Obama, Gore other climate alarmists refuse to debate, but love to vilify – and love their money
Guest essay by Paul Driessen
Manmade climate disaster proponents know the Saul Alinksy community agitator playbook by heart. In a fight, almost anything goes. Never admit error; just change your terminology and attack again. Expand your base, by giving potential allies financial and political reasons to join your cause. Pick “enemy” targets, freeze them, personalize them, polarize them and vilify them.
The “crisis” was global cooling, until Earth stopped cooling around 1976. It was global warming, until our planet stopped warming around 1995. The alarmist mantra then became “climate change” or “climate disruption” or “extreme weather.” Always manmade. Since Earth’s climate often fluctuates, and there are always weather extremes, such claims can never be disproven, certainly not to the alarmists’ satisfaction.
Alarmists say modern civilization’s “greenhouse gas” emissions are causing profound climate change – by replacing the powerful, interconnected solar and other natural forces that have driven climate and weather patterns and events since Earth and human history began. They insist that these alleged human-induced changes are already happening and are already disastrous. Pope Francis says we are already witnessing a “great cataclysm” for our planet, people and environment.
However, there is no cataclysm – now or imminent – even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have gone well past the alleged 350 parts-per-million “tipping point,” and now hover near 400 ppm (0.04%). There has been no warming since 1995, and recent winters have been among the coldest in centuries in the United Kingdom and continental Europe, despite steadily rising levels of plant-fertilizing CO2.
As of January 12, 2015, it has been 3,365 days (9.2 years!) since a Category 3-5 hurricane hit the US mainland. This is by far the longest such stretch since record-keeping began in 1900, if not since the American Civil War. Sea levels are barely rising, at a mere seven inches per century. Antarctic sea ice is expanding to new records; Arctic ice has also rebounded. Polar bears are thriving. In fact:
Every measure of actual evidence contradicts alarmist claims and computer model predictions. No matter how fast or sophisticated those models are, feeding them false or unproven assumptions about CO2 and manipulated or “homogenized” temperature data still yields garbage output, scenarios and predictions.
That’s why alarmists also intoned the “peak oil” and “resource depletion” mantra – until fracking produced gushers of new supplies. So now they talk about “sustainable development,” which really means “whatever we advocate is sustainable; whatever we despise and oppose is unsustainable.”
USEPA Administrator Gina McCarthy also ignores climate realities. Her agency is battling coal-fired power plants (and will go after methane and gas-fired generators next), to “stop climate change” and “trigger a range of investments” in innovation and a “clean power future.” What she really means is: Smart businesses will support our agenda. If they do, we’ll give them billions in taxpayer and consumer money. If they oppose us, we will crush them. And when we say innovation, we don’t mean fracking.
As to responding to these inconvenient climate realities, or debating them with the thousands of scientists who reject the “dangerous manmade climate change” tautology, she responds: “The time for arguing about climate change has passed. The vast majority of scientists agree that our climate is changing.”
This absurd, dismissive assertion underscores citizen investigative journalist Russell Cook’s findings, in his perceptive and fascinating Merchants of Smear report. The climate catastrophe narrative survives only because there has been virtually no debate over its scientific claims, he explains. The public rarely sees the extensive evidence debunking and destroying climate cataclysm assertions, because alarmists insist that “the science is settled,” refuse to acknowledge or debate anyone who says otherwise, and claim skeptical scientists get paid by oil companies, tainting anything they say.
The fossil-fuel-payoff claim is classic Alinsky: Target and vilify your “enemies.”
“No one has ever offered an iota of evidence” that oil interests paid skeptical researchers to change their science to fit industry views, “despite legions of people repeating the claim,” Cook notes. “Never has so much – the very survival of the global warming issue – depended on so little – a paper-thin accusation from people having hugely troubling credibility issues of their own.” The tactic is intended to marginalize manmade global warming skeptics. But the larger problem is mainstream media malfeasance: reporters never question “climate crisis” dogmas … or allegations that “climate denier” scientists are willing to fabricate studies questioning “settled science” for a few grand in illicit industry money.
Pay no attention to the real-world climate or those guys behind the curtain, we are told. Just worry about climate monsters conjured up by their computer models. “Climate change deniers” are Big Oil lackeys – and you should turn a blind eye to the billions of dollars in government, industry and foundation money paid annually to researchers and modelers who subscribe to manmade climate disruption claims.
In fact, the US government alone spent over $106 billion in taxpayer funds on alarmist climate research between 2003 and 2010. In return, the researchers refuse to let other scientists, IPCC reviewers or FOIA investigators see their raw data, computer codes or CO2-driven algorithms. The modelers and scientists claim the information is private property, even though taxpayers paid for the work and the results are used to justify energy, job and economy-killing policies and regulations. Uncle Sam spends billions more every year on renewable energy programs that raise energy prices, cost jobs and reduce living standards.
None of these recipients wants to derail this money train, by entertaining doubts about the “climate crisis.” Al Gore won’t debate anyone or even address audience questions he hasn’t preapproved.
As to claims of a “97% consensus,” one source is responses from 75 of 77 “climate scientists” who were selected from a 2010 survey that went to 10,257 scientists. Apparently, the analysts didn’t like the “consensus” of the other 10,180 scientists. Another study, by a University of Queensland professor, claimed that 97% of published scientific papers agree that humans caused at least half of the 1.3o F (0.7o C) global warming since 1950; in reality, only 41 of the 11,944 papers cited explicitly said this.
“Skeptical” scientists do not say climate doesn’t change or humans don’t affect Earth’s climate to some (small) degree. However, more than 1,000 climate scientists, 31,000 American scientists and 48% of US meteorologists say there is no evidence that we are causing dangerous warming or climate change.
Two recent United States Senate staff reports shed further light on other shady dealings that underlie the “dangerous manmade climate change” house of cards. Chains of Environmental Command reveals how Big Green activists and foundations collude with federal agencies to develop renewable energy and anti-hydrocarbon policies. EPA’s Playbook Unveiled shines a bright light on the fraud, deceit and secret science behind the agency’s sue-and-settle lawsuits, pollution standards and CO2 regulations.
The phony “solutions” to the imaginary “climate crisis” hurt our children and grandchildren, by driving up energy prices, threatening electricity reliability, thwarting job creation, adversely impacting people’s health and welfare, and subsidizing wind turbines that slaughter birds and bats. They perpetuate poverty, misery, disease and premature death in poor African and Asian countries, by blocking construction of fossil fuel power plants that would bring electricity to 1.3 billion people who still do not have it.
The caterwauling over climate change has nothing to do with real-world warming, cooling, storms or droughts. It has everything to do with an ideologically driven hatred of hydrocarbons, capitalism and economic development, and a callous disdain for middle class workers and impoverished Third World families that “progressive” activists, politicians and bureaucrats always claim to care so much about.
House and Senate committees should use studies cited above as a guide for requiring a robust pollution, health and climate debate. They should compel EPA, climate modelers and scientists to testify under oath, present their evidence and respond to tough questions. Congress should then block any regulations that do not conform to the scientific method and basic standards of honesty, transparency and solid proof.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: To save the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.
Thank you. That distils all the elements of the truth and focuses on the real problem of lies, deception and the waste of taxpayers funds that could be applied to research and solutions for the real problems the world faces..
True. But it’s read only on WUWT and like sites. We are till losing the battle in the MSM, the government, the public view. What matters next is our ability to get this into the MSM, the government, the public view. We’ve got to stop just talking to each other, and start getting the message to where it matters. Easier said than done, of course, but it has got to be done or the free world goes under.
That’s the problem….most of the MSM are pro-active supporters of the agw science, along with the UN, the 200 world governments that are parties to the Convention on Climate Change, the Vatican and most of the Christian Protestant Churches, the World Bank, the IMF, the CIA, the Pentagon,, most Major Oil companies, most Multinational Corporations, most NGOs, Al Qaeda, etc,.
In media comment sections, I have begun referring to the fact of fuel poverty. When confronted with one of the true believer denizens, I ask them why they hate the poor and why they advocate the mass slaughter of the poor that these policies, such as a carbon tax, are already causing. Alinsky’s methods can cut both ways. Other things, like the mass cull of raptors that windmills are causing, the dangerous nature of storage for solar can also be brought up. It also is important to point out that people who use the term “denier” are lying. Point out that people who are called “denier”, must actually deny something and asking them to retract the claim or be seen as a liar.
I’ve tried that. Does not work. All I get back is. “You’re an idiot who believes the Oil Companies propaganda, and are simply parroting their lying talking points.”
“You’re an idiot who believes the Oil Companies propaganda
Ask them which Big Oil companies they are talking about (Exxon? Shell? BP? Who?) and to show you where on their web sites or shareholders reports they say any such thing.
One can counter this by showing major support provided from oil companies to establish university climate centers, and funding support for “big green” orgs from Rockefeller (Exxon/Mobil) foundations and large oil companies. Some examples:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/06/bp-greenpeace-big-oil-jackpot.html
https://seeker401.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/university-of-east-anglia-cru-unit-major-researcher-for-the-last-four-ipcc-reports-wasis-funded-by-multi-national-companies-opec-countries-nuclear-groups-and-big-oil/
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/business/21CLIM.html
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/9/10/why_is_oil_giant_bp_helping
Better researchers than myself could probably find much more, .
Ask them for examples in the last 5 years of this propaganda spouted by the oil companies. Ask them why the following green bodies / climate organisations receive oil funding happily. They assumet that if you or any climate scientist offers a different view it must be the funding (BIG OIL), yet this accusation sticks against their side.
That is just over $15 billion a year spent by the US government on climate research (2003 to 2010). How many other fields of scientific research receive this level of funding by the US government? They will protect this trough at any cost.
Everyone made perfectly good points, but you all start from the position that the people I’m talking to are interested in facts. You can not argue religion with a true believer, and that is what AGW has become for the sort of people who make a mania out of trolling climate change discussion forums.
You have a good point Peter, but it’s not only like a religion for low level operatives. It is about continued lavish funding for the climastrologists. $15 billion a year on US climastrology ‘research’ is no small beer.
Part of the problem is that all off you are trying to respond with facts and logic to someone who has been trained to respond in an emotional manner. First, demand they apologize, be indignant. Put them on the emotional defensive. Point out that they have been encouraged to use unethical methods of argument. If they use the “D” word, nod your head sagely and say yes “Dehumanization”. It allows you say and do horrible things to people as now they are not just like you and me. Also include the concept of poisoning the well and killing the messenger so that no one can hear the message. Remember that many of the folks on the other side who are influencing the public are from soft sciences ; Sociology and Psychology. You have to first show people how they are being manipulated, this is the hard part as it is similar to cult deprogramming. On that its back to my tunnels and remember eat your greens
michael
Not all… There is a lot of good information here and some of them do read it.. and actually think about it. I am fairly certain as time goes by, 1st, the last 2 decades has certainly deflated the extreme urgency that we do something stupid, like kill the economies, 2nd the more enlightened of the group will come to terms with, which will be revisited so or later with seriousness, the LIA or the MWP. The science and the documentation is too strong to ignore. The best thing to do is keep up with what’s going on, learn as much as you can and at every opportunity enlighten. The truly ignorant, stupid, and gullible will always be faithful to AGW. They need some crisis to believe in. They have to put their faith in some authority and not in their own ability to think. The rest maybe not so much.
peter : A (hopefully) constructive and practical suggestion – you can’t dent a believer’s belief, but although you are speaking to them, what you say can influence others. So try to engage when others are present, use firm checkabe facts (no schoolchild today has lived through global warming, Antarctic sea ice has been setting new records and Arctic ice is recovering, polar bear numbers are up, world food production is up, the world’s climate has natural cycles and no-one knows how they work, etc, etc) and don’t expect anyone to change straight away. I find the whole thing distressing, but I have had two or three people say to me recently that they are coming round to what I have been saying. You do need to have an awful lot of information up your sleeve…
Try indicating that some talking points beat other talking points.
Jimbo, one rejoinder that I’m laying in wait to use is “Please help me find the cheques from big oil – I’m not getting them, …..”
CAGW types are merchants of smear.
A “J K Finley” from the Sidney BC area recently tried to smear me. As is normal with such scum his LTE had no facts, no logic. And the fool copied someone else’s method (a “Jeff Morrow” person in the Langford BC area who used to try to smear me every 6 months of ro).
“In fact, the US government alone spent over $106 billion in taxpayer funds on alarmist climate research between 2003 and 2010. In return, the researchers refuse to let other scientists, IPCC reviewers or FOIA investigators see their raw data, computer codes or CO2-driven algorithms. The modelers and scientists claim the information is private property, even though taxpayers paid for the work and the results are used to justify energy, job and economy-killing policies and regulations. Uncle Sam spends billions more every year on renewable energy programs that raise energy prices, cost jobs and reduce living standards.”
Here in UK there is a similar agenda. Do these greedy clowns realise how much poverty and disease could be alleviated if this money were to be used appropriately?. The proponents of AGW are worse than the capitalists who they claim to despise, they have deliberately kept energy prices high which disadvantages the poorest in our society, the very people they claim to want to help.
If energy costs are low, national economies thrive, this benefits everyone and is the reason why we don’t have the poverty that was prevalent in years gone by.
The UN is actually running advertisements on US television asking people to send money “as 50c will save a life” http://aviationbenefits.org/newswire/2014/05/unicef-qantas-launch-new-campaign-save-a-child-with-the-power-of-five/
How many lives could the UN have saved if they weren’t trying to get ‘world governance’?
“Every 5 seconds a child also dies of hunger and related causes” while climate scientists waste billions and on their recommendation food is turned into fuel for cars.
Whole swathes of virgin rain forest are being razed and great apes being forced into extinction for palm oil based fuels when there is a glut of oil.
Villages are being razed in central Africa http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/they-had-to-burn-the-village-to-save-it-from-global-warming/ and the fertile farms planted with Eucalyptus to ensure the villagers cannot return – so industry can buy forgiveness for their sin of producing CO2, and make bankers rich on the proceeds.
How do these well paid climate ‘scientists’, ‘greens’ and politicians look at themselves in the mirror?
The cost of the UK’s appalling 2008 Death Act (aka Climate Change Act) is estimated to be £36 billion p.a.
Another concise summary of the incredibly small number of talking points that the alarmists play with.
Polar Bears and Big Oil.
Time to take a page from Alinskey. And it does not even have to be deceitful, merely honest. Paul Driessen point it out at the end of his piece.
Alarmists do not care for the children of today. They seek to starve them to death by depriving them of the basic necessities of life, while pursuing their own enrichment and that of their leaders.
It is the truth, it is powerful, and it is effective.
Don’t forget the indoctrination of children to the CAGW “cause”.
Make the kids think it’s all necessary and in their best interest.
Agreed that this is happening – but by the very nature of “children” they grow up asking questions – the indoctrination of children is already backfiring on the Alarmists.
Kids are great – they bite that hand that force-feeds them.
just give it time
Idiotic videos of children being blown up for disagreeing with teacher was a low point from which the Alarmists will never recover.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/what_it_really_means_to_be_green/
And in case anyone has forgotten just how appalling these extremists can be:-
Like all professional scientists and engineers I did a sniff test and an energy balance when looking at IPCC ‘Science’.
Sniff test: if the Earth’s surface were to heat local (~20 m) air at the claimed mean 157.5 W/m^2**, its temperature must be ~ 0 deg C** – averaged OVER THE WHOLE PLANET; colder than at any time since the Ordovician Ice Age, 444 million years ago.
It’s really near the surface temperature, kept there by the convection that maintains ‘lapse rate’, also advection. Houghton showed why in 1977. He then apparently gave up Science to co-found the IPCC. In 2005, Hansen bemoaned the fact they had no measurements of local air temperature, apparently realising vulnerability to clear thinking opposition.
Conclusion; Climate Alchemy Stinks; it’s unsuitable for UN Consumption!
Energy Balance: Hansen et al in 1981 claimed an imaginary -18 deg C IR emission zone in the upper atmosphere so 238.5 W/m^2 Down IR, in effect a ‘bait and switch’, exchanging real 238.5 W/m^2 with imaginary 333 W/m^2 ‘back radiation’; 40% increase. They did another numerical trick in hindcasting to purport extra evaporation from oceans. His absurd claims to Congress in 1988 were based on ‘modelling artefacts’.
Conclusion: the modelling has been fraudulent for 34 years.
**Assume 16 deg C mean surface temperature, 0.75 atmospheric emissivity.
Bravo!
Neat and succinct, plus demonstrating exactly why today’s practioners of climate science are not worthy of the name scientists.
As a scientist, I can tell you that I know of no scientists who believe CAGW theory is anything other than a complete crock. Those in government and NGOs are another matter altogether.
Should have stuck to climate. When it comes to oil, only shows CFACT ignorance. The present Saudi gambit to discipline OPEC and Russia (and slow down Athabasca and shale and deepwater in the Americas) does not change the big picture covered by some of the energy esssays in Blowing Smoke. The factual details are there. Read them before opining and illustrating Churchhill’s dictum.
More smoke about the next two decades of petroleum production being blown here.
Sounds like you got something to say.
Wanna try again, cus I got nothing out of that comment.
Dead thread, but just in case. I said plenty. In a new book, foreward by Dr. Curry herself. Read it.
Rud,
Your comment proves something I have known for a long time. Trying to change the mind that is closed, is like trying to take away the drugs from an addict.
Put down the kool-aid. Step back. Slowly walk away.
I assure you the Rud is not closed minded – perhaps terse in this comment. He has worked hard and fact-checked well for his writings – read them. You’ll change your mind.
I agree with him that the energy picture is not so clean and clear. The Saudis are prepared to go to $20/barrel. They are threatened by our natural gas and growing energy independence (we’re still their largest importer).
As some are saying below, I too hoped that 2014 and 2016 elections in US might bring forward some more open talk about climate and energy, but sadly think no one will step in front of the boundless train and, if someone did, those would be the losing political cards.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/plummeting-oil-price-explained-in-four-graphs-20150113-12n6b7.html
Graph 2 -> shows why the price has plummetted. Nearly everyone increased output in 2014 and maybe the Saudi’s have increased output to drop the price further and put a stop to it by reducing the price drastically, it was always going to fall.
I’m always curious about just how much Saudi has left in the tank. They’ve been pumping an awful lot of oil from their fields for a very long time, and they don’t show any sign of slowing down.
Of course that is sort of wishful thinking on my part. I can not help but think about what will happen to their country and support for extremists when the wells run dry.
I’m more worried about support for extremists when the the Saudis will not play ball.
Thanks Paul. That’s a pretty good synopsis of the current state of the climate debate.
Along the same line, has anyone looked up the CVs of the people that approve the government climate research grants (i.e. those doling out the $106 billion)? It sure appears that for at least the past few decades the only way you could qualify was to propose another study proving CAGW. And, you had better not have publicly discussed, written papers or been associated with any thing even slightly related to the denier side of the debate.
In other words, have most, if not all of the research grants been directed from on high by the politically appointed, or has the bureaucracy been totally infiltrated by CAGW ‘true believers’?
Breaking the C-H bond releases energy. The release of energy facilitates economic growth resulting in independence and self sufficiency, both being anathema to adherents of Big Gubbmint and social justice. But worry not, for Soxgate will be along shortly to tell us of consensus, how wealth is created by Gubbmint, or some other unknowable-by-peasant information.
Babsy: “Breaking the C-H bond releases energy.”
Really? Could you please provide more detail?
No.
Excellently presented status report on the Climate change frenzy. Thanks.
Right on target… The AGW-proponents are holding all the levers on power and relentlessly pushing their agenda. The message of AGW-opponents is not getting through to the general public. Even the Pope, for Christ’s sake, is getting on the AGW-proponents bandwagon.
AGW-opponents need a new strategy, but what? The media is, by nature, largely dominated by leftists people-of-letters who are only too happy to promote the leftist agenda of AGW-proponents. Thus, most of the mainstream media will make sure not to disseminate information harmful to their beliefs.
It’s too easy for AGW-proponents to lump opponents with flat-earthers and creationists to casually dismiss them as lunatics. The MSM can’t be counted on to provide support for the Opponents’ point of view.
The Pause has been ignored in the MSM, while the 2014-warmest-on-record 8-track cassette is looping endlessly…
We are at the point where AGW has become a meme, and even snowbanks in Miami would be blamed on Climate Change.
Yes, AGW Opponents need a new stategy, but I can’t see how they will be able to turn the tide.
AGW Proponents v’s AGW Oponents – agreed. Both ‘neutral’ ‘group titles no longer encourage animosity whilst, at the same time, remove any rebellious & religious connotations. Works well. Thank you.
My thanks to you Geejam… All your mind-stirring proposals managed to make me think about these.
Does a successful strategy exist? As long as the warmists have Billion$ in funding from the oligarchs/taxpayers (and thereby the support of .gov..edu and major media). they will drown out truth with more volume. Not that truth changes many warmist minds, as I’ve yet to get a warmist to agree that any possible future would falsify their belief. Not even a frozen Potomac would deter the Dark City’s warmists.
It will take decades, but the scare will die. White guilt – the fundamental cause of green fundamentalism – won’t be able to survive in a world where the average white person is poorer than the average East Asian, which probably isn’t far off.
The proponents of the scare behave like religious fanatics, but compared to a religion the scare has no institutional or cultural depth. It will die, the problem is that it will leave the Western World in a state of relative poverty.
Don’t lose hope. I was an avid warmist just 18 months ago. It was being challenged by people like yourselves to back up my parroted Al Gore claims that forced me to fact check and quickly turned me around.
I now take on Greenies and “scientists” on the same websites and Facebook pages that I used to promote. Like an ex smoker telling people why smoking is bad, I appear to argue twice as hard as someone who has never smoked. Probably to try and atone for my previous sins!
Be not discouraged — the tide has already turned — in fact it turned a few years back. Though the screamers are still screaming almost no one is listening. Global warming (or climate change, whatever you want to call it) is now a loser for politicians. It alienate more and more voters. Voters read the newspapers and watch TV — but they also look out the window. In their heart of hearts most politicians just want this issue to fade into non-existence.
True, many politicians have ridden this tiger — and still ride it — but only because they can’t figure out how to dismount without getting eaten — so they appear to stay supporters. They continue to ride, all the while looking for a safe place to which to jump.
What these politicians truly want is a major distraction –like World War III — that would capture everybody’s attention and talk about the climate would just end — without even a whimper — becoming yesterday’s news.
But that is unlikely to happen and things will place out and we are holding the winning hand.
Eugene WR Gallun.
The true victory for the skeptics is in public policy. Because let’s face it, we can talk crap at each other till the cows come home, despite the evidence contradicting the warmist propaganda. But the real victory is in the dollars and cents. That’s in the energy taxes, regulations, and our energy bill, and the energy and food bill for the poor worldwide. I first turned against the warmist agenda when I saw the massive eucalyptus tree farms in Brazil, grown for “carbon credits.” in 2007, while bicycling across the South American continent. I got even angrier when I watched food prices rise due to Bush’s enactment of the food to fuel program. A lot of people starved, and a lot of poor people suffered hard. It’s why we had the Arab Spring, and why Bread is part of the Arab Spring motto.
But the Rest has caught on to the Warmist’s bull$#it. India has its priorities in the right place, placing a priority on alleviating poverty. So does China, with their artfully negotiated, “we’ll cut emissions after we’ve peaked in emissions.” Most of Africa too. Even Europe, hub central for warmists, is dismantling it’s own green energy programs, and Germany’s already declared their Energieweinde program a disaster. These are the true victories, which is world nations prioritizing their citizens and socio-economics over climate change agendas. As long as nothing is done that hurts the poor and middle class, which is my particular sore spot in this whole debate, since I used to live, talk, and volunteer for the poor, I call that a win. Hearing the neurotic screaming from the warmists is a price I’m willing to pay for world wide inaction on climate change. And WE ARE WINNING.
-South American Bicycle Expeditioner
Wonderfully done Paul!
It is time to get congress fully engaged. I am hopeful “The OAS”(The Open Atmospheric Society), can start playing the role it was created for. Nudge to Anthony.
theoas.org
The time is now folks. Join the fight for your future!
You do have a vested interest……
love it! We need more people in the real world like you!
Congress engaged? It’s already married to the status quo and having an affair with obama.
Too true.
Any real scientific basis for the theory of man-made catastrophic global warming has by this stage been thoroughly shredded. What we’ve got coming at us in the future are; Snailbats, HALsays, Scarems, LewPapers and DickPols, because that’s all they’ve got left to use. Enjoy yourself sorting them into the appropriate categories as they come along.
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/the-shape-of-things-to-come-snailbats-halsays-scarems-lewpapers-and-dickpols/
Pointman
>> a callous disdain for middle class workers and impoverished Third World families that “progressive” activists, politicians and bureaucrats always claim to care so much about.<<
Amen to that. Whenever I comment on some alarmist news report or blog, I always cite the fact (yes, fact!) that these so-called green policies hurt the middle-class and those members of the third world (such as those who cook over a dung fire).
The really terrifying thing is that even if global sea ice anomaly went and stayed above ‘normal’ for a decade and we got a period of cooling they will not back down. They will tell you it’s simple physics while forgetting that is not the issue. The issue is climate sensitivity and that has been dialled down by over 20 papers over the last 1.5 years. The IPCC’s surface temperature projections have failed since their first report. The IPCC reports are the basis for government action and so far it looks like we will undershoot the alleged 2C limit this century without action.
Jimbo – we know that even another LIA wouldn’t get them to back down or change their minds. I’ve asked that directly here – and I’m sure you’ve seen the result.
When you have predictions of glaciation being a “possible result” of warming, you’ve gone way over the edge.
And I’ll tell you something they have a paper for that too i.e global warming may lead to NH ice-sheet growth. They also ‘explain’ that global warming has caused Antarctica’s sea ice extent to grow. The gold standard IPCC says that NH ice-sheets as well as Antarctica’s sea ice extent will shrink. As you can see even if Arctic sea ice extent gets back to the 1979 natural peak level again they will say the models predicted that too.
Did you see that? Ice free Arctic Ocean in WINTER is a possibility.
IPCC:
“…At some point, with prolonged warming a transition to an Arctic Ocean that is ice-free in summer—and perhaps even in the winter—could take place….”
thanks for a clean & conciece point.The b/s ministers keep pushing the Big Lie & where’s the news or congress,our money is being spent on phony hysteria & the dumb public”has no clue”what’s going on.YOUR BEING ROBBED.
New Cook in the Cocina; the John is flushed, tussle on Russell.
==================
What?
But if anyone wonders, that is indeed my Policy Brief at the Heartland Institute which Paul Driessen refers to around the midway point of his piece. Press release from last October, in case anyone missed it: http://heartland.org/press-releases/2014/10/16/heartland-policy-brief-exposing-merchants-smear
Reblogged this on Sierra Foothill Commentary and commented:
This is from the author of Cracking Big Green, which I highly recommend. Some of our local progressive bloggers are using the same smear tactics. Worth your time to read, but more important to understand.
I also recommend Cracking Big Green and also, maybe even especially, Eco-Imperialsm.
“It has everything to do with an ideologically driven hatred of hydrocarbons, capitalism and economic development, and a callous disdain for middle class workers and impoverished Third World families that “progressive” activists, politicians and bureaucrats always claim to care so much about.”
Exactly! Very well said. I have traveled widely in the third world and seen real poverty up close. No indoor plumbing, no electricity, no car, burning dung to cook what food they can find. It is appalling that these “greenies” want to remove the only chance that billions have to live as we do.
Dung cakes? Holy Cow, such offerings, patted lovingly, repetitively, almost forever. Wallow in the Buffalo wallop, get close to the Earth.
==================
The best way to counter this nonsense is to play the class struggle card. Sure, point out the flaws (what they do is actually insulting to that word) in their science (insulting to that word as well).
Then, simply point out the lifestyles of the principal promoters: Barack Obama, two tax payer financed private jets each the size of a 747 jumbo jet, accompanied by two fighter escorts each, accompanied by global military transport jets transporting 3 helicopters and the armoured vehicles – all for, not a diplomatic summit, no, a vacation in Hawaii; John Travolta, 5 private jets – one the size of a small passenger jet liner – flying to Copenhagen; and at that Copenhagen climate conference the rental of 1,200 limousines – imported to meet the demand – for the partygoers (er, attendees) to that climate trade show; Leonardo DiCaprio, multiple mansions, New York condo (with Vitamin C infused shower water), 400′ (the size of small ocean liners) yacht renter; George Clooney, Italian villa on Lake Como; John Podesta’s brother (co-owner with John of Podesta Lobbying Group – retained by Obama for his climate initiatives), owner of 4 mansions – one in Australia, and one in Italy to which he traveled monthly; John Kerry, co-owner, with his wife, of 5 mansions, and a yacht; Maurice Strong, multi billionaire from the Canadian oil industry; Warren Buffett, purchaser of major R.R. (transporting oil via tanker car) in anticipation of Keystone pipeline political blockage; Tom Steyer, billionaire hedge fund manager; and … well, you get the idea.
Then point out who will be affected by the policies proposed, and who won’t be. Point out who will profit. And who will pay. Point out the fragility of the existence of a middle class. And the rarity of such a class throughout human history.
Repeat the description of the elites.
Then, from out your sleeve, smoothly withdraw the class struggle card. And trump their Ace. Try it.
Or try asking the following.
You do know that when CNN wrote –
Let’s first look at what Gruber actually said: He was defending the fact that the law was written behind closed doors and he said Democrats intentionally made the law confusing to mask the fact that the law instituted a new tax to pay for health reform. Why’d the Democrats do this? Voters don’t like new taxes. Gruber said it was more important to get health reform than to be up front.
“It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter,” Gruber said at the Honors Colloquium 2012 at the University of Rhode Island.
And: “They proposed it and that passed, because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference,” he said at Washington University at St. Louis in 2013.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/14/politics/obamacare-voters-stupid-explainer/
they where talking about you.
If we’re too stoopit to understand why did he have to lie to sell his product? Especially since he cares so deeply about his fellow Americans…
Thanks Paul. I will use this excellent summary in communications with friends and family.
In the US, the recent change that puts Republicans in charge as heads of Senate committees should signal a change in the direction of Congress toward reaction to “climate change”. Note that Senator Ted Cruz is now the Chairman of the subcommittee that oversees NASA and science and has stated about “climate change”:
““You always have to be worried about something that is considered a so-called scientific theory that fits every scenario. Climate change, as they have defined it, can never be disproved, because whether it gets hotter or whether it gets colder, whatever happens, they’ll say, well, it’s changing, so it proves our theory.”
100% correct and many more have this clear.
Yet.
The ones who should use these truths to gain total power in Washington D.C. the Republican leaders.
They refuse to use these clear known facts to destroy the liars of the Marxist Democrats who misuse this to gain more power and spend more money and harm more poor people world wide.
Puzzle this out and you will be making headway.
As of now the two party evil money cult in Washington D.C. along with the MSM hold the high ground of power.
“Evil money and the MSM”.
‘Nuff said.
I’ve just started reading Technocracy Rising: the Trojan Horse of Global Transformation, a 2015 book by Patrick M. Wood. He shows that the Trilateral Commission comprises, and has comprised, both Democrats and Republicans some of whom have been U.S. presidents and vice-presidents. He says that the dark horse of the New World Order is not Communism, Socialism or Facism but Technocracy. It was started in the 1930s and was re-introduced by the Trllateral commission in 1971 as the “New International Economic Order” and is now known by names like Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Global Warming/Climate Change, Cap and Trade, Agenda 21, Common Core State Standards, Conservation Easements, Public-Private Partnerships, Smart Growth, Land Use, energy Smart Grid and de-population.
From the Preface: Indeed, Technocracy is transforming economics, government, religion and law. It rules by regulation, not by Rule of Law, policies are dreamed up by unelected and unaccountable technocrats buried in government agencies, and regional governance structures are replacing sovereign entities like cities, counties and states.
So, fobdangerclose, I’d say you’re correct when you say, “As of now the two party evil money cult in Washington D.C. along with the MSM hold the high ground of power”. But the evil money cult goes far beyond Washington.
Agreed. If you look at policies of both the Left and the Right in any “democracy” you can spot plans to control and regulate the population. Each side seems to be tasked to implement these policies on different fronts so as to give the illusion of choice. So “green” policies can be a policy of the Left and “law and order” a policy of the Right, but as the pendulum swings back and forth the policies of the previous party are quietly left in place but new ones are added on a different front.
Great example is Tony Abbott in Australia. He campaigned on repealing the Carbon tax, which he did, but then increased the fuel tax! Now he is passing laws to increase surveillance and other measures to intrude on personal freedoms as well as closing factories and allowing more cheap imports from slave labour countries.
Progressives are not only Democrats but also Republicans. The only way to tell is by actions.
“A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” (Benjamin Franklin)”
A view of this from say China.
The fools in D.C. are wasting away via this fraud operation.
It makes the U.S. and the west less and less a factor, reduces the Wests power.
So notwithstanding the U.S. is over the credit limit and China knows this, still yet the best deal is to loan these fools more money and help them off the cliff.
FDC: I think you have got that nailed very well. However the Chinese must be concerned for the value of their main currency reserve ( the US$) and the spending power of their biggest customer.
The rouble has already collapsed (I trust their deal with Putin was priced in roubles – what a transformation for him, Marlborough Man to Brokeback Mountain in 6 months!), and the Euro is one Greek election away from chaos. Hence the “climate change” deal with Obama for Paris 2015 – the US supports unlimited Chinese emissions in return for a promise he can never deliver.
Tom Jay @ 9.24 tells you precisely how you should play this in the USA – and it isn’t even dirty FCS!
The bottom line is that the “developing world” is going to put the boot in at the next COP and,
despite all the present brouhaha, the Pope is actually lining up to back their (impossible) demands.
Buy popcorn futures.
I believe (according to press reports) that the deal was done (at least in part) in US $ which China has lots of due to purchasing US Treasuries. Big benefit to China since they can sell them, big benefit to Gazprom and Russia as they get US dollars in spite of the embargo, and the deal includes a cash advance to Russia to start construction.
How do the graphs for warming cooling storms bad weather mild weather match up against the rotation of the Earth and the other planets in the solar system. What extent is Gravitational Pull having on our weather systems?
I think the UN would tell you there is no significant driver of climate other than CO2. And yes that is as irrational as it sounds.
Of all the players in this CAGW story, the mainstream media has abandoned their fourth estate role. The press is supposed to counter the existing politic.
For the US press to agree to every statement or initiative from a sitting government is treasonous.
The so-called MSM have lost their purpose and are now mere Progressive mouth-pieces.
TASS would be proud.
The purpose of the press is to make money, an increasingly difficult task since that bugger Marconi put his spoke in. The internet actually killed them off, but like the 300 year old oak tree in
my garden, mortality is a slow process. The real current communicator is television, fragmented and ephemeral as it is. The moment the, never arriving, “catastrophe” sells less than stories of “fraud and deception by government agency” then CAGW will run like an old sock.
Our Harold Wilson famously said “a week is a long time in politics”, the change in the “political climate” can be that quick.
Some people are too busy being (faux)outraged at spy agencies and law enforcement to care about what less-fashionable-to-hate government agency transgressions exist.
I haven’t seen TASS mentioned in a very long time. I think that if the Russian commies didn’t start this whole global warming thing then they must be whacking themselves in the head for not thinking of it.
RobRoy
January 18, 2015 at 10:53 am
Of all the players in this CAGW story, the mainstream media has abandoned their fourth estate role.
True dat.
There are a few journalists holding to their tradition, but sadly, not enough.
I keep seeing articles about how skeptics somehow can’t see the evidence, smearing skeptics…calling them stupid. I think we should start some sort of climate meme or standard answer in which we basically point out that they claim 3C+ of warming but only ever defend 1.5C of warming. Something to drive home the point in an unavoidable, undeniable way…the fact that what they’re claiming is not what they’re supporting. Its what the consensus question rupports (…responsible for at least half of the warming…). Its what the “but CO2 is a greenhouse gas” argument supports.
1.5C IS NOT 3C! Even for extremely large values of 1.5C
I for one believe the gaseous emissions associated with climate alarmism are a real problem.
Are you talking about climate alarmist emissions?
Is there something missing from this sentence: “Alarmists say modern civilization’s “greenhouse gas” emissions are causing profound climate change – by replacing the powerful, interconnected solar and other natural forces that have driven climate and weather patterns and events since Earth and human history began.”?
Hello Jim.
In one way yes it could be put as in your above sentence, but in my opinion if we look carefully at the whole back-bone of the contemporary climatology, it is even simpler than that basically.
According to climatology the only smoking gun considered as a climate changer is the Milankovitch cycles, naturally speaking.
The CO2 is only an amplifier of warming.
But in the modern era the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are considered as a very likely cause of AGW, a climate change due to man or as they also say ACC.
There is no need of considering a replacing….a climate that changes naturally due to a cause as Milankovitch cycles has plenty of room to be forced by man and change according to anthropogenic forcing.
The CO2 emissions in the anthropogenic era become a climate changer simply because of the quick and higher ever increase of these emissions, because there seems to be enough room in climate for the CO2 emissions to become a climate changer as climate too tolerant if climate change due to Milankovitch cycles…..and also because the 20th century warming is to an extent an unexplainable anomaly under the known natural climatic variations.
So actually, as far as I can tell, the CO2 emissions becoming a climate changer are not replacing any other cause. Still in the long run the Milankovitch cycles supposedly rule as the main changer still, but there, in such a climate, is enough time and tolerance there for a CO2 mid-term rule, so to speak.
That I think is the basics of how CO2 becomes a climate changer.
The once Runaway Global Warming was a kinda of thesis based in the basics of the Milankovitch cycles theory, very similar as far as I can tell, hopefully if I am not wrong.
If one day AGW is proved wrong by the reality, as in the case of a plateua or a starting cooling period, then the other big problem for the climatology will be the validity of the Milankovitch cycles climate change theory and their 100 K years of the Ice Age, basically they have to turn back to the black-board and start from the very beginning.
That I think is another very strong reason to keep up the AGW for as long as possible, because while it goes down, it will not go alone.
hopefully I have been clear enough with my explanation and the English……
cheers
My mistake, I misunderstood the 2nd paragraph; I’m fully in agreement with Paul Driessen’s essay. Thank you for your response.
There is an alternative explanation of the amplification of Milankovitch tsi increase at the end of ice ages. it’s biofeedback from phytoplankton reducing cloud albedo. I submitted the paper 3 years ago but Editors are clearly too scared to publish it for fear of losing their jobs.
The underlying data, which prove Sagan’s AIE has the wrong sign, were confirmed by the US’ top cloud physicist; he apparently can’t publish either.
In short, the IPCC pseudoscience has got ALL the basic IR and radiative and aerosol physics wrong. Carl Sagan made 4 bad mistakes in the 1960s, poisoned the well of US Atmospheric Science and deceived its practitioners.
Only now are they finding from real observations that they wasted their research career on the altar of Sagan’s strong desire for self-publicity at the expense of Science.
A nations future depends on the availability of energy. Oil has been and will be a major source of energy. I think we should be buying cheap Saudi oil while it is cheap and saving ours for the future. The oil companies will still be able to make a profit in their refining of the Saudi oil. Also, energy poor developing nations can take advantage of the cheaper price. Saudi oil won’t last forever.
Isnt 400 ppm 0.004 isntead of 0.04?
Was reading the paper today, more doom and gloom. They were dismissive of the idea that over supply was the cause of the lowered oil prices. Based on the falling price of copper as well they posited it was actually caused by lowered demand caused by manufacture wanting less bacause were actually in a economic downturn.
Its pretty certain they’ve got it wrong on the oil, but if they’re right about the copper it ould be interesting to see what record low oil prices would do to the economy.
or they are simply so married to the idea of peak oil they cant wrap their minds around the fact were producing more.
No, it’s 0.04%. 100% = 1,000,000 ppm; 10% = 100,000 ppm; 1% = 10,000 ppm; 0.1% = 1000 ppm; 0.01% = 100 ppm. 400 ppm = 4 x 100 ppm = 4 x 0.01% = 0.04%. Hope this helps.
Thanks. Brain wasn’t cooperating. Is it ok to claim advanced age at 29?
Using ‘fractions’ is quite eye-opening. By dividing 1,000,000 by 400 means that total CO2 is 1/2,500th of all atmospheric gases. Sadly “Carbon Dioxide now reaches a two thousandth five hundredth of the air we breath” does not quite cut it with the MSM headlines.
Very well said.
CAGW Meme brought to us, at our expense, by our own bureaucrats.
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Created, promoted and now desperately protected (from investigation) by our civic masters.
I too enjoy using “Enviro-Speak” to converse with the emotional challenged.
The Athabasca Oil Sands are the most massive natural oil spill know to man.
We canadians are religiously cleaning these natural sands at great expense to our selves.
How dare these foreign funded fake environmental organizations oppose our efforts?
We are doing Ghia’s work,what kind of planet hating nitwits would prefer the status quote?
Where for 10s of thousands of years the spring freshnet has ripped through these polluted sands, distributing this raw bitumen all the way to the Beaufort Sea.
Those hard working Oilsands crews are saving the mighty Mackenzie River, cleansing the Slave and making the Athabasca more drinkable every day.
Nevermind the sheer absurdity of a carbon based life form wailing and gnashing itself about “carbon pollution”.
In 2001, James Hanson got a grant from Heinz Foundation worth at least 250,000 dollars and oh yeah, Hansen endorse Teresa Heinz’s husband for the Presidency in 2004. And this is just the tip of the iceberg with alarmists and their pay masters.
Don’t forget that a substantial part of the society including MSM is brainwashed to a level of fundamentalism, with the keywords of CO2, hurricanes, melting of the arctic, global warming and sealevel rise as evil and glory to solar and windmills. But there is hope, the Paris conference, I expect a clash between te West and the rest of the world.
Personally I can’t do much, I am contageous, worked for bigoil, but I will try for some counterplay.
Let us not forget the role of the UN here in plugging the line. The higher certainties claimrd while the correlation diminishes is a sure sign that something is fishy.
And of course the pure hatred toward the our poor coloured cousins.
The self hatred of the Cult of Calamitous Climate is Eugenics reborn, using almost all of the NGO’s and international aid agencies, which are now actively sabotaging the third worlds efforts to rise out of poverty.
Such foul behaviour shall not go unnoticed nor unrewarded.
The constant refrain that there be too many people, is an open admission by these self proclaimed do-gooders.
Of course they tolerate no discussion, to see themselves through other peoples eyes would be indeed catastrophic .. for this faith.
Their fatal flaw has always been their aggressive projection of their motives upon any who question their great cause.
Act as a mirror and the believer will hate you.
Laugh out load and they will attempt to attack you.
Ridicule them and they flee in terror.
Never forget that their belief that humanity is stupid and easily led, is modelled upon their own self assessment.
‘Another study, by a University of Queensland professor, claimed that 97% of published scientific papers agree that humans caused at least half of the 1.3o F (0.7o C) global warming since 1950; in reality, only 41 of the 11,944 papers cited explicitly said this …’.
=================================
If that’s a reference to John Cook, he certainly ain’t a professor …
http://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2014/01/uq-climate-change-paper-has-whole-world-talking
… not yet anyway.
400 parts per million = 0.000400 = .04%
just move the decimal point 6 places left, then 2 places right for per cent
” They perpetuate poverty, misery, disease and premature death in poor African and Asian countries, by blocking construction of fossil fuel power plants that would bring electricity to 1.3 billion people who still do not have it.”
People that live a subsidence living are always at the whims of the weather. They are always living on the edge. If you want to cure climate change either colder or warmer… end poverty Build the plants that will provide low cost electric. And someday.. nobody can deny it… either a very large volcano will blow up, not a could be, will, and someday a very large rock will fall out of the sky, will, not maybe. Do we stop living? So far CAGW is a could be or maybe. Climate change COULD be world wide with local results. If people have the resources they can handle local results. Suppose the drought in California ran on for another 10 years, don’t you think that they would come up with a solution? They have the resources, knowledge and people to provide all the water they will ever need. Whether it rains or not. And someday, they will have to.
This spate of apocalyptic pronouncements, from the federal science bureaucracy and the concomitant hysteria from its sycophants in the media and academics, is all designed to prepare us for a finger-wagging sermon. From whom? From the puppet who occupies the Office of the President of the United States, who will stand before the Congress and intone dire warnings lest we sin against the Planet and ignore the demon of Climate Change.
The Senators and Representatives of the puppet’s own party are beginning to have qualms, as they face an electorate increasingly frustrated with incessant tirades about ‘race’ and ‘climate’ instead of dealing with real problems, like the Islam-Nazis, destruction of health insurance, illegal immigration, lack of jobs, and ‘leading from behind’. So maybe the Democrats in Congress will nod approvingly, but join with the new Republican majorities in ignoring this ersatz President, and passing legislation to rein in the EPA and other agencies that stifle innovation, progress, and economic growth.
Maybe. One can hope. But it would really help if a few leaders of national stature, both in politics and in the sciences, would stand up and decry this administration’s insane march into the arms of the ‘green’ zealots and ideologues who plainly wish to dominate the world order. It wouldn’t hurt if a few so-called ‘journalists’ finally find the courage to speak up as well. Time for reporters to come forth.
/Mr Lynn
Thank you Paul, a very interesting read. Off topic slightly I have just watched a video on you tube about the Endangered Species petitions raised by an organisation called the Centre for Biological Diversity in the US, paid for by the US tax payer. It seems you can have the potential to shut whole industries down under the umbrella of CO2 is bad model even if there is not the science to support such petitions.
Julian: You have two very good recent examples of how this works. First, if the international polar bear group can fudge population numbers, and convince the U.S. government and/or the UN to declare pollies “endangered” ,all development would be stopped in the circumpolar arctic. Polar bears are spread throughout the arctic and sub-arctic areas. Read Susan Crockford’s recent articles (here on WUWT and at her website). Second, follow the recent push to have the Greater Sage Grouse declared an endangered species in the western U.S. and Canada. If this succeeds, large areas of the Utah-Alberta region will be off limits to development. The Endangered Species Act is a powerful international tool that can be used for political purposes rather than the intended purpose of protecting species that really need protection. Don’t think for a minute that NASA/NOAA and the EPA are the only agencies involved; add the USFWS (fish and wildlife), BLM (land management), DOI (interior), NFS (forest service), NPS (parks) and others. Fiction? Hardly: read the history of the spotted owl.
Thank you Dr Rounds I have read Susan Crockfords work with interest about Polar bears. I have also been looking at the Centre for Biological Diversity which seems to consist of attorneys. Its disconcerting how much power these people wield.
When you think about it with 65 percent of US reporting stations not cat. 2 or better and who knows how good the rest of the world are, I guess they have to lie or do something.
Lying to the voters doesn’t seem to work so well. Never in my memory have the political fortunes of these environmental fear mongers fallen so low. Everyone one on both sides of the issue knows the proponents of environmental catastrophe are not honest. No one trusts them to tell the truth. That’s why global warming comes in dead last in polls ranking serious voter concerns. Voters still care about the environment. But they know dishonesty when they see it. Its like, “if you like your health insurance you can keep it”. Its not true. Obama will cost the Democrats more seats if he keeps it up. We don’t appreciate or understand how skeptics have completely routed AGW arguments. It now just a matter of time. Their edifice of deceit is headed for catastrophic collapse. Election results tell me their jig is up.
‘Lying to the voters doesn’t seem to work so well.’
And yet we get politicians.
willybamboo,
I wish you were correct.
What I see is that the climate obsessed are not pulling back at all. That their politics are not moderating much less failing. I do not see one academic group disavowing the deceptive practices. I do not see one religious leader talking about the dangers of making climate a false idol.
WillyBamboo
“Never in my memory have the political fortunes of these environmental fear mongers fallen so low.”
Hello Willy from Australia and an even Bigger Hello to The UN from the people of the World is happening at a UN website.
This is the ‘My World 2015 UN survey. Vote For The World You Want To See’
It offers people 16 options regarding Education, Jobs, Health.Transport, Political freedoms and Others. This survey is to continue until (I believe) September of this year. The vote is open to all. You can choose 6 of the sixteen to tick
The current standing of some 7 million plus votes has Action on Climate Change running a spectacular stone motherless LAST some 300,000 behind Access to a Phone and Internet Connection. The major contributors to the survey are coming from the less developed nations like Nigeria, Mexico, Pakistan and India and they are, not surprisingly, voting for the things that benefit us all such as education, jobs, health, good food and honest government in droves. The current standings can be found at My World UN 2015 Analytics and is worth citing any time you debate the Alarmarama populace regarding what people all around the World want. The UN must be seething.
Another issue, Willy, that I shall be bringing up with The CAGW and Green Lot is the declaration of India Prime Minister Modi Last November that 2015 is to be the year of Health and Cleanliness with a focus on getting toilets into schools.
Evidently tens of millions of Indian kids go to schools which do not have toilet facilities. This is a Big problem for all but for girls going through puberty changes it is a major, major issue so they stay away and miss out again.
The Pope and John Kerry really need to rethink their priorities and my Green friends still wonder why i am so scathing of their pamper and privilege and their faux concerns over a trace gas and a temperature rise of about .85c over 135 years yet millions of kids, if they have access to school, do not have a toilet to use. They go outside in secluded areas and it doesn’t take much imagination to think of the terrible health issues
.
In Melbourne we have the ‘WE Can’t Wait’ group set up by Rotarian Mark Balla and supported by Australia and Indian Rotary. ( of which I am not a member). How about we challenge every Green and/or Cagw member to find a local charity and donate, not just talk about it and prove how wonderful thay are just by talking about it
Also point out that it is an absolute disgrace that we give billions each year in Climate goodies to the ‘Science that is settled’ and inefficient renewables that cannot run a minor town let alone a major city yet Indian kids, and others in poor countries, cannot access a bloody Dunny or Loo or Outhouse!!!
As always keep challenging their dodgy data and lay on the mocking and the satire at every opportunity. Lay it on with a trowel.
As Aussie blogger Michael has noted ‘ Climate data is to Science as Homeopathy is to Medicine’
Cheers to ya Willy and all.
“great cataclysm” – great catechism?
CAGW has, for all intents and purposes, been disconfirmed.
None of CAGW’s projections are coming even close to matching reality and the discrepancies are increasing on a monthly basis.
Perhaps a statistician will argue 30 yrs of data discrepancies are required to officially disconfirm a hypothesis with 95% certainty, but CAGW should never have been a serious hypothesis requiring disconfirmation to begin with.
CAGW is more a process of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, than a process of the Scientific Method and honest inquiry..
Historians will not treat this generation well for governments wasting so many $trillions and further impoverishing billions of people for almost half a century for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
It’s time for this silliness to end. Stick a fork in it, this turkey is done.
The personal disappointment in witnessing a Jesuit Pope fall into common cause with climate/environmental kooks is profound.
Hard to think of a more convincing promoter of secularism than organized faith trying to high-jack democracy. Doesn’t matter which religion is in question and there is currently more than one at it.
Crazy Idea! Why doesn’t the EPA help exploring for and extracting as clean as possible cheap available oil and natural gas. Instead of an antagonist agency, how about a helpful one seeing as we do pay for it an all.
Add Driessen to the merchants of smear! I agree with virtually everything Driessen says about the pitiful state of climate science. There is a reason it is that way. Smearing and vilifying Obama neither identifies that reason nor makes it more likely we can advance understanding beyond dumb.
The reason Obama and probably any other Republican or Democrat presidential nominee in the past 20+ years- Dole, G.W. Bush, Romney, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama- would (or did) promote the AGW line is because virtually every scientific society in the world has endorsed it. To smear someone, especially anyone who is not a climate scientist, because they endorse and promote the view of the world’s scientific societies is so dumb and counterproductive that it makes me despair that we climate realists/skeptics/lukewarmers will be able to advance climate science understanding anytime soon. There is no justification for smearing others, and it accomplishes nothing.
We- and especially climate scientists themselves- need to confront the the over-simplifications, the misleading (even when partly true) statements about trends, and the propaganda that passes for climate science. I am hopeful that the American Physics Society-
see http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/climate-review.cfm
is courageous enough to do this, but the intemperate and uncivil approach shown by Driessen and so many others makes their job so much harder. With friends like Driessen, we don’t need enemies.
Johnny Goober.
Doug Allen: What you say may be more or less true of some of the past candidates, who rely on subordinates to tell them what the ‘correct’ or politically-expedient line is to take. So you had Newt Gingrich, against his better judgment (as he admitted later), sitting for a ‘climate change’ commercial with Nancy Pelosi. I remember writing to Mitt Romney in 2008, offering to write speeches on the ‘global warming’ hoax. But I never received a reply. Mitt is an admirable fellow, but he had endorsed a northeast-states ‘greenhouse’ initiative as governor, and he was likely trapped in the ‘conventional wisdom’. Of course, had he been a less timid candidate on many fronts, he might have defeated the feckless Obama, but it was not to be.
But others, particularly the far-left Democrats like Gore and Obama, and latterly Kerry the Fool, are adhering to a political agenda that has made the Warmist dogma a cornerstone of their politics, partly because they are heavily indebted to and allied with the extreme enviro-fascist ideologues, and partly because it fits in with their socialist desires.
In my view these would-be tyrants deserve all the opprobrium that Paul Driessen hands them, and more. That the erstwhile ‘scientific societies’ have thrown in with the Climatist miscreants is nothing less than a stain on the scientific enterprise that will take generations to erase, if it ever can be. Time for new societies, dedicated to objectivity, not to ideology. And way past time for more courageous politicians.
/Mr Lynn
Mr. Lynn,
The odds are more of the same- Clinton, Bush, or Romney as our next president! Unfortunately, courageous politicians are few indeed. That’s not how you get elected. You, a little more than Driessen, try to bring the discussion from culture war back to climate science, but your “would be dictators”,” enviro-fascist ideologues”, “climatist miscreants” are just more smears and bashing that are unproductive, no counterproductive. For those who think the “they” deserve the opprobrium that Paul Driessen hands them let me ask. How well has this strategy worked all these years? The climate science wars are wars of partial truths camouflaged as the truth- far too subtle for most journalists and politicians to understand, and- THIS IS WORTH SHOUTING- you and Driessen with your scorched earth invective are part of the problem. You keep the discussion exactly where it is unproductive, in the arena of politics where very few can be objective and where falsifiable hypotheses are as rare as courageous politicians.
How many have tried to discuss climate science with their liberal friends and hit their head continually against the “academy of sciences wall”? Sure, John Holdren is a terrible Erlichesque choice for science adviser and Gore/Kerry are legitimate targets for criticism, but ad hominem and smear weaken one’s case and result in the dysfunctional politics and climate science we are burdened with. The problem is not politicians, but the worldwide academies of science. We know some of the reasons those science academies support the AGW or CAGW meme- funding, etc. HOWEVER, another reason is that so many of the climate realists/skeptics/lukewarmers are self-righteous firebrands who would rather burn bridges and smear political opponents than discuss science.. Scientific societies, despite all their faults and because of them, will choose not to be associated with the diatribes of a Paul Driessen. This loosing strategy of smear is part of the problem (on both sides) and not part of the solution. Let’s bring the discussion back to climate science and be a little more generous in trying to understand others points of view and a lot more civil in describing them.
Doug Allen writes,
Your desire to confine the climate debate to the science, and in particular to “falsifiable hypotheses” (the very essence of science), and to get the politics out of it, is laudable. But the “global warming” scare has never really been about science, any more than Lysenkoism was in Stalin’s Soviet Union. Not only does the present religious fervor of the Climatists demonstrate the unscientific nature of their claims, as the eminent Vaclav Kaus described in 2007,
but the history of the movement makes it entirely plain:
The ideology was born in the apocalyptic fear-mongering of writers like John Erlich and The Club of Rome. Marjorie Mazel Hecht traces it to a conference organized by Margaret Mead:
“Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born”
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf
Richard Courtney has described the British side in “The History of the Global Warming Scare”:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/richard-courtney-the-history-of-the-global-warming-scare/
See also:
John Brignell: “Global Warming as Religion and not Science”
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm
Larry Bell:” The U.N.’s Global Warming War On Capitalism: An Important History Lesson”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/01/22/the-u-n-s-global-warming-war-on- capitalism-an-important-history-lesson-2/
Craig Idso, S. Fred Singer: Climate Change Reconsidered
From the 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), The Heartland Institute
And, of course, read all the dire quotes at The Green Agenda,
http://www.green-agenda.com/index.html
I expect all these links will send this to moderation; my apologies.
/Mr Lynn
Actually I think it is FEAR. The warmers are terrified their science won’t hold up, hence the prophecies of immediate doom. They are terrified their funding will run out, hence the attacks on everyone that challenges their claim. They fear that they might actually be right, and the world is coming to an end. And finally their fear that they might get caught with their hand in the till and on the lever.
Nothing is more dangerous than something fighting for its life.
AGW has just about run its course, of course it will take something unforeseen to actually end the hysteria, but it always ends.
Gengis– I agree.
My guess is that in 5 years, the discrepancies between CAGW projections vs. reality will be around 3 standard deviations. When this level of disparity is crossed, I think the scientific community (outside the pro-CAGW community) will be so embarrassed by the CAGW hypothesis that a flood of whistle-blowers will express profound skepticism of the CAGW hypothesis.
In five years: 1) the 30-yr PDO cool cycle (which started in 2005) will be near its coolest point, 2) the AMO will be close to switching over to its 30-yr cool cycle, 3) the current solar cycle will be at its minimum, 4) and the next solar (starting around 2021) is expected to be the weakest since 1715 and 5) (Wild Card) There is an excellent chance a large volcanic event could occur within the next 5 years.
The combination of all these natural cooling factors all happening concurrently will likely cause some seriously cold events….
We’ll see soon enough.
SMEAR and FEAR- Agree that the data will eventually trump the model projections/CAGW fear-mongering, but I was optimistic 5 and 10 years ago that this would happen within the next 5 years! It’s likely that, despite whatever the contribution of the solar cycle, the PDO forced cooling will diminish as we approach 2030. Perhaps the AMO will continue to mask whatever little warming is caused by increased GHG. Maybe. It’s just as likely or more likely, I think, that beginning around 2030 we’ll have another 0.4 C spurt in global temperatures as we had from 1915- 1942 and again from 1978- 1998.
IF the climate wars continue until 2030, the CAGW cheerleaders and their scientists will then again be in a strong position to continue the model projection/CAGW fear-mongering, The Driessen smear and the CAGW fear are both non-scientific substitutes for understanding and guaranteed to keep climate science a prisoner of politics.
The better alternative is to always point journalists, politicians (and especially their staff), and the blogosphere to the the science. That’s why I’m cautiously optimistic about the forthcoming American Physics Society report-
see http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/climate-review.cfm
Watts and Curry (and anyone who refers to the science) are helpful critics.
I know the anguish of being defamed by the other side and being compared to holocaust deniers. I know it well. Our anger and our hurt is justified. But please don’t lash out in anger. It’s counter-productive. The Driessen type smears are a threat to the possibility of scientific academies re-addressing their skewed and inflated climate science evaluations.
Global warming is a giant shell game with a thousand shells a couple hundred peas.
If my rooster lays an egg in your back yard, whose egg is it? Classic misdirection, roosters don’t lay eggs, hens do, And Glaciers don’t provide the water for the river, the rain and snow does.
Left-wing governments need boondoggles in order to appear effective. Windmills fill that need. And of course it is amusing that George Orwell chose that very image when he wrote Animal Farm.
Speaking of Animal Farm, the pigs were forever rewriting the rules, in much the same way climatologists adjust their data, always one way it seems. When ever you see the headline, “It’s worse than previously thought,” that’s what’s going on.
Somebody above pointed out that the themogeddonists in classic bait and switch mode claim catastrophic temperatures but factually support a much lesser scenario.
Just like the classic Missing “Dollar Riddle
the climateers never mention the 33° Greenhouse effect and the huge values they claim for climate sensitivity in the same sentence. If they did, you might be tempted to add things up the right way and discover it’s like trying to pour ten gallons of gas into a five gallon can.
When it comes to claiming the deep ocean is warming and the interior of Antarctica is melting they aren’t even clever about it, they just lie. Double for ocean acidification.
Thanks to Salvatore Del Prete’s comment of January 21, 2015 at 11:38 am on this WUWT article I can add another misdirection lie to my list.
When they say sea ice reflects sunlight and open water, absorbs it they imply that the water has a lower albedo. Claiming that decreased sea ice leads to higher temperature is a lie.
Fair words fill not the belly. Lies do.
Humanity progresses with the speed of evolution.
Yes, truth shall triumph — when all of us will be long dead.
And even then a new lie shall rise.
Cheap Energy!
watching a program of talking heads, the consensuses was that the real price of petroleum was about $30.00 a barrel. With the arrival of shale gas and the Saudi oil Minister saying that they have in excess of 3 trillion dollars in reserve funds and a oil reserve of at present rates about 60 years $30.00 a barrel was OK by them.
Countries that depend on 70/80% of there income from petroleum have, they said are about to get shaken!
This is just one of many good news stories on climate which the media does not report. If it “bleeds it leads” and there is no reporting on the cats that do not get stuck up in a tree. This predilection for media to overwhelmingly report bad news falls right into the lap of climate alarmists. There are many climate statistics and events which are either good or bad. However only the bad news is reported since it is the nature of news to only report the bad which climate propaganda is well aware of and why any climate related media releases all have a negative angle.
The media becomes the unwitting partner in propaganda crimes.
There is a movie called “Wag the Dog” which shows a political campaign manipulating the media in extreme ways, at first it seems absurd but upon reflection it is an accurate outline of how politics manipulates news and media.
“In fact, the US government alone spent over $106 billion in taxpayer funds on alarmist climate research between 2003 and 2010.”
This is incorrect. If you go to the cited link, and then to the GAO report it references, you will find that the
annual total for climate change research has been around $2B/year in inflation adjusted dollars, and that figure has not changed between 1993 and 2010. Taking 8 years X $2B/year is $16B, far less than the $106B claimed.
http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_management/issue_summary#t=0
I protest. This ‘article’ is a bunch of inflammatory garbage. It’s exaggerated or wrong. The main thing is, though, Dr. Watt, you are lowering yourself and discrediting your site as a science site. I rely on you for balance in the climate wars–if you’re just going to be another hatemongering politician, I will not trust you further. (I am an equal opportunity objector: I have exactly the same opinion of climate change sites that yap about neoliberalism, capitalism, international banker conspiracies, etc.)
Concern troll much?
I like to disagree with your statement. I love Paul’s succinct summary. That it hits onGore’s religion illustrates the sad situation this country got itself into under a liberal president who may not even understand how real science is supposed to work
Hang on Gene. In a free democratic civil society also the guest bloggers can publish dissatisfaction towards civil service institutions. In a same way you’re now entitled to publish your dissatisfaction towards Anthony for allowing it. And because we’re all contributing at Antony’s website, the decision is his on all accounts.
Thanks to his wise choices, in my opinion he’s winning not only your selected part of the debate, but the entire man-made global warming debate. The AGW proponents have themselves lowered the debate into increasingly ‘inflammatory garbage’. Regrettably they have also marginalized environmentalism and discredited science with the same token. It seems like a catch-22. Can you see a way out?
Gene Anderson says:
I protest. This ‘article’ is a bunch of inflammatory garbage. It’s exaggerated or wrong.
Your assertions have no examples, they just seem to be sour grapes. Further, this is a guest column; an opinion. Do you understand that? Why not point out whatever it is you don’t agree with?
After reading your baseless complaint, it’s your own motivation that should not be trusted.
dbstealey, one example of inaccuracy is the point I made earlier about Driessen’s climate research funding claims being off by a factor of 6.
“Pope Francis says we are already witnessing a “great cataclysm” for our planet, people and environment.”
I tried to find where this “quote” came from by searching the internet but could not find it anywhere. I don’t say that it does not exist but could you please tell us where you found it.
Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
Please not these lines in text below:
As of January 12, 2015, it has been 3,365 days (9.2 years!) since a Category 3-5 hurricane hit the US mainland. This is by far the longest such stretch since record-keeping began in 1900, if not since the American Civil War. Sea levels are barely rising, at a mere seven inches per century. Antarctic sea ice is expanding to new records; Arctic ice has also rebounded. Polar bears are thriving. In fact:
Every measure of actual evidence contradicts alarmist claims and computer model predictions. No matter how fast or sophisticated those models are, feeding them false or unproven assumptions about CO2 and manipulated or “homogenized” temperature data still yields garbage output, scenarios and predictions.
Remember Archimedes principle and that land rises when Ice above melt…. also please note that no one ever seen a glass of liquid running over when Ice cubs in it melted…..
Yep sure you’re privy outstanding breaking news that can’t make it to the mainstream for some unknown reason. Even if we assume there was a significant warming period in the Medieval Era and it was global – how do we know it was globally beneficial? It has already been noted that if AGW continues as predicted the U.K. may actually be better off however much of the world will be worse off.
“Predictions” the climate models do not make!