Paris Climate Conference: A Sideshow To More Frightening Use Of False IPCC Climate Science

Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

President Obama used the Paris Climate Conference to advance his legacy: an agreement was mandatory no matter the truth or the cost. As a result, the final agreement was meaningless because to get everybody to sign it was made unenforceable. All signatories were willing to agree because they are all politicians playing their own game; not what is right or best for the people. This objective was acceptable to the main drivers outside of the actual political arena. They were using climate change to impose their socialist goal of punishing and weakening capitalism and redistributing their wealth, which they claim was obtained at the expense of the developing nations. Avowed communist and anti-capitalist Naomi Klein attending Paris as a member of Pope Francis delegation saw the political opportunities in climate change.

She herself admits that, as she began to take the problem of climate change more seriously and to think about it more deeply, it did not cause her to change her mind about anything. On the contrary, it reinforced everything that she had always believed. “I was propelled into a deeper engagement with it partly because I realized it could be a catalyst for forms of social and economic justice in which I already believed.”

 

Ironically, those countries that held out for an unenforceable agreement, like Russia, India, and China, tried socialism and are now embracing aspects of capitalism. The reason they don’t want enforceable limits on fossil fuels is because they want to develop their economies and they know first-hand it doesn’t work with socialism. The result is the paradox that was the Paris Climate Conference. While a small group of people worked to undermine development and capitalism through a false global warming charge, half the world’s population represented by these nations, strives for development through capitalism. Richard Lindzen retired Professor of Atmospheric Physics at MIT summarized the situation best.

“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.”

The conflict in Paris was a separate conflict between those who want to “rollback” the industrial age for those currently developed by capitalism and industrialization and those who want the same advances and benefits. It has little or nothing to do with the political objectives of those, like Klein, who wants total control of people’s lives. Paris only served to promote Obama’s personal objective. Meanwhile, the use of environment and climate for Klein’s socialist objectives continues quietly, surreptitiously and insidiously. It is built around the dictum “Think globally, act locally” attributed to Rene Dubos, an advisor to the Maurice Strong chaired 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment.

Maurice Strong, through the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), transferred the objectives of the Club of Rome into policy. He set up a system that effectively bypassed politicians and legislators. Elaine Dewar, author of Cloak of Green concluded:

Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.

For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created by and through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The bureaucrats of the WMO are government employees from 191 national weather offices of the UN organization. Those bureaucrats inform and direct and thereby control the politicians.

Strong is most responsible for setting up the bureaucratic structure necessary to control the political and science agendas. Neil Hrab wrote in 2001 that Strong achieved this by:

Mainly using his prodigious skills as a networker. Over a lifetime of mixing private sector career success with stints in government and international groups…

This began in earnest with the 1977 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment Stockholm Conference. As Hrab notes:

The three specific goals set out by the Secretary General of the Conference, Maurice F. Strong, at its first plenary session—a Declaration on the human environment, an Action Plan, and an organizational structure supported by a World Environment Fund—were all adopted by the Conference.

What was the Action Plan? It is the goal Strong considered most important and was set out in the Declaration of United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. A key comment in this Declaration explains why Paris is of limited consequence for the larger goal.

Local and national governments will bear the greatest burden for large-scale environmental policy and action within their jurisdictions. International cooperation is also needed in order to raise resources to support the developing countries in carrying out their responsibilities in this field.

 

This objective was set out in Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, prepared by The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) with a Foreword by Strong. One person who stumbled across this document and realized the implications wrote,

 

Community leaders around the world are now called to implement a new “Communitarian” system of governance, which overrides our (US) constitutional rights and freedoms.

“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….”

The idea and process appear in Chapter 28 of Agenda 21.

“Each local authority should enter into a dialogue with its citizens, local organizations, and private enterprises and adopt ‘a local Agenda 21.’ Through consultation and consensus-building, local authorities would learn from citizens and from local, civic, community, business and industrial organizations and acquire the information needed for formulating the best strategies.” (Agenda 21, Chapter 28, sec 1,3.)

While everybody is focused on Paris, a steady ubiquitous plan of action is taking control of all communities. It is the Climate Action Plan that stems from Agenda 21 using IPCC climate science and predictions as justification. It is central to the diatribe that appears on the White House web page.

In 2007, the British Columbia government of Gordon Campbell was persuaded to create a Climate Action Committee to implement a Climate Action Plan. The committee appeared diversified, but the presence of Andrew Weaver lead author in four IPCC Reports (1995, 2001, 2007, and 2013) guaranteed his dominance. David Keith was at the University of Calgary where he created a Carbon Engineering a company producing CO2 sequestration technology, in my opinion, it is a conflict of interest. Keith is now at Harvard University. The list of Ex-Officio members comprises other IPCC members and all academics at the University of Victoria, including three computer modelers. The non-academic committee members were completely overwhelmed.

The Committee produced the Climate Action Plan (CAP) (It is likely this link won’t open. However, you can access it through this page, lower right hand corner) that included a carbon tax and the installation of Smart Meters. (At the Heartland Conference in Las Vegas, a person identified himself after my presentation as the inventor of the Smart Meter and said they are not being used as I intended.) Smart meters are promoted by BC Hydro the utility that controls all power in the Province. Most of the opposition to the meters involves health effects from the RF transmissions. The larger problem is their potential use for identifying what the authorities determine as excessive users. On page 10 of the document, Weaver confirms the objective of ignoring what Federal levels of government do just as Strong planned.

“What [the B.C. government has] done here is they recognize this is the right thing to do, it’s the only thing to do to address this problem and we’re not going to wait for the feds or someone to do it. We’re going to show leadership in North America and you watch, it’s going to start to have a ripple down effect and others are going to start to join up as the years go by.”

This appears like more conflict of interest, as he is the one who used IPCC computer models to create the proof that human CO2 was the problem. This despite, the complete failure of any projection they ever made. Weaver is now Green Party leader in BC and a member of the Provincial Legislation. The PR Company for BCHydro is Hoggan and Associates. James Hoggan is also Chairman of the David Suzuki Foundation and proud creator of DeSmogblog as he attests in his book Climate Cover-Up.

I became aware of the intrusive nature of the CAP when invited to make a presentation on Mayne Island in the Straits of Georgia (Figure 1).

clip_image002

Figure 1 (Source: BC Ferries)

A group of concerned citizens attended a presentation by Provincial government bureaucrats promoting the CAP. It began with showing Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth followed by a discussion of proposed plans, including banning all vehicular traffic. I was invited to make a public PowerPoint question and answer presentation. The local eco-bully immediately attacked, I use that term deliberately, and left early when I was able to answer all his questions and counteract his claims. Now there are a group of citizens who constantly monitor what is going on including asking occasional questions of clarification. The problem is I cannot visit every community or counteract the power, accessibility and persistence of the bureaucracy. As Laurence Peter, creator of the Peter Principle explained,

Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time the quo has lost its status.

The extent of the intrusiveness of CAP continues despite the meaningless nature of Paris. Figure 2 shows the number of US States already committed to CAP.

clip_image004

Figure 2

I urge people to find out what is happening in their State or local government. They are under the pressure to save the planet sweetened with a variety of financial incentives that are hard to resist, but as the people of Mayne Island found, they never heard the “other side’ of the story. The problem is there is the combined waste of Federal money and the negative impact on societies and economies all to deal with a false problem created by the UN.

Paris achieved its goal in allowing Obama to achieve his personal objectives. All participants agreed to an agreement because they are all there with personal objectives. It is like the comment about “honor among thieves”. The real drivers of the agenda didn’t care because they know the agenda of total control, as devised by Maurice Strong through Agenda 21, is in full flight as Local Agenda 21, but almost completely under the radar. The actions are cloaked in the claim that the planet will be free, released from the burdens imposed by capitalism and those who seek individual liberty. As Vaclav Klaus, former President of the Czech Republic said as his opening remark as Keynote Speaker at the first Heartland Climate Conference in New York, “We just went through 70 years of communism, why the hell would you want to go back to that?” He also wrote in his book “Blue Planet in Green Shackles,”

It should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism (or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans, about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual as the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a noble idea.”

146 thoughts on “Paris Climate Conference: A Sideshow To More Frightening Use Of False IPCC Climate Science

  1. Governments will tax, green taxes or some other makes no difference as long as they get the money. Green subsidies will be given under pressure from lobbyists, but as soon as those in power realise there are no more votes in it they will cut back. As soon as British Con’ve party got rid of Liberals, green subsidies got a haircut, modest but it is a start. Paris climate conference agreements are mentioned no more, the good old-fashioned flood protections are flavour of the day.

    • Y’know, I don’t see any evidence anywhere of “rolling back the industrial age.” These conferences are BSing sessions by political wonks FOR political wonks, and based on the polls putting AGW at the bottom of worldwide public concern by the UN’s own numbers, not to mention the enormous numbers of people who’ve figured out the truth, not least by reading WUWT, I think the LEAST publicity we give to the AGW extremists at this point the quicker their “message” will die. Trust me, the ordinary people are not listening. Just the few over-influenced by holier-than-thou liberal media, and that group is SMALL and most of them have more pressing problems.

      • Killing coal in favor of “green” energy is one big example of rolling back the industrial age. Much damage has already been done, but they are just getting started, and sheeple either don’t notice or don’t care. It would a dangerous mistake to underestimate what they are still capable of doing.

      • Unfortunately in the UK we have already gone a long way down the road to deindustrialization, the closure of energy intensive industries is one indication. The destruction of our base load generating capacity is now past the point of no return. One stable anticyclone (with no wind nor, I have to say it, no solar power) one winter in the near future will cause freezing weather across the kingdom & completely shut the national grid down. It will then take an unfathomable amount of time to resurrect it. Result: tens of thousands of deaths through hypothermia. Now THAT is a REAL climate scare story. We have no plans at all to build any more base load power stations other than one for a nuclear power station to be created at some time at the whim of the Chinese & French governments.

      • Goldrider January 3, 2016 at 6:22 am
        “Y’know, I don’t see any evidence anywhere of “rolling back the industrial age.” ”
        Just wait. With over 40% of electrical generating capacity coming from coal, the roll back is on its way along with a roll back in standard of living as more and more of our economic resources are squandered at the alter of the green gods. Wind and solar only work with large government subsidies and then still do not work well and, unfortunately, no one wants a nuclear reactor in their back yard. The result will be an acceleration of the push for more and more of US jobs going to China and “developing” countries and a reduction in US standard of living.

      • I agree with Bruce Cobb, I believe the have gone “silent” on purpose they have been at this for a long long time and aren’t ready to give in at all, I firmly believe they are have just gone from “Green” to “Black” be aware and do not let up!

      • ‘International Open Letter Calls For Moratorium On New Coal Mines’, November 27, 2015

        Signatories include:

        James Hansen
        Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Club of Rome
        Peter A. Victor, Club of Rome, York Univ. Canada
        David Suzuki, Canada
        William Becker, also at Colorado State University

        And others.

        This “Letter” was also published in the “New Scientist” and the “Guardian”, U.K.

        Wonder if U.S. coal miners have seen this “Letter”?

        http://www.nonewcoalmines.org.au/international_open_letter

      • I believe your “ignore it and it will go away” strategy is doomed. Unless the general population is made aware of the agenda and begins to actively resist it, the Agenda 21 people, who are already entrenched in many un-elected positions of authority, will simply do what they want.

        As Dr. Ball notes, the battlefields are in the local government bureaus, most particularly local zoning and planning offices and their associated environmental planning departments. In the US these organizations have systematically stripped land owners of their rights through seemingly innocuous regulation over the past 50 years. They’ve violated private property rights over and over again with the firm understanding that small landowners lack the resources to fight them on eminent domain law and so they are quietly winning. Unless the public is educated, and made to care about the issue the war will be over without a single shot fired and they are depending on that.

        Most of these groups don’t make it easy to resist them (why would they?) Their “public” meetings aren’t publicized, they have no accountability, they aren’t elected and they get very little, if any, media attention. All of that needs to be fought through public education and participation. They need to be drug into the light and exposed. Organizations like The Pacific Legal Foundation are actively fighting, but they’re not very big and they don’t have a lot of support. Until that changes there isn’t much hope of beating these totalitarian parasites before they’ve annexed whatever’s left of liberty and freedom in the western world.

      • >>Y’know, I don’t see any evidence anywhere of
        >>“rolling back the industrial age.”

        The UK has just destroyed its alluminium smelter and iron industry, plus much of its petrochemicals. And that is on top of destroying its car, motorcycle, white goods, mainframe computer, personal computer, exchange telephone, mobile telephone, coal, glass, nuclear power design, rockets, textile, textile looms, electronic, and machine tool industries. And destroyed all the subsidiary companies and service industries that depended on orders and trickle-down from those former multinational companies.

        Frankly, it is a wonder that anyone in the UK has a job.

      • ” … I think the LEAST publicity we give to the AGW extremists at this point the quicker their “message” will die.”

        Unfortunately, “we” are not in control of the media, which historically has been the mouthpiece of the Warmists.

        Giving “least” attention to “Global warming” isn’t the problem. Rubbing the faces of the perps in their own repeated errors, lies, and mis-predictions to destroy their credulity in the eyes of the public IS the challenge.

      • Forbes, Jan.28, 2011, Report from Davos, Switzerland

        ‘Blackberry Billionaire Outspoken at Davos’

        On the INET-CIGI Partnership

        “- CIGI with its focus on global government and INET with its focus on rethinking economic models. It’s a perfect fit.”

        CIGI, Jim Balsillie and INET, George Soros.

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2011/01/28/blackberry-billionaire-outspoken-at-davos

        CIGI at Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
        INET at New York City

        Website requires turn off Ad blocker.

        There is more than Agenda 21 taking place.

    • “Smart” meters let the utilities determine when you are allowed to use their energy, so they can charge you more money if you are using energy when they don’t want you to.

      So if you have an unusual work schedule, as do some members of my family, they can bill you for more than someone else who is using the same amount of energy. They will eventually have “Smart” appliances that they can control.

      We are all being led by the nose on a string. It’s an extension of the traffic light concept.

      Traffic lights are programmed to decide which cars should I let proceed, so all others are stopped. So most lights are mostly red, most of the time.

      If they switched their algorithm to which cars must I stop then most lights would be mostly green most of the time.

      Silicon valley is crammed full of “software engineers” from all over the world. They know how to write code.

      They don’t now beans about how to regulate traffic. It’s the perfect GIGO situation.

      And yes; they drive like it too.

      Traffic lights breed. They install one light to pacify one group of incompetent drivers; and that causes a backup snafu some other place; so they then install some lights there too, and compound the problem.

      Traffic lights in silicon valley work best, when they don’t work at all. Then they all default to stop signs, and traffic moves much more smoothly, although everybody has to stop, except not for so long.

      • The government sc*ms a lot of money with red lights; the cars consume fuel on which green taxes/fuel levies are charged whilst waiting for lights to change.

        if governments truly believed in climate change, one of the first changes they would roll out is keeping traffic moving, and a cut back on public transport other than at key commuting times (getting people in and out of work).

        In the UK, we have traffic lights on traffic islands/roundabouts. they can be useful at commuting times (7 to 9 am, and 4:30 to 7pm) but they operate 24/4. When I drive to the airport at say 3:30am to catch an early morning flight, I often get caught on a traffic roundabout that has 4 sets of traffic lights on it. If I miss the 1st set, it takes about 5 minutes to drive around the traffic island and there is not a car in sight!. Of course, the government earns say 3o cents every time that happens. Most buses have less tan 6 people on board unless they are running at commuting times. Why have a bus traveling with only 6 people if one is concerned about CO2 emissions? .

        Governments are not at all concerned about CO2 emissions, just about collecting taxes, and traffic jams and traffic lights are good revenue earners.

      • Strange comments about traffic lights, programmers create a programmable traffic light, local authorities, who purchase the light system, ‘program the sequence’ for each junction.

        If you do not like the traffic light sequence or usage at any particular road junction, complain to your local representative or vote them out at the next local election.

        Assigning conspiracy to an action is usually incorrect when 99 times out of 100 it is just plain stupidity.

    • I just posted on that article :

      I consider it a cosmic comic Orwellian irony that statist “greens” attack the very molecule which in 1 = 1 combination with H2O forms the backbone of life on the basis of the most profoundly false basic physics .

      CO2’s molecular weight has more to do with our surface being about 10 degrees warmer that the ~ 279 kelvin of a gray ball in our orbit .

      This anti-life , at the molecular level , attempt to suppress the source of carbon to carbon based life is a statist crime against reality brought to you by the same arrogant but willfully ignorant mentalities which gave us the statist holocausts of the 20th century from Hitler to Stalin to Mao .

  2. Half the truth. The rest of it goes beyond Communism. Behind those ideologues are inter generational billionaire families who encourage and finance them. Communism is for them just a means to an end. They would just as happily have wielded control through fascism or feudalism or any other ism you care to mention. Playing the green card on the Left or the Terrorism card on the right, they play both sides giving what’s left of Western Democracies the illusion of choice. In the end it’s all just one giant game of Monopoly to these people and we are all just moveable pieces on the board.

      • Mike, I have to disagree to some degree. The rulers are after power. Power over others is all important to them. And control is power you would no doubt correctly point out.

        But they would always want more of everything and Dr. Gary North pointed out long ago:

        The economic historian Gregory Clark summarizes a remarkable fact.

        . . . there is no sign of any improvement in material conditions for settled agrarian societies as we approach 1800. There was no gain between 1800 BC and AD 1800 – a period of 3,600 years. Indeed the wages for east and south Asia and southern Europe for 1800 stand out by their low level compared to those for ancient Babylonia, ancient Greece, or Roman Egypt.

        Then, around 1800, this all changed. Economic growth began: about 2% per annum, compounded. That brought our world into existence.

        No progress for 3,600 years! Then BOOM. In a few generations we went to the moon. Damn.

        What happened?

        The Most Important Unanswered Historical Question in the World http://www.garynorth.com/public/7817.cfm

        CONCLUSION

        Ludwig von Mises argued in 1922 that the greatest strength of the socialists was their belief in the inevitability of victory. But they were wrong. They lost the war on two battlefields: theory and practice.

        This is why, in the long run, the most effective tool in the market for liberty is confidence that individual creativity will produce a better world, as long as people keep their hands off each other’s property. “Thou shalt not steal” is a good place to start. “Thou shalt not covet” is the foundation of “thou shalt not steal.”

        The battle is not technological. It is ethical. The good guys will win. That is the lesson of the free market. The free market links personal responsibility with ownership. This is the key to prosperity.

        In short, when the governments of the west were Classically Liberal (libertarian) and let the people live their lives in freedom, the laissez faire free market produced the modern world.

      • Mark, the reason there is “no progress” in settled agrarian societies is that plant agriculture is a “make do” means of survival for humans. While we are not obligate carnivores like cats, we are capable of living healthy lives on a purely carnivorous diet that contains adequate fats. We do not need to eat vegetables or large amounts of carbohydrates in any form, despite what we hear from the government. Any student of the arctic is actually aware of this. Absolutely the only way that a foraging society can survive in the arctic is as carnivores. The Inuit, Athabascans and other societies in the Arctic are empirical proof. In other parts of the planet, the consumption of meat is associated with wealth and status and skeletal evidence from Europe and Asia reflects the reality that the upper classes were healthier and better nourished than the lower classes. That doesn’t mean they ate more vegetable food. Biblically, it is notable that the farmer was of less status religiously than the herder, a status harking all the way back to the myth of Cain (the farmer) murdering Able (the herder). Clearly God preferred barbecue.

        In the early 20th Century middle and upper class US households consumed several times the fat and animal protein we do today, though not the calories. At that time the diseases we currently are told are associated with animal protein consumption (heart disease, etc.) were regarded as diseases of the poor, who could not afford the amount of animal foods (meat, eggs, milk, butter and cheese) that middle and upper classes could. One modern correlation between diseases perceived to be nutritionally based and concurrent social changes is the movement of wealth away from the middle classes to the very rich. Heart disease is still a disease of the poor – in fact a “social justice” issue that is widely discussed is the higher incidence of heart disease and stroke in African American populations. Wealthy people can afford fresh, well prepared food. The poor cannot.

        Farming societies emerge as a method of surviving diminishing carrying capacity as populations grow. Diets shift to increased carbohydrate consumption to fill in the caloric deficit created by the inability to acquire adequate supplies of higher quality foods. Wars are fought over fat sources (nuts, olives, etc.). This pattern leads to a dietary shift to smaller, leaner game consumption (rabbits, rodents, insects) which are all lacking in significant amounts of fats – look up “rabbit starvation” for instance. In addition grass seeds and tuberous plants are increasingly exploited to eke out the caloric deficit. While dietary quality diminishes, the volume of available calories increases and that in turn permits additional increases in population. This pattern is seen over large areas of the planet at the end of the Pleistocene. Vegetarian specialization among humans is limited to specific climates and to farming or industrial level societies. Vegans in fact would outright starve without the support of industrial civilization in most parts of the world. It requires immense attention and extreme care to acquire and maintain an adequately diverse range of plant foods.

  3. Dr. Ball, you continue to amaze me with your ability to dig down and present the truth in simple form. I’ve mentioned Agenda 21 to several different people and most of them give me the conspiracy theory look. You quite easily show how we’re getting “shlonged” out in the open, in broad daylight.
    Thanks again for a great article.

  4. Tim Ball deserves a number of medals! Thank you, Anthony, for providing and maintaining this forum for Tim and other Climate Greats!!! – (& you also get a medal or two)!!!

  5. This is a common tactic used after Copenhagen as well. This is what they did at the last meeting. “Please Help the World”

  6. Nothing can be enforced if people don’t want it enforced. When we descend into the next cold cycle, people will be demanding huge changes and anyone resisting this will be swept aside rapidly. Note how quickly the EU is closing borders now that armies of foreigners, mainly young fighting age males, are pouring in, destabilizing everything!

    • EMSNEWS – not closing the borders as fast as they should; decision meeting is scheduled for June. At current counts that is another 500,000 through the back door. What could possibly go wrong?

  7. Dr. Ball wrote:

    I urge people to find out what is happening in their State or local government. They are under the pressure to save the planet sweetened with a variety of financial incentives that are hard to resist, but as the people of Mayne Island found, they never heard the “other side’ of the story. The problem is there is the combined waste of Federal money and the negative impact on societies and economies all to deal with a false problem created by the UN.

    I urge people to understand their government at all levels (The State) and its purpose. The state is a gang of thieves writ large. (1)

    “It is curious that people tend to regard government as a quasi-divine, selfless, Santa Claus organization. Government was constructed neither for ability nor for the exercise of loving care; government was built for the use of force and for necessarily demagogic appeals for votes. If individuals do not know their own interests in many cases, they are free to turn to private experts for guidance. It is absurd to say that they will be served better by a coercive, demagogic apparatus.”

    ― Murray N. Rothbard, Power and Market: Government and the Economy

    So when you go to the voting both, remember that you have the choice between two evils and your job is to try to guess which evil is the lesser of the two evils. Other than that, you can pray for help from above (good luck with that) or you can go off grid into the swap. (good luck with that)

    The last Classical Liberal administration in US history was probably in the early 1800s. We left the ideas of the founders of the US many, many generations ago. I bet few Americans could tell you what those Classical Liberals believed in even if you gave them a big hint that we call people like that “libertarians” today. What Is Classical Liberalism?

    Rothbard offered those with a scientific bent a thought experiment: “We may test the hypothesis that the State is largely interested in protecting itself rather than its subjects by asking: which category of crimes does the State pursue and punish most intensely—those against private citizens or those against itself?”

    We have reached a condition where most don’t even know anymore the ideas of men like St. Thomas who pointed out that no action can be virtuous unless it is freely chosen. The Christians believed that God gave you free will because to be moral an act must be freely chosen. We now let the State control everything. People need help? The State steals money from the productive at the point of a gun and then gives it out to others as it suites the State itself and its minions.

    The war on free people is much, much larger than the war on science as exemplified by the CO2 delusion.

    (1) https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Anatomy%20of%20the%20State_3.pdf

  8. For the benefit of all, I attach here below the article written by ALAN CARUBA cFact 21st. April 2015.

    His words are still true.

    ARTICLE (NOT edited by myself).

    Earth Day was declared in 1970 and for the past 45 years we have all been living in the environmental “insane asylum,” being told over and over again to believe things that are the equivalent of Green hallucinations. Now the entire month of April has been declared Earth Month, but in truth not a day goes by when we are not assailed with the bold-faced lies that comprise environmentalism.

    Around the globe, the worst part of this is that we are being victimized by people we are told to respect from the President of the United States to the Pope of the Catholic Church. Their environmentalism is pure socialism.

    Organizations whom we expect to tell the truth keep telling us that “climate change is one of the biggest global security threats of the 21st century.” This was a recent statement by “world leaders” like the G7, a group of finance ministers and central bank governors of seven advanced economies, the International Monetary Fund, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United States. On April 17 they adopted a report about the “threat” put together by think tanks that included the European Union Institute for Security Studies and the Wilson Center in Washington, D.C.

    When I speak of “climate” I am referring to data gathered not just about decades, but centuries of the Earth’s cycles of warming and cooling. When I speak of “weather”, the closest any of us get to it other than today’s, are local predictions no longer than a few days’ time at best. The weather is in a constant state of flux.

    The threat of “climate change” is constantly exaggerated and there has been no meaningful global warming since the 20th century. There was not much then. As Prof. Bob Carter, a geologist at James Cook College in Queensland, Australia, has written, “For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco.”

    The fact that the Earth is now into the nineteenth year of a natural planetary cooling cycle seems to never be acknowledged or reported. “The problem here,” says Prof. Carter, “is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike.”

    In a book I recommend to everyone, “Climate for the Layman” by Anthony Bright-Paul, he draws on the best well-known science about the Earth noting that “Since there is no such thing as a temperature of the whole Earth all talk of global warming is simply illogical, ill thought out, and needs to be discarded for the sake of clarity. The globe is warming and cooling in different locations concurrently every minute of the day and night.”

    “Since it is abundantly clear that there is no one temperature of the atmosphere all talk of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is simply an exercise in futility.”
    A look at the globe from either of its two poles to its equator and everything in between tells us with simple logic that being able to determine its “temperature” is impossible. The Earth, however, has gone through numerous warming and cooling cycles, all of which were the result of more or less solar radiation.

    The Sun is a crucial factor that warming campaigners ignore. The assertion that humans influence the climate and nature need not be considered is absurd.

    The Earth had passed through warming and cooling cycles for billions of years before humans even existed, yet we are told that the generation of carbon dioxide through the use of machinery in manufacturing, transportation or any other use is causing the build-up of “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere. We are told to give up the use of coal, oil and natural gas. That is a definition of insanity!

    Here’s the simple truth that most people are not told: The Sun warms the Earth and the Earth warms the atmosphere.

    As for carbon dioxide, the amount generated by human activity represents a miniscule percentage of the 0.04% in the Earth’s atmosphere. There has been more carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere—well before humans existed—contributing to the growth of all manner of vegetation which in turn generated oxygen.

    Without carbon dioxide there would be no life on Earth. It feeds the vegetation on which animal life depends directly and indirectly. As Anthony Bright-Paul says, “A slight increase in atmosphere of carbon dioxide will not and cannot produce any warming, but can be hugely beneficial to a green planet.”

    The Earth’s atmosphere is approximately 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 0.9% Argon, 0.04% Carbon Dioxide, and the rest is water vapor and trace gases in very small amounts. They interact to provide an environment in which life, animal and vegetable, exists on Earth.

    When you live in a Global Environmental Insane Asylum, you are not likely to hear or read the truth, but you can arrive at it using simple logic. We know instinctively that humans do not control the waves of our huge oceans, nor the vast tectonic plates beneath our feet, the eruptions of volcanoes, the jet stream, cloud formation, or any of the elements of the weather we experience, such as thunder, lightning, and other acts of nature.

    Why would we blindly assume or agree to the torrent of lies that humans dominate the climate? The answer is that on Earth Day, Wednesday, April 22, we will be deluged with the propaganda of countless organizations worldwide that we are, in fact, endangering a “fragile” planet Earth. We hear and read that every other day of the year as well.

    The achievement of the human race and the last 5,000 years of so-called civilization is the way we have learned to adapt to Nature by creating habitats from villages to cities in which to survive and because we have devised a vast global agricultural and ranching system to feed seven billion of us.

    As for the weather, John Christy, the director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, says he cringes “when I hear overstated confidence from those who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over the next one hundred years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to accurately predict that system’s behavior over the next five days.”

    “Mother Nature,” says Christy, “simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, behind the mastery of mere mortals—such as scientists—and the tools available to us.”

    Whether it is the President or the Pope, or the countless politicians and bureaucrats, along with multitudes of “environmental” organizations, as well as self-serving “scientists”, all aided by the media, a virtual Green Army has been deliberately deceiving and misleading the citizens of planet Earth for four and a half decades. It won’t stop any time soon, but it must before the charade of environmentalism leaves us all enslaved by the quest for political control over our lives that hides behind it.

    We must escape the Environmental Insane Asylum in which they want us to live.
    END OF ARTICLE

  9. released from the burdens imposed by capitalism and those who seek individual liberty.

    I see that as the future. Maybe in 150 years. Simply because less effort will be required to produce so much more. Out attitudes will have changed. A developed country’s concerns over food as compared with a undeveloped country’s view on the matter. But now is now and then is then. We have to get there first.

    I agree with the proposition that cries of emergency/crisis/ect. are not correct. But I do not concede that CO2 is a non-issue. I think it is a mild-to-moderate thumb under the scale of everything else. So far, there have been enormous benefits from both the mild warming and additional CO2. Both ecologically and demographically. So far.

    • So far, there have been enormous benefits from both the mild warming and additional CO2
      =============
      it is quite simple to show, using the IPCC’s own numbers, that CO2 will be increasingly beneficial as interest rates increase.

      The IPCC agrees that mild warming is beneficial, up to about 2C. This is the warming we have currently. This represents money in the bank. Good things that would not have happened except for increased CO2. This money is earning a profit. Be it in banks, or in company profits, or in jobs, or in reduced death rates. This profit will continue to increase, do to the effects of compounding.

      The harmful effects of CO2occur after temperatures exceed 2C. Which will not happen for about 50 years, under the IPCC and COP21 projections. So that is 50 years of interest that has accumulated, before the harmful effects kick in. And the end result?

      • at any real interest rate much over 1%, the interest on the 100 years of accumulated benefits we get from Global Warming will exceed the interest on the accumulated losses, until long after the world has exhausted fossil fuels.

        Even if real interest rates are zero, the accumulated benefits of Global Warming exceed the accumulated loses until the year 2150. Global Warming does not turn into a net loss for the next 150 years, from the IPCC’s own figures.

        And in 150 years, the accumulate benefit still isn’t negative, it has just gone to zero. We are break even at that point. And in 150 years we will have solved the problem of clean energy, without the slightest need to do anything about fossil fuels today.

      • source?
        ========
        Dave I created the graph using the IPCC’s own figures, spurred on by your WUWT article:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/01/we-have-bigger-problems-than-climate-change-so-sayeth-ipcc-ar5/

        The numbers were drawn from:
        https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap10_OLSM.pdf
        https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf

        As can be seen in the first reference, Global Warming is a positive benefit until about 1.6C of warming. And from the second reference we get the RCP6.0 curve, showing the amount of warming and the year.

        So, I took those two sets of data, the temperature VS benefit/loss curve and the RCP6.0 Temperature VS time curve, and integrated them in excel to produce a time VS cumulative benefit/loss curve.

        There is nothing very complicated involved. The necessary step is to integrate the benefit/loss over time, so that we can see the benefits of warming kicking in ahead of the losses due to warming.

        This is pretty simple to do in excel. You create a column of years, and then lookup from RCP6.0 the net warming for that year. Then using that warming you lookup the net benefit/loss percentage for that amount of warming. That give you the benefit/loss for that year.

        Then you sum up the cumulative benefits from the start year of CO2 warming to the year in question, using different interest rate assumptions, allowing for the effects of compound interest. This is also not difficult as excel is well suited to creating running sums. Then I graphed the results as shown above.

        I used 1960 as the starting point for CO2 warming. An earlier starting point would generate even more benefits from warming.

      • The necessary step is to integrate
        =========================
        so for example, say we have a +2% benefit from warming in 2016, but a -2% benefit in 2017. If we integrate these the cumulative annual benefit at the end of 2016 will 2%, and 0% at the end of 2017, because the -2% balances out the +2%. So, even though we had a year of harmful warming (2017), the net benefit has remained greater than or equal to zero the whole time.

        Also, if we allow for compound interest at say 1%, then the benefit from warming at the end of 2016 will be (1.01*2) = 2.02%, and the benefit at the end of 2017 will be (1.01*(2.02-2)) = 0.0202%. While this number is not a whole lot bigger than zero, we have only considered a single year of warming benefit. The IPCC predicts about a hundreds of beneficial warming ahead of harmful warming. If you double a penny every day for a month, you have more than a million dollars.

      • The Net Present Value function will allow you to discount the annual benefits/costs back to today’s $ given any specified discount (interest) rate.

      • It would be interesting to know the response of the Grantham institute to this analysis , given that it and Lord Stern seem to have been the source for UK climate change policies for the last 20 years .

      • The Net Present Value function
        ==============
        Imagine this. You buy a house and borrow money from the bank. But the bank says you don’t have to start making payments for 100 years. During the first 100 years you will be charged no interest on the loan. However, you are free to rent out the house, and any rent you collect you can place in the bank and they will pay you interest on the deposit starting immediately.

        Would you agree to this deal? Of course you would because in 100 years you would likely have accumulated more rent and interest than the loan itself. You could pay off the original loan after 100 years on the interest earned from the rent and still have money in the bank.

        And this is the situation with Global Warming. For the first 100 years, until there is 1.6C warming, from the IPCC’s own numbers we are getting a net benefit from the warming (rent). It is only after 100 years that the warming turns harmful (interest on the loan). But if you have saved money from the benefits, the interest on the money saved will pay for the harmful effects. There is no need to start paying for the harmful effects today. It is much wiser to save the money and earn interest.

      • Fredberple – “The IPCC agrees that mild warming is beneficial, up to about 2C. This is the warming we have currently.”

        I’m sorry, I find this confusing because 2C is not the accepted figure I’ve been reading as average earth temp. increase. Indeed, most sceptic sites claim the overall increase during the 20thC was approx. 0.6 – 0.8C degrees and since the “pause” has lasted for the duration of the current century, where do you get this figure of 2C from? Since a number of sceptics maintain that beneficial effects will continue well past 2C, it seems that you are agreeing with the IPCC? Moreover, given that your comment was in response to the above article by Alan Caruba, who claims that attempting to establish an average global temperature for the planet is nonsensical in itself, your position seems more in line with the warmists. Or have I misunderstood?

      • Have you realised that the figures for the costs in table SM10-1 already include a discount rate? The figure of 1.6°C for net benefit already includes your interest rate. You cannot add an extra interest rate onto this.

        Costs (and benefits) in the future must be discounted. This is to take into account opportunity costs and to allow for the time preferences of people.

        If you remember Stern, he was criticised for using a very low discount rate (about 1.5%). This makes future costs high in todays terms, and makes it appear more worth-while to spend now to avoid damage in the future. He believed the time-preference aspect of discounting should be zero for inter-generational effects.

        Nordhaus used about 4.5% I think, which results in costs appearing much lower in todays terms.

        A Whitehouse report on the social cost of carbon was criticised for not showing costs with a discount rate of 7.5%, as required by federal rules for all cost/benefit analysis. Using this very high discount rate would have made the apparent social cost of carbon close to zero.

        Economists recognise the problems with long-range discounting, and there are different ways to deal with it. Generally, the long range discount rate should be lower than short term discount rate. Otherwise you conclude that it is not worth spending 1c today to prevent total destruction of mankind in 1000 years time.
        This provides a justification for not illustrating the 7.5% discount rate in the Whitehouse report.

        The figure of 1.6°C you come up with already includes discount rates. You cannot then add interest onto this, since it was included in the calculation that arrived at 1.6°C in the first place.

      • Have you realised that the figures for the costs in table SM10-1 already include a discount rate?
        =====================
        Nope, because that isn’t a NPV value. If is a future value, stated in future years, and calcualted as percentages, and thus not subject to discounting. Discounting applies when we try and return the future value to the present, which I have not done.

        The claim from the IPCC’s AR5 number is that global warming is a positive benefit until 1.6C of warming. We are perfectly justified to take that benefit and regard it as money we would not have had, except for the warming. The solution works because everything is done in percentages, not in constant dollars.

  10. GHG Theory and Climate Change is to Weather what the Lipid Theory and Cholesterol is to Heart Disease.

    After nearly a century of bad science and millions of deaths, we are only now learning that the science on Cholesterol was dead wrong. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

      • RayPeat – Against my better judgment, I read that article written or put together by yourself. It is a mish-mash of dated publications totally lacking perspective. The reason CVD declined in the late 20th century was not because of increasing consumption of animal fats (correlation is not causation), but in large part because of better medical control of high blood pressure and diabetes and reduction in smoking.

        Agreed that consumption of animal fats is probably not that much of an independent risk factor for CVD. However, blood LDL-C is. Do not confuse cholesterol consumption with serum LDL-C levels and do not confuse medicine with food conglomerates.

        FGM M.D.

      • Francois,

        Sorry, I am not Ray Peat. If I was, I would get a big kick out of the blather from a pill pusher. The article I linked to was one of many on the subject, but the biggest target is the PFUs being pushed by the sick-care industry. Saturated fats are good for you but I wager you have told your patients to steer clear of it because you don’t know didley about what we should eat.

        Have a good day doctor.

    • “Science on cholesterol was dead wrong.”

      No, it wasn’t. Don’t confuse Science with misleading marketing techniques from food conglomerates and diet fads. Like most people, you’re probably confusing blood cholesterol levels (more specifically LDL-C) which is definitely an important risk factor for CV disease, with dietary cholesterol which does not influence blood levels of LDL-C much in most people, which is why statins are so important if your LDL-C is high especially if you have other risk factors.

      Climate change won’t kill you, but high blood LDL-C (with other risk factors) will.

      FGM M.D.

      • confusing blood cholesterol levels
        ==============
        risk factors show correlation, not cause and effect. reducing LDL-C tackles the symptoms, not the underlying cause. one might as well prevent fires by reducing the number of firefighters.

        the underlying problem is metabolic. most likely due to the introduction of “manufactured food”, something the human body is not genetically adapted to eat.

        if you feed rabbits on all meat diets, they get sick. if you feed cats all vegetable diets they get sick. so why should it be any surprise that humans get sick when fed artificial food?

        and in large part the medical industry is blaming the people for this illness, in a very similar fashion to the way ulcer patients were blamed for their condition.

        The simple fact is that we can see from cadaver studies that there is a problem, and it is so widespread it cannot be the patients that are at fault.

      • Unsurprisingly, as an alleged allopathic doctor you propagate the propaganda and hype of that huge corrupt business cartel (“statins are so important”). They are important… for conventional doctors and the massive medical business, but not for the vast majority of patients who they get pushed on.

        It is important for the public to recognize that most of the “scientific” research in favor of cholesterol-lowering statins is flawed and fraudulent.

        The most reliable evidence has long tied statin use with memory problems, muscle disorders, liver damage, cataracts, nerve damage, pancreatitis, erectile dysfunction, brain dysfunction, diabetes, and with an increased risk of cancer and higher mortality (statins only somewhat reduce the risk of non-fatal heart attacks).

        The physiological mechanisms of how statins do serious damage are also well understood, such as by their impairment of oxidative cell metabolism, the increase in inflammation and cell destruction, the lowering of cholesterol and steroid hormone production, the promotion of pancreatic injury, etc. – rather thoroughly explained in this scholarly article on how statins, and a cholesterol-lowering popular diet pill advertised by Dr. Oz, promote diabetes at http://www.supplements-and-health.com/garcinia-cambogia-side-effects.html – look at Figure 7 to see how irrational it is to block the production of cholesterol!

        Yet despite of the existence of that scientific knowledge, the medical business and the public health authorities keep ignoring it and continue to recommend statins to diabetics and make claims that they have a low risk profile despite that they are also significantly linked to cancer and higher mortality (just look at the propaganda put out by the Mayo clinic on statin drugs: “the risk of life-threatening side effects from statins is very low”).

        And because of such medical propaganda, few people are aware that the medical claims of benefits of statins are mostly based on junk studies conducted by people with vested interests. And, logically, it’s mostly the corporate medical business and other people with similar vested interests tied to it (eg, mouthpieces, hacks) who promote the alleged value of these highly lucrative products.

        Also, older people with HIGH cholesterol live longer than those with low cholesterol levels (see above mentioned article for numerous scientific study references confirming this).

        Because the cholesterol-heart disease theory, or rather medical dogma, is wrong, the use of statins is also wrong by logical extension.

        So the real truth is that statins have almost no real benefit in the very vast majority of users. They do more harm than good (read Uffe Ravnskov’s “The Cholesterol Myths” and Malcolm Kendrick’s “The Great Cholesterol Con”). It’s one of many “scientific” scams of the mainstream medical business.

  11. I always thought it interesting that Naomi Klein the communist was representing the Pope. Communists don’t really like religion. If Naomi Klein’s dream world comes to fruition, who do you think will one of the first institutions to go?

    • alexwade,

      A slave plantation in America was “communist”, in the sense I believe many are now pushing “communism”. . . Not a classless society, but a very hard-line elitist one, which merely dresses up as what communism means according to a dictionary..

      In such an eventuality as you refer to, the “elite” might very well want religion to play a prominent role, as an “opiate” of the masses, it seems to me.

  12. Depuis maintenant une bonne dizaine d’années, on sait de manière certaine que l’action de l’homme a eu, et aura un impact de plus en plus considérable sur la vie de notre planète, son climat, la vie même des différentes espèces du vivant, dont nous sommes.

    “For over a decade now it has been crystal clear that man has had and will have an increasingly significant impact on life on our planet, its climate, and the very life of all living specicies, of which we are part”.

    The translation is frames to convey the usual gable.

    http://www.ville-clichy.fr/161-agenda-21.htm

  13. I doubt the great majority of the cititizens of Paris have ever heard of Agenda 21 but it tops the local agenda.

    file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/Synthese-atelier-8.pdf

  14. Paris Climate Conference: A Sideshow To More Frightening Use Of False IPCC Climate Science

    Not at all alarmist. Nope. Not one bit.

    • Brandon Gates
      January 3, 2016 at 10:26 am

      Paris Climate Conference: A Sideshow To More Frightening Use Of False IPCC Climate Science

      Not at all alarmist. Nope. Not one bit.
      ——————-
      Brandon,
      I have my idea(s) about why you would make such a statement, but will keep it to myself, for now.

      I’ve made the following statement a few times, here at WUWT and this is a good time to repeat it: “Facts are not truth. Facts are merely facets of the shining diamond of truth.”

      • Disingenuousness is a common trait of climate trolls. It is hard to know if dishonesty is a character trait they had before latching on to their climate ideology, or if climate ideology, being based on lies, instills said dishonesty. A good subject for a psych study.

    • Brandon Gates,

      ‘Paris Climate Conference: A Sideshow To More Frightening Use Of False IPCC Climate Science’

      “Not at all alarmist. Nope. Not one bit.”

      All alarm is not equivalent. If some people try to use false alarms to destroy one’s society/security then naturally alarm is justified.

      That you play this “same name game” is to me testimony to your dishonesty (and/or psychopathy), not the irrationality of sounding am alarm regarding what one perceives as real threat. Non-socio/psychopaths naturally and rightly do that, it seems to me.

      • JohnKnight,
        Your observation that “All alarm is not equivalent” is right on, but you lapse into some weird, melodramatic mysticism with your last paragraph.
        You can’t dub everyone a psychopath whenever they disagree with you. (and me)

      • mebbe,

        I realize your intent probably was not to defend me, and certainly not my original comment, but I appreciate your response to John nonetheless.

        I do agree with him that not all alarms are equally justifiable. To the extent that I know my own psychology better than he does, I disagree that my original comment is testimony of the pathological sort for the simple reason that I don’t consider my concerns about the perceived risks of continued CO2 emissions to be unfounded, and certainly not wholly unfounded.

      • Brandon Gates
        January 4, 2016 at 8:14 am

        “I disagree that my original comment is testimony of the pathological sort for the simple reason that I don’t consider my concerns about the perceived risks of continued CO2 emissions to be unfounded, and certainly not wholly unfounded.”
        ——————–
        In other words, the end justifies the means; if lie you must, then lie you will.

        BG,
        Time and again, you’ve revealed your fundamental dishonesty and been called out for it. You do not enjoy any credibility here, whatsoever.

        You’ve been given a lot of rope here and you’ve taken plenty. That noose may not tighten for you at WUWT, because your machinations serve as a prime example of the mendacity, twisted logic, semantic manipulation, rhetorical misdirection and generally disruptive tactics, as employed almost universally by CAGW proponents.

      • Alan Robertson,

        In other words, the end justifies the means; if lie you must, then lie you will.

        No, exactly what I wrote: I disagree that my original comment is testimony of the pathological sort for the simple reason that I don’t consider my concerns about the perceived risks of continued CO2 emissions to be unfounded, and certainly not wholly unfounded.

        Some might consider repeatedly twisting other people’s words around to suit their own prejudices a form of lying. I am one of those kinds of people.

        Try it again, this time by reading exactly what I say instead of just making crap up.

        Ta.

      • Brandon Gates,
        Several readers noted that your original statement is indefensibly dishonest. You even alluded to your own acknowledgement of such, in your response to mebbe. One reader noted that such dishonesty is sometimes symptomatic of pathological behavior. You offered a defense against that statement by saying that your words did not indicate a pathology, because your climate concerns are not unfounded (implying that your concerns warranted your original statement.) Was that not your implication? Is that not the essence of what you wrote? Is that not justifying the means to reach the end (mitigation of your climate concerns)?

        Words have meaning. It is entirely possible that you are unaware of the meaning and implications of your own words. However, you have manifested a pattern of speech and behavior in these pages which leads to the conclusion that with your response to me, you are willfully trying to imply- against all evidence- that the meaning of your words was misinterpreted, which then becomes yet another slip of the masque, a deeper exposure.

        You aren’t fooling anyone here. You would be better served, if you quit fooling yourself.
        It is not too late for you to try to correct your own habit of repeatedly twisting words, to suit your own purpose.

      • Alan Robertson,

        Several readers noted that your original statement is indefensibly dishonest.

        Yeah, I noticed that a few people were of that opinion.

        You even alluded to your own acknowledgement of such, in your response to mebbe.

        Nah. What I said, exactly was: I do agree with him that not all alarms are equally justifiable.

        Show me the implicit or explicit lie in that statement.

        One reader noted that such dishonesty is sometimes symptomatic of pathological behavior.

        Sure, a pattern of repeatedly telling lies and not admitting to it when confronted with evidence to that effect is considered pathology by Authorities who write diagnostic manuals.

        You offered a defense against that statement by saying that your words did not indicate a pathology, because your climate concerns are not unfounded (implying that your concerns warranted your original statement.) Was that not your implication?

        Nope. My original statement was directed to the headline of the OP: ‘Paris Climate Conference: A Sideshow To More Frightening Use Of False IPCC Climate Science’

        I was implying that the claim that the IPCC uses false science is unfounded, and hence, satirically suggesting that the frightening aspect of that is unwarranted alarmism.

        Is that not justifying the means to reach the end (mitigation of your climate concerns)?

        Not at all. I base my arguments for reducing CO2 emissions on mainly appeals to evidence that the earth is warming as a result of them, and evidence that past abrupt changes in climate for any reason have tended to stress the ecosystem of this planet to the point that mass extinctions of species are the result.

        Words have meaning. It is entirely possible that you are unaware of the meaning and implications of your own words.

        Sure, that is entirely possible. It’s also possible that you have no freaking clue what goes on inside my head. We can both do the “it’s entirely possible” game about my psychology until the cows come home.

        However, you have manifested a pattern of speech and behavior in these pages which leads to the conclusion that with your response to me, you are willfully trying to imply- against all evidence- that the meaning of your words was misinterpreted, which then becomes yet another slip of the masque, a deeper exposure.

        I have a different opinion, of course, and that is that you simply don’t like having your own brand of bullcrap thrown right back into your own face. Common enough reaction, not at all necessarily pathological in my (very) inexpert opinion.

        You aren’t fooling anyone here.

        It doesn’t occur that that’s because I’m not trying to fool anyone here?

        You would be better served, if you quit fooling yourself.

        Well now, there we agree on principle. I offer you the same unsolicited advice.

        It is not too late for you to try to correct your own habit of repeatedly twisting words, to suit your own purpose.

        Irony meter #3 of the year gives up the ghost in your honor. Toodles.

      • You even alluded to your own acknowledgement of such, in your response to mebbe.

        “Nah. What I said, exactly was: I do agree with him that not all alarms are equally justifiable.”
        —————-
        BG,
        You chose to argue the wrong phrase:
        “mebbe,
        I realize your intent probably was not to defend me, and certainly not my original comment…”
        ……………….
        The italicized portion of your comment is relevant to your mentioned acknowledgement
        You just employed a misdirection (strawman,) either intentionally, or not.
        __________________
        “Show me the implicit or explicit lie in that statement.”
        —————-
        No one said that you made a statement to mebbe which was a lie.
        You just made another strawman argument. These pages are filled with you being called out for doing exactly that.
        __________________________
        Is that not justifying the means to reach the end (mitigation of your climate concerns)?

        “Not at all. I base my arguments for reducing CO2 emissions on mainly appeals to evidence that the earth is warming as a result of them, and evidence that past abrupt changes in climate for any reason have tended to stress the ecosystem of this planet to the point that mass extinctions of species are the result.”
        ————————-
        Pssst, your original statement was unquestionably disingenuous and here you are yet again, justifying that statement. Again you prove that for you, the end justifies the means.
        Like I said, you have discernable patterns.

        As to the rest of your nonsense… you’ve grown fond of the phrase “irony meter” and have employed it several times of late, both here at WUWT and at an unnamed site which you frequent (a site which apparently has its sole reason for existence, the disparagement of whatever goes on here at WUWT,)
        Yes, you’ve gone there and bragged how you bested this or that person at WUWT and named the participants here by name (while you called some of them names, etc.)
        That’s exceedingly bad form. Do tell us once again how “proper skeptics” perform, won’t you?

      • Alan Robertson,

        You chose to argue the wrong phrase:
        “mebbe, I realize your intent probably was not to defend me, and certainly not my original comment…

        Ok fine, pardon me for not being able to read your mind.

        The italicized portion of your comment is relevant to your mentioned acknowledgement
        You just employed a misdirection (strawman,) either intentionally, or not.

        Let’s rewind. You wrote above: Several readers noted that your original statement is indefensibly dishonest. You even alluded to your own acknowledgement of such, in your response to mebbe.

        I was acknowledging mebbe’s statement to JohnKnight: You can’t dub everyone a psychopath whenever they disagree with you. (and me)

        Pssst, your original statement was unquestionably disingenuous and here you are yet again, justifying that statement.

        adjective: disingenuous
        not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
        synonyms: insincere, dishonest, untruthful, false, deceitful, duplicitous, lying, mendacious; hypocritical

        Compare:

        adjective: sarcastic

        marked by or given to using irony in order to mock or convey contempt.
        “sarcastic comments on their failures”
        synonyms: sardonic, ironic, ironical; derisive, snide, scornful, contemptuous, mocking, sneering, jeering; caustic, scathing, trenchant, cutting, biting, sharp, acerbic; informal, smart-alecky
        “I’ve had enough of your sarcastic comments”

        Also compare:

        adjective: facetious
        treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.
        synonyms: flippant, flip, glib, frivolous, tongue-in-cheek, ironic, sardonic, joking, jokey, jocular, playful, sportive, teasing, mischievous; witty, amusing, funny, droll, comic, comical, lighthearted, jocose
        “unfortunately, they took my facetious remarks seriously”

        If it would please the Court, perhaps you can explain to the jury how it is you KNOW FOR CERTAIN that I was pretending to know less about something than I really do? As I’ve already pointed out, I think the best you’ve got is: I do agree with him that not all alarms are equally justifiable.

        As to the rest of your nonsense… you’ve grown fond of the phrase “irony meter” and have employed it several times of late, both here at WUWT and at an unnamed site which you frequent (a site which apparently has its sole reason for existence, the disparagement of whatever goes on here at WUWT,)
        Yes, you’ve gone there and bragged how you bested this or that person at WUWT and named the participants here by name (while you called some of them names, etc.)
        That’s exceedingly bad form. Do tell us once again how “proper skeptics” perform, won’t you?

        I’d be happy to give you an example of what I think proper skepticism is NOT: Pssst, your original statement was unquestionably disingenuous and here you are yet again, justifying that statement.

        It is my opinion that evaluating what is going on inside someone else’s head is inherently subjective, and therefore always questionable. A “proper skeptic” is self-skeptical, and allows for the possibility that their perception is wrong even when dealing with data lending themselves to more objective evaluation, or that some other cognitive bias has caused them to make an error in their reasoning.

        I’m truly sorry you don’t approve of my participation on other blogs. And just so there is no further … misunderstanding … my previous statement was sarcastic. Some might consider me unrepentant on this point, and they would be correct.

      • mebe,

        “You can’t dub everyone a psychopath whenever they disagree with you. (and me)”

        I didn’t, I was speaking to one person . . and the topic was sounding alarms . . If no one can rightly mention they see a potential psychopath messing with us, we are at the mercy of psychopaths, right?

  15. Fred,
    Anything to back the anti-cholesterol comments?

    It took me three lots of statins before I felt ‘I could lie with this medication’. the damage to ‘energy-levels’, activity, especially from the first, was significant. I do not love statins. At all.

    Hi – Anyone reading – it statins are prescribed, tell the medic you’ll take it whilst you feel OK.
    Only until then.

    And then, of course, stop, and go back to the medic. In your own time.

    Auto

  16. ‘I could lie with this medication’ – yeah – studying to be a local politician.

    Ahh – no, mods, really:
    ‘I could live with this medication’

    Auto – too quick on the ‘Post Comment’, I fear.

  17. The problem we have here in the United States is one of a sitting US president committing clearly definable high crimes in the execution of his sworn constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” The US in its constitutional form was founded on the most basic principle that this is a nation governed by laws, not men (like King Charles of 1776, or women, aka wannabe Queen Hillary).

    For just one example: Mr Obama’s EPA rewrite of the Clean Air Act (CAA) via promulgation of new regulations is certainly outside the authority granted by and scope of the CAA. It is an extralegal usurpation of Congress’s law making power. He did this to achieve his war on coal via his Clean Power Plan (CPP) regulations. It is a blatant, overt contempt toward “take care that laws be faithfully executed.” As such, it constitutes a high crime and is thus an impeachable offense committed by Mr Obama. There is real harm caused by the promulgation of these CPP regulations for the States and various plantiffs to have standing in the courts. Ultimately, his CPP will likely be struck down by the courts, but not before it results in considerable economic damage to energy production costs and jobs.

    As a result of this and his many other tramplings on existing law, there are now many impeachable offenses that the US House of Representatives could use in an Articles of Impeachment. Since impeachment only requires a majority vote in the lower chamber, the Republicans majority there could and would have already impeached him for high crimes if it were not for the ugly problem in the US Senate.

    (Background note). The US constution requires a 2/3 affirmative Concurrence in the Senate to at least one of the House passed Articles of Impeachment to remove an impeached president. Like with the last Democratic president, impeachment without Senate conviction is merely a symbolic, but operationally meaningless, rebuke to a president’s legacy. (end note)

    The current political division the US senate (2016) is: 54 Republicans (majority), 44 Democrats plus 2 independent party senators who align themselves with the Democrat caucus, total 46. The problem in the Senate is there are 46 gutless, dishonest senators who would refuse to convict-remove on almost any grounds the first black US president from their own party. Obama of course knows this. Like an immunity idol doll from the TV series Survivor given by the senate Democrats, this effectively has given Mr Obama an unprecented immunity from removal. It has empowered Obama to any and all legal transgressions he makes to promote an ideologic assault on individual freedoms and States’ rights, and further a socialist-progressive agenda, an agenda that tramples the constitution’s normal checks and balances.

    The only check at this point against Obama’s illegal actions (but not his tenure) is the glacially slow, grinding processes of the Federal judicary, i.e. the US courts. The political space and neutering of Congressional authority given by the spineless Democrat senators, along with the federal court’s lag, allows him time to carry out a wide-range of actions that destroy the separation of powers doctrine in the constitution.

    Obama now not only executes laws as he sees fit, he is rewriting them wholecloth with regulations and executive orders to his agencies and his politically-appointed, politically-acting officers.
    This political corruption is and has been most apparent, and most consequential, in the two US Attorney Generals (first Eric Holder and now Loretta Lynch) he has appointed to run the Department of Justice. For without corruption of the DoJ’s investigation and prosecutorial mechanisms, the law breaking and corruption at the EPA, IRS, and other agencies under the White House’s control would not be possible.

    Now, the reason those 46 worm-like senators can publicly “get away” with disregarding their sworn oath “to protect and defend the constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic” is that much of this nation’s free press has aligned itself on ideological grounds with a Progressive agenda, an agenda Obama exploits and uses as he sees fit. The Progressive agenda is one where rule of law matters not, and one where Noble Cause Corruption (NCC) is rampant, widely accepted, and/or tolerated by a Left-leaning press. For example AW regularly has blog postings here on the dishonest climate agenda reporting of the likes of reporters Joe Romm and Seth Borenstein.

    To that end, the current Climate Change agenda is of course a carefully run propaganda campaign to move public opinion, to affect voting and election outcomes, to enable voter support for more socialism. It operates at many levels, both seen and hidden, by politicians, green crony capitalists with deep pockets to make political money pay-offs, and environmental religion zealots. Exxon and the oil industry are mere pikers in comparison. The Climate Change moniker itself was a carefully crafted propaganda change from the Gobal Warming label in order to further the pysop campaign’s dissemination of the dishonest message of “carbon pollution” and most especially the desired end result of carbon trading schemes and carbon emission taxes. For the left Progressives, the “end justifies the means” is an axiom to NCC. The rule of law matters not when the exective has assumed the role of law maker as well.

    We must continue to actively support the free and open internet blogs like AW’s here, and Judith Curry’s, Bob Tisdale’s, Roy Spencer’s, even Tony Heller’s Real Climate Science (even though he is frequently OTT in hyperbole and vitriol) and all of the many non-US climate change skeptical contributors and bloggers. AW’s post yesterday on AlGore’s discredited 10 year whopper, it made the widely read Drudge Report, probably much to the Obama regime’s disgust whenever the lies of the Climate Change propaganda campaign are widely exposed. At the risk of accused of being labeled paranoid, IMO it is merely a matter of time (a few months) before machinations within the Obama regime will act to suppress, silence, or directly shutdown these widely read outlets.

    “The 1st Amendment be damned” is already a cry being made everyday now by the Left in the US. The US mainstream media, suffering under the NCC affliction, is standing by, mostly silent of a coming regulatory (and possible IRS) assault on open internet blogs and bloggers. But then like the once free press in Venezuela and other countries where despotic govts were allowed to take root by a complacent public, eventually they will come for them too.

  18. We sent a clown to the Whitehouse and he took his show to the world stage proving that everybody loves a clown. But he’s still a clown. His legacy will forever be an 8-year (minimum) blip in the growth of wealth of the US taxpayers. At least until some future commissar learns from climate science how to re-write the public record.

  19. It’s time to drag out this brilliant talk (again) about UN Agenda 21 by Rosa Koire.
    Not too many people understand what UN Agenda 21 is about and how it relates to COP21 etc.

    “Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.” – quote from the first page of UN Agenda 21.

    This is a very entertaining and informative video, and I still think it is her best talk. (You only have to watch the first half to get the gist of it, and what Agenda 21 is).

  20. I’m beginning to get over my apprehension, to the point that I am now seriously looking forward to the day, just over a year from now, when President Trump countermands all of Obama’s Executive Orders.

    • And when President Trump does nothing to countermand all of Obama’s Executive Orders, will you be willing to admit that a President Cruz would have been a better choice?

      • Maybe. But that’s presuming one knows the future, don’t you think?

        All we have to go on are candidates’ statements, and their past credibility. I think both Cruz and Trump are credible. IANAR, but I’ll go with their nominee, whoever it is. Certainly Hilliary isn’t credible or trustworthy. That makes it a no-brainer.

  21. Hate to say it, but if you can’t beat ’em, well, join ’em! (Pretty original saying, eh?) And, a Climate Action Plan is simply not good enough. We need more. We need the damaged climate to be Renewed. We need it to be Revitalized. And we need for our efforts to be Reinvigorated.

    Enough with CAP alright already. We need to start the Climate Renewal Action Plan right now. We need as much Climate Renewal Action Planning as we can get. Our leaders need our commitment to Climate Revitalization Action Planning to be so deep, so very deep, that we need hip high waders to be sludging, er, slugging our way through it to success. We need our gentle Climate Action Planning to be changed to a much more umphing Climate Reinvigorated Action Planning so that all of us are up to our necks in it. Only then will society truly get and discover the true goal it’s been asking for.

  22. There is another world, outside of that of Agenda 21 and similar weird conspiracies , but whilst more real , it is no less depressing .
    According to a senior Telegraph journalist , the situation of Western banks and world trade in the US/EU/UK zone is worrying him and his contacts as well as the IMF head . As he (Halligan) says :

    “My final fear for 2016 is that world trade slows further, acting as an additional anchor on global growth.
    Last year, trade grew by just 2.4pc, the lowest figure for many years and down from 3.4pc in 2014.
    The Doha trade “round” has just been officially abandoned, the first failure of a multi-lateral negotiation since the 1930s. The danger now is that protectionism rises, and diplomatic rancour grows. Clear-minded people across the world must hope that doesn’t come to pass. ”

    Why is this relevant in the context of this post?
    Because this is the real world of trade, industry and finance that operates or tries to, outside the world conjured up by the likes of Oreskes and Klein and the CAGW fanatics , and the media and politicians that they have captivated. The same Establishment mixture of politicians , bureaucrats , journalists and celebrity writers that are proposing ever deeper descents into debt for US and UK in order to carry out the demands of COP21 are those that are responsible for the appalling mess of death, destruction and immigration in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan since 2003. They used fraud (Blair certainly did) to get us into this mess and have no clear idea what to do now . If they cannot get that right , what chance is there that the significant financial sacrifice of US ,UK, Canada and Australia will not be a financial disaster as China and India forge ahead in the coming years ?
    In 15 years time my children and grand children will be asking how could any group of rational beings create such a mess of previously successful economies.

  23. Ultimately, I believe one only has to look here …

    No indication of Kyoto and one really has to struggle to spot any kind of recession.

    I hereby guarantee that nothing will change, CO2 wise, post Paris. It has nothing to do with CO2. They are all about ensuring that, bit by bit, you will join the ‘collective’. After all, Communism would be great if only we gave it a chance and actually tried it.

  24. This post exemplifies exactly what I have been saying on this forum and others about the dangers of Agenda 21.

    Agenda 21 is rife in my country and especially my earthquake raged city.

    Please read my blog on this subject and be sure to visit every page and every link. It is important that we see this and recognize it in our own cities.

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

  25. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….”

    Happening in Australia. Due to the Kyoto, politicians threw the burden on farmers by telling them they could not clear their own land or control regrowth on cleared land. We had one man climb a pole and and have a hunger strike until Environmental bureaucrats allowed him to return his farm to profitability. The draconian laws meant he could not make a living on his farm, he had owned for 30 years, nor could he sell it because it was too unproductive.
    The law in Queensland was so bad that it meant if a green bureaucrat drove onto your property, you were already guilty with fines up to $250,000. The fines were designed to drive the farmer broke.
    The cost of fighting them was over $100,000 and the way the law was written, it was very difficult to prove your innocence. The law was written that the government only had to make an accusation, not prove it.

    One man had enough reserves to challenge the accusations in court. He exposed the greens as telling any written lie they could. Even caught out, the legislation was so heavily biased that it was technicalities in the legislation that tripped up the government.

    They also claimed all the water that fell as government water, despite the absurdity that they did not supply it. So agenda 21 is alive and well. They have removed riparian rights and replaced them with statutory rights, which the government can remove.

    • Jack. In the US, waters of the US (originally intended to navigable waters) have been extend to ephemeral streams of a m or so in width and with drainage areas of a on the order of ha or so. Of course, this extends to the ephemeral streams of Phoenix area and the Las Vegas Area. The feds (EPA and US Army Corps of Engineers) can now extend their ownership and control of these streams right up to your home.

  26. the ultimate plan continues to be the raiding of retirement funds:

    2 Jan: UK Independent: Tom Bawden: Climate change targets ‘have huge implications for UK pensioners’
    Pension funds urge Britain’s biggest carbon polluters to come clean over financial crisis that lies ahead
    A ???legally binding agreement struck by world leaders in Paris last month, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions dramatically, has huge implications for pensioners, who have billions of pounds invested in “carbon-intensive” companies.
    Analysts say that more than three-quarters of the world’s known coal, oil and gas reserves will have to stay in the ground if the planet is to have any chance of meeting the target to limit global warming to between 1.5C and 2C…
    Yet many “carbon-intensive” companies are behaving as though it is “business as usual”, when they should be telling investors what the dangers are and how they are dealing with them. This approach is completely untenable, say pension funds and law firms, now that the Paris agreement has removed any doubt that companies could carry on as normal.
    “Business as usual is not an option for very carbon-intensive companies,” said Stephanie Maier, the head of responsible strategy and research at Aviva, the insurance giant that manages £267bn of investments. She also speaks for the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, a coalition of 120 financial institutions managing nearly £10trn of funds in nine countries…
    ***Britain’s pensioners are also being asked to help themselves by putting pressure on their pension fund managers to find out just how exposed the country’s biggest companies are to climate change…
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-targets-have-huge-implications-for-uk-pensioners-a6794161.html

    ***those with retirement funds need to do the opposite of what the MSM CAGW gatekeepers keep suggesting. they should write to their fund managers and demand they DO NOT invest any of their monies in any CAGW-related adVENTURE.

  27. I sit here thinking about this post by Dr. Tim Ball and about the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming by CO2 delusion. I am positive that the governments of the west played a huge part in this grand mistake. Governmental incentives, grants, tax breaks, loans, jobs, and so on led to this present state of affairs.

    Governmental agencies federal, state, and local have all been part of lying to the public by commission or by omission. Graphs created to mislead, cherry picking, ignoring the laws of physics and thermodynamics and much more played a part. The government schools from Kindergarten to high schools were co-opted into selling the delusion of CO2 as a poison.

    My question is: when you know all of the above as many here do (and much better than I do for many of them) — how could you believe anything the State or its willing prostitutes the main stream press (presstitute?) has to tell you?

    If I were an eye witness to an event and the press reported on it just as I saw it — that would make me question my own account of the event. (after all, eye witnesses are wrong at times say the experts) More to the point, if the NYT said that the sun rose in the east I would get up the next morning at dawn to check them out.

  28. Renewables giant, Abengoa, was not a great investment:

    3 Jan: InsiderTradingReport: Company Shares of Abengoa, S.A. Drops by -16.88%
    Abengoa, S.A. has lost 16.88% during the past week and dropped 43.11% in the last 4 weeks…
    Abengoa SA has dropped 72.41% during the last 3-month period . Year-to-Date the stock performance stands at -92.85%…
    Institutional Investors own 9.49% of Abengoa, S.A. shares.
    http://www.insidertradingreport.org/company-shares-of-abengoa-s-a-nasdaqabgb-drops-by-16-88/6211175/

  29. Thanks, Dr. Ball.
    This is what we carbon-based humans are facing: feudalism as a system of world government.
    Not very progressive, I’m afraid.
    And it seems to me that the only thing that can save save us would be the very bitter “medicine” of evident global cooling; A loose-loose proposition, unless we act to elect the right leaders.

  30. If you want to scare yourself even more Dr. Ball, read “not a shot was fired” by Jan Kozak on how to manipulate free nation parliaments into communist governments by using the existing tools available in parliaments. It was written 40 years ago and Czechoslovakia was the prototype case of how it worked.

    Obama is following this to a tee and it is ‘must read’ stuff for neo Marxists. The entire book is available on Amazon.com but it’s $80 a copy. Only ideologues would lay out that kind of cash for it so it is a quasi secret. I think it is even more “must read” material for GOP candidates so that they know the diabolical wisdom of how to achieve the subversion of free nations so they will recognize what has already happened. To read what it is all about free go to this pdf:

    http://www.robertwelchuniversity.org/Not%20a%20Shot.pdf

    This is why a new president has to be someone for whom nothing is too big to fail, one who will eschew the alluring benefits of bigger cash flow to government, one who will chop the civil service at least in half, starting with the department administrators down to the lowest level where this stuff has been rising to the top for a long time. Chop the programs, repatriate powers to states, educate state legislators on the insidious erosion of the constitution and all freedoms, and root out Agenda 21. This stuff was all distilled from 75 years of work by apparatchiks in a nation of chess players. Your average soshulist sociologist professors in Harvard and virtually all academic and government departments are pimple-faced naifs compared to the strategists of the east (it’s no wonder Lenin referred to the cominterm in Europe and elsewhere as useful idiots).

    Please don’t be stupid anymore voters and politicians.

    • Three copies of Kozak’s book “Not a Shot is Fired” are currently available at Abebooks.com for less than $25.00.

      The book is scarce, so get it while you can.

  31. The United Nations itself has become the greatest evil of our time in the 21st century. It must be stopped!

    With trillions of Dollars, Euros, Pounds and Yens amongst others there is not wonder that the Vatican would demand a place at the UN Table to feast and feed its communist agenda.

    In the 90s it was a joke that the internet/www was the only place on Earth where communism actually survived and flourished.

    Then AOL merged with Time Warner and the Dot Com era crashed and died.

    Hopefully the merger of the UN and Vatican will ensue a crash and death of the merged communist organization.

    Why would the UN merge with the Vatican?

    The UN has no “moral authority” whereas the Vatican does in the minds of its adherents.

    The merger would give the UN the Moral Authority to begin ethnic cleansing of humans to fulfill the edicts of the Club of Rome and decimate human population to 4 billion in order to “Save The Earth!”

    To fulfill the UN’s (Bon Ki Moon’s) sexual desires, the UN need an army, that is where ISIS comes to play for the UN!

    ISIS the ARMY OF GOD to rule the Earth for the UN!

    Ha ha

  32. Thanks Dr. Ball, this stuff is far more important than climate to distribute widely.

    If you want to scare yourself even more read “not a shot was fired” by Jan Kozak on how to manipulate free nation parliaments into Kom##@st governments by using the existing tools available in parliaments. It was written 40 years ago and Czechoslovakia was the prototype case of how it worked.
    Obama is following this to a tee as already installed in the EU (the formation of the EU was really to meet the unstated requirements of such planners) and it is ‘must read’ stuff for neomarxbrothers. The entire book is available on Amazon.com but it’s $80 a copy. Only sinistral strategists would lay out that kind of cash for it so it is a quasi secret. I think it is even more “must read” material for GOP candidates so that they know the diabolical wisdom of how the ‘conversion’ of free nations is achieved so they will recognize what has already happened. To read what it is all about free go to this pdf:

    http://www.robertwelchuniversity.org/Not%20a%20Shot.pdf

    This is why a new president has to be someone for whom nothing is too big to fail, one who will eschew the alluring benefits of bigger cash flow to government coffers, one who will chop the civil service at least in half, starting with the department administrators down to the lowest level where this stuff has been fomenting and rising to the top for a long time. Chop the programs, repatriate powers to states, educate state legislators on the insidious erosion of the constitution and all freedoms, and root out Agenda 21. Oh and re-install a real education system. This cloaky stuff was all distilled from 75 years of work by apparatchiks in a nation of chess players and their admirers elsewhere. Your average soshulist professors in Harvard and virtually all academic and government departments are pimple-faced naifs compared to the strategists from the east (it’s no wonder Lenin referred to such in Europe and elsewhere as useful idiots).

    Please, America, don’t be stupid anymore- voters and politicians.

  33. As socialism demands that there be a ruling class to impose socialism on the proletariat (the slaves), do all these idiots assume that they will be part of the ruling elite? Just as in The Hunger Games, the people of the Capitol will see themselves as so “burdened” with controlling the lives of the slaves, economy, etc. and so superior and powerful that they will make sure that they have delightful lives, full of all the top-level luxuries.

  34. The Paris Climate Agreement is based on the idea that somehow CO2 affects climate. But,despite all the claims, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture. In other words CO2 increases in the atmosphere as huge volumes of water increase in temperature but more H2O enters the atmosphere as just the surface of bodies of water warm. We live in a water world where the majority of the Earth’s surface is some form of water.

    The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.

    Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.

    The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.

    The AGW conjecture talks about CO2 absorbing IR photons and then re radiating them out in all directions. According to this, then CO2 does not retain any of the IR heat energy it absorbs so it cannot be heat trapping. What the AGW conjecture fails to mention is that typically between the time of absorption and radiation that the same CO2 molecule, in the lower troposphere, undergoes roughly a billion physical interactions with other molecules, sharing heat related energy with each interaction. Heat transfer by conduction and convection dominates over heat transfer by LWIR absorption band radiation in the troposphere which further renders CO2’s radiant greenhouse effect as a piece of fiction. Above the troposphere more CO2 enhances the efficiency of LWIR absorption band radiation to space so more CO2 must have a cooling effect.

    This is all a matter of science

    • C’mon: “… despite all the claims, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate” You are, of course, totally and quite provably an ideologically driven scientific naïf. Do me — and all of us — the small favor of doing a bit better research into long-wave radiation that would prevent you from making such silly, silly assertions as “Heat transfer by conduction and convection dominates over heat transfer by LWIR absorption band radiation in the troposphere which further renders CO2’s radiant greenhouse effect as a piece of fiction,”, m’kay? Back to school, sir …

      Oh, and “The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere,” and “gravity limits cooling by convection.” Do you do stand-up comedy in your free time?

      This is, after all, “a matter of science.” You should study it some day.

      • I present the truth. If you think that there is some real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate then please present some.

      • Seems Rik has missed out on any education apart from AGW propaganda BS. !

        Go for it Rik. present the evidence… no one else has ever done so.

      • Will is totally correct.

        In the lower atmosphere, convection and conduction control all final heat and energy transfers.

        And energy absorbed by CO2 below about 15km is immediately passed to out atoms via conduction, and the energy dealt with as all other energy, by convection. this convection is controlled by the atmospheric pressure gradient.

        CO2 does NOT re-emit below about 15km.

      • And gees, with CO2 absorbing all that radiation, wouldn’t it be funny if outgoing longwave radiation actually INCREASED. ;-)

      • Ps.. CO2 absorption is actually depleted within about 10m of the surface..

        And CO2 does not emit below 15km..

        There is absolutely NO mechanism whereby CO2 can “trap” energy in the Earth’s atmosphere.

        The whole idea is a load of codswabble !!

  35. The argument is not furthered by using two simple labels ‘capitalism’ and ‘socialism’. The fact is that capitalism, at its logical extremes (as espoused by Jeff Bezos) makes 99.9999% of people slaves and 0.00001% so rich it is inhuman.

    ‘Capitalism’ must not be equated with ‘no governance’, since the principle of capitalism is not about governance, rather about the most effective allocation of capital.

    The assumption of ‘hyper-capitalists’ is that any interference by government ‘prevents the optimal allocation of capital’.

    The reason this assumption must be challenged is the question: ‘for whom is the allocation of capital optimal?’

    Options:
    1. For the shareholders of private limited companies?
    2. For the majority of citizens in an economy/the world?
    3. For future generations, as yet unborn?
    4. For all species on earth?
    5. Other options?

    I am making no statements as to which option I consider best, I am merely stating the uncomfortable fact that saying that it is option 1 or nothing is where current hyper capitalists reside.

    Currently, in the West, there is a very small elite with so much money that they are not allocating all their excess capital in the economies where they reside. A lot of the time, they are simply not allocating it at all.

    So the question is: if the owners of capital are only interested in outcomes for themselves and if the majority of capital is owned by a very small number of people, is capitalism enforced in that manner ever likely to benefit the majority??

    Like all things, capitalism goes through cycles of birth, growth, death and renewal and currently it is in the death throes of one cycle.

    If it wishes to renew itself as a relevant economic creed, it will need to modify its implementation somewhat……

  36. So do they not have access to the internet on these islands to fact check anything like hurricane frequency and intensity claims? And they are spoon fed pseudo science from political figures with scare tactics. They still speak with forked tongues to the tribes.

  37. Ovo pisem na srpskom i neka ostali koriste prevod, kao sto to ja radim kada prevodim na Srpski.
    Sto se tice gornjeg teksta, ja sam odavno ucestvovao u raznim diskusijama o klimatskim promjenama, ali , nazalost, niko nije obracao paznju na to , da sam ja, uvijek tvrdio da su uzroci klimatskih promjena na svim planetama , medjusobni odnosi svih nebeskih tijela u suncevom sistemu. Najveca zabluda, zamlacivanje civilizacije i glupost je tvrdnja da su klimatske promjene posljedica ljudskog fakrora i da je to CO2.
    Ja sam dosao do dokaza ,ko su glavni uzrocnici Klimatskih promjena i zato posjedujem osnovne podatke, sa kojima se moze saznati svaka promjena u svim vremenima. Osnovni pokazatelj toga je cijklus suncevih pjega od oko 11.2 godina, ali to je samo jedan vidljiv podatak, medju hiljadama drugih koji govore o svim detaljima tih uzroka, njihovih velicina i osobina. Ako iko ima ikakvog interesa i ako smije da se udruzi u moje istrazivanje, garantujem da ce se sve na zemlji promijeniti, kada se razrade detaljno moji postulati u vezi tih promjena .Gospodo , nemojte se bojati istine!! Hajde da ovo rijesimo za sva vremena, Nikola
    PLEASE , TRANSLATE THIsIN ENGLISH!!!

    • угодити пронаћи енглески говорник присталица. Хвала!

      • In this case, Google translate may be our friend:

        I write in Serbian and some others use Firefox, as I’m doing when I translate to Serbian.
        With regard to the above text, I have long participated in various discussions on climate change, but, unfortunately, no one paid attention to it, I’m always claimed that the causes of climate change on all planets, relationships of all celestial bodies in the solar system. The biggest misconception, messing civilization and nonsense is the claim that climate change is a consequence of human FAKR and it’s CO2.
        I came to the evidence, who are the main causes of climate change and therefore possess the basic information with which to find any change at all times. The main indicator that the sunspot cijklus of about 11.2 years, but this is just one visible fact, among the thousands of others who talk about all the details of these causes, their size and characteristics. If anyone has any interest, and if not to join in my research, I guarantee that they will all change on the ground, when the elaborate detail of my assumptions about these changes .Gospodo, do not be afraid of the truth !! Let’s work this out for all time, Nikola

        Or in summary: it’s the Sun, stupid.

      • cijklus = cycles
        fakrora = factors (human factors)
        Gospodo= Gentlemen

        He appears to be saying that the main cause of climate change is the relationship between the celestial bodies of the solar system and their influence on each other, with the clearest indication of such relationship being the sunspot cycle of 11.2 years.

        No idea where Goog.Trans. came up with his use of Firefox, unless (BG) you are using FF as a browser and Google made note of that. It appears that he may have translated into Serbian from Croatian, (as some words wouldn’t translate directly to Serbian- thinking it would be easier to translate into English. There are even some Bulgarian words which didn’t translate, but that is a commonly spoken language in Serbia, so who knows.

  38. from article:
    “This is what drives the style of planning that predominates in that country. (You can do all the “planning” of urban development you want, but unless people actually want to live in the high-density houses you’re building, they will remain empty. The reason they are attractive to people in the Netherlands is that the alternatives are unattractive, largely because of the cost.)”

    “largely because of the cost” except for he Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Al Gores of the world who can afford it. Welcome the new serf class.

  39. Dr. Ball – Thank-you for this. I have made these same connections (IPCC-ICLEI-Local Government) for a few years now, attempting to alert all I come into contact with (when the subject presents itself) during my continuing education classes that I teach, as well as to those I engage in conversation with here at work. As the deep levels of involvement appear to be a bit on the ‘con-spir-acy theor-ist’ bent, I run the risk of being dismissed as one espousing such; to having listeners shut down because of the required levels of research to validate the situation; or – as my wife says – ‘I’m every much a zealot against cAGW as those who are for cAGW’! And correct she is. A fine line to walk in today’s society. Some of us WUWT denizens are of the opinion that cAGW is on the outs…it has died, or is slowly dying..however, the insidious tentacles of ‘cAGW counter-action’ continue to live, or even thrive in our western society. That is, even thought the core may be proving to be false and based upon non-scientifically-proven theory (therefore ‘dead’), the large machinery put into motion via IPCC-ICLEI-Local Governments continues to move along the pre-ordained agenda track, unabated by the scientific death of the ‘core principles’ of cAGW. I feel, knowledge is indeed power, and constituents (especially those with the power to vote on matters) need to be apprised of ALL facts, prior to flipping the voting switch (or coloring in the arrow, however voting is accomplished in your locality). This is why cAGW adherents have commandeered the media – to prevent the opposing voices (against actions to control cAGW) the opportunity to get the other opinion out, to fully educate voters. Keep them mushrooms, and feed them the cAGW bull-stuff is what has been happening. Just start a conversation of the subjectwith a Jack-orJane you meet on the street, you’ll see what I mean. CAGW has for most part been swallowed hook, line, and sinker by the man or woman on the street. Indeed, a dangerous situation we are at right now in our society, especially in the Left Coast United States that are right now contemplating ‘Carbon (sic) Taxes’.

    This post goes a long way to educating those that may read it, to the true nature of the tentacles that seek to strangle their current way of life.

    Again, thank-you. I may take the liberty (love that word, yes?) to link to this posted article in the future…

    Regards,

    MCR

  40. After all, in their world, is all about politics and profit. I’m pretty sure that most of these politicians don’t care so much about climate change and that they don’t even really understand what climate change means…. More than that, it seems more and more clearly that COP21 was a waste of time and money….

  41. Not a big problem as politics rushed to replace science, but it is a huge problem for science, it is politics, “hooked on thin ice,” 97% of scientists who agreed and politicians believe that the human factor is the main culprit of climate change. Now we have to imagine: if modern science depends only on the money that politics offers scholars and so blackmailing them, or are scientists so much, “boiled away” to no longer recognize what science is. All this talk and organize so many forums around the world on climate change and its causes, is totally unscientific, illogical and mundane, that should be all the scientists whose policies and idol worship which immediately come up again in training peasants to learn something useful from nature.
    Is much more important to receive money for the false and against nature theories and stories, but to believe in the true causes of the phenomenon, which govern all our logical processes.? If you believe in these false and misleading theories, then they do not have a clear conscience will have any time to go, “the makeup exam” from the natural sciences.
    Only problem is where to educate such a bunch of “smart”

  42. Dr. Tim Ball, your link

    ‘political opportunities’ –

    Joseph Heath claims not to comprehend the paradoxon that

    Most people look at the current situation and say “we need carbon pricing.”

    when

    Klein looks at it and says “we need to change everything”;

    BUT NO carbon prizing.

    what heath don’t want to
    ‘understand’, what he does not see is:

    Naomi Klein is not looking for a viable solution.
    Her aim is anarchy, the greatest possible destruction.

    From the ruins a better, environmentally friendly order to grow by itself – like Hobbes
    ‘invisible hand’ of the free market.
    ____

    and no compromises like ‘carbon taxes’.
    ____

    The anarchists were the pioneers of the Narodniki *; Stalin started as anarchist, the mission was the destruction of the zaristic regime.

    * narodniki: friends of the people, the peasants, – Volksfreunde

    Best regards – Hans

    • narodniki, Volksfreunde, friends of the people, friends of the earth … and on and on and on …

      and as long as ‘people’ don’t understand Naomi will repeat and repeat and repeat and …
      ____

      no vomitting other one licks the table clean.

Comments are closed.