If the climate really is changing – and we’re the cause of it – then the “wrenching changes” to our lives we’re told are necessary to avert catastrophe might be something we have to accept.
Like chemotherapy for cancer.
But what if the diagnosis is wrong?
What if they are lying to us?
Maybe we should get a second opinion – or at least give it a second thought – before we jump on the “climate change” bandwagon.
I personally have a few misgivings based on a few inconvenient truths I’d like to share with you – along with some politically incorrect observations.
First, I will concede that the climate does change. But is this something abnormal? Is man responsible for it changing abnormally?
The fact is atmospheric gas composition and average temperatures have varied wildly over the eons of time the Earth has existed and long before human beings existed. They will vary in the future as well.
Now, the assertion made by the “climate change” crowd (their choice of words is very interesting) is that human activity is causing an unnatural increase in C02 levels and temperatures. But this is an assertion – based on computer models – and cooked data. I’ve looked into it, as opposed to genuflecting before the warbles of non-scientist politicians (this includes, by the way, the non-scientist Bill Nye the “science” guy, who holds no academic degree in any applicable discipline) who have a clear interest in peddling the idea that there is a “crisis” – the sky is falling! – which of course they have the solution to.
For example, the taking of ground temperature readings in paved-over/concrete-covered urban areas (heat sinks) and other such manipulations, which give a distorted (arguably, a deliberately dishonest) impression of average temperatures and whether trends are within normal parameters.
Also, the folding in of greenhouse “emissions” from natural sources such as methane blooms (bubbling up of gasses from the seafloor) with man-made sources such as carbon dioxide coming out of the tailpipes of vehicles.
What about the massive naturally-occurring “emissions” of C02?
The careful putting aside of solar activity as a possible and entirely normal contributory factor (not surprising, given we lack the enforcement ability to impose solar emissions standards on the nuclear furnace that anchors our solar system).
Note that even the verbiage is shifty.
We were initially (back in the ’70s, some will recall) warned about global cooling – and an imminent ice age. We were going to freeze to death. When this did not happen global warming was subbed in. It resonated for awhile (in the ’90s especially) after a few very hot summers. But then some very hard winters ensued.
The climate, er, changed.
So now we have climate change – a brilliantly fluid saying that encompasses anything that occurs, whether warmer or cooler. The climate is changing!
“We” must do something to prevent this…
Except of course, it is us (and just us) who will be on the receiving end of “change.”
This is worth thinking about, in order to divine motives – and evaluate the veracity of the claims being made.
If this “crisis” were real rather than contrived, why is it that the government itself has not taken “action” – as regards its own “carbon footprint”?
Which is Sasquatch like, relative to ours.
Consider the carbon dioxide (and other) emissions output of an M1A Abrams battle tank vs. a Camry. The federal government has a fleet of approximately 8,848 such tanks (many more tanks than the German Wehrmacht had its disposal when it invaded the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941) and tens of thousands of gas (and diesel) guzzling (and C02 spewing) supporting vehicles.
41,062 Armored Fighting Vehicles, to be specific. Plus troop transports, Jeeps, Humvees and so on.
If “we” are in imminent danger from man-caused global warming (whoops, climate change) triggered by the release of C02 and so on from internal combustion engines, why is the military allowed to maintain this vast fleet of tanks and related heavy equipment? Surely, the “defense” of the Homeland could be achieved with fewer such than Hitler needed to get within 15 miles of Moscow?
How about the multiple aircraft carrier battle groups and the oceans of jet fuel consumed by their air wings (13,444 aircraft)? The fuel oil consumed by the non-nuclear supporting ships? What is their “carbon footprint”?
And why isn’t it being reduced?
I mean, if we are facing a “crisis” and all?
The government exhorts us to accept material diminishment but never makes such sacrifices itself. This ought to tell people something.
The people running (and who want to run) the government finger wag at us about our wasteful ways yet themselves live in huge dachas (see, for example, soon-to-be-former Dear Leader Obama’s new home; or prospective Dear Leader Hillary’s 5,300 sq. foot home in Chappaqua, NY). There is also ex-would-be-Dear Leader Mittens Romney’s 11,000 square foot home (with a car elevator).
None of these people Live Small.
They insist we do.
Did you ever see Al Gore’s progagandamentary, An Inconvenient Truth? At one point, Al is monologuing about the urgent need to change our ways as he drives along in his Cadillac Escalade. Which is a huge SUV with a huge V8 engine.
And a huge “carbon footprint.”
I will begin to take “climate change” seriously when I see Al and Barry and Hillary and Mittens and all the rest of them begin to make “wrenching changes” to their lives. When the C02 plumes eructed by the “defense” conglomerate are “controlled.”
I don’t expect it to happen anytime soon.
Which says a lot about the “crisis” they keep telling us is imminent.
EPautos.com depends on you to keep the wheels turning! Clovers hate us!
Goo-guhl blackballed us!
Will you help us?
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
EPautos stickers – new design, larger and magnetic! – are free to those who send in $10 or more to support the site.
Some things I have noticed: A lot of the temperature records which are being broken or tied recently, are doing so by breaking(barely) or tying records that were set 75-125 years ago (Or ones which werebroken/tied within the last few years, but which up till then were standing for 75-100 years).
So how is it “change” if we had the same weather 100 years ago? (And in the intervening 100 years between the time the old record for a high temp was set and the time it was tied or broken m,ore recently, it must have been cooler…so where’s this “warming” they speak of?)
Secondly, we’ve been setting/tying records for both heat and cold, and more snowfall. How is this “warming”? (I guess the same way Killary’s husband’s BJ wasn’t sex….)
Hi Nunzio,
The temperature records set in the 1930’s would still be higher than today if not for numerous downward adjustments of the historical temperature record recently. I make no claims as to the validity of the adjustment methods, however, one thing should be clear: a great degree of uncertainty exists as to the “real” temperature record. It is baffling to me that so many people believe that current measurements are certain, despite the fact that the the record is routinely “adjusted”, including the vey recent record.
As for the near constant barrage of “hottest year on record” claims, nobody pushing such claims seems to understand that the relevant question is, “by how much”? All recent claims are statistically insignificant, meaning the change is orders of magnitude less than the margin of error. If one is walking along an undulating, but mostly flat plateau, one will often reach the “highest point on record”. However, such a claim is meaningless; as are the current “hottest year on record” claims.
Jeremy
Hey, Jeremy!
Very well-said!
The 30’s were definitely a hot period! (Remember “The Dust Bowl”?)
I think if honest people were looking at the data (i.e. those who weren’t paid to adopt the gov’t’s agenda) they’d see that even when we do have record heat, it is cancelled-out by recent record cold! But with them, they just seem to notice the stuff that supports the agenda, and disregard the rest.
And even if there really were a “warming trend”, how would that be meaningful, when except for a handful of places, there is no real temperature data that goes back much more than 100 years; and certainly none that would match the uniformity and accuracy of the data they now use?
And then how would that automatically prove that such warming (if it really existed) was caused by human activity, considering the emissions from one volcano are more than pretty much anything humans have ever done?
And if they are so concerned about CO2, maybe they should stop paving everything over and making towns and cities which are just deserts of parking lots, since green things absorb CO2 and convert it to oxygen.
Meh, who needs oxygen? As long as we pay fees and taxes to the overlords, and allow them to restrict and control our activities, that’s just as good, eh? 😀
Hi Nunzio,
The hysteria among otherwise intelligent people is depressing to me. Of course, I understand that this hysteria is generated by a small group of for a purpose other than “saving the planet”. But why do so many people fall for it. Despite the fact that she’s a raging leftie, I generally like what Amy Goodman has to say about war, militarization of police, anti-terrorism hysteria, etc… But when she talks about climate change, it’s like she loses her mind. She clearly understands that, in the above list, “fear” is mostly manufactured to promote the interests of a small group of elites primarily interested in wealth and power.
It is obvious that the same dynamic is happening re climate change. Yet, she puts on any doomsday peddling crank, no matter how ludicrous the claims. To her “follow the money” only applies to skeptics, never alarmists, who receive hundreds or thousands times more, mostly from interest groups pushing an agenda. Somehow, this money doesn’t corrupt? She participated in the smearing of Willie Soon by broadcasting the false claims that he did not disclose a conflict of interest regarding his funding. To her it’s a fact that huge numbers of “climate refugees” exist. Every extreme weather event is “proof”. She even laughably believes that the media is biased in favor of skeptics!
What she and her ilk say is just as ludicrous as the morons who claim that “we” are in imminent danger of having Sharia law imposed upon “us”. Climate hysteria is to the left what terror hysteria is to the right.
Jeremy
Tor, a bit of history(see me blush). I once gave to save the whales cause I knew it was trying to put pressure on the US military to ease up on their new sonar that destroys whales.
Once I found out that money went to a group of 40 organizations, almost all of which I opposed I had a bad taste in my mouth and egg on my face. The Shrub couldn’t say it correctly but I can cause I grew up with it, in Texas and not Conn. Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me twice, shame on me. At least the canvas bag works to haul groceries and ammo…..same thing.
Just got a test in from my neighbor asking if I liked black eye peas. I told him I’d lived off em and loved em still. Two things I have lived off exclusively for weeks, Israeli melons and black eye peas, both grown in Fisher county Tx. I lost a lot of weight eating only melons. That was back in the days of being a rich boy college student. Down to a couple old shirts and a couple pair of cut-offs i didn’t feel the”rich” part of that.
Second time was black eye peas and cornbread and not much to complain about there. It was sorta like getting the same pussy every day, not great but I could live with it.
Once again, booze is the answer.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a23417/convert-co2-into-ethanol/
Drudge had a link to changing the definition of hurricanes.
Because the number of storms that make landfall is not as predicted, the new definition will be broader.
No mention about long loud wet farts being classified as hurricanes. They may just be included as tornados.
Emission “scandal” about to get worse. Looks like the most tiny engines, in the 1 liter range, already common in Europe, don’t do so great with emissions.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autoshow-paris-engines-exclusive-idUSKBN12E11K
Reuters gets it wrong about what will happen of course.
Uncles around the world will of course put the squeeze on ICE even more in their unholy quest to get us out of our cars.
I always wanted to build a 702 GMC V 12 engine since the first time I saw one in a big truck. Guess now I’ll have to make it my passion and get it done. That engine was so smoooooth.
Every time I emit a noxious emission from my bung, I worry that someone is going to sneak up behind me and tax me. I now refer to such emissions as “Summoning the tax man” [Formerly refered to as a “Greek Love-call”]
they can not predict the weather three days in advance and they want me to believe they can predict climate in advance
That’s what I’ve always said. It’s so true! Scary thing is, people seem to not notice. I’ll have people hear a 10 day forecast, and believe it. People who have been alive on this earth for decades. And yet they fail to notice that before day 3 even arrives, that 10-day forecast has changed 2 times, and meanwhile, if they were right about tomorrow, it’s a miracle.
Someone did a study once: “Meteorological forecasts” vs. flipping a coin. The coin was no less accurate than the “meteorologists”.
I’ll start to worry about climate change when the government green lights 1000 new nuclear power stations and deregulates the railroads so they can compete with/complement airlines and automobiles. Until then anything we do to stop CO2 production is just window dressing.
Ready for a laugh at someone else’s expense?
Ooops. Leonardo DiCaprio Urged to Step Down From UN Climate Change Role
You guys don’t get it. In 1976, I lived in Detroit and the lowest temperatures that winter were 30 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. Now I live in Orange County, Calif., and the lowest temperatures in winter are 45 degrees ABOVE zero. Obvious global warming! Wake up, people!
Hi John,
Yes! Indeed! 🙂
Live 60 years in west Tx. and when somebody mentions climate change everybody laughs. Winter before last we used the most propane ever, twice as much as last year. No telling what we have in store this year. In 83-84 we had over a month of 5 to -5 degrees down to 12 below. We rock along in the 80’s and picked watermelon and cantaloupe at Thanksgiving, tomatoes at Xmas. Then 88-89 we had -17 and in 90 we had 118, a record that still stands. We might have hot days in Jan and Feb with tornadoes and hot rain or iced over, toss that coin. It’s been that way my whole life. Climate change is the way of life here.
http://twri.tamu.edu/publications/txh2o/fall-2011/the-time-it-never-rained/
Of course it was a continual drought but we had another drought here from 1993 to last year. The Cargill cattle operation, feedlot and slaughterhouse shut down 4 years ago due to scarcity of cattle. Now we’re back into decent rain and good crops but winters are always a shot in the dark……and this was a sumbitch hot summer. We couldn’t grow anything but tomato and pepper plants. We had winter right up to hot summer, no spring and temps not low enough at night to set blooms.
Complain about the weather in west Tx. and somebody will quickly tell you “If you don’t like the weather right now, stick around a while.” Mention climate change in this part of the country and people will laugh or smile. They think you’re joking. You should be.
Randall Carlson on the Climate change science:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0gqHdsb-mM&list=PLnQoMHFyCxdzNJO6e-yAcs3DCBZ2ntNtU&index=4
Yes, that’s part four where he deals with peer reviewed science that shows how flawed the CO2 global warming science really is. The other parts are good too, just that the last part is most relevant here.
Seems to me that if one were truly interested in investigating gorebal warming, one would not be overly concerned with peak daily temperature, but consider only the MINIMUM daily temperature. After all, if gorebal warming truly exists, it would be made most apparent with rising MINIMUM daily temps, is this not so?
Aye, and that is exactly why such an approach Is Not Applied.
Oh, and in the fisrt pic, what’s up with the fringe on the colored rags adorning the pimpmobile? You know, the one being tickled with a feather duster by the jockey of color.
Hi Itor,
Another very good point; hat tip, sir!
My take is that a fair-minded/half-bright person who looks into the issue will discover that the “science” is far from “settled” with regard to abnormal, human-caused climate change (italics for the obvious reasons).
The whole thing has become a kind of religion – with government tools such as Bill Nye the mechanical engineering guy serving as temple priests.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2007-02-26/al-gores-carbon-footprint-is-big-dot
Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.
The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh–more than 20 times the national average.
>We need an algorithm folks. Got one out there?
this is the “Al Gore rhythm,” folks.
I also work full time out of an office at my house.
I don’t need 20 rooms, or 8 bathrooms, to do that.
I conclude Al Gore produces 8 times more b*llsh*t than I do.
And by the way, feces produces methane, which is a so-called “greenhouse gas.”
The sky is falling in Spain.
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2016/10/14/economic-bubble-spain-nears-300-days-without-govt/?cmpid=GoogleNewsEditorsPicks&google_editors_picks=true
From what I’ve read it seems like sunspot cycles have more to do with temperature than anything else. As far as warming goes we’ve frozen our butts here the last few winters, not to mention being buried in snow 2 years ago. When measuring temperature I always think of the late great George Carlin’s routine as Al Sleet the hippy dippy weatherman: “temperature tonight is 40 degrees out at the airport, which is really stupid since I don’t know anyone who lives at the airport “.
“The effects of carbon dioxide on climate are really poorly understood. Of course there, I’m in a minority. The experts all seem to think they understand it, I don’t think they do… Climate is a very complicated story,… The main thing that’s lacking at the moment is humility,… The climate experts have set themselves up as being guardians of the truth. They think they have the truth, and that’s a dangerous situation.” – Freeman Dyson
The claim made by many “experts” that we know, to a reasonable degree of certainty, what the temperature will be by the end of the century is no more valid than the prognostications of a soothsayer. Armed with an unshakeable certainty in what they cannot know (the future), these experts insist that “we do something”. By which they mean, governments must impose various schemes upon the world to “fix the problem”. Those in power, whose primary goal is the maintenance and extension of their wealth and power, are delighted.
While we cannot know what the temperature will be or whether a change will be negative, neutral or positive, we have good reason to believe that coercive schemes to “fix the problem” will produce negative costs to most and concentrated benefits to some. All grand government schemes, ostensibly designed to address some vital concern, share the following characteristics:
– The cost of the scheme is always orders of magnitude greater than claimed.
– The scheme never “fixes the problem” and, in most cases, creates “unintended” consequences that require more “fixing”.
– The scheme, once instituted, will never end because it provides concentrated benefits to a small group of elites, who are interested in maintaining it.
– “Failure” of the scheme to achieve the stated goals will always be seen as proof that the scheme did not go far enough, leading to escalation of the scope and cost of the scheme.
Jeremy
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/20/world-renowned-physicist-ditching-fossil-fuels-to-fight-global-warming-is-a-bad-idea/#ixzz4NAQnoyFv
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/20/world-renowned-physicist-ditching-fossil-fuels-to-fight-global-warming-is-a-bad-idea/#ixzz4NAPLEP9o
Jeremy,
So you’re saying Algore and his minions only want to put in the tip?
Tuanorea,
Well, exempting Tipper, yes. But the sudden, aggressive thrust is sure to come.
Jeremy
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
~H.L. Mencken
‘Nuff said.
Hi Trevor,
Exactly. Mencken was my kind of cynic. An accurate one.
One of my favorite Mencken quotes!
Great article and comments. Here is my version.
First, based on my own personal experience (which doesn’t prove anything), no I don’t think there is any “warming.” In fact the last couple summers here have been cool and the winters are downright f’ing freezing at times. Over the course of my lifetime, I’m not affected. No water level up to my apartment yet. Now, of course, that doesn’t mean there isn’t something happening.
If there is warming, and if it is caused by man, then I’m part of the problem and I don’t want to be a hypocrite. So I’m not going to complain about something that I’m responsible for or for which I’m not willing to change my behavior. Most of those that believe in warming and that it is caused by humans are mostly hypocrites (who doesn’t own a car, burn wood/fuel or contribute to CO2 etc?). Until I have independent evidence through scientific observation similar to the evidence that gravity exists, I’m not buying it.
Now let’s get to the good stuff, none of which is my original thought, but based on discussions and reading.
As for whether there is any warming, well I’m not sure. Based on what data? Go back a few billion or even just millions of years, and you will find some pretty crazy temperature changes much more drastic than we are today and human’s weren’t even on the planet (ice ages, etc). So I’m not worried. The planet isn’t going anywhere. I’m certain there is temperature change, but I don’t need evidence of temperature changes. What is the cause of temperature change? Temperature is motion, and motion is change. Without change there is no time or existence. So I think the question is moot. Of course there is temperature change, as there is no alternative. I’m not trying to be tricky or a smart ass here. This is logic and I require no data to support it.
One key problem is that the state funds most of the research, so it’s biased. State funding of any area of study tends to reduce independence, and in this case it practically eliminates the independence. There is peer reviewed research out there, but there is little value in peer review when there is little to no independence among the members of the peer group. Imagine if one company, with an interest in the outcome, produced all research in a given area. This is what is happening with global warming.
The reason people care about this topic so much is because of predictions that other people make. An experienced computer scientist will tell you that the math behind the predictive models practically constitutes fraud. The past does not predict the future, so if there is a rising temperature, there is no evidence it will continue. It’s hard for people to grasp that models (explanations) of chaotic systems cannot project actual system behavior – ever. This is not a limitation in current methods, measurements or processing power, it is an absolute limit that can never be overcome. Furthermore, correlation is not proof of causation. As a friend explained to me, to truly understand in a manner that is provable one needs an actual proof. If the proof implies a chaotic system, one of the things that the proof can prove is that the system cannot project future outcome of any real system. In narrower aspects of the system (which are not chaotic) one can prove outcomes given a set of assumptions (axioms), but there is no such thing as an absolute (consistent and complete) proof in any complicated (eg, including basic math) system. See Gödel.
BTW, also many use the word “science” on this topic. If any person tells you that any science is “absolute”, they have no credibility. Science doesn’t have theorems or proofs, it has theories – because they cannot be proven. Computer science isn’t actually a science, it’s a philosophy/math – with theorems, and proofs.
So I’m certainly not worried based on my observations, and I’m not buying into the “predictions” based on “models.”
One thing is certain, as there is proof by existence. Projections by those who think they have plausible system explanations have failed to a significant degree. While their theories cannot be proven, they can be (and have been) disproven. There is of course the long history of chicken little cults, including “The Coming Ice Age” from the 70’s-80’s, or Armageddon from a little earlier. The motivation is always the same – it’s a con to gain control over people. Here is another scare that never happened …https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb. Apart from the daily political debate, I don’t observe anything really “happening.” There are always doomsayers, and they have always been wrong, whether it is their observation or conclusion.
The reason this is just a hotly debated topic and so many seem to “care” is because of predictions OTHER people make. There is behind all of this some idea that these predictions imply something bad, or at least worse then if we implemented proposed “solutions”. And notice all of the proposed solutions lead to one place, increasing the power of the state to unprecedented levels. It’s no wonder at all that the “absolute science” comes from from the state. The interesting question for most people is how to get control of other people, and hence the desire to find a plausible system explanation (including projection) that can be tied back to a regulatory policy that yields the control.
Well-said, CT!
And, welcome to EPautos. Your comment is among the excellent ones. 🙂
The term “fossil fuel” was coined in the 1950s when not much was known about the nature of naturally-occurring hydrocarbon products. Environmentalists have used this misconception about naturally occurring oil to their advantage; hence, the now-discredited concept of “peak oil”.
Oil is abiotic in nature, being produced deep within the earth by yet-unknown processes. Russian oil interests have been drilling deep wells, as much as 30,000 feet deep and coming up with oil deposits–far deeper than that of decayed plant and animal materials.
It turns that many of our depleted oil wells are “filling back up”; oil is migrating from deep within the earth, upward to many of our present drilling sites.
There are certain interests that do not want to see oil as a plentiful natural resource–FOLLOW THE MONEY…
Ever hear of the La Brea tar pits? Sure isn’t a man-made oil spill…
Great point dude. Excellent article by Eric 🙂 Go Trump.
Thanks, Chris!
I’ve said it before and I’ll say again. Humans are a part of this planet. The planet has been suffering from a lack of CO2. Man has reversed the downward trend. Like the bacteria that made greater life possible by changing the atmosphere man has taken substances from the bowels of the earth and converted them into life giving CO2.
Carbon is life. Hydrocarbons occur most everywhere in this universe. Man’s technology converts hydrocarbons into a biologically useful form.
anarchyst,
Abiotic.
You mean the Sinclair dinosaur isn’t the real deal?
It might as well be Purple Martin?
Or a Tulsa station?
Well there goes twenty years of public schooling right down the drain!
Global warming (aka “climate change”) has been shown to be a fraud (climate is always changing) and has attracted the snake charmers (al gore) and hustlers out of the woodwork. The so-called “hockey stick” model has been shown to be fraudulent. The attempts to foist “carbon credits” and other scams on the public was unsuccessful. Once again FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Fraud in science is not only limited to those who are providing the funding. There was a case in the Pacific northwest where so-called scientists “planted” lynx fur in certain forests to make them “off-limits” to logging. Fortunately, these government Fish and Wildlife Service scientists were caught. Of course, they received NO punishment for their behavior. The so-called “endangered species act” is actually more detrimental to humanity . . . species are always changing . . .
Environmentalists have been some of the most dishonest people in their misguided attempts to “save the planet”. Our earth is much more resilient than they would have you believe. Environmentalists see humans as a “pestilence”. They would like to see the human population reduced (by any means necessary) by around 90%. The survivors would be walled-off in soviet-style high-rise apartments, riding bicycles, taking trains and buses while the wilderness areas would be available only to the “anointed” environmentalists.
I, for one, have no use for these limp-wristed, birkenstock-wearing, prius-driving, tofu-eating poor excuses for human beings. I would suggest that environmentalists take their own advice and eliminate themselves first.
Environmentalists are like watermelons–green on the outside and red (communist) on the inside. It’s always been about control.
I CHEER when I hear a of a “greenpeace” ship getting blown out of the water. . .
climate change/global warming is part of the agenda 21, i.e. the creation of a futile society-global world government and all that crap:
On page 75 of their 1990 publication entitled The First Global Revolution, the organization outlined how they would manufacture ecological scares in order to manipulate the public into accepting the imposition of a dictatorial world government run by them.
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, 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… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself,” states the report, which can be read in full at the end of this article.
The passage appears under a sub headline entitled, “The common enemy of humanity is Man.”
The Club of Rome’s 1972 publication The Limits To Growth was a Malthusian blueprint on how the human population needed to be reduced in order to prevent an ecological collapse, which in itself was merely a disguised version of the abhorrent eugenicist ideas that were circulating in the early part of the 20th century and eventually died out with Hitler. The widely discredited population bomb paranoia of the 70’s and 80’s was gradually replaced by the climate change fearmongering that we see the organization pushing today, which again is merely another regurgitation of the eugenics-obsessed policies of the elite.
Prominent members of the Club of Rome include Al Gore and Maurice Strong, both of whom are intimately involved with privately-owned carbon trading groups, whose multi-million dollar profits are solely reliant on protecting the credibility of the man-made global warming dogma.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26753034/The-First-Global-Revolution-Text
Rising carbon dioxide emissions will cause a global average temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius by 2052 and a 2.8 degree rise by 2080, as governments and markets are unlikely to do enough against climate change, the Club of Rome think tank said,” reports Reuters.
The report, entitled, 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years, decries improving living standards in developing countries and warns that man-made climate change could eventually kill off humans entirely.
Although the report has generated a deluge of coverage in the establishment media, not one of those news stories points out that the Club of Rome admittedly manufactured the “idea” of man-made global warming back in 1990.
On page 75 of their 1990 publication entitled The First Global Revolution, the organization outlined how they would manufacture ecological scares in order to manipulate the public into accepting the imposition of a dictatorial world government run by them.
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, 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… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself,” states the report, which can be read in full at the end of this article.
The passage appears under a sub headline entitled, “The common enemy of humanity is Man.”
The Club of Rome’s 1972 publication The Limits To Growth was a Malthusian blueprint on how the human population needed to be reduced in order to prevent an ecological collapse, which in itself was merely a disguised version of the abhorrent eugenicist ideas that were circulating in the early part of the 20th century and eventually died out with Hitler.
The widely discredited population bomb paranoia of the 70’s and 80’s was gradually replaced by the climate change fearmongering that we see the organization pushing today, which again is merely another regurgitation of the eugenics-obsessed policies of the elite.
Prominent members of the Club of Rome include Al Gore and Maurice Strong, both of whom are intimately involved with privately-owned carbon trading groups, whose multi-million dollar profits are solely reliant on protecting the credibility of the man-made global warming dogma.
“We need a system of governance that takes a more long-term view,” said Norwegian academic Jorgen Randers, the chief author of the latest report. “It is unlikely that governments will pass necessary regulation to force the markets to allocate more money into climate friendly solutions, and must not assume that markets will work for the benefit of humankind.”
In other words, Randers is calling for the United Nations to crush the last vestiges of national sovereignty and impose a global carbon tax to line the pockets of scam artists like Al Gore, Maurice Strong and other Club of Rome members who created the hoax in the first place.
bicycles offer far more untrackable freedom than they want us to have. They are presently a means to an end, but they too will be eliminated.
Not to fear , I just seen on TV a bunch of Hollywood actors have a new series coming out where they fly and drive all over the world in petroleum powered airplanes and vehicles complaining about climate change caused by burning petroleum , strange since the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the climate has been changing for approximately 4.5 billion years .
Considering the short length of time that temperature data has been being collected globally, how can they possibly determine any “warming” (or cooling) trends, when all of this data is very short-term? I mean, climate change over the course of a mere hundred years does not really indicate anything! Just in my lifetime, we used to have cold snowy winters; then warm, practically snowless winters for c. 20 years; now we’re back to colder, snowier winters. We are seeing extremes of both warmer highs and colder lows, generally.
To take some data and average it “globally”, and to do so in the short term no less, proves absolutely nothing. Climate change is junk science, which justs exists to justify political actions, the goal of which is to tax us more and control us more.
“In terms of the actual climate, it’s not up for debate that it has been warming. Satellite datasets are very accurate and show global warming. Ground datasets are more precise, but also subject to error, and the way the errors are adjusted for consistency are contentious to some people.”
Actually, this is backwards. Ground Measurements are not as precise as Satellite Data. The problem is the Warmists are now using the Ground Measurements to prove Global Warming because the Satellite Data shows an insignificant (read that as 0) warming of only ,09° over the past 30 years and for the past 10 years, slight cooling.
NASA was caught red-handed a couple years back falsifying data. Not sure why everyone doesn’t know this. They were supposed to go back and adjust it to the original data but they’ve drug their feet doing it.
And to Nunzio, taking sample in glaciers and trees are accurate for determining temps and CO2. CO2 has been many times as much as it is now many times and just in the last thousand years also. True that manmade gases easily measured in the atmosphere have gone up but no one knows exactly what those elevated levels do. While my part of the world has been hot and dry for the last 23 years, that’s not really here nor there as global time goes by and the drought, while bad, wasn’t nearly as bad as the one from 1950 to 1958, 7 years of heat and virtually no rain. I can attest to it. I lived through it. We sat inside often more in the winter than summer using the swamp cooler to furnish some air without scads of dirt. It was a miserable existence for people who had lived much longer than myself. Us kids simply thought everywhere in the world on the occasions it rained, terrific tornadoes and hail were the norm and everybody had puddles full of frogs and fish and other aquatic life after a “rain”.
But back in 1983 we had a month of near 0 temps, so cold it burned off all the snow and ice following a fall where we measured but didn’t catch all the rain but still had over 60 inches in September of that year. In 1986 we had more monsoonal type rains and for cattle ranchers, it was fairly much heaven except for 3′ snows, more records. But at the same time there were bad droughts in countless places in the world. What these fools now call climate change since global warming didn’t work out, people who’ve been around a while simply call “weather”.
There is a correlation between CO2 in glacial ice cores and higher temps deduces from growth rings in trees – but the CO2 is a trailing indicator, not a leading one. In plain English, higher temps more likely caused higher CO2, nor the other way around.
They didn’t like the tree ring data because it matched the as-measured surface temperature record. So they cut it off and pasted the surface temperature record on the end of it. They decided that the tree ring data was not good because it diverged from their adjusted values. It matches the actual measurements though. But actual measurements and tree rings show no warming.
BrentP,
Reminds me of the comedian Franklin Ajaye talking about his finals in college.
What is a Protozoa?
A Protozoa is a professional Tozoa.
For many in the environmental movement it is their religion. Arrogance that “mankind” can screw up the third rock from the sun is their holy grail. Self abnegation is their sacrament. Conceit is their stock in trade. Politicians exploit this (SHOCKING!) to grow their GovCo to their benefit.
God doesn’t give a hoot about your plans.
This dead salmon paper calls all theoretical science into question, not just studies with poor statistical methods. Climate scien
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/ignobel-prize-in-neuroscience-the-dead-salmon-study/
Neural Correlates…
http://prefrontal.org/files/posters/Bennett-Salmon-2009.pdf
Prefrontal
http://prefrontal.org/blog/2009/06/human-brain-mapping-2009-presentations/
The real crisis we are in is the concerted effort to prematurely end the holocene epoch we’ve enjoyed for 12000 years and create a man eat man (mis)anthropocene epoch where contrived battalions of men fight for survival against other battalions of men.
http://phys.org/news/2016-01-anthropocene-hard-evidence-human-driven-earth.html
The trap the warmers have set is to get you into a merely computational mindset. They’ve rigged your mind to look at climate as an arithmetic exercise.
What is needed is mathematical reasoning ability. If you have this, then like Eric you’ll see it’s not yet possible to model surface temperatures in a predictive way, so the global warming debate can never even begin.
https://www.pdf-archive.com/2014/06/05/hownottobewrongsmall/hownottobewrongsmall.pdf
Humans exhale CO2.
Governments killed two or three hundred million people last century.
That is a good start as far as reducing CO2.
Climate change and perpetual war, our government’s wet dream realized.
It’s the alarmists that have convinced me its a complete fraud more then the deniers. When Al Gore takes a private plane from one of his huge houses to one of his undoubtable boring speeches about global warming as the limo driver idles in the alley, he has no credibility. None. He is a hypocrite of the worst kind. Once that has enriched himself with it. Notice how fast he sold his failing cable tv channel for half a billion dollars.
Even if it is warming and humans are the cause, I think the benefits of a warmer climate would overcome the problems. The oceans won’t rise, that is complete nonsense and frankly, it will open up more areas of the world to farming and longer growing seasons which would help humanity.
And poor people don’t give a crap about pollution. They don’t have that luxury. So making more poor people only makes pollution worse not better.
I follow the science pretty closely, out of my own curiosity, and it’s hard to find un-politicized stats, but they’re available. There’s also a lot of misunderstanding about the way the science is reported and a lot of mis-representation in the mainstream press, which isn’t helped by the fact there are disingenuous “scientists” who cherry pick data, or carefully select graph end points to make their point more pronounced.
The IPCC consensus, in english, says “we are pretty sure that man is responsible for some amount of climate change”. “pretty sure” and “some amount” are two weasel words which are then used to call for policy, but that’s a separate issue. I do believe most scientists cited by the IPCC are honest, and they very carefully qualify their results with this double layer of unknowns simply because we don’t have the ability to make the precise predictions the mainstream press (msm) is presenting to us.
In terms of the actual climate, it’s not up for debate that it has been warming. Satellite datasets are very accurate and show global warming. Ground datasets are more precise, but also subject to error, and the way the errors are adjusted for consistency are contentious to some people. Gobal warming means some places get colder, but more places get warmer, since the climate is an active system with many energy (heat) transport cycles.
Now, how much of global warming is caused by man? How much by the sun? How much by other natural cycles? It’s hard to say, but it’s pretty clear man’s contribution is non-zero, and looking at atmospheric CO2 concentration, it’s also pretty safe to say that man is likely responsible for most of the recent increase. CO2 concentration, though, isn’t responsible for all of the warming, and linear CO2 increases don’t result in linear temperature increases. Methane and water vapor are far more potent greenhouse gases.
As an example of the press mis-understanding science, let me give one concrete example – global isostatic adjustment (GIA). When the earth was covered by glaciers, they “dented” the crust, pushing down the areas that were under kilometers of ice. The earth is still rebounding from that pressure (think of a wobbly water balloon). What is means is that our land masses are rising and making the ocean basins deeper. When scientists report sea level rise, they compensate for this change, which increases the number. This isn’t some lie or conspiracy, but when comparing a quantity over time, you need a consistent baseline, so when we get a number like “2 cm of sea level rise”, this means 2cm after GIA, but in reality, closer to zero net effective change, because the deeper basins offset the rise. Is the sea rising? Yes. The media reports 2cm. The sea doesn’t actually rise 2cm, but all the resultant fear-mongering is about an actual 2cm rise.
So, my personal understanding of the science (which is limited, but better than average), is that the earth is warming, and that man is responsible for quite a bit of it, however, I would not ever advocate any policy based on this which comes at the cost of some people’s quality of life, and naturally to the benefit of the political class.
I would highly recommend a book by Bjorn Lomborg titled “The Skeptical Environmentalist”. Short version – we’re changing the climate, we don’t have the technology to unchange it, current climate change policy is harmful, so instead of squandering trillions on carbon taxes and whatnot, put a far smaller subset of that money into mitigating the detrimental effects of climate change on people hurt by it. Far bigger problems are access to clean water, energy, medicine, and food. If your goal is helping mankind live better lives, focus on the actual problems.
Thanks, Opp. Interesting stuff. I don’t doubt that we have some effect on the climate. I just don’t care. Lakes and rivers are way cleaner than when I was a kid. The air is generally better, especially compared with other countries.
It’s pretty simple, really. As people get more affluent, they tend to take more of an interest in their environment. We’ve simply outsourced our dirtiest manufacturing and mining (looking at you, Tesla batteries!) to countries on their way up.
Want a clean environment? Make people more prosperous.
Oh, I agree completely. I come from a communist country, and that “people’s” government was the grossest polluter imaginable. When I came to the US in the 1980’s, the big scare of the day was acid rain (which was a man made problem), and now, that’s history, it’s been solved. This happened primarily because we as a society can afford to scrub industrial emissions, coupled with some regulation which actually worked. You can’t have working regulation without the capacity to afford it.
What you say is also a big topic in Lomborg’s book. He argues we should elevate everyone out of the dirty phase of industrial development asap.
“In terms of the actual climate, it’s not up for debate that it has been warming. Satellite datasets are very accurate and show global warming.”
Well there was – up until about 20 years ago. And 20 years before that? The Sierra Club, et al, were warning about the coming Ice Age.
I can’t prove it, but my theory is that this is cyclical, based on sun spots or something of the sort.
I think this graph would support your theory.
https://www.bas.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/003.jpg
The climate has an number of known cycles, and an unknown number of unknown ones. The glaciation cycle is certainly much higher magnitude than anything man has done.
I disagree about satellite measurements showing no warming, even UAH, which shows the least warming, still shows some, but the satellite record only goes back so far, and it’s hard to know how much of this is natural and how much is caused my man.
The graph above spans 800,000 years. Notice the large disparity between temperature and CO2 towards the end, modern day. It’s like I said in my original post, there is little doubt that man’s activity is causing the CO2 concentration to rise, but that doesn’t correlate very tightly with temperature. CO2 forcing is very weak.
So you’re saying that the co2 from the Ring of Fire being much more active has no effect? How long would human caused co2 take to equal a single eruption?(not saying that a single eruption is ever equal to another eruption) If you believe tree ring and ice core figures, then this planet has been all over the place as far as temperature and co2. What does that mean? It means a planet is an active thing which means change.
I do believe tree ring and ice core figures and don’t dispute that the climate has been all over the place, because it has, you’d have to be a fool to deny it. Also, some big temperature changes precede CO2 increase, while others follow CO2 increase, so we don’t even know the causality direction here! Al Gore actually moved one of the graphs in his Inconvenient Truth move so that CO2 concentration would precede temperature increase.
Human activity releases a bit less than 30 billion tons of CO2 annually (this is fossil fuel use and land use). Total volcano emissions are 200-400 million tons of CO2 annually. If all the volcanoes emit ~10% of what man emits, than the ring of fire emits less than that, so how many days would it take to emit as much as one volcano – a few days. Feel free to Google these numbers yourself.
In a chaotic, variable system, you can’t isolate for one thing – such as human contribution. We can make general statements that pushing an equilibrium in one direction causes changes, in this case that human activity is with very high degree of probability responsible for the massive increase in CO2 concentration in the last few decades, however, we still can’t make predictions that are even close as to how the climate will behave based off this.
Notice, that I never advocated any sort of climate policy. Even mentioning the state of climate research gets people defensive. It’s impossible to have an honest discussion about this issue.
Satellite measurements show no warming. Surface measurements show no warming. Surface measurements after adjustments and inclusion of estimates shows warming.
“Surface measurements after adjustments”
You mean like eliminating stations in Siberia and emphasizing those near heat islands like large patches of blacktop and AC compressors?
A variety of techniques are in play. The area around the station changing, TOBs, estimating for station loss, etc and so on.
I used to be a “climate believer” since it was pushed so hard in school, but the deal breaker for me was the carbon tax. Nothing about actually reducing consumption, just a tax and then being allowed to continue our usage of “pollutants” which would (by their own calculations), not solve anything. I’m a climate atheist now, if you will.
Sure it’s labelled me a maniac who wants the planet to boil over, but it’s been a helpful tool in finding me friends of like mindedness. Hasn’t helped much with the ladies though, they’re only attracted to brainwashed propaganda loving beta males with Priuses and trendy beards.
Hi AJ,
This:
“Hasn’t helped much with the ladies though, they’re only attracted to brainwashed propaganda loving beta males with Priuses and trendy beards.”
So effing true.
…they’re only attracted to brainwashed propaganda loving beta males with Priuses and trendy beards.
AJ, you need to get out more, dude. They sure as hell aren’t all like that. There is a beautiful 20 year old working in the office who can’t stand those effete freaks.
And she likes cars.
I’ll give her your number 🙂
Two words…Southern California. 🙂
Eric: Great points.
Your arguments to the true believers with logic, documented falsified data, failed catastrophic projections, or anything else for that matter will not sway them.
They know that humans (in general – just not THEM or THIER families), and capitalism (in particular), are the “true” threats to the planet.
Something else that never gets much traction:
The “climate change” crowd is quick to point out that a study about climate change from a “fossil fuel” company must be biased. Good point. Fair enough.
They never, however, seem to grasp that a “study” by “Climate scientists” (whatever that means) is also inherently biased. Do you expect a group of people who will be 100% unemployed if they find “no problem” to actually FIND that there is no problem? Really?
Why is the bias with this group of people never brought to light?
Remember “Ice Free Arctic” by 2016?
Remember “snowless winters by 2010” (Stated in 1999).
You may be old enough to remember that the US would be “covered in garbage” by 1995 (mid eighties environmental “scare”). As someone in his mid-forties – I remember this other utterly laughable failed projection of the tree huggers.
There are countless failed projections so far – so now they are projecting out to where everyone reading the projections will be dead by the time the catastrophes strike: “Chaos X and Y caused by climate change by 2100”
Hi Eric,
Fear of “climate change” is to the left what fear of “Islam” is to the right. In both cases, a very small risk is wildly exaggerated and cynically exploited by those in power to advance an agenda that serves purposes other than those stated. Both of these manipulated fears create a binary “us vs them” mentality among the adherents that is designed to preclude rational discussion. CAGW zealots dismiss skeptics as “deniers” in the pay of big oil. Anti Muslim hysterics castigate anyone who questions the “war on terror” as an “appeaser” or useful idiot. Both insist that there is only one cause and one solution to the “problem”. Both adopt a religious fervor in their advocacy and consider discussion of alternate causes and different solutions to be heresy. Both employ “end of times” fear mongering to manufacture support. To one it is CO2 emissions, which must be radically reduced, by force now, or face the certain destruction of the earth. To the other it is Islamic fundamentalism, which must be eradicated by force, lest Western civilization perish.
Both of these movements are profoundly irrational, hostile to science and dangerous to humanity. With the above in mind, I’d like to make an appeal to those who can see the disingenuousness of the “war on terror” but insist that CAGW is a genuine threat that justifies massive action now. CAGW alarmists routinely claim that the “debate is over”, a consensus has been reached and that indulging skepticism is irresponsible and dangerous. Furthermore, we must act now to prevent certain catastrophe.
Even if one genuinely believes that the threat of global warming is potentially catastrophic, one should still oppose the tactics and plans of the CAGW alarmists. I’ll start with the “consensus” claim. First, consensus is not science. History is riddled with examples of the “lone nut” scientist turning out to be correct, despite the fact that the “overwhelming majority” of scientists thought otherwise (research plate tectonics for one example). Second, what does the “consensus” mean? When a CAGW alarmist invokes the “97% of scientists agree” claim, one must ask, to what do they agree? This is critical because there actually is an overwhelming consensus among scientists about the basic facts of “climate change”, which include the following:
The earth has warmed about 0.6 – 0.8 degrees Celsius over the last century.
The temperature increased between 1910 and 1940.
There was a slight cooling between 1940 and 1970.
Warming began again in the 80’s and continued until about 2000.
Global average temperatures have remained statistically flat since around 2000.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the doubling of which should produce warming of about 1.0 degrees celsius.
Since around 1900, CO2 levels have increased from about 280 ppm to a little over 400 ppm today.
Most of the CO2 increase is likely attributable to man made forces.
At least some of the observed warming is attributable to man made forces.
Nearly all skeptics agree with these facts. So, what do “deniers” deny? In short, the degree of climate sensitivity. This is a critical point. All models predicting future warming are based on assumptions about climate sensitivity (radiative forcing). Specifically, that the 1.0 degree of forcing due to CO2 will trigger a positive feed back loop (warming releases more CO2, which produces more warming, etc…) Thus most models assume a range of about 2.5 degrees C to 5 degrees C. Skeptics claim that the observable data does not support the levels of climate sensitivity embedded in the models. To date, all models run hot (compared to observable data), even at the low end of the range.
The consensus claim is mostly based on two, deeply flawed, studies (John Cook, Naomi Orestes) that have been interpreted as meaning that the vast majority of scientists believe that, in addition to the actual “consensus” above, global warming is primarily caused by man, is likely to be catastrophic and that drastic action must be taken now to prevent devastation. Neither study shows this because such a consensus does not exist. Ironically, almost all “deniers” are, in fact, part of the “97%”. The one major area of disagreement, namely that the real level of climate sensitivity is likely to be far smaller, and thus not potentially catastrophic, must be ignored because you can’t terrify people by calmly recognizing the inherent uncertainty of future predictions. Nor can you justify massive new government programs and restrictions on energy use if one admits that we really don’t know.
Enough for now, I will post later as to why, even a true believer should oppose government efforts to “do something”, because as Fatman (I think) suggested, “we should err on the side of caution”.
Jeremy
Slight edit:
(warming releases more CO2, which produces more warming, etc…) should read: (warming produces more water vapor and more CO2, which produces more warming, etc…).
Jeremy
Burt Rutan does an excellent job of looking at the numbers.
http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdf
Burt owns Scaled Composites. Smart guy.
http://www.scaled.com/about/burt_rutan
It’s the same thing as has gone on as the human norm for thousands of years. The ruling class needs the slaves/serfs/peasants/mundanes/whatever to obey and sacrifice. It hires an intellectual class to come up with reasons why. Keep the snake god from eating the sun, make sure the spring rain comes, whatever people will sallow.
Science education has been decimated for the ordinary person. It’s probably worse than at any other time because of all the mis-education. The result of this is that people are mislead by the intellectual class easily. Climate change scientists violate a grade school understanding of proper handling and presentation of data. They truncate. They use estimates and adjustments but mislead people that these are measurements. They mix data sets. They use techniques like infilling and smoothing often to deal with troublesome discontinuities, often caused by their own adjustments. These are basic violations of science. Tony Heller however uncovered the smoking gun. A near perfect correlation of surface temperature adjustments with CO2 concentration. They are adjusting the data to match theory. Most likely intentionally but even if not the adjustments are imposing the theory on the data. There’s no getting around that.
The ruling class could do nothing without the intellectual class, the people who can actually create something but they look down on them something not as good as the rich. The intellectual class wouldn’t waste their time on something like Wall Street that only makes money and nothing else.
So why doesn’t clover and that clover crew protest what the govt. does since the US govt. uses more fuel than any other entity by a long shot, more than a large swath of the world uses?
To put their usage of petroleum in a light even clover can understand, the US military used more petroleum during the Iraqi war(shrub’s war, not his daddy’s)than all of WWll.
It is the sun, and it has always been the sun.
We’re likely approaching a new multi-year minimum in the larger cycle. Expect lots of cold weather for many years.
Eric,
But, but,
“Wed Jan 20, 2016 | 8:26pm EST
‘Great Green Fleet’ using biofuels deployed by U.S. Navy”
…
“The fuel for the Great Green Fleet deployment over the next year is a competitively priced blend of 90 percent diesel and 10 percent biofuel made from beef fat, Navy officials said.
A California firm, AltAir Fuels, is contracted to supply 77 million gallons of the fuel between Oct. 1, 2015, and Sept. 30, 2016.
The Navy pays $2.05 a gallon, thanks in part to a subsidy of 15 cents a gallon from the Commodity Credit Corp, a government-owned enterprise that supports farm products.
To boost production of alternative fuels, the Navy has awarded $210 million to help three firms build refineries to make biofuels using woody biomass, municipal waste and used cooking grease and oil. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is providing an additional $161 million in crop supports.
The refineries are expected to begin operations this year, with full production not likely until 2017.”