Past Alarmism and the Future of Manmade Global Warming
Polls show that roughly one person in two is concerned about manmade global warming. Why? Because vivid, alarming forecasts, even those based on weak foundations, are persuasive. For a while at least.
We’ve seen this many times before. Take the alarm over mercury in fish: in 2004, an Environmental Protection Agency employee warned that 630,000 babies per year were born at risk of brain and nervous system damage due to “unsafe” levels of mercury in their mothers’ blood. Expectant mothers were discouraged from eating fish.
Japan consumes a lot of fish, and the supposedly unsafe levels cited by the EPA are exceeded by 74% of women of childbearing age there. Yet there is no evidence that their children are mentally deficient. In fact, only benefits have been reported from high levels of fish consumption, including good brain function and improved intelligence at age four.
The alarming forecast of harm from mercury in fish was derived by extrapolating known bad effects from high doses of mercury to incorrectly predict toxic effects from even very low levels — without bothering to check for evidence. This poorly founded forecast resulted in mothers and their children avoiding a healthy food, to their detriment.
Working with Professor J. Scott Armstrong of the University of Pennsylvania and others, Dr. Kesten Green identified 26 previous alarms that are analogous to the dangerous manmade global warming scare. Besides the alarm over mercury, the 26 alarms include familiar ones like electromagnetic fields (EMF) and cancer, and DDT and cancer.
A 1979 American Journal of Epidemiology article linked exposure to weak EMF from electrical wiring with childhood leukemia. Media and scientists followed, making shrill claims of widespread and diverse harm including headaches and depression. In response, the U.S. government adopted exposure limits and other regulations that World Health Organization researchers estimated impose a $1 billion annual cost on the economy.
But the authors of the journal article that raised the alarm did not actually measure exposure to EMF. Tens of thousands of articles have been published since, and the conclusion is that there is no link between weak EMF and human health.
Rachel Carson raised alarm over the insecticide DDT in her 1962 book Silent Spring, claiming that it caused cancer. There was no good evidence for this assertion, and there still isn’t. The EPA nevertheless banned DDT in 1972, and Europe and Africa, under pressure from international agencies, followed. The main consequence of the ban is that millions of people have died needlessly from mosquito-borne diseases such as malaria.
All of the analogous 26 alarms analyzed by Green and Armstrong turned out to be false, either completely or to such an extent that actions intended to be remedial caused greater harm than the supposed problem. See www.PublicPolicyForecasting.com for descriptions of some of the other 26 analogies: because media report alarms enthusiastically but not their demise, many readers will be surprised to find that alarms they still believe to be true have now been debunked.
When alarming forecasts are presented in the form of vivid scenarios, many people ignore the low likelihood that they will come about: they want action. This is especially so if they think the cost of action will be low (to themselves), and they can blame others.
Policy responses to environmental alarms are often promoted in terms of “caring for the planet” or “caring for our children.” This has the intended effect of deflecting questions about the substance of alarming claims, and of demonizing those who ask them.
In modern times, when we are safer than we have ever been, some activists have become rich and famous by exploiting our ready acceptance of alarming scenarios: “So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.” This statement about global warming by climatologist Professor Stephen Schneider (now deceased) serves as a warning to us all that we should always be ready to ask hard questions of alarmists.
Although the costs of trying to “stop climate change” are diffused across many people and over time, the public is gradually waking up to the fact that they are already bearing a substantial burden as a consequence of climate policies. As these costs rise, people will increasingly demand hard evidence that their sacrifices are worthwhile and are not merely based on sentimentalism and opportunism.
When people learn more about an issue, the persuasion formula that initially worked so well for alarmists breaks down. People become less persuaded by appeals to trust the authorities, less susceptible to fear, less willing to accept emotional appeals from celebrities, less gullible. Trends in polls show that this is already happening with the global warming scare.
Alarming forecasts of humans harming themselves and the environment by their actions are a common social phenomenon. They become widely believed for a time, cause unnecessary anxiety, and result in costly government policies, then fade from public attention as it becomes more difficult to maintain the alarm in the face of counter-evidence and closer public scrutiny. We hope that this phenomenon of false environmental alarms will become widely recognized so that in the future we can avoid the very real costs that they impose on the most vulnerable people, and then on all of us.
Another famous alarmist scenario was the “Alar Scare” some years ago when a spurious report about the harmful effects of a pesticide virtually destroyed the American apple growing industry. I can recall a rapt Democrat controlled Congress sitting enthralled as an “expert witness” testified before them at a Congressional hearing. The expert? Meryl Streep who had played a farmers wife in some movie. Don’t get me started on Erin Brokovitch…
Dr. Agreed 100%. I lost all respect for Brokovitch and wasn’t it a 60 Minutes show that claimed Alar was a pesticide when in fact it is a growth hormone?
I don’t believe I have watched a Streep movie since. She scared my wife pretty badly with that nonsense, via another favorite, the Opra show. Streep was pushing the idea it was concentrated in apple juice (my young son’s favorite drink) and was therefore poisoning our small children. Despite my science background and info search which yielded no support for Streep’s bs, it was months before I had pretty much convinced her that the juice was ok. I will never forgive Streep for that, would have if she had gone back on Opra and said “sorry about that”….ahh only in my dreams will a Hollywood know nothing apologize for being stupid.
We saw, and still see, a similar gambit with the anti-nuclear movement. They were very disappointed when the Japanese tsunami didn’t result in the nuclear plants going to a “China syndrome”. (Although in Japan it would more properly have been a “Tristan de Cunha’” syndrome.)
Another example was the “Nuclear Winter” scare promulagted by the likes of Carl Sagan and Ted Kennedy to frighten the U.S. into a “nuclear freeze” and/or unilateral disarmament vs. the USSR. Sagan was apparently motivated by a visceral hatred and fear of nuclear anything; Kennedy, as was usual with him, was motivated by a dream of being a leftist overlord in a worldwide socialist state.
Sagan may have known, by calculation, that what he was predicting was near-total BS; Kennedy didn’t care. Both believed that their respective goals made the scam not merely allowable, but laudable, i.e. the end justified the means.
Which is the usual reason for such behavior by the usual suspects, as Captain Renault might say.
cheers
eon
Sagan never bothered to work the numbers, as shown by his prediction of a long-term “autumn” in the Persian Gulf as the result of the oil wells Saddam torched.
Sagan should have retired from public life after “Cosmos”. He let his leftism run his science, and it ruined his science.
I remember Consumer Reports had on its cover an apple being held by a ghoulish witch’s hand, in its story on Alar.
CR (like NASA) is deeply imbedded in the enviro-scare industry-as is, Nat’l Geographic. I love Popular Mechanics on their exposition of the eco-frauds. Solid Science!
Do some research on the founding of CU (the parent organization).
It’s as much a leftist organization as Acorn, and about as trustworthy.
Even absent that, they wouldn’t know a controlled test from a pizza. Given the maximum benefit of the doubt, they could be described as incompetent.
The only Alar-related death I ever heard about was an orchard owner who committed suicide over the Alar scare’s destruction of his livelihood. (I believe that item was documented in Fear of Food: Environmentalist Scams, Media Mendacity, and the Law of Disparagement.)
heh. it’s like counting tree rings: you can tell how old someone is by the particular junk science that they were told were facts (“saccharin causes cancer”, anyone? lotsa TAB stock went down on that little rush to judgement)
What about all the bogus “over population” scares. Now it appears that the real problem is that western countries are not fertile enough! Look at the work of Julian Lincoln Simon. Right from the beginning he thought that human ingenuity would trump the conventional wisdom that more people would cause scarcity of resources. He made a series of bets with rivals which all proved his point. Take a glance at his biography for some fascination reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Simon
Lee the Agent, I like your observation that you can tell a person’s age by the junk science absorbed when young!
In modern times, when we are safer than we have ever been, some activists have become rich and famous by exploiting our ready acceptance of alarming scenarios: “So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”
Kinda describes ol’ Al “ManBearPig the Sex Poodle” Gore to a T, don’tcha think?
It is really difficult to maintain rationality when the only reporter in the major media who debunks scares is John Stossel. Add that almost no research worthy of the name is done by the Government outside of the DOD. You have panics which last centuries.
The overpopulation scare existed before Rev. Malthus but became so deeply embedded that my computer spell checker insists that overpopulation is a single word. Thomas Robert Malthus put a pseudo-economic facade in 1798 on overpopulation so solid that people still think it respectable to worry about “the problem of overpopulation.” This is true even after projections of overpopulation cause the millions of dead in the Great Irish Famine. (Malthus’ ideas were used to write the English Corn Laws)
Even the hardheaded Dean of Science Fiction Robert Heinlein said before his death in 1982 that he had expected the world to get to be a hungry place during his life time. Robert Heinlein was one of the men and women who improved predicting the future to a true art if not a science over his life time.
Actually, both Malthus (1766-1834) and Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988) were correct- based on the state of the art of agriculture in Malthus’ time.
As John Ringo points out (in his novel “The Last Centurion”), Malthus’ prediction was based on a comparison of population growth rates vs. agricultural yield per acre in his era. If farming had continued by the methods in use then, we would indeed have been experiencing worldwide population dieoffs, not because of famines (which come in two varieties- weather-induced and politically-induced), but because the per-acre yield of our farming regions just wouldn’t have been able to keep up with the demand for food.
(Yes, this includes meat and dairy; you figure yield from livestock based on how many acres of graze needed to fatten each one or produce each gallon of milk. Been there, done that, as Ringo would say.)
The reason that we haven’t had Malthus’ population apocalypse, is that today our modern farming methods (which were introduced in the mid to late 19th Century and evolved through the mid-20th) radically increased the per-acre yield of agriculture. Which is why today we can feed the U.S. population (about 310 million or so) and still have food to export.
(Yes, I know we import food. It’s mostly luxury items, not staples. I like white seedless grapes, and half of those I buy for $1.25/lb at the grocery come from Mexico. The whole wheat bread I buy for $1.19/ 20 oz. loaf is made in the next county. Bread is a staple- grapes are not.)
The sticking point is that the farming methods that caused Malthus to see doom on the horizon were what we now call “organic farming”- the preferred (and in their minds, only “moral”) method beloved of the deep-ecology left today. The per-acre yield of such “traditional” methods are roughly one-quarter to one-half those of modern techniques (chemical fertilizer, herbicide, pesticide, etc.), as much due to losses to pests and crop disease as to less efficient harvesting methods. (In his book, Ringo compares modern farming methods to the traditional methods used by the Amish; the Amish do not win the contest.)
The reason RAH was predicting a return to Malthusian conditions was because he noticed the infatuation with “organic farming” growing on the part of the ecology crowd, and based on their political clout concluded that a politically-mandated return to such inefficient methods was in the offing. From this, he concluded that if it happened, we would all find out the hard way why “organic” is a bad strategy for feeding humanity, no matter how philosophically “pristine” it may be. (“Expanded Universe”, 1980.)
If you want to see the inevitable results of a combination of organic farming and politically-instigated food shortages (as a means of conducting ethnic cleansing) in action, look almost anywhere in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sudan being a case in point, right now. Farmers there use “organic” methods because it’s all they know; their farming “technology” hasn’t changed appreciably since the time of the Pharaohs. When weather causes the low yield to drop even further, the government makes sure that foreign food aid only gets to people they like.
And oh yes- that foreign food aid mainly comes from the United States, with our “evil, unnatural” farming methods that are so despised by our very own, organically-nourished, “enlightened elite’”.
Look up Ringo’s novel. It’s very illuminating.
cheers
eon
To be fair to Heinlein, we did get pretty hungry world-wide several times in his lifetime. The unexpected part was that we stopped.
Hogwash. There have been a few localized famines.
Nothing that even remotely resembles world-wide hunger.
“Organic” is a classic maneuver of the Left to make the ‘other’ better, to give control to Statists who know better.
Indiviualists (NOT Country Club Republicans) favor raw capitalism with its creative destruction cycles, which, in fact, is none other than Organic Economics.
It’s about time the so-called Right pointed that out.
Someone other than Rand, Friedman and Sowell, I mean.
But alas, propaganda (education?) is a thing of the Left, and no one will do it.
Ah yes, the staple verses the luxury….
For many of us, locally grown and/or organically produced items are luxuries.
We’ll splurge on a few magnificent tomatoes to go with our burgers.
Maybe we’ll super-splurge on some no-hormone angus steaks once or twice a year.
Some spectacular peaches when they are in season.
Ripe and ready to be eaten THAT day, maybe the next,
so big because they don’t have to be transported anywhere.
Picked on Tuesday for slicing on Wednesday
Locally gristed grains for homemade breads and pancakes,…
Buckwheat, Sorghum, Rye..Buy it up in small batches,
use it at the “peak” of freshness for something memorable.
Its fun. Its delicious, and its rewarding to sometimes prepare “special” dishes and meals,
costs be damned, especially around the holidays.
It’s a nice little nitch market, and perhaps even a rewarding “career” for these artisans that love the traditions and craftsmanship of a labor intensive, hands on product.…They provide a few warm fuzzies that we busy suburbanites can indulge in, and make feeding family and friends special.
Can they feed us all, with 100% of our caloric and nutritional needs?
No, not even close.
We understand only Michelle Obama, and a handful of Hollywood celebs, can have such costly and inefficient luxuries as these as full time staple foods,…while lecturing to the rest of us that we’re not doing it right.
Its called supply and demand.
We get it, they don’t.
Right, well said. And it’s surprising that so many on the left favor the “organic” and “locally-grown” solution when their natural instinct is to prefer the gigantic, universal, collective solution. Organic and locally-grown isn’t going to feed hungry kids in the inner city no matter how many vacant lots or rooftops you turn into orchards or chicken yards.
The overpopulation scare problem is getting pushed by certain “conservatives” too, particularly John Xenakis as part of his “Generational Dynamics”.
He is a hardcore Malthusian, who uses a genocidal war over food as one of the foundation points of his theory.
Does anyone remember the last big “global cooling” scareology in the mid-1970s? It was on the BBC, in the journal Nature, New Scientist magazine, Time magazine, the papers, everywhere. My favourite disbelieved phrase from it all, they never presented much evidence, was “we are overdue for a new Ice Age”. All I need to know is: who is getting famous from this; who is selling a book; who is getting a research grant; and what politician is passing a law to make my life difficult because we just need to something as opposed to nothing?
I remember it well! I was a teenager/student at the time. In fact, the “coming ice age” plus the “population explosion/we’re all gonna starve to death” rhetoric of the ’70′s is probably the primary reason why I’ve never believed the “manmade global warming” rhetoric of the last few years.
My reaction has been “Hmmmm, where have I heard something like this before?”
As I was studying meteorology and astrophysics at the time (in high school, no less- try finding either one there today), I remember it well.
And I also remember that it was the “greenhouse gases” generated by Western technological civilization that were the reason we were all going to freeze to death.
The solution was a single worldwide socialist state operating at Bronze Age levels- or we were all gonna die. Said state to be run by the “enlightened elite’” of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Club of Rome, Democratic Party, etc., etc. Going back to Captain Renault, “all the usual suspects”.
Today, we are all going to die due to Anthropogenic Global Warming- unless we take the advice of these same people, and become the sort of society they demanded to stop a “New Ice Age” forty years ago.
Between the World Wars, they were predicting a New Ice Age- unless we got rid of technology and let the Technocrats run the world on Bronze Age feudal principles. In the Fifties, it was “the world will burn up”- unless we let the Democratic progressives led by Adlai Stevenson run the feudal pre-technological Paradise. And so on.
In real science, it is physically impossible for a single proximate cause to generate two or more diametrically-opposed effects. You might as well expect a drop of 100% nitroglycerin at room temperature to only blow up half the time when struck with a hammer. (It does it every time, trust me.)
When such “effects” are used to demand the same political “solution” every time, you can be sure that the “solution” is the prime desideratum, and the “effects” are merely propaganda scare tactics. Especially if those promulgating same seek to gain political power as a result.
Our environmentalist “gurus” are not only liars, they aren’t even particularly skilled liars. Any con man knows better than to try to run two entirely different scams on the same set of props.
Sooner or later, the mark wises up.
clear ether
eon
I love it, that you have a deliciously logical argument.
The “mark”, as you put it, will never wise up.
The “mark” is a mouth-breathing, undereducated, brainwashed Eloi — a U.S. voter.
Why does PJM/Tatler imagine that Mr. Harris’ lengthy record of corporate-subsidized cherry-picking and astro-turfing campaigns has anything to do with thoughtful American conservatism?
That is a serious question.
————————————
DeSmogBlog Profile: Tom Harris
URL: http://www.desmogblog.com/tom-harris
That is a serious question.
No it isn’t. It’s the same ad hoc ad hominem directed at every last anthropogenic-CO2-dominant-forcing skeptic since AGW started attracting big money.
What?! “A physicist” using a fallacy to “support” AGW?!
Charlie, can we get the system to add a picture of a clown to everyone of this guy’s comments? It doesn’t have to be a scary clown.
“The physicist” masquerades as a “thoughtful American” conservative. From past posts, I know that he equates SO2 with CO2 when it comes to “pollution” effects and castigates congressional Republicans for not promoting cap and trade in CO2, as they recommended for SO2 back in the ’80s. If he is a pysicist, he is not very well informed about AGW.
Another missive from the Dark Side.
Consistently a disgrace to all honest physicists everywhere.
Here are two more serious questions that no one seems to want to answer:
1. True science is falsifiable. What data would convince you that the earth is not warming?
2. If global warming is real, and caused by humans, and we do something to stop it, how will we know when we are done?
It is important to realize that DeSmogBlog appears to have been created specifically to discredit those of us who do not agree with Al Gore et al (and David Suzuki, Gore’s Canadian rep) on the science of climate change. Take a look at their mandate as explained on their site.
Much of what they have said about me is simply made up. Note that the PR firm that runs DeSmogBlog is headed up by the Chair of the David Suzuki Foundation, which, of course, has millions of dollars in industry support, so it is a bit ironic when our group (ICSC) is criticized for industry support and they are not. ICSC has no industry, foundation or government support (unfortunately), although we are not averse to getting support from these sources provided they do not attempt to direct our actions. If any of our volunteer science advisors were pushed into any particular point of view, they would quit our group immediately. They are largely tenured professors, after all and don’t need us.
I spoke to one of DeSmogBlog’s reps once on the phone and got no where so I stopped trying to correct anything they post and just ignore them as unchangeable.
If you have anything specific from DeSmogBlog you would like me to comment on, please feel free to post it here.
Thanks
Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech. – thermo-fuids)
Executive Director,
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Ontario
K2A 4E2
Canada
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org
In 1999, I owned a computer store. The fiction that was y2k reaping havoc on computers was one I personally remember as I could have stolen a lot of monies from gullible and apparently uninformed, outside of the media hype, customers. Being an honest small businessman, I instead warned my customers not to waste their money on that scam of the day as nothing would happen or needed to be done to correct the totally made up fantasy that was y2k. All one needed do was to change the date in their computer to the year 2000 and witness, amazingly unexpectedly, that nothing at all would happen as the computer would continue to do what it had always done–for most people junk in would continue to produce junk out! However, billions were wasted, specifically by our Government, on this scam called y2k.
Sorry – Y2K was no scam. OK – it didn’t apply to the computers you sold. Although, even there, it was a problem for anyone foolish enough to use two digits for the year when programming a spreadsheet.
But it was a massive problem for much of the software in “legacy” systems in big mainframe computers – eg in the banking sector. It’s cause was the use of two-digit fields to designate the year (eg “70″ for “1970″). This was done because of the massive cost of computer memory in the 1960s and 1970s. The trouble was this came to be buried within millions of lines of code. It was a hell of a job to find, fix and test these dates. Fortunately in most cases it was done – but not in all.
I think that’s accurate. How it relates back to AGW is that we suspect there’s a problem, we just don’t understand it well enough to accurately predict the consequences of not fixing it. Y2K predictions ranged from “no big deal” to “the end of civilization.” Either the date would pass without any major breakdowns or we’d have airliners falling from the sky and ICBMs launching themselves at Russia. And today you still have people swearing that we could have ignored Y2K and gone on with our lives or that fixing the code on those mainframes averted a global catastrophe. We’ll never know for sure. I guess the lesson is “better safe than sorry.”
I think that’s where the resemblance between Y2K and AGW ends. Although we couldn’t predict with certainty the consequences of the Y2K date bug, we did know exactly how to fix it: change the code. It was an enormous job, but most organizations were able to accomplish it without vast expenditures of money, resources, and people’s time. The UN didn’t have to take over. Congress didn’t have to pass any laws regulating how companies ran their computer systems. The average person didn’t have to do anything. Nobody suffered.
AGW – completely different story. Again, we can’t predict the consequences with certainty. We have more data but less understanding of the problem – its origins, its nature, and especially how to fix it. All the remediation plans we’ve seen involve huge expenditures of money, tightened government controls, surrendering of national sovereignty to international organizations, central planning, and lots and lots of economic suffering and inconvenience. And we don’t even know if it’s all going to work. Y2K – we knew it would work. Fixing a few lines of code a few million times is easy. Fixing a complex, chaotic climate is extremely difficult.
Well said. Although I would add that no one who understood the problem predicted that Y2K would be either “no big deal” or “the end of civilization.” Claims that airliners would fall from the sky or ICBMs launch themselves at Russia came exclusively from the media. Those who understood the problem (the media didn’t try) warned – they didn’t predict. An important distinction. Even the eminently cautious Governor of the Bank of England warned of possible catastrophe – see this: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/news/1998/024.htm
The Y2K software problem was utterly different from the catastrophic AGW scare: unlike CAGW, there was no doubt Y2K was a serious problem and, unlike CAGW, the solution was well understood. Moreover, Y2K experts were embarrassed by media hype whereas CAGW “experts” seem actively to encourage it.
That’s not accurate. We do know for sure. Many controlled tests were done, with results ranging (depending on the device) from no effect to total crash. In between were unpredictable results due to data being randomized and passed to other processes.
One of my favorites was the test done by one of the sewage plants in the Los Angeles area. They dumped 6 million gallons of raw sewage into the river (or what passes for a river in L.A.).
Anyone who says Y2K was a scam simply doesn’t know much. It was a successfully averted catastrophe.
Follow the money. Who gained? Nobody in power. It COST taxpayers and business many hundreds of millions to fix it. The only people who MADE money were the old-timers who came out of retirement to fix the code.
Another past scare: Cyclamates. Of course, the lab Rats that developed bladder cancer during the FDA’s tests had been fed the equivalent of 350 cans of Cyclamate-sweetened sodas per/day.
The primacy of the Big Scary Headline over actual data, hard thought, and empirical verification penetrates even the most remote imaginable fields. My own original field, astrophysics, has seen its share, including the embarrassing 1973 Comet Kohoutek affair. The great majority of astrophysicists predicted that it would be difficult to see without field glasses. But a few, more anxious for attention than the rest, predicted that it would come close enough to Earth to illuminate the night sky, perhaps even pose a danger of collision with the Moon or the Earth — and you can guess which set of predictions grabbed the headlines.
PS: If you were too young to notice, or perhaps weren’t paying attention back then, Comet Kohoutek did not hit the Moon or the Earth. Here in North America, it was best to observe it through good field glasses or a decent amateur-grade telescope. But enough of that. I understand the insect population is multiplying so much faster than the human one that pretty soon we’ll all be up to our eyelashes in the little buggers, so I’m off to buy some Off!
lol Kohutek was the biggest let down of my then-young life.
Followed by the failure of the earth to run out of oil, and the failure of the Japanese to take over the United States. And the creeping realization that Reagan was proving to be correct about de regulating the energy industry. Not that I would admit for decades later mind you.
I wonder what disappointments are to come. Well it does look like the alarmists were correct about lead and asbestos.
Michael Crichton nailed it down perfectly in his book, State of Fear. Billions of unaccountable dollars are at stake just as long as the environmentalism industry can keep a caring but ignorant public frightened about The Next Big Thing. You know how it goes. Some “scientist” publishes a paper identifying a panic inducing trend, then the Dinosaur Media gets hold of it and the shout goes up: SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!
Global cooling, pesticides, over population, chemicals, radiation, monkey flu, bird flu, swine flu, and the Mother of All hysteria scams (so far)… Global warming/climate change/global climate disruption, or whatever they are calling it today. What a stroke of genius it was to get the EPA to identify CO2 as a pollutant! Your breath is destroying the planet, people! SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!
Keeping the ignorant public frightened is BIG business. With ZERO accountability. Ask the Sierra Club if you can see their balance sheet sometime. Then do the same with the World Wildlife Fund, the Audubon Society and the Nature Conservancy. Then wait to see how long it takes to get a response.
Want a humorous example of how easy it is to get ignorant people worked into a lather? Google dihydrogen monoxide. Do it for the children…
The top ten environmental groups pull in about $9 BILLION in income every year. Environmentalism is big business.
For your information, Woodsman, eighteen victims died of exposure to dihydrogen monoxide during Hurricane Irene.
True enough. And hundreds more died yesterday of exposure to it all over the world. Many more will die today. SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!
This is obviously a case of anthropogenic global dampness. We must drastically decrease the amount of human-generated moisture we put into the environment every year. The only answer is to limit the number of times regular people are allowed to pee each day. Politicians, celebrities, and other environmentally-aware citizens will be exempt, of course. They do their part by passing legislation and drawing attention to the cause. The rest of us – just cross your legs and pray they don’t outlaw Number Two.
if you can die from drinking too much water…why isn’t it regulated?
Human saliva causes stomach cancer!*
[*but only when swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time!]
@”Physicist”
Why does someone claiming to be objective imagine that Al Gore and the “climate scientist’s” lengthy record of government-subsidized cherry-picking and astro-turfing campaigns has anything to do with actual science?
That is a serious question.
By the way, still waiting from several threads ago about how a century or so of actual (albeit lost) data, inconsistently taken, can predict anything in a 4.2B year old, highly dynamic system.
Here’s another question they will never answer no matter how often it is asked–”what caused the ice ages and what got the Earth out of the previous ice ages?” AGW?? Cycles happen–sorry libs!
The last Ice Age ended 15,000 years ago due to AGW (Anthropogenic [Man Made] Global Warming).
It was them Cave Men, driving around in their SUV’s.
Today, we face another impending calamity — it may already be too late —
AGW will result in the Total Eradication of Dinosaurs —
Hey, don’t laugh. THis is serious stuff.
Do you have any idea of the volume of pollutants coming off Fred Flinstone’s feet when he drives that thing home from work?
It’s all fun and games, just lost money, until people die.
The DDT ban doomed Africa. We were SO close to eradicating malaria on that continent. If we banned DDT just a bit earlier, the southern US would probably still be a malarial hotbed. Now it’s too late, we lost the window. The mosquitoes are immune now. Thanks.
Global Warming/Coal Mercury/Oil shortage. Sorry developing nation, no energy for you. Just tell sick people to take their vitamins, we’re still working on the solar powered fridges for medicine.
No cancer causing pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers for you either. Cancer is worse than starvation, trust us. GM crops are potentially too damaging to the environment, so just deal with malnutrition a bit longer.
The Libs are right, the West does systemically screw over the Third World.
Alarmists always were. Before technology spawned the Luddite movement, the forerunner of today’s environmental movement, the same people were “concerned” about the doings of witches and Jews.
Well, to be fair, they’re still trying to blame the Jews.
There were doctors bleeding their patients in the name of science as an accepted belief 1800s. Today we have scientists doing the same in the name of the enviroment.
Save the planet; eat an enviromentalist
Eat an environmentalist?! Are you kidding me?! They eat tofu and drink soy milk — their body’s probably half estrogenic compounds!
I would, but they’re all too ugly and shrill to even hit on.
Very interesting link for the issue of global warming: http://news.discovery.com/earth/is-global-warming-real.html
Make up your own mind about the issue.
A more recent article citing another MIT physicist … the difference … this article actually says something about the science (Whereas your reference is just more pablum for the masses).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action/
The climate may be changing and the planet warming, but treating symptoms rather than finding and proving root cause just creates unintended (and unknown) consequences.
Maybe a group of scientists such as the Royal Society of Britain may carry more weight than your physicist.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1316469/Royal-Society-issues-new-climate-change-guide-admits-uncertainties.html.
Then there’s the following, a review of the EPA decision to categorize CO2 as a pollutant, if you are interested in something more technical.
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf
And then, the physicist being interviewed goes on to state:
“Global warming has become a politically charged issue, due in large part to the massive amounts of power and money tied up in industries that emit CO2.” No mention at all on the enormous “revenues” that governments will be able to confiscate. It’s all about wealth redistribution and not the “massive amounts of power and money tied up in industries that emit CO2.” The industries will only pass on the increases in doing business to their customers. Why are physicists such idiots when it comes to economics? The following chart is a little more comprehensive regarding the issues.
http://www.nocarbontax.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Climate-Change-Projections1.0.png
In the autumn of one year in the late fifties or early sixties the news media warned us about some pesticide danger to that year’s cranberry crop. At our Thanksgiving dinner, I warned our family we should not eat the cranberry relish for fear of poisoning. My father, wisely, and calmly told me that the TV news could not be relied upon for truth about many things, including the edibility of our cranberry relish.
Eating, and enjoying my cranberry relish, I somehow survived.
The song, “What Shall We Do with the Missing Data?”, by Mann and Jones et Al, is available here.
Soon your power must be dearer;
Armageddon is much nearer;
evidence, we say, is clearer
for that global warming.
Now it seems the weather’s cooling;
numbers drop of those we’re fooling;
people whom we should be ruling
must fear global warming. …
Ridiculousness has no limits: http://enr.construction.com/yb/enr/article.aspx?story_id=162894800
CarbFix Experiment Set To Start in Iceland in September
“Sometime next month, on the steaming fringes of an Icelandic volcano, an international team of scientists will begin pumping “seltzer water” into a deep hole, producing a brew that will lock away carbon dioxide forever…”
Government intervention in regards to every scare is purely and exclusively about CONTROL. There are just six things that if controlled by the government; will control the population completely.
1. Water 2. Land 3. Energy 4. Communications 5. Arms 6. Food
The EPA is well on their way in establishing total control over 1,2 and 3. The USDA is working on #6 and Obummer is frantically trying for total control over numbers 4 and 5.
If we don’t begin to turn things around we will soon be sharing the common misery of a Socialist society ruled by a priviledged elite.
If you combine their desire to control with financial and ideological components you have identified a monster waiting to wreak havoc on society. Any time a politician says they need more money to combat something man supposedly has done; be very, very skeptical. Run them out of town on a rail if they have a financial dog in the hunt.
Al Gore depends on AGW for a good portion of his wealth. All the government scientists depend on those grants to survive. Do you think they would have a job if they reported the facts according to real peer reviewed science?
Jonathan Schell in Discover Magazine in 1987 is quoted as making the following statement:
“We need to act on theory alone, which is to say on prediction alone. It follows that the reputation of scientific prediction needs to be enhanced. But that can happen, paradoxically, only if scientists disavow the certainty and precision that they normally insist on. Above all we need to learn to act decisively to forestall predicted perils, even while knowing that they may never materialize. We must take action, in a manner of speaking, to preserve our ignorance.”
The following statement has been attributed to Dr. Stephen Schneider who claimed spray cans were damaging the atmosphere.
“We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
The entire AGW movement is based upon people who bought the premise of the book “Limits to Growth” and Al Gore’s “Earth in the Balance”. The old ones read the former and the young ones the latter.
This just in, being born will lead to death. Old age is the most common cause of death in the elderly. In my 62 years I’ve been through so many of these scares I don’t even blink anymore. Salt is good for you, salt will kill you, high amounts of salt is bad, high amounts of salt prevents dehydration in hot climates, low amounts of salt can….. That’s just one of many. Red Dye? Mercury? How have I ever managed to survive.
My summers as a child were spent helping my Uncle on his small farm. Wow, exposure to DDT he used on his crop. I love guns, I’m into reloading and also black powder arms. Wow, lead poisoning. I should have been dead years ago.
Paul, you ask two tough questions. I’ll give you the same answer that (IMHO) most mathematicians/scientists/engineers would give.
First a warm-up. What would convince me (personally) that cigarette-smoking doesn’t cause cancer? This would require a potent combination of new theories and new data; for example, a virus carried by tobacco plants that infected human cells to cause cancer, plus experiments showing that rats smoking virus-free tobacco had healthy lungs, plus human trials extending over a decade or more (which ain’t likely, needless to say).
Now the main event. What would convince me (personally) that AGW isn’t happening? This would require a potent combination of new theories and new data; for example, a novel theory of radiation transport, plus lab experiments showing the theory was correct, plus real-world predictions born out by subsequent observations extending over a decade or more. Most scientists regard this eventuality as exceedingly unlikely.
Your second question amounts to, what can we/should we humans *do* about AGW? That is not a purely scientific question. But it *is* scientifically true, that the more CO2 we humans pump into our planet’s air, the worse our options get. Any viable political ideology for the 21st century, has to provide constructive responses to this sobering reality.
Those are the common-sense reasons why “denialism … is … futile …” futile for conservatives, and futile for every other political ideology too.
*yawn*
“But it *is* scientifically true, that the more CO2 we humans pump into our planet’s air, the worse our options get.”
BS, nothing of the sort has been proven as fact. Your theory which, not surprisingly, you defend with allegory rather than rigorous scientific argument, gets more full of holes weekly.
But it *is* scientifically true, that the more CO2 we humans pump into our planet’s air, the worse our options get.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
“plus lab experiments showing the theory was correct”.
Lab experiments? Huh? And how do you scale up the experiments to correspond with the size of the earth? What, multiply by a million or billion? That’s why all the disastrous projections they predicted back in the ’80s, based on computer models, don’t correspond with present actual measurements. Each time the IPCC issues a report, they are always revising downward their previous dire predictions, rise in ocean levels and retreat of glaciers as an example.
“But it *is* scientifically true, that the more CO2 we humans pump into our planet’s air, the worse our options get.”
Really? They can’t even find the signature hotspot in the upper atmosphere that warming models predict. And, there is a “consensus” of scientist that agree, based on actual data, that there hasn’t been any warming in at least the last ten years, while CO2 concentrations have been rising.
Experiments, jarmo?
Why, PJM/Tatler’s own editor-in-chief, Roger L. Simon, in his recent column “Krugman against science,” gives high praised to the recent CERN/CLOUD experiments that are exactly what I had in mind.
Interestingly, the science-loving AGW-believing folks at RealClimate *also* love the CERN/CLOUD experiments.
It’s mighty good to see that leading PJM/Tatler conservatives like Roger are (finally!) making common-cause with the science-respecting folks at RealClimate.
————————–
This is a great example of doing science and making progress
URL: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/
Realclimate.org? Michael Mann’s blog? The Mann of the erroneous “hockey stick” graph, that was questioned by statisticians? The graph that intentionally omitted the Medieval Warm Period that started around 1000 AD and lasted to about 1350 AD, where temperatures were warmer than today? You’re making me laugh. Michael Mann and the climate scientists at East Anglia CRU lost credibility when their emails were released to the public.
“But it *is* scientifically true, that the more CO2 we humans pump into our planet’s air, the worse our options get.”
Absolutely wrong.
Sorry to feed the troll, but nicely written precis drew me in and… BONK!
So the ‘deniers’ are required to have hard evidence and lab models, but the advocates can rely on subjective computer models that predict climate 50 years into the future. The cognitive dissonance of liberalism is truly astounding.
you suffer from PNS indoctrination. The trouble I have with people that use the term denialist, is that they passionately believe there is no distinction between GW and AGW.
Is there a link to this study?
Here’s a link to the report:
http://kestencgreen.com/green&armstrong-agw-analogies.pdf
We cannot possibly take their report seriously! After all, take a look at what they have written!:
“NOTE: We seek peer review from others, especially with
evidence that would challenge our findings or conclusions.”
Obviously, this is NOT, NOT, NOT! Climate science!
I did a google inquiry on the two primary scientists quoted by the author of this thread. J. Scott Armstrong is a professor of marketing, with a specialty in forecasting. Kesten Green is also a specialist in forecasting.
Neither appears to have any expertise in actual climate science, meteorology, geology, or earth sciences.
Two websites that may be of interest:
http://www.cimateconservative.org
http://www.skepticalscience.org (for those who are skeptical about global warming skepticism)
Regarding the myth of AGW and attempts to suppress true science, the truth will out:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/08/26/lawrence-solomon-science-now-settled/
Or, as might be said by your average Democrat “deep thinker,” it’s the cosmic rays, stupid!
George Carlin – “Saving the Planet”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
Frankly, AGW as doesn’t really set off my BS meter. It sounds like science. What does set off my BS meter is predictions of AGW-induced global catastrophes. As others have pointed out, accurate predictions depend on conditions remaining the same in the future. Or, in the case of changing conditions, they must continue to change at the same rate, in the same way, as they do when the prediction is made. Even if this kind of consistency does occur, no one can predict the consequences with any accuracy. I’ll grant that AGW is occurring. I won’t grant that it will continue occurring indefinitely without human intervention. I also won’t grant that anyone can say with certainty that the result will be the ultimate destruction of nature and the downfall of mankind a la Al Gore. Too many variables, most of which are completely unknown.
I agree with you except I don’t even buy that AGW is occurring. Not only does AGW theory rely on conditions remaining the same, global warming alarmists rely on amplification (positive feedback) in their models. To me that is total BS.
This. Specifically, the combination of positive feedback in the model alongside prior, higher temperatures during historical periods. If the warming has runaway potential (the justification for DOING SOMETHING NOW!!!), why was that not realized before, and why are we focusing on human CO2 as opposed to conservation of the negative feedback pathways that kept us from going from the Cretaceous climate to being Venus.
OK, I’ll cop to being the teensiest bit skeptical about the “A” in “AGW.” I can’t offer a scientific basis for my doubts. It’s more like psycho-social. One, environmentalists are obsessed (as I suppose they should be) with humanity’s effects on the environment. This could be a case of seeing what they expect to see – humans doing something nasty to Mother Nature. Second, my gut simply tells me that this is another moral panic similar to the ones enumerated in this article. It’s got an eschatological feel to it that makes me not trust the people who believe in it. I think that in times of stress and change, people (including scientists) become very interested in catastrophes, the end times, the apocalypse. that may be what’s happening now.
Hurricane Irene (from the perspective of NYC) is the perfect metaphor for “Global Warming” … lots of hype, followed by failure to perform, laying waste to everybody else on the way there.
Sounds like the perfect metaphor for my sex life. (rimshot)
Sorry. I had to.
I have been hearing doomsday predictions every since the late sixties when I was in grade school. Some carried Bibles and quoted scripture, some gazed in crystal balls, some channelled space aliens, some wore lab coats and tweed jackets and stood behind blackboards. Divine equation or divine revalation, they all had a poor track record!!!
Note that all of these are created by the left in order to suppress the free will of the people and hinder mankind’s progress.
Luddites.
Let’s face it folks, in a era where rational thought has been replaced by infantile level emotions and feelings, the last great superstition is the environment.
Yet they can still all be frightened into a frenzy by a hurricane, that any fool could watch the track data and see it was down to a CAT 1 before even made landfall.
“See http://www.PublicPolicyForecasting.com for descriptions of some of the other 26 analogies…”
I went there but couldn’t find the article(s) referred to. I have no serious doubt the article(s) exist (I even recongize the names of some of the authors of other articles), but could someone provide a more exact link(s)? Otherwise, I’ll have to wonder if this was just to drive traffic at that site.
You are correct, Ron.
As it turns out, there never was a serious article, but only a draft of proposal to someday write a serious article. For example, the section “Role of Government” reads in its entirety:
If it were graded as a high-school science project, this level-of-effort from Green and Harris would receive (generously) a C- at best. Maybe PJM/Tatler should start a new section: “science projects that need help”?
————————-
Our science project needs help!
URL: http://kestencgreen.com/green&armstrong-agw-analogies.pdf
“Rachel Carson raised alarm over the insecticide DDT in her 1962 book Silent Spring, claiming that it caused cancer.”
I thought Carson claimed it softened the shells of birds (like the Bald Eagle) therefore the “Silent Spring”
A physicist-”Interestingly, the science-loving AGW-believing folks at RealClimate….”
WHAT A JOKE! The folks at realclimate like Michael Mann are no different from the late eco-hysteric Stephen Schneider, or James “coal trains are death trains” Hansem just re-arrested in some stunt for his True Beliefs. And Hansen’s Bulldog is Gaven Schmidt, the chief poster at realclimate.
There’s really no difference between Greenpeace and these folks – except that they live on federal taxpayer monies, simply adding to the scandal.
I hope President Perry puts MITs Richard Lindzen in charge to put some order into the house of useless federal subsidies the whole field of climatology has become since Al Gore became president, resulting in bootie 30 times greater.
Get this: realclimate is an outlet for James Hansen of NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Hansen endorsed the book “Times Up,” which calls for ‘ridding the world of Industrial Civilization’ – Hansen declares author ‘has it right…the system is the problem.’
Such a sober, serious scientist. Right.
What a freak. If Mother Nature decides that industrial civilization is unsustainable, She’ll get rid of it. There’s no need for us to commit civilization suicide.
Check the education of many of the self-styled “environmentalists.” Some universities have programs in “environmental science” which include little biology, unlike the courses in ecology given by biology departments.
Checking today’s Arctic sea ice, we see that *all* of the Soviet high Arctic islands have melted free of the pack ice, as has all of Canada’s far-north Prince Patrick Island and big chunks of Canada’s Ellesmere Island. This ain’t never happened before.
Not to mention, both the NorthWest and NorthEast passages are wide-open for ice-free commercial shipping. And the Arctic melt season *still* isn’t over.
AGW is real, serious, and accelerating … as anyone can see.
By the way, the “Hockey Stick” is real too. It was criticized … but then confirmed to be real.
In the celebrated phrase of Gen. Petraeus, it’s now time for American conservatism (definitely including PJM/Tatler) to “learn and adapt” to AGW’s sobering reality.
————————————-
The Arctic Reality of AGW
URL: http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/arctic_AMSRE_nic.png
Come now, which is it, climate change or climate warming. You are not keeping up very well with your chosen charade, now are you.
By the way, because earlier than, say, the 1890s at the very earliest, how could anybody possibly have made this observation: “Checking today’s Arctic sea ice, we see that *all* of the Soviet high Arctic islands have melted free of the pack ice, as has all of Canada’s far-north Prince Patrick Island and big chunks of Canada’s Ellesmere Island. This ain’t never happened before.”
This never happened before??? There is no way to check this, you sly but apparently science-illiterate fox you.
True, there is no way to check it directly, but it can reasonably be inferred from other data.
Like Greenland being, well, green. Way back, uh, not that long ago (in geologic terms, anyway).
Physicist, you did know that’s why the Vikings called it Greenland, didn’t you? It wasn’t intended as sarcasm, though some Air Force folks who’ve been stationed there might think so.
The Vikings really liked the mild climate and found it very hospitable. Grapes grew very well, it seems.
Hmmm. If Greenland was green, to the point where crops thrived, what might have been the climate like in, say, northern Canada?
Some folks respect science, read Maritime Executive (see the link below) … and thereby are “learning and adapting” — in Gen. Petraeus’ favorite phrase — to the accelerating reality of AGW.
Other folks still cling to stale denialist shibboleths, quibbles & smears … these folks are utterly failing to learn-and-adapt at all.
American conservatism needs more of the former & fewer of the latter. Because politics aside, America absolutely requires a CinC who learns-and-adapts, to a world that — as the world’s top maritime executives and admirals understand full well — is changing rapidly.
————————————————–
Suezmax Tanker Vladimir Tikhonov Puts to Sea Along the Northern Sea Route
URL: http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/suezmax-tanker-vladimir-tikhonov-puts-to-sea-along-the-northern-sea-route
Before the rest of us can be expected to learn-and-adapt, it would be helpful if the proponents of the need for action were able to demonstrate the validity of each the following claims:
1. That recent warming (1850 – today) is not a continuation of natural variation, but is somehow anomalous;
2. That the primary cause of the anomaly is mankind’s emission of “greenhouse” gases, especially CO2;
3. That, if the anomaly continues, it will cause serious problems for humanity and the environment;
4. That the solution proposed would avert these problems;
5. That the solution proposed is cost effective; and
6. That the solution proposed is politically and globally achievable.
I’m unaware that the validity of any of these has been demonstrated to date.
And a great many more have no clue what science is. Still others find it a convenient cover for political agendas.
Science is about evidence, not conjecture and not falsified temperature data.
Rob, the checklist you posted amounts to a rationalization of American irrelevance in a world that is rapidly changing.
Which is why, as a strategy for American conservatism, that same checklist is a strategy for American conservatism’s extinction.
As often is true, the folks at The Onion know what political leadership *should* like … and IMHO, it sure doesn’t look like the candidates who presently are embracing that checklist.
So far, 49,662 people have “FaceBook recommended” The Onion’s assessment … these are burgeoning grass-root numbers that conservatism ignores at its peril.
—————————–
The Onion: White-Hot GOP Race
URL: http://www.theonion.com/articles/whitehot-gop-race-down-to-two-mentally-ill-people,21196/
Apologies my “checklist” seems to have been duplicated – with an important addition re Arctic ice.
My “checklist” is rational and logical – you’d do well to think about it. It has zero to do with conservatism.
Rob, dig pretty much anywhere in lowland Florida (or Texas, SC, etc.) and find … shark teeth.
Fossil hunters aren’t surprised by this.
They know Florida (and Texas, SC, etc.) have been submerged multiple times by polar ice-melts.
Which creates excellent habitat for sharks … mighty bad habitat for humans.
That’s why submerging Florida by AGW is a mighty bad “Plan A” for conservatism.
———————————–
Florida’s Past and Future Citizenry
URL: http://www.fossil-treasures-of-florida.com/images/BonevalleyMegs.jpg
A physicist:
Please explain (carefully) why you think Mankind’s actions could submerge Florida. Then, when you’ve done that, spell out what you think Mankind must do to avoid that disaster. Thanks.
When you’ve answered my questions (I trust you will), perhaps we might move our discussion to the Charlie Martin post?
Two observations:
1. I agree with much of what CM says – this for example:
“… to the extent that I have a position … I think warming is unequivocal, a human contribution very probable, and the magnitude of that contribution in the face of feedbacks and homeostasis currently unknown and on the very edge of what we can actually measure.”
2. You seem obsessed with what you see as the inconsistencies etc. of US Republicans’ views on AGW. I’m barely interested: I’m British and consider most politicians (Left and Right) to be frauds and charlatans. I am, however, interested in good science and practical common sense. If I have a bias, it’s that I tend to be iconoclastic re much received opinion.
The recent melting of Arctic sea ice is wholly irrelevant: recent research (see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14408930) shows that quite recently (around 8000 to 5000 years ago) there was about 50% less Arctic sea ice than in the summer of 2007. No – before the rest of us can be expected to “learn-and-adapt”, the proponents of the need for action must demonstrate the validity of each the following claims:
1. That recent warming (1850-today) is not a continuation of natural variation but is somehow anomalous;
2. That the primary cause of the anomaly is Mankind’s emission of “greenhouse” gases, especially CO2;
3. That, if the anomaly continues, it will cause serious problems for humanity and the environment;
4. That the solution proposed would avert these problems;
5. That the solution proposed is cost effective; and
6. That the solution proposed is politically and globally achievable.
So far as I’m aware, not one of these has been demonstrated to date.
I wonder what happened to the ozone layer? Shouldn’t we all be dead by now?
Another Climate Lie Bites the Dust
The opening sentence in a BBC News article titled, “Journal Editor Resigns over ‘Problematic’ Climate Paper” reads, ”The editor of a science journal has resigned after admitting that a recent paper casting doubt on man-made climate change should not have been published.” (http://bbc.in/oQKKiW)
The title is absolutely correct, the opening sentence is absolutely deceptive.
American climatological scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell reported in the journal Remote Sensing that climate computer models exaggerated global warming projections of temperature increase.
In other words, just as with the 2009-2010 International Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, scandals when massive fudging was discovered at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, the warmist clan rigged their computers to make it seem the planet was cooking. And, just as with the IPCC scandals, certain climatologists are closing ranks to preserve their reputations–and wallets.
See ”Climategate,” http://bit.ly/qeQFUp.
Not surprisingly, the report was applauded and endorsed by so-called “global warming deniers” who had found kindred spirits in Spencer and Braswell’s reinforcement of the truth.
Equally unsurprising, so-called “mainstream” scientists whose bread is buttered with the climate change sham attacked the report as if they had, once again, been exposed as liars–which they had been. They couldn’t very well tolerate having their sham, once again, disproven by their fellow scientists and the very science they claim as their own, now could they?
Remote Sensing editor Wolfgang Wagner submitted his resignation letter as a consequence of the whole brouhaha . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5344.)
Global Warming: Scamming the Planet
Merriam-Websters’s definition of a scam as “a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation” fails to do justice to the decades-long hoax, the swindle, of the American people known alternatively as global cooling, then global warming, then climate change.
The subject of that massive, international hustle has frequently been addressed in this space, most recently in “Another Climate Lie Bites the Dust,” which outlined the efforts of the climate clique to slander two distinguished American climatologists for telling the truth.
Professors Roy Spencer and William Braswell dared to expose the fallacies of alleged anthropogenic causes of changes in Earth’s weather and were summarily if indirectly dismissed as incompetents by their colleagues because of their impertinence in outing the climate-scammers.
Eminent, ethical scientists that Spencer and Braswell are, they didn’t and wouldn’t say their fellows were liars and frauds. Another warming-naysayer, Dr. Ivar Giaever, also refused to hurl those pejoratives, but I will.
Undismayed by exposure as sloppy flimflamers in the 2009 “climate-gate” scandal when email hackers of the United Nations-funded Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change facilities at Britain’s East Anglia University revealed gross misrepresentations, the IPCC has braved on.
There’s far too much money at stake for the IPCC–-or its ridiculous co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, Al Gore–-to do otherwise. Science-challenged, climate profiteer Gore continues to mindlessly beat the warming drum to stuff his pockets and is so wildly strident he is actually scaring believers with his “Climate Reality” unrealities.
Dr. Giaever, co-winner of the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize for physics, RPI professor emeritus and president of Applied Biophysics, forcefully contradicted the “warmers.”
Giaever effectively denounced the American Physical Society for its contention that “the evidence [of global warming] is incontrovertible” and resigned his APA membership in disgust. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5460.)
It’s appropriate time to make some plans for the future and it is time to be happy. I have learn this put up and if I may I desire to suggest you some fascinating things or advice. Perhaps you can write next articles relating to this article. I wish to learn even more things about it!