Realities Of Climate Change, Politics And Public Knowledge.

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

The minute a small cabal hijacked climate for a political agenda it determined that setting the record straight required political answers. Naomi Klein admitted it wasn’t about the science directly. That fighting climate change was necessary to combat capitalism. This was the objective all along and expressed in 1993 when Senator Wirth admitted,

“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing …” 

The “right thing” is achieving Maurice Strong’s objective of getting rid of the industrialized nations.

Too many skeptics continue to think that scientific points are going to change the public understanding. Most of the public don’t understand, but, more important, don’t want to understand. I doubt the 75% who failed the Yale Education Climate Change test lost any sleep. Polls, such as those of the Pew Center and overall analysis of trends indicate global warming or climate change are not a concern for most people. I suspect they don’t care because they don’t understand or want to understand. They also know how about the unreliability of weather forecasts, and that is all the science they need. One Pew poll confirms that the public believes global warming is a political issue. Because of this, politicians and environmentalists with political agendas continue to control the story. James Delingpole puts the amount of money wasted because of this control at $4 billion a day.

Because science is ideally amoral and apolitical most scientists avoid politics, which results in a failure to provide necessary information to open-minded politicians and media. They need this to counter the pseudo-science of the IPCC proponents. They knew what to do from the start. Stephen Schneider set it out succinctly in Discover magazine a year after Hansen appeared before Wirth’s Senate committee and put the entire issue into the political realm.

On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but& which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

If this sounds familiar today, it is because it summarizes the words in the recent Encyclical of Pope Francis. Schneider is wrong. There is no decision about right and wrong, which is why the Pope’s connection with climate deceivers contradicts his central role as upholder of truth and is so deeply troubling. It is the rationale Naomi Klein and other use, which is why they brought her on board. It is basic Alinsky; the end justifies the means.

I spoke about the need to counter the false science from a political and social perspective, in my presentation at the First Heartland Conference in New York ten years ago. I pointed out that Gore’s movie was a brilliant piece of propaganda. A view supported by Justice Burton the UK judge who ruled on its use in the classroom.

It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political.

Justice Burton recommended teachers provide balance by also showing The Great Global Warming Swindle. I proudly advised producer Martin Durkin and appeared in the movie. I also warned him that the US media would not run it, as proved the case, although it is now generally available. The problem is that only a small percentage of people watch documentaries on television. Gore bypassed that by using Hollywood to make the movie but also to market it through all their traditional venues. They knew how to achieve Schneider’s goal of getting “broad-based support” and “capturing the public’s imagination.”

Skeptics have, for a variety of reasons, avoided the “Hollywood” approach. It is a major error. We need to realize that tactics are tactics, and that the adage that you fight fire with fire is true. The first thing to do in any strategy is define the problem and the second is to determine the target and thirdly use tactics appropriate to the situation.

The problem is a failure to explain climate science and its abuse in a way a majority can understand. The following points are gleaned from my experience with media interviews, school visits, questions after a presentation, and questions via email. They represent the issues I confront every day. They are the real challenges anybody trying to offset the misinformation about climate and climate change must consider. They are the political dynamics that influence how you help people understand and deal with science issues.

1. People can’t believe a small group of people could mislead the world. Nowadays, the explosion of conspiracy theories because of the Internet, make the idea even more remote and unpalatable. They need to heed world-renowned anthropologist Margaret Mead’s observation.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”


This comment implies that “thoughtful” and “committed” are pursuing positive changes. History indicates they are never positive as power centralizes and corrupts and people lose freedoms.


2. People can’t believe scientists would distort, manipulate, or do anything other than proper science. They accept the view that science and scientists are amoral and apolitical. As Mary McCarthy said,

“In science, all facts, no matter how trivial or banal, enjoy democratic equality.”

This is reinforced by the practice of most scientists to avoid politics. The public assumes the silence is a tacit agreement with what is in the media about global warming.

3. It is mostly the politicians who talk about the 97% manufactured consensus. The public asks as happened to me twice on radio this week,

“How come thousands of scientists believe there is global warming and climate change?”


The simple answer is, very few are familiar with the science. They, like most of the public, assume other scientists would not distort, manipulate, or do anything other than proper science. When scientists find out, they are shocked as exemplified in Klaus-Eckert Puls comment.

Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data—first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of

what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.


IPCC proponents promoted and perpetuated this deception through science societies as I explained.

A particularly egregious exploitation was carried out through science societies and professional scientific groups. They were given the climate science of the IPCC and urged to support it on behalf of their members. Certainly a few were part of the exploitation, but a majority, including most of the members simply assumed that the rigorous methods of research and publication in their science were used. Lord May of the UK Royal Society was influential in the manipulation of public perception through national scientific societies. They persuaded other national societies to become involved by making public statements. The Russian Academy of Science, under its President Yuri Israel, refused to participate.


4. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, “Never in the history of mankind have so many been deceived by so few, with so few facts.” The more you try to counteract what the public knows using scientific facts, the more you lose the battle. If you use scientific facts you must couch them in terms and analogies everybody understands. I know this from 25 years of teaching a compulsory science credit course for Arts students. The abilities and techniques I developed there of explaining climate in ways the public understand made me a double threat to IPCC proponents because I was also qualified.

5. Most people don’t know what is “normal” or “natural” in nature. This made it easy to imply or infer that they were abnormal or unnatural. It works well with the modern practice of “sound bites” in which information is presented without context. Climate change is innately historical and demands context. There are two basic options to counter the problem. Publish the context for each story as soon as possible after it appears. Publish stories of true facts that are outside of people’s comprehension using analogies. For example, alarmists add human scale to stories with analogies. One year they reported Arctic sea ice melted more by an area the size of Texas than the previous year. Texas is 695,662 km2, which is approximately 4.6% of the total Arctic ice of 15 million km2. The change is within the natural annual variability, but Texas is big so it must be a problem.

6. We tell people CO2 isn’t causing the warming but fail to explain why. This is for people who don’t know what a greenhouse gas is or that water vapor is far more important. (Figure 1)


Figure 1 Source: Yale Education Climate Change Test.

We then fail to explain what is the most likely cause. As politicians learn to their peril, you can’t just be against something.

Today they push the global warming claims with increasing deception because the 21st Paris Conference of the Parties on climate is scheduled for 7-8 December 2015. They consider it imperative to pass a Kyoto type set of policies. Ironically, one thing that diminishes their chances is continued economic decline, the very objective of Wirth, Klein and the gang. It is ironic because politicians will reset their priorities to promote development, growth, and job creation because they don’t want angry voters. What they will get is angry global warming activists with a political agenda.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 22, 2015 10:36 pm

Why the obsession with Maurice Strong?

Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 22, 2015 11:07 pm

I see no obsession.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
August 22, 2015 11:22 pm

For every -ism there are lots of crazies who want to get rid of them. Who cares specifically about Mr. Strong?

Climate Heretic
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 22, 2015 11:08 pm

Why the hell not?
“Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.”[1]
Just one, but hey do not take my word for it, search Maurice Strong and see the rest of the antics he has been up to as reported by others. He is a humongous hypocrite.
Climate Heretic
[1] Maurice Strong as quoted in the September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine

Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 22, 2015 11:19 pm

He started the whole thing with UN Agenda 21, etc.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
August 22, 2015 11:45 pm

There were eco-hippies long before that. And Strong has dropped out.

Mike Bromley the Kurd
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 23, 2015 4:59 am

Maurice Strong is basically the instigator of this entire process. Without him, you’d not have the question to ask, and we likely would not be posting in WUWT.

Mike Bromley the Kurd
Reply to  Mike Bromley the Kurd
August 23, 2015 5:02 am

And don’t for one moment think that Strong has dropped out.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 23, 2015 5:32 am

Read (Google)about the Club of Rome, Agenda 21 and the real politics behind “sustainability”. You will then have educated yourself to the issue and see where Maurice Strong is the mentor of Naomi Oriskies…..

Reply to  Scott
August 23, 2015 8:46 am

So what? As I said, eco-hippies were around long before Agenda 21. Do you really thinks that getting rid of Strong [nature may take its course; he is 86] will make the sustainability idiots go away?

Reply to  Scott
August 24, 2015 12:20 am

Strong did not have to be the initiator of many of the ideas, but he was clearly instrumental in pushing the global agenda through his UN influence. Given the source of his personal wealth (a lot of fossil fuel companies) and the later food-for-oil bribery scandal, I think he’s earned his fair share of bile.
I think of Strong and this springs to mind: “the finest trick of the devil is to persuade you that he does not exist.” To dismisss the man as inconsequential is the first big mistake. I don’t think he is an eco-hippie. I doubt he wears a psychedelic kaftan and drives around in a Kombi van… neither do I think he is Ernst Stavro Blofeld, but he is much closer to the latter than the former, no?

Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 23, 2015 7:13 am

Well, Dr. S., I think you may be overemphasizing, but it does seem you have a point. After using the search function here, there are a few prior references. And Google has plenty, pro and con. The wiki seems to favor him, but evenhandedly. And, for what it’s worth,

Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 23, 2015 7:21 am

Maurice Strong is the left-hand man to what Dr. Ball describes as the small cabal that hijacked climate for a political agenda. Strong’s career wove its way between government employment at a senior level, employment in private industry and ownership of companies, including oil. He is a pal of both those who direct the UN towards global governance from their global money power positions and of their minions, including Secretaries-General, past and present. His real strength is his network, each web of which it was necessary to crawl along or spin in order to create a sense of climate catastrophe and the ensuing world chaos.
Strong is a salesman and a tactician. I recently read his book Where on Earth Are we Going? The title seemed to me to eerily echo Lenin’s, What is To Be Done? It was not an imagined echo as Strong himself admits in the book. In it, although he also admits that somebody else actually wrote the book, he shows just how accomplished both he and his writer are at disinformation and at using socialist language to convince readers to give up their freedom for the sake of saving Earth. And for what are we to save Earth? He doesn’t say it outright but we are to save Earth for those who crave absolute control over it.
His chapter by chapter bibliography includes UN papers, books and articles by environmental lefty luminaries, his own presentations and Thomas Malthus. My biggest chuckle, and the only one I got from reading the propaganda, came of seeing Rachel Carson referenced as an authority several times.
The book was published in 2001. In his omniscience, Strong presents a vision of 2031. That it is actually the result of a plan is clear when one reads of the mass migrations and other world turbulence, including economic catastrophe, that he describes. All of that catastrophe is, according to him, because of man-made climate change. When Strong and his pals talk of climate change, they are really talking about political, economic, moral and societal revolution intended to result in a new world order.
When Dr. Ball ‘obsesses’ over Maurice Strong, he is doing us a favor. We ought to listen what Strong has said. His prognostications are best read as threats. He and the cabal intended to destroy the industrialized world and they are well on their way to accomplishing that.

sysiphus /
Reply to  imoira
August 23, 2015 3:43 pm

Dr. Svalgaard cannot input this into his equation. I don’t know why.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 23, 2015 9:56 am

Strong is [he’s still alive hiding in Peking from an international arrest warrant] a Canadian beet red Prairie Socalist who was Pearson and Trudeau’s “eminence grise” at the UN. He’s one of the UNEP and IPCC’s godfathers and was caught on open microphone at the 1992 Rio Earth Conference advocating the dismantling of western advanced industrial societies as a the way of saving the planet.
That very statement tells us jus about everything we need to know about the motives of the climate establishment and serves nicely to situate the views of say a Naomi Klein and the Pope -both virulently anti-progress and anti-capitalism.
That’s all I we need to understand – something by the way I did some 15 years ago when I started to dig into the CAGW story, because we are not discussing whether or not the sun or man has anything to do with the earth’s climate but are dealing with extremely well funded and manipulative on-message groups whose aim is to destroy our economies.
If you have trouble accepting that reality, take a closer look at what is unfolding in Germany where the Greens are found in key positions throughout the political and social fabric putting in place disastrous policies such as the much touted “energiewende” and are in the process of achieving precisely what Maurice Strong was advocating.
That’s not an obsession but a reality check.

Reply to  tetris
August 23, 2015 10:19 am

Strong has no influence, except over the ones obsessed with him. It is hard to hate an -ism, but put a person on it and hate can pour out unhindered. Strong is hardly the first who has thirsted for World domination [that thirst goes back thousands of years] and won’t be the last. Such critters are best ignored and their influence vanishes.

Reply to  tetris
August 23, 2015 3:25 pm

“Putting a person’s face on an attack on an -ism is a clever trick to draw out the haters.”
Indeed, no accused, no trial… If that is not another better trick, what is.
It feels safer to rather hide behind ALL scientists, politicians, bureaucrats and now even religious figures who promote the doomsday cult. One’s individual responsibility is thus diluted: “everyone agreed, we all thought we were right” etc… would then become the common defense and excuse. Identifying those who contributed to engineer the whole affair makes sunny boy uncomfortable.
Svalgaard may not have read Mr. Strong recent prose, his non coincidental interventions in major newspapers at the side of Rockefeller Brothers funded propagandists, in Canada and in the US. Sure Strong did not invent world domination yet he was and still is a willing tool just like Soros plays with lives. Their old age does not diminish their toxicity.

Reply to  TomRude
August 23, 2015 7:33 pm

Gee, Strong didn’t invent any of this. The man in the street has never heard of Strong. If there had been no Strong, another Maurice would have been there to champion those silly notions. Strong has done nothing concrete that would not have happened anyway. But for all you haters, it is of course convenient to have an actual person to heap contempt, venom, and ad-homs on. I guess that small minds always find a stronger mind to vilify.

Reply to  tetris
August 24, 2015 7:01 am

What arguments are that? “Strong didn’t invent any of this?” Many power hungry grey eminences did not invent concepts and yet further their masters agenda using them.
“The man in the street has never heard of Strong.” As if popularity should be equated with real power… What a naive notion.
” If there had been no Strong, another Maurice would have been there to champion those silly notions.”
That’s true, there are many willing tool men in this world, always had been and always will…
“Strong has done nothing concrete that would not have happened anyway.” Except he was the one who did. Imagine a lawyer coming up with that one: “my client has done nothing that nature would not have done anyway…”
“But for all you haters, it is of course convenient to have an actual person to heap contempt, venom, and ad-homs on. I guess that small minds always find a stronger mind to vilify.”
I guess assigning historical responsibility is venom, ad-homs, small minded… Yet, doing just that regarding Strong contribution is enough to be a “hater”. LOL
Thou Svalgaard protest too much about old Maurice… Anything we should know or is it pure senior brotherly love?

Sun Spot
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 23, 2015 12:15 pm

at lsvalgaard, I see no obsession, I see history. Those who forget cAGW history are doomed to repeat it every day.

Reply to  Sun Spot
August 23, 2015 12:22 pm

I don’t see that Strong has made any difference whatsoever. Sustainability is not his idea. World Domination is not his idea. World Governance is not his idea. The claim that there are too many people on Earth is not his idea. Putting a person’s face on an attack on an -ism is a clever trick to draw out the haters.

Reply to  Sun Spot
August 24, 2015 6:23 am

Give over, you’re arguing the unarguable. When a man who is at the heart of the UN climate machinery, having help put it in place, states that in order to save the planet we have to dismantle the advanced industrial economies, you need to take that at face value. When an armed man tells you he’s going to kill you, best to take him at his word and act accordingly.
Strong, using the UN machinery, enabled the emergence of a myriad of “green” NGOs and political parties from the ruins of socialism after 1989. The dates of the fall of the Wall and the emergence of climate as a central political issue is not a coincidence -only the truly naïve still don’t want to get that. Climate has been the war horse of the various factions at the extreme Left ever since the early 1990s.
And in Germany these various groupings are in the process of achieving exactly what Strong had in mind: increasingly, all major German manufacturers are moving their operations to North America where energy costs are 30% of those in Europe -even Airbus has put its new factory in NC. We are witnessing before our eyes the de-industrialization of Euorpe most important economy, with the disappearance of now well over 100,000 well paying jobs and as Germany goes so goes the rest of the Eurozone. Make no mistake about it.
Your are superbly naïve to want to hold up Strong as some insignificant bit player: he and his ilk are winning the war they set in motion. If you still have doubts, think about how come Obama’s Science advisor is Paul Ehrlich’s No 2, which goes a long way to explaining the dangerous talk coming from the POTUS. All part of the movement enabled by Strong and his ilk over the past 25 years.
Not an obsession but yet another reality check.

Reply to  tetris
August 24, 2015 8:39 am

All part of the movement enabled by Strong and his ilk over the past 25 years.
Now we are getting somewhere. “his ilk” helped him, so he did not do all this alone, single-handed. But to think that he ‘enabled’ all this is giving way too much credit. As I said, it seems to feel good to have somebody to blame everything on. This is a very human foible and you and your ilk have apparently succumbed fully to that. Less gullible minds have a more balanced view.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Sun Spot
August 24, 2015 10:07 am

Calling someone a hater is easy. Especially if you use arrogant terms and seem to disagree with anyone who ever questions you.

The Original Mike M
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 23, 2015 4:48 pm

Obsession? It’s a tribute! There’s a good chance that Anthony would not have even created this site or if not for the groundwork laid by that vile evil piece of ….

Clovis Marcus
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 24, 2015 6:48 am

Reading down thread I think the obsession with Strong might be yours 😉

August 22, 2015 11:21 pm

Figure 1. is interesting, but figure 2. with the correct answers would be more interesting…

john cook
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
August 22, 2015 11:40 pm

which gaz is “good at” …. what does this mean?????

August 22, 2015 11:31 pm

I love Tim Ball – he has got a fire in his belly. And he fuels it with facts.
Keep it up, Tim.

Charles Nelson
August 22, 2015 11:53 pm

They took the linguistic high ground when the deeply misleading term ‘Greenhouse Effect’ was coined.

August 22, 2015 11:59 pm

Ancel Keys managed to fool the world about saturated fats, so it has been done before. Bad science and politics is a toxic mix.

Louis Hunt
August 23, 2015 12:13 am

“The public assumes the silence is a tacit agreement with what is in the media about global warming.”
That’s a big one. A link provided in a previous thread led me to the blog of a guy who argued that over 99.9% of published scientists agree with the consensus on man-caused global warming. His reasoning for that was along the line that if a research paper does not explicitly come out against the consensus, it must be counted in support of the consensus. Never mind that a vote has never been held to establish the consensus in the first place. He found that only 1 in 5000 papers expressed a direct opinion opposing the AGW consensus, so by his reasoning, 4999 out of 5000 papers, or 99.98%, were in total support. He made no allowance for scientists that might remain neutral or open minded on the theory. To him, silence could only mean one thing: agreement.
He also didn’t consider that many scientists don’t want to venture a political opinion because they have seen how grant money can dry up for those who are considered to be on the ‘wrong’ side of a hot issue like climate change. They don’t want to be ostracized, too, and have their careers cut short. So they keep their mouths shut. That doesn’t mean they are in agreement with the theory, but warmists will still count them as agreeing because of their silence. They are like a losing politician who claims that he really won because everyone who stayed home on election day would have voted for him. I’m sorry, but it just doesn’t work that way.

Reply to  Louis Hunt
August 23, 2015 2:11 am

” if a research paper does not explicitly come out against the consensus, it must be counted in support”
Lets turn that around:
I wonder what % of papers EXPLICITLY claim that [1]man’s [2]CO2 is [3]causing [4]dangerous [5] global warming. All 5 elements must be proven to justify action against CO2 emission. I’ll bet the number of papers is well under 0.001%, probably ZERO.

Gerry, England
Reply to  jim
August 23, 2015 5:05 am

More specifically, how many papers actually contain empirical proof that AGW is happening?

A C Osborn
Reply to  jim
August 23, 2015 8:58 am

I can answer that ZERO.

August 23, 2015 12:28 am

[Snip. Fake email address. ~mod.]

old construction worker
Reply to  bobthebear
August 23, 2015 7:04 am

Naomi Klein quote tries to put her in the denier camp, but the quote says, “Even if the theory of global warming is wrong…”. Even if, are the words that modify the statement. I’ve read a lot of Naomi’s work and she is not a denier.
That statement by Naomi Klein does not put her in “denier camp”. it tells many of us her true motivation is not science but “the ends justify the means” just like statements like “we must get rid of the MWP and So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.

Reply to  bobthebear
August 23, 2015 9:50 am

You should try reading what is written some time.
The quote is: “”We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic socialism and environmental policy.” and it was by Tim WIrth, not Naomi Klein.
What Klein does deny is that there is any alternative explanation for global warming, the same global warming that hasn’t been happening for the last 18 years.
Perhaps you ought to look around a bit, Mr Bear, and broaden your intellectual horizons a bit.

Reply to  bobthebear
August 23, 2015 2:25 pm

@ bobthebear, “Your final sentence is ridiculous.”. No it is not, it is the truth. Politicians of all stripes promote nothing but positive intangibles. that is why they are called; “Promises” as in ” I promise that when I get to Washington I WILL cut down unemployment !” and ” If I get to Whitehall, I will cut down on crime!”. And the masses go “YEAH!”. If you do not understand that you are lost. ( so sorry).

Reply to  bobthebear
August 23, 2015 8:48 pm

Bobthebear, please provide some form of evidence that his perspective is based in emotion and not logic.
The actual facts to any intelligent person who has looked in to the evidence demonstrably and irrefutably show that we are NOT heading toward climate catastrophe.

August 23, 2015 12:30 am

How many people still don’t understand that the planet hasn’t warmed for over 18 years? That’s using UAH V6 satellite data.
Also the south polar region hasn’t warmed for over 35 years.
The N polar for over 13 years. The US for over 18 years. Australia for over 17 years. The SH for over 19 years. the tropics for over 21 years. the NH for over 18 years. Most people haven’t got a clue.

August 23, 2015 12:42 am

“I see what I believe.” – The Sheeples Representative

August 23, 2015 12:57 am

Some very grounded infowar realities in this article. If we’re going to finish it off, we have to be prepared to get off the soapbox and get our skirts dirty. The most significant strike in the internet climate wars came from a certain Mr. FOIA, who destroyed the reputation of the phoney science in scientific circles.
Good as that was, the average person has never hear of Climategate. We should stop talking to each other and look for ways of talking to the average person.

Reply to  Pointman
August 23, 2015 1:36 am

You’re right, Pointy … moral pontification from a soap box labelled “science” is not going to win us this war.

Lee Osburn
Reply to  Pointman
August 23, 2015 6:20 am

We few friends here in Texas have found a major difference in the readings we see in temp between the older mechanical instruments and the new fangled digital ones. Above 92 degrees F the new ones exaggerate the readings as much as 6 degrees up. I bought a new weather station and placed it next to my old bi-metal one and the difference is obvious. Another wind and rain station is as much as 10deg up. Because it collects rain, it is in the open in full sun. (Probably a poor design of the boatie looking thing).
Is there anyone else out there still have their old ones to compare to?

Reply to  Lee Osburn
August 23, 2015 9:54 am

Lee: I too have found that to be a problem. That leaves me with the quandary as to which one is accurate.

Lee Osburn
Reply to  Lee Osburn
August 24, 2015 6:44 am

With all the collusion goin on (today’s blog) I would not put it past the goverment changing the specifications for the bran new chips they are buying to build the super accurate temperature sensors.

DD More
Reply to  Lee Osburn
August 24, 2015 11:25 am

Lee – What He measured
Interviewed was meteorologist Klaus Hager. He was active in meteorology for 44 years and now has been a lecturer at the University of Augsburg almost 10 years. He is considered an expert in weather instrumentation and measurement. One reason for the perceived warming, Hager says, is traced back to a change in measurement instrumentation. He says glass thermometers were was replaced by much more sensitive electronic instruments in 1995. Hager tells the SZ ” For eight years I conducted parallel measurements at Lechfeld. The result was that compared to the glass thermometers, the electronic thermometers showed on average a temperature that was 0.9°C warmer. Thus we are comparing – even though we are measuring the temperature here – apples and oranges. No one is told that.” Hager confirms to the AZ that the higher temperatures are indeed an artifact of the new instruments.

Reply to  Lee Osburn
August 24, 2015 11:48 am

A large part of my job was calibrating thermometers and other weather-related instruments. Once a stick (glass) thermometer is certified to be calibrated to within ± whatever fraction of a degree is specified, it tends to keep its accuracy whether it’s a mercury or alcohol thermometer. This is reflected in the calibration recall period. With stick thermometers, a 3-year recall for re-calibrating is about the shortest time I’ve seen.
But electronic thermometers (RTD, PRT, J/K/R thermocouple, etc.) had to be re-checked every three to six months. There is a factor called hysteresis, in which the electronic device never reverts back to exactly the same point.
A calibrated glass thermometer can be found starting around $30. Those are typically accurate to ±0.5ºF. (That is very accurate, btw.) They will tend to keep their accuracy and linearity, while an electronic device will drift over time.
Guess which type NASA uses.

Reply to  Pointman
August 23, 2015 7:54 am

“…look for ways of talking to the average person.”
This so obvious.This site seriously needs a team of PR writers who could translate the topics into easy-speak, and send them out to the MSM like confetti – it works for the competition.

Reply to  Tim
August 23, 2015 12:42 pm

Agreed, Tim. I have often read things on this site which I would have liked to forward to various people – politicians, newspapers, friends even – but do not know how to do that. Can anyone tell me how? And if so, maybe we should all start to bombard those who need to know the truth!

Reply to  Tim
August 23, 2015 2:54 pm

As someone who has written magazines, political messages and such for many years yes I agree that some effort has to be put into presentation. Let me give you an example of a simple but good message argument.
The Australian argument was won on a simple theme. How many degrees will the “carbon” tax cool the world. The answer is about .0000028. People could understand that. The politicians took some courage, (they are rarely courageous) that the voters could see the tax was not going to do anything.
Andrew Bolt can take a lot of credit.
That said some arguments are won by reality. The more reality and the greater the divergence from their promise, “global warming”, then the more the AGW believers are open to ridicule., satire. The tide might be turning in movies Watching the BBC, usual suspects trying to ramp up “warmest year ever”, “heatwaves” and hurricanes the sadder their case looks.

August 23, 2015 12:57 am

Using the RSS data last year Ross McKitrick said there had been no statistically significant global warming for 26 years and no ground based warming for 19 years. Amazing how a bit of fiddling with data changed the ground based record in just 12 months. Science what science?

August 23, 2015 1:29 am

It also looks like the social cost of carbon has been wildly exaggerated. Big surprise NOT.

August 23, 2015 1:31 am

The central message that it it ‘not about the science’ is dead on , indeed the mistake is to think that because we can prove the science to be wrong we therefore are winning the game , when in reality the game is not won on scientific grounds.
The hope is in
‘they don’t want angry voters. ‘
first rule of politics get elected , next rule stay elected and so it is these rules that will actually drive what happens at Paris .
Partly because those countries such has China that don’t have to worry about elections have no intention of buying into ‘the cause ‘ in the first place.
Paris will results in the creation of a mountain of BS , the death of a small forest in writing this BS down and boost to the local high end shopping and hotel trade in the run up to Christmas .

August 23, 2015 1:48 am

Philip Lloyd found that the centennial change (up or down) of temp over the last 80 centuries was about 1C.
This link to the Lloyd study shows the temp graphs drawn from 2 Greenland cores and the 2 Antarctic cores. All end at 1950. Only one Greenland core covers the full 8,000 years and the other the last 4,000 years.
But the warming from the IPCC’s preferred data set ( HAD 4) only shows 0.8c since 1850 or last 165 years. So over that time during a warming period you would think the temp increase could be 1.65c? So where is there room for their CAGW?

Reply to  Neville
August 23, 2015 8:29 am

Yeah, 1850 glorious year…
It was about a decade ago that British Empire abolished slavery….
Let’s return to good old days!!!

August 23, 2015 2:02 am

Again. As long as any leader or prominent person like yourself, Tim Ball, keeps perpetuating the false paradigm that the Greenhouse Effect is real, but Global warming is just not as bad as the alarmists say, then rectifying truth in science is not possible.

Reply to  wickedwenchfan
August 23, 2015 10:10 am

So we continue to behave like bald men arguing oiver a comb.
Science is irrelevant as far as “Climate Change” goes. That quote of Wirth’s was 20+ years ago and we still don’t understand. This is not about global warming; it’s about global governance and always was.
I’ll give you another quote from Ottmar Edenhoffer, who was co-chair of the ICC Working Group III:
“Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.” And yet we still rabbit on about “the science” with our eyes wide shut!
One more quote, from Charles Wurster, of the Environmental Defense Fund, referring to banning DDT:
“People are the cause of all the problems; we have too many of them; we need to get rid of some of them, and this … is as good a way as any.” And I’m pretty sure he wasn’t referring to red-blooded white Americans!
Get real.

Michael Wassil
Reply to  wickedwenchfan
August 23, 2015 12:24 pm

wickedwenchfan August 23, 2015 at 2:02 am “…perpetuating the false paradigm that the Greenhouse Effect is real…”
Patience. It will come. As the ‘pause’ continues (or not) and temperatures continue to rise and fall with no correlation to atmospheric CO2, Tim Ball and the rest will begin to realize the error of their assumptions about CO2.
At least we can bring up the topic without being deleted. Still can’t say the S-word, though. And mentioning a certain Canadian scientist whose name begins with P will get you modded. I can understand that since said Canadian scientist published some very unprofessional remarks about Anthony.
On the plus side! Yesterday hockeyschtick published another gravito-thermal paper that totally demolishes the Arrhenius CO2 hypothesis and includes a list of 34 other recent papers that do the same:
Eventually, everyone who actually cares about the scientific method will discover there is absolutely zero evidence for the Arrhenius CO2 hypothesis and a growing mountain of falsification against. It will fall.

Reply to  Michael Wassil
August 24, 2015 9:29 pm

Wrong. The Arrhenius hypothesis is not falsifiable.

Reply to  Michael Wassil
August 24, 2015 10:03 pm

“Wrong. The Arrhenius hypothesis is not falsifiable”
Oh yes it is. Falsified in this paper on 6 planets including Earth, and also previously falsified on all other planets in our solar system with thick atmospheres.

Michael Wassil
Reply to  wickedwenchfan
August 23, 2015 12:37 pm

By the way, Tim Ball happens to be a member of the afore-mentioned S-word group and contributor to the unmentionable book that caused much of the current controversy about it on this blog. I suspect he tailors his contributions to WUWT to suit the milieu. I suspect he understands the deficiencies of the Arrhenius CO2 hypothesis.

Bill Treuren
August 23, 2015 2:07 am

China has elections but they involve guns and the gaps are rather large.
The Chinese government will be very uncomfortable about any process that may slow growth to the sub 5% area.
The very stability and tenure of the current leaders will not be risked with a silly agreement with silly people in Paris.
However they will support our Western decay and will willingly encourage any process that drives industrial development out of our economies.
we are witnessing a self destruction of our economies.

August 23, 2015 2:16 am

Paris will be the last throw of the dice, and most of the players are expecting snake eyes or box cars. Despite all the pre-event, dead cat bounce hype – nothing much will happen.

Reply to  Pointman
August 23, 2015 3:29 am

“Paris will be the last throw of the dice”
Let us hope and pray it is the last toss of the dice.

Reply to  markstoval
August 23, 2015 4:04 am

Hear, hear!

Reply to  markstoval
August 23, 2015 9:35 am

.There’ll be a lot of climate tossers there looking for dice vice !!

August 23, 2015 2:43 am

We need to get this right –
“Naomi Klein admitted it wasn’t about the science directly.” NO !!!
“Naomi Klein admitted it wasn’t about the science directly.” YES !!!!!!!
accuracy does NOT matter – only EFFECT !!!
Do you want to play or waffle ????

August 23, 2015 3:03 am

it’s true…the general public cannot be expected to understand the fine details of climate science, but they do get hypocrisy. all the faux environmental outrage given space in the following piece can’t hide the fact that the CAGW crowd use rhetoric to push the agenda while their actions tell a different story:
22 Aug: Santa Fe New Mexican: Staci Matlock: Amid push to cut coal, feds review mine lease program
The Department of the Interior is leasing millions of acres of federal coal to private mining companies even as the Obama administration ramps up efforts to curb greenhouse gases from coal-burning power plants and natural gas pipelines under the president’s Climate Action Plan.
To environmentalists and some Navajo activists living near coal mines in New Mexico, the disconnect between leasing the coal while clamping down on the climate-changing pollution it causes couldn’t be more stark…
Still, (Interior Department Secretary Sally) Jewell hasn’t called for an outright end to coal. In her March comments, she said, “Coal is going to continue to be an important part of our nation’s energy mix in the future…
In the past six years, the federal coal leasing program has approved mining more than 2 billion tons of federal coal, according to an analysis by the Sierra Club. The BLM’s recently released new resource management plans could open up 78.5 billion tons of coal from federal land for mining…
India’s plan to more than double the amount of coal they use to more than 1 billion tonnes is another good talking point to convince some people that shutting down coal or setting targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is meaningless, & merely a pretext to promote intermittent & expensive renewables on behalf of vested interests, that will cause electricity bills to soar. the public understand such things.

August 23, 2015 3:27 am

“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data—first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of
what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”

This is a wonderful account of the failure of science. For this man to admit that he “parroted what the IPCC told us” is an affront to science. To believe, without examination, what a scientist says when science has been more wrong than right throughout its history is simply mortally wrong — as well as being stupid.
Anyone who pays attention to the methods, strategies, and tactics of politics could easily see this spurious chicanery (this fraudatio) coming a mile away. They have never presented a case following the scientific method that there is anything different about the climate today than before the industrial revolution. Climate does indeed change. Professor Lamb was clear about that in his book I read years and years ago.

“The “right thing” is achieving Maurice Strong’s objective of getting rid of the industrialized nations.” ~ Dr. Ball

Yes, Mr. M. Strong laid it out there in plain view to the point it now steps on some people’s toes and they wish you would forget him. That says a lot more about them than about you Dr. Ball.
The socialists, corporatists, crony-capitalists, and other statists seek to dominate and control the masses. Since the late 1800s the Western World has seen their governments (The State) grow in power and domination over the people to the point that we now live in a fishbowl and put people in jail on what they might do in the future someday. (and a thousand other, even worse, things)
Thank the gods that the media has oversold this trash to the point that even my middle school science teacher friend does not want to talk about it anymore. She was gob-smacked to discover that there were other theories out there besides the IPCC’s trash that CO2 warms the planet by 33 degrees or more. She was gob-smacked to learn that “science” has marginalized all the other theories —- so that there can be no real science in this environment. (and no, it was not me — she did that on her own)
~ Mark

Just Steve
August 23, 2015 3:40 am

If I were a political candidate, and I was asked about globalwarmingclinatechangeweatherweirding, my answer would be very simple;
“I’ll give credence to globalwarmingclimatechangeweatherweirding when those who claim it to be a crisis act and change their own behavior like its a crisis. After they’ve given up their personal jets and abandoned their energy pig oceanfront houses we’ll talk. Until then, I consider CAGW to be nothing more than a money grab and scam.”
No science needed.

August 23, 2015 3:42 am

should have included “annually” in –
India’s plan to more than double the amount of coal they use ANNUALLY to more than 1 billion tonnes –
meanwhile, in Australia, the Opposition Party, Labor, talks up coal when speaking to concerned constituents:
21 Aug: ABC ***Rural: Michael Condon: Coal industry will still be a force says Labor MP for Hunter
The coal industry in Australia may be facing some challenges, but it will still be a significant economic force, according to the federal Labor MP for Hunter Joel Fitzgibbon.
Responding to talk that the coal industry in Australia was likely to head into “terminal” or “structural” decline, he admitted times were tough, but predicted a fightback in the future…
“I believe that coal will continue to play a significant role in our economy and the international economy well into the future and I think that’s a view shared by the International Energy Agency.”
Mr Fitzgibbon, whose New South Wales electorate includes a number of mines, said it was wrong to suggest that the Chinese were turning their backs on coal.
“In India alone, as we talk, there are about 300 million people still without energy, without light, without power to heat their homes etc, so coal will continue to play a big role in filling that need…
ABC keeps the above positive coal story in the ***Rural section, while daily telling the broader Australian public that coal is finished, China is moving to renewables, etc., as in the following which was first posted on Tues 18 Aug (times of postings are at top & bottom of both articles), but updated & posted in Rural immediately after the pro-coal story came out.
Tim Buckley is a regular at ABC & well practised at CAGW obsfuscation, as in suggesting China & India are moving out of coal, while actually only referring to imports. (and, in time, it will be seen that both countries will continue to import coal anyway).
21 Aug: ABC Rural: Michael Condon: Coal mining facing structural decline says finance analyst
Tim Buckley, director of energy finance studies at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, says Adani, Peabody, BHP and Rio are all looking to offload Australian coal assets.
He said he was not looking at coal as an environmental issue or a legal issue, but had done the numbers and it did not look good, with India and China now turning their backs on Australian coal…
“The problem is that my analysis is showing that the Chinese and the Indians are moving away from a dependence on seaborne (imported) coal. That is a structural issue.
***”The big energy companies are also investing tens of billions of dollars into renewable energy like wind and solar.”
how to counter the MSM false CAGW narratives is the greatest challenge for sceptics.

August 23, 2015 3:59 am

One has to start a political battle with the weapons used. The weapons of political war are words and their arrangement into a narrative that is believable by casual voters AND how they define and use them. The “evolution” of the words are continually tested and replaced until they achieve “resonance” as when a fine guitar or piano is tuned. The key, as Churchill famously said, is “never give up”. Reflect for a moment the morphing of “global warming caused by humans” to the “climate change” and the Pope’s derivative of save the planet from us.
So, what to do with these charlatans?
Pick a starting point. For example, the term “Ice Age” as used is usually 100% wrong. The age we live in, the Holocene is, in fact, a small part of an Ice Age called the Quaternary (faint hearts look it up). Create a narrative that fits the facts then use their tactics. For example
Narrative: We are in an Ice Age. This Ice Age has buried North America under thousands of feet of ice. It’s carried Canadian boulders the size of houses to Yellowstone NP, the repeated glaciation and melting has scoured Eastern Washington State (scablands). This Ice Age created the glacial moraine we now call Long Island, NY. We are now in one of the very short inter-glaciations which, yet again, has melted most of the ice making the life possible for humans. The next glaciation will begin within a few hundred years or less. If we are unprepared, we could face starvation and extinction on a scale that is unprecedented.
Tactics: Some say we should try cooling the Earth during an Ice Age – are they nuts? During an Ice Age.
Then continually refine and attack…

August 23, 2015 4:33 am

Okay, so how do we get to the graph totals of “percentage of repondents” = 138%?!?!

Reply to  gaelansclark
August 23, 2015 5:47 am

It would seem the respondents could choose more than one answer…..

Reply to  RobRoy
August 23, 2015 7:12 am

I scanned the “test” over and it appears that every other question totals to 100%, or to 101%(rounding?), so I don’t believe that they could pick more than one answer.
What is another explanation?
That the Yale testers can’t add?!

Reply to  gaelansclark
August 23, 2015 8:10 am

You have to combine the 45% CO2….with the 42% don’t know

Reply to  Latitude
August 23, 2015 8:20 am

Combining the “don’t know” with the “co2” would be somewhat ridiculous, wouldn’t it? Or are you being facetious? Also, the total would then be 96% “of respondents” where every single other question gets 100% or 101%.

August 23, 2015 4:45 am

Maybe it’s time to re-visit both An Inconvenient Truth and The Great Global Warming Swindle to see how their assertions, predictions and claims have held up over the past 8-10 years or so? I think I could predict the winner!

Evan Jones
August 23, 2015 5:01 am

We need to realize that tactics are tactics, and that the adage that you fight fire with fire is true.
Perhaps. Yet we need to be careful not to confuse that with fighting poison with poison. (Incitement to riot is one thing, but it is not an excuse for riot.)

David Ball
Reply to  Evan Jones
August 26, 2015 5:05 pm

You are assuming a great deal. You do not have any idea what Dr. Ball has been through.
Sure you’ve seen some of the nastiness on the net, but you have not walked a mile in his shoes, therefore you make a moral judgement without knowledge.
Dr. Ball’s repsonses have always been measured and calm despite the flak fired at him.
Poison? Really, evanmjones?

August 23, 2015 5:36 am

Great article Dr.Ball… in!
Hopefully the Fall release of Marc Morano’s film will use a true Hollywood style production to expose the frauds for who they are.

August 23, 2015 5:47 am

Another great post Dt Ball – thank you.
The thing that appals me most in this is the role of activist scientists, who constantly stoke the fires of alarmism in the MSM and have the ear of Governments. It is impossible for scientists to maintain scientific objectivity in their work if they are also activists. To claim otherwise is delusional, and yet it is these scientists who hold the floor. To them, as was clear from Climategate, the message is all.

August 23, 2015 5:47 am

Sorry DR Ball – old stiff fingers.

August 23, 2015 6:30 am

The sea ice/sheets/caps on Antarctica/the Arctic/Greenland/Iceland are shrinking/growing yes/no/maybe depends on who’s counting.
Polar bears and penguins are endangered/having a hard time/pretty much as usual yes/no/maybe depends on who’s counting.
The sea levels are rising, land is subsiding yes/no/maybe depends on who’s counting.
The global temperatures are rising/falling/flat lining based on satellite/tropospheric/sea surface/land surface with or without UHI/TOB/homogenization/adjustments/bald faced lying yes/no/maybe depends on who’s counting.
Nothing but sound and fury, tales told by people missing the point, signifying nothing. The only meaningful question is what does CO2 have to do with any of this? How are these contentious topics connected to CO2?
IPCC’s dire predictions for the earth’s climate are based entirely on computer models, models which have yet to match reality. The projections began with a 4 C increase by 2100 which has since been adjusted down to 1.5 C.
The heated discussions mentioned above are warmists’ “See we told you so!,” attempts to retroactively validate or refute those models, models driven by the radiative forcing/feedback of CO2 and other GHGs. IPCC AR5 TS.6 says that the magnitude of the radiative forcing/feedback of CO2 “…remains uncertain.” (Google “Climate Change in 12 Minutes.”) Implying that IPCC was also uncertain in AR4, 3, 2, 1.
IPCC is not uncertain about one issue, though, redistribution of wealth and energy from developed countries to the underdeveloped ones to achieve IPCC’s goal of all countries enjoying above average standards of living.
Besides, the greatest threat to mankind isn’t CO2, it’s poverty & hot lead.

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
August 23, 2015 6:56 am

+10 ! Succinct

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
August 23, 2015 7:12 am

Excellent, but I would add that it not only depends on who, but why. And the Climate Liars or Climatists are the ones who have a vested interest in keeping the CAGW choo choo chugging along. Those vested interests include continued funding, careers, politics, and egos, but now, a new fear of the whole charade being exposed and crashing down around them.

Jim G1
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
August 23, 2015 8:19 am

“IPCC is not uncertain about one issue, though, redistribution of wealth and energy from developed countries to the underdeveloped ones to achieve IPCC’s goal of all countries enjoying above average standards of living.” Wrong! They are all about redistribution to their cronies and self promotion and have no concept of raising anyone’s standard of living but their own. Where has collectivism raised anyone’s standard of living outside of their own elite control group? Naked capitalism would take us back to child labor if they could but socialism has failed as well. Proper government controls are needed but never materialize effectively for very long and all large governments seem to verge on a form of fascism or crony capitalism in the end. They lack the requisite variety to deal effectively with the multitude of situations which arise and human nature of those in charge fights against doing what is best for others. Large corporations also fail in this regard and size does matter in both cases. The larger they get the worse they are. Small countries and smaller businesses seem to be more successful at operating in the best interests of both their internal and external constituencies. See Ashby’s theory of requisite variety, originally conceived for systems applications but applies as well for any system.

August 23, 2015 7:09 am

The opening paragraph is a fine piece of Stalinist rewriting of history. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, reality is not as tidy as ideology would like it to be.
Certainly many socialists now invoke global warming as an argument against capitalism (as though socialist industry would produce less CO2!) but it was supporters of capitalism who, for their own purposes, pushed it into the political arena.
The most important of these was Margaret Thatcher, with ENRON and Al Gore adding to it. You can find detail here.
Nor has the current association with socialists stopped capitalist involvement. Shell, BP, and Tate and Lyle still contribute to the Hadley Centre. Private manufacturers and operators of wind farms still make money from the scam. And don’t forget trading of carbon certificates.
And Naomi Klein might be a big name in Canada, but she is small fry in the world as a whole.

Craig Austin
Reply to  RoHa
August 23, 2015 7:51 am

The Pope didn’t think she was a small fry. He believes God created and maintains the universe, but capitalism controls the weather on earth. Of course he is the leader of an organization that is one of the largest landowners and landlords on the planet.

Craig Austin
August 23, 2015 7:44 am

These groups want to substantially reduce human population, you can’t do that by “saving lives”, they know the can’t control the climate, but they can influence human survival. Keeping this in mind explains most if not all of their prescribed policies.

August 23, 2015 9:42 am

I know your pain Dr. Ball.
For years I was a science student, and then they told me I had to take at least a few classes in the arts in order to graduate.
Just kidding about the shudder.
I love sculpting, and architecture was interesting too.
But they had to make me take them…there were still some science classes I had not taken yet.

August 23, 2015 10:16 am

WUWT, you should write an article on Environmentalists and the Democrats that support their policies HATE black people and minorities. Here are the recent headlines.

EPA Chief Admits ‘Low-Income Minority’ Families Will Be ‘Hardest Hit’ by New Climate Regs

Because most people on welfare are single mothers, you can also claim that Environmentalists and the Democrats that support them HATE Women.
You can also claim that Environmentalists and and the HATE Coal Miners, Steel Workers, America, The Third World, Chinese, Indians and Africans. Basically you can claim Environmentalists and the Democrats that support them HATE mankind in general. Environmentalists and Democrats are the true “HATERS”….And be right.

My own doubts came when DDT was introduced for civilian use. In Guyana, within two years it had almost eliminated malaria, but at the same time the birth rate had doubled. So my chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it has greatly added to the population problem.
—Alexander King, cofounder of the Club of Rome, 1990
Environmentalists, Democrats, Planned Parenthood and Acorn, see the pattern, the pattern of pure unadulterated EVIL?
Undercover Video Reveals Planned Parenthood Exec Selling Aborted Baby Organs
ACORN Fires its Child-Sex-Slave-Smuggling Czar Read more at:
13 Things You Probably Don’t Know About Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger

Reply to  co2islife
August 23, 2015 2:44 pm

The preferred Lefty terminology is: “War on ______” (fill in the blank).
They”re waging a war on poor people, a war on women. a war on sick babies. etc. etc.

August 23, 2015 10:20 am

Dr. Ball certainly knows enough about science to write a science article with lots of math.
He’s also smart enough to know climate change is not about science — it’s a false boogeyman — a political strategy to scare people and gain power for leftist-run governments — and the left-wing climate modelers are just well paid props (useful idiots).
Climate change replaced many other past boogeymen that the public lost interest in: DDT, acid rain, hole in the ozone layer, global cooling …. and climate change will most likely be followed by another false boogeyman when people eventually notice the current climate is great, and stop being scared.
Dr. Ball gets one strike for believing the UN’s IPCC at a age when he should have had more wisdom, but credit for admitting his mistake.
Here’s the wisdom Dr. Ball should have had by age 40:
When a leader (religious or political), or organization, claims a catastrophe is coming, assume they are lying — the claim of being able to predict the future, and seeing a catastrophe ahead, is an old and clever strategy used by smarmy leaders to gain power and control the not very bright people who believe them.
… If I had lived in 1850 and was somehow given the power to specify the climate in 2015, for the benefit of the Earth, I would have have cautiously moved in the right direction: I’d have increased CO2 in the air by 30% to 50% and increased the average temperature by one to three degrees F.
That’s actually what happened, and it has been great news for green plants and people.
If today, I was again given the power to specify the climate in 2115, for the benefit of Earth, I would specify another 30% to 50% CO2 increase and another one or two degrees F. increase.
It was great the first time, from 1850 to 2015, so I’d want more of the same from 2015 to 2115 !
A primary problem that holds back ‘deniers’ ( but not “ultra-deniers” like me ):
Many ‘deniers’ are too frightened of character attacks and ridicule to speak the obvious truth about the climate:
(1) A few degrees of warming since 1850, after many centuries of cool weather, was great news.
(2 ) More CO2 in the air since 1850 has been great news for green plants and the animals and people who eat them.
(3) The climate in 2015 is better than it has been in over 500 years.
When you speak the truth about the better climate in 2015:
– Doesn’t matter if CO2 is the only climate controller, or a minor variable, as I believe.
– Doesn’t matter if there is a pause or not (I don’t believe measurements are accurate enough to know).
– Doesn’t matter if July 2015 was the hottest July since July 1880, or not.
More CO2 greens the Earth
Give us more CO2
Warming makes people happy and healthy.
Give us more warming.
Bad climate news would be lower CO2 levels, slower green plant growth, and global cooling.
Who in their right mind would want that?
… Free climate blog with no ads;
Designed for the average guy.
And the only climate blog with a climate centerfold.

Reply to  Richard Greene
August 23, 2015 12:06 pm

Perhaps you should include this on your blog:

Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 23, 2015 1:10 pm

Thank you.
But it doesn’t matter what has caused the warming since the cold Maunder Minimum years.
Warming is good news even if scientists have no idea what variables are most important in determining Earth’s climate — and they HAVE no idea — CO2 is certainly a minor variable per 100 years of scientific work done by geologists — yes, they study the climate too !
Manmade CO2 can’t be too important either, given the cooling from 1940 to 1976, and the flat trend from 1998 to 2015, while manmade CO2 supposedly rose rapidly every single year.
It seems the average temperature is in an uptrend only a small percentage of the time while manmade Co2 is allegedly rising every year — that doesn’t make manmade Co2 seem very important.
15,000 years ago my Michigan property was under a mile or two of ice.
Did coal power plants and SUVs start the warming and cause all that ice to melt?
No they didn’t — that we know for sure.
Must have been natural climate changes.
Did 4.5 billion years of natural climate changes suddenly stop in 1976?
Then ‘bad boy’ CO2 took over as the only “climate controller”?
Most things said about the climate are speculation or very rough estimates.
Predictions of the future climate are only speculation.
The average temperature estimates are so rough, and so often “adjusted” to show more warming, it’s possible the average temperature today is really the same as in 1880 — not degree or two higher , based on buckets thrown over the sides of ships, and other dubious measurements.
Nevertheless, give me more Co2 and more warming — they are both good news for Earth and the living creatures on it !

Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 23, 2015 2:19 pm

Thank you Lief for correcting the records. That allows a false lead to be discarded(unless proven otherwise of course).
Other solar influences are still in play, such as magnetic fields. We shall see.

Reply to  ECB
August 23, 2015 2:50 pm

The magnetic field varies just like the sunspot number.
and Slide 27ff of

Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 24, 2015 9:04 am

It is NOT about the science -never was. It’s about an unaccountable intergovernmental organization hijacking a branch of science for specific political, economic and social purposes. In that sense, what Strong and his colleagues did is no different than what Lysenko / Soviet Communist Party did or even more closely to the point, eugenics.
As M Mead observed, a small dedicated group of people with a clear goal can change the world. History has a good number of examples of groups like this succeeding beyond their wildest dreams [ 1776 and 1789 ].
Strong and his ilk fit the profile nicely.
And I am not “blaming” Strong -too easy and off the mark. It’s just that he knew what institutional tools he had at his disposal to get things moving and how to use them. If blame needs to be apportioned, its with our everyday politicians who in various unholy alliances sought to use the green wave to further extend the reach of government.
Keep your eyes on Germany because that’s where the Strong & Co vision is becoming reality: de-industrialization; no nuclear, no fracking, $1trillion subsidies into wind and solar, a complete distortion of the energy markets with as the cherry on the cake coal as the major energy source for what’s left when industry is gone. If there is any hope for some sanity, it’s to be found in Australia, Canada and the UK, countries whose current governments have all taken in what’s unfolding in Frau Dr Merkel’s backyard.

Reply to  tetris
August 24, 2015 9:33 am

If blame needs to be apportioned, its with our everyday politicians who in various unholy alliances sought to use the green wave to further extend the reach of government.
If you want to apportion blame, blame the voters [the man in the street] who voted for those politicians. Strong hasn’t ‘accomplished’ anything. The people has voted for the green disaster, because the people believes in it. Strong has nothing to do with anything. Has not ‘enabled’ anything. Has no influence on anything.

Tom Anderson
August 23, 2015 10:25 am

I’d like to add that, only part way through the article, one can see it is a brilliant analysis of what is necessary for persuading and convincing the public that we are not doomed by an immediate crowd made disaster. Skeptics are at a disadvantage for the lack of big time celebrity and media allilances, but it needs to be recognized and addressed before any shift of public opinion is possible (without endless and probably futile toiling in the scientific vineyard). Where are you John Wayne and William Randolph Hearst when we need you?
Thank you very much, Tim Ball.

Tom Anderson
Reply to  Tom Anderson
August 23, 2015 10:36 am

:”Alliances!” I always make a typo, dammit.

Jimmy Boswell
August 23, 2015 10:57 am

I think you’ve made your print . . . point.
How about kidnapping Neil DeGrasse Tyson and not releasing him until he sees reason? . . . Ours. Or we could capture Donald Trump. He wouldn’t even have to be tied up, just offered a new way to raise cain.

August 23, 2015 11:59 am

The caps make it clear you mean what you say.
Unfortunately, they also make it too obnoxious to pay attention to.
You might want to consider that.

August 23, 2015 12:18 pm

Dr. Ball’s column may be more useful for its description of his epiphany on being fed lies and distortion from a source he didn’t expect that from. Strong and the Club of Rome need to be kept in the mix so people can see that these guys are not at all abashed about the consequences of the policies that they promote. They do it with full understanding that genocide on an unheard of scale is required to return the population level of human beings on earth to the “ideal” sustainable eco-friendly collection of cultures or tribes living “in harmony” with nature. These folks are not some pathetic group of hippies fantasizing some kind of Avatar like ideal. They are movers and shakers in Industry and academia and the ideas have been around for a long time. Just read HG Wells, Orwell, and Huxley to see how long these ideas have been stewing among the intellectual and social elite in the salons of the world.

Reply to  fossilsage
August 23, 2015 1:15 pm

What’s most scary is an intelligent person like Ball went for many decades before realizing a basic fact of life:
When governments and politicians are involved, lying and misleading are the standard operating procedure.
Even worse when a ‘world government’ (UN) is involved !
I would have thought anyone who lived during the Vietnam debacle would have realized you can’t trust the government.
Liberal used to think that.
Now they LOVE the government

Reply to  Richard Greene
August 23, 2015 4:47 pm

Richard: precisely all the same people who were aghast at how overreaching the government spying was in 1967 are now all on board for violations of civil rights way beyond that. Weird!

Reply to  Richard Greene
August 24, 2015 11:10 am

I would have thought anyone who lived during the Vietnam debacle would have realized you can’t trust the government. Liberal used to think that. Now they LOVE the government
Now they that are entrenched in the government, it’s different; as The Who said “parking on the left is now parking on the right.”

David Ball
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 26, 2015 5:15 pm

Richard Greene August 23, 2015 at 1:15 pm says;
“What’s most scary is an intelligent person like Ball went for many decades before realizing a basic fact of life:
When governments and politicians are involved, lying and misleading are the standard operating procedure.”

You presume a great deal.

August 23, 2015 12:30 pm

Of these 24,210 peer reviewed papers on AGW: why is it that we find only 5 that reject AGW, and none authored by anyone posting on WUWT?
1) There’s a global conspiracy against WUWT
2) There’s a global conspiracy against those that reject AGW
3) No one on WUWT thinks its important enough
4) They have no data
5) They haven’t bothered, but they could if they thought it was important
6) Science is too hard
I vote for #4. Any other votes out there?

Just Steve
Reply to  warrenlb
August 23, 2015 3:01 pm

The real question…Of those 24,000+ pal reviewed papers, on re-examination how many are fraudulent?

Reply to  warrenlb
August 23, 2015 11:24 pm

“Of these 24,210 peer reviewed papers on AGW: why is it that we find only 5 that reject AGW?”
Since many skeptics agree that human activities may affect climate, those numbers don’t mean a lot. (Even though the 99.98% level of agreement does sound suspiciously like the results of a public opinion poll on satisfaction within North Korea with the government.) The relevant issue is what percent of those 24,210 peer reviewed papers claim that the global warming is very dangerous or will be “catastrophic?”

Clovis Marcus
Reply to  warrenlb
August 24, 2015 7:22 am

The methodology seems follow this reasoning:
Does A cause B?
1 demonstrates there is causality
98 have no opinion or don’t demonstrate causality
1 says no causality
Therefore 99% don’t refute it so it must be true.
Seems odd to me.

August 23, 2015 1:14 pm

Dr. Ball is on target. I’ve stated many times that the population won’t be turned with real science facts. The presentation is most important; the words/graphs used must be clear and simple. Use the truth but be slick using professionals and technology. I.E., similar to An Inconvenient Lie, but use truth.

Reply to  kokoda
August 23, 2015 1:26 pm

Presentation is somewhat important — you just have to keep the message simple.
Much more important is who presents the message, how often it has been presented, and at what age the climate change brainwashing starts.
Note how many school teachers, professors and media writers are leftists.
Brainwash the kids, starting in elementary school, that humans are destroying the Earth, and CO2 is a boogeyman .. and nothing will change their minds after college.
The same brainwashing is turning the US into a socialist nation, with an actual socialist doing well in the Democrat primaries.
Only unusually cold weather for many years will change minds.
That’s our last hope to slay the CO2 boogeyman.
And then another environmental boogeyman will take the place of Co2 — but the “solution” is always the same — more power to government, halt economic growth, halt population growth, end capitalism, and redistribute wealth.

van Loon
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 23, 2015 5:32 pm

Now Rich, you are going overboard. We shouldn’t be worried in the USA about socialism, it will never happen here. And a bit of social justice will not harm us.

Reply to  Richard Greene
August 24, 2015 8:22 am

Reply to van loon
The US government took over student loans and control many real estate loans.
Quite a few banks and auto manufacturers have been declared too big to fail, and rescued.
My medical insurance specifications were taken over by the government, causing my medical plan to be cancelled, and my monthly premiums to triple in 2014. Ten million other people had similar experiences, and many were forced to accept government handouts to pay the much higher premiums.
All we need now is single-payer medical insurance and the US will be just as socialist as any European nation, except France.
“Social Justice” is a term no one can define … it appears to mean bureaucrats want more power to micromanage people’s lives, and transfer wealth from successful people to unsuccessful people.
Socialism is a slow growth, high unemployment economic system that favors government bureaucrats and crony capitalists who gain their favor, such as the highly subsidized solar energy and windmill industries.
Socialism worked “so well” in Cuba, Venezuela, China, eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union, that leftists want more. It’s easy for bureaucrats to spend other people’s money, but impossible for them to micromanage an economy from Washington, D.C.

August 23, 2015 1:29 pm

I totally agree with Dr Ball, we need to broaden out approach to fighting this issue. Simply arguing the facts won’t do it, and the warmists can manufacture countless studies full of garbage to keep those truly seeking the truth chasing their tails. The scientific truth doesn’t matter to the warmists, the dollars attached to the political agenda is what really matters. A multifaceted approach would include:
1) The establishment of a Scientific Data and Conclusion Verification and Validation Agency that will perform unbiased double blind and computer and statistical based analysis to verify that the tax payer funded research is based upon sound science and not politics. “Scientists” whose conclusion and methods are not validated by double blind analysis would be required to return the funding and/or face prosecution for fraud, malpractice or ethical violations. Bottom line we have the EPA, FDA and SEC to ensure honesty in certain fields, we need to apply the same rigorous standards to tax payer funded research that is used to form public policy and spending priorities.
2) The EPA, FDA and others must include cost benefit analysis in their decisions, and/or turned into advisory bodies instead of regulatory bodies. The EPA and IRS are no longer public servants, they have entered the realm of tyrants. Out public servants must be held accountable.
3) Environmental Groups that willfully publish inaccurate and misleading research for the sake of raising funding and donations should be prosecuted for fraud. Point #1 can help with the verification of the research.
4) The EEOC should be turned on our Universities. The reason we have fallen as far as we have into such a corrupt cesspool is because all the conservative voices have been run off. Larry Summers lost his job at Harvard for daring to suggest differences may exist between men and women. Science is not PC, and the liberal have tried to make it such. Colleges that show a lack of Conservative educators, or political bias in their staff would lose Federal Funding. We simply can’t afford Universities acting as activists, we need a balanced educational system and academic freedom.

Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers has triggered criticism by telling an economics conference Friday that the under-representation of female scientists at elite universities may stem in part from “innate” differences between men and women
Gordon Gee lost his job at OSU for making a simple joke.
Political Bias in University Staffing.
Liberal bias in academia is destroying the integrity of research
Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement
‘Impossible lack of diversity’ reflects ideological intimidation on campus
5) Gains from environmental lawsuits must be given to the public, and private law-firms can not benefit from crimes again nature. Environmental issues should be settled in Federal Courts, with Government Lawyers being the ones that argue the case. We must remove the profit motive from just science lawsuits. Lower pays laws would also be beneficial.
6) Lesson plans that apply the scientific method in the proper manner should be created for our Educational System, and “Common Core” curriculum. Simply testing the Ice Core Data and analysis of the construction of the Hockeystick and how the IPCC is run and the outcome of the IPCC models would go a long way. If all people are taught is that CO2 is the cause that is all they will know. We must provide alternative theories.
7) Climate regulations are estimated to be $4 billion/day as mentioned in this article. We need to provided better alternatives for $4 Almost anything is better than pouring $4 billion/day down a rat hole. We need to expose environmentalists’ as irresponsible on a biblical scale when it comes to the public treasury and undeserving of the public’s trust.

The answer is simple. The Climate Crisis & Renewable Energy Industry has become a $1.5-trillion-a-year business! That’s equal to the annual economic activity generated by the entire US nonprofit sector, or all savings over the past ten years from consumers switching to generic drugs. By comparison, annual revenues for much-vilified Koch Industries are about $115 billion, for ExxonMobil around $365 billion.
8) The “benefits” outlined by the EPA themselves must be used in the education of the public. 1 or 2 ppm CO2 reduction is inconsequential to the climate, and yet environmentalists are willing to spend $4 billion/day OF OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY for the next 85 years to reach that goal. That is pure folly and irresponsible on an epic scale.
9) We must communicate in the childish, immature and satirical manner that resonates with the left. Portray the EPA and Environmentalists as “racist” “sexists” because their policies hurt blacks, the poor and women the most.

EPA Chief Admits ‘Low-Income Minority’ Families Will Be ‘Hardest Hit’ by New Climate Regs
10) For some Orwell, Rand, Vonnegut, and Bradbury offered warnings, to others they offered an instruction manual. Eisenhower warned us about what was going to happen in his farewell speech. We are surely headed for a totalitarian hell if these trends aren’t reversed.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system-ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
11) The media must be held to account. The bias of their reporting exposed, and validity of their claimed verified. The “Big 3” have been defacto been granted a monopoly of the 1st Amendment through the licensing of the airwaves. Like we did in the 1940s to the “studio” system we need to break up the network Oligopoly to competition. Networks should be forced to divest of local affiliates and local affiliates should be allowed to broadcast any news or program they choose. PBS should be privatized and NPR be turned into 24/7 talk radio and re-titled the “Voice of America” or “Radio Free America”.
12) Corporations should be feel threatened for doing research, and their research should be included in the public conversation
13) Lawyers that use misleading and fraudulent data and conclusions to win lawsuits and sway juries and judges should be prosecuted for fraud.Lawyers must be held to account.
14) Congress should hold public hearings where climate “scientists” are forced to explain questions like
A) Why did the Hockeystick not include thermometer data when it was available?
B) Why are the IPCC models so wrong
C) Why did you not inform the public that the Mt Kilimanjaro Glacier is know to be disappearing due to sublimation not warming?
D) Please explain the “Trick to Hide the Decline”
E) How does CO2 warm the oceans?
F) Why does every ice core demonstrate that the past 50 and 150 years of temperature change is within norm? Why do they show that we aren’t at the peak of the Holocene?
Media CEO’s should be required to answer to their bias, and University Presidents must answer for turning a blind eye like they did to Michael Mann and Dr Lonnie Thompson.
15) All data compiled by tax payer funded research must be made available to the public that paid for it. Dr Thompson and others should not be allowed to hinder access to their research, especially if that research is used to promote public policy.
Bottom line, we need a multi-pronged approach to fight this well funded and organized propaganda campaign of the left.

August 23, 2015 2:07 pm

Everybody is preoccupied by the climate change, but it is useless to discuss only the future whithout understanding the main cause of the climate transformation. My opinion is that the ocean and human activity on the ocean (mostly naval wars) has a big contribution in the matter. Aren’t we ignoring that? Shouldn’t we pay more attention to the ocean from now on? Climate is mainly affected by human activity. And it hasn’t started now, it started long ago and continues today. We still have naval war and harmful activity at sea. Take a look here, at, to see proofs of our impact on climate change.

Jim G1
Reply to  smamarver
August 23, 2015 2:24 pm

If the earth were smooth, no wrinkles, our 70% water covered world would be totally covered about 6000 ft deep in water. The oceans do, indeed, play a huge role in climate. Wars and naval operations I don’t think. The immensity of the oceans is hard to fathom. Pun intended. Our puny impact hardly noticeable.

Reply to  Jim G1
August 23, 2015 8:41 pm

@ Jim G1. There is something in what smam says, you know the “butterfly effect”. Who knows what the churning up of convoys between Canada, the USA to the EU during WWII did to the NA Ocean’s surface (or the Pacific as well). Did it kill some tiny microbe’s reproductive cycle? Or prevented evaporation because of oils slicks when dozens and dozens of ships went down? Who knows what the CME’s from the atomic blasts did during the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s ( and is that why they all signed onto a non space based Nukes Treaty?). That to me me is why this few points of CO2 in the earths atmosphere is such a none issue.
And the one thing that never seems to stop amazing me is how our planet repairs itself although that is not a reason to not take care of it.!

Reply to  Jim G1
August 27, 2015 11:04 pm

Considering the immensity of the oceans, one should not ignore that the average temperature of the oceans is only about plus 4 degrees Celsisus, and it is hardly to accept that there was a global warming (1918-1939), and a global cooling (1940-1970) which would not have happen without the enormous influence of the oceans, and simuteaniously the impact naval war activities have had on the oceans at those time periods, as discussed in detail

Reply to  smamarver
August 23, 2015 3:15 pm

I’m still waiting for someone to explain how CO2 and the 13 to 18µ IR it absorbs warm the oceans. Chirp chirp chirp. Still waiting.

August 23, 2015 5:46 pm

The data to prove CO2 has no effect on average global temperature already exists.
The relation between mathematics and the physical world mandates that, for a forcing to have an effect, it must exist for a period of time. The temperature changes with time in response to the net forcing. If the forcing varies, (or not) the effect is determined by the time-integral of the forcing (or the time-integral of a function thereof).
The atmospheric CO2 level has been above about 150 ppmv (necessary for evolution of life on land as we know it) for at least the entire Phanerozoic eon (the last 542 million or so years). If CO2 was a forcing, its effect on average global temperature (AGT) would be calculated according to its time-integral (or the time-integral of a function thereof) for at least 542 million years. Because there is no way for that calculation to consistently result in the current AGT, CO2 cannot be a forcing.
Variations of this proof and identification of what does cause climate change (R^2 > 0.97) are at

August 23, 2015 7:58 pm

Ball has it right in the beginning.
“Climate change” is as much about saving the planet and humanity as communism was about protecting laborers.
This is about control over capitalism free markets, industrialization and economic growth. They have figured out that if they can control energy they can control all these things. This we must explicitly stop.

Reply to  Carbonucus
August 23, 2015 9:04 pm

@ carbonucus, +100. It means educating our families and neighbors!

August 23, 2015 9:12 pm

I couldn’t seem to understand how my otherwise intelligent colleagues in the VFX industry could fail to understand or change their minds on CAGW once I showed them irrefutable scientific evidence that it was wrong. These are people that are into science as well.
Now I realise that it’s not a scientific issue in their minds, they’ve well and truly been brainwashed into the liberal religion. They’re entrenched in the way of thinking and it has become a core of who they are after it has been intentionally engineered into them by the global elite via it’s packaging as a trendy, hip feelgood ideology in the media and pop culture.
Herd mentality and the desire to fit in is a major component and in many industries now with social media , increased networking and massively increased top-down control of entire industries by the new world order many are too scared to think and speak counter to the status quo for fear of losing their job.
Facebook, (an NSA project) posts all your comments to your friends as a means of community self censorship as people are too fearful to post articles indicating the truth of the world for fear of being labelled a denier or conspiracy theorist by work colleagues and harming their career prospects.
This is obviously an undesirable function and one that either shouldn’t be there or should be easy to turn off but the evidence is overwhelming that Facebook isn’t there for us, it’s social manipulation and information gathering
Emotion is the best way to manipulate and control populations which is why education is being dumbed down and why feminism is being pushed by the power elite. Men are more likely to challenge authority, and are physically more dangerous. Masculinising women and feminising and subjugating men serves to make male/female relationships hard to form and thus destroys marriage and the family, their key goal. Devotion to family before the state is a major barrier to tyranny, also with fragmented or non-existent families children have less parental influence and can be brainwashed by the state. It’s basic divide and conquer, an ancient strategy, set the genders, religions and races against each other and they can’t unite against you, the destruction of social cohesion is paramount.
It’s unfortunate that my smart colleagues are so easily swayed by emotion. The irony is that they love to mock religion mercilessly for inconsistency with science and intolerance yet they’re engaging in exactly the same thing, except far worse. The liberal religion is logically fallacious in the extreme.
Unfortunately awareness of the science is not going to help when you’re dealing with zealot adherents to a cult. It’s hard to see a way to change the path we’re on other than assassinating the central banking/corporate oligarchy and their cronies (which of course I would never advocate)

John Robertson
August 24, 2015 12:30 am

From an article in The Atlantic written by Daniel Sarewitz and Roger Pielke Jr. in 2000.
Senator Wirth’s statement in1988: “What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
According to the authors Senator Wirth was talking mostly about an energy policy, when the USA was still vulnerable to oil price shocks after the oil cartels forced major price hikes in the price of crude oil back in the 70s and 80s.
Of course the environmentalists got all over it at this point – with religious fervor – leading us to today, Climate Change is now a religion and skeptics are the agnostics. You expect fundamentalists to listen to reason/science?

August 24, 2015 8:57 am

Did Strong invent the panic over progress?
No. There is something inherent in educated intellectuals that makes this concept obvious and compelling, although unrealistic.
If you spend some time, you will see a pretty clear line of intellectual thought, with the thinkers even acknowledging each other along the line.
A lot of the foundation of our modern intellectual thought was laid down by recognized figures such as Hobbes, Rousseau, and Hume.
A significant force in driving intellectuals to explore human nature and the ontology of morality was the question of what to so with ne’er-do-wells – vagrants, bums, the poor who kept having kids they could not support, and so on.
This is in history in rhetoric and literature all over the place, and is clearly addressed by the emergence and evolution of the Poor Laws, and associated law such as vagrancy laws.
The driving issue is thus the problem of us in the established, stable classes having to figure out what to do with those who bother us by requiring our charity.
Consider this: in America, while African Americans were slaves, white slave owners were happy for African Americans to have a lot of children; each represented even more wealth.
After slavery ended, we in the U.S. went into major population-control overdrive, especially focused on African Americans.
The issue is dependency on the rest of us.
From those philosophers of human nature, noted above, the intellectual line progresses to Darwin’s cousin, Galton. Galton used “science” and statistics to provide a supposedly scientific basis for why the ne’er-do-wells were differnt from the rest of us.
“Evolution” gave Galton the scientific underpinning for eugenics.
In our modern day, most of us are hardly aware of what eugenics is, or that it was a MAJOR focus of academic population, demographics, and science solidly from the 1900s until Hilter made eugenics unpopular. Since then, it has gone undercover.
This issue of what to do with ne’er-do-wells morphed into the issue of “overpopulation,” beginning with Malthus. The planetary collapse idea smoldered along, but really took of once the “holistic” idea began to be promoted after being promoted by Jan Smuts in “Holism and Evolution.”
Thus, we get the idea of Gaia and of the spectre of planetary collapse.
Directly leading to the modern day mix of “overpopulation” and ecological collapse is Harrison Brown, a 1950s atomic scientist whose atomic bomb experience qualified him to speculate on the fate of mankind.
Brown was DIRECTLY acknowledged by Paul Ehrlich as a great influence. Ehrlich’s co-author, John Holdren, served as science czar in the Obama administration, so the political influence is obvious at that point.
There is a clear line of overpopulation alarmists from circa 1900 onward. The American Eugenic Society had leadership including many notable names, and a good handful of wealthy industrialists, for some reason, helped take the overpopulation concept from our Anglo world to the rest of the world. This includes Ford, Rockefeller, and others. They supported individuals such as Frederick Osborn and institutions such as WHO and UNPF in their efforts to stem world population growth.
Utopian/Marxist thought is a parallel line of influence. We are now in a crossroads of history where the eugenics/overpopulation movement, the environmental movement, and Marxism have intertwined.
I stumbled into all of this in my attempt to understand how my American Democratic party went Marxist. I have had plenty of schooling, an have been a reader all my life, but no one ever tells these specific stories. Even as I read these and other philosophers while in philosophy classes.
What to do with ne’er-do-wells? I don’t know. I know I don’t agree with pressuring other nations with population goals, or with forced sterilization.

August 24, 2015 10:51 am

The Atmosphere is definitely NOT an Ideal Gas, He2 is very very close to being an Ideal Gas, but it isn’t. The atmosphere isn’t Ideal under natural conditions, that pesky water and water vapor changes phases so easily.

August 24, 2015 11:29 am

No one more blind than those who do not want to see.
Without Strong the mastermind [he was, have ample evidence for that] no UNEP/IPCC. Without UNEP/IPCC no red/green NGOs. Without the red/green NGOs the voters would not have been brainwashed a la Inconvenient Truth [plenty other examples]. The voters voted for the politicians because they got no other message than the CAGW/CACC through the co-opted MSM -including such august newspapers as NYT, The Economist, FT, BBC, CBC, ABC, etc., etc.
This concerted media onslaught is generally referred to as propaganda and it has been incessant in its message and intensity – Leni Riefenstahl [the Triumph of the Will] and Sergei Eisenstein [Potemkin] would have been awed. Without UNEP/IPCC and the red/green NGO monster this propaganda would never have worked. Ask yourself once more: who got all that going? The verb for providing for the circumstances that allow things to happen is: “to enable”. Fits Strong’s role on this very costly mess like a glove.

Reply to  tetris
August 24, 2015 11:39 am

Without Strong the mastermind [he was, have ample evidence for that] no UNEP/IPCC. Without UNEP/IPCC no red/green NGOs. Without the red/green NGOs the voters would not have been brainwashed a la Inconvenient Truth [plenty other examples].
All of those are unsubstantiated suppositions. About seeing: you only see what you want to see, not what is actually there.
What is an NGO:
There are millions of them. Red/green NGOs: people make those regardless of the UN and the IPPC. E.g. to support labor movements and ‘struggle for freedom and liberty’ and go back more than a century. The notion that Strong is the ‘enabler’ of this is absurd.

August 24, 2015 8:44 pm

How many years will it take for CO2-believers to understand that they been fooled? Facts not Fiction , ARCHIMEDES Principle and Facts Photosynthesis

Reply to  norah4you
August 25, 2015 4:16 am

Someone sent me a message directly saying that I was wrong because “the Arrhenius hypothesis is not falsifiable.” Said it before and I say this again: It’s ok to be stupid but not adviceable to show….. Arrhenius hypothesis was falsified back in 1960’s and it’s easy to do over and over again. Those who believe that Arrhenius can’t be falsified should have taken themselves times to learn what happens in Science when a scholar present apples and blueberries as identical…… If you who wrote never taken yourself time to read ALL Arrhenius texts, then you are excused —– otherwise not!

August 25, 2015 5:43 am

“One Pew poll confirms that the public believes global warming is a political issue”
I agree that global warming agenda is a political agenda not a science issue at all. It can be defeated only by a different political agenda not by science . These people have figured out how to milk society from their funds and seem to be willing to go any length to protect their income and power even to the point of altering known science and observable data when their science is clearly exposed to be quite flawed. As we see with our regular politicians , different people join the movement for quite different reasons, to achieve some personal goal which may be quite different from that of the group. A corrupt movement has within it the seeds for its own destruction and global warming movement is already demonstrating some of these. Unfortunately, meanwhile they bring great harm to society as significant amount of society’s funds and energy are diverted to useless causes as the profit takers skim off significant funds. The movement brings little gain to deal and adapt to the real future climate .

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights