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
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.