Image via WikipediaI'd rather have Monckton in a foxhole with me than Monbiot
Unlike the Warmists, Monckton is not proposing urinating $45 trillion of your money, my money and the world’s money up against the wall in a name of a problem that doesn’t actually exist.
All hail Monckton. I’m proud to call him an ally and a friend.
06/10/2010 08:24 PM
Now it seems my explanation has been vindicated, The trace gas CO2 and the Greenhouse effect DOES NOT CAUSE "Global Warming" or Man-Made Climate Change.
The Stefan-Boltzmann’s equations used by Climate science to explain the so-called Greenhouse effect, have been proven useless by a paper by Hertzberg, Sissons, Schreuder et al.
“The guesswork of using the Stefan-Boltzmann equations underpinning the man-made global warming theory was debunked some 40 years ago by NASA’s APOLLO scientists. If NASA had made it known that Stefan-Boltzmann’s numbers were an irrelevant red-herring then the taxpayers of the world would have been spared the $50 billion wasted on global warming research, because it would have removed the only credible scientific basis to support the theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide changed Earth’s climate”.
http://climatology.suite101.co...
In addition, it appears Siddons has uncovered intentional fraud, as explained in an earlier of his online publications, "The Greenhouse Hustle" that reveals the almighty multiplication ‘error’ of NASA climatologist, Gavin Schmidt. (at Real Climate) see PDF:
http://climaterealists.com/att...
Although ignored by AGW supporters, these revelations cannot remain hidden, and today there is yet another PDF release on the subject by legal analyst John O'Sullivan
http://climaterealists.com/att...
Image via Wikipedia 06/11/2010 09:33 AM
I first became aware of this alarming phenomenon when I saw Government funded outfits like "Act on CO2" begin to use Neuro-linguistic programming (BRAINWASHING) in UK adverts aimed at children, and noted that only a few UK MSM outlets bothered to report this disgrace, and it was left to another country to bring to the attention of the World the shame of the UK's windmill obsessed politicians.
Shame, and a disgrace on the UK, for this is the headline the rest of the World noted: "JUGEND DIENT DEM FUHRER !"
"Shameful Exploitation Of UK Children In Climate Propaganda"
http://klimabedrag.dk/indlen/8...
I refer of course to Act on CO2 "Bedtime Stories" where a father reads to his child the tale of rising sea levels where children see their pets drowned because of their parents use of cars and electrical goods in their home
But there is even worse propaganda adverts out there, again targeted at children, they know children love Polar Bears, so they produce this sick and offensive advert, sneak it on You Tube, where children browsing for polar bears might just stumble on it by chance, would any sane parent want their children to see this disgusting video clip, even by accident?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Surely it is time for all honest environmental campaigners to distance themselves from the corrupt Climate Change movement and concentrate on real issues like protecting the rain-forests, real pollution etc. and demand that their contributions to environmental campaigns are not wasted on alarmist propaganda.
If honest greens don't regain control now, they and what they thought they stood for will get dragged down by the gathering worldwide wave of revulsion against everything seen as green, corrupt science, state handouts to environmental scams, funded by incompetent politicians using public money to be seen as the great leaders who defeated nature and saved the planet.
How can anyone justify that polar bear video, if my daughter saw that she would need therapy for the rest of her life.
Shameful Exploit Of UK Children In Climate Propaganda
From YouTube:
The ACT ON CO2 campaign launches its Bedtime Stories TV advert on 9 October 2009 at 20.45 on ITV1.
Running on television, press, outdoor posters, cinema and online the campaign is designed to raise awareness of climate change, convey the imminence and the need for urgent action.
The British government is using the NLP directed on children in order to persuade their parents to accept the Goreism and the believe that we dangerously influence the global climate through CO2 and that we can do something about it by saving energy. They intend to persuade children to label their parents as irresponsible and bad, if they don't adhere to the will of the UK government.
It is not the first time in resent history, we have seen governments using children as a means to achieve their political goals. My parents told me about how the ruling party in Germany used teenagers, Hitlerjugend, to change the mind of their parents. Like today's UK, they back then misused the unconditional love of the parents to force an agenda.
By misusing the children in this way, you reverse the normal system in which the parents provide guiding examples, moral support and wisdom for the children, and where the parents view is guided by independent critical diagnostics of the society they live in. In this UK Hitlerjugend style, the guiding role is taken away from the parents and transferred to the government and their propaganda departments.
This is the most powerful propaganda method imaginable, but also a very inhumane form. It is inhumane for several reasons. Unless you, as a parent, is extremely well informed, you have no way of promoting your own interest to the child as you will find it difficult to protect your child from the massive, intrusive media called TV and Internet.
This one-sided immoral propaganda through children was in principle banned by the High Court in UK.
The judge ruled that you are not supposed to provide disputed one-sided information without also providing adequate information about the other side of the coin.
The Telegraph
James Delingpole
February 25th, 2011 14:09
Freeman Dyson v the 'Independent'
The Independent isn’t very “independent”. So says perhaps the world’s greatest living theoretical physicist Professor Freeman Dyson in a truly glorious exchange with the fervently warmist newspaper’s fervently warmist science editor Steve Connor. (H/T Mitcheltj)
Nursing the statistics – by Josh ( Ouch! )
February 24th, 2011 16:55
Homeopathy: not as bad as genocide
February 21st, 2011 18:06
Wind farms: can't live with them; could very much do without them…
February 18th, 2011 11:49
How the green lobby smears its enemies
To those of us who were children between the early 1960s and and the early nineties, Johnny Ball was always something of hero. First he presented Play School, later he presented the maths entertainment series Think Of A Number.
So it saddens me greatly to read today how his career has been blighted as a result of smear campaigns over his climate change scepticism:
Bloggers have run campaigns stating Mr Ball ‘should not be allowed near children’.
February 16th, 2011 12:45
Why do I call them Eco Nazis? Because they ARE Eco Nazis
A fascinating article by Mark Musser in American Thinker on one of the pioneers of apocalyptic global warming theory. Turns out – whoulda thunk? – that he was a eugenicist and a Nazi.
One of the primary pioneering theorists on apocalyptic global warming is Gunther Schwab (1902-2006), an Austrian Nazi. In 1958, Schwab wrote a fictional novel built off of Goethe’s(1749-1832) Faustian religious play Dance with the Devil. While a few scientists since the late 1800’s had contemplated the possibility of global warming coming from industrial pollution, Schwab used Goethe’s dramatic approach to convert the theory into an apocalyptic crisis.
February 14th, 2011 16:48
Climate scepticism: not just the new paedophilia, but the new racism and homophobia too!
Not only it seems are we “climate sceptics” the equivalent of Holocaust deniers and paedophiles, but also of gay-bashers and racists. (H/T Barry Woods)
We have this from no less an authority than the Government’s chief beardie-weardie science advisor Professor John Beddington. Earlier this month, Prof Beddington told a meeting of 300 science civil servants in London:“We are grossly intolerant, and properly so, of racism. We are grossly intolerant, and properly so, of people who [are] anti-homosexuality… We are not—and I genuinely think we should think about how we do this—grossly intolerant of pseudo-science, the building up of what purport… Read More
February 11th, 2011 14:39
Why save libraries?
John J. Dvorak's Cage Match
Compelling Report on Global Cooling
I didn't how else to get this to the bloggers, so I'm posting a link here. Feel free to discuss. Even though I consider myself an environmentalist I've always remained sceptical that we can really come to the conclussion that the planets recent warming trend can really be undertstood given the limited period of time we have data for. Either way the linked article shows some serious cooling. What do you make of it.
http://tinyurl.com/ypuacp
Aftermath News
NASA: Solar cycle may cause “dangerous” global cooling in a few years time
spaceandscience.net | Jan 13, 2008Today, the Space and Science Research Center, (SSRC) in Orlando, Florida announces that it has confirmed the recent web announcement of NASA solar physicists that there are substantial changes occurring in the sun’s surface. The SSRC has further researched these changes and has concluded they will bring about the next climate change to one of a long lasting cold era.
Today, Director of the SSRC, John Casey has reaffirmed earlier research he led that independently discovered the sun’s changes are the result of a family of cycles that bring about climate shifts from cold climate to warm and back again.
“We today confirm the recent announcement by NASA that there are historic and important changes taking place on the sun’s surface. This will have only one outcome – a new climate change is coming that will bring an extended period of deep cold to the planet. This is not however a unique event for the planet although it is critically important news to this and the next generations. It is but the normal sequence of alternating climate changes that has been going on for thousands of years. Further according to our research, this series of solar cycles are so predictable that they can be used to roughly forecast the next series of climate changes many decades in advance. I have verified the accuracy of these cycles’ behavior over the last 1,100 years relative to temperatures on Earth, to well over 90%.”
As to what these changes are Casey says, “The sun’s surface flows have slowed dramatically as NASA has indicated. This process of surface movement, what NASA calls the “conveyor belt” essentially sweeps up old sunspots and deposits new ones. NASA’s studies have found that when the surface movement slows down, sunspot counts drop significantly. All records of sunspot counts and other proxies of solar activity going back 6,000 years clearly validates our own findings that when we have sunspot counts lower then 50 it means only one thing – an intense cold climate, globally. NASA says the solar cycle 25, the one after the next that starts this spring will be at 50 or lower. The general opinion of the SSRC scientists is that it could begin even sooner within 3 years with the next solar cycle 24. What we are saying today is that my own research and that of the other scientists at the SSRC verifies that NASA is right about one thing – a solar cycle of 50 or lower is headed our way. With this next solar minimum predicted by NASA, what I call a “solar hibernation,” the SSRC forecasts a much colder Earth just as it has transpired before for thousands of years. If NASA is the more accurate on the schedule, then we may see even warmer temperatures before the bottom falls out. If the SSRC and other scientists around the world are correct then we have only a few years to prepare before 20-30 years of lasting and possibly dangerous cold arrive.”
When asked about what this will mean to the average person on the street, Casey was firm. “The last time this particular cycle regenerated was over 200 years ago. I call it the “Bi-Centennial Cycle” solar cycle. It took place between 1793 and 1830, the so-called Dalton Minimum, a period of extreme cold that resulted in what historian John D. Post called the ‘last great subsistence crisis.’ With that cold came massive crops losses, food riots, famine and disease. I believe this next climate change will be much stronger and has the potential to once more cause widespread crop losses globally with the resultant ill effects. The key difference for this next Bi-Centennial Cycle’s impact versus the last is that we will have over 8 billion mouths to feed in the next coldest years where as we had only 1 billion the last time. Among other effects like social and economic disruption, we are facing the real prospect of the ‘perfect storm of global food shortages’ in the next climate change. In answer to the question, everyone on the street will be affected.”
Over 400 articles on the Great Global Warming Hoax
John A. Jauregui
Facts: Nitrogen constitutes 78% of the atmosphere, oxygen 21% and trace gases just 1%. Water vapor is the most significant trace gas and the most significant green house gas (GHG). According to IPCC technical reports carbon dioxide is the least significant trace gas both by volume and by Global Warming Potential (GWP).
Question: What are the chances an infinitesimal (.04%) trace gas (CO2), essential to photosynthesis and therefore life on this planet, is responsible for runaway Global Warming?
Answer: Infinitesimal
Discussion: The IPCC now agrees. See the IPCC Technical Report section entitled Global Warming Potential (GWP). And the GWP for CO2? Just 1, (one), unity, the lowest of all green house gases (GHG). What’s more, trace gases which include GHG constitute less than 1% of the atmosphere. Of that 1%, water vapor, the most powerful GHG, makes ups 40% of the total. Carbon dioxide is 1/10th of that amount, an insignificant .04%. If carbon dioxide levels were cut in half to 200PPM, all plant growth would stop according to agricultural scientists. It’s no accident that commercial green house owner/operators invest heavily in CO2 generators to increase production, revenues and profits. Prof. Michael Mann’s Bristle cone tree proxy data (Hockey stick) proves nothing has done more to GREEN (verb) the planet over the past few decades than moderate sun-driven warming (see solar inertial motion) together with elevated levels of CO2, regardless of the source. None of these facts have been reported in the national media. Why?
Question: What are the chances an infinitesimal (.04%) trace gas (CO2), essential to photosynthesis and therefore life on this planet, is responsible for runaway Global Warming?
Answer: Infinitesimal
Discussion: The IPCC now agrees. See the IPCC Technical Report section entitled Global Warming Potential (GWP). And the GWP for CO2? Just 1, (one), unity, the lowest of all green house gases (GHG). What’s more, trace gases which include GHG constitute less than 1% of the atmosphere. Of that 1%, water vapor, the most powerful GHG, makes ups 40% of the total. Carbon dioxide is 1/10th of that amount, an insignificant .04%. If carbon dioxide levels were cut in half to 200PPM, all plant growth would stop according to agricultural scientists. It’s no accident that commercial green house owner/operators invest heavily in CO2 generators to increase production, revenues and profits. Prof. Michael Mann’s Bristle cone tree proxy data (Hockey stick) proves nothing has done more to GREEN (verb) the planet over the past few decades than moderate sun-driven warming (see solar inertial motion) together with elevated levels of CO2, regardless of the source. None of these facts have been reported in the national media. Why?
Salem News
Magnetic Polar Shifts Causing Massive Global Superstorms
NASA has been warning about it…scientific papers have been written about it…geologists have seen its traces in rock strata and ice core samples…
Now "it" is here: an unstoppable magnetic pole shift that has sped up and is causing life-threatening havoc with the world's weather.
Forget about global warming—man-made or natural—what drives planetary weather patterns is the climate and what drives the climate is the sun's magnetosphere and its electromagnetic interaction with a planet's own magnetic field.
When the field shifts, when it fluctuates, when it goes into flux and begins to become unstable anything can happen. And what normally happens is that all hell breaks loose.
Magnetic polar shifts have occurred many times in Earth's history. It's happening again now to every planet in the solar system including Earth.
The magnetic field drives weather to a significant degree and when that field starts migrating superstorms start erupting.
he first evidence we have that the dangerous superstorm cycle has started is the devastating series of storms that pounded the UK during late 2010.
 |
On the heels of the lashing the British Isles sustained, monster storms began to lash North America. The latest superstorm — as of this writing — is a monster over the U.S. that stretched across 2,000 miles affecting more than 150 million people.
Yet even as that storm wreaked havoc across the Western, Southern, Midwestern and Northeastern states, another superstorm broke out in the Pacific and closed in on Australia.
The southern continent had already dealt with the disaster of historic superstorm flooding from rains that dropped as much as several feet in a matter of hours. Tens of thousands of homes were damaged or destroyed. After the deluge tiger sharks were spotted swimming between houses in what was once a quiet suburban neighborhood.
Shocked authorities now numbly concede that much of the water may never dissipate and have wearily resigned themselves to the possibility that region will now contain a new inland sea.
But then only a handful of weeks later another superstorm; the megamonster cyclone Yasi, struck northeastern Australia. The damage it left in its wake is being called by rescue workers a war zone.
The incredible superstorm packed winds near 190mph. Although labeled as a category-5 cyclone, it was theoretically a category-6. The reason for that is storms with winds of 155mph are considered category-5, yet Yasi was almost 22 percent stronger than that.
Yet Yasi may only be a foretaste of future superstorms. Some climate researchers, monitoring the rapidly shifting magnetic field, are predicting superstorms in the future with winds as high as 300 to 400mph.
Such storms would totally destroy anything they came into contact with on land.
According to some geologists and scientists, we have left the last interglacial period behind us. Those periods are lengths of time—about 11,500 years—between major Ice Ages.
One of the most stunning signs of the approaching Ice Age is what's happened to the world's precessional wobble.
As explained in the geology and space science website earthchangesmedia.com, "The Chandler wobble was first discovered back in 1891 by Seth Carlo Chandler an American astronomer.
The effect causes the Earth's poles to move in an irregular circle of 3 to 15 meters in diameter in an oscillation. The Earth's Wobble has a 7-year cycle which produces two extremes, a small spiraling wobble circle and a large spiraling wobble circle, about 3.5 years apart.
For the conclusion of this article, visit: helium.com
- 2002 - Scientists may have detected the beginning of the field's next such reversal:
[http://www.scientificamerican.com/ article.cfm?id=satellites-spy- changes-to] - 2005 - Movement of North Magnetic Pole is accelerating:
[http://www.physorg.com/news8917.html] - 2008 - Earth's Core, Magnetic Field Changing Fast, Study Says
[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/ 2008/06/080630-earth-core.html ] - 2008 - Magnetic Portals Connect Earth to Sun
[http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/ 2008/30oct_ftes/] - 2009 - North Magnetic Pole Moving Due to Core Flux
[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/ 2009/12/091224-north-pole- magnetic-russia-earth-core.html] - 2009 - The earth's climate is significantly affected by the planet's magnetic field:
[http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_earths_magnetic_ field_impacts_climate_Danish_ study_999.html] - Jan 2011 - British Geological Survey *Possible Pole Shift Occurring* South Atlantic Anomaly is Growing:
[http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/highlights/ southAtlantic2010.html] - 2009 - A strong, highly-tilted interstellar magnetic field near the Solar System:
[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7276/full/ nature08567.html] - 2009 - The solar system is passing through an interstellar cloud that physics says should not exist:
[http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/ 2009/23dec_voyager/]
Related article added Feb-08-2011: Yellowstone Supervolcano, New Ice Age Could Topple US Government - Terrence Aym Salem-News.com
Find this interesting? Here is the link to Terrence Aym's brand new article published 4 Feb. 2011: Egypt 2011: Preview of America in 2015 - Terrence Aym Salem-News.com
: Geology & Geophysics
Image via Wikipedia
Magnetic polar shifts causing massive global superstorms
Another federal agency, NOAA, issued a report caused a flurry of panic when they predicted that mammoth superstorms in the future could wipe out most of California. The NOAA scientists said it's a plausible scenario and would be driven by an "atmospheric river" moving water at the same rate as 50 Mississippi rivers flowing into the Gulf of Mexico
"The track of the spin axis began to slow down and by about January 8, 2006, it ceased nearly all relative motion on the x and y coordinates which are used to define the daily changing location of the spin axis."And the Earth stopped wobbling—exactly as predicted as another strong sign of an imminent Ice Age.
So, the start of a new Ice Age is marked by a magnetic pole reversal, increased volcanic activity, larger and more frequent earthquakes, tsunamis, colder winters, superstorms and the halting of the Chandler wobble.
Unfortunately, all of those conditions are being met.
JoNova
The oceans, clouds and cosmic rays drive the climate, not CO2
Dr Noor van Andel spoke at the Dutch Meteorological Institute (KNMI), provocatively concluding there is no observational evidence for the influence of CO2 on past or present climate. He has released a high caliber slide set. He is the former head of research at Akzo Nobel.
Essentially he uses empirical evidence to draw the conclusion that most recent climate variability is due to Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and to Cosmic Ray effect as described by Svensmark. This fits with what William Kinninmonth explained and I described as essentially a massive pool of “stored cold” in the abyssal depths of the oceans, which erratically reaches up and pulls in heat from the insubstantial atmosphere above. Air temperatures are at the beck and call of the releases of this “cold” (yes I know cold is just an absence of heat). In El Nino years when the cold pool lies deep and unstirred, the incoming solar heat builds up on the surface.With the oceans covering 70% of the planet and the clouds covering over 60% of the sky, water in its various forms, dominates our climate. Solar magnetic effects correlate with changes in clouds. This graph below shows the rise and fall over the last 1000 years. Both the Medieval Warm Period and the The Little Ice Age (upper graph) match the highs and lows of Galactic Cosmic rays (lower graph).
....Noor van Andel points out that the 800 year lag (driven by overturning oceans) and that the ice cores show no evidence of positive feedback as the world warmed from the last ice age.
Infrared window and humidity: Miskolczi’s theory
- An atmosphere without an infrared window has a much larger climate sensitivity than ours, with an infrared window
- Trenberth: Window radiation = 40 W/m^2. Satellite measurement: 66 W/m^2. Prof.Trenberth wrote us that he knows this. But he kept his 40 W/m^2 disregarding measurements.
- An atmosphere where specific humidity increases everywhere with temperature has a large climate sensitivity. It has a tipping point.
- Trenberth: Relative humidity is constant everywhere. Satellite measurement: Humidity is decreasing. Prof.Trenberth wrote me that he thinks it is increasing and advises me to read the IPCC reports.
- Miskolczi: Window radiation is exp[-1.868] or about 1/6 of surface upward IR; Clouds keep τclear at 1.868; more CO2 is compensated with less water vapor. The greenhouse effect is not a free variable. It is controlled by maximum entropy production. Surface temperature is only a function of absorbed solar radiation.
- I challenge everybody to falsify Ferenc’s hypothesis with measurements!
On the Planetary Physics
The right physics in my opinion: We have a strongly controlled climate. The solar constant and the physical properties of water keep us controlled.
- The heat transfer from surface into space uses two mechanisms in series: Convection in the lower atmosphere, IR radiation in the higher atmosphere.
- The warmer it becomes, going from pole to equator, the more important the convection part becomes. The height on which radiation flux becomes larger than convection flux, the
convection top, rises.- More convection means a higher tropopause, a lower cloud top temperature, a higher condensation efficiency, and in this way a drier upper troposphere.
- These two effects: a higher convection top and a drier upper troposphere, both increase Outgoing Longwave Radiation. This controls the temperature.
The planetary cooling system
Image via Wikipedia
This subsection is from the paper CO2 and Climate 17-1-2011
It is shown that the cooling of the tropics, or trade wind belt, is by deep convection, i.e. by a few thousand concentrated tropical thunderstorms that carry all the sensible and latent heat swept up by the trade winds all the way on to the tropopause.
The trends of the temperature in the high atmosphere in the last half century are very negative, starting on this height where the convection reaches. That means that more CO2 has a cooling effect rather than a warming effect. Cloud tops radiate much more intense than the thin air on this height.
This is the cause behind the cooling, as much as the CO2 increase.
The cooling trend is quite in discrepancy with the “greenhouse-gas-induced-global-warming”
theory, but is quite in accord with increasing deep convection. The adjustment of these temperature measurements to bring them more in line with the climate models leads to unphysical conditions and processes.
Conclusions
- Rising Outgoing Long-wave radiation with more than 3.7 W/m^2 per ºC SST cannot be the effect of rising CO2 or of the increase of other “greenhouse” gases. Rising OLR/SST with 8.6 W/m^2K means that the atmosphere has become more transparent to IR radiation in the past 60 years. The “greenhouse effect” has become less.
- Solar constant and the properties of water determine our climate
- Rising surface temperature is tightly controlled by increasing wet convection and concomitant upper tropospheric drying
- No observational evidence for influence of CO2 on past or present climate
- Strong observational correlation of solar magnetic activity with climate temperatures, presumably via cloud condensation nucleation and albedo
My talk yesterday for the Dutch Meteorological Institute was a great success. There were 10% more attendants than their largest conference room could contain seated, the interruptive discussion was intense, and even sometimes emotional, but always correct, because Hein Haak wielded his power efficiently to keep it that way.Thanks to the SPPI blog for the tip, The Hockeyschtick for expanding on it, and climategate.nl for the slides. Popular Tech lists two papers by Andel. Thanks Don B for the link to the Jasper Kirkby paper.
KNMI directors Hein Haak and Remco den Besten invited me to write or come to KNMI whenever I wanted, get the support from their specialists when I needed it, in order to continue the discussion that was started yesterday. Very nice, and very Dutch.
Noor van Andel’s full slide set.
The latest paper “CO2 and Climate”.
The short killer summary: The Skeptics Handbook. The most deadly point: The Missing Hot Spot.
Image via Wikipedia
Posts
Mike,
If you want to know what is going on, just delve into the Global Warming Hoax section on this blog. There are hundreds of articles that show the truth, that it is all a gigantic scam to control people with. I encourage people to use this blog as a resource for writing papers, theses, books and articles. All you need is here if you want to research the deceptions of the elite.
”I have absolutely no intention of debating paranoid conspiracy theories with you or anyone else.”
Sorry to hear that. Why would you think I am paranoid? The organizations I refer to celebrate their agenda. Why would you accept part of an agenda without recognizing the deeper – proclaimed – agenda of the people driving the agenda? If I am interpreting their statements incorrectly, I would like to know how.
”We decide that the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund shall be established as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention to support projects, programme, policies and other activities in developing countries related to mitigation including REDD-plus, adaptation, capacitybuilding, technology development and transfer.
In order to enhance action on development and transfer of technology we decide to establish a Technology Mechanism to accelerate technology development and transfer in support of action on adaptation and mitigation that will be guided by a country-driven approach and be based on national circumstances and priorities.”
http://unfccc.int/resource/doc...
In the U.S., the Obama Administration’s legislative cap and trade approach is to directed at utilities. President Obama admits this will increase the cost of household electricity (i.e., an indirect government tax) by about the cost of a postage stamp a year (about $160 per year). He has not addressed the indirect cost of increased cost of other goods and services (i.e., more indirect government taxes), which have been estimated at thousands per household per year.
http://www.heritage.org/Resear...
California has a cap and trade bill, which proposes, similarly to pose additional indirect taxes on households.
www.SuspendAB32. Org
”The international effects of this publication in the fields of politics, economics and science are best described as a 'Big Bang': over night, the Club of Rome had demonstrated the contradiction of unlimited and unrestrained growth in material consumption in a world of clearly finite resources and had brought the issue to the top of the global agenda”
http://www.clubofrome.org/eng/.../
”GLOBE is the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment founded in 1989.
GLOBE facilitates high level negotiated policy positions from leading legislators from across the G8+5 parliaments and from regional dialogues which are informed by business leaders and key international experts.“
http://www.globeinternational....
http://www.globeinternational..../
This is just a very small sample. How am I paranoid? The people involved would agree with my assessment: they believe in global governance, they want redistribution of wealth and some version of a big government, socialist system, and they do not like industrial capitalism. They say so themselves. You won’t get many who will admit to believing in all of this, but there are a great many who push individual pieces of this world view.
1 person
Of course there is an organized effort. Activists on subjects now make an effort to put material on blogs they disagree with, and many are alerted by web sites that send out or post notices about such blogs. I, personally, don't see anything wrong with that. I just wish the skeptic side had such mechanisms. I would find it more likely that you were alerted by such a website then that you just meandered over - but as I said, other than curiosity, I don't care either way.
No, I haven't said that the attack on Thompson and AGW are connected. The attack on Thompson does appear to be recent, although I could be mistaken about that. I asked you about you because you appear in recent attacks on Thompson and here.
I have written a lot about "conspiracy." Of course there is an orchestrated world wide movement towards supra national government/global citizenry and redistribution of wealth. The proponents advertise it. Of course these institutions also all push climate change. Why are you denying it? The proponents are proud of their efforts, and want more such. They don't deny it - they advertise it.
Check out the websites for the following ( a few of dozens or hundreds of organizations that could be pointed to):
The Club of Rome
UNEP
GLOBE
I don't talk about shadowy meetings of shadowy people (although probably they happen). I just take what people and groups say at face value.
I wish there were as many groups organized on the other side of this issues/these issues.
I don't accept your belittlement about being a conspiracy theorist. I stand my ground that there is concerted effort on part of a socialist/anti-West/anti-nationalist/anti-industrialist/big government/high tax agenda. Did you expect that I would run away, cowering because you have tried to label me as a nut?
Do you have any thoughts on the substance of the agenda I outlined? The agenda that all these groups openly espouse. I would be more impressed if you said something like "development is not sustainable, of course we have to cut back on our use of natural resources" - something most of these groups also say. I'm open on that subject, although I reject that AGW is a related topic.
1 person
Re the science: the AGW scientists have operated like thugs and con men. The moment someone operates like a thug and a con man, then I do not trust anything they say. The procedures, intentional alarmist propaganda, silencing of dissent, etc. of the IPCC and others is enough for me not to want to accept their "science" and not trust anything they tell me.
How would you propose to convince me that these are honorable and honest people giving me honest scientific research? How would you explain away the errors and their own writings about post-normal science and the need to alarm? How would you explain away the flim flam - tree rings sometimes, observed data other times, no disclosure of the switch. Or even if you want to argue that there was disclosure, how can you convince me that we should destroy our economies on data that they can't even get to be consistent?
One other thing: I don't think there is a paradigm yet for what causes climate. I don't see how there can be a model for anything when it is not settled what processes belong in the model. Sun, clouds, orbit all seem to be things that people are unagreed on. So how could there be a "climate model?"
4 people
There seems to also be some sort of effort to go after Thompson - but as I said, I don't have the background to sort that out, and maybe I am wrong. I am trying to figure it out, which is why you are of curiosity to me.
No, I don't buy your almost accidental arrival on the scene. But, to me, ultimately, it doesn't matter.
I am a "denier" on many levels for many reasons. I don't want the AGW agenda imposed on the world, both because I think the economics are disastrous and because it carries with it a political/social/ tax agenda which I reject. Among other things, it increases the size and intrusiveness of government, increases the tax burden, transfers wealth from the West, impedes development in the Third World, and enriches a small group of cronies of government officials - all at the expense of the middle and working classes of the West. In addition it is full of propaganda and inconsistencies. Why is wind advocated when it is so obviously inefficient, at least as presently configured and situated, the wind turbines are made in China (at least the ones that are being used in the U.S.) and cronies of government officials are the beneficiaries. Moreover, I would call credits/offsets a joke, except that they are a way of looting the economies of the West and putting money into the pockets of a new class of traders - many of whom are cronies of government officials. And I forgot to say, the AGW agenda carries with it a move towards supranational government, governance. I have watched the UN in action through out my life and I do not want the UN having say over any part of my life. It is a corrupt bureaucracy whose purpose is to loot the West in favor of hostile countries and expand its own power. It is against the family and against a world where there are any traditional standards, in favor of something called "human rights." I reject "human rights" as defined by the UN and in international treaties.
I don't care about Monckton, except that in his Minnesota speech he warned that the treaty planned to be signed in Copenhagen put great power in the hands of the UN. He was right.
I see right now taking place a great struggle for Western societies and any sort of recognizeable traditional values. AGW is being used to diminish the West and sabotage traditional values. I mean, by the latter, that schools are indoctrinating children to reject their parents and see them as destroyers of the children's future.
I don't know what you could say that would change my mind about any of the foregoing, because I am right about all of the foregoing. If you want a socialist, supranational governance, gigantic government, high tax, higly regulated,, stagnated or declining West, families nullified society - then you support the AGW agenda and I am not going to change your mind. But let's get honest about what the agenda really is.
People have been directed to this blog to disrupt it. And the blog has been disrupted. (You apparently are not one of them.)
Personally I think that mans activities do have effects on climate. The question though, is how much, and what should be done about it, (if anything.) I am concerned about the issues of mass industrial wind turbine building. Which seem to me to serve no good purpose at all, and (I know) cause much harm. Other reactions to AGW are no less extreme, and concern me also (although I understand them less) I am interested then to hear other peoples views, on this debate which affects us all.
I am sorry to hear that you think commentators (I am one myself) on this blog have closed minds, deny reality in any way, or are rude for the sake of it. Personally I think the truth will 'out' and see no reason to deny it, whatever that might be. Although it would take a lot to convince me that placing oversized industrial wind turbines too close to peoples homes, against their wishes, and without compensation, is a 'good' thing to do. And so, on that subject at least, I can be said to have a closed mind. I try to be polite, although I object to wind farms, and so I am therefore (by definition) objectionable, on this one subject at least.
I hope, not rude though?
changing the subject slightly, what are your views on the closing down of debate, by noisy and/or intolerant protest? How should people react when subjected to it?
( Side note from Political Blogs : Do Not Feed the Trolls