Understanding Natural Variability

Real Science

Humans don’t have much control over the climate outside of their living room, so all large scale climate changes are natural variability

This entire climate conversation is a bunch of contrived BS, with idiotic words like “forcing”  We don’t push the climate around, the climate pushes us.

View original post


15 Questions Why Climate Change Is A Complete Hoax

“When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself.”  Mark Twain

“There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made.” Richard Feynman, Letter to Armando Garcia J, December 11, 1985
US educator & physicist (1918 – 1988)

“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.” 
– Albert Einstein

climate change

No empirical evidence exists proving mankind’s extra carbon dioxide caused slight warming from 1976 to 1998, or whether humanity’s 3% addition to total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has caused, or will cause, significant climate change.

The IPCC has spent upwards of one hundred billion dollars over the past twenty five years on climate research, energy studies and climate policy, and is still yet to identify a human signature in the global temperature record.

The only area where the effect of man-made CO2 has been detected is in the climate models which show, predictably, lots of warming. But models are assertions, not evidence, and the real world is falsifying the models and the assertions — all of them.

‘That, of course, doesn’t mean that humans have no effect on global temperature, because we know that carbon dioxide is a mild greenhouse gas, and we can also measure the local temperature effects of human activity, which are both warming (from the urban heat island effect) and cooling (due to other land-use change, including irrigation). Sum these effects all over the world and obviously there must be a global signal; that we can’t identify and measure it indicates that the signal is so small that it is lost in the noise of natural climate variation.’ (Bob Carter, Quadrant)

‘Scientifically’, alarmists have failed to make their case. However, ’emotionally’, they have captured the world’s intimate attention.

“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”  – Bertrand Russell

It is scepticism that keeps science honest. And given the billions of dollars that are being poured into policies and research on the basis of alarmist model forecasts, people need to be asking a lot of questions about the science.

Here are some questions that sceptics have been waiting for years to receive answers :

  1. Why has there been no global warming for 17 years?
  2. Why have 97% of the climate models failed to foresee this?
  3. Why has Antarctic sea ice been well above normal for more than 2 years?
  4. Why are northern hemispheric winters getting colder?
  5. What makes the present warm period any different from that of the Medieval warm period?
  6. Why is it that CO2 has been suddenly assumed to be the major climate factor and the rest like the sun and oceans are dismissed?
  7. If there is consensus on manmade climate change, then why is there so much controversy over it?
  8. Do you think that it’s not necessary to have sceptics in order for science to progress?
  9. If human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is 3%, how much should we attribute mother nature’s 97% to any ‘change’ of climate?
  10. By how much will the temperature of the globe change if we commit to a 20% reduction of world emissions by 2050?
  11. By how much will a doubling of CO2 increase global temperature?
  12. Why has the rate of sea level rise decelerated since 2004, despite rising CO2?
  13. Why has global ocean heat content, 0-700 metres, failed to rise since 2004?
  14. What evidence would falsify the theory of anthropogenic global warming?

*Questions 1-8 via NoTricksZone. (Climatism links added)

•••

UPDATE

15. What is the ideal temperature of the planet and who determines it? And what happens if the ‘ideal’ temperature changes?

H/t to John R. Bolton

•••

See also :

IPCC Failed Climate Models :

Related :

Climatism Trending :


Climate Ambulance Chasing

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

Snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event.”
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
Dr David Viner – Senior scientist, climatic research unit (CRU)

snow_thing_of_the-past

•••

With 49 of 50 states in the U.S.A. covered by snow, climate alarmists have been quick to blame the extreme Northern Hemisphere winter on man-made global warming: see here and here. Sounds like the biggest oxymoron in history and probably is. Worse still, the eco-fearmongers remain totally oblivious, or conveniently unaware as to what the climate experts assured us that a warming climate would bring – milder winter temperatures, and less snow.

Milder Winters :

2001 15.2.4.1.2.4. Ice Storms

Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms

IPCC Third Assessment Report – Climate Change 2001 

Snowfalls Are Now Just A Thing Of The Past :

20 March 2000

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past – Environment – The Independent

Fact : Five Of The Six Snowiest Winters Have Occurred Since David Viner Declared The End Of Snow | Real Science

Is global warming climate change causing the latest outbreak of extreme weather? Roy Spencer explains in simple science how humanity’s minuscule role in changing the rate of flow of energy imbalances could not yield any discernible effect on weather and that a ‘warming’ planet would actually decrease likelihood and intensity …

“The idea that any of the weather we are seeing is in any significant way due to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions verges on irrationality.” – Roy Spencer

Screen Shot 2014-02-15 at , February 15, 12.26.39 pm

How much weather is being caused by climate change? Maybe 1 part in 1,000.

February 14th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

In another silly pseudo-science rambling, the President’s science advisor, John Holdren, has recently stated, “Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change.”

Drought in California. Record snows in the East. It’s tempting for many to blame it all on our use of fossil fuels.

What Causes Weather?
Let’s start with the basics. Weather is caused by energy imbalances, primarily (1) between the solar heated surface of the Earth and the atmosphere above it, and (2) between different geographic regions (e.g. the tropics vs. high latitudes; the warm oceans versus cold continents in winter).

These energy imbalances have associated temperature differences, which in turn cause atmospheric circulation systems which form clouds, precipitation, and high and low pressure systems.

How much energy is involved? On a global basis the average rate of solar energy absorbed by the Earth is estimated to be about 240 Watts per sq. meter. In order for the climate system to stay at the same average temperature year after year, the Earth has to lose exactly the same amount of energy (240 W m-2) to outer space, in the form of infrared energy.

It’s all about the energy…and especially about imbalances in energy, which causes “weather” as the ocean and atmosphere seek to reduce those imbalances. On a local basis, those imbalances can be tens or even hundreds of watts per sq. meter.

So, How Much of Weather Could be Caused by Manmade Climate Change?
Our best estimate of how much the climate system has been perturbed from energy balance comes from the slow warming of the oceans, which since the 1950s equates to a 1 part in 1,000 energy imbalance (say, if 240 W m-2 of solar energy has been absorbed on average, 239.75 W m-2 has been lost to space…the slight ~0.25 W m-2 imbalance leads to slow warming).

Now, how exactly can a 1 part in 1,000 energy imbalance lead Holdren to state, “Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change”? Well, all I can think of is that his statement is not based in science.

Maybe that imbalance in recent years is somewhat more…say 2 parts in 1,000 (about a 0.5 W m-2 imbalance). But even that depends upon whether you believe in the measurements of tiny, multi-decadal oceanic warming trends of tenths or hundredths of a degree (depending on depth).

And it’s far from clear that even that is entirely our fault.

Now, how that tiny imbalance gets translated into a change in weather is, admittedly, not well understood. But, ultimately, weather is still related to energy imbalances, and mankind’s role in changing those rates of energy flow is miniscule.

You might say, “But what about global warming causing a warmer Gulf Stream, which then clashes with the cold air masses and makes bigger East Coast snowstorms?” The trouble with that argument is that “global warming” warms those winter air masses more than it warms the oceans,reducing the temperature contrast. So, if the opposite is happening this winter, then it’s not due to global warming.

The idea that any of the weather we are seeing is in any significant way due to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions verges on irrationality.

How much weather is being caused by climate change? Maybe 1 part in 1,000. « Roy Spencer, PhD

See also : A Few Low CO2 Natural Disasters | Real Science

•••

A salient short essay from Climate Realists that resonates with those sceptical of blaming every other weather event on man-made climate change :

ClimateRealists
@ClimateRealists
Yes it’s “Climate Change”..but NOT as we know it…Like many of us I get tired of being called a “Denier” and all the rest of it as I don’t buy into “Man Made” Climate Change.
I do, and ALWAYS have acknowledged that our climate changes. The best example of a change in the weather is during the four seasons. We see our climate alter each year during Winter, Spring, Summer and Autumn but as far as can I tell, the small fluctuations of a fraction of a degree spread over 150-250 years are not noticeable in the same way.
What has been noticeable in the UK this Winter is that we are stuck with the Jet Stream going South of the UK. It’s very easy to point the blame at “Man Made” CO2 as being the culprit as it “kinda” fits in with what has been said by various groups who promote what can only be described as “Alarmism”.
These groups are the same who stated the effect of “man made” CO2 would result in our world becoming dry and hot, but that’s not happening. What they promote now is “you name it, you did it”. This view they are trying to maintain is a corruption of science.
Instead we have a world that’s going into a cooling period, but you can’t see it from the data as the official data has been corrupted with a bias to warming, and what looks like a “Pause” over the past 17 years, is in fact the beginning of at least a thirty year cooling period.
I can only describe the state of play at the moment, that it resembles the “Emperors New Clothes”. This means that nothing you read complies with reality, the Met Office are very limited to what they can attribute to the very wet Winter in the UK, and the last thing they can state is that the fall in Solar Activity has altered the Jet Stream. I however am not in that position and will continue to promote this view, nature will do the rest for me.
I love you all,
Gabriel
H/t to Climate Realists
•••
UPDATE

UPDATE

•••

See also : 

Extreme Weather Peer-Reviewed :

Peer-Reviewed Studies Proving The Lack Of Any Recent Warming :

Climatism Links :


Why Is The Post 1940 Data Tampering So Important?

Real Science

NOAA/CRU/NASA/Muller have wiped out the 1940-1970 cooling, but the historical record shows that their hockey sticks are complete crap.

In 1940, the Arctic was rapidly melting. Greenland glaciers were “nearing a catastrophe

ScreenHunter_523 Feb. 12 19.00

06 May 1940 – Greenland’s Climate Becoming Milder

The Arctic had warmed six degrees, and sea ice had thinned dramatically

ScreenHunter_524 Feb. 12 19.03

23 Feb 1940 – THE NORTH POLE. Is it Getting Warmer. | BUNDABER…

By the early, 1970’s, the arctic had cooled dramatically, glaciers and sea ice were expanding.

PaintImage10991 (1)

CIA Report 1974

ScreenHunter_46-Feb.-07-07.21

PQ Archiver – ChicagoTribune.com

ScreenHunter_885 Dec. 26 08.18

SCIENTISTS AGREE WORLD IS COLDER – – NYTimes.com

ScreenHunter_39-Feb.-07-07.12 (1)

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/

ScreenHunter_36-Feb.-07-00.051 (1)

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/

ScreenHunter_393 May. 21 04.35

NCAR  newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

NOAA/CRU/NASA/Muller have erased the post-1940 cooling, just like they said they were going to do in their private E-mails.

Fig.A (9)

PaintImage40

View original post


SHOCK News 1923 : ‘Meteorological Office Exists As A Corrective To Scare Mongering And Shameless Prophecy’

85F4D9D9-509D-4B60-83F9-01CCCDDE49F5


“People have been imagining that the climate is changing,
exaggerating every weather event, getting widespread press coverage,
and blaming it on man – for as long as there have been newspapers.”

– Tony Heller
Climate Change Insanity Never Changes

***

Screen Shot 2014-02-12 at , February 12, 10.12.50 am

Every summer when the thermometer rears unexpectedly or remains at a high level longer than is comfortable, people assert that the climate is changing. The same thing happens in winter whenever rain sets in and persists in a fashion indifferent from that of which anybody has recollection. South Australia’s winter, this year has occasioned the same speculation; not without justification, when for three months … the climate appeared not only to change but to disappear altogether, leaving the State with no climate but with just wet weather.

There is nothing more difficult than to remember and to compare weather that once prevailed with that experienced today. In no other sphere is memory so remiss or judgment so unreliable. It is fortunate for the community’s peace of mind that the Commonwealth Meteorological Office exists as a corrective to scare mongering and shameless prophecy. Mr. E. Bromley, Adelaide’s clerk of the weather has the facts, and the facts are that since Adelaide records were first taken 84 years ago neither in rainfall nor temperature has there been any change at all.

11 Aug 1923 – NOT A RECORD WINTER Five Wet Days a Week MILLION… Trove Digitised Newspapers

•••

1923 : “It is fortunate for the community’s peace of mind that the Commonwealth Meteorological Office exists as a corrective to scare mongering and shameless prophecy.” 

2014 : Bureau Of Meteorology – where bush fires, heat waves, floods and drought, once natural phenomenons of Australia’s harsh climate, are now cited as evidence of human induced climate change. And with global temperatures failing to rise over the past 17 years, the Bureau is all too quick to report the hottest ever: day, month, yearseason. PR claims that tell us everything about marketing, and nothing about science.

Swept up in climate change hysteria, BoM has become a veritable cheerleader for the environmental movement, preferring climate scare mongering and shameless prophecy, over objective and sceptical scientific climate analysis.

Like the temperance movement one hundred years ago, the climate-catastrophe movement has enlisted the mass media, the leadership of scientific societies, the trustees of charitable foundations, and many other influential people to their cause. Hysterical op-ed’s lecture us today about the impending end of the planet and the need to stop climate change with bold political action. Many distinguished scientific journals now have editors who further the agenda of climate-change alarmism. Research papers with scientific findings contrary to the dogma of climate calamity are rejected by reviewers, many of whom fear that their research funding will be cut if any doubt is cast on the coming climate catastrophe. – Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page

THIS is why scientific organisations today have – tragically – become almost the last places to hear the truth about climate change. Too many jobs, egos, reputations and money are now at stake.

logo_bom

See Also :

BoM Temperature Adjustment Related :

Australian Extreme Climate History Links :

STATE Of The Climate Report :

IPCC Report 2018 SR15 :

TEMPERATURE Related :

ORIGINS Of The Global Warming Scam :

•••

THE Climatism Tip Jar – Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!

(Climate sceptics/rationalists still waitin’ for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Help us to hit back against the bombardment of climate lies costing our communities, economies and livelihoods far, far too much.

Thanks to all those who have donated. Your support and faith in Climatism is highly motivating and greatly appreciated!

Citizen journalists can’t rely on mastheads, rather private donations and honest content. Every pledge helps!

Click link for more info…

Thank You! Jamie.

Donate with PayPal

•••


Bigger, smaller, whatever. It’s global warming

It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true
.”
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

Republican Wave

From the department of settled science :

In 2011 we were told global warming would give us smaller waves:

CSIRO research commissioned by the federal government … predicted small but significant falls in likely wave heights as temperatures rose.

Their June 2010 research said wave heights could fall by a “relatively robust” 5mm-10mm along the NSW coast by the end of the century.

“Projected changes are larger and significant on the northern coast,” it said.

In 2014 we are told global warming is giving us bigger waves:

Big waves are energetically costly for fish, and there are more big waves than ever…

“There has been a lot of recent work in oceanography documenting the fact that waves are becoming more frequent and more intense due to climate change,” says Mr Dominique Roche, PhD candidate from the Research School of Biology.

Bigger, smaller, whatever. It’s global warming.

Global warming gives us bigger waves. Or smaller – Herald Sun

•••

Contradictory studies of wave heights caused by ‘climate change’ are another example of how the robust science of climate remains conveniently ‘unfalsifiable’.

The most glaring example of this, lies in the name change from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”, occurring around 2004, after global temperatures refused to rise post El Niño peak, 1998. 16 years on, global temperatures remain flat, despite 35% of all human CO2 emissions, since 1751, emitted over the same period.

As long as the climate changes, “Climate Change” is proven. And only “deniers” deny climate change!

Global Warming has been dropped like a hot potato because it is too precise and can be refuted by facts, so “Climate Change” suits the purpose much better.

•••

Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”  Einstein’s words express a foundational principle of science intoned by the logician, Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but one critical failure could result in its demise.

A hypothesis that cannot be falsified by empirical observations, is not science.

No Tricks Zone has compiled a list of examples that demonstrate how the hypothesis of climate change cannot be falsified, therefore is not science.

Warmer Northern Hemisphere winters due to global warming
Colder Northern Hemisphere winters due to global warming

Global warming to slow down the Earth’s rotation
Global warming to speed up the Earth’s rotation

North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty
North Atlantic Ocean has become more salty

Avalanches may increase
Avalanches may decrease

Plants move uphill due to global warming
Plants move downhill due to global warming

Monsoons to become drier in India
Monsoons to become wetter in India

Plankton blooms
Plankton decline

Reindeer thrive
Reindeer decline

Less snow in Great Lakes
More snow in Great Lakes

Gulf stream slows down
Gulf stream shows “small increase in flow

San Francisco more foggy
San Francisco less foggy

See more here »

•••

UPDATE

Krauthammer on Global Warming as a Religion and Corruption of the Scientific method.

Screen Shot 2014-02-22 at , February 22, 4.54.22 pm

Debate over climate change gets heated | Fox News Video (3:20)

See also : Socialism Masquerading As Environmentalism | Climatism

•••

Related :

Climatism Links :


NASA Has Erased Almost The Entire Global Cooling Scare

He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.

Nasa-logo

Another great example from Steven Goddard’s Real Science of how NASA has scandalously rewritten temperature history to fit the Mann-made global warming hockey-stick narrative…

Posted on Real Science February 2, 2014

bcyix1xceaaiqqy

Black is the 1975 National Academy of Sciences graph. Red is GISS Northern Hemisphere temperatures. Mosher says it is all first rate science.

NASA Has Erased Almost The Entire Global Cooling Scare – Real Science.

•••

See also : Former NASA Scientists Reject Global Warming Crisis | CACA

NASA Temperature Data Fraud Related :

Climatism Links :


Fear, Complexity and Environmental Management in the 21st Century (Michael Crichton)

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
― Michael Crichton

“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.” 
― Michael Crichton

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
― Michael Crichton

Our governments can act with a foolishness of simple thinking, when tasked with the complex and unpredictable nature of climate. In one of his epic lectures, Fear, Complexity, & Environmental Management in the 21st Century, the late Michael Crichton, details the enormous fear created by people and governments with misinformed agendas, and the disastrous consequence of using “linear thinking” to solve complex problems.

In a system as chaotic, complex and intricate as our Climate, we cannot reduce complex problems down to simple solutions. Sadly, this is not very apparent to our Government masters, especially those in the West who like to solve complex problems with simple policy solutions, such that they are readily accepted by us.

We need to be flexible in our responses, as we move into a new era of managing complexity. So we have to stop responding to fear.

But beyond any given crisis, I want to emphasize the pattern: new fears rise and fall, to be replaced by others that rise and fall.

A Mark Twain quote sums up:

“I’ve seen a heap of trouble in my life, and most of it never came to pass.”

•••

(Note: Whoever has inherited control of the Crichton Estate, has “gotten rid” of both of his excellent lectures on Environmentalism and global warming climate change. One is featured in this post. The other here.)

•••

Fear, Complexity, & Environmental Management in the 21st Century 

Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy

Washington DC

November 6, 2005

By

Michael Crichton

I am going to challenge you today to revise your thinking, and to reconsider some fundamental assumptions.  Assumptions so deeply embedded in our consciousness that we don’t even realize they are there.  Here is a map by the artist Tom Friedman, that challenges certain assumptions.

Seen close up.

But the assumptions I am talking about today represent another kind of map—a map that tells us the way the world works.  Since this is a lecture on complexity, you will not be surprised to hear that one important assumption most people make is the assumption of linearity, in a world that is largely non-linear.  I hope by the end of this lecture that the meaning of that statement will be clear.  But we won’t be getting there in a linear fashion.

Some of you know I have written a book that many people find controversial. It is called State of Fear, and I want to tell you how I came to write it. Because up until five years ago, I had very conventional ideas about the environment and the success of the environmental movement.

The book really began in 1998, when I set out to write a novel about a global disaster. In the course of my preparation, I rather casually reviewed what had happened in Chernobyl, since that was the worst manmade disaster in recent times that I knew about.

What I discovered stunned me.  Chernobyl was a tragic event, but nothing remotely close to the global catastrophe I imagined.  About 50 people had died in Chernobyl, roughly the number of Americans that die every day in traffic accidents.  I don’t mean to be gruesome, but it was a setback for me. You can’t write a novel about a global disaster in which only 50 people die.

Undaunted, I began to research other kinds of disasters that might fulfill my novelistic requirements.  That’s when I began to realize how big our planet really is, and how resilient its systems seem to be. Even though I wanted to create a fictional catastrophe of global proportions, I found it hard to come up with a credible example.  In the end, I set the book aside, and wrote Prey instead.

But the shock that I had experienced reverberated within me for a while.  Because what I had been led to believe about Chernobyl was not merely wrong—it was astonishingly wrong. Let’s review the data.

The initial reports in 1986 claimed 2,000 dead, and an unknown number of future deaths and deformities occurring in a wide swath extending from Sweden to the Black Sea. As the years passed, the size of the disaster increased; by 2000, the BBC and New York Times estimated 15,000-30,000 dead, and so on…

Now, to report that 15,000-30,000 people have died, when the actual number is 56, represents a big error. Let’s try to get some idea of how big.  Suppose we line up all the victims in a row.  If 56 people are each represented by one foot of space, then 56 feet is roughly the distance from me to the fourth row of the auditorium.  Fifteen thousand people is three miles away.  It seems difficult to make a mistake of that scale.

But, of course, you think, we’re talking about radiation: what about long-term consequences?  Unfortunately here the media reports are even less accurate.

 image006

The chart shows estimates as high as 3.5 million, or 500,000 deaths, when the actual number of delayed deaths is less than 4,000.  That’s the number of Americans who die of adverse drug reactions every six weeks. Again, a huge error.

But most troubling of all, according to the UN report in 2005, is that “the largest public health problem created by the accident” is the “damaging psychological impact [due] to a lack of accurate information…[manifesting] as negative self-assessments of health, belief in a shortened life expectancy, lack of initiative, and dependency on assistance from the state.”

In other words, the greatest damage to the people of Chernobyl was caused by bad information. These people weren’t blighted by radiation so much as by terrifying but false information.  We ought to ponder, for a minute, exactly what that implies. We demand strict controls on radiation because it is such a health hazard.  But Chernobyl suggests that false information can be a health hazard as damaging as radiation. I am not saying radiation is not a threat. I am not saying Chernobyl was not a genuinely serious event.

But thousands of Ukrainians who didn’t die were made invalids out of fear. They were told to be afraid. They were told they were going to die when they weren’t. They were told their children would be deformed when they weren’t. They were told they couldn’t have children when they could. They were authoritatively promised a future of cancer, deformities, pain and decay. It’s no wonder they responded as they did.

In fact, we need to recognize that this kind of human response is well-documented. Authoritatively telling people they are going to die can in itself be fatal.

You may know that Australian aborigines fear a curse called “pointing the bone.” A shaman shakes a bone at a person, and sings a song, and soon after, the person dies. This is a specific example of a phenomenon generally referred to as “hex death”—a person is cursed by an authority figure, and then dies. According to medical studies, the person generally dies of dehydration, implying they just give up.  But the progression is very erratic, and shock symptoms may play a part, suggesting adrenal effects of fright and hopelessness.

Yet this deadly curse is nothing but information.  And it can be undone with information.

A friend of mine was an intern at Bellvue Hospital in New York.  A 28-year old man from Aruba said he was going to die, because he had been cursed.  He was admitted for psychiatric evaluation and found to be normal, but his health steadily declined. My friend was able to rehydrate him, balance his electrolytes, and give him nutrients, but nevertheless the man worsened, insisting that he was cursed and there was nothing that could prevent his death.  My friend realized that the patient would, in fact, soon die. The situation was desperate. Finally he told the patient that he, the doctor, was going to invoke his own powerful medicine to undo the curse, and his medicine was more powerful than any other. He got together with the house staff, bought some headdresses and rattles, and danced around the patient in the middle of the night, chanting what they hoped would be effective-sounding phrases. The patient showed no reaction, but next day he began to improve. The man went home a few days later.  My friend literally saved his life.

This suggests that the Ukranian invalids are not unique in their response, but by the large numbers of what we might call “information casualties” they represent a particularly egregious example of what can happen from false fears.

Once I looked at Chernobyl, I began to recall other fears in my life that had never come true. The population bomb, for one. Paul Ehrlich predicted mass starvation in the 1960s.  Sixty million Americans starving to death. Didn’t happen. Other scientists warned of mass species extinctions by the year 2000. Ehrlich himself predicted that half of all species would become extinct by 2000. Didn’t happen. The Club of Rome told us we would run out of raw materials ranging from oil to copper by the 1990s.  That didn’t happen, either.

It’s no surprise that predictions frequently don’t come true.  But such big ones!  And so many! All my life I worried about the decay of the environment, the tragic loss of species, the collapse of ecosystems.  I feared poisoning by pesticides, alar on apples, falling sperm counts from endocrine disrupters, cancer from power lines, cancer from saccharine, cancer from cell phones, cancer from computer screens, cancer from food coloring, hair spray, electric razors, electric blankets, coffee, chlorinated water…it never seemed to end.

Only once, when on the same day I read that beer was a preservative of heart muscle and also a carcinogen did I begin to sense the bind I was in.  But for the most part, I just went along with what I was being told.

Now, Chernobyl started me on a new path. As I researched these old fears, to find out what had been said in the past, I made several important discoveries.  The first is that there is nothing more sobering than a 30 year old newspaper. You can’t figure out what the headlines mean. You don’t know who the people are. Theodore Green, John Sparkman, George Reedy, Jack Watson, Kenneth Duberstein. You thumb through page after page of vanished concerns—issues that apparently were vitally important at the time, and now don’t matter at all. It’s amazing how many pressing concerns are literally of the moment. They won’t matter in six months, and certainly not in six years. And if they won’t matter then, are they really worth our attention now?

But as David Brinkley once said, “The one function TV news performs very well is that when there is no news we give it to you with the same emphasis as if there were.”

Another thing I discovered was that attempts to provoke fear tended to employ a certain kind of stereotypic, intense language.  For example, here is a climate quote:

image007

Familiar language, isn’t it? But it’s not about global warming, it’s about global cooling. Fear of a new ice age. Anybody here worried about a new ice age? Anybody upset we didn’t act now, back then, to stockpile food and do all the other things we were warned we had to do?

Here is a quote from a famous 1970s computer study that predicted a dire future for mankind unless we act now:

aaaaaa

Continue Reading »

Fear, Complexity, Environmental Management in the 21st Century – Michael Crichton

•••

See also :

Climatism Hot Links :

Quote Source – The Green Agenda

H/t to Tundra Swans


Sustainability is Malthusianism for the 21st Century

Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound
reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world
has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both
governments and individuals and an unprecedented
redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift
will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences
of every human action be integrated into individual and
collective decision-making at every level.

– UN Agenda 21

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
– Maurice Strong Rio+20 Earth Summit 1992,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Rio+20 Earth Summit, 1992.

Screen Shot 2014-01-28 at , January 28, 12.01.12 pm

At the 1992 Rio +20 Earth Summit, the international community adopted Agenda 21, an unprecedented global plan of action for sustainable development.

Agenda 21 aka ICLEI, set in motion the global environmental and sustainable development goals that replace freedom with servitude, capitalism with socialism and property rights with “sustainable development.”

Sustainable development lies at the heart of the United Nations’ crooked ideology to extend the powers of government, raise taxes, weaken the capitalist system, curtail personal freedoms and “redistribute the world’s income through climate policy“.

Nick Cater on the dogma of sustainability that is polluting the Australian school curriculum:

…Thus the corporate sector has surrendered to the dispiriting dogma of sustainability, the heresy that took hold among the hippies in the late 1960s and mutated into a misanthropic, deep green movement in the 70s.

Today it wears a pinstriped suit and sits in the boardroom signing off on the most egregious muddle-headed nonsense in the name of corporate responsibility.

Sustainability may present itself as harmless mumbo-jumbo that helps build a brand, but its underlying philosophy is antithetical to freedom and to enterprise.

“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow,” Ayn Rand wrote in 1972. “They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other until one day they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”

Four decades later, her prophecy has been fulfilled. Sustainability is one of the three priority themes in the new Australian curriculum, polluting everything from algebra to zoology.

The sustainability priority is futures-oriented, focusing on protecting environments and creating a more ecologically and socially just world through informed action,” the curriculum says.

Students are encouraged to consider “that unlimited growth is unsustainable; sustainability – that biological systems need to remain diverse and productive over time; and rights of nature – recognition that humans and their natural environment are closely interrelated”.

Sustainability is Malthusianism for the 21st century: the fallacy that population is growing faster than the available resources and that ruination is just around the corner.

The world viewed through the prism of sustainability is a deeply depressing place in which dreams are discouraged, imagination is restricted and the spirit of progress frowned upon.

Sustainability means never having to say sorry. In 1990 the World Hunger Project calculated that the ecosystem could sustainably support six billion people, and then only if they lived on a vegetarian diet.

More than two decades later, with 7.1 billion people living on the planet, global beef production has increased by 5 per cent per capita, pork by 17 per cent and chicken by 82 per cent, and that’s not counting the eggs.

The World Food Programme estimates that there are 170 million fewer malnourished people than there were in 1990.

The inconvenient prosperous truth is that the human beings have, since the dawn of time, created more than they used on average over the course of a lifetime.

The happy by-product of an expanding population ever more interconnected is that the sum total of human knowledge grows exponentially.

The energy crisis, the one that is supposed to lie just around the corner, has been creating anxiety since the 1600s when Britain began to run out of firewood. Scarcity spurred the development of coal. The great whale oil crisis of the 1840s stimulated the search for oil. Time after time the coming catastrophe is postponed through abundance, and the inherent dishonesty of sustainability is exposed.

Human ingenuity is an infinitely renewable resource. Prosperity comes from seizing the elements of nature and rearranging their form.

“Wealth does not exists as a fixed, static quantity,” wrote Rand. “It is the creation of a dynamic, boundless mind. And it has no inherent limitation.”

Bitten by the dispiriting dogma of sustainability | The Australian

(Climatism links added)

•••

See also : “In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” | CACA

•••

UN Agenda 21 and ICLEI Sustainability :

UN Agenda 21 and ICLEI Sustainability Operations in Australia:

United Nations Related :

CACA Hot Links :

Quote source – The Green Agenda


“IN Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming”

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 behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself
.
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

•••

311427_233757580018379_1193965806_n

ANTHROPOGENIC “climate change”, and the control of carbon dioxide (energy) has deep roots in a radical, yet gravely misguided campaign to reduce the world’s population.

A misanthropic agenda engineered by the environmental movement in the mid 1970’s, who realised that doing something about “global warming” would play to quite a number of its social agendas.

The goal was advanced, most notably, by The Club Of Rome (Consultants to the UN) – a group of mainly European scientists and academics, who used computer modelling to warn that the world would run out of finite resources if population growth were left unchecked.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. the threat of global warming.. would fit the bill.. the real enemy, then, is humanity itself….” – Club Of Rome

The Club Of Rome’s 1972 environmental best-seller “The Limits To Growth”, examined five variables in the original model: world population, industrialisation, pollution, food production and resource depletion.

Not surprisingly, the study predicted a dire future for mankind unless we ‘act now’ :

aaaaaa

Around the same time, influential anthropologist and president of the American Medical Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Margaret Mead, gathered together like-minded anti-population hoaxsters at her 1975, North Carolina conference, “The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering”. Mead’s star recruits were climate scare artist Stephen Schneider, population-freak George Woodwell and former AAAS head, John Holdren (currently President Barack Obama’s Science and Technology Czar). All three of them disciples of Malthusian catastrophist Paul Ehrlich, author of the “The Population Bomb”.

The conference concluded that human-produced carbon dioxide would fry the planet, melt the ice caps, and destroy human life. The idea being to sow enough fear of man-made climate change to force global cutbacks in industrial activity and halt Third World development.

•••

With man’s industrial fortunes fingered as the driver of eco-destructive population growth, it was inevitable that ‘Science’ would be called upon to act as judge, jury and executioner. However, as it turned out, the science of global warming was butchered, tortured and corrupted to prove a hypothesis, rather than to perform objective science.

James Delingpole of The Telegraph elaborates :

The reason I have become so obsessed with “global warming” in the last few years is not because I’m particularly interested in the “how many drowning polar bears can dance on the head of a pin” non-argument which hysterical sites like RealClimate and bloggers like Joe Romm are striving so desperately to keep on a life support machine. It’s because unlike some I’ve read widely enough to see the bigger picture.

One thing I’ve learned in this wide reading is how obsessed so many of the key thinkers in the green movement are with the notion of “overpopulation.” As one of their favourite think tanks, the Club of Rome, puts it: “Earth has a cancer and the cancer is man.” This belief explains, inter alia, why the “science” behind AGW is so dodgy: because the science didn’t come first. What came first was the notion that mankind was a problem and was doing harm to the planet. The “science” was then simply tortured until it fitted in with this notion. 

Earth does not have a cancer; the cancer is not man – Telegraph Blogs

ipcc_altlogo_full_rgb

Dr Tim Ball details how the science of climate change came to be “tortured until it fitted in with [the] notion” :

Almost every aspect of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) work is manipulated, selected, and controlled, to prove human CO2 is causing global warming. The objective was to prove the hypothesis, not to perform objective science.

The goal was established by the Club of Rome whose member, Maurice Strong transmitted and translated it into world government policy through the United Nations.

The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. the threat of global warming.. would fit the bill…. the real enemy, then, is humanity itself….we believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or….one invented for the purpose.” — Club of Rome

He was assisted by politicians like Al Gore and Tim Wirth. In 1993 the latter did not hide the naked political objective.

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.“ – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

They were aided by national weather agencies and bureaucratic scientists with similar political persuasions appointed to the IPCC.

They claimed their goal was achieved in the 2007 IPCC Report which concluded,

“Another unusual aspect of recent climate change is its cause: past climate changes were natural in origin, whereas most of the warming of the past 50 years is attributable to human activities.”

All the CO2 numbers used by the IPCC are very poor estimates and designed to underline the human impact. They are meaningless figures from the total volumes to the annual flows and the human inputs as depicted in the IPCC carbon cycle (diagram). See more »

————

IPCC wanted to prove human CO2 was causing global warming as part of their belief that industrialized populations would exhaust all resources and had to be shut down. Their only objective was to show human production was steadily, inexorably increasing. Their calculations predetermine that, because human CO2 production is directly linked to population increase. A population increase guarantees a CO2 increase. It is another of their circular arguments that has no basis in science.

See more at: IPCC Control Calculations of Annual Human CO2 Production For Political Agenda

•••

So is the planet overpopulated?

Tim Ball has done the numbers and concludes, “The world is not overpopulated. That fallacy is perpetuated in all environmental research, policy and planning including global warming and latterly climate change.”

Overpopulation: The Fallacy Behind The Fallacy Of Global Warming

Posted on WUWT on January 5, 2014
413Ai6gFA0LGuest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

Global Warming was just one issue The Club of Rome (TCOR) targeted in its campaign to reduce world population. In 1993 the Club’s co-founder, Alexander King with Bertrand Schneider wrote The First Global Revolution stating,

“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.”

They believe all these problems are created by humans but exacerbated by a growing population using technology. Changed attitudes and behavior basically means what it has meant from the time Thomas Malthus raised the idea the world was overpopulated. He believed charity and laws to help the poor were a major cause of the problem and it was necessary to reduce population through rules and regulations. TCOR ideas all ended up in the political activities of the Rio 1992 conference organized by Maurice Strong (a TCOR member) under the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

The assumptions and objectives became the main structure of Agenda 21, the master plan for the 21st Century. The global warming threat was confronted at Rio through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It was structured to predetermine scientific proof that human CO2 was one contribution of the common enemy.

The IPCC was very successful. Despite all the revelations about corrupted science and their failed predictions (projections) CO2 remains central to global attention about energy and environment. For example, several websites, many provided by government, list CO2 output levels for new and used cars. Automobile companies work to build cars with lower CO2 output and, if for no other reason than to appear green, use it in advertising. The automotive industry, which has the scientists to know better, collectively surrenders to eco-bullying about CO2. They are not alone. They get away with it because they pass on the unnecessary costs to a befuddled “trying to do the right thing” population. See more »

—————
TCOR and later UNEP’s Agenda 21 adopted and expanded the Malthusian idea of overpopulation to all resources making it the central tenet of all their politics and policies. The IPCC was set up to assign the blame of global warming and latterly climate change on human produced CO2 from an industrialized expanding population. They both developed from false assumptions, used manipulated data and science, which they combined into computer models whose projections were, not surprisingly, wrong. The result is the fallacy of global warming due to human CO2 is a subset built on the fallacy of overpopulation.
See full article here : Overpopulation: The Fallacy Behind The Fallacy Of Global Warming | Watts Up With That?
•••
UPDATE
via Herald Sun – Andrew Bolt :

Paltridge: this warming pause may destroy the reputation of science

Temperatures have not risen for at least 15 years. The pause now threatens to expose how much scientists sold their souls for cash and fame, warns emeritus professor Garth Paltridge, author of The Climate Caper: Facts and Fallacies of Global Warming and a former chief research scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research:

…there has been no significant warming over the most recent fifteen or so years…

In the light of all this, we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem … in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour…

The trap was set in the late 1970s or thereabouts when the environmental movement first realised that doing something about global warming would play to quite a number of its social agendas. At much the same time, it became accepted wisdom around the corridors of power that government-funded scientists (that is, most scientists) should be required to obtain a goodly fraction of their funds and salaries from external sources—external anyway to their own particular organisation.

The scientists in environmental research laboratories, since they are not normally linked to any particular private industry, were forced to seek funds from other government departments. In turn this forced them to accept the need for advocacy and for the manipulation of public opinion. For that sort of activity, an arm’s-length association with the environmental movement would be a union made in heaven…

The trap was partially sprung in climate research when a number of the relevant scientists began to enjoy the advocacy business. The enjoyment was based on a considerable increase in funding and employment opportunity. The increase was not so much on the hard-science side of things but rather in the emerging fringe institutes and organisations devoted, at least in part, to selling the message of climatic doom. A new and rewarding research lifestyle emerged which involved the giving of advice to all types and levels of government, the broadcasting of unchallengeable opinion to the general public, and easy justification for attendance at international conferences—this last in some luxury by normal scientific experience, and at a frequency previously unheard of…

The trap was fully sprung when many of the world’s major national academies of science (such as the …  Australian Academy of Science) persuaded themselves to issue reports giving support to the conclusions of the IPCC. The reports were touted as national assessments that were supposedly independent of the IPCC and of each other, but of necessity were compiled with the assistance of, and in some cases at the behest of, many of the scientists involved in the IPCC international machinations. In effect, the academies, which are the most prestigious of the institutions of science, formally nailed their colours to the mast of the politically correct.

Since that time three or four years ago, there has been no comfortable way for the scientific community to raise the spectre of serious uncertainty about the forecasts of climatic disaster… It can no longer escape prime responsibility if it should turn out in the end that doing something in the name of mitigation of global warming is the costliest scientific mistake ever visited on humanity.

This is why scientific organisations have – tragically – become almost the last places to hear the truth about the global warming pause. Too many reputations are now at stake.

(Climatism emboldened)

•••

UPDATE

MUST SEE You Tube – James Corbett of the Corbett Report, debunks the myth of overpopulation.

The Corbett Report | The Last Word on Overpopulation

•••

FINAL WORD :

The ultimate prize to the eco-activists and their big government benefactors is the control of carbon, which would touch every aspect of our daily lives. Consequently, greenhouse gases and global climate change are of paramount importance to the eco-activist agenda. While much has been written about global climate change over many years, the basic aspects of the issue haven’t changed; we are asked to forget things we once knew and ignore the simplest hypothesis that the earth’s climate is ever changing.

Climate Change Deliberation: Taking Occam’s Razor to Proxy Data — The Patriot Post

•••

UPDATE

UN still pushing discredited “overpopulation” crisis

•••

UPDATE

THE Greatest Threat To The Environment Is Not Affluence, It’s Poverty

•••

See also :

Related :

United Nations Related :

Club Of Rome Related :

CLIMATISM Hot Links :

Quote Source : The Green Agenda

•••

“Global Warming” is just the latest in a long line of hysterical crusades to which we seem to be increasingly susceptible. – Thomas Sowell

•••

PLEASE Tip The Climatism Jar To HELP Keep The Good Fight Alive!

(Climate rationalists – you and I  – are still waiting for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Click link for more info…TQ! Jamie.

Donate with PayPal

•••