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
It is a waste of time to speculate about motives of corrupt scientists and better to focus on why the science is wrong.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The AGW religion acknowledges only the less relevant shade of green.
“CalSTRS CEO Jack Ehnes, Generation Investment Management Co-Founder David Blood and 350.org’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.”
http://wrongkindofgreen.org/2014/03/13/the-cere-network/
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.
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 et.al. 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.
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.
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.
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.
Proud Skeptic
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?
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.
Motives?
In their own words:
http://www.green-agenda.com/
Excerpts:
“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!
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?
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.
Good question Chris.
The answer is the UNFCCC (UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE 1992).
It states:
And also
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.
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.
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.
“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.
@chris
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.
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.
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.
U.N. Official Admits: We Redistribute World’s Wealth by Climate Policy
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2010/11/18/u-n-official-admits-we-redistribute-worlds-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.”
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.
delete “pointed”
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.
I’ve come to use the word “complicit” in that the MSM appear to be complicit in promoting the AGW big lie.
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.
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.
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.
Pat,
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.
Pat,
The list of honours this guy has received is amazing especially for someone whose formal education was limited to high school
http://www.mauricestrong.net/index.php/honours-mainmenu-20
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.
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12032003
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.”
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/business-strategy/live-learn-maurice-strong/
Pat
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.
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.
Richard Lindzen
How Science can be Politically Useful
http://tinyurl.com/mlqc849
Alarming Global Warming: What Happens to Science in the Public Square. Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.
http://tinyurl.com/pkd7w7q
Science and Politics : Global Warming and Eugenics
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/180_Eugenics.pdf
Lindzen 1995
They saw it as a chance to be “relevant”?
Pat:
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.
“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.
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
N
It is Lynsenkoism, but on a much larger scale.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The best gravy trains sell intangibles and endure for millenia.
Wrong.
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.
Because it is not science, proving a hypothesis!
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.
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.)
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.
Uh. Reagan ramped up Prohibition. One of the most evil policies devised by man. And yes he did some very good things too.
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.
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 climateofsophistry.com (although AW will probably moderate this because of that pointer).
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.
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.
“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).
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.
+1 Nice rant.
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.
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.
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.
Another one from George Santayana that seems pertinent to the CAGW fanatics. “Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim”.
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
Mardler.. I think you are right but I think we should then ask why would these people want a socialist world government.
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.
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.
MCourtney, lalalalalalalalalalala much??
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.
@MCourtney: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!
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?
THE MALTUSIANS SPEAK….
“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!
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.
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.
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?
It is a conspiracy to the extent that political parties are conspiracies.
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:
guilt-mongering,
group-think,
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.
Robin, you should have linked your book.
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.
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.
@MCourtney: 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.
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.
“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
Was not the ‘conspiracy theory’ meme constructed to enable manipulators to disparage any theories on the conspiracy of conspiracy theories?
Conspiracies do exist.
There are even laws against them.
Must have happened sometime in the past, eh?
Markl,
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?
“The UN…..with absolutely no one to answer to except the political leaders of the countries that participate.” You answered your own question. Vote.
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.
http://www.amazon.com/Guide-Scientific-Discovery-Popular-Popper-ebook/dp/B00BX3ATBS/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1416774801&sr=8-3&keywords=rafe+champion
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. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=rafe+champion
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.
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.
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.
WARMISTS’ LOVE OF BIG OIL MONEY AND CONCERN OVER GLOBAL WARMING!
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?
Exactly. Enough said.
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.
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.
I think your attribution of motive is mistaken.
True. You do not destroy civilization in order to save it.
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
Not according to Maurice Strong and many other globalist.
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.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p-35_Brandon.html
http://endzog.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/adolf-hitler-the-most-lied-about-man-in-history/
If you mean Jews, say so.
This is not a debate I want to be in…
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?
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.
Bill H,
Absolutely right!
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
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.
‘its for your own good’
Hehe, or ” I am from the Government, and here to help.”
Maybe it would help to be a little more self-critical?
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.
“The greater good”? Reminds me of the British film comedy “Hot Fuzz”, which ironically encapsulates this whole episode. We need our ‘Nicholas Angel’ 🙂
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.
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).
.
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.
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.
Jimimi_the_dalek,
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 ?
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.
Suggest you do some research jimi.
… “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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
Catherine,
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.
Pol Pots green revolution, empty the cities return everybody to the land, TWO MILLION DEAD.
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
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/22/six-vital-steps-to-protect-earth-global-warming-carbon
I thought the IPCC was formed in the late 1980’s – well before Rio which was 1992 –
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.
Like with Watergate ….. “Follow the money”
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.
GODWIN!
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).
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.
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.
Reminds me of:
You probably mean Nick Davies and his book Flat Earth News: http://www.flatearthnews.net/
Wonderful book. Now you understand why MSM publishes everything from Greenpeace.
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.
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.
Like the thoughtful approach you bring when so many are kneejerking.
It only seems thoughtful to a socialist.
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.
leftturnandre,
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.
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.
They won’t stop at “eternal fame”, who would ?
the climate skeptics are analogous to the “enemies of the State” during the Nazi regime
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.
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.
John
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.
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 http://www.iclei.org 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 http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com 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.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
Remember Kathrina and the absolute disappearance for months of any action?
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
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.
Hey, I’ve got some cliff side property for sale!
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.
Hansen was NASA, but NOAA is no better, except for UAH satellite crew.
My err
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.
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 http://www.the-rathouse.com/rev_jarvie.html
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.
Money.
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.
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.
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!
http://www.amazon.com/Totalitaria-What-The-Enemy-State/dp/0987657356
Cheers
Roger
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.
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?
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.
I have an alternate thesis: it’s done to cut back on oil consumption, weakening OPEC and the Russians. Just a thought.
That sounds like a good part of the answer.
It would be readily agreed by Western Foreign Offices. There would be no Western opposition.
If that was the case, the clear answer would be to develop are own resources, not cripple them with wind and solar fiasco’s.
So we go broke to weaken the enemies’ economies?
What’s that got to do with destroying King Coal?
Why not go nuclear?
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.
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.
Fernando,
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.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/23/finger-puppets-the-green-blob-finds-its-voice/#comment-1796311
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.
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.
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.
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.
Some of them let the truth slip out.
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.
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.
America -> the world’s lifeboat.
Sadly, I guess we need to hear that, untrue as much of it is. Our American exceptionalism is surely a two-edged sword.
How so?
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.
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… 😉
Well said, Gentle Tramp.
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.
Or old like Emily Latella (Gilda Radner of SNL) ..Oh never mind.
What do you think the IPCC’s goal is?
Do you buy CAGW as they push?
Well, the debunking of the climate scare hasn’t trickled down to the lemmings yet.
Ouch, to think I spent most of my career in a higher-ed support job!
Maybe we should see some of the interviews that were NOT selected for the video.
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!
“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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
The UN agenda is the same as theirs. NWO.
Money?
“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.
http://australianclimatemadness.com/2010/02/07/bbc-pension-fund-invested-in-climate-companies/
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.
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 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.
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.
They’re all running for cover, lair/liar whatever.
If they are not, they should be.
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.
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.”
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. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/49/Pogo_-_Earth_Day_1971_poster.jpg/240px-Pogo_-_Earth_Day_1971_poster.jpg
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.
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.
You nailed it.
‘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.
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.
Oh, even if 97% of your neighbors agree?
You mean, without checking the facts? No, not even then. Would you?
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.
more postmodernism
Good point, climate-scientology as Science Wars battles still being fought by the losers.
To get rich. It’s not hard to understand.
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.
B,O stated, “we will punish our enemies, and reward our friends”
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.
Folks who strive for political correctness have never read Sagan’s Baloney Detector.
See here if you want to know the origins of political correctness – http://www.academia.org/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.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cabal
You got your etymology out of Wankerpedia, didn’t you? Bad source for info on anything.
It is actually no longer a matter of science but of faith. http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2014/11/climate-science-has-become-climate.html
Think I counted 97 thesis in the Bishop’s lengthy testimonial.
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
http://www.ecosense.me/index.php/key-environmental-issues/10-key-environmental-issues/208-key-environmental-issues-4
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.
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.
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.
Agreed.
But I dis agree about the good parts. The science threads (Bob Tisdale for instance) are still good.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
This is a conspiracy theory.
Better to stick with the physical reality.
Has the climate changed with the emissions – No!
QED.
Taxes, taxes, taxes.
Gotta pay for deficits somehow.
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.
P.S.
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.
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html
@ 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).
The most powerfull lie is created from within ones self. Self programing a lie blocks the pathway to truth. Years ago I read we tell at least 11 lies a day. Here’s one example, “your over wieght because you eat to much ” No it’s not, I have a slow metabolism. Do you see how we reinforce a lie .I you repeat a lie often enough it becomes your belief.
Cook et al must surely have this article bookmarked for further research.
And he will ignore the number of regular commenters who have politely declined to comment.
May I suggest a more readily-defended explanation?
Old school feudal-fascism.
Wanna-be royalty vs peasants – everything between that & the brilliant-experiment that is the citizen-centric USA-system – functions as a feeder to the feudal-fascists.
Perverting the USA system has resulted in a quasi feudal-fascist system but they haven’t captured the USA yet.
Communism/Marxism has never existed as it denies human nature. It always stalls at the dictatorship of the proletariat = fascism. It requires a huge population of unselfish people and the absence of any greedy thugs with access to power (as if).
Experiments in socialism provide a facade for feudal-fascists but are never what they seem.
Even Islamic regimes, while using religion as cover, are ultimately controlled by selfish feudal-fascists.
The goal is for a few to acquire, expand, & protect their positions of power & privilege while creating a massive peasant-class of docile & dependent serfs.
A middle-class is tolerated to feed their greed, so long as it doesn’t threaten their hegemony, especially via a representative republic – where all citizens are supposed to be treated as equals.
In the USA there has been an aggressive plan from the Left/Democrats & establishment-Republicans to dis-empower the citizenry – flooding the zone with 5m+ illegals is one element of the grand scheme.
IMHO, there are, and have only ever been, the two real-world systems: feudal-fascism and freedom.
YMMV …
They successfully fooled the majority, and unknowingly also themselves. That is my best explanation for what happened. It is a tragedy. They would do good by bringing the rich part of the world down to the poor part instead of the opposite.
Be aware of peoble that will help you by some world good doing. The good intentions shadow for the catastrophies they produce.
Taking up Doug Huffman’s comment at 2.02 referring to “The Poverty of Historicism” by Karl Popper, there is a particularly relevant piece near the end, on the institutions required for scientific and industrial progress. The emphasis is on the danger of control and suppression of free-thinking and criticism.
“How could we arrest scientific and industrial progress? By closing down or controlling laboratories for research, by suppressing or controlling scientific periodicals and other means of discussion, by suppressing scientific congresses and conferences, by suppressing Universities and other schools, by suppressing books, the printing press, writing, and, in the end, speaking. All these things which indeed might be suppressed (or controlled) are social institutions…Science, and more especially scientific progress, are the results not of isolated efforts but of the free competition of thought. For science needs ever more competition between hypotheses and ever more rigorous tests. And the competing hypotheses need personal representation, as it were: they need advocates, they need a jury, and even a public.”
Popper wrote the book in the form of articles the 1940s and the book appeared in 1957. Popper was terrified by the rise of Big Science and especially Big Science funded by Big Government. He could see it coming by 1950 and he spoke about it in his (still unpublished ) lectures at the London School of Economics which he delivered through the 1950s and into the 1960s.
In case it helps, this Guide provides the key ideas of the book in a dozen pages.
http://www.amazon.com/Guide-Poverty-Historicism-Popular-Popper-ebook/dp/B00BX6IFRK/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1416784731&sr=8-8&keywords=rafe+champion#reader_B00BX6IFRK
Last sentence of article is “Do you have another or better explanation of a motive?”
This implies a ‘motive’ was presented, as expressed in the article’s Title and first para – “WHY?”.
Maybe this is answered mid-way thru the article “The motive emerged from the cabal ….” (in the preceding para – ===> “In order to save the planet” <=== ???).
So the motivation as presented by this article, with zero to minimal justification, is expressed in 6 words?
It seems to me that this article is a circular presentation of itself – A Big Lie; And "in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility" – that being the 6 words it supposedly exposes.
Judging by the comments, techniques of The Big Lie have been highly successful – focus is on the HOW rather than the WHY. So all in all, I would applaud this article, not for its expressed intent but rather for its edifying and illustrative outcome.
As to the WHY, I would say there are a number of contending motivations; the one expressed by the 6 words being one of them. However, after my above comments, I will not indulge this article by articulating on WHY any further. 🙂
Wins the thread
You haven’t finished the thread…., satisfied anyway ?
Still wins. This article is an embarrassment
uk,
Then I guess he’s satisfied.
There have been several threads on WUWT, centred on Lewandosky and his take on the mentality of skeptics/ deniers/ conspiracy theorists.
Not a peep from Steven Mosher other than three comments in one thread to remind us that models are great and commenters on WUWT are lame and don’t deserve more than drive-by dismissal.
I contend that insight into the motivation of the antagonists in the global warming quarrel can be gleaned from scrutiny of the psyche of the individual human in a very generalized way. Mobs, after all, comprise individuals.
My position is that personalities arise in large part from the paradox of self-loathing and self-infatuation occurring in all minds at all times. I dare say a couple of famous people have already made that point.
Global warming is the ideal matrix for labile minds to fill with a hodge-podge of; “We humans are terrible, but at least, I’m not bad like you others because I’m making an effort and you’re not!”
The really nifty part was that there was no dénoument in sight; the predictions were all for fifty or a hundred years hence. The glitch was that the wee mortals just couldn’t contain their impatience. The suspense was brutal.
They started foreshortening the time-scale. They began with; “we’re already starting to see the effects” and progressed to “it started before we even noticed”. Now, every event and non-event screams “evil humans”.
What’s that all got to do with Stevie Wonder? Dunno. It’s just what popped into my head as I was driving by.
Take away the funding and watch the subsequent rejection of ‘GreenTec’ by the consensus of scientists.
Allan MacRae –
Patrick Moore strikes again:
24 Nov: Australian: Patrick Moore: We need more carbon dioxide, not less
(Patrick Moore was a co-founder, and leader of Greenpeace for 15 years is now an independent ecologist and environmentalist based in Vancouver, Canada)
I am sceptical that humans are the main cause of climate change, and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over”, the “science is settled”.
My scepticism begins with the warmists’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model…
The idea that it would be catastrophic if CO2 were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.
Recently, the IPCC announced for the umpteenth time that we are doomed unless we reduce CO2 emissions to zero. Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture…
By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the precise workings of the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. But if the IPCC did not find that humans were the cause of warming, or if it found that warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse. Either the IPCC should be reconstituted with a larger membership of UN bodies (it is now a partnership between the World Meteorological Organisation and the UN Environment Program), and its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled…
Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and engage in a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as large wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.
So we are told CO2 is a “toxic” “pollutant” that must be curtailed when in fact it is a colourless, odourless, tasteless, gas present at 400 parts per million of the global atmosphere and the most important food for life on earth…
We have no proof increased CO2 is responsible for the slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the CO2 ever emitted. Yet we have absolute proof CO2 is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasise to our children?…
Let’s celebrate CO2.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/we-need-more-carbon-dioxide-not-less/story-e6frg6zo-1227132351356
Thank you Pat – I did not see the latest by Patrick Moore – but I wrote this yesterday, which is similar:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-google-engineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/#comment-1796438
[excerpt]
A few hints for the good folks at Google:
1. CO2 is the basis for all carbon-based life on Earth – and Earth is CO2-deficient.
2. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.
3. CO2 LAGS temperature at all measured time scales – we do not even know what drives what.
We knew points 1 and 2 above with confidence in 2002. We discovered point 3 above in 2008.
We also stated in 2002:
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
PEGG debate, reprinted at their request by several professional journals, the Globe and Mail and la Presse in translation,
by Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and Allan MacRae – PEGG, November 2002
http://www.apega.ca/members/publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
Regards to all, Allan
Having moved from being a believer of Climate Change to one of not believing in Man-made Global Warming/Climate Change, reading a book recently “Irrationality” by Stuart Sutherland, a passage stood out for me that clearly demonstrates the psychology of alarmists etc, that follow the mantra set out by the IPCC et al. “When someone is told something very implausible, he is more likely to believe it if at the same time he is told something highly plausible. But something implausible which is to say improbable – cannot become more probable just because highly probable material is associated with it. Indeed the probability that all the material is true is reduced by adding extra material however plausible… The presence of the plausible material is likely to increase belief in the implausible statement. This is a trick used by all accomplished liars.”
Why? If we can speak of the “Green Religion” then all we’re looking at is the formation and demise of a modern religion. That thought might be hard to digest of mainstream religious folks as they would not easily explore the “why” or origin of their own beliefs either (although generally they do not conflate it with science to their credit). But to classify it as religion makes it way more understandable how the educated and even the scientific elites would “fall” for it to such an extent. It’s like James Randi the illusionist debunker often told: those types are especially vulnerable for the simplest tricks aimed at heart and unchartered mind. The arrogance and hubris supplied by a generally limited and overdeveloped one-sided analysis — the “world as model” — creates this specific vulnerability in scientists and laymen alike…
Right, Hugh; Seems like the Pope or somebody would stand up and declare that God has not forsaken us, and as he provides for the birds and animals, who neither sow nor reap, so He will even more provide for his chosen humanity. This belief that man must rescue his earthly existence by trusting in his own might and wisdom is idolatrous even to a layman’s Biblical knowledge. I wonder why there is such silence from those whose flocks are being lured away.
makes one feel all green and fuzzy:
23 Nov: UK Express: Camilla Tominey: Queen goes green and signs up carbon-cutting club to lower emissions at Royal Palaces
PRINCE Charles is known as the eco-warrior of the Royal Family, but apparently he is not the only one.
The Royal Household, which runs Buckingham Palace, St James’s Palace, Kensington Palace and Windsor Castle, has joined a network of organisations which swap tools and techniques to lower their carbon footprint.
It emerged earlier this month that Her Majesty is concerned about climate change after she asked Met Office chief scientist Dame Julia Slingo if global warming had been responsible for a high level of flooding at her Balmoral estate…
The programme was launched by the National Trust and sustainable energy charity Ashden last year and has 85 members, including the Church of England, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and Oxford University…
The Queen has a reputation for switching off the lights at Buckingham Palace and famously heats her favourite room at Balmoral with a three-bar electric fire…
Further changes were made at Buckingham Palace after it scored zero out of 10 in a 2009 poll of London’s least environmentally friendly buildings…
http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/538853/The-Queen-signs-palaces-eco-group-reduce-carbon-footprint
Careful with that hand scythe, y’all…
“Motive For Massive IPCC Deception ???”
Cash & the power it brings;
as always…follow the money’
In California the punters were all over this horse in the 6th at Del Mar:
“El Nino Terrible”
$6.60 $4.80 $3.40
—————
Me too 🙂
The motive is what your touched on: a strict interpretation of Malthus. It is environmental fundamentalism, and it is very similar to religious fundamentalism.
One of the key factors that science has that religion does not, is empirical evidence. This is what usually undermines false beliefs.
The motive for the IPCC is the belief that the market and society on its’ own cannot address underlying weaknesses which will result in catastrophic collapse. It is the acceptance of a creed that does not allow paradox, or irony, or multiple contradictory factors in producing an outcome, and future history. The end is assured. Once the creed that society is flawed and doomed is accepted, then it’s ok to distort the science because one must stop the inevitable collapse that is coming, distortion is allowed to achieve the end: the end justifies the means.
(Note also in passing that communists also thought that the collapse of capitalism was inevitable, which also justified their actions. Such ‘inevitable collapse’ is a very Malthusian idea, and it used to justify just about anything.).
It is the same with all such movements. The end justifies the means because the followers have already accepted that otherwise a worse end is inevitable. The trouble is, the end is never inevitable. The future is not certain, and the science does not then become distorted to achieve a social end.
Both theists and atheists have routinely resorted to exploiting universal and extra-universal arguments or theories (e.g. articles of faith) to create leverage for purposes of consolidating capital and control. The opiate of the masses, and elites, is not religion or moral philosophy (i.e. self-moderating, responsible behavior), but promises of dissociation of risk. The people who claim a skill to arbitrarily predict a state in a chaotic system exploited public misconceptions of science and reality. Specifically, science is a philosophy necessarily constrained to a limited frame of reference in time and space. That mortal beings are inherently and permanently limited in their efforts to forecast the behavior of chaotic processes (e.g. incompletely characterized and unwieldy). The scientific method implicitly acknowledges that accuracy is inversely proportionate to the product of time and space offsets from an established reference and enforces constrained frames of reference, principally through use of deductive, and relegating inductive logic to philosophical musings.
Anyway, their strategy is not new. There is little new under the sun. Their tactics, however, are noticeably progressive, in the sense of occurring on unprecedented scales. Witness their recent decimation of South Africa and her native population in order to claim control of developed resources. Going so far as to institutionalize involuntary exploitation or redistributive change based on race in the “progressive” constitution. Consider that they cannot effect that change in a similar manner and proportion in a developed and largely prosperous nation like America.
Whether it is Obamacare that progresses the cost and reduces availability of medical care; mass immigration (leaders of second and third-world nations are thrilled to be relieved of their “burdens”); or Global Warming, the intent is to exploit democratic leverage (or executive and judicial decrees) and occult knowledge in order to marginalize competing interests and capture private capital, where an outright physical attack would be difficult and perhaps impossible. Case in point, normalization of elective abortion, a purely dysfunctional behavior, that denies the self-evident process of human evolution from conception (i.e. source), and arbitrarily degrades human life to a clump of cells or commodity. Perhaps Americans are that stupid or their brains have been addled by liberal consumption of the opiate.
To control the masses all you need to do is control information. After a war the victor destroys all books from libraries and replaces it with their own propaganda. America has stated the internet is a threat to their national security .Democracy means “rule of the people ” but we now live in a techmocracy and the way to rule (control) is to control information . If you look up the word rule it does mean control. Rule of the people sounds like the people have control. “Control of the people” sounds like were inslaved and debt keeps us salving away
The IPPC scientists will do what their political sponsors expect them to do. I think the prime motive of those sponsors is to control the world economy by controlling the use of the main source of energy, fossil fuels.
It starts with inequality, global and local. Their supporters hate prosperity of the others. Instead of saying that they need a noble cause: wealth destroys the environment. Because well-fare is a zero-sum game for them, over-population is a big concern.
There is no need for scientic proof of AGW or anything because deindustrialization is the target.
If not to control the entire economy, at least to continue to better themselves.
With so many cracks in the dam, what we need is one, just one major network to decide that they need to scoop the story before the rest decide to turn as well.
Not holding my breath though.
I still believe that CAGW is not a true conspiracy but a coming together as a function of mutual self-interest.
CAGW provides sociopolitical ideologues, financial opportunists, the naive sensitives and the power hungry an unparalleled background to achieve their goals. The truth of the narrative doesn’t matter as each agenda is independent of the narrative. Few will check the facts or question the assumptions when they support their otherwise justified position; none, when the facts or assumptions are irrelevant to that position.
Skeptics hold the uncomfortable ground where why you do something technically is as important as why in any other aspect, emotional, religious, moral, social-political or financial aspect. The skeptic might even agree with the basic concept, as in reducing fossil fuel’s use per se. The skeptic’s struggle is to get the point across that there may be other ways to reach those goals or that indeed the actual point being pursued is the unstated goals and not a reduction in CO2.
In the passed month three items have come to my focus in this regard. The environmentalist of California doesn’t give a damn about the lack of water in California. No serious measures have been raised to reduce water usage, no increase in water costs to deter its usage, nothing to change grass-growing, flower planting or golf course design to fit in a naturally dry environment. There is no call for Americans to use less oil despite the attack on the Keystone XL pipeline, as there is absolutely no pressure to decrease drilling in the North Dakota Bakken or other new tight gas and liquids zones. Th call to reduce electricity use – coal and gas derived, of course, does not lead to demands that Las Vegas turn its lights off at night or Dicaprio stop flying in personal jets. The eco-green movement doesn’t give a damn about CO2 production in itself. What it does care deeply about is the water, oil, energy and profligate consumption BY OTHER PEOPLE.
Which is a control issue. Keep the poorer classes in the West restricted in what they can do and the truly impoverished in the rest of the world at an economically and socially disadvantaged state. And, ultimately, see to it there are less of them.
The CAGW story is not about changing what the supporters of Al Gore, the Sierra Club or the David Suzuki Foundation do. It is about stopping The Other People from doing the same, which is considered a sure-fire way to stop the current eco-green and elite from continuing their current and pleasant lifestyle.
Some people want to be important or feel morally good. Some want power or money or fame or a combination of the three. Virtually all want to do what they want to do when and where they want to do it. Few have any interest in reducing their options. Almost none of the soldiers, and I would say absolutely none of the officers, of the eco-green movement are prepared to do so as long as Others can be cajoled ot coerced into making the sacrifice instead.
The skeptic argues about the false threat of CO2, while the alarmist argues about the warmists’ lifestyle being provided to other people. There is no common ground.
Your understanding is very close to mine, there is no simple explanation but a perfect storm of people from different social groups united by an illusion of saving the planet. I think this was perfectly clear when one of the main characters in this play (Mike Hulme) explained years ago that we should not ask what we can do for climate change but rather what it can do for us. This phenomenon is similar to Lysenkoism but this time the interest groups are on manifold (politicians, scientists, journalists, investors etc.) and the invested interested are tremendous for many of them. There is a interesting take (from 2007) on the history of the CAGW and the corporate interests (from a surprising source):
http://activistteacher.blogspot.co.uk/2007/05/dgr-in-my-article-entitled-global.html
Curiously, one side of the story has been promoted by the Big Oil/Koch Brothers meme, while the other side of story has been almost completely forgotten.
We all know that the news media disseminate the wild claims put out there by the IPCC. Similarly, the United Nations Environment programme (UNEP) published [online] the alarming figure in 2005 predicting climate change would create 50 million refugees by 2010. By 2011 UNEP were taking down the documents in attempt to hide the mistake (WUWT 2011).
. . . The UNEP gave a detailed ‘handy map’ on areas most likely to be affected: Bahamas, St Lucia, Seychelles and Solomon Islands.
A recent census on the islands showed ample population increases: Bahamas 50,047, Solomon Islands exceeds half a million and St Lucia recorded an overall increase of 5 percent.
Further investigation showed other news reports with identical alarming figures by 2020.
‘Coming in 2020: 50 million Environmental refugees,’ a headline read. A UN projection by Professor Cristine Tirado at the American Association for the advancement of sciences meeting.
In Australia, Chairman of the Climate Commission, Tim Flannery’s predictions have come under similar question.
Andrew Bolt in the Herald Sun said ‘Tim Flannery has just been hired by the Gillard government to scare us stupid’. (Anonymous, 2011)
My student tried to publish this on Wikinews, but Wiki-reviewers said the story was parochial and stale, even before they applied corrections. The Wiki-reviewer may also have conducted research and noted an aversion in Australia to one source, the journalist and climate skeptic Andrew Bolt, who regularly breaks with convention. Shunned by mainstream media, at the time Bolt faced the Federal Court of Australia, which later found he contravened section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.
When scientists break with convention on climate sensitivity, suggesting much less an emergency than the climatology computer models predict, like Bolt they too are punished or censored. Scientists Spencer and Braswell broke from the dominant consensus in concluding: “that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations” (Spencer and Braswell 2011). In a post-normal context, conclusions in climate science are derived from statistical computer modeling, ignoring raw satellite data that shows the sun has entered a cooler cycle. Statistical computer modeling is a postmodern way to conduct science, and according to Ravetz, it occurs in times of extreme uncertainty (Ravetz 2011).
Kim Landers, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) Washington correspondent, broadcast her radio story entitled: ‘White House report urges action on climate change’ (Landers 2009). The piece claimed that climate change produces increasing frequency in earthquakes and other natural disasters. Immediately after the broadcast, I contacted ABC Complaints, stating there was no scientific proof that global warming caused earthquakes. Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit separate to and independent of ABC programming, investigated and acknowledged that the connection was unlikely and so noted the error under the reporter’s closing comment in the online version of the story. Two sources in the story were from press releases: the United Nations and the US government. One of these sources was Dr John Holdren, Science and Technology advisor to President Barack Obama. Holdren is famous for his wild predictions on sea level rises, higher than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the scientific intergovernmental body established in 1988 by the United Nations. A YouTube clip, showing Holdren being grilled in USA Congress over why his predictions were so extreme, was screened in 2011 Investigative Reporting lectures. A year later the clip was no longer available. Case studies like this demonstrate how sources must be carefully chosen, after thorough investigation. They also demonstrate how Kim Landers’ radio journalism, in its comparatively inadequate Journalism 1.0 form, was unable to describe or background Holdren, as it might by way of Journalism 2.0 hyperlinks. Such back grounding can show that Holdren co-authored ‘Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment’. This provides students with news angles: that Holdren has an interest in world governance, as defined in Dryzek et al. 2010. Holdren’s book contains ‘solutions’ to overpopulation, including forced sterilization for women, but suggests Holdren does not support such measures, referring to “obvious moral objections” (Ehrlich, Ehrlich and Holdren 1977).
By providing students with alternative view case studies on anthropogenic impacts of deforestation, young writers can develop a sense of logic and basic understanding of the mechanics of environmental degradation, instead of remaining confused by the hypothesis of climatology. Such an understanding of earth-based physical science, in an elementary sense, can be developed further through journalistic observation and deconstruction of big news events. The Queensland floods of 2011, and in particular the Lockyer Valley floods, were significantly devastating with many deaths. Green Senator Christine Milne said the flooding was due to global warming and the compliant news media reported it this way (Milne 2011). The real causes: the physical effects of deforestation coupled with the overflow and operation of Brisbane’s Wivenhoe Dam upstream, are based in logic and the Queensland Floods Inquiry has since testified to this in public hearings. News-writers have a responsibility to develop logical research and clean story-telling strategies, effective in explaining such emergencies with accuracy. Journalism must provide simple analysis and demystification in these matters. Instead, journalism output continues to remain fixated on the deleterious and mysterious atmospheric effects of greenhouse gases, with scant mention of all the usual environmental problems associated with heavy industry, logging and big paddock agribusiness.
You make a great point about journalists and their RESPONSIBILITY to the people. The only problem ? They have come through the same school system that has been “dumbing” and indoctrinating students in most if not all nations especially the West since the eighties.
The news is owned by the bankers (mostly) and other corporations who all want ‘Globalization’
It is interesting to note that in the USA the Supreme Court ruled corporations can donate to political campaigns. Also corporations are the people who hire Lobbyists.
So who are thes corporations that donate gobs of money to the politicians running for US office?
Statistics (courtesy of Bridgewater) showed in 1990, foreign ownership of U.S. assets amounted to 33% of U.S. GDP. By 2002 this had increased to over 70% of U.S. GDP. http://www.fame.org/HTM/greg%20Pickup%201%2010%2003%20report.htm
US law on contributions:
Note that Maurice Strong contributes to both the democratic and republican parties. Also it was donations from China that allowed Bill Clinton to win re-election in 1996. link Clinton repaid China by bringing China into the World Ttade Organization and by shipping US technology including military technology to China. “In June of 1995, the CIA learned that China had stolen the crown jewels of our nuclear arsenal, including the neutron bomb and the W-88 miniaturized warhead…..
Proof of China’s military intentions came in March of 1996, on the eve of Taiwan’s first democratic elections. China used the threat of force to intimidate the island nation into electing a pro-Beijing candidate. Military maneuvers included bombing runs and launching ballistic missiles that impacted within twenty miles of Taiwan. When the US sent an aircraft carrier into the Taiwan Straits, a Chinese general threatened to “rain down nukes upon Los Angeles”….”
Clinton is very much pro-globalization.
Thanks, Dr. Ball. A good question and a good article in search for the answer.
You made me remember Carl Sagan in “The Demon-Haunted World” (1995): Science as a Candle in the Dark. A good read.
I think this darkness comes from the disappearance of scientific though diversity in schools, from elementary to universities and colleges,
What caused this extinction? A quasi-global political climate change.
Reading the article, I wrote out my own experience and views on the subject. In summary … people just go along with the crowd unless or until they have a personal reason to check what the crowd is saying. The more you’re part of the “establishment”, the less you question them. The more of an establishment outsider and knowledgeable on science/energy, the more likely you are to take the first steps toward scepticism.
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2014/11/24/about-motive-for-massive-ipcc-deception/
An excellent posting Tim Ball though I suspect it will set the cat among the pigeons among some of the readers here (who I mostly admire btw) but the fear of catastrophic AGW was never about the climate but rather about, in part, the application of a system of global governance (note: not government). One of the techniques used was about creating a fear of CAGW by using the lie of omission within the framework of the Hegelian dialectic, itself contained within the milieu of post-normal science as postulated by Jerome Ravetz and honed by Mike Hulme, founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research located at the University of East Anglia.
The peculiarity of Hegel’s world view is that it is the conflict of ideas that brings about change. The result of this conflict is to create a synthesis between two extremes that leads to a final outcome: this has been expressed as ‘thesis/antithesis’, ‘create the crisis/offer a solution’ or ‘problem/solution/outcome’, ie manufacture cognitive dissonance.
As a reminder (sorry, cannot find source for my paraphrasing): “The concept of post-normal science goes beyond the traditional assumptions that science is both certain and value-free…The exercise of scholarly activities is defined by the dominance of goal orientation where scientific goals are controlled by political or societal actors…Scientists’ integrity lies not in disinterestedness but in their behaviour as stakeholders. Normal science made the world believe that scientists should and could provide certain, objective factual information…The guiding principle of normal science – the goal of achievement of factual knowledge – must be modified to fit the post-normal principle…For this purpose, post-normal scientists should be capable of establishing extended peer communities and allow for ‘extended facts’ from non-scientific experts.”
Now to my point, by way of example.
In the March 21, 2007 edition of ‘The Australian’ newspaper nowadays editor-at-large Paul Kelly wrote about David Miliband, Britain’s then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. “Last week Miliband announced that Britain will become the world’s first nation to legislate a climate change bill setting legally binding timetables for a low-carbon economy. It will put into law the target of 60 per cent emission cuts by 2050, the same target pledged by [Australia’s prime minister] Rudd’s Labor Party [prior to Rudd winning office]. This decision will affect every British industry, business and household.” Kelly suggests Miliband is “recasting social democratic philosophy and practice for the coming century”, after which he adds, “The purpose is to impose this [carbon-trading] system on the world. Britain and Europe are setting benchmarks for a new global order.”
Kelly’s article then goes on to quote then British Chancellor Gordon Brown: “My ambition is to build a global carbon market founded on the EU emissions trading scheme and centred in London” to which Kelly adds, “The bill will create statutory carbon budgets that will be managed “with the same prudence and discipline” as financial budgets. For Brown, the carbon will be counted like the pound sterling.”
Kelly summarises this position as the “debate is no longer just about the environment. It is about economics, culture, ideology and foreign policy. The old debate about climate change believers and sceptics is dead (being kept alive only for political gain). The new debate is about policy solutions.”
Carefully note this last paragraph!
To finish up note this statement from Mike Hulme, quoted in ‘The Guardian’ newspaper (sorry, no date) sums it up best by saying that, “…‘self-evidently’ dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking . . . scientists – and politicians – must trade truth for influence.” Readers can start to draw their own conclusions. However, Tim Ball herein has presented us with an outline of the battleground.
A conversation I had a couple days ago with UCLA’s Chief Sustainability Officer had me slapping my forehead.
She won’t be asking these questions anytime soon.
The motive as I see and understand it is to create a global government, and this has been the UN aim since the 1960s. First through pesticides, then through global cooling, then (half heartedly) through global pandemics, and currently through global warming.
I say ‘currently’ because as the global warming scam is fully realised by the public the UN will (if it does at all) recognise this but blame it on over zealous or misguided scientists before moving on to its newest scare. That will probably be the danger of earth being struck by an asteroid which can only be avoided by a globally coordinated effort controlled by a global government.
What is wrong with this is not the concept of a global government, for such will surely come in the fullness of time, it is the structure of it as sought by the UN.
The UN is controlled largely by those with a left wing agenda and the standard failing of that thinking is twofold; firstly that they know best what is good for mankind and secondly that you cannot trust voters to make the correct decision. Hence the multiple attempts to create a quasi global government of the unelected and unaccountable by stealth through such as Copenhagen.
Democracy is under threat in more sinister and devious ways than ever it was from communism, although truth to tell the Green movement is loaded with people who shifted from overt Marxism into overt Greenism and so the communist threat is stronger rather than diminished. Alongside that sits the very real desire of many greens to return to a Stone Age economy coupled with a massive reduction of human population by one means or another.
Academia, which I’m the UK has long been left wing dominated at the highest levels, has encouraged fundamental dishonesty amongst scientists and the absolute corruption of science in the service of politics with its Post Modern science. And that is an abomination which no honest man could support or subscribe to.
I forgot to mention that it is only a few short years since I read the personal profiles of the climate ‘scientists’ at the University of East Anglia. I don’t recall a single one who did not profess to be an adherent to Post Modern Science, and I’m sure the way back machine could refresh on this.
What they were happy to proclaim was that they put politics before science and thus by inference were content to modify their ‘scientific’ output to match a political agenda.
Climategate ….. Was a revelatory exposure .
Fortunately for the world, the new world order crowd (I don’t think most scientists actually believe in this but they have been bought out), their hubris is so great that they eventually start to blurt out their real objective. I thought I would never see (in San Francisco and New York) placards proclaiming that democracy and free -enterprise must be stopped. Phase one, they scare us with bogeymen, end of the world stuff but they are an impatient lot and frustration with lack of progress (shows who the stupid ones really are) they morph to phase two – let their motivations all hang out.
Even though the most successful succeed in destroying millions of people, they all have that fatal flaw. The Soviet Union experience showed us that you can indoctrinate generations but the desire for freedom can’t be extinguished. The dissidents in the former Soviet Union probably are a measure of the proportion of “sceptics” one can expect to find in a society. It isn’t large; most go with the flow, but the system itself is apparently unsustainable and eventually fails partly through their small effors. China has cleverly modified their governance and taken advantage of technology and free enterprise modus operandi to prolong the show. But it, too, will end with a free society. You can’t successfully build anything permanent on lies.
” China …. But it, too, will end with a free society. You can’t successfully build anything permanent on lies.” I believe this as well.
Writes Old England:
Exactly. The great danger is not from some sort of global union in the future, á la 24th-century Star Trek, but from the very real possibility that it will come as despotism. The job of those of us in the (sadly diminishing) free world is to insure that the value of the individual, as defined in the American Declaration of Independence (“Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”) is the foundation stone of any future global order, not the State.
You will not hear this from the globalist cabal, and their Watermelon followers.
/Mr Lynn
The only way to raise the 3rd world up to the level of the 1st world (this curbing population growth), is to do a massive tranfer of wealth. This is being done by transfering the means of production to previously 3rd world nations by restricting the energy usage of europe and north america. Obama and many world leaders are internationalists, who beleive that in the long run this policy will lead to a less inequitable world with less international conflict and so less probability of a global conflict in a world of nuclear weapons.
I think it’s a bad policy,elitist and is built on the assumption that the temporary leaders with influence at the UN know whats best for us so we all better do whats best for us or else.
Mans primary drivers are no different then the lions . We can’t have sex with it then we want to kill it .
Woman on the other hand are cares and nurturers .you ever heard the phrase “behind every good man there’s a good woman” . So the real problem is there isn’t enough women out there that believe the way to a better future is good mothering not getting a better job that pays more .The most important job one the planet is looking after our future ( children ) and not paying someone else to brainwash them. Here’s one more saying Behind every pucked up man there’s a pucked up woman. the Adam and Eve story tells the power woman has over man
Ah, but today’s governments have worked very, very hard – spending trillions of dollars every year – to make “government” the security, the breadwinner, the trainer of children, the rearer of souls (aided by outlawing religion while doing so), and the source of training at young age, money and power and jobs at middle age, and security and the ONLY allowed source of money and medicine at old age. So, when a woman “marries” the government because the government has replaced the 250,000 year need for “man” … Does not the government then require/request/demand/influence the woman serve the government with body, taxes, votes and cradle-to-grave loyalty?
The version I’m familiar with refers to dogs, not lions and though the carnal instinct is paramount, the alternative is less murderous and more about marking territory.
I would never utter those words, myself, but my neighbours (Canuck) do and I get the gist.
Now, where we really must part company is in paragraph 2.
Since childhood, I have only heard “Behind every great man there’s a woman.”
I believe you have taken dreadful liberties with that aphorism.
It’s “cherchez la femme” not “cherchez la grande femme”.
Mr Google hints at where you went astray;
“””The first printed citation I can find is from the Texas newspaper The Port Arthur News, from February 1946. This was headed – “Meryll Frost – ‘Most courageous athlete of 1945′”:
“As he received his trophy, the plucky quarterback unfolded the story of how he ‘came back’. He said ‘They say behind every great man there’s a woman. While I’m not a great man, there’s a great woman behind me.'”
On a more serious note, our children are not our future, although we are their past.
jmorpuss says, “So the real problem is there isn’t enough women out there that believe the way to a better future is good mothering not getting a better job that pays more .The most important job one the planet is looking after our future ( children ) and not paying someone else to brainwash them.”
I admire your courage in saying so. Nicely done.
The expectation of a certain generation is that endless hours of education in the class room and the lecture hall would produce enlightened people. This has not been the case. The situation has now deteriorated drastically with Common Core and the homogenization of education with UNESCO globalist directives.
But the foundations of human intelligence are linked to good, stable attachments to parents early in life, and through the developing years, and intelligence throughout the lifespan and into old age is also linked to a good, attuned marriage. This allows the brain to develop and organize itself so that new learning has a framework and facts have meaning. This is the truth behind the family, and that is the science of love.
For a look at the Agenda and how it came to be some might find this site interesting.
http://green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html
It is one of the biggest lies of all and Maurice Strong is correctly identified by Tim Ball as the mastermind of the whole show. I actually met Strong. He was born in a little town in Manitoba and apparently grew up very poor. His father was a communist – not so unusual on the Prairies. Although I grew up in Manitoba, I actually met him in Ottawa when I worked for the government (Energy, Mines and Resources) in the early 1970s. I was one of a few asked to attend an interview arranged for him for the job of CEO/President of the newly formed, government-owned Petro-Canada.
He had been put forward for the job by senior government politicians, so it was a shoo-in but they had to go through the hoops to legitimize it. He was a very bright high school student who never went to university – or certainly had no degree. He was self made and had been president of a number of mining companies and an adviser and consultant to prominent politicians in Liberal party. He was a smallish, a mellifluous speaker with considerable charm. The HQ in Calgary was a high rise made of red brick surrounded by a huge red brick piazza that was affectionately known by Calgary oil men as “Red Square”. He basically had no clue about the oil industry.
He went on to the UN where he was unabashed in his belief that Western Civilization and economy had to be destroyed. (Tim has one of his quotes – it needs quotation marks, Tim). He created the UN “framework on environment (I cant be bothered to look up the actual name) and seized upon the environmental movement as his instrument to accomplish his plans for establishing world government. Sounds a little like something from “Goldmember”, but it’s very real. I can see why taking on the big impossible lie opens one to being called a conspiracy theorist.
Since the 60’s, the US and much of the developed world has systematically dismantled heavy industry and manufacturing to exploit slave labor in developing nations. These developing nations promptly stole all their IP and started producing cheap copies. Initially the cheap copies were basically a joke, and terrible quality. “Brand marketing” was established to make sure that the foreign produced “brand” items were sought by consumers. Essentially the brand was being bought. The item cost of manufacture was extremely low.
Only in the past decade or more, these cheap copies have become almost indistinguishable in quality from the “brand” items, and when quality is the same price is the deciding factor to what is bought. The no-brand copies are extremely cheap, having been produced by this “slave labor” and no brand to pay for. Consumers flocked to these.
The developed world, after progressively selling manufacturing capacity to developing nations, progressively relied on debt as income, and to facilitate this, swapping assets with each other in national, government-endorsed, ponzi schemes. The money to fund the new “lifestyle” was borrowed from the countries that had the money – the (now) industrialized developing nations, and then interest and principal was paid to them. The global macroeconomic flow of capital was completely unbalanced. The US racked up absurd debts of 11 trillion. Private debt levels soared across the developed world.
A tremor, and signs of things to come, was felt in 2008 with the GFC. A tiny blip, but it saw the US frantically printing money to pay its bills. 5 years later they are still printing, the economy in tatters.
It is naive to think that nobody saw this coming. Therefore faced with certain economic ruin, the developed nations needed a peaceful way to take their money back from developing nations… and the rest is history.
China and India don’t know what they are getting themselves into once they acknowledge the fact that their industrious productivity is “ruining the planet”… reparations will be collected from them and paid to nations that don’t pollute as much (read: nations with no manufacturing capacity to produce pollution) and the global economy will once again be in balance.
I don’t know how this will help the US though because they produce a lot of pollution (for so little productivity), so my thoughts may not be completely correct, but for nations such as Australia who have also dismantled productive capacity for favor of Asian “slaves”, it will be very beneficial for us if Asia pay us reparations for their pollution.
It’s MONEY man !
Think – “Stratton Oakmont ” ,”Wolf of Wall Street” , only with carbon taxes instead of stock investment. Why can’t people realize the obvious ?
Totally. The answer is much simpler than people would even think. Political parties get money by having a crisis in need of solving. Researches get money by having a crisis in need of research, and providing ways to avoid said crisis. Companies get money by responding to the crisis and taking int he government cutbacks… Its not a vast conspiracy… its just money.
No need to yell.
Just spread the word, whispers draw heat, or so I’ve heard.
“People Starting To Ask About Motive For Massive IPCC Deception”
Umm. You forgot to say anything about these “people” in your article. Who are they. Like some names maybe. You could even use pols I guess, although they really haven’t moved recently.
What with no El Niño, 2014 is so far shaping up to be another record year, perhaps 0.3C over 1998 in the NOAA record.That certainly should cause more “people” to look for IPCC deception.
trafamadope says:
You forgot to say anything about these “people” in your article. Who are they. Like some names maybe.
Start with my name, and we can add lots more. Of course, as usual that is just misdirection, deflecting from the issue.
And your complete nonsense about “another record year”.
Don’t you ever get tired of being debunked?
click1
click2
click3
You just can’t handle the truth: global warming has stopped.
dbstealey,
Based on what observations?
Easy big guy.
You are scaring ME, let alone the newcomers.
BTW, your click one is also on track for a record with three months still out. And I better say, before someone checks, the had-4 and the NOAA are 0.03 over not 0.3 like I originally said. Those order of magnitude details…
Read briggs
trafamadumbo,,
Click1 shows what the others do: flat T from around 2002.
Brandon Gates:
Did you observe the flat T record in all 3 charts? That’s an ‘observation’, no?
Would you like more charts? Say how many. Give me a reasonable number, and I’ll post them.
Oh and thanks for the Tony Heller ref, but until he proves his conspiracy, I remain a skeptic.
trafamadingdong,
He proved it beyond any reasonable doubt. But then, you alarmists aren’t reasonable…
dbstealey,
Many times over many years have I seen those flat spots extending out to the right.
Technically, summary representations of a collection of observations, but why quibble. UAH and RSS are more or less based on the same set of raw data, only the processing differs as I understand things. HADCRUT4, now that’s based on an entirely different set of data. Funny thing though, Tisdale’s chart cuts it off at Jan. 1978 when I know without looking that it goes back to 1850. Is there some particular reason why you and/or Bob think it’s necessary to discard nearly 130 years’ worth of observation?
Sure! But I’m not completely helpless and can roll my own. I myself am particularly fascinated with this one:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:1979/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:1979/trend
Oh look another pause denier.
… but not starting to ask why such a widespread conspiracy continually fails to convincingly align fabricated GCM output with falsified observational data.
Three Mile Island, Global Warming and the CIA
https://alethonews.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/three-mile-island-global-warming-and-the-cia/
There’s more to climate fraud than just tax hikes
https://alethonews.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/theres-more-to-climate-fraud-than-just-tax-hikes/
Oh come on, is that all you got, some links ?
Gonna take more than that to entice me.
Bait and switch.
Nuclear power IS ESSENTIAL in combating AGW. It also happens to be an endangered component of the Military Industrial Complex.
This explains the loyalty of the media, which is owned by MIC corps, and also the fact that academia is on board. Government will consistently support it as well.
I do appreciate that many proponents are motivated by Malthusian or misanthropic phobias and that they glom onto the AGW hypothesis with a fundamentalist fury.
But to harness the power of the establishment requires a bona fide motive.
Yes, conspiracies are very real. And yes, there is a power elite. Salary men such as university presidents work for them. That’s why they refer to it as “the system”.
Ideas have consequences
Belief Dr. Ball has identified a key cause in Maurice Strong’s beliefs (1992):
PresuppositionStrong’s presupposition is evolution with its fearful foundation – “Might makes right”.
Strong rejects the biblical basis of being made in God’s image with a mandate to be stewards caring for creation.
Genesis 1:26-28 NIV
See Cornwall Alliance: A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor 2014: The Case against Harmful Climate Policies Gets Stronger.
Cause
For those who understand, the driving force behind the IPCC and Evolution is contesting and opposing the biblical mandate and rightful worship. E.g., see Ephesians 6:12 NIV
Anti-Humanitarian
The anti-human nature of the IPCC’s policies as adopted by Obama etc. are exposed by Bjorn Lomborg ‘Help’ that just slaps the third world
“The World Health Organization estimates that warming now kills 141,000 each year . . .”
Do they also estimate how many die from record cold and snowfall?
Just curious…
It’s not hard to search for a motive, even if you don’t believe in deeper conspiracy theories (all of which are true, haha).
These people are billionaires and have worldwide influence and power because they lied. They’d have nothing and be nothing if they didn’t lie. So why wouldn’t they lie? The bigger question for me is why do good people purposely follow bad people?
Time for some fun, oxygen deprived speculation and wild rampant paranoia! I love it. I’ve got just the right amount of beer in me to have some fun with this. Here goes:
Those that want the majority of humanity dead (9 out of 10 of us, not them of course) are building seed vaults and taking samples of animal DNA to be stored. They are also trying to stop CO2 production and keep it around 280 PPM despite it being at 1000+ PPM for 250 of the last 300 million years. Why?
When the next ice age hits they can site back as CO2 declines below 150 PPM and all the land plants die. Followed shortly thereafter by most of the animal life like us humans. They then crank up the CO2 and replant the seeds they’ve stored and recreate the animals and get to play god in an almost uninhabited planet.
You’ve had too many, and don’t give them any ideas.
And around and around and around we go.
One should learn to undertand ones self before trying to understand anything , and here’s a good starting point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_H._Erickson
Irving Kristol: “There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”
Gruber is not indicative of some leftist conspiracy. It’s how many “elites” think. It’s as old and wrong-headed as Plato. It’s ingrained in all political groups, left and right. It’s why many neocons, like Kristol, love their Leo Strauss. It’s just basic narcissism. This site is so much better when it sticks to the science.
I thought the site just got a little better with its inclusion of your comment.
I’m not sure, but, ultimately aren’t we trying to get politics out of science ?
How better than to highlight its existence.
Everyone’s always falling over themselves to claim science as their own and declare themselves champions of Truth.
There’s a lot more to human existence and achievement than the rigor of scientific enquiry. For the entirety of human history societies and their members have bumbled their way through life, by times haphazard and by times punctilious. Humanity acquired a ton of skills without the foggiest clue about how they did it.
Language, for one. There they were, 20,000 years ago, jabbering away (about the weather), following grammatical rules that no-one had ever explained and still can’t fully.
The notion of Science as a distilled purity rising high above all the razzledazzle doesn’t seem realistic.
I’m not sure that it would even be fun. You wouldn’t be allowed a chuckle at Raymond Pierrehumbert’s accordion fandango, nor Jim Hansen’s fuzzy dice.
u.k.(us),
Many AGW contrarians likely are; certainly they say so quite often. I don’t mean this unkindly, but I think one would be better served tilting at windmills. We’re political animals, and when a field of study has significant policy implications then science and politics will be unavoidably and irrevocably intertwined. The very phrase “get the politics out of the science” IS a political slogan in my opinion, by the ancient and rich tradition of attempting to appear as if one’s position occupies the moral high ground.
ALL of the questions Dr. Ball is asking about the IPCC via the motives of its contributing authors and the menagerie of pols and pundits who leverage climate being a cause célèbre to suit their own ends can just as easily be asked of their academic and political opposites. The fossil fuel industry and their shareholders undeniably — and understandably — do not want use of their product restricted, curtailed or made more expensive; unless of course the higher end user price translates into higher revenues, margins and ultimately net profits. And let me be clear here, I have no categorical objection to profit motive. As a consumer, wage earner and investor myself I quite approve of it.
In short, I think that divining motives is an important part of the political dialog, but a very poor way to attack the science itself. Scientists who think a given theory is wrong write grants and work their butts off gathering evidence against it. People who uncover conspiracies do so by toiling quietly to compile actual evidence of it, not by publicly musing about the motives of the alleged conspirators. Those who actually and properly do either of those things typically do it for a paycheck, and on the whole I’d say they’re just as noble in their motive and intent as the coal miners whose blood and sweat are spent keeping our lights on and industry going — sometimes even at the cost of their health or lives.
The planet is the supreme arbiter of this debate. Finding out what we’re really doing to it, or not, can ONLY ever be found via researching it directly, or by reading and understanding the literature about that research. Nothing else, and certainly not by wondering out loud why people are “really” doing the research to begin with.
There is also purposeful ignorance involved as the rank and file alarmists parrot the lies and smears.
Take for instance the perpetual chant that the Heartland Institute, Watts etc are being funded by dark forces.
Joe Bast takes took that on again recently yet the chant remains.
>”Subject: [General] Correcting some errors in this letter
> Joseph Bast sent a message using the contact form at
http://amherststudent.amherst.edu/?q=contact.
>
> Yesterday I attempted to post a comment following this article,
http://amherststudent.amherst.edu/?q=article/2014/10/29/letter-editor-divestment-fossil-fuels,
[This letter was sent by 22 senior professors to President Biddy Martin and Cullen Murphy ‘74, the chair of the Board of Trustees, urging the college to divest from fossil fuels.]
> but the comment doesn’t appear here today. Was it rejected? Here is my comment again, please let me know if this will appear online.
>
> The references to The Heartland Institute in this letter are entirely false.
> The Heartland Institute is a 30-year-old nonprofit institution that was started without funding or advice from “Koch Industries” or any individuals or other organizations affiliated with that company. There is nothing “ersatz” about us: We have more than 5,000 donors, 30 full-time staff, more than 260 academics participate in our peer-review, and nearly 8 out of 10 state legislators say they read and value our publications.
>
> We have received a mere $25,000 in the last 15 years from individuals or organizations affiliated with the Koch family, and that gift was for our work on health care reform. We’ve received no funding at all from ExxonMobil or BP since 2007, before we became prominent in the climate change debate, and before that their funding amounted to less than 5% of our annual budgets.
>
> Our positions on climate change and alternative energy obviously diverge from those of the letter’s authors, but are well within the bounds of respected scientific opinion. Just one proof of that is that our series of scientific reports on climate science has been cited more than 100 times in peer-reviewed science journals.
>
> The claim that Heartland was or is being paid to lie about climate science or alternative energy is false, malicious, and defamatory. We are contacting President Martin and Chairman Murphy to inform them that this letter is inaccurate and should be disregarded. We hope further letters and commentaries on this dispute focus on the facts of the matter and not lies about people who seek to engage in an informed debate.”
>
After some time …… a response. ..
> —–Original Message—–
> From: The Amherst Student [mailto:astudent@amherst.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 2:14 PM
> To: Joseph Bast
> Subject: RE: [General] Correcting some errors in this letter
>
> Thanks for your inquiry about your online comment. There was a delay in publishing your comment — and all other comments posted to our website — due to a problem with our online comment approval feature. However, if you look at the article in question, you’ll see that your comment was published a few days after you submitted it and now appears beneath the article. Thanks for your patience as we attempt to sort out these problems with our website, and apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused.
>
> The Amherst Student
> The Independent Student Newspaper of Amherst College
It was never an organized conspiracy, politicians, media and science ignorantly colluded in a noble cause. Enlightened self-interest is the name of the game and its going to be hard dismantling the complex.
Do you have another or better explanation of a motive?
Stock options, green ones.
It’s a confluence. I might climb on board because I am way pro nuclear power. So get rid of that evil CO2, says I.
But because I am a real scientist, I cannot bring myself to ignore the fact that they are obviously monkeying with the numbers. And not just monkeying with them, but monkeying with them at EVERY turn.
I wonder how many Chicken Littles are really just closet pro-nuke folks.
Yeah, nuclear is such an obvious solution to so many things, and is even the ‘get out of jail free’ card if the manipulated calculating in fact turns out to be true.
Imagine if Russia and the US applied this logic during the cold war. A nucleaur attack from Russia to the US or the reverse was certainly a threat of serious or irreversible damage. Fortunately both Russia and the US did postpone measures and did not act. Fortunately neither Russia nor the US followed the Agenda 21:Principle 15 protocol. If they did large sections of the world would still be glowing toast today.
As to motive,for some power is the means and the end, the only motivation there is, the only thing worth attaining. Being able to corrupt science and scientists alike (which are supposed to be rational, non emotional, non-political or ideologically driven) showed there is no limitation to the power of being able to ingrain concepts thru skilled political campaigns. If you had the ability to get all of the industrlalized world, even it’s most rational segments, to accept as natural fact something as nonsensical as, “We control the Earths climate.”, you would know you had power.
Ah Tim Ball, you perhaps do us all a great disservice flailing around and seeking one great meaningful conspiracy theory. That ends up being a little harder for the average man to stomach than is the neat, feel good if we can fix it, story of AGW.
The whole AGW story is just so simply appealing, logical, sensible, and “the right thing to do” to so many people on so many levels that it just spreads naturally.
To the average citizen of today, raised on ‘not littering’, on looking after the environment, and on the inherent goodness of ideas of conservation, the story rings true.
Any number of entrepreneurs, inventors and investors looking for new opportunities have sprung out of the woodwork seeking any way they can to be involved in this new industry.
Undoubtedly some economists saw a great opportunity to again demonstrate the ‘power of the market’ they which works so well in simpler, smaller scale and better understood issues, and others saw some opportunities to restructure economies adn markets to match their theories.
Politicians never saw a new tax they did not like, nor a ‘save the people/country/world’ story that did not appeal as lovely political play to be part of, and to leave as a legacy. Those using government regulatory departments as their tools and power bases, similarly saw political advantage.
The average financier (ie, the guys working for those companies who really run the world) loves the idea of new great trading vehicles upon which he can build options and derivative structures (really concocted out of air in this case, so all the more appealing!).
The whole organization of the UN, and its financial institution, the World Bank, can only be enhanced in stature and in handling the levers of power and finance if the whole scenario were to be true. The WB was jockeying for ALL carbon credits to pass through its books, for a small fee, of course.
Regulatory bodies, loved the simplicity of promoting the risk and blaming it all on one simple easily measured gas. And some see great opportunity to grow the power and structure of their empires.
The humble scientists, doing all the grind work and publication (except for the Lewandowskys of the world, who simply puts a survey on the web, crunches it through a stats package, borrows some complicated jargon from the likes of M Mann, then publishes drivel) quickly learn which research to hitch the wagon to in order to obtain relevant research grants, and learn the value of throwing in a one line, pro-CAGW phrase in research which may (or may not) be construed as contradictory to the accepted theory.
The MSM love any great pending disaster story, (far more appealing than dragged out conspiracy investigations) and were always going with the flow on something so frightening, with the solution being so good and green.
Is there a bl**dy great plot to depopulate the world by those in power? Why would they do so when their aim is simply to ensure their wealth streams continue, and their position of privilege is maintained. There may be any number of small conspiracies associated with this issue, as there are with all issues as funding deals and financial advantages are sought and traded, but that is how the world runs anyway.
And, there is no “Great Lie” involved, just a quite plausible theory, the mechanics of which is almost undoubtedly occurring to some extent, with the only issue being degree, and the great likelihood there are several negating feedback mechanisms.
It is all so appealing and ‘obvious’ to so many non-thinking/non-reading people in so many levels of society, and the risks of financial and developmental chaos from proposed ‘solutions’ are so great, that it is (IMHO) critically important we continue gather as much data as possible, assess without pre-concieved ideas, and construct solutions with great care and planning.
+1
You can easily say that it is the hellfire and brimstone religion that Europe and the left has turned to, in order to make up for the ache in their soul left from when they abandoned Christianity.
“What motive would you give, when asked?”
FEAR. Everything stems from fear. Animals form herds hoping for security, and eject to the edges the animals that do not conform to the herd (consensus), to be eaten by predators.
Not all animals form herds, generally only herbivores (vegetarians).
Humans are unique in having some choice in the matter, but nearly everyone is to varying degree still a social animal, overlayed with intelligence. What Hitler was referring to was the tendency to revert to a herd animal where intelligence, or at least thinking, is less. That group, the proletariat, is easily moved but only by FEAR.
George Orwell’s excellent writings are more of the same. Sheep and fear.
Once you start a herd stampeding, it hardly matters what mouse or strange noise started it.
Maurice Strong is himself as much a victim of this mindless, sourceless fear as the people he manipulates; but of course, he gets something out of the deal — fame and fortune.
We can go back to the ComIntern, we can go back to Karl Marx, we can go back to Plato.
But we don’t need to.
Let’s say you visit your friend and she has a big furry Akita. They are very territorial guard dogs bred in Japan. They look like huge Huskies. This dog looks at you and wags a tail. You do not fear because the dog shows no fear.
But lets say the dog shows fear; growling and tail down. Are you going to go pet the nice doggy? Probably not, that would be a good way to lose a hand.
So you become afraid of the dog, because the dog is afraid of you. Of course, now that you are afraid of the dog, the dog is even more afraid of you since you might try some sort of pre-emptive strike.
It’s an onion. Layers within layers of deception and fear. Not much you or I can do about it but follow the Scout slogan — “do a good turn daily”. Make your tiny part of the world better.
“We can go back to the ComIntern, we can go back to Karl Marx, we can go back to Plato.
But we don’t need to. ”
We should. You’re close. Plato is not one of them though they use his ideas. As to the others – correct.
I would say: both fear and greed. The carrot and the stick works on every group. Some individuals may scoff at the stick, or be uninterested in the carrot. But every group responds to the carrot and stick approach. Texas marshals know that. It’s the reason one individual is able to handle a large mob.
I should follow up a bit on this thought.
FEAR is a powerful motivator, but to create it, or invoke it, you play on something else — SHAME. 60 percent (or so) of all commercial advertising is “shame based”, to make you ashamed of body hair, bad breath, the color of your hair, eyes or erectile dysfunction.
But what is wrong with shame? You fear that others will discover your shame. So, shame is the key that unlocks fear. A few people boast about their shames and in so doing also eliminate that avenue of fear. That is perhaps the main reason that religions desire confessions of sins; it removes your shame and by removing shame also removes fear, and when fear is removed liberty and freedom of choice is restored.
An explanation can be seen in the acid rain crisis- the crisis that followed the period when toxics were going to destroy the world and before climate took over the job.
Acid rain taught science wasn’t necessary to achieve legislation and regulation. All that is needed is marketing and lobbying and the illusion that its all based on science. Rewarding scientists that go along and destroying the careers of those that don’t makes the science illusion run more smoothly. (Scientists are smart people– it doesn’t take too many examples before they get the message. (The fate of Happer and Gray being the signal to the climate scientists.)
Congress, despite ten years and hundreds of millions of the dollars spent on the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program program, paid no attention to the findings when passing the Act. Science was irrelevant to policy and everyone by the time the legislation passed knew it. Science was whatever the media said it was and the media said whatever the environmental lobby told it to say.
Perhaps the most prescient comment was one made by an “anonymous scientist” at the conclusion of the contentious NAPAP that destroyed the career of Ed Krug and others — “in the future the EPA will not go through the pretense of research and debate.”
And so it was. The climate “debate” was over before it ever started with EPA farming the science out to the IPCC where it could be assured of the right answer as described by Dr. Ball.
See EPA and Ed Krug http://employees.oneonta.edu/blechmjb/jbpages/m205/The%20EPA%20vs_%20Ed%20Krug.htm
“Do you have another or better explanation of a motive?”
Yeah.
People are stupid.
And are ruled by their vices.
People which some could think are smart, actually believe in ghosts.
They believe in UFOs.
They believe Marxism is scientific and is unquestionably the truth.
There was millions people who believed in Nazism.
And the urge for totalitarianism is a common impulse.
These idiots are not so much trying to fool anyone- other then they may have a
strong desire maintain their delusions..
This culture is awash in pseudoscience- it’s taught in elementary schools and in higher
education.
Though this is the normal state of things.
The only particularly noticeable difference is there is strong desire for conformity- which is a current fad.
So review, no none knows jack about the global climate.
And we have had 18 year pause.
How is it that you know that Institutions of Science — all the Science Academies, Scientific Professional Societies, major Universities, NASA, NOAA — all of which conclude the same as the IPCC–are only committing fraud with respect to AGW, rather than in all the other fields of science – Relativity, Plate Tectonics, Evolution, DNA, or others?
Follow the money. The power. The corruption: Of data, of reearch, of the publications, of the politicians AROUND and USING the CAGW schemes for their power and control and agenda. The lies. The hysteria. The propaganda.
Only in education and the “psychology/sexual/political” research fields is the problem so deep as in the ecology and CAGW religions.
Oh. By the way. Your snide references back insulting/implying the fields of DNA, relativity and plate tectonics show how oft-quoted the “authorities” in the “science” fight ever-so-hard AGAINST “change” from outsiders that challenges the mainstream view. “Authorities” in the hard science are seldom, if ever, right the first time. Or the second. Or the third.
warrenlb,
There is undoubtedly corruptoin in all fields of science. The question is to what degree?
Climate seems to have attracted the Lysenkos, Lewandowsky’s, Schneider and Ehrlich (emeritus).
Science is not iummaculate any more than any other human endeavor.
@RACookPE1978.
So you maintain that the hundreds of Climate Researchers from around the world who have published 10s of thousands of peer-reviewed papers concluding, confirming, or consistent with, AGW, are committing fraud or are in a conspiracy to deceive the public? Do I have that right?
@gbaikie,
+1
Actually, I propose the motivation lies in the Chairman of the IPCC and if he had been successful in having the USA sign on to the treaty, His homeland of India would receive about $6 Billion in a year in USA tax dollars which is now impossible. Obama would have to have the Treasury Department print off $6 Billion a year to India alone.
There is more too it. The Chairman came on board in 2002, Bush turned the USA science community over to him in 2004.
Now, no one in the USA science community can have a grant, a job, or a political view without having the IPCC carved into their forehead.
I was in touch with a woman reporter in the West Palm Beach years ago who did an article on the Florida Environment. She said in an email and the news article, that the State of Florida is totally obligated to use IPCC data in their study.
The IPCC data and policies must be used in the USA from the White House to the Mayor’s office, from the highest university chair, down to kindergarten.
Now, we know where CORE Curriculum comes from.
Most Sincerely,
Paul Pierett
Don’t forget the “Single Convention Treaty” which almost every government in the world has signed.
The origin of the AGW Global Warming Fraud was the Club of Rome. see http://www.theeuroprobe.org 2014 – 011 More of The Club of Rome invented Global Warming Mick G From: Watts Up With That? To: mickgreenhough@yahoo.co.uk Sent: Monday, 24 November 2014, 13:28 Subject: [New comment] People Starting To Ask About Motive For Massive IPCC Deception #yiv5573938847 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv5573938847 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv5573938847 a.yiv5573938847primaryactionlink:link, #yiv5573938847 a.yiv5573938847primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv5573938847 a.yiv5573938847primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv5573938847 a.yiv5573938847primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;}#yiv5573938847 WordPress.com M Simon commented: “Don’t forget the “Single Convention Treaty” which almost every government in the world has signed.” | |
Do you have Scientific evidence contradicting the findings of the 10,000 peer -reviewed research papers summarized in the IPPC 5th Assessment?
There is lots of evidence (aggressively suppressed) that the original unproven postulates must be discarded. Polar ice is expanding, CO2 is not the cause of “warming”; a) because there is no warming, b) because it follows the movement of warming rather than preceding it, c) climate cycles is what the Chicken Little’s see – then they postulate a systemic change where there is none – patterns shift and the environmental system adapts.
That 10,000 bureaucrats, who may at times function as scientists, signing on to a flawed postulate does not make it proved-science. Flat-earth anyone? Even the author of the seminal model says it is flawed. That opportunists in business, education, and politics have leveraged the ignorance of the masses for fun, power, and profit is little surprise.
As for cannabis, that has also been proved nonsense, at least in the public-policy sense.
First, it’s a substance that has to be extracted in a laboratory, not magical smoke from burning the weed & inhaling the smoke – every competent scientist knows that you have to carefully control sources and process and quantity – not to mention that heat alters things.
There are many kinds of cancer and only a propagandist for dumbing-down the peasantry would propose legalizing the smoking of dope based on faux-science claiming “magical cancer cure”.
Second-hand dope smoke contains more carcinogens than cigarettes, and moderate to heavy marijuana use damages the brain = science, hardly positive points for legalization. Note again that the truth has been suppressed in the rush to legalization – follow the money and power to understand why.
Yeah we have contradictory evidence. Stay tuned to these pages. See it all.
Maybe someone has already mentioned it. I was caught up in the the world-wide scam to fill up academia and industry with sows’ ears. They are highly dependent on their mentor and will do anything to keep the position that they are far from the best person for. Its a great way to gain power and money for the mentor. Its an old problem but we now have very influential people working together under the banner of socialism. At the heart of it is that there is only enough resources for the 1000s of decedents of a few. There is nothing socialist about it.
Remember the Millennium Bug and WMD? Massive dupes
The “millenium bug” was real and thousands of computer programmers, particularly in COBOL, were kept busy dealing with it. As a consequence of that activity, nothing serious happened in Y2K.
You should not gloat that a disaster failed to happen. COBOL in particular had kept dates in 2 digits and the “wrap” would cause a huge torrent of failing calculations of interest owed, things like that.
As to WMD, Iraq certainly had plenty of “W”. How “M” any of those “W” were is somewhat variable. I worked with a man that was part of the first entry into Baghdad and his description was that nearly every city block had a warehouse filled with rockets, many of them filled with chemical weapons. He had some photos. The rockets weren’t all that big but the sheer number of them is mind-boggling.
Here again we have a disaster avoided. Shall the persons that helped avoid this disaster get no credit because you don’t believe it was imminent?
I face that pretty much every day as a system administrator. I see a serious problem about to happen, I work hard preventing disaster, and do I get any thanks? No, because the disaster did not happen.
In an earlier post you said evidence contradicting AGW can be found ‘all over’ this website. Why do none of the Climate Researchers who possess this contradictory evidence publish same in a peer-reviewed Journal?
Here are what I suspect are the two biggest motives:
1. Create the largest commodity markets in the world. One hardly sees much press about this anymore but there have been a few hints of the huge amount of money to be made by bankers and other oligarchs with the carbon credit regime.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/business/worldbusiness/06carbon.html
http://www.cnbc.com/id/36782147#.
2. Control and inhibit the growth of third world countries. What better way to make places like Africa reliant upon neo-colonial powers and multinational corporations?
“1. Create the largest commodity markets in the world. ”
I imagine if you sell actual “get of jail free cards” that would be the largest commodity market-
particularly if jailing becomes an even greater sport.
–2. Control and inhibit the growth of third world countries. What better way to make places like Africa reliant upon neo-colonial powers and multinational corporations?–
I think #2 is the biggest motivation. Controlling world population- which all about Africa [and middle east- and/or any war ravaged place] is a central unspoken aspect regarding the global warming religion.
RLFG’s point 1 is, I think, very correct: Witness the obscene haste of the big banks whacking in ‘climate desks’ and allocating staff to the good cause, and the equal haste in bundling them away when the money was not immediately forthcoming.
But, point 2 …. perhaps not quite so. The proven and quickest path to population control is economic development and education; both stemming from growing prosperity. It is not population control they (financiers) want, so much as to simply be in the money stream, with exports and carbon credits flowing out of the 3rd world (carbon credits due to complicated and concocted schemes), and investment money flowing in.
“But, point 2 …. perhaps not quite so. The proven and quickest path to population control is economic development and education; both stemming from growing prosperity. It is not population control they (financiers) want, so much as to simply be in the money stream, with exports and carbon credits flowing out of the 3rd world (carbon credits due to complicated and concocted schemes), and investment money flowing in.”
Yes that that would rational. But we talking irrational idiots like, Al Gore. And a host of
other ill educated people who think they know everything.
Ged Davis, when VP of Shell Oil was the lead author of scenarios (Agenda 21 sustainability is B1)
In ALL the scenarios there is a switch from coal to natural gas. Not surprisingly Shell Oil is one of if not the biggest producer of Natural Gas as well as being one of the powers behind CAGW. http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/0889554019.txt
The really sneaky part is ‘commodity markets’ Coal can be bought cheap and stored at the power plant. It is much harder to do with natural gas. Last year was an excellent example where the price of natural gas went through the roof. It is also happening this year.
Monday, 10 Nov 2014 Wild ride for natural gas signals volatile winter ahead “…Natural gas had been up more than 25 percent from its October low….”
This is the same thing that was done to US grain. In 1996 the farm bill under Clinton did away with the US strategic grain reserve. By 2008 the reserve was exhausted and the traders, lead by Goldman Sachs drove the prices through the roof causing over 60 food riots.(wwwDOT)foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis?page=0,1
The Grain Traders write a letter to Bush about the mess.
Interesting points Gail.
Also interesting to see who the dominant players are in the new natural gas biz (Israel and Russia with the the help of certain American companies like Noble Energy)
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Israeli-Set-To-Become-Major-Exporter-Of-Natural-Gas.html
Thank you Gail Combs.
I level blame at the tendency of modern man (and woman) to trust those institutions and powerful people who aren’t trustworthy. Oh, maybe they started out being fairly trustworthy, but now that they have tasted of power and abandoned truth, they are no longer trustworthy.
Academicians trust their associations because they have to toe their line and parrot their philosophies to stay in their good graces. The associations don’t exist to serve the members, they exist to stop competition and maintain their own power. Truth seekers need not apply.
Most people have become extraordinarily lazy and have no interest in digging for truth.
Now that we manufacture precious little in the US, the people who want to make lots of money have to resort to questionable strategies. No longer do young people dream of building the longest bridge in the world or the tallest skyscraper. Now they tell themselves they will “save the world” by devoting their time and energy and cash to whatever cause is spoon-fed to them by their smart phones and tablets and video games.
I cherish no delusions that the world will be made more safe by having the developed world’s treasure confiscated by the UN or other authorities, supposedly for distribution to the undeveloped world. You have to know that whatever monies are extorted this way will end up mostly in the pockets of the people who control their disbursement. How long have we seen that pattern? Why don’t we recognize it for what it is? What did happen to that money that went to Solyndra, after all?
Some say that the ones who want to have one world government expect to achieve that goal, not by raising the standard of living of the undeveloped world, but by bringing low the developed world. Computer programmers recognize that tendency. Whenever you computerize a process, you try to homogenize its parts. They try to set up a one-size-fits-all utopia.
Another angle on why the CAGW meme has taken over so much of our culture is summed up with this saying: “Get all you can. Can all you get. Sit on the can. Poison the rest.”
I’d say the reason for the AGW meme is the finding of all the world’s science Academies, all Scientific Professional Societies of consequence, all major universities, NASA, and NOAA — that ‘Earth is Warming, Man is the Cause, and the net effects are likely to be strongly negative’ or similar. Or do you deny that these Institutions have reached this conclusion?
The question is why have they reached those conclusions?
Other than for ‘Earth is Warming’ there isn’t any evidence – how can anyone distinguish between natural changes and man’s effect if we can’t predict the climate? And if we could predict the climate change – why would it be bad to live in a greener warmer world? The conclusions aren’t based on physical evidence
Now, we know these institutions haven’t surveyed their members so the conclusions also aren’t based on accumulated wisdom.
And these institutions haven’t updated there conclusions with the failure of the computer models so they aren’t based on the findings of the IPCC (they aren’t just passing the buck).
So why do you think they have they reached those conclusions?
You raise this issue so you must have wondered on what basis the leaders of the institutions made these statements.
Read Orwell’s 1984. A disturbing yet prophetic blue print for the current CAGW crowd. Some crave the power of the collective, others are just filled with unadulterated greed. And then there are the low information followers that like to parrot what they read in the Puffington Host or the saggy breasted grey lady (New York Times for those across the pond), so that they too may sound enlightened and superior. Big Brother smiles upon them all.
The reason for the Green Blob to insist that their flawed reasoning is correct? Always follow the money!
Having been a member of the Green party in Scotland, I can tell you that as an engineer I felt I was the only one of them that had any idea what their policies would actually do. At the time most of them thought a “wind turbine” was about the size of a house and that one teletubby style windmill was all that was needed to power a whole town. As most were public sector where “somebody else pays”, they also had no idea how much they would cost, nor any interest in who would pay for them. So, in short, most of the greenblob are just gullible scientifically, economically and engineering illiterates.
And a group of investors saw that they could use these fools to make money by getting the greenblob to persuade government to push for the worst possible way to save carbon – but the best way for them to make money: wind.
So you advocate to maintain the price of carbon at zero? So that the costs of carbon pollution will continue to be borne by our grandchildren rather than paid today? Or perhaps you deny the existence of carbon pollution altogether? Which is your position?
warrenlb,
Please tell me, what is this “carbon pollution” of which you speak ?
I know about carbon and I know about pollution. Carbon is what our life forms are built on, I know about CO2 and it’s benefits to plants and agriculture and I know that pollution harms us.
What I don’t know all about is this “carbon pollution”.
Can you explain to me exactly what is carbon pollution ? Will it kill me from the inside ? What does it smell or look like ? How is this pollution made ? and how can I avoid it ?
My aunt once said that she couldn’t understand why someone has not put a windmill on the top of a car to power the car. Maybe her ancestors were Greenies from Scotland.
“Population trim project” is something I read on another blog a while ago. Very apt I think. The project came into being before the failure of Solar cycle 24 became apparent. The idea was to convert western society back to pre-industrial levels which meant when the cold did come survival was not an option. Also lack of access to technology would prevent any major uprising. The “poor” countries are already dependant on western support. If the west goes so do they.
But since the cold has come early and already food production losses are showing up and people are asking questions. When they find they don’t like the answers? Exciting times ahead! It is too late to go back.
“But since the cold has come early and already food production losses are showing up and people are asking questions. ”
No actual losses; at most a reduction of the yield GROWTH compared to some “optimal” scenario – so, that’s all smoke and mirrors by alarmist scientist-tools playing with models (assumptions).
No actual losses; at most a reduction of the yield GROWTH?
ERRRrrr are you forgetting the late cold spring and the early snow that wiped out some crops? I realize the MSM does not carry that news but Ice Age Now does. Canada, the USA, Russia, Europe, South America, Australia…. all suffered losses.
Kansas had the — Earliest frost on record – Growing season now third shortest on record.
Cold wave in India – Claims 15 lives
June 5, 2014 Bolivia – Price of meat doubles. Frost killed to date 50,000 cattle in Beni and an additional half a million cattle in the eastern region
October 23, 2014 Kazakhstan – Harvesting under 20 cm of snow and minus 10 degrees C — t 20% of the crop still remains in the fields
October 26, 2014 –Turkey – 230 sheep fall from a cliff due to snow and fog – 100 sheep still lost.
October 26, 2014 –Greece – two large flocks of sheep were trapped
November 5, 2014: Iran – Snow and ice storm traps 2,000 people
June 16, 2014 Snow in Russia – In mid-June, Ust-Tsilemskii area began heavy snowfall. Residents worried that the abnormal cold can ruin their vegetable gardens. First snowfall ever reported at this time of year in Tver region.
September 2, 2014 Severe frost damages Southern Australia crops, Farmers call emergency meeting – Huge turnout shows the scale of the problem.
More: http://iceagenow.info/?s=grain
…………………
HMMMmmm, Interesting the FAO is supposed to have “FAO Cereal Supply and Demand Brief”
Monthly releases for 2014 on 06 February, 06 March, 03 April, 08 May, 05 June, 03 July, 11 September, 09 October, 06 November, 11 December.
Yet the last I can find is for June.
The FAO numbers can be a bit misleading since they will included the snow covered grain harvested in Russia, Canada and the USA. Also the 1974 CIA report stated point blank: “… Since 1972 the grain crisis has intensified…. Since 1969 the storage of grain has decreased from 600 million metric tons to less than 100 million metric tons – a 30 day supply… many governments have gone to great lengths to hide their agricultural predicaments from other countries as well as from their own people… Therefore I am not sure if the nubers are actually trust worthy. It is the UN after all.
Humanity’s growing pains. We have achieved unparalleled wealth and it is becoming increasingly necessary to develop better institutional mechanisms to address collective interests. Many of our politicians are still no more than skilled narcissists. Governance suffers.
Some ask for more regulation as if amount implies quality. Others ask for less regulation as if strife implies quality. Beyond these simplistic “answers”, the urgency of the question continues to snowball.
And the rich get richer,, so whats the problem ? Follow the money
( for every millionaire there is 100,000 idiots who made him )
Dr. Ball should be embarrassed for writing this article. Hitler wasn’t advocating the use of big lies in his speech. He was acussing Jews of using big lies. This concept of Jews as liars was at the heart of his conspiracy theory about Jews. Tim Ball has assumed the role of Hitler in this diatribe of an article. He’s accusing climatologist of using ” the big lie” as Hitler claimed the Jews used big lies.
Hitler was talking about its effectiveness and accused Jews and their Marxist brothers of using the technique. Somehow, I can’t see you accusing Dr Ball of assuming the role of Hitler if the passage was just directed at just Marxists or the English. Maybe this passage from Wikipedia attributed to the US OSS report on Hitler might have been a little more PC
“His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.”
It doesn’t matter, the technique is clearly being used by alarmists. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg should be a laughing stock in the science community for his outlandish predictions that were completely off the mark but he is at it again. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/great-barrier-reef-will-be-slaughtered-scientists-dismiss-julie-bishops-claim-reef-not-at-risk-20141121-11r4a6.html
The claim that it has shrunk by 30% was aired again despite people who actual do research claiming that the GBR is in good shape and has recovered completely from the bleaching of 1998, a temporary event as “all the species of corals we have in the GBR are also found in the islands, such as PNG, to our north where the water temperatures are considerably hotter than in the GBR.” according to Peter Ridd of James Cook University (yes, that one). A bit of warming is actually good for coral although they need to change strains of zooxanthelae and bleach during the process. You’ll not find that in any of the newspaper stories.
“concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong”. Its pretty obvious from the ludicrous number of papers that throw “things will only get worse with climate change” into the mix to get further funding that this was planned.
+1
It has long been recognized that while in the terms of “Mein Kampf”, Hitler was claiming this was what the Jews did, that in fact it was an almost perfect example of projection, in which he laid bare his deepest thoughts, plans, and motivations. His regimes subsequent words and actions demonstrated in painful detail what this policy looks like when it is followed religiously at every level of a government.
So in that sense, Tim Ball’s use is perfectly appropriate.
There is also another sobering corollary, from history, about dealing with the people who act this way. Like the Nazi regime,they cannot be reasoned with or argued out of their positions. They have to be defeated convincingly and publicly.
‘Hitler was claiming this was what the Jews did, that in fact it was an almost perfect example of projection…’
And Ball is claiming that the IPCC is peddling a Big Lie. So by your argument, Ball is also engaging in projection. So what Big Lie is Ball projecting, and why?
“There is also another sobering corollary, from history, about dealing with the people who act this way. Like the Nazi regime,they cannot be reasoned with or argued out of their positions. They have to be defeated convincingly and publicly.”
I think you have that backward, friend. It’s the proponents of AGW that want Total Victory through Total War and want to defeat their enemies using no holds barred. It’s the AGW proponents that are carpet bombing women and children like the Allies did to Dresdon and Japan. It’s the AGW proponents that are starving civilians to convince their enemies to surrender.
And your justification for Dr. Ball’s perpetuation of a falsehood is weak. In essence, you admit he is peddling a lie but justify it by saying that it sounds thruthy enough so the lie is turned into a truth. Would you give an AGW proponent the same courtesy if you caught him in a similar lie? I hope not.
And all sides engaged in propaganda. The Allies were probably better at it than the Germans. This thread and millions like it on the internet today are proof of that. Most people in America still believe in the lie about HItler’s Big Lie argument even though it is very easy to verify. How ironic that a Big Lie has been used against an argument bemoaning Big Lies.
” Do you have another or better explanation of a motive? ”
I do not have a ‘better’ explanation, but “The Report From Iron Mountain” comes to mind.
“Follow the money.”
Dr. Ball,
I typically enjoy your posts, learn much and get a lot from them. However, this is a regrettable post on your part.
– Attribution of motive is nearly always a losing proposition
– Godwin’s law violations give people an excuse to tune you out.
– People remember this sort of stuff for a long time and tend to write off other good work.
Skeptics are winning because among other things the alarmism, conspiracy thinking, assignment of motive, projection, turns people off. Mostly the climate obsessed are losing because reality does not support their wild claims.
Skeptics do best when they focus on reason, reality and rational thought.
Leave the extremist stuff to the climate extremists. They are better at it.
UN was founded 1945, nominally to fight the axis, but the axis had already been destroyed. Real goal was implementing NWO according to Fabian blueprint “Shape Of Things To Come”. Strategy was military dominance (see speeches by JFK where he proposed handing over all nukes to UN).
Mil dominance strategy collapsed after UN created 100,000 massacre in Katanga 1961. – no more support in the West.
Took UN / their puppetmasters 10 years til rollout of new strategy, 1972 Stockholm summit (Maurice strong, carting Green NGO’s for the first time to such a summit as controlled opposition (Hegelian dialectic, action reaction – (preplanned) conclusion)) / mock representatives of the people.
Early goal was to include CO2 in the list of polluting chems – see 1975 conference Endangered Atmosphere Stanford 1975, Lovelock Mead Holdren Schneider, – at the time they concluded that CO2 is guilty of flipping climate into ice age state (they flipped this to Global Warming somewhere in the 80ies).
Why include CO2? To control energy. If UN gets to control energy, it’s game over for any nation state.
Global Warmism is one tiny tool of the world government fanatics. No make that psychopaths.
I see a problem with this global governance idea. The sum total of all the politicians of all the countries that support ‘global governance’ would result in a very top heavy government. Many politicians will be out of work. Are they aware of that?
“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”
Usual cynical depressing motive behind Scientific corruption to grab funding.
What about the liars of the endocannabinoid system? The fact that cannabinoids, exo and endo, cure cancer was covered up by the Ford (of Nixon/Ford) administration around ’76. Mr. Ford called for all the records to be destroyed. And the cover up worked for about 15 or 20 years and Prohibition is still in place.
Cannabis cures cancer. Cancer kills 586,000 Americans every year. Every Prohibitionist is complicit in mass murder.
http://classicalvalues.com/2014/11/cannabis-and-cancer-of-the-brain/
follow the money.
And this is even more damning:
“Look, we understood we couldn’t make it illegal to be young or poor or black in the United States, but we could criminalize their common pleasure. We understood that drugs were not the health problem we were making them out to be, but it was such a perfect issue…that we couldn’t resist it.” – John Ehrlichman, White House counsel to President Nixon on the rationale of the War on Drugs.
At first it was noble cause. As the money and fame arrived they became the drivers. If you want to stop the gravy train you have to kill the engine. Proscecute.
Chris
November 23, 2014 at 10:25 pm
Read Orwell’s 1984. A disturbing yet prophetic blue print for the current CAGW crowd.
And don’t forget your two minutes of daily hate for the “dopers” and especially the hippies. It is not just the left who are deniers.
Power Grab
November 23, 2014 at 10:24 pm
The associations don’t exist to serve the members, they exist to stop competition and maintain their own power. Truth seekers need not apply.
Ah. The medical industrial complex.
http://classicalvalues.com/2014/11/how-the-medical-industry-works/
Now that we manufacture precious little in the US…
Not true. Manufacturing as a % of the economy has declined only slightly and even that trend is reversing. So much so that there is a skilled labor shortage.
What has happened is that machines have replaced labor. Thus the skills shortage.
Re my M Simon November 24, 2014 at 5:20 am
Interestingly enough even hobby machinists are going to computer controlled machines.
About Maurice Strong’s most telling statement was the following:
‘We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.’
He elaborated on the idea of sustainable development, which he said, can be implemented by deliberate ‘quest of poverty … reduced resource consumption … and set levels of mortality control’.
No thanks to Maurice Strong, we now have the UN pushing his AGENDA 21.
As one of the posts above asked, ‘This is a parody, isn’t it?”. Unfortunately, it isn’t. Instead it’s a display of the conspiracy thinking rampant among the anti-Science crowd. (Now citing Hitler!). Confirmation bias transformed into paranoia.
I don’t expect we’ll see any questioning of this idiocy anywhere on WUWT.
warrenlb,
Several of us have in fact pointed out that it is the climate kooks who are much better at conpsiracy theory and that Dr. Ball should leve it to the experts.
It should be fair game for both sides to question the other side’s motives, no?
Don’t the proponents of CAGW claim the skeptics are motivated by money from CO2 producing industry?
And identifying a motive does not mean one has proved a case. Investigators of crime look for motive as a possible indicator of guilt so they can focus their investigative effort to prove or disprove the person’s guilt.
If a skeptic scientist received funding from the coal industry this is a possible motive for the theory that he is bending science because he is paid to do so. It is not actual proof. Actual proof is almost impossible to find in that context. Do you scream “conspiracy” when CAGW proponents complain about the (very small) number of industry funded skeptic scientists?
Good point. Fun Guy,
“Alex, I’ll take libcult nonsense for $1000.00”
The question is:
Do you have another or better explanation of a motive?
A: What are – POWER & CONTROL, MONEY, PERSONAL AGGRANDIZEMENT and FEAR OF BEING ASSAULTED AND DENIGRATED BY FANATICS?
It is always interesting to see a Hitler quote, but never mentioning what he was discussing at the time of his quote. But the question of the day is motive, and I disagree with the “Club of Rome” theory.
The EU was a grand experiment designed for the purpose of seeing if you could take sovereign nations and turn them into subservient states. That is, that the once independent nations would willingly give up their sovereignty “for the greater good of the many.” It worked, at least up to now.
The UN. on the other hand, was designed to be a place where nations could take their inter-nation disputes to be solved through mediation. It craved to be, instead, a world government. Slowly it has been working towards that end. It is to be an unelected government, which the later EU would be modeled from, and therefore isn’t intended to be responsible for the people that it represents. It lacks two things, however. One is a true mechanism to collect revenue to support itself and the second is a military arm to enforce its decisions. There are those that would say the US has been using the UN to allow it to enforce its will, I believe the opposite is true. Nearly all those that aspire to high office can’t get enough power, thus the idea of a world government, with power over the entire planet creates a desire to enable that, as it increases their personal power to do so.
Two things stand in the way of world government, however, and those two things are strong national governments and the lack of “a cause.” With the creation of the EU, many of the strong national governments started to disappear. With the destruction of the Soviet Union and the attempt to make sure that no such nation could rise in its place, that opened the door to hope. It would take little more than to create “a cause” and proper application of that cause would bring about the downfall of the remaining sovereign nations and make the people of the world willingly subjugate themselves to the world government. And “the cause” chosen was “global warming,” and the method used to subjugate the people of the world was “deindustrializing” to save the world from becoming another Venus.
The IPCC figures centrally in the charade, and those that would work “for the cause” I am sure were to be well rewarded in the end. There really is no other choice. It isn’t about making an innocent mistake, It isn’t about making gobs of bullion. It’s about forwarding the UN agenda of world government and its obvious intent to enforce population control – look at its other programs. Global warming is that great world wide threat that was to enable it to become the world government, for only a powerful central government would be able to make all peoples on the Earth make the changes needed “to save the Earth for future generations.”
You may think otherwise. I might be wrong, but I doubt it.
” But the question of the day is motive, and I disagree with the “Club of Rome” theory.” And then you go on to support the theory. What makes you think the EU isn’t just one step in the process? Or the CoR isn’t just another step? The central point being made is AGW is an artifice of control and not climate.
I agree with your assessment of the EU. Sovereign nations gave up the fundamental sovereign power (the power to create and control its own currency). I’m sure many politicians were duped into neutering their power but I also suspect many other politicians were serving masters greater than their countries and duped their people into going along with the EU.
I am just as cynical about the UN. As you note, the UN is set up to seem more fair and democratic. But is a guise. Just like American democracy is a guise. The permanent members, and specifically the U.S., actually run the show and no real democratic movement that truly threatened the power elite would succeed in the U.N. It’s a show to make the world feel like they have a nice and caring supranational body looking out for them.
The U.N. was founded as a wartime tool. Even the history of its founding has been fuzzed to make it seem kinder and gentler than it really was.
Sadly, all sides will cherry pick data and corrupt science to support its agenda. Science and math are no longer respected, just pawns in a power struggle to corrupt and control the population’s minds
Manning doesn’t speak for conservatives
Preston Manning’s Reform Party was born in part as a reaction to Pierre Trudeau’s National Energy Policy and its devastating carbon taxes.
Manning was to make fighting taxes, and the slippery political excuses for them, a hallmark of his political career. When Canada signed Kyoto Protocol, Manning was the leader of the opposition.
His 45-minute speech to Parliament on Nov. 26, 1997, remains the best articulation of why Canada should never have signed that treaty. He pointed out its constitutional and political problems. And he railed against taxes – he used the word 25 times in his speech.
That was classic Manning, the reason why true conservatives loved the Reform Party: It was unafraid to defy the politically correct consensus in Ottawa. Today, skepticism about the science and economics behind the theory of man-made global warming has been largely vindicated.
So it was shocking to read Manning’s editorial, in the Toronto Globe and Mail last week, announcing his support for carbon taxes.
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/11/22/manning-doesnt-speak-for-conservatives
Mosher,
Your’e being purposefully mendacious as usual.
Your “to save the planet ” pitch and petulant shot at Ball’s piece and the thread misses the target entirely.
As with all things there are exceptions and so some in the rank and file out there do believe there mission is too save the planet.
Unfortunately the bulk of the AGW disciples in sciences, government entities, NGOs and sub causes who continue to perpetually pitch falsehoods left any noble cause long ago.
There willingness to parrot the red herring and bromides while maintaining purposeful ignorance and deceit show their true colors.
Anyone genuinely aboard a noble cause would be deeply concerned about any flaws in their mission and it’s effectiveness to assure their efforts and resources were not wasted.
Hiding from answering simple and germane questions is the elephant in the mendacious room you conically reside.
Funny how skeptics who are so very careful when it comes
To evidence and data completely toss that critical thinking aside when someone tries to divine the motives of an organization and individuals.
Just hilarious.
Steven,
It is hilarious but it is also tragic. A climate catastrophe is by now clearly not happening. The evidence is not there. Jiggling around over tiny changes in surface temps over decades is never going to make a real world crisis. Sea level, pH, ocean heat – none are making a crisis. And the circular arguments that attribute cooling events to warming only make the climate obsessed look sillier than anything written by a skeptic here. If only someone of your stature would stand up to the consensus forums that regularly publish this sort of essay and much worse and tell them how out of line they are.
Not all of us, Steven Mosher.
See my comment at November 23, 2014 at 1:00 pm
I wrote, “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.”
And it’s worth looking at the dog that didn’t bark. There are a lot of WUWT regulars who have not commented on the thread. Search on Pamela or Tisdale, for example. Jimbo and Chip Javert have only one comment.
You are in danger of generalising.
Just a short pennyworth….
When proposing a giant conspiracy, please remember that you do not need a giant conspiracy. All you need is a minor conspiracy, backed by some influential people, and the masses will jump on the bandwagon.
Everyone like to hob-nob with the rich, famous and influential, and if these people have joined the bandwagon, you can be sure that millions of others will do so too. Especially if there is the tantalising prospect of lots of funding on the horizon – and a flashy public badge that says “I am saving the planet. …. I am a better person than you”.
One of my biggest disappointments in life, is the late realisation of how easily corruptable, and self-corruptable, many people are. I have seen so many who will say black is white, in order to join a club, society, movement or even a bar conversation – anything to stop themselves being marginalised and ostracised from the “in-club”.
These are the bandwagon followers, and they will follow the band unthinkingly and unflinchingly, until following the bandwagon impacts upon their little world. They don’t care what the bandwagon is or what it promotes, they are only following for their own benefit. And they will continue to follow, until it is no longer in their interest to do so — if following the band will invite ridicule, for instance. Only then, will the bandwagon finally disband.
Ralph
I thought it was obvious. The originators of the scare such as Carl Sagan and Jim Hanson did back-of-the-envelope calculations which frightened them. Then you get Club-of-Rome types jumping-on-the-band-wagon and forcibly explaining that nothing would be done unless you exaggerate the evidence – politicians are too short-term to bother about next century. There’s a famous quote of Carl Hanson’s that explains his thinking along those lines.
Once you’re into a deception like that, it’s hard to get out.
Besides, they still believe that the earth is gaining radiation energy which will manifest itself as increased surface temperatures in the future (as well as more violent storms). With the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 estimated at 30–95 years the calculations get quite scary. [ Archer, David (2009). “Atmospheric lifetime of fossil fuel carbon dioxide”. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 37. pp. 117–134. doi:10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100206.]
So they feel they have to stop CO2 production. That’s also why they won’t think of diverting any activities towards adaptation – not even improving land-use (industrial farming creates approximaely 16% of emissions).
Personally, I want to play the Precautionary Principle Get-Out clause of ‘provided it cannot do worse harm’ which they haven’t proven – unintended consequences abound …
Dr. Ball’s articles are typically interesting and insghtful and present the skeptical case well.
This is not one of those articles.
Attribution of motive is difficult andseldom works. Look at how poorly the climate obsessed have done with skeptics: Their obsession with skeptical motives onoly makes them look sillier and sillier.
Invoking Godwin’s Law hurts the one who falls into it. choosing to make a quote by the most hated person of the last several hundred years an important part of the article only makes many otherwise open minded people shut out Dr. Ball.
Anything that relies on charts of relationships of bad guys is fraught with danger to the expositor.
Leave conspiracy speculation to thecliamte obsessed, they are the ones who depend on it.
Skeptics only need to stick to the facts: The climate is not in crisis, the data is not well handled, the oceans are not changing behavior in either slr or pH, storms, droughts, floods, heat and cold are not trending in any direction at all.
Wrestling with the climate kooks over the one thing they are good at: conspiracy thinking only gets skeptics muddy.
Preston Manning on reconciling economy and environment: ‘Canadians need a dose of realism’
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/preston-manningon-reconciling-economy-and-environment-canadians-need-a-dose-of-realism/article21577763/
Preston Manning, Paul Martin among advisers of new group on economy, environment
http://www.660news.com/2014/11/04/blue-chip-advisory-panel-says-putting-price-on-pollution-the-way-to-go/
Terence Corcoran: Canada’s Ecofiscal Commish gears up for Green Taxapalooza
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/11/04/terence-corcoran-the-ecofiscal-scheming-starts/
In socially-complex, large-scale, politicized, if nominally-scientific cases like so-called climate change, it is important not to let the field of debate become others’ motives. That path leads down Alice’s rabbit-hole; chases a Cheshire Cat.
It’s superficially a fool’s errand of course, but on deeper levels it plays more-pathetically into the opposition’s hand.
All social animals operate by “somehow” communicating & pursuing joint or common objectives. Motivation is the “somehow” hand-maiden of objectives. Dinosaurs were at least sometimes social; they had group-objectives, and they responded to motivational-drivers that assured & rewarded the attainment of goals.
Individuals then compete, to be the leader who signals objective & motivation cues, to the group. It becomes possible – and attractive – to fake or deceive, to obtain control. To better-perpetuate one’s own DNA … or social paradigm. This dynamic – manipulating perceptions & cues – goes way, way back.
Male dogs competing for the attention of a female in heat, can be observed to fake an alert-response, indicating say an intruder on the periphery. Other dogs then run barking in the direction of the bogus threat, while the cagey old dude saunters up to the comely gal.
There are those who try to interest us in the motives of murderers and child-abusers. “If we understand why this crime happened, we might learn how to help the offender!”
No: the Constitution and our Legal system make only weak acknowledgement of motives, and for tried-and-true reasons. We are well-advised to take this policy & principle as our guide, in the question of the motives of climate change activists & activism.
Motives exist; they are real, huge, powerful & important … but it’s a losing debate-gambit, to get drawn into the motives-swamp.
People Starting To Ask About Motive For Massive IPCC Deception?
The goal is a world government aka ‘globalization’ and CAGW is the method for destroying the first world and making that goal possible.
Here are some bits and pieces to add to the picture.
Paul Warburg, a European banker came to the USA to write the Federal Reserve Act that allowed the European bankers to siphon off the wealth of the USA. Warburg was considered one of the top authorities on central banking in Europe. Warburg was also a director of the Council on Foreign Relations (1921–32), a trustee of the Institute of Economics (1922–27), and a trustee of the Brookings Institution. Max Warburg, Paul’s brother was among those who sent Lenin with a train full of gold to overthrow the Russian government. We Americans helped pay for it. (See speech by Congressman Louis McFadden.)
James P. Warburg was Paul Warburg,s son and FDR’s chief advisor, during the 1930’s
Pascal Lamy in his essay Whither Globalization? point blank stated:
Here is James Warburg again in 1950:
I am surprised how many skeptics drop their guard and accept suspect methods of argument
“Do you have another or better explanation of a motive?”
you’ve see this form of argument before..
with regards to Oil money and Skeptics and with regard to C02 and the warming we’ve seen since 1850.
+1. Attribution of motive and conspiracy is something best left for the climate obsessed. Lewandowsky does it better than just about anyone. Leave him and his pals to the kookdom they work so hard to achieve.
Dr. Ball can do better..
What a pity. They came for my neighbor, the black, but I’m not black, I’m not concerned. The true reason behind what is happening SHOULD be the most important thing to you, but instead, “let’s play in our sand box and not be concerned with what is happening across the street.”
Tom O,
If the climate kooks start coming for anyone I will man the barricades. If you want to dwell in conspiracy world, you are only feeding the Lewandowsky’s and Sou’s.
What about climategate? Isn’t that the definition of a conspiracy? Conspiracy has a bad connotation but the fact is conspiracies exist in real life. Prosecutors charge conspiracies every day.
Isn’t the way the IPCC set up sort of a conspiracy? It is predesigned to achieve a certain result and a group of people work together to achieve that goal and will engage in underhanded tactics to achieve that goal.
Sure, point taken that calm debate of the science without impugning the motive of the other side is the high ground that should normally be taken on a site like this.
But there is a place for discussions about motive . . . especially when there is evidence of a compelling motive and actually conspiracies have been proven (climategate).
Climategate, if they were describing an investment bank hiding declines, suppressing audits, shaping media, etc. would be a criminal conspiracy. “criminal conspiracy” is a legal construct when it is not an obsession of Lewandowsky. Since the climate obsession is not an investment bank but a social mania legal rules did not and do not apply.
Leave the conspiracy accusations to the climate kooks. They do it much better and rely on it to sustain their obsessions. Skeptics only have to rely on reality: The climate is not in crisis, is not changing dangerously and is not going to do so because of CO2.
Dr. Ball is a brilliant scientist. He is not so good at playing in the home field of the climate obsessed. This essay of his will echo around longer than his good work and will be used to discredit his good work.
I’m not sure if others have mentioned this. I’m in the middle of something else, so my apologies in advance.
Bob, you are over analyzing. Why were there “flappers” in the 1920’s? How did the hippy movement become so large? Why did everyone listen to Nirvana? Simple. It was “cool”. Alarmed and concerned about climate change is the cool thing to be right now. Nothing more. And nothing less. Cool means that a politician can get votes, a researcher can get grants, a newspaper can get readers. Uncool doesn’t get anything. No one determines what is “cool”. It just, sort of . . . happens. I’m sure Carl Jung had an explanation, but I’m too lazy to look it up.
Does that mean the death camps in Hitler’s Germany were ‘cool?’ Or that banning DDT that caused the deaths of millions was ‘cool?’ Or that listening to misanthropic nut jobs like Jeremy Rifkin, Paul Erlich, Rachel Carson and Stephan Schneider are ‘cool?’ Or that when people die of the cold due to energy prices being too high we can just say, ‘Hey, that’s cool.’ Or when billions in Africa and Asia are consigned to energy poverty because of the stupidity of elite technocrats, that it’s just ‘cool’ working itself out. If you’re having to collect cow shit to warm your home or cook with I don’t think ‘cool’ would be how you’d describe it.
There is a helluva lot more to it than cool. No conspiracy theory is wanted or needed, however. The whole movement can be explained in terms of Group Think, or True Believers, or Phase Locking which I’m partial to as laid out in Christopher Essex’s book, Taken By Storm.
The concept presented is spot on but in typically brazen fashion, it’s projected against the science. The Big Lie is the fossil fuel and ideologically driven and funded denial industry of which WUWT is an integral part.
Kyle, I am a scientist (PhD theoretical physics) and I find blogs such as WUWT much more scientific than any other sources. If you have documented evidence that fossil fuels are funding the “denial industry” please pass them on – but please dig down to the root of them first (don’t just pass on a facebook comment). One signature of WUWT is that it constantly refers back to the original observational data. That’s what scientists value. That’s ALL that scientists value.
[Snip. Pejoratives like deniers, ‘the denial industry’, denialism, etc., violate site Policy. ~mod.]
Testing. WUWT appears to be censoring effective exposers of denial.
[Let’s see. WUWT is censoring (stopping) only the “effective” people who “expose” those who deny climate change?
What about those who less effectively censor those who are expounding those who deny the people who deny they are not changing the climate?
Now, how many double or quadruple negatives are you supposedly “testing”?
No writer, no reader here has ever denied climate changes. .mod]
continued –
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jan/27/environment.science
Oil firms fund climate change ‘denial’ by David Adam, science correspondent
Thursday 27 January 2005 11.56 EST
Lobby groups funded by the US oil industry are targeting Britain in a bid to play down the threat of climate change and derail action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, leading scientists have warned.
Bob May, president of the Royal Society, says that “a lobby of professional sceptics who opposed action to tackle climate change” is turning its attention to Britain because of its high profile in the debate.
Writing in the Life section of today’s Guardian, Professor May says the government’s decision to make global warming a focus of its G8 presidency has made it a target. So has the high profile of its chief scientific adviser, David King, who described climate change as a bigger threat than terrorism.
Prof May’s warning coincides with a meeting of climate change sceptics today at the Royal Institution in London organised by a British group, the Scientific Alliance, which has links to US oil company ExxonMobil through a collaboration with a US institute.
Last month the Scientific Alliance published a joint report with the George C Marshall Institute in Washington that claimed to “undermine” climate change claims. The Marshall institute received £51,000 from ExxonMobil for its “global climate change programme” in 2003 and an undisclosed sum this month.
Prof May’s warning comes as British scientists, in the journal Nature, show that emissions of carbon dioxide could have a more dramatic effect on climate than thought. They say the average temperature could rise 11C, even if atmospheric carbon dioxide were limited to the levels expected in 2050.
David Frame, who coordinated the climate prediction experiment, said: “If the real world response were anywhere near the upper end of our range, even today’s levels of greenhouse gases could already be dangerously high.”
Emission limits such as those in the Kyoto protocol would hit oil firms because the bulk of greenhouse gases come from burning fossil fuel products.
Prof May writes that during the 1990s, parts of the US oil industry funded sceptics who opposed action to tackle climate change. A Scientific Alliance spokesman said today’s meeting was sponsored but funders did not influence policies. ExxonMobil said it was not involved.
One adviser is Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist at the Harvard Smithsonian Centre, who is linked to the Marshall Institute. In 1998 Dr Baliunas co-wrote an article that argued for the release of more carbon dioxide. It was mass-mailed to US scientists with a petition asking them to reject Kyoto.
• Tony Blair yesterday attempted to urge George Bush to sign a climate change accord. At the World Economic Forum he said climate change was “not universally accepted”, but evidence of its danger had been “clearly and persuasively advocated” by a very large number of “independent voices”.
[So, the climate catastrophe academic-government complex IS censoring those who are funding renewable energy and paying billions in taxes and higher energy prices caused by the CAGW industry! .mod]
[Snip. Pejoratives like deniers, ‘the denial industry’, denialism, etc., violate site Policy. ~mod.]
continued –
http://www.newsweek.com/global-warming-deniers-well-funded-99775
Global Warming Deniers Well Funded
BY NEWSWEEK STAFF 8/12/07 AT 8:00 PM
Sen. Barbara Boxer had been chair of the Senate’s Environment Committee for less than a month when the verdict landed last February. “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” concluded a report by 600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups and businesses in 40 countries. Worse, there was now at least a 90 percent likelihood that the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels is causing longer droughts, more flood-causing downpours and worse heat waves, way up from earlier studies. Those who doubt the reality of human-caused climate change have spent decades disputing that. But Boxer figured that with “the overwhelming science out there, the deniers’ days were numbered.” As she left a meeting with the head of the international climate panel, however, a staffer had some news for her. A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. “I realized,” says Boxer, “there was a movement behind this that just wasn’t giving up.”
If you think those who have long challenged the mainstream scientific findings about global warming recognize that the game is over, think again. Yes, 19 million people watched the “Live Earth” concerts last month, titans of corporate America are calling for laws mandating greenhouse cuts, “green” magazines fill newsstands, and the film based on Al Gore’s best-selling book, “An Inconvenient Truth,” won an Oscar. But outside Hollywood, Manhattan and other habitats of the chattering classes, the denial machine is running at full throttle—and continuing to shape both government policy and public opinion.
Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. “They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry,” says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. “Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That’s had a huge impact on both the public and Congress.”
Just last year, polls found that 64 percent of Americans thought there was “a lot” of scientific disagreement on climate change; only one third thought planetary warming was “mainly caused by things people do.” In contrast, majorities in Europe and Japan recognize a broad consensus among climate experts that greenhouse gases—mostly from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas to power the world’s economies—are altering climate. A new NEWSWEEK Poll finds that the influence of the denial machine remains strong. Although the figure is less than in earlier polls, 39 percent of those asked say there is “a lot of disagreement among climate scientists” on the basic question of whether the planet is warming; 42 percent say there is a lot of disagreement that human activities are a major cause of global warming. Only 46 percent say the greenhouse effect is being felt today.
As a result of the undermining of the science, all the recent talk about addressing climate change has produced little in the way of actual action. Yes, last September Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a landmark law committing California to reduce statewide emissions of carbon dioxide to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent more by 2050. And this year both Minnesota and New Jersey passed laws requiring their states to reduce greenhouse emissions 80 percent below recent levels by 2050. In January, nine leading corporations—including Alcoa, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, Du Pont and General Electric—called on Congress to “enact strong national legislation” to reduce greenhouse gases. But although at least eight bills to require reductions in greenhouse gases have been introduced in Congress, their fate is decidedly murky. The Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives decided last week not even to bring to a vote a requirement that automakers improve vehicle mileage, an obvious step toward reducing greenhouse emissions. Nor has there been much public pressure to do so. Instead, every time the scientific case got stronger, “the American public yawned and bought bigger cars,” Rep. Rush Holt, a New Jersey congressman and physicist, recently wrote in the journal Science; politicians “shrugged, said there is too much doubt among scientists, and did nothing.”
It was 98 degrees in Washington on Thursday, June 23, 1988, and climate change was bursting into public consciousness. The Amazon was burning, wildfires raged in the United States, crops in the Midwest were scorched and it was shaping up to be the hottest year on record worldwide. A Senate committee, including Gore, had invited NASA climatologist James Hansen to testify about the greenhouse effect, and the members were not above a little stagecraft. The night before, staffers had opened windows in the hearing room. When Hansen began his testimony, the air conditioning was struggling, and sweat dotted his brow. It was the perfect image for the revelation to come. He was 99 percent sure, Hansen told the panel, that “the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now.”
The reaction from industries most responsible for greenhouse emissions was immediate. “As soon as the scientific community began to come together on the science of climate change, the pushback began,” says historian Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego. Individual companies and industry associations—representing petroleum, steel, autos and utilities, for instance—formed lobbying groups with names like the Global Climate Coalition and the Information Council on the Environment. ICE’s game plan called for enlisting greenhouse doubters to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact,” and to sow doubt about climate research just as cigarette makers had about smoking research. ICE ads asked, “If the earth is getting warmer, why is Minneapolis [or Kentucky, or some other site] getting colder?” This sounded what would become a recurring theme for naysayers: that global temperature data are flat-out wrong. For one thing, they argued, the data reflect urbanization (many temperature stations are in or near cities), not true global warming.
Shaping public opinion was only one goal of the industry groups, for soon after Hansen’s sweat-drenched testimony they faced a more tangible threat: international proposals to address global warming. The United Nations had scheduled an “Earth Summit” for 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, and climate change was high on an agenda that included saving endangered species and rain forests. ICE and the Global Climate Coalition lobbied hard against a global treaty to curb greenhouse gases, and were joined by a central cog in the denial machine: the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think tank. Barely two months before Rio, it released a study concluding that models of the greenhouse effect had “substantially exaggerated its importance.” The small amount of global warming that might be occurring, it argued, actually reflected a simple fact: the Sun is putting out more energy. The idea of a “variable Sun” has remained a constant in the naysayers’ arsenal to this day, even though the tiny increase in solar output over recent decades falls far short of explaining the extent or details of the observed warming.
In what would become a key tactic of the denial machine—think tanks linking up with like-minded, contrarian researchers—the report was endorsed in a letter to President George H.W. Bush by MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen. Lindzen, whose parents had fled Hitler’s Germany, is described by old friends as the kind of man who, if you’re in the minority, opts to be with you. “I thought it was important to make it clear that the science was at an early and primitive stage and that there was little basis for consensus and much reason for skepticism,” he told Scientific American magazine. “I did feel a moral obligation.”
Bush was torn. The head of his Environmental Protection Agency, William Reilly, supported binding cuts in greenhouse emissions. Political advisers insisted on nothing more than voluntary cuts. Bush’s chief of staff, John Sununu, had a Ph.D. in engineering from MIT and “knew computers,” recalls Reilly. Sununu frequently logged on to a computer model of climate, Reilly says, and “vigorously critiqued” its assumptions and projections.
Sununu’s side won. The Rio treaty called for countries to voluntarily stabilize their greenhouse emissions by returning them to 1990 levels by 2000. (As it turned out, U.S. emissions in 2000 were 14 percent higher than in 1990.) Avoiding mandatory cuts was a huge victory for industry. But Rio was also a setback for climate contrarians, says UCSD’s Oreskes: “It was one thing when Al Gore said there’s global warming, but quite another when George Bush signed a convention saying so.” And the doubters faced a newly powerful nemesis. Just months after he signed the Rio pact, Bush lost to Bill Clinton—whose vice president, Gore, had made climate change his signature issue.
Groups that opposed greenhouse curbs ramped up. They “settled on the ‘science isn’t there’ argument because they didn’t believe they’d be able to convince the public to do nothing if climate change were real,” says David Goldston, who served as Republican chief of staff for the House of Representatives science committee until 2006. Industry found a friend in Patrick Michaels, a climatologist at the University of Virginia who keeps a small farm where he raises prize-winning pumpkins and whose favorite weather, he once told a reporter, is “anything severe.” Michaels had written several popular articles on climate change, including an op-ed in The Washington Post in 1989 warning of “apocalyptic environmentalism,” which he called “the most popular new religion to come along since Marxism.” The coal industry’s Western Fuels Association paid Michaels to produce a newsletter called World Climate Report, which has regularly trashed mainstream climate science. (At a 1995 hearing in Minnesota on coal-fired power plants, Michaels admitted that he received more than $165,000 from industry; he now declines to comment on his industry funding, asking, “What is this, a hatchet job?”)
The road from Rio led to an international meeting in Kyoto, Japan, where more than 100 nations would negotiate a treaty on making Rio’s voluntary—and largely ignored—greenhouse curbs mandatory. The coal and oil industries, worried that Kyoto could lead to binding greenhouse cuts that would imperil their profits, ramped up their message that there was too much scientific uncertainty to justify any such cuts. There was just one little problem. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC—the international body that periodically assesses climate research—had just issued its second report, and the conclusion of its 2,500 scientists looked devastating for greenhouse doubters. Although both natural swings and changes in the Sun’s output might be contributing to climate change, it concluded, “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on climate.”
Faced with this emerging consensus, the denial machine hardly blinked. There is too much “scientific uncertainty” to justify curbs on greenhouse emissions, William O’Keefe, then a vice president of the American Petroleum Institute and leader of the Global Climate Coalition, suggested in 1996. Virginia’s Michaels echoed that idea in a 1997 op-ed in The Washington Post, describing “a growing contingent of scientists who are increasingly unhappy with the glib forecasts of gloom and doom.” To reinforce the appearance of uncertainty and disagreement, the denial machine churned out white papers and “studies” (not empirical research, but critiques of others’ work). The Marshall Institute, for instance, issued reports by a Harvard University astrophysicist it supported pointing to satellite data showing “no significant warming” of the atmosphere, contrary to the surface warming. The predicted warming, she wrote, “simply isn’t happening according to the satellite[s].” At the time, there was a legitimate case that satellites were more accurate than ground stations, which might be skewed by the unusual warmth of cities where many are sited.
“There was an extraordinary campaign by the denial machine to find and hire scientists to sow dissent and make it appear that the research community was deeply divided,” says Dan Becker of the Sierra Club. Those recruits blitzed the media. Driven by notions of fairness and objectivity, the press “qualified every mention of human influence on climate change with ‘some scientists believe,’ where the reality is that the vast preponderance of scientific opinion accepts that human-caused [greenhouse] emissions are contributing to warming,” says Reilly, the former EPA chief. “The pursuit of balance has not done justice” to the science. Talk radio goes further, with Rush Limbaugh telling listeners this year that “more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not likely to significantly contribute to the greenhouse effect. It’s just all part of the hoax.” In the new NEWSWEEK Poll, 42 percent said the press “exaggerates the threat of climate change.”
Now naysayers tried a new tactic: lists and petitions meant to portray science as hopelessly divided. Just before Kyoto, S. Fred Singer released the “Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change.” Singer, who fled Nazi-occupied Austria as a boy, had run the U.S. weather-satellite program in the early 1960s. In the Leipzig petition, just over 100 scientists and others, including TV weathermen, said they “cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes.” Unfortunately, few of the Leipzig signers actually did climate research; they just kibitzed about other people’s. Scientific truth is not decided by majority vote, of course (ask Galileo), but the number of researchers whose empirical studies find that the world is warming and that human activity is partly responsible numbered in the thousands even then. The IPCC report issued this year, for instance, was written by more than 800 climate researchers and vetted by 2,500 scientists from 130 nations.
Although Clinton did not even try to get the Senate to ratify the Kyoto treaty (he knew a hopeless cause when he saw one), industry was taking no chances. In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine—including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer’s group and Exxon—met at the American Petroleum Institute’s Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty. The plan was to train up to 20 “respected climate scientists” on media—and public—outreach with the aim of “raising questions about and undercutting the ‘prevailing scientific wisdom’ ” and, in particular, “the Kyoto treaty’s scientific underpinnings” so that elected officials “will seek to prevent progress toward implementation.” The plan, once exposed in the press, “was never implemented as policy,” says Marshall’s William O’Keefe, who was then at API.
The GOP control of Congress for six of Clinton’s eight years in office meant the denial machine had a receptive audience. Although Republicans such as Sens. John McCain, Jim Jeffords and Lincoln Chafee spurned the denial camp, and Democrats such as Congressman John Dingell adamantly oppose greenhouse curbs that might hurt the auto and other industries, for the most part climate change has been a bitterly partisan issue. Republicans have also received significantly more campaign cash from the energy and other industries that dispute climate science. Every proposed climate bill “ran into a buzz saw of denialism,” says Manik Roy of the Pew Center on Climate Change, a research and advocacy group, who was a Senate staffer at the time. “There was no rational debate in Congress on climate change.”
The reason for the inaction was clear. “The questioning of the science made it to the Hill through senators who parroted reports funded by the American Petroleum Institute and other advocacy groups whose entire purpose was to confuse people on the science of global warming,” says Sen. John Kerry. “There would be ads challenging the science right around the time we were trying to pass legislation. It was pure, raw pressure combined with false facts.” Nor were states stepping where Washington feared to tread. “I did a lot of testifying before state legislatures—in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Alaska—that thought about taking action,” says Singer. “I said that the observed warming was and would be much, much less than climate models calculated, and therefore nothing to worry about.”
But the science was shifting under the denial machine. In January 2000, the National Academy of Sciences skewered its strongest argument. Contrary to the claim that satellites finding no warming are right and ground stations showing warming are wrong, it turns out that the satellites are off. (Basically, engineers failed to properly correct for changes in their orbit.) The planet is indeed warming, and at a rate since 1980 much greater than in the past.
Just months after the Academy report, Singer told a Senate panel that “the Earth’s atmosphere is not warming and fears about human-induced storms, sea-level rise and other disasters are misplaced.” And as studies fingering humans as a cause of climate change piled up, he had a new argument: a cabal was silencing good scientists who disagreed with the “alarmist” reports. “Global warming has become an article of faith for many, with its own theology and orthodoxy,” Singer wrote in The Washington Times. “Its believers are quite fearful of any scientific dissent.”
With the Inauguration of George W. Bush in 2001, the denial machine expected to have friends in the White House. But despite Bush’s oil-patch roots, naysayers weren’t sure they could count on him: as a candidate, he had pledged to cap carbon dioxide emissions. Just weeks into his term, the Competitive Enterprise Institute heard rumors that the draft of a speech Bush was preparing included a passage reiterating that pledge. CEI’s Myron Ebell called conservative pundit Robert Novak, who had booked Bush’s EPA chief, Christie Todd Whitman, on CNN’s “Crossfire.” He asked her about the line, and within hours the possibility of a carbon cap was the talk of the Beltway. “We alerted anyone we thought could have influence and get the line, if it was in the speech, out,” says CEI president Fred Smith, who counts this as another notch in CEI’s belt. The White House declines to comment.
Bush not only disavowed his campaign pledge. In March, he withdrew from the Kyoto treaty. After the about-face, MIT’s Lindzen told NEWSWEEK in 2001, he was summoned to the White House. He told Bush he’d done the right thing. Even if you accept the doomsday forecasts, Lindzen said, Kyoto would hardly touch the rise in temperatures. The treaty, he said, would “do nothing, at great expense.”
Bush’s reversal came just weeks after the IPCC released its third assessment of the burgeoning studies of climate change. Its conclusion: the 1990s were very likely the warmest decade on record, and recent climate change is partly “attributable to human activities.” The weather itself seemed to be conspiring against the skeptics. The early years of the new millennium were setting heat records. The summer of 2003 was especially brutal, with a heat wave in Europe killing tens of thousands of people. Consultant Frank Luntz, who had been instrumental in the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994, suggested a solution to the PR mess. In a memo to his GOP clients, he advised them that to deal with global warming, “you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue.” They should “challenge the science,” he wrote, by “recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view.” Although few of the experts did empirical research of their own (MIT’s Lindzen was an exception), the public didn’t notice. To most civilians, a scientist is a scientist.
Challenging the science wasn’t a hard sell on Capitol Hill. “In the House, the leadership generally viewed it as impermissible to go along with anything that would even imply that climate change was genuine,” says Goldston, the former Republican staffer. “There was a belief on the part of many members that the science was fraudulent, even a Democratic fantasy. A lot of the information they got was from conservative think tanks and industry.” When in 2003 the Senate called for a national strategy to cut greenhouse gases, for instance, climate naysayers were “giving briefings and talking to staff,” says Goldston. “There was a constant flow of information—largely misinformation.” Since the House version of that bill included no climate provisions, the two had to be reconciled. “The House leadership staff basically said, ‘You know we’re not going to accept this,’ and [Senate staffers] said, ‘Yeah, we know,’ and the whole thing disappeared relatively jovially without much notice,” says Goldston. “It was such a foregone conclusion.”
Especially when the denial machine had a new friend in a powerful place. In 2003 James Inhofe of Oklahoma took over as chairman of the environment committee. That summer he took to the Senate floor and, in a two-hour speech, disputed the claim of scientific consensus on climate change. Despite the discovery that satellite data showing no warming were wrong, he argued that “satellites, widely considered the most accurate measure of global temperatures, have confirmed” the absence of atmospheric warming. Might global warming, he asked, be “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?” Inhofe made his mark holding hearing after hearing to suggest that the answer is yes. For one, on a study finding a dramatic increase in global temperatures unprecedented in the last 1,000 years, he invited a scientist who challenged that conclusion (in a study partly underwritten with $53,000 from the American Petroleum Institute), one other doubter and the scientist who concluded that recent global temperatures were spiking. Just as Luntz had suggested, the witness table presented a tableau of scientific disagreement.
Every effort to pass climate legislation during the George W. Bush years was stopped in its tracks. When Senators McCain and Joe Lieberman were fishing for votes for their bipartisan effort in 2003, a staff member for Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska explained to her counterpart in Lieberman’s office that Stevens “is aware there is warming in Alaska, but he’s not sure how much it’s caused by human activity or natural cycles,” recalls Tim Profeta, now director of an environmental-policy institute at Duke University. “I was hearing the basic argument of the skeptics—a brilliant strategy to go after the science. And it was working.” Stevens voted against the bill, which failed 43-55. When the bill came up again the next year, “we were contacted by a lot of lobbyists from API and Exxon-Mobil,” says Mark Helmke, the climate aide to GOP Sen. Richard Lugar. “They’d bring up how the science wasn’t certain, how there were a lot of skeptics out there.” It went down to defeat again.
Killing bills in Congress was only one prong of the denial machine’s campaign. It also had to keep public opinion from demanding action on greenhouse emissions, and that meant careful management of what federal scientists and officials wrote and said. “If they presented the science honestly, it would have brought public pressure for action,” says Rick Piltz, who joined the federal Climate Science Program in 1995. By appointing former coal and oil lobbyists to key jobs overseeing climate policy, he found, the administration made sure that didn’t happen. Following the playbook laid out at the 1998 meeting at the American Petroleum Institute, officials made sure that every report and speech cast climate science as dodgy, uncertain, controversial—and therefore no basis for making policy. Ex-oil lobbyist Philip Cooney, working for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, edited a 2002 report on climate science by sprinkling it with phrases such as “lack of understanding” and “considerable uncertainty.” A short section on climate in another report was cut entirely. The White House “directed us to remove all mentions of it,” says Piltz, who resigned in protest. An oil lobbyist faxed Cooney, “You are doing a great job.”
The response to the international climate panel’s latest report, in February, showed that greenhouse doubters have a lot of fight left in them. In addition to offering $10,000 to scientists willing to attack the report, which so angered Boxer, they are emphasizing a new theme. Even if the world is warming now, and even if that warming is due in part to the greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels, there’s nothing to worry about. As Lindzen wrote in a guest editorial in NEWSWEEK International in April, “There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we’ve seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe.”
To some extent, greenhouse denial is now running on automatic pilot. “Some members of Congress have completely internalized this,” says Pew’s Roy, and therefore need no coaching from the think tanks and contrarian scientists who for 20 years kept them stoked with arguments. At a hearing last month on the Kyoto treaty, GOP Congressman Dana Rohrabacher asked whether “changes in the Earth’s temperature in the past—all of these glaciers moving back and forth—and the changes that we see now” might be “a natural occurrence.” (Hundreds of studies have ruled that out.) “I think it’s a bit grandiose for us to believe … that [human activities are] going to change some major climate cycle that’s going on.” Inhofe has told allies he will filibuster any climate bill that mandates greenhouse cuts.
Still, like a great beast that has been wounded, the denial machine is not what it once was. In the NEWSWEEK Poll, 38 percent of those surveyed identified climate change as the nation’s gravest environmental threat, three times the number in 2000. After ExxonMobil was chastised by senators for giving $19 million over the years to the Competitive Enterprise Institute and others who are “producing very questionable data” on climate change, as Sen. Jay Rockefeller said, the company has cut back its support for such groups. In June, a spokesman said ExxonMobil did not doubt the risks posed by climate change, telling reporters, “We’re very much not a denier.” In yet another shock, Bush announced at the weekend that he would convene a global-warming summit next month, with a 2008 goal of cutting greenhouse emissions. That astonished the remaining naysayers. “I just can’t imagine the administration would look to mandatory [emissions caps] after what we had with Kyoto,” said a GOP Senate staffer, who did not want to be named criticizing the president. “I mean, what a disaster!”
With its change of heart, ExxonMobil is more likely to win a place at the negotiating table as Congress debates climate legislation. That will be crucially important to industry especially in 2009, when naysayers may no longer be able to count on a friend in the White House nixing man-datory greenhouse curbs. All the Democratic presidential contenders have called global warming a real threat, and promise to push for cuts similar to those being passed by California and other states. In the GOP field, only McCain—long a leader on the issue—supports that policy. Fred Thompson belittles findings that human activities are changing the climate, and Rudy Giuliani backs the all-volunteer greenhouse curbs of (both) Presidents Bush.
Look for the next round of debate to center on what Americans are willing to pay and do to stave off the worst of global warming. So far the answer seems to be, not much. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds less than half in favor of requiring high-mileage cars or energy-efficient appliances and buildings. No amount of white papers, reports and studies is likely to change that. If anything can, it will be the climate itself. This summer, Texas was hit by exactly the kind of downpours and flooding expected in a greenhouse world, and Las Vegas and other cities broiled in record triple-digit temperatures. Just last week the most accurate study to date concluded that the length of heat waves in Europe has doubled, and their frequency nearly tripled, in the past century. The frequency of Atlantic hurricanes has already doubled in the last century. Snowpack whose water is crucial to both cities and farms is diminishing. It’s enough to make you wish that climate change were a hoax, rather than the reality it is.
[Your copied words are seven years out of date. .mod]
You act like a troll. Not a shred of evidence in this posted comment. All innuendo, hearsay, and name calling. If the believers in AGW are so sure of their “science” why won’t/don’t they engage in debate instead of trumped up mud slinging? To date there hasn’t been a single significant “scientist” willing to debate pro AGW. Why is that (rhetorical)?
I posted only the first few of many well researched and supported articles. WUWT censored them because they inevitably contain the 100% accurate descriptor that a those to whom it applies reject. Nice gig you have here.
[No. Your lengthy posts – despite instructions and the site policy about using your favored “denier” curse – will always go directly into the moderation queue as long as you persist in YOUR choice of that language. Change YOUR words, and your copied text will display immediately. Fail to follow posted instructions, and you will continue to fail to get posted immediately. .mod]
Reposting copyright material from The Guardian or Newsweek is not a “comment”.
When The Guardian or Newsweek want to come here and have their say, they will abide by the rules that pertain here … just as we will abide by their rules, when we comment there.
People who show up at TG or NW to push their envelope are not welcome.
I see that the usual dishonest moderation has not changed at WUWT. At least it isn’t as slimy as over at “Goddard”‘s nest of crackpottery.
[Reply: All we ask is that you stay within site Policy. That means no name-calling using insults like ‘denier’, ‘denialist’, etc. ~mod.]
You would not believe the competition to fill dishonest moderator positions.
… But that is interesting, that your behavior encounters acceptance-problems, elsewhere as well.
Hey, Kyle thinks he is a effective exposer of ‘den!*l”.
No *that* is unny.
Kyle is a steady ource of unintended humor
Thanks, Kyle!
Kyle,
Thank you for the Daily Onion humor coment.
Kyle, Your ignorance is only matched by your spittle flecked stupidity. You show up at a discussion and basically call those who disagree with you names that proves Dr. Ball- however poor some parts of his essay- is basically right: You climate obsessed are truly breath taking in your resistance to facts and fear of critical thinking.
I’m not sure what will come of this. If you can prove what motivates the IPCC, will it make a difference? The rank and file are true believers. If a cabal exists, they are tools only and not part of a cabal.
Motive? How about the push to rename and re-brand the UN’s North-South Partnership of rich and poor countries?
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/25587/jahangir-amuzegar/the-north-south-dialogue-from-conflict-to-compromise
The “conspiracy” label is just a media/academic/propaganda construct. It’s not a conspiracy, which is done by a few in secret, but a culture — far worse. There was no real conspiracy by Lenin/Stalin/Mao — mostly done in the open (except for the gorey details). It was a manufactured/indoctrinated culture, rooted in government dependency & supported by threats, bribes & handouts.
Seem familiar?
Quite interesting to read all of the ideas about the “WHY”, apparently without a specific mention of the (probably) most significant “HOW”. I refer, of course to the use of NASA’s large and well-honed public relations apparatus which for more than fifty years has been cranking out press releases aimed mostly at science journalists. As a very expensive taxpayer-supported government agency, by its nature delivering no immediate tangible benefits to the taxpayers, NASA long ago perfected the crafting of “gee-wiz” scientific narratives designed to stoke public interest. The clear objective, of course, was (and is) to give lawmakers some reason (and popular backing) for continuing funding of the agency.
It was a NASA group which latched onto “weather control” as the basis for a slew of gee-wiz narratives, and in the 1970’s promoted scary science stories based on global cooling and a coming ice age. Science journalists, whose daily work was eased by the flood of “information” from this PR machine, dutifully reported ice age stories (which have been recollected periodically in WUWT postings).
From time to time WUWT has commented on various NASA press releases which directly contradict stuff which the same agency PR group had put out just a few months earlier. It was no different with global warming in the 1980’s — the same NASA Goddard group switched their scientific “findings” from ice age predictions to embrace CO2-based global warming. As it turned out, warming seemed to generate more ink in the press than ice did, and could be based upon slightly more plausible “science”.
The long-standing relationships with science journalists gave this NASA group much more credibility than, perhaps, it would otherwise have had. Much of the ground work for the current “climate change” meme can be directly traced to this PR thrust in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Other PR groups sensed the power of the narrative and its attraction to left-leaning political bigwigs. Some important relationships were established with wealthy industrialists who “bought” the global warming story and saw in it a relatively-risk-free avenue to “save the planet” — or at least be seen as trying to be doing so.
By the time the IPCC was established in 1992 considerable momentum had been achieved. In fact, global warming had gained sufficient political and scientific critical mass to continue rolling downhill and start to generate its own funding sources outside of NASA.
While plenty of skullduggery has probably been taking place within the AGW scientific “community” (see countless postings on CA and WUWT for details) it is doubtful that there has been an overall guiding conspiracy at any point. The whole think has just “grown like Topsy”.
Indeed their is no grand conspiracy on either side , despite , what Lew paper would have you believe. Rather what is seen is series of self serving interests , which are a mix of the personal the political and the finical, form the alarmists. With the extreme end acting far more like religions fanatics than anything that should be see in science.
Exactly. +1
It’s no conspiracy when it’s publicly stated by then Greens leader in Australia. It’s policy.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/brown-advocates-for-one-world-parliament-20110629-1gqz1.html
To expand/continue Tetragrammaton’s background story on NASA’s social, public relations and journalism/media-feeding/pablum roles, will mean to include the story of NACA:
In other words, NASA will really have it’s 100th birthday, just 4 months from now.
NACA was glamorous, exciting, and a godsend for journalists & media, just like its alter-ego, NASA. [NACA was meant to be more practical/directly useful, and steadily published awesome technical papers to serve industry & research. These (14,620) papers can now be perused anddownloaded; to scan the listings is to make one jaw-dropping omg find after another … for techie-people.]
But yes; the top-down government influence (sometime-propaganda, but no conspiracy) we see done through NASA, had been a well-hone & oiled ‘machine’, for a couple generations before the acronym-change.
As one might guess, there are a LOT of replies to this post, and it is not surprising. Is it even POSSIBLE to be a skeptic and not have asked this question, and “What motive would you give, when asked?”
Forgive me for responding before reading the actual post (will comment more afterward!). But the question is such a no-brainer to ask.
My before answer? For the scientists: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and attention and power (think Mann). For the pols: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and attention and power (think You-Know-Who).
Climatology was a scientific backwater, with little funding and little attention. Add in several million, and then increase that to billions and more billions.
Money and attention and power have corrupted people before, and they will again. This is just the example de jour.
The salient question missing from your description is what caused the money to pour in? This isn’t the only game in town, not the only sink down which the government shovels tax payers money. Why did this explode?
Frankly, I think far too many still don’t recognize the deception. I try to force the issue with a simple question. Why has the IPCC made zero effective progress in 25 yrs on narrowing down ECS
– 1990 IPCC’s initial ballpark was ECS = 1.5 to 4.5 as ‘likely’ range
– Fast forward 25 yrs and billions $$$$ in research
– 2014 IPCC still pegs ECS as 1.5 to 4.5 (‘likely’ range)
Since people may deflect, but never respond to the question, I can only hope it sinks in.
Where did our money go and when do we get it back?
I would put it this way (which boils down to much the same thing). Belief is essential to survival. But people can be taught false beliefs. The musical “The Music Man” illustrates how a practitioner can profit by manipulating our belief systems. This is how the salesman operates, and our sales resistance is tested every day. The IPCC says “We have trouble, trouble, trouble in River City, with a capital T and that rhymes with C and that stands for CO2.” But only the credulous accepts a sales pitch at face value and maturity diminishes credulity. So many of us have harbored reservations and this reticence has saved us from a serious mistake. We owe the IPCC a debt of gratitude for floating such an awful falsehood, because as we have instinctively reserved action and now can see the denouement, we strengthen our ability to survive such attacks on reason.
I have enjoyed using “The Music Man” as a metahpor to describe the climate hypesters for several years.
Good insight but it leaves out the NEED to believe. Nietzsche declares the death of god and a 100 years later the vox populi chants CO2 as a new enemy of the people with environmentalists the new priesthood. The new Devil? Fossil Fuels. God> The Planet. This scam has been going on for over 2000 years and will continue to go on until we, as a culture, wise up and stop thinking ‘someone has to be in charge’ and that every problem requires a global one size fits all solution and that solutions can be forced on people.
Kill CO2 as the enemy of the people without changing the ground these things play out on and a new enemy will be created to take its place. How many times do we have to go through this before we learn. Isn’t 2000+ years long enough?
Daniel says “How many times do we have to go through this before we learn.”
It depends on how many of you are in there. I usually have a thing committed pretty well by three recitations but a thing that is boring is going to take many more than three. Effects that are sufficiently dramatic or painful, such as a bee sting, are quite effective with only a single lesson.
I notice a fascination with the number “2000” for you. I happen to like the number “42”, which you may recognize as the ultimate answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything.
{ preface to my comment: it is important to understand ‘why’ / ‘motivation’ / ‘fundamental premises’ in the pursuit of understanding the development of the failed theory of significant climate change from CO2 by fossil fuels, so I thank Tim Ball for stimulating a stark discussion }
Tim Ball’s intellectual basis and explanation (of why CAGW supporters are doing what they are doing) is as flawed as Naomi Oreskes’ intellectual basis and explanation (of why skeptics are doing what they are doing) and both of them have the same fundamental reasons for being flawed.
Tim Ball asks in the closing sentence of his post,
First, I do not think the fundamental question is ‘why’, although it is a step in the right direction for achieving understanding. ‘Why’ and ‘motivation’ are not necessarily the same and neither is the question at the most fundamental level. The most fundamental question is what is a person’s basis for their most fundamental premises?
Given that approach, I think the supporters of the failed theory of significant climate change from CO2 by fossil fuel use have, at the most fundamental level, a false basis for their premises supporting:
a) their positions on what is the nature of reality and;
b) their position on what is the nature of man’s means of knowing.
What is their false basis? That basis, when identified, answers a question that is more fundamental than the Tim Ball question. This is a central intellectual issue that was first systemically addressed more than 2,000 years ago and has been a systemic central issue to this very minute.
Finally for emphasis, to distance myself totally from the populist con$piracy meme in this thread, I think the con$piracy explanations suggested on this thread are chthonic crap..
John
How then to explain the characters like Hansen, Schmidt and Mann cashing in on their notoriety? Hansen was making so many millions from globe-trotting alarmist speechifying that he quit his day job to go full time into activism openly. Schmidt blogs on the public dime.
Given the clearly displayed massive ego’s of ‘the Team’ you can see that fame has much as fortune is what motivates them. Although to be fair its also clear that without AGW and given their proven scientific ‘abilities’ most of them could not get a job teaching at a third rate high school , so even without the fame and fortune angle there is some big time motivation for them to keep the gravy train on track.
John,
+1
Hunter,
: )
John
John, the question could not have been addressed 2000 years ago, because there was no science and no scientific context 2000 years ago.
The method of science, and the recognition of objective knowledge, became consciously explicit no more than about 250 years ago.
It’s quite clear that the leaders of the major scientific institutions have had to abandon the critical thinking required of science, in order to espouse the positions they do on AGW.
When I read the primary literature, the one consistent fault I find is neglect of critical detail. In global air temperature construction, it’s neglect of systematic sensor measurement error. In climate modeling, it’s neglect of model physical error. In paleo-temperature reconstruction, it’s neglect of physics itself. Never does one see propagation of error through sequential calculations. In every area, assumptions are made that permit the neglect of error (typically, the assumption is that error is random and the CLT applies).
When that neglect is rectified, it becomes immediately apparent that the errors are so large nothing is left of substance. So, the systematic neglect of error permits the AGW narrative. I believe AGW proponents know this at some level, which is why error treatment is avoided like the plague. From this judgment I exclude climate modelers, because I’ve discovered that they don’t understand error analysis at all (I have that in black-and-white).
So, my overall judgment is that AGW is the lies of a few abetted by the incompetence of the many. How so many physical scientists became so incompetent in critical thinking and error treatment is the deep hidden question of AGW alarm.
My own view is that the incessant progressivist attacks of the last 40 years has created such a poisonous atmosphere, that any crime levied against the west in general, and against the US in particular, is given credence. So, AGW is just one more obvious crime of the greedy capital-seeking consumption-glutted westerner. Even scientists apparently were primed to accept it by the culture of accusation, and adjusted their thinking accordingly. This explanation could all be wrong, but somehow, the basis isn’t: somehow critical thinking has been jettisoned in the interests of truthifying AGW.
Screw the whole crappy chthonic con$piracy meme running through the thread and Ball’s lead post.
Why shouldn’t they profit from their chosen professional path and maximize that profit? If they did something illegal then it is for the courts to decide. If, by the standards of conduct of their profession, they carried out misconduct then it is for their profession’s conduct committees to decide. Pursuit of profit while pursuing ideas and profession is not wrong or inappropriate; it is a virtue.
It is up to NASA GISS to discipline Schmidt if it is misconduct by their rules for him to blog during working hours.
All of that has nothing to do with their fundamental basis for their root premises at the core of their support of the failed theory of significant climate change from CO2 by burning fossil fuels. What false positions do they have as a basis of their false premises in their scientific philosophy about the nature of reality and the nature of how humans know? That is the essence of understanding the climate change cause phenomena.
John
John Whitman asks “Why shouldn’t they profit from their chosen professional path and maximize that profit?”
Scientists can pursue profit, or they can persuade the public; but they cannot do both at the same time. I discount the claims of the shoe salesman (or any salesman).
I’m all in favor of profit. I’m against public employees profiting privately by spreading lies which impoverish the public and put lives at risk around the world.
I would have thought that distinction to be obvious.
NASA won’t discipline Schmidt. The agency is part of the government-academic-Green-industrial complex which his blog promotes.
Michael 2,
If a climate focused scientist conducts shoddy, inept or intentionally misleading / exaggerated research then the science process will eventually correct. It always has and I see no reason that eventually it will in climate focused science. In the case of the scientists doing so to advance the climate change cause, the correction needed is immense, so I expect it to be a nasty dog-eat-dog guerrilla resistance affair. Still a scientist can pursue fortune and fame while doing publically funded research on climate; if you think there is a law against it or if you think there is a principle in science behavior that makes it unethical, per se, then please advise the law or principle.
John
John Whitman says “then please advise the law or principle.”
I need do neither. I speak for myself. If you are a beneficiary of your own claims, then I will be suspicious of those claims. I am probably not the only person on earth with a similar outlook. I did not say I reject those claims, but they will be subjected to more scrutiny than would be otherwise the case.
As it happens, most scientists are not going to get rich, don’t expect to get rich (in my understanding anyway), but they are also not the ones making noisy policy statements. If a scientist profits from his discovery, as for instance the gentlemen that figured out blue LED and won a Nobel prize, I have no problem with it because they are not demanding vast sums of money from me. I am very happy to buy their blue LED’s.
Catherine Ronconi,
Lies in business or in government or in science or in every human endeavor are deplorable. Noble cause purposed lies are deplorable. The exception that comes to mind is maybe government on government espionage (eg ‘CIA’ stuff) which is the profession of stealth and deceit.
I fail to find the distinction you suggest. So, back to my point that scientists pursuing fame and fortune is not the issue; the issue is lying or cheating or deceiving or exaggerating or unlawful acts or etc etc etc . . .
John
Catherine Ronconi,
NASA hasn’t publically done so to Schmidt, but that does not mean it is impossible that there wasn’t some internal censure. Nor does it mean that it is impossible that there won’t eventually be blowback to Schmidt by NASA after a year or two. Politics being what it is, many things are possible wrt correction of the behavior of climate change cause activists in government employ.
John
Pat Frank,
I was referring to subjective versus objective as the central intellectual issue that was first systemically addressed more than 2,000 years ago and has been a systemic central issue to this very minute. The supporters of the failed theory of significant climate change from CO2 by burning fossil fuels have subjective science of philosophy positions. The more objective considerations are with the skeptical broader perspective on the science focused on climate.
Science did indeed begin >2,000 years ago, so we do not appear to agree there.
I thought the rest of you comment was very circumspect and well done. I share many of your thoughts.
John
John, we probably agree that science has its origin with Thales of Miletus, 7th BCE. It’s true that reference of theory to factual information began then. But it’s not clear to me that a recognized distinction between objective and subjective knowledge was a conscious part of their program.
My caveat, then, is that the people pushing AGW, and uncritically believing in it, have had to consciously put aside the adherence to objective knowledge. I think we agree on this, too.
But the conscious putting aside is a modern offense. This could not really have been done 2000 years ago, before a conscious adherence to that principle was knowingly held as the central sine qua non of science.
It’s interesting, isn’t it, that in the 10,000 years of human civil society, an Enlightenment happened only twice. Once among 7th century BCE Greeks, once among the 17th century CE Europeans. It seems to be a rare phenomenon. Both times localized around the Mediterranean. We’re probably lucky, as a species, it happened at all.
The sheer volume and pomposity of your (all of you) inversions of reality are breathtaking. Over and over you clowns posit ridiculous conspiracy theories while steadfastly ignoring the barely concealed program to discredit the science that is funded by the very self-interested on your side. Over and over you state as facts such tired memes and fallacious arguments as:
There’s no warming
It’s all models and they’ve all failed
Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore!
People who accept the science are sheeple that aren’t thinking for themselves (the projection!)
The science side is all political/ideological (mega-projection)
I understand the science and don’t need to just take someone’s word for it. That said, most people cannot, so one must consider the credibility of those you choose to trust. On the side of the science, you have:
* An amazingly strong concensus of the science
* Every national science academy on the planet
* Every university science department that’s expressed a position except those of creationist Bible colleges
* NASA
* NOAA
* The foreign equivalents of NASA and NOAA
* Every international science body that’s taken position (nearly all of them)
* The Pentagon
You, on the other hand, have:
* Retired weathermen lacking even a metrology degree
* Fake British lords with liberal arts degrees
* PR fIrms employed directly and indirectly by fossil fuel interests calling themselves “think tanks” that employ few if any scientists and do no science whatsoever
* Charlatans and rogues with fake science journals, etc.
Then there are some inconvenient truths such as the fact that the Right in most countries accepts the science and did in all countries prior to the success of the d____l industry’s efforts. This, even though the evidence has grown tremendously since then.
Speaking of facts; here are a few that should, to any knowledgeable person, render the general findings of climate science nearly obvious:
* CO2 is the primary GHG. H2O has a larger warming effect but seeks equilibrium with liquid water and is therefore a dependent variable
* CO2 is up 43% in a geologic heartbeat; well over 100X faster than at any time in the historical record
* Human CO2 emission are at least 100X greater than geologic (volcanic) sources
* The above make sense considering that we’re returning to the atmosphere in decades carbon that was geologically sequestered over 10’s of millions of years
* The negative feedback loops involving CO2 are dominated by long time constants such as those of silicate weathering and biomineralization by marine organisms
* The positive feedback loops involving CO2 are dominated by short time constants such as those of desertification and permafrost melting
In direct opposition to your endless claims of “alarmism”, the positive feedback loops are not being included in projections, rendering them likely conservative.
Here’s some inconvenient truths for those espousing the stage of d____l that admits warming but not GHE causation:
* More warming near the poles
* More warming at night
* More warming in winter
* Cooling and contracting stratosphere
All the above are (rather obviously to those who understand the science at all) indicators of GHE warming. All other forcings would have the opposite effects.
For those at the stage that claims it’s not warming, consider that the above factors can combine to yield far more than the fractional degrees that you find so easy to dismiss. The average midwinter temperature at a Canadien Arctic weather station is up 10.7degF.
I don’t know what proportion of you are here because it’s your livelihood to pump up the disinformation and lend it an air of acceptability. I don’t know how many are here because your ideological fervor is in control. I don’t know how many of you are here seeking the comfort of others sharing your desired conclusions. What I do know is that you all will pile on anyone coming here who disturbs the circle jerk by interjecting facts. The sheeple remarks, Leftist bashing, Al Gore attacks, repetitions of Big Lies, and all manner of ad hominem argumentation will commence forthwith.
Consider this – when reality can no longer be dismissed by more than the looniest few, all of the ideals that most of you cling to will be drug down by association with science and reality d____l and the catastrophic consequences associated with them. If you’re religiously motivated, consider that many of you are and the correlation is well known. If you’re a believer in small govt and individual liberty, consider that many of you are and the correlation is well known. If you’re a rock ribbed Republican, . . . you get the idea.
So, if your goals in life are to contribute to the disruption of the biosphere, impoverish billions, kill many millions, and associate your religion, your ideology, and your political affiliation with that, and thus put non-religious, big govt, and Democratic leadership in power for generations, keep to your present path.
Kyle, I didn’t read much beyond your narcissistic introduction sentence:
“The sheer volume and pomposity of your (all of you) inversions of reality are breathtaking.”
Perhaps you could try again more politely. Or not. It is up to you to craft a message that will be read by more than you.
Kyle- maybe I’ll take a moment of my precious time to respond, not so much to you but our readers.
“Over and over you state as facts such tired memes and fallacious arguments as: [list]”
Yes; why you remind me of what I have written? Perhaps you could provide some indication that I am in error rather than just declaring what I have written.
“There’s no warming” True enough since about 1998 where I live. YMMV.
“It’s all models and they’ve all failed” All predictions made by 2005 or so have failed. With improved data and models perhaps their skill will improve.
“Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore!” One of many I write about. He is one of your standard bearers.
“People who accept the science are sheeple that aren’t thinking for themselves” Strawman. What sheeple accept are ideologically motivated claims. How else can you explain that nearly all leftists believe in the Consensus, and most everyone else does not?
“The science side is all political/ideological”
Same strawman. Science is what is measured and measurable. How can anyone argue with science? If a thing CAN be argued about, then maybe it isn’t science (or insufficiently so).
More from Kyle:
“CO2 is the primary GHG. H2O has a larger warming effect but seeks equilibrium with liquid water and is therefore a dependent variable”
Yes, H2O has a LOT more warming effect, perhaps as much as 20 times that of CO2 depending on local circumstances. The rest of your comment is slightly unclear. Water vapor depends on things, so does CO2.
“CO2 is up 43% in a geologic heartbeat” So it seems.
“Human CO2 emission are at least 100X greater than geologic (volcanic) sources”
I cannot confirm or dispute your claim; but I note that you ignore all other natural sources of CO2 that dwarf either. In other words, this claim might be “trivially true”. Inasmuch as both 100 times greater than volcanoes must still fit in only 43 percent, it appears you are suggesting a microscopic contribution by volcanoes. That may well be true. I have not argued for volcanoes.
“The negative feedback loops involving CO2 are dominated by long time constants such as those of silicate weathering and biomineralization by marine organisms. The positive feedback loops involving CO2 are dominated by short time constants such as those of desertification and permafrost melting”
Seems reasonable. I have insufficient information to dispute and I am naturally included to provisionally accept such claims.
A few more points from Kyle:
“More warming near the poles” Hooray for that. I had plenty of arctic duty in the military.
“More warming at night” I see no worries here.
“More warming in winter” No worries here, either. I am pretty tired of -20 (F) winters.
“Cooling and contracting stratosphere” Why should this concern me?
[Why would you/he expect a cooling stratosphere with a warming atmosphere? .mod]
More from Kyle:
“I don’t know what proportion of you are here because it’s your livelihood to pump up the disinformation and lend it an air of acceptability.”
All of me is here to learn more about climate science from less self-serving sources. I’ll dip into self-serving sources too from time to time.
“I don’t know how many are here because your ideological fervor is in control” Your list of things you don’t know is growing. I hope we get to what you DO know while I am still interested.
“What I do know is that you all will pile on anyone coming here”
Results reveal intentions, signifying you want this outcome.
“all manner of ad hominem argumentation will commence forthwith.”
Obviously. How else shall I describe your commentary?
” If you’re religiously motivated, consider that many of you are and the correlation is well known.”
ALL of me is religious and I am well correlated, too.
“If you’re a believer in small govt and individual liberty” I wish for small government but I BELIEVE in big government. It’s pretty big and I believe it. I wish for individual liberty and so do you.
Your final paragraph suffers from the fallacy of the false alternatives. I am a libertarian. My goal is not your goal. My goal is not anyone else’s goal; not predictably so anyway.
YOUR goal is going to be a lot more predictable because you are not a libertarian; you have to be given your goals. And yes, Democrats will be in power until this and every other nation collapses in bankruptcy.
Kyle says “I understand the science and don’t need to just take someone’s word for it.”
Of course you take someone’s word for it. Unless you personally core trees, bore ice, and check undersea sediments, you are taking someone else’s word for it.
Whose word you take, and whose you do not, conforms to and confirms your ideology. You might start in the middle of the road, but as soon as you start to choose a side, your choice is reinforced by the very behavior you have demonstrated here today — ridicule and insult; it keeps you in your fold. Among the Amish the same strategy is called shunning. In the blogosphere it is banning if ridicule does not work. But what is your power? Negligible. Once you ban someone, that’s the end of your influence over that person.
In other words, sites such as SkepticalScience, DailyKOS, Huffington Post do not exist to convince the other side. They exist to keep you in the fold.
Referencing NASA and Schmidt, above.
John, your faith in government correcting itself is touching but hopelessly naive. NASA not only won’t discipline Schmidt, but the agency promoted him for getting the Team’s message out on the public dime.
The fix is in and the CACA corruption is spreading to other realms of government and academic “science”. The government is as far from self-policing as possible. Even with a supposedly different party in control of congress, it’s unlikely that anyone will sanction Schmidt and GISS any more than his activist boss Hansen was punished rather than allowed to resign to make even more ill-gotten gains from spreading absurdities like the “Venus Express”.
Sadly, Catherine Ronconi is entirely right about Schmidt and NASA.
She has summarised his promotions and “honours” correctly.
And the reason is that the cost to the institution of admitting a faux pas is so much greater than the cost of keeping silent.
At least in the short term.
It’s worse than John thought! Not only won’t NASA discipline its errant GISS directors, but they’re doing the bidding of the agency and the whole executive branch regime, so there’s no reason for any of their superiors to sanction their misdeeds.
Kyle,
Let me repeat what I have said in this thread now for the third time (“over and over” from your words), “the populist con$piracy memes on this thread and in the Tim Ball lead post are chthonic crap”.
I considered your “Consider this – when . . .”. Now, I suggest that you consider the following.
Consider this – when the philosophy of science is no longer accepted by the IPCC that allows the irrational subjective approach to climate focused science where the ‘a priori’ premise of significant climate change from CO2 by burning fossil fuel is given priority over significant contradicting evidence found in objectively observed reality, then the IPCC’s erroneous philosophy of science used in climate focused science will have been corrected.
John
Michael 2,
I tend to concur. And if one puts the parts of Kyles comment aside that are uncivil and agitated verbiage as just irrelevant emotive venting, then I consider the remaining parts show Kyle has done a considerable attempt to integrate his thinking. I do not agree with much of it but I respect his efforts toward integrating ideas.
Personal Note: it is the start of USA Thanksgiving holiday weekend. Happy Holidays to those observing Thanksgiving.
John
Kyle, if you really understood the science, you’d not have to yatter on about “amazingly strong” consensi, and retired weathermen. None of the first part of your polemic is relevant at all. Neither is your disdain.
To prove your point, all you’d need to do is point us to the published paper deriving the climatological equilibrium sensitivity to CO2 from a valid theory of climate.
But no such theory exists, of course, meaning you can’t prove your case on the merits. That explains your recourse to ad hominem and vacuous disdain.
Stepping through your relevant claims:
“CO2 is the primary GHG….” is refuted by your own “H2O has a larger warming effect,” i.e., is the primary GHG. Your second statement refutes your first. Saying H2O “seeks equilibrium with liquid water and is therefore a dependent variable” shows that you don’t understand the science at all. Water vapor is a condensible gas in Earth climate. CO2 is not. Water equilibrates among three phases, and can act as a heat pump, moving thermal energy up from the surface and dumping it out into space.
CO2 acts as an energy transducer, converting photo-energy into kinetic energy, meaning it adds thermal energy to the atmosphere. Climate models include the assumption that all that thermal energy appears only as sensible heat in the atmosphere and oceans. But that assumption is not based in any valid theory of climate.
If you actually knew the science, you’d know that, too, and would be far more diffident about making obviously nonsensical statements.
“The negative feedback loops involving CO2 are dominated by long time constants such as those of silicate weathering and biomineralization by marine organisms.”
Negative feedbacks include increased convection from the surface, and increased water evaporation, condensation and cloud formation, and precipitation (rain and snow). These are very rapid and mostly negative feedbacks. Global average cloud feedback alone is about -25 W/m^2.
If you knew any climate science, you’d know that, too.
The absence of any valid theory of climate means that the claim of CO2-induced warming is a physically unsubstatiable inference. Your claim, and the AGW claim, are no more than the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
The only thing we actually know for sure that the extra CO2 has done, is green up the global ecology since 1980. It’s made all the plants happy.
The rest of your post is just more blowhard polemics. Your expertise seems dominated by hyperventilation.
Catherine Ronconi,
Faith? My faith in gov’t? Not bad, I did laugh a bit. If you are serious and not jesting, then you probably haven’t been around for the half dozen years of my many many hundreds of comments here.
I am not cynical about NASA’s GISS whereas you seem to be indicating that you so strongly are cynical. I have a suggestion for you about looking into Schmidt’s behavior on RC for the last 3 to 4 years. Don’t you observe a distinct change in Schmidt’s behavior? Doesn’t look he seem to have evolved to a significantly more even toned manner or even a significantly more subdued tone? Also, don’t you observe that RC activity has evolved to much less restricted / limited periods. Looks to me like RC did change. Why? If the reason wasn’t publically stated, then what was the unstated reason?
As to Hansen, he is the stern sounding father of the genre of climate change activism based on ideology and exaggeration. He is the iconic evangelist of climate change. He is the subjectivist who is copied most in the climate focused science that supports the failed (observationally failed) theory of significant climate change from CO2 by burning fossil fuel. In person you can feel his religious fervor on climate change. Kooky.
I do not hold any issue with the fortune or fame of either of the two as you seem to have serious issue with their fortune and fame. I have an issue with their irrational subjective positions on climate focused science; which derives from their false basis for their premises supporting their positions on their philosophy of science in the areas of epistemology and metaphysics.
Happy Holidays to you if you celebrate USA’s Thanksgiving.
John
MCourtney,
Intellectual cost to some individuals in NASA GISS due to ‘a faux pas’ (your words), maybe.
Other costs like funding drops do to ‘a faux pas’, doubtful. Unrelated to ‘a faux pas’ there have been budgets cuts due to ever increasingly severe congressional scrutiny on all areas of gov’t as a general trend that is reasonably expected to continue. But, if public demands change in NASA GISS from a fundamental climate focused ‘faux pas’ (your words) then one might expect an infusion of funds into NASA GISS to investigate, study, reform and adapt to more appropriate focus and process improvements.
John
John,
Thanks and the same to you and yours regarding Thanksgiving. My family and I do very much observe the holiday and have done so for going on 300 years.
Despite my good Genoese Catholic name, I also have English Puritan ancestors. The holiday is a very big deal with us, going a country mile beyond turkey with all the trimmings, as we’re a union of various culinary cultures. I plan to contribute mightily tomorrow to an increase in concentraion of the beneficial, life-giving and sustaining essential trace gas CO2 in our precious atmosphere.
John,
I haven’t noticed a change in Gavin’s blogging or other public behavior, although he did go on John Stossel’s program, while still refusing to share the stage with a d*n**r, so you might be right.
Catherine Ronconi,
It is a gov’t body. It is exposed to elected political (regime) changes. It knows this. It will change with regime mentality changes. The intellectuals in NASA GISS are expected to be survivors if drastic change in NASA GISS does happen due to regime change . . . . and the regime has changed a lot and some reasonably project it will change a lot more. Bureaucrats shift with the political reality.
John
“Politics being what it is, many things are possible wrt correction of the behavior of climate change cause activists in government employ.”
John
I hope you’re right John.
KNR,
It is a collectivist premise to posit that it is bad to have any motive to pursue great personal monetary return for one’s ideas and efforts.
John
But you don’t expound on points a and b which leaves your salient message as, it’s a lot of crap. Not much of a message.
Daniel,
Why expound at all due to the following case?
Everyone, every single adult on this planet, has an a) and b) whether explicitly held or implicitly held. One cannot escape operating in life on some premises in those areas . . . . . so everyone has a basis for those premises whether explicitly or implicitly held.
The essential issue of climate focused science is whether there is objective versus subjective basis for the premises of a researcher’s or assessor’s a) and b). For the case of supporters of the failed (observationally failed) theory of significant climate change from CO2 by burning fossil fuels, there has been a significant amount of scrutiny by critics / skeptics which gives a reasonable finding that those supporters have a fundamentally subjective basis for premises supporting their a) and b); so therefore not objective science. What philosophy and its associated philosophy of science allows them to think their subjectivity is science?
Any complete history of philosophy work shows there are >2,000 years of systemic considerations of what is subjective and what is objective; systemic consideration that goes up to this very day.
John
Dr Ball, I suppose you know Prof.em. Claes Johnson KTH Sweden. He might inform you about he situation in Scandinavia.
To understand what has happened, you need to know how different people in different countries have used climate change for their interests.
Look at Sweden and Denmark.
In both countries climate change is used to motivate energy, business and welfare politics. Bert Bolin and other meteorologists at Stockholm University supplied the tool.
In the EU commission, with responsibility for climate change, was first Margot Wallström Sweden and then Connie Hedegaard Denmark. One without education at University and one with a degree in Literature.
In UK Magaret Tatcher used climate change to combat coal miners union.
Scientist in the field of energy conversion and environment and business leaders evaluated and found opportunities. Now they don’t know how to get out of the mess.
Perhaps I’m oversimplifying, but in my opinion this can be unraveled with one question: what do the involved parties need?
-Politicians need a speech to inspire their electorate.
-Media need looming disasters to sell their stories.
-Civil service organizations need a mandate and funding.
-Everyone wants to stand for good – there are prisoners taking themselves for Robin Hood surrounded by intolerable injustice.
IMO, CAGW is lucky strike for skeptics. CAGW inevitable foundations are in the Malthusian Lebensraum. Sensible people don’t want to be associated with it. With something more subtle this could have continued forever, because there is no point trying to:
-prove CAGW to be a conspiracy or people defending to be evil. It’s not true.
-disprove CAGW on facts. Some people prefer the argument from authority fallacy.
Just watched a BBC4 documentary:-
The Cursed Valley of the Pyramids The Peruvian Lambayeque civilisation, which based its culture on a strong belief that building pyramids was essential to its survival – as was human sacrifice. Archaeologists in northern Peru found mass graves near the lost city of Tucume, revealing a bloody secret. Narrated by Mark Halliley
Couldn’t help but notice the similarity between the High Priests climate change policy and understanding of the climate then and now.
The EPA in the USA is doing the blood sacrifice.
Worse the majority of these closures are on the east coast where the protesters will not allow natural gas pipelines to be built.
Now remember what happened in the 25 hour blackout in New York City in 1977. 550 police officers were injured, 3,776 looters were arrested, 1,000 fires were reported, 1,600 stores were damaged.
And we have Obama busy agitating the inner city communities…. The department of Homeland Security is buying enough ammo for a 20+ year war (1.6 billion + rounds including hollow point) and local police are being given military gear. The Department of Homeland Security is apparently taking delivery of an undetermined number of the recently retrofitted 2,717 ‘Mine Resistant Protected’ MaxxPro MRAP vehicles returning from overseas for service on the streets of the United States. The MaxxPro MRAP is built to withstand ballistic arms fire, mine blasts, IEDs, and other emerging threats. (From Forbes)
From DHS: http://www.dhs.gov/photo/hsi-using-armored-vehicles-training-ice
I am glad I am not living in a city. If we have the power grid make a major crash it could get really nasty.
This makes for a great 2016 election issue. Do we get energy or do we get catechism from the self-proclaimed enlightened?
So Kevin are you saying that huge wastes of human effort and materials is nothing new?
Oh boy…..when climate sceptics move on to broader environmental policy, finance, science and international conventions…..this is what we get: uninformed, prejudicial clap-trap that fuels all the put-downs that sceptics face as a bunch of unscientific conspiracy theorists. WUWT has done a fantastic job of displaying the really bad science at the heart of the IPCC, but the site loses immensely when it gives free rein to amateur analysis of a complex area like Agenda 21, the Precautionary Principle, and ‘green’ motivations. I have spent 35 years in the policy sphere – advising just about every player from governments (my own included occassionally), the EU and the UN, as well as Greenpeace and a host of small scale community led activist groups opposing extremely dangerous technology and exposing how governments lean more to the financial and corporate take on risk, than to community health and safety. It would be a waste of time to make a list here of what life would be like if there had been no green movement, no environmental safety critiques (and reliance entirely on government – as in China).
AND in my one book on climate change science (Chill: a reassessment of global warming theory), studiously ignored by WUWT, I actually provide a thorough analysis of why and how the IPCC made such a huge error. But heh! It is a ‘green’ critique! From within the environmental mindset – and hence, not worth referencing – and indeed, better to act like the critique does not exist, otherwise you can’t beat up the green with such fervour!!!
I am disappointed. I should have learned long ago not to comment or even read comments – and just focus on the science news, but that is getting scarcer and this kind of anti-environmentalist tripe is filling the gap. Shame on you!
Long on criticism, short on specifics, Peter. Hardly compelling.
Here’s a thought: why not contribute a WUWT essay on those topics definitively close to your heart.
We’ll all get educated when exposed to your closely argued thinking, and you’ll get the joy of proving all your critics to be shallow-thinkers.
Peter Taylor coauthored a Post on WUWT two years ago, titled Is the Current Global Warming a Natural Cycle?
It sounds like his main message is getting out.
There is though no entry for the book on Wikipedia (where Mr. Taylor is treated at some length), and I believe that the dust-up surrounding it, alone, would make it Wiki-worthy.
Wow, talk about a holier than thou attitude. Why even bother telling us plebes about your exalted accomplishments?
Well, it ain’t braggin’ if you really did it.
Then again … Are any of those actions actually worth being proud of? 8<)
How many lives have been ruined because of those regulations and those political actions and political decisions?
Kyle,
Quoting long winded lies is no better than tossing out your shorter idiocratic claims.
We all get the point- you are too cowardly and too stupid to actually think for yourself. So like a fundamentalist you can only rely on naming the devil and quoting long passages of your scripture.
Good luck with that, loser.
Peter Taylor
November 24, 2014 at 3:35 pm
” I have spent 35 years in the policy sphere – advising just about every player from governments (my own included occassionally), the EU and the UN, as well as Greenpeace”
Given that they all act like corrupt psychopathic crooks, I guess you advised them in deceiving the public, looting and pillaging.
“AND in my one book on climate change science (Chill: a reassessment of global warming theory), studiously ignored by WUWT, I actually provide a thorough analysis of why and how the IPCC made such a huge error. But heh! It is a ‘green’ critique!”
The ERROR they made was getting caught lying, I guess? You show in your book how they could have avoided getting caught? Is that it? Or do you want to imply you know ANYTHING about models? After bragging about your policy advisory credentials?
” “Chill” is a critical survey of the subject by a committed environmentalist and scientist. Based on extensive research, it reveals a disturbing collusion of interests responsible for creating a distorted understanding of changes in global climate. Scientific institutions, basing their work on critically flawed computer simulations and models, have gained influence and funding. In return they have allowed themselves to be directed by the needs of politicians and lobbyists for simple answers, slogans and targets. ”
(from the amazon blurb)
Peter Taylor, I don’t understand. You advised them for 35 years, they did what you told them to do, and now you write a book criticizing them for it?
Ahhh. Sorry for being slow.
You did a Lovelock. You earned your money for 35 years in the Green machine, then, when you had enough, you quit and published your book, revealing the inner workings of the corrupt Green machine.
And now your frustrated because it didn’t sell.
Dirk H,
Skeptics should always be open to the idea of someone who is willing to allow new information to change their views, even if they are the views of a life time, based on new knowledge or new insights. We are all better off if we welcome and encourage the growing list of academics, scientists, activists and journalists who are to a greater or lesser extent seeing that skepticism of the climate consensus is not only reasonable but compelling.
A big skeptical tent serves us well.
Good point. Peter Taylor is a maverick; an independent ‘agent’; a provocateur; obviously & at times obnoxiously, um, all-too human.
I ‘defended WUWT’ against his (inaccurate?) deprecations, but … I am one of those maverick, find-yer-own-path (stumble in the weeds, trip in all the gopher holes) types, too.
Even modern-digital, try every implementation of Big Brother society, benefits strongly from renegade figures careening seeming-destructively through the china-shop. In pre-modern and tribal societies, the special values & strengths of this role is overtly recognized; protected and developed, even. [They were the main “informants” who fill ethnographers notebooks.]
Today, ‘mass-institutionalization’ creates distrust & fear of the unaffiliated, self-motivated & defined figure, like Taylor. Nonetheless, such operatives command significant, if ‘morbid’, attention. And for good reason.
Not only is Taylor’s paper-trail easy to find & parse … he himself is our best & most-willing informant about his distinctive & intriguing … explorations.
Peter,
Many skeptics have reached high levels of frustration over this issue. So few allegedly open minded people even consider a review of the assumptions regarding the climate consensus. From a President whose main tool in dealing with those who disagree is to ignorantly mock, to media groups that censor by ignoring well documented facts, to the mindless petty bigots like Kyle on this thread: the climate committed show themselves to be willfully ignorant. This raises questions outside the science sphere and you are right: the speculation represented in this thread’s essay is unfortunate. But you should cut some slack.
Peter Taylor “the site loses immensely when it gives free rein to amateur analysis of a complex area like Agenda 21, the Precautionary Principle, and ‘green’ motivations. I have spent 35 years in the policy sphere”
It sux living in a democracy where your vote is exactly the same as mine. So what does one do?
“I should have learned long ago not to comment or even read comments “
Wrong answer. Ignoring the “little people” is one of the problems with elites.
“It would be a waste of time to make a list here of what life would be like if there had been no green movement, no environmental safety critiques”
And yet you feel compelled to mention it. Your list would just be another “hearsay” list. Telling a story, on the other hand, is a lot more convincing (“Silent Spring” comes to mind). Instead of just being the elite (you) telling the stupids what to believe, you evoke understanding in the minds of other people using metaphors readily available to nearly everyone.
But this works both ways. George Orwell has done a pretty good job warning people what life would be like in a totalitarian world where ONLY the elites rule and there is no democracy because, well, people are “stupid”. So help make people less stupid, one at a time if necessary, but a comment on WUWT will be seen by a very large number of people and if your word choices are sufficiently on topic and diverse, Google will bring people to your comment in the future, whereas right now, Google brings them to me 😉
IPCC is an arm of the United Nations.
The United Nations profits greatly from the Clean Development Mechanism, e.g., “certifying” carbon credits for a 2% or more cut of the action.
A large part of the valuing of carbon credits depends on climate sensitivity. Higher sensitivity, higher value; lower, lower.
Therefore, via the IPCC sensitivity estimates, the United Nations plays the world leading role on the valuation of internationally traded carbon credits.
Less sensitivity, less money for the UN.
That’s the core.
Then let us make it an issue of the 2016 election to toss the UN out of our country and totally de-fund it with taxpayer money. The UN as an institution seems nothing more than a corrupt, rent seeking bureaucracy that serves the interests of those whose interests are exactly counter to our own.
The IPCC is not the source of the science, people!
The UN doesn’t pay scientists to arrive at any conclusion – one way or another.
UN baiting is just another of your type’s transparent propaganda tricks.
UN baiting? You jest, surely.
The UN IPCC gets to select what to include and not to include. Read the NIPCC reports to find out what the UN IPCC excludes:
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/
Kyle, who loves strawmen, writes the following:
“The IPCC is not the source of the science”
Trivially true. The IPCC is the source of reports (AR5 for instance) and Summaries for Policymakers. Actual science means very little to legislatures, such as ratios of oxygen isotopes at varying depths on the Vostok ice core.
“The UN doesn’t pay scientists to arrive at any conclusion – one way or another.”
Also trivially probably true. Most scientists appear to be paid by universities. Therefore it is public funding, just not via the United Nations.
“UN baiting is just another of your type’s transparent propaganda tricks.”
Yes indeed, and a good one it is since the UN makes no secret of its agenda. The grasshoppers love it, the ants hate it.
So you admit that I’m right but stick to your unfounded conclusions anyway.
Yes Kyle, you are 100 percent correct except for the parts where you are 100 percent incorrect (gotta be black and white, doncha know).
There’s been rather a lot of traffic on this website so I’m not sure whether you commented on your claim that the sun rises in the West.
IMO, the Team’s motives are similar to those of spies, summarized as MICE: Money, Ideology, Coercion and Ego/Self-importance or Excitement. To which are often added Disaffection and grudges, Personal relations and Sex.
For government officials, it’s control and new taxation opportunities. For activists in and out of academia, it’s mainly ideology and money or career advancement.
Environmentalism is a mindset that is almost impossible to counter with reason. The best description of it I’ve found is in a lecture by Robert Gordon of the Heritage Foundation: http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/2012/10/individuals-liberty-and-the-environment-challenging-the-foundations-of-the-green-establishment
Once you adopt the environmentalist mindset — that people are destroying the planet — the next intellectual step is easy to take. We must get control over people, which means economics, energy usage, living arrangements, and consumption of resources. Of course, the only way to accomplish this is top down, centralized government control (euphemistically knows as “regulation.”) Hayek went to some length in “The Road to Serfdom” to describe how the only way to get a large number of people, say an entire nation, to subject themselves to top-down organization, is to identify some existential threat against which all of society must be organized. In the most recent past, World War II provided such threats, but today there is nothing except climate change.
Despite the world-wide failure of socialism/communism, there are still many intellectuals who cling to the hope that socialism can be properly implemented (it only failed earlier because of poor implementation, according to their reasoning) and we’ll all live happily ever after, so these folks have grasped ahold of climate change as their new cause.
So we have the alliance between environmentalists and socialists, with climate change providing the perfect rationale for the aspirations of both. IMHO, that’s the answer to why there is so much lying going on.
Pretty much agree but I have a question: Why do you suppose people still believe in Nirvana/Utopia? I have my thoughts but I’d like to hear what other people think about this constant pursuit of Utopian goals that have always led to blood baths and yet people are not seen as pathological nut cases who espouse Utopian goals but as idealists whom we should admire. What is the foundation for this? What keeps us from being revolted by a set of ideas that always treats individuals as a collective, as a herd of sheep to be gathered up and controlled? For their own good, of course. Why do the individuals who will be rendered as sheep go along with it?
Reblogged this on Sierra Foothill Commentary and commented:
It is hard for the low information voters to understand that they are being captured and controlled under UN Agenda 21. It is time that more people start asking question and seeing fact based answer.
It’s time to rid ourselves physically and financially of the UN, a thoroughly corrupt and contemptible organization of thugs and rent seekers who do nothing to advance the cause of Liberty and Freedom but everything to advance the cause of every collective notion and tyrant on the planet.
“It is hard for the low information voters to understand that they are being captured and controlled under UN Agenda 21.”
And there are two reasons why these ‘Grubers” are not seeing things clearly:
1) They use feelings and emotions to think with.
2) They fully believe and trust in the liberal MSM.
kramer:
Ah, yes. Agenda 21.
Clearly, there are a great variety of motivations, but the two most obvious will get you well into the tail of the curve:
1) Money–without a global climate crisis the money dries up in a hurry. Climate scientists have to shift gears into other, far less remunerative research
2) Power–some people are less concerned with pecuniary interests, but have great appetite for controlling the lives of others.
From the “Big Lie” –
The primary rules of The Church of Climate Alarmism:
1. never allow the public to cool off;
2. never admit a fault or wrong;
3. never concede that there may be some good in your opponent or their views;
4. never leave room for alternatives;
5. never accept blame;
6. concentrate on one opponent at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong;
7. people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and
8. if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.
Wow. The more I read this, the more it rings true.
Time to stop the Alarmists.
The threat of “climate change”, much like “terrorism” has been manufactured and exaggerated to effect wealth extraction and oppression by a ruling clique. According to independent studies you’re are as likely to die from a terrorist attack as you are from a wasp, bee or hornet sting and six times more likely to die in the bath. Yet $trillions have been poured into wars and the “security industry”, benefiting the narrow elite which control the military industrial, media academic complex (MIMAC).
Climate change is making $billions for the banks and others. The political economy has evolved to benefit the few as business and public institutions become increasingly corrupt. All the systemic incentives are to promote the threat of global warming, irrespective of the truth. Until we tackle the deep structural flaws in the political economy, we’re p*ssing against the wind.
http://freecriticalthinking.org/images/Documents/Events/ConcentratedPowerConsequencesReport.pdf
Tim.
Coming from a scientific perspective; There are claims and there is evidence. Focus on that.
Why people say this or that is neither here nor there.
Challenge the core claims.
For example, there is an IPCC consensus.
How was this consensus determined (measured)?
Answer: It wasn’t. Some unknown person made (invented) this claim, without basis, and it gets endlessly repeated.
The “unknown person” is known – the 97% claim (which I assume you refer to) comes from a paper, can’t remember who did the study (begins with a G I recall) and the methodology was lousy. Perhaps someone else can fill in the missing detail
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
skepticalscience John Cook, self-employed cartoonist
Philip Bradley writes “Why people say this or that is neither here nor there.”
I disagree with this part. You don’t need to dwell on it but you’d better know what is the motivation behind claims being made as otherwise everyone is just playing “whack-a-mole” since you are not addressing the motivation which provides the energy for this continued non-debate on settled science.
Skeptics seem to be motivated by concerns about socialism and totalitarian government rule, about which little secret exists. Warmists seem genuinely concerned about the Earth burning up and turning into Venus and will do anything they are told to do to prevent it.
Consequently, with these motivations in mind, warmists ought to be distancing themselves from socialism (but instead seem to embrace it all the more firmly), and skeptics ought to be distancing themselves from disaster language. Suppose you go “full scientist” on your environmentalist family, trying to explain how many joules of energy it would take to actually boil the oceans, long before which clouds would cover the entire earth and reflect nearly all further incoming solar energy right back out thus stopping the process in its tracks.
You’d be facing a dinner table of glassy eyed “huh?”
When a simple, “nope, impossible, pass the potatoes please!” spoken as casually as telling someone how to change a lightbulb. Trivial. Not even worth dinner table conversation.
If at your table is a farmer, Canadian or Russian; point out that the Russians love it — wheat fields and corn “eat” carbon dioxide and the warmth means more growing season and maybe more rain, too! All good.
This post is also open for discussion at More On Miriam O’Brien’s Hot Whopper:
http://moreonmiriamobrien.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/miriam-obrien-says-anthony-watts-tries-for-one-foot-in-the-hitler-camp-and-one-foot-out/#comment-115
Sou expresses her displeasure with the language of a commonly used disclaimer and the timing of it.
People think of scientific research as a sort of ivory tower occupation. In reality, it’s like a combination of show biz and professional gambling. Like a gambler, you’re always hoping for that big score that will set you up for life, and few ever get one. As in show business, you’ll do anything for that next gig, because it’s that or Mickey D’s.
The mystery is why people with brains go into it in the first place…
Proud Skeptic:
The simplest answer to someone who believes in Global Warming is “prove it, by your own life experience.” Anybody can get temperature or tidal or rainfall records for their locality. Power utilities may even provide “average temperature” for the past month, and the month a year ago. There are sometimes a few degrees difference. Follow the records. Plot a graph. I’m 63 and I have lived in the same neck of the woods most of my life…and nothing has changed. If temperatures had increased only 1 degree per year, my annual average temperature would be near 110 degrees…and I live farther North than Maine. Obviously, it isn’t happening. Obviously, the Dutch are not worried about sea level rise.
How would he “know” that the Globe has Warmed–unless somebody told him this enormous lie? Has he come to his own conclusion? No. He believes in the agencies of the same government that brought us the Post Office and the Internal Revenue Service. He believes in NASA, whose accomplishments include killing one Apollo and two Shuttle crews, not to mention squandering a quarter century of funding and technology development, to have no Shuttle replacement on hand when it was retired. This is the stuff of responsible stewardship? Unless you are willing to expose the failings of NASA and NOAA, you have bought into your friend’s world-view of unquestioning trust.
Your friend may be bright and clever and semi-well-read, but he is not wise.
While the ‘Big Lie’ quote is perhaps correctly attributed (if to AH), he was writing about it in denigration of the methods of propaganda employed by other nations~ most notably the Soviet Union.
Chris said
“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?”
I suggest you check out Andy Grove’s (Former CEO of INTEL) article in Fortune Magazine “Taking on Prostate Cancer by Andy Grove, Fortune … May 13 1996. Mr. Grove did research to determine the best course of treatment for prostate cancer (for himself). One of the things he discovered was that researcher’s findings were not shared because if you were looking into proton treatment you had to show that you were making more progress than other treatment researchers or you would lose your funding.
Just saying….
First, note that this isolated, single-case med-research anecdote dates to the late 20th C. Digital journals, PubMed, PLoS etc have all had big impacts on medical research publishing & sharing.
Second, scientists characteristically enjoy research. They are not intrinsically in any hurry to get it over with, or completed. Research that just leads on and on and on, is their idea of a pleasant outcome. Meanwhile, patients are dying, waiting on new treatments.
Lastly, because the country is basically carpeted with hospitals and medical labs (for Health Care), all staffed with lots & lots of Doctors who would love to do research … we have a practically limitless physical-facilities medical-research capacity. What is not limitless, is the funding to pay for it.
For these reasons, there have long been programs to make medical research quicker, more goal/results-oriented, and to divvy up the available funding in the best interests of the citizen & patient.
We know, in the case held forth, why proton treatment has to show ‘competitive’ progress, or get axed.
Actually, this is a relatively minor source of medical angst. Imagine, eg, that you are using a drug to address a serious issue (or that your child is), without any problem at all, but then because 1 in 10 patients have side-effects from it, it’s withdrawn. Actually, you don’t have to imagine it. You see it the news, repeatedly.
Corruption of medical science? No. Best-effort, optimized-outcome, stretch-taut budget? Yeah.
My experience is that none of the doctors even mention Proton Beam Therapy. One reason is because doctors live by referrals.
And Proton Beam facilities are not local.
Tim Ball asks: “Do you have another or better explanation of a motive?”
‘Follow the money’ is usually a good one.
Yes.
I believe it is a deep mistake in psychology and epistemology to believe that the end goal and methods were in sight when this whole affair started. Simply not possible but certainly, from hind sight one can look back and connect dots that were not connectable from the beginning. This is how conspiracy theories are woven and why they are WRONG.
Much of what happened could be described as emergent behavior that no one could predict. The idea of some master mind or group of super-intelligent people who understand all of what is understandable after the fact is really static and misses a great deal that it is important to understand about these processes.
The overriding lesson in all of this, for me, is not that there are liars…there are and always will be. It is not that people follow what they perceive to be their self-interest. I expect that doing so is part of a rational course of action.
The real lesson, for me, is to check your premises. Assume for a moment that Maurice Strong had good intentions and really meant well. Then he should have checked his very foundational premises to see if they would lead to failure, or to success. Were they the sort of ‘beliefs’ that would sustain a long term project? I believe they are not and that he will fail but at a huge cost to us all but that is only because we all fail to check our premises, we fail to examine what we assume and check and recheck those ‘beliefs’ often. All of our premises should be provisional in the same way and for the same reason that science is provisional. It leaves us able to understand what roads to take as well as what roads to avoid.
Maurice Strong holds a profoundly wrong premise that informed a lot of his actions but the only reason he’s able to hold that premise and act on it is because so many of us share that premise. To wit: Bureaucrats, technocrats, ‘experts’ have the right to herd humanity into a collective and tell them what to do. For their own good, of course.
This is a false premise and seems to be enormously difficult for humanity to grasp and though we grasp more of how false that premise is today, than we did 2000 years ago, we still struggle with it mightily and this shared ‘belief’ is what gives the power to the Maurice Strongs of the world as well as every two bit dictator or world changing tyrant that ever was or ever will be. This is where the global warming alarmists threaten the rest of us…with their attempt to gain power over energy and therefore over everyone’s life.
No matter what the ‘facts’ of the matter of, this attempt to centralize control and create a one solution for everyone is to be resisted at all costs. It is wrong and the belief that it is ok is the underlying foundation for all manner of evil in the world. And that belief exists in all of us to some degree.
If we said to the alarmists and politicians…you can tell us what you think and we’ll deal with it as we see fit, on a local basis, where no one will be sacrificed to your ‘findings’ there would be no reason to be worried.
It isn’t that CO2 might cause warming that is the problem. It’s the idea that some small group of elite technocrats will decide for everyone what the solution is. And they couldn’t get away with that nonsense if there were not a substantial number of people who allowed fear to trump their options and agreed that ‘someone has to be in charge.’ “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
“I believe it is a deep mistake in psychology and epistemology to believe that the end goal and methods were in sight when this whole affair started.” Maybe not but it would be naive to think that it didn’t become the driving force to put it where it is today. Besides, when did it ‘start’?
Hansen knew exactly the outcome he and Tim Wirth wanted when they turned off the air conditioner in the Senate hearing room in 1988. There is all the evidence in the world in favor of a criminal conspiracy and none against it. The collusion was obvious even before the Climategate emails emerged.
You do agree the UN’s end goal is one world government, don’t you?
Much like they profess to be now.
Could someone please name one good thing the UN has accomplished, ever?
this is Tim Ball’s opinion.. here is mine. the dumbest of dumb (and offensive) posts ever…. Hitler references, etc, deliberate deceptions.. really stupid.. Lewandowsky will love it.
Barry Woods wrote “this is Tim Ball’s opinion”
Thanks! I would not have known otherwise.
“here is mine..really stupid.. Lewandowsky will love it.”
Good enough, now I know Tim Balls’ opinion and now I know yours. His has plenty of examples, yours has, well, the words “really stupid”.
Mine also has the the words.. summarising the stupidity…deliberate deceptions and hitler references..
did you miss those…
I just think that a bunch of folks really believed that humans were harming the Earth, and got caught up in this particular warming cycle and extrapolated out 100-200 years and said the Earth is warming too rapidly, it must be our fault. This message they sent out to the world and politicians and other weak minded individuals (not understanding the sheer ridiculousness of stance) bought it as it fit their per-conceived notion that mankind is killing the Earth. These particular scientists then discovered that the actual evidence was flimsy and sense they were getting a lot of money and notoriety, they started protecting themselves, because they had the cover of the media and the politicians that had already fallen in with them, so they could pretty much do what they want. Now the walls of their house are starting to fall in with the media and political cover they will continue to do really bad things that will insure their house will collapse.
What is really pathetic to me is how the Obama administration has bought into this hook, line, and sinker.
Yeah I was trying to entertain some fringe science ideas regarding climatology, but you lost me at Agenda 21.
You don’t have to believe anybody.
Look it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21
They even admit to it.
Even ICLEI.
As long as you do their bidding they are the one world government.
I don’t think anyone should need me to point out this post is stupid. The people reading this post here are the same people who mock Stephan Lewandowsky for claiming they are conspiracy theorists. I don’t think they need me to point out claiming there’s a giant conspiracy is stupid.
But this post is way, way worse than that. Dr. Tim Ball used a quote from Adolf Hitler to paint a group of people he dislikes as the bad guys. Hitler’s quote was referring to the Jews. That means Ball’s use of the quote is equating the people he dislikes with the Jews. In Hitler’s argument, Hitler was the one pointing out the “conspiracy.” That means in Ball’s narrative, Ball is Hitler.
This post is disgusting. It is practically using an anti-Semitic rant to paint alarmists as the evil, conspiring Jews being opposed by the Righteous Hitler leading the skeptics to the promised land.
Here’s a bit of general advice: Don’t use anti-Semitic rants from Adolf Hitler to paint people you dislike as evil.
[No, that is NOT how the comment was made, nor why the comment was written, nor the lesson to be made by writing that comment. .mod]
Yeah well, it happens sometimes. Dr. Ball kinda stepped in it too.
You have some good points. You got a little carried about it. Mr. Tim wrote a courageous Post. It’s fascinatingly true, that courage from the soul is as intoxicating as the kind from a bottle. The good Dr. is known to have better judgement.
The Post is a little cringe-worthy. The message, though – aside from the bloopers – meant a lot to many WUWT regulars & passers by. It’s a topic that I hope to see probed further.
Outa 500 comments, there are some duds. There’s a lot of sharps ones, though. Parts of your analysis definitely become over-analysis.
Ted Clayton, I don’t think there is anything courageous about this post. It doesn’t take courage to use offensive imagery to demonize people you dislike or suggest the entirety of the IPCC results arise from of a conspiracy. I’m not sure how either could be considered “fascinatingly true” either.
You are, of course, free to disagree. It just won’t contribute much to express such disagreement in such a vague fashion nobody could know what you are actually disagreeing with.
To whichever moderator left a response in my comment, would you care to explain what your response actually means? As a rule, “Nuh-uh” is a poor rebuttal. I took the time to write a post about this:
http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/tim-ball-is-hitler/
I think it is reasonable for me to expect more of a response than, “You’re wrong.” Heck, I think it’s reasonable for me to expect moderators not to append “You’re wrong” to the end of my comments without any sort of explanation. That’s not a dialogue. That’s not a discussion. It’s just taking advantage of your moderator powers to score cheap points.
By the way, it is undeniable this post uses an anti-Semitic rant. The only question is how that rant was used, and whether or not that usage was appropriate. Personally, I don’t see how anyone with taste could use an anti-Semitic rant to demonize a group, even if that group isn’t Jewish.
[No. You are wrong. This post does not create nor continue any anti-Semitic rants. That you have chosen to invent such an impression is not the fault of the original author, nor any other readers or commentors. .mod]
Wow. Unamed moderator, are you seriously going to tell people this quote from Adolf Hitler’s book, Mein Kampf, was not part of an anti-Semitic rant? The paragraph the quote comes from begins with these words:
Almost immediately after the quote comes these words:
How can you claim I am wrong to say this post uses an anti-Semitic rant? How else would you describe Hitler’s writing? The text is entirely about saying the Jews are evil, conspiratorial liars.
The supposed liars were the Jews; the supposed hero was Adolf Hitler. That is what is being used as a parallel here. The parallel here is the heroic Adolf Ball is exposing the big lies of the Jewish alarmists.
And yet it is the SkS crew who enjoy dressing up as N@zi officers.
Brandon, you are the one who introduced the whole context, Jews, etc., not Tim Ball. You need to apologize for your ill-considered construction of the post.
mpainter, that’s ridiculous. Tim Ball used the quote to portray people as Nazis. All I did is point out that’s not what the quote was about. There is no reason I should apologize for pointing out Ball misrepresented the quote he used by acting as though it was referring to Nazis.
Ball portrayed the quote as the exact opposite of what it was. According to you, I should apologize for pointing that out.
Um… no?
+1
Brandon Shollenberger writes “The people reading this post here are the same people who mock Stephan Lewandowsky for claiming they are conspiracy theorists.”
WOW — that’s amazing! How did you know? (It might be that people who know the name Lewandowsky also view WUWT so there’s about a 90 percent chance that the same people are here doing both).
As to anti-semitic rant, well, it certainly didn’t seem that way to me. I took it as Hitler’s “big lie” that the Jews were a problem to be solved, the final solution. I haven’t read “Mein Kampf” and it is probably at the very bottom of a list I probably won’t finish in this lifetime.
Anyway, it also didn’t matter to me who the statement is ascribed to — it is a theory and a pretty good one that can be applied to a great many situations.
Michael 2:
I obviously don’t know this in regard to every reader, but the demographics are the same. Also, there are a lot of names in this comments section, including ones I recognize. It’s not hard for someone to recognize the overlap.
I didn’t claim this post was an anti-Semitic rant. I said it uses one. I get Tim Ball didn’t tell anyone he was using an anti-Semitic rant. I get he probably doesn’t even realize he was using an anti-Semitic rant. I get he didn’t intend any anti-Semitism in his post.
But that doesn’t change that he used an anti-Semitic rant in his post to demonize people he dislikes. It doesn’t change that many people, myself included, find using anti-Semitic rants in order to demonize people you dislike, whether or not they are Jews, disgusting. Doing so associates the people you dislike with Jews, demonizing the Jews.
It also doesn’t change that the parallels he drew place himself in the shoes of Adolf Hitler. It doesn’t change that he painted skeptics as needing to follow Adolf Hitler. I’m sure he didn’t mean to do that, but he did do it.
I am sure this is not the sort of reaction we would have seen on this site had roles been slightly changed. Heck, I bet there are people in this comments section who have complained about being called “deniers” because of the association with Holocaust deniers. I guess being associated with Holocaust deniers is horrible, but being associated with the guy responsible for the Holocaust is alright.
The sad thing is I have no problem with using a quote from a horrible person out of context if you like the phrasing. There’s nothing wrong with that. However, that’s not what Tim Ball did. Ball intentionally used a quote from Hitler to associate people he dislikes with Hitler. You yourself acknowledge that interpretation. That means when Ball makes the colossal screw up of associating himself, not the people he dislikes, with Hitler, it’s not an irrelevant thing.
Leaving aside the disgusting nature of trying to associate people you dislike with Adolf Hitler, the moment you write an entire post to do it, you make any associations in your post a central aspect of your post. You don’t get to use association to demonize people you dislike then claim associations in the post are a non-issue.
Brandon writes: “I bet there are people in this comments section who have complained about being called ‘deniers’ because of the association with Holocaust deniers.”
Yes, the implication was obvious to me (maybe not so obvious to younger people). But I soon learned that trying to correct that labeling was pointless — it is an alias for “I don’t like you”.
Michael 2, I don’t see how one can take offense at that connotation and think this post is fine. I agree the connotation exists (especially given the association was made explicit by some), but this post goes way beyond it.
Any INTELLIGENT reader can know, when reading honestly, that Mr. Ball was referring to and analyzing the CONCEPT of “The big lie”, and NOT the TELLER of such. NOT Hitler and NOT the Jews, NOT the SS, NOT J.Geobels, NOT the Aliies, NOT the AXIS, NOT ANYTHING or ANYBODY save the CONCEPT of the “Big Lie”
You, Mr Shollenberger , (by YOUR stated logic), and pretend misunderstanding and hyperbolic expressions of offence and assignment of “characters” are now playing the roll of ?
Sal Alinsky ?
Brandon, you have performed this same maneuver several times and under differing circumstances: put a certain spin/ interpretation on text/opinion/passages and cry hoarse that that is the only interpretation possible and that the resulting logical conclusions are universally valid and indisputable.
It doesn’t work.
Shub Niggurath, I obviously don’t agree with what you say. I’d argue it’s nothing more than you making vague, unsubstantiated personal remarks to dismiss things you don’t like while refusing to engage in any sort of meaningful discussion. Or at least, I’d argue that if I felt this sort of petty, pathetic exchange was worthwhile.
Instead, I’ll just say your response does nothing more than say, “Nuh-uh” and throw some irrelvant character assassination out there. That’s not a response. That’s just trolling. If you want to have a real discussion, I’m game, but otherwise, peace out.
It is not a personal remark. It is a characterization of a technique in rhetoric, one I happen to claim that you practice. It is possible to defend its practice or accept the validity of the criticism without taking it personally.
This;
“Wow. Unamed moderator, are you seriously going to tell people this quote from Adolf Hitler’s book, Mein Kampf, was not part of an anti-Semitic rant? ”
is where you pull this trick.
Shub Niggurath, I’m not even going to dignify this “argument” with a response. Instead, I’ll just point out you’ve done absolutely nothing to show anything I said is wrong, yet you criticize me for what I said.
If you want to have a discussion, it’s not hard to do. I’ll be around.
Brandon Shollenberger happens to point out:
Watch for popular posts elsewhere; write a piece about the other piece, then go kick over the garbage cans, rile up the dogs … mentioning your own piece while everybody is staring at the commotion.
Crude; obvious. Could be in Games People Play … but if it works for you, hey.
Ted Clayton, you have got to be kidding me. I’ve had posts of mine reprinted at this site with nary a link to the original because I tell people they are welcome to reuse what I write however they like. Anytime I refer to a post I write in a discussion I make sure to write enough detail that nobody need read the link to see what my argument is. And I pretty much never discuss popular subjects, favoring topics I know won’t get much interest.
Your attempt to paint me as some sort of attention seeking traffic leech is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to smear me as a person with insinuations that are baseless and obviously false.
Brandon Shollenberger,
The ‘issue’ in Dr. Ball’s post that you want to focus on, has not been ignored; he did not get a free pass on his indiscretion. It was noticed, and dealt with from multiple angles. We weren’t sitting here for 500 comments, talking around an elephant in the middle of the room.
1.) These comments show strongly differing interpretations of Dr. Ball’s controversial rhetorical device(s). Your opinion & interpretation is just one among a number, albeit well to one end of the spectrum. No one slant is going to be the right one … not even a broad pro or con is established. It’s just a matter of opinion.
2.) I like to see folks create their own blogs, and the basic idea of ‘cross-talk/fertilization’, is a good one. The idea of blogs reflecting onto each other, though, means to work together on fields where they can in fact work together. Showing up to vent on the perceived imperfections of others content, is not how different blogs enhance each other.
Where blogs differ philosophically, they need to go with ‘live and let live’. Enemies are easy; colleages take work.
Good luck with your website.
Ted Clayton, I can’t help but notice you’ve completely dropped the lines of discussion you raised in your previous response to me. That’s sort of good as those lines were rude and wrong, but it’s pretty lame to insult a person then just drop the issue. You don’t “live and let live” by insulting people then running away.
As for the rest of what you say, if my interpretation is wrong, so be it. People are welcome to explain where I’ve gone wrong. Nobody has though. Every response I’ve received saying I’m wrong, including Word of God responses and comments which have been deleted, have said I am wrong without doing a single thing to show I am. That is not okay.
It’s simple. I’ve explained my position. If it is wrong, people should talk about how it is wrong. That’s how discussions work. Discussions do not work by people just yelling, “Nuh-uh!” and hurling insults.
Incredibly, it seems the reaction to me pointing out the anti-Semitic nature of text Tim Ball uses to try to demonize people, and the unintentional parallels it creates, shows more offense than the reaction to Tim Ball trying to paint climate scientists as Nazis. I’m not sure how that works.
‘Noticing’ (or purporting to notice) things that aren’t there and not happening, strikes me as a recurring theme with you, Mr. Shollenberger. Everything I’ve said stands, in writing. Nothing has been withdrawn or altered.
Indeed, the list grows. Take for example, topic guidelines. Ie, firstly & foremost, making a pragmatic effort to keep the commenting “on-topic” – relevant to the topic of the Post. In the present case, our topic in this post is Motivations; specifically of the IPCC, but of climate change activists/activism more generally.
The first thing that jumped out for me, in both the Post and the comments, is that there is widespread confusion of motive, with goal. These are not the same thing, and it pays to make the distinction. The ‘end-result’ is not the ‘why’ it was pursued (confusing the two is a case of ‘circular logic’).
Motivations are a tough topic to assess or analyze (goals or results are easy). There remains considerable elements of taboo and verboten attached to the mere discussion or acknowledgement of motivational factors & forces. That explains in part why people are so ready to call the Goal (or Objective), the Motive.
The goal or objective of thread-hijacking (arguably the curse of blogs, as spam curses email), for example, is to disrupt it. Wreck it. Why folks do this, want to do this, feel they have to do this – that’s the motive part. And it’s weird; eg, normally damaging their own credibility, when ostensibly they seek to be meaningful or influential.
When we see an articulate, intellectually-competent figure, actively attempting to establish his own blog, disrupt the topic of another Post … wow. Why on earth would he do that? Why would trained scientists go so far out on so flimsy a climate-speculation limb?
These are darn good but very difficult questions … and posing such thorny matters does indeed make Dr. Ball’s post courageous.
=====
I’ll make you a deal, Brandon Shollenberger. You make a good-faith effort to comment on the intended topic of Dr. Ball’s post, and I will reciprocate, on your post.
Ted Clayton, you say:
But I never suggested you’ve withdrawn or altered anything. In fact, had you quoted more of my comment, you’d show I said you the problem I have is that you did not withdraw or alter anything. Not only are you responding to a strawman, you are claiming I am seeing things which aren’t there for believing in said strawman. This is nothing but an obvious misrepresentation.
As for the rest of what you say, it sounds like you might be saying you haven’t been engaging in good faith, but I’m not sure. I don’t have the interest to try to parse your comment for its intended meaning. I’m content to just note your responses have been completely unresponsive to the points I’ve made.
It’s pretty ridiculous how many people have complained about my interpretation (here and elsewhere) given not a single person has made any effort to show my interpretation is wrong.
Mods. Just go ahead and snip it already for crying out loud. I get it, not a proper tone and all that, incendiary and such… and you’re not wrong. Frankly I don’t have time or patience at the moment to do this clowns nonsense justice. Cheers.
All caps words can put a comment into the moderation queue, judging from my experience.
moderator, could you release the comment I left above?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/22/the-metrology-of-thermometers/
“This post is entirely the opinion of Dr. Tim Ball”
Not really, I agree with him completely and so do lots of other people I know. Having looked quite extensively into Maurice Strong, the UN and the global governance they seek, via Agenda 21, bio-diversity etc. Dr Ball has encapsulated it extremely well. They want a global carbon tax and those pushing for this most strongly are the globalist financiers and “green” billionaires, who cash in on a guaranteed floor price for a virtual product. This has always been political, not scientific. It does not make you a conspiracy theorist if you can see what is really happening here over time.
Check out “United Socialist Nations”
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/un_progress_governance_via_climate_change.htm
and
“Changing The Engine Of The Global Economy – The Next UN Strategy”
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/changing_global_economy_engine.html
Apart from comparing climate scientists to hitler, an excellent essay. I do wonder what the future will say about maurice strong.
I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Tim. They almost achieved their goal of World Government in 2009 at COP 15 in Copenhagen but this speech by Lord Monckton warning us of what was really going on set off a series of events which cause them to fail.
It is my theory that this speech caused the still unknown whistleblower to release the Climategate emails. Then with Climategate along with unseasonably cold weather Copenhagen was thankfully a failure.
But they aren’t giving up, even with temperatures dropping, record sea ice, record numbers of polar bears and less and less people believing them they are forging ahead to Paris in 2015 for COP21. There I think they will try again to accomplish world government. Much of the groundwork has already been laid in New York this last fall and with Obama’s climate deal with China was crucial I think.
I think it’s time for Lord Monckton to make another speech.
Perhaps Monckton could tell us how an education in Journalism is a qualification to speak authoritatively on Climate Science, or how he justifies his claim that he’s a member of the House of Lords, when that House has publically denied he was ever a member.
@warrenlb:
As I recall, it was not the House of Lords voting on a specific issue, but an un-elected govenment bureaucrat who wrote a letter.
Is that the example you’re hanging your hat on?
And by your defininition of whom you presume to be qualified to have an opinion on climate science, just about every warmist is disqualified. Including you.
Of course you can always submit an article of your own; just click on the Submit Article button. Or, you can continue your potholer shots from the peanut gallery.
Personally, I would love it if all you critics of article authors would write your own articles. That would be very satisfying.
@dbstealey: For an understanding of Science, I don’t rely upon non-publishing amateurs, as you apparently do. But that’s understandable .Since you reject peer-reviewed Science, that doesn’t leave much but Journalism majors to fall back on.
warrenlb says:
I don’t rely upon non-publishing amateurs, as you apparently do.
Wrong as always, warrenlb. You rely on the opinions of, at most, a couple of thousand rent-seeking scientists and hangers-on, all of whom are self-serving climate alarmists. That’s fine, if a little prejudiced on your part.
Contrary to that group is the opinion of tens of thousands of American scientist, all of them with degrees in the hard sciences — including more than 9,000 PhD’s — who have stated, in writing, that CO2 is harmless, and that it is beneficial to the biosphere. I know which group I rely on.
Others can decide which group they think is being honest, and which group is self-serving. Readers can also decide for themselves what the evidence is that supports each group. Me, I see plenty of evidence supporting the American scientists — and *very* little evidence supporting the climate alarmist clique. The true ‘consensus’ [for what that is worth, but it is you who keeps citing bundles of self-serving pal reviewed papers] is the view of the American scientists.
You also ask:
Do you have Scientific evidence contradicting the findings of the 10,000 peer-reviewed research papers summarized in the IPPC 5th Assessment?
Yes, mountains of evidence. I post it here constantly. Not that I have to, because I am a skeptic. The onus is on you to support your runaway global warming conjecture. But so far, all you have are your endless appeal to authority claims. That’s not nearly good enough.
DBstealey: 9000 PhDs denying the Greenhouse Effect? Is that what you claim? And the mounds of evidence? Published in peer-reviewed journals? Of course not. You’d have to say that’s a corrupt process, else it would destroy your anti-AGW worldview.
Warrenlb says “You’d have to say that’s a corrupt process”
I’d say you are a bit late to the party. At any rate, we here are all words on a screen. Yours, mine; there is no “mounds of evidence” HERE. On the other hand, I appreciate pointers to where claims are being made especially if it doesn’t include “skepticalscience” somewhere in the URL.
Warren,
The 9000 scientists & engineers of whom DB speaks don’t necessarily “d*ny” the GHE. They are however skeptical of catastrophic man-made global warming, for which indeed there is no evidence. On the contrary, all available evidence clearly shows CACA false. You need look no farther than growing gap between observed reality & the GCMs designed to show warming in lock step with increasing CO2. But other mounds of evidence also exist, & are growing daily.
dbstealey, warrenlb & milodonharlani
Please keep in mind that the 32,000+ signers of the OISM petition is a small group, considering that the pool of American holders of hard science degrees numbers about 10,600,000
The 99.7% that haven’t signed might have good reasons.
David Socrates says “Please keep in mind that the 32,000+ signers of the OISM petition is a small group, considering that the pool of American holders of hard science degrees numbers about 10,600,000”
Well then it ought to be pretty easy to cook up a list of AGW approvers.
The majority of hard science, medical, engineering, etc doctorates do not buy into CACA, whatever their reasons for not signing the Oregon Petition might be.
Even among meteorologists (some of whom stand to benefit from CACA funding), the best survey found only 52% support for some opinion favorable to man-made climate change (IIRC), although not necessarily catastrophic. So far, any effect from increased CO2 has been beneficial.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/10/the-52-consensus/
Prominent climate skeptics from academia, for instance, haven’t signed the petition. Others in relevant disciplines are ineligible, as for instance medical doctors. It’s absurd to imagine that all those who haven’t done so support full-bore CACA.
If the contest comes down to appeal to authority, then I’m going with Freeman Dyson rather than Mikey Mann, with Burt Rutan over Jim Hansen & Judith Curry instead of Naomi Oreskes.
The bogus 97% blather wouldn’t matter even if it were accurate, which of course it isn’t.
Perhaps these 49 NASA rocket scientists, mission controllers & astronauts (from the days when the agency sent men to the moon instead of promoting Islamic science & CACA) might have made an even better contrast to Hansen & his acolyte imp Schmidt than Rutan alone:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-schmidt-of-nasa-giss-under-fire-engineers-scientists-astronauts-ask-nasa-administration-to-look-at-emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/
Wow. Impressive speaker.
1) “drawing parallels between climate scientists and Hitler” – having read the post in question, I disagree with this assertion. He made a far more subtle and specific point about the tactics and behaviour of the IPCC
2) The IPCC is not composed exclusively of climate scientists. It’s simplistic to equate criticism of the IPCC with direct criticism of the climate scientists who contribute to it’s output.
I can’t see anything in the original post that warrants an apology. And although it’s common to cry Godwin or claim that swearing or invective automatically leads to forfeit, that just isn’t so.
It’s not a comparison I would have drawn myself precisely because of the reaction it would generate. But that doesn’t mean those reactions are warranted or particularly well considered.
Steven Mosher says:
**November 27, 2014 at 11:11 am
perhaps the big lie is ball’s lie
“Skeptics have done a reasonable job of explaining what and how the IPCC created bad climate science.”
That is the Big Lie.
the simple fact is there is uncertainty. some AGW types claim they have proved. some skeptics claim they have disproved.
you want to look at Big lies… try those two. One of them is balls big lie. He’s on your team, maybe he should sit the bench.
Sceptics do not deny the existence of the greenhouse effect of CO2, only the great exaggeration of the amount.
Steven now creates another ‘Big lie” by suggesting that sceptics have not explained the bad science of IPCC. Does Mosher suggest that the “hockey stick” is good science? Is the exaggeration of the projected temperature increase by the end of the century good science?
Dr Ball has it spot on. Climate “scientists” and their political masters have been using the “Nazi” smear on skeptics for years. Now the boot is on the other foot the poor little darlings, like Betts and Edwards, who have profited nicely from the AGW scam, are shouting “foul”.
Excuse me while I puke.
I’ve read all 577 comments following Dr. Ball’s original post. My position resembles those of “hunter” and John Whitman. My summary of Dr. Ball is that the “warmist” position is based on using methodical propaganda in the name of science. ie. lying. Also, that unsavory political regimes in the 20th century also used propaganda to support political ends. I see nothing wrong with that statement. Others may object.
Essentially, Dr. Ball is warning the casual observer that the claims of “global warming” advocates are lies.
A few negative responses of the “barking dog” mentality.
Dr. Ball is a scientist offering observations of the “warmist” behaviour outside his true expertise, but in the context that he understands the actual science to show that his scientific opinion is supported by observed facts. Dr. Ball is also free to create his own blog with his own rules of engagement. I hope he continues to freely express his unique insights into any aspect of the “global warming” issue that he chooses.
Please Dr. Ball, rewrite this and offer a mea culpa.
Two major reasons for alarming the populace about C02 are: 1.Moving to renewable energy sources is equivalent to disarmament; 2. Cooling the planet will hasten the next Ice Age, thereby drastically culling the herd by means of starvation — a method proven effective by Stalin. There are many in the UN who believe passionately in both universal disarmament (except for the UN) and depopulation. The AGW scare is their best chance at achieving both ends at once.
Goodness. Do you also think JFK was killed by LBJ, and the government launched 9/11?
Anthony, you don’t like it but I’m in a country sent broke by the warmists. 100,000 lost their jobs, as a carbon tax brought on as bad an outcome as the GFC. Money was raised and given away in corrupt deals, while “scientists” overestimated the ECS 4-fold and fabricated links to climate, rain and wind.
I’m tired of assuming the motive is benign misunderstanding of data over 25 years. Esp given Gillard’s letter “Greening the Red” setting out this precise action plan 25 years ago for Fabian socialists.
Does it apply to all? No. Is it unfair to some? Absolutely. Is it categorically untrue? No.
Dr Ball, your article is appreciated. In my view, the comparison with Hitler is entirely apt. Godwins law is an internet meme with no weight in logical argument. It is just another way for the politically correct to tell you to “shut up”.
Tim Ball is entirely correct… But we knew all this already. Who here has not heard of Maurice Strong, pre-war German politics, Limits to Growth, post normal science and climategate? The list goes on and we all read from the same page. All Tim Ball has neatly done is roll it all into a concise piece and joined some dots in a meaningful way…
The really disappointing aspect has been Anthony’s reputational cascade (very topical ;)) kicking in after the unjustified, accustational tomes of a pair of agw disciples – who we know only too well suckle the teet of agw – who set up a straw man to refute TB’s insighful and entirely rational association between the big lie and the IPCC.
You are absolutely right Justin. Why Anthony drove away Dr Tim Ball over this post just baffles me almost as much as global warming alarmism.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
A Must Read:
“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.”
“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.”
I am unable to read this post. It is too lengthy. Anyhow I agree with Michael Crichton on the parallels between present day climate science and early 20th century eugenics movement:
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html
“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?”
Fear. Fearful to admit that climate change is very poorly understood, and lacking the courage to challenge the authority that deems that natural variation of the climate is largely internal. Which then exaggerates their fears about human impacts on climate, which they then precede to bully the global population with. Though ~15 years accelerated cooling through the rest of this solar minimum would show that we are dealing here with a lesson in human behaviour rather than a valid scientific argument.
Fear and greed.
To illustrate how climate change has been a means by which reality is stretched into belief, let’s refer to the book: ‘Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity’ (Hulme 2009). As a former director of the Tyndall Center, and I think currently Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences in the University of East Anglia, Mike Hulme collaborated on influential reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). His well-written book demonstrates how the political realm overwhelms other realities held in science and journalism, especially if these alternative realities convey facts disapproved by the dominant culture. A famous quote from his book, illustrates how journalism and academic inquiry failed to notice and give analysis of coordinated efforts to construct public belief in anthropogenic global warming and the inevitable catastrophe to follow.
. . . the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs. (Hulme 2009 p. 326)
Some have gone so far as to claim that the climate change debate in Britain has become “as depressingly unscientific and polarised as it is in the United States”.
He then says: “I disagree. The debate about climate change needs to become more political, and less scientific. Articulating radically different policy options in response to the risks posed by climate change is a good way of reinvigorating democratic politics.”
Despite many journalists being well endowed with an education that is humanities based, postmodernism with plastic realities as central, few have seen how this reality has been socially constructed.
Hulme is right. The Science is well established (only amateurs dismiss the findings of all the world’s ScIence Academies, NASA, NOAA, and 99% of 10s of thousands of peer-reviewed research papers), and politics is where the debate should be among thoughtful citizens. Much more needs to be done to bring not just the Science but its ramifications, to the public and to the political arena.
Warrenlb, when you capitalize Science every time you use it, you reveal it has become your God. But just as thousands of descriptions exist for god, so too do thousands of descriptions exist for “Science”.
“only amateurs dismiss the findings of all the world’s ScIence Academies, NASA, NOAA, and 99% of 10s of thousands of peer-reviewed research papers”
Duh. Professionals would lose their jobs. That leaves amateurs at the point of the doubting spear.
I have for sometime believed that we are dealing with Anthropomorphic Global Warming, not Anthropogenic.
The motive is the same as it is for all fields of Science — to understand and explain the natural world. Unfortunately, some refuse to accept the findings of Science, and look for conspiracy or fraud instead of trying to understand those findings. This is not a new phenomenon– the world saw it (and still sees it) in the rejection of Darwin’s findings, or of commission reports that JFK was killed by a lone assassin, and even more remarkable, in the events of 9/11 or more looney tunes — chemtrails.
When 99% of 10s of thousands of peer-reviewed papers conclude ‘Earth is Warming, Man is the Cause, and the net effects are likely to be strongly negative’, it’s time for the doubters to reconsider their rejection of the Science.
Preacher (warrenlb), when the following is true I will revisit my conclusions:
“When 99% of 10s of thousands of peer-reviewed papers conclude ‘Earth is Warming, Man is the Cause, and the net effects are likely to be strongly negative’, it’s time for the doubters to reconsider their rejection of the Science.”
But when only 72 of 12,000 papers conclude as you say, then it is time for believers to reconsider their beliefs.
You also might try a different “talking point”.
@Michael 2. Re: peer-reviewed paper count, I don’t know what your source is, but here is mine. http://www.jamespowell.org/
Does anyone here in this lengthy exchange consider the role of the big Insurance Companies and also their Re Insurers in promoting a climate of fear about loss of property and or trade when and if here is a change in Climate in any part of the world? I saw a Television news interview with the head of an large International Insurance company here in the Earthquake damaged City of Christchurch and he smiled and shrugged as he said the next big thing to insure against would be Climate Change. Climate Change would be a good portmanteau term Climate is always changing so they can accommodate both sides of the argument and bring in the money. Insurers reinsure to cover their losses. perhaps investors in reinsurance companies are calling the shots.
Yes, actually and for several years. Climate change, at least the part that is loosely based on the reality that storms occur, has been very lucrative for a growing number of years now. If the insurers are now going to proceed to sell policies based on the great ever looming never arriving climate catastrophe, well then life is even more lucrative and less risky than ever. The term “over insured” comes to mind.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/over-insured.html
But yours is a rational question on a thread that frankly should have never been published.
I suspect insurers are beginning to believe their prior premiums may not have been adequate.
It is difficult to talk a man out of a falsehood upon which his livelihood depends. “Scientists” are no different than any man in this regard.
By this argument we can safely ignore all the findings of modern science — Relativity, DNA, Plate Tectonics, Evolution. Or perhaps you do reject it all?
Darwin wasn’t dependent on government grants for his livelihood.
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism (CACA) is to real science–like evolution, relativity, DNA & plate tectonics–as a Mob protection racket is to the insurance industry.
Warren asserts: “By this argument we can safely ignore all the findings of modern science — Relativity, DNA, Plate Tectonics, Evolution.”
Precisely so! Not once in my daily profession has “relativity” ever been an issue. Not once has Plate tectonics been an issue. In fact, evolution isn’t an issue — everyone I know has not changed, not grown wings or extra limbs.
DNA has become useful in law enforcement and paternity checking but as I am not involved in either, I can ignore DNA, too.
And so can you.
@Michael 2: So you assign AGW, Relativity, Evolution, Plate Tectonics and DNA to the same category — useless and invalid. At least your honest enough to admit it — not all are.
Warrenlb says “At least your honest enough to admit it”
Of course. Why should I not? This is the crux of the public perception — academia lives in a bubble where such things are important. I live with one foot in science and one foot in the mundane world of business where the only scientific question is today’s weather. That’s also where most of humanity lives, at least in my bubble.
Arguing the precise percentage of consensus really doesn’t matter to most people. It was a good meme for a while, fooled my brother, but you see, it didn’t matter. It did not turn into action.
warrenlb,
Keep digging you hole. This is fun — if a little too easy.
The question is about the motive for the massive IPCC deception. Read the article’s title. So naturally, the climate alarmist crowd will do whatever they can to deflect from that uncomfortable question.
You’re doing a fine job of deflection and misdirection.
Warren, even you must have noticed that Michael said in his daily life or profession he could ignore “Relativity, DNA, Plate Tectonics (&) Evolution”, not that he rejected them as invalid.
I find that in my daily life or profession I can’t ignore them all, but he can & also asserts that you probably can as well, too, which may or may not be the case.
“Michael said in his daily life or profession he could ignore Relativity, DNA, Plate Tectonics”
It’s also a “script tease” — the script calls for me to be offended and deny this accusation but the reality is that these things are interesting to me but not exactly relevant to my daily life so I agree when the script calls for me to disagree.
It is unlikely warrenlb cares to know how much I know about these topics. Here on the internet we are just names or handles. Insult my handle all day, see if I care 😉
The whole entire realm of academia lives in a bubble and from time to time useful things pop out like GPS but inside the bubble its a steamy pile well churned. Consider the lively debate on why the surface of Venus is hot, a debate happening over on Science of Doom. It would be the most utterly irrelevant debate of all except that some people think Earth could become Venus despite its greater distance from the sun (duh), less atmosphere and abundant water. This is what motivates fear, and fear motivates action, so beware the actions.
Well, I’ve read this post by Dr. Balll several times since its publication and can’t see where Richard Betts got his panties in such a knot. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/27/a-big-goose-step-backwards/
What a disgusting bit of anti-Semitism. I endorse the sentiments of Betts and Tamsin, and find Watts’s
post, as Betts and Tamsin observed –‘ambiguous’.
Yes, you’re right, my mistake. My post should have said that Ball’s essay drew a parallel between Jews in ‘Mein Kampf’ (to which those quotes should have been attributed) , and AGW ‘Warmists’.
But the point remains that Ball uses the Hitler parallel of Jews as ‘Warmists’ — a clear anti-Semitic implication, for which I condemn him, as did Betts and Tamsin.
warrenlb,
Now you resort to “anti-Semitism” name-calling?
A typical warmist tactic is the use of psychological projection: imputing your own faults onto others.
More than a decade ago Boston Globe coulmnist Ellen Goodman wrote that skeptics of man-made global warming are labeled “deniers”, specifically to equate them with Holocaust deniers. In other words, to equate scientific skeptics with anti-Semites.
Now you go into your projection mode, and try to tar another skeptic with your ‘anti-Semite’ pejorative. Don’t your rehtorical tactics ever get old to you?
So you don’t find Ball’s essay anti-Semitic, as others on this forum have?
Quotes from Ball’s essay:
“But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood,”
And
“From time immemorial. however, the Jews have known better than any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited.”
warrenlb : YOU ARE A LIAR. The quotes ARE NOT from this essay.
You have crossed the line from pretending to have a discussion/debate to LYING, just LYING.
You are now a complete and perfect visual aid for how the USEFUL IDIOT is used as a weapon on an otherwise sane populace to confuse and deliberately LIE in order to forward your cultist agenda.
Do you really believe Tim Ball included those quotes or are you just a liar repeating the lies and propagandic inferences of others?
You should be ashamed, but you are proud of your role. Just another pathetic and sad victim of your own need for acceptance vindication from other cultists. Your religion is false warrenlb and nothing, not even blatent lying or name calling, can make true.
If you weren’t actually dangerous to others I might feel sorry for you.
warrenlb,
As I said, I find your comments anti-Semitic name calling. You are desperately trying to tar skeptics with that brush. When you stop it, I will stop pointing it out.
Since you’ve been shown that your assertion that Dr. Ball’s essay was anti-Semitic is false, don’t you think you ought to admit that you were wrong & apologize to the good doctor, which he is & which you appear not to be?
warrenlb proffers some memes:
“So you don’t find Ball’s essay anti-Semitic”
Yes, I do not find it anti-Semitic. It is, however, anti IPCC. YMMV.
“as others on this forum have?”
I am not sheep. As your mother said, “If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you?” Your mileage obviously varies.
“From time immemorial. however, the Jews have known better than any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited”
Indeed. They have been at the short end of this stick rather often.
@milodonharlani: I agree with others who have posted that Ball should post his mea culpa, for the same reason I just posted — Ball’s choice of parallels.
You falsely asserted, ie lied, that Ball wrote the anti-Semitic sentences which you posted. It doesn’t matter how many “others” you imagine think Ball should post a mea culpa. He has nothing for which to apologize. You do, as a blatant liar and calumniator.
@milodonharlani: You say:
‘Warren, The 9000 scientists & engineers of whom DB speaks don’t necessarily “d*ny” the GHE. They are however skeptical of catastrophic man-made global warming, for which indeed there is no evidence. On the contrary, all available evidence clearly shows CACA false. You need look no farther than growing gap between observed reality & the GCMs designed to show warming in lock step with increasing CO2. But other mounds of evidence also exist, & are growing daily.’
I say:
1) There is no such Science as CACA, only AGW. ‘Catastrophic’ is not a quantitative or scientific term, and is not used by the scientists engaged in the research.
2) There is overwhelming evidence confirming AGW: To be found in10s of thousands of peer-reviewed research papers from independent scientists around the world, and summarized in the IPCC Assessments; The same basic conclusions or positions on AGW are published by ALL 200 of the World’s Science Academies and Scientific Professional Societies, all Major Universities, NASA and NOAA. No scientific institution maintains a contradictory position or conclusion.
It would seem that evidence contradicting AGW is not growing — but rather has vanished entirely.
If it’s not catastrophic what’s the problem?
A little more warmth, a little more open land, and a whole new coast line on which to build expensive homes.
What’s not to like?
A bridge that collapses is a “catastrophe”
A crack that appears in a major support member for a bridge is not a “catastrophe” …….but would you drive over that bridge knowing the major support member was cracked?
PS……you can even recycle the materials from the beachfront homes that get inundated.
David,
Except there is no evidence of a crack in the bridge. The late 20th century warming, now over, was entirely beneficial. Should another such warming period occur in this century, as IMO is likely, that too would be a good thing.
Since catastrophe isn’t in the cards, what’s to worry about? More CO2 is a boon, up to some point much higher than 400 ppm, which the world is not likely to reach again for millions of years. Better to focus efforts on curbing real pollution, which is choking Chinese cities & causing soot to fall in the Arctic.
I have posted just a few of the irrefutable facts showing not just CACA but AGW false. You have posted nothing at all in the way of evidence, but merely claim tens of thousands of papers finding AGW. Yet in fact, not a single one exists, or you would have cited it. There is zero evidence supporting AGW, let alone CACA. Some rent-seekers have “found” a human “fingerprint”, but that is not evidence.
The null hypothesis has not been rejected, so neither AGW nor CACA have a scientific leg upon which to stand. And even if AGW exists, it would be a good thing, if not catastrophic. The world has clearly benefited from more CO2 & would also gain from slight warming, if humanity were indeed able to cause such a boon, which is doubtful, since our activities also cool the planet.
Your tens of thousands of papers claim is just another of your lies.
@Kyle:
You said:
“The sheer volume and pomposity of your (all of you) inversions of reality are breathtaking. Over and over you clowns posit ridiculous conspiracy theories while steadfastly ignoring the barely concealed program to discredit the science”.
My response:
‘Breathtaking’, ‘inversions of reality’ and ‘conspiracy theories’ describe the posts pretty well. Just remember you have science on your side, and the only ‘arguments’ left to your amateur scientist opponents are their claims of ‘conspiracy’, ‘they’re all in on it’, ‘hundreds of Climate Scientists around the world are committing fraud’ and the best of all: ‘All the world’s Science Academies, Scientific Professional Societies, major universities, hundreds of independent researchers, NASA and NOAA are WRONG” (!!)
Steven Spielberg could not have imagined a more bizarre world. I think to understand it one has to be a psychologist, not a scientist.
Warrenlb,
You have been proven here to be nothing but a common liar, yet you continue to speak as if you actually have some sort of credibility or basis on which people should believe you. Why is that ?
You think that is bizarre, try to wrap your mind around the thinking of someone that has it all figured out.
It must be comforting, but at the same time rather unfulfilling, wouldn’t you think ?
warrenlb says:
10s of thousands of peer-reviewed research papers… ALL 200 of the World’s Science Academies and Scientific Professional Societies, all Major Universities, NASA and NOAA… ALL 200 of the World’s Science Academies and Scientific Professional Societies, all Major Universities, NASA and NOAA.
warrenlb just doesn’t get it. He lists his own appeals to authority — then he disregards the much greater number of scientists who do not agree with him. He has a closed mind infected with confirmation bias. The climate scare has colonized his mind, and he is searching for reasons to believe in it.
It may come as a surprise to warrenlb, but organizations can be bought and paid for. They can also be derailed and politicized by just a couple of extremists on the Board with an agenda, as pointed out by Prof. Richard Lindzen [see Sec. 2]. One or all of those things has happened to the professional organizations cited by warrenlb. Organizations are even more susceptible to group-think than individuals.
warrenlb also tries desperately to characterize those scientists he disagrees with as “amateur scientist oponents” — a sure sign that he is on thin ice: Richard Lindzen is one of his “amateur scientists“, while the thoroughly corrupted IPCC is fawned over.
Rather than engaging in his constant misdirection and deflection, I wonder why warrenlb avoids the central point of this article? Which is, of course, the motive for the IPCC’s deception.
The UN/IPCC was given it’s marching orders from the get-go: to support the man-made global warming conjecture. They tried and failed on scientific grounds, so the alarmist tactic shifted to demonizing anyone who points that out. Dr. Tim Ball is in their sights at the moment. But the fact remains that Planet Earth is busy debunking the MMGW conjecture, and all the appeals to authority in the world are no match for her ultimate Authority.
dbstealey,
warrenlb is just another example of the classic “useful idiot”. He seems to take great pleasure in this role.
Fortunately for me my family has just left after the holidays and warrenlb will become my handy stress toy for a bit.
🙂
@dbstealey: Actually the key issue was, and remains, why DBStealey and others have no answer for the fact that ALL the Scientific Institutions of the world, NASA and NOAA conclude AGW, other than they’re all in a conspiracy to defraud the public. This reasoning is so bizarre, even Stephen Spielberg couldn’t have invented it.
warrenlb,
Are you that dense?? I gave you answers, chapter and verse, with citations. You did not even have the time to read the citations I posted, before you spouted your latest opinion.
Really, the climate scare has colonized your mind. You are helpless. The rest of us can see that.
If Planet Earth was doing what the IPCC and every alarmist group predicted, I would have changed my mind by now. But the planet is making fools of the IPCC, and of every other alarmist organization and individual.
That is the difference between skeptics and alarmists: when the facts change, skeptics change their minds. But when the facts contradict the alarmist crowd, they switch into propaganda mode. If you don’t see that, warrenlb, you are blind.
@dbstealey. So still no answer to the question why all the institutions of Science conclude AGW, other than they’re ALL incompetent (vs you) , or in a worldwide conspiracy to defraud the public……
warrenlb, you force me to repeat myself:
Are you that dense?? I gave you answers, chapter and verse, with citations. You did not even have the time to read the citations I posted… But you go on as if you never read that, or anything else.
If it were not for your endless Appeal to Authority fallacies, you would have run out of arguments long ago. You are probably ignorant of the fact that, when he was confronted by 100 scientists who disputed Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, Einstein responded [paraphrased] that: it does not take 100 scientists to show I am wrong, but only one.
Those 100 scientists are an example of the Appeal to Authority fallacy, and that is what you keep doing. Those 100 eminent scientists were all wrong, and Einstein was right. You are doing exactly the same thing.
It is a logical fallacy to argue numbers of opinions. Evidence is all that matters. But then, fallacies are all you’ve got, it that so? If you had facts and evidence, that’s what you would use. You certainly have no verifiable scientific measurements to support your Belief. Do you?
You can cite a million ignoramuses. But all it takes is ONE person to show that AGW exists. That can be done by posting a testable, empirical measurement quantifying AGW. I have repeatedly challenged you to produce such a measurement, to no avail. But you have no measurements of AGW. You just Believe in it.
The fact is, you are a True Believer. It would not matter if you believed in Scientiology, or in CAGW, or in the Jehovah’s Witnesses, or in Festinger’s flying saucer. Your entire motivation is Belief. Science is just a fake veneer over your comments, and over your Belief.
Prove me wrong. Post that measurement. IF you can.
Prove AGW wrong…..
David,
Easily done. Please see below.
There is zero evidence of AGW.
There is 0.8 degrees C of evidence of AGW
…
Your job is to falsify AGW
You want a ‘measurement’ — as a Metrologist would want to determine surface finish on a machined part. But Climate Science is multidisciplinary, and demands more….e.g., an understanding of physics (The Greenhouse Effect, for one), and multiple lines of evidence. For that, go here: http://www.climate.nasa.gov; or to the IPCC 5th Assessment and to its thousands of peer reviewed papers. Both should satisfy your request.
1) That amount of warming is only in cooked book “data” sets.
2) Even if the world has warmed that much since 1850, there is no reason whatsoever to attribute it to human activity. Much of it happened before CO2 took off, so is certainly the natural rebound from the end of the LIA Cold Period. Most if not all of the rest is faking the “record”.
3) There is nothing the least bit unusual about that much warming over 164 years, if it indeed happened. As I’ve repeatedly commented, the early 20th century warming was the same as the late 20th century warming & the early 18th century warming was more impressive both as to magnitude & duration.
4) GASTA (if such can actually be measured) has at best flattened for the past 16 to 24 years (depending upon “data” set), while CO2 has continued climbing. This is the same as during the 32 years after the end of WWII, when CO2 zoomed upward, but global T fell.
I could continue, but I’ve already showed AGW false. Which brings me to:
5) Why should I have to show AGW false? Surely it is incumbent upon “climate science” to show that it exists. So far there is no evidence whatsoever that it does. The Team has failed to reject the null hypothesis.
Whatever warming may actually have happened since the end of the LIA in the mid-19th century is entirely within normal fluctuation bounds, so there is no reason, zero, zip, nada, to imagine that people are responsible for whatever warming occurred in the late 20th century. In fact “climate science” can’t even determine whether the net effect of human activity is to warm or cool the planet, but in any case either effect is negligible, at best.
My comment was in reply to:
David Socrates
November 30, 2014 at 5:23 pm
“Why should I have to show AGW false?”
…
Because a hypothesis stands until you do so
David,
As I’ve repeatedly showed, the hypothesis was born falsified.
It’s incumbent on its proponents to test it with predictions subject to experiment. When that’s done, the hypothesis fails. It has failed every test.
So then why do I have to show it false over & over again?
The earth has warmed when CO2 was high & going up; it has cooled or stayed flat when CO2 was high & going up; it has warmed when CO2 was low & going down; it has cooled when CO2 was low & going down; it has stayed flat when CO2 was flat, going up or going down. There is no correlation. By pure accident, AGW was at least plausible during the 1980s & ’90s because CO2 just happened to be rising along with temperature (if the cooked book “data” sets are to be accorded any credence at all). But that was not true in the 1950s & ’60s & the 2000s & so far in the 2010s, to take but the most recent decades.
AGW has no observational scientific leg upon which to stand.
David Socrates
November 30, 2014 at 6:02 pm
“Why should I have to show AGW false?”
…
Because a hypothesis stands until you do so
David Socrates,
My 8th grade science teacher says you’ve got that backwards. Something about a null something ?
We are dealing with a couple of science illiterates here; warrenlb and David Socrates. I wouldn’t waste my time trying to educate them, but for new readers who might be swayed by their nonsense:
David Socrates says: Prove AGW wrong….. a hypothesis stands until you do so.. There is 0.8 degrees C of evidence of AGW… &etc.
How wrong can one person be? By the numbers:
1. It is the job of those putting forth a conjecture such as CAGW to support it with facts and evidence. It is not the job of skeptics to prove anything.
2. A hypothesis stands only if it can make repreated, accurate predictions. AGW has never made accurate predictions. Not even one.
3. The 0.8º fluctuation in global T is due to natural variability. Attributing it to human activity is a measurement-free conjecture, nothing more.
David Socrates does not understand how the Scientific Method works. He mistakenly believes that making a conjecture proves something, and that others have the onus of disproving it. If that were true, I could make a conjecture that the cow jumped over the moon — and David Socrates would have the onus of proving that it didn’t. By Socrates’ ‘logic’, we must accept that the cow jumped over the moon, until it was proven that it didn’t.
Mr Socrates doesn’t even understand the science basics that a 5th grader has learned.
Next, warrenlb continues to display his ignorance, this time by linking to a blog that has nothing to do with what I challenged him to show: the % of human-caused AGW, out of total global warming. Everything else in science is measured: changes in CO2, changes in temperature, changes in precipitation, changes in Arctic ice, etc. But there are NO measurements quantifying AGW. That is mighty curious, since every other parameter in science is composed of verifiable measurements. Governments spend hundrds of billions of dollars trying to measure subatomic particles… but they can’t measure AGW? Doesn’t that tell you something?
These guys are going on nothing more than their Beliefs. It is no different than a religion with them. The proof: they cannot produce scientific evidence to support their conjecture [note that scientific evidence is composed of verified empirical observations, and raw data; evidence is not pal-reviewed papers, or computer climate model output].
No wonder the global warming scare is imploding. After a couple of decades of that imaginary head fake, the public is tired of being told there is a wolf at the door. Better find another scare, boys, this one is old and busted.
warrenlb,
A whole week ago you chose to ignore my inquiries in this thread. Perhaps you could be so kind as to respond now ?
Please, tell us idiots all about carbon pollution.
warrenlb
November 24, 2014 at 6:34 am
So you advocate to maintain the price of carbon at zero? So that the costs of carbon pollution will continue to be borne by our grandchildren rather than paid today? Or perhaps you deny the existence of carbon pollution altogether? Which is your position?
lawrence Cornell
November 24, 2014 at 7:51 am
warrenlb,
Please tell me, what is this “carbon pollution” of which you speak ?
I know about carbon and I know about pollution. Carbon is what our life forms are built on, I know about CO2 and it’s benefits to plants and agriculture and I know that pollution harms us.
What I don’t know all about is this “carbon pollution”.
Can you explain to me exactly what is carbon pollution ? Will it kill me from the inside ? What does it smell or look like ? How is this pollution made ? and how can I avoid it ?
@lawrencecornell. You’re on the WUWT website and don’t know what’s meant by ‘carbon pollution’? I find that hard to believe. If you really do want to debate, each has to declare their position beforehand.
Mine is : ‘Earth is Warming, Man is the Cause, and the net effects are likely to be strongly negative’ Underlying physics; The Greenhouse Effect. Evidence: as published in the IPCC 5th Assessment and the 10,000 peer-reviewed journal papers that form its basis, plus NASA and NOAA.
Your position?
She has been being bombarded by asteroids for 4.5 billions years, and doesn’t really care what you think.
It’s every “man” for himself.
Unless we can work together, at least a little.
No, I don’t understand what’s meant by carbon pollution.
Please explain to me what you mean when you say “carbon pollution”.
Carbon pollution: Man’s addition of CO2 — the primary greenhouse gas— to the atmosphere via the burning of fossil fuels — increasing the Greenhouse effect in the atmosphere: The mechanism responsible for AGW — warming of the planet by Man.
So all CO2 is “pollution” ?
CO2 is not pollution. It’s plant food. The more, the better, up to real greenhouse levels, ie 1300 ppm.
I don’t understand warrenlb, you are saying that the CO2 in the air is pollution ?
milodonharlani is right, warrenlb. You just don’t understasnd what pollution is.
CO2 is a beneficial trace gas necessary for all life on earth. It is every bit as necessary for lifew as H2O is. Is water ‘pollution’? The answer is exactly the same for both CO2 and H2O.
The biosphere is starved of CO2; more is better, at current and projected concentrations. CO2 is a completely harmless trace gas, which is being demonized by science illiterates for political reasons.
warrenlb, you should be posting on a political blog, not here. This is a science site.
The “primary greenhouse gas” is H2O.
You, Warren, are a scientific illiterate.
warrenlb,
Why did you tell this lie ?
Warrenlb,Nov 30,2014 at 11:16am
Quotes from Ball’s essay:
“But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood,”
And
“From time immemorial. however, the Jews have known better than any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited.”
See my post on your question.
I don’t understand that answer. Why did you tell that lie ?
Oh, This “misplaced” post on my question ?
warrenlb
November 30, 2014 at 12:06 pm
Yes, you’re right, my mistake. My post should have said that Ball’s essay drew a parallel between Jews in ‘Mein Kampf’ (to which those quotes should have been attributed) , and AGW ‘Warmists’.
But the point remains that Ball uses the Hitler parallel of Jews as ‘Warmists’ — a clear anti-Semitic implication, for which I condemn him, as did Betts and Tamsin
My question was warrenlb, WHY did you tell the lie that Dr. Ball included those two quotes in his essay ?
You haven’t answered that question. Please do so.
warrenlb
November 30, 2014 at 12:06 pm
“Yes, you’re right, my mistake. My post should have said that Ball’s essay drew a parallel between Jews in ‘Mein Kampf’ (to which those quotes should have been attributed) , and AGW ‘Warmists’.
But the point remains that Ball uses the Hitler parallel of Jews as ‘Warmists’ — a clear anti-Semitic implication, for which I condemn him, as did Betts and Tamsin”
1) “Yes, you’re right, my mistake.”
I don’t think any “mistake” was made on your part. What you did here you did purposefully.
2) “My post should have said that Ball’s essay drew a parallel between Jews in ‘Mein Kampf’ (to which those quotes should have been attributed) , and AGW ‘Warmists’.”
No, Dr. Balls essay did not draw a parallel between Jews and warmists. Dr. Balls essay, as he states in it, drew parallels between the concept and application of “The big lie” as popularly understood historically and some of today’s CAGW liars, yes, liars.
2a) There was indeed a parallel boldly drawn between Jews in ‘Mein Kampf’ and AGW warmists using those two quotes which Dr. Ball specifically omitted. (because he wasn’t discussing that aspect.) First by Brandon Shellenberger and now by you. Only you have lied about it.
3) “But the point remains that Ball uses the Hitler parallel of Jews as ‘Warmists’ — a clear anti-Semitic implication, for which I condemn him, as did Betts and Tamsin”
No, The point does remain that warrenlb and Brandon Shellenberger only have used the parallel of Jews as ‘warmists” in order to smear and convolute a salient point and discussion. A despicable trick that too many intelligent people here fell for.
And warrenlb, my question still stands.
WHY did you tell the lie that Dr. Ball included those two quotes in his essay ?
You haven’t answered that question. Please do so.
warrenlb says:
The mechanism responsible for AGW — warming of the planet by Man.
Still deflecting, I see. Well, I can’t force you to stay on-topic. But I can point out one fact that destroys your Belief System [BS]:
You claim that human activity is responsible for global warming. That is called a “conjecture”. In other words, it is an opinion, nothing more. To rise to the status of a hypothesis, AGW must be capable of making repeated, accurate predictions. But we know that not one alarmist prediction has ever happened, so AGW remains a conjecture [at this point let me say that I think AGW exists. But it is so minuscule at current CO2 concentrations that it cannot even be measured].
That brings us to the point where your feet are held to the fire of science: I challenge you to post a measurement of AGW. In other words, produce a verifiable, testable, empirical measurement, quantifying the specific percentage of global warming due to human emissions, out of all global warming.
Every physical process can be measured, as long as it is above the background noise level. Of course, if AGW is so tiny that it is swamped by noise, then there is no need whatever to worry about it, and your climate alarmism is debunked.
The ball is in your court, warrenlb. You raised the issue, now let’s see you show us some AGW. Up to now it has been: “a significant amount” of global warming is due to human activity. Or, “most”. Or, “a large fraction”. But none of that is science. Those are just worthless opinions. They mean no more than any other opinion.
So show us some real science, warrenlb. Post a true MEASUREMENT, quantifying the % of global warming specifically due to human activity. What percentage is it?
Otherwise, you — just like the rest of the alarmist crowd — are just winging it.
Call it “conjecture” or….
Call it a “hypothesis” or….
Call it a “theory”.
The fact is that the global temp has risen 0.8 degrees C in the past 150 years.
If you have a better explanation than AGW, please post it, and if you think it is “natural variation” you’d better be able to show us all when in the past million years the Earth has had an increase of this magnitude in such a short span of time.
In science, the best explanation wins. so, if you can provide a better explanation than AGW, please tell the world, because the majority of scientists would be interested in your explanation. If it makes more sense than AGW, you might consider publishing your personal, “conjecture”
That is easily done.
Earth warmed more rapidly & more from about 1710-39 than it did from c. 1977-98. It warmed about the same in the early 20th century as it did in the late, under a completely different CO2 regime.
QED. You lose.
Besides which, it’s not at all clear that the earth has warmed as much as you claim. HadCRU & GISS are both shameless liars.
However, even if it has warmed that much, it’s totally within normal limits, as I’ve repeatedly shown. There is no human fingerprint.
2014 – 150 = 1864 which rejects your 1977-96 argument.
…
Your 1710-39 time span is under which reconstruction? Not sure you can confirm global temps prior to 1800
I expect the reply you get will include assertions that the data is faked. Without assertions of conspiracy, fraud, or manipulated data, they cannot function.
The 18th century data are from the CET, which has proved a good simulacrum for global changes, in so far as they can be measured.
I have no idea what you’re talking about regarding the late 20th century warming versus the whole of the Modern Warming Period since c. 1850.
Is it really that hard to understand this point, repeated for at least the third time?
The Modern Warming Period consists of three warmings and three cooling cycles. The slope & duration of the warmings is about the same whether in the 19th century, the early 20th century or the late 20th century, when CO2 was rising rapidly. Therefore there is no reason to imagine that CO2 was responsible for the last of the three. CO2 was also rising rapidly during the longer, post-war cooling interval that preceded the late 20th century warming. Is it really hard to grasp that concept?
CACA & AGW were born falsified, since the post-war cooling already showed them false, as did the warming in the first half of the 20th century, cooling in the late 19th century after warming previously, coming out of the LIA.
Not to mention falsified yet again by the flat to cooling interval since the late 1990s, contrary to all CACA model predictions. CACA was born falsified & has been shown false again with each passing year since the hoax was hatched.
Must you so totally destroy them ?, there are others out here waiting for the scraps 🙂
You want a ‘measurement’ — as a Metrologist would want to determine surface finish on a machined part. But Climate Science is multidisciplinary, and demands more….e.g., an understanding of physics (The Greenhouse Effect, for one), and multiple lines of evidence. For that, go here: http://www.climate.nasa.gov; or to the IPCC 5th Assessment and to its thousands of peer reviewed papers. Both should satisfy your request.
This post is addressed to DBStealey.
warrenlb,
Of course I want a measurement. Every skeptic wants a measurement, because every other physical process is measured, whether it is temperature, or CO2, or precipitation, or Polar ice cover, or Polar bear numbers. As I pointed out, governments spend hundreds of $millions each year trying to measure subatomic particles. AGW — if it exists — should be a piece of cake.
So, where are the measurements of AGW? Produce even one measurement quantifying the percentage of global warming caused by human emissions. That percentage must be the fraction of total global warming that resulted in a total 0.7ºC warming, over the past 150 years or so. How much of that was caused by human activity? Post a measurement, please.
What’s that you say? You have no measurements? How can that be??
If AGW exists, the only reason there are no measurements is because AGW is swamped by background noise. I worked in a Metrology lab for thirty years, and I know something about measurment. Every change can be measured, unless the change is below the background level.
If AGW is below background noise, then it is too small to measure. And if it is too small to measure, then it is simply not worth worrying about. In that case, AGW should be completely disregarded for all practical purposes.
This chart makes clear why AGW is too small to measure. Any rises in CO2 at current levels causes a truly minuscule change in global temperature — a change that is so small that it is unmeasurable. You are like Chicken Little, clucking that the sky is falling — when it was just a tiny acorn.
So yes, warrenlb, I want a measurement of AGW. But you cannot seem to find one. I’ve explained why, which would satisfy rational readers. Why won’t it satisfy you?
It’s because AGW is your religion. Isn’t it? Science has nothing to do with your beliefs.
I think Dr. Tim Ball took the quote from My Struggle at face value. There is no analogy, parable, symbolic interpretation, literary parallel, no representational meanings, no context, nothing. It is just a quote about deception on a grand scale. Most of us cannot be so discriminating and discerning about the passages in that book. It is interesting that some people do have that sensitivity to the work. My stars.
Besides, the open discussion of how to use evil tactics must be hidden in an accusation, I would think.
It may be the type of argument that is mentioned by saying you do not want to mention it: an apophasis.
Also, climate debt or climate justice does require the payment of several trillion dollars to offended parties, last I checked. You know how everyone wants to be a trillionaire these days.
Zeke…
Huh?
@dbstealey:
You say (MY RESPONSES IN CAPS):
1. It is the job of those putting forth a conjecture such as CAGW to support it with facts and evidence. It is not the job of skeptics to prove anything. OH YES IT IS. THE AGW HYPOTHESIS IS SUPPORTED BY THE UNDERLYING PHYSICS OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT AND MULTIPLE LNES OF EVIDENCE– BY NASA, NOAA, THE IPCC, AND 10S OF THOUSANDS OF PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS. AND YOU OFFER NO ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION TO THIS WELL DESCRIBED PHENOMENON.(LINKS WERE PROVIDED EARLIER TO YOU)
2. A hypothesis stands only if it can make repreated, accurate predictions. AGW has never made accurate predictions. Not even one. ABSOLUTE RUBBISH. A HYPOTHESIS DOES NOT DEPEND ON PREDICTION – IT DEPENDS ON EVIDENCE–FOR WHICH THERE IS PLENTY..
3. The 0.8º fluctuation in global T is due to natural variability. Attributing it to human activity is a measurement-free conjecture, nothing more. UNTRUE. 0.8C SINCE 1880 IS THE FATEST RATE OF RISE IN 1400 YEARS. YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.
David Socrates does not understand how the Scientific Method works. He mistakenly believes that making a conjecture proves something, and that others have the onus of disproving it. If that were true, I could make a conjecture that the cow jumped over the moon — and David Socrates would have the onus of proving that it didn’t. By Socrates’ ‘logic’, we must accept that the cow jumped over the moon, until it was proven that it didn’t. ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. THE HYPOTHESIS IS SUPPORTED BY MULTIPLE LINES OF EVIDENCE VIEWABLE AT THE WEBSITES OF NASA, NOAA, AND THE IPCC, AND IN 10S OF THOUSANDS OF PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS. UNTIL YOU OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE SCINETIFIC EXPLANATION, THE HYPOTHESIS STANDS AS SUPPORTED BY THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE CITED..
Mr Socrates doesn’t even understand the science basics that a 5th grader has learned.
Next, warrenlb continues to display his ignorance, this time by linking to a blog that has nothing to do with what I challenged him to show: the % of human-caused AGW, out of total global warming. Everything else in science is measured: changes in CO2, changes in temperature, changes in precipitation, changes in Arctic ice, etc. But there are NO measurements quantifying AGW. That is mighty curious, since every other parameter in science is composed of verifiable measurements. Governments spend hundrds of billions of dollars trying to measure subatomic particles… but they can’t measure AGW? Doesn’t that tell you something? IT APPEARS YOUR METROLOGY TRAINING DID NOTHING TO PREPARE YOU FOR THE BROADER DISCIPLINES OF SCIENCE –AND FOR COMPREHENDING THAT MULTIPLE LINES OF EVIDENCE SUPPORT THE AGW HYPOTHESIS. THIS IS ALL VIEWABLE TO YOU IN THE LINKS PROVIDED.
warrenlb, now you’re going off the deep end. You’re not making sense any more. And no need for all caps; shouting doesn’t make you right, as you are about to find out.
You assert:
1. OH YES IT IS. THE AGW HYPOTHESIS IS SUPPORTED BY THE UNDERLYING PHYSICS OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT AND MULTIPLE LNES OF EVIDENCE– BY NASA, NOAA, THE IPCC, AND 10S OF THOUSANDS OF PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS. AND YOU OFFER NO ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION TO THIS WELL DESCRIBED PHENOMENON.(LINKS WERE PROVIDED EARLIER TO YOU)
Relax, you’re going ballistic because your argument has fallen apart. You assert that there are ‘multiple lines of evidence’, but you don’t provide any evidence. And how many times do you need to be told that your pal-reviewed papers are just another appeal to authority fallacy? Without measurements of AGW, they amount to nothing but opinions. Pf-f-f-f-ft. And finally, AGW is not a ‘hypothesis’. It is merely a conjecture; an opinion. Why do you have such trouble understanding scientific hierarchy? Here, maybe this will help you to understand the difference.
Next:
2. ABSOLUTE RUBBISH. A HYPOTHESIS DOES NOT DEPEND ON PREDICTION – IT DEPENDS ON EVIDENCE–FOR WHICH THERE IS PLENTY..
Yet you post zero verifiable, testable, empirical evidence. I asked for measurements, but all I get is bluster. Asserting you have posted evidence, and actually posting it, are two entirely different things. So far, you have posted neither evidence nor measurements. And yes, a hypothesis can make repeated, accurate predictions. If it does not, it starts down the road to being falsified. What good is a hypothesis if all it does is make wrong predictions?
3. UNTRUE. 0.8C SINCE 1880 IS THE FATEST RATE OF RISE IN 1400 YEARS. YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.
Sorry, sonny, but Prof Phil Jones, a well known warmist, disagrees with you. Notice that the most recent warming is the same slope as the prior warming episodes. Go argue with Jones, maybe you will get somewhere. You’re just making false assertions here.
ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. THE HYPOTHESIS IS SUPPORTED BY MULTIPLE LINES OF EVIDENCE VIEWABLE AT THE WEBSITES OF NASA, NOAA, AND THE IPCC, AND IN 10S OF THOUSANDS OF PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS. UNTIL YOU OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE SCINETIFIC EXPLANATION, THE HYPOTHESIS STANDS AS SUPPORTED BY THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE CITED..
Wrong-O, bud. May I remind you that you still have posted no verifiable, testable evidence, or any empirical measurements of AGW? None at all. You really shouldn’t put your ignorance on display like that, but the fact is that a hypothesis makes repeated, accurate predictions. A hypothesis is a theory, although a theory has to pass more rigorous tests. They must both, however, be able to make accurate predictions. The fact that you are going ballistic over that requirement says plenty about your AGW conjecture — which has never been able to make accurate predictions.
Finally, you throw a juvenile tantrum:
IT APPEARS YOUR METROLOGY TRAINING DID NOTHING TO PREPARE YOU FOR THE BROADER DISCIPLINES OF SCIENCE –AND FOR COMPREHENDING THAT MULTIPLE LINES OF EVIDENCE SUPPORT THE AGW HYPOTHESIS. THIS IS ALL VIEWABLE TO YOU IN THE LINKS PROVIDED.
Again, the ‘multiple lines of evidence’ canard. You have posted neither evidence nor measurements of AGW. And since you have my technical background, warrenlb, may I ask what your own CV is? I find it very hard to believe that you have any real science training at all. Your comments just do not support it. But, maybe you’ve been in the seminary? Or had other religious training? That would explain a lot about your Beliefs, you know…
You refuse to acknowledge the link I provided to climate.nasa.gov saying I provided no evidence, which is there in spades, along with the explanation of the physics of the greenhouse effect. And you hang your hat on the ridiculous point that I didn’t POST this information as support for AGW? You have now lost both your marbles and the argument. And you use personal attack , repeatedly, in your replies.
Your performance in both regards speaks volumes about you and the validity of your posts.
warrenlb asserts:
You refuse to acknowledge the link I provided to climate.nasa.gov saying I provided no evidence, which is there in spades, along with the explanation of the physics of the greenhouse effect.
If it were not for his baseless assertions, warrenlb wouldn’t have much to say. Asserting that evidence is “there in spades” is laughable. There is no evidence.
First, I did acknowledge his link — unlike warren, who has never acknowledged any of my own numerous links. I explained to warrenlb that his link shows no scientific evidence of AGW, which is a fact. I can try and teach warrenlb these things, but I can’t understand it for him.
For everyone else: ‘evidence’ consists of empirical, verified obsevations, and/or raw data. Pal reviewed papers and computer climate models — which form the basis of NASA’s link — are not evidence.
The only evidence NASA cites are measurements such as temperature changes and CO2 changes, which proves nothing. Those may well be just a coincidental correlation; they certainly are no proof that ∆CO2 causes ∆T.
Changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature on all time scales, from years out to hundreds of millennia. Since effect cannot precede cause, the effect of CO2 cannot be the cause of changes in global T. Rather, ∆CO2 lags T by 800 ±200 years.
[I repeat my own view that I think AGW exists, but that it is just too small to measure.]
I have repeatedly asked for even one measurement showing that human CO2 emissions cause ∆T, but neither warrenlb nor anyone else can produce any measurements. That leads to one of two possibilities: either AGW does not exist, or AGW is so minuscule at current CO2 levels that any resulting changes in temperature are simply too tiny to measure.
CO2 is now at ≈400 ppm. Look at the chart linked above. Another 10% rise in CO2 would not result in any measurable ∆T. Even another 50% rise in CO2 would not produce a measurable rise in temperature using today’s instruments. Almost all the effect of CO2 happened in the first 20 – 100 ppm. That is physics, warrenlb.
Finally, warrenlb says “you use personal attack , repeatedly, in your replies”, as he informs me that I have ‘lost my marbles’. Someone hand warrenlb a hanky. He would rather discuss his feelings than produce the measurement I am constantly requesting. Because without such a measurement, AGW remains nothing more than a conjecture.
@Catherine Ronconi.
On Nov 30 you said:
“The “primary greenhouse gas” is H2O.
You, Warren, are a scientific illiterate.”
My response: Katherine, do you normally start a dialogue with personal attack?
If you had asked, I would have answered that of course H2O is the dominant greenhouse gas, but the total amount of water vapor in earth’s atmosphere is relatively constant (air’s water vapor capacity is almost entirely a function of temperature), and varies primarily with location and season. As a result, water vapor’s contribution to the Earth’s greenhouse effect is roughly constant. The next largest contributor to the Greenhouse effect is CO2, which has increased 40% since the 1800s, and so is the main contributor to AGW –which is of course the point of my post.
The AGW was an invention of the Club of Rome see http://www.theeuroprobe.org 2014 – 002
2014 – 011 More of The Club of Rome invented Global Warming
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All … Continue reading →
warrenlb says:
CO2, which has increased 40% since the 1800s, and so is the main contributor to AGW
That is a complete non sequitur; a coincidental correlation. Until/unless you can produce a measurement quantifying AGW, you are just speculating.
We need a measurement showing the percentage of global warming attributed to human CO2 emissions, as a fraction of total global warming. Simples. Just produce a measurement.
Because without such a measurement, AGW is only speculation. It is an opinion. A conjecture, nothing more. Measurement is central to all of science. The fact that there are no measurements of AGW destroys the runaway global warming scare. It is really nothing more than a giant head fake; the ultimate Chicken Little panic. It would be amusing, if there were not so much tax money and political power at stake.
But warrenlb is improving. At least he has given up accusing others of being anti-Semitic, and he’s finally climbed down from his ad hominem attacks against Lord Monckton. Now, if I could just get him to understand that his entire belief system is based on confirmation bias, cherry-picking, and appeals to compromised authorities, we could have a meeting of the minds.
But that may be a tough nut to crack, since warrenlb still claims that Earth is Warming, Man is the Cause, and the net effects are likely to be strongly negative. When arguments are made based on assertion, it’s almost like religion. warrenlb Believes, and it’s tough reasoning with someone like that.
And then there’s David Socrates, who says:
The fact is that the global temp has risen 0.8 degrees C in the past 150 years.
If you have a better explanation than AGW, please post it, and if you think it is “natural variation” you’d better be able to show us all when in the past million years the Earth has had an increase of this magnitude in such a short span of time.
Glad you asked. I am always happy to shine some light in the darkness. First, the 0.8º fluctuation over about 150 years is extremely benign. Normally, natural variability would cause much greater swings in temperature. Therefore, there is no need to invoke AGW. Natural variability is fully sufficient to explain such a very small change in temperature over more than a century. It is the simplest explanation. Occam’s Razor advises us to accept the simplest explanation. There is no need to muddy the waters with an extraneous and unnecessary variable like AGW.
Mr. Socrates says we had “better show” when in the past million years temperatures have changed more than that. May I? Thank you…
Just prior to our current Holocene, temperatures fluctuated by TENS of degrees, within only a decade or two. Those abrupt temperature changes occurred when CO2 remained steady. And of course, that happened well within the past ‘million years’.
If Mr. Socrates has any more questions, I’ll be glad to help him out.
@warrenlb:
As always, you could not possibly be more wrong.
CO2 on its own, if the atmosphere were a controlled lab experiment, produce about 1.2 degree C of warming for a doubling from 280 to 560 ppm. IOW, nothing to worry about & indeed a good thing.
The only way that catastrophists can drum up anything to worry about is by assuming high positive feedbacks from rising CO2, chief among which is the presumption, not in evidence, that it will cause higher H2O as well. This not observed positive feedback is supposed, again without evidence, to cause higher, worrisome temperatures (up 4.5 degrees C for a doubling) from more radiative forcing and clouds. But in fact, just the opposite happens on balance, ie water vapor and clouds are a net negative feedback, because of convective evaporative cooling, shading by clouds and other mechanisms.
Thus even the Team assumes that water vapor is the primary GHG.
Water vapor varies over the earth, from around 40,000 ppm in the moist tropics (ie 100 times more than CO2) to just a few or several ppm in the cold polar deserts. But its planetary average is around 30,000 ppm. This means that over most of the planet, any GHE from one, two or three more molecules of CO2 out of 10,000 dry air molecules, plus 300 H2O molecules on average, would be effectively swamped by the water vapor, the absorption bands of which to a large extent overlap those of CO2.
Where more CO2 might have a measurable effect, it scarcely matters, since that would be in the northern half of the NH, in winter at night. Raising winter temperature in the Arctic in winter night will have virtually no climatic effect, eg going from −25.7 °C to −24.5 °C, for instance, should CO2 ever actually reach 560 ppm there, and if the actual atmosphere does really behave like a lab, which it almost certainly does not, and in the also unlikely case that positive and negative feedbacks cancel each other out. Since earth’s climate is self-regulating, negative feedbacks usually predominate. Runaway heating is practically unknown in climate history, while during glacial phases of ice ages, positive cooling feedback has been observed.
The presumed global increase in CO2 concentration from 280 to 400 ppm is trivial compared to the quantity of H2O over most of the planet, which, as noted, averages about 30,000 ppm. So instead of ~40% increase in GHG, it’s only about four percent. As noted, the effect might be noticeable at high latitudes, where it doesn’t matter much, but in any case will on balance be beneficial.
Thank you for a detailed response with numbers. This one’s a keeper.
You are right about the value of Climate Sensitivity without accounting for feedback.. However, nearly all Climate researchers reject your view that net feedback is zero or negative. As one example, water vapor has increased in the earths atmosphere at roughly the rate of 2.5% per decade for decades, a consequence of CO2 being driven from the oceans (primarily) and then amplifying the original warming due to CO2.
The consensus range of Climate Sensitivity is 1.5 to 4.5C+ with a midpoint of 3C. The estimates are made using three techniques — proxy data from earths ancient past, modern day measurements of global temperature vs CO2 ppmv, and Climate Models. The three methods are in good agreement, confirming the validity of the estimates.
This conclusion of nearly all researchers is to be found at climate.nasa.gov, and the IPCC 5th Assessment.
Warrenlg writes “This conclusion of nearly all researchers is to be found at climate.nasa.gov, and the IPCC 5th Assessment.”
I suspect all of the regulars here know these sources. It is even a reasonable estimate, considerably reduced from AR4 of course.
You’re more wrong with every comment.
There is no evidence supporting the assumptions used in models to get scary ECS estimates. Quite the contrary.
Again, link to some actual studies in support of your assertions.
@Catherine Ronconi.
If the consensus estimates of PhD researchers working in the field is not enough, then I refer you to this more detailed explanation: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm
But if you don’t accept peer-reviewed science, there’s not much I, or anyone else, can do for you.
warrenlb suggests “there’s not much I, or anyone else, can do for you.”
I think you mistook that anyone was asking.
There is no peer- or pal-reviewed papers presenting evidence for man-made global warming, since none exists. Please do as asked repeatedly and show us some examples of these alleged papers you imagine to exist.
Citing SkS doesn’t cut it here. A blog run by a failed cartoonist publishes nothing but cartoonish garbage.
If you really believe that man-made global warming exists, man up and make the case for it yourself, point by point, with supporting evidence as so many have done here showing that there is no valid evidence in support of the falsified hypothesis.
You won’t because you can’t. You’re a liar, which is why I addressed you as I did, to which you had no right to object, since you’ve shamelessly not apologized for or even admitted your blatant lie about Dr. Ball’s essay.
The world is still waiting for one of the anti AGW proponents on WUWT to publish their research in a peer reviewed science journal. And waiting, and waiting…… I wonder what this tells us?
Plenty of skeptical commenters on WUWT have published in peer reviewed journals. Had you done the least amount of actual research, you’d know this.
Some even allow as how there might be man-made global warming, but question its actual and theoretical extent. If it’s insignificant, not measurable or even just negligible and beneficial, then what’s the worry?
You just keep embarrassing yourself with more lies and false accusations.
warrenlb December 1, 2014 at 5:38 pm says:
“The world is still waiting for one of the anti AGW proponents on WUWT to publish their research in a peer reviewed science journal. And waiting, and waiting…… I wonder what this tells us?”
That “peer review” of yours is buddy review as Climategate emails demonstrate. But it is worse than that. They have scientific publishing under their control and if they do not like what you say they will refuse to even go through the motions of peer review and simply reject it out of hand. This happened to two of my papers, one sent to Nature and one to Science. I proved that the rate of sea level rise for the last 80 years had been under ten inches per century. Al Gore’s movie said 20 feet, hence I was wrong and got thrown out without even a peer review. When Gore got a Nobel prize for that trash I got mad and wrote a whole book about real climate science called “What Warming?” Awarding of that prize to him is an example of corruption in high places. Wait, a better way to put it is stupidity, ignorance, and corruption in high places.They had their fingers in every pie and were able to stop any contrary information from appearing in the scientific literature so that their propaganda machine could take full advantage of Al Gore’s lies. I happen to be one of those “anti AGW proponents” you speak of and I invite you to join us because you have been brainwashed by warmist lies. The science is settled – there is no such thing as AGW. It can be proved that it is nothing but a pseudo-scientific fantasy. I will summarize the relevant science below at a level any high school graduate can grasp. Here it goes:
First, we know that there is no warming right now and there has been none for the last 18 years. That is a an observation of nature. Second, during this period of time atmospheric carbon dioxide has been steadily increasing according to the Keeling curve based on accurate observations of atmospheric carbon dioxide content. Third, IPCC uses the Arrhenius greenhouse theory to predict future global warming by the greenhouse effect. The Arrhenius theory says that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the air will cause the air to warm because carbon dioxide absorbs OLR (Outgoing Longwave Radiation, which is infrared radiation). That is supposedly grounded in the radiation laws of physics. But look what is happening: atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, Arrhenius green house theory predicts warming, but nothing is happening. For each of the previous 18 years Arrhenius theory has predicted warming and got nothing at all. If you are a scientist and your theory predicts warming but you get nothing at all for 18 years in a row you are justified in putting that theory into the waste basket of history. Since the Arrhenius theory does not work the claim that it is based on absorption laws of physics is false. We need a greenhouse theory that is not in conflict with the laws of physics. Such a theory is the Miskolczi greenhouse theory or MGT. It differs from Arrhenius theory in being able to handle several greenhouse gases that simultaneously absorb in the infrared. Arrhenius can handle only one – carbon dioxide – and is incomplete. According to MGT, the two most important greenhouse gases – water vapor and carbon dioxide – form a joint optimal absorption window in the infrared. Its optical thickness is 1.87, determined by Miskolczi from first principles. If you now add carbon dioxide to air it will start to absorb in the IR just as the Arrhenius theory says. But this will increase the oprtical thickness. And as soon as this happens, water vapor will start to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. The added carbon dioxide will of course keep absorbing but the reduction of water vapor keeps total absorption constant and no warming takes place. This warming that did not take place would have been called greenhouse warming by the failed Arrhenius theory we just dumped. The absence of this warming means that anthropogenic global warming, AGW, simply does not exist. It is a pseudo-scientific fantasy, cooked up by over-eager climate workers to justify the existence of the greenhouse hypothesis. In 1988 it had never been directly observed and Hansen took it upon himself to proove that it exists. He unveiled it in front of the United States Senate and announced that “..the greenhouse effect has been detected..” It turned out that at least one third of the hundred year warming he submitted as his proof was not caused by greenhouse type absorption. Hence, the verdict of real science is and remains:
THERE IS NO ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING NOW AND THERE NEVER HAS BEEN ANY. PERIOD.
Make this your talking point number one when talking to warmists because it is true. All the science to back it up is here.
Warrenlb writes “I wonder what this tells us?”
I love it when someone puts himself on report as not only having multiple personalities but apparently none of them know what they have been told.
There is no “us”. What anything tells you, only you know. For you to express wonderment at what a thing tells you is to admit that it tells you nothing.
These events tell me quite a lot. However you have not shown interest in my beliefs so I won’t bother you with the details.
@Michael 2. Know the sources, yes. Read and understood, no.
warrenlb says:
The consensus range of Climate Sensitivity is 1.5 to 4.5C+ with a midpoint of 3C.
LOL!! There goes warrenlb with his ‘consensus’ fallacy again. I really wonder, does warrenlb even have a high school science education? From his comments, it’s very doubtful. Planet Earth herself is making it crystal clear that the 3ºC number is lunacy.
warrenlb doesn’t seem to understand the fact that global warming has stopped. Even the UN/IPCC admits to that fact now. Global T is going the wrong way for our boy warren. T is going DOWN, not up.
As uk u.s. says upthread, about warrenlb and his sidekick:
Must you so totally destroy them?
We can’t help it; it’s just too easy. Fun, too! ☺
Next, warrenlb says:
The world is still waiting for one of the anti AGW proponents on WUWT to publish their research in a peer reviewed science journal.
warrenlb presumes to speak for “the world”. But he is obviously ignorant of the numerous papers published by scientific skeptics, such as Prof Richard Lindzen, who has authored more than twenty dozen peer reviewed papers debunking the nonsense that warrenlb Believes in. The world already knows about those papers; only warrenlb seems to be ignorant.
I doubt that warrenlb will ever get up to speed on this subject. He gets his confirmation bias from pseudo-science blogs, so no wonder he doesn’t understand the basics.
Further, as I have repeatedly tried to educate warrenlb but to no avail: scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is on the promoters of the man-made global warming CONJECTURE to provide supporting evidence for their conjecture.
Since they have failed, some of the more dense believers try to make skeptics prove a negative by insisting, as warrenlb does here, that skeptics must prove that AGW doesn’t exist! Wake me when warrenlb understands how the scientific method works. As of now, he doesn’t have a clue.
Finally, warrenlb cites the repeatedly debunked blog SkS — the only blog on the sidebar listed as “UNRELIABLE”. It is an anti-science blog run by a cartoonist, and it easily bamboozles scientific illiterates.
At least warrenlb is reading WUWT. If he continues long enough, some real science may even rub off on him.
Proud Skeptic, give it up, you have no chance of converting a friend, it would be no different if he was very religious and you tried to convert a true believer to an atheist. Look at GW as a religion for many. Forget it, dont discuss it, since it might ruin your friendship. Enjoy each others company, and never discuss GW again, its not worth it.
I dont find Tim Ball’s article at all offensive…
“I dont find Tim Ball’s article at all offensive…”
You would find it offensive if you were the criminal being exposed. No one likes to have their deception exposed, so the only avenue the criminals have is to cry foul and protest when they are exposed. Saul Alinsky’s #1 Rule is to accuse others of what you are guilty. The propagandists are attacking Dr Ball for being a propagandist. No thief likes to have a spotlight shined on them, and that is what is happening. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and I hope Dr Ball doesn’t get discouraged by the fact that he has upset the criminals that he is attempting to expose.
”Do you have another or better explanation of a motive?”
Yes, the Noble Lie.
Ok, so I’m really late to this, a week in WDW will do that.
Invoking “The Big Lie” is tricky business. In context, Hitler is accusing the Jews/Marxists of using “The Big Lie” with respect to the narrative of why Germany lost WW1 when in fact the narrative was true. So, in accusing someone of perpetrating “The Big Lie” you’ve actually put yourself in the role of accusing the truth of being a lie.
IMHO, the post should have been centered around the Noble Lie instead.
Dr Ball, thanks for all your great work. I used a slide in a presentation refuting the “science” behind global warming that had the Hitler quote “What Luck for Rulers that Men don’t Think.” One of the students made a big deal about it, and I was never asked back. My and your points are valid, and I learned that when the truth hurts, those that don’t want to look at themselves in the mirror protest a lot. How else would they distract from people addressing the issue. Anyway, your comments about applying the scientific method are 100% dead on, and I would suggest that all your readers request that their local high schools do this experiment in their science classes.
Scientific Method 101:
Define the Null Hypothesis: “Man is NOT causing climate change/global warming. (because the only defined mechanism by which man may affect climate change is through trapping heat, I continue to use global warming).
Collect the Data: I would use the Greenland Icecore data for the past 20,000 years, and ground and satellite data for the past 100 years.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.html
Test the Data: What is the std deviation, current , peak and low temp over the past 14,000 and 20,000 years. Where do the current statistics place us on the 14,000 and 20,000 scale.
Analyze the Data: Are we outside 2 standard deviations? Are we at a peak?
Reach a conclusion: The sudents will find that 1) we are nowhere near a peak and 2) we are will within 2 standard deviations from the norm. Conclusion? CO2 isn’t causing abnormal climate change.
The other simple studies are:
1) The oceans are warming, visible light warms the oceans. How is CO2 warming the oceans?
2) The Mt Kilimanjaro glacier is at 17,340 ft, and well above the freeze line, how does ice “melt” in subzero temperatures? It doesn’t, search/read the climate gate emails for “sublimation Dr Lonnie Thompson Mt Kilimanjaro.”
3) What is the std deviation of the pH of the oceans. How much carbon would be needed to move the pH 1 std deviation? How much carbon does man burn each year? How many years would it take for man to change the pH of the oceans by 1 std deviation?
4) Daytime temperatures have been increasing. Considering incoming IR is blocked by the atmosphere, and it is visible light that warms during the day, just how is atmospheric CO2 causing daytime temperatures to increase? Why does it cool when a cloud blocks the sun if CO2 is the cause?
There are countless others simple ways to encourage student to start thinking and stop listening to the “experts.” Once again, keep up the great work, and I appreciate your historical/political analysis. It is the only true way to understand what is happening. Yes you will upset the true believers, but that should be expected.
BTW, I find it ironic that the people that smear people using “denier” and “heretic” are the ones upset about your review of Hitler’s writing, ideology and methodology. The Orwellian nature of this “science” only gets better the further you go down the rabbit hole.
Because an insight into mass manipulation, relevant to the current circumstance, was uttered by Adolf it’s not to be quoted? Sez Hu?
At the least, it’s obtuse, and possibly sly or even manipulative, to pose a ‘loaded’ or baggage-laden exemplar, as though it were a neutral message. Such example-material is not neutral. It works as a “rhetorical device”, to incidentally “tie” unrelated and non-applicable innuendo etc, to an opponent.
Say, to illustrate with different loaded-exemplar, that we cast doubt on, say the accuracy of your own argument here, by illustrating your putative misstep with a comparison to the story of The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf.
The innuendo that gets incidentally dragged in is:
1.) Ha-ha-ha! Yer nuthin’ but a little boy! Immature. Childish.
2.) You can’t separate fantasy from reality. Attention-seeking/needy.
3.) Your behavior & attitude is destined for failure. You are a dead-ender.
The problem with using a non-neutral example or analogy, is that in fact the non-relevant parts of the example are invoked in the mind of the reader.
In the more-developed levels & versions of debate, it would be a big mistake for me to complicate my own position, by making these “spurious” assertions about you, because you can then calming inquire into the basis of my innuendo … whereupon if I cannot convincingly support each of them, my credibility with our audience is likely to suffer.
So not only is using loaded examples a ‘trick’; you end up having to ‘defend’ a bunch of nonsense.
Only among buddies sharing the same philosophical keg of brew (or pitcher of Kool-Aid) does one ‘get away with’ using ‘steaming-pile’ examples.
Ted, thinking all this is some sort of debate, wrote:
“Only among buddies sharing the same philosophical keg of brew does one ‘get away with’ using ‘steaming-pile’ examples.”
Of course. I believe the innuendo is often the intended communication and the “debate” only the carriage — as you demonstrate in your sentence. I suspect this is true in collegiate debate where inserting just the right amount of baggage and innuendo is considered a fine art.
The purpose of innuendo, particularly at sites such as DailyKOS, is to identify yourself as a card-carrying member of that particular society. It is difficult to do well if you are merely pretending and the presence of such baggage or innuendo is important in establishing belief. It is a type of authenticator.
Michael 2 offers some cogent and salient insights, no doubt of it.
Whether we will move past the lounge-lizard act and shift to something with wider market-appeal, and how fast/slow such a change would come, clearly remains murky.
The New Republic saw 50 resignations this week, in the aftermath of heavy-handed ownership moves. They are a different case, but loss of existing contributors & readership is a serious matter for online publications.
Recently, WUWT posted a rebuttal to gloating coverage of its declining publication-rate … over the Thanksgiving weekend.
Contrived, yes, but it shows how close others watch the ‘health’ of WUWT … and that general perceptions of its vitality are closely monitored by it, in turn.
Interesting exchanges. Some people seem to be talking at crosspurposes.
A long list of authorities who all agree does not seem to prove more than all of these people agree.
The other view is that the scientific method should be used to look at phenomena which are happening currently and the also at partial records from the past. The scientific method would seem to be observe the phenomena and postulate a reason for their existence and also for any development we may have observed.
If the answer is not satisfactory then we look at them another way and so on. The science will never be settled because we do not know where the studies will lead us. and the phenomena may change. There is no crystal ball available , unfortunately, not even for the United Nations
( But I can’t prove that assertion)
however this link shows a very simplified explanation- suitable for perhaps for politicians.
http://www.biology4kids.com/files/studies_scimethod.html
I