Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832) wrote,
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!”
There were several actions required to create the tangled web of deception relating to the claim that human-produced CO2 caused global warming. It involved creating smaller deceptions to control the narrative that instead of creating well-woven cloth became the tangled web. The weavers needed control of the political, scientific, economic inputs, as well as the final message to the politicians to turn total attention on CO2.
Their problem was the overarching need for scientific justification, because science, if practiced properly, inherently precludes control. Properly, you go where the science takes you, by disproving the hypothesis. However, before the planners could get to the science, they had to establish the political framework.
The framework was built around the need to prove the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (AGW), which held that global warming was inevitable. The assumptions, required of any hypothesis, were that;
· CO2 was a greenhouse gas that slowed the rate of heat escape from the atmosphere.
· An increase in CO2 would cause a global temperature increase,
· Atmospheric CO2 would increase because of human activity,
· Industrial development achieved by burning fossil fuels was the major source of human CO2, production
· Industrial development would increase,
· Temperature increase was inevitable in a ‘business as usual’ world.
Politics
Maurice Strong orchestrated most of the early action because he knew how to set up the bureaucratic structure necessary to control the politics and science. Neil Hrab wrote in 2001 that Strong achieved this by:
Mainly using his prodigious skills as a networker. Over a lifetime of mixing private sector career success with stints in government and international groups…
He began with the 1977 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment Stockholm Conference. As Hrab explained:
The three specific goals set out by the Secretary General of the Conference, Maurice F. Strong, at its first plenary session—a Declaration on the human environment, an Action Plan, and an organizational structure supported by a World Environment Fund—were all adopted by the Conference.
From there Strong created the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) with two main streams that provided the Political faction and the Scientific faction (Figure 1).
Figure 1
The overall objectives of Agenda 21 (details here: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/outcomedocuments/agenda21 ) are masked in platitudes and the moral high ground of saving the planet, but the reality is to use the environment in general as the basis for a political agenda. As Elaine Dewar explained in her book, Cloak of Green:
Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.
It is part of the move to total government control that people voted against in the Brexit.
At the political level, they saw the need is for broad, malleable policies. For example, the precautionary principle is the standard fall-back position of environmentalists – shouldn’t we act regardless. This is built into Agenda 21 as Principle 15.
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
Source: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm
They make all the decisions.
· determine which states are capable,
· when a threat is serious,
· when a threat is irreversible,
· what is “full scientific certainty”
· when it is used as a reason for acting
· when it is used as a reason for not acting.
Science
The next political objective was to narrow the science to CO2. This was achieved by limiting the scientific target through a definition of climate change produced by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This eliminated almost all natural causes of climate and climate change for a predetermined result.
“a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.”
This definition allowed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to limit 100 percent of so-called greenhouse gases (GHG) to the four (4) percent that is CO2.
The IPCC tell people they do not do research; they just gather facts. However, this is part of the public deception because they leave people to believe they are studying all the facts and doing research, otherwise why would they make predictions. Instead, they gather a few selected facts and put them in a computer model constructed to produce a predetermined result. As Henri Poincare said,
“Science is built of facts the way a house is built of bricks; but an accumulation of facts is no more science than a pile of bricks is a house.”
They didn’t heed Thomas Huxley’s advice.
Sit down before facts as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.”
The IPCC sits down before facts with notions totally preconceived and restricted by the definition of climate change and the political agenda. The IPCC is divide into Working Group I (WGI) that produces the scientific evidence achieved using a predetermined outcome system. As Steve McIntyre pointed out the ‘hockey stick’ formula that produced the paleoclimate record necessary, produced a ‘hockey stick’ even if the input was random numbers. The computer models are the only place in the world where a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase.
The WGI ‘proof’ that an increase of human CO2 was almost without question causing a temperature increase became the sole basis for the Impact, Adaptation and Vulnerability Studies of Working Group II (WGII). Again there was a bias to produce a predetermined result was implemented. They only examine the costs but never the benefits. The British government commissioned the Stern Review, which was designed to reinforce and exaggerate the negative impacts. It did this by saying there was no hope unless you accept the entire science and act immediately and extensively.
The findings of WGII became the basis for the recommendations in the Mitigation Report of Working Group III (WGIII). Ottar Edenhofer, co-chair of WGIII from 2008 to 2015, explains the real objective.
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy,” “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
And that requires constant focus on CO2.
Economics
From the first report in 1990, IPCC predictions were wrong. It quickly endangered the objective of blaming CO2 and required a different more controlled approach. The response was to change from predictions based on climate variables to creating projections that put CO2 at the center. Economist David Henderson, who provided the earliest and best analysis of IPCC economics explained.
At the beginning, projections of global warming are largely based on projected atmospheric concentrations of CO2, which in turn are based on the projections of CO2 emissions which emerge from the SRES; and the emissions figures themselves are linked to SRES projections of world output, world energy use, and the carbon-intensity of different energy sources. In these latter projections economic factors are central.
In 2003 he published an article with Ian Castles titled “Economics, Emissions Scenarios and the work of the IPCC. They wrote,
‘That they have so far held aloof, and left the handling of economic issues in the IPCC process to others, is surprising as well as unfortunate. An article in The Economist (15 February 2003) that commented on our critique noted that, in relation to issues of climate change policy, “vast sums are at stake”. Yet the questionable treatment of economic issues in … the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, which as independent outsiders we have drawn attention to in this and our previous article, seems not to have been noticed by a single official in a single finance or economics ministry in a single country.
This comment shows the IPCC realized that scientists and researchers outside of climate studies were asking questions about the validity of their work. It appears they avoided economists because they knew they would not produce the results they wanted. This parallels the criticism of the Wegman Report concerning the use of statisticians
With clinical trials for drugs and devices to be approved for human use by the FDA, review and consultation with statisticians is expected. Indeed, it is standard practice to include statisticians in the application-for-approval process. We judge this to be a good policy when public health and also when substantial amounts of monies are involved, for example, when there are major policy decisions to be made based on statistical assessments. In such cases, evaluation by statisticians should be standard practice. This evaluation phase should be a mandatory part of all grant applications and funded accordingly.
The IPCC decided that the SRES was problematic but only because it was exposed by economists. They acknowledged the problem and brought in a replacement called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). It didn’t change anything because it guaranteed what they wanted namely that human CO2 production would increase. A recent article by David Middleton titled, “Part Deux: “The stuff nightmares are made from” references earlier studies by Judith Curry and others about the shallowness of the entire project. As one commentator explained
These RCP’s are used by policymakers to decide what actions are required to sustain a safe climate for our own and future generations. The information they are using, presented by the IPCC, is nothing more than science fiction.
Each year the amount of human produced CO2 increases, and while it may be true, the amount is controlled by the IPCC. They produce the annual estimates of anthropogenic CO2 using inventory guidelines. Here is how they describe the inventory Guidelines including human CO2 production.
How does the IPCC produce its inventory Guidelines?
Utilising IPCC procedures, nominated experts from around the world draft the reports that are then extensively reviewed twice before approval by the IPCC. This process ensures that the widest possible range of views are incorporated into the documents. See http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/ for full details.
What it ensures is that they control the process from the nomination of experts to produce the reports and final approval of what the reports say.
Final Reporting
The final control that keeps the focus almost exclusively on CO2 is the Summary for Policymakers (SPM), a shorter version for media and politicians of the Synthesis Report.
The SPM is written by a separate group of a few carefully selected ‘experts’ to produce a narrative that is not substantiated by the scientific analysis in WGI. Again the Wegman report warned of the part of the problem.
Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.
This includes those who wrote the academic papers but also produced the final report including the SPM. As David Wojick wrote,
Glaring omissions are only glaring to experts, so the “policymakers”—including the press and the public—who read the SPM will not realize they are being told only one side of a story. But the scientists who drafted the SPM know the truth, as revealed by the sometimes artful way they conceal it.
What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment.
Summary
The total effect of the control of CO2 from beginning to end allowed them to reach the conclusions they desired for Assessment Report 5 (AR5).
Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.
This sounds unequivocal, but they are the slick carefully selected words of a spin doctor. Human influence is only clear because the IPCC made it so. Recent climate changes have had a widespread impact on human and natural systems, but that was always the case. Tell me something I don’t know!
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.
Nobody has argued that the climate systems didn’t warm since 1950, but this is only part of the warming since approximately 1680 has the Earth emerged from the Little Ice Age. It is natural for snow and ice to diminish in a warming world and when that happens for sea level to rise. Again, tell me something I don’t know! But that is not the problem because the creators of this controlled pseudo-science now that most of the public don’t know. They created a tangled web that forces their deceptions to higher and more ridiculous levels. At some point, a majority become aware, which coupled with a sense of something wrong causes a reaction. Anthropogenic global warming was ostensibly designed to save the planet but is part of the deception to impose globalization as Maurice Strong planned. A majority of people in Britain didn’t necessarily understand globalization but recognized how they were losing control of their lives and voted no.
You can add to that that IPCC´s reviewer: InterAcademy Council was far from being independent from United Nations and IPCC.
“The creation of InterAcademy Council had been requested in 1999 by the Secretary‐General of the United Nations in order to facilitate the best scientific input into global decision‐making.”
“… discussions took place between United Nations staff and InterAcademy Council Co-Chairs and staff regarding a special UN-IAC Partnership arrangement … “
“… with strong support from United Nations Secretary-General Mr. Kofi Annan, the InterAcademy Council Board decided in February 2005 to launch an in-depth study on how to achieve global transitions to an adequately affordable, sustainable, clean energy supply…”
More quotes from InterAcademy councils annual report in my article:
The review of IPCC was not independent!
No one is ever independent because financial conflicts of interest are a big part of the glue that gets the testimony and verdicts desired. CAGW after all is an artificial science interested in normative changes instead of an investigation into current reality and what drives it.
What I worry about is that the UN and its related entities have all said education and changing how students view the world and what their values are is the turf that they can win this war on and this is where the battle is being invisibly fought. http://invisibleserfscollar.com/manipulating-the-inner-psychological-aspects-of-what-makes-each-student-tick-are-key/
How many parents and taxpayers are aware that these altered mindsets are to be locked in at a neural level? That researchers are flying all over the world trying to make sure students habitually respond from emotion instead of reason and facts? Why does the US NSF have an office in China to coordinate its global Science of Learning activities except to avoid scrutiny?
It is political and it is tied to BREXIT as people, economies, societies, and political structures are all treated as systems to be manipulated and planned for. Again the planners are richly compensated for these machinations, which are largely out of sight or misunderstood as physical science initiatives instead of behavioral science plans for us.
By it´s charter; article 3; The purposes of United Nations are
3 To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character …
Ironically, United Nations has become a cultural problem of an international character.
Amazing how all of us view reality through the prism of our own biases. It means we must always be aware of this to get to the truth. The red flag for me right here, prism or no prism, is the “tied to BREXIT”.
The first step is ask who are “they”? Who is it that are manipulating “us”?
The “richly compensated” are the rich; they are already rich. But who are they? Are they the owners of large companies? tracts of land? gold? masterpieces? What are the material possessions they own that make them so powerful?
“They”. These powerful, wealthy, elite individuals who “manipulate and plan” for the other 99.9%, what do they look like? Does the 0.1% live in very grand houses? Would they in fact they own multiple, very grand houses? Wouldn’t everything they own be grand? Planes, boats, islands? You name it? So, how did they and do they make their wealth? What have they invested in?
If we can get a clear picture in our mind of this 0.1% vested interest then we can begin to predict their plans and recognize their manipulations. What is their plan? their greatest self-interested concern? The status quo, business as usual. Their business and financial interests are best served by a steady continued growth of the current model. Why? Because it’s doing quite nicely, thanks.
It’s obvious “they” are the owner the owner and controllers of all the large financial assets: the oil companies, banks, merchants and utilities.
As far as the motives and machinations the 0.1% elite in BREXIT vote, all just speculation. Anyway it’s the 0.00001% you really got to worry about.
How is your prism going?
I agree. Who are ‘they’? Are ‘they’ organized [as the assumption seems to be]?
What do you mean who are ‘they’? Employees of UN entities, the OECD, the just merged with Michael Bloomberg presiding over US Mayors and European Covenant. the members of the local and state WIOA boards that every state in the US must have under federal law that few want to talk about…
Historically economic and political power are joined and there is no mass prosperity. That’s what we are going back to unless we wake up. CAGW is a rationale for the desired public sector control of people, places, and the economy. It’s not a conspiracy a la Orient Express. It is a coordinated effort to collude around political power , which will always happen if it can.
@ TonyMcLeod
OK, I’l bite.
“They” are the corporate, government and academic leaders who sincerely believed (at least at first, until the gravy train arrived) that the world was or would soon become overpopulated, our natural resources were finite and about to run out, that the nationalist (dare I say colonialist) countries (USA, UK) were to blame, and further the only remedy was global governance and the redistribution of wealth to atone for past sins (Al Gore and Joe Biden still freely talk about the coming of a new world order.)
Specifically who were they? For a sample start with the members of the Club of Rome. David Rockefeller hosted the first meeting at his estate near Rome Italy, and participants included Mikhail Gorbechov, Vaclav Havel, George Mitchell and Pierre Tradeau. (per Wikapedia that right wing rag).
Current members include Al Gore, Anne Erlich, the Dali Lahma, Bill Gates and, oh yes, Bill Clinton. I believe George Bush I participated at one time.
In addition to their own manifesto they were informed by a book called “the Population Explosion” by Paul Erlich (where have I heard that name?) and his protege at that time John Holdren. (Doesn’t John now have some sort of “sciency” job?). You better believe that Maurice Strong had a heavy hand in all this. That enough names for a start?
Today “they” are are a mix of the idealists who still believe in the above (despite their dire predictions not coming true) and those who are now in it for the money (Soros, Gore et al).
Still can’t see a connection to Brexit?
“Ironically, United Nations has become a cultural problem of an international character”
May I add; a very, very corrupt United Nations has become a cultural ………”
The Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Norway, 3/2003
‘The Role of Green NGOs in Promoting Climate Compliance’
A 20 + page report on how green NGOs are set up and operate. Activist and Advocacy green NGOs are set up differently but operate with the same objectives
This report names some of the major NGOs involved.
Funding sources are not mentioned in this report. And this is an important factor as it takes money to promote Climate Compliance. A search has to be done to identify funding sources for green NGOs.
http://www.fni.no/pdf/rapp0403.pdf May not download so use internet search.
I can’t believe we are discussing this issue here. Absolutely amazing Robin!
Thanks
Re: Dr Ball’s “Economic” Section
For example:
The INET/ Institute for New Economic Thinking (New York City) and the CIGI, (Waterloo, Ontario, Canada) are closely connected.
Both NGOs engage in the “new green” economic thinking.
CIGI has received a large sum of money mostly federal and also from the Ontario government along with a large amount of private funding.
CIGI, July 23, 2002
‘Canada Pledges $30 million to Governance Centre’
https://www.cigionline.org/articles/2002/07/canada-pledges-30-million-governance-centre
UNEP FI Global Roundtable, Geneva, 7 March 2011
James Balsillie, Founder of CIGI
UN High-level Panel of the UN Secretary-General Global Sustainability member.
http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/events/2011/roundtable/UNEP_FI_GRT_Press_Release_-_James_Balsillie.pdf
Who are they?
For starters just look who took Maurice Strong under his wing when he was just a young lad…
https://www.corbettreport.com/meet-maurice-strong-globalist-oiligarch-environmentalist/
None other than UN founder and globalist David Rockefeller. So I guess basically we are talking about the dynastic banking families of the planet.
Like Obama and the Dalai Lama?
@ Leif Svalgaard
The CIA has pumped millions into the Dalai Lamas coffers over the years. That is a well known fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Tibetan_program
So, the Dalai Lama is an important co-conspirat0r in the plot to reduce the population of the Earth by some 90%, right?
lsvalgaard commented: “…So, the Dalai Lama is an important co-conspirat0r in the plot to reduce the population of the Earth by some 90%, right?…”
Yes, another useful idiot. His guaranteed piece of the action is world peace brought about through wealth redistribution and One World Governance that is promised to embrace his ideology. Even the Pope wants in. Neither of them agree with forcefully reducing world population but are willing to look the other way to facilitate THEIR prime goals. After all doesn’t the end justify the means when world peace is at stake?
The gist of all this is that humanity [as always] is corralled by our ‘leaders’ into following the bandwagon and like sheep we are led along to the slaughter. Now, it may be a bandwagon when seen from the bottom, but it must be a c0nspiracy when seen from the top [somebody must be pushing the wagons]. There seems to be some confusion between climate change and population control. The ‘names’ brought forward are pushing population control, so being skeptical about climate change has no impact on that real issue.
And it is really the CIA that is behind him, so blame to US voters for not removing the clowns telling the CIA what to do.
@ Leif
I have no idea what you are talking about. I’ll let the New York Times do the talking and then you can tell me what the Dalai Lama and CIA are up to OK?
World News Briefs; Dalai Lama Group Says It Got Money From C.I.A.
Published: October 2, 1998
NEW DELHI, Oct. 1— The Dalai Lama’s administration acknowledged today that it received $1.7 million a year in the 1960’s from the Central Intelligence Agency, but denied reports that the Tibetan leader benefited personally from an annual subsidy of $180,000.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/02/world/world-news-briefs-dalai-lama-group-says-it-got-money-from-cia.html
Look for Dahlai Lama in the comments
Holy crap this is getting long. I didn’t see much on the Dalai Lama with or w/o climate change references but I think the point is that when someone is in the pay of someone else there can be a teensy weensy tenddency for the paid party to do or say whatever the payer requests.
Besides, the Dalai Lama babbles frequently and can barely stay awake for more than 2 hours at a time most days so I don’t think he’s going to qualify as a climate expert in any respect.
Worry instead about the coming depression and the budget cuts.
One important connection between the Dalai Llama and the UNO is via the Lucis Trust which which prints and disseminates United Nations (UN) material. Lucis Trust was established in 1922 as Lucifer Trust by Alice Bailey to disseminate the ideas she had got as a medium from her Tibetan “Ascended Master”. There you will find extolled an arcane spirituality for the elites, and only for the elites.
AGWExit, anyone?
UNExit as well.
WorldExit for me, goodbye and thanks for all the fish.
Or, with apologies to Lord Monckton, U-Nix-it
Maybe you should read this.
Rep.Mike Rogers from Alabama,pointed to a wide range of reasons why the U.S. should dump the UN. “Although the United States makes up almost a quarter of the U.N.’s annual budget, the U.N. has attempted a number of actions that attack our rights as U.S. citizens,” he explained. “To name a few, these initiatives include actions like the Law of the Sea Treaty, which would subject our country to internationally-based environmental mandates, costing American businesses more money, or the U.N.’s work to re-establish an international regulation regime on global warming which would heavily target our fossil fuels.”
Indeed, especially in recent years, the UN has become increasingly brazen in attacking the rights of Americans, and even the U.S. Constitution that enshrines those unalienable rights. From attacks on free speech and gun rights to assaults on America’s federalist system of government and states’ rights, the UN and its member regimes have become increasingly aggressive. Now, the UN is working on a series of major schemes that would undermine even the principles upon which the United States was founded, much of it under the guise of promoting pseudo-human rights and pseudo-environmentalism.
Time to get rid of the UN.
One typing error Dr. Ball..Excellent post as always !
“But that is not the problem because the creators of this controlled pseudo-science (K)now that most of the public don’t know.
Brexit could be the start of something big. We need others to pick up the baton against big Government and global Government.
Calexit? Followed by Berkexit?
My fave (real) movement name is Czech Out.
How about this one: University of East Anglia researchers would participate in creating the UN IPCC assessment reports. These reports would then go to the UNFCCC where policy recommendations would be made. In the UK, Defra, who are responsible for creating environmental regulations has “internationalized” its policies, meaning it simply adopts whatever the UNFCCC produces. Now Defra contracts to Tyndall Centre as consultants to work on the actual regulations needed to implement the UNFCCC regulations. This costs the government millions. Tyndall Centre is part of the University of East Anglia and so the investment they made in sending the researchers to the IPCC pays off in spades in consulting contracts when it comes time to implement policies made as a result of the assessment. It’s all one big giant racket.
The problem with this post is that it is Conspiracy Theory, started by Strong and now carried on the a team called ‘they’ as is “they wanted namely that human CO2 production would increase”. Who precisely are ‘they’? It is very hard to continue a Conspiracy for decades.
“they” are ipcc, un,most us democrats,al gore,greenpeece,wwf,mike mann,m strong, the so called green energy companies, most msm in us have ties to white house,most if not all looking for grants,
To name a few. I m sure there are more.
‘They’ should be a list of actual names, actual people, keeping it up for decades. If you cannot make such a list, you have no case.
lsvalgaard – Your demand for names sounds reasonable, but it may be flawed in one particular way-it is conceptually based on a model of behaviour with elements of a militery-style command model where operators at every level of the hierarchy are identified. But there are other models, for example the model used by terrorist organisations such as IS which aim to inspire people to indulge in terrorist acts and don’t care who those people are. In other words, a very small number of people driving the movement can remain anonymous while those they inspire are faceless too. List of names? No chance. The political climate movement seems to be based more on the “inspire” model than the “command” model, so names may be generally unavailable. Unfortunately, it also makes genuine criticism of the movement difficult to distinguish from misguided conspiracy theory.
Various commenters had no difficulties with names: Obama, Dalai Lama (!), Turner, etc. But none of those were co-authors of the IPCC reports, so perhaps people are confusing Climate Change and Population Reduction.
How about the authors of the IPeCaC’s “Policymakers’ Summary”?
Drafting Authors:
Richard B. Alley, Terje Berntsen, Nathaniel L. Bindoff, Zhenlin Chen, Amnat Chidthaisong, Pierre Friedlingstein,
Jonathan M. Gregory, Gabriele C. Hegerl, Martin Heimann, Bruce Hewitson, Brian J. Hoskins, Fortunat Joos, Jean Jouzel,
Vladimir Kattsov, Ulrike Lohmann, Martin Manning, Taroh Matsuno, Mario Molina, Neville Nicholls, Jonathan Overpeck,
Dahe Qin, Graciela Raga, Venkatachalam Ramaswamy, Jiawen Ren, Matilde Rusticucci, Susan Solomon, Richard Somerville,
Thomas F. Stocker, Peter A. Stott, Ronald J. Stouffer, Penny Whetton, Richard A. Wood, David Wratt
Draft Contributing Authors:
J. Arblaster, G. Brasseur, J.H. Christensen, K.L. Denman, D.W. Fahey, P. Forster, E. Jansen, P.D. Jones, R. Knutti,
H. Le Treut, P. Lemke, G. Meehl, P. Mote, D.A. Randall, D.A. Stone, K.E. Trenberth, J. Willebrand, F. Zwiers
Most of the “They” are corporate entities, pursuing financial or ideological agendas, who profit from the AGW industry. I think of Greenpeace, WWF, etc. and various crony opportunists cashing in on government subsidies such as Dave Cameron’s father, big in swindlemills. Government itself, which is the basis of financial support for this industry, is hopelessly conflicted. How many people at the EPA, NOAA or NASA lose their jobs if the AGW theory is no longer believed?
Leiff, it isn’t called a gravy train for nothing. The concern generated by a small number of central-control-freaks with an agenda decades ago, resulted in the establishment of huge taxpayer-funded grant schemes for AGW research. This grant funding is the gravy train, & as a path to a secure career in academia, it has tempted many university graduates to jump aboard. Once on-board, they produce research papers supporting the AGW hypothesis, reviewed for publication by others also riding the gravy train. Plus, they unfailingly call for more research on this “problem”, which leads to more successful grant applications for themselves & their associates.
The corruption of an ideal involved in this process is very subtle, & most of the gravy-trainers probably think they really are saving the planet from destruction. This happens because they are taught from school that CO2 is a disaster in the making, & being young & naive students, they believe that what they are being told is true. They cannot contemplate that someone, somewhere, has deliberately misinterpreted, or misrepresented, an idea to further their own political ends, & because of this, it is a small step to doing the same thing themselves, because they believe they are fighting, almost alone, against huge & powerful enemies bent on raping & pillaging the planet’s resources for their own profit.
The term “useful idiots” is about the only way to describe the large number of people presently involved in spreading the AGW scare.
The term “useful idiots” is about the only way to describe the large number of people presently involved in spreading the AGW scare.
It describes the large number of people who voted the clowns into office and are now afraid to speak up.
CIGI, Waterloo, Ontario, Nov.29, 2015
‘Remembering Maurice Strong on the Eve of COP 21’
“He had not been well for the past few months, but he still followed the preparations for the meeting with keen interest, meeting only last week with Klaus Topfer, one of his successors as Executive Director of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP)”.
Written by David Runnalls a close and long time associate of Maurice Strong.
https://www.cigionline.org/blogs/global-roll-of-law/remembering-maurice-strong-eve-of-cop-21
Spot on correct.
The truth is that the funding was generated to study cAGW because it was a potential threat.
And funding seeks funding. Institutions grow as they are fed like everything else.
There was no global conspiracy manufactured by a “Strong”-man. Whether for Spectre or anyone else.
Strawman argument, and simplistic reasoning. Try harder.
You fail again to bring anything concrete to the table. Produce the list of ‘they’.
You fail to bring anything but your strawman argument to the table, so have added zero, and have no “case”.
Repeating your nonsense does you no favor. Produce the list of actual people or slink away.
“A conspiracy is unnecessary when a carrot will suffice.”
WUWTer from five+ years ago.
Although most of the coordinated action comes about spontaneously, through shared mindsets and immersion in echo chambers, and green propaganda outlets.
lsvalgaard – “Repeating your nonsense does you no favor. Produce the list of actual people or slink away.”
The problem is that it is an organic conspiracy, defined not by its supporters, but by the lack of opposition. No one in the UN, Government or Scientific realm benefits from opposition to the AGW meme. Even Scientists who disagree benefit from the funding the field gets and the UN and Government certainly benefit for solving a non existent problem.
The only opposition is from people not in the scientific community, or Government or UN. Basically the opposition is from taxpayers who have to pay the bill, is that a conspiracy?
Conspiracy? But a huge “food-chain” sure has developed.
“It is very hard to continue a Conspiracy for decades.”
Are you speaking from personal experience, sir?
Are there not drug cartels that persist for decades? Human trafficking, illicit arms sales/distribution networks, etc.? It seems to me that once the “infrastructure” of conspiratorial profit making is in place, it can be very hare to discontinue the “conspiracy”.
The world is full of conspiracies of self interest. Capitalism is one of them, wherein the participants understand that some aspects of it might be unfair, but overall it provides the greatest good for the most people. Capitalists minimize the negative aspects of the system while Socialists exaggerate them.
Is it really very difficult to see that UN bureaucrats, funded environmental scientists, leftist politicians, environmentalists and third world wannabes might find a happy home within a movement aimed at the heart of Western prosperity? It is sufficiently obvious to be self evident- and it is happening!
Ok, now we’re getting somewhere. You’ve added mindless drivel to your strawman argument. Good job!
good you liked it. It seems to hit your level just fine.
I guess a moron like you doesn’t comprehend sarcasm. What a shame.
In general, if you have something to say, say it clearly and definitely. Don’t assume anything.
Fine. Morons such as yourself can’t comprehend sarcasm and continually repeat strawman arguments.
Looks very much like a repeat of one of your earlier comments…
You’re the one repeating himself. You are like a mindless parrot. Why don’t you skulk away. Come back when you have something with any semblance of logic or reasoning.
You keep the repeats. Not even innovative.
You have nothing to offer but your mindless strawman argument, which you just keep repeating in robot fashion.
Note, how all your posts are alike.
Now, I’ll take you out of the rot you are in.
You seem to be content to be manipulated by nameless conspirat0rs, without showing any interest in finding out who they are. So, the result is predictable and you just get what is coming to you.
Here ya go Isvalgaard, as far as I can tell the most powerful, dangerous groups on the planets – “they” are: “UN bureaucrats, funded environmental scientists, leftist politicians, environmentalists and third world wannabes”, oh and the Dalai Lama.
What hope would multi-billionaire oligarchs who have whole media networks in their stable have against these formidable players. Yeah I know the conspiracy theorist are getting pretty crazy. It goes to show the kind of warped logic goes into explaining away the clear evidence of AGW.
“They”, who have the most money, who have the most to lose by any change to their business model are obviously most likely to be doing the conspiring and manipulating but that just doesn’t fit the narrative.
Leif – you are far to bright to have us believe you don’t grasp Tim’s points (which are not new, just laid out in a characteristically neat sequence with characteristic clarity). I think you are being deliberately obtuse.
There are no conspirators huddled in the shadows. It’s all been done in the open.
To try and paraphrase some of what Tim said: Strong’s role seems to me more like that of Paul of Tarsus, latching on to ideas that he himself did not invent. seeing that they gave him a weapon to advance his own radical-green beliefs, building a bit of a fuzzy organization around them, and sitting back while those ideas made their way in the big wide world.
Involving the UN was Strong’s best move. Where else could he find an organization with respectability, almost unlimited financial resources and absolutely no accountability, populated by political hacks with no agenda other than self-advancement?
Those ideas appealed to radical environmentalists looking for a new scare story, to opportunistic scientists, to ambitious civil servants and to politicians looking for ideas to make them appear decisive and important. And they spread. And spread.
It’s not a conspiracy. It’s an infection. It started out locally and is now a global epidemic. In fact, you could call it a VIRUS OF THE MIND…………..
Trying this reply for the third time. Something not working right.
Leif – you are far to bright to have us believe you don’t grasp Tim’s points (which are not new, just laid out in a characteristically neat sequence with characteristic clarity). I think you are being deliberately obtuse.
There are no conspirators huddled in the shadows. It’s all been done in the open.
To try and paraphrase some of what Tim said: Strong’s role seems to me more like that of Paul of Tarsus, latching on to ideas that he himself did not invent. seeing that they gave him a weapon to advance his own radical-green beliefs, building a bit of a fuzzy organization around them, and sitting back while those ideas made their way in the big wide world.
Involving the UN was Strong’s best move. Where else could he find an organization with respectability, almost unlimited financial resources and absolutely no accountability, populated by political hacks with no agenda other than self-advancement?
Those ideas appealed to radical environmentalists looking for a new scare story, to opportunistic scientists, to ambitious civil servants and to politicians looking for ideas to make them appear decisive and important. And they spread. And spread.
It’s not a conspiracy. It’s an infection. It started out locally and is now a global epidemic. In fact, you could call it a VIRUS OF THE MIND…………..
Exactly. It is all being done in the open. Against little opposition.
Plenty of names have been named. These forces have been rubbing elbows and hob-nobbing together for nigh on 100 years.
The Rockefellers merely picked up the population control mantel that began with serious steam once Darwin gave Galton the raw material for turning classism into the “science” of eugenics.
There are very distinct, clear lines from Galton to Margaret Sanger, who emphasized the supposed misery of the lower classes and not so much the environmental destruction angle.
This Eugenic stream fell out of favor when Hilter made it unpopular – the challenge since then has been to control the entire population through “the environment.”
The U.N. did continue on with population control activities of epic proportion, following the pioneering population control individuals and groups who had been active on this topic strongly, beginning in the 1920s, in India and Japan and other locales. Anyone who really wants to have names of individuals and organizations can google “Margaret Sanger” and “Japan” as an example.
From there, it builds directly to Planned Parenthood International, and the United Nations Population Fund, Rockefellers, Ford Foundation, etc.
It truly has all been done in the open. These organizations have largely been at the “NGO” level – Rockefeller’s strategy of tying “foreign aid” to population control targets was U.S. governmental, though.
This is paraded around onyl in certain circles, and not broadcast as widely as “the environment,” but it is all there. I have dozens of books in my personal library that provide the names and groups in their historical successions.
And what do you do about it? If anything…
Leaf, every COP is a meeting of the conspirators, every Greenpeace meeting, every meeting of the World Wildlife Fund. Of course they don’t consider themselves a conspiracy, only the saviors of the planet. It’s just a matter of semantics. This is a big part of their blindness. They can’t see obvious things right in front of their faces while they can see absolute causation in every tenuous correlation of warmth and CO2. This is the real perniciousness of “post-normal science.” Politics drives the science, the science doesn’t drive the politics. Weak-ass correlations, bogus and unproven statistical tests and uncertainty destroy political certainty. That’s why this whole movement, this conspiracy, will ultimately fail. But in the meantime, school children are being brainwashed in leftist public schools, so that this power block can continue into the future.
The plural for a meeting of green groups is a “conspiracy” just look it up , trust me it’s there somewhere !
One does not have to have a smoke filled room with a few dark and dangerous men around a table to have a conspiracy. Often there is a conspiracy of interests and that leads to group think. The real conspiracy was in the original set up of the edifice of lies.
As an example, how did we get to the point where the summery (Summary for Policymakers) can be written before the report itself is done? The science follows the conclusion? That took some people agreeing on
Fr@udconcocting an outcome and killing the science.I have been watching this mess since the early 80s when it became apparent that a con-game was afoot. It did not take a master detective (Mr. Holmes, please call your office) to see that those who wanted a world government were behind it.
Dr. Ball is calling it just as it happened.
@Isvalgaard – see my post below if you want just a small sample of familiar names. No tin foil hats required.
I think it is a very big mistake to cloak this under the pejorative term of “Conspiracy Theory”. That implies some “below the surface” nexus of secret organizations. Those who subscribe to the ideology that we are running out of resources; we will soon be over populated; it is the fault of “nationalism” and that the solution is global governance and redistribution among nations to atone for past sins, are far from hiding their beliefs both as individuals (Cameron, Obama, Trudeau Sr/Jr et al) or in the government and NGO organizations they run or influence (Soros, Gore et al). And I haven’t even started on the mix of sophomoric “pie in the sky” and/or “gravy train” academics. Of course multinational corporations also have a huge stake.
How can this continue for decades? I’m with you there. Why we haven’t run the UN, EU, The Club of Rome (whose current members include Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, the Dali Lahma, the Rockefellers et al), the US Progressives and most of the main stream media out of town long ago?
Now, if you are really into “Conspiracy Theory” I’d suggest you research Margaret Meade and HER her influence on this topic.
This is of course straight out of the CIA playbook* and I quote:
“In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
…(c) Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States.” *
The CIA’s clandestine services unit created the arguments for attacking conspiracy theories as unreliable in the 1960s as part of its psychological warfare operations. The evidence for this is a matter of public record disclosed in documents released under FOIA in 1976.
Great minds do think alike as I’ve noticed these ‘ploys’ in your comments on this post:
“Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. “ (CIA Document #1035-960 4/1/67)
*This is actually a poor or at least difficult argument to sustain as there are innumerable examples of documented conspiracies that remained concealed for decades. Arch propagandist and Obama czar -“Infiltrate all conspiracy theorists” – Cass Sunstein, even listed a few!
Absolutely brilliant summation of the process SWB.
I can’t believe that I’m actually reading what I’m reading here today.
Thank you.
It isn’t conspiracy theory. It’s like-minded people committed to a cause, and willing to use any means available, and now it’s been thirty years of subterfuge.
It’s really quite a simple, natural and common phenomenon, not hard to understand at all.
It isn’t c0nspiracy theory. It’s like-minded people committed to a cause, and willing to use any means available
Isn’t that the definition of C0nspiracy?
Calling a natural social phenomenon a ‘Conspiracy Theory’ is an effort to discredit the effect of it, by likening it to the tin-foil hat paranoia crowd.
Actual conspiracies go on all the time, all over the place. Sometimes it happens for deliberate criminal purpose, sometimes it happens because of cause-minded mentality that is willing to break the rules… even to the point of criminality. And its very easy to stretch out a cause over twenty or thirty years – even indefinitely.
Hell, any old social trend or paranoia can blow up into a destructive, even organized movement. Were witch-burnings ‘conspiracies’? That was in the name of God. Or how about Y2K panic? That was about saving the world too. Or Eugenics – that one was about saving the human race.
It starts with belief, which leads to bias – and activists, alarmists, and politicians are nothing if not biased. Is it ‘Conspiracy Theory’ to state that obvious qualifier? And when it comes to AGW, these people think they’re saving the world. Isn’t that motivation enough?
‘By any means necessary’ is a catch phrase with implications behind it that you have to be deliberately obtuse to avoid seeing.
[snip multiple policy violations -mod]
Follow the money.
There is always money involved.
There is a huge, relatively new, highly government subsidized, “green” industry now.
“They” are leftists who use the threat of a (climate) crisis to seize more power for the central government, and more subsidies / loans from the government for their green industry investments.
In the US, a non-profit environment group will sue the EPA, and the EPA will settle the case in a way that essentially creates a new law, without going through Congress.
There are no guns, no force, and no violence — just clever, peaceful ways that leftists in the government, both elected officials and bureaucrats, grab more power for the central government, by going through the courts.
Climate Alarmists are riding a tiger.
Brilliant and cogent analysis and summation by a heroic person who never negotiated a compromise and always, if not in so few words, said FoF.
Dr Tim should be commemorated on a gold coin – while he’s living- so he gets the recognition he has earned to intransigent devotion to truth.
I’ll second that.
the usa should exit the un
it’s a bureaucracy nightmare
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2794991
The UN should exit the U.S., by force if necessary. Let them go to Brussels.
…to dangerous
Burkina Faso
Keep UN in US. We have better laws.
While almost all a strong story, one weak point:
Each year the amount of human produced CO2 increases, and while it may be true, the amount is controlled by the IPCC.
The IPCC only made the guidelines for the inventories, to be sure that every country uses the same calculations for CO2 emissions from the different fules, but the data are based on fossil fuel sales of each individual country, where some countries are more accurate than others (China…).
Sales in general are based on taxes, so may be somewhat underestimated due to the human nature to avoid taxes by under-the-counter sales, but in general rather accurate and besides the economical crisis in some years steady increasing…
You misspelled fools as “fules.” 🙂
Rules?
The Alarmists are in a race with Mother Nature to secure their complete control of the reins of the global economy before the natural cycle shifts to cold for 70 years. The Alarmists are tough, and many in number, but even they can’t withstand the ridicule of many years during the next cold cycle that is starting now..
Interesting post. it’s politics all the way down!
Even the very post is just politics.
I think global warming, and the green movement in general, is not a conspiracy per se, but a mass movement. Like the fascist and socialist movements of the 19th and 20th Centuries, there are leaders, but it is quasi-religious, with a shared creed and belief system. The EPA tried to find an origin for the environmental lmovement in a study in the early 1970’s and failed to find any one cause.
I use “mass movement” in the same sense that Eric Hoffer did in “The True Believer”. What looks like a conspiracy and acts like a conspiracy is more a social virus.
Do you not comprehende this whole charade is politics?
The whole post is politics too. But politics is made by people. Who specifically are ‘they’? how many are ‘they’? produce a list [with evidence].
Leif – you are far to bright to have us believe you don’t grasp Tim’s points (which are not new, just laid out in a characteristically neat sequence with characteristic clarity). I think you are being deliberately obtuse.
There are no conspirators huddled in the shadows. It’s all been done in the open.
To try and paraphrase some of what Tim said: Strong’s role seems to me more like that of Paul of Tarsus, latching on to ideas that he himself did not invent. seeing that they gave him a weapon to advance his own radical-green beliefs, building a bit of a fuzzy organization around them, and sitting back while those ideas made their way in the big wide world.
Involving the UN was Strong’s best move. Where else could he find an organization with respectability, almost unlimited financial resources and absolutely no accountability, populated by political hacks with no agenda other than self-advancement?
Those ideas appealed to radical environmentalists looking for a new scare story, to opportunistic scientists, to ambitious civil servants and to politicians looking for ideas to make them appear decisive and important. And they spread. And spread.
It’s not a conspiracy. It’s an infection. It started out locally and is now a global epidemic. In fact, you could call it a VIRUS OF THE MIND…………..
right. mr svalgaard – and i suppose john wayne gacey was just another clown?
there are heroes and villains in this story – they are not not not the same.
no, mr svalgaard, the distinguishing characteristic of the global warming fraud is that it is the most ambitious fraud ever attempted in human history.this kind of global wholesale rapacious predation is unprecedented and requires victims on a scale unsurpassed.
dr tim’s article is explaining and exposing the workings of that.
dr tim contributes to the defense of human beings’ rights and liberties from this monstrous exercise of deception.
one wonders what purpose you have in conflating the truths presented by dr tim with the lies presented by the globalists pursuing agenda 21
what is it you wish to blind yourself to? what is it that you don’t dare to face?
I wouldn’t bother John. Leif is intent on channeling Nick Stokes.
Leif, real nuanced answers were given to your challenges, and you have ignored them. Please consider to read “Blue Planet In green Shackles”
How can you be surprised that human nature is susceptible to the well known social forces of monetary corruption, confirmation bias, peer pressure, noble cause corruption, greed, and the siren call of power over others, and how can you not expect that trillions of dollars invested in , as you say, “JUST POLITICS” would not effectively put all these universal human failings into action, including affecting science with “post modern science”?
Actually the post is not politics, as there is in this post ZERO demand for social conformity, monetary confiscation to the tune of ONE PENNY, LET ALONE trillions of dollars, fundamental change in National powers submitting to global authority, (The EU writ large) or any new laws by even one, let alone by the thousands controlling tea kettles, vacuums and every minor products, not to mention the entire global energy production.
I must say your demanding work as a scientist may have isolated you to the point of naivety regarding the political world.
Leif real nuanced answers with organizations and names were given to your challenges, and you have ignored them. Please consider to read “Blue Planet In green Shackles”
How can you be surprised that human nature is susceptible to the well known social forces of monetary corruption, confirmation bias, peer pressure, noble cause corruption, greed, and the siren call of power over others, and how can you not expect that trillions of dollars invested in , as you say, “JUST POLITICS” would not effectively put all these universal human failings into action, including affecting science with “post modern science”?
Actually the post is not politics, as there is in this post ZERO demand for social conformity, monetary confiscation to the tune of ONE PENNY, LET ALONE trillions of dollars, fundamental change in National powers submitting to global authority, (The EU writ large) or any new laws by even one, let alone by the thousands controlling tea kettles, vacuums and every minor products, not to mention the entire global energy production.
I must say your demanding work as a scientist may have isolated you to the point of naivety regarding the political world.
Again with the strawman? You are like a broken record.
lsvalgaard has draped itself with importance but lost the point. Ironic that a literalist can’t understand that all theories begin by connecting obvious dots…
What a great article. I guess my next question would be, now how do we expose the direct media connections (I’m talking executive names)?!?!
It’s amazing to me Republicans have always been so reactionary and not on the offense- planning out “What will be there next move?” And then speak it before it happens. The working papers and white papers are easy to find. I
think the most maligned person in the United States is Senator James Inoffe from Oklahoma.
Thank you so much for this education!
Bob Cox: this is where the term “uniparty” comes from.
The Republicans right now are fighting Donald Trump harder than they EVER fought Obama.
Why? Trump is not in on the scam. He sees it and intends to end it. The ritual battles of “republicans” and “democrats” will suffer.
Many rank and file plain ol’ citizens on both the left and the right know this. It has gotten so bad it is unavoidable this election season. This is why Bernie Sanders has done so well, and why Trump has done so well.
McConnel, Ryan, et al. will never go after any of these guys. Sadly, guys like Gowdy never will, either. Certainly no dem will.
CO2? 4%?
What am I missing?
4% of greenhouses gasses, was the assertion.
A couple of decimal places?
“The 4% of greenhouse gasses”
I read that as 96% H2O, 4% CO2, 0.0%CH4, etc.
Could have been more clear. Sound about right, everybody?
400 parts per million is 0.04% by my calculation .
and to make the anthropogenic CO2 alarmist theory even worse – of the 400PPM only 26ppm are man made – ( from memory so feel free to correct me here ) .
Then as CO2 only has a limited life span before getting absorbed ( by algae/ plants etc ) it’s ven less of a problem .
So – even though water vapour which is a demonstrably more powerfull GHG and plentiful we are told this doesn’t effect temperatures ( well except as a forcing ) only the miniscule trace element CO2 is doing that .
BUT we can’t prove it BUT we have “modelled ” it and even the models don’t give CO2 much power it’s just that when you get warming from CO2 the other forcings kick in giving us 1.5 -4.5 deg per century .
I think I’ve got that right .
Otherwise known as the complete and utter farcical fraud of CAGW .
-Kiwibok
400ppm is for the entire atmosphere. The stated numbers are for ghg’s only. Personally, I have my doubts about H2O as it is probably the most under recognized variable of the mysterious factor know ( unknown to the IPCC) as negative feedback.
Kiwibok,
Man-made CO2 is about 9% of all CO2 current in the atmosphere, but it is responsible for 90% of the CO2 increase in the past 160 years. 10% is from warming oceans. The rest of the human CO2 (twice the increase in the atmosphere) is exchanged with natural CO2, mainly from the (deep) oceans. Exchange doesn’t change quantities, only swaps CO2 from different origin.
The point of the IPCC is that water vapor is quite constant for a fixed temperature, while CO2 is increasing and absorbs IR in bands where water is not active. According to the IPCC, water vapor works as (overestimated) positive feedback (more CO2 – warmer – more water vapor), but they underestimate the role of clouds as negative feedback (more CO2 – warmer – more clouds)…
Kiwibok, I suggest that you take what FerdiEgb stated in his “June 27, 2016 at 2:21 am” posting …… with a grain of salt.
In essence, delusional “rants” such as his posting was, …. was not based in or on any factual science or actual physical evidence ……. but is solely reliant upon associations, correlations, estimations, guesstimations and/or “fuzzy” math calculations using highly questionable “quantity numbers” that are reported by government agencies.
Be careful, very careful, what others try to convince you to believe, ……… otherwise you will soon be “taking things back” ……. that you never took in the first place.
Kiwibok,
Samuel’s rant is without any fact, so let’s look at real facts:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html
FerdiEgb said:
The following was excerpted from FerdiEgb cited ‘real facts’ , that were derived via associations, correlations, estimations, guesstimations and/or “fuzzy” math calculations of questionable quantities, to wit:
And I addressed FerdiEgb’s mass balance thingy several months ago via this WUWT posted commentary …. which Ferdinand simply ignored the context of via his normal weasel worded rhetoric and conjured up “junk science” facts, to wit:
Sam C posted:
Ferdinand, to prove that your claimed facts are the real facts ….. you first have to DISPROVE the biology of planet earth, ……. as well as the natural Law of Refrigerated Biomass Preservation.
Dead biomass does not rot or emit/outgas CO2 if it is being refrigerated, either by humans or Mother Nature.
Samuel,
If you don’t accept any real life measurement and only stick to your own ideas, then no discussion is possible.
CO2 emissions from decaying vegetation from under a snow deck in Alaska were measured with air temperatures down to -20°C, but you simply don’t accept that evidence…
And as the seasonal changes in the SH are far less (+/- 1 ppmv) than in the NH (+/- 8 ppmv at Barrow, +/- 4 ppmv at Mauna Loa), the SH oceans hardly can influence the NH seasonal CO2 changes, it is more the opposite…
Ferdinand, if you ever get around to measuring/recording any “real life measurement” then you be sure to let me and the rest of the world know about it.
And Ferdinand keeps repeating the following silly arsed statement which he apparently believes is one of those “real life measurement”.
So Ferdinand, you are actually claiming that …… one (1) “real life measurement” of the CO2 in the air underneath one (1) snow deck that was attached to one (1) heated living quarters (house or lodge) somewhere in southern Alaska when the per se outside near surface air temperature surrounding said “heated living quarters” was measured to be -20°C (-4°F) ……. is proof positive that extremely rapid “wintertime” rotting and decaying of dead biomass is occurring in all the frozen ground and underneath all snow and ice covered areas of the Northern Hemisphere and the outgassing of CO2 from said is therefore the cause of the “wintertime” increase in atmospheric CO2 ppm as measured at Mauna Loa.
Ferdinand, tis no wonder the younger generations are non-thinking, non-reasoning, “science illiterates” …. given the fact that you are not the only one of “your kind” that are the teachers and mentors of the “minds” of those adolescent children and teenagers.
And ps, Ferdi, …. one wintertime early morning, when I was living in Upstate NY, the outside near surface air temperature was -37°F …. with about 3 feet of snow on the ground ……… and the CO2 underneath my barn roof was probably 30,000 ppm to 50,000 ppm simply because my 37 beef cows were all exhaling CO2 into the air of that confined space.
Samuel,
A few more measurements done than in your barn:
http://www.geobotany.org/library/pubs/FahnestockJT1998_jgr_103_29023.pdf
Demexit
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation correlates the temperature of an ideal black body and the energy/power flux, W/m^2, radiating from its surface. (power is energy over time) 1) This requires a “body” and 2) a “surface.” For instances, a block of metal, a brick wall, a sheet of aluminum, a body of water, a sheet of glass, etc. How a volume of gas, i.e. the atmosphere, constitutes a “body” or has a “surface” eludes me so if any of you can ‘splain jump right in. Is it the “surface” of an individual molecule or collection of molecules? BTW the atmosphere is 99.95% N2, O2 and Argon and beyond 50 km or so even those molecules are really scarce and far apart. 99.95% of those LWIR photons pass right through.
Here is the S-B equation: Q = σ * ε * A * T^4.
σ = 5.67 × 10−8 W/m2-K4.
ε = emissivity = decimal fraction. Ideal black bodies do not exist in the real world. When energy hits an object it can be reflected, transmitted, and/or absorbed. The absorbed energy raises the temperature of the BB according to its specific heat capacity and it radiates at that temperature until it reaches thermal equilibrium with the surroundings. The more energy that is reflected or transmitted the less there is to absorb and the less to radiate. The ratio of the actual radiation/observed temperature to the ideal BB radiation/temperature is called the emissivity. For instances, a brick wall does not reflect or transmit but absorbs most of the incident radiation and has a high emissivity, shiny metal that reflects most of the energy has a low emissivity, glass that transmits most energy has a low emissivity. Because gases have low densities and transmit much of the energy they have low emissivity.
A = surface area, m^2. Implies a “surface.”
K = absolute temperature, Kelvins. 0 C = 273 K.
The 240 W/m^2 LWIR leaving the ToA at 100 km has a S-B BB temperature of 255 K. The ACS tool kit et. al. say this is the predicted temperature of the earth without an atmosphere. Since the 240 W/m^2 is the net after the reflection of the atmosphere’s albedo and occurs at the ToA it’s pretty obvious that is not so. Without an atmosphere the 340 W/m^2 would travel straight to the surface and emit back into space. No clouds, no oceans, no water vapor, no N2, O2, Ar, or CO2. There would be an albedo, but for a round rock, not much.
Popular wisdom says the temperature of the surface is 15 C, 288 K. IPCC AR5 Annex III Glossary defines the surface as 1.5 m above land. Sea surface is a whole ‘nother thang. Supposedly this means that the “observed” “surface” temperature is mysteriously 33 C higher than the predicted 255 K w/o atmosphere (which it isn’t) and the explanation offered is the greenhouse effect.
So this false conclusion that the surface “surface” is 33 C higher than ToA predicted leads to a GHE theory that is totally bogus. The 333 W/m^2 GHG loop offered as explanation violates all three thermo laws and actually doesn’t accomplish anything, doesn’t alter the net ToA balance, produces zero net heating.
Great article Dr. Ball. There is also another book out there you wrote the intro to and that is Green Gospel by Sheila Zilinsky. Worth checking out and gives the real agenday behind environmentalism. How come you are never on CBC, especially the Bob McDonald program Quirks n Quarks? Bob still thinks the arctic ice is melting. Hint: Bob, it’s called summer. Of course in B.C. we have Christy Clark running for re-election next year and she said the “carbon tax” will be reviewed after it. Are you ready for a 10 cent a litre increase over the next few years. That is what is being seriously proposed after.
It is high time we get the U.S out of the U.N. and get the U.N. out of the U.S. Ideally, the U.N. should be located in Brussels, the undisputed stupidity capital of the world. .
You re right chris, and I think they will have plenty of empty offices soon
@ John, 1:45 pm ! plus many (I am glad I am not the owner of the soon to be empty offices).
agenda21 should be exit21! Agenda21 is more dangerous to the normal person than AGW and its BS.
These guys are really organised. Agenda 21 is rife in my city and most others in my country.
See my blog which outlines what is happening in my city and our education system. Almost none of this is official, most of it infiltrated in un-noticed. It works so well that many people ask the government to tax more for Agenda 21 projects and when the government illegally took 100s of hectares of suburbs to “protect” the banks of the waterways few people complained.
(The High Court of NZ found the government had acted illegally buteven this was scantily reported and even those were very diluted.)
One cannot even get the truth through comments published on online media. Criticise the actions factually will basically mean you will be spammed.
I commented using verifiable facts on the article below but only a few ever got through.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/80617955/climate-change-deniers-should-be-dropped-from-panel-group-says
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
Cheers
Roger
Brexit may just be the beginning of change that gives the peoples of other counties courage to break free of financial and political bondage of the Kommissionars of the EU (soon to be the new GDR) and UN.
lsvalgaard commented: “…‘They’ should be a list of actual names, actual people, keeping it up for decades. If you cannot make such a list, you have no case….”
Wrong. “They” are ideologists comprised of people……organizations, groups, and teams. Individuals can lead these entities but don’t have the means to pursue CAGW on a world basis alone. Part of the subversion is to put the ideology above mere people so leaders are unimportant except to identify sources. “They” are and ideology.
Multiple ideologies! Socialist, Anarchist, Environmentalist plus political an financial self interest.
Politics are driven by people. If you cannot name the drivers, you have no case.
This is infantile. We can start a list with any name from Obama to Gore to Clinton to Strong. It’s not names that are the problem, it’s fatally flawed and hypocritical ideology that seeks to destroy the Western cultural paradigm in favour of wishful thinking.
If you prefer to accept that the world is filled with good and bad influences that are entirely random and beyond your control then you are in the wrong forum. Dr. Ball’s essay points to a political structure that serves purposes other than science. In fact, it has successfully put science in harness. In that respect, it perverts that science in a manner reminiscent of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. It is demonstrative of an utterly cynical mindset. That you appear to be wilfully obtuse in this regard indicates a disturbing degree of cynicism on your part.
There’s an old saying. If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem! So you can decide for yourself if a list of names is required and if yours should be on it!
Here’s a start:
Obama
Al Gore
M Strong
G Soros
I could name more, but it’d be a wasted effort as Leif listens to no-one but himself once he’s stood on his soapbox
So, you are admitting that those people are manipulating you. I wonder if Tim Ball has the guts to name those people as well.
My reply here was censored. I thought unfairly. I will leave Isn’tvalgaard to his obtuse persistence.
Just wondering what, if any offense our moderator found with my missing post?
[none – posts sometimes just get flagged automatically by the system, sometimes 3 or more links can give it a spam signature, in your case there were some trigger words that set the system to hold it for inspection -mod]
Sure AGW is politics. So was Lysenkoism. Identical evils. It took more than Lysenko to keep the scam going. It took institutions and the state to enforce the doctrine, from which many, including ideologues who didn’t give a darn about science, prospered.
They’re not manipulating me on a personal level, but they are manipulating financial and political systems which impacts on me, you, and pretty much anyone else. That’s what annoys me.
David Smith,
Don’t forget the Rockefellers. The Rockefeller Bros actually index their supports at http://www.rbf.org/
Search for an organisation under “grants Information” . Can search for subject, name and classifiation etc.
Quite shocking how the biggest oil in the world funds “sustainability”.
Remember these guys until recently owned ExxonMobil and most certainly have many other oil/fossil fuel investments.
Of course in my opinion they are going into “renewables” where thtere is money to be made farming governments, while all their strategic funding influences governments and influential organisations etc.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
Hats off to Dr. Ball. Proud to be a fellow Canadian! I believe your service to science and society will eventually be recognized and may very well play an important role in rescuing science from the clutches of the politicians. I dub thee, ” Sir Dudley Do right”! This is our hour of need!
Climate Response Advocacy is perhaps the only field that doesn’t generate a minority report.
The basic science was already established in 1977 and had been for about 150 years. The implications of that science had been established for a good 20 years. Surely any argument that the political framework preceded the science should, I don’t know, show that it actually preceded the science. Just a thought.
So it was established back when the world was cooling! Must have caught on like wildfrost. You’re right, however. The conspirators were already in place. Whipped and bedraggled Socialists and desperate, deluded environmentalists looking for any tool to attack the West, wealth, industry and what they perceive as ” the establishment “!
We can’t exaggerate their stupidity or their cunning. They are a combination of the well meaning but brainless who really think they’re doing good and the frustrated Socialists who hold so much hate for wealth that they work and connive for a political structure that has failed and brought misery to millions since its invention by a useless, indolent loser.
Liberalism begins in a person’s youth, when they transition from the easy make-believe fluidity between reality and fantasy into the hard truths of being an adult in the real world. When a person gives themselves permission to continue to live in a world of their own making, where reality itself is continually malleable and plastic, that person considers the outside world a place he may be forced to conform with, but that is not where he lives. He lives in a world of his own truth, which in essence is a lie.
When liberals like the lies that others tell themselves, they share a common “narrative”, which is itself a little capsule of liberalism. They pass it around, as it “resonates” with each person.
As a liberal builds upon these narratives, they adopt them internally and they become part of how the liberal defines himself. When you disagree or even worse, when you disprove one of these narratives, you have rejected a part of their self-identity, of who they are. So, of course, you must be a H8R, and your proof is just H8ful language.
Too true.
Additionally: Liberals are invariably people who lack any liberality of thought and just lock themselves to one idea. Anyone else who believes otherwise are obvioulsy just d3ni3r scum
The same can be said for far-right ideology. Our problem today is that there seems to be no middle ground where compromise is possible.
The UN has for a long, long time been seeking a way to extract large amounts of cash from rich, Western countries to poor countries who are too corrupt to have functioning economies of their own. It was the UN who initially began funding climate research, but people who claim to be skeptical of money only question motives when corporations are involved. When that paragon of virtue, the UN, is involved, suddenly people are angels without an agenda.
So, according to David Smith, Obama is one of those people who are seeking to extract large amounts of cash to give to poor countries. Which countries specifically?
Obamma administration gave 500million to UN for climate change fund. Fact
And where did that money go? Which wretched poor people got the dough?
lsvalgaard commented: “…And where did that money go? Which wretched poor people got the dough?…”
Nobody knows and they (UN) aren’t telling because they don’t have to. They are accountable to no one. The UN does nothing that couldn’t be done more effectively by the member countries. It’s a political organization layered on top of every world national government. The UN has strayed so far from its’ original intent (like the EU) it’s amazing we allow it to continue. How does the IPCC keep peace in the world?
Read the Paris “Treaty” which of course can’t be a treaty …..
£35 billion in 2014.
http://mondoweiss.net/2015/11/spends-billion-foreign/
Check it out: $3.1 billion to Israel? Don’t try to tell me that’s not donated to influence politics in the Middle East.
Obama gave billions (zero of which was his own) to disparate “sustainable” energy companies, all of whom by coincidence gave large contributions to his political action democrats. Then they all went broke after receiving hundreds of millions to several billion dollars, and the O admin has refused to investigate where taxpayer money went. Gore got wealthy from the CAGW “science”
Good God, man.
Go trace the money we have thrown at Haiti.
Was that money for
1) help them with climate change?
2) help them to get rid of 90% of the population?
If not, you are not being on topic.
Ya’ll need to realize that it makes you look quite silly and/or foolish when ya’ll respond to
lsvalgaard’s ignorant, asinine and/or disingenuously stated “questions” because, …… like an immature child or a learning disable individual, ….. lsvalgaard has another ten (10) questions in readiness to be asking you for every “answer” that you respond with.
lsvalgaard needs to prove his credibility ….. by lying to us in declaring the “source” of his/her income($), ….. formal educational Degree status ….. and/or who he/she is totally dependent upon for his/her food, clothing, housing and payment of medical services rendered.
Samuel,
Please, before accusing someone with whom you don’t agree, do some effort to look at the Internet and search his name. Leif works in our country in the KMI (Royal Metereological Institute) specifically on solar science and was involved in the reworking of the sunspot data from the past, where several systematic errors were solved. That is now accepted in near the whole solar science world. See:
http://www.leif.org/research/
for his impressive research.
Have a look at his stance about Climate Change, which is quite reasonable:
http://www.leif.org/research/Climate-Change-My-View.pdf
If you don’t accept his knowledge, that is up to you, but don’t accuse someone whithout any knowledge of what his credentials are…
lsvalgaard
June 26, 2016 at 2:43 pm
Politics are driven by people. If you cannot name the drivers, you have no case.
***************
“They” are organizations. A corporation by legal definition is considered a person. Any organization, not just a corporation, produces results that do not necessarily reflect the views of any individual person. To paraphrase economist John Kenneth Galbraith – the smartest people in the world could have the most brilliant ideas, but put them all in a room and what results could be something that comes from an idiot. “They” are organizations that carry on missions and ideas even when the leaders and founding members are long gone because the organization itself provides a reason for all its members to carry on a common mission, whether that reason is money, prestige or something else.
As you say, organizations have members. Who are the members, specifically? Name them.
I believe that Tim Ball’s article has named some organizations and some members.
Indeed, Ball dared to name Maurice Strong, who conveniently is dead.
lsvalgaard commented: “…Indeed, Ball dared to name Maurice Strong, who conveniently is dead….”
And so is Karl Marx but that doesn’t stop the ideology. What’s your point? Do you think we should start going after individuals and start prosecuting them? Or without names a conspiracy theory is useless? Brexit was successful because it attacked the ideology (drawing a parallel, not suggesting AGW was a big part of the vote).
As noted in my post.
None are noted in your comment.
“even when the leaders and founding members are long gone”
Most of the writers of the IPCC reports are still with us…
I see you are relatively free tonight – and tv doesn’t interest you – and you are looking for your adrenalin kick somewhere else ; )
It is always fun to watch the contorted comments on WUWT go by.
Which exact people were involved in the VW emissions “event”? if we can’t name names, did it really happen?
VW knows
@lsvalgaard
I continue to respect your scientific contributions to this blog.
However you seem to be purposely missing the point of Dr Ball’s post which was that the IPCC’s mission and subsequent findings were politically defined and constrained.
The issue is NOT with the scientists like Phil Jones who conveniently went along with the mandate, but rather, as others who challenged Dr Ball’s premise on this thread (including YOU) who asked “who are the THEY?” in that vast conspiracy who somehow drive those political and economic motives.
I answered.
It is an “above board” mix of well known leaders with a sophomoric ideology, and/or greed. I named names. The Club of Rome was a primary driver. Multinationals benefit. I’m sorry you don’t like the inclusion of the Dalai Lama (mea culpa for the misspelling). Can you deny the UN or the EU? Or Obama, Cameron, Soros or Gates? Do we really have to continue to name specific names? (beyond those I listed?!?)
I watched an ant carry a bit of soil and another a grain of sand. I named the ants as I watched each take its turn carrying a bit of earth. Over time, an organized, complex anthill emerged. A friend came by and asked, “Which ants designed the anthill?”. I said, “I can’t answer that question.” He said, “If you can’t name the ant or ants that designed it, then the anthill doesn’t exist”.
Master-ant: Maurice Strong. The design has long been published [Agenda nn].
Then name the member’s spouses, their sexually engaging partners, their mistresses, their concubines, their same-sex partners, etc.
Then name the member’s children, including their biological gender, as well as their chosen sexuality.
Then name the member’s Religious preference.
Then name the member’s place of worship
Then name the member’s favorite Preacher, Priest, Rabbi, Imam, etc.
Then name the member’s favorite brand of beer or wine.
And after lsvalgaard gets all of them thar questions answered he/she will still not be “a happy basement camper”.
The conspiracy and planning for the AGW scam is extensive with the worlds key opinion leaders targeted . Whether that is political leaders , presidents, popes, prime ministers, academic leaders, university deans and school principals, business leaders, leading company directors, union leaders, etc.
The tentacles of the IPCC machine is far reaching and corrupting. Some of the AGW advocates are CO conspirators some are gullible pawns fooled by a slick orchestrated scam. All this has been facilitated by a compliant media.
The efforts of the new media websites such as this one have gradually overcome this great Goliath and Brexit represents the direct hit of the sceptics constant attack. This one world government at the heart of this strategy is finally unravelling and the good guys are starting to win over the hearts and minds of the majority of western populations.
For the naysayers, here’s a list of quotes:
http://www.whale.to/c/22.html
Some might say that these aren’t vetted, that anyone could have made this up. Fine. Prove the list wrong. I’ll help you. Let’s pick a quote- #9, by Ted Turner. Here’s a link that gives the original source interview of the quote:
http://www.aim.org/wls/five-percent-of-the-present-population-would-be-ideal/
How many on this list of elitist quotes is invalid? How many valid quotes would it take to convince you that something is rotten?
Any search engine will return enough hits to fill days of research.
Tell me again how you want to see some sort of list. You won’t see a list if you won’t look.
Was Mr Turner an author of the IPCC Reports? If not, you are OT.
For your information, there are a lot of rotten, lousy, nasty people out there and it is easy to make lists of them. But if they are not relevant, i.e. if you are not being manipulated by them, they don’t really count for this post.
All right, good points. Will return later and ficus- see what I can find- On topic.
Posted above. Please excuse repetition.
Perpetrators of the IPeCaC “Policymakers’ Summary”:
Drafting Authors:
Richard B. Alley, Terje Berntsen, Nathaniel L. Bindoff, Zhenlin Chen, Amnat Chidthaisong, Pierre Friedlingstein,
Jonathan M. Gregory, Gabriele C. Hegerl, Martin Heimann, Bruce Hewitson, Brian J. Hoskins, Fortunat Joos, Jean Jouzel,
Vladimir Kattsov, Ulrike Lohmann, Martin Manning, Taroh Matsuno, Mario Molina, Neville Nicholls, Jonathan Overpeck,
Dahe Qin, Graciela Raga, Venkatachalam Ramaswamy, Jiawen Ren, Matilde Rusticucci, Susan Solomon, Richard Somerville,
Thomas F. Stocker, Peter A. Stott, Ronald J. Stouffer, Penny Whetton, Richard A. Wood, David Wratt
Draft Contributing Authors:
J. Arblaster, G. Brasseur, J.H. Christensen, K.L. Denman, D.W. Fahey, P. Forster, E. Jansen, P.D. Jones, R. Knutti,
H. Le Treut, P. Lemke, G. Meehl, P. Mote, D.A. Randall, D.A. Stone, K.E. Trenberth, J. Willebrand, F. Zwiers
Perpetrators of the IPeCaC “Policymakers’ Summary”
So, you are accusing these people to conspire to reduce the population of the Earth by 90% or so. And Dalai Lama, too.
Lief, does the sun still not influence the climate?
It is not off topic as Turner is very wealthy and funnels money into organizations like the WWF and Greenpeace.
Leif, was every German who fought in WW 2 a “conspirator?
Are you deaf to how power, peer pressure, greed, noble cause corruption, physical and monetary survival, and confirmation bias all combine to motivate disparate individuals under the “carrot” influence of trillions of dollars of funding and under the “stick” of character and career assassination?
Are you likewise blind to the EU for example using CAGW “science” to force national governments to capitulate to their aristocracy?
You cannot truly be this innocent.
lsvalgaard
June 26, 2016 at 8:08 pm
No. But they clearly colluded in producing self-serving garbage not warranted by the scientific sections even of the IPCC’s own report.
Questioning whether Ted Turner has any impact or influence?
This is absurd. A name is named – Ted Turner. In case you missed that one, he is extremely into this liberal cult. Oh, and he started CNN – you might have heard of that – it is a news channel. Basically the first cable news channel. He also started the first TV and radio mega-stations.
Oh, and he gave a billion dollars to the U.N. to help them advance their image in the U.S.
All the elitist totalitarians need is money and media. Well ,there ya go.
If the dots are not yet beginning to connect, provide an address and I can send over some pencils and a ruler.
And what are you doing about Turner? Nothing?
Mr. Turner pledged $1 billion to the UN.
“Here’s a link that gives the original source interview of the quote:”
That AIM link doesn’t do that at all. There is just the quote as you’ve given it, sourced to a book by Fred Gielow. That book is called “You Don’t Say: Sometimes Liberals Show Their True Colors”, published by Freedom Press. As usual, just a whole lot of people “sourcing” to each other.
Give it a rest Lief. You are a doctorate in your field, and very bright. That is great. However, you may have noticed the tendency of lawsuits to be slammed against anyone naming names. Case in point, the lawsuits by M Mann against Dr Ball and Mark Stein. Those lawsuits are backed by big $$$ given to M Mann. The cost to Dr Ball and M. Stein is quite literally their life savings. Then not surprisingly, the lawsuits have a habit of getting dropped at the 11th hour, after years of court processes..
Now why are you harassing people to name names when it is most likely to lead to well funded SLAPP type lawsuits against them? I don’t get it.
However, you may have noticed the tendency of lawsuits to be slammed against anyone naming names.
Nobody will sue to be named as the author of what they believe [or have caused others to believe] is gospel truth.
I frankly doubt the person posting here as lsvalgaard is the real article. He may be a poser who has somehow gotten to Lief’s web address. This just doesn’t sound like him and is very unusual in that he has repeatedly posted. Just saying.
names for Leif
”My three goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!
”A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Ted Turner,
Founder of CNN and major UN donor
“[the United Nations could become] a comprehensive Planetary Regime which could control the distribution of all natural resources.. and all food on the international market.” -You guessed it, Our Science Czar John Holdren
”The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
”Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
Lead author of many IPCC reports
”Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
Sir John Houghton,
First chairman of the IPCC
”It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
Paul Watson,
Co-founder of Greenpeace
”Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
David Brower,
First Executive Director of the Sierra Club
”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
”The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
Emeritus Professor Daniel Botkin
”Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong,
Founder of the UN Environmental Program
”A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-Development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
”If I were reincarnated I would wish to return to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh,
husband of Queen Elizabeth II,
Patron of the Patron of the World Wildlife Foundation
”The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these third World countries right where they are.”
Michael Oppenheimer
Environmental Defense Fund
”Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
Professor Maurice King
”Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
Maurice Strong,
Rio Earth Summit
”Complex technology of any sort is an assault on the human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
Amory Lovins,
Rocky Mountain Institute
”I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. it played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
John Davis,
Editor of Earth First! Journal
“…the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.” ~ David Rockefeller, June, 1991, Bilderberg Conference, Baden, Germany link
“We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis…”
– David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member
“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
-Al Gore,
Climate Change activist
“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty,
reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
– Professor Maurice King
“The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and
spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest
opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level.”
-Al Gore,
Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech
”The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
Sir James Lovelock,
BBC Interview
“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place
for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and
plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams,
free shackled rivers and return to wilderness
millions of acres of presently settled land.”
– David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!
The same leftists that push AGW want a global leftist dictatorship.
The leftists just aren’t getting what they want. So they say: democracy doesn’t work, we need a dictatorship. They say: we need to be ruled by “the top 5%, or the top 1%.” Incidentally, does Harvard educated MIT professor Richard Lindzen qualify as top 1%? Um, no. What we have is a bunch of leftists that jumped on a quasi-scientific theory of climate change, and these leftists decided that we need to have a bunch of leftist tyrants ruling us so that they can be unhindered in implementing their deathly policies, the same policies that the leftists had been advocating way before the gwarming scare.
“The Environmentalist’s Dream is an Egalitarian Society based on: rejection of economic growth, a smaller population, eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less.” -Aaron Wildavsky, UC Berkeley
“We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster… to bomb us into the stone age, where we might live like Indians, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion, guilt free at last.” -Stewart Brand, Whole Earth Catalogue
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States.” -John Holdren (1973), O’s Science Czar
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” -Maurice Strong, ex UNEP Director
“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society.” -the UN Agenda 21 Report
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that ..global warming.. would fit the bill…we believe humanity requires a .. common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or….one invented for the purpose.” -Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point
It would seem to start with one name and follow it from childhood. more you follow one, the group will begin to increase.
http://gulagbound.com/6356/on-being-god-from-the-mouth-of-george-soros/
And Leif, why did you pick only one name from the list who only financially funds those political organizations>
Try these quotes and tell me if they are science based…
New York Times – November 18, 2007
…..The IPCC chairman, RajendraPachauri, an engineer and economist from India, acknowledged the new trajectory. “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late,”Pachauri said. “What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”…..
=======================
Moscow-Pullman Daily News – 5 July 1989
“governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.”
[Noel Brown – New York office of the United Nations Environment Program]
The Vancouver Sun – May 11, 1982
Lack of such action would bring “by the turn of the century, an envi-ronmental catastrophe which will witness devast-tation as complete, as ir-reversible as any nu-clear holocaust.”
[MostafaTolba – Executive director of the United Nations Environment Program]
=======================
Independent – 20 October 2009
[SPEECH]
Gordon Brown: We have fewer than fifty days to save our planet from catastrophe
……..Copenhagen must be such a time.
National Post – 2009
… In the summer, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon insisted “we have four months to save the planet.”…
=======================
Guardian – 3 November 2009
We only have months, not years, to save civilisation from climate change
…….Lester R Brown is president of Earth Policy Institute and author of Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization.
=======================
Guardian – 8 July 2008
100 months to save the Earth
There isn’t much time to turn things around. And today’s G8 announcements on climate change set the bar too low
……The world’s climate experts say that that the world’s CO2 output must peak within the next decade and then drop, very fast, if we are to reach this sort of long term reduction. In short, we have about 100 months to turn the global energy system around. The action taken must be immediate and far reaching……
[John Sauven – Greenpeace]
============================
Guardian – 18 January 2009
‘We have only four years left to act on climate change – America has to lead’
Jim Hansen is the ‘grandfather of climate change’ and one of the world’s leading climatologists…..
“We cannot now afford to put off change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead.”
=======================
The Star – Mar 24 2009
‘We have hours’ to prevent climate disaster
…Recently, Prince Charles has said we have only an estimated 100 months. Unless the world comes together and negotiates a meaningful agreement to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions nine months from now – at the Copenhagen meeting of the United Nations climate conference in December – another 90 months won’t help. We have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it.
————————————–
Address at New York University Law School – September 18, 2006
Al Gore
Many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several “tipping points” that could — within as little as 10 years — make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization.
============================
“[Inaction will cause]… by the turn of the century [2000], an ecological catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.” -Mustafa Tolba, 1982, former Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Program
Now Leif, are these doom predictions (all deadlines long or recently passed) scientific or political?
Lets see of the same organizations admit to a political agenda not a save the world agenda…
To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family, tradition, national patriotism and religious dogmas.
“The re-interpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith in the certainties of old people, these are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy”. (Brock Chisholm, first Director General of the World Health Organisation
Remember Dr Happer was fired by Al Gore when Clinton was trying to get that UN treaty ratified.
“I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly,” Happer said this week. Happer is a Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences. […] Happer, who served as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy in 1993, says he was fired by Gore in 1993 for not going along with Gore’s scientific views on ozone and climate issues. “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy,” Happer explained in 1993. …..
(Original link was from Senate Minority Report but is now dead)
research canadafreepress and Obama’s involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange—the rest of the story
”My three goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!
“[the United Nations could become] a comprehensive Planetary Regime which could control the distribution of all natural resources.. and all food on the international market.” -You guessed it, Our Science Czar John Holdren
”The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
”Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
Lead author of many IPCC reports
===================================
”Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
Sir John Houghton,
First chairman of the IPCC
=====================================
”It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
Paul Watson,
Co-founder of Greenpeace
==========================================
”Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
David Brower,
First Executive Director of the Sierra Club
===========================================
”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
===========================================
”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
———————————————————————
”The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
Emeritus Professor Daniel Botkin
===============================
”Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong,
====================================
Founder of the UN Environmental Program
”A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-Development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
=============================================
”If I were reincarnated I would wish to return to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh,
husband of Queen Elizabeth II,
Patron of the Patron of the World Wildlife Foundation
===================================================
”The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these third World countries right where they are.”
Michael Oppenheimer
Environmental Defense Fund
==============================================
”Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
Professor Maurice King
=========================================
”Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
Maurice Strong,
Rio Earth Summit
==================================================
”Complex technology of any sort is an assault on the human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
Amory Lovins,
Rocky Mountain Institute
=========================================
”I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. it played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
John Davis,
Editor of Earth First! Journal
Leif, some names, some organizations mentioned in the post. I could go on, and on, and on, or you could read some books and open you mind a bit, really it will not fall out.
The CAGW movement is built upon multiple orthogonal causes, conspiracy just being one element. Yes, politicians do conspire on ways to reach their objective. (Marxists talk clearly about the ends justifying the means. Politicians talk about never letting a good crisis go to waste. UN one world government leaders talk about how even if the theory of CAGW is wrong, it does not matter, the end political result is good, other leading statists talk about reducing the global population by two thirds or more, scientists in the climate-gate emails made clear statements of conspiracy, things they would not admit to in public, destroying government emails, etc) So to conspiracy of some, add noble cause corruption for others to the list. (Most all justify their actions by claiming they are saving the world)
The President of the US said there better not be any climate change deniers in government. Skeptics have been fired for being skeptics. Skeptics have been shunned for being skeptics. (So add peer pressure and career dependency to the list.)
Government spends hundreds of billions promoting and financing CAGW research and alternative energy projects. Green energy business leaders make large political donations to those government politicians supporting their industry. (So add the corrupting power of money to the list, or do some people think only business men are corrupted by money?)
I am shocked, that anyone is shocked, that humans strive for power and money, or that politicians finding a means to tax they very air you breathe, choose to do so.
1. Political conspiracy for wealth and political power.
2. Nobel-cause corruption.
3. Peer Pressure.
4. Money/power, as both a carrot and a stick.
5. Misinterpretation of the precautionary principle.
All combine to dance to the statist tune in social structure.
Try these quotes and tell me if they are science based…
If you believe they are not science based, then combating them with skeptical science is useless. If they are politics based, the they should be fought as politics is fought: it is all personal. Nobody argues ideas, no, you dig up dirt and attack the persons involved. Could you be sued? Not if ten thousand people attack the same person by email, postal mail, ads, what have you. The name of the game should be ‘name and shame’. If you have evidence of fraud, put it forward. Not doing anything because you claim that it is the fault of nameless ‘organizations. No, people are always behind bad things. Go at them.
??? Now you have been given names and quotes, and books to read to study the politics of CAGW and their influence on the science, instead of doing so, you lecture me, or pretend there is no political effort to “shame” the media deceptions and the political agenda of one world government and power hungry greed so common in human history, now manifesting in Agenda 21 and the EU, and in the CAGW movement.
Instead of responding with your thoughts on the quotes and books suggested, and examples given, you then say, “now what are you doing”, changing the subject troll like. Do you defend the quotes given? Did you think them scientific? What am I doing. Well Leif, I am just an average Joe, working my arse off, taking care of family, so all I do is vote conservative, read, share my thoughts in certain forums, and talk to anyone with a semi open mind, which quite apparently is not yourself.
Your willful obtuse words in this thread make me question your science acumen.
Your willful obtuse words in this thread make me question your science acumen.
As you will agree, this is not about science, but solely about politics and agenda. The ‘name and shame’ in the politics area do not seem to be working very well.
Now Leif, are these doom predictions (all deadlines long or recently passed) scientific or political?
“Politics are driven by people. If you cannot name the drivers, you have no case.”
Quite a few are named above, for a start. Then you could move on to organisations such as the US EPA. How many employees? Wow. 230,000 full-time. How many of those express opposition to the current AGW/CC meme? Then you move on again, next agency/ngo/academic body, next country (1 down, 194 to go in the number that have apparently endorsed COP21). When it comes to countries like China, it gets tricky. Generally there appears to be outward support for the scam, but anyone who has contact with citizens, especially those with technical or scientific training, will tell you a different story. Then there are the numerous politicians who know it’s bunk, but daren’t say so – not yet anyway. Lastly, I guess we have to count those people who are actually becoming overheated because of global warming? I have met some of these. Flushed faces, gasping for breath, when it is a normal and comfortable 31degC 50%RH.
If the “rotten, nasty people” you refer to in the post by Alan Robertson have been facilitating or funding the debate over the AGW effects of anthropogenic CO2 emission then, yes they are relevant to the discusion of the intent and purpose of the IPCC effort to blame global warming for the projected ills of industrial nations and by extension in the minds of some of those involved in political solutions to the supposed problem.
A people have the politicians and administration they deserve [e.g. voted in]
Sure, ’cause we all know the mass media tells the people the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, right, Mr. Headinsand?
I had nothing to do with voting Obama in (I live in the UK)
Who voted for Soros? Please do tell Leif.
I broadly agree on all the initial AGW points. But it doesn’t add up to catastrophe. For that matter — so far — it has added up to net-benefit. The devil is in the details.
Henry Kissinger declared in the 1970’s, ‘If you control the oil (CO2), you control the country; if you control food (CO2), you control the population.
One Ring to rule them all,
One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them.
Well, except “they” are doing this in the daylight, not the darkness.
Really? So why have so many FOI requests been made, denied, and haggled over in courts?
The CAGW memeplex transcends politics.
This is something that morons who repeat ad nauseum the strawman argument that Skeptics/Climate Realists are claiming that it’s a giant conspiracy based on politics, and demanding we name names doesn’t seem to be able to comprehend.
I wonder if your demand to name names is directed at Robin for her post at June 26, 2016 at 12:32 pm. You should be careful what you demand. Her book “Credentialed to Destroy” is a powerful example of the power of clear and concise research into why children in the United States of America are being educated to use impulsive emotional thought, instead of cognitive exploration of the gathered facts and theories of an social, political or scientific issue like CAGW to guide their political, ethical and moral decisions for the rest of their lives. This can and will in the plans and dreams of those collectivist individuals advocating the Common Core agenda of education, enable the usurpation of a constitutional republic by a Marxist/Socialist political ideology currently misrepresenting itself as progressive. Robin may respond to your demand with ten, hundreds or thousands of names of individuals espousing these tyrannical desires for the suppression of individual human freedom. The debate and discussion represented by the issue of ways to deal with CAGW is quite possibly one of the best log-con tried by progressive to date. To find a start on list such lsvalgaard demands go to http://invisibleserfscollar.com and start compiling names if you so desire. I would consul first looking at you own Solar research and rexamine if there might be a mechanism there to varies enough to drive 80% or more of the observed climate variation from 1900 to present.
Right on!
It truly is a tangled web of deception. I thought it was a good essay by Dr, Tim Ball.
How do you write an essay about a tangled web, without the essay becoming a tangled web itself? I thought he did as good a job as any.
You might want to look at some of the YouTube videos by/from Rosa Koire, who explains in detail how UN agenda 21 is not a conspiracy theory, but a conspiracy fact. She goes into the history beginning with the Maurice Strong and the Brundtland Commission: (The World Commission on Environment and Development – 1987 and earlier).
J Phillip, can you provide a better link? You make a good comment and provided a name (Koire) I had never heard before.
I didn’t want to include the link, as I have on this WUWT site many times before. This video of her’s I think was the most effective one for me. You only have to watch the first half to get the gist if it. She is an expert in the ‘profession of emanate domain evaluation’.
There are many other videos of her talks, but to me this is the most effective and entertaining one for me:
What happened to my fact based responses to Dr Svalgaard?? I didn’t use any naughty words! He keeps jumping in and asking for names and when I name names I’m in moderation. (or worse)
[it’s right there where it is supposed to be, learn to refresh your browser from time to time -mod]
This isn’t an assumption. It’s a fact of optics.
This isn’t an assumption, it follows logically from the fact of optics above.
This is measured rather than assumed. But it’s pretty obvious that releasing CO2 into the atmosphere will increase the atmospheric concentration of CO2.
This is not assumed nor necessary. Any fossil source of CO2 would increase the atmospheric CO2. Or non-fossil but not reversed sources, such as removing a forest permanently.
This is not assumed nor necessary. It doesn’t need to increase, it needs to release fossil CO2. (Or cause land-use change away from forests).
This is not an assumption, it follows from the increase in atmospheric CO2, and the fact of optics that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
You completely overlook the observed fact that negative feedback effects from more CO2 at least cancel out the radiative effect of slight warming.
Actual observations trump hypotheticals every time. The fact is that under steadily rising CO2 since 1945, the world cooled dramatically for 32 years, then warmed for about 20, accidentally coinciding with rising CO2, then has stayed flat to cooled slightly for another 20 years.
Reality wins. You lose.
MMM I think you lose
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/annual-with-forcing.pdf
That doesn’t sound very plausible. Surely if a negative feedback completely cancels out the effect that causes it, it would also wipe out the feedback?
Also the climate sensitivity is about 3°C per doubling of CO2, not 0°C. (Supported by measurements from when we were last over 400 ppm CO2)
Note also that over the Quaternary, CO2 and temperature are closely coupled:
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/vostok_temperature_co2.png
With a temperature increase of about 10°C for about half a doubling in CO2 temperature. Where has this “negative feedback” been the past half million years? Because it wasn’t on this planet.
The skeptical observer would suspect this “negative feedback” is wishful thinking.
Gabro: And the earth warmed dramatically (+0.5 K) in late 1997 and early 1998 and cool dramatically (-0.5 K) the year afterwards. The same thing happened in late 2015 and is happening now. We call this ENSO, a natural oscillation in our climate system. This is unforced or internal variability, as is characteristic of systems that show chaotic behavior. In the case of El Nino, the upwelling of cold deep water off the coast of South America and the downwelling of warm surface water in the Western Pacific Warm pool slow, increasing GMST.
Your 32 years of dramatic cooling amounted to roughly an average cooling of 0.1 K in the middle of this period and about 30 some years of no net warming. However, during this period, the temperature fluctuated wildly – about +/- 0.5 K from unforced variability. Your marginally significant drop of 0.1 K could also be due to unforced variability on a slower time scale or possibly to an increase in anthropogenic aerosols. No important conclusions can be drawn from this period.
Since 2000 (possibly earlier), the temperature has also been relatively unchanged. Over this period, the temperature has average roughly 0.5 degK warming than at any time up to 1978. In other words, the your dramatic cooling was only 0.1 K in a very noisy signal and the warming over the next 20 years (which you didn’t characterize as dramatic) was about 5 times bigger. Reality is that your dramatic cooling is trivial compared with the warming that followed.
It is perfectly reasonable to ask if we should be drawing any important conclusions from the 0.5 K of warming in the last quarter of the 20th century – given the warming from 1925-1945, the warming following the end of the LIA, the MWP and earlier warm period. These examples of unforced variability and/or “naturally-forced” variability appear to be comparable with the late 20th century warming the IPCC attributed to GHGs. However, skeptics lose with they exaggerate the importance of minor cooling in the middle of the century.
Frank,
The cooling was not minor, c. 1945-77. Present gatekeepers have so cooked the books that the depth of the cooling has been homogenized out of the “record”. Look at NCAR’s temperature series from the late 1970s instead.
The 1960s were so pronouncedly cold that Callendar considered his 1938 AGW hypothesis falsified.
Simon,
BEST is a work of science fiction.
Seth,
There is no support for 3 degrees C per doubling anywhere in observations of any past time period. Do you know where that “canonical” figure came from? In the 1970s, there were only two estimates of ECS, one of 2 degrees C and one of 4 degrees C per doubling of CO2. A “scientist” made a WAG that the 0.5 degrees C was a reasonable uncertainty factor, hence deriving the possible range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C. That’s “climate science” for you!
The only way to get that range out of the GIGO models is to assume positive feedbacks not in evidence.
Yes, CO2 and T are coupled. Higher T leads to higher CO2.
The Nature paper doesn’t say what you allege. It, no surprise, tries to make a case for the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5 C. The lower end of that range might be possible, but the higher, not.
Pliocene warmth was due to the lack of an Isthmus of Panama and to a higher level of volcanism, among other causes having little to do with CO2. It is not a valid model for the Pleistocene and Holocene, with Northern Hemisphere ice sheets even in interglacials, as now.
Gabro wrote: “The cooling was not minor, c. 1945-77. Present gatekeepers have so cooked the books that the depth of the cooling has been homogenized out of the “record”. Look at NCAR’s temperature series from the late 1970s instead.”
So, where does one find NCAR’s temperature series from late 1970’s and why would one believe those records. They aren’t at woodfortrees.org (a skeptical site) or moyhu.com. I know a reasonable amount about temperature homogenization and think some of it is unwarranted and some others should be incorporated into the uncertainty range. The recent attempt to edit out the Pause simply proves to me that we can’t unambiguously tell the difference between a warming of 0.05 and 0.10 degC/decade in any one decade when the mix of raw data is evolving. However, the big picture isn’t subject to much controversy – it is about 0.5 degC warmer today globally than around 1945.
If this is correct, it doesn’t make any difference if the average temperature around 1960 (the middle of the 1945-1975 period) was 0.1 K below the 1945 peak or 0.3 K below or 0.5 K before. It simply means that the rise since 1960 would be 0.8 or 1.0 K rather than 0.6 K. I don’t believe you can find any GLOBAL temperature record that tells a different story.
(The US temperature record is different. Publications before 2000 showed the US record showing almost no warming over this period. This was partly due to changes in time of observation, a correction I feel is appropriate.)
Lorenz (the pioneer in weather prediction and chaos theory) published a wonderful paper in 1991 (before climate science because so politicized) called “Chaos, Spontaneous Climatic Variation and Detection of the Greenhouse Effect” that clearly explains why one can’t draw any conclusions from modest changes in weather or climate – because such changes can easily be due to unforced variability. In this paper Lorenz asked what conclusions scientists would be able to draw if 1980’s warming had persisted for another decade (which it turned out actually happened). Lorenz said the unforced variability inherent in the chaotic behavior of our climate would make it impossible to draw any conclusions from observed temperatures alone. Quite prophetic, given the decade plus of Pause that followed. The key section of this short paper is only two pages long. Read it and decide how much faith you want to place in the decline of temperature after 1945.
http://eaps4.mit.edu/research/Lorenz/Chaos_spontaneous_greenhouse_1991.pdf
it’s not an assumption, it’s an error
radiation is energy flying away
temperature is average kinetic – see that word? KINETIC- energy of a mass of molecules.
radiation is not temperature
It’s pretty obvious only if you assume the earth is a closed container with only CO2 in it. Since the earth is a chaotic and complex system we understand only in part, the only thing obvious is that your statement is wrong.
A correct statement would be, “Humans burning fossil fuels as well as a growing human population increases the amount of CO2 humans contribute to the atmosphere. The effect of this activity on the total CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is currently unknown beyond speculation.”
Seth.. if the amount of warming is as the data is trending, I expect about 0.8C extra warming for a doubling. I am not at all concerned.(mostly at night, so less killer frosts).
My garden is growing like crazy with all the extra CO2. The South Sahara is greening up as reported by NASA images. I am very happy to learn that.
Why not be happy about the plant food we are adding to the earths atmosphere?
That’s a lot lower than scientific calculations. How long are you assuming, will it take to reach equilibrium temperature? Are you assuming in this calculation that the temperature will reach equilibrium in the same year that the CO2 increases?
Does dropping biodiversity concern you at all?
Killer frosts preserve ecosystems in areas that have them. When you have less, you get invasion by temperature species. This is how pine beetles have ravaged Canada’s forests these past several years.
My garden is growing like crazy with all the extra CO2. The South Sahara is greening up as reported by NASA images. I am very happy to learn that.
You must be very pleased.
But this again is not ecologically neutral. Some species reduce stomatal size or count in response to increased CO2. This means that under water stress, they will survive at the expense of species that don’t. In places like the Amazon basin, it will directly reduce transpiration, and therefore rainfall. Which at some CO2 concentration will dramatically affect the rainfall of the west of the basin, tipping it from rainforest to savannah. Woody plants respond more slowly to CO2 fertilization than vines and creepers, so you will see more choking by parasitic plants.
The Sahel more than the Sahara, and it’s good if it doesn’t reduce biodiversity. I would be an unusual person who would celebrate the invasion of unique desert communities by wetter species either by CO2 affecting their tolerance to drought or by warmer air carrying more absolute humidity.
Plants tend to get nutrients from the soil. “Plant food” means nutrients that you add to the soil. Do you call oxygen “human food”?
The reason most people aren’t happy about it is that it is a greenhouse gas that is disrupting biological systems, and increasingly flooding expensive infrastructure or washing away valuable land.
It is also acidifying the world’s waters.
Oh my gaawwd! You should have seen it last week – I dipped my toe into the sea and it dissolved. Eaten away by the acid!
Get some perspective Seth. The warming is small and good for us all, the CO2 is good for plants, and the oceans haven’t turned into a swirling mass of acid. In other words, there’s nothing to worry about.
Remember: warmth is good!
Trees get their carbon, part of their food, from the atmosphere. As far as their mass is concerned, that is the second-greatest part of their mass, after water.
So, yes, trees do get most of their food from the atmosphere.
–We do not call oxygen “human food” because we don’t get our carbon from the atmosphere. We get it from our diet. I am proud that I learned all of this in middle school.
Seth,
“But this again is not ecologically neutral.”
What is? Not you, that’s for sure . .
Quit pretending you don’t realize that environments are complex and in constant flux, please . . You do realize, don’t you?
Think of the baby woodpeckers! ; )
1. CO2 is not actually increasing.
2. Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming.
3. Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.
4. Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small, and the impact of continued greenhouse gas emissions will be minor.
5. Even if the current and future projected human effects on Earth’s climate are not negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us.
6. Whether or not the changes are going to be good for us, humans are very adept at adapting to changes; besides, it’s too late to do anything about it, and/or a technological fix is bound to come along when we really need it.
dayam, tony- that’s quite a train of thought. 7 carloads is mondo thinkin!
that’s why the world needs prophets and visionaries – to foresee these things and make sacrifices that please the gods.
of course the name of the game is be plausible – it’s not as if your test will be examined and if it is, you’ll still get an A cuz that’s how it rolls.
except the prophecies just never come to pass.
but even if they didn’t, people will have new ones and forgotten the old one
and even if they don’t, you still have the money and fly your jet to cancun
and even if you didn’t, you got to type really cool shit on a blog
and even if somebody doesn’t like it- who the hell are they?
nobody. just like you.
Beautifully put. I am not smart enough to understand most of it, but given time, money and aviation fuel, who knows.
you never were.
your list was sucky sou’s satire of skepticism and you ran it up the flagpole to see who would salute so you could carry it off to her blagh and claim a trollish victory.
didn’t work, did it?
lamer.
Not satire, observation. Every true believer on this site; from the science free, flat-earthers still at 1. to the bulk who are log-jammed at 3. or 4. to the dyed in the wool, koolaid gulpers at 7. who see the little shadows out of the corner of their eye but are too gutless to look.
The more solid and widely held the scientific consensus the greater evidence of conspiracy. SMH.
The crucial part of the “framework” is missing, which renders most of the following illogical:
“Both warming and an increase in CO2 are detrimental for Earth and its inhabitants”
Without this preposterous lie, all the foregoing is merely a description of things that might happen or not, no more interesting than the average weather forecast (“a-ha, it’s going to be two degrees warmer tomorrow, who cares?”)
A great many species, if by “tomorrow”, you mean “from tomorrow onwards”.
For instance, in the case of Australian eucalyptus, 2°C would push 41% of species completely outside their existing range.
Meaning they will migrate polewards (not quick for a tree), or they will be outcompeted where they are and go extinct.
(In the absence of human intervention actually relocating species southwards (in the case of Australia) or upwards: But that comes at a cost.
yeah- and mice can breed a new generation every 16 days
so calculate that trend and you will certainly conclude that we will have a pile of mice reaching to the moon in just a few years.
except it doesn’t work that way.
when you drop all context in favor of your narrow, incomplete and fundamentally infantile view of nature, you find no truth.
and you speak nonsense.
Things change. It’s called nature. Get over it.
I’m going on holiday in a few weeks time. To somewhere warm, cause I prefer warmth to cold. I couldn’t care less about your scare-mongering Seth.
Wow, the koolaid flows deeply here. Who cares about the environment – it’ll grow back.
You make it sound like species never went extinct before electricity became a staple of civilization.
You also make it sound as all extinctions occur due to a forecast of warming that has yet to occur.
You also make it sound as if a warmer earth in total would not be beneficial to life. Maybe the Australian eucalyptus may suffer in a warmer earth, both you and I do not know, that whole adaption thing and the dismally poor record of past warming predictions.
You and I also do not know the benefits of a warmer earth to each individual species and plant. So I am not sure why we are even having this discussion. Oh wait, political BS. Got it.
Tony, are you really saying humanity will kill all life on the planet and make it barren like the moon? LOL
I think it will take a bit more than delusions of grandeur to turn that trick.
That’s called evolution and Darwin. When any change comes some will benefit, some will suffer, some will be unaffected. Always have, always will be.
“Around 12,000 years ago, as humans were migrating from North America to South America, the Amazon Basin was changing from grasslands with copses of trees to rainforest. This habitat change would also have assisted in extinction of macrofauna.”
Prof. Ian Plimer’s superb book: Heaven and Earth
Global Warming the missing science.
The climate changes: nature & man adapt, way before human CO2.
John Doran.
Seth, they are designed for the climate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus
Said the koolaid-guzzling, brain-dead Warmist troll.
Dr. Ball wrote above: “The computer models are the only place in the world where a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase.”
Could you explain what this phrase means, Dr. Ball?
Does it mean that CO2 absorbs thermal infrared only in models, or does it happen in the laboratory too?
Does it mean that radiative forcing by increasing GHGs doesn’t exist? Radiative forcing (creation of a net radiative imbalance of about 4 W/m2 from doubling CO2) isn’t a prediction of AOGCMs with dozens of adjustable parameters. It is a prediction calculated using laboratory measurements of the absorption of infrared by GHGs and measurements of the atmosphere’s current temperature, composition, density and cloudiness.
If radiative forcing exists, then why doesn’t a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase? (We can debate how big that temperature increase might be. We can discuss other factors than may be contributing to a recent warming, especially unforced variability. We don’t need to lie or make misleading statements – like the IPCCs – about the radiative forcing from increasing GHGs. The appropriate question about CO2 is not whether it will cause some warming, but how much.)
OK Leif here is a name from close to home: Kathleen Wynne
https://www.ontario.ca/page/premier
Ontario, under her direction, has initiated a publicity campaign using small children in publicly financed TV commercials pretending that CAGW is a mortal threat to all future generations. It is sickening to watch as the baseless claims, debunked thoroughly here on WUWT, emerge from the mouths of babes, utterly innocent children, and sounding totally brainwashed. It is truly evil, it is well planned, it is being done to justify the outrageous wastes of public funds on Wynne’s ‘climate agenda’ drafted without the agreement of the people upon whom she imposes it.
She has help, make no doubt, and those are part of the ‘conspiracy’. She cancelled one of the natural gas fired $1bn power stations that had to be erected to balance the network because of the extremely expensive windmills subsidised all over the SW of the province. It was cancelled because the Liberal Party was about to lose the seat of the Riding in which it was located. The relocation cost us the public more than $680m. The three of these plants are needed to prevent the disruption caused by the windmills. $3bn. This represents a conspiracy to fleece the public for party political gain, to promote uneconomic power generation in a province that already runs on nuclear and hydro power sources, and to enrich her contributors with money they could never earn in a competitive environment.
There is a small group in the CBC executive who similarly uses public money to promote the identical agenda and go to great lengths to impose their ideology on the broadcasters and to affect who gets interviewed so as to present a one-sided case always supporting the same positions as the aforementioned Ms Wynne.
There is another group at the Globe and Mail newspaper with a similar agenda and these are invariably consonant, these three. I can only presume it includes David Walmsley and Phillip Crawley because they control the paper’s content. The Globe is as AGW-off-the-wall-obsessed as the New York Times. David Suzuki, who has popped up recently on the CBC and Global TV with emotional appeals about the future of children exactly matches the provincial ‘stop killing the planet’ appeal in the child ads simultaneously flighted by Wynne’s group. It is perfectly coordinated. It is impossible that these same patently false claims are emerging in these three media by accident.
This is the most glaring exposure of this whole AGW fraud I’ve ever read. It bothers me I fell for this garbage in the beginning. This is not only an abomination to science, it is a testament to how utterly deceitful some people become in their quest for power. How many billions have been wasted on this scheme? These so-called “scientists” who gave rise to this are no better than a street con man.
Why shouldn’t scientific fraud be prosecuted with the same vigor as your ordinary fraud?
I hope everyone realizes we barely squeaked by on this one. They came *this* close to achieving most of their objectives. How do we ensure frauds like this don’t happen again because rest assured someone somewhere somewhen will use this or a similar scheme to achieve some feverish goal, popular will be damned.
Accordng to the IPCC there was no global warming between 1950 and 1976.
In a nutshell, they are behaving in a very similar way to how drunks behave, their (especially) mental processes are massively impaired/depressed…..
They lie with impunity (the ocean is the greenhouse round here, not the atmosphere)
They wont listen or change their minds about anything they have decided upon
They assemble into gangs
They insult and pick fights with other ‘gangs’
They are hypocrites of the highest order
They are never at fault for anything
They have no hesitation in passing the buck and getting lawyers to do it for them
It cannot end happily like this because drunks will always, at some point, fall over and hurt themselves.
…or a better example, The Drunk will at some point, crash his car and if the rest of us are passengers in that car…………
The word Con#*iracy (C-word) is sending me into moderation or oblivion! Here is a redacted version:
This is of course straight out of the CIA playbook* and I quote:
“In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
…(c) C-word on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States.” *
The CIA’s clandestine services unit created the arguments for attacking C-word(plural) theories as unreliable in the 1960s as part of its psychological warfare operations. The evidence for this is a matter of public record disclosed in documents released under FOIA in 1976.
Great minds do think alike as I’ve noticed these ‘ploys’ in your comments on this post:
“Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. “ (CIA Document #1035-960 4/1/67)
*This is actually a poor or at least difficult argument to sustain as there are innumerable examples of documented C-word(plural) that remained concealed for decades. Arch propagandist and Obama czar -“Infiltrate all C-word theorists” – Cass Sunstein, even listed a few!
@ Scott Wilmot Bennett
Good comment. I would add to your thoughts the fact that a conspiracy is defined, in law, as “binging an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.”
We have conspiracies going on in the USA every day. Heck, every minute of every day. Then the state goons tell us that there is no possibility that a small group of high ranking individuals in the government might conspire to commit some illegal act.
Consider that “following orders” and “saving the country” and “I need my paycheck” are powerful inducements to go along with whatever the people “above my pay grade” tell me to do. The members of the conspiracy don’t need to have everyone in on the scheme, they just need people to follow orders.
The use of “conspiracy theory” rather than facts to “win an argument” is as bad or worse than claiming CO2 in the free atmosphere warms the surface because of some experiments with a bottle in a lab. (and yet, the vast, vast majority here believe just that)
Moderator(s), my post with ‘redactions’, is very hard to read. Therefore, please post this comment and delete the one above.
Or keep both or do what you will as you will 😉
—————————————————————————————————————————————
This is of course straight out of the CIA playbook* and I quote:
“In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
… (c) Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States.” *
The CIA’s clandestine services unit created the arguments for attacking conspiracy theories as unreliable in the 1960s as part of its psychological warfare operations. The evidence for this is a matter of public record disclosed in documents released under FOIA in 1976.
Great minds do think alike as I’ve noticed these ‘ploys’ in your comments on this post:
“Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. “ (CIA Document #1035-960 4/1/67)
*This is actually a poor or at least difficult argument to sustain as there are innumerable examples of documented conspiracies that remained concealed for decades. Arch propagandist and Obama czar – Mr “Infiltrate all conspiracy theorists” – Cass Sunstein, even listed a few!
>>Leif
>>Who precisely are ‘they’? It is very hard to
>>continue a Conspiracy for decades.
Leif, instead of thinking about conspiracies, think of this in terms of bandwagons.
A conspiracy involves absolute control of huge numbers of people, James Bond style, which is possible but unlikely. However, runing a bandwagon is simple. You set out the goals of the bandwagon, add some seedcorn funding and advertising, and wait for like-minded people to jump on it. And if you can induce politicians and billionaires with funding to jump on, the bandwagon becomes a gravy-train with financial benefits for its top managers. And now you are in business, and political and social goals are possible, because the people will follow the bandwagon wherever it goes. The bandwagon becomes their rationale, their life, their religion.
I have seen this in action, at UK Liberal and Labour gatherings. Highly intelligent people will spout nonsense facts and pseudo-science, because that is what the bandwagon says. Nobody tells them or pays them to say this nonsense, they do it because they are in the bandwagon’s in-crowd. The in-crowd is now their life, and they don’t wish to be excluded, so they talk the talk whether they fully believe all it or not. (These huggy feely Green groups operate a Scientology-style exclusion policy, where any dissenters are expelled from the group, and nobody is allowed to talk to them. So it is not very huggy feely at all, but quite ruthless. Dissent is not allowed.). And if you challenge these believers, as an outsider, they get all flustered and do a Koraan 6:68. (Tthe Koraan says that if someone challenges your beliefs, you should remove yourself from the room until they forget about that discussion topic.)
This is the ‘THEY’ that people are talking about here. It is a loose confederation of like-minded individuals who are drawn towards a bandwagon, because it conforms with their world view. And the banwagon gains momentum and influence, as more people join. But these bandwagons are a bit like pyramid schemes (ponzie schemes), and can be highly unstable. Cut off the base support, or cut off the head, and they can dissolve quite quickly.
The Nazzi party was a similar bandwagon to the Green AGW Bandwagon. Nobody was forced to join it, in its early stages, but like-minded people jumped on and so the bandwagon began to generate real economic and political power. There was no ‘THEY’ to start with, just like minded individuals. But this bandwagon gained so much control over its members, that they developed into a ‘THEY’ – a controlling conspiracy. And only the decaapitation of this controling head could end the socio-political control they had over the people.
The CathoIic Church was another similar bandwagon. Again you are not forced to join this bandwagon, but like-minded people jumped on. But in this case the demise of the organisation was the dissolusionment of its members, rather then the removal of its leaders. The heirarchy and the bandwagon is still there much as before, but less and less people are inclined to jump on, and so the wagon loses its political and economic power. The only thing holding the Church together today, is its previous economic investments.
And the same thing will happen to the Green AGW bandwagon. Hitching a bandwagon to a climate horse is most inadvisable. They can fudge the data fed to the horse as much as they like, but at some point the followers will notice that the horse is going in the wrong (cooling) direction. And at that point, many supporters will jump off the wagon, whistle softly, and pretend they never jumped on in this firstplace.
Alternatively, a new political administration may ask the bandwagon leaders for real evidence that the tunes the bandwagon are playing are true and honest, and not manipulated and homogenised tunes stolen from other musicians. And when a few leaders of the bandwagon find themselves in court explaining thier actions, the massed ranks of immediate supporters will melt into the morning mists. Just as many officials in Scientology know that their organisation is not a real religion, many AGW managers (scientists and politicians et al) must know they are riding a wagon held together with hopes, dreams, half-truths and fairy dust, and they will melt away as soon as difficult questions are asked. And in this case, the pyramid will rapidly dissolve from the top down.
Ralph
The idea of a gigantic bandwagon, while closer, still doesn’t quite describe the CAGW movement. The concept of a memeplex more accurately describes it because the CAGW memeplex serves many different bandwagons. The common denominator is greed and the desire for power. This is why oil companies and even the military have signed on. It benefits them to do so, or so they believe. Because its’ failure, which has already begun will be detrimental to them in the end, as in “those who sow the wind will reap the whirlwind”.
Talking of greed and the desire for power…The whole idea that the fossil fuel industry – take a look at this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue – and all those allied mega corporations have somehow “signed on” to their own demise or at least downsizing, is frankly ludicrous.
The tooth fairy is more plausible. Their mission is business as usual and exponential growth, they ain’t signing on to any such thing. In fact on the contrary “they” have done a brilliant meme con-job on you.
Ask yourself Bruce: where is the real money – that is where the real power and influence is.
Talking of ScientoIogy being a banwagon where the upper echelons know it is not a true reIigion, I just noticed this article today … ScientoIogy being raided for decidedly dubious financial transactions.
Leif wonders how a ‘consspiiracy’ (a bandwagon) can be initiated and endure, when many senior organisers know it is basically f r a u d u l e n t. But it happens. And here is a good example of how this happens. And if it can happen in ScientoIogy, it can happen in the AGW industry.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3661778/Russian-security-service-raids-dozens-Church-Scientology-offices-amid-probe-money-laundering-illegal-business-dealings.html
R
>>The common denominator is greed and the desire for power.
In my experience, the prime AGW motivation is a belief in a ‘superior’ ideology, and an overwhelming desire to push that ‘superior’ ideology upon everyone else. Because they know better than you. This is the proselytising reIigion complex. Only they are pure in heart and deed and have seen the light, while the skepptic heathens are lower order beings in need of salvation.
Secondary to that is the financial greed. Not necessarily for personal use, but because money gives the means to spread their ‘superior’ creed much faster. And it buys political influence, which has the same effect.
AGW is primarily ideology driven, like early Chriistianity. The personal greed motivation and the dominating power motivation comes later, when they find that they have the power and means to impose their ‘superior’ ideology by force. At this point, they will then unleash a RICO-style Inquisition, and persecute those who have the temerity to not believe.
Ralph
Ralph that was well written and a very good explanation of the phenomenon. I’m not a true believer in psychology, but I think you’ve exposed, at least a contemporary, truth.
No Ralph, KISS. It’s so much simpler than all that. The “they”, the real “they” are the 0.000001%, that’s about 7500 individuals who are fantastically, nay obscenely wealthy.
They control pretty much everything: the price of stuff, what you read on Fox news, who get to vote for, how your energy is produced, how you think.
They are invested in a system they have no interest in changing. On the contrary their power, wealth and control is based on the system growing exponentially, forever and they will do anything to perpetuate it including ruining the biosphere for untold millions of species including homo sapiens.
“They” aren’t doing any of this maliciously. It’s simply blind greed.
>>They control pretty much everything:
You are not explaining the how. How do they control people? There are not many ways:
Deliberate miseducation.
Financial bribery.
Coersion, often through fear.
Appealing to a higher cause (religion).
I put it to you that the last of these was the primary conduit. With selective advertising, and some political manipulation, they appealed to the great western liberal middle classes, who joined their do-goody bandwagon en-mass. And because these 60s neo-hippy types control the education system and the BBC, the message was spread far and wide. And because no politician wants to be seen destroying the climate or planet, they joined in too.
So it did not take billions and billions from the mega-rich to get this bandwagon moving, it was merely the small expenditure of the WWF and Greenpeace. So the main movers and shakers were the usual suspects in the green movement, and everyone else jumped on, to look good either for personal, social or corporate gain.
R
>>Leif
>>Who precisely are ‘they’? It is very hard to
>>continue a Consppiracy for decades.
Leif, instead of thinking about consppiracies, think of this in terms of bandwagons.
A conspiracy involves absolute control of huge numbers of people, James Bond style, which is possible but unlikely. However, runing a bandwagon is simple. You set out the goals of the bandwagon, add some seedcorn funding and advertising, and wait for like-minded people to jump on it. And if you can induce politicians and billionaires with funding to jump on, the bandwagon becomes a gravy-train with financial benefits for its top managers. And now you are in business, and political and social goals are possible, because the people will follow the bandwagon wherever it goes. The bandwagon becomes their rationale, their life, their reIigion.
I have seen this in action, at UK Liberal and Labour gatherings. Highly intelligent people will spout nonsense facts and pseudo-science, because that is what the bandwagon says. Nobody tells them or pays them to say this nonsense, they do it because they are a part of the bandwagon’s in-crowd. The in-crowd is now their life, and they don’t wish to be excluded, so they talk the talk whether they fully believe it or not. (These huggy feely Green groups operate a ScientoIogy-style exclusion policy, where any dissenters are expelled from the group, and nobody is allowed to talk to them. So it is not very huggy feely at all, but quite ruthless – dissent is not allowed.). And if you challenge these believers, as an outsider, they get all flustered and do a Korraan 6:68. (Tthe Korraan says that if someone challenges your beliefs, you should remove yourself from the room until they forget about that discussion topic.)
This is the ‘THEY’ that people are talking about here. It is a loose confederation of like-minded individuals who are drawn towards a bandwagon, because it conforms with their world view. And the bandwagon gains momentum and influence, as more people join. But these bandwagons are a bit like pyramid schemes (ponzie schemes), and can be highly unstable. Cut off the base support, or cut off the head, and they can dissolve quite quickly.
The N*zzi party was a similar bandwagon to the Green AGW bandwagon. Nobody was forced to join it, in its early stages, but like-minded people jumped on and so the bandwagon began to generate real economic and political power. There was no covert clandestine ‘THEY’ to start with, just like minded individuals. But this bandwagon gained so much control over its members, that they developed into a clandestine ‘THEY’ – a controlling conspiracy. And only the decaapitation of this controling head could end the socio-political control they had over the people.
The Cathoiic Chhurch was another similar bandwagon. Again you are not forced to join this bandwagon, but like-minded people jumped on. But in this case the demise of the organisation was the dissolusionment of its members, rather then the removal of its leaders. The heirarchy and the bandwagon is still there much as before, but less and less people are inclined to jump on, and so the wagon loses its political and economic power. The only thing holding the Chhurch together today, is its previous economic investments.
And the same thing will happen to the Green AGW bandwagon. Hitching a bandwagon to a climate-controlled horse is most inadvisable. They can fudge the data fed to the horse as much as they like, but at some point the followers will notice that the horse is going in the wrong direction (a cooling direction). And at that point, many supporters will jump off the wagon, whistle softly, and pretend they never jumped on in this firstplace.
Alternatively, a new political administration may ask the bandwagon leaders for real evidence that the tunes the bandwagon are playing are true and honest, and not manipulated and homogenised tunes stolen from other musicians. And when a few leaders of the bandwagon find themselves in court explaining thier actions, the massed ranks of immediate supporters will melt into the morning mists. Just as many officials in ScientoIogy know that their organisation is not a real reIigion, many AGW managers (scientists and politicians et al) must know they are riding a wagon held together with hopes, dreams, half-truths and fairy dust, and they will melt away as soon as difficult questions are asked. And in this case, the pyramid will rapidly dissolve from the top down.
Ralph
Would some kind soul please post a “how to” on posting a comment and it not going to moderation every time? I would appreciate it, and I know the moderators would enjoy a little less work.
[The wordpress automatic filter sends posts to the moderation folder if it sees . . .
“Anthony” because it assumes you want to speak to him directly and so stores the post until he has the opportunity to read it and perhaps respond.
Multiple links ( 3 or more )
Swear words, profanity
Abusive words like;idiot, jackass, asshole, dumbass and such
Words to do with deception like ;fraud, conspiracy, con etc.
The trap word I see most is “fraud”. I also note that a post will be repeated several times, presumably on the principle that this will speed up moderation but it really doesn’t. . . . mod]
Thanks for the information. Hope it helps more than just me.
They should install the WP plugin ‘Spam Protection by CleanTalk’. I use that on multiple sites and can safely turn off having to force people to sign in, moderating, or having to use a silly captcha. But if WUWT is hosted on WordPress.com and not a hosting company, you can’t install third-party plugins. You have to rely on what they give you, which makes use of third party plugins impossible.
How can one not use the word “fraud” when discussing the leftist fantasy of a coming climate change catastrophe?
We British have as much control of our lives as anyone else, in other words, not a lot.
I’ve been living in Spain for over 26 years and it’s much the same for me here.
I like this quote. It explicitly states scientific certainty is not required, but leaves out how much certainty is required, and instead just skips to cost-effective measures. Cost-effective is not defined as well, because it can’t be in terms of climate change. We can state with certainty paying $500 in home owner insurance is cost effective in securing the value of a home against fire or other disaster. We can state with certainty it is cost effective to paint a homes wooden siding to prevent it from rotting.
There is no cost-effective argument for climate change due to not knowing what if anything we can prevent (short of literally pulling the plug on modern civilization) and what if anything we are protecting ourselves against.
In time the road would be clear. When you give to those who do not have they only learn to take.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2672960/posts
Dr. Tim, for the first time in the brief time I’ve been reading your essays on WUWT, I have to say I think you went over the top in your analysis of why England departed the EU. I agree with what I think is your primary point; they left due to excessive regulation. I also think each of your individual criticisms of the UN and its self-serving agencies are valid, but the simpler message is more important I think.
Britain left the EU because they were told by it they couldn’t fish their own waters. They left because someone tried to tell them what kind of bananas they could sell and how big chicken eggs should be. They left because they were literally dying by the numbers under the EU “renewable energy” laws.
They left because they were being f*cked with by morons who didn’t have a clue.
I believe that will suffice.
>”Glaring omissions are only glaring to experts”
One major “glaring omission” from the IPCC AR5 WG1 report is detailed here:
‘IPCC Ignores IPCC Climate Change Criteria’
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/IPCCIgnoresIPCCClimateChangeCriteria.pdf
The many different ‘coming environmental crises’ since the 1960s may have some true believers … but they are mainly scaremongering by leftists to get attention and political power.
Leftists want power just like a hungry dog wants food.
Their character attacks, misleading, and lying are acceptable, since the goal, in their opinion, is “right”.
The claim of a coming environmental catastrophe has almost nothing to do with science.
It is a political tool to scare people and seize power over them.
Government-paid “scientists” are not as stupid as they seem to us — they go wrong because they accept money to make scary predictions … that never come true. And they are laughing all the way to the bank … while they tell their friends they work to save the Earth … which makes them feel good inside.
Leftists always want to feel good about themselves — and they love to tell other people how to live.
Skeptics here and elsewhere have done a great job debunking the bad “science”, and some authors such as Dr. Ball understand the politics involved … but we skeptics have a serious problem:
NASA (GISS) owns BOTH temperature projections and temperature actuals.
And they can “adjust” the actuals after-the-fact, year after year, to better match their projections.
That conflict of interest needs more attention … as we see surface average temperature data diverging away from the satellite average temperature data.
http://www.elOnionBloggle.blogspot.com
Some light entertainment for those in need of it …
https://youtu.be/h2D8MB5s8Jg