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
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.