P
pixelsmith
Guest
Politicians setting policy is the doom? I agree it is a bad thing because the global policy is based on lies and corruption.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Politics of Global Warming
- Thread starter Tyger
- Start date
P
pixelsmith
Guest
This video is extremely interesting and pretty much negates almost everything tyger has ever posted. And it uses Data rather than faith.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
I will be very interested in tyger's comments on this video. Unfortunately he does not view any video he thinks will counter his views. That is not a scientific stance. It is a belief based stance.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
P
pixelsmith
Guest
UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Debunks ‘97% Consensus’ Claim
Richard Tol, Professor of Economics at the University of Sussex and the Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, says no. He has penned a blog, since published in edited form by The Australian, thoroughly debunking Cook’s paper, its methodology, its results, and the way it has been used by climate change advocates.
“Climate research lost its aura of impartiality with the unauthorised release of the email archives of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia,” Tol says. “Its reputation of competence was shredded by the climate community’s celebration of the flawed works of Michael Mann. Innocence went with the allegations of sexual harassment by Rajendra Pachauri and Peter Gleick’s fake memo.
“Cook’s 97% nonsensus paper shows that the climate community still has a long way to go in weeding out bad research and bad behaviour. If you want to believe that climate researchers are incompetent, biased and secretive, Cook’s paper is an excellent case in point.”
Firstly, Tol points out that science doesn’t depend on consensus. A scientific truth is objective not subjective; that is, it’s true whether one person adheres to it, or everybody adheres to it.
Secondly, Cook’s paper, titledQuantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, only claims that 97 percent of the scientific literature that takes a position on climate change (most does not) supports man-made global warming hypotheses. Yet supporters have used it to claim that 97 percent of scientists support global warming theories; they do not.
That aside, Tol highlights problems specific to Cook’s paper, such as the fact that, although Cook and his team sampled over 12,000 papers to reach their conclusion, they “did not check whether their sample is representative for the scientific literature. It isn’t. Their conclusions are about the papers they happened to look at, rather than about the literature. Attempts to replicate their sample failed: A number of papers that should have been analysed were not, for no apparent reason.”
That wasn’t the only sampling issue – further analysis has found that their sample was “padded with irrelevant papers,” such as an article on TV coverage of climate change which has been used as evidence to support climate change. “In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter,” Tol says.
Despite these and other issues, the paper’s editor praised the paper for its “excellent data quality”. Refusal to hand over data for third party analysis breaches the publisher’s policy on validation and reproduction, yet an editorial board member of the journal defended Cook’s obfuscation as “exemplary scientific conduct”.
The conduct of the Institute of Physics as the publishers of the report, and the University of Queensland, Cook’s employer, in protecting him has led the blogger Andrew Montford to accuse them of corruption.
“As an indictment of the corruption of climate science it’s hard to beat. That the Institute of Physics and the University of Queensland would stand behind such a blatant piece of politicking and deceit is almost beyond belief.
“As far as they are concerned when it comes to climate science there is no study too fraudulent, no conduct too reprehensible, no deception too blatant,” he said.
Richard Tol, Professor of Economics at the University of Sussex and the Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, says no. He has penned a blog, since published in edited form by The Australian, thoroughly debunking Cook’s paper, its methodology, its results, and the way it has been used by climate change advocates.
“Climate research lost its aura of impartiality with the unauthorised release of the email archives of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia,” Tol says. “Its reputation of competence was shredded by the climate community’s celebration of the flawed works of Michael Mann. Innocence went with the allegations of sexual harassment by Rajendra Pachauri and Peter Gleick’s fake memo.
“Cook’s 97% nonsensus paper shows that the climate community still has a long way to go in weeding out bad research and bad behaviour. If you want to believe that climate researchers are incompetent, biased and secretive, Cook’s paper is an excellent case in point.”
Firstly, Tol points out that science doesn’t depend on consensus. A scientific truth is objective not subjective; that is, it’s true whether one person adheres to it, or everybody adheres to it.
Secondly, Cook’s paper, titledQuantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, only claims that 97 percent of the scientific literature that takes a position on climate change (most does not) supports man-made global warming hypotheses. Yet supporters have used it to claim that 97 percent of scientists support global warming theories; they do not.
That aside, Tol highlights problems specific to Cook’s paper, such as the fact that, although Cook and his team sampled over 12,000 papers to reach their conclusion, they “did not check whether their sample is representative for the scientific literature. It isn’t. Their conclusions are about the papers they happened to look at, rather than about the literature. Attempts to replicate their sample failed: A number of papers that should have been analysed were not, for no apparent reason.”
That wasn’t the only sampling issue – further analysis has found that their sample was “padded with irrelevant papers,” such as an article on TV coverage of climate change which has been used as evidence to support climate change. “In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter,” Tol says.
Despite these and other issues, the paper’s editor praised the paper for its “excellent data quality”. Refusal to hand over data for third party analysis breaches the publisher’s policy on validation and reproduction, yet an editorial board member of the journal defended Cook’s obfuscation as “exemplary scientific conduct”.
The conduct of the Institute of Physics as the publishers of the report, and the University of Queensland, Cook’s employer, in protecting him has led the blogger Andrew Montford to accuse them of corruption.
“As an indictment of the corruption of climate science it’s hard to beat. That the Institute of Physics and the University of Queensland would stand behind such a blatant piece of politicking and deceit is almost beyond belief.
“As far as they are concerned when it comes to climate science there is no study too fraudulent, no conduct too reprehensible, no deception too blatant,” he said.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
IPCC Scientists are jumping ship left and right while admitting corruption on ALL levels. They admit to the fake consensus, tampering with data, controlling the peer review process, manipulating historical data, squandering funding money, withholding data from FOIA requests, etc etc etc... yet ignorant people like tyger refuse to acknowledge these admissions and continue to spew blatant lies on this forum and will not review absolute proof that the claims are bull$#it.
And now Rajendra Pachauri, the perverted soft porn writing 75-year-old chairman of the United Nation's IPCC has stepped down because of sexual abuse charges involving a young woman that works for him. He is also in trouble for tampering with witnesses in this case. We have a pervert in charge of perverted science and corrupt scientists peddling BS to people like tyger and others who actually believe this crap. AMAZING!!!
It appears that tyger has now left this forum rather than address this absolute proof he is spreading unscientific socialistic propaganda. He has been totally discredited now. It is a pretty typical progressive tactic to run away so it is no surprise to me.
Thankfully he is gone and we can put this giant Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming and the fake 97% CONsensus behind us. I would hope that others here who believe this nonsense will finally wake up. Lets focus on REAL problems like getting electricity to the people that need it, end global starvation, end pollution of the air, water and most of all war.
And now Rajendra Pachauri, the perverted soft porn writing 75-year-old chairman of the United Nation's IPCC has stepped down because of sexual abuse charges involving a young woman that works for him. He is also in trouble for tampering with witnesses in this case. We have a pervert in charge of perverted science and corrupt scientists peddling BS to people like tyger and others who actually believe this crap. AMAZING!!!
It appears that tyger has now left this forum rather than address this absolute proof he is spreading unscientific socialistic propaganda. He has been totally discredited now. It is a pretty typical progressive tactic to run away so it is no surprise to me.
Thankfully he is gone and we can put this giant Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming and the fake 97% CONsensus behind us. I would hope that others here who believe this nonsense will finally wake up. Lets focus on REAL problems like getting electricity to the people that need it, end global starvation, end pollution of the air, water and most of all war.
Fear not Pixel the great newz on his global warming threads that he has polluted here with are still trending away on twitter.
Oh how he must hate you for soiling his prestige 'science' thread with your denier presence, you are a scoundrel.
Just remember Gods work is never complete, in this case god being professor Stephan Lewanbowsky psychologist.
Do you know the good prof Pixel, he started skeptical science with John Crook, he is the one behind all the 'dodgy' consensus surveys from skeptical science, the one that had all the problems with ethics committees, after he enrolled a load of his psychology students into helping him out 4yrs or so ago forging online surveys for him, a sorry tale as are all tales about that group of HARDCORE enviromental activists,
Quite an interesting story, he turned to surveys on what he calls denier sites, creationists moon hoax sites, 'crackpot' sites, i found articles on his site [Lewanbowsky's] really interesting about it all, ofcourse if it wasnt for Tygers generosity months ago in recommending i go there [lewanbowsky's sceptical science blog], i would never have looked there, and i would have missed the fantastic debates in the comments section, and i have to give the lad credit where it is due, i found them very interesting.
Just a pity i waited months to go to the good profs site, as i thought it would be crap at the time it was recommended to me, about a year ago.
Its mainly just trolling buts theres some nuggets in there.
Mr Cook owns Mr Lewanbowsky's site.
http://whois.domaintools.com/shapingtomorrowsworld.org
Oh how he must hate you for soiling his prestige 'science' thread with your denier presence, you are a scoundrel.
Just remember Gods work is never complete, in this case god being professor Stephan Lewanbowsky psychologist.
Do you know the good prof Pixel, he started skeptical science with John Crook, he is the one behind all the 'dodgy' consensus surveys from skeptical science, the one that had all the problems with ethics committees, after he enrolled a load of his psychology students into helping him out 4yrs or so ago forging online surveys for him, a sorry tale as are all tales about that group of HARDCORE enviromental activists,
Quite an interesting story, he turned to surveys on what he calls denier sites, creationists moon hoax sites, 'crackpot' sites, i found articles on his site [Lewanbowsky's] really interesting about it all, ofcourse if it wasnt for Tygers generosity months ago in recommending i go there [lewanbowsky's sceptical science blog], i would never have looked there, and i would have missed the fantastic debates in the comments section, and i have to give the lad credit where it is due, i found them very interesting.
Just a pity i waited months to go to the good profs site, as i thought it would be crap at the time it was recommended to me, about a year ago.
Its mainly just trolling buts theres some nuggets in there.
Mr Cook owns Mr Lewanbowsky's site.
http://whois.domaintools.com/shapingtomorrowsworld.org
Last edited:
Ya gotta laugh man.
I was just looking up trainedobserver's account, havent seen him for ages pixel, been gone awhile, i like T.O..
The names of the people logged in are at the top of the page.
This was one of them, wonder if it is going to troll this thread now.
Lebowski
Last Activity:
5 minutes ago
Joined:
May 3, 2014
Messages:
0
Likes Received:
0
Trophy Points:
0
I was just looking up trainedobserver's account, havent seen him for ages pixel, been gone awhile, i like T.O..
The names of the people logged in are at the top of the page.
This was one of them, wonder if it is going to troll this thread now.
Lebowski
Last Activity:
5 minutes ago
Joined:
May 3, 2014
Messages:
0
Likes Received:
0
Trophy Points:
0
Last edited:
P
pixelsmith
Guest
I hope that Lebowski engages in a friendly discussion here. It would be nice to have a two sided discussion with someone. BUT... I suspect Lebowski is a sock puppet of tyger and he will log in from his moms computer or from a library under that name.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
45 years ago, scientists wanted to ban fossil fuels to prevent a new ice age
This may explain better why we hold our point of view, at our age, we've seen 30 yrs more of the below than most here Pixel, plus we've taken the time to sieve the 'settled science', and know why alarmist troll's only pretend to want to discuss it, and why nearly 70% of both Americans and Europeans believe climate change alarm ism is horse poo.
All agree the world is warming, you only have to look and you will find the sun doing it's 30/40 year cycle 'thing', each cycle leaving the planet the 10th of a degree warmer as we gently thaw from the last ice age, only alarm-ism can turn that good thing into a bad thing.
It is not a bad thing nature creating the conditions HUMAN's flourish in, i agree that may not be such a good thing for other species, but we are not going to stop it, but we are an incredible species, and we will get better at marshaling our environment the more important the issues become to people.
That's always been the case in the past, look back to the beginning of modern times, people had no 'power' over their environment, now we lots, now we have easy access to group power, look out for your own environment, let others fix their own problems, your enviroment will be YOUR kids world, third world countries are not 'our' problem, carbon a pollutant, yeah righto.
Forbes.
National Geographic’s latest cover story generated lots of attention for comparing climate change skeptics to those who fear vaccinations, disbelieve NASA’s moon landing, and oppose water fluoridation.
The author bemoans the fact that only 40 percent of Americans (according to Pew Research Center) “accept that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming,” asking how so many “reasonable people doubt science.” Dubbing climate change one of the “precepts of science,” the author opines that climate change skepticism is “dispiriting” for anyone considered a “rationalist.” How could so many dismiss “settled science”?
Actually, there’s a healthy reason that the public has come to distrust government warnings and the scientific experts: they are often wrong.
Ironically, National Geographic’s sermon on settled science could have hardly come at a more inopportune time. In recent months, leading scientists have reversed themselves and have admitted their expert findings and advice were wrong on eating fat. After decades of telling us not to do so, we now learn that fat can be good for your diet and for weight loss. What we all thought to be true based on the expert testimonies, turned out to be precisely the opposite of the truth. Oops.
This kind of reversal happens all the time in the pursuit of scientific truths. Forty years ago the experts warned of a coming ice age, now they are absolutely certain the earth is warming—and some of the same “experts” were on board both scares. National Geographic even acknowledges this inconvenient fact, but explains that even though the climatologists were all wrong several decades ago, this somehow actually helps make the case for global warming.
Wait, for a scientific fact to be true, it has to be testable and refutable. But if any weather pattern confirms “climate change,” then by definition it is neither refutable nor is it testable. That’s convenient.
Here is how the magazine derisively describes one reason why there is such widespread skepticism on climate change: “Many people in the United States—a far greater percentage than in other countries—retain doubts about that consensus [of global warming] or believe that climate activists are using the threat of global warming to attack the free market and industrial society generally.”
Wait. It is an irrefutable truth that many climate change activists are using the climate change issue as a means of attacking free market capitalism. This past summer major environmental groups gathered in Venezuela to solve leading environmental problems like global warming, concluding in the Margarita Declaration “The structural causes of climate change are linked to the current capitalist hegemonic system.” In fact, the statement itself included the motto, “Changing the system, not the climate.”
So how is it delusional paranoia to believe that the climate change industry wants to shut down capitalism when the movement plainly states that this is their objective? And how can a movement be driven by science when its very agenda violates basic laws of economics? I am no scientist, but I am first in line in questioning the wisdom and motivation of a movement whose purpose is to steer the U.S. economy off a cliff toward financial ruin.
Americans are also naturally skeptical that government can do anything to achieve the grandiose task of changing the weather of the planet—because the U.S. government can’t even do simple things like balance its budget, deliver the mail, or run a health care website.
If global warming ever becomes a planetary threat, it will undoubtedly be solved by technological progress—not repressive government action—and this is dependent on the very free enterprise system the left wants to tear down.
As for the future of our “industrial society,” the global warming agenda of shifting away from cheap and abundant fossil fuels and forcing nations to adopt much more expensive and less reliable wind and solar powered energy is a frontal assault against industrialization. One of the surest ways of reducing industrial output and moving hundreds of millions of people into poverty is to make energy more expensive.
Now we are told that in order to save the planet, we must do just that. The left is promoting the obvious fairy tale that we can somehow power our $18 trillion industrial economy in America with windmills. Europe tried the green energy route and it was an economic fiasco.
One other point on the issue: If there were no ulterior motive of the greens and their only agenda was to stop the rise of the oceans by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, then most honest and rational people would say the solution is for America to build perhaps 40 nuclear power plants over the next decade. In 2013, coal provided just under 1.6 million gigawatts of electricity. One nuclear power plant (such as South Korea’s 6 reactor Yonggwang plant) can provide 50,000 gigawatts annually. So production from just 40 of these plants would equal the entire amount of electricity produced from coal. This would provide cheap and abundant electric power with almost no greenhouse emissions and would not slow industrial progress.
But most in the climate change crowd hate nuclear power.
Moving on, National Geographic next makes this claim: “Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, one of the most powerful Republican voices on environmental matters, has long declared global warming a hoax. The idea that hundreds of scientists from all over the world would collaborate on such a vast hoax is laughable.”
Laughable? The entire history of the green movement is full of grand hoaxes and even catastrophic advice, dating back to the modern-day birth of this movement with Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring”. This was the green anthem which played a big part in the banning of DDT around the world—a move which contributed to millions of Africans losing their lives from malaria. The lesson of the false DDT scare is that there are very real dangers to false scares and faulty science.
As for the claim that scientists would never “collaborate on a hoax,” what about the scandal of climategate, which the left to this day pretends didn’t happen?
Shouldn’t the fact that some the leading climate change researchers were caught red-handed manufacturing evidence and suppressing data even cause some degree of skepticism by the media and the scientific community as to the validity of the “science”?
Then there is the reality that nearly every environmental scare of the 1970s and backed by hundreds of scientists as well as media like National Geographic, was proven to be a hoax? In the 1970s we were told that the world was overpopulated, running out of energy, food, water, minerals, getting more polluted, and that the end result would be massive poverty famine and global collapse. Every aspect of this collective scientific wisdom was spectacularly wrong.
In 1980, a “collaboration” of hundreds of the top scientists in the United States government issued a report called The Global 2000 Report to the President which was a primal scream that in every way life on earth would be worse by 2000 because the world would run out of oil, gas, food, farmland, and so on. Just a few brave souls like Julian Simon and Herman Kahn dared to contradict this conventional wisdom. They were disparaged then—just as climate change skeptics are today—as dangerous lunatics. Yet on ever score these iconoclasts were right and the green scientific consensus was wrong. What was the cost? Start with the fact that hundreds of millions of Chinese—mostly girls—are demographically missing today because of the barbaric one child policy, which the greens all supported as a way to save the planet.
False scares lead to a massive misallocation of resources as governments chase nonexistent goblins, which leaves less money for solving real societal ills. For one-tenth of the cost of the global warming crusade, if the world concentrated on bringing clean water, cheap energy, and schools to desperately poor areas of the world, child mortality would fall dramatically and living standards would rise.
The final insult by the National Geographic article is this: “It’s very clear, however, that organizations funded in part by the fossil fuel industry have deliberately tried to undermine the public’s understanding of the scientific consensus by promoting a few skeptics.” So everyone who dares question the climate change theology has been bought off by industry polluters, but the climate change research brigades are pure as snow. Really?
In 2010, Climate Depot identified more than 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists, who voiced skepticism about the climate change consensus and the IPCC—a consensus which National Geographic seems to think is the gospel of global warming. Are 1,000 scientists “a few,” and are they all bought off by the Koch brothers?
No doubt industry funds some of these skeptics, but it is also true that the U.S. government and private foundations are providing billions of dollars of funding—Obama wants $8 billion this year—for climate change research and activities. Needless to say, the best way to get defunded and to go unnoticed is to conclude global warming isn’t happening. Would anyone want to fund the green-industrial complex if the earth’s temperature weren’t on a catastrophic path of warming or cooling?
National Geographic concludes by saying the debate is over on climate change. Period.
What is clear is that this “settled science” argument isn’t meant to advance scientific inquiry and understanding, but to shut it down. What is the left so afraid of that they want to cut off all debate and disparage all who question the consensus? Once liberals believed in “questioning authority,” now they insist on universal allegiance to every conventional wisdom.
Once when I was at The Wall Street Journal, I wrote a column about the myth of disappearing polar bears. (Here we have yet another example of how the left simply manufactures false crises to advance an ideological agenda.) After I spoke with one of the few experts in Alaska who is involved in the population counts of the polar bears and he reported to me that the population is up not down, he called me after the article ran in a panic and said his job was in jeopardy for reporting the politically incorrect facts. This is the real tragedy of science today: Political correctness now has invaded the research facilities.
Scientific truth is the first casualty in ideological crusades like that of climate change. I am in no position to know whether it is happening or not, but as with half of Americans I question this settled science, if only because of the Stalinist approach which commands everyone to believe. The tolerance movement refuses to tolerate a minority opinion. By pounding skeptics as imbeciles, stooges of industry, and right-wing Republican ideologues, National Geographic has managed to set back science, not advance it.
All agree the world is warming, you only have to look and you will find the sun doing it's 30/40 year cycle 'thing', each cycle leaving the planet the 10th of a degree warmer as we gently thaw from the last ice age, only alarm-ism can turn that good thing into a bad thing.
It is not a bad thing nature creating the conditions HUMAN's flourish in, i agree that may not be such a good thing for other species, but we are not going to stop it, but we are an incredible species, and we will get better at marshaling our environment the more important the issues become to people.
That's always been the case in the past, look back to the beginning of modern times, people had no 'power' over their environment, now we lots, now we have easy access to group power, look out for your own environment, let others fix their own problems, your enviroment will be YOUR kids world, third world countries are not 'our' problem, carbon a pollutant, yeah righto.
Forbes.
National Geographic’s latest cover story generated lots of attention for comparing climate change skeptics to those who fear vaccinations, disbelieve NASA’s moon landing, and oppose water fluoridation.
The author bemoans the fact that only 40 percent of Americans (according to Pew Research Center) “accept that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming,” asking how so many “reasonable people doubt science.” Dubbing climate change one of the “precepts of science,” the author opines that climate change skepticism is “dispiriting” for anyone considered a “rationalist.” How could so many dismiss “settled science”?
Actually, there’s a healthy reason that the public has come to distrust government warnings and the scientific experts: they are often wrong.
Ironically, National Geographic’s sermon on settled science could have hardly come at a more inopportune time. In recent months, leading scientists have reversed themselves and have admitted their expert findings and advice were wrong on eating fat. After decades of telling us not to do so, we now learn that fat can be good for your diet and for weight loss. What we all thought to be true based on the expert testimonies, turned out to be precisely the opposite of the truth. Oops.
This kind of reversal happens all the time in the pursuit of scientific truths. Forty years ago the experts warned of a coming ice age, now they are absolutely certain the earth is warming—and some of the same “experts” were on board both scares. National Geographic even acknowledges this inconvenient fact, but explains that even though the climatologists were all wrong several decades ago, this somehow actually helps make the case for global warming.
Wait, for a scientific fact to be true, it has to be testable and refutable. But if any weather pattern confirms “climate change,” then by definition it is neither refutable nor is it testable. That’s convenient.
Here is how the magazine derisively describes one reason why there is such widespread skepticism on climate change: “Many people in the United States—a far greater percentage than in other countries—retain doubts about that consensus [of global warming] or believe that climate activists are using the threat of global warming to attack the free market and industrial society generally.”
Wait. It is an irrefutable truth that many climate change activists are using the climate change issue as a means of attacking free market capitalism. This past summer major environmental groups gathered in Venezuela to solve leading environmental problems like global warming, concluding in the Margarita Declaration “The structural causes of climate change are linked to the current capitalist hegemonic system.” In fact, the statement itself included the motto, “Changing the system, not the climate.”
So how is it delusional paranoia to believe that the climate change industry wants to shut down capitalism when the movement plainly states that this is their objective? And how can a movement be driven by science when its very agenda violates basic laws of economics? I am no scientist, but I am first in line in questioning the wisdom and motivation of a movement whose purpose is to steer the U.S. economy off a cliff toward financial ruin.
Americans are also naturally skeptical that government can do anything to achieve the grandiose task of changing the weather of the planet—because the U.S. government can’t even do simple things like balance its budget, deliver the mail, or run a health care website.
If global warming ever becomes a planetary threat, it will undoubtedly be solved by technological progress—not repressive government action—and this is dependent on the very free enterprise system the left wants to tear down.
As for the future of our “industrial society,” the global warming agenda of shifting away from cheap and abundant fossil fuels and forcing nations to adopt much more expensive and less reliable wind and solar powered energy is a frontal assault against industrialization. One of the surest ways of reducing industrial output and moving hundreds of millions of people into poverty is to make energy more expensive.
Now we are told that in order to save the planet, we must do just that. The left is promoting the obvious fairy tale that we can somehow power our $18 trillion industrial economy in America with windmills. Europe tried the green energy route and it was an economic fiasco.
One other point on the issue: If there were no ulterior motive of the greens and their only agenda was to stop the rise of the oceans by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, then most honest and rational people would say the solution is for America to build perhaps 40 nuclear power plants over the next decade. In 2013, coal provided just under 1.6 million gigawatts of electricity. One nuclear power plant (such as South Korea’s 6 reactor Yonggwang plant) can provide 50,000 gigawatts annually. So production from just 40 of these plants would equal the entire amount of electricity produced from coal. This would provide cheap and abundant electric power with almost no greenhouse emissions and would not slow industrial progress.
But most in the climate change crowd hate nuclear power.
Moving on, National Geographic next makes this claim: “Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, one of the most powerful Republican voices on environmental matters, has long declared global warming a hoax. The idea that hundreds of scientists from all over the world would collaborate on such a vast hoax is laughable.”
Laughable? The entire history of the green movement is full of grand hoaxes and even catastrophic advice, dating back to the modern-day birth of this movement with Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring”. This was the green anthem which played a big part in the banning of DDT around the world—a move which contributed to millions of Africans losing their lives from malaria. The lesson of the false DDT scare is that there are very real dangers to false scares and faulty science.
As for the claim that scientists would never “collaborate on a hoax,” what about the scandal of climategate, which the left to this day pretends didn’t happen?
Shouldn’t the fact that some the leading climate change researchers were caught red-handed manufacturing evidence and suppressing data even cause some degree of skepticism by the media and the scientific community as to the validity of the “science”?
Then there is the reality that nearly every environmental scare of the 1970s and backed by hundreds of scientists as well as media like National Geographic, was proven to be a hoax? In the 1970s we were told that the world was overpopulated, running out of energy, food, water, minerals, getting more polluted, and that the end result would be massive poverty famine and global collapse. Every aspect of this collective scientific wisdom was spectacularly wrong.
In 1980, a “collaboration” of hundreds of the top scientists in the United States government issued a report called The Global 2000 Report to the President which was a primal scream that in every way life on earth would be worse by 2000 because the world would run out of oil, gas, food, farmland, and so on. Just a few brave souls like Julian Simon and Herman Kahn dared to contradict this conventional wisdom. They were disparaged then—just as climate change skeptics are today—as dangerous lunatics. Yet on ever score these iconoclasts were right and the green scientific consensus was wrong. What was the cost? Start with the fact that hundreds of millions of Chinese—mostly girls—are demographically missing today because of the barbaric one child policy, which the greens all supported as a way to save the planet.
False scares lead to a massive misallocation of resources as governments chase nonexistent goblins, which leaves less money for solving real societal ills. For one-tenth of the cost of the global warming crusade, if the world concentrated on bringing clean water, cheap energy, and schools to desperately poor areas of the world, child mortality would fall dramatically and living standards would rise.
The final insult by the National Geographic article is this: “It’s very clear, however, that organizations funded in part by the fossil fuel industry have deliberately tried to undermine the public’s understanding of the scientific consensus by promoting a few skeptics.” So everyone who dares question the climate change theology has been bought off by industry polluters, but the climate change research brigades are pure as snow. Really?
In 2010, Climate Depot identified more than 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists, who voiced skepticism about the climate change consensus and the IPCC—a consensus which National Geographic seems to think is the gospel of global warming. Are 1,000 scientists “a few,” and are they all bought off by the Koch brothers?
No doubt industry funds some of these skeptics, but it is also true that the U.S. government and private foundations are providing billions of dollars of funding—Obama wants $8 billion this year—for climate change research and activities. Needless to say, the best way to get defunded and to go unnoticed is to conclude global warming isn’t happening. Would anyone want to fund the green-industrial complex if the earth’s temperature weren’t on a catastrophic path of warming or cooling?
National Geographic concludes by saying the debate is over on climate change. Period.
What is clear is that this “settled science” argument isn’t meant to advance scientific inquiry and understanding, but to shut it down. What is the left so afraid of that they want to cut off all debate and disparage all who question the consensus? Once liberals believed in “questioning authority,” now they insist on universal allegiance to every conventional wisdom.
Once when I was at The Wall Street Journal, I wrote a column about the myth of disappearing polar bears. (Here we have yet another example of how the left simply manufactures false crises to advance an ideological agenda.) After I spoke with one of the few experts in Alaska who is involved in the population counts of the polar bears and he reported to me that the population is up not down, he called me after the article ran in a panic and said his job was in jeopardy for reporting the politically incorrect facts. This is the real tragedy of science today: Political correctness now has invaded the research facilities.
Scientific truth is the first casualty in ideological crusades like that of climate change. I am in no position to know whether it is happening or not, but as with half of Americans I question this settled science, if only because of the Stalinist approach which commands everyone to believe. The tolerance movement refuses to tolerate a minority opinion. By pounding skeptics as imbeciles, stooges of industry, and right-wing Republican ideologues, National Geographic has managed to set back science, not advance it.
Last edited:
P
pixelsmith
Guest
I stay in contact with T.O. via email.
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Kochs Have Ordered Repugnant Govs to Ban Discussion of Climate Change
April 10, 2015
LINK: Kochs Have Ordered Repugnant Govs to Ban Discussion of Climate Change
April 10, 2015
LINK: Kochs Have Ordered Repugnant Govs to Ban Discussion of Climate Change
TEXT: "Earlier this week, Wisconsin’s Board of Commissioners of Public Lands voted to ban its employees from discussing, doing any work related to, or even responding to emails about climate change, Bloomberg reported.
"The three-member board manages the Wisconsin Trust Funds for financing public education and for managing the Wisconsin Trust Lands. State Treasurer and board member Matt Adamczyk (R) said that focusing on climate change is “not a part of our sole mission, which is to make money for our beneficiaries.” “That’s what I want our employees working on,” said Adamczyk. “That’s it. Managing our trust funds.”
"The fact that the agency is in charge of managing the Trust Lands, including forests the state earns revenue from in the timber industry, means climate change will inevitably affect the board’s ability to make money. According to Bloomberg, “The Midwest warmed about 1.5F on average from 1895 to 2012. Pine, maple, birch, spruce, fir, aspen, and beech forests, which are common in the region, are likely to decline as the century progresses, according to the latest US National Climate Assessment. ‘Climate change may threaten forests in the Midwest,’ according to the US Environmental protection agency. ‘Threats include more frequent droughts, wildfires, and larger populations of harmful insects such as gypsy moths.’”
"Wisconsin Secretary of State Douglas La Follette (D), who has been on the board for nearly 30 years, called the ban “nonsense.” “We’ve reached the point now where we’re going to try to gag employees from talking about issues. In this case, climate change,” said La Follette. “That’s as bad as the governor of Florida recently telling his staff they could not use the words ‘climate change.’”
"La Follette is right. What the Wisconsin government has done is complete nonsense. Simply not talking about a problem doesn’t make it go away. Pretending that climate change isn’t real only ensures that we will be less prepared for the changing conditions, and it will be that much harder to adapt."
"The three-member board manages the Wisconsin Trust Funds for financing public education and for managing the Wisconsin Trust Lands. State Treasurer and board member Matt Adamczyk (R) said that focusing on climate change is “not a part of our sole mission, which is to make money for our beneficiaries.” “That’s what I want our employees working on,” said Adamczyk. “That’s it. Managing our trust funds.”
"The fact that the agency is in charge of managing the Trust Lands, including forests the state earns revenue from in the timber industry, means climate change will inevitably affect the board’s ability to make money. According to Bloomberg, “The Midwest warmed about 1.5F on average from 1895 to 2012. Pine, maple, birch, spruce, fir, aspen, and beech forests, which are common in the region, are likely to decline as the century progresses, according to the latest US National Climate Assessment. ‘Climate change may threaten forests in the Midwest,’ according to the US Environmental protection agency. ‘Threats include more frequent droughts, wildfires, and larger populations of harmful insects such as gypsy moths.’”
"Wisconsin Secretary of State Douglas La Follette (D), who has been on the board for nearly 30 years, called the ban “nonsense.” “We’ve reached the point now where we’re going to try to gag employees from talking about issues. In this case, climate change,” said La Follette. “That’s as bad as the governor of Florida recently telling his staff they could not use the words ‘climate change.’”
"La Follette is right. What the Wisconsin government has done is complete nonsense. Simply not talking about a problem doesn’t make it go away. Pretending that climate change isn’t real only ensures that we will be less prepared for the changing conditions, and it will be that much harder to adapt."
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Senator Bernie Sanders is speaking up about it, but he is also speaking up about Citizens United and countless other issues. One voice.
Certain media outlets are devoting space to it but part of the problem is that this is a 'slow event' - not jazzy, and glitzy. As someone opined - it's not popular because it means 'the good life' must be changed in some manner unknown. It's a huge shift and not everyone wants to do the heavy lifting required to think through to the solutions. 'Sleepwalking' is the best devise for handling it. However, more are in the throes of solutions than is obvious. It's happening all around us.
More fakery for the 'cause.
Go greenpeace, please donate.
You know media manipulation is rampant when even Greenpeace is doing it. There is no other way to describe the “Arctic Fail” hoax that the environmental group pulled off earlier this week. It was media manipulation in its purest form. It may have been done for noble reasons, but that doesn’t change the salient fact that they are manipulating the media by creating a fake scandal and lying about it to get more coverage.
For those of you who might have seen the viral Arctic Fail video and not heard yet, the clip–in which a drink fountain at party shaped like an oil rig malfunctions and spoils the pretty Alaskan-themed decorations to the horror of many onlookers–was staged. Yet because of widespread media reports, it was overwhelmingly believed to be real and the whole internet enjoyed a nice self-righteous laugh at Shell’s expense.
From what I deduce the roll out went like this:
The Yes Men, an activist prank group, and Greenpeace paid to produce the video, whose main star was a prominent member of the Occupy Seattle movement. Occupy Seattle then posted this video–which they knew to be fake–on their site and claimed it was real. The video was then quickly picked up and reported on by everyone from TreeHugger to Gizmodo and local Seattle press. It racked up nearly 500,000 of its 700,000 views on its first day. To make it look even more real, the parties involved actually set out fake legal messages on behalf of Shell threatening bloggers who reported on the story.
I myself have run a couple of these pranks. I’ll grant you that sometimes it can be difficult for journalists to guard against dishonest people or their elaborate ruses. But I can also tell you from personal experience no one tries very hard. Why would they? Skimming over the news and republishing is the best of both worlds for blogs. It’s cheap, fast, and never has the pesky side effect of ruining a speculative story, and most importantly, it racks up pageviews for blogs (that get billed to advertisers).
As the Seattle Post Intelligencer wrote in its second post on the story, “It’s confirmed that [the video] is an elaborate — make that extremely elaborate – hoax. And, yes, we were fooled. Shame, shame on us.”
Really? Was it that elaborate? Because to me it seemed fairly obvious and it seemed like journalists should’ve been a tad less credulous. More importantly, I don’t see much shame going on here–no sincere apology, no new commitment to more rigorous standards and no real reflection. Instead of being mortified or humiliated by a careless mistake, the media involved in such stunts resort to classic misdirection: now the story becomes how the hoax happened.
Take Gawker for example. One of its blogs, Gizmodo, fell for the hoax and got 30,000 pageviews for its poorly researched story. Gawker then followed up after the prank was revealed with a story titled “Viral Video of Shell Oil Party Disaster Is Fake, Unfortunately” and got 90,000 pageviews out it.
From their perspective it’s hard to see what was so unfortunate about it all. It got them 3 times as many pageviews being fake than real. That’s the dirty secret of our iterative, fast paced, publish-first, verify-second model of journalism. When blogs get fooled, it doesn’t cost them anything because they have little credibility to lose. In fact, by their revenue model, it is a profitable success because they get TWO big stories out of an event that actually deserved none (first, covering the fake news as exciting news, then covering their “ mistake” as a story about how the prank came to be).
Why It Matters
The reaction for most people, I imagine, is “who cares?” To some extent, I agree. It’s hard to have much sympathy for Shell here. They are, after all, an evil oil company. But as someone who lives in New Orleans, I can tell you, evil oil companies know a thing or two about media manipulation.
In the long run, it is far better to force them to be fair and honest as best you can, rather than engage in an arms race you cannot win.
Even though this was for a “good” cause, it raises many questions. One freelance writer who wrote about the stunt for Salon.com actually participated in it. Usually cautious and reputable sites like Boing Boing fell for the stunt not once, but twice! (Both the initial video and then the fake legal letters). Many of these same blogs in their reports actually remarked how the story “seemed almost too good to be true” and how delicious the irony was. But instead of exploring that instinct for the benefit of their readers, they glossed over it and deceived them as a result. The idea that something might be “too perfect” doesn’t exist online, because there are too many pageviews in ignoring it.
Greenpeace and the Yes Men knew all this and went ahead anyway. Their thinking was that to get coverage they had to stoop to lying, that the end justifies the means. I don’t blame them for thinking this. I have played the same game for my clients. But in this case, I think the costs far out weigh the gains.
By highlighting how weak, interdependent and gullible the media is with this stunt, Greenpeace only makes it clearer the game the Shell must play to maintain its position. Greenpeace bragged to Salon.com that the stunt costs “tens of thousands of dollars.” If there is one thing that oil companies have plenty of to throw around it’s money–and they spend it by the millions and billions. Trust me, as someone who has done my fair share of indirect bribes to bloggers, that will buy you a lot of blog posts.
So we are left with this stunt, now at 700,000 plus video views and millions more media impressions and a vague funny feeling. Was it the right choice? Did this really accomplish anything? Even if you think Shell is evil and will lie to achieve their goals, now you know Greenpeace is the exact same way. After the adrenaline rush of the prank wears off and the laughter subsides, what can we say was actually accomplished? Not much I say, and in fact, it may actually have hurt.
Shell may have come off looking bad, but so did everyone else involved. I’m not sure that counts as a win.
How Greenpeace Manipulated the Media Like a Pro: Analyzing the Shell Oil Hoax - Forbes
Go greenpeace, please donate.
You know media manipulation is rampant when even Greenpeace is doing it. There is no other way to describe the “Arctic Fail” hoax that the environmental group pulled off earlier this week. It was media manipulation in its purest form. It may have been done for noble reasons, but that doesn’t change the salient fact that they are manipulating the media by creating a fake scandal and lying about it to get more coverage.
For those of you who might have seen the viral Arctic Fail video and not heard yet, the clip–in which a drink fountain at party shaped like an oil rig malfunctions and spoils the pretty Alaskan-themed decorations to the horror of many onlookers–was staged. Yet because of widespread media reports, it was overwhelmingly believed to be real and the whole internet enjoyed a nice self-righteous laugh at Shell’s expense.
From what I deduce the roll out went like this:
The Yes Men, an activist prank group, and Greenpeace paid to produce the video, whose main star was a prominent member of the Occupy Seattle movement. Occupy Seattle then posted this video–which they knew to be fake–on their site and claimed it was real. The video was then quickly picked up and reported on by everyone from TreeHugger to Gizmodo and local Seattle press. It racked up nearly 500,000 of its 700,000 views on its first day. To make it look even more real, the parties involved actually set out fake legal messages on behalf of Shell threatening bloggers who reported on the story.
I myself have run a couple of these pranks. I’ll grant you that sometimes it can be difficult for journalists to guard against dishonest people or their elaborate ruses. But I can also tell you from personal experience no one tries very hard. Why would they? Skimming over the news and republishing is the best of both worlds for blogs. It’s cheap, fast, and never has the pesky side effect of ruining a speculative story, and most importantly, it racks up pageviews for blogs (that get billed to advertisers).
As the Seattle Post Intelligencer wrote in its second post on the story, “It’s confirmed that [the video] is an elaborate — make that extremely elaborate – hoax. And, yes, we were fooled. Shame, shame on us.”
Really? Was it that elaborate? Because to me it seemed fairly obvious and it seemed like journalists should’ve been a tad less credulous. More importantly, I don’t see much shame going on here–no sincere apology, no new commitment to more rigorous standards and no real reflection. Instead of being mortified or humiliated by a careless mistake, the media involved in such stunts resort to classic misdirection: now the story becomes how the hoax happened.
Take Gawker for example. One of its blogs, Gizmodo, fell for the hoax and got 30,000 pageviews for its poorly researched story. Gawker then followed up after the prank was revealed with a story titled “Viral Video of Shell Oil Party Disaster Is Fake, Unfortunately” and got 90,000 pageviews out it.
From their perspective it’s hard to see what was so unfortunate about it all. It got them 3 times as many pageviews being fake than real. That’s the dirty secret of our iterative, fast paced, publish-first, verify-second model of journalism. When blogs get fooled, it doesn’t cost them anything because they have little credibility to lose. In fact, by their revenue model, it is a profitable success because they get TWO big stories out of an event that actually deserved none (first, covering the fake news as exciting news, then covering their “ mistake” as a story about how the prank came to be).
Why It Matters
The reaction for most people, I imagine, is “who cares?” To some extent, I agree. It’s hard to have much sympathy for Shell here. They are, after all, an evil oil company. But as someone who lives in New Orleans, I can tell you, evil oil companies know a thing or two about media manipulation.
In the long run, it is far better to force them to be fair and honest as best you can, rather than engage in an arms race you cannot win.
Even though this was for a “good” cause, it raises many questions. One freelance writer who wrote about the stunt for Salon.com actually participated in it. Usually cautious and reputable sites like Boing Boing fell for the stunt not once, but twice! (Both the initial video and then the fake legal letters). Many of these same blogs in their reports actually remarked how the story “seemed almost too good to be true” and how delicious the irony was. But instead of exploring that instinct for the benefit of their readers, they glossed over it and deceived them as a result. The idea that something might be “too perfect” doesn’t exist online, because there are too many pageviews in ignoring it.
Greenpeace and the Yes Men knew all this and went ahead anyway. Their thinking was that to get coverage they had to stoop to lying, that the end justifies the means. I don’t blame them for thinking this. I have played the same game for my clients. But in this case, I think the costs far out weigh the gains.
By highlighting how weak, interdependent and gullible the media is with this stunt, Greenpeace only makes it clearer the game the Shell must play to maintain its position. Greenpeace bragged to Salon.com that the stunt costs “tens of thousands of dollars.” If there is one thing that oil companies have plenty of to throw around it’s money–and they spend it by the millions and billions. Trust me, as someone who has done my fair share of indirect bribes to bloggers, that will buy you a lot of blog posts.
So we are left with this stunt, now at 700,000 plus video views and millions more media impressions and a vague funny feeling. Was it the right choice? Did this really accomplish anything? Even if you think Shell is evil and will lie to achieve their goals, now you know Greenpeace is the exact same way. After the adrenaline rush of the prank wears off and the laughter subsides, what can we say was actually accomplished? Not much I say, and in fact, it may actually have hurt.
Shell may have come off looking bad, but so did everyone else involved. I’m not sure that counts as a win.
How Greenpeace Manipulated the Media Like a Pro: Analyzing the Shell Oil Hoax - Forbes
In Watermelons, The Green Movement’s True Colors, British journalist/blogger James Delingpole promises to show that the man-made global warming is a fraud, one that has already cost billions of dollars and is a clear and present danger to our liberty and democratic traditions — and, ironically, to the environment itself.
He largely accomplishes this task and, for the most part, does so without sounding hysterical or radical. This alone would recommend this book to all who care about the environment, the human condition and the foundations of our way of life.
Delingpole was among the leading journalists who reported the Climategate scandal, in which he analyzed e-mails among leading climate scientists that had been hacked and posted on the web. What he discovered was a pattern of purposeful and coordinated efforts to:
The reason: Global warming is not about science, but about politics — that is, about expanding the power of elites using the coercive instruments of government to control the lives of people everywhere. Just as the governing class embraces ineffective Keynesian stimulus spending to justify expansion of government, they now extol AGW as the basis for increasing their power to rule over the rest of us.
I remember that in the 1970s, “scientists” had used computer models to “prove” that the increase in industrial activity was about to trigger another ice age. The villains and solutions were the same as with global warming: Economic growth, rising living standards, capitalism and increased economic activity were going to destroy the planet. Then, as now, reduction in the use of fossil fuels, de facto restrictions on the use of automobiles, higher taxes and forced reductions in living standards were the recommended policy responses.
What makes AGW different is that the alleged pollutant is carbon dioxide — an odorless, colorless gas that is the basis of all life and human activity. Regulation of CO2 is the gateway for those who control government to regulate all economic and most human activity.
With the stakes this high, it should not be surprising that those who seek power have simply ignored the fraud and continue to press forward with their agenda to regulate “carbon” emissions. Note: This language too is part of the fraud. The emissions they seek to regulate are not dirty, sooty carbon, but carbon dioxide, that harmless gas that we exhale with every breadth.
Delingpole shows that science, itself, has been corrupted by tens of millions of dollars that governments all over the world provide in grants to scientists whose research supports global warming. “Post Normal Science” has become the new ethical standard for climate scientists. As the late Stephen Schneider, Stanford University Professor who had been one of the leading advocates of the dangers of global cooling in the 1970s, and then, as the lead author for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was one of the leading advocates of global warming, explained in an interview with Discover magazine:
And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means both.
There you have it. In the name of the greater good, scientists must be political advocates otherwise they are not being effective. The detached honesty that is the cornerstone of the scientific method? A mere hope.
Only a few courageous scientists have spoken out publicly against this corruption. Among them is Patrick Moore, the Canadian co-founder of Greenpeace who resigned in 1986 because the organization had “abandoned scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas.”
Another is Professor Frederick Seitz, formerly president of the National Academy of Sciences who in 1996 wrote in The Wall Street Journal, “I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events which led up to this (1995) IPCC (Second Assessment) report.”
Those events included the deletion of 15 passages from the document that had been approved by all 28 contributing authors who expressed considerable doubt about man-made global warming including these two:
As a consequence, AGW is provided lavish support by government and taught as scientific fact in our schools. Like all state religions, its tenets are imposed on believers and non-believers alike.
Already, billions of dollars have been wasted, resources squandered, and the environment put at risk by the policies of the warming alarmists. Spain has been lauded for creating 50,000 green jobs. What goes unsaid is the cost of the subsidy, $756,000 per job, likely destroyed 110,000 jobs. And Spain now is shackled with high cost “green” electricity that hobbles its economy, burdensome debt and high unemployment.
In the aftermath of terrible floods in 1974 the government of Queensland, Australia promised to build dams and other flood control systems. Instead, persuaded by green activists that drought caused by global warming was now the real threat, the government diverted the money into a $13 billion water desalinization plant program. When heavy rains returned earlier this year, the terrible flooding killed dozens of people and caused billions in property losses.
The American Bird Conservancy estimates 100,000 to 300,000 birds are killed by wind farms in the U.S. each year – roughly equal to the estimated 250,000 birds killed in 1989 by the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Yet, environmentalists fail to speak out, instead averting their eyes to the slaughter as unsightly windmills destroy vistas. And they remain strangely silent on the deployment of solar farms that will cover acres of ecologically sensitive desserts.
The book is a bit disorganized and full of cheeky British humor, which does not fit my taste. But Delingpole has provided documented insight into a powerful political-scientific complex. This complex is led and supported by “Watermelons,” those whose rhetoric is green, but whose tactics and political ambitions he traces back to the national socialists and communists of earlier eras. Their goal is to control the economy and impose their vision of human society through the coercive power of government. All who cherish liberty, treasure the environment and aspire to a better life should take note.
HuaweiVoice: Report Generation 6 Times Faster--Real-Time Data Fuels One Of The World's Largest Energy Companies - Forbes
Every year windfarms kill more birds in the states than the exxon valdez disaster decimated, sick sick sick.
He largely accomplishes this task and, for the most part, does so without sounding hysterical or radical. This alone would recommend this book to all who care about the environment, the human condition and the foundations of our way of life.
Delingpole was among the leading journalists who reported the Climategate scandal, in which he analyzed e-mails among leading climate scientists that had been hacked and posted on the web. What he discovered was a pattern of purposeful and coordinated efforts to:
- Manipulate the data supporting the claims of a sudden and dangerous increase in the earth’s temperature;
- Not disclose private doubts about whether the world was actually heating up;
- Suppress evidence that contradicted the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW);
- Disguise the facts around the Medieval Warm Period, when the earth was warmer that it is today;
- Suppress opposition by squeezing dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.
The reason: Global warming is not about science, but about politics — that is, about expanding the power of elites using the coercive instruments of government to control the lives of people everywhere. Just as the governing class embraces ineffective Keynesian stimulus spending to justify expansion of government, they now extol AGW as the basis for increasing their power to rule over the rest of us.
I remember that in the 1970s, “scientists” had used computer models to “prove” that the increase in industrial activity was about to trigger another ice age. The villains and solutions were the same as with global warming: Economic growth, rising living standards, capitalism and increased economic activity were going to destroy the planet. Then, as now, reduction in the use of fossil fuels, de facto restrictions on the use of automobiles, higher taxes and forced reductions in living standards were the recommended policy responses.
What makes AGW different is that the alleged pollutant is carbon dioxide — an odorless, colorless gas that is the basis of all life and human activity. Regulation of CO2 is the gateway for those who control government to regulate all economic and most human activity.
With the stakes this high, it should not be surprising that those who seek power have simply ignored the fraud and continue to press forward with their agenda to regulate “carbon” emissions. Note: This language too is part of the fraud. The emissions they seek to regulate are not dirty, sooty carbon, but carbon dioxide, that harmless gas that we exhale with every breadth.
Delingpole shows that science, itself, has been corrupted by tens of millions of dollars that governments all over the world provide in grants to scientists whose research supports global warming. “Post Normal Science” has become the new ethical standard for climate scientists. As the late Stephen Schneider, Stanford University Professor who had been one of the leading advocates of the dangers of global cooling in the 1970s, and then, as the lead author for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was one of the leading advocates of global warming, explained in an interview with Discover magazine:
And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means both.
There you have it. In the name of the greater good, scientists must be political advocates otherwise they are not being effective. The detached honesty that is the cornerstone of the scientific method? A mere hope.
Only a few courageous scientists have spoken out publicly against this corruption. Among them is Patrick Moore, the Canadian co-founder of Greenpeace who resigned in 1986 because the organization had “abandoned scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas.”
Another is Professor Frederick Seitz, formerly president of the National Academy of Sciences who in 1996 wrote in The Wall Street Journal, “I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events which led up to this (1995) IPCC (Second Assessment) report.”
Those events included the deletion of 15 passages from the document that had been approved by all 28 contributing authors who expressed considerable doubt about man-made global warming including these two:
- “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increase in greenhouse gases.”
- “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed) to (man-made) causes.”
As a consequence, AGW is provided lavish support by government and taught as scientific fact in our schools. Like all state religions, its tenets are imposed on believers and non-believers alike.
Already, billions of dollars have been wasted, resources squandered, and the environment put at risk by the policies of the warming alarmists. Spain has been lauded for creating 50,000 green jobs. What goes unsaid is the cost of the subsidy, $756,000 per job, likely destroyed 110,000 jobs. And Spain now is shackled with high cost “green” electricity that hobbles its economy, burdensome debt and high unemployment.
In the aftermath of terrible floods in 1974 the government of Queensland, Australia promised to build dams and other flood control systems. Instead, persuaded by green activists that drought caused by global warming was now the real threat, the government diverted the money into a $13 billion water desalinization plant program. When heavy rains returned earlier this year, the terrible flooding killed dozens of people and caused billions in property losses.
The American Bird Conservancy estimates 100,000 to 300,000 birds are killed by wind farms in the U.S. each year – roughly equal to the estimated 250,000 birds killed in 1989 by the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Yet, environmentalists fail to speak out, instead averting their eyes to the slaughter as unsightly windmills destroy vistas. And they remain strangely silent on the deployment of solar farms that will cover acres of ecologically sensitive desserts.
The book is a bit disorganized and full of cheeky British humor, which does not fit my taste. But Delingpole has provided documented insight into a powerful political-scientific complex. This complex is led and supported by “Watermelons,” those whose rhetoric is green, but whose tactics and political ambitions he traces back to the national socialists and communists of earlier eras. Their goal is to control the economy and impose their vision of human society through the coercive power of government. All who cherish liberty, treasure the environment and aspire to a better life should take note.
HuaweiVoice: Report Generation 6 Times Faster--Real-Time Data Fuels One Of The World's Largest Energy Companies - Forbes
Every year windfarms kill more birds in the states than the exxon valdez disaster decimated, sick sick sick.
Last edited:
Where's old Joe Mc. when you REALLY need him.
A report from PJ Media beautifully illustrates how the climate-change contingent is aligned with Communists who hope to change the American system.
At a “People’s Climate Rally” in Oakland on September 21, the mask came off, and the underlying desire of leftists to embrace Communism was on full display. As PJ Media writes, “The primary message of the People’s Climate Rally was this: Climate change is caused by capitalism, and merely attempting to reform capitalism will not stop global warming; it is impossible to work within the existing system if we want to save the planet. We must replace it with a new social and economic system entirely.”
The report is replete with photographs of the rally, convincingly demonstrating that the Communist movement, which leftists have been portraying as ineffectual since the days of Joseph McCarthy, while consciously or subconsciously championing its principles, is rearing its head in very public ways.
What groups were represented at the rally? Here’s a short list:
The Socialist Action
The Communist Party USA
The Revolutionary Communist Party USA (which calls for a total revolution in the U.S.)
The International Socialist Organization
The Socialist Alternative
The Democratic Socialists of America
Normally, the presence of groups like these occasions snickers, but the prevailing meme at the rally was “System Change, Not Climate Change.” Take note of the keynote speaker’s words:
Our situation is dire. But before we can begin to address any of the possible solutions, it is important that we discuss the root cause of the environmental catastrophe that we are experiencing. What we are facing is a systemic problem. A conflict between two systems.
First is the environmental system, which sustains life on Earth. Then there is the economic system of capitalism that is attacking the stability of our environment. Capitalism and a healthy environment cannot coexist!
… They [the government] are not going to put a stop to the capitalist practices. They can only mitigate them. But we’re beyond the point of mitigation: What we need is transformation!
… That is why we must look at each other as allies. We are the ones that, through our collective activity, will be able to create the change that we want to see in our world. We must look around and see who agrees with us. That in order to stop what is foreseen as the sixth great extinction, that could include all of us, we’re going to have to disrupt and transform the capitalist system. That is why we say, ‘System Change, Not Climate Change!’
… We must go into our workplaces, schools, churches, communities, and talk to people about what we have learned here today.
… We can see that capitalism has run its course, and it has written its own death sentence.
A report from PJ Media beautifully illustrates how the climate-change contingent is aligned with Communists who hope to change the American system.
At a “People’s Climate Rally” in Oakland on September 21, the mask came off, and the underlying desire of leftists to embrace Communism was on full display. As PJ Media writes, “The primary message of the People’s Climate Rally was this: Climate change is caused by capitalism, and merely attempting to reform capitalism will not stop global warming; it is impossible to work within the existing system if we want to save the planet. We must replace it with a new social and economic system entirely.”
The report is replete with photographs of the rally, convincingly demonstrating that the Communist movement, which leftists have been portraying as ineffectual since the days of Joseph McCarthy, while consciously or subconsciously championing its principles, is rearing its head in very public ways.
What groups were represented at the rally? Here’s a short list:
The Socialist Action
The Communist Party USA
The Revolutionary Communist Party USA (which calls for a total revolution in the U.S.)
The International Socialist Organization
The Socialist Alternative
The Democratic Socialists of America
Normally, the presence of groups like these occasions snickers, but the prevailing meme at the rally was “System Change, Not Climate Change.” Take note of the keynote speaker’s words:
Our situation is dire. But before we can begin to address any of the possible solutions, it is important that we discuss the root cause of the environmental catastrophe that we are experiencing. What we are facing is a systemic problem. A conflict between two systems.
First is the environmental system, which sustains life on Earth. Then there is the economic system of capitalism that is attacking the stability of our environment. Capitalism and a healthy environment cannot coexist!
… They [the government] are not going to put a stop to the capitalist practices. They can only mitigate them. But we’re beyond the point of mitigation: What we need is transformation!
… That is why we must look at each other as allies. We are the ones that, through our collective activity, will be able to create the change that we want to see in our world. We must look around and see who agrees with us. That in order to stop what is foreseen as the sixth great extinction, that could include all of us, we’re going to have to disrupt and transform the capitalist system. That is why we say, ‘System Change, Not Climate Change!’
… We must go into our workplaces, schools, churches, communities, and talk to people about what we have learned here today.
… We can see that capitalism has run its course, and it has written its own death sentence.
Woot Woot go team Christiana.
UN Climate Chief Says Communism is Best Way to Fight Global Warming
Climate change has been a popular topic of conversation lately and it appears the United Nations is taking a stand on the environmental changes. The UN climate chief, Christiana Figueres, also apparently knows about how government systems affect the climate. Oh wait, no she doesn’t.
She stated earlier this week that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. She also said that communist China is instead the best model.
Even though China is the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggles with major pollution issues of their own, apparently Ms. Figueres thinks that means they are “doing it right” when it comes to fighting global warming.
“Figueres added that the deep partisan divide in the U.S. Congress is “very detrimental” to passing any sort of legislation to fight global warming. The Chinese Communist Party, on the other hand, can push key policies and reforms all on its own. The country’s national legislature largely enforces the decisions made by the party’s Central Committee and other executive offices.”
I guess the UN chief forgot that communism was responsible for 94 million deaths in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Afghanistan and Eastern Europe in the 20th century. China alone caused 65 million of those. But clearly that means that communism is a great political system that we should all try to emulate.
But maybe one could say that has nothing to do with their energy resources. Well in 2012 China got 9 percent of its power from renewable sources, whereas the U.S. got 11 percent.
Oh and don’t forget that the Wall Street Journal noted that China’s air quality was so bad that it had roughly 1.2 million people die prematurely in 2010 as a result of air pollution. And Chinese government figures say “lung cancer is now the leading cause of death from malignant tumors. Many of those dying are nonsmokers.”
So who really is the better country when it comes to protecting the environment? Maybe Ms. Figueres needs to do a bit more research before she starts claiming one type of government is better than the other, when it comes to the environment or whatever.
UN Climate Chief Says Communism is Best Way to Fight Global Warming
Climate change has been a popular topic of conversation lately and it appears the United Nations is taking a stand on the environmental changes. The UN climate chief, Christiana Figueres, also apparently knows about how government systems affect the climate. Oh wait, no she doesn’t.
She stated earlier this week that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. She also said that communist China is instead the best model.
Even though China is the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggles with major pollution issues of their own, apparently Ms. Figueres thinks that means they are “doing it right” when it comes to fighting global warming.
“Figueres added that the deep partisan divide in the U.S. Congress is “very detrimental” to passing any sort of legislation to fight global warming. The Chinese Communist Party, on the other hand, can push key policies and reforms all on its own. The country’s national legislature largely enforces the decisions made by the party’s Central Committee and other executive offices.”
I guess the UN chief forgot that communism was responsible for 94 million deaths in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Afghanistan and Eastern Europe in the 20th century. China alone caused 65 million of those. But clearly that means that communism is a great political system that we should all try to emulate.
But maybe one could say that has nothing to do with their energy resources. Well in 2012 China got 9 percent of its power from renewable sources, whereas the U.S. got 11 percent.
Oh and don’t forget that the Wall Street Journal noted that China’s air quality was so bad that it had roughly 1.2 million people die prematurely in 2010 as a result of air pollution. And Chinese government figures say “lung cancer is now the leading cause of death from malignant tumors. Many of those dying are nonsmokers.”
So who really is the better country when it comes to protecting the environment? Maybe Ms. Figueres needs to do a bit more research before she starts claiming one type of government is better than the other, when it comes to the environment or whatever.
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Shifts are forever taking place in the US - and it tends to flip-flop. I suspect that may have to do with the polling source. But here is a recent set of data. Go into the link for the relevant graphics.
A MORE PERFECT UNION
Whether blue or red, Americans are generally purple when it comes to ways to fight climate change.
LINK: Whether blue or red, Americans are generally purple when it comes to ways to fight climate change
A MORE PERFECT UNION
Whether blue or red, Americans are generally purple when it comes to ways to fight climate change.
LINK: Whether blue or red, Americans are generally purple when it comes to ways to fight climate change
TEXT: "American opinions about what's causing climate change can be pretty polarized, but a study published yesterday in Nature Climate Change shows that we actually agree on some things that will help us fight the warming of our world. For instance, 74 percent—Democrats and Republicans alike—support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and even more of us (77 percent) say the country should invest in research for renewable fuels.
"It's true, according researchers from Yale and Utah State University who compiled a data set of roughly 13,000 surveys and put the info into a statistical model. They then mapped out (down to the county level) how people feel about issues related to climate change.
"Sure, your science-denying uncle may continue to rant about snowstorms in the spring, but that doesn't mean he doesn't see the sense in generating electricity from renewable sources. So instead of the constant squabbling about what's causing the problem, maybe we should start focusing our attention on ways to solve it. Because in that, at least, we're united. "
As stated in the article, while there is a variance of opinion on what is afoot and why, it is recognized that we have a problem, and we need to address it with renewable energy sources (at least). As often happens in the US, the populace is ahead of the curve compared to the politicians."It's true, according researchers from Yale and Utah State University who compiled a data set of roughly 13,000 surveys and put the info into a statistical model. They then mapped out (down to the county level) how people feel about issues related to climate change.
"Sure, your science-denying uncle may continue to rant about snowstorms in the spring, but that doesn't mean he doesn't see the sense in generating electricity from renewable sources. So instead of the constant squabbling about what's causing the problem, maybe we should start focusing our attention on ways to solve it. Because in that, at least, we're united. "
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Poll: Americans Starting to Worry About Climate Change Now That It Affects Their Lawns
BY ANDY BOROWITZ
APRIL 5, 2015
LINK: Poll: Americans Starting to Worry About Climate Change Now That It Affects Their Lawns - The New Yorker
TEXT: "SACRAMENTO (The Borowitz Report) – A new poll shows that Americans who were unconcerned about climate change as it wreaked havoc around the world are beginning to worry, now that global warming is affecting the appearance of their lawns.
"According to the poll, conducted by the University of Minnesota’s Opinion Research Institute, rising sea levels, the destruction of habitats, and catastrophic weather conditions, such as hurricanes and tsunamis, have not served as the wake-up call to Americans that their lawns’ unsightly barrenness has.
"In interviews across the state of California, residents expressed anger and outrage that climate change had been allowed to worsen to the point that it has now severely limited their choice of ground cover, shrubs, and other decorative plantings. “We are being forced to create a front lawn out of stones and, yes, cacti,” said Harland Dorrinson, a resident of suburban Sacramento. “I’m not sure that this is a world I would want to leave to my children.” “Right now we’re looking at a situation where we have to choose between saving our climbing hydrangeas or our roses,” said Tracy Klugian, of San Diego. “We are no longer living like humans.”
"Carol Foyler, a San Mateo resident who has watched her lawn turn from a gorgeous green to a hideous brown during California’s drought, said she blamed scientists “for failing to warn us of the true cost of climate change.” “They always said that polar bears would starve to death,” she said. “But they never told us our lawns would look like crap.”
"Get news satire from The Borowitz Report delivered to your inbox."
"According to the poll, conducted by the University of Minnesota’s Opinion Research Institute, rising sea levels, the destruction of habitats, and catastrophic weather conditions, such as hurricanes and tsunamis, have not served as the wake-up call to Americans that their lawns’ unsightly barrenness has.
"In interviews across the state of California, residents expressed anger and outrage that climate change had been allowed to worsen to the point that it has now severely limited their choice of ground cover, shrubs, and other decorative plantings. “We are being forced to create a front lawn out of stones and, yes, cacti,” said Harland Dorrinson, a resident of suburban Sacramento. “I’m not sure that this is a world I would want to leave to my children.” “Right now we’re looking at a situation where we have to choose between saving our climbing hydrangeas or our roses,” said Tracy Klugian, of San Diego. “We are no longer living like humans.”
"Carol Foyler, a San Mateo resident who has watched her lawn turn from a gorgeous green to a hideous brown during California’s drought, said she blamed scientists “for failing to warn us of the true cost of climate change.” “They always said that polar bears would starve to death,” she said. “But they never told us our lawns would look like crap.”
"Get news satire from The Borowitz Report delivered to your inbox."