First Executive Director of the Sierra Club
”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
”The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
Emeritus Professor Daniel Botkin
”Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong,
Founder of the UN Environmental Program
”A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-Development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
”If I were reincarnated I would wish to return to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh,
husband of Queen Elizabeth II,
Patron of the Patron of the World Wildlife Foundation
”The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these third World countries right where they are.”
Michael Oppenheimer
Environmental Defense Fund
”Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
Professor Maurice King
”Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
Maurice Strong,
Rio Earth Summit
”Complex technology of any sort is an assault on the human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
Amory Lovins,
Rocky Mountain Institute
”I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. it played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
John Davis,
Editor of Earth First! Journal
“…the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.” ~ David Rockefeller, June, 1991, Bilderberg Conference, Baden, Germany link
“We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis…”
– David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member
“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
-Al Gore,
Climate Change activist
“The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and
spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest
opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level.”
-Al Gore,
Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech
”The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
Sir James Lovelock,
BBC Interview
“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place
for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and
plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams,
free shackled rivers and return to wilderness
millions of acres of presently settled land.”
– David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!

Reply to  MCourtney
November 23, 2014 3:49 pm

Fear is part of the motivation.
But do you really believe that fear has built the institutions that incubate, propagate and preserve the AGW meme?
Some scared people may have gone along with the flow of “news”.
But fear did not motivate people to step aside and let a new power base form.

Reply to  MCourtney
November 23, 2014 3:53 pm

Because you try and assign a “single reason” to the whole idea. This has been promoted and carried out at various levels for various reasons. Younger folk are very wrapped up in wanting to “do good” and wanting to feel “good” about their actions and their cause.
One of the important mis-steps of the realistic side is that it’s VERY easy for the delusionERS to paint any opposition as capitalistic greed, which has been especially demonized over the past 2 decades.
Bring the UN into the picture, and you have dozens of 3rd world nations who’s leadership sees this as a vehicle to get funding from nations more fortunate/advanced than they are.
I think our biggest mistake is not countering this with the OTHER GOOD that could be done with the funds that are being wasted on this.
Time and time again, I hear from people “Well…it doesn’t cost anything to be cautious…just in case it’s true.”
Sad…so very sad.

Reply to  MCourtney
November 23, 2014 3:59 pm

I wrote a book called Credentialed to Destroy: How and Why Education Became an Effort that absolutely does document the global effort starting in the 60s. Open admissions of nefarious intent by influential people should be listened to and not dismissed out of hand as an impossible conspiracy.
I also have the UN’s Agenda 21 curriculum created in 2002 under its so-called obligations to be the Education Manager of Agenda 21. Can’t we take them at their word if we can prove they said it and are trying to do it?

Reply to  MCourtney
November 23, 2014 4:01 pm

It is a conspiracy to the extent that political parties are conspiracies.

Reply to  MCourtney
November 23, 2014 5:08 pm

On this one I agree with MCourtney, and disagree utterly with Dr. Ball. Conspiracy has absolutely zilch to do with AGW.
Consider that essentially every one of the 88 books of the Bible features some ragged prophet who wanders in off the desert in his hair-shirt. He mounts his soapbox and begins to declaim:
“Woe unto you my people. You see this latest heat wave, or flood, or drought, or pestilence, or foreign occupation? The reason is clear. In your greed and pride you have turned away from the path of righteousness. If ye would be saved you must learn to defer to the righteous among us, as represented by me. Give all your worldly goods to the church, as I direct. Feel guilty and on the moral defensive, since your motivations are not nearly so pure as mine.”
Mencken in his famous quote is saying essentially the same thing: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
This is all very public stuff. It has nothing whatsoever to do with cabals and secrecy. Other related terms for much the same thing would be:
self righteousness
banishment, excommunication, shunning,
mob psychology,
praying in public,
heresy trials,
moral preening,
political correctness,
political pressure.
These sorts of explanations for how we got so far off track in climate science are nearly the polar opposite of conspiracy. These are explicitly public explanations. It is the sort of thing that is immediately in front of us every time someone displays their “good intentions” by driving a Prius and castigating their less righteous peers as “over-consumers”.
Alarmism and guilt-mongering are ancient routes to power and status. AGW is nothing more than a contemporary instance of a very old power dynamic.

Pat Frank
Reply to  MCourtney
November 23, 2014 5:13 pm

Robin, you should have linked your book.

Doug Allen
Reply to  MCourtney
November 23, 2014 6:24 pm

David A
Your quotes show that a few are creating global warming/climate change fear as a trojan horse,promoting the big lie, but that doesn’t indict the great majority of politicians, pundits, and people who act from good will, ignorance, and fear of the consequences the IPCC and scientific academies predict.

Reply to  MCourtney
November 23, 2014 7:21 pm

David A: Finally, someone mentions Rockefeller and the Bilderberg meetings!
Few Americans know that our media owners and both political parties have these secret meetings with foreigners and they plot to make us do stupid things to ourselves and our country not to mention driving us into many wars.

Sun Spot
Reply to  MCourtney
November 23, 2014 8:02 pm

: you say “But do you really believe that fear has built the institutions that incubate, propagate and preserve the AGW meme?” . Fear stampedes the sheeple, the institutions are subverted with money.
Billions to buy the science , Billions to buy the Green technologies, Billions for governments via Carbon taxes, Billions in profit from Cap’n Trade, first thing you know you’ve got the Trillions to incubate, propagate and preserve the AGW meme and firmly entrench it in your institutions who can’t imagine an existence without the fear factor money.

Reply to  MCourtney
November 24, 2014 4:51 am

TYoke: You are embarrassing yourself with an ignorance of the Bible and its various historical settings. Better to stick to science or at least read some of NT Wright’s excellent material before commenting.

Reply to  MCourtney
November 26, 2014 2:04 pm

“The wisest thing in the world is to cry out before you are hurt. It is no good to cry out after you are hurt; especially after you are mortally hurt. People talk about the impatience of the populace; but sound historians know that most tyrannies have been possible because men moved too late. It is often essential to resist a tyranny before it exists. It is no answer to say, with a distant optimism, that the scheme is only in the air. A blow from a hatchet can only be parried while it is in the air.”
G.K. Chesterton
Eugenics and Other Evils

Reply to  markl
November 23, 2014 3:40 pm

Was not the ‘conspiracy theory’ meme constructed to enable manipulators to disparage any theories on the conspiracy of conspiracy theories?

Reply to  Dave
November 26, 2014 2:06 pm

Conspiracies do exist.
There are even laws against them.
Must have happened sometime in the past, eh?

Clovis Marcus
Reply to  markl
November 25, 2014 3:07 am

The UN is an entirely un-democratic body with absolutely no one to answer to except the political leaders of the countries that participate. It is all about Agenda 21. How can it be censured if its members are equally complicit?

Reply to  Clovis Marcus
November 25, 2014 7:22 pm

“The UN…..with absolutely no one to answer to except the political leaders of the countries that participate.” You answered your own question. Vote.

November 23, 2014 12:37 pm

It will be a step in the right direction when every educated person has a reasonable grip on the leading ideas of the leading philosopher of science of the 20th century, Karl Popper. This is a primer or “crib” to his first book “The Logic of Scientific Discovery”, 1935 in German and 1958 in English.
Regrettably the book itself is quite unsuitable for beginners due to the complexity of the arguments that he had to mount against the dominant school of the time, the logical positivists and then the logical empiricists. The guide provides a shortcut to the essential contents of the book.
Any revival of Popper’s ideas will have to be achieved against the overwhelming weight of opinion in the academic community where the wells of his thought have been poisoned by persistent misreading of his work.

November 23, 2014 12:40 pm

A fundamental flaw in the reasoning you attribute to Maurice Strong is that the answer to global inequities lies not in the bringing down of the wealthy nations but in the raising up of our poorer brethren.

Reply to  Brian
November 23, 2014 12:50 pm

Both von Mises and Julian Simons and also mainstream Christianity pointed this out. They were all inconvenient and their works and ideas have been denigrated and then buried.

Reply to  Brian
November 23, 2014 1:31 pm

China is the textbook example of how Strong and the Club of Rome got it wrong. Poor countries raise themselves from poverty at the expense of the environment, and then use their excess wealth to clean up the environment.
Only the countries that have excess wealth can afford to cleanup their environment. Poor countries cannot provide for their people, let alone cleanup the environment. First they must create wealth, then when they have a surplus use this surplus to cleanup the environment.

Reply to  ferdberple
November 23, 2014 2:13 pm

When I looked into Maurice Strong, I realized that he was just an ordinary man who liked his odd ‘cheque’ and never gave back any of the money made from oil. Same goes for Al Gore and Pachauri. All oil men industrialists or leaders who decided to assuage their guilt.Heck, even Dana Nuccitelli of the Guardian is not averse to a little oil money from Tetra Tech. THE WHOLE THING STINKS of hypocrisy.
Give the money back I say. No?

Reply to  ferdberple
November 23, 2014 5:58 pm

Exactly. Enough said.

Doug Allen
Reply to  ferdberple
November 23, 2014 6:33 pm

I think that’s well put and why we should definitely support poor countries in their use of cheap fossil fuels. One caveat though is, like in the progression of lethal weapons, some herbicides, pesticides, and modern methods of creating wealth may have very bad long term consequences, something that probably much less true 100+ years ago when the rich nations were developing their wealth.

Reply to  Brian
November 23, 2014 2:00 pm

But you can’t make a poor country rich through socialism and central planning.
The left care about power, not inequality, or the environment, or womens’ rights, or whatever other claptrap they spout in pursuit of that power. Everyone else is just a useful idiot to be used and tossed aside.

Doug Allen
Reply to  MarkG
November 23, 2014 6:34 pm

I think your attribution of motive is mistaken.

Peter Osborne
Reply to  Brian
November 23, 2014 2:28 pm

True. You do not destroy civilization in order to save it.

Reply to  Peter Osborne
November 27, 2014 12:05 pm

Peter — unfortunately you do — if you value the “natural intelligence” of bluegreen algae over that which designed the latest nanometer-scale microprocessor — and most unfortunately academia is full of so-called educated people who subscribe to the above thesis

David A
Reply to  Brian
November 23, 2014 3:49 pm

Not according to Maurice Strong and many other globalist.

November 23, 2014 12:41 pm

Get real, he is talking about the techniques used by the ethno-Bolsheviks and their central banksters cohorts(both sides of the same coin), he was not advocating using such lies and deceptions. Context people, context.

Reply to  Joel
November 23, 2014 1:05 pm


If you mean Jews, say so.
This is not a debate I want to be in…

November 23, 2014 12:45 pm

So the world is ruled by Maurice Strong and Agend21 using the principles laid out by Adolf Hitler….Fascinating.
This is a parody, isn’t it?

Bill H
Reply to  jimimi_the_dalek
November 23, 2014 1:24 pm

Sadly it is not a parody, it is real life and real people with world domination intentions. As others here have already stated their research into the WHY has always come to the conclusion of One world Socialized government. Top down {king-servant}
This feudal system is what the fathers of this great nation sought to escape and keep from ever happening again to their descendants. Sadly many have bee duped and do not see the handouts they receive as bait into a trap they can never escape. They also fail to see the regulations which are justified by the CO2 lie is the mechanism by which they will crush our ability to self sustain. Crashing our way of life, “for the greater good”.
The why is simple, They want to control us as slaves or servants. One need only to look at the acts of our current president Barrack Obama to see his intentions and desires. Total control by the state as the state now has a vested interest in your body they now can control what you eat drink and do. Now add that they will keep you from self sustaining with out their government handout. once you accept it you become a slave to it.
One should use extream caution when someone says ‘its for your own good’ or ‘Its for the children’ or ‘its for the greater good’ these are all precursors to the taking of freedoms.

Reply to  Bill H
November 23, 2014 1:28 pm

Bill H,
Absolutely right!

Reply to  Bill H
November 23, 2014 3:24 pm

I believe many of the higher ups and some wealthy elites truly think there are too many people and too few resources.
They act like it’s their responsibility to use their wisdom and their wealth to bring about a single government where they are in charge and there are no enemies only fellow citizens.
Just as there are no wars between the states in the US (anymore) because the federal government directs all activity so states have no say.
I believe Segregation by the Southern Democrats in the ’50s & ’60s was the last time states have fought the feds.
Think about this:
How hard would it be to get the NGOs and their legions of bed wetters on board to saving the planet?
Throw a little federal money at the local governments and see how quickly the party faithful push Catastrophic Climate Change and the only true salvation.
Toss a bone to the MSM and you’re on your way (if it bleeds it leads and the bigger the exaggeration the better)
Look at the two methods they push to save the world.
Give more money to the wealthy or give more money to the government which will give it to the wealthy who will give it to the politicians.
Take your pick.
This is a big reason I don’t trust them.
Pied Pipers, all.

David A
Reply to  Bill H
November 23, 2014 3:50 pm

‘its for your own good’
Hehe, or ” I am from the Government, and here to help.”

Doug Allen
Reply to  Bill H
November 23, 2014 6:36 pm

Maybe it would help to be a little more self-critical?

Jim Francisco
Reply to  Bill H
November 24, 2014 10:09 am

Good point Bill H. I think that many former slaves stayed on the plantations after they were free to leave because they had become so dependant (or at least thought they were) on the owners that they couldn’t survive without them. What a sad situation it was for them. Let us try very hard not to let the same type of situation happen to us or our future generations.

Reply to  Bill H
November 26, 2014 8:38 am

“The greater good”? Reminds me of the British film comedy “Hot Fuzz”, which ironically encapsulates this whole episode. We need our ‘Nicholas Angel’ 🙂

Reply to  jimimi_the_dalek
November 23, 2014 1:37 pm

The simple truth is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Strong and the Club of Rome truly believe they were acting for the common good. And they believed strongly that what they were saying was true. Thus they were highly motivated in their actions.
Thus underlying problem is that what they believed was false. Development does not destroy the environment. Early stages of development are harmful because there is no surplus, thus you get serious pollution in China as the developed nations also experienced during their early industrialization.
However, as development matures, development leads to surpluses, and these surpluses can then be applied to cleanup the environment, as we see in the developed nations.

Christopher Hanley
Reply to  ferdberple
November 23, 2014 2:36 pm

One of the most annoying and egregious lies perpetuated by the alarmist camp (IMO) is the constant conflation of CO2 with harmful chemical pollution and atmospheric carbon particles or soot.
It’s used continually to confuse the public as a deliberate tactic.
President Obama is either lying or befuddled:
“ … In the United States, our carbon pollution is near its lowest levels in almost two decades …
… reducing our net greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2025, which will double the pace at which we’re reducing carbon pollution in the United States …
… the Green Climate Fund … allows us to help developing countries break out of this false choice between development and pollution; let them leap-frog some of the dirty industries that powered our development; go straight to a clean-energy economy that allows them to grow, create jobs, and at the same time reduce their carbon pollution …”. (Official White House transcript of President Barack Obama’s speech at the University of Queensland).
It’s Orwellian ‘Blackwhite’: “ … Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary …” (Orwell via Wiki).

Doug Allen
Reply to  ferdberple
November 23, 2014 6:48 pm

Again, ferdberple understands, but sadly, Christopher, you don’t seem to. Believing in the good intentions and science of the IPCC and science academies, many politicians follow their advice. Christopher , I agree with what you say about CO2 etc, but “lie” and “deliberate tactic” is an hypothesis with about the same amount of evidence we, correctly, I think, believe the IPCC and scientific academies have for their claims.

Christopher Hanley
Reply to  ferdberple
November 23, 2014 9:21 pm

President Obama should save his deceptive climate change™ rhetoric for domestic audiences and butt out of another country’s politics (e.g. Australia), particularly while a guest in that country.

lawrence Cornell
Reply to  jimimi_the_dalek
November 23, 2014 6:05 pm

Very good sir. Just like sal Alinsky said it should be done. Laugh and make fun of the truth tellers. Lucifer would be proud. Are you ?

Radical Leftist Fun Guy
Reply to  jimimi_the_dalek
November 23, 2014 9:49 pm

Actually, as pointed out in the comment above you, Hitler was not promoting the “Big Lie” but was instead protesting its use against the German people.
One could even say it’s a “Big Lie” to take Hitler’s quote out of context and pretend he’s promoting something he’s not. Kind of ironic the quote is mischaracterized seeing as this post complains about those types of shenanigans.

Reply to  jimimi_the_dalek
November 24, 2014 7:00 am

Suggest you do some research jimi.

November 23, 2014 12:47 pm

… “lack of full scientific certainty”? Really? Science is BASED on uncertainty, and NOTHING is ever “certain”. Anybody who expects “certainly” is dealing in religion, not in science.

Reply to  kenwd0elq
November 24, 2014 3:09 am

Not sure I agree with you. There is certainty in science. Certainty is what scientists AND science seek.
It is CERTAIN that water will boil at 212degF at a given pressure. It is CERTAIN that the earth is not flat.
Science is a process whose end goal is to prove something to be certain.

Reply to  jimmaine
November 26, 2014 8:45 am

I would rather say science is the process of whittling away what can be demonstrated to be false, so what’s left can be relied upon to be nearer the truth. That’s the scientific method. Truth is indeed an end goal, but rarely, if ever achieved. The whole CAGW business consists of the cabal telling us that they are ‘the truth’, and making sure that any attempt to prove them false is not heard.

Reply to  kenwd0elq
November 27, 2014 12:20 pm

Ken — don’t take “Science is BASED on uncertainty, and NOTHING is ever “certain”” to to seriously — in the real world there are practical certainties.
e.g. take the proverbial 16 tons [Monty Python fans] and hang it by a thin string from the ceiling some 10 m above you attach a stout rope to the bottom and stand underneath and pull — I would put a $ on the table that you will only have a few seconds to contemplate the uncertainty of the outcome — Note that imperfect Newtonian Physics suffices to predict the outcome — no need for Einstein, Heisenberg or Higgs

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
November 23, 2014 12:49 pm

Hitler may not have been Green, but the Volk movement certainly was, and the Nazis were pleased to incorporate it into their propaganda. 11 million civilians dead, just in Europe during WW II.
Stalin had green thoughts and Lysenko was his champion. Approximately 17 million dead.
Mao’s green revolution… how many millions dead?
Everyone who pushes the pro-AGW stance…. how many dead might it end up being?

Reply to  Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
November 23, 2014 8:13 pm

History has conveniently forgotten the Volk movement. Modern lefties don’t like to be reminded how close their philosophies lineage is to that of those who brought about WWII. Actually, I take that back. The modern leftie is intellectually incapable of recognizing that connection and will often invoke Godwin when confronted with valid comparisons.

Radical Leftist Fun Guy
Reply to  DesertYote
November 23, 2014 10:06 pm

Hitler’s Volk movement or Nationalist Socialist philosophy was not “Green.” If anything, Hitler and other National Socialist economies promoted industrialization and the use of fossil fuels (which is one reason why Germany and other National Socialist countries got out of the Great Depression more quickly than more capitalistic countries). Hitler promoted the autobahn and automobile (Volkswagen) and airplanes, etc., he was hardly an environmentalist.
The modern “leftie”, by which I take you mean Democrat or progressive, is closer to a Capitalist than he is to a National Socialist or any other kind of Socialist. But you’re right that most Democrats and progressives are mistaken when they think National Socialism is a “right-wing” philosophy. Its got elements of both right and left–if one wants to use the less than helpful left/right dichotomy.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  DesertYote
November 25, 2014 10:35 am

Radical Leftist Fun Guy
November 23, 2014 at 10:06 pm
Fascism is national socialism and communism is international socialism, although Stalin came to promote “socialism in one country” and used nationalism to unify the USSR during the war.
The N@zi strain was in socialism from early on. Even though he was raised by a black woman, socialist author Jack London was a vicious racist who believed that non-whites should be exterminated because they threatened the livelihoods of white workers.
There also might be differences in preferred economic arrangements between fascism and communism. Fascists opted for state control of an economy which permitted de jure if not de facto private ownership of the means of production, while communism practices state capitalism.

Radical Leftist Fun Guy
Reply to  DesertYote
November 25, 2014 1:06 pm

I”m not denying that National Socialism was a form of socialism. My point is that American Democrats and progressives are far from socialists. I acknowledge most Democrats and progressives are ignorant of the “leftist” and socialist policies of National Socialist Germany.
That being said I don’t think the terms left/right and even the word socialist is that helpful because they are used in totally divergent ways by different people (most conservatives abuse the word “socialist” and simply use it as a pejorative for things they don’t like). Plus, left/right is not a great distinction either . . . as you hint at when you compare the ‘international socialists’ (or more aptly ‘bolshevik communists’) with the national socialists. National Socialist Germany hated the Communists even more than they hated Capitalists (and while Stalin may have advocated socialism in one country his policies involved meddling in many other countries and the N.S. did think Stalin differed much from the Trotskyists). The national socialists considered the capitalists and the communists to be two sides of the same coin and who were working in league with each other and controlled by the same people.
Apart from the international/national distinction between N.S. and Bolshevik Communists, which is important*, there were many other distinctions between the two philosophies. N.S. Germany had state and worker run enterprises, but it did not have the same battle between classes and a dictatorship of one class over the others. In fact, much of these nuances of N.S. have been lost because the Allies won the war and its propaganda is so overwhelming that we almost never see a fair depiction of what their economic principles were. The typical Democrat’s ignorance of N.S. is proof of that.
*the distinction between international and national socialism caused a huge rift even in Socialist circles in the U.S. in the 1930 and is probably one of the reasons for the failure of the Socialist party in the U.S. during that time–a time when Socialist principles were very popular and even the Democrats had to adopt socialist-lite policies in order to stave off this threat and “save Capitalism” as people like FDR argued. Anyway, the term “internationalist” has also been used in so many different ways by so many different people that it too is confusing.

Grey Lensman
Reply to  Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
November 24, 2014 2:30 am

Pol Pots green revolution, empty the cities return everybody to the land, TWO MILLION DEAD.

November 23, 2014 12:49 pm

File under “follow the money”.
Item No 4… send more money for the Green Climate Fund. They need $100 billion per year.
Six vital steps world leaders must agree to take to protect Earth
International talks in Paris in 2015 could see the world’s nations agree to limit global warming to a rise of 2C.
Actually achieving that target will require huge commitments – not least by developed nations

November 23, 2014 12:51 pm

I thought the IPCC was formed in the late 1980’s – well before Rio which was 1992 –

Nigel S
Reply to  tailingsproject
November 23, 2014 2:11 pm

It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.

Joe Public
November 23, 2014 12:54 pm

Like with Watergate ….. “Follow the money”

November 23, 2014 12:57 pm

     I try not make references to ‘climate change’  as this was a phrase concocted because there was no global warming.  
     I believe honest and scholarly  scientists, meteorologist and researchers must focus more attention on the natural causes of climate change which cannot be stopped. Many of the natural causes can be proven and replicated.  We must inform the  low information folks that climate always changes, the Sahara was once an sea and the Arctic was once a tropical forest. 

November 23, 2014 1:00 pm

Seriously, we can’t know why everyone does things. We can determine the motivations in individual cases (well, we can make a well justified guess). But we can’t tell why a whole wave of academics, politicians and charities took on this crusade to save the world. All we can do is look at who benefits and what suppresses the opposition.
We can find institutional pressures – we can’t find the actual motivations.
For me the issue is the expansion of academia and the loss of funding from the end of the Cold War. How many departments in universities ever close? How many become obsolete? So there needs to be a reason to have these ever multiplying disciplines. Saving the world is a good idea. And arguing for fewer disciplines is fighting against anyone who wants a promotion or tenure.
So there is a mechanism that drives alarmism in academia… now find such mechanisms in politics and charities (it isn’t hard to see).

Reply to  MCourtney
November 23, 2014 1:55 pm

Well actually quite a lot of science depts have closed in the last few decades in England , mainly Chemistry and Physics, although some have transformed by combining eg Chemistry and Physics to become Materials Science or Chemistry and Biology to creater Environmental Chemistry/ Science , etc.
The main reason is the lack of industrial jobs for graduates . When I first graduated there was a thick book of small and large companies that hired science and engineering graduates . Most of those names have disappeared.
Over 30 years ago the Royal Society of Chemistry or its predecessor the Royal institute of Chemistry estimated that a third of all chemistry graduates went on to become accountants – smart move.
I think that the lack of opportunities in science and engineering , which has reduced the flow of young people into those subjects, also means a lack of journalists with sufficient science background to question some of the more dubious material they are obliged to broadcast or publish.
A writer , whose name escapes me for the moment , a frequent contributor to the Guardian, has written a book pointing out the increasing shortage of journalists with specialist knowledge because of lack of money or time to research articles fully before deadlines loom. Eventually everyone ends up relying on Reuters or just passing on a Govt statement.
You can actually observe this process in action : a science paper is published in say Nature or Science , a few days later it appears in New Scientist , a day later it is on the BBC or their website and finally it appears in the weekend specials of the Guardian, Telegraph, Mail or Observer. Plenty of opportunities for vital facts to get slightly distorted as the item passes from hand to hand – examples of this “amplification” have been pointed out here.

Reply to  mikewaite
November 23, 2014 2:03 pm

Good point about expensive, practical departments transforming into cheaper to run, theoretical subjects.
Also good point about the lack of technical expertise in journalists.
The New Scientist to BBC to Newspaper funnel is definitely true. Is it true for SciAm in the USA?
It seems the most influential person in UK science is the Editor of New Scientist. They choose the media agenda for science. They choose the funding priorities.
And they want sensationalism to sell their rag.

Reply to  mikewaite
November 23, 2014 2:37 pm

Reminds me of:

“After all with a degree in Maths, and another in astrophysics what else was there to do? It was either that or the dole queue again on Monday.” – Trillian

Global cooling
Reply to  mikewaite
November 23, 2014 3:19 pm

You probably mean Nick Davies and his book Flat Earth News:
Wonderful book. Now you understand why MSM publishes everything from Greenpeace.

Harry Newman
Reply to  mikewaite
November 23, 2014 4:42 pm

Indeed. From the mid 1980s student interest in “pure science” at the universities collapsed. At my institution in Australia, student applications for science built around physics and chemistry went from around 200 to as few as 8 per year. Clearly not sustainable. The institutional response was to move to some form of “applied science” where half to two thirds of the degree could be in “anything else”, planning, environmental management, golf course management, you name it. In this “environment” logical quantitative reasoning a la the likes of Popper went out the window. Kuhn was in and the more “innovative” academics (ie could attract funds) moved on to the likes of Foucault, Baudrillard and the French deconstructionists. Applied scientific methodology then switched from the quantitative to the qualitative “painting of narratives”. Consequently, if global warming is “claimed” then good young applied scientists searched for qualitative anecdotes to help fill in the global warming narrative. This also explains the contemporary discord between the qualitative new age scientists and the older quantitative skeptics concerned with hypothesis, data, testing and empirical analysis. A lot of modern applied science … ain’t science and it is going to be very difficult to put the qualitative narrative painting genie back in the bottle. Some of the more mature quantitative scientists might need to hang around for a little longer to help with a bit of methodological re-education.

Reply to  MCourtney
November 23, 2014 2:12 pm

Godwin has no relevance to anything whatsoever. No conclusions can follow from invoking Godwin’s Law. It’s a label, nothing more. Sometimes the best analogy for an organization is the Hitlerian State and its principles, second only, perhaps, to Stalinism.

Doug Allen
Reply to  MCourtney
November 23, 2014 6:51 pm

Like the thoughtful approach you bring when so many are kneejerking.

Reply to  Doug Allen
November 23, 2014 8:15 pm

It only seems thoughtful to a socialist.

November 23, 2014 1:01 pm

Actually, to the alarmists, skeptics are more useful than you think. They are an ideal -dearly beloved- enemy, the ones you need when you are a wannabee world saver. Having a common enemy makes friends and you can show your strength and dedication to your admirers by ‘fighting them’ and gain eternal fame.

Reply to  leftturnandre
November 23, 2014 1:12 pm

So the alternative is to not fight back?
Sorry, I’m not made that way. And if you will notice, skeptics have made subastantial progress. The alarmist crowd is on the defensive. Now is not the time to back off.

Reply to  dbstealey
November 24, 2014 11:57 am

No, you can discuss (there is no fighting in science), that’s fine. It’s just to understand the mechanism that generates the hostilities. It’s just tribalism, aka groupthink or moral panic. (maybe wiki those terms) and make sure that you don’t answer groupthink with groupthink.

Reply to  leftturnandre
November 23, 2014 1:35 pm

They won’t stop at “eternal fame”, who would ?

Reply to  leftturnandre
November 23, 2014 2:35 pm

the climate skeptics are analogous to the “enemies of the State” during the Nazi regime

Reply to  sumdood
November 29, 2014 1:48 pm

In reality you exhibit characteristics of the “Big Lie”. Your comment exhibits the Ideology of the Eco-Socialist. You know who I’m talking about, those pathetic individuals who are incapable of generating anything worthwhile to society. In other words if you “can’t play coach”.
The Eco Socialist feels that he/she is intellectually elite, and dealing with “Guberistas” can manipulate them. In reality your ilk are the definitive losers You feel the need to transfer wealth, which you are unable or incapable of generating for yourselves from those who do. By the way our commentator has a Phd in White Privilege Studies or maybe I’m mistaken possibly a Phd in Transgender Medieval History. I’m confused, however dear reader you will subsidize their debt.
For edification the definition of a Watermelon (Green on the outside, Red on the inside) follows. Their vision is a Post Capitalist Utopian conformist society. Their most pressing challenge, how to redistribute wealth from the producers to the parasites.The liberal billionaire who clamors about sustainability likes progress. What he dislikes is the middle class with its mass produced cars and homes, cheap restaurants full of fatty foods and television sets and daily deliveries of cardboard boxes full of stuff and shopping malls. He thinks, in all sincerity, that they would be happier and more spiritually fulfilled as peasants. Beneath all the empty chatter about social riches and sustainability is that need to impose progressive misery. Beneath the glossy surface of environmentalism is a vision of the American middle class learning to dig through bags of garbage, the detritus of their consumerism for which they must be punished, to become better people.

November 23, 2014 1:02 pm

With the power to subpoena records and force testimony under oath the motive might be found.

Reply to  Terry Oldberg
November 24, 2014 10:19 am

Terry Oldberg on November 23, 2014 at 1:02 pm
With the power to subpoena records and force testimony under oath the motive might be found.

Terry Oldberg,
Detection would be aided somewhat by such subpoenas in the arena where public funds were used to fund research.
There is a more fundament aspect to consider than why, although ‘why’ is a good start. The search for why is not necessarily the same as the search for motive. I think the fundamental search is for the basis of the premises used by scientists who support the false methods in the failed theory of significant climate change from CO2 produced by fossil fuel use.

November 23, 2014 1:14 pm

Reblogged this on grumpydenier and commented:
It’s about time these thoughts were put into words that anyone should be able to understand. What good it will do, though, who knows.

November 23, 2014 1:15 pm

Great stuff!
Just what I and many others have been saying all along.
AGW is simply a manufactured crisis exactly as you describe.
UN Agenda 21 and the UN as a whole is behind AGW. Why would they manufacture a crisis like this? Right again.
They, (the UN Bureaucracy) want power and world government.
Agenda 21 sets it all out, and just about every country in the world has signed up to it!

The UN attacks to this end through AGW, international treatys, local governments through ICLEI and the education system and God only knows where else.
Has your education system had a major revamp in the last 15-20 years?
If so you can bet the UN is in there.

My blog as shows this clearly if you want to read some of the specifics. My earthquake ruined city is planned to be the first Agenda21 complying city in the world and in the process, democracy and property rights are going out the window.
And the UN whitewash is so effective that normal citizens vote for more taxes in order that the government should finish the job.
A bit like turkeys voting for an early Thanks Giving I think.

Reply to  rogerthesurf
November 23, 2014 5:29 pm

Remember Kathrina and the absolute disappearance for months of any action?

Reply to  asybot
November 23, 2014 5:32 pm

Forgot to add that this attitude was already apparent in the mid 80’s re education. and look what happened in Canada after the flash floods in Alberta

Doug Allen
Reply to  rogerthesurf
November 23, 2014 6:54 pm

AGW wasn’t a manufactured crisis in 1998 and 1998. There was very significant warming that Hansen and many other believed was the result of increasing emissions and levels of CO2. They believed the warming would surely accelerate. They were wrong.

Reply to  Doug Allen
November 23, 2014 8:18 pm

Hey, I’ve got some cliff side property for sale!

Reply to  Doug Allen
November 26, 2014 2:46 pm

That’s BS
Hansen said the ice would melt and NYC would be underwater.
I think he’s running out of time.
That was the chief NOAA scientist.
Their leader.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Doug Allen
November 26, 2014 3:05 pm

Hansen was NASA, but NOAA is no better, except for UAH satellite crew.

Reply to  Doug Allen
November 27, 2014 2:36 pm

My err

Gavin Lamont
November 23, 2014 1:17 pm

Here is one way in which govermental entities propogate myths:
John or Jane Doe in cubicle 1957 needs justification for their job. So they discover a threat. In this case, Global Warming. Then they can retain their position by offering to be the solution. And since governmental entities are notoriously immune from being measured by their results, they perpetuate.
This is how the EPA went from doing valuable work…i.e. making it so that air can’t be chewed and water doesn’t spontaneously combust…to the power grab they are currently embarked on.
As this develops, when someone from a small rural utility — for a really did happen example — applies for a grant or funding for anything, no matter how distanced from CO2, there is always the question, “How will this affect Climate Change?”
What Mardler above says may be true, the problem now is that the CAGW position is entrenched at the petty functionary level.

November 23, 2014 1:17 pm

You can probably draw a straight line from the Popper’s low standing in the academic community to the state of research and commentary on climate issues. At present his most interesting contribution is the idea of critical appraisal of the conventions and “rules of the game” of scientific practice and the need to take an INSTITUTIONAL approach to these matters and the way they play out in scientific and social progress (so far as there is progress). This aspect of his work was hardly noticed until almost a decade after his death when Ian Jarvie published a book describing what he called Popper’s “social turn” to draw CRITICAL attention to the social aspect of science. Popper did not develop that theme himself due to his resistance to the psychology and sociology of science as it was driven by T S Kuhn. This is a gloss on Jarvie’s book

Doug Allen
Reply to  Rafe Champion
November 23, 2014 7:03 pm

The (fairly nebulous) concepts of postmodernism value no regret or low regret decision making over the scientific method’s emphasis of hypothesis support and falsification. The loss of confidence in enlightenment values including scientific method, from the tragedies of the 20th century, make further tragedies in more likely IMO.

November 23, 2014 1:18 pm


Reply to  Maxbert
November 23, 2014 8:27 pm

No. Power.
The “chemistry” of wealth and power are completely different. My being wealthy is not negatively impacted by your wealth. My being powerful on the other hand is negatively impacted by you having power.

David A
Reply to  DesertYote
November 24, 2014 8:39 am

Depends on one’s definition of “power”. Power to do your own thing, pick your own direction in life is one kind of power. Power over others, why that is a completely different animal, and I agree with you completely.
Power over others is indeed, to me at least, a definition of evil. “Government is a necessary evil” The malthusians on this planet do not agree, or understand that statement.
The elitists get power, and want more. The CAGW story is classic power manipulation through a very old means… “Such is the nature of the tyrant, when he first appears he is a protector” (Plato)
Many others follow for well understood reason, the money, noble cause, peer pressure, etc.

November 23, 2014 1:19 pm

PS A great book on this subject is “Totalitaria” by Ian Wishart. I even believe it is available in a downloadable version. Very readable and everything is referenced. An essential read!

Mike Mangan
November 23, 2014 1:22 pm

The main players in the global warming cult engage in unsurprising behavior. No one is shocked that rent-seekers, bureaucrats, Big Green NGOs, and politicians use CAGW to sustain a profitable lifestyle. Bank robbers are going to rob banks, after all.
The real scary people are the uncompensated base, those that are so easily driven to hatred of mankind’s natural behaviors of breeding and consuming. Hitler was voted into power and ran a ruthless machine of death for years with the help of a great number of Germany’s citizens. Not to compare Alarmists to Nazis but why are they so eager to BELIEVE? Why are they so willing to engage in the demonization of skeptics? Why are they so irrational that they try to swat away any evidence that their hypothesis is flawed? It’s downright creepy.

Doug Allen
Reply to  Mike Mangan
November 23, 2014 7:06 pm

Tim Ball partly answers that- because virtually every science academy throughout the world proclaims CAGW. Why wouldn’t most of the masses believe in kind?

Reply to  Mike Mangan
November 23, 2014 7:07 pm

Hitler’s biggest share of the vote was about 33%. He ran on an economic platform based on national self interest (National Socialist). He pandered to the farm vote, for example. (Keep out cheap imports.) He was a bleeding heart, in public.
He didn’t run on a platform to invade Russia or Poland, as a matter of fact.
As soon as in got into power, he simply murdered or imprisoned his opposition.
Of course he had many German citizens helping him.
When they asked Herman Goring at Nuremberg, why was Hitler surrounded by yes me. He answered:
“Because the “no” men were six feet under.”
It this clear? He was a murderous dictator, and the Germans were his first and his biggest victims.

November 23, 2014 1:24 pm

I have an alternate thesis: it’s done to cut back on oil consumption, weakening OPEC and the Russians. Just a thought.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
November 23, 2014 1:38 pm

That sounds like a good part of the answer.
It would be readily agreed by Western Foreign Offices. There would be no Western opposition.

David A
Reply to  MCourtney
November 23, 2014 3:57 pm

If that was the case, the clear answer would be to develop are own resources, not cripple them with wind and solar fiasco’s.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
November 23, 2014 2:14 pm

So we go broke to weaken the enemies’ economies?

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
November 23, 2014 3:43 pm

What’s that got to do with destroying King Coal?
Why not go nuclear?

Reply to  mikerestin
November 23, 2014 3:54 pm

We should try nuclear.
But anti-coal was required for the right-wing of the UK in the 1980s.
So the meme was created and the spread.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
November 23, 2014 4:57 pm

No. The war on coal doesn’t do bupkis to reduce oil consumption. And the war on fracking helps the Russians and Saudis all the way to the bank. In general, climate hysteria only helps OPEC.
If you want to go down the conspiracy rabbit hole, start thinking about who, geopolitically, benefits from the green movement. It isn’t the USA.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
November 24, 2014 6:04 am

Shell and BP were early strong supporters of the CAGW scam. This had nothing to do with supposed validity of climate “sceance” and everything to do with self-interest IMO
Now look at what ex BP honcho Browne and Shell head are saying now.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
November 24, 2014 8:44 am

There is a strongly held theory that Mrs Thatcher promoted the AGW story to disempower the coal miners. I like to think that she was above that kind of nonsense but you know politicians.

lyn roberts
November 23, 2014 1:29 pm

Lying – pure arrogance and rather dumb in this day and age – you must think that you have the memory of a elephant, as the moment you contradict yourself you are caught out.
I find myself smiling broadly as they continue to dig their way to China, and laughing out loud usually brings the lie to a halt.
I have had the occasional lair ask me what I am laughing at, to be then told by me that’s the opposite to what you told me last week, I usually try to pick my timing for this when I am in public, hopefully my punishment has reformed a few liar’s though I doubt it.
Mum taught me as a child that if I was caught lying the punishment would be worse than if I had not told a lie in the first place, and her punishment was a fierce.

November 23, 2014 1:40 pm

It was an attempt to implement global socialism, to redistribute the wealth of rich countries to poor ones. Notice how they started talking about how the West would have to start making “climate reparations” to third world nations?
The entire thing also set in motion a huge gravy train. Scientists who received millions in funding to continue towing the line. Renewable energy companies pocketing enormous government subsidises to prop up the economically unsustainable renewables industry. Land owners also at the trough for agreeing to have wind farms sited on their land. Politicians using it as a points scoring exercise to boost popularity.

Andrew S
November 23, 2014 1:43 pm

I doubt we’ll ever get an answer but this is actually a really good question. Why, against all the evidence, do the worlds leading climate scientists, governments, the media, political parties, continue to sell us this snake oil. Here in australia as the evidence slowley unravelled – these people have only become more strident in thier outrageous claims of catastrophic disaster. We must act now!! The situation is even more dire than we thought!!! Its as if they know the game is up and they need to ram all the ‘reforms’ they can in before the rest of us cotton on to what actually happened.

Reply to  Andrew S
November 23, 2014 1:56 pm

Some of them let the truth slip out.

November 23, 2014 1:44 pm

In my opinion it all starts with fear for the USA, especially from European countries. We in Europe get very one-sided news about the USA: wars are for oil only, the US is the biggest poluter, the US takes 30% of all resources, and so on. This indoctrination has been going on for decades. In general, people in Europe hate oil and fear the USA because of this. (I’m sorry). There are a lot of USA-bashers over here.
So, what is the remedy? It should all be a little less: less production, less energy use, less growth, and therefore less oil and less war. But also less independency from the rest of the world.
On the other hand, the environmentalists have indoctrinated the people for decades about the bad state of the earth: everything is dying. We are consuming the planet, we leave nothing for our children.
CO2 was the perfect tool to bring the US to world average and save the planet. By cutting energy the prosperity of the US will go down AND the planet will survive. The greens and the USA-bashers could cooperate in their propaganda about global warming and CO2. It found a willing audience and that’s why it was swallowed so easily. And in the end they even succeeded in getting the USA on board too. Unbelievable.
That’s my theory.

Reply to  Scarface
November 23, 2014 5:50 pm

As an EU born but now living in N. Am I totally agree with the things about what is being said about N.Am in the press and the schools and universities in the EU brainwashed is more the term. After coming here my eyes were opened the USA and Canada are the most generous countries on the planet from earthquake recoveries to forest fires, flooding etc. the people always come together and help each other and other countries. But as in the EU the MSM rarely if ever reports this, the MSM is so bad they did not even show Obama’s speech on immigration fearing it would hurt the Democrats in the population areas that were not Hispanic. The Media is so behind the garbage that comes from the UN it seems no one is allowed to debate, you just get screamed at. I cannot even listen to my (very highly educated) brothers in Holland anymore.

Reply to  asybot
November 24, 2014 8:49 am

America -> the world’s lifeboat.

Doug Allen
Reply to  Scarface
November 23, 2014 7:11 pm

Sadly, I guess we need to hear that, untrue as much of it is. Our American exceptionalism is surely a two-edged sword.

David A
Reply to  Doug Allen
November 24, 2014 8:41 am

How so?

November 23, 2014 1:45 pm

I don’t think the IPCC is, on the whole, overtly corrupt or mendacious. I do think they are highly motivated to advance a certain viewpoint, and with something as enormously complex and ill-understood as climate that is all it takes to guarantee the proper result.

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  rabbit
November 23, 2014 3:36 pm

Indeed: Noble cause corruption, confirmation bias, the ruling eco-religious ideology and the usual “herd instinct” conformism of the majority of people are more than sufficient to explain this wide spread CO2-witchhunt of our age. There is no need for a conspiracy theory.
In addition: Many climate scientist simply can’t retreat now after they shouted the CAGW fire alarm so ear deafening loud into the world with the consequence that a gigantic financial fiasco (e.g. in the energy sector) is already done. Thus, they are simply forced to parade their anti-CO2 crusade further and further until they are retired at least… 😉

Doug Allen
Reply to  Gentle Tramp
November 23, 2014 7:12 pm

Well said, Gentle Tramp.

David A
Reply to  Gentle Tramp
November 24, 2014 8:46 am

Those things you mention, “Noble cause corruption, confirmation bias, the ruling eco-religious ideology and the usual “herd instinct” conformism ” describe tools of the “conspiracy” which is simply a hiding of the truth of why someone wants something from others. The clear statements of the leaders adequately demonstrate they want world government, central authority for all nations. CAGW is one means they have agreed to try to employ, and by not being truthful about their motive, that makes it by definition a conspiracy, a hiding of their real intent for central world government. Thus all doom predictions are repeated after they once again fail.

Jim Francisco
Reply to  Gentle Tramp
November 25, 2014 9:53 am

Or old like Emily Latella (Gilda Radner of SNL) ..Oh never mind.

Reply to  rabbit
November 23, 2014 3:49 pm

What do you think the IPCC’s goal is?
Do you buy CAGW as they push?

November 23, 2014 1:45 pm

Well, the debunking of the climate scare hasn’t trickled down to the lemmings yet.

Reply to  dbstealey
November 23, 2014 2:33 pm

Ouch, to think I spent most of my career in a higher-ed support job!

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
November 23, 2014 2:38 pm

Maybe we should see some of the interviews that were NOT selected for the video.

David S
November 23, 2014 1:48 pm

I agree with you Dr. Ball but there is a simpler and more fundamental reason: Our government is run by crooks. That explanation also explains the following;
-The fast and furious scandal in which guns were allowed to be trafficed to Mexican drug gangs.
-The IRS giving preferential treatment to liberal organizations over conservative organizations for tax exempt status.
-The IRS confiscating bank accounts of innocent people with no trial, no due process of law and not even any charges.
-The EPA creating wetland rules which carry the force of law and apply onerous penalties for things which are not crimes. This despite the fact that the first sentence of our Constitution clearly gives all legislative power to Congress not the EPA. And the Congress never passed any such laws.
-The NDAA act of 2012 authorizes the armed forces to indefinitely detain without trial anyone they think is involved with terrorists, including US citizens. That is in total contradiction to the 5th amendment which says no one can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and the 6th amendment which says in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.
-The NSA is also apparently tracking our phone calls and reading our emails without a warrant as required by the 4th amendment.
-And the TSA routinely conducts highly invasive searches of innocent American air travelers, without a warrant or even probable cause to get a warrant.
I think my answer explains it – Crooks!

Reply to  David S
November 23, 2014 5:14 pm

“Our government is run by crooks.”
Much higher status than crooks, aka actual sub-governments that answer to no one at the top and in fact the “top” probably actually fears some of them, especially the CIA, NSA and FBI (who taught the others well about how to keep their “bosses” in line under Hoover with his extensive nasty files on anyone important). I expect that it has also become like this in many other Western nations and probably Russia. It’s eye opening when an Independent Governor is called into a meeting by the CIA after being newly elected (Ventura). The EPA, FDA, NIH and the Federal Reserve also act with impunity and the only way to affect them is to reduce funding.

Doug Allen
Reply to  David S
November 23, 2014 7:16 pm

David S,
Sadly, you continue to attribute base motives when the normal human imperfections and vanities more charitably explain history in the past and now.

David S
Reply to  Doug Allen
November 25, 2014 4:01 pm

Doug Lets start with In the IRS tax exempt scandal. The IRS agent in charge of that division was questioned by congress about her activities. She refused to answer, citing her protection under the 5th amendment. Why? And how is it that when pertinent emails of hers on the subject were subpoened they were all lost due to a computer crash? And how likely is it that emails to others in the IRS were also lost? And that no backup was available? Tell me that is not criminal intent. While Its easy to assume that government agents are incompetent morons, at some point one has to conclude that no one is that incompetent and that these actions were intentional. Want to discuss some more examples?

Ralph Hayburn
November 23, 2014 1:49 pm

What staggers me is why formerly reputable agencies like the BBC and the Guardian newspaper show no signs of moderating their one-eyed stance and giving their audiences some inkling of the fact that there are other hypotheses on matters such as the relationship, if any, of CO2 to temperature. What are THEIR motives?

Reply to  Ralph Hayburn
November 23, 2014 2:09 pm

I don’t know but it seems to be compartmentalisation.
The environmental sections are independent of the science sections which are independent of the general news…
And because they need “specialisation” to understand complex issues they leave it to the environmental journalists… who would have no job if AGW was unfounded.
Proof – see how they ignored and then harumphed over Climategate, the biggest scoop in science journalism the world has ever seen so far.

John L.
Reply to  Ralph Hayburn
November 23, 2014 2:31 pm

The UN agenda is the same as theirs. NWO.

Reply to  Ralph Hayburn
November 23, 2014 3:26 pm

“Concerns are growing that BBC journalists and their bosses regard disputed scientific theory that climate change is caused by mankind as “mainstream” while huge sums of employees’ money is invested in companies whose success depends on the theory being widely accepted.

Reply to  Ralph Hayburn
November 23, 2014 7:25 pm

Follow the money. Many organisations have their superannuation funds tied up in renewable energy schemes, which is somewhat dependent on the fear of CAGW, for instance the BBC, the Church of England, many NGOs, many workers’ unions in Australia, etc. These funds combined are possibly worth a trillion dollars or more.

November 23, 2014 1:52 pm

Do you have another or better explanation of a motive?
I would not say I have a “better” idea, but I do want to add to your explanation.
As socialism, central-planning, and communism was failing world wide, as predicted in the 20s by von Mises, the central issue of politics remained — the need for something to maintain power. You see, it is not money that many men lust for, rather they lust for power over others. (money will give you some power)

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H. L. Mencken

The magic molecule, CO2, offered powerful men the hobgoblin to allow them to self-righteously demand that we peons yield to their rule over us. We must humbly obey their edicts even if they mean for us that we are to starve and freeze in the dark. Many of the greens want to see mankind’s numbers decrease by at least 6 Billion people and this CO2 deception fits right in with their worldview. They are telling us that dismantling the industrialized western world is the only hope of saving the whole world — and we all want to save the whole world now don’t we?
This flimflam is all about politics. Many politicians have grandly stood and received the accolades of worship by their followers as they helped to impoverish those same deluded followers. As always with political solutions — the poor ultimately pay a heavy price. “Eat or rent” is a term I believe originated in the UK but I could be wrong on where it came from; but I am not wrong on the hard choices we have to make when money is in short supply.
Dr. Ball, you may be right or you may be wrong on some of the specifics of your essay: but you are on the right trail. Powerful men and women wanted to control mankind and millions of their minions (like 3rd rate “climatologists”) were all to happy to accommodate them by providing the hysterical “science”.
Someday all will see this epoch for the anti-science it represents.

Doug Allen
Reply to  markstoval
November 23, 2014 7:20 pm

I think your analysis is mostly right if applied to all groups- see Niebuhr’s Moral Man and Immoral Society and The Irony of American History.

November 23, 2014 1:52 pm

They’re all running for cover, lair/liar whatever.
If they are not, they should be.

November 23, 2014 1:55 pm

The best explanation I can find for the big lie is Truthiness applied to science.
“Truthiness is a quality characterizing a “truth” that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know intuitively “from the gut” or because it “feels right” without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.”
CAGW has traction because it feels right. Human action must be the cause of our problems. Human existence cannot simply be at the whim of Random Acts of Nature, because that implies that governments have no real power to protect us. So to justify their existence, governments must present they are more powerful than they truly are.
And when things go wrong, well governments are not about to admit that they failed to plan, failed to make allowances for Nature. Rather, they will want to find a scapegoat. And what better scapegoat than The People? It is The People, creating CO2 that are responsible for government failures. Not the government. The government is here to save us, and to do so we need more government.

November 23, 2014 1:59 pm

Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
A clear, comprehensive, convincing article that discusses the political agenda associated with the “climate change” movement.
An excerpt:
“People who knew, didn’t think to question what was going on for a variety of reasons. This situation makes the statement by German meteorologist and physicist Klaus-Eckert Puls even more important.
“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.”

Bruce Ploetz
November 23, 2014 1:59 pm

Dr. Ball, your analysis sounds right and reveals much that is otherwise difficult to understand.
The Greens (aptly called watermelon Green because they are so often green on the outside and red on the inside) seem to despise humanity and like to call it the ultimate invasive species. When I was in High School there was an exhibition that came to our school near Stanford University. The presentation I remember best was the “Zero Population Growth” folks, based on Paul Ehrlich’s crazy ideas. 1969 or 1970 or so. The pogo cartoon was the famous embodiment of this idea at that time.
The basic idea seems to be that ordinary folks cannot be trusted to act on their own, we need some kind of Big Brother to keep us in line or we will foul our nest. And of course, the Big Brother will be benevolent but all-powerful. So some people are so willing and eager to become part of the benign, benevolent, earth and humanity loving autocratic and all powerful Big Brother power structure that they will literally stop at nothing, will embrace any lie no matter how implausible, put out any propaganda campaign that seems necessary, all to help the poor wayward ignorant deluded souls of the great unwashed planetary population.
If you look at it this way it is far easier to understand the dogged determination of the dedicated liars who produce the tainted “science” covered every day in this blog. Unfortunately reason, logic and hard evidence will not prevail against such ideas, any more than it prevailed against the Lysenkoism of Stalin’s USSR. Even when they were starving they held to the idea, it made sense to them emotionally. The anti-humanist idea makes sense emotionally too, if you are a self-hating post-modern pseudo-intellectual. I don’t know what will finally overturn it, obviously a long spell of average temperatures will not. What if the temperatures go down? Then they will just decide that CO2 has a cooling effect. It Is ALL Our Fault! An emergency requiring immediate concentration of international power at the UN.

Doug Huffman
November 23, 2014 2:02 pm

Karl Popper wrote a complete answer starting in his Logic of Scientific Discovery, extending through The Open Society and Its Enemies and culminating in The Poverty of Historicism. Science was corrupted here for the same reasons that Hegel and Marx developed and advanced the dialectic, as mumbo-jumbo to fool the credulous and gullible.

Reply to  Doug Huffman
November 23, 2014 8:41 pm

You nailed it.

November 23, 2014 2:06 pm

‘People Starting To Ask About Motive For Massive IPCC Deception’
It is UN body , that means its number one aim is self-perpetually , no AGW no IPCC it really is that simple . So I would no more trust them to be honest on this subject than a would trust the KKK to give honest advice on race relations.

Steve Case
November 23, 2014 2:07 pm

The Precautionary Principle is analogous to an insurance premium, but in this case the cost of the premium is likely more costly than the damage claim will ever be.
If someone tells me that it’s very likely that there’s a boogie man living in my attic and the best way to get rid of him is to burn my house down, you can bet I won’t start looking for a can of gas and some matches.

Reply to  Steve Case
November 23, 2014 2:44 pm

Oh, even if 97% of your neighbors agree?

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
November 23, 2014 3:29 pm

You mean, without checking the facts? No, not even then. Would you?

November 23, 2014 2:09 pm

Truthiness goes back to the Power of Positive Thinking that has invaded Corporate America. Corporations no longer want critical analysis. Instead they want positive analysis.
When things go wrong, it isn’t because corporations failed to take a critical look at the problems they faced, it is because people failed to be positive. Downsizing and the Financial Meltdown were the result of this naive approach to corporate management.
Believing something to be true because it “feels” right is at the heart of the problem. It has invaded government, corporations and science. Armed with this belief, these institutions have collected massive amounts of positive examples to prove their “belief” is correct.
However, positive example are never proof. If you fail to look for negative examples you will never discover the truth. And to look for negative examples, you need critical analysis. Analysis that goes against the Power of Positive Thinking.

Doug Allen
Reply to  ferdberple
November 23, 2014 7:22 pm

more postmodernism

Doug Huffman
Reply to  Doug Allen
November 24, 2014 4:56 am

Good point, climate-scientology as Science Wars battles still being fought by the losers.

November 23, 2014 2:11 pm

To get rich. It’s not hard to understand.

Reply to  Mark
November 23, 2014 2:25 pm

This was at the heart of the Strong approach when he was a backroom fixer for the Liberal Party of Canada. It is not sufficient to simply bring people together. Bring them together and show then how they can make a pile of money; that will get their attention.
In politics the formula is simple. Governments make a decision. That decision favors some people more than others. Some people make a lot of money, lots of people lose some money.
Those few people that makes lots of money are expected to contribute to the political party that made the favorable decision. Otherwise the next decision will not be so favorable.
The many people that lost some money need to be told a lie, otherwise they might vote for the other party the next time they have a chance. The lie explains why lots of people lost some money, so that a few people could make lots of money.

David A
Reply to  ferdberple
November 23, 2014 4:02 pm

B,O stated, “we will punish our enemies, and reward our friends”

November 23, 2014 2:15 pm

Political Correctness perpetuates the problem by encouraging group-think. Once a point of view becomes politically incorrect, then any truths that might be revealed by that point of view cannot be discovered. Instead we are as a society doomed to consider only politically correct truths, no matter how false they might be.

Reply to  ferdberple
November 23, 2014 2:49 pm

Folks who strive for political correctness have never read Sagan’s Baloney Detector.

DD More
Reply to  ferdberple
November 24, 2014 11:06 am

See here if you want to know the origins of political correctness –
Also Critical Theory-
What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you’re tempted to ask, “What is the theory?” The theory is to criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that. They say it can’t be done, that we can’t imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we’re living under repression – the repression of a capitalistic economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order down.

November 23, 2014 2:17 pm

Having worked in an organisation where many millions were diverted(scammed) into a grand cyber project that was never feasible in the first place, I have witnessed the workings on a smaller but still unbelievable scale. The steps are common.
Identify an urgent problem and solution.
Infiltrate company A board.(UN)
Sell problem to Board and create excitement including potential for personal gain(investments, shares etc)
Set up a separate B company(IPCC)
Divert $ from A to B and give power to B to act independently and raise and spend other money.
Get networks excited, Send people on overseas trips to buy them in. Create positions on advisory committees, appoint malleable academics, pay them huge salaries they can’t refuse,isolate or destroy any opposition. set up posh offices etc, etc
The above was orchestrated by four people each with different qualifications working together as a team. It fooled thousands of people.Lots of money down the tube and to this day many who were taken in by it including highly qualified people, government officials, banks etc still don’t accept that they were conned because they cannot believe that something that big was planned.
Unfortunately my experience suggests people will rather call you a conspiratorial nutter than accept the reality of what you are saying. Look out too for the attacks from the perpetrators.
I am with you on this Dr Ball. Excellent analysis.

4 eyes
November 23, 2014 2:18 pm

Dr Ball’s argument seems quite plausible to me and I think is correct to a 95% confidence level. My life’s experience also tells me to follow the money – I am 99.9% sure of that. I feel that both the political and greed factors are both at work and so far have complimented each other very well, maybe by design. But skeptics by relentlessly pursuing and presenting facts are seriously eroding the smug certainty of alarmists, both scientists and lay persons. The truth, whatever it is, will come out eventually. Skeptics are contributing far more to the pursuit of truth than anyone else and like Dr Ball they must continue their pursuit.

November 23, 2014 2:22 pm

The etymology given for cabal is incorrect. “…the initials of Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley and Lauderdale, ministers to Charles II”
Charles II lived 29 May 1630 to 6 February 1685. The first known use of cabal was 1614. It is based on the Late Hebrew qabbālāh, literally, received (lore), i.e., secret writings.
You got your etymology out of Wankerpedia, didn’t you? Bad source for info on anything.

November 23, 2014 2:25 pm

It is actually no longer a matter of science but of faith.

Reply to  Mike Smith
November 23, 2014 2:55 pm

Think I counted 97 thesis in the Bishop’s lengthy testimonial.

November 23, 2014 2:30 pm

During the early stages of the Global Warming scientific debate over a decade ago, we avoided ascribing motives to the warmist camp. The warmists, on the other hand, frequently vilified us “skeptics” (aka “deniers”) as being in the pay of “big oil” – which was just another big lie.
One credible early warning of the motives of the radical enviros came from Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, in his 1994 essay “Hard Choices for the Environmental Movement” at
A chapter of this essay is entitled “The Rise of Eco-Extremism”, in which Moore was remarkably prescient.
This debate has always been political and is NOT about the science, which has always been rather clear and is becoming increasingly so – due to the now~18 year global temperature “standstill” – I suggest it is not even a “pause” in global warming, since the planet will probably cool in the next decades.
Regards, Allan
The Rise of Eco-Extremism [1994, excerpt]
Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or “liberal” approach to ecology and the new “zero-tolerance” attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former “enemies” or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of “sustainable development” and took a strong “anti-development” stance.
Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.
These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society.

Louis LeBlanc
November 23, 2014 2:33 pm

In regard to the warmists’ reliance of scientific certainty or near certainty (97% etc.) my thought is that there is NO certainty about any science. Even “laws” of physics, thermodynamics, etc. are only propositions that have never YET been shown to not govern in all cases. It makes me sick when I hear otherwise intelligent, conservatives, who don’t accept the scam of CAGW, give any credence to the 97% claim.

Paul L
November 23, 2014 2:35 pm

OK, so we’re going to descend into conspiracy theory now? If you want to believe that this is all part of some socialist plot then you belong with the nutters who believe there is a new world order of the right or the 911 truth movement. Climate change and Obamacare are not related. Skepticism of climate alarmism is not based on any right wing freedom ideology. This site used to be a decent place for ridiculing the daft claims of the easily led. For scientists to discuss science. Now it’s turning into a rightist talking shop and the science here is becoming as thin as the science elsewhere.

Reply to  Paul L
November 23, 2014 3:58 pm

But I dis agree about the good parts. The science threads (Bob Tisdale for instance) are still good.

Reply to  Paul L
November 23, 2014 4:13 pm

You’re spot on Paul! If you consider the issue dispassionately and apolitically (which you should) you can see that both the social and scientific aspects have evolved significantly from their earliest manifestations. Like creationism, conspiracy theory cannot be disproved and is therefore a belief system. If it makes you feel ‘better’ then be my guest.
However, I do think the more extreme aspects of the CAGW theory are behaving not unlike a pathogen that needs to constantly adapt to remain virulent. As the host (social norms) become immune, the virus changes to allow it to continue its infection. Likewise, as it spreads between hosts it may become more robust, adapting new methods of transmission.
There is certainly no evidence to make me think some sort of ‘hive mind’ is directing or supressing scientific enquiry! People simply see and react to the world from their own limited and bias perspective.

Reply to  Paul L
November 23, 2014 4:44 pm

Ah, here come the abusers calling us conspiratorial nutters and trying to bury this line of thinking. Getting too close to the mark are we? Didn’t take long. Next the perpetrators will threaten you legally Dr Ball. Hah, that won’t stop us now. Indeed it would be the best thing ever to put an end to this crime on humanity.

Reply to  mem
November 23, 2014 6:50 pm

Ah indeed, the Meme speaks. This is what was alluding to when I talked about ideas being like a virus. When an idea becomes established in modern social circles (MSM, Blogs, UN reports – you name it) it stars to evolve and become resilient to eradication. Ironically, the hosts can (and often do) manufacture effective antibodies to combat misinformation. But some stronger ideas take root and can re-emerge long after they are supressed (see cholesterol, DDT and most recently CO2 pollution).
Similarly, any organisation will naturally seek to expand its sphere of influence and act as a ‘willing’ host for any meme virus which benefits or supports that group’s development (see IPCC, climate scientists, EPA & pretty much all govt departments focused on climate and most of all enviro-NGO’s).
So what I am suggesting is that the ‘conspiracy’ is actually more a confluence of like-minded ideas which have become incredibly beneficial to certain groups. Those groups tend to have a financial interest in hosting and propagating the idea for their own continued existence. They are not necessarily in cahoots but are certainly mutually supportive of anything which helps the original idea survive. They are also very aggressive to and alternative ‘antibody’ which might suppress the idea. Another good example of this type of behaviour would be religious orthodoxy
Does that make sense?

Reply to  Paul L
November 23, 2014 8:57 pm

No one less than the President of the United States is pushing Warmist mythology and CO2 demonization (“pollution”) as hard as he can. Of course he is indubitably among the “easily led,” but only where it fits right in with his political ideology. He’s a Marxist, and he and his handlers are clearly hell bent on pushing the USA toward subservience to a world socialist model. Can we separate the phony ‘science’ from the political ideology?
The problem for science is that “the easily led” are holding the reins of power, and their “daft claims” are the dogma to which you must adhere, or be punished for heresy. To confine oneself to the innumerable fallacies in their ‘science’ is to bury one’s head deep in the sand.
/Mr Lynn

Reply to  Paul L
November 24, 2014 9:29 am

No it’s not. You are just being silly. These kinds of threads are few and far between but they serve a purpose too. Surely the fact that you and M. Courtney see fit to comment on this thread is indicative of its value.
A lot of folk harbour all kinds of silliness in their minds and being able to have their errors pointed out here helps them with their world view. There is nothing wrong with having this kind of thread in the general mix of hugely informative threads that teach and instruct so many people even though you may think they are beneath you.
The sharing of ideas, often wrong and not thought through, has great value for many people as it saves time and effort that might otherwise be wasted.

November 23, 2014 2:36 pm

It seems that most people would prefer to ‘fail with the herd’, rather than strive to get things right. My non-scientific wife can’t understand my scepticism, she finds it a social embarassment. There is a certain ‘reasonableness’ about the CAGW arguments, which chimes with concepts of environmental protection, and resource conservation. Wind is free, isn’t it? Peeling away the covers and looking at the details is a step too far for most people. How dare you challenge the man/organisation that wants you to ‘be good’?.
I’m not a fan of agenda/conspiracy theories. Human weakness (driven by the need for a salary and a social life) seems a more likely explanation.

Reply to  sonofametman
November 23, 2014 3:08 pm

Yes, sir. Can’t tell you how many times my wife has kicked me under the table for trying to get my friends to think outside their box on this one. Usually they consider they have put me in my place by telling me to spend less time with my conspiracy theories.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
November 23, 2014 4:00 pm

This is a conspiracy theory.
Better to stick with the physical reality.
Has the climate changed with the emissions – No!

Louis Hooffstetter
November 23, 2014 2:43 pm

Taxes, taxes, taxes.
Gotta pay for deficits somehow.

William Astley
November 23, 2014 2:47 pm

It is a sad truth a person risks one’s career to attempt to challenge a scientific paradigm, to criticize the ‘standard’ model(s). That statement applies to all fields of pure science. It is also a sad truth that there are fanatics that push silly incorrect scientific ‘theories’ which re-enforces those who attack and mindlessly defend ‘standard’ theory.
In the case of extreme AGW in addition to the normal risk to challenging the standard paradigm, there is political and sociological pressure and career benefits to push AGW, to ignore dozens of observations (the fact that there has been no warming for at least 17 years, the fact that there is no observed tropical tropospheric hot spot, the latitudinal warming paradox, and so on.) that indicate there are multiple errors in both the general circulation models (GCMs) and in the basic AGW science.
Lastly as scientists specialize, most climate scientists are not aware that green scams (wind power and conversion of food to biofuel in particular) do not work for fundamental engineering reasons. Green scams are promoted by leaches and/or ignoramuses as a magic bullet. Some of the climate scientists that are participating in climategate science may believe that their work will promote the magical green scams.
Curiously James Hansen understands that green scams do not work and is promoting a massive conversion to nuclear power as the solution to his AGW hysteria.
This discussion concerns a theoretic extreme AGW problem. It appears the planet is about to abruptly cool due to the solar 24 magnetic cycle interruption (note the solar northern large scale magnetic field intensity is now essentially zero and staying at zero, flat lining). The problem with promoting a scientific falsehood concerning dangerous planetary warming, is that it is not possible to hide or talk around dangerous planetary cooling.

November 23, 2014 3:02 pm

@ Brian. Noble sentiments but it’s a lot easier to destroy wealth (so that we are all equally poor) than to raise the poorer up (which would actually need industry/wealth creation).