Friday, March 23, 2012

Global warming's Mein Kampf moment

In the midst of the fraud, garbage science, opportunism, and criminal behavior by global warming activists, it's not difficult to understand that global warming is a malevolent hoax perpetrated for several obvious motives-- increasing state power over individual's lives, maximizing funding for climate scientists, providing opportunities for personal enrichment, among others.

But in every totalitarian movement there are signature moments. Moments of candor. Mein Kampf moments-- open admissions of what the movement is really about.

You may recall this video from a year and a half ago. With the publication of NYU professor S. Matthew Liao's lunatic paper recommending human genetic engineering and bizarre totalitarian schemes to thwart climate catastrophe, it's worth revisiting a prior moment of remarkable clarity about the global warming movement.

In October 2010 global warming activist campaign called 10:10-- which had (and has) broad support across the AGW movement-- produced a short film titled No Pressure. Global warming alarmists planned to show the film in cinema and on television. The film was pulled almost immediately, due to massive public outcry, and many of the global warming crusaders who backed the campaign distanced themselves from the film.

But ask yourself: who would make a film like this? Who would write the screenplay? Who would direct and produce it? Who would release it? Who would have anything to do with the people who made this? Can you think of any other advocacy group that has produced anything like this?


The global warming movement bares its soul in this video.


25 comments:

  1. The near-unanimous opinion of climate scientists could possibly be wrong, of course, but the case for AGW just keeps getting stronger and stronger.

    Only a raving lunatic believes global warming is some sort of hoax. Perhaps some form of counselling might help with your delusional behavior?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. [Only a raving lunatic believes global warming is some sort of hoax. Perhaps some form of counselling might help with your delusional behavior?]

      Right. People who don't buy into your junk science and totalitarian ideology are craaaazy.

      Delete
    2. Crazy? No. Ignorant? Yes.

      Delete
    3. @oleg:

      Is Richard Lindzen, MIT professor of climate science and a noted AGW sceptic, "ignorant"? How about Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, who has been harshly critical of AGW hysteria?

      Perhaps there are honest differences of opinion? Perhaps some AGW alarmists are acting unethically?

      Delete
    4. Lindzen is a red herring. You can take any branch of science and there will be one famous naysayer. Fred Hoyle denied the reality of the Big Bang till he died. Peter Duesburg continues to deny that HIV causes AIDS. You don't base policies on the opinion of one researcher against a thousand others.

      Cherry picking is what you, guys, do.

      Delete
  2. Michael,

    Well, I know you're not an absolute idiot, so I assume that you know just as well as I do that this video was almost certainly produced by a denialist group. The less probable producers being comedians trying to be funny by exploiting a pseudo-controversy. The least probable producers would be the rationalists who accept AGW as being almost certainly true (ie not possible producers at all).

    Yet again. I've challenged you on many occasions to refute AGW by addressing the physics and chemistry of greenhouse gases, a challenge you adamantly refuse to accept.

    Why don't you try? Otherwise, I would just have to assume that you, like about 75% of the American population, are science illiterate, and not capable of even being able to understand something basic as the science section of the NYT.

    Rather worrying in a practicing neurosurgeon who uses science everyday in his professional career.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...challenged you on many occasions to refute AGW...

      I did! I provided solid references that show conclusively that the A in AGW is a hoax!

      You prefer believing your own fogma...

      ...75% of the American population, are science illiterate...

      Oh what hubris hath thee!

      Delete
  3. Michael,

    Nope, I was wrong (and I admit it). 10:10 is a bona fide AGW acceptance group. However, the video was produced by comedians trying to make something funny. Apparently one of the producers produced the 'Blackadder' series (a series I never quite got into).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. [the video was produced by comedians trying to make something funny]

      Yea. Murdering children who don't accept your propaganda is a real knee-slapper.

      [Yet again. I've challenged you on many occasions to refute AGW by addressing the physics and chemistry of greenhouse gases, a challenge you adamantly refuse to accept.]

      The global warming movement has noting to do with real science, just as the eugenics movement had nothing to do with real science. AGW hysteria is about politics and power and ideology and personal enrichment.

      [Why don't you try? Otherwise, I would just have to assume that you, like about 75% of the American population, are science illiterate, and not capable of even being able to understand something basic as the science section of the NYT.]

      Then I guess you'll just have to push the red button and blow me up.

      [Rather worrying in a practicing neurosurgeon who uses science everyday in his professional career.]

      I deal with things like this in my profession all of the time-- quacks who make claims based on junk science when they really have a very un-scientific agenda.

      I can smell it a mile away, and AGW stinks.

      Delete
    2. Michael,

      Climate science is a mature science. We know what drives climate.

      We know how greenhouse gases work to retain heat. No greenhouse gases and the Earth would have a temperature of -18C. No one disputes this.

      Increasing greenhouse gases will cause increased retention of heat and hence cause increased warming.

      Humans are burning enormous quantities of fossil fuels and dumping 8.5 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere in the form of CO2 and hence increasing greenhouse gases, which are increasing at a rate of 2-3 ppmv per year.

      Sorry, Michael, you can't use your nose to determine what is real science or not. You have to use your brain to look at the science, or else you're science illiterate.

      Agreed. Eugenics was in practice foolish. It was a premature effort to use the recently rediscovered in 1900 science of genetics. At the time, genes and the nature of the genetic material, DNA, hadn't been discovered. Even now, we don't understand how the 23,000 or so genes in the human genome go to forming a human body in embryological development.

      In retrospect, doing nothing was much more sensible, because doing nothing was exactly the process humans had been using for hundreds of thousands of years, and which had served us so well.

      Ignoring AGW as unproven or uncertain, and waiting for certainty, isn't doing nothing. It's deciding to continue burning progressively increasing quantities of finite fossil fuels. Peak oil will eventually happen, if it hasn't happened already. Reducing consumption by 10% isn't a bad idea as a means of conserving the fuel we still have.

      Agreed. You have to be suspicious if a proponent of some course of action has an agenda. But you have to look at both sides. Do the global warming skeptics have an agenda too? In Australia, the major skeptics tend to be coal mining magnates, directors of mining companies or scientists who have accepted grants from oil companies indirectly via think tanks.

      There's a lot of money in fossil fuels. The global public fund subsidies of oil runs to 450 billion dollars a year, which swamps the claimed 80 billion dollars going to the 'AGW industry' over 20 years (claimed by Joanne Nova).

      Delete
    3. [Agreed. Eugenics was in practice foolish. It was a premature effort to use the recently rediscovered in 1900 science of genetics. At the time, genes and the nature of the genetic material, DNA, hadn't been discovered. Even now, we don't understand how the 23,000 or so genes in the human genome go to forming a human body in embryological development.]

      Eugenics wasn't foolish. It was a crime against humanity. It led directly to widespread denial of basic rights, involuntary sterilization in many countries (50,000 people in the US were involuntarily sterilized), and to the systematic murder of 200,000 handicapped people in Germany and, with only a slight modification of the ideology, to the attempt to exterminate all European Jews.

      "Crime" is the term for eugenics, not "foolish".

      Delete
    4. Michael,

      OK. I'll agree. Eugenics was also a crime, not only just foolish. Although being foolish doesn't exclude it being a crime too.

      You still haven't addressed my point. Genetics was only rediscovered in 1900. Eugenics was a premature attempt to apply a science not understood then, and not fully understood, by any measure, even now. Doing nothing was a very sensible option because it had done humans so well for so long.

      Selective breeding of domestic animals and crops hadn't been a success as far as the species bred were concerned. Maize and wheat are incapable of propagating in the wild (the seed has to be manually separated for human convenience). Dogs and dairy cattle can't survive in the wild easily.

      But climate science is a mature science. It's been around since the 1830s to explain known climate change. We have a very good understanding of the factors driving climate. AGW comes directly from our understanding of the physics of greenhouse gases. If you think AGW is wrong, then you need to explain why the physics is wrong.

      AGW might be uncertain. We don't know exactly what the exact degree of global warming and its effects will be. Insisting that we should wait until we have certainty isn't doing 'nothing'. It's continuing to burn fossil fuels at an accelerating rate.

      The OECD has recently put out a report estimating that by 2050 we will need 80% more energy, just to provide for the extra 2 billion and to extend energy to the poor who don't have any at the moment. Where is it to come from? Reducing our current use and conserving fossil fuels isn't such a bad idea.


      Pepe,

      OK. Three questions:

      1. Why is the atmospheric CO2 level increasing at a rate of 2-3 ppmv per year?

      Since I know your answer to (1),

      2. Are there any natural processes removing CO2 from the atmosphere balancing and canceling out most of the natural processes putting CO2 into the atmosphere?

      3. Are you still using using Monte Hieb's, a coal mining engineer, website 'Plant Fossils of West Virginia' as your reference?

      Delete
    5. bachfiend,

      Here is my answer to your questions.

      I do hope you know German better than you know French.

      BTW, Die CO2-Lüge means The CO2 Lie!

      Delete
    6. Ok bachfiend, let me help you.
      As it says: Not here to worship what is known, but to question it. Now that is REAL SCIENCE!

      Delete
    7. Pepe,

      Thank you. I'm very fluent at reading German.

      You're not very good at answering questions. The article you linked to in 'das Bild' doesn't contain the answers to the questions I'd asked. Not even the article on the following day.

      'Das Bild' is a trashy tabloid newspaper. I once made the mistake of buying a copy and I read it cover to cover in 5 minutes.

      The articles were puff pieces written by 2 authors publicizing their denialist book. Have a look at the 1 star reviews of it on Amazon.de. It really gets ripped to shreds.

      Sorry, you can't persist in cherry picking. When scientists are almost unanimous that our understanding of climate is correct, you can't take a minority position as being true unless you have very good evidence. Accepting the minority position as being your sole evidence is just wishful thinking.

      There's no conspiracy about AGW. Unless you believe in the conspiracy theory that states that absence of evidence of a conspiracy is evidence of a very successful coverup?

      Delete
    8. In the year 2000, I was for a while in Newfoundland and Labrador. I had a couple of weeks free, and decided to take my son to see the 1000 year anniversary of the settlement at L'anse Aux Meadows, at the very tip of the Island of Newfoundland, Canada's Eastern most Province.
      Today the park, archaeological zone, and reconstructions of the settlement are very remote, but easy enough to reach for a determined North American traveller. I say that because my European friends think a 30 minute drive or bus ride is a vast distance - and this takes several hours from the ferry port in the south, or 14+ hours from the Provincial capital of St John's. But it a beautiful scenic drive past Fjords and mountain lined coasts on a modern Highway called 'the Viking Route' or 'Sea to Sky Highway'. Eventually you end up in St Anthony's, a small , but full service, town on the top of the Island on the coast known as 'Iceberg Alley', which as the name implies is a great place to view Icebergs in the summer, as they drift by and break up off the coastline.
      The adventure would have been wonderful if it had just been about the natural beauty of the place, but being a life-long student of medieval history, I found it to be a wonderful experience to visit the ONLY confirmed site dating to the middle ages in Canada.
      Once there I immersed myself in the 'Sagas', or Norse tales of the first landings, colonization, and eventual abandonment/dissolution of the settlements in Newfoundland and Greenland. These are fantastic sounding stories, but backed up by real data. The data consists not just of archaeological finds, but of genetic traces in the native populations of these regions.
      One of the aspects that struck me the hardest about these Sagas is the way the land is described in them in contrast to what it is like now. These tales tell of wild fruits growing, including grapes (one region was known a 'Vinland' for exactly that reason), abundant woodlands, and very different types of sea life. These too have left traces.
      So, what happened prior to the year 1000 AD that created a warmer climate in the Northern Hemisphere? I have heard all sorts of stuff, most of it based on pseudo science and conjecture.

      What we actually have is an enigma. A cycle presents itself that is evident throughout the historical record. The world warms and it cools. Sometimes the changes seem to be global. In other cases it seems to be regional.
      What is evident about the changes we see today is not the causes or end results. We are almost as much in the dark on these important questions as the Norse were.
      What is truly apparent is the modern astrologers, known as climate scientists, know the shift is coming. Like some ancient skryer or star-priest who knows an eclipse is approaching, they USE that change to their advantage by pretending to know the reason WHY and how to appease the angry Sun god. Just as the ancient seer was a tool for the people in power, so is our modern scientific community. Just as the ancients required, they seek the blood of infants and heavy taxes on the common man. We must 'sacrifice' in order to save 'the earth'.
      I will sum it up with a verse that says it all, from the good Book:

      "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."
      Ecclesiastes 1:9

      Delete
    9. CrusadeRex,

      What exactly does your long anecdote about the medieval warm period in Newfoundland have to do with AGW?

      No scientist claims that CO2 is the only factor driving climate. But greenhouse gases are an important factor. Without greenhouse gases, the Earth would have a temperature of minus 18 degrees Celsius. The challenge I've issued to Michael to explain why increasing CO2 levels by dumping 8.5 billion tonnes of carbon in the form of CO2 per year from the burning of fossil fuels won't cause increased warming applies equally to you.

      Atmospheric levels of CO2 are currently increasing at a much faster rate than anytime within recent history, including the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum 55 million years ago due to out basing of methane from suboceanic volcanic activity 55 million years ago associated with a mass extinction.

      The argument for the MWP being warmer than today is dubious. 'Vinland' has been suggested to mean 'pasture land', with 'Vin' pronounced short meaning 'pasture' instead of 'vin' pronounced long meaning 'vine'. The vines if present might also have referred to native berries, more cold tolerant than grapes, which can also be made into wine.

      Another explanation is that it just was a marketing ploy, to encourage settlement, similar to Greenland, which only managed to support two settlements (does anyone think that the Vikings saw a green Greenland).

      Many of these suggestions date back to 1910, when no one was concerned about AGW.

      AGW is based on the physics of greenhouse gases, not on reconstructions of climate in the past or projections of global temperature into the future. Climate models will never be accurate because to do so, we'd need a model for everything, including a solar model, to predict future solar output, and a tectonic plate model, to predict future volcanic activity. The supervolcano under Yellowstone could erupt tomorrow (it's overdue) throwing the Earth back into a glaciation, and in the process ruining all climate projections.

      To illustrate the importance of greenhouse gases. Venus at its distance from the Sun receives 90% more solar radiation than the Earth. Its albedo is twice as great due to atmospheric sulphuric acid, so it's actually absorbing less of the solar radiation. But its atmosphere is dense containing mainly CO2, so its temperature is hot enough to melt lead.

      Venus has a simple climate, because it has no oceans and no weather. The Earth has a complex climate because it has oceans, complex continents and large mountains, causing weather, as large amounts of heat slosh around the Earth tending towards but never finding equilibrium.

      Love your quote from Ecclesiastes. It's the most agnostic book of the Bible, and almost a wonder it got included.

      Delete
    10. bachfiend, here are my answers to your questions:

      2. Are there any natural processes removing CO2 from the atmosphere balancing and canceling out most of the natural processes putting CO2 into the atmosphere?

      Yes.

      3. Are you still using using Monte Hieb's, a coal mining engineer, website 'Plant Fossils of West Virginia' as your reference?

      Yes, but it is only one of a myriad of references I use. The more references the better!

      Here are some questions for you:

      1) Would you be willing to bet your 3 million that AGW is true?

      2) Would you be willing to bet your life that AGW is true?

      Delete
    11. Pepe,

      You forgot question (1), the most important question!

      Answering questions isn't one of your fortes.

      My answers to your questions are:

      Yes and yes. The physics of greenhouse gases clearly indicate that increasing greenhouse gases must increase global warming over the temperature the Earth would otherwise have. My comment that if the supervolcano under Yellowstone erupts tomorrow plunging the Earth into a glaciation, the CO2 we have already pumped into the atmosphere will ensure that the Earth will be warmer than it otherwise will have been.

      I'm confident enough to have changed my lifestyle. Minimum of car travel, smallest car possible, use bike/public transport whenever possible, conserve energy whenever possible (no air conditioning in Summer), minimum of air travel (and carbon offset when I do).


      Questions for you:

      Would you be prepared to risk the lives of your grandchildren and great grandchildren if AGW turns out as catastrophic as some, not all, predict? What level of risk are you willing to accept as the price for your pleasure today that your children might be paying on your behalf? Are you a selfish hedonist?

      Delete
    12. Bach,

      The reason I posted the story about the warm period in the Arctic should be self evident...and I had already JUST posted it on my blog...
      But, I will reduce it to a more concise reply.
      The REASON for this warming period was not AGW. It is part of a natural cycle we do not understand.
      So when we observe a new cycle approaching, it is not logical to assume we are the cause of this event either.
      As for the interpenetration of the meanings of Vinland etc. I see them as utterly stupid. I have seen the site, stayed there and read the Sagas. They are pretty explicit, as are the related (later) materials from other early explorers of the region.
      That said, the pasture land in Newfoundland is MUCH further south.
      I find no reason to argue about specifics, as I am quite aware of what the field researchers ideas are on the matter.
      As for all your stuff on the emissions, I make no pretences on the matter. I simply suggest that using other planets as a model is fallacious. We have never even been able to land probes on Venus, for example, for more than a few minutes.
      Assumptions based on orbital data under current solar conditions are just that: Assumptions.
      Ditto for theories of exo-planetary development.
      Venus could be COOLING for all we know. It could be heating up. We just simply do not have the data from a long enough period to deduce those facts.
      Consider: It's interior and crust are virtual unkowns etc etc
      You assert an order of 'because' (ie oceans etc), that is again assumptive. Is Venus hot because it has no oceans, or is there no oceans because Venus is hot? We just don't know. We don't know much at all, and taking those assumptions (either way) and applying them to the ONLY world we have is, in my view, careless and potentially dangerous.
      Applied to Terra-forming a new and dead world? Maybe, some day... but not to our cradle; our only home.
      Re Ecclesiastes: I like the whole collection of books, as well as many of the external works that are not in the standard versions. It is a corpus of invaluable knowledge and thought. As for being agnostic, that is your own approach. I do not see it like that at all.
      But I am glad you enjoyed the quote. It is one of many that are mindful of the cyclical nature of mankind, civilization, and life in general.

      Delete
    13. PS.
      As I have mentioned before, I also have reduced all manner of consumption - but not for the same reasons. I do not see enough evidence to suggest AGW, but I DO see enough evidence to suggest resource shortages. Being military I know exactly what that kind of thing can lead to.
      I should think we kill each other off in wars long before we become a Venusian hell, if we ever could.
      I like PEOPLE, not machines.
      I like BIRTH, not war.
      So I seek to conserve what I can, but not to save the planet. I do so to save FOR the safety and well being of the living creatures it was made for.

      Delete
    14. CrusadeRex,

      So how's your comprehension of ancient Norse, if you've read the Norse sagas?

      I presume you're just relying on English translations of the sagas, filtered through the comprehension of the translators. And that doesn't mean that the sagas were 100% fact, without any hyperbole.

      You have to rely on the expertise of experts, whether translators of ancient Norse sagas or planetary scientists, unless you have very good reasons for doubting them.

      Explorers interpret what they see in strange lands from what they already know. Columbus was expecting to end up in the Spice Islands, so he interpreted the native plants he found in the carribean as being the spices he was actually seeking.

      Pastures being much further south nowadays is irrelevant. I agree the MWP happened. But again, in could have been hyperbole as a marketing ploy to potentially reluctant settlers.

      I wasn't denying the existence of the medieval warm period. I was just doubting that it was as warm as today.

      I also wasn't claiming that there are no other factors influencing climate besides greenhouse gases. I was just stating the fact that without greenhouse gases, the Earth would have a temperature of minus 18 degrees Celsius. This can be calculated using an absolutely straightforward equation using the surface temperature and size of the Sun, the distance of the planet from the Sun and its albedo. The equation predicts accurately the temperatures of the Moon and Mars, but not that of Venus and the Earth, which are significantly warmer.

      The challenge remains. AGW is based on the physics of greenhouse gases not on past temperature reconstructions or future temperature projections, useful though they may be in giving an indication of the degree.

      The more intelligent denialists attempt to disprove AGW by noting wrongly that infrared radiation absorption by greenhouse gases saturate and that the current CO2 level is very close to saturation.

      The less intelligent, such as Pepe, not that human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere are much less than the amounts natural processes are putting into the atmosphere, ignoring the roughly equal if not slightly greater amounts natural processes are taking out of the atmosphere.

      Faced with an expert consensus of opinion you have to give provisional acceptance of the consensus, unless you have very good reasons for doubt or it's a question of little significance.

      I reject hyelomrphic dualism for example because there's no expert consensus and also because it's not a useful method of looking at reality, personally. A materialistic viewpoint is completely adequate and plausible.

      I accept AGW because it's the consensus of expert scientific opinion, the physics is clear and the consequences of ignoring it are dire.

      There's no worry about trying to save the world. The Earth will survive whatever we do to it. Life will persist somewhere. What we should be trying to do is to save ourselves and our civilization.

      Delete
    15. Hey, bach, since you're buying the AGW bullshit so wholeheartedly, I still have that bridge in England and that tower in France for 1.5 million apiece. Besides, as a bonus, you will live to enjoy them!

      I also suggest you change you moniker to Simplicio!

      Delete
  4. Re: The video.

    1) Terrorism applied to environmental thinking?
    Destroy dissent by implying that if you don't comply - you DIE. Die for what, you may ask? Well, die for the planet's sake. I am reminded of my studies in Latin America of post classical Aztec blood rituals - not an anti-consumerism movement.
    The point of the ad, if there is one other than this terrorizing of the dissenter, is utterly lost in the spray of blood and guts. What remains is a case (in 'comedy') for naked totalitarian oppression.

    2)The two children who are killed in the first segment are 'Philip' and 'Tracey' - traditional English names. While the child who goes along is named after the famous black nanny of Pancake Syrup fame: 'Jemima'. It is a biblical name, actually. But I am sure that does not enter into the calculus of the propagandists involved.
    We can easily tell from this tidbit of snark that the 'boring' traditionalists are the ones at fault.

    3)This is typical of what has happened to British humour in the last several decades. It has moved from the Goons and Python style of razor wit to a heavily political Ricky Gervais (or Bill Maher, for the NA equivalent) style of nastiness and arrogance reminiscent of a Fascist sneer and concentrated on mockery of dissenting opinions which are characterized as idiocy, insanity, or unworthy of life.
    Simply put: Killing dissenting people on a commercial for kids is just NOT funny.

    Re: The AGW movement.

    This kind of thing (the video) is a remarkable insight into the disconnected mindset of the extremists - who seek power through fear - that are the engine of the current movement.
    Like a two edged blade this mentality not only reduces the 'cause' of environmentalism to a political tool for control (and thereby castrates it), but it also serves to push the undecided or partially 'green' to one of the poles of thought on the subject.
    Why? So that the movers of such thinking can provide a middle ground of 'reason' and come to the 'rescue'.
    Again, POWER is the reason.
    This is typical of the Hegelian game of synthesis sought by elitists worldwide on numerous issues.
    "The sky is falling. We must appease the Earth/gods/nature and we will show you how!"
    A 'Mein Kampf moment' is an excellent analogue, Dr Egnor.

    Re: Eugenics. It is alive and well and being pushed under different modern names in different regions and nations. 'Right to die', 'selective abortion', 'tans-humanism' and 'ethnic cleansing' are a small sample of current PC terms.
    The word I would use to describe Eugenics is not mistake, or even criminal - though they both hold truths - but, rather: EVIL.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I suggest we start our own AGW movement.

    The All Going Well movement!

    :-)

    ReplyDelete