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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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!
@ur momisugly 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?