Are global warming alarmists just a conglomerate of eco radicals and third world grifters?

posted at 6:41 pm on April 7, 2014 by Bruce McQuain

While doing a  review of Rupert Darwall’s book “The Age of Global Warming”, Charles Moore does an excellent job of succinctly identifying the alarmist movement’s core origins and core identity:

The origins of warmism lie in a cocktail of ideas which includes anti-industrial nature worship, post-colonial guilt, a post-Enlightenment belief in scientists as a new priesthood of the truth, a hatred of population growth, a revulsion against the widespread increase in wealth and a belief in world government. It involves a fondness for predicting that energy supplies won’t last much longer (as early as 1909, the US National Conservation Commission reported to Congress that America’s natural gas would be gone in 25 years and its oil by the middle of the century), protest movements which involve dressing up and disappearing into woods (the Kindred of the Kibbo Kift, the Mosleyite Blackshirts who believed in reafforestation) and a dislike of the human race (The Club of Rome’s work Mankind at the Turning-Point said: “The world has cancer and the cancer is man.”).

These beliefs began to take organised, international, political form in the 1970s. One of the greatest problems, however, was that the ecologists’ attacks on economic growth were unwelcome to the nations they most idolised – the poor ones. The eternal Green paradox is that the concept of the simple, natural life appeals only to countries with tons of money. By a brilliant stroke, the founding fathers developed the concept of “sustainable development”. This meant that poor countries would not have to restrain their own growth, but could force restraint upon the rich ones. This formula was propagated at the first global environmental conference in Stockholm in 1972.

Indeed, the resulting grouping was a natural one.  Eco radicals out to ‘save the world’ from evil capitalism (and man) and poor countries looking for a way to extort billions from rich countries.

The G7 Summit in Toronto in 1988 endorsed the theory of global warming. In the same year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up. The capture of the world’s elites was under way. Its high point was the Kyoto Summit in 1998, which enabled the entire world to yell at the United States for not signing up, while also exempting developing nations, such as China and India, from its rigours.

The final push, brilliantly described here by Darwall, was the Copenhagen Summit of 2009. Before it, a desperate Gordon Brown warned of “50 days to avoid catastrophe”, but the “catastrophe” came all the same. The warmists’ idea was that the global fight against carbon emissions would work only if the whole world signed up to it. Despite being ordered to by President Obama, who had just collected his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, the developing countries refused. The Left-wing dream that what used to be called the Third World would finally be emancipated from Western power had come true. The developing countries were perfectly happy for the West to have “the green crap”, but not to have it themselves. The Western goody-goodies were hoist by their own petard.

The UN was the natural forum for this push and the IPCC, headed by an railway engineer, the natural “scientific” instrument.  We know how that story has turned out to this point.  No global warming registered for 17 years and 6 months despite all the dire, but apparently scientifically groundless, predictions.  The irony, of course, is it is those who have been skeptical of all of this are the one’s called “deniers”.  And the alarmists have become so bankrupt and shrill that some of them are calling for the arrest of “deniers.”  One supposes since the alarmist cause most closely resembles a religious cult, the call for arrest is on the grounds of heresy … or something.

Meanwhile, “green energy” – the eco radical solution to all – continues to not be ready for prime time, while fossil fuel becomes cheaper and more plentiful.

Yet somehow, the so-called “elites” have decided – based on what, one isn’t sure – that the threat to the globe is real.  More irony.  On the one hand, the eco radicals don’t care at all if it costs lives since they’ve been convinced for decades that it is man that’s the problem.  Less of us is a “good thing” in their world.   On the other hand you have the elites, aka, politicians, who see an opportunity to both expand government power and create revenue literally out of thin air.  The fight is over who will get the money.

Meanwhile the reputation of science – real science – will suffer because of this very political cause and the actions of some scientists to serve it.

Scientists, Rupert Darwall complains, have been too ready to embrace the “subjectivity” of the future, and too often have a “cultural aversion to learning from the past”.

And that is a complete disservice to science.

~McQ

 


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Are global warming alarmists just a conglomerate of eco radicals and third world grifters?

Yes, pretty much. The leaders anyway. And you should add to that list the totalitarian types who are using it as a path to power.

kcewa on April 7, 2014 at 6:46 PM

…enough of this bullshit!

KOOLAID2 on April 7, 2014 at 6:53 PM

From my headlines comment:
In 1973, way before the global warming scare mongering, John Holdren, Obama’s current Science Czar, said this: “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States… [we] must design a stable, low-consumption economy.”
Holdren wasn’t thinking about global warming er climate change when he said that. It’s just what he wanted. Reports are actually that Holdren at the time (1973) was actually crowing about global cooling: http://www.masterresource.org/2009/08/john-holdren-on-global-cooling-revisited/
The first director of the United Nations Environment Program, Maurice Strong, said this: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Again, Strong wanted this regardless of any supposed global warming. But Strong is considered to be a pioneering founder of global warming scare mongering.
By the way, along with the 17 year current period of no warming, there is ZERO evidence that CO2 causes climate temperatures to change. See Al Gore’s willful deceptions about CO2 exposed in this key 3 minute video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&info=GGWarmingSwindle_CO2Lag

anotherJoe on April 7, 2014 at 6:53 PM

Yes. Next question.

rbj on April 7, 2014 at 7:01 PM

Green = Red. It means to end…Income Distribution….and loss of individual control.

And in some cases like Al Gore…fraud. He made money.

Oil Can on April 7, 2014 at 7:05 PM

Are global warming alarmists just a conglomerate of eco radicals and third world grifters?

YEP!!!

They are also joined by first-world rent-seekers, who help finance their scams:

*Twisty light bulb scam
*Ethanol scam
*Windmill scam
*Solar panel scam
*Fracking hysteria scam
*Chemical hysteria and regulation scams too numerous to mention
*Lead-which-is-natural-unless-touched-by-man (and other mining products) scam
*Electric car (which is actually powered by coal) scam
*Etc, etc, etc….

Next question.

landlines on April 7, 2014 at 7:05 PM

It was near 90 here in So California today and 28 in Chicago.

What I would like a global warming alarmist to tell me is what temperature should it have been today on April 7th in both those places? Should it have been warmer in Chicago and colder in California? If so, by how much?

If Mother Earth has a fever caused by man….what should a healthy earth look like? If man has a responsibility to lower the temperature of earth how can he do it and when would he know when and how to stop the process?

Ditkaca on April 7, 2014 at 7:07 PM

What they said!

CW20 on April 7, 2014 at 7:07 PM

The EcoNazis revealed themselves completely when they failed to celebrate the fact that there hasn’t been any warming in 17 years. If one’s crusade is to stop global warming, then the fact that there hasn’t been any should allow him to pat himself on the shoulder and say ‘Job well done.’ Instead, the longer we go with no warming, the more shrill, irrational, and totalitarian the EcoNazis become.

Resist We Much on April 7, 2014 at 7:07 PM

Is the Pope German?

HiJack on April 7, 2014 at 7:09 PM

No global warming registered for 17 years and 6 months despite all the dire, but apparently scientifically groundless, predictions.

Wait…I thought the science was settled. Next you’re going to tell me that 2+2 doesn’t equal 5. Damn this Common Core.

dirtseller on April 7, 2014 at 7:10 PM

“news media and some pro-environmental have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency.”

“We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA (International Environmental Agreement) which will eventually enhance global welfare.”

from the chicoms

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/04/climate-craziness-of-the-week-peer-reviewed-paper-says-its-ok-to-manipulate-data-exaggerate-climate-claims/#more-106975

but why the elites? As has been well known for a while, cap and trade, etc. benefit the RICH. If you are in the top 5% the companies you own in your portfolio are smart enough to make money in the deal.

so Eco-freaks, 3rd world grifters, and the landed aristocracy along with their con artist front men…i.e. you’re out voted Bruce

r keller on April 7, 2014 at 7:17 PM

It was mid 60′s yesterday, and mid 70′s today…proof of global warming!!

right2bright on April 7, 2014 at 7:17 PM

“It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.” Harold Lewis

Harold Lewis was Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON

Viator on April 7, 2014 at 7:19 PM

Do you recall the words of warning issued by that I gave about the military-industrial complex? Do you know about which I warned immediately following?

“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

Too bad that you aren’t as skeptical and worried about the scientific-technological elite as you are of the MIC.

Sincerely,

Dwight David “Ike” Eisenhower, five-star general in the United States Army and the 34th President of the United States

Resist We Much on April 7, 2014 at 7:23 PM

AGW=AlGropingWomen

Conservative4Ever on April 7, 2014 at 7:24 PM

Are global warming alarmists just a conglomerate of eco radicals and third world grifters?

Richard Lindzen years ago defined this movement as the same ones that claimed global cooling.

Not only do they want to stop the develop nations, but they get paid a hefty sum for leading the charge.

There is no better article than this one…a PDF.

Richard Lindzen’s biggest “attack” has come from a blog, where they state: “Lindzen has been discredited by bloggers on this site”.

That is their argument, Sloan Professor at MIT, being called out by bloggers city in their aunts basement.

right2bright on April 7, 2014 at 7:26 PM

Who is this Bruce McQuain person?
I’m a-scared.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on April 7, 2014 at 7:27 PM

Resist We Much on April 7, 2014 at 7:07 PM

First, nice to see you! Truth is that the scare mongering Chicken Littles could care less about the climate, it was always little more than a means to the end (of industrial civization).
Phil Jones, University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), in a 2008 Climategate email, noting the lack of recent warming, said plainly “I’d like the world to warm up quicker.” To think that they constantly blab on about how catastrophic warming will be, but then when we don’t have warming, they are upset? What soulless goons.
And here’s more evidence in their own words that they could care less about the climate:
“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.” -leftist Senator Tim Wirth, 1993
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. global warming.. would fit the bill… and thus the real enemy, then, is humanity itself….[and we] believe humanity requires a .. common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or….one invented for the purpose. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all resources and a new global economic system. ” -Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point
“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy… One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.” -Ottmar Edenhoffer, UN-IPCC official
“It’s time for climate change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.” -Richard Glover, Leftist Journalist

anotherJoe on April 7, 2014 at 7:30 PM

No, they are invested in Al Gore’s investments.

Key West Reader on April 7, 2014 at 7:30 PM

Who is this Bruce McQuain person?
I’m a-scared.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on April 7, 2014 at 7:27 PM

Meh, he’s just some dude that peers into the windows of HotAir sometimes.

SouthernGent on April 7, 2014 at 7:35 PM

So, I will have to buy more wood for this winter.?

DJcool on April 7, 2014 at 7:45 PM

Are global warming alarmists just a conglomerate of eco radicals and third world grifters?

Don’t forget Warren Buffet said the insurance industry was making a killing on the global warming scare. High rates, and few storms leading to massive profits.

Iblis on April 7, 2014 at 7:48 PM

The phrase “Green is the new red” is now over 20 years old

phreshone on April 7, 2014 at 7:48 PM

I have it on good authority that the reason for a lack of apparent warming over the last 17 years is because the heat is being sequestered in very deep ocean currents.

La Niña did this. Or else, El Niño.

Because everyone knows, heat sinks. The science on this is settled, so shut up.

2014 will be the hottest. Year. Ever. Or coldest.

Pless1foEngrish on April 7, 2014 at 8:14 PM

I sincerely believe that every Climate Change guru should be readily identifiable. Wind enthusiast should have to wear a rainbow colored beanie with a propeller on top. Battery freaks should have to plug themselves into a 220v socket at day’s end. Global Warmists must spend every Northern Hemisphere summer at the South Pole, dressed only in their normal summer attire, g-strings and boas. Malthusians should volunteer to be the first to ‘go’ – effective immediately. Tree huggers must spend two hours of their usual 3 hour ‘work’ day, hugging tightly to an endangered prickly pear cactus. Gaia worshipers should spend a month, sans clothing and all modern conveniences, i.e., food in the backwoods of the Sahel – no woods? Oh, well….

vnvet on April 7, 2014 at 8:20 PM

We do have to admit that the con men of AGW have fooled hundreds of millions into giving them money. They are universally very wealthy.

AlGore being just one of the recently rich con men. Sadly the likes of GE have decided that real growth is not the way to make them rich.

The only silver lining is that the stupid voters are the ones hardest hit.

jukin3 on April 7, 2014 at 8:32 PM

If your paycheck comes any pro global warming fund you’ll be screaming at the top of your lungs that there is serious global warming, can’t blame you but when the funding ends look for another government teat.

mixplix on April 7, 2014 at 8:44 PM

We were supposed to have run out of food in the latter part of the 1800′s.

GarandFan on April 7, 2014 at 8:46 PM

The hoaxer emails showed that Big Oil has a large part in promoting the hoax. I think the emails exposed Shell’s role in the hoax, specifically. They finance all this stuff in a clandestine manner.

Buddahpundit on April 7, 2014 at 8:54 PM

If you want a good book to share with your eco-friends that shows how the global warming scam has its roots in Marxism read:

Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam
By Brian Sussman

Those now notorious intercepted emails documenting leading scientists conspiring to squelch global-warming skeptics and falsifying data proved exactly what Brian Sussman has been saying for years. Climategate is intended for anyone who has ever expressed skepticism about the clamorous environmentalist claims that the Earth is in peril because of mankind’s appetite for carbon-based fuels. By tracing the origins of the current climate scare, Sussman guides the reader from the diabolical minds of Marx and Engles in the 1800s, to the global governance machinations of the United Nations today. Climategate is a call to action, warning Americans that their future is being undermined by a phony pseudo-science aimed at altering and dominating every aspect of life in the United States and the world.

http://www.amazon.com/Climategate-Veteran-Meteorologist-Exposes-Warming/dp/1935071831/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396918275&sr=1-1&keywords=climategate

Climategate is an enjoyable read with lots of good facts to help you win future debates with your liberal friends.

wren on April 7, 2014 at 9:02 PM

Yep

neyney on April 7, 2014 at 9:56 PM

Never did hear back from Mr. Morrissey. Seems that he’s not concerned that he is on par with the Lib Keith Olberman. Remember, Mr. Morrissey, when Keith roundly verbally trounced the then-presidential candidate John McCain for supposedly saying that he, Mr. McCain, had said that Mr. Obama was wanting to negotiate with “Osama”? Of course, the facts had nothing of any significance to Olby (as they never did or do). And he repeated the lie immediately after showing the tape of Mr. McCain saying “Assad” (not “Osama”). And when caught in the lie, he later blamed the New York Times for misleading him! So, Mr. Morrissey, are you going to blame the NYT for misleading you? Maybe you should, because you allowed yourself to be completely misled. And therefore, you are an Olby clone.

But, I’ll quote from the very source that you say contends to falsify the theories of global warming. You chose a graph that you indicated came from this source (but which did not). I’ll quote you a selection from that source, for your viewing (if you even care to read facts).

As for the present author’s contention that there hasn’t been any warming in seventeen years, it’s nice to make things up, but when the facts strike, then the real story emerges.

The period 2001-2010 was the warmest decade on record since modern meterological records began around the year 1850. The global average temperature of the air above the Earth’s surface over the 10-year period is estimated to have been 14.47 degrees C, +/- .1 degree C above the 1961-1990 global average of +14.0 degrees C and +0.21 +/- 0.1 degree C above the 1991-2000 global average. It is 0.88 degree C higher than the average temperature of the first decade of the 20th century (1901-1910).

A pronounced increase in the global temperature occurred over the four decades 1971-2010. The global temperature increased at an average estimated rate of 0.17 degree C per decade during that period, while the trend over the whole period 1880-2010 was only 0.062 degree C per decade. Furthermore, the increase of 0.21 degree C in the average decadal temperature from 1991-2000 to 2001-2010 is larger than the increase from 1981-1990 to 1991-2000 (+0.14 degree C) and larger than for any other two successive decades since the beginning of instrumental records.
Nine of the decade’s years were among the 10 warmest on record. The warmest year ever recorded was 2010, with a mean temperature anomaly estimated at 0.54 degree C above the 14.0 degree C baseline, followed closely by 2005. The least warm year was 2008, with an estimated anomaly of +0.38 degree C, but this was enough to make 2008 the warmest La Nina year on record.
The 2001-2010 decade was also the warmest on record for both land-only and ocean-only surface temperatures.

Source: The Global Climate 2001 2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes Summary Report (selections from pages 3 and 4)
Doesn’t sound like “no warming for the last 17 years”, Mr. McQuain. Perhaps you can attempt to reconcile the facts with your contention.

Note: And this doesn’t even refer to increasing heat content observed in the oceans of late, and the very significant downward trend in the ice content of Greenland and the Arctic over the last couple of decades (as well as the preponderance of glaciers all over the Northern Hemisphere). You may want to actually look up the data on that Mr. Morrissey and Mr. McQuain.

oakland on April 7, 2014 at 10:03 PM

It is the height of arrogance to assume that human activity has or can drastically affect climate. CO2 increase is a lagging indicator of warming, not a precursor. I wish I could remember where I read the article but in 1998, the Phillipines’ Mount Pinotubo erupted. In the writing, volcanologists estimated, in one eruption, Pinotubo ejected into the atmosphere more CO2, sulfur dioxode, hydrogen sulfide, and other harmful pollutants than all the automobiles ever manufactured. Should we stopper all the volcanoes?

It is also arrogant to assume that the current climate is “ideal”. During the Mediaevel Warm Period, ca. 750-1200, much of Northern Europe was agrarian. The Vikings crossed the North Atlantic into Canada. Greenland was named and it wasn’t because it was covered in ice. There were no cars,no consumption of hydrocarbon fuels, and nowhere near the number of people on the planet. What caused the warming?

It seems the fact that the atmosphere is a dynamic system and occupies a tremendous volume has been forgotten. There are other external factors, not the least of which is solar activity. Orbital eccentricity, the angle of obliquity to the plane of the solar system, and precession are also factors to be considered.

wekoenig3 on April 7, 2014 at 10:37 PM

Oakland, the earth has warmed and cooled since its creation, thanks for stats Einstein. What is the ideal temperature and tell me how you determined that?

Ellis on April 7, 2014 at 10:52 PM

oakland on April 7, 2014 at 10:03 PM

Eco-radical, grifter or both?

Murphy9 on April 7, 2014 at 11:00 PM

Well, the patient has had no signs of cancer for over 17 years now.
Which is the better response if you love the patient?

“Doc, quit denying the patient will die of cancer!”
or
“That’s great news, Doc!”

DublOh7 on April 7, 2014 at 11:05 PM

The period 2001-2010 was the warmest decade on record since modern meterological records began around the year 1850. The global average temperature of the air above the Earth’s surface over the 10-year period is estimated to have been 14.47 degrees C, +/- .1 degree C above the 1961-1990 global average of +14.0 degrees C

oakland on April 7, 2014 at 10:03 PM

Hey oakland, have you noticed that these “scientists” never publish a margin of error or standard error of the mean? I’ll give you a hint: 0.1 degrees divided by 14.47 degrees (your vaunted numbers, not mine) yields 0.0069. That’s a 0.69% change. Okay. Now, what is the margin of error? Is the study supposed to be accurate to +/- 1%? Or is it +/-3.5%? Maybe that’s why they, unlike physicists or sociologists, don’t ever publish the margin of error. It’s way inside the level of noise; indistinguishable from random variation and nowhere near correlation, much less causation.

You’ve got a ten year average that is 0.69% above a thirty year average, and you want us all to bow your numbers as unassailable? Try again.

Meanwhile, would you mind telling us how far the 0.69% rise has fallen below the temperature predictions from the 1970′s or the 80′s or the 90′s? When you answer that question, you’ll find the models are crap and the actual temp has fallen off the bottom of their predictions, indicating their models are crap.

So, tell me who’s denying science, again?

DublOh7 on April 7, 2014 at 11:42 PM

Facts are things to be ignored and obfuscated for the Alarmists. They don’t care that all the climate models have be dead wrong. They don’t care the the globe is actually COOLING instead of warming.

They STILL want your money and the ability to LORD over you. Oh, they also want to keep those billions of tax dollars for “climate research’ rolling into their pockets every year — let’s not forget that.

So the facts on the ground just don’t matter. They are just inconvenient truths for Alarmists. And if you quote any of the facts, you are a DENIER !!

Axion on April 7, 2014 at 11:57 PM

This article is kind of dumb. Tries to throw too much crap together in one salad. Let’s just stick to disproving one theory at a time, rather than painting broad brushes. A person can be against whaling, but still think AGW is mostly nonsense.

cimbri on April 8, 2014 at 12:27 AM

The cooling proves the warming. The warming proves the warming. The 14 year flatline proves the warming. George Bush caused the warming.

munseym on April 8, 2014 at 1:33 AM

If Mother Earth has a fever caused by man….what should a healthy earth look like? If man has a responsibility to lower the temperature of earth how can he do it and when would he know when and how to stop the process?

Ditkaca on April 7, 2014 at 7:07 PM

The solution is obvious. First, just a few years ago, we industrialized nations were causing global cooling. The next ice age was going to be upon us shortly. Now, we are doing global warming, and some little lady from Chicago is going to fry because the temperature goes up 10 degrees and causes the temperature inside the Oval Office to hit 100 rather than its usual 90.

So, what we need to do is to do whatever we were doing to cause global cooling, until the planet gets cold, and then do whatever we do to cause global warming until things get hot.

This should be easy, because the things that cause global warming are exactly the things that cause global cooling.

unclesmrgol on April 8, 2014 at 1:41 AM

Oakland, the earth has warmed and cooled since its creation, thanks for stats Einstein. What is the ideal temperature and tell me how you determined that?

Ellis

I’m amazed at the idea that people who believe the universe was created in 6 literal days are considered religious nuts, yet people who believe the earth was finished when they got here get Nobel Prizes!

Wander on April 8, 2014 at 9:07 AM

oakland on April 7, 2014 at 10:03 PM

I will defend Ed here. You are quoting conclusions and “facts” presented by people and “scientists” that control the presented data. They control that data to continue their financial support. They have destroyed their data rather than allow other scientists to see it. You are a dupe! Not only a dupe, but a nasty dishonest dupe.

Ed, ignore this POS.

Old Country Boy on April 8, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Meanwhile the reputation of science – real science – will suffer because of this very political cause and the actions of some scientists to serve it.

Most “scientific research” is complete rubbish, according to some studies. Peer review does not work to self correct errors and nothing better has come along. In the case of climate science, it cannot even be called a science any more. It really is nothing more than junk science. It has been corrupted by money, politics, scientific cronyism created a circle-jerk of phony scientific review by a corrupt Gang of 8 at NASA and the NOAA.

There are no truthful authorities anymore. Not in government at any level, not in the phony and thuggish “justice system” at any level, and not is science. We live in a completely morally and authoritatively bankrupt society and culture.

Calling it a shame does not even begin to describe how bad and completely insane it truly is.

earlgrey on April 8, 2014 at 11:07 AM

oakland on April 7, 2014 at 10:03 PM

Eco-radical, grifter or both?

Murphy9 on April 7, 2014 at 11:00 PM

I vote for a liar and a fraud, and I dispute the eco-radical label. I think this defines every self-titled “environmentalist”. Environmentalism is a cult religion. It has nothing to do with actual science, but then neither does the fraudulent junk science known as “climate science.”

earlgrey on April 8, 2014 at 11:15 AM

Anybody who actually believes in the prognostications of ‘climate researchers’ based on their track record of accuracy so far should have their head examined. This lack of predictive accuracy by inference also refudiates (heh) their assertion that CO2 is the driver of the earth’s climate systems. I’m sure a fortune-telling gypsy would conjure a better climate trend prediction rate staring into the old crystal ball.

otlset on April 8, 2014 at 11:26 AM

Ya know, these climatologists/psuedoscientists/ecofreaks, ‘Watermelons’, whatever, which make urgent claims about the FUTURE of are (how shall I put this?) … nuts.
People who make claims about the FUTURE use to be called: Soothsayers, or Fortune Tellers and other such things.
And for people who call the Taro-Reader Hot Line, I have one question: If all these Fortune Tellers could ACTUALLY foretell the FUTURE … why aren’t they a rich as George Soros (the Nazi Collaborator)?
For many it is a religion for the rest who have more than a hand full of brain cells that interact and cooperate it is a scam.

Missilengr on April 8, 2014 at 4:32 PM

oakland on April 7, 2014 at 10:03 PM

Eco-radical, grifter or both?

Murphy9 on April 7, 2014 at 11:00 PM

No…just a moron.

Neitherleftorright on April 8, 2014 at 6:11 PM

Yes, pretty much. The leaders anyway. And you should add to that list the totalitarian types who are using it as a path to power.

Oh you mean the radical marxists… ie watermelons, green on the outside, red on the inside.

Models are junk, garage in, garbage out, especially with institutional bias towards confirming assumptions and not real science.

Keith_Indy on April 8, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Holdren was one of the several who were on the losing side of the famous Simon–Ehrlich wager (1980) on how the Earth was or was not going to run out of essential resources.
Why anyone, after that, would lend any credence to what he says is beyond me and many others.

Another Drew on April 8, 2014 at 6:27 PM

My impression is that the claimed warming mechanism is simple and reasonably plausible. Once I could have checked this for myself, but a long time has elapsed.

The trouble is that the dubious performance of the big climate models seems due to factors which are not understood.

That does not mean all is well. That does not mean there is no cause for concern, warming-wise or cooling-wise.

gs on April 8, 2014 at 6:52 PM

climate change alarmism and CO2phobia hurts the world’s poorest the most as it raises the price of energy and food and retards industrialization.

we can go a long way toward making global poverty history if we can make climate alarmism history.

reliapundit on April 8, 2014 at 7:01 PM

The answer to the headline as stated here several times is Hell yes.
But…

…while fossil fuel becomes cheaper and more plentiful.

Last I checked the gas that I put in my F-150 is a fossil fuel. Where it is cheaper? I barely drive it now as it takes almost a Benjamin to fill it up.

And Someone else has had to notice this…
When Bush was president and gas would go up even a smidge the MSM was all over the hardships caused by it. Now it’s just not a thing.

kahall on April 8, 2014 at 7:24 PM

Tim Ball has a related piece http://snipurl.com/28sh8by
TCOR,UNEP’s Agenda 21, driven by modern Multhusians.

Trying to break this open:
Ball is three years deep into being sued by Michael Mann in Canada. Stalled evidently over discovery issues, as in the UVA case.

On the UVA case: http://snipurl.com/28sh991
“Virginia Republican Delegate Robert Marshall and the American Tradition Institute (ATI), a libertarian group that takes a strongly skeptical stance on climate change. They want Mann’s e-mail correspondence when he was a professor at the University of Virginia, a public university, between 1999 and 2005.”

VA Supreme Court ruled the emails could be private.
Think progress is delighted, as releasing them would raise “the chilling question of whether the university could protect researchers’ ability to privately and freely correspond with one another”.
http://snipurl.com/28sh9ij

Making a stand up for secrecy, suppression of information and elite academic control. It is about power, the end justified. Noble cause corruption, they see themselves as the good people fighting the good fight.

Looking forward to Marl Steyn’s case,
he will at least make it fun.

PaleoRider on April 9, 2014 at 6:40 AM