Deprogramming Children After Global Warming Scam
The opening film at the Copenhagen “climate meeting” was an apt reminder of the long-term damage done by global warming propagandists. A little girl has nightmares about being alone in a desert where her life is threatened by floods and hurricanes.
Al Gore’s sci-fi horror fantasy in documentary style – An Inconvenient Truth – has been shown to school children, as young as 4 years old, around the world for years. Lesson plans aimed to convince children that the threat was real and that anyone doubting the message was wrong. They intentionally frightened children into emotional and psychological trauma.
Closing the Copenhagen film, many children repeated the phrase; “Please help save the world.” Now parents and teachers are faced with the sticky question of how that should be done. How can we deprogram millions of children the world over without allowing the experience to leave permanent psychological scars?
Teachers were put in the position of effectively turning children against their wiser parents. Now that we have to tell them that their teachers were wrong, will they ever trust teachers again?
Efforts to politically indoctrinate and manipulate school children are not new but they have intensified in the west in recent years. Parents in the old Soviet Bloc at least had enough experience before its fall to have some wisdom on dealing with it. Westerners however, are newbies.
There may be some good news mixed with the bad. Interviews with people who grew up in Communist controlled countries yielded claims that many recognized much of the propaganda and tended to ignore it. There was a certain comradeship in playing ignorant, ignoring selected homework, and making sure that the grading curve for indoctrination lessons was very low.
In other words, indoctrination efforts often back-fired. Students of a certain age tended to understand they were being lied to. Family bonds remained strong or strengthened as they learned not to believe the propagandists. You and me against the world, mom and dad.
At least some of the bad news is really rather obvious. An errant Political Class is still working to make fools of the world’s adults by continuing their indoctrination and legislative efforts. The much publicized Copenhagen meeting is testament to our lack of control over the bad people whose intentions include harming children.
Normal democratic process have broken down, nearly completely. “Due process of law” has become so distorted that no formal mechanism remains to provide a stronger and more permanent solution to the problem. Parents are in the tricky position of explaining that while we didn’t screw up the climate, we have allowed political institutions to crumble by hoisting the “bad people” into positions of power. We are terribly sorry and it’s something we need to fix.
Possibly related posts...
| More from Roger F. Gay
Stumble It!
The issue is not one’s 100% certainty of the evidence against global warming. Instead, it is of the certainty of the quality of the propaganda. The clear religious quality that anyone in disagreement – denial – is a heretic and is to be not just challenged, but ruined.
It used to be that astronomy was my favorite religion. Actually, it still is. But “climate change” is a close second.
Incidentally. Isn’t it nice that the believers in this religion can use the term “climate change” just in case “global warming” doesn’t really pan out?
There is no real data supporting the catastrophic man-made global warming hoax. There is no real scientific support for the catastrophic man-made global warming hoax. Scientists around the globe have overwhelmingly pronounced that the catastrophic man-made global warming hoax is a hoax.
OK – so Al Gore and his cronies say otherwise and they have had the support of Hollywood, the Norwegian Nobel Committee, bureaucrats at the UN (including people making money from the scam), politicians in the Democratic Party, and the goofiest and most corrupt part of the press. That’s not a strong contrary argument.
Spot on Paul. Reading the posts I see two things. The first is Alarmists demanding others present them with data to support their views. But when asked to do the same, instead of heeding their own calls, they defer on the data to “the experts who say so”. Yet never do they realize that this is a blatant admission that they have been given marching orders, and accepted them on faith from people they don’t even know yet believe are invested in their best interests. That we live in a society where a significant number of people possess this level of intellect is scary. Ever wonder how the Nazi movement took hold? Look no further than, well, every post supporting the warming position. All claim roughly the same ‘I don’t know the science but I trust what the scientists say and you’re stupid for thinking otherwise.” Which translates exactly to “I don’t actually know anything myself, and to the extent that you have tried to know something for yourself, you are stupid”. Well who is really stupid in this case?
I’m also amazed by the faith in peer-review when it is obvious now that not a single “peer-reviewed” publishing on the topic by either GISS or CRU scientists actually provided the model code used to “homogenize” the data to the reviewers. So the peer review process didn’t actually review, and appears to have been, at best, a waste of time, at worst outright fraud. Not to worry though, peer review, despite the assertions of many, is not some official and binding determination of proof. In the newspaper business they call it “copy”. You spellcheck, you doublecheck math. Nobody peer-reviewer actually reproduces the experiments. They accept what is written so long as it isn’t full of glaring and obvious falsehoods or errors. It’s really not even relevant to or needed in science. It’s just a tool for scientific publishers.
But back to your point, the other thing I see far to much in the posts is this “your children will die” nonsense. Not totally sure if the people believe this, but universally want to scare you into believing in Global Warming using fear of something happening to your children, instead of any logical arguments addressing the central premise. Except the fallacious ones highlighted above.
Pure and utter nonsense. As a chemical physicist with 15 years in the field, I’ve never seen a single scientific point proven through the use of such juvenile and moronic tactics…
@ Porky Domesticus
Agreed, however, there is a difference between infighting and just trolling an agenda.
I haven’t read through all the links, arguments and counter arguments. But I have read enough to see how hopelessly politicized that environmentalism is.
So i am left with only one suggestion on the reading list about this subject. Michael Crighton’s “State of Fear”
Never has there been so effective a way of getting people to hand over money than scaring them, whether with a handgun, or threat of looming catastrophe.
[...] was from January of 2000; the “COP15 opening film” for the ongoing hopenchangin’ conference in Copenhagen is basically that article brought to [...]
Jay -
Is the belief in man-made global warming Science or Religion? I direct you to the following links and ask whether there is any chance that science has indeed become a modern day Oracle proffering systems of belief, accepting state riches and delivering results tainted by the personal drives of petty human players.
What The Caine Mutiny Can Teach Us about Global Warming Scientists
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/10/04/what-the-caine-mutiny-can-teach-us-about-global-warming-scientists/
Climate change belief given same legal status as religion
UK TELEGRAPH NOV 3 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494213/Climate-change-belief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html
Belief in global warming protected from discrimination in UK labour law:
http://lawiscool.com/2009/11/07/belief-in-global-warming-protected-from-discrimination-in-uk-labour-law/
Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
http://www.icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/
and for a good measured laugh:
Climategate: You want the truth? You can’t understand the truth!
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/12/04/climategate-you-want-the-truth-you-cant-understand-the-truth/
Oh dear, as some black guy once said, “Why cant we all just get along?”
Think of the movement – all this in-fighting does us no good at all.
Your bogus calculation has no meaning. What the heck are you trying to calculate? I don’t think you know.
There is nothing in the e-mails or anywhere that I have seen which points to any big swooping conspiracy. What are you talking about? I don’t think you know.
Do you understand the differences between analyzing day to day weather changes and modeling long term climate change? I don’t think you do.
Anyone could refute your drivel with data. Data doesn’t lie. If you had listened to the YouTube video you might have realized that picking apart one or two pieces of improperly gathered data out of all the vast research confirming global warming and then trying to say you’ve disproved it is fallacy. Even a soccer mom could tell you that. Or even a journalist who has spent 14 years as a science correspondent. You can see his profile right here: http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54 But that would have involved clicking on his profile link and that would be gathering data, an idea you are apparently against. Do you get it? I don’t think you do.
Why don’t you try listening to the YouTube video again. Really listen this time. Do you know how to listen? I don’t think you do.
Furthermore, there’s nothing absolutely wrong with comparing your blatant misuse of data to push your agenda to what Fox is doing. You’re using the same tools of misinformation, deceit, and brainless sarcasm that many conservative media outlets do. You’re as serious a source of information as they are. Do you understand? I don’t think you do.
Are you really this inept or do you just think ignorance is bliss? I really don’t know. Do you?
Clearly, the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is a reality and that human beings have the power to stop it if we act now. None of the propaganda that has come out against anthropogenic climate change has succeeded in refuting it. Not even close. You would have us ignore the problem until it’s too late, and why? Because big energy won’t make quite as much money when we implement controls to protect the environment of the only world we have to live in. If it weren’t for the fact that saving our world is going to cut into big oil profits, big conservative media wouldn’t spend so much time repeating the same old lies and the little people like you who don’t know sun spots from the moles on your rear wouldn’t spend so much time blindly echoing their talking points. Don’t be a pawn. If we do nothing our children will suffer for it. That’s fact, not hyperbole. If we do nothing our children will suffer for it.
“This is like Fox News presenting misinformation through a poll that added up to more than 100%.”
No. No it’s not. It’s like me pointing out that 80/10,257 X 100% is less than 1%. Please check your math (or have an adult check it for you). But nice try on the refutation-by-association-with-Fox-News. I guess it’s a step up from refutation by LaSalle’s Rule. Ahh! Progress! (see, Jay provides a useful illustration of how “dialogs” go with these sorts- I present specific examples, as requested, and he refutes by association/consensus). I’ll let Mike explain his rule.
“If you knew anything about the scientific community you’d know that they tend to care about determining the truth to accomplish something meaningful.”
Yes, yes how could I be so willfully ignorant? Of course they want to determine the truth, that’s why they conspired to keep opposing viewpoints out of publication, conspired to pressure editors from including individuals on review boards, refused to publish or even produce their primary data in spite of a FOI request, and . . . oops! . . . lost the primary data (Isn’t that a crime?), Yes, exactly what I’d expect from “scientists”. That’s why Al Gore has to lie about the lying- in order to determine the truth. And now Jay is lying about the emails: “only two were presented in the media”. No Jay, many more than two have been presented. Feel free to ignore them, but I’m afraid I’m going to have to lablel you a denier.
But perhaps you could explain something for me, since you’re so science driven. Why no CO2 hot spots? It’s not like they haven’t been looking for them. Like hundreds of times. All over the globe. For decades. While were on the science of it all, could you please explain why the climate prediction models don’t match current conditions (the “hide the decline” issue notwithstanding)?
So, someone you think is credible refuted Mr. Mckintrick; therefore, what, he can’t be right, because he was “refuted” on YouTube?! Epic.
Ok, so how about Bishop Hill or Steve McIntyre (you guys knew I was setting Jay up, right)?
From Bishop Hill:
“When McIntyre started to look at the Osborn and Briffa paper in 2006, he quickly ran into the problem of the Yamal chronology: he needed to understand exactly how the difference between the Briffa and Hantemirov versions of Yamal had arisen. McIntyre therefore wrote to the [Briffaa] asking for the original tree ring measurements involved. When Briffa refused, McIntyre wrote to Science, who had published the new paper, pointing out that, since it was now six years since Briffa had originally published his version of the chronology, there could be no reason for withholding the underlying data. After some deliberation, the editors at Science declined the request”
Well, so much for “peer review”!
“McIntyre therefore prepared a revised dataset, replacing Briffa’s selected 12 cores with the 34 from Khadyta River. The revised chronology was simply staggering. The sharp uptick in the series at the end of the twentieth century had vanished, leaving a twentieth century apparently without a significant trend. The blade of the Yamal hockey stick, used in so many of those temperature reconstructions that the IPCC said validated Michael Mann’s work, was gone.”
Oooooooopppppppppps! Gone! Just like it was with the Bristlecone pine tree ring data.
Don’t tell me, let me guess- someone I’ve never heard of with fewer credentials than my Laborador retriever has “refuted” this by asserting a consensus and posting it on YouTube.
Isn’t the tree ring data pretty much the keystone of the pre-instrumentation proxy data? BTW- not only does CO2 move around in ice cores, the difference in age between the ice surrounding an air bubble and the air in the bubble may be as much as 6,000 years. What’s a few millennia between friends?
You are hilarious. Thank you. It’s been fun. Not too challenging, but fun.
Aw Jeeze, not this again.
Jay says that ~80 out of . . . 10,257 polled . . . agree with him, so he’s right and you’re wrong. Dude, that’s less than 1%! It’s not even an appeal to authority, more like an appeal to anti-math. Even of the 3,146 respondents that’s only ~2.5%. Wow. I’m impressed. They filtered over 3,000 responses and were able to find about 80 that mostly agreed with them.
Peer review, at least among Warmists, appears to be little more than a circle jerk. I couldn’t care less what a bunch of self-serving clowns want to believe. Color me unimpressed.
You want something to refute? How’s this:
“We can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,”
- Kevin Trenberth, October 14, 2009
Four major data sets show a decade of cooling, a real travesty.
Want more fun? Look up Ross McKintrick (one of the real scientists who de-bunked the “hockey stick”) and his de-construction of the Yamal tree ring data (which appears may have been spoofed- stiching tree ring measurements together, not just from different trees, but from trees growing as much as 200 miles apart. Sections of tree rings appear to have been cherry-picked, cacatonated together and presented as a single data set (i.e., from one tree))
Or . . . Al Gore lying about the lying, saying the emails are “decades old”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoZXX7SWPZw
(compare, above, Kevin Trenberth, October 14, 2009),
or . . . Big Al’s photoshopped storms on the earth on “Our Choice”.
If you still want to believe Al Gore, well, that’s your choice.
“What is it with conservatives comparing liberalism to a religion, anyway?”
Marxism is the opiate of: Marxists, communists, feminists, democrats, socialists, leftists, liberals, and any other step child ideology of Marx.
http://tinyurl.com/ye8morz
Karl,
The amount of power required to significantly heat the oceans is a lot bigger.
And there’s no problem with nuclear security if we use the right sort of fuel cycle. People intent on misusing it use different methods, and they already know how to do that anyway. There’s no point in guarding nuclear materials – did you know there were Uranium mines in Iraq? Blocking its peaceful uses only leaves more free for the non-peaceful.
Jay Hammer,
I’m not a conservative, I’m not religious, I’m not rich, and I’m not associated in any way to the energy industry. So what does that do to your rich, religious, right-wing, oil-based conspiracy theory?
And the actual surveys show that 20% of climate scientists are sceptics, and more than 50% of meteorologists. Where on Earth did you get the idea there was “no question”? Did you even look at the data?
Roger, what facts? What is it with conservatives comparing liberalism to a religion, anyway? It’s conservatives who push religion. Yet they want to act is if liberals are a herd of sheep led by The Almighty Obama, Our Savior, while we blindly follow global warming scripture as True Believers. That’s nothing like who liberals are.
Liberals are those who tend to analyze the data and make logical conclusions. Conservatives are those who tend to wait for the right-wing propaganda machine to tell them what they’re supposed to believe through lies and misinformation. There is no question in the scientific community considering global warming. That’s something your right wing “media” has fed you, you who are the gullible or the purposely ignorant. A herd of sheep, indeed. Mindless drones of the conservative cult which exists to comfort the extremely rich by gaining the support of the uneducated through religious fervor, sanctioned bigotry, and the lie that conservatives care about “the little guy”.
A perfect example of conservative misinformation is the spread of the so-called “Climate Gate” by the right-wing media, followed immediately with acknowledgement by the mainstream media which can’t resist following a story that will catch ratings these days, without no care for journalistic integrity. I find it amusing that you used the word “trick” just as it was used in the leaked e-mails that are supposedly so damning. “A frequent trick – and perhaps what prompted you to ask for scientific papers of high credibility, etc. – is that they’ll typically make fun of anything that doesn’t agree with what they’re saying.” Trick: A clever way of doing something.
Anyway, thanks for helping to debunk “Climate Gate”.
See a thorough debunking here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
Sadly global warming is still quite real and if we don’t do something to keep it in check your children will suffer for it. So why do conservatives in America continue to push anti-global warming lies? (It’s considered ridiculous to disagree with the scientific consensus on the man-made global warming fact in less gullible countries than the United States.) Why do powerful conservatives in America push these lies? Because they want to make money and they know that it will be a tad harder for them to make exorbitant amounts of money if they can’t pollute the world with toxins freely. The filthy rich, the greediest of all Americans, want more and more money. They don’t care about you. They don’t care about your children’s future. They care about money and that’s all.
So continue to eat up all the conservative misinformation you’re being fed and be a good little sheep. Teach your kids to do the same. After all, you’ll be dead by the time global warming would really harm humanity.
Liberals are called progressives because we look at the what the future holds and we try to make progress toward a brighter one. Conservatives want to stay in the present forever, ignoring the inevitability of what’s ahead of us because it’s just too frightening to acknowledge. They believe in the conservative agenda because they’re afraid not to, just as the religious believe in the afterlife because they’re afraid not to. Conservatism is a religion for the weak-minded.
And again I say unto you, stick to what you know. This is men’s news daily, not a forum for conservative sheep’s “baaah”s.
The Coming Ice Age:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ndHwW8psR8
Global Warming: They Will Never Be Convinced
Those of us who have lived our entire lives with this can relish the fact that the tables have been turned on the Left on an issue they consider not just a cause, but a religion. It is a moment where you just want to grab one of the True Believers of global warming and watch them squirm right before your eyes.
How come I feel so empty though? How come I feel that it is a waste of time? Is it because we’ve all seen this movie before? Having persistently tried to confront the True Believers with contradictory evidence and suffered only indignities, why would this time be different? Facts clearly do not matter to these people.
http://townhall.com/columnists/BruceBialosky/2009/12/14/global_warming_they_will_never_be_convinced?page=1
Jay; So is global cooling. What’s your point?
Roger,
Thank you for your comments, but I need to clarify your interpretation of my comments. Regarding the question of water, I stated THERMAL (Heating of the Water) pollution poses a threat to the biological web. Silly, of course we would not run out of water! Perhaps then we could build these nuclear plants in the middle of the ocean, since the earth is 2/3 water, with improved technology!
My figure of the net energy gain is for every 2 units of spent energy we get 3 units of energy from tar sands currently. I agree that this will improve with technology, but the process still requires massive heated water and extraction of vast land areas. Currently, older oil fields get 20 units of energy for 1 spent!
Newer, harder to access oil fields it goes down 8:1!
We must also consider that “current rates of extraction” are not realistic, because we are seeing exponent growth in the demand for just about all energy sources.
This will undoubtedly mean a much shorter time frame for these resources.
As far as nuclear, the security risk is too high in our troubled world. I believe the United States is aiding other nations in quarding these dangerous materials. Sorry, Uncle Sam is stretched too thin and is at the breaking point.
This forum is for comments and opinions.
Exchange of ideas is healthy in a democratic society.
As we can witness preceptions differ, thank you for forum to be read.
Please stick to men’s rights issues. Global warming is fact.
So an actor is on TV telling us what to think about “global warming” while telling us not to listen to actors re: global warming. Whew! Another Hollywood twit.
Roger F. Gay said: ”The ‘peer-reviewed’ paper requirement has been exposed – “peer reviewed” journals were being manipulated for propaganda purposes.”
And:
”’Appeal to authority’ is a well known propaganda trick. Putting people in place and bullying to get “consensus” is part of the current world of Big Lie politics.”
Nullius in Verba said: ”The concept of ‘credibility’ is based on the argument from authority – in which truth is decided not by the content of the argument, but by the identity of the arguer; whether they are ‘credible’ or not. In science, only arguments and data can be credible (or not); not institutions, people, journals, or websites.”
Here is a well-known Hollywood celebrity and environmentalist, recently speaking on climate change at his alma mater, Los Angeles Valley College. He mentions he doesn’t get upset when people disagree with the “scientific community’s” global warming theory, and he asks the audience to listen to people with Ph.D. after their names, not actors, etc. In the short audio only portion at the end of the video, he mentions “peer review.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRSzq6r2S6w&feature=player_embedded
Here is the same person on FOX News’ Your World with Stuart Varney, less than a week later, disagreeing with the host and again saying to listen to Ph.D.s, not actors, or journalists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIl2gdDtbCg
Here’s the whole FOX segment, including the segment’s lead-in discussion about “Climategate.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=429xoDtqS-A
Karl,
Those are all good questions, and you should be sure to check out Lomborg’s references, just as you check out those of the Environmentalists making these claims.
Regarding the idea of running out of water for power plants (nuclear is no different to coal or oil in this respect), I can only point out that 2/3 of the Earth’s surface is covered in it. It can be an issue locally, but globally?
And nuclear waste can be dealt with, if we choose to use the technology.
And tar sands mining I gather can extract about 60% of the energy, not zero. But the technology is young, and the numbers will improve. It’s currently far more expensive than oil, which of course is why we still use oil, but it won’t always be, and it’s not like we’ll actually run out, which is the main point I was making. Considering how life has changed over the past hundred years, over the past five hundred, how can people think our capabilities will be the same for the next?
Dear Roger,
Thank you for expressing your views and I will read Lomborg’s book. It is available on Amazon where one can read reviews by others, which have praise and criticism of its contents.
T. Boone Pickens challenged the the number of “proven reserves” of oil fields, because the OPEC Middle East Kingdoms have refused to reveal their data and will not allow independent geologists access for an audit. He is alarmed, as well as other industry notibles, that older established fields are being injected with high pressure water to maintain the flow. Also, these societies are dramatically increasing their own consumption of oil due to modernization and population increase, which will likely mean less for export. That is one reason Iran claims the need to built nuclear electric plants.
As far as nuclear fission, I read that even the thermal warming of the waters to cooling the reactor core may prove to be a limiting factor in the number being built, never mind the other technical issues (nuclear toxic waste, security, terrorism) will pose dangers.
Canadian Tar Sands are also water use intensive and the amount of energy used to covert the raw material into a refined useable product nets a “almost zero energy” gain. The same can be said for corn into biofuel.
I agree that The United States is facing great peril and worry, as you do, about our children. I do not want them to have nightmares.
I agree with you there has been climate change in past periods of our planet ( some scientists have “proof” of it happening when carbon levels increase). These are complicated issues that perhaps be not dealt in an isolated manner.
I brought up the points above not to disprove your statements. It is very complicated and we may very lose sight of the trees in the forest. For example, one stat Lomborg claimed was there is more tree cover now, so deforestation is not a concern. Perhaps there is more tree cover now, but are they forests or tree plantations (either for wood pulp or palm oil)?
The Mark Twain quote comes to mind; “There are statistics and then….lies, damn lies.
Roger? Are you seriously saying that the hundreds of millions of dollars that Al Gore has made (so far) aren’t for the good of humanity? That really hurts.
Next you’ll be telling me his house and cars and jets aren’t solar powered.
New Ice Age -> Global Warming -> Climate Change -> Population Growth -> Peak Oil …..
blah, blah, blah …
Sell books, make regulations, reap profits …. these guys aren’t socialists. They’re con men who don’t care how much damage they cause so long as they make a good buck. Doing it via political corruption allows them to claim freedom of thought and opinion and in the end hide behind presumed political ideologies. They’re just crooks.
Karl,
For a full answer to that, I strongly recommend you acquire a copy of Bjorn Lomborg’s book ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’. The energy question, and many other questions of resources and Malthusian predictions of doom are dealt with in depth with copious reference to the data.
But to put it simply, geologists calculate that the Earth’s fossil fuel resources would last roughly 5000 years at current rates of use. (And nuclear fission would last far, far longer.) Surveying costs money, so oil companies only go out and do enough surveying sufficient to meet immediate needs – but just as our use of energy has grown exponentially, the proven reserves have grown exponentially at 40 times the rate. This does of course means that we only have 40 years of oil left on hand at any one time, but that we have done so for at least the past 50 years – and the two curves are still diverging, not converging.
Confronted with the persistent and repeated failure of their predictions on the running out of oil, the anti-technology campaigners have moved instead to peak oil. This is the theory that the rate of increase of the exponential rise has a maximum we are about to reach. There are two economically realistic ways this could happen – we could move to a new, cheaper energy technology which would supplant oil and gas just as oil partly supplanted coal, which in turn supplanted wood. There is some reason to think that might happen within the next 50 years. Or Green regulation could impose so many obstructions to development that supply falls behind demand, and corrective action would take a decade or two to take effect. Some energy analysts have warned of that possibility. But I suspect neither of those is what the peak oil theorists are claiming. I am aware of no other evidence supporting their position.
The question of left-wing/Marxist agenda is not so straightforward. It is true that a significant and vocal part of the Green movement has such an agenda, but the Greens are a confluence of many tendencies and movements, and large parts of the Green belief system are in fact antithetical to Marxist beliefs. Marx believed in scientific industrialisation for the benefit of workers, rather than the capitalists. It would be more accurate to say some Marxists think they can use Environmentalism as a weapon to destroy capitalism and seize power, and that much that claims to be Green politics is actually directed to that purpose, but they are not themselves the authors of the Green agenda.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but that’s my position.
Hope that helps.
Dear Sirs,
Thank you for your responses and the clarification of your position. As I understand it, this theory is primarily to promote a “political” agenda that some say is leftist/maxist. There is no evidence that increasing carbon concentrations will lead to climate change, according to your views.
If you can be so kind to responed to a related issue, peak oil.
In a way it is related because buring fossil fuels will lead to the above.
Should we be concerned in this country (USA)? I read part of the problem is other nations are industrializing and the output can not keep up with demand.
One figure is we use 24% of the oil resource (importing well over 60%) and yet have only 5% of the world’s population.
T. Boone Pickens says we can not continue on this path because of well depletion (4% per year).
Should we seek alternative energy in place of oil, since even domestic reserves will not replace the depletion, thank you.
“If not, please cite the ones of reference from recognized institutions. I would like to read them. Please be specific and no web sites (they may not be credible).”
Recognised by who? This is quite a common trick – the implicit definition of “respectable” is often “conforming to the consensus” which means that by definition scepticism about the consensus cannot be respectable. Also, the biggest institutions rely on government funding which is predominantly only available for pro-AGW research (by a 1000:1 ratio). Some people respect that sort of behaviour. It’s argument ad populum.
The suggestion that websites “may not be credible” is also intensely worrying. The concept of “credibility” is based on the argument from authority – in which truth is decided not by the content of the argument, but by the identity of the arguer; whether they are “credible” or not. In science, only arguments and data can be credible (or not); not institutions, people, journals, or websites.
But since you asked for one paper, I recommend “A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions” published in the International Journal of Climatology in 2007 by Douglass et al. Universities of Rochester NY, Alabama in Huntsville, and Virginia.
You can find it here.
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Published%20JOC1651.pdf
Also, have a look for Richard Lindzen’s papers and publications. It’s hard to argue that he isn’t “respectable”.
You may be interested in this list too.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
People will, I expect, point out that some of those papers are not “credible”. I agree. I’d be very careful about how you use it. But they’re all peer-reviewed in respectable academic journals; most by university academics. You should bear that in mind the next time someone argues that the consensus position is proven merely by the fact of it being peer-reviewed.
Hope that helps.
@ Roger F. Gay,
Fear is such a wonderful motivator. The biggest stupidity lies in the solutions being schemed under the umbrella of the UN. Wealth transfer will not fix anything.
As I’ve noted on my post it is the prerogative of the Believers, “to support the fraud being concocted in Copenhagen, and wishing to send cash to the likes of Zenawi, Mugabe, Al-Bashir, Abdullah, Jong-Il, Shwe, Afewerki, Berdymuhammedov, al-Qaddafi, Karimov, al-Assad, Castro, Nguema, Lukashenka, Déby, Mswati, Blya, Mubarak, Jintao, etc., etc., . . . however, such effort will accomplish nothing positive for any portion of humanity.”
Unfortunately, there will be no discussion or agreement on the root cause of stress on the earth’s oceans, air, forests, rivers, and lakes.
http://pacificgatepost.com/2009/12/not-overheard-in-copenhagen.html
Education would be a good place to start.
Donnie:
That’s absolutely correct. But all I can figure at this point is that Karl has been asked to prove the negative. I just got a little ahead of myself there by responding without reading his last sentence. I mean – I recognize what they’re asking him for – it’s part of the con job.
There is no actual scientific evidence at all supporting the global warming scare – none. It’s like asking for recent peer-reviewed journal articles to prove that the sun revolves around the earth – from people who’s computer models show that it’s heading out into space.
“’Appeal to authority’ is a well known propaganda trick. Putting people in place and bullying to get “consensus” is part of the current world of Big Lie politics.”
Yes, that version of academic fraud is a primary modus operandi of cultural Marxists, that’s been used throughout Liberal Arts programs on college and university campuses for decades, IMO. Once a lie is established in one area of academia, like women’s studies, proselytizers (teachers) then lobby academic administration to get their curriculum integrated into other disciplines, other college courses, proclaiming progress in the name of “social justice.”
http://tinyurl.com/ycyj3ka
“Social justice,” is the holy mantra of the religion known as cultural Marxist education.
http://tinyurl.com/cycr6j
We are now seeing the “social justice” proselytizers invade the sciences and engineering with their cultural Marxist agenda. Once curricula (course outlines, lesson plans) are changed, textbooks must be rewritten to showcase and further entrench the propaganda. The insidious lies of cultural Marxism destroy: academic freedom, unbiased research, “true peer review,” alternate theories, and ultimately truth. Today, we are seeing America’s social institutions in the grips of cultural Marxist, Socialist tyranny, and it largely began on college and university campuses in the 1960s.
http://tinyurl.com/y8v5xxl
The biggest enemy of America today is not a foreign enemy. The biggest enemy is a domestic one – America’s educational system (schools, colleges and universities). The seeds for America’s destruction have already been sown in the minds of the future generation of Americans who will unthinkingly follow the cultural Marxist indoctrination they’ve received and facilitate America’s collapse, IMO. The design has long been in place and the powerful agents of America’s destruction are in our midst at the highest levels, IMO.
If America has any hope of survival, we Americans (especially students), must wake up, peacefully rebel against the cultural Marxist agenda, and exercise the fundamental liberties our founding fathers put in place, IMO. We must do this before we are all as Americans subjugated to the jackboot tyranny of a social order that recognizes none of our fundamental constitutional rights or liberties. Some will rationalize, and dismiss this assessment as the ranting of a prophet of doom, others will perceive it for the present reality it truly is.
The relentless UN propaganda is infuriating and needs to stop. These liars don’t deserve another penny of taxpayer’s money which they just use to lie to us. Maybe it’s time we scrap the UN.
Re: Karl
He seems to be asking Roger to prove a negative. Like proviing that space aliens DON’T exist (an impossibility when dealing with True Believers). The burden is on the global warming alarmists to prove their position. They haven’t because they can’t because, as noted in one of the leaked emails, the earth isn’t cooperating with their absurd and discredited theories. They actually lament the fact that the earth is showing a “lack of warming”. Is that like cooling? One GW nut actually said the cooling was proof of global warming because without the AGW, the cooling would be even greater. Please pass the tin foil- I need to make a new hat.
It’s not up to Roger to try and convince anyone that someting isn’t happening. Besides, he’s not asking that we restructure our society, economy, and way of life. He’s not the one trying to frighten children with shamless propaganda. AGW hysteria has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with power and greed.
One more tip Karl. There are a lot of people out there copy-pasting pretend scientific explanations from propaganda sites like RealClimate.org – who have basically no understanding of what they’re copying. A frequent trick – and perhaps what prompted you to ask for scientific papers of high credibility, etc. – is that they’ll typically make fun of anything that doesn’t agree with what they’re saying. The “peer-reviewed” paper requirement has been exposed – “peer reviewed” journals were being manipulated for propaganda purposes. Also, the consensus among scientific organizations scam has been similarly exposed as being a response to political bullying and manipulation.
“Appeal to authority” is a well known propaganda trick. Putting people in place and bullying to get “consensus” is part of the current world of Big Lie politics. But I doubt you’ll be arguing with any of the main players, or anyone with a PhD in (in the fake area of) “climate science”. The “consensus” we know, was constructed by only counting those who went along with the scam, adding activists, politicians and bureaucrats (pretending they’re scientists), exaggerating the numbers – while of course ignoring anyone as “unqualified” who didn’t agree with them.
When the pretenders mock your sources, just remind them that the “skeptics” who write articles exposing them are smarter and more knowledgeable than they are.
Sorry Karl. I was too much in a hurry.
You said: “I need these to refute others who believe otherwise.”
No you don’t. I’ve participated in Internet discussions on the topic for over a year. Most of the debaters on the other side that you’ll encounter have been through the arguments many times and lost. They then deny that they lost – deny that such debates ever took place – and start over again – hoping to capture a new crowd that hasn’t seen their previous performances.
It’s a political issue – not a scientific issue.
It’s time to recognize that there is no scientific evidence supporting the scare mongers. Their only evidence was in the form of made up data generated by computer programs. They decided what the programs should generate – and what they decided just doesn’t correspond with reality. The Al Gore / Michael Mann “theory” of global warming was never – in real scientific terms – a theory. At best, it’s a failed hypothesis.
I am asked for such info, and wish I had kept a record. There are internet sites that do. I recall some particularly good video science lectures as well; but just haven’t kept a list of links and papers.
But now it seems even the scientific reports I previously linked to articles are out of date. Back when I first started reporting and commenting on the topic, everyone, including me, was convinced that global warming during the 20th century was real – in, for example:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/05/24/global-warming-debate-has-anyone-noticed-that-its-over/
At the time, people thought that was based on real data. Now with new evidence that data behind that claim was faked and manipulated, we can’t even be sure about that. Some people are already saying that the “global warming” we’d all thought had been scientifically measured didn’t really happen.
It’s a Climategate Christmas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQXY4tWaoI
Karl,
We’ve all been through that already. The propagandists already got 1000 do-overs and that’s the limit. You lost.
“…cite the ones of reference from recognized institutions.”
The fraud uncovered by the leaked emails of climategate casts doubt on the entire process of peer reviewed studies. The first question any academic should ask when reading a peer reviewed study these days is, “Whose agenda does this research serve?” Much of academia is corrupt right down to its Stalinist/Marxist/Socialist core, and the rest should be under a cloud of suspicion regarding its veracity, IMO.
The teachers unions have become inundated with 1960s radicals. Teachers unions push their Stalinist/Marxist/Socialist political agenda onto teachers, but it’s not hard. Most teachers are already in the Stalinist/Marxist/Socialist camp as is most of the educational structure in America. Curriculum is tight fistedly controlled by these idelologues. Students all across America are abused daily with Stalinist/Marxist/socialist indoctrination. Using what little academic freedom is left to students and educators, it is time for academic rebellion in our educational systems – rebellion against Marxist/socialist curriculum, but how? The Stalinist/Marxist/Socialist control of curriculum is iron fisted and repression is brutal. America’s schools, colleges and universities are tyrannical social institutions in need of liberation.
Dear Sir,
Are you 100% assured of your own certainity regarding climate change? Is there doubt in your scientific reports? If not, please cite the ones of reference from recognized institutions. I would like to read them. Please be specific and no web sites (they may not be credible).
I need these to refute others who believe otherwise.