Another View on Climate

My Own View of Global Warming

Posts Tagged ‘Alarmism’

Is This the UN’s “Final Solution?”

Posted by greg2213 on February 23, 2013

A peer reviewed paper laying out the things “out to be” according to the UN. Peer reviewed.

Well, with authors such as the infamous Paul Ehrlich I wonder how credible said peers are? Probably just a cheering section from the WWF or some UN groupie squad.

That’s really an embarrassing face-palm is that at least some of these guys are US “scientists,” though I doubt the word “top” applies in any way. I’m sure the NY Times would consider it a wonderful paper, as would the rest of the far-green nutjob crowd. More rational people might have to start keeping a closer eye on these people, to keep them from hurting themselves. And the rest of us.

Can’t see how this differs much from what Hilter, Stalin, and other luminaries wanted to do. Watermelons, indeed.

Top U.S. Scientists Call for Draconian UN Social Engineering

A controversial peer-reviewed paper set to be published next month, authored by a dozen prominent scientists and other experts, is coming under heavy criticism, primarily for calling on policymakers to adopt draconian measures to change social norms and values through coercion — essentially mass social engineering under the guise of environmentalism, whether the public wants it or not. The dubious plan outlined by the academics, however, is already being blasted by analysts as a scheme to erect an “eco-dictatorship under United Nations rule.”

Indeed, a draft version of the paper, scheduled to be published in the March 2013 edition of the American Institute of Biological Sciences’ journal BioScience, openly calls for defying public opinion and restructuring society under the guidance of UN “teams.” Entitled “Social Norms and Global Environmental Challenges: The Complex Interaction of Behaviors, Values, and Policy,” the controversial document is uncharacteristically honest in outlining its wild recommendations to transform human civilization.

“Substantial numbers of people will have to alter their existing behaviors to address this new class of global environmental problems,” claim the authors, who include Nobel Prize winners and even the infamous but largely discredited biologist and “population bomb” alarmist Paul Ehrlich (shown above). “Alternative approaches are needed when education and persuasion alone are insufficient.”

In simpler terms, the self-styled arbiters of proper environmental stewardship and human values are seeking to use the force of government — without the consent of the governed, if need be — to radically change people’s thoughts and behavior. If taxpayer-funded propaganda and brainwashing fail to convince enough of the public to submit, coercion in the form of new rules, regulations, fines, and other policies will be needed, the authors claim.

“Policy instruments such as penalties, regulations, and incentives may therefore be required to achieve significant behavior modification,” the paper claims matter-of-factly. In a table included within the document, some potential examples of the envisioned “policy instruments” are outlined, starting from taxpayer-funded propaganda — “active norms management: advertising, information, appeals,” as the authors put it — and moving on through taxes, fines, subsidies, and other “financial interventions.”

Finally, at the bottom of the table: laws and regulations demanding obedience at the barrel of a government gun. “Effective policies, then, are ones that induce both short-term changes in behavior and longer-term changes in social norms,” the paper continues, offering some examples of successful and failed efforts to transform human behavior and values using the coercive force of government. “Government is uniquely obligated to locate the common good and formulate its policies accordingly.”

Here’s the rest. The article includes lots of links to more info.

Posted in UN & Climate Treaties | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Blinded by Common Sense

Posted by greg2213 on July 11, 2011

Apparently some wag, name of Kevin Anderson, a director of a Tyndall Centre somewhere in the U.K., sees a problem with a (completely imaginary) 4C+ rise in temperatures. The Reference Frame disposes of him quite nicely:

So the population will happily continue to rise to 9 billion by 2050. Suddenly, the global mean temperature will apparently jump from 15 °C to 20 °C, we’re told, and 8.5 billion people will suddenly die because 20 °C is surely deadly.

I wonder whether those loons actively realize what they are saying – and what their colleagues are saying – and whether at least some of them know that the likes of Mr Anderson are mentally ill. You see that the U.K. doesn’t have any counterpart of the ObamaCare if they can’t afford to store Mr Anderson in a psychiatric asylum.

The rest: Climate “scientists”: 95 percent of people fry to death at 20 °C

So if Mr. Anderson is serious, and not just practicing his worrying in order to write some bad SF book, then yeah… I’d say he’s in need of medication.

Luboš Motl also feels that a 13C increase would be fine, not that there’s any chance of it happening, but it would be fine. Given what we see when we look back at the history of this planet I see no reason to disagree. Not that I know anything, but warming is clearly far better than cooling and the world has clearly been just fine with much warmer temps.

Posted in Global Warming | Tagged: , | 5 Comments »

More Hysteria, We’ll All be Dead by 2050!

Posted by greg2213 on June 29, 2010

WUWT is adding to its collection of links to articles written by the deluded and the insane. This one, in particular, is interesting because it’s intended to be sent to your congress-critter.

Here’s the link:

We’re All GONNA DIE!!!!

WUWT doesn’t comment on the “article,” but the commenters do.

Posted in The End is Near | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

The (not quite) Interview

Posted by greg2213 on May 28, 2010

Climate Skeptic was asked to give an interview on… climate. He was asked some leading questions, from an obviously alarmist bias, and gave his answers.

The Air Vent listed the same questions for any interested commenters.

So, just for fun, here are my remarks, but CS has better ones.

Do you believe that global warming and climate change are a grave problem to the world at the moment ?

Yes, but not due to temperature fluctuations. Oh, you just mean temperature? Then no.


What gives you reason to believe that global warming and climate change are not really happening?

Nice dodge. Note the change in question from the “Do you believe” above. Global warming has happened to the tune of  maybe 1 degree F over the last 120 some odd years.

Climate change has been happening for billions of years.

Of course, catastrophic warming is what the original remark was addressing and there is zero evidence to believe in CGW.

Is there any scientific evidence to support that global warming and climate change is not really that harmful?

The question is backwards and should be, “Is there any evidence to show that global warming is harmful?”

Or one could look at it this way: Climate change has been proven to be disasterous. Try to imagine living under a mile of ice. Much of Europe would be wiped out as would Canada, most of the northern US, and so on.

There is zero evidence to show that global warming is harmful (and by that I mean real global warming, not the CGW nonsense.)

Are most scientists wrong?

About what, exactly?

Most scientists have been wrong about most things since science was invented. Good scientists look at the data obtained and go back and fix their hypotheses. Eventually they refine their hypotheses into theories, through the collection of real world data, and have a better estimate of what’s real.

Then another scientist comes along and proves them wrong. Einstein and Newton, for example.

What do you think is causing temperature changes on a scale never seen before?

What changes? On what scale? And why do you think they haven’t been seen before? Unless you’re only looking back a few years?

This is an odd question since we’re not seeing temperature changes on a scale never seen before. There is nothing about the slight amount of warming that has not been seen before. Many times.

Science tells us that there have been many times in the past with far faster rises and drops. Though the rises usually occur from the coldest levels and the drops from the warmest.Clearly the climate is extremely stable, though within a certain range it shows definite variation. All natural.

Clearly the questioners are unaware of this fact.

What did you think to the results of Copenhagen?

Quite nice. It was lovely to see so many power and money hungry would-be dictators go home disappointed, especially after burning all that carbon to get there.

I expect they had some great parties, though.

Why do governments seem so concerned with the issue?

Because Al Gore is a superb marketer and because the issue is a bit win for lovers of big government (and socialism, totalitarianism, etc.)

The issue has a built in constituency. The Pols that shout “WARMING!” the loudest have all the greens automatically supporting (voting for) them. Gore shows his hockey stick and millions of people show an interest in him. Intoxicating. Not to mention what it did for the value of his investments.

Then there’s the vast amounts of tax money and the intoxicating power of being dictators.

If fossil fuels will run out anyway, surely we should move to find alternatives. Why not now?

The question has nothing to do with warming. Actually, if we burned off all known fossil fuel reserves we would not double our CO2 levels.

There are lots of reasons to move away from fossil fuels, certain political reasons being the big ones and CO2 being the least of them. Cutting our dependence on foreign oil has massive political benefits, but not if it cripples our economy.

Drill and build here first, then cut the ties as new domestic energy sources allow.

Even if it is not guaranteed that manmade emissions are to blame, wouldn’t it be wise to act anyway? It’s a hell of a gamble to our children’s future.

To blame for what? There is zero evidence of warming catastrophe so what’s the gamble?

However, we DO know that insane Gov spending is vastly more damaging to our kid’s future than is climate change.

CGW mitigation is a worthless waste of money and resources.

Don’t we have a duty to protect or planet for future generations? (i.e. save it from deforestation, pollution etc)

A separate question entirely and one that has nothing to do with warming. If fact, warming is probably last on a long list of environmental concerns, it’s just that it has the best chance to generate those increasing investments and massive tax revenues.

Of course we have a duty to prove a clean living space for our kids and we’ve been doing just that. The fact is that the world is much cleaner and greener than it was 30 years ago.

Since all the mitigation factors seem to be designed to make Al Gore and Goldman-Sachs very rich and massively increase governmental control and keep the 3rd world from developing and since those factors will do nothing to stop the non-existent CGW I think we do have a duty. That duty is to fight the CGW crowd every inch of the way.


How bad is climate change at the moment?

Given the economic destruction planned by the CGW crowd  I think it’s potentially disasterous. The cures, not the climate change. Millions of people will live far less happy lives so that Gore, Pachauri, and various Governments can grow richer and more powerful.

What did you think to the results of Copenhagen?


Is it increasing at an uncontrollable rate? Or is there still a chance to reduce climate change and alter its predicted course of events?

Yes, Gov lust for money and power does seem to be increasing rapidly. What’s increasing more rapidly is the frustrations of the would be dictators pushing the CGW issue.

Climate change is uncontrollable and it’s not increasing, but there’s likely to be a pretty major change coming along at some point. It’s called an ice age.

Do you have any comments on the recent e-mail leak scandal that was publicized?

Wasn’t that great? Now we know what passes for science among the “in” crowd.

What do you think about the rising levels of climate change skepticism?

It’s a beautiful thing and absolutely necessary. It’s because of the skeptics that we might actually be able to generate some real climate science and get away from the Al Gore fantasies.

How could and/or will climate change or similarly global warming affect the Middle East region in particular the Arabian peninsula?

Climate change over the last 12,000 years has had significant effects on the middle east. Seal level rise after the last ice age seems to have drowned a few cities.  The deserts have been much greener in the past and maybe, with a bit of warning, they will be again.

What about other vulnerable countries?

The economic hardships planned by the CGW community will be far more damaging than warming. If there’s major cooling then those countries are likely to be the choice of  many people leaving the glaciered areas.

What can the average citizen do more or less to help reduce climate change and its impact?

Start by getting the CGW types out of office, especially Al Gore and his ilk. Strong economies will make adaptation to catastrophic weather effects and cooling much easier to deal will.

What do you predict will happen to major cities in the world if the problem of global warming is not addressed immediately?

Life will go on, much as it has. If warming is addresses, with the recommended “cures,” then their economies will collapse. However, the CGW crowd might see some heads exploding out of sheer frustration. Duct tape is a good preventative.

How will an increase in global warming change the earth’s natural weather activities i.e. how will people and animals be affected, ecosystems, the weather….

Based on actual historical records, warming will clearly be a good thing for people, plants, and critters. A warmer climate will likely bring about fewer storms and less chaotic weather.

Plants and animals will be able to expand their ranges and be less stressed. Crops will have longer and better growing seasons. There will be less winter-kill.

Critters in marginal environments (eg: polar bears) will be less stressed.

Any areas experiencing droughts will be outweighed by the areas experiencing improved conditions.

All in all, it would be a good thing.

How can we move forward on this issue?

By respecting the skeptics and working for real science. Send the Al Gore crowd on its way and lets get a real discussion going, instead of the endless stream on contempt heaped upon the skeptics.

Are you confident we can find a solution?

There is no warming problem to find a solution to, so the question is moot. Other, real, pollution problems have solutions and those are being used to good effect.

What are the chances of a new technology saving us? (for example, carbon capture)

Saving us? From what? Alien invasion? Carbon capture schemes are a poor idea. Drop the exotic tech and plant more trees.

Is carbon trading effectively passing the buck? Does it actually help?

The only people that it helps are those playing the carbon credit game (Gore, Soros, Goldman-Sachs, etc.) It does nothing for the environment, makes the poor poorer, and the truly poor will become desperate. Or starve.

Posted in Global Warming | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Greens Aren’t Very Nice, Are They?

Posted by greg2213 on May 27, 2010

Update 8/6/11:

Recently, radical environmentalists have waged a campaign to stifle free enterprise and economic freedom. Here are some of their recent skirmishes, ranging from crop destruction in Australia to attacks on toy companies like Lego and Disney…

Original Post:

C3 Headlines notes some of the things the alarmists have said about the skeptics. Brings back fond memories of the Spanish Inquisition… I guess they feel their gravy train is being threatened.

From:  Hate Unleashed: What’s Driving The Hate Speech & Violence Threats of Global Warmistas?

  • James Hansen of NASA wanted trials for climate skeptics,  accusing them of high crimes against humanity
  • Robert Kennedy Jr. called climate skeptics traitors
  • Yvo de Boer of the UN called climate skepticism criminally irresponsible
  • David Suzuki called for politicians who ignore climate science to be jailed
  • DeSmogBlog’s James Hoggan wants skeptics treated as war criminals (video)
  • Grist called for Nuremberg trials for skeptics
  • Joe Romm encourages the idea that skeptics will be strangled in their beds
  • A blogger at TPM pondered when it would be acceptable to execute climate deniers
  • Heidi Cullen of The Weather Channel called for skeptical forecasters to be decertified
  • Bernie Sanders compared climate skeptics to Nazi appeasers.
  • [Not to mention Greenpeace declaring that “they know where you live”] Here’s the current page, where Greeenpeace posts its case for “that quote was taken WAY out of context,”  and here’s an article regarding the original post. Hopefully GP took the writer into a dark back room and made it very clear to the fellow that their goal is to win hearts and minds, not spit on them. Personally, I think they took him into the party room and gave him a round of “high-fives.”

ClimateQuotes collects, you guessed it, quotes from other wild and wacky alarmist types. For example, here’s their Al Gore page.

And then, there are various other quotes by various extreme types…

Let’s not forget the 10:10 video. These are such lovely people.

Posted in Big Green, Quotes | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Alarming Definitions, Proxies, Mann, and a Question

Posted by greg2213 on May 23, 2010

Jeff ID at The Air Vent remarks:

Honestly there are times when I feel sorry for Mann, his role in history will not be a good one in the long term but it was brought about by an initial mistake in his early papers.  After the accolades he received for his 98, 99 work the censored directory was created with a corrected PCA reconstruction.  What should he do, phone the UN — um world, I screwed up a little…..His reaction, of course, has been the opposite.  He doubled down, creating one reconstruction after another using math which is actually worse than the original.

So here’s the question,

Where would the IPCC be without the proxy based reconstructions?

It’s a scary question because if the climatologists were to excise the bad paleo stuff, IMHO the AGW story is strengthened rather than damaged.

Lots of good discussion regarding that on his site and I’ll add my 1 cent worth here.

The AGW story isn’t strengthened, but that depends on what you mean by AGW.

AGW = Anthropogenic (man made) Global Warming. If you’re talking to one person it means one thing, if you’re talking to Al Gore, Dr. Hansen, or various extremists it means something entirely different.

And that’s the problem.

Mann’s (and Gore’s) hockey stick was never about the .6C of warming that we’ve had over the last 120 years or so. It was, and always has been about the catastrophe. The impending DOOM caused by the actions of loutish humans (and then Gore buys mansions with the energy usage of a small country…)

Two entirely separate issues.

So let’s set some definitions:

  • GW = Global Warming and is simply the state of the world warming, by whatever cause.
  • AGW = Anthropogenic (man made) Global Warming. People done it. It also implies that the warming is a bad thing and that people are bad for doing it.
  • CAGW = Catastrophic AGW. This is what we saw with Gore’s fantasy-horror flick, An Inconvenient Truth. Also this is what’s typical of alarmist/extremist remarks regarding GW. WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE UNLESS WE SHAPE UP NOW!!!!
  • Alarmist = one who buys into the CAGW argument
  • Extremist/hysteric = one who buys into the extreme CAGW remarks, such as this one.
  • Denier/denialist = one who denies the reality of CAGW, but it is used and intended as an insult along the lines of one who denies reality, such as denying the existence of the Holocaust.
  • Sceptic = someone who wants a little proof supporting the concept.

There is good evidence that the world has warmed a bit, even without the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects, however there is zero evidence …

  1. that there is an impending catastrophe,
  2. that there is a tipping point (unless it’s to tip down to the next ice age,)
  3. that anything about the current, slight, warming is unprecedented.

There is solid evidence that some warming is a good thing.

So is the case for AGW stengthened in Mann’s “science” disappeared? Well…

  • GW – yes, only because the hockey stick is a major distraction from reality
  • AGW – no, but energy use to debunk bad science could be used to look for what’s real regarding human effects, if any, on climate.
  • CAGW – definitely weakened, since the major support for CAGW is the hockey stick. With that gone there’s nothing left but wishful thinking on the part of the alarmist/extremist crowd.

Posted in AGW Hypothesis | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Hilarious Headlines and Predictions

Posted by greg2213 on May 18, 2010

Ya know, when talking to people believing in “global warming,” aka “climate change,” I suppose the first question to ask would be something like, “So what, exactly, do you believe GW to be?” I got into a discussion with someone a while back and assumed him to be a Gore type believer. He actually turned out to be quite reasonable, though he disagreed with my “scam” remarks. .

There’s a group of people who believe there has been some degree of warming, but they’re far from Al Gore’s inconvenient fantasy. Then there’s the Al Gore crowd, of course, with its demands to make the world safe for Mr. Gore’s investments from the CO2 menace. And then there’s the crowd that makes Mr. Gore’s predictions seem to be perfectly sane, rational, reasonable… Such as the people responsible for this headline:

Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012

WUWT has the story, and calls it the Most idiotic global warming headline ever

The commenters point out that’s it’s 2007 article (with a 2010 date) and that the “paper” and the author are a bit “iffy.”  It’s also pointed out that since the cataclysm is so near that we should skip all the green exercises and enjoy ourselves, since it won’t make any difference (too little time to even get started planning for the mitigation.)

Of all the wacky, nonsense headlines about GW predictions over the years, this one has to be the wildest.  I’m sure that Mr. Gore would be proud of the hype, except for the fact that with that much human devastation the value of his investments would go way down.

But then without the warming hype there would be less grant money, less power for eco groups, fewer donations to green groups, elimination of the carbon trading scam, fewer tax revenues for our insanely greedy governments, etc. There’s just soooooo much money involved that it has to be real, right?

And then, there’s the crowd that wants to see massive depopulation of our little planet. I’m sure they’d be right with the cataclysm and cheer it on. As long as it didn’t affect them. Oh, is that remark too extreme? Then read this.

Posted in Jokes, Predictions | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

7-15C in Just Decades

Posted by greg2213 on April 21, 2010

The Al Gore View of Global Warming basically states that the world is doomed, unless (snarky remarks deleted.) The ward does seem to have warmed by  maybe .6C or so over the last 120 some odd years. The Gore crowd claims this is unprecedented, rational people point out that the historical record says that it isn’t.

As I mentioned in the previous post, 1500 year cycles, there were a number of times during the last ice ages where temps rose 7-8C in a matter of decades. Before SUVs were invented or any fossil fuel was being burned.

I found this in a WUWT comment:

“The Greenland (Arctic) and Vostok (Antarctic) ice cores are particularly informative, offering fine temporal resolution and continuity. This has revealed surprising oscillations of climate on a millennial scale within the main 100-kyr cycle. The Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) identifies some 24 interstadials through the last ice age with average temperature rising rapidly by ~7 C over just decades. Further ice and sediment cores from around the world are demonstrating the global scale of these major climatic events.”

From: Hewitt, G. 2000. The genetic legacy of the Quarternary ice ages. NATURE, Vol. 405, 22 June 2000 (

Here’s a  2004 paper from the same author (and it’s a Royal Society paper)

Our climate has been cooling for ca. 60Myr, with the Antarctic ice sheet forming ca. 35 Ma and the Arctic icecap growing from ca. 3 Ma. The Quaternary Period has been dominated by Ice Ages, which involve repeated global cooling and increasing advances of these ice sheets. These oscillations are paced by regular eccentricities in the Earth’s orbit around the sun every 100, 41 and 21 kyr. The large ice sheets, surrounding permafrost, lower global temperature and reduced water availability caused great changes in the distribution of species, which can be seen in the fossil record (Bennett 1997; Williams et al. 1998). Recent work with cores from ice sheets and sea beds confirms the effects of millennial-scale change in climate nested within the main 100 kyr cycle. These involved changes of as much as 7–15 °C over a few decades, which then lasted for hundreds of years, and there is fossil evidence that these, including the Younger Dryas ca. 11 ka, caused shifts in species distributions.

Full paper (PDF) here: Genetic consequences of climatic oscillations in the Quaternary

7-15C over a few decades, from perfectly nature causes, and we’re supposed to hand over the world’s economies to Al Gore & Co over Zero.6C?

Posted in History | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Damn Lies, Statistics, Perspective, Graphs, and Background Pics

Posted by greg2213 on April 13, 2010

Background pics?

It’s  generally accepted, though still debatable, that global temps have gone up about .6C over the last 100 some odd years. This is averaged over the whole year and some months will show a higher rate, others a lower one.

But .6C isn’t particularly alarming. It’s interesting only because we’re living through it, it’s by no means unique to this period in time. Given data manipulation and heat island effects it can be argued that there has been close to zero warming, on average, but let’s go with the .6 number.

How do you make it into a scarier picture? After all, there’s all that grant money to think about, not to mention Al Gore’s fortunes, incredible tax revenues, increasing government power, massiive boosts to the bottom line of any corporation that can play in the carbon market (Big Oil, Brokerage firms, UN IPCC Chief Pachauuri’s firms, etc.)  Showing a warming picture that’s just  interesting won’t do.

So let’s grab a particularly terrifying pic from WUWT:

US Annual Temperatures by Month

US Annual Temperatures by Month

What’s shown here is the average monthy temperature for many different years, each year being a separate line. The red line is 2009 and it seems to be pretty average. So where’s the catastrophic warming? Think the background pic does anything to add to the alarm? I don’t either.

Then compare that pic to this one, also  from the same post:

US Temps Rising Rapidly?

US Temps Rising Rapidly?

Nice background pic, hmmm?

Squish 120 years of temps into a short space and widen the vertical graph, both of  which exaggerate that upward sloping red line. Make the scale in degrees Fahrenheit, instead of Celsius, since .6C becomes just over 1F, so looks bigger (scarier.)

So the two graphs display the same data, but which one do you think will be more likely to be on the cover of any report by any of the above listed warming beneficiaries?

Here’s the WUWT post with the graphs, more discussion, and the usual bazillion comments: Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics … and Graphs

More stuff:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Increased Strife from Global Warming? Not Likely.

Posted by greg2213 on March 30, 2010

One of the scenarios posted by the scaremongers is that a warming world will be a more violent world. In addition to stress from being warmer people will fight over dwindling resources, such as water.

Nevermind that there is little to no evidence of the resource issue occuring, and that there is a lot of evidence that a warmer world is a better one for people,plants, and critters.

CO2science has a paper that demonstrates that the issues would come from global cooling, not warming (emphasis mine.)

The results of Tol and Wagner’s analyses provide additional evidence that, as they describe it, “periods with lower temperatures in the pre-industrial era are accompanied by violent conflicts.” However, they determined that “this effect is much weaker in the modern world than it was in pre-industrial times,” which implies, in their words, “that future global warming is not likely to lead to (civil) war between (within) European countries.” Therefore, they conclude that “should anyone ever seriously have believed that, this paper does put that idea to rest.”

The rest: War and Peace … and Climate Change

I’m solidly in the camp that says, “Extreme claims of problems/damage from global warming should be taken with large grains of salt, at best. Generally, it’s probably best to laugh at them.”

Posted in Global Warming | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »