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!
References
Must read!
Richard Lindzen. Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus, 1992
Recommended:
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.]
[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.]
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/
[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.
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.
But, thankfully, the North American public does not feel overly concerned about it !
It is a mistake. We must be concerned about climate alarmism.
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 !!
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.
“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)
Aphan + 10,000
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.
Janice, I’ll give you 10,000 likes too….IF you admit you wear SNUGGIES !! LOL..oh never mind, here … + 10,000
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
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
You’re welcome, Marcus. Take care.
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?
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.
dbstealey,
“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?
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.
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?
@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.
JohnKnight,
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…
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.
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.
You posted on the wrong thread?
Such as melting permafrost and leaning houses?
oldtroll@liars.com is back.
@clipe, Jan 17 5.27 pm, I am getting misdirected when i click on that link? What gives?
Sorry
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/01/usgs-projects-large-loss-of-alaska-permafrost-by-2100/#comment-2084691
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?
See IPCC Paris
Hot off the press – a post about Obama’s use of military as an argument in climate debate.
” 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 !
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.
Or until we find the right pesticide !!
Ari is concerned with those parasites of sufficient intelligence to deliberately contrive ideal conditions for them to thrive.
Conspiracy, teamwork – tomato, tomato…
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.
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.
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.
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.
Someday it will be carved into the front wall of the White House to remind us how stupid Humans can be !!
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. 🙂
That’s what I meant !! LOL
But you say it so much better Aphan !!
Thank you!
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.
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.
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.
Hungary’s top economist gives a different view of the same forces in motion:
https://youtu.be/TisxfLCAz8E
(6 minutes, subtitles)
Like I said, Global Liberal Elite Socialists want to hold on to power, no matter the cost to the world !!
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?
” Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely ”
John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902)
..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 !
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.
The old USSR is my guess. But he never really says.
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.
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
Thanks, Ari Halperin.
This is a quite complete history of Climatism, a horrible syndrome of the twentieth century.
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.
Right now Angela Merkel is seeking revenge by committing national suicide. One fool can lose the country.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
John
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.
+ 1,000
Thank you.
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).
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
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.