Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical
“The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!” – South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.
FASCINATING article by author Norman Rogers on how the
siyanz science of global warming climate change has been fatally corrupted by a culture of groupthink and doomsday hysteria that has snowballed into a viciously protected $2,000,000,000,000 US per year (2 Trillion) global Climate Crisis Industry.
Climate Science, Red in Tooth and Claw: Yapping Hyenas Attack a Lion
William Happer is one of the most important scientists in the United States. He is an emeritus professor of physics at Princeton and a long-serving adviser to the federal government. His scientific discoveries and inventions are extensive. Currently, he serves in the White House as a senior adviser to the National Security Council.
The Trump administration is thinking of forming a “Presidential Committee on Climate Security.” The press has been told to direct questions to Dr. Happer. That is enough to bring out the climate hyenas. They can’t stand the thought that Trump might have some solid scientific advice concerning climate change. The hyenas are running an all-out attack against Dr. Happer.
Following Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, the camp followers of the global warming industry try to create polarization. In a Time magazine article, a former admiral says Happer is a fringe figure. A climate scientist at Georgia Tech says Happer has “false, unscientific notions.” We are reassured that the global warming scare is absolutely solid science, as everyone except climate deniers knows.
What everyone may not know is that climate science is an industry, and the product is the global warming scare. If the global warming scare is discredited, the huge industry will collapse. Climate scientists used to be unimportant academics in an unimportant academic field. The global warming scare made them into celebrities jetting around the world. They won’t give up the glory without a fight.
Climate computer models, the basis of the doomsday predictions, disagree with each other and disagree with the climate of the Earth. But according to the climate science mafia, anyone who brings up such embarrassing information is a tool of the fossil fuel industry. As far as the climate mafia is concerned, the business plan of the fossil fuel industry is to wreck the Earth and wreck the global warming industry. The reality is that the fossil fuel industry is wimpy and not inclined to take on the global warmers.
Climate science has gone off the rails. President Eisenhower nailed the problem in his 1961 farewell address. He expressed the fear that because science had become heavily dependent on federal financial support, scientists would color the science in order to increase the flow of federal money. Nothing works better for increasing the flow of federal scientific money than predicting a future disaster. If scientists predict a disaster, we have to give them more money to research methods of preventing the disaster.
Since Eisenhower’s address, we have been treated to a parade of scientific doomsday predictions, none of which measured up to the hype. There was global cooling that preceded global warming. There were acid rain, DDT, the ozone layer, overpopulation, and many others. It is not only scientists who use a parade of disaster predictions. Environmental organizations need doomsday predictions, too, in order to keep their members interested. The press has a bias for sensationalism, so it too promotes the latest doomsday predictions.
Many professions are supposed to adhere to high ethical standards. For example, lawyers are supposed to put the interests of their clients above their own interests. Doctors are supposed to put their patients’ welfare above their own pecuniary interests. Journalists are supposed to be objective and not color their work with their own political preferences. We know that not every professional adheres strictly to his ethical code. Scientists are not different. They are supposed to search for scientific truth and to exercise objectivity in their work. They are not supposed to hype weak theories in order to improve their professional standing. But these things happen.
Most scientists are not in a position to contradict global warming hype. Science is a profession characterized by ideological schools and groupthink. Groupthink is worst in sciences where the rules are not clear and the data are confusing — for example, climate science. Young scientists depend on older, more senior scientists for recognition and promotion. They are in no position to contradict groupthink. They have families to feed. The senior scientists may be running large scientific enterprises financed by federal money. To express doubts about the mission or the truth of the groupthink would be to threaten their money and the jobs of people in their organization.
The consequence of the groupthink atmosphere is that dissenters come from the ranks of scientists removed from the pressure to conform — for example, retired scientists, amateur scientists, and scientists so accomplished as to be immune to threats and group pressure. There are thousands of such scientists who are skeptical of the global warming hype. When they speak out, they are attacked, and the attacks are usually vicious. The members of the global warming establishment will almost never debate skeptics. When this was done years ago, the skeptics were too credible.
Science is great, and our modern world is a product of science. But scientists are humans, not gods. They play the same games that other beneficiaries of federal money play. We have been fooled over and over again by fake predictions of disasters or one sort or another. The fake predictions are never completely fake. There is usually some real science buried in all the hype. For example, it is reasonable to expect that some global warming might be caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. What is probably a modest effect has been twisted and exaggerated into a doomsday scenario that demands that we save the planet. The good effects of CO2 that are well known and that are solid science are ignored. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere makes plants grow better with less water. Greenhouse-operators use CO2-generators in their greenhouses. CO2 is greening deserts. How often to you hear about these benefits of CO2?
DDT was banned because it supposedly thinned birds’ eggs and perhaps because some people screamed cancer. But DDT is highly effective against mosquitos that cause malaria. The World Health Organization finally lifted the ban on DDT because thousands of children were dying in Africa. DDT will never be rehabilitated in the U.S. because the propaganda has been permanently imprinted in the minds of the populace.
Science has created institutions that serve to enhance the image of science. For example, peer review often degenerates into pal review. Scientific journals are often filled with papers of dubious value generated by a system that values quantity over quality. The National Academy of Science pretends to give objective advice to the government, but often the advice is to appropriate more money for science.
Typically, when science invents a new doomsday theory, the environmental organizations embellish it with unscientific flourishes. The scientist inventors of the theory don’t correct the environmental organizations because that would slow the momentum toward a new surge of federal money. That should be an ethical violation. Scientists should have a duty to set the record straight in such circumstances.
There is no simple solution to the parade of doomsday theories. It would help if the government understood better that throwing more money at an alleged problem may exaggerate rather than alleviate the problem. Massive spending may not solve difficult scientific problems, but massive spending always creates bureaucracies that exist to sustain the spending.
Norman Rogers is the author of the book Dumb Energy: A Critique of Wind and Solar Energy.
SEE also :
- DRACONIAN UN CLIMATE AGENDA EXPOSED : ‘Global Warming Fears Are A Tool For Political and Economic Change…It Has Nothing To Do With The Actual Climate’ | Climatism
- JAPAN ACKNOWLEDGES THE GLOBAL WARMING ‘PAUSE’ : Sanctions 35 New Coal Power Plants Added To The 100 Currently Operational | Climatism
- BREAKING : Carbon Dioxide Causes Both Record Hot And Record Cold | Climatism
- METHANE Mendacity : Cows, Farts And New Green Lies | Climatism
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)
ENERGY rationing and the control of carbon dioxide, the direct byproduct of cheap, reliable hydrocarbon energy, has always been key to the Left’s Malthusian and misanthropic agenda of depopulation and deindustrialisation. A totalitarian ideology enforced through punitive emissions controls under the guise of “Saving The Planet”.
STANFORD University and The Royal Society’s resident global warming alarmist and population freak Paul R. Ehrlich spelled out in 1976 the Left’s anti-energy agenda that still underpins the current ‘climate change’ scare :
EHRLICH, who is currently employed by Stanford University and The Royal Society, also wanted to poison black African’s in order to fight climate change :
MODERN day ‘Greens’ are no different from the radical eco-zealots of the 1970’s. They despise capitalism, development, growth and freedom, with overpopulation their greatest fear.
THEIR solution is to use the emotive issue of “climate change” to pursue a radical transformation in cultural, economic and political structures across the globe…
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.” – Christiana Figueres, fmr executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change (Feb 2015, Brussels)
THEIR weapon of choice for rapid deindustrialisation? R
enewable unreliable energy – wind and solar. Token gestures to the folly of green madness designed to force us backwards down the energy ladder to the days of human, animal and solar power.
THE radical, far Left Australian Greens party have taken it a step further – Jail time for any Australian who produces, sells or burns cheap, reliable coal-fired power…
AUSTRALIANS would face serious jail time for producing coal-fired electricity under a radical Greens policy to be unveiled on Friday.
Thermal coal would be banned within 12 years, while the burning and exporting of the black rock would become a criminal offence as part of the proposed new laws.
Despite coal accounting for more than three-quarters of the national energy market, the Greens will introduce a Bill in federal parliament over the coming weeks to make it illegal by 2030.
Under the legislation, companies would face fines totalling more than $10 million for using the fossil fuel and their senior executives could be sent to jail for up to seven years.
In a speech to the United Firefighters Union in Hobart, Greens deputy leader Adam Bandt will argue the policy is needed to avert a “climate catastrophe”.
Pointing to deadly wildfires in California over the past week, Mr Bandt will say the continued burning of thermal coal was making bushfires more severe and frequent.
“The reality is every tonne of coal that is burnt makes the bushfire threat worse,” Mr Bandt is expected to tell the conference.
“And every tonne of coal burnt brings us closer to climate catastrophe.”
Based on laws banning asbestos, the proposed laws would make it illegal to use coal aside from some narrow exemptions for research and heritage purposes.
Between now and 2020, quotas would be imposed on the export of coal so that the amount reduces to zero by 2030.
“Coal is the next asbestos and it is time we regulated it as such. It is toxic and dangerous,” Mr Bandt said. “The Greens’ plan would see Australia quit coal home and abroad by 2030.
“Funds raised from coal export permits during the phase-out period would be used to support Australia’s coal communities during the transition.”
Australia is the biggest coal exporter in the world, and the fuel is the country’s second biggest export.
The laws would not apply to coking coal, which is used to make steel.
The Greens plan goes much further than what either the Coalition or Labor is promising in terms of phasing out coal.
Labor has a renewable energy target of 50 per cent by 2030, while the Morrison Government has committed to reduce emissions to 26-28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030.
WHERE to start with such insanity?
RATHER than correcting Adam Bandt’s alarmist cherry-picking attempts to justify jailing coal users, like citing the tragic wildfires in California, which were not exacerbated by “climate change”, rather poor land management, lets take a look at the enormous improvements to humanity and the environment that fossil fuels, namely coal-fired power, have brought to our planet since industrialisation …
TWO centuries ago, 90 per cent of the global population lived in extreme poverty and now, even though the population has grown from less than one billion people to about 7.5 billion, those proportions have completely reversed so that only 10 per cent of the world’s population lives in extreme poverty.
ON both these indicators it is extraordinary to consider how much of the progress has happened in recent times. As recently as 1950, 72 per cent of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty and 64 per cent of us were illiterate. Postwar industrialisation, development, trade and globalisation have improved living standards dramatically for the overwhelming majority of people.
CO2 EMISSIONS & WEALTH
THE result of unleashing half a billion years of fossilised sunlight – wealth and prosperity!
WITHOUT access to fossil fuels, every tree on the planet would have been cut down by now to provide for heating, cooking and industry.
THE greatest threat to the environment is not affluence, it is poverty.
BORDER between Haiti and Dominican Republic, a pristine example…
• ONE country embraces Fossil Fuels 🇩🇴
• THE other, signed up to the UN Paris Accord 🇭🇹
HAITI is almost 99% deforested, as they rely almost entirely on natural ‘biomass’ (wood) for domestic and industrial fuels and building materials.
ON the other side, the forests of the fossil fuel burning, eco-terrorists – the Dominican Republic – remain lush and green :
FUEL-poverty stricken German’s are already robbing forests for wood to heat their homes in winter, unable to pay for radically priced ‘green’ energy :
ADDING MORE SOLAR AND WIND ‘POWER’ INCREASES CO2 EMISSIONS…
“Adding More Wind And Solar Power Ultimately Raises CO2 Emissions, As More Fossil Fuel Backup Capacity Must Be Built”
GERMAN forest thievery began in 2013 when Energiewende was in its infancy.
AFTER hundreds of €BILLIONS of taxpayer’s hard-earned money spent on sunshine and breezes, Germany’s Energiewende program has been exposed as a catastrophic failure, with carbon dioxide emissions higher now than in 2009, the year before massively subsidised ‘green’ energy was signed into German law!
GERMAN emissions last year were actually higher than in 2009, and have been on the rise again since 2014.
NUCLEAR power is still supplying 12% of Germany’s power. When this is finally phased out in a few years time, the country will be more reliant on fossil fuels than ever :
GERMANY’S RECORD COAL BOOM
THE ‘green’ dream is on ice as a ‘coal frenzy’ grips Europe and unreliables lose their attraction:
With Greenpeace successfully forcing the shutdown of nuclear power, and keeping out fracking for gas, what’s left? A boom in coal. In fact, over the next two years Germany will build 10 new power plants for hard coal. Europe is in a coal frenzy, building power plants and opening up new mines, practically every month. It might sound odd that a boom in German coal is the result of Greenpeace’s political success. –Ezra Levant, Toronto Sun, 7 January 2014
RISING German Emissions – the numbers :
- ENERGIEWENDE FAIL: German CO2 Emissions Higher Now Than In 2009 | Climatism
- ADDING More Solar And Wind Power ‘Doubles’ CO2 Emissions | Climatism
- IF CO2’s Your Poison, Renewable Energy Is No Antidote | Climatism
WHEN will the ideological push for symbolic, costly, unreliable, unwanted, economically and environmentally destructive ‘green energy’ end?
ALL that pain, for ZERO gain!
AUSTRALIA take note. Do not let recent history repeat.
MORE forests globally will, no doubt, come as unwelcome news to the environmental movement who rely on doom and gloom to drive their misanthropic, anti-capitalist climate change agenda.
A team of researchers from the University of Maryland, the State University of New York and NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center has found that new global tree growth over the past 35 years has more than offset global tree cover losses, reports Phys.org.
In their paper published in the journal Nature, the group describes using satellite data to track forest growth and loss over the past 35 years and what they found by doing so.
View original post 283 more words
“Articles, tweets and interviews that deliberately lob personal tears into the public domain sound the alarm bells of sanctimony..”
― Chris Kenny
FIRSTLY, apologies for the use of “suicide” in the heading to all those who have been directly or indirectly affected by such a horrible and tragic event. I can personally sympathise.
THAT said, the use of the threat of “suicide” by those pushing the
global warming climate change agenda is indicative of the desperate, dishonest and disrespectful lengths that climate activists will go to in order to drive their latest fashionable eco-scare.
AUSTRALIAN columnist Chris Kenny with some much needed perspective, clarity and reason to parlay the constant rhetoric of climate change doom and gloom that the Climate Crisis Industry relies on in an attempt to remain relevant…
(Links, Graphs and Bolds added by Climatism)
WHEN people go public with private tears I am immediately suspicious. Not that I am against tears; as a physical reaction to emotion they are a fact of life best controlled in some circumstances but uncontrollable in others.
But articles, tweets and interviews that deliberately lob personal tears into the public domain sound the alarm bells of sanctimony. Telling the world about your saltwater reaction to this or that is perhaps the epitome of virtue-signalling.
“I cried two times when my daughter was born,” was the opening line in a New York Times piece this week. Those sanctimony warning bells rang loud. It was by Iraq veteran, English professor and climate alarmist Roy Scranton, promoting a new book of essays on war and climate change titled We’re Doomed. Now What? And yes, he claims to have shed tears for the planet.
“First for joy, when after 27 hours of labour the little feral being we’d made came yowling into the world, and the second for sorrow, holding the earth’s newest human and looking out the window with her at the rows of cars in the hospital parking lot, the strip mall across the street, the box stores and drive-throughs and drainage ditches and asphalt and waste fields that had once been oak groves. A world of extinction and catastrophe, a world in which harmony with nature had long been foreclosed. My partner and I had, in our selfishness, doomed our daughter to life on a dystopian planet, and I could see no way to shield her from the future.”
Where to start with such inanity? Perhaps with the good news. Max Roser’s work for Oxford University’s Our World in Data project shows that two centuries ago, 90 per cent of the global population lived in extreme poverty and now, even though the population has grown from less than one billion people to about 7.5 billion, those proportions have completely reversed so that only 10 per cent of the world’s population lives in extreme poverty.
“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
― Mark Twain
ESSENTIAL reading via Steve Goreham for The Daily Caller… (Climatism supports and bolds added)
Steve Goreham | Executive Director, Climate Science Coalition | 9:32 PM 07/04/2018
EARLIER this month, The New York Times featured an article titled “Hockey in the Desert.” The article concluded that by building a hockey stadium in Las Vegas, the National Hockey League was contributing to climate change. The phrase “contributing to” is used over and over by political leaders and the media to voice concern about human-caused global warming, but “contributing to climate change” is a meaningless phrase.
In his address at Georgetown University in June of 2013, President Barack Obama stated, “…the planet is warming, and human activity is contributing to it.” In 2011, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said, “…climate change is occurring and that humans play a contributing role…” In Congressional confirmation hearings, Energy Secretary Rick Perry affirmed that man-made activity was contributing to climate change.
Every human activity contributes to climate change. If you have a housecat, it “contributes to” climate change. As we burn sugars in our body, we produce carbon dioxide (CO2). Every time you exhale, you breathe out 100 times the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. The real question is “What is the size of human contribution compared to natural factors?”
Earth’s climate is amazingly complex. It’s driven by gravitational forces of our solar system, radiation from the sun, and cosmic rays from stars in deep space. Climate is a chaotic, interdependent system of atmosphere, biosphere, ocean, and deep oceans. Climate has been changing through cycles of warming and cooling, tropical ages, temperate ages, and ice ages throughout all of Earth’s history. Climate change is not only real, it’s continuous.