Guest essay by Leo Goldstein
My essay The Command & Control Center of Climate Alarmism discussed the centralized structure of climate alarmism, and introduced the term Climate Alarmism Governance (CAG) to define its command & control center. The fact that most alarmist groups and their multiple activities are centrally coordinated or even directed raises a natural question about their central motives and goals. The impression that these groups believe in the IPCC theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is contradicted by their widespread opposition to the use of nuclear power and to building new hydro power plants. Hydropower is obviously a renewable energy source.
The same groups oppose natural gas power, which emits 3-4 times less carbon dioxide per kWh compared with coal power. There are many more contradictions in the CAG’s statements and actions. It seems to be aware that its “scientific base” is fake, and purposefully makes illogical and impossible demands to thwart any serious consideration of technological or economic solutions for the alleged problem. Each time such economic or technological actions are seriously contemplated, somebody takes another look at the so-called “climate science” and finds a striking lack of actual science. Then it takes 5-8 years to explain the fraud away, and to raise alarm to new heights.
After considering and discarding other theories as insufficient to explain all the facts, only one conclusion remains: the Climate Alarmism Governance is waging a war on the United States.
The CAG leads a tight coalition of mostly foreign based NGOs, certain United Nations agencies and politicians, and a few individuals possessed by ideas of world domination (euphemistically described as “world governance” or “global civil society”) and aided by domestic collaborators. Here, this coalition will be called Climatist International, or Climintern, to underscore its analogy with the Communist International (Comintern) organization that existed from 1919 until 1956. Climintern also seems to be a partial successor to the Soviet-controlled espionage, influence, and propaganda network that collapsed in 1988-91, many of whose individual members and sympathizers fled to environmentalism. The climate alarmism network rose around the same time.
The word war is not used metaphorically here. It is not a Cold War, not a “trade war,” and not a war of ideas. And it is not a war in some remote location. The theater of this war comprises at least the entire US. It may look inconspicuous, but only because it is 4th Generation Warfare, as defined by Colonel John Boyd (1927-1997). Col. Boyd’s theories are usually invoked in the context of asymmetrical conflicts in remote parts of the world, but are by no means limited to such conflicts.
I. Colonel Boyd’s Theory & 4th Generation Warfare
Colonel Boyd’s insight is that there are three levels of warfare: moral, mental, and physical:
· Moral Warfare: the destruction of the enemy’s will to win, disruption of alliances (or potential allies) and induction of internal fragmentation. Ideally resulting in the “dissolution of the moral bonds that permit an organic whole to exist.” (i.e., breaking down the mutual trust and common outlook mentioned in the paragraph above.)
· Mental Warfare: the distortion of the enemy’s perception of reality through disinformation, ambiguous posturing, and/or severing of the communication/information infrastructure.
· Physical Warfare: the abilities of physical resources such as weapons, people, and logistical assets.
Thus, destroying things and killing people are not the essence of warfare, but only its lowest, physical level. This observation applies to wars in general and is not limited to 4th generation warfare. Colonel Boyd advises that a successful strategy should
“Penetrate [the] adversary’s moral-mental-physical being to dissolve his moral fiber, disorient his mental images, disrupt his operations, and overload his system, as well as subvert, shatter, seize or otherwise subdue those moral-mental-physical bastions, connections, or activities that he depends upon …” (Osinga, Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd.)
A military strategy is subordinated to a Grand Strategy, which was conceptualized by Colonel Boyd for 4th generation warfare as
“the art of connecting yourself to as many other independent power centers as possible, while at the same time isolating your enemies from as many other power centers as possible. A Fourth Generation conflict will usually have many independent power centers, not only at the grand strategic level but down all the way to the tactical level. The game of connection and isolation will therefore be central to tactics and operational art as well as to strategy and grand strategy.” (Lind, Thiele, 4th Generation Warfare Handbook)
II. On the Edge of Defeat
The events of the last fifteen years, considered in the light of these ideas, suggest that the CAG and Climintern have been waging a textbook 4th generation war against America!
Unfortunately, their war went extremely successfully on the moral and mental levels. On the moral level, it polarized America to an extent not seen in the last 150 years. Climate alarmism confused many smart and influential persons, pushing them to the extreme left and convincing them that Republicans and conservatives are ignorant and evil. On the mental level, Climintern severely undermined the American scientific enterprise and other intellectual infrastructure, and damaged universities and other academic institutions, most of them beyond repair. Other factors contributed more heavily to the downfall of academia.
Considering Col. Boyd’s wisdom, we cannot avoid thinking that the CAG was exceptionally successful in its Grand Strategy as well. It has isolated America from other centers of power, including Western Europe and Latin America. It also isolated America from its own academia, the media-entertainment industry, and even the government (as of 1/1/2017). Even worse, it created internal political divisions showing some attributes of a religious conflict.
But a hostile activity can be properly called a war only when something is done on the physical level: when large-scale violence or damage to physical objects is employed, attempted, or threatened by the enemy. Well, CAG agents in the EPA and some other federal agencies have been damaging the national energy infrastructure by regulations, orders, and threats for many years. For example, the BP Deepwater Horizon explosion that killed eleven men happened when the crew performed an unnecessary procedure, demanded by the EPA. Federal sabotage of the attempts to stop the oil leakage and to clean it up is a separate subject. Fortunately, the fracking revolution and off-shore drilling, happening despite the active resistance of the Obama administration, have offset some of the worst effects of its energy policies. But severe damage to the energy infrastructure can take an enormous toll in human lives, especially when the enemy action caused “dissolution of the moral bonds”.
Industrial systems are usually designed with multiple layers of safety measures and procedures. Enforcing such multi-layer safety is one of the main reasons for regulations and regulators. If a hostile governance penetrates or acquires influence over a regulatory authority, it might remove some safety measures or order dangerous procedures under a suitable pretext, such as protection of the environment. The accidents would not start to happen immediately, because some safety measures would remain. Rather, disasters would happen in the future, and would be usually attributed to failures of the remaining safety measures. Climintern has publicly announced its goal to shut down fossil fuel production and utilization, and words like “penetration” and “influence” severely understate its control over the EPA.
Moreover, the CAG certainly encourages its units to act like they are fighting a war. Its warlike thinking is reflected in the warlike terminology used by its units. They perform mobilization; they demand wartime limits on freedoms; they blockade and disrupt; and they fight battles in an endless war against the enemy, which seems to be us (**).
III. The CAG and Climintern
The existence of the CAG as the center of climate alarmism needs some explanation. Of course, CAG leaders do not conduct their affairs from a secret office or bunker, but the Internet allows them to collaborate almost as if they were in the same office. The majority of individuals who occasionally support climate alarmism are not controlled, but they do believe media propaganda, follow their friends, or trust institutions that used to be trustworthy.
Nevertheless, most alarmist organizations are under the central control. Ordinary members and even some leaders of these organizations might not know that, but this situation is not unusual. For example, front groups of the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA) were created and operated in exactly the same way. A typical member of a front group did not know he was joining a CPUSA front. Even if the member found out, he did not know that the CPUSA was fully controlled by the Soviet regime, headed by Stalin and his henchmen. And US Communists and fellow travelers did not want to hear about mass murders and other crimes committed by the Soviet regime against its people. In accordance with the Marxist dogma, they considered such information forgery, funded by the bourgeoisie.
Climintern is hundreds of times bigger than Comintern or the CPUSA ever were. Climintern controls annual budgets of tens or hundreds of billions of dollars – compared with the tens of millions that were at the disposal of the CPUSA. Climintern also has a more complex structure, with many command levels and multiple communication channels. Further, some groups within Climintern serve as communication channels in addition to their operational functions, such as propaganda or mobilization. The Guardian’s article Climate change: we must look to international agencies to save the world is an example of such dual functionality. It both weakens resistance to the CAG among ordinary readers and signals to low-level front groups that the party line openly pushes national submission to the international agencies.
To be effective, a Climintern group does not need to know that it is a part of a centrally controlled structure. It only needs to know who gives its instructions, or through what channels it receives those instructions. The Climintern groups and their employees and agents must obey the instructions, or risk loss of their jobs and/or funding. I need not repeat here the well-known cases, such as the expulsion of whole chapters from Sierra Club. The CAG also controls large parts of the federal government (as of 1/1/2017), state governments, many European governments, most research funding, and enormous amounts of public money. The Internet allows continuous and efficient communication and coordination between the CAG and its forces worldwide. Just thirty years ago, global or even regional scale plots were almost impossible because of the lack of efficient communication and coordination. Today, that distance is not an obstacle.
Of course, the CAG itself is not as cohesive as the Soviet regime under Stalin. But the leaders of big transnational NGOs, UN officials, European Green parties, and hell-knows-who-else maintain a unified command, probably aided by huge amounts of money coming their way. And they are adept at issuing instructions in the form of “commander’s intent,” allowing leaders of subordinated outfits broad discretion on how to execute the instructions to achieve their intended goals.
The legacy of two of America’s most powerful defeated enemies – Communism and Nazism – are evident in the CAG. Nazism became a powerful influence in the UN organization in the 1970’s, as evident from the appointment of Kurt Waldheim, an unindicted Nazi war criminal, as the UN Secretary-General from 1972 to 1981. Apparently, this ideology made its way into the UN through certain third-world governments, sometimes in the disguise of anti-colonialism. America had almost no colonies, exerted pressure on European countries to let go of their colonies, and provided aid to many newly independent countries, but still became an object of hatred. Hatred has a logic of its own. America was also perceived by the aspiring “global governors” (including characters as diverse as Maurice Strong and George Soros) as the main obstacle to their tyrannical ambitions, and for good reasons. Finally, the anti-humanist ideology of the “deep ecology” recently moved from the fringes into the mainstream of climate alarmism. Evil attracts evil.
Climintern’s factions have different ultimate goals. The only thing that unites them is their hostility to this nation. Their shared immediate goal is to weaken America and either to subject it to foreign rule or to tear it down entirely. Powerful domestic groups, such as Sierra Club(*), EDF(*), NRDC(*), UCS(*), Center for American Progress (CAP) and, as horrible as it sounds, the Democratic National Committee seem to be affiliated with Climintern.
Transnational environmentalism has been corrupting science through the EPA since the early 1980’s. When Al Gore was Vice President in 1993-2001, the environmentalists started dismantling the American scientific enterprise. George W. Bush did nothing to stop this process. America has been constantly targeted by the Climate Action Network, and the whole UNFCCC process was consciously steered in that direction. For example, this is how the methodology of accounting for emitted gases was established (from a CAN booklet):
Sinks issues began to come up well before Kyoto. … It was the NGO position that we didn’t want land use or gases other than carbon dioxide going into Kyoto because we didn’t think you could estimate them really well. (COP 6, Bonn 2001)
—John Lanchbery
The explanation is not truthful. The relative impact of the land use and gases other than carbon dioxide could be estimated, and certainly better than the impact of carbon dioxide had been estimated. The real reason for this emphasis was that US emissions of infrared-active gases other than carbon dioxide and the net emissions of carbon dioxide (emissions less sinks) are very small, both absolutely and per capita. So the CAG decided to use another accounting methodology, which would show a big US “footprint.” In other words, it designated America as the enemy, and “parameterized” science and economics through the UNFCCC/IPCC to justify this hostility. The booklet also repeatedly mentions CAN’s strategy to isolate the US from its allies and gloats about its successes, like this:
CAN of course played a critical role in working with the EU, South Africa, and other developing countries to craft a strategy on the floor to isolate the US and get them to reverse their position on opposing the Bali Action Plan. John Coequyt was then at Greenpeace USA, and had a friendship with Dave Banks, who was a deputy at the Bush White House’s Council on Environmental Quality. (COP 13, Bali 2007)
—Alden Meyer, UCS
The essay Who unleashed Climatism? has more examples from the early period of climate alarmism. Today these attitudes are obvious. The CAG assault started escalating in 2005 (when CAP founded the International Climate Change Taskforce, together with its British and Australian counterparts), skyrocketed in 2006 (with the release of Al Gore’s The Inconvenient Truth with outsized participation of Laurie David of the NRDC), and went through the roof in 2007-2008, when innovations in the fracking technology made huge American shale oil reserves economically accessible (in the article Excluding oil, the US trade deficit has never been worse, see the chart Bakken shale: well production & number of wells; notice 10x increase in the oil output per well.) The WWF(*) and OPEC, constantly monitoring oil and gas resources worldwide, should have known about this oil production breakthrough immediately, but most of the American public remained unaware until this election campaign.
2009 brought Climategate 2.0 and the scandalous Copenhagen Conference of Parties (COP15). This prompted even left-leaning scientists to take a closer look at the “UN Physik” and to abandon or even publicly denounce it. COP15 saw an influx of even more radical groups acting under the umbrella names “Climate Justice Action” and “Climate Justice Now!” Even if those groups acted without authorization from the CAG when they were disrupting public order in Copenhagen, the CAG probably accommodated their demands and attitudes later, as shown by the absence of similar disruptions at later COPs.
Thus, in 2010-2011 the CAG became desperate to shut down US shale oil production before its success became widely known, was annoyed by the loss of its scientific entourage, and piqued by its “climate justice” trailer. Probably at some point in this timeframe it crossed the threshold between hostile activity and an undeclared war.
IV. Status of our Allies
This article is not an appeal to nationalism, but the US situation is sharply different from that of Britain, Canada, Australia, and other Western countries. Most of them have surrendered to climate alarmism, at the cost of their freedoms and big economic damage, and were forced to furnish support to CAG. Western Europe seems to be occupied by CAG, but treated relatively well. America faces a total war almost alone. Energy industry is the most visible target, but education, science, political institutions, and even the social fabric itself are under attack by the CAG and Climintern. Commentators say that climate alarmism is used as a wrecking ball against America.
The habit of European politicians to scapegoat America for their own problems has certainly contributed to the overall mess. On the other hand, it is hard to overestimate the unique role played by Al Gore in climate alarmism since 1988. When I stress that climate alarmism is a foreign enemy, aided by domestic collaborators, I mean foreign to America. Nevertheless, readers from other countries would be justified in seeing climatism as a foreign threat to them. This is because the CAG operates in a virtual extraterritorial space – UN agencies with diplomatic immunities, small countries that are either too weak to stand up to the pack of environmental NGOs (like Netherlands), or countries like Switzerland that customarily provide neutral ground for international activities. Also, the CAG is territorially dispersed most of the time, although it can gather forces in almost any place on the globe.
This observation leads to a philosophical detour. The forces of chaos and totalitarianism (commonly known as the Left) can collaborate across state boundaries much easier than the “good guys.” We respect the national sovereignty of each country, just as we respect individual rights and state rights. This respect is an inherent obstacle faced by the “good guys” in the transboundary political cooperation. But chaos is chaos everywhere; it knows no national borders. The adherents of the global governance and compatible totalitarian systems violate national sovereignties on purpose. They easily collaborate on the global scale. The modern mass media allows Climintern and similar powers to instantly mobilize supporters and innocent bystanders across the globe and throw them against any country, political party, or even individuals standing in their path. Their unprecedented interference against Donald Trump and the Republican candidates to Congress in the 2016 elections is a recent example.
V. Conclusions
I want to contribute to greater understanding of the climate alarmism threat. I do not suggest bombing, shooting, or taking any kind of military action. But the enemy is real, determined, and sophisticated, and some of its accomplices have very little to lose. Scientific errors and the desire to help poor countries played a role in attracting good people to this bad cause, nothing more. The enemy is motivated by its lust for power, greed, and hatred. The election results provide us a fighting chance, but do not ensure a victory.
(*) The author is a plaintiff in a civil RICO lawsuit against this organization.
(**) A set of Google searches on the main Greenpeace website, limited to a military term in conjunction with the words climate or warming (example: war site:greenpeace.org climate OR warming) garnered these results on 1/1/2017:
Revolution: 13,100 results
Fight: 6,450
Strategy: 4,470
Blockade: 4,200
War: 3,700
Battle: 2,640
Combat: 1,510
Mobilization: 1,310
Action: 34,500 (the most generic one)
“Denial” is a separate subject:
Denial: 4,580
Deniers: 2,910
Denier: 2,220
“Nevertheless, most alarmist organizations are under the central control”
This is utter, conspiracist nonsense, isn’t it?
I’m surprised to see this sort of stuff on a site based on discussion of climate science.
Griff. When it is quite possible to compare NOAA’s 1997 data with its 2012 data and see the manipulation/fraud…why should you doubt that this is centrally controlled?
He who plays the piper calls the tune?
Have to agree with you about the conspiracy theory, no need to invoke such a thing, just as religions are not conspiracies, they self-create via gullibility, fear and money: give us some money/tribute/labour or you will burn in hell, coupled with work for us, here is some money we extorted from the fearful.
I wonder when (if) you will finally realise that you are one of the many useful idiots.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!
– Old Saying MLD to Upton Sinclair
He is well aware that he is one of the ‘Useful Idiots’.
Presumably it is worth his while.
Of course its all funded by Big Oil and the Koch Brothers isn’t it Griff?
Or is that you?
You don’t have to be an alamristto be sceptical of paranid delusions.
This is laughable.
There is no secret conspiracy. It’s just a collection of mutual interests who have aligned and formed institutions that now re-enforce the orthodoxy.
Look behind the curtain. It’s a window with a quite realistic world out there.
Nonsense. Just look at the formation, havoc, and fade away of Occupy Wall Street, 1%, and the 2012 election. Same with BLM, and the 2016 election, although they seem to have a life beyond the 2016 election. Nothing laughable about these two examples. And, nothing laughable about the hate and violence they have produced.
Griff,
The people of the village are all out looking for you.
toorightmate,
Griff,
The
people of the vVillage People are all out looking for you.There, FIFY.
Dang, messed up the tags. Hope this works.
Griff,
The
people of the vVillage People are all out looking for you.There, FIFY.
Hey Griff, you’re back! I missed you, the comments are not the same without you. Please say something really stupid. You’re idiotic comments make these threads so much more entertaining!
An intelligent person would attempt to prove the allegations false.
A troll just declares that it’s a conspiracy nonsense and must be ignored.
It may be true, it may be nonsense. Deal with the arguments and data.
BTW, people like you were making the same claims regarding the evidence of CPUSA and it’s actions.
Griff,
As always, you only skimmed the article and/or didn’t really think about it much. A conspiracy is not necessary for a large movement, either good or bad, to be born. Such movements always – always – have a small number of people at their core which started it and continue to guide it. Before the internet it was difficult to get one started, and especially maintain any sort of control. It generally required the control of the media, which is why all dictatorships nationalize the media as their first action. But now you can reach billions of people via social media and web sites. Sure, not all the people in these movements, or causes, march in lockstep with the rest, or are controlled like puppets by the core group, but that is not necessary. As long as the larger mass moves in the desired direction, their goals are slowly met. They are playing a long game and can afford some inefficiencies. In the end, many of their supporters will be sacrificed anyway, either as cannon fodder or victims of the larger scheme, should it succeed.
So the question for you Griff, is: Are you one of the useful idiots that will only discover your folly after it is too late, or someone who is working for a seat at the royal table after the peasants have been put down?
“Such movements always – always – have a small number of people at their core which started it and continue to guide it.”
There may be a conspiracy among the leaders of the movement, but the vast majority of the members are just immersed in groupthink. The Herd doesn’t have to engage in an active conspiracy with their leaders, they can pick the latest argument supporting their side off the internet and use it as their argument without any outside help, since they are constantly seeking arguments that bolster their worldview (as we all do).
Paul, of course Griff hasn’t thought much or read the article properly. The reason he hasn’t is the importance of getting the first comment in. No time to get anything more than a faint whiff of what it’s about and get something snarky in that first comment.
Haven’t you ever noticed how often Griff is first responder?
SteveT
It would be “utter, conspiracist nonsense” if they were hiding it but they’re pretty open about it: http://climatenetwork.org/
I do like their (CAN’s) contact section:
Griff,
you have to EXPLAIN why you think it is nonsense,or you will have no traction here.
Why is so hard for you to understand?
Thank you, Tommy, for responding constructively in your first sentence rather than with an ad hominem attack. I wish more commenters here would just do that that.
Most of us know Griff a lot better than you do.
Ralph Dave,
Mark is correct. See all past, cordial, constructive comments to the Griff posts. It is a waste of time.
The person posting as Griff is not trying to communicate, he/she is trying to get a response; internet stimulation is all that it wants, and at times it can find stimulation here.
… wish granted, you have two left.
If media, academia, government administrators and pop culture all converge on an agenda and coordinate to point of accepted language i.e. “Deniers=Holocaust deniers”, Climate “change”, CO2 is “pollution” how could not describe it at anything but “conspiratorial’???
At this scale we often just revert to the word “political” but you should get the point.
The article is pretty on point.
It’s embarrassing to be such a clueless, useful tool, huh Griff.
IMHO Griff you completely naïve and out of touch with reality. Just sayin’
And how much do opinions count–whether humble or not, or 97% or some other number?
As Sgt. Friday said in his benightedly gender insensitive way, “Just the facts, Ma’am.”
Correction: it appears that Sgt. Friday actually said, “All we want are the facts, Ma’am.”
First commenter is….Griff. Sort of proves the article’s point, Griff. Which commissar do you report to?
Griff,
You should, to best that your moral relativism is capable, critically examine the who and what of Ceres.org.
Once you have critically examined the actors in that coalition, ask yourself basic questions, like what are these disparate special interest groups banded together for? Why have I never heard of these groups working together? Who funds all this?
Griff, you are ignorant of what is going on around you and there is no conspiracy because, Leo Goldstein is describing what other people are up to and other people are going to do what Leo Goldstein has described, why? Because people are humans and humans are animals and there is always someone in the pack that wants to be top dog. Thats human nature. (Power, greed and control).
We are here to stop that.
Regards
Climate Heretic
PS I do not know if I have put the above in a clear and concise manner. I hope you get the gist.
Have you apologised to Dr. Crockford for lying about her professional qualifications yet, you skanky, mendacious piece of vermin?
Well, it’s a control freak war against liberty and freedom, yeah. Absolutely. And yes, many politicians are using environmental laws to promote totalitarian agendas. It’s made to order for it.
And by the way, conspiracies happen, that’s why the word exists. And calling something a ‘conspiracy theory’ is simply an attempt to discredit it, and a tactic used most shrilly when they really did it.
In fact, I think that’s why there so much butt-puckering from the warmist crowd (and frankly all of Progressive America), because they KNOW what they’ve been up to. And all that dirty laundry might finally gain mainstream attention.
And, of course, they’re afraid they might get some of the same treatment, they’ve been giving others.
As the man said, most good people supporting climate alarmism are unaware of the existence of such control structure with a very non-environmental goal.
Griff
You are not qualified to speak on this subject. Nothing about you being surprised surprises me.
So Boring. Work on your drafts at home. Writing fiction is a skill that comes naturally to very few. It takes a lot of practice practice practice before you should even attempt to publish. Respect yourself and don’t turn into a hack.
Not quite conspiracist. Green’s near universal adoption of irrational goals and policies must be explained somehow. These irrational policies being: opposition to GMOs, nuclear power, and industrial agriculture (aka technological agriculture with a scientific basis); combined with support for organic agriculture, renewable power (no matter how batty, inefficient and inappropriate), apart from large scale hydro electricity. I can understand green opposition to fossil fuel. They have a narrative about catastrophic man-made climate change that fits in with a precautionary principle. A seemingly coherent ideology (coherent in their logic, if not mine).
I explain it in terms of funding. Green organizations are consistently funded by anti-growth foundations. A large list is here. Much of this wealth was made off the backs of U.S. workers during times of optimism, growth and prosperity. E.g. Rockefellers, Gordon and Betty Moore, Packard, Ford, Tides, Blue Moon, Marisla, Joyce, Charles Stewart Mott (to name only some of the richest). Eventually capitalism eats itself. Capitalists get rich and happy with their lot in life. They tell the rest of us we should be happy with poverty (green frugality). This is known as pulling up the ladder behind you.
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/full-comment/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/peter-foster-the-man-who-shaped-the-climate-agenda-in-paris-maurice-strong-leaves-a-complicated-legacy
Blaming Maurice Strong gives an explanation which can’t be defended against the accusation of conspiracy theorizing. Because why would anyone listen to anything he said? That’s exactly the charge leveled against Tim Ball and Delingpole by alarmists. In contrast when I mention massive financial funding from capitalist to, so-called, left green organizations the greens go nuclear. Their heads explode.
Indeed, it is hard to explain the behaviour of environmentalists. If we assume humans to behave rational, which objective would satisfy such rationalism? Because 1. reduction of CO2 (irrational by itself) but rejection of nuclear power. 2. protection of nature but encouragement of windmills which ruin nature 3. saving the planet (rocks? plants? animals?) by fighting industry thus humanity. Also it is hard to believe that environmentalists fight themselves to save the planet (by jumping from rooftops). So what is left?
It looks like the come-back of a new noble class. The strive for new feudal times. Landlords raise money just by land ownership (land as sole source of energy) without return. This new rich need a large class of poor. How do you create poverty? Cut off their energy. Windmills and solar panels just do that.
That’s why nuclear is rejected: it provides enough energy, thus freedom, for all.
…”the US situation is sharply different from that of Britain, Canada, Australia, and other Western countries. Most of them have surrendered to climate alarmism, at the cost of their freedoms and big economic damage, and were forced to furnish support to CAG.”
Evah been to Australia mate? Surrender? We’ll bloody fight them on the beaches.
Gets the diagonal nod here.
“tony mcleod January 5, 2017 at 1:07 am
We’ll bloody fight them on the beaches.”
Only when there is no footy on TV, beer in the fridge or prawns on the barby! BTW, Australia has just commissioned…an ICEBREAKER along with Spanish built warships. Tough luck to the ship building skills in South Australia.
Well the way things are going in SA with power the last welding job will be done by forge and it won’t be big enough for a sub
“Evah been to Australia mate? Surrender? We’ll bloody fight them on the beaches.”
Stinger season here at the mo so only within the net boundary mate.
The UK surrendered with the Climate Change Act 2008. The BBC is an agent of the enemy and cannot be criticised.
UK government did. UK people did not.
Climate and renewable scepticism has never been higher.
The EU is warmist, but even that is changing. Eastern European nations know how communist groupthink works…
Canada has surrendered as well. Canadians are about to have a carbon tax rammed down their throats and they are going along with it like sheep. Their MSM encourages them to surrender to climate alarmism on a daily basis. Even their main right leaning news outlet National Post has gotten on the carbon tax bandwagon, they actually believe it will change the weather. Have Canadians always been this feeble minded?
Leo,
The UK Government and establishment political parties surrendered. The fact that the people have ever more sceptism has made no difference to the establishment which still has the wight flag flying as high as ever. The UK establishment (including the BBC, the scientific institutions, the universities and NGOs) carry on regardless of public opinion or the facts which are regularly pointed out to them.
About Canada: all Ice Ages begin right over Hudson Bay. Once that becomes a glacier, it causes a chain reaction leading to nearly all of Canada sealed under a literal mile of ice. Of all nations on earth, Canada should desire global warming.
wrt Canada,
I can’t, in any way, fathom that a resident of Calgary could get up and go outside this morning (knowing that, for the next month, the temp will remain way below average and barley break freezing on the high end) and be happy about carbon credit mitigation schemes.
For perspective, algore, lenardo, mann, hansen, and another 10 or 20 of the gang should spend the next month in Calgary (all the while having to go outside to acquire their own heating fuels) to discuss the problems associated with climate change.
A barley break? Is that what you Canadians are calling beer these days?
Emsnews the North American continental ice sheets do not begin in / over Hudson Bay. There are two main centres of ice accumulation and these are topographically high regions, the Labrador Dome on the high plateau of Labrador / Quebec east of southern Hudson Bay and the Keewatin Dome to the west of Hudson Bay. The Baffin Dome and the Cordilleran ice sheet play a more minor role.
About 60,000 years ago (50,000 years after the onset of the last ice age) the ice sheets were thick enough to coalesce over Hudson Bay and form a single thick dome.
Cheers.
Stewart Pid
I find your pompous, ill-hummered response is lacking in interest … dull & tedious.
Tony
As a fellow Aussie I need point out that at least 3 state governments ie SA Vic and Qld
have Labour Governments which already have 45% renewables (SA) or are promising to take remewables up to 40-50% (Vic and Qld) while the Premier of Victoria has banned on shore natural gas exploration
Plus for good measure the Leader of the Opposition if he becomes Prime Minister
has promised renewables of 50%
So in my view we are close to losing that battle
May be we can collect solar energy and transmit that to Spain so that they can build our Naval defense…
We keep voting for people who say “there will be no carbon (dioxide) tax” but somehow we seem to get more renewballs energy and carbon (dioxide) taxes.
Australia surrendered a decade ago. Remember KRudd?
CBC News, March 5, 2016
‘Patrick Brown says he supports putting a price on carbon’
‘Climate change is a fact. It is a threat. It is man-made,’ Ontario PC leader says at annual party convention.
Read more at:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-pc-convention-1.3477623
PC is Ontario Progressive-Conservative Party.
Couldn’t they just shorten the name to “The Oxymoron Party”? Or perhaps just the “moron party”.
”The CAG leads a tight coalition of mostly foreign based NGOs, certain United Nations agencies and politicians, and a few individuals possessed by ideas of world domination (euphemistically described as “world governance” or “global civil society”) and aided by domestic collaborators. Here, this coalition will be called Climatist International, or Climintern, to underscore its analogy with the Communist International (Comintern) …”
One of the most successful tactics used by the “Climintern” is the labelling of anyone who questions “the science” as a mad rightwing conspiracy theorist. This article will confirm them in their belief and be used by Lewandowsky and his kind to prove their thesis. Those of us who consider ourselves “on the left” are fed up with being considered “The forces of chaos and totalitarianism.” Please stop publishing this kind of nonsense.
Can you please state or cite your charter? What does the legitimate left stand for? I am very curious about this issue …
The left is chaos and totalitarianism. Sorry if the truth offends you.
It takes a totalitarian government to impose the solutions of the left, and since they don’t work, chaos is always the result.
straight out of Principia Discordia, the Law of Negative Reversal states that:
for every attempt to impose order, and equal and opposite amount of chaos is generated.
Hail Eris!
Mark. I think chaos is not a result but a goal. Chaos is a required step by the left to bring about their utopian world. They believe that from a country or world in chaos that then the masses will accept their plans to make the world perfect. It has worked in the past with Russia, Germany, China and most other countries that turned to communism and other socialist systems.
Geoff,
I don’t know you, but for the moment I’ll assume that you are one of the more thoughtful, moderate people on the “left”. As such, your demands on others are probably not too offensive, and in your mind, probably quite reasonable. However there are others, like George Soros, on the “left” who are not as gentle. And they will use people like you to incrementally achieve what they desire: more power. Over me and you.
I agree, Geoff. This nonsense is playing into their hands. It’s a great pity that it had to be read on a widely-respected wesite such as this.
Sure . . best to appease “them”, lest they call down the wrath of the zombie mass media, perhaps even unleashing the dreaded synchronized TV talking heads eye roll! . . Or maybe even playing the devastating Rusky agents undermining our democracy card!!
; )
‘Those of us who consider ourselves “on the left” are fed up with being considered “The forces of chaos and totalitarianism.”’
So stop doing it, then.
May be those who consider themselves on the left but are not with “the forces of chaos and totalitarianism” should look closer at the rest of the Left, and disassociate themselves?
That’s what I did.
What does the Blessed Julian of Assange have to say on the issue? I’m sure he will have some hacked emails somewhere to guide the new President in his decision making on how to progress with climate science.
You really are scum Gareth.
Take your paid for opinions elsewhere.
Don’t you think you’re being a trifle unfair to scum there, Charles?
The funny thing is that everyone on the Left LOVED them some Assange when they thought he was just embarrasing the United States, especially when GWB was prez. Of course that’s back when they still liked the Russians, too (remember Obama making fun of Romney for saying that Russia was still a threat)
Oh, and this seems the perfect place to remind all that the online secret security password of John Podesta, Clinton’s top lieutenant and the Godfather of the Climate Alarmist movement for the last few years, was…. “password”. That’s the incredibly difficult security protocal he set up which had to be breached in order for anyone to read and copy all of his emails online.
A password which was “password”.
https://giphy.com/gifs/spaceballs-password-12345-xT0GqJfdLcrcpSbZf2
The left has embraced McCarthyism. They are now the anti-commie party that…is commie still! This mind-blowing reversal is rather comical.
some hacked emails somewhere…..
…and we should trust our government to a group of people that are that easily hacked??
Keeping your server in the bathroom closet…
…your password is “password”
Having your emails on the same laptop with your husbands porn?
Does no one remember when Russia bought a load of typewriters and why?
…hacking Merkel’s, Brazil, Mexico…..cell phone and emails??
…and now it’s all about Russia…..and not about what the emails exposed
This Russian hacking is so bad that its almost like government officials should be required by law to use a secure server…
em…a long time ago
Every bit of this has been designed to push us all to globalization/socialization
Gareth,
Putting aside how the Podesta and DNC emails were obtained, what exactly is your criticism? They have been proven over and over to have not been tampered with. The truth that the Clinton campaign and the DNC were/are lying, cheating, scheming dirtbags was simply laid bare. Isn’t truth and transparency in politics a good thing?
……people win five out of five coin tosses every day
I actually think the secretary of state keeping she server in the bathroom closet was brilliant…
…who in this world would have even though to look there?
“Isn’t truth and transparency in politics a good thing?:
Seriously – it’s ok if Russia hacks into US government systems, as long as the information is released publicly?
Chris,
That’s a strawman argument. The Podesta and DNC emails were not on government servers and contained no national security secrets. Unlike Hillary’s homebrew email server, I might add. But just to be clear, OF COURSE I DON’T think hacking of government computer systems by ANYBODY is a good thing.
“I actually think the secretary of state keeping she server in the bathroom closet was brilliant…
…who in this world would have even though to look there?”
Well, the physical location of the server was irrelevant within the parameters of the internet. Its domain name location was the thing, and was, apperently, all too easy to discern.
Poor Chris.
1) Nobody has demonstrated that Russia was behind the hacking. I know Obama has made claims, but then, Obama lies about everything else as well.
2) Transparency is good, irrespective of who is the cause.
3) You can’t deal with the fact that the evil of your side has been exposed, so you have to generate any side show you can to distract from it.
“1) Nobody has demonstrated that Russia was behind the hacking. I know Obama has made claims, but then, Obama lies about everything else as well.”
Yeah, some of the same people confirming Russian “interference” in U.S. elections, were also making up stories about a video being responsible for the Benghazi attack, not so long ago.
Obama has politicized the entire Executive Branch including the military and the Intelligence Branches. He has his “Yes Men” in every position of power. They are doing the bidding of Obama, and everyone should know by now, that Obama lies just about all the time. You can’t take anything he says at face value. Including this Russian hacking story.
Even if they prove Russia hacked the DNC, that doesn’t mean it caused Hillary to lose the election. Information released about Trump by the Democrats was just as harmful to Trump as the revelations about Hillary.
This Russian hacking thing is just an effort to harm Trump. The Left is looking for any and all ways to do this, so get used to it. They will twist whatever they can to make Trump look bad.
I love it when Trump calls them out for the liars they are.
I get pretty much the same reaction from alarmists when I point out how many billions of capitalist money (much of it derived from fossil fuel) the green movement lives off :
Isn’t it sad that the ONLY way to read or hear the truth is to get it through clandestine (admittedly illegal) means?
Your comment obviously doesn’t refute the validity of those hacked emails–you’re both embarrassed and fearful that the cover is off your charade of lying to the American people, and this time around there was enough evidence to:
1) Find many in the mainstream media complicit in rigged electioneering;
2) Reject Hillary Clinton as the worst presidential candidate ever;
3) Indict President Obama as having corrupted government agencies to target his political foes;
4) Find the current administration of lying continually to the American people to justify their warped, counterproductive Marxist approach to governance.
But to counter your whole point, Gareth, Mr. Trump will NOT need Julian Assange (yes, he is Blessed) to guide his new administration: He has a whole cabinet and staff loaded with people who are far more honest and accomplished than our current batch of grief-stricken* useless political hacks. (Although it would be interesting to see what additional dirt Assange could produce regarding “climate science” but the initial Climategate Email scandal should be sufficient in case you want to discover the truth.)
*Oh, my–where oh where can I find work except with Hill/Bill or the Clinton Global Initiative, or flippin’ burgers somewhere?
Wow Rocky. I wish I had wrote your comment. Keep them great comment coming.
gareth – climate e-mails were already leaked via climategate. They confirmed ideology was driving climate science. What more is needed? GK
wws said:”The funny thing is that everyone on the Left LOVED them some Assange when they thought he was just embarrasing the United States, especially when GWB was prez.”
The funny thing is everyone on the right hated them some Assange when they thought he was being a traitor to the US early in Obama’s administration. Now they love him for disclosing Dem’s emails. How’s that for a hypocritical turn of events!
Chris, one of these days you will quite seeing what you want to see and start seeing the world as it is.
Because we cheer that Assange has taken down Hillary is not the same thing as loving Assange himself.
He’s still a traitor.
I despise the warmonger neocon faction of the globalist enemy, Mark. You know, the same ones who fought Mr. Trump’s election? You with them?
JohnKnight, stringing meaningless nouns together does not a cogent argument make.
There are people who declare that anything less than abject surrender at the first sign of anger is warmongering.
And neocon for the most part is just code word for jew.
The very idea that a country should protect it’s vital interests sends the gentle souls into conniptions of self flagellation.
Well, if ‘hacked’ means, asking some total moron like Podesta for his password and he just gives it to you. Twice.
Amazing how Progressive suddenly seem concerned about security.
And by the way – those ‘hacked’ e-mails are the only place where we’re actually getting the truth behind closed doors. Funny how guys like you don’t want to focus on content… just phony outrage.
And frankly, that content shows… dare I say the word?…. ‘conspiracy’ to push an agenda, affect an election, hide the truth.
Hypocrisy – can’t be a Progressive without it.
I’ll take that as a ‘yes’, Mark.
Please note the SJW-like “race card” quality of Mark’s response, readers;
“And neocon for the most part is just code word for jew.”
From the WIKI;
Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among conservative leaning Democrats who became disenchanted with the party’s foreign policy. Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administration of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[1] Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle and Paul Bremer.
“The left has embraced McCarthyism.”
The left embraced McCarthyism long before McCarthy did. They were kicking right-wingers out of Hollywood well before the Evil McCarthy tried to do the same to the Hollywood commies.
And McCarthy underestimated the commie penetration of the US government and institutions: that’s why the commies fought so hard to discredit him.
JohnK, you can take it any way you like. However your complaint still remains meaningless and a pathetic example of groupthink.
Agreed +1,000
In a nutshell why I would never vote for Hitlery. She didn’t set up a home server for any “convenience,” it was so she could control the narrative about her record and remove anything from it that was unflattering (being generous about the verbiage here).
There is a way to regard climate alarmism as rational: an elitists movement of the new landlords, a self appointed new noble class. Their basic fear is a coming shortage of resources and their goal is impoverisment of the masses for their own benefit. How do you create of class of poor? Of course by cutting off their energy. Well, solar panels and windmills exactly do that. This explains that the greens are opposed to every technology that “works” so generates enough reliable and affordable energy to provide freedom for all. The “green revolution” is regression to a new feudal system with some rich and many poor people: their servants. Vaklav Klaus is right: it is not about energy or nature but about our freedom. And exactly as in the old days, the -now green- church ligitimates the new social inequality and injustice.
See also here: http://www.davdata.nl/math/mentalclimate.html
Thanks for demonstrating that it’s quite possible to formulate an interesting rightwing libertarian argument without insulting our intelligence. Just who are “the new landlords, a self appointed new noble class” is a question that requires patient analysis, something that Marxists used to do well before the got caught up in the global warming hysteria.
The “tight coalition of mostly foreign based NGOs” etc. which the author accuses of being behind the warmist plot is financially largely by foundations set up by dead American billionaires, with a large helping of taxpayers’ money provided by the EU in Europe. The Hewletts and Packards and Roosevelts are not conspiring with UN agencies and Bill McKibben to take over the world. Unfortunately politics in the real world is always a bit more complicated
Geoff,
You would have to go some distance to objectively prove that there is an intersection between the set of ‘left’ and ‘rationality’ or clearness or logic of, or in, thought.
Geoff,
Yes, the movement has received a large amount of funding from “dead American billionaires”, however it is now controlled by their successors: mostly elitist, ivy league educated snobs that are trying to assuage their guilt over being massively wealthy despite having contributed nothing to society. And don’t forget people like George Soros who obtained their wealth by impoverishing entire nations through shady currency trading. Of course the socialist European elitist leaders can depended on to rip off their populace to fund schemes to weaken real democracies like the US. Along with their ivory town accomplices, this pretty much defines the new self-appointed noble class.
Check out Pareto on the “circulation of the elites.”
Interesting. Thank you!
Paul Penrose
Thanks for pointing out that the successors of “dead American billionaires” are “mostly elitist, ivy league educated snobs that are trying to assuage their guilt over being massively wealthy despite having contributed nothing to society.” In Europe with its aristocratic traditions there’s less guilt, and therefore more reliance on siphoning off public money.
And thanks Roger Knights for reminding me about Pareto. I’m pleased to learn something from people I don’t necessarily agree with politically.
In the same way as the ‘global warming’ data is over-cooked so is the conspiracy theory as advocated in the above essay.
It is plain and simple, both left and the right governments around the globe have taken CAGW on board since it gives them ‘god-sent money grabbing opportunity’ from the taxpayers.
Math’s is simple: support so called ‘climate science’ by x billions, collect 10 * x billions in the green taxes.
Abiotic oil is a renewal and is not a fossil fuel. One man’s opinion…
1988-1991. With the collapse of the Soviet Union the momentum was there to enforce all kind of treaties and even wars. Helsinki, Maastricht-euro, Kyoto, 21 Rio de Janeiro and the Gulf War.
The Netherlands is almost under full control of NGO’s and MSM concerning climate and sustainability.
With the upcoming election the MSM and social media has come under slight restriction.
The government and leading political parties don’t surprises like last year’s referendum concerning Ukraine.
The -Dutch- anti Ukraine referendum was about discontent with the Eropean Union: too many regulations undermining state sovereignty, money wasted to help the Greek, failure to solve immigration problems and in general absence of progress, decline of job security. But the major failure is still overlooked: the insane energy policies. More misery is to come when people realise that the billions invested in green energy (by pension funds) are wasted.
Going back to the ’60s the leftists have expressed their desire to tone down economic activity and have a “low key” lifestyle, as:
Certainly their goal is not to de-develop Chiina, or India, or the third world. Their ire seems to be focused on the west, and mostly on the US. Before the global warming scare, in 1973 John Holdren didn’t mention de-developing any other country. For him it was / is about the U.S. That is utter stupidity in a globally competitive world where our military foes could leapfrog ahead of us economically. It’s quite troubling that the Paris Accord in fact let our likely foe China off the hook completely, while screwing us over. It’s complete unmitigated idiocy.
Paris was a massive wankfest of virtue-signalling. Its not binding in anyone, and there are no threats to make it so.
Leo Smith It doesn’t really matter whether the Paris Climate Accord is “binding” in every sense of the word. Look at California, which is bound to nothing but their own ultra-leftist ideals. CA is in the process of destroying their own economy through their climate garbage (and other garbage). If the general sense is that we are “in” the Paris Accord and that it is good then our government will try to do its part to see to it that we adhere to its draconian emissions cuts.
Btw, I’m all for Trump, but this was weird, after 15 months on the campaign trail of saying he thought the Paris Accord was the stupidest thing since unsliced bread, all of sudden we got this:
Nov 22nd: Paris climate deal: Trump says he now has an ‘open mind’ about accord (The Guardian). A few days later Trump nominated the liberal and Paris Accord pushing Rex Tillerson. Don’t think he’s not a liberal just because he’s “an evil oil executive.”
Rex Tillerson Oct 2016: “At ExxonMobil, we share the view that the risks of climate change are serious… [and favor] the Paris agreement.”
And remember the whole thing about gay adults leading the boy scouts? That was pushed not by extreme liberals but by Tillerson:
Social Conservatives Aren’t Thrilled With Rex Tillerson: http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/29/social-conservatives-arent-thrilled-with-tillerson/
The main reason Trump nominated Tillerson, IMO, is to act as a go-between with Putin. E.g., he can send Tillerson to Moscow to meet with his old chum on the off-chance that some deal could be arranged, without risking his prestige if it couldn’t.
Roger Knights Well, as long as Tillerson keeps his hands off of climate policy like John Kerry as Sec of State has done.
Eric, California’s economy is doing very well, they just passed France to become the 6th largest economy in the world.
That just demonstrates that France is falling faster than CA.
So France is doing so poorly? That’s sad…
Again, I direct you to Michael Crichton’s novel “State of Fear,” a novelistic treatment to be sure, but based on climate facts and very believable in its showing of actual conspiracy. I have no doubt that our author is right. I can’t imagine a campaign such as that waged by the alarmists is done by accident or without some form of coordination.
It’s the same way with the MSM news: Every time there’s a fresh news topic, the wording used to describe it is IDENTICAL across all networks. Obviously, a directive email has been sent and they all parrot the same party line.
It’s like the Borg–they’re all linked together and the sad thing is that they call themselves Liberal Democrats!
LOL!
“It’s the same way with the MSM news: Every time there’s a fresh news topic, the wording used to describe it is IDENTICAL across all networks. Obviously, a directive email has been sent and they all parrot the same party line.”
I think a lot of it is mostly “monkey see, monkey do” activity. A Leftwing reporters sees a story that hurts Trump, for example, and the reporter doesn’t need to get an email to repeat the story, he can do it all on his own.
No, TA–because many of these news stories break simultaneously and they all use the same exact words to describe “breaking news”. There’s usually no time gap between the news reports from different networks so there has to be behind-the-scenes coordination.
Leo, Please explain the unnecessary procedure on Deepwater Horizon required by EPA regs. In my years running rigs and preparing drilling programs all involved, except for a redneck few, accepted regs were developed to prevent re-occurrence of disastrous mistakes. Sometimes the regulatory procedure was overkill in the circumstances but in other cases the potential disaster was not recognized by less educated personnel, hence the need for regs.
Why has George Soros gained super-villain status?
Geoff Chambers,
I would like to see your opinion of the above on George Soros.
Does Soros speak for your cause ir causes, or no?
@Geoff Chambers
Of course Soros doesn’t “speak for my cause” whatever that means. Like anyone on the left, and like many conservatives on this thread I would guess, I see the power of the super-rich to be one of the great dangers to democracy. It’s something that needs analysing, not weaving a conspiracy theory about.
Geoff Chambers says: “Of course Soros doesn’t “speak for my cause” whatever that means. ”
Well, let’s take a brief look on one activity he supports, which may or may not be along hte lines of causes you, too support:
he established the Open Society Foundations in 1984. The foundations fund a range of global initiatives “to advance justice, education, public health, business development and independent media.” The causes Soros helps with his foundations are numerous (the foundations’ list of activities goes on for 500 pages), but they include aiding in regions struck by natural disaster, establishing after-school programs in New York City, funding the arts, lending financial assistance to the Russian university system, fighting disease and combating “brain drain” in Eastern Europe.
Do you look positively on any of those efforts?
Most of these groups are enemies of the US, and all have ties to the UN.
Declare them all domestic terrorists and let the laws sort them out, wherever it may lead. We need to get this scum out of positions of power.
HUH?
Citations please.
IMO you are translating 25-30% less as “3-4 times less “.
ie 25% of instead of 25% less.
“High CO2 emissions from coal-fired power generation
The highest CO2 emissions in power generation have been recorded by coal and lignite power plants without cogeneration with 949 g CO2 per kWh or 1153 g CO2 per kWh.
If waste heat is used in power generation in Germany, for example, to heat homes, the specific CO2 emissions for hard coal and lignite cogeneration plants are reduced to 622 g CO2 per kWh or 729 g CO2 per kWh of electricity.”
“Medium-term CO2 emissions from power generation are caused by natural gas power plants
In our CO2 comparison for natural gas-gas and steam combined-cycle power plants, we generate 148 g CO2 per kWh and 428 g CO2 per kWh of electricity, respectively, with or without combined heat and power (district heating).”
http://www.co2-emissionen-vergleichen.de/Stromerzeugung/CO2-Vergleich-Stromerzeugung.html
Now everyone can calculate for themselves, which CO2 Emmisions with coal and gas arise. But this is only a nebulous side-court. No one can say in this complexe climate system of our earth, which contribution CO2 really have to the warming. The topic of the post is missed. We in Germany have known for years that the world order is to be translated into a single (socialist or, as always, a world government). Why should parties such as the AFD have arose? The issue of the refugee came only after the party had long existed and, of course, contributed to the upheaval, but it was not the original reason for the founding party. But this was unrestrained economic and political globalization.
Now the US is in the crossfire of this fight, in other countries these wintrymen have already won. But with the surprising victory Donald Trumps in the most important nation of the world suddenly a new situation arises. Trump should strengthen his personal protection, in money and ideology questions these figures do not have fun. The AFD has been tormented with attacks on office rooms, stalls and staff.
Methane is CH4, so much of the energy being released comes from the combining of hydrogen with oxygen.
Coal on the other hand is pretty close to pure carbon, so all the energy has to come from the combining of carbon and oxygen.
Coal also has a significant water content, whereas methane is anhydrous. The energy required to evaporate the water in coal and the CO2 production involved, is a significant proportion of the energy contained in the fuel and is wasted as usable heat energy.
The heat needed to vaporize water is re-captured when the flue gasses cool.
Beyond that, it’s not the temperature of the resultant gasses that matter, it’s how much they expand.
water expands something like 1000 to 1 when it vaporizes. That’s way much more than the amount that air expands over the same temperature range.
Hydrogen has about 120 MJ/kg of heat energy (LHV) when burned. C has about 33 MJ/kg when burned. Methane (natural gas) is CH4. Carbon is C. The source of the ‘about 4 times’ comes from the ratio of the energy release numbers for H and C when burned.
Hydrogen is a powerful fuel, per kg. It happens to be a very inconvenient fuel in a gaseous state. Wood is about 6% hydrogen by mass. That is about half the energy of the carbon fraction of wood, even though carbon makes up about 50% of its mass..
I forgot you can’t say the consp*r*cy word here. My forst response was more constructive.
But the censorship makes it hard to discuss the paranoia on display in this article.
We have not always been at war with anyone.
Assuming AW has approved this for publication, I am surprised the date is not 1st April.
This is just a total load of conspiracy mixed in with jingoistic hate and inaccuracy
Unbelievable!
Its opposition to even trial-testing geo-engineering adaptation is another clue.
Geo-engineering is at the blood-letting level of understanding at the moment. It must not be allowed at all.
re: “Geo-engineering”
I think we are WELL past that stage; what would you call the blocking of the Colorado River by a huge damn?
Jim,
Notice I said “understanding”, as in understanding how these schemes will really affect the biosphere now and into the future. Damming a river can still produce unexpected results, but that is childs play compared to what these ego-engineering proponents are suggesting. At least with the dam it only affects a small (comparatively) part of the global ecosystem and it can be removed if needs be.
The iron-dust dump in the Gulf of Alaska a few years back had no adverse consequences and resulted in a massive increase in salmon runs. Why not keep trying things like that here and there until some bad effects occur? Stopping the dumping will immediately stop any adverse effects. There’s nothing wrong with limited, cautious experimentation.
Leo,
You’ve stumbled on the results of the Comintern’s fantastically successful covert influence operations. They created and operated a focused and concentrated espionage covert influence op designed to destroy “The Main Enemy’s” foundations.
See my book, a professional counter-intelligence research and analysis of the op and how it created today’s Politically Correct Progressivism (of which Global Warming alarmism is just one facet):
http://www.willingaccomplices.com
But Canada and Australia had climate-skeptic premiers until recently, and they could easily have them again. Britain’s new premier May is much less aggressively Green than Cameron.
The focus is on “had”. As long as the public or better published opinion can still turn this, it is still on the great long march to the transformation. However, a new situation has now arisen with the US. Trump is bulky, angular and unpredictable. This makes fear and fear lead to counterreactions by the self-clarified world gentry.
Mrs May much less aggressively green! She is much less aggressively everything. She is an administrator/manager. She won’t reverse any of the insane UK policies on climate change.
OTC, I believe May’s already reduced funding and staffing for certain Greenie agencies, and appointed skeptics to head one or more of them.
30 years of brutal cold will change Canada’s voters, big time. They are already being hammered by extreme cold this winter.
Yes, the Global Warming falling in my driveway is clear proof that the Carbon Tax has been a great success! All hail The Boy King!
The CAGW hypothesis serves a lot of interests. Deep inside, we are all James Bond : eager to save the world.1. Bureaucrats are specialized in shifting other peoples money. Normally this requires accountability and transparency. However if the goal is morally high and beyond questioning this accountability may be skipped and amounts are unlimited. Al Gore presented governments this “offer they couldn’t refuse”.
2. environmental organisations made climate fear their business model while taking over the moral compass from the church.
Perhaps the dopiest decision was to claim that climate fighting requires “renewable” sources of energy. “Renewable” is not a synonym for “low or zero carbon” and, in fact, has no significance whatsoever for anyone attempting to lower carbon emissions. Biofuel is “renewable” but not really low carbon. One sentence above claimed hydro to be renewable but omitted nuclear power. I suppose one can look at renewable from several standpoints. The concept of renewables as “never ending” only applies to the energy itself, not the apparatus required to use such energy : solar panels and wind turbines don’t last all that long, as compared to coal and nuclear plants, which easily last two to three times longer. Suppose that a coal plant has a life span of 60 years and then suppose that we have 60 years of good coal left. In choosing between solar and coal, the fact that solar is renewable gives it zero advantage over coal – there will be coal available up until the time the plant is wornout and dismanted and needs to be replaced by something else. If coal is
cheaper then economics favors building a coal plant today, even if coal is not a renewable energy, since one gains nothing from the fact that solar is a renewable energy source.
As for nuclear, it can provide energy for as long as humans roam the Earth. Point of fact : molten salt nuclear reactors can burn uranium, “spent uranium” (nuclear wastes), or Thorium. They can extract something on the order of 20 times more energy from uranium than current light water nuclear reactors. Current stockpiles of nuclear wastes contain an enomous amount of energy – estimates are that there is enough energy in those “wastes” that can be recovered by molten salt reactors to provide all the power this country needs for the next 1000 years. There is plenty of terrestrial mined uranium – most uranium mines are shut down currently because of an oversupply and low prices. A molten salt reactor extracts so much energy from uranium that its cost is not even entered into operating costs of a molten salt reactor they are insignificant. This also means that uranium extracted from the sea by filters, currently several times more expensive than terrestrially mined uranium and therefore not used, would also be, more or less, an insignificant cost for a molten salt reactor. There is a LOT of uranium in the seven seas, and more is always being added
from runoff from the land into the oceans. There is also Thorium, which is also very plentiful.
The point being that , in essence, as far as humans are concerned, nuclear power, as produced by molten salt reactors , will last as long as they do, so is, for all intents and purposes, just as long lasting as any renewable energy source. And a molten salt reactor easily lasts over 60 years and
can be built cheaply and very quickly, at less than $2 per watt. A molten salt plant does not need to be shut down for refueling and therefore can easily achieve 100% capacity, as opposed to roughly
20% capacity for solar and 25% for wind. So a 1000 kW nuclear plant can produce roughly
five time more energy than a 1000 kW wind or solar farm. And it does not require the existence of back up power capacity, as does both wind and solar, even if they have battery storage or pumped storage available. And it will have a lifespan two to three times longer than solar panels or wind turbines. Operating costs of a molten salt plant are also quite low. In the energy world of the future, solar and wind have no reason to be included in any utility grid.
I was hoping someone would mention the thorium cycle.
“Suncell” and the Hydrino …
Is a scam. Mills CQM-GUT theory is a mathematical mess; it is not Lorentz invarient. The hydrino violates the basics of well tested quantum theory for hydrogen. And his sole paper’s claim to have experimentally found hydrinos using XPS is fraudulent; XPS can detect neither hydrogen nor helium.
ristvan: “Is a scam. ”
That certainly works to convince me. Not.
I go by the results of the more recent ‘tests and demos’ he has put on, regardless of the ‘mess’ his theory may be (your opinion) … ON THE OTHER HAND you may be unaware of recent advances in this field regarding observations that coincide with his proffered theory; I take it you are not. And so you will take an adamant stance and continue to advise others in the same vein.
The stumbling block has been seen to be your (and others) inability to comprehend basic calorimetry in an experiment, although with more advanced tools and techniques as involved in the measurement of UV and the ‘light’ output as is the case of what Mills is working on.
What is it that is said, that science advances one obit at a time?
ristvan: “Is a sc a m. ”
That certainly works to convince me. Not.
I go by the results of the more recent ‘tests and demos’ he has put on, regardless of the ‘mess’ his theory may be (your opinion) … ON THE OTHER HAND you may be unaware of recent advances in this field regarding observations that coincide with his proffered theory; I take it you are not. And so you will take an adamant stance and continue to advise others in the same vein.
The stumbling block has been seen to be your (and others) inability to comprehend basic calorimetry in an experiment, although with more advanced tools and techniques as involved in the measurement of UV and the ‘light’ output as is the case of what Mills is working on.
What is it that is said, that science advances one obit at a time?
.
.
(2nd try of post)
Arthur, which operating MSR are you basing your economic claims on?
We owe our prosperity to the non-sustainable (in the sense of finite resources) lifestyle of our ancestors. Always more wood was burned, peat and coal digged, oil and gas pumped then nature replenished.
So for our way of living Sustainability is timely innovation. Since we do not know the future sustainability in the first place is transferring knowledge to the next generation so they are best equipped to solve the problems they encounter.
Likely the fossil fuel era will once be traded for nuclear, but a lot of research is needed. Probably the end of this century will supply compact fusion reactors: enough energy and freedom for all !
“Always more wood was burned, peat and coal digged, oil and gas pumped then nature replenished.”
Really!!?? THAT explains all the new ‘reserves’ being discovered. Not.
The rest of your post was pretty good though …Point taken.
Ontario is the poster child example of what gang green can do.
Shutting down coal (one third of our base load generation), spending double digit $billions refurbishing old nukes, investing double digit $billions in wind and solar and taking a hit (more double digit $billions) unloading excess wind and solar power generation to competing jurisdictions.
What’s truly amazing about this toxic fiscal fiasco is along with all three of the political parties the majority of the educated class all believe we need to “decarbonize” the economy and “renewable” power is the solution.
We (Ontario) are losing this war.
I feel for you, Phil. Big time! The lunatics have truly taken over the asylum and I am brutally skeptical that this will continue for quite some time. At the expense of all taxpayers.
No, the lunatics haven’t taken over the asylum, as much as they are building a larger, darker and meaner asylum.
Wait until the lunatics find out that “green” hydro dams create methane…which is what, 30 times as potent as CO2?
I wonder how business feels about the new carbon tax in Ontario.
This is a quote from the UN Global Compact web page ’10 Principles”:
https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/mission/principles
“Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery.”
Extortion? Like greens shaking down corporations with threats then pleading for compensation? Maybe, Monsanto being put ‘on trial’?
http://www.marcgunther.com/monsanto-and-its-critics/
Any coercion there?
If businesses stopped caving in to extortion it would delete a lot of the green funding on alarm and catastrophe.
Oh, and get this ‘principle’, right at the top for businesses: “Businesses should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges”.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Start off by submitting to extortion! We will tell you what the targets are, and you will obey “just in case”.
Here’s a different precaution: If someone tells you there is an important contribution needed from your pocket to theirs, tell them to get a real job.
Maurice Strong 1992 Earth Summit Rio
Supporter one world government and using CO2 production as lever.
https://climatism.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/the-creator-fabricator-and-proponent-of-global-warming-maurice-strong/
Whether or not there is a war taking place, there is a coordinated effort to change the world.
So right! Innovation “creates” resources.
If nothing else, this is certainly an interesting viewpoint….and quite apt if one allows it to be more allegorical than strictly literal.
I don’t think you’ve understood the post at all if you don’t think it’s literal.
The number of posters here complaining about conspiracy ideation is proof of how effective propaganda can be. Conspiracy wacko/nut job ect has become the default position ever though it is perfectly normal for the powerful to engage in conspiracies to maintain and increase their power. The word conspiracy is a loaded term. Strategizing and planning how to control and dominate markets is a normal part of business. Ethics are often not part of the equation.
Follow the money. The World Bank (Rothschild asset) is bilking the wealthy nations out $100 Billion/yr so they can use our money to bribe 3rd world dictators into giving up the resources of those countries without benefit to the people who live there.
gyran1
I think you have no clue how the WB works, what it funds nor how well it protects its reputation from exactly the claims you advance. The WB is not in a position to ‘bribe dictators’. It loans money to governments and funds (without loan) technical assistance packages to address local shortfalls for which there is no other source of support. It also helps advise finance ministers on policy, often conducting expensive exercises that are well beyond the capabilities of the governments of small nations. It runs detailed due diligence on implementations and corrects many defects that the nation governments have been unable to rein in.
You may have been thinking about some accusations leveled against the IMF in the 1970’s. The IMF is a lender of last resort to nations going bankrupt – often because of internal theft by politicians and civil servants. If you go bankrupt, personally, and you go to the bank cap in hand, they are very likely to tell you to sell your Mercedes and take your children out of private schools, cut up all but one of your credit cards and recommend you eat at home.
Nations don’t have to develop. Nations can go bankrupt if they want, well, if the government wants. That is one more reason we have an international criminal court. We are our brothers’ keepers, either where the live now, or after they come into our homes uninvited.
Crispin in Waterloo January 7, 2017 at 8:31 am
gyran1
“I think you have no clue how the WB works”
Nice description of the official party line! The truth is that there are strings attached to those loans which provide a way to make sovereign governments do what they want. The 3rd world is being kept in poverty and their resources are being extracted without benefit to the people who live there. There are other reasons besides the WB for that but control is what they are about. Nations who refuse World Bank interventions are treated in the media as being ignorant. They [know] slavery when they see it!
My main point was that they are scamming the wealthy nations out of $100 billion/year. Identifying who benefits provides insights into who is behind policy decisions. .
The “war” on petroleum products…”keep it in the ground”…aroused my interest. What if we went entirely to an electric powered economy. This would devastate our military. Electric tanks? Huh, recharge in the middle of a battle. Or have to sit overnight to ensure enough juice to fight the next day. Electric fighter planes? Just the thought brings laughter. Electric long-range bombers? Ditto. ICBMs? Well, maybe the solid rockets would still be viable. Warships? Nuclear power would be okay for the larger ones (already being used for carriers and submarines) but that is sinful in the greenie bible. Ditto wrt nuclear power plants.
Domestic transportation? Electric transcontinental trucks? Air transports? Etc.
I think there must be a desire to disarm the USA.
Give Dr. Randell Mills and the Suncell another couple of years and we’ll talk reference “entirely to an electric powered economy.”
Here in Ontario a few days ago at 1PM we had (% of provincial total):
NUCLEAR Total Capability 36.0%
NUCLEAR Total Output 65.1%
GAS Total Capability 26.2%
GAS Total Output 5.1%
HYDRO Total Capability 24.5%
HYDRO Total Output 28.5%
WIND Total Available Capacity 12.2%
WIND Total Output 1.0%
SOLAR Total Available Capacity 0.5%
SOLAR Total Output 0.1%
BIOFUEL Total Capability 0.6%
BIOFUEL Total Output 0.2%
For those who want to see these numbers in real time go here
http://www.sygration.com/gendata/today.html
The cost of energy purchased by the distributor is also reflected per hr.
It is only when you step back and take a look at the complete irrationality of Climate Alarmism that the idea of a conspiracy starts to make more sense. It becomes almost impossible to believe that Climate Alarmism has an organic genesis. Every step of the way has been contrary to the available science and information. It takes a concerted effort to convince whole populations to believe a lie (although very achievable, with the effort).
1. There is nothing in the proxy data that suggests that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere plays a significant role in global climate, at all time scales. NOTHING! We have never had a runaway greenhouse effect on Planet Earth, despite CO2 concentrations more than ten times the current value. The Earth’s atmosphere has been relatively warm and relatively cold at both higher and lower concentrations of CO2. The ice cores reveal that warming phases begin with low CO2 and cooling phases begin with relatively high CO2, in direct contradiction to the AGW theory. Over the last several thousand years, there have been many cycles of warming and cooling, all with nearly constant CO2 concentrations.
2. The science only supports a small, largely beneficial impact from human induced increases in CO2. There is no science that turns the current rise in CO2 into a crisis. The ‘crisis’ is based on assumptions that have largely been falsified by scientific research over the last 30 years. There is no science that has confirmed the assumptions. Language has been brutally tortured to imply that observations that do not directly contradict these assumptions, somehow support the assumptions in the IPCC reports. Observations that do directly contradict these assumptions are simply omitted or ignored.
3. The only acceptable solution to the alleged crisis is not a solution at all! It is completely obvious that the most effective course of action to the atmosphere warming 3-4 degrees C, would be adaptation. The level of adaptation that humans have shown organically over the last 200 years is several times greater than what would be required to meet this alleged crisis. We wouldn’t even break a sweat (pun intended). The ‘natural’ world also seems to be quite adaptable. The idea that the natural world should be in stasis and harmony is a modern myth. The natural world is and always has been a constantly changing place, in which adaptation has been the key to survival for almost all species. The fact that adaptation, the most obvious way to respond to the alleged crisis, is never mentioned, should alert you to the fact that something is amiss. Then there are the other legitimate technical solutions that are ignored, including new nuclear technologies and carbon capturing. The only ‘acceptable’ technologies are the ones with a near zero chance of averting the alleged disaster: wind and solar. These would be the technologies I would promote if I wanted to make sure there would be no technological solution to the potential crisis!
From the beginning, taxing the rich nations (in particular, the US) has been promoted as the only viable solution to the alleged crisis. Of course, this is no solution to climate change at all! It would have no measurable impact on global temperatures, even if the theory was correct, which it obviously isn’t. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the whole thing is simply a money and power grab, which is often the motivation for physical war. We ARE under attack, and many of us are unwittingly aiding and abetting the enemy.
There is no part of this that makes any sense, unless it was intentionally orchestrated, meaning some kind of a conspiracy! The majority of the players are likely unaware of the conspiracy and would vehemently deny that they have been bamboozled by the core conspirators, but If it looks like a conspiracy, swims like a conspiracy, and quacks like a conspiracy, then it probably is a conspiracy.
The nature of conspiracy is that only a few (sometimes just one) know what it is about. The rest are given a compelling story of why what they are doing is important and serve as useful idiots.
The perpetrators of this scam have publicly admitted it’s about global governance but anyone who points this out is labeled a wack job. The denier meme is of the same ilk.
gyan1
We already have a number of global governance institutions and they have been around for a long, long time. Objecting to ‘global governance’ in principle is pointless. The International Law of the Sea has been around for a long time, covering rights of Captains and salvage. You want to give that up?
Telephony is full of global governance. Allocation of call zones, area codes, communication protocols, billing, all benefit from a global body signatories have to obey. You want out? Fine. You want in? Sign the contract and abide by it.
If you want to abandon all global governance, the stop all international flights, end trade, reinsurance and finance, float all currencies, abandon the US$ as a reserve currency, close the passport office, send the ambassadors home and develop your own disease control research centres. Start building weapons systems because you will never know what’s coming over the borders. Satellites? Forget it. If they fly over another country they will be shot down. Fly them over your own country, only.
The fact that some groups want to dominate global governance structures is quite different from establishing such structures for mutual and agreeable benefit.
Oh, and don’t forget to disconnect the internet. That is run by a global institution too.
Crispin in Waterloo January 7, 2017 at 8:47 am
gyan1
“We already have a number of global governance institutions and they have been around for a long, long time. Objecting to ‘global governance’ in principle is pointless. The International Law of the Sea has been around for a long time, covering rights of Captains and salvage. You want to give that up?”
This isn’t about mutually agreed laws. I didn’t say all global treaties are bad. The problem is centralized decision making that tromps on individual freedoms and engages in restraint of trade to protect corporate interests. Look no further than the micro-managers in Brussels as evidence for the miss-allocation of resources away from productive enterprise into non-productive regulations. Laws are created by un-elected bureaucrats that affect peoples lives with no recourse for the unintended consequences. This is tyranny. Centralized power allows the corrupt easy control.
Humans are most happy and productive when they are free to pursue their interest’s without interference. The most important rule of law is that which preserves individual liberty from coercion. Having our economic lives determined by a rigged system which is designed to funnel the worlds wealth to the top 1% is what this about.
Your comment was way out of context for what I was trying to say. Sorry if I wasn’t clear enough!
“We have never had a runaway greenhouse effect on Planet Earth, despite CO2 concentrations more than ten times the current value.”
Yep. That damn pesky orbital change issue tends to ruin any forecasts of become another Venus.
Adaptation — exactly. If the temps rose 1C (whatever the cause), it would be like being 100 miles or so south of where I’m at now. What would that entail? Absolutely nothing, really, except paying a slightly lower energy cost (my heating costs are much greater than cooling). If it rose 2C, a hundred more miles south regarding climate — again, no problem.
Put the kool aid down jclarke341. You’re convinced I see, but have you ever stopped and considered the influence of Big Carbon: largest vested interest of all time, the largest, wealthiest group of conglomerates of all time, the most powerful tribe in human history?
You don’t think that given the squillions they spend lobbying they might just be having a teensy influence on this issue?
You’re looking for a conspiracy aren’t you? Turn the telescope around.
Judith Curry was probably the best friend the climate establishment ever had, and for her trouble, they burned her at the stake.
I have witnessed several lectures of Dutch left-wing-activists and noticed that they blame the IPCC as well as MSM for being not alarmistic enough, listening too much to climate sceptics. The sceptics (realists) on the contrary say exactly the opposite…..
Most climate related researchers are appalled at the conservative, chicken-s***, political consensus the IPCC puts out.
I assume that the question in the title was rhetoric. We all know the answer.
Here in the UK our administrators are totally under control. New ministers and MPs last for a month before they lose independent thought.
Hence we can have an enquiry into Climategate which buries the problem and all of our MPs voting for the closure of our coal and gas production.
The opposition in the UK is best thought of as “Dad’s Army” hunkering down doing our bit and waiting for the Americans to save us.
A modern natural gas power plant does not produce 3-4 times less CO2 than a modern coal one. Building a modern plant to use natural gas instead of coal cuts CO2 emission by a little more than half.
DK, only if the plant is gas fired USC. If the gas goes into a CCGT instead, then the difference is about 2/3. CCGT is 61% thermal efficiency; USC is at best 45%. And CCGT is faster to build and about half the capital cost. That is why there is no USC gas being built.
Let’s not forget the power consumed by the scrubbers needed on coal plants.
I’ve just had a look at Leo Goldstein’s 2 week old article here which he links to in his first paragraph. It’s really very good, in that it’s full of useful, well-researched information, which makes it all the more surprising that he should top it off with this 24 carat copper-bottomed tinfoil hat conspiracy theorising. For example, Leo cites:
Well said. But he spoils the effect by interpreting it thus:
There are many many examples of fads, crazes, and the madness of crowds that spread without the benefit of a “large, well-coordinated, and centrally controlled entity.” Let’s take Leo’s excellent research into the complex world of billion dollar climate alarmism and give it the careful analysis it deserves.
The existence of snakes that are not poisonous, is not an argument against the existence of poisonous snakes. Anyone offering such logic is suspect, in my eyes, kids ; )
The original argument was that only a large well-coordinated and centrally controlled entity could provide such a consistent message.
Showing examples of instances of consistent messages being spread without the existence of a large well-coordinated and centrally controlled entity, is sufficient to disprove the contention.
To use your example, if the original person had declared that the presence of non-poisonous snakes proves that there are no poisonous snakes, then merely showing the existence of single poisonous snake would be sufficient to disprove the hypothesis.
Mark,
“Showing examples of instances of consistent messages being spread without the existence of a large well-coordinated and centrally controlled entity, is sufficient to disprove the contention.”
Cause you say so? By that logic it is IMPOSSIBLE to conspire, because some people don’t . . I flush things more logical everyday, me thinks ; )
JohnK, are you paid to embarrass yourself, or are you just masochistic?
I looked at the hypothesis that climate alarmism is an example of the “madness of the crowds,” and found no sufficient support for it. No, climate alarmism is a centrally controlled assault on America and its allies.
Hockey Schtick posted this cartoon today on his Twitter feed.
http://i64.tinypic.com/2lv0402.jpg
I think it is appropriate depiction for how the academic climate Left thinks, that is there is no absolutes, and they and only they, are allowed to define the debate. The climate change hustle wants “climate action,” which is an ‘ends justifies the means’ relative moralism, where anything can be justified to achieve ideological ends. A completely Orwellian concept. It is a place where dissent is suppressed, and political correctness reigns. It is today climate establishment.
It’s a serious indictment that a degree from many “institutions of higher education” is no longer a resume` enhancer.
If you’ve ever had to train a college kid for any kind of job directly after graduation, it’s actually a process of undoing the damage their college tenure has done to them on order to make them productive.
Well, you guys had a President who tried to parse the word “is”.
So this rot goes all the way to the top.
“But you’re still standing on my neck!”
Perfect!
America faces a total war almost alone.
Deja Vu, all over again!
Energy industry is the most visible target, but education, science, political institutions, and even the social fabric itself are under attack by the CAG and Climintern. Commentators say that climate alarmism is used as a wrecking ball against America.
The paragraph above is an accurate synopsis of 8 years of attacks by the Obama regime on the social, moral, scientific, ethical, economic, political, military, and international relations of the United States of America.
This is insane. Does anyone really believe that the WWF is leading a war
against the USA and not only that is actually winning?
Brilliant red herring tactic, Geronimo . . really makes you look smart . . ; )
Where is the red herring? The previous article by the author claimed that “climate alarmism has a single command and control center, comprising leaders of the WWF…”. And this article is claiming that it is at
war with the USA.
Disagreeing with the current belief about global warming is one thing. Believing that there is a global
conspiracy lead by the WWF to bring down the USA is another.
“Where is the red herring?”
The hyper-simplification (based on a partial quote from a previous article), obviously designed to distract from the case made here, right before my comment;
“Does anyone really believe that the WWF is leading a war
against the USA and not only that is actually winning?”
Reade the article, and you’ll see it’s talking about a whole lot more than a single NGO . .
“The CAG leads a tight coalition of mostly foreign based NGOs, certain United Nations agencies and politicians, and a few individuals possessed by ideas of world domination (euphemistically described as “world governance” or “global civil society”) and aided by domestic collaborators.”
Just a sample, it’s very complex matter, ya know?
You are confusing the indians and chiefs Geronimo.
Theory by Mendeleev, Russian scientist and geologists, translated and expounded
upon by Dr. Thomas Gold states that hydrocarbons are a renewable source of
energy. I have proved them correct.
Natural gas perks up continuously all around the earth, but is not evenly
distributed. It is found more along tectonic plate lines and in places where the
shield is deep, the hydrocarbons up well. This phenomenon is easily observed
in upland soils: soils not in a flood plain. In the presence of adequate moisture
the richness of these soils results from the methanotrophs consuming
the hydrocarbons, using the hydrogen for energy and excreting the carbon.
An example would be the very rich and deep topsoil in Kansas, where I first
tested my theory.
An example of the shield being close to the surface and blocking the up
welling hydrocarbons, resulting in very much poorer red clay is the area
around Atlanta, Ga. where the granite layer is barely under the surface.
When the hydrocarbons are oxidized by the aerobic methanotrophs, they
exhale CO2. The unoxidized hydrocarbon gases rise into the atmosphere,
and are usually read as methane because the people doing the
analysis are expecting methane. By using inexpensive test instruments
which only recognize combustibles, they are called methane.
Scientists using more expensive and cumbersome analyzers have
identified the other constituents of natural gas.
I am a citizen researcher. I do not have a PhD. To some, this means
my findings are worthless. I have proved my theory and my work is
easy to replicate. Scientists to whom I have proved my theory have found
reasons not to publish my work.
What I have proved is that the USEPA carbon budget is wrong.
It reports that upland soils are a sink for methane, and in the past has
credited upland US soils as a carbon sink, ~30TG. They do in fact find
methane in such soils, but they seem to ignore the simple fact that
once methane is in the atmosphere, it rises.
I have extended the theory used by the Russians and by Dr. Gold and have
proved that Hydrocarbons are a renewable resource of which we will never run
out.
As hydrocarbons are drawn or perk out of the ground, the relief of pressure
allows more form and to perk up.
None of your proofs, are.
Even if finite resources are used a society can be sustainable providing timely innovation. Innovation creates new resources. New (likely nuclear) technology will sustain our way of life for the next thousands of years. If we realize compact fusion reactors, mankind will truly live sustainable.
@MarkW So you believe the attached are examples of “fossil fuel”? Or do you
think fossil hydrocarbons happen only on earth, or do you think plant life in the
“Horsehead nebula” and on Titan are responsible?
http://annesastronomynews.com/the-horsehead-nebula-is-a-cosmic-petroleum-refinery/
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-20080213.html
” Is Climate Alarmism Governance at War with the USA?” Yes. Next stupid f**king question, please.
Hello, one of the basics of the Communist political system, and their attempts, especially in their early days, the 1920 tees, was to first destroy the economy of the country under attack, then to offer a alternative way, that being of course Communism, Climate change or whatever name they will next choose to call it It is just the means. They don’t really believe it, but they have to have a “Cause”: before they destroy the economy and CO2 will do.
We also have the likes of ISES, but is it really about a faith, I doubt it. They just want to take over the world too.. I cannot really accepts that the, to us Westerners, the minor difference between Sunni and Sheite is a reason for all of their wars,
Perhaps the soon to be President TRUMP will be the answer. He does not seem to believe in the nonsense of Political Correctness, that too is is a part of this war, anything to destroy our way of life.
Michael.
Just look the academic straight in the eye and inform him “It’s all crap”
Al Gore’s father was in Armand Hammer’s back pocket and Jr’s daughter married the great-grandson of Jacob Henry Schiff. Armand Hammer was a supporter of the Bolsheviks and actually lived in Moscow from 1920-1929. He was a life long comm-symp.
Schiff financed the destruction of czarist Russia and the Bolshevik revolution.
It is no coincidence that Al Gore led the AGE frand and it appeared as the Soviet empire collapsed.
The best label for those who seek to control all and everything; Is Gang Green.
The people who make up the mass of the Cult of Calamitous Climate, are essentially takers.
The meme of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming was created by bureaucrats aided by politicians.
Canadian politicians being prominent in giving this manufactured mass hysteria money and time to grow.
After all a tax on CO2 is a tax on everything.
The planet saving regulations, rule ,by bureaucrat, over every aspect of life.
What is not to love by a Kleptocracy?
Politics
Poly being many.
Ticks being blood sucking parasites.
Of course the take is going to grow, has anyone seen a tick let go before it is so engorged it can no longer hold on?
I haven’t had much success convincing some members of my own family that the political parties on the left that they are supporting are familiar in name only. They are not now the parties that supporters think they are. They offer a chicken in every pot to get one to vote for them and then devote all their efforts toward their real constituents – outside the country. The New World Order has seduced them to its purpose and has resulted in growing poverty and diminishing opportunity in the West. Voting today is a very cynical business among the elites and they quite openly talk about dispensing with democracy and putting China up as a model for how to get things done (the kind of things THEY want done).
I don’t give the political right a pass either. They have been gradually seduced, too and want to join in this new “class” of people. Actually the real left, Labour and its clones under different names (NDP in Canada) are becoming essentially irrelevant and lack the power and ability to scuttle this juggernaut. They are already dead ducks. The NWO elite ‘lefties’ have pushed them out of their traditional place and cover a very broad segment of the spectrum. Capitalism has been co-opted, too, being handed the profitability of globalization. It is no surprise that hated outsiders are the only ones who can dismantle this horror show. Canada may have a “Trump” in the wings for the Conservative party (Kevin O’Leary – billionaire and TV personality) and like the US Republicans, they don’t like the new sheriff in town either! Of course Michael Farage is a similar outsider.
There can be no doubt that the war is with the US because of its vitality, economy and power. They had everyone else in the bag. The UN was the first global, America-hating organization and 200 nations joined it to pile on. The elites couldn’t consolidate power effectively as long as such a nation as the US was demonstrating the towering superiority of its political economy. Its system had to wrecked. Leo Goldstein may be a bit too dramatic but he definitely has many of the main parts correct.
NIGEL Farage
SteveT
Gee, mods, what was wrong with my comment -this is a pretty political subject. I didn’t call anybody any names and I thought I was milder than Leo Goldstein himself!
Leo Goldstein: Can you add any detail or where to gain more insight into these two statements? “… the BP Deepwater Horizon explosion happened when the crew performed an unnecessary procedure, demanded by the EPA”. and “Federal sabotage of the attempts to stop the oil leakage and to clean it up..”
conspiracy theories are seldom true. Things happen because they are possible and profitable. Nature is a-moral. Therefore there are parasites, a profitable business model. The human strength as well as weakness is our consciousness: we fear things that are not present, we suspect connections where there are none. Climate alarmism is a failure of our immune system, we have not yet developed a defence against this type of arguments.
Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you!
Intelligence operations–whether espionage collection of secrets, or covert actions (influence, propaganda, assassinations, support for insurgencies, drone strikes, etc)–are, by their very nature, conspiracies.
Communist organizations were, by their very nature, conspiracies.
Illegal drug importation, manufacture, marketing and sales, illegal immigration, prostitution, and other criminal activities are, by their very nature, conspiracies.
Covert influence conspiracies (intelligence operations) have targeted, quite successfully, American government, society, and culture for a hundred years.
The first, in modern times, conspiracy against the USA was the UK’s combination of overt propaganda and covert influence operations to drag us into their European war:
“In Britain, a secret organisation, Wellington House, was set up in September 1914, and called on journalists and newspaper editors to write and disseminate articles sympathetic to Britain and to counter the statements made by enemies. As well as placing favourable reports in the existing press of neutral countries, Wellington House printed its own newspapers for circulation around the world. Illustrated news, carrying drawings or photographs, was viewed as particularly effective. – See more at: http://www.bl.uk/world-war-one/articles/propaganda-as-a-weapon#sthash.LO6fv9W8.dpuf”
The next, and most successful, covert influence conspiracy against the USA was the Bolsheviks’ total control of “news” emanating from the Russian Revolution, and their total control of information received by American diplomats in the country.
http://willingaccomplices.com/covert_influence_operations
Their intel operators created the template for influencing American policy and opinion. They also created the template for inserting a self-destructive belief system into the USA. Their genius of conspiratorial influence , Willi Muenzenberg, created the conspiracy’s methodology of cover organizations with high-minded public goals, sucking in American “Innocents” to make them feel good about themselves, when their actual goal was to destroy American exceptionalism.
http://willingaccomplices.com/gallery–kgb_covert_influence_officers
In fact, the “Climate Conspiracy” is the heir to Muenzenberg’s methodology, message, and recruiting: a small core of dedicated Williing Accomplices, a deep pocketed funder, and the masses of “Innocents,” eagerly lapping up the anti-Normal message, and imbibing the oh-so-delicious feelings of superiority to the mouth-breathing masses.
Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you!
Intelligence operations–whether espionage collection of secrets, or covert actions (influence, propaganda, assassinations, support for insurgencies, drone strikes, etc)–are, by their very nature, conspiracies.
Communist organizations were, by their very nature, conspiracies.
Illegal drug importation, manufacture, marketing and sales, illegal immigration, prostitution, and other criminal activities are, by their very nature, conspiracies.
Covert influence conspiracies (intelligence operations) have targeted, quite successfully, American government, society, and culture for a hundred years.
The first, in modern times, conspiracy against the USA was the UK’s combination of overt propaganda and covert influence operations to drag us into their European war:
“In Britain, a secret organisation, Wellington House, was set up in September 1914, and called on journalists and newspaper editors to write and disseminate articles sympathetic to Britain and to counter the statements made by enemies. As well as placing favourable reports in the existing press of neutral countries, Wellington House printed its own newspapers for circulation around the world. Illustrated news, carrying drawings or photographs, was viewed as particularly effective. – See more at: http://www.bl.uk/world-war-one/articles/propaganda-as-a-weapon#sthash.LO6fv9W8.dpuf”
The next, and most successful, covert influence conspiracy against the USA was the Bolsheviks’ total control of “news” emanating from the Russian Revolution, and their total control of information received by American diplomats in the country.
http://willingaccomplices.com/covert_influence_operations
Their intel operators created the template for influencing American policy and opinion. They also created the template for inserting a self-destructive belief system into the USA. Their genius of conspiratorial influence , Willi Muenzenberg, created the conspiracy’s methodology of cover organizations with high-minded public goals, sucking in American “Innocents” to make them feel good about themselves, when their actual goal was to destroy American exceptionalism.
http://willingaccomplices.com/gallery–kgb_covert_influence_officers
In fact, the “Climate Conspiracy” is the heir to Muenzenberg’s methodology, message, and recruiting: a small core of dedicated Williing Accomplices, a deep pocketed funder, and the masses of “Innocents,” eagerly lapping up the anti-Normal message, and imbibing the oh-so-delicious feelings of superiority to the mouth-breathing masses.
Call me a contrarian, but …
Len – assuming that this is, in fact, your real name, as opposed to your “Science or Fiction” nym, or your alter ego “Ari Halperin” – and that you have now “retired” your initial hodge-podge aka https://dhf66.wordpress.com/about/ in favour of your latest and greatest http://defyccc.com/about/ – I won’t even ask why you found it necessary to leap from nym to nym! Nor will I ask why you have failed to give any credit to the people, suggestions and pointers you’ve been given along the way.
So, first of all … Are you a real “gentleman scientist” – whatever that is supposed to mean – or do you just play one on the internet, using a variety of nyms?!
One thing I do not doubt is that you spent a good part of your life in the Soviet Union. Your use of English, while often better than that of many for whom it is a first language, occasionally confirms that it is not your native tongue. But I find your analysis above far too shallow and far too riddled with too many unhelpful labels which seem to be primarily derived from your experiences in the Soviet Union.
All of the above aside, there are some items about which you simply failed to do your homework. For example:
No, it did not. 2009 was the year of the release of the very first batch of Climategate files, not the second. COP15 (Dec. 7-18) was definitely a flop, but “scandalous”?! This strikes me as being overkill.
Although it is somewhat amusing to recall that for some years after this particular flop, the UNFCCC site didn’t even include Copenhagen in its list of COPs! But I see that at some point or other, COP15 was “rehabilitated”. The polished bureaucratese now gives very little hint that it was such a flop. Quelle surprise, eh?!
See: http://unfccc.int/meetings/copenhagen_dec_2009/meeting/6295.php for details.
You also claim:
This is a very sweeping statement which suggests that, once again, you did not do your homework.
Speaking of which, I would strongly recommend that you pay some attention to the replies of ristvan (comments #2381315 & #2381226) and Charles08 (comment #2383869) in response to your “Command & Control Center…” post here of Dec. 23.
I’m certainly no fan of the WWF, but I’m inclined to agree with Charles08 – who cited their response to the Court – that the Honorable Sam Cummings “will likely be courteous in dismissing [your case] as frivolous”.
In my view, you have put far too many eggs in one single basket with far too many holes. I doubt that you are doing any of us any favours. In short, IMHO, you very much need to broaden your own horizons, particularly on the knowledge front. A labyrinth of labels culled from the veins of a single leaf is highly unlikely to cut any legal mustard.
Dear Hilary,
1) Leo Goldstein is my real name. I used a pen name Ari Halperin, just like some authors and scientists used to do in the past. I stopped using it since I revealed my real name, and use only my real name.
2) I greatly appreciate suggestions and pointers I have been given, by multiple people, including you. But a general media article is not a genre where giving such credits is common (unlike articles in scientific journals.) Given the subject matter, such credits might be also unwelcome.
3) Saying that other countries “have surrendered” is exaggerated. It is both inaccurate and offensive, and I apologize to you, other commenters that raised this topic, and everybody who have been offended. But I insist that the US in a completely different and more dangerous situation. Climate alarmism tears down the social fabric of America.
4) My research and writing are unrelated to my lawsuit.
I welcome you advice.
Thank you Leo. For me it was a very worthwhile and thought-provoking read. I can imagine all the hard work and hours that went into composing it.
In no way am I a ‘conspiracy theorist’ and have zero truck with popular conspiracy theories. But one must accept that even in ‘our’ own (sceptics) language, we do hint at the fact that the whole AGW (aka Environmental) movement is coordinated into one whole group; e.g. “Gang green”, the “Green Blob” etc.
And where such huge amounts of money is at stake, it’s not difficult to imagine that there may well be more than mere coercion going on behind the scenes. I feel sure that the emails of certain of the CEOs of various NGOs and green financiers would make for very interesting reading. Climategate gave a whiff of this.
But I definitely feel that we ARE under attack – and from all the sources quoted in Leo’s article. I cannot wait for January 20th, hoping that Trump’s draining of the swamp will reverberate across the pond here in Britain. The more noise he makes in so doing, and its reporting, will perhaps enlighten those who have so far failed to enquire into what has been going on.
I meant to add, in my own comment, that the more people who learn about the whole sc@m of climate change, the sooner change will happen… via the ballot box.
The problem with this essay is that it plays into green/alarmist hands. The first thing they say about skeptics of CAGW is skepticism is promoted by ‘conspiracy theorists‘. Two so-called conspiracy theorists they name are Tim Ball and James Delingpole. The best refutation I have for their conspiracy theory argument (same argument refuting their shill slur) is they have no evidence that Tim Ball and Delingpole are conspiracy theorists. Both go out of their way to refute such claims by otherwise explaining away the Green’s near universal policies[see note].
I concluded greens were directed by their funders. Foundations such as: Rockefellers, Gordon and Betty Moore, Packard, Ford, Tides (to name only some of the richest). Most made with money earned on the backs of U.S. workers. A full list of over 1300 × such million to billion dollar funders. Whenever I brought this up at green sites my post was immediately censored. Apparently, green grunts are too thick to know they’re owned by billionaires. It’s a faux pas to tell them.
In my version of the world the green movement are a product of capitalism itself. When the capitalists tell us they’re rich now, happy with their lot in life, and that the rest of us should be happy with our poverty, or frugality. This is also known as pulling up the ladder behind you. There are a few greens who support GMOs, nuclear power and proper agriculture but most went to extraordinary lengths to distinguish themselves. E.g. Patrick Moore, and the ecomodernists.
Note: Green near universally policies: Especially their opposition to GMOs, nuclear power, and industrial agriculture (aka technological agriculture with a scientific basis); combined with support for organic agriculture, renewable power (no matter how batty, inefficient and inappropriate), apart from large scale hydro electricity. I can understand their opposition to fossil fuel. They have a narrative about catastrophic man-made climate change that fits in with a so-called precautionary principle. So it fits in with a seemingly coherent ideology (coherent in their logic, if not mine).
Oh dear. I made my post to the wrong thread.
“Your comment is awaiting moderation”.
Oh come on Mods! There isn’t one word out of place in my post.
“Your comment is awaiting moderation. ”
January 6, 2017 at 11:18 pm
Additional material supporting conclusions of the essay.
Yes, Leo Goldstein – e.g.
‘Scientific errors and the desire to help poor countries played a role in attracting good people to this bad cause, nothing more. The enemy is motivated by its lust for power, greed, and hatred.’
– so the UN gives people in developing countries some financial compensation for them living in misery; welfare for the poor
– instead of helping to develop said countries to financial and economic stable states.
– that’s the way keeping countries, leaders as population, in lasting dependency.
Thanks for an highly interesting, highly readable essay. Cheers
Thanks for an highly interesting, highly readable essay. Cheers – Hans
and to ‘Griff on January 5, 2017 at 12:59 am
“Nevertheless, most alarmist organizations are under the central control”
This is utter, conspiracist nonsense, isn’t it?
__________________________________________
Well Griff, with CAGW we’re living in a
postmodern, postfactuos, homeopathic conspiracist world – you’re not already obligatory accommodated to?