Global Warming Skepticism is Part of the Final Phase of the American Revolution

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

Recently I spoke at the Freedom Force Conference in Phoenix on Climate Change. The person who made the connection between climate and freedom clearly and concisely was former Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus. He was the keynote speaker at the first Heartland Climate Conference in New York. His opening comment “We have just gone through 70 years of communism, why the hell would you want to go back to that?” brought a standing ovation. He summarized his views in a brief book with the pointed title “Blue Planet in Green Shackles: What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom.”

clip_image002

Forget about politics for a moment and consider that the recent US election was the final phase of the American Revolution. Web sites, like WUWT, were a major part of this event as I will explain.

The deliberately created illusion was that “American exceptionalism” meant Americans thought they were superior to everyone. I hear it all the time in Canada, from family and friends in the UK, and during my recent trip to Australia. The term applies properly and only to the unique political system created by the US Founding Fathers. In very simple terms, the first two legs were free speech and private ownership of land. They do not exist in any other country and are under attack in the US because they are essential to freedom, free will, and an environment for every individual to maximize their potential. This was my philosophy in the classroom: provide an environment in which every student could achieve their potential. Of course, like life, many would not avail themselves of the opportunity, but at least they had the chance.

People claim the Magna Carta was about private ownership of land. That is nonsense. It was known at the time as the “Articles of the Barons” because it represented the anger of the great aristocratic feudal landowners against the monarch. It was akin to the modern aristocratic landowners as members of the House of Lords telling the Queen that they want better treatment. It did absolutely nothing for the serfs, tenanted slaves, back on their estate, and it wasn’t to do anything until the American Revolution. Even then it didn’t do anything in Britain. My brother went to agricultural college and specialized in sheep husbandry. He became the chief shepherd on an estate in which a Lord owned five farms and the local village. As recently as the 1960s when the Rolls Royce went through the village the older women curtseyed, and the men doffed their hats. Unable to carry out a popular revolution in Britain, the people led by the Founding Fathers seized the opportunity in America and for the first time secured free speech and ownership of land for the individual. However, that left one important leg of the triumvirate of true freedom outside the control of the individual.

Up until recently, whenever a revolution occurred the first imperative was to seize the radio and TV stations. To maintain a dictatorship, it is essential to control the mainstream media is critical. This implies that the mainstream media is a free agency that challenges and holds the people in power to account. This is another illusion. The mainstream media have always been the voice of the power elite. Consider William Cowper’s 1782 poem “Progress of Error” that I published earlier.

How shall I speak of thee or thy power address,

Thou God of our idolatry, the Press?

By thee, religion, liberty and laws

Exert their influence and advance their cause;

By thee worse plagues than Pharaoh’s land befell,

Diffused, make earth the vestibule of Hell;

Thou fountain, at which drink the good and wise;

Thou ever-bubbling spring of endless lies;

Like Eden’s dead probationary tree,

Knowledge of good and evil is from thee.

All this changed with Brexit and the American election. For the first time in history, most of the people had access and input to a vast pool of information. The power elite lost control of information that allowed them to manipulate the system and the people. This occurred despite the bias and efforts of the mainstream media to direct and control the outcome of the Brexit and US election votes for the political power elites. It was the final stage of the Revolution. The people bypassed the mainstream media and accessed information from the Internet via blog sites and social media. We must block any attempt to limit and control the Internet, the voice of the people.

The battle over dissemination and access to climate information was central to defeating the control established by Maurice Strong through the United Nations Environment Program (Figure 1).

clip_image004

Figure 1

Limited Access and Input Before the Internet.

 

The leaked emails are a litany of attempts to control the message. The only access the public or climate skeptics had to the media was through letters to the editor and in most cases, they were controlled to present only the ‘official’ science. I learned early being as skeptical of the consensus about global cooling continuing in the 1970s as I was of the warming continuing in the 1980s. Very few climate journals existed, and neither Nature nor Science published much on weather or climate at the time. After that had changed in the late 1980s and the political misuse of global warming began, they were coopted into the global warming deception and only published supportive material. One journal that broke the trend was Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) and as I wrote in an earlier WUWT comment,

I remember when Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) first started publishing papers related to climate. It was the among the first to address the cross-disciplinary nature of climatology, which previously was restricted to just a few climate and meteorological journals.

This is likely part of the reason why the CRU gang later worked to get the GRL editor James Saiers fired.

I also wrote;

The behaviour of journals and especially their editors has been a disgraceful episode in their lack of objectivity essential to good science. There are a variety of causes not least the taking over of journals by publishers. Profit became the driving force and sensational papers producing the prevailing political wisdom the hallmark for high sales. Of course, there was also the realization that control of editors was essential if you wanted to control the scientific method – something the CRU people did with frightening efficiency and effect. They also realized that even being editors themselves gave inordinate control. They could hide behind the secrecy of not disclosing reviewers to peer-review each other’s work. Donna Laframboise, author of two books on the corruption of the IPCC apparently identified this problem for the Journal of Climate.

All that changed with the advent of the Internet. Although it took a semblance of the current form in the 1980s, the Internet became global in the 1990s as it shifted from a government and academically controlled system to a global commercial operation. A major key to the success was that

The Internet has no centralized governance in either technological implementation or policies for access and usage; each constituent network sets its own policies. Only the overreaching definitions of the two principal name spaces in the Internet, the Internet Protocol address space and the Domain Name system (DNS), are directed by a maintainer organization, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The technical underpinning and standardization of the core protocols is an activity of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), a non-profit organization of loosely affiliated international participants that anyone may associate with by contributing technical expertise.

I realize this is a Wikipedia quote, but it is a reasonable summary that conveys the point that the Internet was operating outside of government. Marshall McLuhan’s global village was realized through the electronic village of the Internet. The power of the Internet and thereby its threat to the power elite who want total government control.

The mainstream media and their political masters were end run by the people ignoring them and seeking facts evidence and information from fellow citizens. Internet success and power were confirmed when the power elite and media tried to participate by creating websites. A classic example of the power of climate blog sites like WUWT on the deception propagated by the people at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU was creation of RealClimate. Here is a portion of a quote from what went on as reported by Bishop Hill.

Many thanks for your very helpful comments. Essentially I agree on all counts, and indeed the “sceptics ask, scientists answer” web-page that you have set up is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind as a possible minimal response that we (Tyndall et al, and even maybe the Royal Society if it wants to get involved) might undrertake (sic). Wherever possible this could/should refer to other reputable sites (incl IPCC, Hadley Centre, the ones you mention, etc etc) rather than duplicating the material. I would envisage that such a site could be maintained by a consortium of the willing, in this case involving (say) Tyndall, Hadley & PIK. We could then asked the RS (et al) to mention it and link to it on some sort of “sound science” page on their own web-site(s) (Rachel, do you think that this might fly ?).

Notice the use of traditional centers of the power elite namely the Royal Society who in turn orchestrated similar propaganda through science societies in other nations. Realclimate and others tried but failed to stop the explosion of information accessible to people. A citizen’s army of people grasped the opportunities for input and power. The battle was enjoined by passage of Freedom of Information legislation that triggered various blocking attempts. Most notorious of these were cataloged in a notorious email.

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike, I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it!

Exposure of the global warming deception was one manifestation of the final phase of the American Revolution. For the first time in history, the people had access to and control of information. The battle to control information, as with all gains of the Revolution, will continue. However, as John Adams warned,

“I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States.”

Advertisements

261 thoughts on “Global Warming Skepticism is Part of the Final Phase of the American Revolution

  1. Sorry, but private property is not a right under the US Constitution as those who have been subject to “eminent domain” regularly find out. It has been argued that the right to private property was taken out of the drafts of the Constitution because it would have locked in “slavery” at a time when blacks legal status was as property. Whatever the reason it didn’t make the cut.

    • Not blacks, slaves. The Constitution does not recognize [class] diversity (e.g. racism), other than Indians who coexisted in a semi-sovereign limbo.

    • Jefferson substituted “pursuit of happiness” for Locke’s “property” in the Declaration of Independence. But protection of the right to property is implicit in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. For instance, the Fifth Amendment’s Takings or Just Compensation Clause states: ”nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

      Thus, legally, property can only be taken via due process and paid for under eminent domain (except in Oregon), rather than arbitrarily by government. This doctrine was recently warped by the USSC however, when it allowed eminent domain for economic development, a ruling taken advantage of by Trump.

      In any case, the BoR specifically mentions private property.

      • So what’s implicit and taken for granted in the Constitution, is made explicit in the first ten Amendments.

      • Unless the government charges your property with a crime and seizes it.
        Don’t laugh, this is how most seizure programs work. The government declares that you have been using your property to commit a crime, and seizes your property, then you have to go to court and prove that your property is innocent.

      • Forfeiture without due process finding of a crime is a violation of the Constitution, even if corrupted judges say otherwise.

      • And on that, we absolutely agree. However, the fact that government will try to take your rights away doesn’t mean you don’t have them. It just means you have to answer the question “When should we start shooting the b*stards?”

  2. The Left and their Climate Change faithful will not stop gunning for the fress press and freedom of speech.
    The internet is in their sights with ICANN now untethered from the US government’s 1st Amendment guarantees.
    The war is just entering a new phase.
    A wise Trump would force major defunding of the US govt $$ contribution to the UN.

    • After sleeping on it, and pondering on it, it seems clear to me that this “Revolution” as Tim calls it, is just about to enter a new phase where a few faces change roles. A dangerous phase where actors like George Soros are going to try to directly recruit UN actors to do their dirty work.

      George Soros, and to some extent Tom Steyer and the Rockefellers, are now going to dump the electorate-discarded Clintons. Their elitist, anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist, quest for socialism is done out of the spotlight via behind the scenes pulling of the strings of publicity-loving pols.

      Most readers here at WUWT recognize the UN’s IPCC Climate crusade simply a Trojan Horse. Climate change is the false narrative wrapper, inside containing the poison pill intended to seize Western economies with socialism as the naive public is duped to accept the gift of “save the planet.” Soros’ and Steyer support for the political aspect of Climate dishonesty is well documented.

      Soros and associates will attempt to enlist now Barack Obama as their new apprentice surrogate. Obama’s not-so-secret fondness for Muslim world hegemony and his clear hatred of the Israeli state, fits in nicely with their anti-semitism. This may seem surprising based on the fact Soros is a jew himself. But not at all when considering George Soros was a Judenrat in Hungary during WW2. Judenrat members assisted Nazi SS efforts to confiscate property of their fellow Jews and send them off on trains to concentration camps. Soros is the face of true evil. The kind of evil that sprung out of the Final Solution, and still continues to this day in the likes of Soros.

      How the will control Obama is through generous grants to Obama’s Foundation. Obama’s Foundation will arise out of his OFA superpac. It will be similar to Hillary and Bill’s Clinton Foundation. Money will flow in from global actors hoping for a quid pro quo from the influential Obama. Obama is cultivating and grooming his own political apprentices like Keith Ellison and Tom Perez. Obama’s years as POTUS have laid waste to an entire generation of upcoming US democrats, thus clearing the field for emergence his hand-picked loyal lackies to fill the void, enabled by Obama’s still high popularity within the Democratic Party.

      So the Climate hustle will indeed take a beating in the Trump years, but this is a multigenerational fight, one not so much about climate (see Trojan Horse above), but about freedom from tyranical governance and the machinations of evil rich men like Judenrat Soros.

      • “… George Soros was a Judenrat in Hungary during WW2. Judenrat members assisted Nazi SS efforts …”.
        ==========================================
        For pity’s sake he was a child thirteen or fourteen at the time whatever his later activities.
        As occurred on many occasions the process of the Holocaust was devilishly bureaucratic placing individuals in hopelessly compromising ‘Sophie’s choice’ type situations as Primo Levi described in his books.
        The version of events on the Soros Wiki page are entirely believable

    • Why do you think Obama [trimmed] Israel over as a last adieu. Hopefully Trump does pull UN funding and hopefully more follow suit.

      [Cut the foul language out. .mod]

  3. The elites were warned. We had the Tea Party movement. Then we had the Occupy movement. Then we had Brexit and Trump. It would be foolish to think things have to stop there.

    Folks have noticed that things are wrong. If things keep getting worse, there’s no reason to think the people won’t find yet another way to revolt. President Trump has a golden chance to pull us back from the brink. Please don’t blow it Donald … please. :-(

      • I believe it was commandeered early, ClimateOtter, and intentionally turned into a freak show . . the TEA Party movement scared the crap out of the authoritarian elites, it seemed to me, and the reaction to the bankster bailouts etc. threatened to supercharge the anti-establishment sentiments of the people in general . . which I believe we just saw manifest itself in the election of Mr. Trump.

      • That’s like saying Sanders is the antithesis of Trump. Some people would have voted for either one. The people are increasingly unhappy. The Tea Party and Occupy are both manifestations of that. The people can become more angry. Something can happen that the elites won’t be able to hijack. I’m worried that it will be ugly beyond all belief. It can happen to us.

      • The Occupy bunch in the UK were hypocritical ignorant marxist morons. They campaigned against all the big evil corporations while holding their iphones in one hand and a starbucks coffee in the other, wearing clothing that wouldn’t exist without the oil and petro-chem industries.

      • The Occupy bunch in the UK were hypocritical ignorant marxist morons. They campaigned against all the big evil corporations while holding their iphones in one hand and a starbucks coffee in the other, wearing clothing that wouldn’t exist without the oil and petro-chem industries.

        No different in the US, Gerry.

      • “The people can become more angry. Something can happen that the elites won’t be able to hijack. I’m worried that it will be ugly beyond all belief. It can happen to us.”

        Yes, it could if enough agitation applied.

        Keep in mind that Barack Obama has been dividing this nation for the last eight years, and the Democrats for even longer, and if they had won the election, the dividing would have continued.

        But now we have Trump, and as outlandish as this may seem to some, Trump will bring us back together. Not all, because there are some really hardcore haters out there on the Left, but Trump will reach those who are reasonable and think for themselves, by his actions and words in the future. I think Trump is really going to make a big effort in this direction and it will pay off if he does. Normal people want to look forward to a bright future, not a dark one.

        It’s radical Leftist rhetoric that divides us. Trump is going to drown a lot of that out, despite the MSM’s efforts to demonize him over every little move he makes.

        Trump and the free internet have got the MSM’s number and will counter their propaganda. The MSM just doesn’t know it yet.

      • I’m quite sure you have that backwards, the Occupy mouvement was wildly disorganized and had no central leadership (and thus was pretty much ineffectual). The “Tea Party” was, and is, an Astroturf group organized, led and funded by right wing think tanks in order to push their agenda.

      • Renato, what other nonsense were you told to believe.
        The TEA party movement was the ultimate in grass roots movement. It wasn’t created or controlled by anyone. No matter what the left wing echo chambers may have told you.
        As to right wing think tanks, they don’t control anything or anyone. Heck, they don’t even agree with each other most of the time.
        But when you are told that the only reason your nonsense doesn’t get more support is because some vast right wing conspiracy is opposing you, it’s easy to see why you can get so confused.

      • “Renato, what other nonsense were you told to believe.”

        SJWs always project. They know their ‘movements’ are all artificial, so they assume those on the right must be, too.

    • The Occupy Movement was Class Warfare. It functioned as a Mob…of “Activists”. Everything about it was Fake. I laughed when they promised “asymmetric warfare” and “a Spring Offensive”. They apparently thought they were the reincarnation of the Viet Cong.

      • The OWS movement was the response to the Tea Party by the “party within the party”; the ones who believe in community organizing. They thought that the right had out organized them. They are incapable of believing that the “masses” can think for themselves.

      • The Occupy Movement was an extension of Obama and the DNC’s race/class warfare against the GOP and Romney. It worked, Obama was elected, and Occupy melted away.
        The BLM was an attempt do duplicate the results of the Occupy movement for the Clinton Cartel. It didn’t work because the Trump organization steamrolled right over them to victory.
        Beware of anti-freedom movements that emanate from the radical leftists.

      • Black Lives Matter (henceforth BLM) was, through surrogates, an election creation of the Democratic Party (as was Occupy Wall Street four years earlier) (Include with BLM this year”s college campus Snowflake movement).

        All were attempts to create “passion” among groups notorious for not showing up to vote.

        This year — create a lot of passion they did — but not among the intended voters.

        If you are looking for the single incident that cost Hillary the election it was this. As BLM marched and chanted in the streets “Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon!” and “What do we want! Dead cops! When do we want them! Now!” Obama invited the leaders of BLM into the White House.

        Now that created passion! — but among those not yet committed to Trump who saw that and made their choice and showed up to vote and elect Trump.

        The movements that the Democratic party created this election cycle were so obviously vile that they created a negative backlash far greater than any positive effect they had for the Democratic Party.

        As an aside — what’s the future of BLM? After elections when such groups lose their (secret) Democratic funding they simply fade away — except the people running BLM seem to think they can find other funding sources and are trying to push the movement. Not going to happen. BLM is gone already though you will still see people carrying BLM signs. The main stream media, when they finally realize how bad BLM was for the Democratic Party, will then ignore them.

        Eugene WR Gallun

        .

      • Leo Smith December 24, 2016 at 12:32 pm

        Cong washed more often…

        I’m glad I didn’t have a mouth full of coffee when I read that.

      • All flavors of the occupy movement were puppets of George Soros, including BLM and anti LEO drives of recent. True neo-communist wrapped in Fabian socialism.

    • Hear hear! He could start by going to whistleblowers.org and putting them all on a commission to investigate those who abused them. That would scare a bunch of scum.

    • Commiebob: “The people can become more angry. Something can happen that the elites won’t be able to hijack. I’m worried that it will be ugly beyond all belief. It can happen to us.”
      I agree and it will make WWi and II look like a garden party. I think it would be entirely possible for the elites to instigate serious problems that could lead to absolute mayhem. Already the number of incredible social attacks on the Trump family and other prominent conservative people and even on just the average people in places like universities because of the Trump movement is getting out of hand. Attacks on police is just an example because it is still getting coverage. The MSM is explicit and THEY should be banned if anything!

      • Juliar Gillard (ALP – Australia’s “Democrat Party”) changed the Racial Discrimination Act (18C) to include the word “offend”…. so now anyone (that being non-white people) who is offended by anything can shut the other person up.
        So Australia no longer has Free Speech.
        The ALP also instigated the NBN (National Broadband Network) which costs more for less traffic – in order to stop people getting their info from the web – and they were going to place “filters” to stop certain sites and searches….. and the current ALP are not thinking of changing this desire.

        Australia needs its own version of Mr Trump!!!!!

    • tell that to Andrew Bolt, the university students at UQ or to Bill Leak who have been sued under 18C which limits free speech.

    • Here in Scotland I certainly own the land that my house is built on, and my father certainly owned the farm on which I was brought up; and so far I am able to say pretty much what I like here so long as I don’t offend the mods.

    • Yeah it did until the advent of the Racial Discrimination Act particularly section 18 c which makes it illegal to say or write anything which will
      “Offend insult denigrate or humiliate some one ”
      On the grounds of their race religion ethnicity etc

    • Yes, I’m confused by this part as well: “…the first two legs were free speech and private ownership of land. They do not exist in any other country…”

      • Well, it’s written by somebody that has an extreme view of politics and views science through a political lens. So of course you get silly thoughts. Meanwhile, the earth warms and the ice melts at the poles. But hey, giving more power to billionaires is going to fix all of our problems. Or rather, in order for the final piece of the revolution to make America great again we need to give more money to our billionaires. After all, the main problem with America is our billionaires don’t have enough money.

        But at least this article lays bare that climate “skepticism” is based on politics. I guess kudos should be given for the honesty.

      • I’m guessing that you didn’t bother to read the article.
        It said nothing about the motives of skeptics, but the truth doesn’t bother you.
        As to your notion that our goal is to give more money to billionaires, that’s what I expect from someone who is p a r a n o i d that somewhere there is someone that has more than he does. And it’s always someone else’s fault.

      • Again, SJWs always project. As I understand it, billionaires supported Clinton twenty times as much as they supported Trump. The left are dedicated to giving money to billionaires, so they project that on the right, too.

      • “The left are dedicated to giving money to billionaires, so they project that on the right, too.”

        Specifically how do the left give money to billionaires? I’m guessing you’ll say one off actions like a loan to Tesla. Big deal. That is nothing compared to the tax cuts passed into law by Bush II that affected ALL billionaires.

      • I like how the socialists associate a tax cut that allows you to keep your own money, with a subsidy that gives other people’s money to you.
        Of course in the mind of fascists of all stripes, everything belongs to the government, and you anything you are allowed to keep is just a gift.

      • Yes Chris, the tax cuts were great for the average person as well, it gave us more money to inject back into the system instead of it going one way to companies that went bankrupt

    • Free speech cannot exist when political correctness spawns laws such as hate crimes designed to suppress free speech. We see the results of the radical leftist movements in the USA now–university campuses are no go zones for Jewish people and their thoughts and for all non-leftist white people.
      If you think free speech exists in your country now, try making objective and fact-based criticisms of radical leftists, the radical Islamic movement, the UN, climate change, the government, etc.

  4. Our understanding of the ‘Blue planet’ was greatly enhanced by space age. Many of us hope that with the new US administration, the space exploration agency will return to its original assignment.

    On that note a rather sad news that British born astronaut Piers Sellers dies at a relatively young age of 61.

    He was on the other side of the ‘climate science’ fence, done three flights in the Space Shuttle to the ISS, the latest in 2010.
    He was subject of the WUWT thread in January of this year
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/16/piers-sellers-climate-and-cancer/
    May he rest in peace.

    • I don’t suppose you’ve actually read that BBC article? There’s no science in there; it’s all nonsense and propaganda. This Arctic “heatwave” (brr) is a one in a thousand year event that is caused by humans. So how did we cause all the previous events? Like all this propaganda, it’s all the result of unvalidated climate models. Pure BBC bullsh1t.

    • Well, Griff, if you believe the BBC …… .
      I would change the BBC story slightly by saying “a FEW climate scientists …… .
      Anyway, Griff , have a good Christmas, and next year perhaps you can explain to us how trees once grew in Greenland without the planet frying.

      • The newsman on the 10:00 am Radio 2 proclaimed with glee that the North Pole was 5 degrees warmer than normal and it was all down to man-made climate change. I suppose the coldest recorded temperature on the planet at Antarctica (-137F) in June 2016 (which was not reported by the BBC) was also caused by man-made climate change?

      • “Andrew Harding December 24, 2016 at 2:45 am”

        It’s winter down here in June, and Antarctica is tilted away from the sun, ie, in perpetual darkness. So I am not surprised Antarctica was that cold.

        Griff is on his usual soapbox about the Arctic, which has been warm and relatively ice free in modern times. Plenty of images from various navies showing that.

      • The World according to Griff is from the BBC and the Guardian. Neither is a source of knowledge these days.

      • “Arctic, which has been warm and relatively ice free in modern times.”
        No. Not since humans were hunting megafauna.

      • I want to say thanks to the Arctic Buoy program for giving us an easy to use data portal for all of the 80 or so buoys in the Arctic.

        You can also get charts of all the data for a buoy that has been operating for 3 years let’s say.

        A few buoys on the eastern / Atlantic side hit 0C yesterday as a warm front moved in but they are all down to -17C or so today. Good enough for lots of headlines however.

      • Saw a recent article (NYT I think) about (very fat) polar bears scavenging garbage dumps in Alaska. The gist of the article was that it was too warm and ice free for them to hunt at sea.
        No consideration of any other possible causes – like competition for prey from other bears or not passing up an easy meal.

        Vesele Vanoce!!

      • Poley bears don’t actually prefer ice; they just have superior adaptations to their competitors’. They eat and proliferate better in the warmth.

    • Griff, the ave. mean temperature of the Arctic (depending on where you source the information from) is still around -34 C. That’s cold. Very cold. And Arctic winters are very long.

      Dr Ball’s brilliantly concise explanation of ‘attempts to take away our freedom’ is about those who continually mislead gullible people with unscientific garbage. This morning, the BBC have a one-sided report on “Arctic Heatwave”. They bang on about reindeer unable to feed off the moss because it’s trapped in ice rather than soft snow, ice on land is melting, etc. etc.

      Heatwave! It’s minus thirty four up there! Apparently now ‘soft snow’ is colder than ice! Land – well not much when compared with the Antarctic. This is exactly what Tim Ball is pointing out.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38417198

      By comparison, as long as the news is NOT about climate, the BBC give balanced journalism, where opinions come from all sides. See link below.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38330114

      Thank you Dr Ball.

      • An example of the BBC anti-Brexit bias from today’s lunchtime news. We had reports on the Christmas message from the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrat Party and the Green Party, but not from the UK’s third major party, the pro-Brexit UKIP. The BBC is pro-EU, anti-Brexit and anti-UKIP.

      • The BBC is balanced in the same way a one legged elephant teetering on a golf tee is balanced – not a hope.

      • GeeJam
        December 24, 2016 at 2:42 am
        …..By comparison, as long as the news is NOT about climate, the BBC give balanced journalism, where opinions come from all sides…..

        Notwithstanding,

        A C Osborn
        December 24, 2016 at 4:12 am

        No they don’t, Renewable Energy, the EU, Brexit and the US Election come to mind.

        Whenever the BBC announces “Here is the six o’clock News” I always check my watch, just in case. :-)

        SteveT

    • Griff, just to confirm your knowledgeL
      1. name the furthest north weather station;and
      2. identify the single greatest source of error estimating the arctic ice extent by satellite.

      Oh, and how much do you want to bet that the arctic ice extent will not exceed the currently graphed level?

      You’re a funny guy but you need some new material.

      • @Steve Heins re : Satellites haven’t been in orbit long enough to discern a 60 year cycle. Remember, Sputnik was launched in 1957, which was 59 years ago.
        You need data from a lot more than 59 years to find a 60 year cycle.:
        Please satellites in 1957 till much later could not read a single thing about weather other then maybe take a few pictures. It was not until 1979 that actual data starts to be used to “Fix” the climate picture. And even in that case even NASA agrees that 30-37% is good data and the rest at best marginal. So your 59 year time frame is at best 37 years.

    • Griff
      Wasn’t 2015 supposed to be the year when all Arctic sea ice disappeared? I would have thought you would have had the sense to keep your trap shut on this one!
      And a Happy but unfortunately cooler New Year to you.

      • It reminds of the oft misquoted comment by Mark Twain

        ‘The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated’

        There have been many earlier dates predicted.

        I seem to recall that Hansen in 2008 predicted that it would be gone in 10 years so 2018 will no doubt be yet another failed prediction.

      • “Wasn’t 2015 supposed to be the year when all Arctic sea ice disappeared? ”

        If you mean what Al Gore said – he was reporting what others had said and he mentioned two predictions for an ice-free summer – 7 years and 22 years.

        (full quote)…
        “Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”

        He got that from here…

        https://web.archive.org/web/20120119152748/http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/May032006_Dr.WieslawMaslowski.pdf

        Maslowski’s prediction, originally made in 2006, was that Arctic sea ice would decline to <1,000,000 square kilometers extent (with no ice at the North Pole) by the end of the September melt by 2016, +/- 3 years. So 2013-2019.

        Just like there are good and bad wx forecasts from good and bad sources.
        That was a bad one.
        But not the concensus at the time.

        From:https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html

        "Examination of the long-term satellite record dating back to 1979 and earlier records dating back to the 1950s indicate that spring melt seasons have started earlier and continued for a longer period throughout the year (Serreze et al. 2007). Even more disquieting, comparison of actual Arctic sea ice decline to IPCC AR4 projections show that observed ice loss is faster than any of the IPCC AR4 models have predicted (Stroeve et al. 2007)."

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL029703/full

      • No, it was 2014, no wait 2013, sorry I meant to say 2012, jeesh what came over me 2011……ah never mind going foward likely there will be no more arctic ice in 2017, hold it a minute 2018…ah, let run those models again :)

      • This is where the stupidity on the part of deniers is in full bloom. The game is quite simple. In any field, where our knowledge is still growing, the experts can diverge quite a bit in what their models show. So to discredit the experts in the eyes of people that really don’t know what they are talking about all you need to do is take a fringe prediction, ignore the consensus, and when the fringe prediction turns outs to be wrong, bingo! You have suddenly proven all those evil experts wrong!

        Case in point is sea ice. The consensus was that the Arctic may be “ice free” toward the middle to the end of this century. A couple of scientists thought that it would be this decade. That it hasn’t happened yet is cause for some to deny the basic model that says that a warming world caused by increased greenhouse gases will cause the Arctic to warm quicker than the rest of the world, it will cause ice to melt, which will kick in several positive feedback loops and that will cause the air conditioner of the Northern Hemisphere to go away. The sad fact is that the consensus was overly optimistic and it looks like the sea ice is in a very precarious condition.

        The sad thing is that “skeptics” will likely refuse to acknowledge that the scientists were right when the ice does go away and they’ll likely also say that it will be a good thing.

        I know there are good people that are “skeptics” but I would like to think that if the skeptics were sincere that the current sea ice condition would cause some to actually think “hmmmm, maybe we were wrong on this.” But I’m sure that Anthony will soon post an article on why spectacular sea ice growth in portions of November is yet more proof that sea ice is in great shape and self-reflection will be minimized.

      • Koop,

        The ice will not go away, although it did every summer for thousands of years earlier in the Holocene. The Arctic is much icier today than for during most of the Holocene, ie the past 11,400 years.

        Sea ice extent fluctuates on a multidecadal cycle. Comparing its extent with 1979 is foolish, as that year was at or neat the high for the past century.

        CO2 has practically no effect on Arctic sea ice extent. The long-term cooling trend of the past more than 3000 years remains in effect.

        The same “scientists” who worried about global cooling in 1979 were on the global warming bandwagon by 1989 or 1999. They’ll be dead or retired in 2019, but their younger colleagues (or partners in crime) who worry about global warming now will be on the man-made global cooling bandwagon in 2029 or 2039.

      • Koop in VA wrote: “The sad thing is that “skeptics” will likely refuse to acknowledge that the scientists were right when the ice does go away and they’ll likely also say that it will be a good thing.”

        I think skeptics will accept what ever the facts demonstrate.

        Koop: “I know there are good people that are “skeptics” but I would like to think that if the skeptics were sincere that the current sea ice condition would cause some to actually think “hmmmm, maybe we were wrong on this.”

        The current sea ice condition might cause one to pause if we didn’t already have precedent for it in the past, when humans were not pumping out huge quantities of CO2.

        The conditions in the arctic are not unusual. They have happened before. Why should skeptics get exicted about it? Show us something unusual.

      • Koop, there is no evidence that the ice is going away. Never has been. It’s part of a typical 60 year cycle.
        Even if the ice go away, there wouldn’t be anything wrong with it.

      • Chimp, not only was it the same scientists pushing global cooling in the 70’s, there solution to that problem was the same as their solution to so called global warming.

      • MarkW says: “It’s part of a typical 60 year cycle.” Unfortunately we don’t have precise enough measurements of polar ice to show there is ANY “cycle.” Satellites haven’t been in orbit long enough to discern a 60 year cycle. Remember, Sputnik was launched in 1957, which was 59 years ago.
        You need data from a lot more than 59 years to find a 60 year cycle.

      • Steve, we do have shore based measurements from communities in the arctic. These records go back much further than 60 years.

    • Are you too thick to understand Griff, the reason for the relatively common minor drop in ice is quite simply the strong winds in that part of the ocean compacting the ice together. As soon as these storms subside the ice will drift back. Go away and get a science for under 5’s book for Xmas.

      • “Are you too thick to understand Griff, the reason for the relatively common minor drop in ice is quite simply the strong winds in that part of the ocean compacting the ice together. As soon as these storms subside the ice will drift back. Go away and get a science for under 5’s book for Xmas.”

        But compaction takes place all the time. Recent months haven’t been exceptional.
        To boot, thinner/ weaker ice is more susceptible to compaction.
        And no, its not likely to “drift back” as the pancakes will have fused together.

        Also, any need for the ad hom, other than because you don’t like Griff’s posts?

    • Come on. There are multiple failures/discrepancies (at least 10) of the general circulation models and the CO2 forcing theory.

      The cult of CAGW ignores the fact that the paleo record unequivocally shows that the planet cyclically warms and cools. The talk is the warmest temperature in ‘recorded’ history which is measurements in the last 150 years.

      There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo-climatic record that correlate with solar cycle changes. The same regions of the planet that warmed in the last 150 years are the same regions that warmed in the past. An example of the past cyclic warming is the Medieval Warm period which was followed by the Little Ice age when the solar cycle entered the Maunder minimum. The past warming and cooling cycles were not caused by changes to atmospheric CO2. The general circulation models cannot produce the past warming and cooling cycles that is observed.

      Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.

      The signature of greenhouse gas warming, the tropical tropospheric hot spot is missing.

      The general circulation models predict that the most amount of warming in terms of change in temperature should be in the tropics in the troposphere at around 8km above the surface of the planet. This warming if it occurred, it did not, was predicted to occur due to an increase in water vapor. The warming at 8 km if it occurred would amplify the CO2 forcing. There is no observed tropical tropospheric warming. In addition, analysis of changes in radiation when there is a change in ocean temperature indicates the planet resists forcing changes by an increase or decrease in planetary cloud cover in the tropics which results in more or less radiation being reflected off to space, rather than amplifies forcing changes. These two discrepancies are logically supportive. Part of the reason why there is no tropical tropospheric hot spot is that the clouds in the tropics increase or decrease to resist forcing. Part of the reason why there has not been significant warming in the tropics is the cloud change in the tropics to resist forcing.
      There is no tropical tropospheric hot spot Douglas and Christy paper.

      http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

      There is no tropical hot spot summary presented to congress.

      http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EF_CPP_SC_2016_DATA_THS_Paper_JPW_ExSum_101416.pdf

      There is no amplification of forcing, greenhouse forcing or any other forcing.

      Lindzen and Choi have again found that the planet resists climate forcing changes rather than amplifies forcing changes. This finding is consistent with other observations such as the planet does not enter a new glacial cycle when there is a very large volcanic eruption which causes a year without summer in high latitudes.

      http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

      Lack of warming (eighteen years with no significant warming)
      http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

      • “Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.”

        For the nth time from multiple posters – that Alley graph (mis)interpreted by Easterbrook is wrong!
        It misses virtually all modern warming.
        “0” is 1855.

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/13/crowdsourcing-the-wuwt-paleoclimate-reference-page-disputed-graphs-alley-2000/

        Ah, “The Tropic Hot-spot”.
        Which would occur under any cause of warming BTW.
        It’s due to the LH release of condensation aloft from enhanced tropical convection.

        Not there? – Mythic:

        http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta

        “First, tropical warming is equally strong over both the 1959–2012 and 1979–2012 periods, increasing smoothly and almost moist-adiabatically from the surface (where it is roughly 0.14 K/decade) to 300 hPa (where it is about 0.25 K/decade over both periods), a pattern very close to that in climate model predictions. This contradicts suggestions that atmospheric warming has slowed in recent decades or that it has not kept up with that at the surface.”

        “There is no amplification of forcing, greenhouse forcing or any other forcing.”

        Well no, wrong …..

        http://sci-hub.bz/10.1038/nature14240

        Poor? quality paper(as admitted by Lindzen), and here from his Wiki page …so NOT disputed by him.
        You see hanging your hat on one outlier paper in order to confirm your bias it seems?

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

        “These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others,[52] and Lindzen accepted that his paper included “some stupid mistakes”. When interviewed, he said “It was just embarrassing”, and added that “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.” Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to PNAS.[53] The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication.[54] Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper.[53][55] Andrew Dessler published a paper which found errors in Lindzen and Choi 2011, and concluded that the observations it had presented “are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported.”[56]

      • “Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.”

        Sigh – again – that Alley graph (mis)interpreted by Easterbrook is wrong!
        It misses virtually all modern warming.
        “0” is 1855.

        And a single site at an extreme position is not a proxy for the world?
        Consensus science wouldn’t and you certainly wouldn’t let them – but it’s OK for you to I see.

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/13/crowdsourcing-the-wuwt-paleoclimate-reference-page-disputed-graphs-alley-2000/

        Ah, “The Tropic Hot-spot”.
        Which would occur under any cause of warming.

        http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta

        “First, tropical warming is equally strong over both the 1959–2012 and 1979–2012 periods, increasing smoothly and almost moist-adiabatically from the surface (where it is roughly 0.14 K/decade) to 300 hPa (where it is about 0.25 K/decade over both periods), a pattern very close to that in climate model predictions. This contradicts suggestions that atmospheric warming has slowed in recent decades or that it has not kept up with that at the surface.”

        “There is no amplification of forcing, greenhouse forcing or any other forcing.”

        Really…..

        http://sci-hub.bz/10.1038/nature14240

        “Lindzen and Choi have again found that the planet resists climate forcing changes rather than amplifies forcing changes.”
        As admitted by Lindzen, (from his Wiki page).

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

        “These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others, and Lindzen accepted that his paper included “some stupid mistakes”. When interviewed, he said “It was just embarrassing”, and added that “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.” Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to PNAS. The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication. Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper. Andrew Dessler published a paper which found errors in Lindzen and Choi 2011, and concluded that the observations it had presented “are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported.”

      • “Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.”

        Sigh – again – that Alley graph (mis)interpreted by Easterbrook is wrong!
        It misses virtually all modern warming.
        “0” is 1855.

        And a single site at an extreme position is not a proxy for the world?
        Consensus science wouldn’t and you certainly wouldn’t let them – but it’s OK for you to I see.

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/13/crowdsourcing-the-wuwt-paleoclimate-reference-page-disputed-graphs-alley-2000/

        Ah, “The Tropic Hot-spot”.
        Which would occur under any cause of warming.

        http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta

        “First, tropical warming is equally strong over both the 1959–2012 and 1979–2012 periods, increasing smoothly and almost moist-adiabatically from the surface (where it is roughly 0.14 K/decade) to 300 hPa (where it is about 0.25 K/decade over both periods), a pattern very close to that in climate model predictions. This contradicts suggestions that atmospheric warming has slowed in recent decades or that it has not kept up with that at the surface.”

        “There is no amplification of forcing, greenhouse forcing or any other forcing.”

        Really…..

        http://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html

        “Lindzen and Choi have again found that the planet resists climate forcing changes rather than amplifies forcing changes.”
        As admitted by Lindzen, (from his Wiki page).

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

        “These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others, and Lindzen accepted that his paper included “some stupid mistakes”. When interviewed, he said “It was just embarrassing”, and added that “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.” Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to PNAS. The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication. Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper. Andrew Dessler published a paper which found errors in Lindzen and Choi 2011, and concluded that the observations it had presented “are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported.”

      • “Lack of warming (eighteen years with no significant warming)”

        Er, that’s strange as 16 of the 17 hottest years on instrumental have occured since 2000…..
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

        PS: You know the recent EN?
        It raised global (air temps). Yes?
        There is an opposite as well …. a La Nina (coupled with a -ve PDO ENSO). Which was predominant through your “no significant warming” period.
        So why would you think that happened?

        In other words don’t put the recent upsurge in atmospheric warming (the OHC continues apace) down to ENSO and not also attribute it to your “eighteen years with no significant warming”.
        There are natural cycles at play over the top of the AGW signal.

      • It really is pathetic the way warmists constantly confuse transitory events with climate.
        Secondly, since temperatures haven’t started falling yet, a period of no increase in warmth will mean that we are still at the plateau we reached when temperatures stopped rising.

        Your X of the warmest years since 1979 is a meaningless number. Yet those who have nothing better will keep trotting it out. Because it still fools the ignorant.

    • You’re right Griff that the true test of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is fresh water ice melt and concomitant sea level rise and Australia’s CSIRO gathering together all the global info they could, estimated global sea levels rose 160mm over the 20th century, or an average of 1.6 mm/yr for a century.

      Then I’m walking down Hallett Cove Conservation Park and what do I see on the Govt signboard-
      “During the Recent ice age about 20 000 years ago, sea level was about 130 metres lower than today and South Australia’s coastline was about 150 kilometres south of where Victor Harbor now is. The ice cap started to melt about 15 000 years ago. Sea level began to rise and reached its present level about 6000–7000 years ago.”
      reiterated here- http://www.sa.gsa.org.au/Brochures/HallettCoveBrochure.pdf

      That my learned friend can mean an average rise of 16.25 mm/yr for 8000 years, over 10 times what we’re observing now that you seem to be so concerned about. Explain the cause of that massive melting Griff or are you denying the science? Feel free to consult all those learned climatologists for the answer, because that was the final nail in the coffin of the CAGW meme for me, after having serious reservations over their corrupt ways and dodgy science beforehand.

      By the way I haven’t found a ‘climate change’ true believer that can answer it yet, so there’s a New Year’s challenge for you and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men.

      • “Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.”

        For the nth time from multiple posters – that Alley graph (mis)interpreted by Easterbrook is wrong!
        It misses virtually all modern warming.
        “0” is 1855.

        And no a single site at an extreme position is not a proxy for the world.

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/13/crowdsourcing-the-wuwt-paleoclimate-reference-page-disputed-graphs-alley-2000/

        Ah, “The Tropic Hot-spot”.
        Which would occur under any cause of warming.
        It’s due to the LH release aloft of condensation from enhanced tropical convection.

        Not there? – Mythic:

        http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta

        “First, tropical warming is equally strong over both the 1959–2012 and 1979–2012 periods, increasing smoothly and almost moist-adiabatically from the surface (where it is roughly 0.14 K/decade) to 300 hPa (where it is about 0.25 K/decade over both periods), a pattern very close to that in climate model predictions. This contradicts suggestions that atmospheric warming has slowed in recent decades or that it has not kept up with that at the surface.”

        “There is no amplification of forcing, greenhouse forcing or any other forcing.”

        Well no…..

        http://sci-hub.bz/10.1038/nature14240

        Poor? quality paper (as admitted by Lindzen, here from his Wiki page) …so NOT disputed by him.
        You hanging your hat on one outlier paper in order to confirm your bias ?

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

        “These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others,[52] and Lindzen accepted that his paper included “some stupid mistakes”. When interviewed, he said “It was just embarrassing”, and added that “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.” Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to PNAS.[53] The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication.[54] Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper.[53][55] Andrew Dessler published a paper which found errors in Lindzen and Choi 2011, and concluded that the observations it had presented “are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported.”[56]

    • Griff – December 24, 2016 at 1:41 am

      Meanwhile back in the real world, the Pole sees heading for record temperatures again

      Griff, why is it that it seems you are always at least ……. “a week late and 99 sense short” ….. of knowing what is actually happening in the natural world around you?

      Please, please, please, Griff, ….. tell me that you post all your silly commentary for the sole purpose of “attention getting” from other posters.

      “DUH”, you should have known that the Pole temperatures were highly likely to increase …… at least a week before you read/heard the story via the BBC.

      You shudda dun knowed its da cause of that ole law of Newton’s that states ….. “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”.

      So Griff, ….. read my writin and learn from it, …… the aforesaid “increase in Pole temperature” was an equal and opposite reaction to “the Polar Vortex” ….. as denoted on this graphic, to wit:

      Steering winds high in the atmosphere, known as the jet stream, have been in a very high amplitude configuration for months.

      Iffen the Jet Stream “sucks” the cold air out of the Arctic and “pushes” it south …….. then the Jet Stream also hasta “suck” the warm air out of the south and “push n’ drag” it into the Arctic.

      Griff, …… “nature abhors a vacuum”, ….. ya know.

      • “Nature abhors a vacuum…” Patently false. Else a certain head would have ceased to be a vacuum long ago.

        Oh, OK, was about to ding you for using “AccuWeather” – but noticed that it’s from 2014. Certainly no “drought” in the desert southwest this winter (so far).

      • “….. the aforesaid “increase in Pole temperature” was an equal and opposite reaction to “the Polar Vortex” ….. as denoted on this graphic, to wit: Iffen the Jet Stream “sucks” the cold air out of the Arctic and “pushes” it south …….. then the Jet Stream also hasta “suck” the warm air out of the south and “push n’ drag” it into the Arctic.”

        All very true:
        However the PJS has done that many times in the past (it’s FAR from uncommon).
        The recent Arctic wide temps ARE uncommon.
        That’s the point.

      • Toneb – December 24, 2016 at 7:26 am

        The recent Arctic wide temps ARE uncommon.

        Toneb, MarkW was correct in his response to you when he responded with: “only unusual if you limit history to the last 30 years.

        And of course, Toneb, I could completely discredit your above “uncommon” claim by simply responding to you by stating: “The recent Arctic wide temps ARE NOT uncommon if you limit history to the past 47.3 days.

        It irritates me when a big majority of the populace, ….. both science literate and illiterates, ….. adamantly defend their science based commentary about the natural world around them, on nothing more than their own environmentally nurtured experiences during their time from their mid to late teenage years to the present.

        Thus said, ….. for tens-of-thousands of late-teens and young-adults, ….. “The recent Arctic wide temps ARE uncommon.

        But for old ferts like me, …… who recently began his 77th journey around the Sun, …… those warming Arctic wide temps are NOT uncommon.

        Toneb, take a look-see at this graph and then tell me, …… about how many years, …. during the past 10,000 years, ……. has Arctic wide temperatures been greater than (warmer than) they are at present?

        And ps to, Writing Observer, ….. I chose the AccuWeather graphic simply because it depicted both the “sucking” of WARM air into the Arctic and the “sucking” of COLD air out of the Arctic.

    • It might be worth a couple of hours on Boxing Day reading through 70 linked Australian newspaper stories from as early as 1877 that reported the shrinking Arctic ice and global temp increases up to 2 degrees F in the previous century … http://www.waclimate.net/climate-history.html

      A 1923 example from http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/115751797/11755191 … re a Norwegian expedition to Spitsbergen and Bear Island in August 1922 …

      “The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far as 81 deg 29min in free water. This is the furthest north ever reached with modern oceanography apparatus.”

      “He pointed out that formerly the waters about Spitsbergen held an even summer temperature up to 3 deg. Celsius; this year recorded temperatures up to 15 deg. and last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast of Spitsbergen.”

      The warmest waters at Longyearbyen in summer this year were 7 deg. Celsius … http://seatemperature.info/july/longyearbyen-water-temperature.html

    • Griff, The Earth has been cooling for the past 3K years until the brief mild thaw up out of the coldest era of the past 8K years called the Little Ice Age. Sun cycles 24-27 bring more cooling. Cold kills 20x over warming and CO2 is plant food which the planet needs more of.

    • Please, please, will everyone limit the useless posts in response to a useless cheerleader for a lie? Griff follows the lying leaders in the climate change war like a leech. Please, a couple of comments and then drop him. Nothing he posts is worth a couple of pages of oft repeated corrections. This is old news.

      • Christ Tony, that’s scary. We can soon grow bananas in Thule!

        I’m sure you bought a plantation already? About 60m above sealevel? No?

      • And I have repeatedly pointed out that the “flawed satellite data for recent months.” is not flawed at all.
        It based on easily verifiable NSIDC data (data corroborated by Japan’s Aerospace Exploration Agency, which also tracks polar ice).

        No its pretty accurate and it depicts the canary falling off the perch. But I know, that’s ideologically unacceptable….

    • Are you denying that climate changes? Sometimes for the warmer sometimes for the colder? If the Arctic disappears it will create both problems and opportunities. Or do you think the mid-twentieth century were the climate Goldilocks years and we need to deny climate its propensity to change from that?

    • How’s the South Pole doing? Warmest ever huh? That’s a good one. Think I’ll share this comedy with my family tonight.

    • Grifter,

      Air temperature obviously has no effect on winter sea ice extent, since it is well below freezing all the time there then, practically everywhere in the Arctic. It makes no difference whether the average this winter might be -30 degrees C rather than -34 degrees.

      What does affect Arctic sea ice extent are water temperature and winds. Both this year have so far kept extent slightly below normal. So what? Only to be expected after a super El Nino.

    • Please show evidence that this has not happened many times before, over the past, say, two thousand years. Thank you

    • Just curious, Griff. Temperatures in the Arctic presently range from the mid -30’s in Northern Canada to -50 in Siberia. How is it exactly that the ice area is going to shrink? You’re just laughable!

      • Because you quote temps over land and not over the Arctic, which has thin ice this year at this point and it is not so insulated from the heat from the waters beneath.
        Yes, believe it or not – water below at ~-2C is no comparison to air over fresh snow cover.
        Try putting a thermo on snow O/N to test.

        That heat-flux, though small, has a very sig effect on T2m temps.

      • Toneb,

        Do you seriously suppose that air over the Arctic Ocean is above freezing?

        Alert, Nunavut is on the Arctic Ocean, 817 km from the North Pole. Its forecast for Sunday is high of -24 degrees C and low of -27, about the same as for the rest of the week. Its December average high is -25.6 C and low -33.1, with a daily mean of -29.4, so yes, it’s enjoying a balmy heat wave of about four degrees warmer than average.

      • That is, your apparent belief that slightly warmer Arctic air temperatures explain slightly lower than average sea ice extent so far this winter.

      • Thin ice just means more heat is escaping to space.
        I thought you guys were upset that not enough heat was escaping to space. So why isn’t this good news?

      • Chimp
        “Do you seriously suppose that air over the Arctic Ocean is above freezing?”

        90 miles south of the pole. +0.4C 22nd Dec.
        Anomaly as much as 30°C or 54°F warmer than in 1979-2000.

    • Griff continues to suffer from the delusion that history started when the first polar orbiting satellite was launched.

    • Griff,

      Have you actually learned how to read a graph or do you think it just ends at the right margin. The ice doesn’t reach maximum extent until early/mid March. But typical of warmunists, they just take one current observation out of context and claim the world is coming to an end. Go back to sleep and come back in March and let’s see where the ice is at.

  5. Hi Griff
    Low Arctic Sea ice extent will enable Russia to drill in their continental shelf for oil, while the US president just blocked it on its side. We have to wait and see the attitude of the new US administration.

    • The oil tankers just don’t work in the sea ice areas. In Alaska, the production is all done on land or very near to the shore where pipelines can be used.

      Obama’s new ban only applies to the “Outer Continental Shelf Lands” or those that are between 3 nautical miles extending out to the continental shelf. In practise, the production platforms are not going to be farther out than 3 miles because it is too hard to build roads out to the platforms and maintain pipelines. So, once again, we see Obama doing something meaningless to appease the green lobby groups.

  6. The foundation of all freedoms was the humble institution of the Jury. For without Americans refusing to convict under British law there would have been no US independence, and without William Penn standing up for the right of British Juries to judge based on justice rather than the prescriptions of the law, there would not have been any freedoms.

  7. This is a very interesting article by Tim Ball.
    It puts a different perspective on things, and he makes a lot of sense to me.
    Merry Christmas everyone!

  8. Dr Ball,

    Private land ownership and free speech still exist in New Zealand. The view you express is very Americentric. Other than that there is much merit in your post.

    • Really?

      Private land ownership, perhaps – I have not investigated just how much “ownership” you actually have. It may be more – or less – “ownership” than here in terms of just what your government masters allow you to actually do with it.

      Free speech, though… I refer you to Section 21(1) of the Human Rights Act of 1993.

      • even in the United States, private ownership of property (land) comes with a qualifier. We actually rent the land we think we own in the form of property taxes. Don’t pay the government, government will take your private property. School districts in the US (a taxing entity) are some of the largest land holders for this very reason.

      • State and local property tax rates vary quite a bit, however.

        https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-property-taxes/11585/#real-estate

        I pay twice as much in local property tax as state, even though I live in a high tax state.

        Private property and personal income taxes should be replaced with sales or value added taxes. Much better to tax consumption rather than production.

        Sales taxes can be made non-regressive with exemptions for food consumed at home and drugs, etc.

      • The fair tax plan makes the sales tax less regressive by sending every person who is in the country LEGALLY a check every year. The check is the same amount for everyone. Much easier to administer.

    • Interesting, here in Ontario, Canada we own our land (kind of), more so what is on the land, house, barn, fruit trees, vines, BUT not what’s under it…if say, I was digging and found some precious mineral deposit on my acreage, the government can come in and take that ‘stuff’ away

      • Surface land rights only in Canada? Does the government also own the underground water used for well water?

        Those who own land that was originally owned from Crown Grants might be different with regards to mineral rights?

      • Barbara, just recently in BC the Gov regulated well water if you owned and had a well pre I believe 2016 you were grandfathered, not any longer, also most towns have or are installing water meters and we are all going to pay! I don’t know the regs on lake or running waters but I am sure they’ll find a way to grab money there as well . They will probably call it an average use and charge accordingly.

  9. Dear Forrest Gardner. Griff probably won’t want to acknowledge the answers to your questions but I do, so please tell us. Happy Christmas.

  10. Another excellent article by Dr Ball. l would also like to add that any right of centre governments, are also frightened to rock the left wing agenda, because even if they are elected to enact right wing policies, they think popular opinion will force them from power at the next election. The change came when David Cameron, wanting re-election as PM with an overall majority, promised a referendum on the EU. He never thought for one minute that the majority vote would be in favour of leaving. What swayed it was the EU open border policy, where we saw on the internet (not on the BBC or ITV), hordes of military age men from countries hostile to our way of life entering Europe. The media tried to suppress the 2000 sexual migrant attacks over New Year in Germany, it was widely reported on the internet and in the end to avoid looking completely stupid the mainstream media had to very belatedly report it. Common sense told people that importing millions of people without proper checks from countries whose culture is hostile to ours is not a good idea. Those of us who criticised this idiotic policy were denounced as racist, the mainstream media also tried to suppress videos and photographs of riots in Paris, no-go ghettos in many European cities. But they were there on the internet for all to see. The EU leaders said that the open border policy would continue, in my view this is what triggered Brexit. Vindication of this view was there for all to see when the perpetrator of the Berlin massacre was shot dead in Italy, having travelled freely through France, Germany, Italy, Tunisia as a known risk, without being stopped. The USA followed suit after Brexit, by electing Donald Trump as President, again by information on the internet about the Clintons and corruption in the higher tiers of the US government, much of it coming from Wikileaks. The US has the same problem as the UK, with the NYT, Washington Post and Fox etc. The last nail in the coffin of the Left was their refusal to admit defeat and wanting a second referendum here and vote recounts in the US. People are sick of misinformation and being patronised by those who consider themselves superior. Of course there is misinformation from the other way too, the far right are just as bad, but the far right do not control the majority of the media.
    Hopefully AGW will be the next left inspired scam to fail.

    • I don’t know any far right people but I have several friends, some neighbors and a few family members who are far left.
      Who do you know that you consider far right and what actions do you think classifies them as far right?

      • mikerestin,

        If you don’t know anyone to the right of you, then maybe you are far right.

        To be clear, this is intended as a bit of Christmas Eve humor, not a personal attack, in case it comes across the wrong way.

        Merry Christmas!

    • “The EU leaders said that the open border policy would continue, in my view this is what triggered Brexit.”

      I think that’s right. That’s when people realized they were being dictated to from Brussels, regardless of what local people thought, and decided they didn’t like it.

  11. There is no CAGW or even AGW issue to solve. The climate change crisis will be high latitude cooling.

    We are all clueless concerning what is or is not a crisis, as the major news networks push politically correct propaganda 24/7 filtering out all non-liberal hot button issues (liberal cabal push policies that do not work, divides the country into good guys/gals and evil deniers, with zero in depth discussion of actual problems, i.e. discussions that include facts, graphs, an accurate executive summary of the issues which explains why we are all clueless.)

    The regulations created to fight the fairy tale CAGW is one of the reasons the developed countries are all losing the trade war with China. (70,000 US manufacturing factories closed since 2001).

    We are so clueless; we do not even know we are losing or what will be the long-term consequences of losing our economic base and manufacturing base.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/22/donald-trump-picks-death-china-trade-hawk-lead-new-white-house/

    https://www.amazon.com/Death-China-Confronting-Dragon-Global/dp/0132180235/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1482419714&sr=1-1&keywords=Death+by+China%3A+Confronting+the+Dragon+-+A+Global+Call+to+Action

    Death By China: How America Lost Its Manufacturing Base (Official Version)

    P.S. A good example of the long-term Chinese cheating strategies to win the economic war is the purchase of the US rare earth manufacturing plant. The Chinese promised to keep rare earth element manufacturing in the US and then moved all the specialty processing machines to the China and closed the US plant. China then restricted export of the rare-earth elements to force manufacturing of high tech products to move to China. When restricting export or rare earth elements had a back lash they simply had two prices for rare earth elements: one for manufacturing in China and another for export.

    http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060011478

    In 2010, China set in motion a wave of worry around the globe when it dramatically lowered quotas on its exports of rare earth elements, which are crucial to the making of everything from cellphones to missile systems to hybrid car batteries. China held 95 percent of the world’s supply.

    (William: Rare-earth elements are also used in wind turbine bearings and wind turbine generator magnets and electric car motors.)

    Industries, including many in so-called clean energy, have cut their use of the metals in response to the prospect of high prices. Nonetheless, analysts said that rare earth elements have become a significant lever for China in drawing high-end manufacturing to its shores, since it can offer foreign manufacturers cheaper prices than they can get abroad.

    “What people don’t seem to realize is that the quotas didn’t matter,” said Jack Lifton, a metals consultant. “The Chinese are just substituting taxes for quotas. The lowest price you’re ever going to pay is in China, for domestic use. And that’s absolutely fine with the Chinese.”

  12. “free speech …. do not exist in any other country”

    I would say that “speech” is one kind of “expression” . Freedom of speech is therefore granted by The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The declaration that United Nations and all member countries are supposed to promote:

    “Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction. 

    Article 2. 
    Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion …

    Article 19.
    Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

    I think the main problem is that our national and supra-national government leaders like United Nations do not live up to the declaration of human rights and the standards of proper scientific conduct.

    • A lot of Europeans know that government will sanction them should they object too strongly about the Muslim invasion. The Dutch politician Geert Wilders was just convicted of a crime for asking a crowd during a speech if they wanted fewer Moroccan immigrants.

    • The main problem is that the UN”s “rights” are granted by the government, and thus, are merely privileges that can just as easily be taken away. In the US, rights are inalienable, you are born with them. Contrary to opinion above, we do have a right to our property even though it is not explicitly spelled out (and in spite of Kelo). The Bill of Rights does not represent the rights we have, it lists the rights the advocates (of such a list) felt were most important and should be highlighted.

    • “free speech …. do not exist in any other country”

      He said free speech AND land ownership. Keep the context.

      • I stand corrected.

        That being admitted, I now find that ownership is also granted by Human Declaration of Human rights:
        Article 17.
        (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
        (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

    • “Freedom of speech is therefore granted by The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

      Oh you naughty person! That is not a treaty – it’s a list of definitions.

      Try Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

      Article 10 – Freedom of expression

      1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

      2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

      See that Section 2, that completely nulluifies Section 1. ?

      • That is an important observation.

        The European version is totalitarian by construction.

        And here is the version in the
        Cairo Declaration on the Human Rights in Islam
        (signed by 45 states so far according to wikipedia).

        Article 22
        (a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah. (b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah. (c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith. (d) It is not permitted to arouse nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form of racial discrimination.

        It seems like governments around the world are quite eager to limit the freedom of expression – while pretending they are not limiting free speech.

        What a mess. And United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon is sitting on his hands – saying nothing – such an hypocrite.

  13. Very good article once again.

    As regards the internet, we can see the whining from the leftist elite about ‘false news’ or the truth as others might call it getting free reign on the net. Obummer in his dying days and Merkel in hopefully hers are calling for control. China has achieved it such that a search for the Tianamen Square massacre tells you it is a western myth.

    The only issue with the point about setting sail across the Atlantic to gain rights to private ownership of land is that many would argue that they stole the land from the original owners when they arrived just because they had no documented system of recording land ownership.

    • Most of the land in the U.S was unoccupied at the time when European settlement began. In other instances land was purchased from Native Americans by European settlers.

      Unoccupied means no one lived there.

      • Native Americans did not have the idea that land could be owned–they were mostly nomads in a vast continent with few people. Thus any “purchasing” of land was mostly misunderstood. “Manhattan? Sure, you can have that lousy island for $26 worth of beads.” But they were laughing, because nobody owned to begin with.

      • At that time, beads were very expensive and prized by Native Americans.

        The point is that land was purchased by European settlers.

        In the past good U.S farm land could be purchased for $1/acre. In the Civil War era 80 acres with buildings could be had for ~ $500.

        During the Civil War the U.S. paid $350 in four $75 payments for enlisting in the army.

      • There may have been sixty million indigenous Americans when the Spaniards arrived. They were decimated by Europeon diseases. Thus the lands were “empty” when the settlers arrived.

      • It was not unoccupied, it was a shared resource among the tribes. That’s a big difference. Very little was purchased by settlers, most was stolen or taken forcibly.

  14. The fight back by social media is only part of the solution. The infiltration of public institutions , religious institutions , the legal system, the academic system , governments and media has been a very deliberate strategy by warmists. The climate gate emails should’ve led to an acceleration of climate scepticism . Anyone who read those emails even a warmist with confirming bias must conclude that a massive fraud is taking place. However, the whitewash that took place with a biased government investigation with a compliant mainstream media effectively neutered this potentially explosive situation. The placement of key personal in positions of power in the US does represent the biggest opportunity to eradicate the climate change scourge. I do hope that several high profile AGW high priests get prosecuted by the courts ( perhaps a sceptically compliant court) and I think you would see the ” rats leave the ship very quickly”. The collapse of this cult could be rapid but it must involve a decontamination of the wider institutions not just the media and the EPA is I think a great starting point.

    • No Griff’s going to get back to us with an explanation of that sea level rise off South Australia once he’s consulted the oracles of climastrology for some definitive answers. In the meantime he’s pretty skeptical like the rest of us and he’ll be even more skeptical when they give him the brushoff as a heretic.

    • What, ignore Griff and miss our chance to have a Debate with the best they’ve got? Griff’s Catastrophic Anthropogenic CO2-Climate Change Propaganda is aimed at any curious but not very knowledgeable readers of WUWT. He’d like us to ignore him and give the impression that there is no rebuttal to it, which is the same Fake News “narrative” intended by the Totalitarian Press.

    • I suggest we all stop responding to Griff just to see how out-of-control he’ll get?
      I’ll bet he’ll cry and keep writing from his safe space.
      His orders are to disrupt this site…nothing more.
      A man’s got to make a living, even if it’s from his mama’s basement while in his pajamas.

  15. Predicting we have reached the “final phase of the American Revolution” makes as much sense as predicting we have reached the final crisis of capitalism

      • And our children’s lives, our grand children’s lives, our great grandkids lives, etc.

        It was Jefferson who wrote that the tree of liberty must from time to time be watered with the blood of tyrants and freedom lovers.
        Someone more recently wrote that freedom is always just one generation away from being extinguished.
        Each generation in turn has to fight for it.

      • No, didn’t you read Timmy’s post, first he wrote the magna carta then he secured the Donald an easy win, then in his spare time he putting the finishing touches on the the final phase of the revolution. Hail Timmy!
        Talk about exceptionalism.

  16. The author’s contention is validated from another direction: the majority of demands made by advocates of “climate change” converge in one way or another on one theme: to advance socialism and socialistic government policy. This always results in destroying liberty, reducing prosperity and increasing the size and powers of government.

    Socialism by its very nature, at its heart and core, is a system of lies. That society will have more equality is a lie, That the economy will grow faster and be give the average worker more prosperity is a lie. That government will be competent, efficient, evenhanded and careful to obey all of its laws and regulations is a lie. In order for the socialist society to function, it must create and support a myriad of overlapping lies. But it is a truth about human nature that government imposes a type of morality on its citizens. So, when government is built on lies, telling lies and believing lies permeates society. Thus, one of the hidden costs of socialism is how corrosive it is to personal character and morality.

    This is not my own theory, but comes from someone who lived it. Václav Havel was a playwright, author, the first president of the Czech Republic (1993–2003) after the Czech–Slovak split.

    He wrote a famous essay, The Power of the Powerless (the social and spiritual consequences of socialism)

    “The principle involved here is that the center of power is identical with the center of truth.” Havel warns that socialist regimes create and enforce their own truth to maintain power. As time goes on, this truth diverges from factual truth and it increasingly forces those who support and depend upon the power of the regime to corrupt themselves to sustain the artificial truth.

    In the end, people not only lie to each other, but they start to lie to themselves. They are thus enslaved by their own lies and they demand that we all join them in that captivity.

    see:
    http://www.vaclavhavel.cz/showtrans.php?cat=clanky&val=72_aj_clanky.html&typ=HTML
    https://tavaana.org/sites/default/files/The%20Power%20of%20the%20Powerless.pdf

  17. When I first started looking into global warming towards the end of 2007, I only knew what was being harped on by the MSM – mostly NPR, nightly news on ABC, and the regional newspaper, the Cocord Monitor. I assumed it was all true, having no reason to suspect otherwise. But I kept hearing “the debate is over” by Al Gore and his ilk. Thankfully, I hadn’t seen AIT. I like to think that I would still have eventually found skepticism eventually. But I thought, wait, what debate? When? How did I miss it? And then there were these crackpot letters to the editor giving a completely different side, and I wanted to refute them, but to do that, I needed facts. And that sent me online, looking for them, but I wasn’t simply looking for one side. I needed to know and understand what the other side was saying. The more I looked, the more the alarm bells that I had been lied to, by people I trusted went off. It made me very angry, to say the least. Being lied to by those in positions of power and authority is the worst form of abuse, and yes, anti-democratic, anti-American, and pro-authoritarianism. It is fantastic that we are now seeing the light at the end of the tunnel of the CAGW scourge.

    • “I assumed it was all true, having no reason to suspect otherwise.”

      I think that describes a lot of people, then and now. I mean, who is going to think NASA would lie to them?

  18. Tim Ball and Anthony Watts are in very good company. John Adams’ Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, written in 1765, argues for an informed citizenry as a check on governmental power: “But the fact is certain; and wherever a general knowledge and sensibility have prevailed among the people, arbitrary government and every kind of oppression have lessened and disappeared in proportion.”

    Widely diffused knowledge was the antidote to oppression by both church and state:

    They were convinced, by their knowledge of human nature, derived from history and their own experience, that nothing could preserve their posterity from the encroachments of the two systems of tyranny, in opposition to which, as has been observed already, they erected their government in church and state, but knowledge diffused generally through the whole body of the people. Their civil and religious principles, therefore, conspired to prompt them to use every measure and take every precaution in their power to propagate and perpetuate knowledge. For this purpose they laid very early the foundations of colleges … .

    Knowledge of the conduct and character of our rulers was most important, a point which is relevant to both Climategate and the role of Wikileaks in the 2016 election:

    And liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers. Rulers are no more than attorneys, agents, and trustees for the people; and if the cause, the interest and trust, is insidiously betrayed, or wantonly trifled away, the people have a right to revoke the authority that they themselves have deputed, and to constitute abler and better agents, attorneys, and trustees. And the preservation of the means of knowledge among the lowest ranks, is of more importance to the public than all the property of all the rich men in the country.

    Which brings us to the passage in which John Adams speaks, across the centuries, to Anthony Watts and all those who carry out their duties to be informed citizens:

    Care has been taken that the art of printing should be encouraged, and that it should be easy and cheap and safe for any person to communicate his thoughts to the public. And you, Messieurs printers, whatever the tyrants of the earth may say of your paper, have done important service to your country by your readiness and freedom in publishing the speculations of the curious. The stale, impudent insinuations of slander and sedition, with which the gormandizers of power have endeavored to discredit your paper, are so much the more to your honor; for the jaws of power are always opened to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing. And if the public interest, liberty, and happiness have been in danger from the ambition or avarice of any great man, whatever may be his politeness, address, learning, ingenuity, and, in other respects, integrity and humanity, you have done yourselves honor and your country service by publishing and pointing out that avarice and ambition.

    The printing press and the internet both destroyed the power of oligarchies by destroying their control of information. It is ironic that in today’s world the MSM is akin to the canon and feudal masters against which John Adams rebelled. Their campaign against decentralized alternative sources of information, belittled as “fake news,” is a stage in the collapse of their power.

    Merry Christmas!

    • This is why the federal government in the US is trying so hard to control our education and, ultimately, what knowledge actually consists of.

    • @ Quinn the Eskimo,

      As I read through Dr. Balls essay and comments such as yours I have real hope for the future and freedom.

      Thank you and Merry Christmas to you and to all who make this site what it is!

    • “Their civil and religious principles, therefore, conspired to prompt them to use every measure and take every precaution in their power to propagate and perpetuate knowledge. For this purpose they laid very early the foundations of colleges”

      And today our colleges are infested with radical Leftists pushing their extreme agenda. The internet is free, but the colleges are not.

    • From the Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765-1769, William Blackstone, which was followed by the founding fathers in their drafting of the Constitution:
      “The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state: but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public: to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequence of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion, and government. But to punish (as the law does at present) any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus the will of individuals is still left free; the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or enquiry: liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive of the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects.”

  19. What does it say about the USA’s overall education level that most of us smell a rat and a large proportion of us know there’s dead rats in the cake the IPCC keeps mailing us every year?

    I think the little school tests of education and international rankings aren’t taking some components of knowledge into account.

    • What does it say about the USA’s overall education level that most of us smell a rat and a large proportion of us know there’s dead rats in the cake the IPCC keeps mailing us every year?

      Doesn’t say much.

    • “What does it say about the USA’s overall education level”

      It tells me it has let you down, quite badly.

  20. Is the next step for the internet for it to replace elections and have most, or all, of the political decisions made by the people in referenda every month, or so ?

    • Harold, you might not be far of. A SF novel I read some years ago was actually based on that concept, of course it was SF but heck wasn’t 1984 supposed to be SF?

  21. Fake news!

    So what if it’s fake?

    ‘We must block any attempt to limit and control the Internet, the voice of the people.’

    The Left is building the mantra that news must be ‘true.’ It creates for them a basis to limit and control the internet.

    Freedom of speech/freedom of the press only have meaning when you say things they DON’T like; saying things they like requires no protection.

    • “The Left is building the mantra that news must be ‘true.’ It creates for them a basis to limit and control the internet.”

      This last election cycle has severely damaged the reputation of the Leftwing News Media. If they want to start a debate on fake news, then they should be prepared to watch about a couple of years worth of MSM fake news reports about Trump and Republicans.

      The MSM are the epitome of fake news. You can’t believe anything they say because they are always spinning for the radical Left agenda. The truth is secondary, and they may not even know the truth since many on the Left, including news people, are True Believers themselves who are thoroughly deluded and immersed in the false reality the Left has created for themselves.

      Fake News = Main Stream Media

    • Hi Mark
      I’ve been calling it a popular uprising. The last one took down Communism and the Berlin Wall in 1989.
      England’s “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 is another example.
      I published “American Spring” on July 4.
      Can be Googled
      Bob Hoye

    • It was certainly a major part of it, one of the grievances was that the land was held by the will of the monarch and that he could arbitrarily take it if he so wished. Magna Carta established inter alia gave a surety of ownership to the freemen of England. Inheritance, land, earnings were all protected and the Crown could no longer dispossess a freeman at their will, but only under just laws.
      The first substantive clauses following this opening declaration:
      “TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs: – See more at: https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-english-translation#sthash.0nXGzsXn.dpuf
      refer to the holding and inheritance of land, so clearly it was a prominent part of the charter.
      There are many other clauses throughout referring to land ownership.
      For example:
      “Neither we nor our officials will seize any land or rent in payment of a debt, so long as the debtor has movable goods sufficient to discharge the debt. A debtor’s sureties shall not be distrained upon so long as the debtor himself can discharge his debt. If, for lack of means, the debtor is unable to discharge his debt, his sureties shall be answerable for it. If they so desire, they may have the debtor’s lands and rents until they have received satisfaction for the debt that they paid for him, unless the debtor can show that he has settled his obligations to them.”

  22. Vaclav Klaus…. His opening comment “We have just gone through 70 years of communism, why would you want to go back tonthat?”
    ________________________________________

    Vaclav Klaus said much the same in his EU parliament speech – that a parliament without an opposition party is a tyrrany, and they had just lived through 70 years of tyrrany. And what did our wonderful EU politicians do? They booed him and walked out of the chamber.

    And still they wonder why we voted to leave the EU.

    R

  23. Dr. Ball,

    Thank you for yet another excellent essay.

    Freedom can only be achieved/maintained thru the free exchange of communications and truth. The MSM (main stream media) has failed miserably with regards to guarding the gates to freedom and the truth via the use of the press. They have become the problem rather than a guardian of the truth.

  24. Not sure about the “private ownership” of land bit ..
    I may think I “own” my 2 acres of suburbia “free and clear”
    But, I merely have the privilege of paying an annual rent ( tax) to my town in order to keep it ..

    • While an interesting point, towns do need to collect taxes, and I don’t know of any other recourse they might have in the event of failure to pay other than the eventual taking of said property. The alternative is to rent, but even then, you are paying taxes which are covered in the rent, in addition to being under the thumb of a landlord. Where freedom really starts to get murky though, is in the realm of what you can and can’t do with your property, depending on where it is. Zoning restrictions can sometimes be onerous, and then there are epa restrictions on wetlands.

  25. The new media have freed people from the MSM in much the same way that the printing press and plowboy literacy freed people from priests as intermediaries with the divine, leading to the Protestant Reformation.

  26. ” And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years.”
    i think it was the third M…

  27. Reading this spiel it’s hard to reconcile with the framers of the constitution basing it on Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England”.

    • Lots of it is pulled directly from Commentaries (and other European political and legal philosophers), as also are parts of the Preamble to the Declaration (along with Locke and some Scottish Enlightenment figures).

      http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/fgd-guar.html

      In Commentaries, Book I, 129, Blackstone espouses three primary personal rights:

      1) Personal security. The right …consists in a person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation;

      2) Personal liberty. (This right) consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one’s person to whatsoever place one’s own inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law, and

      3) Right of private property: law of the land. (This right) consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal [by man] of all his acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save only by the laws of the land.

  28. The internet is now under attack by basterdisation. There is so much deliberate misinformation to delegitimise it. To get to the truth is like opening a can of peas when you know there are four good peas in the can and the rest are rubbish. The best way to hide the good peas is to put them back in the can with the others. So you don’t have to ban the internet, just salt the mine.

  29. Those climategate emails have already been proven false. There is zero scientific evidence AGAINST Anthropogenic Global Warming. Yet there is plenty of peer-reviewed evidence proving it.

    Anybody who thinks humans are not impacting the climate simply doesn’t understand the science. Period. You’ll notice it’s always non-scientists spreading sources that are not from pier-reviewd science journals who argue against AGW. It’s almost laughable how the same debunked claims against AGW are regurgitated by the ignorant and flat-out insane over and over!

    • That’s your categorical statement of opinion. Here’s mine: The idea that human influence on climate is even detectable against natural variation is, at best, unproven; the notion that human influence is the dominant factor, driving climate to extremes it wouldn’t otherwise reach, is simply ludicrous, idiotic on its face, and any alleged “scientist” who says otherwise is incompetent or grant-whoring, or, most likely, both.

      WRT OP: I have scant hope that humanity will avert Orwell’s envisioned future: a boot, stomping a human face, forever. Were it not for the Internet, I would have no hope whatsoever.

    • When and where were the climategate e-mails proven false. Please provide the link

      Secondly, nobody has ever claimed that man has no impact on the climate. So the fact that you actually believe the debate is between effect and no effect is just more evidence that you have no idea what you are talking about.

      Thirdly it’s “peer-reviewed” not “pier-reviewed”. Water craft have no role in the process.

      When you graduate from middle school and start taking some real science classes, please come back. We will help to finish your education.

  30. What a relief this election has been. People are smiling and saying (with great joy) Merry Christmas.

    And to all … very best wishes.

  31. Do not forget to give an Honorable Mention to the Swift Boat for Truth bloggers who dug up the facts of the real history of Lt. for Life John F.. Kerrys awards and citations.

    Real Clear and Present Danger Lt. for Life John F.. Kerry.

  32. eter
    December 24, 2016 at 3:54 am

    In Canada you can own property, but the right is not enshrined in our Constitution, Bill of Rights. Meaning you can only own it till the government decides you can’t.

    Surprisingly, Pierre Trudeau wanted to have property rights in the constitution, but slow motion Communist, Ed Broadbent talked him out of having that provision in the constitution. I have to pick up Vaclav Klaus’ book. Another one I have to get is Green Gospel by Sheila Zilinsky. (she was quite high up in the Ministry of Environment) Intro in the book by Dr. Tim Ball.

  33. John Nelsons Hurricane Map showing relative increase over time from 1851 to 2013 shows the exact moment when the climate started to change. 1980, 1 second after Ronald Reagan signed an economics package from the Chicago School in a fog bank. Tropical Storms tripled.

  34. “I learned early being as skeptical of the consensus about global cooling continuing in the 1970s”
    Bit like remembering the 60s; If you remember, you weren’t there.

    In this case Tim it’s the smoking gun the shows how disingenuous you are. There was no consensus about global cooling and to claim otherwise is just a fabrication.

    Further how can you keep a straight face claiming some part in the “the Final Phase of the American Revolution” Really? Bit like Fukuyama’s the end of history. I’m not quite sure whether to put your hubris down to naivety or arrogance.

    The Donald will be in the dustbin of history faster than most (BTW I prefer him to HC, just on a least worse basis.) and so will all your nonsense.

    • There was no consensus about cooling because the scientific evidence for it was weak in terms of any reasonable historical perspective. The only question being what happened to lots of scientists nowadays that can’t see the same with this CAGW meme of theirs? Follow the money trail and Eisenhower’s timely warning about the danger of scientific elites, although with flinging open the doors of our sandstones to ever weaker minds, the preconditions were cherry ripe for the Groupthink and taxpayer exploitation that’s followed.

      Forgive us for not standing in such footsteps of giants like these-
      http://world.edu/womens-toilets-australia-writing-wall/
      http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/coffee-lovers-urged-give-up-filter-and-save-the-planet-in-an-instant-1-771229
      and you wonder why rational folk don’t listen to like climastrologists anymore?

    • The only reason there was no ‘consensus’, was that science hadn’t been bought and paid for by politics in the 60s. It took a while for LBJs expansion of the great society to grow roots that deep. It isn’t a conspiracy, just gov’t funded propaganda.

      • No it’s just another zombie myth for flakes like Tim Ball to keep reviving. It’s a red flag that says: this person is either a gullible fool or a mendacious shill.

      • Sorry I was there and lived through it, and have been interested in climate since 1960. You are deluded, looking through the red flag you wrap your head in.

    • tony mcleod wrote: “In this case Tim it’s the smoking gun the shows how disingenuous you are. There was no consensus about global cooling and to claim otherwise is just a fabrication.”

      I lived through the global cooling era and although there was no report that 97 percent of scientists supported global cooling, just about all the reports in scientific journals and magazines were supportive of global cooling. The scientists of that day were not nearly as sure of themselves back then, like they are now about global warming, but there was definitely a global cooling bandwagon back then.

      toney: “Further how can you keep a straight face claiming some part in the “the Final Phase of the American Revolution” Really? Bit like Fukuyama’s the end of history. I’m not quite sure whether to put your hubris down to naivety or arrogance.”

      Weren’t you the guy who was complaining earlier about Griff being personally attacked?

    • Never suspect conspiracy when intellectually weak Groupthink snouts in the taxpayer trough will do just fine.

    • Fascinating how those on the left dismiss anything that they can’t refute as a conspiracy.

      MarkW
      Proud member of the VRWC since the 1990’s

    • The light of truth cuts to the bone eh Tony? A hard pill to swallow when your acolytes have been called out for what they are.
      I would think that it was a full on nod, nowhere near diagonal. If the swill does not taste good, don’t drink it, there are other blogs that might fit you better?

  35. The theme of this post is brought sharply into focus when we consider the ‘works’ of such trolls etc. as ‘Griff’. These useful idiots are doing a task, part of work aimed at destroying Western civilisation and modern scientific progress. In fact they would destroy the only hope for the poor of the world. A hope that is steadily being realised as technology gets cheaper. They Griffs of the world are contemptibly evil speakers of untruth, with obviously no wish to understand what is really happening with climate. I doubt they will end up satisfied by their wages, or even sustained for long…..

  36. “Free” information on internet was already available 20 years ago. (Altavista search engine) This was then a game changer.
    The cheap internet access using pc, tablet, phone etc. is what enabled the information flow to all, not only the nerds.

      • You still haven’t helped Griff out explain that 16.25mm/yr sea level rise over 8000 years compared to 1.6mm/yr for the 20th century Tony. Go on tell me it was just a local sea level rise or down to aboriginal cooking fires and burnoffs to flush out game, or are you denying the science?

      • Yes Tony it might even return to the warmth of the Eemian inter-glacial where Hippos and alligators were living on Baffin island and Axel Heiberg Island was covered in a forest of white pine. The funny part is it would still be normal since it has been that warm many times before.

      • ” it has been that warm many times before”
        True Matt, but it won’t be pretty it changes to that in a couple of generations. It’s the rapid rate of change – that’s the problem.

  37. I’ve got some pull with the local Council and could get Parks and Gardens to save a few tree rings for you when they’re dropping the odd dodgy street tree if you need to consult the oracle for some clues tony.

  38. Climate change is a fraud, it has always been a fraud. Its about money and control of your every single second of life. Push it now, and expect a serious angry backlash. We have been freed of the bonds of political correctness, we can shout right back in your faces and the paid fake “science” you pimp… and we are coming..

    • I have seen similar articles to that one, Julia, so people *are* looking at alternatives.

      So far, our portion of the internet has not been crippled. Let’s hope we can keep it that way. The best way to assure that, is to keep the radical Left of all nations, away from the levers of political power.

      Trump is a good start. :)

  39. What the government should do is require all scientists, engineers, etc. who work in labs funded by the US taxpayer, to sign a statement to the effect that all rights to any intellectual property arising from their work is the property of the US government and none other. I work in IT on government contracts with my company subbing to a Fortune 50 s/w development corporation. My Non-Disclosure Statement (NDS) says that every bit of code I create while on the job is the property of the prime, and not myself. I can present papers on my work, or write articles (after they are approved by the appropriate federal agency), but can’t claim they are mine and hide my work if the big fella decides he wants to see my work.

    This would cause a major stink among these people, and cries of “academic freedom” would no doubt ring throughout the land, but if your research is paid for by Uncle Sugar, then he should have total control over it. If one doesn’t like those terms, then one is free to find work elsewhere. I’m not sure how many private labs would fund climate science research — maybe George Soros could start his own Climate Research Unit.

  40. I weep when I read foolish people discussing “Property Rights”. Property only belongs to those capable of wielding the violence required to prevent others from taking it from them. The only right anyone has to property in the United States, is the right to be deceived into thinking that they own that which in reality they are renting from the federal government.

    • Think property taxes as a “takings.” Heard something about Austin, Texas over the holidays. Second hand, need to check.

Comments are closed.