Saturday, December 26, 2009

Prostitution Services

Andrew Cockburn, who is not a conservative politically, has a few words about what is really behind the global warming scam. You will note that the piece appears on Counter Punch which is not in any way shape or form associated with American Conservative thought.

Shortly before the Copenhagen summit the proponents of anthropogenic – human-caused - global warming (AGW) were embarrassed by a whistleblower who put on the web over a thousand emails either sent from or received at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia headed by Dr Phil Jones, who has since stepped down from his post – whether temporarily or permanently remains to be seen. The CRU was founded in 1971 with funding from sources including Shell and British Petroleum. At that time the supposed menace to the planet and to mankind was global cooling, a source of interest to oil companies for obvious reasons.

Coolers transmuted into warmers in the early 80s and the CRU became one of the climate modeling grant mills supplying the tainted data from which the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC ) has concocted its reports which have been since their inception – particularly the executive summaries -- carefully contrived political initiatives disguised as objective science. Soon persuaded of the potential of AGW theories for their bottom line, the energy giants effortlessly recalibrated their stance, and as of 2008 the CRU included among its financial supporters Shell and BP, also the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and UK Nirex Ltd, a company in the nuclear waste business.
You will also note that James Hansen, one of the cheer leaders for global warming, was at one time funded by Enron. He also has a peculiar stance on fossil fuels. Coal bad, natural gas good. I don't see why one form of CO2 (from coal) is worse than the CO2 from another source (natural gas).

Mr Cockburn continues with:
After some initial dismay at what has been called, somewhat unoriginally, “Climategate” the reaction amid progressive circles – 99 per cent inhabited by True Believers in anthropogenic global warming - has been to take up defensive positions around the proposition that deceitful manipulation of data, concealment or straightforward destruction of inconvenient evidence, vindictive conspiracies to silence critics, are par for the course in all scientific debate and, although embarrassing, the CRU emails in no way compromise the core pretensions of their cause.

Scientific research is indeed saturated with exactly this sort of chicanery. But the CRU emails graphically undermine the claim of the Warmers – always absurd to those who have studied the debate in any detail – that they commanded the moral high ground. It has been a standard ploy of the Warmers to revile the skeptics as intellectual whores of the energy industry, swaddled in munificent grants and with large personal stakes in discrediting AGW. Actually, the precise opposite is true. Billions in funding and research grants sluice into the big climate modeling enterprises. There’s now a vast archipelago of research departments and “institutes of climate change” across academia, with a huge vested interest in defending the AGW model. It’s where the money is. Scepticism, particularly for a young climatologist or atmospheric physicist, can be a career breaker.
The camp followers and prostitutes are sure to be pissed if the global cooling predicted by Russian scientists in 2006 comes to pass.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov expects a repeat of the period known as the Little Ice Age. During the 16th century, the Baltic Sea froze so hard that hotels were built on the ice for people crossing the sea in coaches.

The Little Ice Age is believed to have contributed to the end of the Norse colony in Greenland, which was founded during an interval of much warmer weather.

Abdusamatov and his colleagues at the Russian Academy of Sciences astronomical observatory said the prediction is based on measurement of solar emissions, Novosti reported. They expect the cooling to begin within a few years and to reach its peak between 2055 and 2060.

"The Kyoto initiatives to save the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off until better times," he said. "The global temperature maximum has been reached on Earth, and Earth's global temperature will decline to a climatic minimum even without the Kyoto protocol."
There are signs:

Rare blizzard strikes West Texas.
DALLAS — In much of the rolling plains of West Texas, a blizzard has never been recorded.

There has been one now.

The region west and northwest of the Dallas-Fort Worth area saw blizzard-like conditions throughout the day Christmas Eve as up to 8 inches of snow fell in the region, according to the National Weather Service. Winds gusting at up to 65 mph drifted the snow as deep as 5 feet in some areas.

No blizzard warning had ever been issued for an area of Texas as far south as Interstate 20, said Jim Wingenroth, senior forecaster at the National Weather Service office in San Angelo.
Blizzards in China.

There is a lot more bad weather going around. Compare the predictions of Britain's Meteorological Office to current reality.

And a look at how China is profiting from the AGW scare is instructive.
So you think giving developing countries all those free "carbon credits" is going to cut greenhouse gas emissions and save the planet? Think again.

Through a bizarre but wholly foreseen loophole in the UN's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) system, payments are actually incentivising manufacturers in China and other developing countries to continue producing one of the most potent of all greenhouse gases, the ozone depleting substances (ODS) known collectively as CFCs, used for refrigeration and other industrial purposes - at a cost to British and other developed world consumers of over $18 billion.
And how is China doing? Pretty damn good.
The level of China's involvement, as a major beneficiary of the scheme, makes a nonsense of the commentators at Copenhagen who were predicting that China might sabotage a deal. With so much money at stake, there was no way China was not going to fall into line, showing up the much-reported spat between Obama and Chinese premier Wen Jiabao for exactly what it was – pure theatre.

Thus does Booker conclude that the part played at Copenhagen by all the tree-huggers, abetted by the BBC and their media allies, was to keep hysteria over warming at fever pitch while the politicians haggled over the real prize, to keep the Kyoto system in place.
As with all prostitutes the haggling is not about the act it is about the price.
The tree-huggers have been well and truly "had" – but then so have we. It is us that are going to pay, through our electricity bills, our taxes and living expenses, in increasing amounts for this hidden bonanza which the negotiators so diligently protected last week.

Trading in what amounts to thin air, on the farcical premise that life-giving carbon dioxide is a "pollutant", they have perpetrated the biggest heist in the history of mankind, all to protect "Big Carbon”.
It is becoming more obvious every day that the prostitutes did have sex but it is the customers who got fucked. If people are paying for Global Warming and they are actually are getting Global Cooling I predict that in time even true believers will begin to howl at being duped. At least the honest ones.

There is also another synonym for "Big Carbon". I like to call them The Climate Cartel.

You might find this book of interest: Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed. Lubos Motl of the Reference Frame did.
During my years in the U.S. Academia, I experienced a couple of events related to the global warming propaganda that I found stunning. Scientists around me (including myself) were subjects of intimidation and disciplinary proceedings - or they were instantly fired - because of their skeptical views about the climate change (or even for skeptical results of their work).

Chris Horner shows us that those events were not coincidences. Environmentalism has become a new ideology that has replaced Stalinism and that is beginning to take over the Western world - a world that has enjoyed freedom and democracy for centuries. You will learn that Greenpeace is reading from Horner's trash, in order to obtain materials that they could find helpful in their propaganda war.

Do you know what's happening to the children at schools? They are being indoctrinated. In fact, they are expected to revolt against their parents who "cause global warming". Because the children have to watch scientifically unrealistic horror movies related to the climate, such as An Inconvenient Truth, many of them don't sleep well at night.

Many politicians are scared of the "momentum" that they demand "action" against the climate change, too. Scientists who don't join this irrational hysteria are being threatened, likened to criminals or even Islamic terrorists. Journalists produce piles of lies and distort scientific findings that are already damaged by biased peer review or full-fledged censorship.

This whole scary machine is moving in the direction chosen by the environmental activists who are always "ahead" of their followers. Right now, they want the "dissidents" to be censored or even arrested. Are their today's dreams going to become reality on the day after tomorrow? Meanwhile, there is no climate crisis. In fact, there hasn't been any statistically significant global warming at least for 13 years. But the society seems to be choosing a direction that is disconnected from any observations or science.

The similarity of the environmentalists' techniques with those of the Nazis and communists are far too obvious. If you live outside the Academia or other sectors of the society influenced by this movement, and you are not certain whether there is a reason to worry, read this insightful and shocking book because it can tell you what you might expect tomorrow unless we manage to defeat this new ideological cancer bubbling in the society.
Thank you Lubos.

If we don't defeat these profiteers we are well and truly screwed. There is hope.
Via the Examiner we see a report in the Christian Science Monitor. It tells us that a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 50 percent of likely (US) voters now believe that global warming is caused primarily by long-term planetary trends.

One slightly false note - the Examiner says: "... the climate alarmists now have a long way to go to re-establish their credibility with the public at large." Nah! They've blown it. If after 20 years of propaganda, this is the best they can achieve, then they are going nowhere.

Interesting though how many of the media stories on the current vile weather fail to mention global warming (lack of) in their copy. You can bet that if there was anything that could be remotely attributed to their religion, it would be right up-front.
Religion? Isn't Global Warming, fraudulent though it may be, science? Not according to a British Court. With a blanket of Global Warming spreading across North America I predict a rush of believers to the Church exits. I hope no one gets trampled. But I'm not in the main sympathetic to the believers, considering how many of them have yelled "fire" on a crowded planet.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

11 comments:

dewey dow said...

Anyone who takes a good college course in public relations learns how to spot (and discount) propaganda words and devices used to warp arguments in a particular direction.
I zipped through your screed and quickly found several of these inflammatory words and phrases which are typical of one-sided propagandists:

scam
contrived
concocted
disguised
chicanery
prostitutes
environmentalism replaced Stalinism
irrational hysteria
similarity of techniques to Nazis and communists

Not exactly the kind of language used by someone guided by objectivity.

M. Simon said...

Dewy,

Ah. Yes. So true.

Except if the planet is cooling and the "scientists" are predicting warming they are wrong.

And if the "scientists" know they are wrong and still promote their AGW, it is fraud.

And the scientists know they are wrong. Otherwise why would they have to Hide The Decline?

How much is the Climate Cartel, otherwise known as Big Carbon paying you Dewy?

M. Simon said...

Another sign of fraud is that the method chosen to to reduce CO2 will do nothing to reduce CO2 and in fact may very well make things worse.

And all those taxes collected for nothing (or worse) are straight up waste designed to line the pockets of those involved in the fraud.

Look up what Pachauri (head of the IPCC) looks to gain personally from perpetuation of the fraud.

I have written about it on this blog: Climate Cartel. It is not like I haven't attempted to keep you informed.

dewey dow said...

Interesting that you should assume I am a paid hack. I am not a scientist, not even employed (retired). I worked for 30 years as a PR executive and learned a little about how to spot propaganda. For people seriously concerned about knowing who the climate deniers really are, I recommend a good book by another long-time corporate PR man, James Hoggan, who wrote "Climate Coverup."
(Hint: deniers=polluters)

Ms. Cris Ericson said...

yeah, I got an e-mail from my Aunt about their snow their in Dallas, and so referring to my mother's newspaper clipping from January
16, 2000 about eh Higgs boson,
I have one question, (and I must say that dewey dow is 100% accurate on inflammatory progaganda vocabulare, hell, this January 16, 2000 "The Burlington Free Press" of Vermont article is titled, "Scientists try to find the 'God particle') ....so,
what I am getting around to saying is, I think the "Higgs boson" subatomic particle of mass is necessary to identify to identify more about GLOBAL WARMING, but apparently, almost ten years now, and no news reports of it being more than theoretical still.

That's all I'm trying to say, that this un-identified theoretical subatomic particle of mass would have to be part of any equation in global warming.

And as to advertising, sell a bright red car with a dumb looking blond every time, all advertising is inflammatory, bodily, mentally, etc. color, words, sounds can control the masses,

so then we have to figure in the Higgs boson subatomic particle of mass and inflammatory colors and sounds
and
global warmings
and put them all
in the same equation,
because color is coming at us from
all directions as well as sound,
it all has to be in the
equation for global warming,
not just temperature and
emissions.

In other words, part of "selling" theoretical science is
SIMPLIFYING IT FOR THE MASS AUDIENCE, RATHER THAN
ADMITTING THE COMPLEXITY.

So, next time you have a "brand spanking new" theory,
keep it simple
in order to "sell" it.

and be sure to use inflammatory phrases like
"brand spanking new".

linearthinker said...

Dewey Dow, unpaid hack.

30 years in PR. There's an impressive cv for ya.

No attempt to define how his list of alleged propaganda terms aren't applicable. Just attack the messenger.

Dewey Dow. Should I borrow that name if I want to create a sock puppet for visiting Daily Kos? I smell dirty socks.

M. Simon said...

I love your attitude Dewy. If data is contrived, if results are concocted, if there is evidence of chicanery, etc. you aren't allowed to say so because those are loaded words.

Hide The Decline

When is a spade not a spade? When the truth is inconvenient.

Chris,

It is not the Higgs Boson you have to worry about. It is the bosun's mate.

99% said...

Hey Linearstinker...

Picking on a PR guy huh? Well, we all know you have the brain capacity of watermelon seed. Go strap yourself to the top of a telephone pole somewhere -- preferably one smack in the middle of a lightning storm.

The PR guy can spin your predicament to the insurance folks.

simentt said...

Wow, that was some heavy rhetoric from our resident atmospheric physics-poster.

Thank you, 99 - I'm sure your attitude is supportive of your goals.

Yours,
-S

Samuel A. Falvo II said...

If the planet is cooling, we should expect to see an increase in aggregate precipitation, as the humidity in the atmosphere condenses. Likewise, the frequency of super-cells traversing the oceans should drop.

Meanwhile, characteristically rainy seasons here in California go bone-dry in comparison to just two years ago, contradicting the hypothesis that the atmosphere is cooling.

Can you point to any sources of precipitation studies to see if precipitation is increasing or if super-cell activity is declining?

Thanks.

M. Simon said...

Samuel,

ALL the models predict a hot spot in the upper atmosphere of the tropics if the globe is warming as the models predict.

There is no such hot spot. That tells us there is something wrong with the models. Two possibilities:
1. Errors in ALL the models
2. Global temperatures are steady or falling.

From past history we know that ice ages are not wet but dry. Which you would expect (based on simple understanding - there may be more complex factors at work) because colder air holds less water.

Now I agree the transitions should be wetter. So why haven't we seen that? It may be possible (given the likelyhood of cooked data) that we have already passed the transition.

OTOH I have heard that the snow pack is building up in California this year - I don't know if that is true.

===

I would like to see a full audit of data and methods starting with station records, adjustment methods, model parameters, etc.

Unfortunately the CRU (whose data is in whole or in part significant in 3 of the 4 temperature records - all except the satellite record - which may be biased from surface station records) has "lost" the original data. Pity.

And then there is the lousy surface stations themselves. Look at surfacestations.org for a review of the best in the world. And imagine what 2nd best looks like. Or 14th best.

For instance all of South America is represented by 6 or 7 long term records.

And the oceans? Worse. Until ARGO.

For one thing ships move. So other than islands you don't monitor one point for years as is done for the land record.

If the AGW theory is true the best you can say about it is that given what we have to work with it is not proven.

And if the Russian Solar guys are right it will be cooling until 2055 or 2060.

And don't forget the CLOUD experiments at CERN. They may provide evidence of a mechanism not currently in the models. With an answer coming around 2013 or 2014.

Did I mention the PDO which was discovered in 1997 and is only now being included in the models. The PDO has a roughly 60 year cycle. In the warm phase we get warming scares. In the cooling phase ice age scares. And this publicity cycle has been going on since the late 1890s. The PDO went negative around 2005 IIRC. Which means (even if the Russians are wrong) a cooling scare around 2030 or 2035.