Posts Tagged ‘global warming’

Global warming scam

August 31, 2011

This Telegraph blog post was pointed out by poster “AuWolf” on the Voy forum to whom I owe a hat tip. As I scanned the forum in the wee hours of the morning, I resolved to wait till breakfast to go the The Telegraph’s web site to read the entirety of the post. Nevertheless, scanning the Telegraph’s web site for items related to “global warming” or “warming” or “climate” did not yield the item in question.

Is that a coincidence? 

[…] This is exactly what has happened with the latest revelations from CERN over its landmark CLOUD experiment, whose significance Lawrence Solomon explains here:

“The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.””

There are undoubtedly vast numbers of individuals and corporations that due to negligence and or deliberate criminal behavior pollute and devastate the environment. I am all for throwing the book at these individuals and corporations.

But, from there to agreeing that humanity is causing climate change is a stretch. Admitting so is tantamount to admitting that we have the ability to alter the trajectory of earth in space or that we could cap volcanoes sealed shut. In other words, believing in anthropogenic global warming is similar to the geo centrism and the belief in the centrality of man prevalent during the dark ages.

Be that as it may. After natural phenomena, the single greatest contributor of noxious gases to the atmosphere is agriculture and all its inherent activities. Gaseous emissions from live stock are literally chocking us. This is not me saying it, it is official UN research. That being the case, one would have thought that the best remedy for too much noxious gases in the atmosphere would be a bout of diminished consumption… particularly in the West… no? So, why not embrace a bout of deflation… come on Bernanke… let’s do something for the earth… and you tree huggers around the world… get with the program… we need a new monetary system that’s how you can achieve your goals…


Global warming…

August 7, 2011

… yes, no, … anthropogenic, natural… bullshit, real…

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing.

In 1988, a handful of the scientists who passionately believed in this theory won authorisation from the UN to set up the body known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This was the year when the scare over global warming really exploded into the headlines, thanks above all to the carefully staged testimony given to a US Senate Committee by Dr James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), also already an advocate for the theory that CO? was causing potentially catastrophic warming. […] One of the hockey stick’s biggest fans was Al Gore, who in 2006 made it the centrepiece of his Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth. But it then turned out that almost every single scientific claim in Gore’s film was either wildly exaggerated or wrong. The statistical methods used to create the hockey-stick graph were so devastatingly exposed by two Canadian statisticians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (as was confirmed in 2006 by two expert panels commissioned by the US Congress) that the graph has become one of the most comprehensively discredited artefacts in the history of science.

And of course

UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters

January 24, 2010

More oh hum…!!!

It [the IPCC] based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report’s own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

Gaffaw!! Oooops!

I expect no better from anything United Nations.

UN report on glaciers melting is based on speculation

January 19, 2010

Oh hum!


He said that Dr Hasnain made the assertion about 2035 but admitted it was campaigning report rather than an academic paper that was reviewed by a panel of expert peers.

Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Prof Lal and his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas.

Flashback 1880s, 1920s, 1970s: Global Cooling (Time magazine and the main stream press)

December 30, 2009

Not so long ago we worried about global cooling…,9171,944914,00.html

Excerpt (emphasis added)

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age. Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.”

Anyway, if you kept up with developments, Global Warming is no longer the issue. Today, the issue is Climate Change. But why is climate change an issue today? If climate change is an issue today, does it mean that climate has never changed in the past few million years or does it mean that even though climate changed throughout the ages, it is only today that it is a problem?

Sooo many questions… so few rational answers.

Can we really rely on the predictions of eggspurts (experts)?

But even earlier than the 70s, the media were still getting their knickers in a twist over the climate…

Climate Change and the media 1880 – today

A tale of man’s hysterical inclinations and our innate, if obtuse, habit of dramatizing marginally significant events and extrapolating present trends into predictions of future facts. Seriously folks, meteorologists can barely predict weather 24 hours in advance and they want us to believe they can predict mean temperature shifts of two degrees over 100 years?

Excerpts – (but read the article as it has fascinating references to media articles dating back to the beginning of the last century.)

“Following the ice age threats from the late 1800s, fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 1920s by Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.”

Those concerns lasted well into the late 1920s. But when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories about the new threat. Once again the Times was out in front, cautioning “the earth is steadily growing warmer.”

After a while, that second phase of climate cautions began to fade. By 1954, Fortune magazine was warming to another cooling trend and ran an article titled “Climate – the Heat May Be Off.” As the United States and the old Soviet Union faced off, the media joined them with reports of a more dangerous Cold War of Man vs. Nature.

The New York Times ran warming stories into the late 1950s, but it too came around to the new fears. Just three decades ago, in 1975, the paper reported: “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable. That trend, too, cooled off and was replaced by the current era of reporting on the dangers of global warming. Just six years later, on Aug. 22, 1981, the Times quoted seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an “almost unprecedented magnitude.”

Conservationists hope a hot summer will rescue British butterflies

December 27, 2009

… and this, may I remind you, in the midst of frenetic government propaganda about global warming…


“Cooler conditions makes it harder for them to become active [and get on with mating].”

I was at a dinner last night… (climate change)

December 26, 2009

I’m not much of a socialite and only go out occasionally. A dear friend invited me to Christmas dinner and I decided to go knowing that the company would not be your run of the mill crowd. True to form, guests were and eclectic group of people with unusual backgrounds. All were well read and all were recognized and prominent exponents of their professions in their chosen fields of activity and all had fascinating life experiences to share making for rewarding conversation.

Anxious to throw the cat amongst the pigeons, the point at which we were well into our dinners, in a moment when the conversation seemed to taper off, I suddenly asked whom amongst them had bought the Global Warming rhetoric.

Though the company was exceptionally friendly and willing to engage in polite arguments, the wicked use of the word “bought” in asking my question had the predictable effect to light up all their intellectual warning lights. You could almost hear the blood rushing up from the main area of activity at that moment (the stomach) en route to the brain as the little guys manning their respective cerebral control rooms suddenly stirred from their festivity induced lull to make a panicked appeal for fuel to counter a situation that may require prodigious amounts of arguing power.

And so it was that passions were aroused. Because GW is now more of an emotional issue than a rational and objective one.

All could agree that climate had changed. Firs- hand accounts of depleted fish stocks, damaged coral reefs and changed weather patterns came forth thick and fast.

Finally, someone offered the timeless and misguided argument that sets forth that regardless of whether GW is true or not, we have nothing to lose by implementing legislation aimed at reducing noxious gases.

The company being polite, guests felt the conversation may take a turn for the worst so it was allowed to tail off.

So here is the moral of the story from my point of view.

The final argument reminded me of that annoying email that used to circulate persistently some years ago that was purportedly sent by Bill Gates. The email stated that Microsoft was conducting a secret experiment and that Bill Gates himself would give US$5000 to anyone that would forward the email to all their contact list. Most recipients of the email duly forwarded it to friends and colleagues attaching a message that said: “You never know. It might be true. Anyway we have nothing to lose by forwarding it”.

Of course we all had something to lose by anyone forwarding what was clearly and blatantly a scam to collect email addresses that went to enrich the databases of spammers and hackers. All hackers wanted, was a juicy address of someone in a bank or in a ministry or a credit card company in order to try to plant trojans and viruses.

Similarly with Climate Change, we stand to lose a great deal by allowing ourselves to be roped in by a doctrine that appeals to our sense of moral rectitude but does not stand up to rationalization, just because it is perceived that, anyway, we have nothing to lose by going along with it.

Of course we want clean air, clean cities, clean seas and prosperous forests and coral reefs. It would be nice. But in order to achieve that, we must put the horse before the cart. CC legislation does not even contemplate a horse. It is purely a gravy cart meant to be pushed by you and me.

If you follow this blog, you know my pet peeve is inflation. Rather, my pet peeve is the arbitrary imposition of an unchecked fiat monetary system that leads necessarily and inevitably to an accelerating inflationary dynamic.

Most people have no idea what fiat money is. Most people therefore cannot make the necessary connections that would allow them to realize that CC is a boondoggle. And as boondoggles go, this one is a biggie.

But before we get into that, lets explore a few of the inconsistencies in the CC doctrine. First and foremost, it is established fact that climate changes. It has always been so and there is absolutely no reason why it should not be so now. The fact that man should think that his actions have any bearing on climate is reminiscent of the Geocentrism that prevailed during the dark ages; man is the center of the universe and everything revolves around us. The mere thought that man could alter climate is equivalent to saying that we are capable of altering tides (King Canute anyone?) or, more appropriately, the trajectory of earth in space.

Then there are the laws of thermodynamics one of which states that nothing is created and nothing is destroyed but everything is transformed. So, we know that, for example, oceans are great sinks of CO2 and that during warming they release the gas and that they absorb it during cooling. What we don’t know is whether the oceans are releasing CO2 because the climate is warming or whether the climate is warming because the oceans are releasing CO2. Classic chicken and egg situation.

Then there is CO2. As far as I know, CO2 is plant food. Plants feed on CO2 so technically, more CO2 should be a bonanza for our forests and jungles… and our gardens.

Then there is the fact that from a millenarian point of view, there is nothing particularly unusual going on with current temperatures or with the depletion of glaciers in certain places and their extension in other places. For more information on these subjects you can look up “Debunking AGW” on this blog. Here is also another piece of interesting research:

Then there is the fact that the single greatest contributor of noxious gases to the atmosphere is the agricultural sector and, in particular, the live stock sector with its ancillary activities. This is actually very important to keep in mind for the purposes of this essay.

Now, in order to understand where I am coming from, you must understand the logic of fiat money and you should read the introduction under “Aims and rationale” on this blog. It is lengthy and probably lacking but should be a good primer for further reading. In the meantime, here is a crash course.

By deliberately and arbitrarily imposing a fiat monetary system, government makes the implicit choice to push inflation faster than underlying economic activity. Inflation is a dynamic that is exponential in nature thus it is limited mathematically. As an exponential dynamic, inflation gradually leads to commercial and industrial overcapacity thus it compresses in time the production and consumption cycles thus it boosts GDP nominally (but not necessarily intrinsically). But accelerating inflation fosters accelerating consumption thus the depletion of natural resources (i.e. agriculture and fish stocks) thus leading to aberrations in the economy and politics (subsidies and protection of industries). As an exponential dynamic, it follows that inflation is limited mathematically thus as the “beneficial” effects of inflation tail off (GDP boosting), government has a vested interest in maintaining a positive inflationary trajectory by any means possible. Thus the arbitrary use of fiat money must inevitably and necessarily lead to government becoming the largest actor in the economy.

As the largest actor in the economy, it follows that government has a vested interest in maintaining a positive inflationary trajectory regardless of any moral or fiduciary obligations as may be held as self evident. That is, once past the peak of the perceived “beneficial” effects of inflation, inflation becomes vital to the existence of government therefore it becomes a goal unto itself.

The logic of a fiat monetary system dictates that in order to survive, the system must systematically assimilate new markets and new currencies: i.e. abrogation of Bretton Woods in 1971 and adoption of the US$ as reserve currency, creation of the Euro, globalization. The other necessary precondition of fiat money is the total disregard for intrinsic value. Thus today globally we finally have a USDollar based, floating exchange rate, monetary system.

The rationale of Climate Change legislation therefore, inscribes itself in the fiat monetary logic. That is; at a time when the traditional tools used by government to induce inflation are failing, it becomes necessary to push through to even greater lengths the amalgamation of executive power by simultaneously dismantling layers of democratic mechanisms deemed to hinder the pursuit of what is perceived as legitimate raison d’etat (i.e. Lisbon Treaty and Patriot Acts). At the same time, due to a perception that historic strategies have served well to induce inflation, Climate Change is proposed as a way to impose still more layers of payments and disbursements aimed at boosting the velocity of circulation of the currency. That is because, as is evident in the graph below, despite the gargantuan sums that Western governments have shoveled into the economy in the past 18 months, the new currency has lost its traditional multiplier effect as contemplated by Keynesian theory:

I am all for a clean environment and I would be a ferocious enforcer of legislation that is already existing in order to throw the book at anyone that, willingly or by negligence, pollutes the environment. But from there to supporting what is blatantly Fascist legislation that steam-rolls a bunch of democratic mechanisms in a wasteful and self serving attempt at the perpetuation and enlargement of government… then, no, I am not game.

Now that you have an initial grasp of our monetary system, I leave you with a last thought:

Knowing what the characteristics of inflation are, does it not seem contradictory that government should at once plead for the environment whilst simultaneously trying to kick start the inflationary dynamic to levels approximating the average of the last ten years?

If anyone should really want to do anything about the environment and the devastation of our resources, we should be looking at taking our governments to task on the monetary system. Excess consumption is not good for the environment. The monetary system is the one single construct we should revise.


November 23, 2009

Governments are so far ahead in preparations for the implementation of rules and regulations on this matter that we will likely never know if the data that was hacked and published for all to see is true.

Regardless of whether the data is true or not, what I find dismaying is how most people seem to implicitly trust governments to be doing something on their own volition that is ostensibly good for society and the environment . Since when has that been a characteristic of government? This fact alone taken in isolation, requires attentive scrutiny.

Karl Denninger analyzes the IT data

More catching up by the main stream press

November 1, 2009

The real climate change catastrophe

Is the main stream press suddenly getting a wake-up call?

Ian Plimer Prof Earth Science

October 30, 2009

Author of the book: Heaven and Earth