Who unleashed Climatism?

Guest essay by Leo Goldstein


This article is intended mostly for American audiences. Today, it seems almost normal that the IPCC, UNFCCC and CAN (Climate Action Network International) interfere in American internal affairs, deciding who are scientists and who are not, telling us how much energy to use and from what sources, and generally sowing discord and polarizing society (with enormous success, I must admit). For more than 30 years, their claims of dangerous global warming caused by CO2 emissions have served as an excuse for this invasion. If there is a “problem,” and the “problem” is global and America is its main cause, they reason, why not gang up on America?

But the “problem” is imaginary, and has always been imaginary. The readers of this site know that. Serious scientific assessments have never come to alarming conclusions, even when assuming exaggerated climate sensitivity to CO2. So what happened? To answer this question, we need to clearly understand three historical facts:

1) Almost all climate science between 1970 and 1992 was conducted in the USA.

2) Almost all climate politics in the same period originated elsewhere.

3) Climate politics led to climate pseudo-science, not the other way around.

Fact #1 can be checked by reading 1990’s scientific literature. A less scientific method is to compare the number of climate research satellites by country; even today, the ratio of the US satellites to those belonging to the rest of the world is at least 5:1.

Fact #2 may be well-known, but a large part of this article is devoted to proving it.

Fact #3 is vehemently denied by the alarmists, who claim that real science drives their politics. But climate politics jumps out at us from every corner, and when it drags with it any science, the “science” is either on a short leash, or with a hockey stick. Climate politics led, crushing resistance from scientists and then scientists themselves. That might be trivial (in the end, who has real power – scientists or politicians?), but the article will show how foreign anti-American politics prevailed upon American scientists by 1992, even before Al Gore became Vice President.

Facts #2 and #3 were not appreciated enough in time. One reason might be that for more than fifteen years, climate alarmism was opposed by scientists almost alone. Most scientists are simply not into politics. Another reason is that Americans used to pay little attention to the outside world. Even worse, when confronted about this attitude, many Americans feel that they have wronged others. Only a few Americans understand that hostile forces from other places can seriously impact domestic politics.

Thus, only in hindsight we can make the inevitable conclusion that the climatist agenda was imposed on the US from outside. In other words:

Climatism is a foreign assault on America

The aggressor is not another nation-state, but an alliance of UN agencies and environmental NGOs.

Climate alarmism was “officially” launched at the 2nd Villach conference, organized by the UNEP, WMO, and ICSU (Villach, Austria, 1985). But the warmist narrative starts with John Tindall (1859), continues with Svante Arrhenius (1896), through Guy Stewart Callendar (1938), and followed by Roger Revelle. In the narrative, these scientists serve as a frame for the portrait of the fearless leader Al Gore. The narrative fails to mention that none of these scientists, except for Revelle, expressed the slightest concern about global warming from CO2 emissions. To the contrary, Callendar correctly called the expected warming beneficial, even without accounting for the fertilization effect of CO2. Revelle did express some concern, but strongly stood against the alarm. See (Singer, Revelle, Starr,1992), and also read about Al Gore’s attempts at suppression in (Singer, 2003). In 1983, Nierenberg report concluded (in a three-word quote): “concern, not panic.” So the alarmist historical narrative is fake, just like its computer models.

Climate concern (but not yet alarm) entered American politics in a strange way. In 1979, in a late reaction to the oil crisis of 1973, the country decided to produce synthetic gasoline from its plentiful coal resources. And it just happened that in the same year, Chancellor of West Germany Helmut Schmidt warned US Congressman Abraham Ribicoff about the “dangers” of CO2 in the atmosphere! Congressional hearings and a request for new research followed. But who had “warned” Helmut Schmidt, who held a degree in economics and politics and could not make this stuff up himself? I guess it was somebody who was not excited at the prospect of America gaining energy independence. Notably Schmidt’s predecessor, Willie Brandt, resigned after his personal assistant was revealed as an East German spy. So, even in the 1970s politics was leading science.

A popular misconception is that global warming was raised to the status of public alarm after the 1988 James Hansen Senate testimony, which led to creation of the IPCC. Climate alarmism erupted following the 1988 Toronto conference, convened by UNEP and WMO together with the Canadian government. The infamous Hansen testimony (initiated by Senator Wirth, who sabotaged air conditioning in the Senate Chamber and later become president of the UN Foundation,) was scheduled to happen before the Toronto conference. The conference organizers did not need Hansen, because they already had their own parallel science. After the conference, where scientists constituted less than 15% of the delegates, the organizers and environmental NGOs simply declared their alarmist claims as the new “scientific consensus,” and threatened or defamed everybody who disagreed. Thus the Big Lie, created by UN agencies and environmental NGOs, has been thriving for almost three decades! Further, the IPCC was planned by the UNEP and WMO even before the Toronto Conference. The next year, the transnational web of alarmist organizations formalized itself as the Climate Action Network (CAN) at a meeting in Hanover, Germany. Initially, its HQ was set in Washington, DC (closer to power and money), but then moved to Beirut, Lebanon (further from law enforcement).

There are two persons most responsible for unleashing climate alarmism. The first one is Mostafa Kamal Tolba (Egypt), who headed the UNEP for 17 years, from 1975 until 1992. When the IPCC was founded, Tolba instructed it to go and tell the governments what to do. Tolba was a microbiologist and a cabinet member of Nasser’s government in Egypt – hardly an indication of a positive attitude to the US. He had proven his hostility to America by driving a wedge between the US and its Latin American allies in the negotiations of the Montreal Protocol on the protection of the ozone layer (Agrawala, 1997).

The second one is Maurice Strong (Canada), the first head of the UNEP, UN under-secretary, the organizer of Rio 1992 Earth Summit, and a man with three passions in life: power, money, and hatred of America (not necessarily in that order). He openly expressed his desire to make America a protectorate (or “subsidiary”) of the UN (Strong, 2000, pp. 34, 313, 322, 329-338). He admitted (advertised?) giving money to Michael Dukakis’ campaign in 1988 and being deeply involved with the top circles of the Democratic Party, including becoming a trustee of DNC – all without being an American citizen. This is a passage from his book:

I made a personal contribution of $100,000, which brought me into the privileged circle of top supporters with access to George [sic] Dukakis and other leading Democrats. I was made a trustee of the Democratic National Committee and invited to contribute to their foreign policy platform … I was surprised at the degree of involvement I was able to have as a Canadian citizen; this never seemed to inhibit my acceptance into the inner circle of Democratic politics (Strong, p. 184).

Pretty damning, is it not? He named Dukakis, because that card was already discarded. We can only guess which cards remained in the game. To be fair, I will quote another passage on the same page, leaving it to the reader to decide how much truth in it:

… I had also helped to raise funds for the Republican National Committee, out of friendship with some key Republicans. My attitude toward U.S. politics has always been generally bipartisan.

Maurice Strong was also “credited” with empowering non-elected and unaccountable NGOs to participate in negotiations, undermining national governments. Al Gore called Maurice Strong his close friend.

These individuals were motivated by their hostility to the US and their hunger for power. Next, let’s look at the organizations and their activities.

Major UN Agencies involved:

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme): headquartered in Nairobi, Kenya. Executive Director: Mostafa Tolba (Egypt), 1975 – 1992.

WMO (World Meteorological Organization): headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland. Secretary-General: Godwin Olu Patrick Obasi (Nigeria), 1984 – 2003. Presidents: R.L. Kintanar (Philippines), 1979-1987; Zou Jingmeng (China) 1987 – 1995.

ICSU (International Council of Scientific Unions, now International Council for Science): headquartered in Paris, France. President: J. C. Kendrew (UK), 1983 – 1988. The ICSU was affiliated with UNESCO, which has been a bastion of anti-Western politics and anti-White racism since at least early 1970’s. The American exit from UNESCO in 1984 has probably contributed to the anti-American sentiment of ICSU.

The actions of the UN agencies are not hard to understand. Since the 1970s, governments of small and economically weak countries have enjoyed a plurality among UN members. These countries could not resist strong political agendas, whether supported by promises, lies, or even threats. Many third-world governments were also resentful of Western colonialism, and blamed America (although America had almost no colonies and pushed de-colonization at the expense of its relationships with the UK and France). During the Cold War, the Soviet Union successfully played on this resentment to spread anti-Americanism. After the end of the Cold War, the political agendas and the forces behind them have changed, but the anti-Americanism remained. Today, it is hard to understand why successive US governments have been so stubborn in channeling a large part of the United States’ international relationships and foreign aid through the UN in the last 50 years. But climate alarmism brought a new low: the Clinton – Gore administration agreed to let the UN into American internal affairs!

Besides politics, another cause of UN activism was simply the desire of the useless UN agencies and their leaders to increase their importance and power, which they did by inserting themselves into everything that was none of their business. The climate scare was one of few tools that the UNEP, WMO and ICSU had, and they used this tool to maximum effect.

Major Alarmist Activities in 1985 – 1988:

1985: 2nd Villach (Austria) Conference. Organized by the UNEP, WMO, and ICSU.

1986: AGGG (Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases) established by the UNEP, WMO, and ICSU. The AGGG was a predecessor of the IPCC. Bert Bolin (Sweden) was appointed as its head. This group was the first to come up with the bizarre idea that the governments have to control the temperature of the planet. These UN “scientists” declared that the world should not be allowed to warm more than 0.1°C per decade.

1987: Villach/Bellagio Conference (Austria/Italy). Organized by the UNEP, WMO, and AGGG.

1988: Toronto Conference (Canada). Organized by the UNEP, WMO, and the Canadian Government. Led to a large scale eruption of global warming alarmism.

1988: IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change) established by the UNEP and WMO as a more muscular replacement for the AGGG.

It’s easy to see that the US was missing in all these exploits, despite having been conducting almost all the climate research. So nobody should be surprised that the pseudo-science prevailed, the US was named as the main culprit, and a suitable “problem” was manufactured to accuse the selected culprit.

Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations

Since 1988, environmental NGOs have played a leading role in whipping up climate alarmism. Promoting unelected, unaccountable, and secretive NGOs as a tool to deprive the American people (and citizens of other countries) of their freedom has long been a part of the agenda of Maurice Strong and his accomplices. The major NGOs involved were:

WWF (World Wildlife Fund): founded in Switzerland, HQ in Switzerland; it was co-founded by European royalty and had strong links to eugenics. Annual Revenue: $850M.

Greenpeace: founded in Canada, currently headquartered in Netherlands (moved after an ugly fight between idealistic founders and leftist activists and lawyers). Annual Revenue: $370M.

FOE (Friends of Earth International): founded in Netherlands in 1971 by a combination of four independent groups from France, Sweden, the UK, and the USA. The self-selected acronym speaks for itself.

CAN (Climate Action Network): founded in 1989 in Hanover, Germany. The HQ was set initially in Washington, DC, but moved to Beirut, Lebanon in 2012. CAN is the main visible network of climate alarmist organizations, claiming “over 950 members in over 110 countries”.

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature, sometimes World Conservation Union): founded in 1948, headquartered in Switzerland. A hybrid between a UN agency and a network of NGOs. Maurice Strong was one of its Directors. In 1996, Bill Clinton granted the IUCN special diplomatic immunity in American territory, by an executive order.

The USA is conspicuously missing from this list of players, too. These foreign NGOs and networks were backed by the governments of Germany and smaller European countries, where Green parties were deciding the fates of coalition governments. That allowed them to command a lot of power and money beyond their budgets. Yes, they had accomplices on American soil, such as the EDF and NRDC – left leaning outfits whose disrespect to this country turned into overt hostility over the election of Ronald Reagan. The WRI (World Resources Institute) was founded in 1982, and was physically located in the US, but had a globalist orientation and was chaired by Maurice Strong for some time.

By the end of the 1980s, Western societies and governments accepted environmental and conservational concerns, and had solved or addressed most real problems (and many imaginary ones). If there were serious opposition, one could say that the environmentalists won. But the ranks of professional environmental activists were swelling, and their greed and political ambition was boiling. At the same time, Communists and fellow travelers were facing the opposite predicament: as Gorbachev started perestroika in 1987, these groups lost both ideological ground and financial support. This loss was especially pronounced in Western Europe. In a search for both money and power, subversive leftists rushed into the environmental movement, pushing it further to the left and deepening its anti-American position. The explosion of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant cemented the victory of environmentalism over nuclear power in the West. Such a catastrophe could not have happened at an American or Western European power plant (the containment domes over reactors in the US is only one of the many differences), and even safer designs were proposed, but science and reason did not have a chance against the media hysteria raised by the environmentalists. Thus, having buried nuclear power, they were free to adopt the global warming agenda, which would have benefited nuclear power in other circumstances.

The global warming / CO2 agenda fit the needs of the transnational enviroleft perfectly. It provided a “problem” which could not be solved – both because it is not a problem and because emitting CO2 is a part of the existence of industrial society and human life. Contrast that to the real problem of automobile exhaust gases, which was solved by the auto industry through the development of catalytic filters, without any damage to society and without much profit to the environmentalists. But the unique advantage of the global warming agenda was its global nature. While enviros are capable of making up an “issue” out of nothing in any place at any time (as the case of Dihydrogen Monoxide has amply proven), environmental issues are usually local or regional. The only other alleged global problem was “ozone hole,” which was being addressed at that time. A “global problem” justified a global collusion, and demands to punish and loot America.

The following quote from one of the leaders of Climatism shows that I do not exaggerate:

I fought hard for such a framing at the Conference of the Parties 6 in The Hague in 2000, but was opposed not by the usual suspects—industrial interests and OPEC—but rather by those who were more “green”—World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, and European Green Party delegates. I was dumbfounded. Why didn’t they want to support a plan to both keep carbon in the forests and get a double bonus of biodiversity protection? The debates were heated. … The passion of the opponents seemed totally misplaced.

One evening during COP 6, I went to the environment NGOs’ tent for a reception. In this more informal setting, I asked many of those attending what they were thinking. Finally, I understood. They wanted to punish the United States. “How so?” I asked.

“Because if we allow this relatively low cost mechanism, it will allow the U.S. to keep not cutting its emissions by mitigation, and anything that sanctions their refusal to take on deep emissions cuts endangers the world.” “But a ton of carbon is a ton of carbon,” was my rejoinder, “and it doesn’t matter if it is from retiring a coal-burning power plant or avoiding deforestation—and what about the double dividend of biodiversity protection?” “We simply can’t let the U.S. find any excuse not to cut its industrial emissions.” [emphasis is mine] (Schneider 2009, p. 239).

If Stephen Schneider were a good citizen, he would have told his interlocutors to go to hell, then announced publicly that American enemies were using the global warming agenda as a tool to damage his country. But he was a radical student leader from 1960’s, so he sided with the enemy. And certain elected politicians did the same.

The NGOs are much more important in the IPCC process than they seem. The usual thinking is that Summaries for policymakers are the main tool for perverting scientific findings that cannot be avoided in full assessments by the WGI of IPCC. This is not fully correct. In Climatism, behind every lie there is a bigger lie. The main communication channel of IPCC is an extremist group of its observer NGOs, which includes CAN (twice – CAN Europe and CAN International), Greenpeace, WWF, NRDC, WRI, EDF, and others. In their observer status, NGOs have access to closed meetings of the “scientists” and government representatives. (See Donna Laframboise, The IPCC: Bar the Media, Welcome the Activists.) That makes them the main source of information for the media and consequently everybody else – a status that they skillfully exploit to whip up hysteria. If any public company in the US were “communicating” its annual reports in a similar way, it would be a breach of law, and its directors would be facing prison. But the IPCC is beyond the law.

Environmental NGOs (especially Greenpeace) also have powerful sway over the majority of the nations, voting in the IPCC. One example is Tuvalu. Tuvalu has one vote in the IPCC, exactly the same as the United States. Tuvalu is also making big waves in the media, claiming victimhood from “climate change.” But the entire GDP of Tuvalu is $38M, just 10% of annual revenues of Greenpeace. Obviously, Greenpeace does not need to match Tuvalu’s GDP to get its vote. Tuvalu’s annual per capita income is $3,400 – about one third of the daily operational costs of Greenpeace’s yacht Rainbow Warrior. The climate activists can probably get a vacation on exotic Pacific Islands, with Tuvalu’s vote and public declarations from Tuvalu’s Prime Minister thrown in, for cheaper than just the vacation.

Foreign-based UN agencies and NGOs were the driving force behind climate alarmism until Al Gore got into the White House. Their interests are clear. But there was another factor behind interests. This factor was ignorance. Remember, the climate science was done in the US, not in Kenya or even Western Europe. This was before the Internet: Europe connected to the Internet only in 1988, and even universities were making very little use of it. Scientific books and journals were printed on paper and purchased by libraries. The best climate science available at that time was summarized in the 1983 Nierenberg Report. The report ran more than 500 pages. But how many European libraries received a copy of it? How many environmentalists or politicians read it? It is safe to guess that most scientists who read and understood it simply moved on to work on real problems rather than “engaging” with the ignorant and aggressive environmentalists. So a few activist scientists, UN politicians, and environmental activists have created a pseudo-science by selecting bits from American climate research, mixed with their fantasies and amplified in their own echo-chamber. It is said that a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. Unfortunately, the rapid spread of the Internet gave new lies an even bigger edge over old truths. Enviros learnt to pose as scientists, and produced an avalanche of global warming scare papers. Then European politicians believed that nonsensus. Then they started accusing Americans of “denying science”! Once Al Gore got into the White House all hell broke loose, though “intellectual” prejudices against both President Bush’s have played their role, too. This is how we have gotten into this mess.

In 1991, another comprehensive study by the National Academy of Sciences rejected climate alarmism, despite the participation of committed alarmists and even Maurice Strong, then the General Secretary of UNCED. In hindsight, inviting Maurice Strong to participate in that study was equivalent to inviting Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto to all meetings of the Fleet Command in 1939-1940. Strong resigned before the final report was published, then ambushed the US at the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro.

While the assault was launched by UN agencies and transnational (aspiring supranational) NGOs, they received aid from nation states. I have absolutely no intent to point fingers at friendly European or British Commonwealth countries. They became victims, too. Neither do I intend to blame developing countries, some of which were pushed into confrontation by the UNEP, WWF, and their friends. But one case deserves special mention. North Korea is at a state of war with the US, and North Korea has approved all IPCC reports since at least the mid-1990’s. When certain individuals insinuate IPCC “assessments” as a source of authority, Article 3, Section III of the Constitution naturally comes to mind. While these individuals use climate change rhetoric to distract public attention, North Korea is developing a hydrogen bomb and submarine launched nuclear ballistic missiles intended to attack America.

Hindsight is 20/20, and the full agenda of climate alarmism was almost impossible to discern when the events were unfolding. Only Richard Lindzen showed genius insight in his April 1992 article Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus (I have selected a few quotes about the science, Al Gore, political pressure on dissidents, and the centrality of carbon dioxide for quick reference). Ordinary persons cannot be blamed for having been deceived or otherwise lured in by climate alarmism.

We should not worry about climate. We should worry about climate alarmism.

This article describes how UN agencies, UN-affiliated NGOs, and their accomplices used climate change hysteria as their weapon of choice to attack the US. Other countries might have been victims of the same attack, too. I invite their citizens to check themselves. Happy New Year, and best wishes to my fellow Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, British, Russian, Ukrainian, and European skeptics!


Must read!

Richard Lindzen. Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus, 1992


Ari Halperin. Summary of Science (Made in USA), 2015

Rupert Darwall. The Age of Global Warming: A History, 2014

Fred Singer, Roger Revelle, and Chauncey Starr. What To Do about Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap, 1992

Fred Singer. The Revelle-Gore Story – Attempted Political Suppression of Science, 2003

Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee; Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate; Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Resources; National Research Council. Changing Climate: Report of the Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee, 1983 (popularly known as the Nierenberg Report)

Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base, 1992 (completed in 1991)

Recommended with caution:

Shardul Agrawala. Explaining the Evolution of the IPCC Structure and Process, 1997

Not Recommended:

Stephen Schneider. Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth’s Climate, 2009

Maurice Strong. Where on Earth are We Going? 2000

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 17, 2016 11:01 am

It’s really simple…
divide everyone up between developing and developed….
….decide the developed should pay the developing
give everyone one vote….
…and vote on it
and they can claim to be democratic

January 17, 2016 11:04 am

How much NATURAL climate change have we had in the past 1261 years? Looking at the graph below it is evident that the past 500 years have been a time of relatively low climate change, and that the industrial revolution did not change this. Prior to that time climate was more volatile, it varied significantly more than at present, long before humans had an impact on climate.

Reply to  ferdberple
January 17, 2016 11:15 am

Notice the peak variance in the above graph around 1300.
WP has this to say:
possible beginning of the Little Ice Age:
1250 for when Atlantic pack ice began to grow
1275 to 1300 based on radiocarbon dating of plants killed by glaciation
1300 for when warm summers stopped being dependable in Northern Europe
1315 for the rains and Great Famine of 1315–1317

January 17, 2016 11:04 am

Ari, very well put together. Thanks!

Reply to  Aphan
January 21, 2016 6:48 pm

Some important snippets are missing. Eg, UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher adopted climate change as a very useful argument in her fight with the coalmining union, establishing it as a government policy issue.

January 17, 2016 11:04 am

As much as I enjoyed this detail I don’t think it goes back in time far enough, it misses the crucial importance of the UN 1972 Conference in Stockholm on the Human Environment, or what Louis Sohn wrote about the actual intentions.
The next year the UN launched the New Economic Order on how the developed countries owe the developing countries. Funny how that announcement dovetails with the Dennis and Donella Meadows modelling for the Club of Rome. I have also written about the World Order Models Project launched in ’73 with funding from the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations.
Then there is Arne Naess’ work written in the ’70s that get translated into English in the ’80s. I wrote about it here. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/utopian-education-creating-mindsets-that-push-future-fighters-for-something-beyond-the-current-real-world/ We are now back to the same vision globally using P-12 education (Preschool as the start) to get the new needed change in consciousness that Naess wrote about.
We ignore the ’70s work at our peril because the template really has not changed. Plus the creators did not know they would fail and were not terribly careful with their descriptions of their plans.
Which I just love to read and describe with quotes.

Reply to  Robin
January 17, 2016 11:33 am

Creating Mindsets that Push Future Fighters for Something Beyond the Current Real World
The suicide bomber’s theme song.

Reply to  Robin
January 17, 2016 12:16 pm

Conspicuously absent from the narrative:
the first rockstar scientist and cohorts of the ‘noble lie’, carl sagan
the thatcher and the demonization of coal, establishment of the cru and the ipcc

Reply to  gnomish
January 17, 2016 4:45 pm

Margaret Thatcher- who got instant status as climate expert amongst world leader because she was a chemist- global warming alarmism would have been more fringe without her. The leader who thought to push nuclear meant to destroy coal as an energy source.

Reply to  gnomish
January 17, 2016 5:38 pm

Exactly! Thatcher can hardly be called “anti-American”.
Perhaps ENRON (not mentioned) and Goldman Sachs (not mentioned) are anti-American, but they are (were, in case of ENRON) American.
For ENRON, see this article by the pinko-commie Cato institute:
and the famous foreign purveyor of Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist ideology, The Daily Telegraph:
Goldman Sachs gets a mention in this article, written by a traitorous professor (Larry Bell) whose obvious aim is the subversion and destruction of the USA.
This thesis that “Climatism is an anti-American plot cooked up by evil left-wing foreigners” just seems ridiculous.

Reply to  gnomish
January 18, 2016 3:05 am

Thanks, but I cannot cover everything in one article.

Reply to  Robin
January 17, 2016 8:47 pm

I tend to agree with you. People tend to underplay the effect of a parallel development in USA government control through science from about 1975 to 1985. This was the (false) scare in the USA that man-made chemicals were about to cause an epidemic of human cancers. (See ‘The Apocalyptics’ by Edith Efron.) In hindsight, this false cancer scare must have been a valuable template for devious planners to extend the scale from mostly USA for cancers to global for greenhouse gas scares. The birth of the latter is much better understood once you have read the book – has not been made into a movie yet. It is rather more relevant to read than say ‘Atlas Shrugged’ by Ayn Rand, because it goes into fine detail of how the USA scientists pulled the wool over citizens and politicians and wasted a lot of money on structures and functions that are similar to the UN/greenhouse movement.
‘The Apocalyptics’ is also valuable because it completes the cycle. It shows the demise of the movement. If the GHG movement follows a similar pattern, in a broad sense the decline will be signalled by steadily increasing numbers of scientists who ‘defect’ from the Establishment line, often with risk to their careers but with benefit to their self-esteem. One of the puzzles of this type of movement is why good scientists do not speak up sooner and with good evidence for bad science. The part of learned societies is especially reprehensible in both the cancer scare and the greenhouse movement. At a similar time, the number of media notables who defect also increases.
Personally, I think this phase of scientists defecting is now under way for the GHG movement.

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
January 17, 2016 8:51 pm

I agree and hope your assessment of the AGW movement is correct.

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
January 18, 2016 12:48 am

Thanks for this helpful additional analysis. Very Interesting. I’ll certainly read ‘Apocalyptics’ Thanks for the suggestion. It is indeed strange how so many otherwise intelligent scientists have allowed themselves to fall for a theory that became an ideological and all based on inadequate science. I feel that much modern education fails to teach how to think straight (rather than just clever )

Richie D
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
January 18, 2016 6:33 am

Geoff: What you may not be aware of is the psy-op that began in the ’60s, when public health officials first learned that the polio vaccines administered to perhaps 100 million Americans were contaminated by a carcinogenic virus, SV40. (Source: “The Virus and the Vaccine,” by Bookchin/Schumacher, St Martin’s Press, 2004). These government scientists feared they would be blamed for an epidemic of cancers, and so began a campaign to miseducate people about cancer: 1) they said it cannot be caused by a virus, and therefore (2) the epidemic must be caused by something in the environment. Needless to say, on this forum, they produced plenty of “science” to prove viruses don’t cause cancer.

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
January 18, 2016 2:38 pm

Edith Efron discusses the scientific twisting of what people could and should know about cancer.
1984 Interview on PBS.

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
January 20, 2016 4:10 am

Thank you for the Efron interview video.
It illustrates so many matters that global warming activism has in common with gals cancer causes.
Interesting take that govt scientists were covering a serious error.
Do you suggest that is happening again now with CAGW?
I do hope that more people study Efron’s Apocalypse.

Harry Passfield
January 17, 2016 11:16 am

Of course, the UNFCCC is key to this movement. Chistiana Figueres is in record with:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,”

Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is intentionally to transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
So, nothing to do with climate – other than the political one.

Reply to  Harry Passfield
January 17, 2016 11:24 am

transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.
what rot. Stalin did it. So did Mao. So did Pol Pot. If you enjoy starvation and forced work camps you are really going to enjoy the next transformation.

Reply to  Harry Passfield
January 17, 2016 11:30 am

Harry P,
So the ‘model’ that has lifted most of the world out of extreme poverty, and made a healthy, wealthy middle class, will be replaced with what amounts to communism if the UN has its way. But the elite like Chritiana Figuueres will of course be exempt from that, since she is one of the special ones.
Even the average person should be able to understand the scam here. But maybe I’m giving the public too much credit…

Harry Passfield
Reply to  dbstealey
January 17, 2016 11:33 am

db: please don’t associate me with what the idiot Figueres claims: I only report her words. Personally, I think a village should be named after her. She would then feel very much at home….

Reply to  dbstealey
January 17, 2016 12:44 pm

Easy, there, Kimosabe. The “capitalist model” may have contributed to the prosperity of the world (however much it has abused the world with industrial toxicity and mechanical disruption, and with its class war concentrated wealth and power to our present meta-stability), but all that prosperity really grew out of the application of “endless” fossil-fuel energy, which would have happened under the regime of any political/economic “model” — communism, socialism, feudalism (the “neo-” form of which is really what we have now), Catholicism, monarchism, imperialism, …whatever.
Even mad-dog concentrators of power would have had some energy surplus to “trickle down” to the masses — ours did, albeit grudgingly and vengefully, while baldly lying about their intentions. Even as our owners lie about and with their nominal ideology (“capitalism”), they still try to scam us with their voodoo “trickle-down economics” despite overwhelming evidence it does not work as claimed — it just concentrates more. Yet the sheeple lap it up and vote (they have also been engineered to believe in “democracy” and CAGW) for yet another interchangeable chattel stooge.

Reply to  Alexander
January 17, 2016 1:09 pm

Did I say that capitalism is perfect?
It’s a system/model that produces the most wealth for the most people, compared with all the other systems/models that have been tried. That’s all.
I might add that what we have now is pretty far removed from true capitalism (and I don’t even like that Karl Marx term, I prefer the ‘free market’).

Reply to  dbstealey
January 17, 2016 1:18 pm

Harry P,
My apologies, I was responding to the Christiana F quote, not to your words. I should have made that clearer.

Reply to  dbstealey
January 17, 2016 1:20 pm

We can stop funding the UN any time we express the will, as a people, to stop. This should be an issue on the table in the upcoming election. Someone please suggest it to Mr. Trump!

Reply to  dbstealey
January 17, 2016 2:08 pm

Alexander @ January 17, 2016 at 12:44 pm
“…but all that prosperity really grew out of the application of “endless” fossil-fuel energy, which would have happened under the regime of any political/economic “model” — communism, socialism, feudalism (the “neo-” form of which is really what we have now), Catholicism, monarchism, imperialism, …whatever.”
Contradicted by the collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union, an oil rich nation, and the poverty, rationing, and environmental degradation it visits still upon the remnants of that order. Venezuela, another oil rich nation which should be one of the most well off in the Western Hemisphere, is an economic basket case. North Korea doesn’t even have a basket, while its neighbor immediately to the South is the world’s 13th largest economy by GDP, with the highest median income in Asia.
You can hate Capitalism all you like, but you need to keep some perspective. As Churchill said, it’s the worst system there is, except for all the others.

Reply to  dbstealey
January 17, 2016 3:44 pm

I take it you feel that humans ought not be allowed to own/trade property? Just the State, so we can all rest assured there is no unfairness going on?

Reply to  dbstealey
January 17, 2016 6:02 pm

Alexander January 17, 2016 at 12:44 pm
….voodoo “trickle-down economics” despite overwhelming evidence it does not work as claimed — it just concentrates more. Yet the sheeple lap it up and vote (they have also been engineered to believe in “democracy” and CAGW) for yet another interchangeable chattel stooge…
Nicely said, sir. All true, I believe.
Some can see it. Others are stuck with their own particular religious beliefs, be it CAGW, or the wondrous ‘fairness’ of unfettered capitalism.
For the record, I believe capitalism is wonderful: It’s just the little issue that the less controlled it is, the more of everything ends up in fewer and fewer hands. The data is staring us in the face, but still the masses blunder along, getting poorer and poorer, eagerly gazing at and citing the progress of the tiny number of their peers who do make it into the heady world of the elite.

Reply to  markx
January 17, 2016 6:22 pm

markx commented: “….For the record, I believe capitalism is wonderful: It’s just the little issue that the less controlled it is, the more of everything ends up in fewer and fewer hands. The data is staring us in the face, but still the masses blunder along, getting poorer and poorer, eagerly gazing at and citing the progress of the tiny number of their peers who do make it into the heady world of the elite…”
“Poorer and poorer” by what/whose standard? People on 100% welfare in many Western “Capitalist” countries are better off than working people in many parts of the world. It’s all a matter of a smaller piece of a bigger pie can be more than a bigger piece of the smaller pie. People in the West need to put their lifestyle in proper perspective instead of hating on people that have obscene amounts of money.

Reply to  dbstealey
January 17, 2016 6:53 pm

It’s also completely wrong. There is little of the world in which “unfettered capitalism” reigns. What causes rising income inequality is not capitalism, but economic stagnation. And, stagnation is generally brought on by ill-considered government policies that, while claiming to aid the common man or woman, actually undercut them.
The last time the gap receded was in the boom times of the 90’s. Why? Because when there is full employment, labor is in demand, and has the power to negotiate higher wages.
Supply and demand rules. If you want the gap in real wages to close, you need pro-growth policies.
But, this is a climate blog so, I’ll let you guys have the last word if you like…

Reply to  Harry Passfield
January 17, 2016 9:43 pm

As she is sitting in a palace , being flown around the planet in jets and has a few dozen security guards. Just like Obama and his “support” team. These people make me ill! Remember Obama’s visit to the “young mother” in Nebraska just a few days ago? Who was worried her “Baby” would not see see snow and have a hot “CoCo” because of global warming. These people truly make me sick to my stomach.

Reply to  Harry Passfield
January 18, 2016 3:10 am

Also notice, what “economic model” economic 150 years before she said that. It was slavery!

January 17, 2016 11:28 am

Great article, the one and only thing that can stop this global climate jihad/madness is Trump or Cruise in the white house. The climate mafia and the UN straw house will be blown down. Please make it so!!!

Lance Wallace
Reply to  TG
January 17, 2016 11:50 am

Please not a Scientologist in the White House!

Reply to  Lance Wallace
January 17, 2016 11:52 am

Good one! @ TG it’s Cruz

Reply to  Lance Wallace
January 17, 2016 6:22 pm

Lance, took me a second! ROFL. I’m sure he meant Cruz…..at least I hope he did. 😮

Juan Slayton
Reply to  TG
January 17, 2016 11:53 am


Reply to  TG
January 17, 2016 1:57 pm

I’d like to see the next President replace Gavin Schmidt and his cronies with scientists who understand that science must be objective or else it becomes indistinguishable from politics. This alone will turn the tables, although firing civil servants using incompetence as cause doesn’t work and more serious charges related to the harmful consequences their fraudulently supported positions enable will need to be included.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
January 18, 2016 3:12 am

But research institutions can be closed down, and their functions transferred to new institutions.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  co2isnotevil
January 19, 2016 6:05 pm

This assumes we need these positions filled. Close the doors and turn out the light.

Tom Halla
January 17, 2016 11:29 am

At least part of the blame should be given to Richard Nixon establishing the EPA. That gave a continuing funding source for activists who quickly came to control that organization. Sure, there was a problem, but the EPA was akin to a special procecutor, who has to find fault or dissolve.

Reply to  Tom Halla
January 17, 2016 11:37 am

Richard Nixon establishing the EPA
Nixon’s revenge.

Mike Bromley the Kurd
January 17, 2016 11:41 am

Ari, an excellent summary. Our new shiny PM Trudeau is the empty spokesperson/cheerleader for this well-executed scam. 393 delegates in Paris enjoying the cuisine. Many people need to read your summary, but never will, choosing to be blind instead. The assault on knowledge and the crushing of intelligence is well under way, sadly.

January 17, 2016 11:50 am

One of the things that is troublesome is that conservatives in the US have been sold down the river. First with the Nixon creation of the EPA and the resulting ban on DDT and many terrible decisions since which have generally happened not as an act of advocacy but as a concession for political reasons and besides “what harm could it be?”

Lance Wallace
Reply to  fossilsage
January 17, 2016 12:01 pm

Within 6 months of its creation by NIxon, the EPA had established the guidelines for the six Criteria Pollutants that resulted in cleaning up the soot in Pittsburgh and the smog in L.A. This presents a lesson for the Chinese and the rest of the develoing world in what can be done to keep the economy humming and still have clean air. I expect the Chinese will soon act to clean up Beijing and Shanghai following the U.S. lead.
Admittedly, the EPA has now become little more than a tool for the Administration, culminating in the awful finding (unfortunately confirmed by the Supreme court) that CO2 is a pollutant.

Reply to  Lance Wallace
January 17, 2016 12:19 pm

Lance W,
Don’t forget the EPA destroying the Animas river. No one has received even a verbal reprimand, much less having a few heads cut from the payroll.
A characteristic of this Administration is that Obama’s fellow travelers never have to worry when they screw up. Even Van Jones got a better paying job. In the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos, they were called “cronies”.

January 17, 2016 11:53 am

Amazing that for a mere $100K, Maurice Strong got access to the elite power brokers of the Democratic party of the United States. I don’t think well of Trump, but his accusation that politicians are bought and paid for rings true.

Tom in lorida
Reply to  davidmhoffer
January 17, 2016 5:13 pm

Yes and Trump himself is an admitted buyer of politicians. But of course as he is more equal than others it is perfectly OK for him to do it in order to get what he wants. When all is said and done, Trump is nothing but a white Obama.

Tom in lorida
Reply to  davidmhoffer
January 17, 2016 5:21 pm

Yes and Trump is a self admitted buyer of politicians. Of course that is OK in his mind as long as he gets what he wants. When you look through all his bs, Trump is nothing but a white Obama.

Janice Moore
January 17, 2016 12:05 pm

“In the winter of 1989 Reginald Newell, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, lost National Science Foundation funding for data analyses that were failing to show net warming over the past century. Reviewers suggested that his results were dangerous to humanity.”

( Richard Lindzen, “Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus” (1992) quoted by Ari Halperin, here: http://defyccc.com/richard-lindzen-global-warming-alleged-consensus/ )
To honor the many (many whose names most of us will never know) genuine scientists, the Murry Salbys, the Willie Soons, fighters on the front lines of the AGW battle, who have sacrificed, some now sacrificing, greatly for the cause of truth:
In Memorium — Reginald Newell — Scientist

Professor Reginald E. Newell SM ’56, a meteorologist who studied global air pollution and climate systems, died Dec. 29 {2002} of a massive stroke. He was 71 years old.
Newell, a native of the United Kingdom, earned his bachelor’s degree in 1954 from the University of Birmingham. After graduation he came to MIT as a research assistant in meteorology. He earned his master’s in 1956 and his doctorate in 1960. After earning his ScD, he served as an assistant professor in Course XII (Department of Earth, Atmosphere and Planetary Sciences) from 1961 to 1966. Three years after his promotion to associate professor, he became a full professor in 1969.
Newell taught classes on the physics of the upper atmosphere, climatology, and global air pollution.
“Reg had the enthusiasm of a freshman undergraduate even though he was into his 70s,” said Professor John C. Marshall, also of Course XII. “He did, after all, die at his desk working, something that he would not have been disappointed about,” Marshall said. ***
Later in his career, in the 1980s and 1990s, he participated in the NASA Stratosphere-Troposphere Exchange Program experiments over Australia, investigating how the circulation in that region interacts with the ocean and carries air from the troposphere to the stratosphere.
Throughout the 1990s, Newell served as mission meteorologist for several NASA missions over the Pacific. “He was a field experimentalist who was never happier than when flying around over the Pacific Ocean measuring chemical constituents,” Marshall said.

{emphases mine}
(Source: http://tech.mit.edu/V122/N64/64obit.64n.html )
The battle for science realism has been long and hard fought, but, data is winning out.
Thanks to science giants like Newell …. and Spencer ….. and Christy…. in the end,
truth will win.
Thank you, Ari Halperin, for this fine expose.
Thank you Anthony Watts for providing a platform to launch
the artillery of freedom: facts.

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 17, 2016 12:08 pm

Thanks, Janice. Very good links. That anyone could be fired for expressing their honest opinion goes to the heart of the global warming hoax. And you’re right about Anthony. He provides a forum of truth.

Janice Moore
Reply to  dbstealey
January 17, 2016 12:17 pm

My pleasure. And, that reminds me… 🙂

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 17, 2016 10:27 pm

Thanks Janice for your on the mark truly human response to all the political BS.
We need a lot more of that, because as an average human being I am just sick of the BS. The corruption and the disregard these so called “humanitarians” have for all of us. From the resistance to plant golden rice that would save millions from starvation and then them stopping people from going from dung fire pits to cleaner options, the reluctance to use certain chemicals to stop malaria and many other diseases easily cleaned up is appalling!
I am truly sick of the UN. And also appalled at the fact so much of this came from Canada. PE Trudeau was an infection in our country and his son does not promise much better.( sorry about the rant but if you want me to go on a real rant I doubt the mods would allow the language)

January 17, 2016 12:06 pm

You’re so damn right! Climate change is more likely to be about oceans and man’s influence over the oceans than about CO2. We live on a planet covered by 2/3 of water, but it seems that many scientists and politicians seem to forget that! How about spending more money in researches about oceans than on conference like COP 21 (you will see, in a few years, that maybe a few goals will be achieved)? After all, let’s not forget that oceans govern climate!

Janice Moore
January 17, 2016 12:15 pm

A reprint of this March 12, 2015 WUWT comment seems fitting:
{3/12/15 2:28pm WUWT post copy}
While the APS {American Physical Society} still retains some fine scientists as its members, as an organization it is corrupt and, until it is severely reformed, it is doing a disservice to humanity every day it continues to exist.
In memory of a true scientist and a real treasure,
Harold Warren Lewis

October 1, 1923 – May 26, 2011
Hal Lewis’ Letter Resigning His Membership in APS
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it.
For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate.
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)
{bolding mine}
{See WUWT post: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/09/obituary-hal-lewis/ }

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 18, 2016 2:05 am

+ 1 Janice.
Would that the MSM took notice of this, but even if the letter was sent to every news outlet in the world it would still be ignored.

January 17, 2016 12:24 pm

I just happened to find myself reading the wikipedia page for “active measures” today:
From the page I would like to share this extract:
“Supporting political movements…
According to Stanislav Lunev, GRU alone spent more than $1 billion for the peace movements against Vietnam War, which was a “hugely successful campaign and well worth the cost”. Lunev claimed that “the GRU and the KGB helped to fund just about every antiwar movement and organization in America and abroad”.
According to Oleg Kalugin, “the Soviet intelligence was really unparalleled. … The KGB programs — which would run all sorts of congresses, peace congresses, youth congresses, festivals, women’s movements, trade union movements, campaigns against U.S. missiles in Europe, campaigns against neutron weapons, allegations that AIDS… was invented by the CIA… all sorts of forgeries and faked material — [were] targeted at politicians, the academic community, at the public at large.”
According to Sergei Tretyakov, “The KGB was responsible for creating the entire nuclear winter story to stop the Pershing II missiles.” Tretyakov says that the KGB wanted to prevent the United States from deploying the missiles in Western Europe and that, directed by Yuri Andropov, they used the Soviet Peace Committee, a government organization, to organize and finance demonstrations in Europe against US bases. He claims that misinformation based on a faked “doomsday report” by the Soviet Academy of Sciences about the effect of nuclear war on climate was distributed to peace groups, the environmental movement and the journal Ambio which carried a key article on the topic in 1982.”
Please read the full page here:

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
January 17, 2016 6:29 pm

I was one of the organizers of the Peace and Freedom Party and we used to joke about ‘where is the money????’ There was none. We paid for nearly everything, ourselves. Like, doing work and then using the pay to run the organization.

Reply to  emsnews
January 17, 2016 7:10 pm

That the GRU and KGB did not find the Peace and Freedom Party to be worthy of any funding does not make the above statements ridiculous.

Reply to  emsnews
January 18, 2016 10:01 am

If you were hoping for funding from the soviets – then maybe you joined the wrong peace movement!!! 🙂

Gary Pearse
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
January 19, 2016 6:14 pm

Never underestimate a nation of chess players.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 21, 2016 2:49 am

Never underestimate a nation of Go players either!!
What game are we playing? Snakes and ladders?

January 17, 2016 12:33 pm

I thought Thatcher was the originator. She started the Hadley Centre in her fight against the coal unions. The HC went on to become the heart of the IPCC as WP1.

January 17, 2016 12:37 pm

At The Orwellian Ministry of Truth, there are those who capture the mundane and redefine it, “climate change,” “civil society,” “sustainable” being hackneyed examples. Invite a definition of terms. It never fails to enlighten.
“Climate” and “change” (as defined by the Concise Oxford Dictionary, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/) with “climate change” (UN definition: http://tinyurl.com/climatefiddle) or “civilisation” (COD) with “civilised society” (UN definition: http://tinyurl.com/UNapparatchik). “Sustainable,” defined by the UN as, “a decent standard of living for everyone today without compromising the needs of future generations.” (UN definition: http://www.un.org/en/sustainablefuture/sustainability.shtml) merely converts the socialist daily mantra into a meaningless inter-generational version.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Manfred
January 17, 2016 2:15 pm

I have found this a revealing connection between the sustainability movement propaganda and ‘climate change’ and it is especially compelling to snowflakes in ‘higher’ education; it enticed me to rejoin –

January 17, 2016 12:41 pm

There is one bit of US history missing here. In 1965, President Johnson commissioned a report from the Environmental Pollution Panel of his Science Advisory Committee. It is here, signed off by LBJ. It has a sub-panel report on “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”. That was chaired by Roger Revelle, with people like Broecker, Keeling and Smagorinsky – giants in the field.
Part of the conclusion:
“Through his worldwide industrial civilization, Man is unwittingly conducting a vast geophysical experiment. Within a few generations he is burning the fossil fuels that slowly accumulated in the earth over the last 500 million years. The CO2 produced by this combustion is being injected into the atmosphere; about half remains there. …

By the year 2000 the increase in atmospheric CO2 will be close to 25%. This may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate, and will almost certainly cause significant changes in the temperature and other properties of the stratosphere.”

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 17, 2016 1:24 pm

Well Nick, 2000 was 15 years ago, we’re at 40%, and nothing remarkable has happened.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 17, 2016 1:27 pm

Nick Stokes,
Since we’re reminiscing about LBJ, here’s a well known quote of his:
”These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness.” [but he didn’t say “Negroes.”] ☺

Janice Moore
Reply to  dbstealey
January 17, 2016 1:36 pm

Good point, D.B.. Statist (most often Democrats) policies have done far more harm than good for racial minorities. Lol, the Democrats spit in the face of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (“… by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin”) in 2008 by touting Barry Soetoro as “the first black.” Yeah, you ol’ yella dog Democrats, you jes keep uh tossin’ those poor minorities those fish…. That way they’ll never learn to fish for themselves and stay there, niiiice and quiet-like on the plantation (even bettuh than in 1800, all their votes now being cast by massuh @ 1:1, not 1:3/5).

Reply to  dbstealey
January 17, 2016 3:13 pm

MLK was a registered Republican. So were Malcolm X and Cesar Chavez. That’s one reason the Dems prefer Barry O (and IANAR).

Reply to  dbstealey
January 18, 2016 7:35 am

MLK was a registered Republican. So were Malcolm X and Cesar Chavez
MLK? Nope – http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/15/us/mlk-myths/
Malcolm X – he disliked both parties.
Cesar Chavez – he worked closely with Jerry Brown to pass a law giving farmworkers the right to collectively bargain. Likewise with Bobby Kennedy on a national scale. So no, not a Republican. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesar_Chavez

Janice Moore
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 17, 2016 1:28 pm

… a vast geophysical experiment.

(Nick St0kes)
Well, boys and girls, good news! The results are IN!
Here they are…
Fear not the Witches and Goblins of Fantasy Science… they are “but a vapor that passeth away in the night”… .

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 17, 2016 2:36 pm

LOL…good one!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 17, 2016 2:43 pm

Thanks, Latitude. 🙂
Compliments of: Nick Stokes.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 17, 2016 6:36 pm

“By the year 2000 the increase in atmospheric CO2 will be close to 25%. This may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate, and will almost certainly cause significant changes in the temperature and other properties of the stratosphere.”
Right on the money about the increase, and yet no measurable, marked changes in climate, no significant changes in temperature etc. NADA. Nothing out of the ordinary, temps not even back up to what they were during the Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warm Periods. And with all that Co2 in the air….:-)

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Aphan
January 19, 2016 6:21 pm

Some measurable – the earth is greening and crops are a real hockey stick trend.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 18, 2016 6:44 am

Nick Stokes January 17, 2016 at 12:41 pm
Part of the conclusion:
“……By the year 2000 the increase in atmospheric CO2 will be close to 25%. This may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate, and will almost certainly cause significant changes in the temperature and other properties of the stratosphere.”
The key words here were “this may be sufficient”. We now know it is not.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 18, 2016 7:32 pm

Yes, a very stupid experiment.
We started measuring at the very coldest point in the last 10,000 years.
THANK GOODNESS it has warmed up, even if only slightly.

Until we know enough to prove the slight warming is ANYTHING BUT NATURAL,
we should NOT assume otherwise.
And NO, we do not have ANY proof that the warming is not 100% natural.

January 17, 2016 12:54 pm

An excellent summary of developments in the ‘warmist’ conspiracy (sic). The only thing I would say is that all readers should take heed – not just the USA. The rise of transnationalism is a serious threat to democratic nation states everywhere. We are internationalists NOT transnationalists. NGOs and transnational bodies like the UN, EU Etc need close scrutiny as their hierarchies lack democratic accountability. AGW is their perfect cover.

January 17, 2016 1:00 pm

“Many thanks to Ari Halperin for a well-researched and laid-out explanation of the development of the Great Scam. Far from being for people in the USA, this is a valuable reference for the whole World, to help understand the structure of the Great Scam..

January 17, 2016 1:08 pm

Reblogged this on Storm Warning and commented:
Here is an excellent analysis of how the global warming religion is not only false, but undermining democratic nation states.

John Boles
January 17, 2016 1:15 pm

Should ELF earth liberation front be in that list?

January 17, 2016 1:24 pm

One does have to gently say to Americans that if you are sensitive to this, you should perhaps have some non Anglophiles write a history of how the IMF and the World Bank were used the past 50 years to ruthlessly promote a US-view of the world, disregarding the interests of hundreds of millions (more recently billions) of non-US peoples in how they should organise their countries.
Ask one simple question: how would the world have evolved differently if the US dollar had not been the world’s reserve currency??
There’s just as much anger at American behaviour in economic spheres as there is anger about climate alarmism you know.
And you don’t have to be a socialist to think that: you just have to believe in independent economic development, be that social democratic, communist, liberal democrat or even christian democratic in nature.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  rtj1211
January 17, 2016 2:27 pm

please don’t be gentle on these matters
The IMF and World Bank and Asian Bank US influences have prompted the creation of the Asian Infrastructure Bank – http://www.aiib.org/ – which Obama wants to minimize –
“the Obama administration began a rear-guard battle to minimize the bank’s influence.
The United States worries that China will use the bank to set the global economic agenda on its own terms, forgoing the environmental protections, human rights, anticorruption measures and other governance standards long promoted by its Western counterparts”.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Bubba Cow
January 17, 2016 7:16 pm

Bubba C
What will happen if the new AIIB makes loans on its own terms, starts a gold-backed currency, makes progress addressing real environmental problems instead of fake ones, upgrades the human rights of its client states instead of imposing gruelling devaluations and retrenchments, brings in stern anti-corruption measures against white collar crime then goes on to demand standards of banking, stock market regulation and economic governance that exceed anything seen in the West?
Are international banks nothing other than instruments of hegemony over political rivals? If they are, who can blame the East for starting their own. If they are not, diverse options will help finance projects that are otherwise denied funding by irrationally compromised Western sources. Why should Asian and Pacific development projects be denied funding because Greenpeace wants to ‘punish the USA’ with carbon taxes?
Look for the real dangers. Fakes one as dime-a-dozen.

Reply to  rtj1211
January 17, 2016 2:28 pm

I agree totally, and this brings to mind the old saying about people who live in glass houses.
Anthony has the right to publish anything he likes on this blog, however, I don’t feel that this sort of article does anything to help the cause, and in fact just adds to the belief that we are all right wing conspiracy theorists.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Grahame
January 17, 2016 5:17 pm

Mr. Halperin has presented a thoughtful, well-documented, memorandum of highly probative, relevant, evidence for foreign-born socialists being the main impetus behind AGW in the United States.
If anyone who reads his memorandum above with care comes away with the impression that WUWT, therefore, a haven for “right wing conspiracy theorists,” she or he did not get that idea from what Halperin wrote. That biased soul came with a mind already filled to capacity with that notion.
Such a person is not worth worrying about.
A thoughtful reader who honestly disputes any of Halperin’ evidence or analysis would post a meaningful refutation, with a cite or two, or ask a bona fide question of clarification.
A reader worth troubling oneself over would NOT automatically assert the irrational premise: 1) Halperin’s evidence is all wrong (just because it must be); then, add to that Mad Hatter presumption the silly Dormouse conclusion: 2) therefore, WUWTers are all right wing conspiracy theorists.

Reply to  Grahame
January 17, 2016 6:46 pm

And you have the right to your own opinion about what helps “the cause”(which ever one you might be referring to) and what doesn’t. But you need to keep in mind that what you “feel” might not be “felt” by anyone else at all.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Grahame
January 18, 2016 1:18 am

Typical comment of a concern troll.

Janice Moore
Reply to  rtj1211
January 17, 2016 2:38 pm

independent economic development,

… with U.S. (and many other free-market economies’) money.
I have nothing but CONTEMPT for such outrageously egotistical hypocrites.
Okay. Fine. Condemn your children to illiteracy and math ignorance. Get to be an expert in: “How to Make a Good Fire for Cooking Out of Cattle Dung.” Keep on cleaning your clothes by pounding them with rocks in a muddy stream. Make a witch doctor your physician. Do your dental hygiene with splinters from trees. And eat corn mush for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
And all the U.S. (et. al.) asks is that you respect your local people’s private property, basic liberty, and free-market, rights.
Such an attitude makes me sick.

“.. to think that[,] you just have to” [be a moral vacuum].

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 17, 2016 3:57 pm

I guess Bernie Sanders people have finally found WUWT !!! LOL

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 17, 2016 4:55 pm

Lol, Marcus, indeed! I think they all made a little field trip over here in their 1968 VW bus. At least half a dozen in this thread alone!

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 17, 2016 5:32 pm

Looks like it, huh?
We’ll make a deal with you, rtj1211 and Grahame: just pay back all the American money that’s been poured into your economies by the hundredes of thousands of U.S. soldiers that are based there and who spend their money in your towns, and we’ll pull them back and turn you over to the Soviets.
Then you can argue with them whether to use the ruble or the yuan as your reserve currency, while you’re housed in giant gray concrete apartment boxes and otherwise collectivized.
Then, like Nixon said you won’t have America to kick around any more. We’ll just stop all foreign aid. Heck, we’ll even throw in Mark Zuckerberg. He can explain what you need to do to fix your country, instead of telling us where we’ve gone wrong. We’ll even throw in Leonardo DiCaprio. You get both!
Lots of folks need someone or something to hate, and they do what they’re told. They’re lemmings, and they’ve been told to hate America. Forget Russia, China, North Korea, or a dozen other countries that have murdered tens of millions and are the stingiest places on earth. Yeah, let’s all hate on America instead! And when the Nazis or the Sovs or the Red whatevers threaten to invade your pacifist countries, we were always ready to give you a helping hand. But you’ll never need that again, will you? Because you have it all figured out.
BTW, Ari, this was an excellent article. I always knew there was a CONSPIRACY behind the ‘dangerous AGW’ hoax. An international, anti-American conspiracy.
Sen. Joe McCarthy gave conspiracies a bad name when he was caught waving his laundry list and claiming it contained the names of Communists in the State Department. So now whenever someone mentions ‘conspiracy’, they’re attacked for being a ‘conspiracy theorist’. Thanx, Joe.
But there are always conspiracies everywhere. Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth Of Nations, published in 1776:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.
The fools who have been told that man-made global warming is a looming threat and believe it aren’t just science ignoramuses. They are a clear and present danger.
Voltaire wrote:
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
‘Dangerous AGW’ is absurd. And there are Robespierres in every big crowd.
Draw your own conclusions.

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 17, 2016 5:49 pm

… Dear Janice…I bet they are wearing…..SNUGGIES !! LOL ( sorry fellow skeptics, private joke )

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 17, 2016 5:54 pm

dbstealey…..Eisenhower, in his farewell speech, actually warned about the corruption of science by certain politicians ( socialists )

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 17, 2016 6:32 pm

Lol (for — the — last — time — about — those — cursed — things!).
Hi. What do you say we come up with another “inside joke?” How about…………….. (thinking)…………………………………. meh, fugeddaboudit.
I thought about you yesterday when my friend from Utah (she has lived there quite awhile, so she is used to it) called and BITTERLY complained about the fact that it was snowing — again. “Oh,” she said, looking out her window, “it’s snowing.” I started to reply delightedly, “Oh, how lov –.” Then, I remembered how sick and tired she is of snow by now. And I prayed for you, Marcus. How is it going up there?
Until the crocuses awaken and start to softly sing their lavender spring melody which melts the snow and makes the forsythia burst into sunny blooms and calls the robins northward….
This is for you, our WUWT “sunshine” commenter (you are a breath of fresh air, here, Marcus, the sun bursting through the heavy, gray, clouds of ponderous pontification):
Skagit Valley, Washington, USA (my home town)

Hang in there! SPRING IS COMING!!!
Your WUWT pal,
P.S. Always remember that wherever a child of God is, no matter how dark or deep the valley, that dearly loved child is never alone. “Never will I leave you, never will I forsake you,” your loving Abba. There IS light at the end of the tunnel…. it may be very near; tunnels often have bends in them, you know. 🙂

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 17, 2016 6:35 pm

grrr “My home town area.”

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 17, 2016 6:45 pm

Sniff. Now, I’m hooooommmesick. 🙁 (sort of……. takes a lot of rain to make my home area the beautiful place it is to live in ….)

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 17, 2016 10:56 pm

Janice @ @:38 pm jan 17,
“Okay. Fine. Condemn your children to illiteracy and math ignorance. Get to be an expert in: “How to Make a Good Fire for Cooking Out of Cattle Dung.” Keep on cleaning your clothes by pounding them with rocks in a muddy stream. Make a witch doctor your physician. Do your dental hygiene with splinters from trees. And eat corn mush for breakfast, lunch, and dinner”.
Janice!!! + ^^^^ +++++ ^^^^^ and many more! And no replies needed you hit the nail on the head!!!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 18, 2016 9:11 am

Tobias Smit (1/17, 10:56pm) — THANK YOU! 🙂

Reply to  rtj1211
January 17, 2016 6:43 pm

“One does have to gently say to Americans that if you are sensitive to this, you should perhaps have some non Anglophiles write a history of how the IMF and the World Bank were used the past 50 years to ruthlessly promote a US-view of the world, disregarding the interests of hundreds of millions (more recently billions) of non-US peoples in how they should organise their countries. ”
One American will just ungently say back to you….the World Bank and the IMF are INTERNATIONAL organizations, so if the non-US peoples in other countries don’t want the US involved in organizing their countries, perhaps they should talk to their own governments about disregarding the interests of their own people.
Good luck with that. Let Americans know how it goes. If you’re successful, maybe we can follow your examples.

Reply to  rtj1211
January 18, 2016 3:47 pm

Ask one simple question: how would the world have evolved differently if the US dollar had not been the world’s reserve currency??
One only needs to read The Man in the High Castle /a> for an answer to that silly question.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  rtj1211
January 19, 2016 6:46 pm

Yeah rtj1211, my compatriots are jealous, too. The system egregiously produced 50% of the nobel prize winners in sciences and medicine, really 75% if it weren’t for the inert filler prizes handed out for basket weaving, terrorism, political sleight of hand, as another way to dilute the US achievement. Do you fly much – well, shit, they invented the airplane, too. They also saved your ass in a couple of world wars, they invented the electronic revolution, they gave boatloads of money and endless supplies of food, opened all their universities to third world, run around the world rescuing people from natural disasters, but nobody outside of the US sends a bottle of water to New Orleans when Katrina devastated the city.
So your thesis is that the Americans can’t be challenged in economic spheres. Gee whose fault is that? Let me tell you, your marxbrothers system that many immigrants to America ran away from for freedom to do, turned out to be the most wondrous experiment the world has known. These downtrodden throwaways of your societies are now no contest in economic, scientific, medical, agricultural, and all other spheres where hard work and freedom to do is available to people. Doesn’t that tell you something? Apparently not. America is bullying your delicate bankrupt system. America is just a country made up of people who wanted to escape into freedom from all the ugly systems that the world can’t let go. One in particular, which, like global warming keeps failing and yet gets resuscitated. Let’s give the moist Vlad Lenin a decent burial in a better suit of clothes and close the door on this chapter. Maybe have a theme park village of communist enterprise and we can all go and re-see it. Maybe Disney could advise, although it’s an American outfit.

January 17, 2016 2:35 pm

This article is framed in a Left wing conspiracy narrative. It is only half the story and the half that is missing is the most important half. Behind the environmental organisations are individuals with money. Old families working behind the scenes for a goal of global governance and monopolies of global recourses. There are two engineered problems that have been created to advance their goals and most of the people on this site need to be made aware of the second one. That is terrorism. Divide and conquer. Two false problems. Vote for the Left you advance the cause through green policies. Vote for the Right you advance the cause through the “global fight against terrorism”. Look deeper. It is no accident that Maurice Strong gave money to Republicans as well as Democrats. Nor is his rise to power an accident. He got his start in life via one John D Rockafella. A notorious crony capitalist who described competition as “a sin”.

January 17, 2016 2:37 pm

Every major battle in the world since about 1950 has been between the western left and the western mainstream. The reason I say this is because whenever a problem has cropped up which could have been solved quickly and easily in the past we have come up against fierce resistance from the left.
Any international action had to consider ‘world opinion’ but at that time the only opinions which had any weight were those of westerners. Third world people had no opinions that mattered because they were under the rule of despots who did as they pleased. These despots could bully their own people but were impotent outside their own borders.
The communist world had more power but, once again, the opinion of their people was irrelevant.
So when it came down to it the only opinions that had to be considered were those of western leftists who could be relied upon to be anti-American, anti-Western etc.
It is these people who have empowered third world despots to run the UN and it is about time the western world woke up and dealt with the problem. We will never defeat third world looters, islamic terrorists, anti-western vandals etc until we deal with the western left.

January 17, 2016 2:52 pm

Today I was making some nachos for my 10 year old son, and he asked me if there was any BT corn in the chips.
I asked him where he heard about BT corn, and he said they talked about it in his 4th grade science class. I asked him for more details about what they discussed, and it sounded like they discussed some of the arguments made both for and against GMO foods.
I’m actually quite troubled about this, because even if they had a “balanced” discussion of this subject, why didn’t they choose to talk about this subject in the first place? Because it’s a current event?
I’d much rather have them discuss the foundations of agricultural science, how farmers have domesticated pretty much every single thing we farm to eat through centuries of effort. Instead of talking about whether using a gasoline powered car to drive around is a good thing, why not talk about the difficulties of transportation that mankind has experienced for millenia, contrast modern lifestyles with those 100 years ago, 200 years ago, 500 years ago?
Necessity is the mother of invention. Before we declare some new technology “controversial”, we should first ask why that innovation was needed in the first place, how scientists or farmers or whatever used to have to do to achieve similar progress.
Ultimately, I’d much rather have my kids taught real science, not just the science-de-jour which isn’t really science at all but more of a political or ethical debate than studying science.

Reply to  KTM
January 17, 2016 7:15 pm

I hope you told your son that the Bt in corn is what keeps the worms and bugs from eating the corn (and leaving their toxic feces etc on it) and is a natural pesticide rather than a chemical. Sit down and teach him, since now the “necessity” of counter programming him exists. And then go to the school and smack his teacher upside the head with a jar of salsa 🙂

Reply to  KTM
January 18, 2016 3:36 am

Exactly! Kids have to learn basics of science and other skills that they would need in further studies and the life, not the political “issues”.

Alan Ranger
January 17, 2016 3:09 pm

This is not restricted to the USA. Here in Australia we were preached at for 6 years by a leftist/green government (of sorts) that we were the dirtiest polluters in the developed world. This was based on per capita data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita (which was rarely mentioned) and never explained that it equated to a piffling 1.3% of the total global “problem”. We were therefore the ones charged with the responsibility to lead the world out of Armageddon by (carbon tax) example.
With all the confusing name changes for this non-problem, I have long advocated that we simply refer to is by the handy, accurate and easily remembered acronym:
C6 – Catastrophic Capitalist Caucasian Caused Climate Change.
[Ahem… Always avoid alliteration, Alan. -bored mod.]

Alan Ranger
Reply to  Alan Ranger
January 17, 2016 3:38 pm

[Ahem… Always avoid alliteration, Alan. -bored mod.]
A4 – (I might name some paper after that) – most magnanimous mod! And couldn’t agree more! 🙂
Please convey this sentiment to the Australian Labor Party who, I believe, have their own clandestine ministry of alliteration, so that us dumb folk voters will not forget their propaganda easily and will also realize how clever they are being able to get all those words starting with the same letter into a melded meaningless mantra. (I hope there is reliable remedial rehabilitation available for this 🙁 )
The same mob started us off as the “clever country” then resurrected it to the “knowledge nation” but then ran out I think. We’ve been dumb for over a decade now.
[Reply: This moderator was getting bored on a slow Sunday afternoon. The alliteration joke didn’t refer to your comment, sorry if it came across like that. -mod.]

Janice Moore
Reply to  Alan Ranger
January 17, 2016 3:49 pm

Lol. 🙂
Just add an “O” (for, oh, how about “Organisation” — almost forgot spell it with an “s”!) — then, they would be: ALPO. Already a website up an running! — https://www.alpo.com/

Alan Ranger
Reply to  Alan Ranger
January 17, 2016 8:30 pm

[Reply: This moderator was getting bored on a slow Sunday afternoon. The alliteration joke didn’t refer to your comment, sorry if it came across like that. -mod.]
No, it didn’t come across that way at all. If anything, it only served to supplement the Sunday satire.

Ian H
January 17, 2016 3:59 pm

Interesting, but it seems to me you are seeing plotting and planning and dare I say conspiracy where I believe there was actually little or none. I think the growth of climatism is much better understood in terms of the bandwagon effect. Once a bandwagon starts rolling, if it is headed in a useful direction, large numbers of people with their own agendas pile on and start pushing it and wrestling for control of the steering wheel. It rapidly becomes a juggernaut beyond the control of anyone, driven by a complex mix of motives – some open – many hidden.
The initial calls for global action on climate started the bandwagon rolling. And it started off in such a useful direction for so many people that the growth to unstoppable juggernaut was very swift. You have identified many of those agendas. Antiamericanism and the desire to punish the west for its success is part of it. Those who desire global government and the power it brings see benefits as well – carbon taxes levied at international level could be the basis for funding world government. The Luddite left of the Green movement see an excuse to oppose all technology and progress. The local farming lobby sees it as an excuse to count food miles and make us all eat local foods. Financial traders see an excuse to run a carbon market and make massive profits. Vegetarians see an excuse to oppose the farming of meat. Activist advocates are personally motivated by the desire to expand their jobs and inflate their self importance. Scientist advocates are motivated by the desire to attract funding and inflate their self importance. Many people are motivated by the desire for purpose and narrative in their lives and this gives them a cause to devote themselves to. Others are motivated by the desire to be PC and the human desire to be seen to be more virtuous than their neighbours. And small and poor countries everywhere are motivated by pure greed and just want their share of the promised bonanza of loot.
There are so many people pushing this bandwagon at this point and the momentum it has built up is so strong that even clear evidence that climate alarm is completely unjustified isn’t going to be enough to stop it. The people on the bandwagon are very strongly motivated for reasons of their own to close their eyes and ears and just keep it rolling. It can’t be turned around or controlled. It can’t be reasoned with or persuaded. The only solution is to stand aside and try to ignore it until the hysteria dies down. When people see that it isn’t going to get them what they want they’ll give up. But that is going to take some time. Climatism is going to remain a powerful force in our politics for the next couple of decades regardless of what happens to the science or the climate.

Reply to  Ian H
January 17, 2016 4:18 pm

But, thankfully, the North American public does not feel overly concerned about it !

Reply to  Marcus
January 17, 2016 5:28 pm

It is a mistake. We must be concerned about climate alarmism.

Reply to  Marcus
January 17, 2016 5:43 pm

They are not overly concerned about Glo.Bull Warming, but they are getting sick of the blatant lies that become more and more obvious the more desperate the alarmists get !!

Reply to  Ian H
January 17, 2016 5:27 pm

I agree about bandwagon effect. But who started bandwagon rolling? Who provided it with momentum, sufficient for many people to notice and want to get on? This is the question that I answer in the article.

Reply to  Leo Goldstein
January 17, 2016 6:53 pm

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.” (Saul Alinsky-Rules for Radicals-textbook of the American Left)

Reply to  Leo Goldstein
January 17, 2016 7:07 pm

Aphan + 10,000

Janice Moore
Reply to  Leo Goldstein
January 17, 2016 7:11 pm

Excellent quote, by puppet Alinksy, Aphan. Very apropos for this thread, for, at the back of all tyranny-based-on-l1es (e.g., soc1alism (l1es about human nature and economic theory) and AGW (l1es about human CO2)) are forces the puppets of which never DREAMED of: “…we wrestle not with flesh and blood, but against … the spiritual forces of ev1l … .” Ephesians 6:12.

Reply to  Leo Goldstein
January 17, 2016 7:40 pm

Janice, I’ll give you 10,000 likes too….IF you admit you wear SNUGGIES !! LOL..oh never mind, here … + 10,000

Janice Moore
Reply to  Leo Goldstein
January 17, 2016 7:47 pm

Oh, Marcus, that’s okay. Aphan’s comment was WORTH 10,000.
Are you referring to my comment here?: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/17/who-unleashed-climatism/comment-page-1/#comment-2122173

Reply to  Leo Goldstein
January 17, 2016 8:09 pm

Ok Janice, no more Snuggies..for now !! LOL… That video was lovely, thank you..As for the weather, no snow, just minus 23 with constant 35 kph winds and gusts up to 50..If it was snowing it would be a blizzard !! Fun Fun !! Makes it extremely hard to walk to the beer store, which is why I have none right now !! LOL

Janice Moore
Reply to  Leo Goldstein
January 17, 2016 8:36 pm

You’re welcome, Marcus. Take care.

Reply to  Ian H
January 17, 2016 5:59 pm

Ian H
“Interesting, but it seems to me you are seeing plotting and planning and dare I say conspiracy where I believe there was actually little or none.”
Have wealthy/powerful people ever “conspired” in any way, do you figure? Or do you consider them to be above all that, by default?

Reply to  Ian H
January 17, 2016 6:00 pm

Ian H,
You wrote a very well thought out comment. I agree with a lot of it. But there’s more to it.
Even though lots of different players get something out of the hoax, there are governments fanning the flames for their own benefit.
When the Berlin Wall came down the Soviet Union realized that they would never conquer the West militarily. But they had multiple plans in effect as always, and they poured resources into the growing ‘green’ movement. They were always directing from behind the scenes, and the KGB were past masters at understanding human motivations and human nature. (Now it’s the FSB, but it’s the same players; Putin is KGB.)
The mind-set of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and other countries is that they are at war with the U.S. But Americans tend to be über-naive, thinking that if we’re nice to others they will be nice to us.
There isn’t anything in a mix like that stopping a shooting war, including using nukes, bio- and chem-warfare, and anything else they can think of. We would be much better off facing reality: trusting countries that have earned our trust, and refusing financial and other support to the rest.

Reply to  dbstealey
January 17, 2016 6:20 pm

“The mind-set of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and other countries is that they are at war with the U.S”
Is Mr. Obama et al., the United States, in this way of thinking/speaking?

Reply to  dbstealey
January 17, 2016 7:03 pm

I was referring to the average American, and the governments of other countries. Obama is an anomaly, and the sooner he’s gone, the better.

Reply to  dbstealey
January 17, 2016 11:00 pm

Hmm . .
“The mind-set of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and other countries is that they are at war with the U.S.”
It is difficult for me to translate the “Headline” into English ; ) . . Do you mean the current leaders of those countries (like Mr. Obama is here) see themselves as being at war with . . Mr. Obama et al? The American people? Anyone that stands in the way of . . ???
Are you saying the PNAC folks were right, essencially?

Reply to  dbstealey
January 17, 2016 11:08 pm

@db, 6:00 pm Jan17, you said, ( and I totally agree) “and the KGB were past masters at understanding human motivations and human nature. (Now it’s the FSB, but it’s the same players; Putin is KGB.)”,
They are all and the same. If you think they have changed their tactics ? They have not . They still want to (and seemingly are being successful these days) want to run the place.

Reply to  dbstealey
January 18, 2016 7:25 pm

Let’s just take one that’s in the news: Iran. Ever since the Shah left they’ve been at war with us. Do you have any doubt that if it turned into a shooting war, that they would hold back?
Maybe I wasn’t being clear. Sorry about that. I tried to make the distinction between the governments of those countries, and American citizens. Obama fits in with them IMHO, but he’s got just months left (unless Ari is right…).
So Obama is probably irrelevant after that. Until he finagles his way into running the UN…

January 17, 2016 4:08 pm

Nice historical perspective of how we got to where we are with AGW. Beware of those who claim “conspiracy theory” because they are part of it either knowingly or unknowingly. Despite the massive gains by the alarmists I doubt they will ever succeed in destroying Capitalism or stop the use of fossil fuels. Too many developed countries cherish their sovereignty and prosperity to give either up.

January 17, 2016 4:32 pm

1. Since 1880 world temperature has risen just 0.8 degrees C.
2. If you show this as a normal graph with a full scale the variation disappears so it is shown as a measure of variation or anomaly. Selection of the time period determines whether the temperature appears to be rising or stable.
3. Hottest ever months and years are measured in hundredths of a degree. The MSM usually fails to mention this fact or the margin of error.
4. Early temperatures have been adjusted (homogenised) and almost always the change has produced colder early temperatures. Measurement stations in remote cooler areas have been closed. In Australia temperature records before 1908 have been ignored. The most accurate temperature records are the satellite records which started in 1979. They show no temperature increase over the past 18 years which coincides with the emission of most of the human generated CO2.
5. NOAA data show that the majority of average temperature increases result from reduced minimum temperatures (i.e. warmer nights) which indicates the impact of urban heat islands.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Littleoil
January 18, 2016 2:17 am

You posted on the wrong thread?

January 17, 2016 5:27 pm

Such as melting permafrost and leaning houses?
oldtroll@liars.com is back.

Reply to  clipe
January 17, 2016 9:32 pm

@clipe, Jan 17 5.27 pm, I am getting misdirected when i click on that link? What gives?

January 17, 2016 5:30 pm

What exactly do they mean by “organized by”? Whom from these NGOs did the actual “organizing”? Did they rent the hotel or convention center out of their own pockets? Did they decide whom to invite and whom to exclude? Where did the funds come from for all the flights and limos and taxis to the conference? How much did they charge participants, and from where did they get those funds? IOW, how many innocent and poor tax-victims were extorted for these conspiratorial gatherings? How much was siphoned from productive people’s earnings for the crony socialist participants?

Reply to  Mib8
January 17, 2016 6:34 pm

See IPCC Paris

January 17, 2016 5:32 pm
Reply to  Leo Goldstein
January 17, 2016 5:46 pm

” Will this horror end after November 2016 elections? Judging by the current trends, I am not sure there will be November 2016 elections.”
I agree, he will not go quietly !

John Robertson
January 17, 2016 5:56 pm

Alternate explanation.
The explosive growth of statism in the last 3 decades.
CAGW was created,promoted and is still being protected,where ever possible, from rational investigation.
By the civil servants of western nations.
Maurice Strong was a bureaucrat, he was assisted by many civil servants in Canada’s bureaus.
Bureaucracy is like fire,uncontrolled it will consume every resource.
Parasites want job security too and what better way than creation of an international bureaucracy, exempt from national laws,responsible to no taxpayer,funded as saving the planet and solving an imaginary problem.
No conspiracy, just bureaucrats and natural born social parasites doing what comes naturally.
Playing into the natural desire of the political fools to be seen to be saving us from doom.
Imaginary hobgoblins from which they will gain prestige and power by saving us from these illusions.
Hey it appears to work, the voter seems to like this kind of theatre.
The game has proven so successful that the canadian taxpayer now forks out 50% or better of the return on their labour to governance minions.
The gorging will continue until the host falls.

Reply to  John Robertson
January 17, 2016 6:20 pm

Or until we find the right pesticide !!

Reply to  John Robertson
January 17, 2016 6:40 pm

Ari is concerned with those parasites of sufficient intelligence to deliberately contrive ideal conditions for them to thrive.
Conspiracy, teamwork – tomato, tomato…

Reply to  John Robertson
January 17, 2016 6:58 pm

Conspiracy, teamwork – tomato, tomato.
Ari is concerned with those parasites sufficiently intelligent to cultivate the conditions under which they thrive.
His point is that the fraud is not innocent or accidental because some individuals completely understand the nature of the game we are presently discussing.

Reply to  John Robertson
January 17, 2016 9:27 pm

John: Canada has been more involved in all this than most folks realize. Maurice Strong and Pierre Trudeau are major actors. The only thing I see really changing the meme will be a major upheaval in one of two spheres. On the climate change side, the bastard child of “renewable” energy must fail at some point, and the folks will not be happy with their heat, light and cell phones not working. I only hope it happens in the summer and not the winter. On the second sphere, economics, Canada is really going to hurt very soon. Young Trudeau will find himself swimming upstream because fossil fuel revenues have sustained the economy, and they are not looking good. Other natural resource sectors aren’t much stronger. The liberal plans to expand wind/solar requires revenue from primary industries, and will come under scrutiny when money is tight. With the global push to saturate the market with cheap oil, Canada will be a big loser. The dollar now sits at 68 cents US, and could drop lower. The great white north is in for a rough ride, but it may turn around the stupid track we now are on.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  John Robertson
January 17, 2016 9:29 pm

Parasites or parasitoids?
Parasites are clever, they don’t usually kill their host just maintain it in a debilitated state while parasitoids kill and some then consume the host.
I guess the answer remains to be seen.

January 17, 2016 6:27 pm

This article needs bookmarking and highlighting in great prominence. It is one of the most important analyses ever written of the development of this big lie. Thank you Ari Halperin.

Reply to  Ron House
January 17, 2016 7:11 pm

Someday it will be carved into the front wall of the White House to remind us how stupid Humans can be !!

Reply to  Marcus
January 17, 2016 7:21 pm

Marcus…don’t hold your breath. Washington DC is filled with wisdom carved in stone, symbols hidden in it’s very architecture, and monuments to some of the wisest and bravest humans that have ever lived. And yet, it is filled with cockroaches. If the day ever comes in which the TRUTH could be carved into the front wall of the White House, it wouldn’t be necessary to do it anymore. 🙂

Reply to  Marcus
January 17, 2016 7:37 pm

That’s what I meant !! LOL

Reply to  Marcus
January 17, 2016 8:19 pm

But you say it so much better Aphan !!

Reply to  Ron House
January 18, 2016 3:43 am

Thank you!

Pat Frank
January 17, 2016 7:29 pm

Ari, you missed the 1979 Charney Report. This report was commissioned from the US National Research Council (NRC), and included some of the top climate scientists of the day, including Carl Wunsch. Most significantly, the NRC group included Bert Bolin University of Stockholm, one of the strongest catastrophists and the first chair of the IPCC.
Right in the Forward, the Charney report says, “We now have incontrovertible evidence that the atmosphere is indeed changing and that we ourselves contribute to that change. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are steadily increasing, and these changes are linked with man’s use of fossil fuels and exploitation of the land. Since carbon dioxide plays a significant role in the heat budget of the atmosphere, it is reasonable to suppose that continued increases would affect climate.
That claim is scientifically vacuous even today, and in 1979 was grotesquely unsubstantiated hyperbole. But there it is.
The Charney group went through some calculations with early climate models, and as is typical in such studies right through to today, enumerated some model uncertainties but never quantitatively factored them into their predictions. Their best estimate of warming due to doubled CO2 was “near 3°C with a probable error of ±1.5°C.” That estimate has remained unchanged for 36 years, despite all the supposed improvements in climate models since then.
In 1989, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) came out with a 457 page report, The Potential Effects Of Global Climate Change On The United States (pdf) outlining all the catastrophic and horrible things that could follow from doubled CO2. The report was a litany of hypothetical disasters that set the tone for every loopy alarmist outburst that followed. The EPA could not find one single possible net overall positive benefit for increased atmospheric CO2. There is some nodding toward the beneficial effects on photosynthesis and drought-resistance, but these are generally portrayed as being outweighed by negative effects.
So, the US is not free of blame here. Climate alarm did not begin as an external attack on the US. It has deep domestic roots.
The apparent fact that the eNGOs and the anti-capitalist alliance, also here, officiated by Christiana Figueres have captured AGW alarm to aggressively leverage an American collectivist nightmare just exemplifies a bitterly admirable talent progressives have for organized political opportunism.

Reply to  Pat Frank
January 18, 2016 3:59 am

The best known quote from 1979 Charney Report is If carbon dioxide continues to increase, the study group finds no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible. My point is that there is absolutely nothing alarming in this statement. It is seen “alarming” only in the context of the alarmist narrative.
My point is that the science did not give any basis for the alarm. The alarm was created by the activists, not familiar with the science. I found only one chain of such alarmist around 1979: X -> Helmut Schmidt -> Congressman Abraham Ribicoff -> Nierenberg commission. Other might have existed as well.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pat Frank
January 18, 2016 2:57 pm

Agreed that the hyperbolic alarm itself was created by activists, Ari, but nevertheless, the ground was set by careless scientists; including American scientists.
The Charney report says, right in the front-piece Summary and Conclusions, “When it is assumed that the CO2 content of the atmosphere is doubled and statistical thermal equilibrium is achieved, the more realistic of the modeling efforts predict a global surface warming of between 2°C and 3.5°C, with greater increases at high latitudes. This range reflects both uncertainties in physical understanding and inaccuracies arising from the need to reduce the mathematical problem to one that can be handled by even the fastest available electronic computers. It is significant, however, that none of the model calculations predicts negligible warming.
This is since become the standard IPCC warning.
They go on, “We have examined with care all known negative feedback mechanisms … and have concluded that the oversimplifications and inaccuracies in the models are not likely to have vitiated the principal conclusion that there will be appreciable warming.
That’s about as clear as one can get.
Couple that with the US EPA’s 1989 report given entirely over to outlandish and negative constructs of alarm, and the soil has been nicely fertilized for the eNGOs. They could now claim scientific validity for every single bad-news scenario imaginable. Tim Wirth managing, enter, then, Jim Hansen, stage left, and the rest is history.
Americans definitely played a part in constructing AGW alarm. I’m not proud of them.

January 17, 2016 7:29 pm

Hungary’s top economist gives a different view of the same forces in motion:
(6 minutes, subtitles)

Reply to  dbstealey
January 17, 2016 7:51 pm

Like I said, Global Liberal Elite Socialists want to hold on to power, no matter the cost to the world !!

Reply to  Marcus
January 17, 2016 8:05 pm

Marcus commented: “…Global Liberal Elite Socialists want to hold on to power, no matter the cost to the world !!”
+1 What I can’t figure out is why they turn their backs on the system that gave them their wealth? It’s the height of hypocrisy. Guilt? Or the desire to control more than money?

Reply to  Marcus
January 17, 2016 8:14 pm

” Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely ”
John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902)

Reply to  Marcus
January 17, 2016 8:17 pm

..They have their wealth and power and they do not want to share it. All they need now is surfs to command as it was in the days of Richard the Third !

Pat Frank
Reply to  dbstealey
January 18, 2016 3:19 pm

dbstealey, any idea of what ‘unmentionable global power’ he’s talking about? He seems to give it (whatever it is) serious puppet-mastery well back into history.

Reply to  Pat Frank
January 18, 2016 7:17 pm

The old USSR is my guess. But he never really says.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pat Frank
January 19, 2016 12:07 pm

Thanks, that seems reasonable. The whole conversation seemed couched in hints and code-phrases. Not at all like the direct speech one gets (most of the time) in the US.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
January 17, 2016 8:07 pm

In 70’s the environmental movement reached to a peak. This was spearheaded by the US parliamentarians and students. This was sabotaged by the UN agency with the US support at the behest of multinational companies who were hitherto minting trillions of US dollars by producing and selling the products needed under the so-called green revolution, which introduced air, water, soil & food pollution and thus health hazards on live forms. This destroyed the native agriculture system which hither to was unpolluted system serving the food and nutrition security to rural poor. With the Rio Summit in 1992 changed completely. The environmental movement was shadowed by the “global warming and carbon credit”. The science of climate change has become scapegoat to help multinational companies. We have seen this group lobbying at Paris meet for not including the aspects pertaining to environmental issues that harm their interests. They were successful. Pachauri was made the Chairman of IPCC by US lobby only – though initially Al Gore opposed and latter joined with him and finally successful in getting Noble Prize jointly with IPCC.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

January 17, 2016 8:20 pm

Thanks, Ari Halperin.
This is a quite complete history of Climatism, a horrible syndrome of the twentieth century.

January 17, 2016 9:37 pm

About 1980 there were strong associations representing Australian industries and their values to society. One of them obtained addresses for as many NGO organisations as it could find and studied the geography to see if any trends fell out.
Using this (imperfect) method, it took little time to form a conclusion that the epicentre of the green movement was Germany. There was a minor offshoot in California.
Since then I have looked for support that Germany is at the core of my hair going prematurely grey. It is everywhere. Deutche Bank had a climate advisory committee of who’s who in the climate protest world. Some of its workers are alleged to have conducted money fraud over climate credits. Munich Re insurance has long sponsored pro-green action after action. PIK, Postdam Climate Institute hosts Hans Joachim Schellnhuber whom I regard as a person dangerous to world order. Germany has plunged into the turbulent waters of supporting renewables while rejecting nuclear. Boss Angels Merkel has been incredibly foolish in allowing a recent invasion of Germany by mostly war-aged men with outlandish motivation. VW fudges exhaust emission tests. Bad vibes at many scales of importance.
One might almost be excused for thinking Germany seeks revenge for the 2 defeats last century.

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
January 18, 2016 3:02 am

Right now Angela Merkel is seeking revenge by committing national suicide. One fool can lose the country.

K. Kilty
Reply to  Ron House
January 18, 2016 8:07 am

History is replete with examples of an imperfect, but tolerable civilization being replaced with something much worse, usually with the complicity of the better civilization.

Bruce Cobb
January 18, 2016 6:08 am

Before climate politics though, there needed to be a basic political breeding ground. That breeding ground was a virulent, anti-western, pro-communist one existing in Europe, with factions in the US.

K. Kilty
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 18, 2016 7:50 am

That breeding ground is likely no more than human stupidity and folly. As, Churchill is supposed to have said, the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

January 18, 2016 7:11 am

Well, Bernie Sanders is a True Believer. Last night he made his pitch for defeating “CO2” for the sake of the grandchildren, spittle and hair flying in the wind, looked like he needed a net thrown over him lest he hurt himself ranting his willful ignorance up the flagpole.

K. Kilty
January 18, 2016 8:04 am

I appreciate this view of climate alarmism history, but, as others have documented very well here, it misses a lot of the story in the 1970s, 1960s, and even earlier. Isn’t this alarmism just the latest example of the elite using the political tools (and fools) at hand to carry out their mission? The mission being currently that elites and progressives are horrified by the wealth and consumerism of the average person and need to put the kibosh on it all. Certainly eugenics looks like an earlier small-scale version of this same mission, does it not? And doesn’t control of individuals using the church or their own superstitions amount to the same? In other words, there really is no origin to this, but it is of a continuum with the worst impulses of humanity.

January 18, 2016 9:17 am

The author could have added “Global warming: myth or reality” Springer 2005 by Marcel Leroux to his list of references since 4 chapters are also dedicated to the history of climate alarmism.

January 18, 2016 9:50 am

Ari Halperin wrote,
” . . . we need to clearly understand three historical facts:
3) Climate politics led to climate pseudo-science, not the other way around.”

That is a false premise.
Pseudo-science focused on climate is no different than pseudo-science focused on anything.
Pseudo-science has existed since well before the 20th century. Political origin of pseudo-science is not sufficient or necessary to explain it.
A very tiny sampling of the many pseudo-sciences is listed here (in no particular order):
a) Freudian psychoanalytical theory
b) Lysenkoist theories
c) Velikovsky’s solar system creation theory
d) CAGW theory
e) Earth creation-science theories
f) theories supporting ‘astrology’
g) theories supporting the paranormal
h) Matlusian theory
Look at the list, so we see the origin of all pseudo-science is exclusively from a subjective philosophy of science which is always caused by false epistemology and false metaphysical theories in philosophy.
Ari Halperin asked, “Who unleashed Climatism?” The short answer is that a part of the science community unleashed it. The longer answer is the subjective school of the philosophy of science unleashed it, as it has unleashed all pseudo-science in the past >200 years. And it was false epistemological theories and false metaphysical theories that allowed the subjective school of the philosophy of science to exist.
Politics was not the cause. Politics found a means to use it.

January 18, 2016 11:41 am

This is one of the best articles I have read. I’ve been reading WUWT daily for some years now and have seen so many truly excellent articles. Thank you, Ari, this message is hugely important, these facts need to be dragged out into the open so that good, caring people can see how their goodwill has been used against them – not just in America but worldwide.
We all need to wake up to how we are being exploited. We need to throw off the guilt and shame that was never rightfully ours and develop some self-esteem. Pride is strength. If we have sinned against future generations, it is in allowing our schools to teach our children to be self-loathing and to hate humanity. That has to stop.
Ari Halperin, thank you so much for this article. May it spread far.

Reply to  A.D. Everard
January 18, 2016 4:16 pm

+ 1,000

Reply to  A.D. Everard
January 18, 2016 6:36 pm

Thank you.

January 19, 2016 9:42 am

This was a good article — I believe “climate change” is 99% politics and 1% science, so understanding the politics is very important.
The wild guess computer game predictions of the climate in 100 years are climate astrology, not science.
Ignoring satellite temperature data is politics, not science.
Repeatedly revising surface temperature data is politics, not science.
Having so many politicians involved, even as the authors of the final version of the IPCC Summary, is obviously not science!
And using ice core studies ONLY for CO2 levels going back to 1750, while ignoring real time Pettenkofer CO2 measurements in that same time period, and ignoring all other (more) important conclusions from ice cores, is data mining, not real science.
The first thing that interested me about the climate in the 1990s was Al Gore’s book Earth in the Balance — how did Al Gore, who was obviously no brainiac (I found out a few years later he took only two easy science courses in college, and couldn’t manage to get an A or B for either of them), morph himself into a “science professor”?.
The second thing I wanted to know who started this climate change movement.
It was my impression that Roger Revelle started, or at least significantly popularized, the strategy of predicting something bad was likely to happen to the Earth in the future, stated with great certainty, in an effort to get government science grants.
I know later in life he regretted that people were rushing to judgement about climate change, but earlier in his life he seemed to promote climate hysteria.
Maurice Strong seemed to be involved only to get more power for the UN, and promote redistribution of wealth from rich to poor nations — it was not obvious he cared about science at all, except as a tool to gain power.
Climate blog for non-scientists.
No ads. No money for me.
A public service for people who find
articles here too complicated.
(this one is an exception).

January 20, 2016 10:26 am

Self-interested scientists and politicians are pikers and even the UN agencies, various and sundry other NGOs and third world nations hoping for handouts couldn’t sustain this madness without significant help. No, the beating heart at the center of climatism lies in the halls of the world’s wealthiest financial institutions and individuals and their political toadies.
Consider that a carbon permit / credit / offset is merely an arbitrarily imposed cost. It is created from nothing at zero cost but, if made mandatory, accrues value. Allocated by governments it is merely a tax. Made privately transferrable it becomes an asset that can be traded, hedged, securitized, leveraged, optioned, etc. Broadly imposed it can be made to touch everything encountered by every human being every day in every even moderately developed nation. Its global imposition would create a wave of financialization with the potential to dwarf the cumulative impact of the late 90s Internet build out, US housing bubble and recent decades of Chinese growth. All created out of thin air for no value at all, the allure is irresistible.
But wait, there’s more! Why wait for the above to fully mature? Short coal and utilities dependent on same as those industries are slowly, inexorably and intentionally strangled under a blizzard of regulatory fiat. Go long wind, solar and batteries as laws begin to mandate “alternative energy” in ever-larger proportions. And so on and so forth around the globe and back via a web of nearly incomprehensible size and complexity but always the win coming from front-running the regulatory fiat and never from correctly forecasting market fundamentals. Always the productive hampered, damaged and defeated by the whims of the politicians whose financial cronies amass fortunes as the cost of their game crushes the common man.
And never, ever, forget that it is always the common man who bears the cost.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights