One of the most common arguments in favor of the concept of man-made global warming (now "climate change" and "climate chaos"????) it that a consensus exists among scientists about global warming. First of all, this is increasingly untrue. Secondly, science is not conducted by consensus, or majority rule. Science is about finding the truth, whether 1% or 99% percent of those polled believe in something matters not; all that matters is the truth, right or wrong.
The following very well written essay addresses the influence mob mentality has on politics and government policy making. If the mob, or the simple majority rules, above and beyond reason, the end result is at best, bad laws, at worst, totalitarianism and fascism. This has been proven time after time throughout human history. The author and historian of the following article (Victor David Hanson) explains and illustrates this clearly.
What is of particular interest to me, and the central issue of this blog, is how mob mentality has been used and abused in creating and perpetuating the myth of man-caused global warming. I include an excerpt from the following article, which can be found here in its entirety. http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/beware-of-the-mob/?singlepage=true
Read the entire article please. The manner in which the liberal left has harnessed mob mentality and manipulated the "masses" would make the Nazi Germans envious. They are using this same group psychology in an effort to control every aspect of our lives. Man-made global warming is just one symptom of the disease the liberal left is spreading throughout America and the world. Peter
Planet Warming on Hold
"One of the most venomous lines of attack against George W. Bush was his supposed failure to address climate change. These were the mob days of the anguished Al Gore, still smarting over having won the popular, but not the electoral, vote in 2000, damning Bush as a liar, as he created Gore, Inc. — a near organic-growing merchandising empire of several hundred millions of dollars.
Gorism both hyped a global carbon threat and then offered the consulting and expertise to address it. His carbon footprints and “offsets” followed the medieval model of selling exemptions. In such holy work, there were no such things as conflict of interest, influence peddling, or simple bad manners. Gore rode his Earth in the Balance / Inconvenient Truth express train to a Nobel Prize, a sizable fortune— and a general impression that he had become unhinged, whether in his incarnation as a “crazed sex poodle” or a vein-bursting screaming “he lied!” mental patient.
No matter, Barack Obama came into office on the shoulders of this screaming mob. His team lectured us on the wisdom of withholding oil leases, on the desirability of European-level gas prices, and on why we must soon pay skyrocketing energy prices. Obama-sanctioned cap-and-trade passed the Democratic-held House.
And then?
Snow fell.
Ice still formed outside the kitchen window. Chicago, as is its habit, got both really hot and really cold. Volvos still needed gas. People in Malibu still liked central heating. Philology adjusted accordingly. Global warming begat climate change and the latter begat climate chaos: if the planet were not hotter, then snow and ice were symptoms of such heating; and if even that were insufficient proof for us dunces, then tornados, earthquakes, and hurricanes would have to do.
Yet the mob mentality began to fade, as revelations about everything from doctored research, politicized grant-giving, and false conclusions about glaciers, Greenland, and polar bears began appearing in the liberal news — suggesting that if such scandal made even the mainstream media, then the phrenology-like fad was nearing an end.
Obama had done his part in postponing the Keystone pipeline, putting oil on federal lands off-limits, and talking up boondoggles like the Chevy Volt and Solyndra. But the idea of $5 a gallon gas makes even the most liberal Santa Monica Volvo driver edgy, and now the global-warming movement has collapsed. Bush is in Texas, not the White House. Obama now blames Solyndra on Republicans, brags about entrepreneurial wildcatters in the Dakotas, does photo-ops in front of derricks, and promises to allow bits and pieces of the Keystone pipeline.
And the mob? Why hurt the liberal cause by going after Obama? Suddenly, the would-be-lynchers have left the sheriff’s office porch and are in twos and threes heading back home."
Oh geez, Obama is now rattling swords with China over rare earth metals, desperately trying to save, or shift blame for his failed "green energy" plans. I have news for the electric car advocates, cheaper, even better batteries won't make them fly.....or even roll out of the showrooms. Oh, and why doesn't anyone in the mainstream Obama lap-dog media ever ask about where the electricity comes from to charge these marvelous electronic gadgets? Ummmm......like maybe, largely, from coal-fired power plants? How "environmental" is that? It is just plain stupid. Peter
Obama: Rare-earth case key for U.S. clean energy
12:25 pm ET 03/13/2012 - MarketWatch Pulse News Bullet
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - The U.S. will pursue a rare-earth mineral trade case against China at the World Trade Organization because China's export limits have unfairly blocked U.S. domestic manufacturers from accessing the material, which are important components in clean-energy products, President Barack Obama said Tuesday. "Being able to manufacture advanced batteries and hybrid cars in America is too important for us to stand by and do nothing," Obama said. "We can't let that energy industry take root in some other country because they were allowed to break the rules," Obama said.
A good cartoon sometimes says it all. The religious fervor driving the myth of man-caused global warming will not go softly into the night, no matter how discredited it is. Peter
More from a search for Dr. Michael Mann on this blog:
Meanwhile, in Vancouver popular skeptic climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball is making strides defending vexatious libel suits filed separately by Dr. Michael Mann and Dr. Andrew Weaver. History will eventually join all such pieces of ...
Maybe she wants to disassociate herself from the scandals at Penn St. (Michael Mann - climate fraud, football and child sex predators). Maybe she ... Here is where I found Dr. Curry sleeping....er.....speaking with the "enemy": ...
Guelph University Professor of Economics Dr. Ross McKitrick [2] led off the hearing, explaining that the foundation of the climate scare — the science as promulgated by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) .... Mann on Irreproducible Results in Thompson (PNAS 2006) - Reblogged from Climate Audit: Michael Mann's new book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, discusses my comment [SMc note - this post is by Hu McCulloch.
We don't really expect politicians like Al Gore and people running the United Nations to feel any shame, but what about so-called scientists like Michael Mann of Penn State or James Hansen of NASA? Scientists, like Doctors ...
The list of scientists jumping ship from the USS Global Warming Myth continues to grow. They know it is a ship of lies and it would never float, it is now listing badly and they want to get off as soon as they can. I think people want to get off before their reputations are permanently tarnished. Or maybe they're afraid of going to prison. Whatever the case it warms my heart to see the truth being revealed. Peter
Esteemed German climate experts, Dr. Gerhard Kramm and Dr. Ralph Dlugi have now added their voice to a growing science crescendo asking climatologists to stop modeling Earth as if it were a flat disk greenhouse.
The reason say the Germans is that there is “a lack of
The late Michael Crichton had it exactly right in his book "State of Fear". Wherever he is, he must be grinning like the cat that ate the canary. Actually, Mr. Crichton was mercilessly attacked by the leftists and socialists pushing the global warming hoax. Alarmism is their tool to manipulate and control the public, and Crichton exposed their fraud. In the tradition of Michael Crichton and Andrew Breitbart I hope I and others can keep up the good fight for the truth. Peter
Michael Crichton does not believe it is. He makes some very astute comments. Also, I highly recommend Crichton's book, "State of Fear". There is much more about Michael Crichton on this blog, do a search on his name.
Michael Crichton does not believe it is. He makes some very astute comments. Also, I highly recommend Crichton's book, "State of Fear". There is much more about Michael Crichton on this blog, do a search on his name.
I can't post the entire speech here without his permission, but this by Michael Crichton is worth reading and saving and contemplating. He sees environmentalism as becoming religion-like, and science being over-run.
Michael Crichton: Our Environmental Future. I wish I could post this entire speech, but I can only quote parts of it and encourage you to read it all here: http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/npc-speech.html. In the speech ...
Hopefully the myth of man-caused global warming/climate change will die a quick death now that is being exposed as the complete hoax that it has always been. It won't be painless, and many proponents of the myth and Al Gore true believers will continue to resist in their ignorance. After all, they're desperately trying to protect their livelihoods, all that taxpayer money they've grown fat on. I know this to be true because I get to read the comments here from the delusional Internet trolls who launch personal attacks on anyone who dares question the status quo. It would be funny if it weren't so serious. I don't think the waste of Billions of taxpayer dollars is the least bit humorous, even if Al Gore is a laughable joke.
It will never cease to amaze me how many people mindlessly follow the herd, or the "consensus", or those who are content to "appeal to authority". Are they afraid of the truth, or are they just lazy? They certainly surrender any kind of liberty gained by independent thought.
So I'm publishing the following very well written and researched article in it's entirety, with comments by me in parentheses and italics. Give credit to Peter Ferrara the author. He sums up the current status of the global warming/hoax I have been blogging about for years now. Peter
'Fakegate' Follows 'Climategate'
By Peter Ferrara
3/7/2012
About every four years, the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produces a voluminous Assessment Report (AR) on the state of global warming science, such as it is. Two years after each AR, the IPCC produces an updating Interim Report.
In 2008, The Heartland Institute, headquartered in Chicago, began organizing international conferences of scientists from across the globe who want to raise and discuss intellectually troubling questions and doubts regarding the theory that human activity is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming. Six conferences have taken place to date, attracting more than 3,000 scientists, journalists, and interested citizens from all over the world.
(Full disclosure: I am a Heartland Senior Fellow, one of several affiliations I have with free-market think tanks and advocacy groups.)
In 2009, Heartland published Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). That 860-page careful, dispassionate, thoroughly scientific volume, produced in conjunction with the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, explored the full range of alternative views to the UN's IPCC. Two years later, Heartland published the 418 page Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2011 Interim Report of the NIPCC, which updated the research regarding global warming and "climate change" since the 2009 volume.
Through these activities and more like them, Heartland has become the international headquarters of the scientific alternative to the UN's IPCC, now providing full scale rebuttals to the UN's own massive reports. Any speaker, any authority, any journalist or bureaucrat asserting the catastrophic danger of supposed man-caused global warming needs to be asked for their response to Climate Change Reconsidered. If they have none, then they are not qualified to address the subject.
This is the essential background to understanding "Fakegate," the strange and still being written story of the decline and fall of political activist Peter Gleick, who had successfully engineered a long career posing as an objective climate scientist. Gleick, who has announced he is taking a "temporary, short-term leave of absence" as president of the Pacific Institute, also served until recently as chairman of the science integrity task force of the American Geophysical Union. (I could care less whether Peter Gleick goes to prison or not. I want it revealed what a hoax the entire global warming/climate change issue has been. Peter)
Al Gore lying to the world, totally straight-faced, laughing all the way to the bank.
Gleick has publicly confessed that he contacted The Heartland Institute fraudulently pretending to be a member of the Board of Directors.(Any scientist who behaved this way in the private sector would be fired immediately, without remorse! Peter) Emails released by The Heartland Institute show that he created an email address similar to that of a board member and used it to convince a staff member to send him confidential board materials. Gleick then forwarded the documents to 15 global warming alarmist advocacy organizations and sympathetic journalists, who immediately posted them online and blogged and wrote about them.
Their expectation apparently was that the documents would be as embarrassing and damaging to the global warming skeptics as were the emails revealed in the "Climategate" scandal to the alarmist side. The Climategate revelations showed scientific leaders of the UN's IPCC and global warming alarmist movement plotting to falsify climate data and exclude those raising doubts about their theories from scientific publications, while coordinating their message with supposedly objective mainstream journalists. (Climategate revealed the people writing the reports for the UN were not climate scientists, but "political scientists". I'd call them comparable to Lenin's "useful idiots" supporting a socialist agenda. Peter)
But the stolen Heartland documents exonerated, rather than embarrassed, the skeptic movement. They demonstrate only an interest at Heartland in getting the truth out on the actual objective science. They revealed little funding from oil companies and other self interested commercial enterprises, who actually contribute heavily to global warming alarmists as protection money instead. The documents also show how poorly funded the global warming skeptics at Heartland are, managing on a shoestring to raise a shockingly successful global challenge to the heavily over funded UN and politicized government science.
As the Wall Street Journal observed on Feb. 21, while Heartland's budget for the NIPCC this year totals $388,000, that compares to $6.5 million for the UN's IPCC, and $2.5 billion that President Obama's budget commits for research into "the global changes that have resulted primarily from global over-dependence on fossil fuels."(Can anyone comprehend spending $2.5 Billion based on a vague theory like man-caused global warming, and AFTER learning it is all based on fraudulent science? What would happen to a CEO who wasted that kind of shareholders money? They would be part of disgraced history. I predict that will ultimately be Obama's legacy. Peter) That demonstrates how an ounce of truth can overcome a tidal wave of falsehood.
Maybe that is why Gleick or one of his coconspirators felt compelled to go farther and composed a fake memo titled "Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy." Whoever did it understood that a document composed on his computer and distributed online would contain markings demonstrating its source and confirming the forgery, so they printed it out and scanned it to hide its digital trail. The scanned document itself, however, contained evidence that allowed even amateur sleuths to trace it back to the Pacific Institute's offices, as explained in an article by Megan McCardle, a senior editor for The Atlantic. (McCardle, incidentally, is highly sympathetic to global warming alarmism.)
The forged cover memo, not the actual stolen document, contains language mirroring Climategate. It discussed fabricated projects that are not activities of Heartland, and references a $200,000 Koch Foundation contribution for climate change activities that doesn't exist. The Koch Foundation confirms that it gave Heartland only $25,000 in 2011, earmarked for health care policy projects and not climate change, an amount equal to only 0.5% of Heartland's 2011 budget. By contrast, as the Journal also observed, the budget last year for the Natural Resources Defense Council was $95.4 million, and for the World Wildlife Fund $238.5 million. (Any one doubting the power and influence of these "environmental" groups, read those dollar numbers and gasp, or choke. And these two organizations are just the tip of the ice berg! Peter)
Heartland President Joe Bast said in a statement on the episode, "The stolen documents were obtained by [a then] unknown person who fraudulently assumed the identity of a Heartland board member....Identity theft and computer fraud are criminal offenses subject to imprisonment. We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes."
While I am not a scientist, and write primarily on economics, tax policy and budget issues, I have been fascinated over the years by Heartland's work on climate change. I've attended the Heartland global warming conferences and read through the organization's publications on the issue. What has fascinated me is how the objective, dispassionate scientific presentations so thoroughly demolish the intellectual case for catastrophic man-caused global warming. In contrast, as the comments to this article will no doubt show, the case for catastrophic global warming is no more than appeals to authority ("the United Nations says it's true!") or ad hominem attacks. (Ad hominem tactics are a common legal trick to discredit a witness when the witness' facts are unassailable. This only shows how empty are the positions of the global warming alarmists that they have to resort to personal attacks. Peter)
The bottom line is that the temperature records are not consistent with the theory that human "greenhouse" gas emissions are the primary cause of global warming.(The climategate emails revealed every effort was made to "hide the decline" in global temperatures. Peter) Those records do not show temperatures rising in conjunction with such ever rising emissions as the globe increasingly industrializes. Instead, the temperature record shows an up and down pattern that follows the pattern of natural influences on global temperatures, such as cyclical sunspots and solar flares, and cycles of ocean churning from warmer to colder temperatures and back, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).
Moreover, the incorruptible and objective satellite temperature records show only modest warming starting in the late 1970s, which stopped roughly 10 years ago, with more recent declines. That is consistent with temperature proxy records found in nature, such as tree rings and ice cores. But that diverges significantly from the corruptible and subjectively compiled land based records, the repeated manipulation of which has prompted several prominent climate scientists to call for an investigation. Perhaps Gleick's skills in falsification can be found more broadly among his colleagues.
In addition, the work of the UN's IPCC is based on numerous climate models that attempt to project temperatures decades into the future. Those models are all based on the circular assumption that the theory of man caused global warming is true. As 16 world leading climate scientists recently reported in a letter to the Wall Street Journal,
"[A]n important gauge of scientific expertise is the ability to make successful predictions. When predictions fail, we say that the theory is 'falsified' and we should look for the reasons for the failure. Shown in the nearby graph is the measured annual temperature of the earth since 1989, just before the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also shown are the projections of the likely increase of temperature, as published in the Summaries of each of the four IPCC reports, the first in the year 1990 and the last in the year 2007.
"From the graph it appears that the projections [of the models] exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth's temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate."
Seems like the models have been falsified. (Seems like? (Understatement of the year. Peter)
The likely reason for that failure is that while the models recognize that increased CO2 itself will not produce a big, catastrophic increase in global temperatures, the models assume that the very small amount of warming caused by increased CO2 will result in much larger temperature increases caused by positive feedbacks. The real, emerging science, as the Heartland publications indicate, is that the feedbacks are more likely to be offset by negative feedbacks, resulting in a much smaller net temperature change. Scientists have pointed out that much higher CO2 concentrations deep in the earth's history, as shown by proxy records, did not result in catastrophic temperature increases, a very powerful rebuttal to the idea today's relatively low CO2 levels could trigger catastrophic global warming. (Geologists, this one included, have pointed out these facts as soon as they realized the magnitude of the hoax of man-caused global warming being used to manipulate people's thinking. Remember, geologists are the first "climate scientists" and historians. The history of the Earth is recorded in fossils and sedimentary rocks, all affected by climate change, from the beginning of time. Peter)
The results of the latest, most advanced data collection also suggest that CO2 is not responsible for the modest global warming of the late 20th century. The UN models agree with established science that if human greenhouse gas emissions were causing global warming, there should be a hot spot of higher temperatures in the troposphere above the tropics, where collected concentrations would have the greatest effect, and the warming would show up first. This is known in the literature on climate science as "the fingerprint" for man caused global warming. But data from global weather satellites and more comprehensive weather balloons show no hotspot, and no fingerprint, which means no serious global warming due to human greenhouse gas emissions. QED.
Moreover, satellites also have been measuring the energy entering the earth's atmosphere from the sun, and the energy escaping back out to space. If the theory of man caused global warming is correct, then the energy escaping back out should be less than the energy entering, as the greenhouse gases capture some of the energy in the atmosphere. But the satellite data show negligible difference. (Geologists know that if the Earth did not release heat out through the atmosphere equal to that which is added to the Earth by the Sun, the Earth would have burned up long, long ago. To think otherwise reveals a gross ignorance of Earth History. I wonder if these modern "climate scientists" even took Geology 101 in college. Certainly Al Gore didn't, and Obama? Nobody is even sure if, when, or where he went to college. He's not saying. Peter)
The real cutting edge in climate science was publicly exposed recently in a book by one of the long time leaders of the German environmental movement, Fritz Vahrenholt, in his new book, The Cold Sun. The book expresses the growing concern among more careful real climate scientists, rather than political scientists, that trends in solar activity portend a return to the cold, limited agricultural output, and widespread disease of the Little Ice Age, or even a more full blown, overdue by historical standards, real ice age.
The consolation is that those threatening developments are still centuries away. In an interview with Spiegel magazine, titled "I Feel Duped on Climate Change," Vahrenholt tells readers that the UN's forecasts on the severity of climate change are exaggerated and supported by weak science. The American version would be Al Gore producing a movie with the title, "The Most Inconvenient Truth: I Was Wrong."
(I wish I could take everyone on a field trip and show them the effects of the last Ice Age, which ended less than 20,000 years ago. I wish they could comprehend how the great ice sheets covering about half of the Northern Hemisphere carved out the Great Lakes, and valleys like Yosemite, with ice two miles thick in places. And then all this ice melted and retreated back up into the Arctic regions, all long before man was burning fossil fuels and emitting all that "pollution" as the alarmists....and the EPA, by the way, now call carbon dioxide, CO2. Our public education is so pathetically inadequate and incompetent that people actually fall for the most obvious lies about global warming and climate change. Why isn't anyone worried about our education system? Are our schools just brainwashing our children based on some socialist political agenda? It sure smells that way. Peter)
The root of the global warming confusion is that the UN is not a disinterested party that can be trusted to compile and interpret the climate science on which the world's policymakers can rely. The UN sees the theory of man caused catastrophic global warming as a tremendous opportunity for gaining the regulatory and taxation powers of a world government. (Bingo! The guy writing this article figured this out. However, people in power, and those pushing "cap and trade", carbon taxes, etc. will never admit to this. And the people who are being duped into believing this global warming nonsense? Well human nature and hubris make it very difficult for people to admit they are wrong. Peter)
It is at least as self-interested on the subject as oil and gas companies. It has used its role as grand overseer of climate science to advance its own agenda. The result has been a great disservice to the scientific community and to policymakers. It fueled a global panic and mass delusion that has cost hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars, and is likely to cost trillions more before it finally runs its course. (Are you a little bit unhappy about this deception and all the lies coming from people you ought to be able to trust? You ought to be. Imagine if a medical doctor lied to you about your own body in the same way these climate "doctors" have lied to us about our dear Mother Earth! Peter)
That is why Gleick's Fakegate memo is actually a perfect metaphor for the entire fabrication of global warming. It and the entire Fakegate scandal provide a window, much like Climategate did, into the global warming movement, and what we see is ugly indeed. Peter Gleick's misconduct is repeated a hundred times every day, in the same dishonest, cynical, and corrosive way, by global warming advocates around the world. (This entire fiasco is a viral stain on all of science, tarnishing all honest scientists. Scientists must be honest; they must tirelessly seek the truth and settle for nothing less. Our civilization depends on it. These corrupt climate scientists have betrayed us all. Peter)
Fakegate is another reason why the U.S. should withdraw all funding and participation in the UN's IPCC, and establish its own panel of scientists representing the full spectrum of views to study whether there is any real potential threat from man caused global warming. I nominate as the Chairman for that panelRichard Lindzen, (I agree, and if anyone who deserves a Nobel Peace Prize, it is Dr. Lindzen, Peter) the retiring Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT.
Peter Ferrara
Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Institute for Policy Innovation and General Counesl for the American Civil Rights Union.
Follow the money that finances the global warming/climate change "research". The money that fueled and continues to fuel the great hoax claiming catastrophic global warming and climate change comes from environmental groups (usually tax exempt, I believe) and our own government(s). This means that taxpayers are paying for the privilege of being lied to and set up to be further controlled and abused by governments. If that sounds like the ultimate scam, well......it is. Just look at the facts.
For anyone to claim or believe that the so-called "skeptics" who question the validity of the man-caused global warming are funded by "big oil", or big-anything for that matter, is equally absurd. To them I would simply say, as I say about the myth of man-caused global warming.....prove it, prove it with science, hard facts, reproducible tests and observations. We're not buying the emotional hysteria, the fear tactics, and smoke and mirrors. I think the general public is also (slowly) coming to realize they've been had, scammed, ripped off, cheated, and lied to, by people they've been taught to trust, like "Professors" and "Scientists", and our political leaders. People should feel righteously angry. The following article elaborates on the issue. Peter
Written by Larry Bell, Forbes Blogs | March 06 2012
It seems we keep hearing that scientists who challenge claims that our planet is on fire fueled by fossil energy are lackeys of a heavily funded disinformation campaign underwritten by Big Oil, Big Coal, and other Big Spenders. Notable authority on this conspiracy, Internet pioneer, Academy Award Oscar winner and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Albert Arnold Gore warned about this last year in a Rolling Stone article: “Polluters and Ideologues are financing pseudoscientists whose job it is to manufacture doubt about what is true and false [and] ….spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year on misleading advertisements in the mass media.” (Al Gore proves the adage that once a person tells a lie they have to keep lying unto eternity to cover their tracks. Peter)
Given that the mercenary climate skeptic cadre appears to be awash in ill-gotten carbon footprint-stained gains, I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that such evil organizations have never seen fit to offer me gobs of money. After all, I frequently write articles arguing that there is no basis for climate alarm and critical of charities essential to support otherwise unsustainable “green” energy fantasies. Why should I, alone, miss out on those pay offs? Sure, I have repeatedly opposed subsidies for all other energy providers as well. Still, it just hasn’t seemed fair to be passed over with such harsh neglect.
Frankly, this didn’t really bother me all that much until I recently read that the Heartland Institute received “shocking” contributions from nefarious donors. This was revealed in confidential information illegally obtained and distributed by renowned “mainstream” climate scientist Peter Gleick who received a MacArthur Foundation “genius grant” and chaired the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Task force on Scientific Ethics. It seems he had a simultaneous lapse of both attributes. And by the way, that’s the same AGU that released a famous conclusion based on Ouija board survey methodology that 97% of all scientists believe that global warming is a serious, human-caused curse.
It is difficult to grasp how much money has been wasted and how much human suffering has been caused by the hoax surrounding the decades-long myth of man-caused global warming/climate change.
What began as an innocent-sounding and appearing effort to understand the world's weather systems and patterns and how these affect humans on Earth was morphed into a bottomless money drain on taxpayers in the form of endless government funding of ever-increasing ludicrous projects. Billions and Billions (Trillions) of dollars or their equivalent have been largely wasted. Job creation? Hardly. It is like paying someone to dig a hole and then having them fill it in.
What have any of these "climate studies", laws, treaties, taxes, caps, trades, etc. actually accomplished? Are we any safer? Are our lives any better? Is there less flooding, fewer tornadoes, a stabilization of sea level, are polar bears any happier? Is there less "pollution", is the air any cleaner, are the glaciers advancing, or retreating, coral reefs living or dying, do we even really know any of those things, if we did, do they matter? Has anything been done other than enrich Al Gore and people like James Hansen, the taxpayer-paid, global warming fathers of global warming alarmism? They ought to be arrested, tried before a well-publicized jury of ordinary people, and if guilty, fined to their last penny, and locked up forever.
As I see the United States sink farther and farther into debt, not to mention the rest of the world, and I see money wasted on projects like mandated wind energy, solar farms, electric vehicles, ethanol fuel from corn, and a host of other things that are uneconomic, impractical, and used by corrupt politicians to manipulate people and simply serve as a means of collecting more taxes, I become a tad bit irritated.
I care about America. I'm not being paid by "big bad oil" to share this material and my knowledge and experience, limited as it may be. I simply care about the world and its people and I hate to see the future being ruined by these so-called "environmentalists" for future generations. Honestly, it is not for me. I don't have that many years left. I don't like seeing people being conned and ripped off. Everyone is in far greater debt, (and remember taxation and perpetual debt is a form of slavery.) I trust nobody likes being a slave, even if it is just a partial slave, and especially not a slave to these "climate criminals". Peter
Written by John O'Sullivan, guest post | March 01 2012
James Hansen being arrested at Keystone protest sit-in.FBI agents are urged to grill others linked to self-confessed climate criminal, Dr. Peter Gleick in the 'Fakegate’ climate counterfeiting scandal. Evidence now points to NASA’s Dr. James Hansen as accomplice in global warming racket.
Dr. Peter Gleick resigned last Thursday as chairman of the American Geophysical Union's Task Force on Scientific Ethics. Ross Rice, an FBI agent and spokesman from the Chicago field office confirmed an FBI probe is under way, “We are currently working with the [Heartland] institute and the U.S. Attorney’s office in Chicago.
Dr. Gleick's rapid fall from grace has mired other top tier climatologists in what may become a full-blown wire fraud and RICO racketeering investigation by federal authorities. Leading critics are sure that the elements of 18 USC 1343 appear already met under admitted facts.
Questions will now need to be asked about the American Geophysical Union's (AGU) role in enabling Hansen to make a notorious presentation to Congress on June 23, 1988; all thanks to a dubious ‘peer-reviewed’ paper of his that AGU brusquely shoehorned through.
Now identity thief Peter Gleick has been exposed as disseminating at least one forged document used to defame the Heartland Institute, a well-known free trade policy think tank. Gleick admitted to Huffington Post readers that he handled stolen documents. His intent was to injure others – a crime under U.S. Law. Actual financial harm occurred due to Gleick's unlawful release of Heartland's donor list and contributions; one donor has since withdrawn funding.
However, none of the documents distributed by Gleick (other than the fake strategy document) reveal any smoking guns against Heartland. But already, astute investigators have found a worrying link between Gleick, Dr. James Hansen and the AGU that may yet point to a real smoking gun in U.S. climate fraud racketeering from 1988.
Gleick, Hansen and the AGU Complicit in the 'Greatest Crime' Hansen's paper, foretelling of a world of catastrophic man-made global warming was 'peer reviewed’ to sway an otherwise skeptical Congress. The AGU is thus a vehicle of dubious patronage.
Hansen misled elected officials by deceitfully claiming that carbon dioxide (CO2) from ocean out-gassing and other natural vents has different carbon ratios 'signature' than human 'fossil fuel' emissions.Hansen then successfully duped policymakers into believing human CO2 emissions were linked to global warming. But the truth is that there is no way to distinguish between natural or man-made sources of CO2. Hansen's paper was thus not up to the scientific standard necessary for publication and should never have passed proper peer review.
Thus Hansen’s Congressional charade precipitated the U.S. government’s resolve to fight global ‘greenhouse gas’ warming and blow $100 billion tackling a proven non-problem (despite 30 percent rises in carbon dioxide emissions global temperatures have fallen this century).
Federal agents now have a green light to apply RICO statutes, designed to root out racketeering, based on the following facts: As a self-confessed climate criminal Dr. Peter Gleick faces incarceration. He has already admitted to being implicated in identity theft, stealing private documents and falsifying evidence to defame, and thus injure the Heartland Institute and others. Gleick is linked via the AGU to Hansen's 1988 paper and by association to other scientists suspected of fraud (inc. hockey stick graph conjurer, Michael Mann). Over the decades such unprincipled alarmists stand accused of filching millions in taxpayer funds by exploiting public fears in a phony global warming narrative.
How RICO Statutes May Be Applied
If the FBI can show that a fraudulent AGW narrative was knowingly implemented by Gleick, Hansen and other key players, then not only can prosecutions for racketeering be swiftly implemented, but the whole climate science house of cards will collapse.
Federal law sets out the meaning of racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C.§ 1961. Identity theft and the fraudulent creation of documents that Gleick dishonestly attributed to Heartland clearly qualifies his crimes as possible racketeering offenses under RICO.
To sustain convictions apattern of racketeering activity must first be established. This requires the FBI to produce evidence that Gleick, AGU and/or other co-conspirators have engaged in at least two acts of racketeering activity. The law requires that investigators tie together such acts within 10 years of each other.
The burden for prosecutors is not a light one but these riders of the global warming gravy train may well fit the bill as per the test applied by the U.S. Supreme Court. This is the 'continuity-plus-relationship test' applied to determine whether the facts of a specific case give rise to an established pattern.
U.S. Supreme Court guidelines state that co-conspirators "have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events." (H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.)
Where Does Climate Politics and Law Go From Here?
Other experts share my opinion that there is sufficient probable cause to follow through with a thorough in-depth federal investigation into the Gleick ’Fakegate’ case to see how far the 'post-normal' climate cancer has spread. Certainly, Peter Gleick should be offered a plea bargain deal if he rats out the other racketeers.
Apologists for climate criminals will not be curbed until the leaders of this 'post normal' academic cult are jailed. But whether the Obama government has the stomach to follow through and permit such prosecutions remains to be seen, as Chicago FBI agent, Ross Rice hinted:
“Whether Gleick, a member of the U.S. intellectual elite and a former student and coauthor with John Holdren, Obama’s Science Adviser, is ever charged is a different issue than whether his acts meet the elements of 18 USC 1343.”
If national governments won’t put a stop to it then state prosecutors and civil litigants likely will. Indeed, Glieck's crimes may also be prosecuted under California law. Section 528.5 to the Penal Code deals specifically with such impersonation (SB 1411: Internet Impersonation).
While over in Virginia, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is a high-profile prosecutor adamant he will continue the fight on behalf of the Commonwealth’s taxpayers and expose Michael Mann's hidden misdeeds.
Meanwhile, in Vancouver popular skeptic climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball is making strides defending vexatious libel suits filed separately by Dr. Michael Mann and Dr. Andrew Weaver. History will eventually join all such pieces of the puzzle to show how just extensive the climate fraud truly was.
(late addition: dedicated to Andrew Breitbart, a patriot and seeker of the truth.)
Is it rare? Yes, very. Is it endangered? Let's hope not. (As my usual style, my comments are in italics.)
I just discovered something (someone) very rare indeed, a sceptical (honest) climatologist, and her name is Dr. Judith A. Curry. Bear in mind Dr. Curry is no lightweight, from her blog:
Judith Curry is Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and President (co-owner) of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN). She received a Ph.D. in Geophysical Sciences from the University of Chicago in 1982. Prior to joining the faculty at Georgia Tech, she held faculty positions at the University of Colorado, Penn State University and Purdue University. She currently serves on the NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee and has recently served on the National Academies Climate Research Committee and the Space Studies Board, and the NOAA Climate Working Group. Curry is a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Geophysical Union.
So where has Dr. Curry been hiding all these years? My guess is she has been lost in the vast primitive swamps of politically correct academia where it is career suicide to question the conventional wisdom regarding global warming/climate change. Why is she coming out now, after so many years in the climate closet? I don't know, maybe she grew tired of living a lie. Maybe "climategate" has made being a climate sceptic somewhat academically acceptable. Maybe she wants to disassociate herself from the scandals at Penn St. (Michael Mann - climate fraud, football and child sex predators). Maybe she finally feels secure in her career. I don't know and don't care. I just welcome her in from the cold and dark.
The enemy in this case is a website titled oilprice .com. Imagine the horror going through the ranks of Al Gore's global warming true-believers! They are probably on suicide watch. It gets better, and I couldn't be happier. I almost feel vindicated because I've stuck my timid little professional neck out on the line about what I've long called "the myth of man-caused global warming. This blog is testimony to that. Here is a thought along those lines:
“The acid test of intelligence is whether the things you believe in turn out to be true.” — James R. Cook
Here is the beginning of the interview with Dr. Curry.
The IPCC May Have Outlived its Usefulness - An Interview with Judith Curry
As the global warming debate increases in its intensity we find both sides deeply entrenched, hurling accusations and lies at one another in an attempt to gain the upper hand. This divide within the scientific community has left the public wondering who can be trusted to provide them with accurate information and answers.
The IPCC, the onetime unquestioned champion of climate change, has had its credibility questioned over the years, firstly with the climategate scandal, then with a number of high profile resignations, and now with the new “Gleickgate” scandal (1) (2) – One has to wonder where climate science goes from here?
We have just had the pleasure of interviewing the well known climatologist Judith A. Curry in order to get her thoughts on climate change, the IPCC, geo-engineering, and much more.
Judith is the current chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and hosts sensible discussions on climate change at her popular blog Climate, etc.
Considered somewhat of a black sheep within the scientific community Judith was a one time supporter of the IPCC until she started to find herself disagreeing with certain policies and methods of the organization. She feared the combination of groupthink and political advocacy, combined with an ingrained "noble cause syndrome" stifled scientific debate, slowed down scientific progress, and corrupted the assessment process. (continued here.)
Now, let's here a few key comments. (My observations in italics.)
OP: What are your personal beliefs on climate change?JC:The climate is always changing. Climate is currently changing because of a combination of natural and human induced effects. The natural effects include variations of the sun, volcanic eruptions, and oscillations of the ocean. The human induced effects include the greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, pollution aerosols, and land use changes. The key scientific issue is determining how much of the climate change is associated with humans. This is not a simple thing to determine. (Nothing new here, just the admission that there are "natural" causes of climate change, as if humans are somehow not "natural", a radical departure from the mainstream liberal ideology. Peter)
JC: I absolutely think that more effort is needed in determining the effect of the sun on our climate. The sun is receiving increased attention (and funding), (Again, nothing new, just something obviously long overdue. Peter)
OP: You are well known in climate and energy circles for breaking from the ranks of the IPCC and questioning the current information out there. What do you see as the reasons for the increase in skepticism towards global warming over the last few years.
JC: Because of the IPCC and its consensus seeking process, the rewards for scientists have been mostly in embellishing the consensus, and this includes government funding. Because of recent criticisms of the IPCCIPCC, and I think this is a healthy thing for the science. (Again, this is something I and many others have been saying all along. Add to the blackmail and constant subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle threats climate skeptics have received. Peter)
OP. What are your views on the idea that CO2 may not be a significant contributor to climate change? How do you think such a revelation, if true, will affect the world economy, and possibly shatter public confidence in scientific institutions that have said we must reduce CO2 emissions in order to save the planet?
JC:Personally, I think we put the CO2 stabilization policy ‘cart’ way before the scientific horse. The UN treaty on dangerous climate change in 1992 was formulated and signed before we even had ‘discernible’ evidence of warming induced by CO2, as reported in 1995 by the IPCC second assessment report. (Demonizing CO2 was a tactic, clever, but ridiculous from the beginning. A way of baffling the public with scientific jargon (Bull$hit), collecting taxes, selling carbon credits and enriching Al Gore. Peter)
OP. You have been noted to criticize the IPCC quite openly in the past on several topics. Even going so far as to say: “It is my sad conclusion that opening your mind on this subject (climate change controversy) sends you down the slippery slope of challenging many aspects of the IPCC consensus.”
Do you believe that the organization as a whole needs to be assessed in order to better serve progress on climate change? What suggestions do you have on how the organization should function?
JC:The IPCC might have outlived its usefulness. (Send the entire United Nations packing. All they do is waste taxpayer's money and spread their one-world-government ideology and socialism. And send Hillary and her lust for gun control with them. Peter)
OP. Would renewable energy technologies have received the massive amounts of funding we have seen over the last few years without global warming concerns?
JC: I think there are other issues that are driving the interest and funding in renewables, including clean air and energy security issues and economics, but I agree that global warming concerns have probably provided a big boost. (To say the least! There are many reasons to promote the myth of man-caused global warming....try corruption....Solyndra? Political contributions from liberal environmental groups, a desire to control the energy industries of the world, a desire to rule the world, destroy America........there are many reasons to frighten people about global warming/climate change. Peter)
“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
OP. What do you believe are the best solutions to overcoming/reversing climate change; is a common consensus needed in order to effectively combat climate change?
JC: The UN approach of seeking a global consensus on the science to support an international treaty on CO2 stabilization simply hasn’t worked, for a variety of reasons.(Science does not operate by consensus. Science must seek the truth and must be apolitical, non-partisan. Peter)
OP. I saw an interesting comment on another site regarding climate science that i thought i’d get your opinion on as it raises some very interesting arguments:
"Climate science has claimed for 30 years that it affects the safety of hundreds of millions of people, or perhaps the whole planet. If it gets it wrong, equally, millions may suffer from high energy costs, hunger due to biofuels, and lost opportunity from misdirected funds, notwithstanding the projected benefits from as yet impractical renewable energy.
Yet, we have allowed it to dictate global policy and form a trillion dollar green industrial complex - all without applying a single quality system, without a single performance standard for climate models, without a single test laboratory result and without a single national independent auditor or regulator. It all lives only in the well known inbred, fad-driven world of peer review."
JC:I agree that there is lack of accountability in the whole climate enterprise, and it does not meet the standards that you would find in engineering or regulatory science. I have argued that this needs to change, by implementing data quality and model verification and validation standards. (Bingo, right on the money, Trillions of dollars, millions of people suffer and die on the altar of global warming fear. Peter)
OP: Do you believe that the language used in papers and at conferences is a problem? The public just wants straight answers to questions: Is the climate warming, By how much, and what will the effects be? Scientists need to step out from behind the curtain and engage the public with straight answers and in their own words. Is this achievable, or is climate science too complex to be explained in laymen’s terms? Or is it because even climate scientists can’t agree on the exact answers?
JC: I think the biggest failure in communicating climate science to the public has been the reliance on argument from consensus. We haven’t done a good job of explaining all this, particularly in the context of the scientific disagreement. (We have conditioned our people to behave like sheep and follow the herd (consensus). Of course that is what those who seek to rule us, the liberals, socialists, progressives, Democrats, want....power and control. Peter)
