The Role of the Media in Aiding and Abetting the Deceptions Seen in Climategate

 

Guest opinion. Dr. Tim Ball

I knew I was having an impact as a skeptic when I received a call from George Monbiot, reporter for The Guardian. I told him as much. I said I would answer questions about the science. Of course, the first question was about funding, because he had already determined the story and only sought quotes to fit the narrative or to pretend he had balance. I said I had never received funding from any energy company and started to talk about the science. The interview ended.

Monbiot did express outrage when the emails were leaked, but it was about the response of the CRU.

“Why was CRU’s response to this issue such a total car crash?”

He then justified their behavior because,

Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years. That’s why we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of science.

Apparently struggling with what went on, he later wrote,

But the deniers’ campaign of lies, grotesque as it is, does not justify secrecy and suppression on the part of climate scientists. Far from it: it means that they must distinguish themselves from their opponents in every way. No one has been as badly let down by the revelations in these emails as those of us who have championed the science. We should be the first to demand that it is unimpeachable, not the last.

It appears he was in the dilemma because he had not functioned as a journalist, but as a messenger for the political message about global warming, that he and his newspaper favored. The deception about global warming was only effective because of the aiding and abetting of the mainstream media.

Those most active in pushing the false information were exposed in the leaked Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails. They represented very influential media outlets including The Guardian, The New York Times, and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). They sought information by indicating their willingness to carry the message. For example, on July 23, 2009 Seth Borenstein, a national science writer for the Associated Press, sent an email to the CRU). He wrote,

“Kevin, Gavin, Mike, It’s Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Watchya think?”

WUWT identified the unprofessional nature of the relationship in a December 12, 2009 article. They were all willingly, albeit unknowingly, used by the powerful – the people they ostensibly despise.

In my recent article about the motive behind the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deception on global warming, I challenged people to offer an alternative suggestion to my proposition that it was about political power and control. “Follow the money” was the predominant comment. It is true that for most in the lower echelons, funding and career enhancement were predominant (Figure 1).

clip_image002

Upton Sinclair said,

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Or as Machiavelli more pungently said, “One who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived.”

However, money was not the reason for the cabal who orchestrated the entire deception. They were members of the Club of Rome because of their power. Sometimes that power came from their wealth, but most were already wealthy. Some, like Al Gore or Maurice Strong, made additional money from their involvement, but that was not the motivating factor. Gore would have given all that money for the 1500 votes that kept him from the US Presidency. As Lord Acton (1837-1869) famously said, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” What is rarely quoted is the sentence that follows, which reads, “Great men are almost always bad men.” Acton elaborated on that idea with this variation,

“And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that.”

Everybody knows information is power. Control of power through control of information has evolved, like everything else. Those with power needed a conduit for their version of information. In the global warming deception, they found a media willing to be the messenger. Instead of performing their original role of exposing and limiting power, they aided and abetted.

The US Founding Fathers set up a system of checks and balances to prevent concentration of power. They knew the public did not have time to monitor what was actually going on, so, the media was given “freedom of the press” power to investigate and expose what was going on.

One part of the United States Constitution First amendment prohibits the making of any law, abridging the freedom of speech, or infringing on the freedom of the press.

In those days the media was the Fourth Estate, a term posited by Edmund Burke, author of the important adage that

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

But Burke also identified the power of the Fourth Estate when he said,

There are three estates in Parliament but in the Reporters Gallery yonder there sits a Fourth Estate more important far than they all (sic).

English poet William Cowper (1731 – 1800) summarized the power in his 1782 poem, “The Progress of Error”. The focus was already sensationalism and exploitation of fear.

How shall I speak of thee or thy power address,

The God of our idolatry, the press?

By thee, religion, liberty and laws

Exert their influence and advance their cause;

By thee worse plagues than Pharaohs land befell,

Diffused, make Earth the vestibule of Hell:

Thou fountain, at which drink the good and wise;

Thou ever-bubbling spring of endless lies;

Like Eden’s dead probationary tree,

Knowledge of good and evil is from thee!

This speaks to the control of the media up until recently. The global warming deception may be the last great fraud perpetrated on the people and promoted by the mainstream media. Today, the Internet supersedes the power of the media to control the message, and therefore be vulnerable to control by the powerful. It is why powerful people are trying to limit the Internet.

Stephen Cooper identified the role of websites, like WUWT, in his 2006 book, Watching the Watchdog: Bloggers as the Fifth Estate. It is no surprise that the growth of these web sites was coincident with the decline of the mainstream media. Just as politics overtook science, so it overtook the media, but it was the old politics of party affiliation that people despised, but still practiced in national and regional legislatures. The reaction was polarization and extremism. Politics adopted the dictum, that if you are not with me, you must be against me. Media became more and more sensationalist, so it wasn’t just the sky that was falling, but the entire universe. In both cases the facts became the casualty. Farhad Manjoo identified the result in his book True Enough: Learning to Live in Post-Fact Society. The Amazon abstract says,

 

Why has punditry lately overtaken news? Why do lies seem to linger so long in the cultural subconscious even after they’ve been thoroughly discredited? And why, when more people than ever before are documenting the truth with laptops and digital cameras, does fact-free spin and propaganda seem to work so well? True Enough explores leading controversies of national politics, foreign affairs, science, and business, explaining how Americans have begun to organize themselves into echo chambers that harbor diametrically different facts—not merely opinions—from those of the larger culture.

Manjoo overlooks the major problem, namely that most people don’t know the facts or how to interpret them objectively. Wikipedia is a classic example of the problem. It addresses the need for as much information, from as many perspectives as possible. These noble, but naïve, objectives were quickly abused as WUWT identified. In climate, William Connolley’s monopoly and biased control of entries, was an example. Most people have no idea whether, what they are reading is fact or fiction, or fact with a political bias.

As this was evolving education, which was always about indoctrination rather than education, failed to teach basic skills of analysis and interpretation. The word, discrimination, which traditionally meant “recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another”, became politically incorrect, socially and intellectually.

There was fierce debate about whether the CRU emails were leaked or hacked. Beyond the legal ramifications, was the important point that somebody thought that, what was going on in climate science was scientifically and morally wrong. Release date of the emails in November 2009 was to block further political action by the Conference of the Parties scheduled for Copenhagen. At that meeting, the plan was to introduce global taxation and transfer of wealth with political control that transcended national boundaries. Apparently the “leaker”, unlike Monbiot, thought that this was a bridge too far when based on false and deliberately manufactured information. Sorry folks, but the end does not justify the means.

4.5 2 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

369 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul Courtney
November 29, 2014 11:59 am

Thank you Dr. Ball for another fine civics lesson; and thanks WUWT for ignoring a few lame calls to “suspend” or punish Ball for his last post, also a fine civics lesson. Not to get too overheated, but we ignore these lessons at our peril. Dr. Ball is identifying clear signals of Progressive political tactics and the Great Lie in this AGW movement. Mann’s lawsuits are not really about libel, it’s about creating a new exception to “public figure” – the Scientist. If he’s been “investigated” and “exonerated”, to attack his “science” is to libel him. The press got on board with enviros before Progs took over both. We’ve seen the lie of AGW exposed several ways, but the press won’t cover it. To those offended by these blunt truths, I say fine, be offended. Then, before you waste another moment, please consider this-why are scientists using bareknuckle political tactics in the first instance? Do they appear to you to be advancing knowledge? Appears to me they are advancing a cause. Sincerely hope Drs. Edwards etc. think about it, but I’ll leave with this thought: Prog. political tactic is to respond to Ball’s Big Lie post by deflecting to something else, like attacking the author for giving offense.

jolly farmer
Reply to  Paul Courtney
November 29, 2014 1:07 pm

I’m sure that “Drs. Edwards etc.” do think about it, but then look at their salary statements and carry on as before.
And you are right about the “deflecting to something else.” They were offended by Dr Ball because he wrote about the “Great Lie.” He did not call them “Nazis”.
I hope that they took note of how angry people are.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Paul Courtney
November 29, 2014 4:02 pm

Paul, you have nailed a good part of what is going on here and now. Wrote several essays about it in Blowing Smoke, like Climatastrosophistry, and a whole book on the bigger communication/propaganda issues given the internet in The Arts of Truth. Regards.

Jim Francisco
Reply to  Paul Courtney
November 29, 2014 4:51 pm

Thanks Paul Courtney for saying what needed to be said. I read Dr Ball’s article three times trying to understand the offence. I still don’t see it. I was hoping Anthony would explain it. I really appreciate Anthony’s work. I bet he is getting tired of doing this blog. I think he has a tiger by the tail and can’t let go.

Ted Clayton
Reply to  Jim Francisco
November 29, 2014 7:38 pm

I bet {Anthony Watts} is getting tired of doing this blog. I think he has a tiger by the tail and can’t let go.

He certainly often becomes exhausted, and cumulative burnout is a real danger. But he also loves it; it is no doubt immensely satisfying & rewarding. He would like to have more time and energy for other things, though.
The big uproar over Dr. Ball’s IPCC-motives post (or rather the rhetorical elements used in it); the involvement of Emissaries from official academia, and now the return of Dr. Ball, points to what we can probably understate as a ‘growth experience’, for Mr. Watts especially, but Dr. Ball too.
Even Drs. Betts & Edwards, though we don’t hear from them (and I don’t fault that, since they already have various body parts hanging well out in the breeze, without jumping into the comments-Octagon), I will imagine are undergoing some rather heavy-duty adaptation.
These challenges and the efforts they mandate, make for a life very well-lived.
{Thunderbird email spell-checker suggests instead of “IPCC-motives”, “IPECAC-motives”. 8-}
[On this site, please reserve sq brackets for the mods’ edits. .mod]

Mark T
Reply to  Jim Francisco
November 30, 2014 10:41 am

No, Ted, neither Betts nor Edwards are doing any adapting. In fact, Betts finally replied and, in typical fashion, whined about the “vile” posts in the thread, blamed all of us for his inability to carry on a dialog and exited. He waited over 1000 posts to respond at all (hardly a commitment to dialog) and completely ignored what people were asking in their “vile” posts. My opinion of him lowers every time he posts anything. He is pathetic and everyone should treat him as such.
Mark

Ted Clayton
Reply to  Jim Francisco
November 30, 2014 1:48 pm

Thanks Mark. Between holiday-festivities, work, and a flood of action on WUWT, I have not yet been able to look seriously at the wider context of Drs. Betts-Edwards.
Back in the sub fleet, we were perfectly polite & gentlemanly with our Soviet counterpart. Of course, should information indicate, we were also perfectly prepared to hit the vaporize-button.
I do have high on the list, to research our counterpart. Your counsel is timely, and appreciated.
Ted
{curly-brackets it is! :}

hunter
November 29, 2014 11:59 am

Dr. Ball,
This is a great improvement.
Thank you.

John Robertson
Reply to  hunter
November 29, 2014 4:33 pm

Indeed, he is right on about media bias and group think.
I was listening to CBC’s noon radio show about science (Quirks and Quarks) and they were talking about the culling of wolves because some herds of cariboo were at risk (mostly from human causes) and then they were talking about polar bears and the researcher said that while the populations were growing in some areas that the future looked grim – and it was all the fault of global warming of course. Mention also made about how global warming would lead to more severe winter storms too. I would have loved to hear other sides to these arguments on the show, but that doesn’t seem to happen any more.
Pity.
Thanks to Dr. Ball for a great article!

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  John Robertson
November 29, 2014 9:56 pm

John, I also heard do the Quirks and Quarks show on CBC about the polar bears in the south Beaufort Sea. The “expert” mentioned that the CO2 level, being 400 ppm, was the direct cause of the “drop” in population to about 900 at present. He also said that the population had “stabilized” at that level, which I take to mean it has remained at 900 for a while, as the CO2 has continued to rise. How about that.
So I learned something today: when you are a scientist you should find something dangerous and negative and then blame it on CO2 from human activities. Then you get a job.
I also learned something else today. When there is good ice cover but not too thick and a bit broken up, polar bears do well. The seals have to come up at holes in the ice. When the ice is really broken up, the seals can effectively hide on small floes. The bears suffering. When the ice is really melted the seals have to go to land to deliver and breed and all. The polar bears do well again. Those areas where the ice used to be thick and now have thinner and a bit broken up floes have expanding populations of polar bears because the seals can get there and survive. The “expert” avoided all these details and bewailed the drop to 900 in the south Beaufort Sea where the ice is more broken up, he said. He also didn’t mention the rapid recovery of the ice in recent years. I guess that would be off message.

mrmethane
Reply to  John Robertson
November 30, 2014 12:05 am

Aren’t there 900 polar bears roaming the streets of Churchill, MB alone?

klem
Reply to  John Robertson
November 30, 2014 3:35 am

I used to love Quirks and Quarks (aka Kooks and Quacks), but I can`t listen to the show anymore because they continue to promote the deception of anthropogenic climate change. There are other CBC shows which do the same thing, its like they`re stuck in November of 2009.
And the CBC brass wonder why their listener and viewer audience has dwindled. Astonishing.

asybot
Reply to  John Robertson
November 30, 2014 10:33 pm

Klem dito, their one way delivery has become nauseating and I stopped listening about the same time, 20 or so years ago they were at least somewhat impartial.

November 29, 2014 12:10 pm

“The mentality of gangsters” quote is not Lord Acton. It was added by others hoping to leverage his authority. He didn’t say it in his letter to Bishop Creighton when he wrote,

“But if we might discuss this point until we found that we nearly agreed, and if we do argue thoroughly about the impropriety of Carlylese denunciations, and Pharisaism in history, I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority.” (emphasis added)

Furthermore, a search on text by Lord Acton shows no instances of him using the word “gangster” which I doubt was ever in his lexicon, and originated in American parlance around 1895-1900, well after his famous essay on power in 1887.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  UnfrozenCavemanMD
November 29, 2014 4:03 pm

Terrific example of The Arts of Truth. Wonderful. Thanks. Precision is to be valued.

David A
Reply to  Rud Istvan
November 30, 2014 6:06 am

Yes, but I have always taken issue with the quote, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”; as it lacks a vey important single word, The word is reveals. So the quote becomes more accurate when spoken this way, Power tends to reveal corruption and absolute power absolutely reveals corruption.
History has examples of great men who were not corrupt, but remained true to high deals, even with great power. In my own little world I hired from 5 to 150 people each day, and I choose disparate production foreman. Placing them in power did indeed reveal their character, sometimes to the negative, sometimes to the positive, but the essence of virtue or corruption was re existent, and only revealed by the position of power. Recognizing this, over the years, I improved my ability to pick leaders. It is a certainty that giving a corrupt individual power, will expose that corruption.

Reply to  UnfrozenCavemanMD
November 29, 2014 4:47 pm

Let’s also remember the last line of the second to last stanza of the WH Auden poem, “You must love your crooked neighbor with your crooked heart.”

November 29, 2014 12:11 pm

“However, money was not the reason for the cabal who orchestrated the entire deception. They were members of the Club of Rome because of their power. Sometimes that power came from their wealth, but most were already wealthy. Some, like Al Gore or Maurice Strong, made additional money from their involvement, but that was not the motivating factor. ”
And yet billionaires are currently pushing space tourism and delivery by drone.
Me thinks you are being too kind Dr. Ball.

ferdberple
Reply to  probono
November 29, 2014 12:57 pm

clearly there is an element of fear as well as greed among the wealthy.
imagine we have a very large pie to divide up. The Al Gores of the world are saying “take a smaller slice”. Why would Al be saying this, when he is already taking a huge slice? The reason is simple, he is afraid that if everyone starts taking anywhere near as big a slice as he is, he will have to get by with a smaller slice.
Al doesn’t want to get by with a smaller slice, so he is doing his level best to convince the rest of us that we should settle for a smaller slice.
The same thinking is repeated over and over among the rich and powerful. They know full well that if the rest of us were to start living high off the hog they way they are, there isn’t going to be enough hog left to go around. So rather than cut back, they are doing there very best to convince the rest of us to cut back, so that they won’t have to.
And who owns the media, who funds the political parties on both sides? The rich and powerful.

Just Steve
Reply to  ferdberple
November 29, 2014 1:47 pm

I’ll say it once again….socialism is NEVER for the socialist.

Jim Francisco
Reply to  ferdberple
November 29, 2014 5:13 pm

In California they (Hollywood elites) would like everyone else off the roads and out of their views, except for their maids and servants. They need “affordable housing” for the servants also. Of course at the taxpayer’s expense.

BFL
Reply to  ferdberple
November 29, 2014 7:03 pm

So they should pony up their fair share ……..

Reply to  ferdberple
November 29, 2014 11:07 pm

Jim, rather than the tax dispensation that Hollywood gets, it should be levied a special wealth tax … a just tax solely for thespians and their associated hangers on.

ferdberple
Reply to  probono
November 29, 2014 1:04 pm

no conspiracy is required to make this happen. the rich and powerful, acting individually out of self-interest, want the rest of us to take less of the pie so there will be more left over for the rich and powerful.
since the rich and powerful own the media, as well as the politicians through campaign contributions, it is in their best interests to promote media stories and politicians that tell the rest of us to get by with less. that we need to be “sustainable”. that we need to cut back on CO2, since fossil fuel is running out. and pay more taxes to help us cut back on CO2. and if we don’t, CO2 will kill us.

David A
Reply to  ferdberple
November 30, 2014 6:13 am

Fred, of course it is a conspiracy, which simply means the deployment of a deception to obtain your desired immoral result.
The political motivations of the conspirators is not commonly articulated to the general public. Al Gore does not say, ” I as one of the rich and powerful, acting individually out of self-interest, want the rest of you to take less of the pie so there will be more left over for the rich and powerful including myself.
Therefore if you think that greed is a major part of his motivation, (and I agree) and he is deceptive about it, then you, by definition have accused him of conspiracy. (and I think appropriately)

ferdberple
Reply to  probono
November 29, 2014 1:30 pm

and of course the rich and powerful also control the education system through the politicians, the scientists through grants and funding and the universities though alumni bequests.
and though all this people remain skeptical of global warming.

Just Steve
Reply to  ferdberple
November 29, 2014 1:53 pm

Progressives control education, for a simple reason.
Where did the concept of compulsory public funded education come from? Not Locke, Jefferson, or any of our founding documents….it is pillar #10 of the 10 pillars of communism, found in the Communist Manifesto.

Reply to  ferdberple
November 29, 2014 4:58 pm

There’s a 300 year history of promoting public education which parallels the promotion of republicanism and democracy since well before Locke and the Enlightenment. For centuries, it didn’t include non-landowners or women. We’ve obviously made a lot of improvement over the centuries, but the same problems that Lord Acton described and more recently Reinhold Niebuhr described remain.

Zeke
Reply to  ferdberple
November 29, 2014 5:16 pm

Just Steve, that is a really interesting remark.
In the colonies, the Puritans of Massachusetts were the first to require that schools be offered to all children. A parcel of land was set aside from the corner of a farm in each township, and the school teacher was retained with taxes or by giving room and board. This was meant to ensure that all children had the opportunity to read, write, and perform sums.
(In the southern colonies, there was no such system; children of those with means hired tutors.)
This is a great thought, and provided a way for all children to become literate and numerate. We must remember, in the mother countries, these were class privileges. All children should learn to read and figure. But I think history now shows that it is the right and duty of the parent to raise and educate their own children, not the state; and certainly not the Feds and certainly not the UN through the Feds.

November 29, 2014 12:29 pm

“Today, the Internet supersedes the power of the media to control the message, and therefore be vulnerable to control by the powerful.”
It is vulnerable to being controlled by crowd mentality or rather mob rule. The spread of conspiracy theories, intolerance and polarised thinking seems to have found its ideal platform in the web. There is very little or zero debate in such forums and there are plenty of them. If we just ridicule MSM continuously we run the major risk of throwing the baby out with the bath water, and then looking for more babies to throw out when there’s no more bath water. In the video below we have an Internet guy and the MSM. I know who looks best but sadly that will be missed by those with axes to grind on a loop tape.
Alex Jones disrupts BBC s Sunday Politics

November 29, 2014 12:33 pm

Thank You Dr. Ball, I routinely monitor my Yahoo news feed…..and everyday there appears several climate fiction horror “studies” by “experts” that have now become a relentless psychological operation of hammering fear into the public mind. It has become a travesty of reporting. We have a snow storm here in the Catskills a few days ago and locals resound with “My what weird weather!” and I am stunned with how absolutely normal it is! Winters have been coming on stronger and colder now and AHHHH it climate change! The endless parade of scary climate fiction has gone so far “over the top” that the public for the most part I suspect is simply ignoring the “studies by experts” regarding said studies as the noise it is. Got down to 10 degrees F last night 100 miles north of NYC… fyi

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  George NaytowhowCon
November 29, 2014 8:24 pm

Weather wierding is just the warmista’s transition to global cooling where they will continue to extort the sheeple for more money, giving them more power.

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
November 30, 2014 12:00 pm

Just extending the goal posts of their non-falsifiable (and therefore non-scientific) CAGW.
Just one more thing that demonstrates the Big Lie.

Chris B
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
November 30, 2014 12:27 pm

“…games for this weekend are cancelled and will not be rescheduled due to the varying and extreme weather conditions and field closures….”.
Kid’s soccer cancelled here due to “varying and extreme weather”? In the past they would have said cancelled due to cold weather and poor field conditions. The low temperatures here of -7 Celsius this weekend are far warmer than the record lows for November of -17 Celsius. Unconsciously, the masses parrot the memes.
Look at the bright side. They could have said “cancelled due to Climate Disruption”.

November 29, 2014 12:37 pm

My own thought on how this all came about is just a coincidence of mutual corrupting influences.
1 Some form of science was bound to be corrupted. The use of a small group with common interests, mutually peer reviewing each other, in order to create a body of work that will sustain their careers – that is how academia works. Dominate a new field and then become the experts – guaranteed tenure.
2 Choosing a new field as a stick to influence people with – is obvious. Adverts use people in white coats to sell washing powder and makeup. Why not also policies?
3 Maggie Thatcher needed to justify destroying the UK coal industry. She did that for political reasons based on the history of UK trade unionism in the 1970s.
4 Everyone else in power worldwide needed an excuse for raising taxes or (geopolitics) weakening the economic superpower (at the time, the USA).
5 These processes led to new institutions that became self-perpetuating. They generated more assumptions, biased more data and trained more recruits.
6 This small group of institutions with common interests repeated point 1 on a larger scale… and the cycle began to repeat on a global, governmental scale.
7 And the mirror happened in the media. What is the point of a Science Journalist and an Environmental Journalist in the same organisation? Not a lot if cAGW turns out to be a crock, in my opinion.
No conspiracy. No simple corruption. Just people following their careers, rationally.

Reply to  MCourtney
November 29, 2014 5:09 pm

OMG, someone with historical perspective! Let’s also remember that there was very significant warming for the 20 years from 1978- 1998, and many feared it was the beginning of much worse warming.

Reply to  Doug Allen
November 30, 2014 12:03 pm

Some pushed the fears to gain for themselves.

milodonharlani
Reply to  Doug Allen
November 30, 2014 12:13 pm

IMO the late 20th century warming might have been statistically significant, but certainly not out of the ordinary. Similar or greater warming cycles have been observed in the thermometer era & found in paleoclimatic proxy data.
The warm phase of the PDO from c. 1977-98 was practically identical to the early 20th century warming & less pronounced in both magnitude & duration to, for example, the early 18th century warming, coming out of the depths of the Little Ice Age in the late 17th & earliest 18th centuries.
Thus the null hypothesis can’t be rejected, ie that no new source of warming, such as CO2, need be sought. The late 20th century warming was just another normal fluctuation, following a longer period of cooling around mid-century, which was preceded by the similar warming in the 1910s to ’40s.
CACA thus was born falsified on its face.

David A
Reply to  MCourtney
November 30, 2014 6:23 am

Most everything you mentioned is “conspiracy” defined as the hiding of your true motive for achieving a deceptive or immoral end. Do the politicians say, “because we need (want and greatly desire) more tax revenue and international control we are going to tax the vey air you breathe” No they say, “the world will end if we do not, the oceans will rise, the icecaps will melt, droughts will get far worse, fires and hurricanes and tornadoes to, frogs will get bigger and smaller, bees will die, etc.
In other words the deceive and lie and conspire to tell the same disaster story to meet their immoral aims.

Reply to  David A
November 30, 2014 7:59 am

But it is not a conspiracy when defined as “working together for covert purposes”.
There is no need for anyone to work together.
And it is questionable whether politicians saying, “because we need (want and greatly desire) more tax revenue…” is even covert at all,

David A
Reply to  David A
November 30, 2014 9:08 pm

M Courtney says..But it is not a conspiracy when defined as “working together for covert purposes”.
There is no need for anyone to work together.
And it is questionable whether politicians saying, “because we need (want and greatly desire) more tax revenue…” is even covert at all,
=================================================================
Regarding CAGW they clearly do not say that. They say the world will end in three years if we do not get this revenue. Three years later, they repeat the same song and dance. n many cases they know the models are wrong, the projected harms are failing, but the repeat the same claims And their own words condemn them. Not all scientist, politicians etc, associated with CAGW, but a significant number of the leaders are either Statists, Malthusian, and or a combination of both. Their own words betray their deception. You have I know read the quotes. You are correct, there is much Nobel cause corruption, peer pressure, financial leverage etc. But the conspiracy for wealth, power and control, and hatred of too many humans, is being practice by many within the CAGW movement, including many leaders ad many that formed it.

November 29, 2014 1:22 pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/11261872/James-Watson-selling-Nobel-prize-because-no-one-wants-to-admit-I-exist.html
Just thought I would drop this here. Refer your AGW believers to this article when they say that no serious scientist questions global warming/climate change caused by humans, and there is no climate of fear.
If this could happen to a guy of his stature, think how deep the fear and rot run. Our society is truly corrupt.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
Reply to  joel
November 30, 2014 1:50 am

Me too. I despair at how James Watson has been treated. He has a theory about intelligence, and there is significant circumstantial to support his theory. But because it isn’t palatable, he is shunned. The whole issue of the race of black people needs to be aired (witness Ferguson). But that’s unlikely in the extreme. No one is brave enough to even discuss it. A word that describes black people in a negative sense has been rightfully discarded to be offensive, but you cannot even publish or say that word to discuss the word itself! That’s nothing other than insane. What have we become? I have always told my wife that she should be unafraid to say the truth, as it’s the truth. But that doesn’t actually apply anymore. If I state some things here now, which are the truth, this post would be wiped. That’s stunning, isn’t it? It’s not just book-burning we should be afraid of.

Alx
November 29, 2014 1:32 pm

I have never seen an opinion piece on climate in the Guardian that remotely forwarded a rational argument. It was more equivalent to an evangelist giving a balanced opinion on Satan. Satan of course being the “deniers” as the Guardian writers defame without apology and their tool of evil purpose CO2.
As far as news, climate news isn’t news unless it’s bad news caused by fossil fuels and it’s deadly spawn CO2. Apparently it does not register with the Guardian that electricity powered by fossil fuels happens to power almost all of civilization. Talk about being unappreciative and ungrateful…

jimmi_the_dalek
November 29, 2014 1:41 pm

Another of these threads?
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.” Einstein

Reply to  jimmi_the_dalek
November 29, 2014 5:20 pm

That’s a great quote! Unfortunately, both sides think they are the smart ones and the good guys- doesn’t everyone? Part of the problem is that some of the smart ones, the scientific academies, have led the “model predictions are science” misadventure. And the 4th estate has become part of the entertainment industry. We have a few scientists, Freeman Dyson who is sometimes compared to Einstein, is one, who have been skeptical since the beginning. He’s also been mostly retired since the beginning. The fact that mainly retired scientists are willing to speak out testifies to what Eisenhower said in his Farewell Address.

November 29, 2014 1:42 pm

Well this guy thinks the Media is indifferent.
Media indifference enables global warming
Carbon dioxide levels are as high as they’ve been in millions of years. Why isn’t this a bigger story?
MARTY KAPLAN, ALTERNET
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/media_indifference_enables_global_warming_partner/

Reply to  Stephen Skinner
November 30, 2014 12:31 pm

Because CO2, a trace gas is actually plant food.
A little more would be better.

November 29, 2014 1:46 pm

Meanwhile I overheard a conversation on the train from work:
A young woman was saying: “She went to the US. Doing Climate Change, Earning 100K”.

David S
November 29, 2014 2:03 pm

Whilst the media is effectively the propaganda arm of the global warming it has a very strong co conspirator , the global educators . The constant indoctrination of our students has been undertaken as a deliberate attempt to subliminally convert our children to the global warming religion. Teachers, professors who themselves have been corrupted by politicians ,money and a naive belief in the integrity of their academic global warming counterparts actually believe what they are teaching . In Australia the global warming message has infiltrated the institutions that determine the make up of our educators and belief in the AGW religion is a prerequisite for employment in the system. There are many instances where the unemployment queues await those who dare question the theory so in the end most don’t. So despite the important message of sceptical web sites and certain media champions such as Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair the ability to reverse the systemic indoctrination that a generation of people have been convinced of is no easy task.
18 years of no warming should’ve been game over.
I cannot believe in Australia we have a conservative government so intimidated by the left that it refuses to address the issues of the national media the ABC which spends most of it resources of time money and people to bring down the current government and install one that are devotees of the global warming god Gaia. The perpetrators of the myth are motivated by self loathing hatred of man and they use the natural emotion of guilt to con people to take measures that amount to global economic suicide.
It will ultimately be through political processes ( if those elected have the courage) that we will ultimately affect the changes needed to rid us of this insidious disease.

Ted Clayton
Reply to  David S
November 29, 2014 8:55 pm

The constant indoctrination of our students has been undertaken as a deliberate attempt to subliminally convert our children to the global warming religion.

It is of some comfort, that back when The Church and Religion really did dominate our culture & society (until the 1960s), passed many Laws in Legislature, and indoctrinated the youth literally from birth; used the carrot of Jesus’ sublime love, and the stick of eternal damnation … nonetheless ‘deviation’ was commonplace. Many pretended a minimal compliance, arguably in the face of far stronger and more-pervasive and altogether more-intimate & personal pressures.
The Mormons, a very strong and ‘fresh’ religious community with extremely strong indoctrination, must recruit new converts very energetically, to cover high losses.
The Amish etc, even with their drastic differences instilled to help make membership unsuited for a life outside the community, remain after all this time, a ‘sect’. With their high birth-rates, they should by now rival China.
Dominant Media organizations have great power, but it appears that for substantial elements of the population, it’s water off the duck’s back.
And of course, as noted by Dr. Ball, the Internet is savaging the Holy Media.

Zeke
Reply to  Ted Clayton
November 29, 2014 9:57 pm

The American Protestants valued literacy for all. This was a significant break from their European places of origin.
Obviously, books were not available in the colonies. A thin sheet of transparent cow’s horn had to make do to protect the paper on a paddle of wood, called a hornbook. Once the child mastered the alphabet and the Lord’s prayer on the hornbook, he or she moved on to the New England Primer. This contained words, poems, stories, Biblical rhymes, and anecdotes about doing right. The New England Primer was used for about 150 years in this country.
The children often learned in Dame Schools – that is, women (Dames) taught children to read and figure in their own cabins (Schools).
We didn’t do too badly. A comparison of resulting cultures can be made with the Catholic colonies in South America – this was done by M. Medved.
Maybe gratitude for our country is passe now under the Cannabis Generation but literacy and numeracy for all has been an extraordinary achievement with extraordinary results. If you keep listening to this globalist UNESCO hogwash this achievement will vanish from the history books. I don’t think I will be around for that, but you should all try to avoid the situation.

Rick K
November 29, 2014 2:07 pm

Good stuff, Dr. Ball. Keep at it!

kramer
November 29, 2014 2:12 pm

“most people don’t know the facts or how to interpret them objectively. ”
I’d say” most democrats don’t know the facts or how to interpret them objectively.” And it’s not because they are stupid, they have two things causing them to become Gruberized:
1) They use feelings and emotions when thinking.
2) They get their news from the MSM.

Ted Clayton
Reply to  kramer
November 29, 2014 9:10 pm

They use feelings and emotions when thinking.

This is something we see a lot of, and it even appears that they react to ‘serious’ thinking, as downright uncool.
I have watched folks open a big box with something that has to be assembled, seize the Instructions and wave them in the air, launching into theatrical ridicule, and throw them melodramatically aside. And it’s not because they feel their ability is insulted; or they are rising to the challenge of succeeding without help.
It’s that looking at the Instructions is just plain uncool.

pat
November 29, 2014 2:13 pm

on Monday, 12,000 delegates will begin nearly 2 weeks of CAGW talks in Lima, Peru – surely, the accumulated costs to taxpayers of such gatherings must be in the billions of dollars by now.
***meanwhile, billions of people who dream of industrialising their countries are told there is only “1000 gigatonne of carbon dioxide” left to spend! their leaders might continue to play along, if the already-industrialised countries keep their promise (which they won’t) to pay them $100 billion a year and freely transfer technology.
some facts do emerge in the Press occasionally, e.g.:
29 Nov: Deccan Herald: Kalyan Ray: Lima climate meet: Will India stand up to pressure?
A bloodbath on the negotiation table in Lima and subsequent meetings is almost assured because climate change is intractably linked to economic growth and no country has ever built a low carbon economy…
According to an IPCC calculation, the world’s total carbon budget is 3670 gigatonne if the rise in temperature can be restricted to two degrees. Out of this, almost 2900 gigatonnes were spent since the beginning of the industrial era in the 19th century.
***This leaves less than 1000 gigatonne of carbon dioxide is to spend.
Unfortunately, not much carbon space is available unless rich nations reduce their emissions…
Given India’s low per capita emission, USA and European Union may not clamour for emission cut in absolute terms, but they are more likely to ask for a peaking year in the line of China.
It remains to be seen if the 19-member strong Indian team at Lima can stand up to the pressure or will give in…
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/444471/lima-climate-meet-india-stand.html
29 Nov: BusinessStandardIndia: Nitin Sethi: Lima climate talks: Setting the ground for a Paris agreement in 2015
All expectations that the 2015 agreement will lead to ambitious requirements of countries to fight climate change in the short run have already been dashed by a US-China pact, with the two collaboratively deciding their respective emission-reduction targets for the near future. While the US has announced a target for 2025, China has done so for 2030, with little expectation that the two will scale these up in the near term. Earlier, the European Union (EU) had set the tone by taking a less-than-ambitious route, too…(WORTH READING ALL FOR THE DETAIL)
http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/lima-climate-talks-setting-the-ground-for-a-paris-agreement-in-2015-114112700164_1.html
compare with the sheer absurdity of DC-based, CAGW-gatekeeping, Goldenberg’s piece in the UK Guardian this week. no-one can convince me Ms. Goldenberg believes a word of what she is writing:
25 Nov: Guardian: Suzanne Goldenberg: Obama’s climate change envoy: fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground
Todd Stern claims the world will have to forgo developing reserves of oil, coal and gas in order to solve global warming
In the clearest sign to date the administration sees no long-range future for fossil fuel, the state department climate change envoy, Todd Stern, said the world would have no choice but to forgo developing reserves of oil, coal and gas.
The assertion, a week ahead of United Nations climate negotiations in Lima, will be seen as a further indication of Obama’s commitment to climate action, following an historic US-Chinese deal to curb emissions earlier this month…
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/25/todd-stern-fossil-fuels-ground-climate-change-obama

David A
Reply to  pat
November 30, 2014 6:32 am

“The assertion, a week ahead of United Nations climate negotiations in Lima, will be seen as a further indication of Obama’s commitment to climate action, following an historic US-Chinese deal to curb emissions earlier this month”
=========================================
We should correct this quote to…”The assertion, a week ahead of United Nations climate negotiations in Lima, will be seen as a further indication of Obama’s commitment to climate action, following an historic US-Chinese deal to curb US emissions while dramatically increasing Chinese emissions for two decades at least, earlier this month”

Claude Harvey
November 29, 2014 2:17 pm

Once a couple of artificial, quasi-religious definitions of “good” and “evil” were established in the gullible public mind, no conspiracy was required to further the AGW agenda, regardless of whether or not ulterior motives were behind the original formation of that agenda.
Green and renewable is “good”.
Fossil fuels and more atmospheric CO2 are “evil”.
Once those two manufactured definitions were widely accepted, the agenda was carried forward naturally and with religious ferocity by a wide variety of individuals and organizations. Even normally agnostic business interests predictably got on board for a combination of defensive and opportunistic reasons (even some oil companies pretended fealty to the cause).
The reaction across the political spectrum has been as predictable as that of the corporate world via a mechanism politicians call “natural constituencies”. Whether or not the quasi-religious definitions of “good and evil” are accepted, the political left finds AGW theory an ideal justification for increased central government regulation/control and the perfect vehicle for redistribution of wealth. For that reason, the left quite naturally embraces AGW without reservation. The political right finds the implications of AGW repugnant for opposite reasons and, also quite naturally, resists those implications. The political right has been seriously disadvantaged in the battle by its attempts to reject the implications while simultaneously accepting to various degrees those manufactured definitions the general public has accepted and on which those despised political implications are grounded.
If the theory of man-made climate change were unequivocally defeated tomorrow, the battle would continue (albeit in somewhat muted form) so long as those manufactured definitions of “good” and “evil” remain fixed in the public mind. Underlying those definitions rests the irrational and widespread assumption among economically advanced populations that “natural is good” and “man-made is bad”. Ironically, those are the same populations that owe their good economic fortunes over the past century to a public policy of “man’s dominion over nature”, .

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  Claude Harvey
November 29, 2014 3:54 pm

Excellent analysis!

Harold
Reply to  Claude Harvey
November 29, 2014 4:29 pm

You’re close. It has less to do with “good” and “evil’ as it does with “clean” and “dirty”. Google “philosophy of disgust”.
The desire for “clean environment” comes from the same primeval instinct as the desire for racial purity.
Yeah, I went there. Call the Godwin police.

Claude Harvey
Reply to  Harold
November 29, 2014 6:20 pm

“There” is needlessly dangerous territory. Lots of other analogies come to mind. In any event, in my experience, only fighting on the side of “good” against “evil” evokes the kind of passion I see from the “true believers”. Saving mankind is a “good” cause; not a “clean” one. Calling it “clean” is environmental-speak for “good”. It’s a garbled lingo where the same folks believe filthy cow manure is “good” while clean, man-made nitrogen fertilizer is “evil”.

Ted Clayton
Reply to  Claude Harvey
November 30, 2014 6:06 am

In addition to the important polarization, with its quasi-religious ‘good’ and ‘evil’, there may be a (or several) unipolar force or driver at work.
‘Cool’ is the big unipolar that jumps out. People seek to adopt or ‘display’ what is cool, without having anything specific that is ‘the’ not-cool.
Cool goes back to the Stone Age. It’s organic. It wasn’t created by current political movements. Climate Change and Environmentalism movements, though, might be making exaggerated use of cool, which could be counterproductive or inherently unstable.
The Rebel, and rebelliousness, for example, looks like another unipolar force. The rebel rebels, and that’s all there is to it. With herds and ranks & files of Cool-adherents at hand, they can serve fine as the rebellion-object.
From the time of the cheap printing-press, Media rode a wave of cool. Benjamin Franklin’s famous affection for the Pamphleteers, eg, was a ‘phase’ of his youth. He got caught up in it; it was exciting, and Cool. Ben then caught on, though, that cool is little different than what the peacock does, that hanging out preening & posing for each other … isn’t even a rut, but a pothole.
And ultimately, cool is a tool of the elite, and mass-cool is an oxymoron.

PiperPaul
Reply to  Claude Harvey
November 30, 2014 10:26 am

+97

King of Cool
November 29, 2014 2:39 pm

There is much good advice in the philosophy of the Buddha. I wonder if he anticipated the coming immorality of the mainstream mass media where truth is the first victim in the wars of words:
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

Reply to  King of Cool
November 29, 2014 3:33 pm

Unfortunately, there is nothing that “is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.”
This is the fundamental error of all religions, including socialism and environmentalism.

Reply to  Alexander Feht
November 29, 2014 5:28 pm

There are indeed a few things: food to prevent starvation and malnourishment, potable water, clean air that doesn’t poison, affordable health care, shelter from the elements. A few other things are certainly desirable: equal justice, equal opportunity, freedom of religion, free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of tyrannies by governments and all other concentrations of power.

Reply to  Alexander Feht
November 29, 2014 6:31 pm

Doug Allen,
You are incredibly naive.
If starvation and malnourishment, lack of potable water, etc., are caused by the government policies, for example, food and water distribution helps only the corrupt officials and their cronies (look at all disasters that came out of the UN-organized “help”).
The “greater good for greater number of people” principle is totalitarian (fascist) in principle. Any help, which is not given by an individual to an individual with careful consideration of personal merits of an individual, is evil as a result.

Ted Clayton
Reply to  Alexander Feht
November 30, 2014 6:26 am

Unfortunately, there is nothing that “is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.”
This is the fundamental error of all religions, including socialism and environmentalism.

Religion-impulses are intrinsic to the human critter, like love and xenophobia.
Basic literacy can be, is, asserted as a universal good & benefit. Western education systems are based on the Dark Ages Monastery model. Schools and campuses are distinctly Abbey-like, both physically and in their organization & function.
To be naive is not all bad. It is a form of defense. It oils the duck’s feathers.

davideisenstadt
November 29, 2014 3:24 pm

DR ball:
what is the status of mann’s lawsuit against you?

November 29, 2014 3:38 pm

Hey look Anthony posted another editorial by Dr. Ball and the world did not end.

PiperPaul
Reply to  Poptech
November 29, 2014 6:51 pm

Actually, the end is still coming because of Dr. Ball’s post, it’s just paused. Send money now to avoid the world ending very soon or else you’ll be sorry!

brent
November 29, 2014 3:57 pm

Sir Crispin was President of the Royal Geographical Society from 1990 to 1993 and Warden of Green College, Oxford, between 1990 and 1997, where he appointed George Monbiot and Norman Myers as Visiting Fellows
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispin_Tickell
Three things jump off the page when you read Mrs Thatcher’s speech. The first is that she was surprisingly well-informed. For that we had her adviser Sir Crispin Tickell to thank: he was the far-sighted British ambassador to the UN, who had taken time off from the Foreign Office to study climate change.
http://www.monbiot.com/2005/06/30/going-nowhere/
Nigel Lawson: Global warming has turned into religion
Lawson was Chancellor when Crispin Tickell, then British Ambassador to the UN, convinced Prime Minister Thatcher that man-made global warming was a problem. Despite Tickell lacking any scientific background (he read history at university) Mrs Thatcher took the population campaigner’s views seriously enough to make a landmark speech on global warming. This led to the foundation of a branch of the Met Office, the Hadley Centre at Exeter, to study the issue. It remains one of the three leading climate institutes.
http://www.thegwpf.com/nigel-lawson-climate-science-has-turned-into-religion/

brent
Reply to  brent
November 29, 2014 5:14 pm

It was certainly hypocritical for Monbiot to feign shock and horror and throw Phil Jones under the bus after Climategate, when apparently Tickell mentored Monbiot as a young radical for the cause

Reply to  brent
November 29, 2014 5:34 pm

One of the first things I assign in the global warming/climate change class I teach is Crispin Tickell’s “1986 Climate Change and World Affairs” to get some perspective on climate change-
http://www.crispintickell.com/key14.html
If H.H. Lamb’s books were online or affordable, they’d be even better.

brent
November 29, 2014 4:00 pm

Welcome to the website of Sir Crispin Tickell. This website has been created as an archive of his many writings – essays, book reviews, articles, lectures and speeches, on subjects ranging from climate change to global governance.
We are now delighted to have on this website the full text of Climatic Change and World Affairs, one of the first books to highlight the dangers of human-induced global climate change. The book was first published in 1977, and republished in a revised and extended second edition in 1986. Both editions are to our knowledge out-of-print.
http://www.crispintickell.com/
Crispin Tickell (Belief)
Now you come from an Anglo-Irish family. Your great, great grandfather was T H Huxley – Aldous Huxley was in your background too. Now this is a legacy of seriously thoughtful, intellectual address, isn’t it?
Well T H Huxley was in many respects one of my heroes. Aldous was as well. In fact I think if anybody had any influence on me during my adolescence, it was Aldous Huxley. And I remember going to lunch with him and he asked me what essay I was writing that day for my history teacher. And I replied it was about the relations between the Pope and the Emperor. And he sort of took a deep breath, and for about 15 minutes he spoke about the secular versus the spiritual power. And I really sat back, staggered by what I heard, because he illuminated every aspect of this immensely complicated and still continuing problem, and I found it fascinating. When I sat down afterwards to try and write my essay, I was hardly able to write a word
http://www.crispintickell.com/page65.html
Huxley family tree (partial)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huxley_family
I wonder why Brave New Climate comes to mind 🙂

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  brent
November 29, 2014 6:51 pm

Brant —
Brave New Climate !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow~ I wished I had said that. Sorry but I got to steal that. Can’t help myself.
Eugene WR Gallun

brent
November 29, 2014 4:01 pm

Aldous Huxley 1962 U.C. Berkeley Speech on “The Ultimate Revolution”
Transcript – The Ultimate Revolution
March 20, 1962 Berkeley Language Center – Speech Archive SA 0269
It seems to me that the nature of the ultimate revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: That we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably will always exist to get people to love their servitude. This is the, it seems to me, the ultimate in malevolent revolutions shall we say, and this is a problem which has interested me many years and about which I wrote thirty years ago, a fable, Brave New World, which is an account of society making use of all the devices available and some of the devices which I imagined to be possible making use of them in order to, first of all, to standardize the population, to iron out inconvenient human differences, to create, to say, mass produced models of human beings arranged in some sort of scientific caste system. Since then, I have continued to be extremely interested in this problem and I have noticed with increasing dismay a number of the predictions which were purely fantastic when I made them thirty years ago have come true or seem in process of coming true.
http://publicintelligence.net/aldous-huxley-1962-u-c-berkeley-speech-on-the-ultimate-revolution/

brent
November 29, 2014 4:02 pm

Dump UNESCO
To better understand UNESCO, consider a quote from Sir Julian Huxley, brother of the famous Aldous Huxley. Julian Huxley was the founding director-general of UNESCO when he said the following:
“The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific world humanism, global in extent… It can stress… the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world political organization… Political unification in some sort of world government will be required…to help the emergence of a single world culture.”
From its inception UNESCO has been openly hostile to American values, our Constitution, and our western culture. Why in the world should we send tax dollars to an organization that actively promotes values so contrary to those of most Americans?
But there’s more. Mr. Huxley goes on to state that perhaps eugenics, the so-called science of creating better people through genetic manipulation, is not so bad after all:
“Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years…politically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”
This is the reality of UNESCO, the agency your tax dollars will once again fund. How much more hostility will the American people accept before we realize that the UN represents a very real threat to our freedom, our sovereignty, and our way of life?
http://ronpaulquotes.com/Texas_Straight_Talk/tst093002.html
The New Divinity
By Julian Huxley
This essay is taken from:
Essays of a Humanist
(Chatto & Windus, 1964)
Today the god hypothesis has ceased to be scientifically tenable, has lost its explanatory value and is becoming an intellectual and moral burden to our thought. It no longer convinces or comforts, and its abandonment often brings a deep sence of relief. Many people assert that this abandonment of the god hypothesis means the abandonment of all religion and all moral sanctions. This is simply not true. But it does mean, once our relief at jettisoning an outdated piece of ideological furniture is over, that we must construct some thing to take its place.
Though gods and God in any meaningful sence seem destined to disappear, the stuff of divinity out of which they have grown and developed remains. This religious raw material consists of those aspects of nature and those experiences which are usually described as divine. Let me remind my readers that the term divine did not originally imply the existence of gods: on the contrary, gods were constructed to interprete man’s experiences of this quality.
Some events and some phenomena of outer nature transcend ordinary explanation and ordinary experience. They inspire awe and seem mysterious, explicable only in terms of something beyond or above ordinary nature.
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/jh_divin.htm
Sir Julian Huxley
He saw Humanism as a replacement ‘religion’, and as such represented an important strand in post-war humanist thought. In a speech given to a conference in 1965 he spoke of the need for “a religiously and socially effective system of humanism.” And in his book Religion Without Revelation, he wrote:
“What the sciences discover about the natural world and about the origins, nature and destiny of man is the truth for religion. There is no other kind of valid knowledge. This natural knowledge, organized and applied to human fulfilment, is the basis of the new and permanent religion.” The book ends with the concept of “transhumanism”– “man remaining man, but transcending himself by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature”.
https://humanism.org.uk/humanism/the-humanist-tradition/20th-century-humanism/sir-julian-huxley/
“Eugenics and Society” (The Galton Lecture given to the Eugenics Society), by Julian S. Huxley, Eugenics Review (vol 28:1)
Eugenics and Society* By Julian S. Huxley, M.A., D.Sc. The Future of Eugenics
Eugenics, Dean Inge writes in one of his essays, is capable of becoming the most sacred ideal of the human race, as a race; one of the supreme religious duties. In this I entirely agree with him. Once the full implications of evolutionary biology are grasped, eugenics will inevitably become part of the religion of the future, or of whatever complex of sentiments may in the future take the place of organized religion. It is not merely a sane outlet for human altruism, but is of all outlets for altruism that which is most comprehensive and of longest range
http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/static/images/1823.html

Reply to  brent
November 29, 2014 5:43 pm

Eugenics was an earlier mistake (mostly) by the left that was disavowed because of the horrors of German nazism.
Humanism is a big tent. There were the Renaissance humanists; there are many religious humanists; there are many secular humanists; there are many libertarian humanists.

brent
Reply to  Doug Allen
November 30, 2014 3:30 am

Allen
It wasn’t really disavowed. After WWII though the Eugenicists of the winning side, after pretending (falsely) that evil was of a strictly German character, needed to rebrand themselves— they rebranded themselves as environmentalists.
Richard Lindzen
How Science can be Politically Useful
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/23/people-starting-to-ask-about-motive-for-massive-ipcc-deception/#comment-1797042
‘Evolutionary Studies’ edited by M. Keynes and G. Ainsworth, Macmillan, pp 256, Pounds sterling 35
JULIAN HUXLEY was born in 1887 and he died in 1975. From the end of the First World War through to the early 1960s, he enjoyed a formidable reputation as an evolutionary biologist, a science writer and broadcaster, and as something of a political activist. His creed was humanism, while his medium was the Eugenics Society and, for a time, UNESCO.
With incredible energy, he helped to found the World Wildlife Fund, IUCN, the Ecological Society and the Society for the Study of Animal Behaviour. He received numerous awards and other honours for his services to science and to society. For example, he gained prizes for popularising science, for writing
English verse, and for contributions to planned parenthood, conservation and evolutionary biology
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12617155.100
Evolutionary Psychology
and Our Mythical Dark Nature
The Western intellectual community now finds eugenics repul-sive and roundly condemns racism based on Social Darwinism. Yet its allegiance to philosophical naturalism leaves it vulnerable to abuse, especially now that advances in gene research allow for genetic “improvement.”
Julian Huxley declared in 1963,
The population explosion is making us ask…What are people for? Whatever the answer…it is clear that the general quality of the world’s population is not very high, is beginning to deteriorate, and should and could be improved. It is deterio-rating thanks to genetic defectives who would otherwise have died being kept alive, and thanks to the crop of new mutations due to fallout. In modern man, the direction of genetic evolution has started to change its sign, from positive to negative, from advance to retreat: we must manage to put it back on its age-old course of positive improvement.
Any time a leading thinker uses phrases like “general quality of the world’s population” and “genetic defectives,” the rest of us should invest in home security systems
http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/rcq/issues/8-4.pdf
One should ask oneself this question:
Who are the Priesthood of the new religion of “Scientific”(I.E. Darwinist) Humanism that Julian Huxley advocated? It’s not a trick question.

brent
November 29, 2014 4:17 pm

Dr Ball,
Thanks for you efforts in helping people understand the central role of Maurice Strong as a principle Godfather of the CAGW scam.
However we would be remiss if we didn’t acknowledge the other Principle Godfather Crispin Tickell .
I hope I’ve helped out in this regard 🙂 and anxiously await Richard Bett’s An Tamsin paying homage to their benefactors and intellectual heritage :: ))
cheers
brent

Keitho
Editor
Reply to  brent
November 30, 2014 9:05 am

Good contribution Brent. Thanks for that.
It seems that the same kind of folk who embraced Eugenics are now Global Warming ® enthusiasts. That, of course, is not surprising as the motivations at various levels is the same.

Keitho
Editor
Reply to  Keitho
November 30, 2014 9:07 am

“are” the same obviously.

dennisambler
Reply to  brent
November 30, 2014 4:57 pm

And they are both still “at it” Tickell prominently so, James Martin School at Oxford, University of Arizona, Action for a Global Climate Community, Global Leadership for Climate Action, (offshoot of Tim Wirth’s UN Foundation, check out the names on that site, includes George Soros amongst many others, http://www.globalactionnow.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3)
Also The Climate Institute, http://www.climate.org/about/bod.html, formerly China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development, (CCICED) with Pachauri, Strong. This guy is everywhere still.