Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
President Trump did the right thing by withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. It was a bad deal for the United States. Despite this, polls claim a majority of Americans opposed his action. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Secretary Scott Pruitt is trying to take what appears to be a more balanced political and legal approach by allowing a debate presenting both sides of the science. It will have little to no effect because most of the public doesn’t understand the science. The big problem is it begs the question; Why is it necessary to provide a forum for balance? Why does the global warming story not go away after exposure to the corrupted science of the major players behind the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) through leaked emails, exposure of bureaucrats deliberately adjusting the historic record, and worst of all, the failed forecasts?
The answer is simple and therefore profound and makes an answer essential. I know from experience that after you explain to an audience what and how the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) deception was achieved the next question is inevitable. What was the motive? Unless you answer that question, people become a little more skeptical but remain, at best, undecided. They can’t and don’t want to believe that scientists would be involved in anything nefarious or even misleading. They can’t believe that so many of them were misled, which is why the 97% consensus claim was so effective.
Attacks on people who try to explain the motive indicate how threatening it is to the perpetrators of the deception. It intensified as the challenges grew. For example, the charge of “global warming skeptic” is far less vindictive and isolating than “climate change denier” with all the holocaust connotations. Similar nastiness is inferred in calling people who identified the motive conspiracy theorists. Definitions of conspiracy indicate why that term causes problems.
- An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act
- An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
There is nothing illegal about the objective of proving AGW, so it was not a conspiracy. However, there was illegality in what some of those involved did, as the emails exposed. For example, a definition of conspiracy as a noun says
“A conspiracy to manipulate the results: plot, scheme, plan, machination, ploy, trick, ruse, subterfuge;”
They even introduced a semblance of a conspiracy by calling themselves “The Team.”
Hoax was another term incorrectly applied to what happened, partly because nobody wants to talk about the motive. It is not a hoax because although it may have a malicious effect, it is primarily a humorous pricking of pomposity. There is nothing humorous about the AGW story.
An appropriate appellation for the AGW deception is a cabal.
A small group of intriguers, especially one formed for political purposes.
In the case of AGW, the cabal was the Club of Rome (COR). There is nothing wrong with a political view or agenda, but the difference with the COR agenda was the misuse of science to promote it. Misused science is not science or even pseudoscience. Science and its practice must be apolitical and fact based. As a result, scientists prefer to avoid politics. Similarly, most politicians avoid science precisely because it is about facts.
An intriguing and telling part of the AGW war was that it quickly became political and a person was labelled based on their view. If you questioned the AGW claim, you were right wing, if you accepted it you were left wing, regardless of your actual political views. Ironically, the way to take the politics out of the scientific and debate is to identify the political motive. Here is a summary of what that is:
- COR expanded the Malthusian idea that overpopulation would exhaust food supply to all resources.
- They claimed each person used resources and the number of people was increasing so the demand would increase.
- Those who achieved development used resources at a greater rate and more nations were developing. They had to be stopped, and development curtailed overall.
- Development was achieved by use of fossil fuels and must be eliminated.
- A parallel population reduction program was essential, hence the Cairo conference in 1994.
- Beyond potential resource exhaustion (Limits to Growth), they needed a vehicle to manipulate people toward their agenda: a fear factor with a global threat.
- Through Maurice Strong, COR member, they set up the IPCC to prove that the use of fuels produced CO2 that was causing runaway global warming.
The global impact transcended nations that only a global government could resolve. Elaine Dewar summarized by Strong’s actions at the UN: “Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.”
Their motive is acceptable as a form of socialism with which you can agree or disagree. The problem is they made it virtually impossible for people to make that choice by misusing the science and silencing those who challenged that misuse. A measure of that dilemma is a socialist scientist who doesn’t accept AGW.
It is quite straightforward. Scott Pruitt should abandon his attempts to present the other side and explain why only one side was presented. To do this, he must explain the motive and only then can people properly decide what the truth is about AGW.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think it is a bit oversimplified to blame the Club of Rome. The post is persuasive as to why the socialists attached themselves to the CAGW storyline, but the green movement is rather more complex and diffuse.
One could attach Malthus himself to the origins of the movement, or just attribute it to the secular versions of apocalyptic movements in general. Then there are the origins of current socialist politics about the same time as Malthus at the end of the 18th Century, with secular in addition to religious mass movements.
That is not to condemn outright such movements, but as Theodore Roosevelt stated about his own more zealous followers, they attract a “lunatic fringe”. With the Marxists and the German socialists, the lunatic fringe took over.
Arguably, CAGW is one of the fringe beliefs of the environmental movement, and has had rather too much influence.
Good points, but I certainly agree with Dr Ball that it’s probably a waste of time for Sec Pruitt to try and do the Red Team/Blue Team thing. What needs to be made clear to the public, and very loudly, is that there has been no debate from the beginning. That is as unscientific as it gets.
T.Fry – I can’t agree with you or Tim Ball when you say Scott Pruitt should abandon the red-blue thingy. This goes deeper than making it clear to the public that there has been no debate – most of the public don’t even know that there’s an issue. A red team would open some eyes, and that’s enough to make a difference. Yes, by all means do the other things too, but please, let’s get the red team going and all join in. Noisily.
” What needs to be made clear to the public, and very loudly, is that there has been no debate from the beginning. That is as unscientific as it gets.”
You’re right, that is about as unscientific as you can get.
Tom,
I think Dr. Ball is pointing out the root of the AGW scam rather than blaming the COR for everything that happened since.
Personally, I’m of the opinion that the case of AGW should be heard in the British courts. Unlike the US court system, British courts are non political, indeed, they frequently tell our governments what to do.
That case should be prosecuted on the basis that there is no empirical evidence to demonstrate that CO2 causes global warming. There ought to be hundreds, if not thousands of papers demonstrating it by now, but there are none.
How can a scientific hypothesis exist whilst the underlying science has never been proven.
Have that exposed in open court and the UK government would be forced to abandon it’s insane spending on CO2 mitigation, Trump’s withdrawal from Paris would be independently justified and the rest of the worlds governments would revolt against their unwitting(?) Participation in the scam.
Sorry………In short, there is no need to provide a motive. Concede it was all just a big mistake and let AGW die a death of a thousand discredited studies, overnight.
‘How can a scientific hypothesis exist whilst the underlying science has never been proven.’ Spot on.
Dannz – it’s the old horse and proximity to water problem. The science has been proven over and over again. The physical chemistry of carbon compounds and their effect on climate is well understood.
Some people just will not recognise fact.
Jack Davis
So if the “The science has been proven over and over again.”
Why doesn’t it manifest itself in the field?
There is not one single credible study which has demonstrated CO2 causes global warming. Ever.
Jack Davis
Whoops!
That should read……..not one single credible ’empirical’ study……etc.
HotScot, it is manifest – look at the poles. As I said – horse, water, proximity….but something missing. The desire to see.
I did. What’s your point?
Clipe, record lows in sea ice at both ends. Can’t be seen eh?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Antarctic+Sea+Ice+Reaches+New+Record+Maximum&t=ffcm&atb=v49-4&ia=web
Insert ‘minimum’.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Antarctic+Sea+Ice+Reaches+New+Record+Minimum&t=ffcm&atb=v49-4&ia=web
There you go Clipe, you’re looking at all the old links and ignoring the current one. Fact is Antarctica is showing dramatic sea ice loss:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/16/world/antarctica-sea-ice-record-low/index.html
Jack,
you say: “The science has been proven over and over again.”
Yet the science has NEVER been proven.
There is no credible, empirical (observational) study, in field (in other words, in the real world) which demonstrates CO2 causes global warming. Lots of laboratory studies examining the individual properties of various elements, but that just doesn’t work when there is so much to consider.
Go and Google it, there is a single study (there should be hundreds, if not thousands by now to justify the world spending trillions on mitigation) which has been roundly discredited because the author measured global temperature change from the depths of an La Ninia to the heights of an El Ninio and claimed that was the way science was done.
As it is, the planet has operated for 80% of it’s existence with no polar ice whatsoever. The human race is operating in abnormal times, not the planet. Adaptation, therefore, would appear the most sensible option.
And if all the sea ice melted, what possible difference would it make to humanity? Absolutely none, other than depriving a few polar explorers ice for their Gin and Tonics. Sea level wouldn’t rise, because it’s sea ice. Oh, and of course their reason for funding to examine ice cores. Not that Michael Mann even bothered with those historical records, he used tree rings and pine cones. So what use are they anyway if the worlds climate future can be determined by Mann’s methods?
And if the fear is that Antartica and Greenland were to thaw, we would all be under water. Don’t worry pal. Even at the most extreme global heating predicted it would take thousands of years for that to happen. Plenty of time to adapt.
There will be no instantaneous, cataclysmic, dystopian event, as frequently dramatised by Hollywood. Indeed, I would point you to a video presentation of a peer reviewed paper that demonstrates what’s more likely to happen, but I don’t think you would have the courage to watch it.
The only meaningful manifestation of increased atmospheric CO2 is, according to NASA, that the planet has greened by 14% in the last 30 years of satellite observations. That’s truly extraordinary, especially considering the alarmist scientific studies before it maintained the opposite would happen.
Let me put that to you another way. The only thing the alarmists din’t predict over the last 40 years relative to the ‘pollutant’ CO2, is positive. All the other disasters have failed to materialise; hurricane frequency and intensity have decreased, as have tornadoes, droughts and floods, but we were all assured that by now, they would all be ravaging the planet.
Whichever way you cut it, climate prediction, by whatever means, has been a dismal failure.
“I think it is a bit oversimplified to blame the Club of Rome”
Of course…then again of course not
First you start with a group of “professionals” that can’t predict that afternoons weather..that morning.
Elevate and qualify them…by stretching out their predictions and calling them “scientists”
Go from laughing stock…..to scientists with an unending stream of grants and money
Latitude,
Mate, I think it’s far more sinister than that.
This is a group of people, steeped in the diktat of the Roman Catholic Church that contraception, of any type, is unacceptable. A religion up to it’s elbows in child abuse scandals across the globe.
The COR is a group perhaps rebelling against the idiotic philosophy that contraception is evil, but going one step further to promote artificial population control. They are only a generation apart from Mussolini himself and his obvious collusion with Hitler.
We can, and should laugh at them, but always be aware that these are manipulative, well connected people who seek to serve only themselves.
I think a large part begins with Paul Erlich in the late 60’s with ‘The Population Bomb’ and the seemingly inevitable and oh so mathematical exponential growth in population. With this entrenched belief among the left, many things are possible including reversion to the ‘good ole days’ or keeping the world’s poor locked in those bygone years.
Turning the argument requires a knowledge of the present population increase, which far from exponential is levelling off and even dropping in wealthier countries. Yes, there will be a continued increase, projections (dare I say models) indicate a levelling at 12 or so billion although much of this increase will occur in poorer countries of Africa and Asia. The solution would appear to be to bring these countries forward, increasing their energy, wealth and education and allowing them to make their own decisions on reproduction.
I do not believe in AGW but I believe that fossil fuels eventually would get exhausted, and we would not have any means to use a comparable source of energy. I am not counting that the next glacial age is not too far off awaiting us.
Have we any reasonable project for those depressing perspectives? No. We have not. Even if we stop making babies, the present population of the planet is so high, that we are doomed anyway. We can do nothing, but to continue living as if nothing wrong is going to happen in the near future.
Human beings do not plan so farther ahead for the future. Evolution made us to confront the present, that was often hard, and we never had any reason to make plans other than for the present, or a few years forward.
We do not know the future and neither did our ancestors. Progress is improving the present. In the Netherlands, wood was already scarce in the Middle-Ages. Later peat was replaced by coal etc.
It was innovation that came to the rescue. Using finite resources, we are “doomed to innovation” but until now this works fine. The fossil fuel era will last for centuries or less if better technology emerges. In time only nuclear may generate enough energy to maintain our lifestyle. Most likely after 2100 thorium molten salt reactors will power our cities. No grids needed. Mimimal impact on nature. Life is more sustainable then ever before in history. Later, compact fusion reactors will power transportation.
Disagree completely. With us,. nature way over shot the imagination requirement. We can contemplate the far off end of the universe – we ought to make good use of that accidental facility.
Perhaps the reason for this deception is that some investors and politicians conspired to invest in those “alternative sources of energy” and they needed to invent this bogus theory to justify the money invested to produce those artifacts, electric cars, windmil-generators, solar panels or other. They needed to lobby the thing and this was a bipartisan decision anyway, for the Republican party was dominant in the US Congress for many decades into the past. This cannot be a conspiracy of a bunch of leftists lunatic students that have not any political clout anyway.
By the way, I never was able to agree with those leftist people on anything. But I am not a natural conservative, for I was born in a very poor family. Then, why I never was become a leftist? Because this people are not rational, but a bunch of lunatic ideologues.
Let’s not forget the big banks and the billions to be made in carbon trading.
The Republican party was dominant for many decades into the past? Seriously? Why do you say that when it’s so obviously counter-factual?
I suppose you think that the Ku Klux Klan, Jim Crow laws, the famous segregationists (Fulbright, Byrd, Gore Sr., et al), Bull Connor, George Wallace were all products of the Republican party as well, right? (Hint: Democrat).
As much as today’s communists and totalitarians (who have overtaken the Democrat party) try to erase or rewrite history, the facts are the facts.
The Democrat party is by far the largest source of the corruption and “racism” of the past — they still venerate Robert Byrd, Grand Klingon or whatever of the KKK today.
The GOP has rarely been dominant in the House of Representatives in the past nine decades.
It was from 1861 to 1933, but not since then. Republicans controlled the House in 1953-57, then again from 1995-2007, and from 2011 until now. So, the GOP has been in control for only 22 of the past 84 years, however 18 of the past 22.
Senate control since the Depression has been similar.
True that the history of this is lengthy and begins long before COR. It does seem however that COR and Maurice Strong through the UN were the beginning of most of the policy push and the eventual CAGW mythology peddeled by the IPCC. The roots of what is primarily socialist ideology related to environmentalism go back to early 20th century and became linked to other socialist goals in pre WW2 Germany under the national socialists. In turn they took a lot of their cues on some of their most anti-humanistic thinking and criminal behavior from the American eugenics movement which had broad support from a number of Democratic politicians and thinkers. The relics of this found their way even into the last Administration with Obama’s selection of science advisor. I believe Tim Ball is correct however that, at its roots, this movement is about what I call humophobia, the belief that humans are an evil destructive influence on Earth and that industrialization is the epitome of environmental degradation.
All of this seems in contrast to the evidence (as with most things in the climate change debates), which shows that as the human population grows and industrialization proceeds we have created a safer and more prosperous world, and one in which our ability to preserve and protect natural systems is expanding every decade. Those parts of the planet that have the worst environmental issues are those where people still have serious needs in terms of food, shelter, education, democratic governance and cheap available energy. Rather than going backwards as the COR, radical environmentalists and many far left socialists would ask us to do, we should move forward and bring the entire human population up to the highest possible levels of development. The other direction would be devastating for eveyrone and for every environment on Earth as 7.5 billion people try to survive without all the systems we depend on every day.
At the very least all people deserve to understand these choices and have some say in how we as a species respond.
@Tom Halla,
I quite agree. I think the motive was pretty simple. Hubris. The environmental movement wants to improve the quality of the environment but like all of these types of movements it never stops.
The original purpose was to help the environment, but now it is help the environment at all cost. It is the same way with progressives. Now that most of the heavy lifting is done and there are no publicly supported bigotry, there is an enormous focus on smaller issues and fabricated issues.
People want to help make the world a better place, but extremists don’t know when to stop. They all morph into monsters.
From a science perspective, Hubris is also part of it. CS was always a backwater science until CC became the rage. Scientists like to see their work as being important so they overplay it. Once they have set their path it is hard to get off. Saving the world is a pretty big task. How many people invest so much effort only to eventually say “Nope, I was wrong all this time and my research shows there is nothing to worry about”
The motivation is hubris. They all want to be able to say they were key instruments in saving the world and deniers are the Nazi scum they need to beat.
Fully agreed! This is always the comeback – what’s the motive & what’s the point of such an elaborate deception? Most people haven’t read Christopher Booker or know ANY of the history of the environmental movement and the prelude to the founding of the IPCC. Such information needs to be more widely disseminated. In the meantime, I think a straightforward effort to promote the evidence that disproves the fundamental hypothesis of CAGW should be undertaken (rather than a debate to give the CAGW Prima donnas more airtime). Also, economic arguments on the true cost of renewable energy and our dependence on hydrocarbons for the foreseeable future need to be better communicated so that people understand their choices. Both efforts require some people who can really get the message across to the lay public! That’s where we often fall down!
A true, demonstrated accounting of the costs associated with a 50% or 80% reduction in CO2 emissions and what that would mean, along with a list of the benefits provide by current (and higher) levels of CO2 would properly convince the voting public the all marshal themselves over to the most beneficial side of the room. People are quite good at making choices that help, not hurt, when the obfuscation is cleared up. So far the alarmists have been allowed to make their recommendations without having to describe the true costs of what they are prescribing.
Best idea I’ve heard in a long time pstevens2. It will be very difficult to do because most of the informations sources will not allow it to happen. I think that if our US President would use his sate of the union time to do what you suggested it would be very difficult for our MSM to not cover it. Our greatest enemy is our own main stream news media (MSM) and our film makers.
To abandon the fossil fuels, it must be a lot worse than coming back to the start of the 19th century, for in that time, the planet had only 1 billion people. Now we are 7 billion. And the fossil fuels had spared us a lot Global War Wars to keep the population at one billion more or less. Then, the present population is so high, because “we are eating oil”. This is a metaphor. If oil or coal would had not existed, we would had exterminated all the forest of the planet just to run the steam locomotives. In fact, the industrial revolution was a miracle of the coal. Just imagine no one had coal in the planet, we would get stopped in the 18th century. No any industrial revolution would had been possible. Then, the present humanity is a gift of the fossil fuels. And this is similar saying to the one of Herodotus wrote, “Egypt is a gift of the Nile”.
Exactly! In time the science will sort itself out and the people will know. However the damage that can occur in the meantime, if the anti-Capitalists prevail, needs to be understood ASAP.
AGW theory has nothing to do with “the environmental movement” other than being a source of concern. The theory is soundly grounded in physics and supported by volumes of empirical evidence.
Such as the 100 plus computer models that have never come even remotely close to an accurate prediction using said “volumes of empirical evidence”?
Or the 20+ year pause in warming? Oh yeah- the missing heat is hiding in the oceans” right?
The whole cult of climate change is full of lies, half truths and obfuscation- including the 97%
“consensus” lie.
The theory is not soundly grounded in anything other than a steaming pile of male bovine excrement.
All the public have to remember is that hubris and stupidity go hand in hand, and this is more than mere correlation. In ‘climate science™’ upon inspecting all the available evidence, statistical indications strongly show, intelligent people are full of doubts, while the hubristically stupid are bursting with confidence.
Though, umm.., thinking about it, I may be proved wrong about this.
the motive is power … there done …
Absolutely. If you want to be King of The World you need to make the World a kingdom first. You do this by creating global laws and controlling global needs from the centre.
The political logic behind AGW is clear and obvious. The methods used to prop it up are as ancient as mankind. Threats and money working together keep us all in line.
Judging by the many risible articles linking Harvey to Man Made Climate Change found all over the serious media and even more so the totally silly comments they attract it is obvious our tertiary education system has failed to inculcate any critical thinking skills in the younger generation. The leap from CO2 being a radiative molecule with a warming ability to we are all going to die from Climageddon is just absurd but that is the accepted narrative.
AGW is a means to an end. The end is what it always is, power over mankind. Even Pinky & The Brain know that.
Power and money.
Look at the tax take from “mitigating” climate change.
And that power is absolute in the sense that those wielding it cannot be voted out of office by the people that are paying because it is the hands of the UN or, if you prefer, ‘one world government’.
Here in the EUSSR we are already partway there and look how well that is working!
Now Imagine the EU on a global scale!
(I’m in the UK so perhaps we can escape but I’m not holding my breath …)
There’s a lot more to this than ‘carbon’. I see this as a fight between democracy and industrial strength totalitarianism on a global scale.
It’s not the stockade that we, the voting cattle, are being herded into by Big Al and the global warming cowboys that should concern us most, it’s the abattoir behind the stockade.
It’s about our freedom.
There are other reasons that lead to other people joining the collusion:
* power. $10Trillion/year is spent on energy. Control that and have immense wealth and power.
* Gaia worship. Some people just hate humans. They hate them all and anything that punishes humans pleases Gaia.
* greed. Al Gore and Elon Musk make millions off the scam. GE, bureaucrats, and climate researchers do well too.
* statists. What a great way to grow government and control all aspects of peoples lives.
But to prove collusion one must prove there was active communication to deceive between all parties. Now whilst that may be demonstrated with Climategate, that was between a select few. No one would believe the touchy feely greens would hate anyone and Elon Musk is seen as an environmental saviour so attacking him directly is a non starter.
You are right on every point but just too many excuses to make, too many loopholes for the perpetrators to slip through and far to big a case for the public to consider.
I couldn’t understand the motive behind the AGW deception until I saw an excellent video by John Anthony of http://sustainablefreedomlab.org/ about Agenda 21. Maurice Strong was behind this too. Then it all made sense.
Which article is about Agenda 21. – the first one isn’t and all the articles are by John Anthony…?
I think Rosa Koire explains it best in this video (you only have to watch the first half to get the gist of Agenda 21 and ICLEI).
You’re out of date, try this.
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm
Straight from the horse’s mouth.
How do you post a YouTube video with just the link and not the giant video image?
Agenda 21 will not go away just because AGW fails. Our local governments have been infiltrated and Agenda21 policies are now considered normal by many – especially leftist mayors and councils as well as gullible public.
My city is no exception, – in my blog I show that a series of earthquakes gave our national government and local government the excuse to carry out many Agenda21 policies including throwing people out of their homes.
https://thedemiseofchristchurch.com/2013/03/13/are-we-experiencing-a-communist-infiltration-sponsored-by-the-united-nations/
And there is more!
Cheers
Roger
Thanks Roger,
Keep it up….
Those scientists who question global warming could do many things if the money was more evenly directed. People criticise sceptics for not creating global models that might find results different to the official ones. But these models cost a packet; no sceptical scientist I know of has had access to that type of funding and computing.
To correct the funding imbalance, one has to look at who provides the $$$ and who distributes them. This varies from nation to nation, but the funds are dominantly through national governments from the taxpayer. Much of the allocation of this national funding is influenced by the collective whims of scientists, particularly those like National Science Foundations – and the thinking is influenced by the opinions of Learned Societies. The latter have been persuasive, but IMHO, mostly wrong through failure to address the topic in depth.
If I were a Scott Pruitt (and I am not) then my attention would be on the Societies. I would invite them in for a cuppa, one at a time, explain to them that their advice was influential, then ask them to do a thorough review of how members actually regarded the science. Steve Koonin went through an exercise like this but got rumbled by fellow officials without much input from members. It is partly a matter of identification of key people of influence. To make their lips move, you might need to mention there will be audits of their incomes to see there was no irregularity.
All of this takes planning and it takes time. Be fair to the President and his key staff. Do not expect the Earth to move overnight.
De Ball, your historic account is close to how I remember it. Thank you for expressing it once more. Geoff.
Geoff – At present, no-one can make a decent model of the climate, because not enough is known about how the climate works. Also, the current crop of climate models are all bottom-up, and that can never work. Some very primitive models have been made, and have outperformed the expensive ones, but no-one’s listening. One day, something will come from left field and turn everything on its head, but it is taking a long time.
PS. I agree with the rest of your excellent comment.
Geoff Sherrington
“If I were a Scott Pruitt (and I am not)”.
Damn, another illusion shattered.
Unless this is a cunning bluff……..Hmmmmmmmm
This among other reasons is why President Trump was elected. Enough of the global warming garbage.
“CO2 is the exhaust of Capitalism, surely it is our duty to destroy it” . Maurice Strong.
All you need to know really.
Excellent analysis of “why AGW” Dr. Ball. Too many people are afraid of being labeled a ‘conspiracy theorist’ to address the underlying issue of ‘why’. The AGW narrative was well crafted to make the social/moral implications a greater threat than reality….. and so it endures. One would think the complete failure of all AGW prognostications after decades of announcing them would be enough to convince even the least scientific minds that something is amiss.
“the motive:”
COR expanded the Malthusian idea that overpopulation would exhaust food supply to all resources.
They claimed each person used resources and the number of people was increasing so the demand would increase.
Those who achieved development used resources at a greater rate and more nations were developing. They had to be stopped, and development curtailed overall.
Development was achieved by use of fossil fuels and must be eliminated.
A parallel population reduction program was essential, hence the Cairo conference in 1994.
Beyond potential resource exhaustion (Limits to Growth), they needed a vehicle to manipulate people toward their agenda: a fear factor with a global threat.
Through Maurice Strong, COR member, they set up the IPCC to prove that the use of fuels produced CO2 that was causing runaway global warming.
Most scientists don’t have any idea what you are talking about.
But conspiracy theories need their conspiracies.
Do you have any idea how silly you sound?
Unless you lived thru it, it is hard to understand the real fear people felt over the population explosion. That fear drives many policies we see today. What has been forgotten is how they came about.
It sounds unbelievable but it is sadly and amazingly true. You’ve obviously never heard of Maurice Strong. Look up his biography and Google his destroy capitalism and western civilization quotes and note the the organizations he created.
If you have the capacity for introspection after this, you will realize you hadn’t the education to comment with any depth or authority on a REAL sceptical site. And look you deserve accolades for coming here. Most young people do not resist and transcend the designer-brained education that they’ve been given during the last two generations.
Question a lot more. It won’t harm you and you’ll discover that thinking for yourself is the beginning of real education.
Also the oil for food scam that necessitated time out in Beijing.
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome,
“The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome,
and what are people doing that generate these messages? Lowering their footprints? Accepting a humble life ? Minimizing consumption? I see the opposite. I see a revolt of (a new) elite. The formation of a new class of landlords.
Unfortunately reality doesn’t seem to agree with COR. The lives of ordinary people have increased dramatically for the better in the last 200 years. Less people are dying from natural disasters and famine than ever before.
It’s weird that it’s bad if humans “pollute”, but it’s completely fine if nature herself does it. Nature can wipe out most of the species with an asteroid or pollute with a volcano, and no one gives a shit. In reality we don’t live in a “paradise”. We live in a world which is naturally dangerous and, just like any other animal, we have to fight for our survival. Earth is not a self-aware creature, it doesn’t have a mind. It doesn’t give anything freely. It doesn’t care about “morality” or “ethics” which are purely human inventions. It couldn’t care less about us or any other animals. If Mother Nature would be real person, she should stand on trial for crimes against life. But then again, “crime” and “justice” are also human inventions. Enough with this superstitious nonsense. In my opinion we wil never advance as a species unless drop these pointless feelings of guilt.
fredar,
Sounds like you have read “A Demon Haunted World” by Carl Sagan. If not, you should; I think you will enjoy it. In fact, I suggest everybody read that book. It will really give the rational side of your brain some food.
It is not a theory, the conspiracy is real and ongoing. The network is enormous and you can discover it if you choose to look. The rise of climate institutes, with the same common names on the advisory boards, the editorial boards of the major journals, a who’s who of IPCC authors, the government departments infiltrated by NGO’s, the list goes on. The agenda is described here:
Lisa Jackson, USEPA Administrator, 20th January 2012
“Keynote Remarks at the National Council for Science and the Environment’s “National Conference on Environment and Security”
“We have reached a point in human history where everyday activities – from our commerce to our transportation to our recreation – are affecting the health of our entire planet.
As Rio+20, the 20th anniversary of the 1992 Earth Summit, approaches in June, we have a chance to learn lessons, build partnerships and put in place innovative strategies that can reshape the economic and environmental future of our entire planet.
It is the rarest of opportunities to truly change the world, and make a difference that will benefit billions of people.”
Ban Ki Moon, UN Secretary-General, 14 February 2012
Remarks to KPMG Summit: “Business Perspective for Sustainable Growth”
“Through the Joint Initiative we’re turning to leading private sector innovators, city planners, academics, environmental experts, urban developers, investors and financial institutions to spark enduring change.
The world’s population now exceeds 7 billion people – all of whom must share the earth’s limited natural resources. Sustainable development is the top priority of the United Nations and for my second term as Secretary-General.
Most of the world’s ecosystems are in decline. We are nearing the point of no return on climate change. You all understand the high stakes — for jobs, for social justice, for the Millennium Development Goals, for the health of the planet.”
Gro Harlem Brundtland, Socialist International 15 -17 September 1992. Putative author of The Brundtland Report, which led to Agenda 21, now morphed into Agenda 2030.
XIX Congress of the Socialist International “Social Democracy in a Changing World”
“At the Rio Conference on Environment and Development (1992) it was made clear that we are heading towards a crisis of uncontrollable dimensions unless we change course.
Securing peace, sustainable development and democracy requires that nations, in their common interest, establish an effective system of global governance and security.
In an increasingly interdependent world, we must find new ways to live – both within our own countries and on a global level – that are socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable.
What we need is a new social contract. Monetary stability will not suffice. And just as democracy originated in Europe some 2500 years ago, just as social democracy developed in Europe over the past 100 years, so must we again take the lead.
We must curb population growth and reinforce the links between population, poverty-alleviation and the rights of women.
A new social contract must be based on our overriding principles – freedom, solidarity and justice. To pursue social justice, freedom and democracy will require that we pool our collective experiences and national sovereignties.
There is no alternative to obligatory coordination of financial and monetary policies.”
The same message continues now:
http://www.globalwarming.org/2015/02/07/unfccc-only-way-to-save-planet-from-agw-is-to-reorganize-global-economy-under-unfccc/
Former UNFCCC executive secretary, Christiana Figueres:
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,”
It was never about climate.
ReallySkeptical
Extract from a WT article in 2012
“The seminal scriptures of modern-day environmentalism were Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring,” Paul R. Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb” and the publications of the Club of Rome. While stylistically quite different, these books all served to rally the public around a core anti-human philosophy. As the Club of Rome put it, “The Earth has cancer, and the cancer is man.” Such misanthropic views could only have the most horrific consequences.
Some of the worst atrocities can be laid at the feet of Mr. Ehrlich and his co-thinkers who argued – in direct contradiction to historical fact – that human well-being is inversely proportional to human numbers. As a result of their agitation, U.S. foreign aid and World Bank loans to Third World countries were made contingent upon those nations implementing population-control programs. In consequence, over the past four decades, in scores of countries spanning the globe from India to Peru, tens of millions of women have been rounded up and subjected to involuntary sterilizations or abortions, often under very unsafe conditions, with innumerable victims suffering severe health effects or dying afterward.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/20/earth-days-dark-side/
The facts have been out there for many years, you just haven’t bothered to take any notice or ask any questions.
Why is there no credible empirical evidence that CO2 causes global warming? After 40 years of research there ought to be hundreds, if not thousands of studies proving it beyond reasonable doubt, yet there is not one.
So, where did the myth that CO2 causes global warming come from, if not by design?
More than a century ago St. Pius X prophesized this future:
“…that the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. […] Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.”
Most “scientists” (as in pseudoscientists) probably do know, but that’s a red herring argument. They have their own fish to fry.
Do you know how moronic you sound?
The theory of Malthus is correct . He was wrong, because being a philosopher he had not connections with the people developing the steam engine. But as soon as the fossil fuels would get exhausted, we would see that the theory was right. Unless we would make a miracle and invent the perpetuum mobile.
ReallySkeptical August 28, 2017 at 8:39 pm: “Do you have any idea how silly you sound?”
Oh dear, self-awareness really isn’t your strong suit, is it?
Why it continues? The answer is pretty simple and way different. Well of course the apologetics are organzied, they have plenty of money, but most of all, they have a narrative!
This is what the opposition is missing. It is like a small group of villains entering a small village, shooting around, while the good people run and hide. If they fail to organize, they will lose, despite outnumbering the villains. You are all about critizising the IPCC and its affiliates, but you failed in bringing up a better alternative. That is ONE better alternative.
I am proud to say that I have it, exclusively. I have mastered the whole science of climatology. Nobody needs to believe me, rather I am willing to proudly present my results and defend my findings against every critical thinker.
However that will not work! The whole scene is so unorganized, that you can not even have a reasonable discussion. Without constructive work, you will not build anything. I mean, there is not even a message board to sort out the good from the bad ideas. Not that it would be sufficient. As it is, there is simply nothing.
I can provide the wisdom. But if there are no structures, just panic, nothing will get off the ground. And well, it may be all about money. But it is just as much about ideas, to collect the funds. And it is about will, which is simply not existing. So I guess we are doomed by the science of doom after all.
Why the global crusade against economic development? The case is even more general than Dr. Ball says, and understates: Globalism – the cabal to rule the world top down and anti-democratically, by subverting national sovereignty and by turning the UN (or an analog) into a world-wide European Union. This comparative Illustration drives home the point:
The global historian John Fonte has written a lengthy and detailed book on the subject, “Sovereignty Or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves Or Be Ruled By Others?” Here is the Foreword, by a former speechwriter for PM Margaret Thatcher, John O’Sullivan:
http://www.vdare.com/articles/fonte-on-global-governance-john-o-sullivan-s-foreword-to-sovereignty-or-submission-will-ame
I hope Dr. Ball will acquaint himself with some of the details, which dovetail very precisely with the case he’s made, above.
Speaking of confusion and misinformation, on November 6, 2012, Donald Trump tweeted: “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”
Can’t really say he has added anything helpful to the discussion.
Screw that tweet. He pulled us out of the Paris Accord. The longer he is in office, the faster their economic scam is going to fall apart, whether or not it puts an end to AGW stupidity. I call that pretty Damned helpful!
President Trump claims he was joking when he said that. His tongue was firmly in his cheek apparently.
Obviously, AGW was not created by the Chines, but it has been exploited by them.
The Chinese are no suckers. Just look at the Paris Accord, which favours the Chinese at the expense of the US.
An examination of the Paris Accord does more than anything else to demonstrate, in simple and understandable terms, what a con this all is.
While I don’t think Dr. Ball is wrong per se, I think things are a lot more complicated than that. They are a combination of what another commenter on this site called a “confluence of interests”:
1. Governments buy into the narrative both because it is a dead simple way to introduce new taxes (which governments of all kinds are heavily addicted to)
2. Large corporations buy into the narrative because as suppliers of solar panels, wind mills and bio-fuels it is an easy way to separate governments from their money.
3. Researchers piled on also because it is an easy way to separate governments from their money. Getting funding to study the Amazonian Three Toed Tree Frog is pretty tough. Getting funding to study the effects of global warming on the Amazonian Three Toed Tree Frog as a Proxy for Effects on Civilization is much easier even though it is the exact same study with a paragraph about global warming thrown in at the beginning and another at the end (along with the plea for more money).
4. Third world governments piled on because they saw it as an easy way to separate first world governments from their money.
5. “Environmentalists” jumped on the bandwagon because it was a way to separate governments from their money and fit with their core belief system that everything human beings do is bad for the environment.
6. Self promoters like Al Gore and Bill Nye jumped on board because they could advance their celebrity AND make money at it.
I could go on, but that should be enough to make my point. There are a great many different influencers out there, some of them genuinely misguided and some just driven by greed, but they all benefit from the buckets of cash generated by a story that plays on our primal instincts that there is something bad out there in the dark that we need our fiercest fighters and leaders to protect us from.
There’s just little to no profit in pointing out that there is no monster hiding in the shadows waiting to jump out and kill us all. There’s no instinctual response that everything is fine and there is nothing to worry about.
Big banks piled in because there’s huge money to be made trading carbon derivatives.
davidmhoffer
Governments have historically utilised fear to motivate their populations.
Not only governments, churches as well. And everybody wants a better world by applying own knowledge. Bureaucrats are specialized shifting other peoples money around. Their problem is that this requires justification and accountability. The ultimate bureaucrats’ dream is reallocating unlimited amounts of money without being accounted. Governments welcomed Al Gore because he offered this chance. “Saving the planet ” is beyond questioning. COP21 needed no justification either economical or technological because it was in fact a religious council.
davidmhoffer August 28, 2017 at 9:55 pm
Excellent summary! Sad but true.
7. Journalists selling scare porn guarantee themselves a steady income.
davidmhoffer on August 28, 2017 at 9:55 pm
While I don’t think Dr. Ball is wrong per se, I think things are a lot more complicated than that. They are a combination of what another commenter on this site called a “confluence of interests”:
I think Dr Ball was going for the conspiracy at the core. All the others jumped on board for their various reasons after it got underway.
Precisely,and you can add that Maurice Strong designed it so they had little choice but to jump on board by using the bureaucrats at national weather offices as members of the World Meteorological Orgampnizarion (WMO).
Geneva Environment Network, Geneva, Switzerland, Est.1999
A network coordinated by UNEP.
http://www.environmenthouse.ch
Select Network > Network Members. Click on each Network Member for information on any Network Member > Member website link.
Then there are the inter-connections among Network Members.
Many of these UNEP Network trails and/or inter-connecting trails lead right to Canada and the U.S.
One reason why it is difficult to track these UNEP Member organizations.
IPCC is there too and plays a role in and among these Network Member organizations.
Geneva Environment Network / GEN
Historical Background 1961 – 2007
1988 IPCC established.
http://www.environmenthouse.ch/?q=en/history-international-environmental-geneva
From the above GEN website:
1961-2007: Historical Background of GEN / Geneva Environment Network
1983 Brundtland Commission est.
1988 IPCC est.
1992 Rio Earth Summit
1999 GEN est.
And more.
DavidMHoffer…excellent summary of motives to which I would add a very important:
7.Journalists trumpeted and parroted the doomsayers to keep readers scared and tuning in and also to feel part of a noble cause.
The problem is there isn’t one all encompassing motive. There are/were diverse motives driving the scientist. I remember reading through the team emails while they were discussing the models. It revolved around which paleo group would be most influential for input to the models, they obviously wanted it to be them. Prestige with some people is a powerful motivator. This appears to be especially true with academics. Throw in that you are absolutely certain of your beliefs and the truth starts to get stretched. It eventually evolves into religion for the advocates of the so called science.
Pat Frank has run into the same issue with the modelers failure to propagate errors. He can’t get them to see the error of their ways because they would have to admit the models are useless. They can’t accept it because it would make all the work they have done they had done for not. Pride simply prevents them from moving forward in a positive direction. It is hard enough for us as humans to admit to small errors, big errors don’t get any easier. Scientist, like everybody else, are just human.
New scientist, with the youthful desire to ‘change the world’, enter the field because they believe in the ‘science’. It becomes a case of self selection. Instead of attempting to falsify what they believe they seek to add to that which confirms their beliefs. As Thomas Gold pointed out the whole field starts acting like a herd. No one dares drift to far from the herd. It’s comfortable, like being part of a tribe. Aspiring scientist that are skeptical of the ‘science’ go into other fields.
Then there are the snake oil salesman, the con men. Those that don’t necessarily believe but see an opportunity to advance their own selfish interests. Less devious are those who’s income depends on the faulty science. Not driven by greed but rather by financial survival. They blind themselves to the science that would falsify the science to protect their conscious.
What gives this train the momentum is the lay person that simply believes. They believe because the ‘science is settled’, or so they have been told. They have an unending faith in the scientist. They operate under the myth that scientist are somehow immune to the same failings every other human is prone to. They believe that institutions somehow reflect the combined wisdom of their members when in fact those institutions are controlled by a very small group who’s views dominate.
The moral superiority people. We all know about them. They are the religious fanatics. The prohibitionist. The nanny stater’s. Their motivation is their own self worth gained at other peoples expense.
People can fall into one or more category. They may even move from one to another over time. Motives are complex, and in combination, can look like a conspiracy when there is none. Eugenics was a example of science gone south. It became the unquestioned truth without any mass conspiracy. Perhaps history is tool to open peoples minds that because everybody believes something doesn’t make it true.
The book is freely available online here: Cloak of Green
“…is a socialist scientist who doesn’t accept AGW.”
I didn’t know that there were any socialist scientists that didn’t accept AGW?
Dr Ball do you have an example of some?
Richard S Courtney for one.
At one time a frequent commenter on this site, an avowed socialist who resigned from IPCC AR4 (IIRC) in protest over the science. There have been others, but they don’t drop in like they did in the early years because the left/right theme has become a lot more pervasive than it once was.
Piers Corbyn.
There are numerous strong leftwingers who reject CAGW. One that springs to mind is Denis Rancourt (several presentations on YouTube). For that matter I have heard Steve McIntyre say he dissents from the political views of so many skeptics (though he probably wouldn’t call himself a socialist, the context indicated he was to the left of them).
Claude Allegre.
There simply isn’t any logical contradiction between rejecting AGW and supporting free healthcare and universal basic income or whatever left-wing agenda you might fancy. So, it would be very surprising if people who do both could not be found.
politics is all about money and power. enough said
Fifty percent won’t listen, won’t debate and will just follow an obstructive line. Everyone already knows the country is in need of an infrastructure rebuild and knows it would create jobs bigtime, but if Trump proposes it, the Dems will obstruct. I think Pruitt should just do what he thinks needs to be done (he is doing a lot of that already). If you want a rationale, then state that the country can’t afford it, state its been studied to death and predictions are 300% higher than observations. I think a good approach to cooling fervour is to get on with prosecutions of the obvious law breakers:
http://freebeacon.com/issues/congressman-alleges-illicit-payments-for-scientist-behind-climate-rico-push/
The CAGW junk is not even on life support and will dry up and blow away. My concern is there should be no mercy for these guys. We could see already where things were headed before Trump cancelled AGW. There would soon would have been laws in place to jail dissenters under the rationale that the risk to the world couldn’t be tolerated. Europe has already passed laws that don’t allow you to complain about immigration policy, multiculturalism, identifying the religion of a terrorist, etc. An Italian woman writer was indicted for publishing a book critical of immigration policy – she fled to New York
and can’t return home or she will be jailed. I don’t have the link. No, jailing dissenters wasn’t far off here.
What would be the outcome if the US govt simply stopped all climate science funding as currently done, took the flak using the line that the science is settled so no more funding is needed, and then quietly funded real climate science.
I think this essay is also worth reading:
The Evolution of International Cooperation in Climate Science by Spencer R. Weart, American Institute of Physics
An alternative title for that essay could have been:
Everything wrong with IPCC – unwittingly told by a proponent!
A few quotes:
“The IPCC, although exceptional in the scope of its mission and effort, is not unique in its methods and outcome. In particular, a requirement for consensus, and the procedures and norms that make it workable, are found in the decision-making of many other international regimes that employ scientific research to address environmental problems.”
“…intertwined with the pursuit of a free, stable, and prosperous world order.”
“A steady diet of fresh scientific perspectives helps to maintain regular doses of funding, helped in turn by an endless round of conferences”
The public may grow wary of ever forecasted doom, but they also have a short memory.
Unfortunately, some unscrupulous types use weather events to peddle their agenda. Equally unfortunate is that every year the weather will be doing something funky.
Also, one side is in control of the temperature records and the amount of the globe reliant on infilling or adjustments is increasing each year, rather than increasing. The game is rigged.
Foe the latest example, see https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/08/28/met-office-falsify-data-to-prove-hottest-bank-holiday/#comments
That’s just so disturbing.
‘The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.’
“It will have little to no effect because most of the public doesn’t understand the science.”
That conclusion is supported by the following paper: Who falls for fake news? The roles of analytic thinking, motivated reasoning, political ideology, and bullshit receptivity Main conclusion:
«The present results indicate that analytic thinking plays an important role in people’s self-inoculation against political disinformation. Contrary to the popular motivated reasoning account of political cognition, our evidence indicates that people fall for fake news because they fail to think; not because they think in a motivated or identity-protective way.»
Apparently – many scientists don’t have a proper understanding of science either. That is no wonder – believe it or not, the scientific enterprises have failed to identify clearly the principles of science, and failed to establish proper ethical guidelines for science. As an example of that failure, skepticism has even been deleted from the latest edition of “On Being a Scientist,” a widely-read booklet published by the National Academies of Science:
What happened to the traditional role of skepticism in climate science?
In my opinion, the scientific enterprises have failed to equip scientist, and the public, with the analytical tools that are required to distinguish – exactly – science from fiction. That is the reason behind my work on that issue: Principles of science and ethical guidelines for scientific conduct (v8.0) I will be happy to discuss that work in order to develop it further.
Here is the link that failed to appear:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/22/what-happened-to-the-traditional-role-of-skepticism-in-climate-science/
http://www.esnopes.com/2017/08/fake-academic-study-news.html
“…..a majority of Americans opposed his action” That’s BS. I would like to read the the poll questions and who did they polled. “The survey had a sample of 527 adults and a margin of error of 1.4 percent.” All between the ages of 18 – 24. Better yet, 527 EPA employees.
Given that this was one of President’s Trump’s campaign promises, I find it difficult to accept that a clear majority opposed his action.
The election itself is the best guide to public opinion on an en mass basis.
Here’s a link to Courtney explaining the motive at the start of the fuss. Not necessarily the motives of the current promoters.
http://climaterealists.org.nz/node/848
All Thatcher’s fault as usual, very tiresome.