Tag Archives: global warming

Bait-and-switch “charity” in progress…


Christopher Houseman

As the snow piles up outside my front door (among many others), The World Wildlife Fund is currently broadcasting a weepie, Warmist TV ad appealing for money to save the polar bear from extinction.

I fail to understand:

  1. How the WWF can even think about broadcasting AGW agitprop to a population that’s having trouble dealing with yet another snowy day. Even if AGW were true, has nobody at the WWF heard of Marketing 101?
  2. Why sending money to the WWF will cool the climate for polar bears in any case.

Norman Tebbit on climate change


David Davis

Usual good sense from this fellow.

Ha!


Michael Winning

The UN is getting nasty as its bid for world domination gets stuck in the (warming) mud

And I would not mind going to Cancun(*) for a nice conference thing (is there supposed to be another letter after the “n”? is that why they go there?

Climategate brilliant strategic analysis


Machael Winning

I dont know if that title makes grammar sense but  the Brian Micklethwait article at Samizdata ought to be read.

Africagate


God, how I hate this “gate” nonsense, but it does express succinctly what’s been going on.

David Davis

Libertarian Alliance “circumlocution award of the day”


David Davis

Climate change has mutated from being a physical phenomenon to be studied to an idea to be contested. The sites of adjudication between competing truth claims have therefore moved from the secluded academy and scientific peer review to the vociferous agora and the extended peer community.

H/T Englishman’s Castle, referring to this article.

In other words, “the bastards have been rumbled and all the dirty washing’s out in the open.”

Worse and worse


Michael Winning

Atr least we can eatt them.

It is cold here tonight yes


Michael Winning

But the market will sort it out if let to. The price of grit and salt will rise as more people want to buy it if they are allowed to. Then more will be made available.

It is already -8C and falling.

I’ve brought in the free range pigs for the umpteemth time, its too cold for te poor buggers and we only have now about 20 of this sort. Some are actually in the house, in the scullery, the smaller ones and one sow was actually shivering when we brought her in. The others are in the outside enclosed  lobby with some bubble wrap and lots of old newspspers. They will cope till the morning.

The socialists won’t learn. Or perhaps they will, and deliberately as the Bosss says, don’t want to play. Copenhagen has been truly rained on as a parade for them, with this what I’d have called “normal” weather for the time of year. they’ve just had it easy with all the mild winters since 1980 while all they Green-protesters was growin up.

Making a snowpolitician: young bloggers show their potential


David Davis

More to follow later as the snowStalinist develops

Snowbureaucrat

Snow-optimist

Biased BBC: BBC EDITOR IS CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVIST


BBC EDITOR IS CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVIST

Sean Gabb

>> Monday, December 28, 2009

I’ve become increasingly convinced that the BBC is part of an international conspiracy about ‘climate change’. It isn’t simply that the reporting is so biased; it’s also because there seems to be a concerted effort to make sure that whatever so-called sceptics discover, for example over Climategate, the warmists bounce straight back with a new set of warped theories or bent facts to support their arguments. The feed of material is relentless, as if it is coming from an organised source. Over the holidays, I’ve been doing some digging on this, and I wanted to share one of my first findings.
A BBC journalist called Peter Thomson is not a household name in this country, but he’s the environment editor of the BBC programme (made jointly with WGBH Boston and RPI) The World, which on a daily basis pushes out climate scare stories to millions of people. Mr Thomson, it turns out, is also the secretary of the Society of Environmental Journalists, a US organisation, the main purpose of which is to spread alarmism through a ‘guide’ about ‘climate change'(masked of course, under the cloak of ‘objectivity’). There can be no doubt that this is a campaigining organisation which wants to achieve political change because it believes that the world needs to reduce CO2 emissions.
Mr Thomson’s activism does not stop there. He’s also a member of the advisory board of the Metcalf Institute for Marine and Environmental Reporting, yet another international organisation with alarmist goals. It, too, publishes a guide to how journalists should cover ‘climate change'; in truly chilling McCarthyite terms, the introduction explains how anyone who disagrees with “the consensus” should be ignored and that journalists should frantically pester editors to publish ‘climate change’ scare stories.
So, to recap. One of the BBC’s most senior editors responsible for environmental reporting has formal roles at the epicentre of a worldwide coinspiracy among ‘climate change’ alarmists. Not only that, he is assisting in the international propagation of so-called science communication guides, the main purpose of which are to enlist other journalists to spread the same lies in which he also believes. I suspect there’s a whole phalanx of Peter Thomsons, all feeding the BBC’s insatiable appetite to feed us with moonshine.
Update: Richard North, of EU Referendum, has kindly provided further information about BBC propagandists. Nik Gowing, a prominent – and rather humourless – BBC World Service presenter, has a no-doubt lucrative sideline in chairing ‘climate change’ conferences convened by the alarmist-in-chief, IPCC head Dr Ravendra Pachauri.

Biased BBC: BBC EDITOR IS CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVIST

The Humble Devil destroys AGW


Good stuff, and a pdf of the scientific paper outlining it.

David Davis

Tomorrow, a life-size SnowGordonBrown….


David Davis

But today, these…

SnowMandelson exercising on trampoline

SnowNickGriffin, expostulating

SnoWBama, messiahrising

Yep, you’ve spotted the deliberate deception! They are all the same man! Happy Christmas, old fellas and slappers, and let’s look forward to a politician-free new year….sometime in the distant future.

We’ll try and say a few things over Chrstmas…


But don’t worry if we’re a little tight (I meant “light”.)

David Davis

Photos of interesting and exciting snowmen, if they have a libertarian air about them, may be put before you. I haven’t seen a snowGordonBrown yet, or a snowCameron, but if one comes up I will tell you about it. Mark Stein did a snowGeorge Bush about 8 years ago.

Ah, that global warming thing…it’s so much so much fun…


…so much for that, then.

David Davis

I have not experienced several days of ice (in a row, not serially but collectively) for 46 years. And I even live, now, in a mild-climate-region, in the North, which has always been mild, which is why lots of people in mini-skirts lived here until a few days ago – now they all wear tights.

The cooling is clearly down to our warming the atmosphere.

Must be our fault, then, that we’re now under the ice.

They’re going to hobble us, no matter what


David Davis

Ed Moribund seems to think that “even if the science isn’t settled”, we’ve all got to go back to the Dark Ages. This smells of pure evil and not just credulousness about AGW.

I have always maintained that these droids are wicked on purpose. They really do mean to be like that. The strongest motivational force behind any crime is the personal decision to commit it.

The Englishman in his Castle has noticed too.

So did The Australian. It highlights the plight of the global poor, who whom the GreeNazis have nowt but contempt.

It’s golbal warming and it’s all our fault


Michael Winning

I just append these here, It was -4C this am and in a reigon which never freezes mostly:

Errrr…the evidence is invisible…


Michael Winning,

Good one, that, Millibind old man! We’ll really believe you now!

“Copenhagen” will fail – and quite right too


David Davis

Today I unashamedly lift the text of Lord Lawson’s piece in The Times, regarding the staggering potential costs of implementing “low carbon” and “no carbon” strategies, allegedly to “fight climate change”. The text also bears significantly upon the effects of the “British” data released helpfully by some Russian Gentlemen (I presume they were male – those Russians that do shattering things unannounced to other people, are almost invariably male these days) and which originated in the CRU, a British outfit that purports to do “Climate Research” for people like the UN. ‘Nuff said.

(NB I can only find ONE USA blog that’s picking up this story – please wise up over there, gents, for it affects you and your somewhat strange president also.)

Copenhagen will fail – and quite right too

Even if the science was reliable (which it isn’t), we should not force the world’s poorest countries to cut carbon emissions

Nigel Lawson

//

Recommend? (35) div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited { color:#06c; }

Exactly a fortnight from today, the United Nations climate change conference opens in Copenhagen. Its purpose is (or was) clear: to agree a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

Under Kyoto, all those developed nations that ratified the treaty (all, in practice, except the US) agreed to cut their carbon emissions to 5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. The successor treaty, to be agreed at Copenhagen, was intended to secure a cut in global emissions, from the developed and developing world alike (and China has now overtaken even the US), of 50 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050, leading to more or less total decarbonisation by the end of the century.

As Gordon Brown declared in his Guildhall speech only a week ago, Copenhagen must “forge a new international agreement … [which] must contain the full range of commitments required: on emissions reductions by both developed and developing countries, on finance and on verification”.

This is a pretty tall order; and, needless to say, nothing of the sort will be agreed. Even if the Kyoto 5 per cent cut is achieved, it will be only because the developed world has effectively outsourced a large part of its emissions to countries, such as China and India, without Kyoto constraints. Not only is 50 per cent rather more severe than 5 per cent, but (except in the unlikely event of world industry migrating to Mars) a global target removes the escape route of outsourcing emissions.

Moreover there is a strong moral argument, too. The reason we use carbon-based energy is simply that it is far and away the cheapest source of energy, and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

Switching to much more expensive energy may be acceptable for us in the developed world. But in the developing world, there are still tens of millions of people suffering from acute poverty, and from the consequences of such poverty, in the shape of preventable disease, malnutrition and premature death. So for the developing world, the overriding priority has to be the fastest feasible rate of economic development, which means, inter alia, using the cheapest available form of energy: carbon-based energy.

Mr Brown’s Copenhagen objective will, happily, not be achieved. But the meeting will still be declared a great success. Politicians do not like being associated with failure, so they will make sure that whatever emerges from Copenhagen is declared a success, and promise to meet again next year. This will at least give our political leaders the time to get themselves off the hook.

The greatest error in the current conventional wisdom is that, if you accept the (present) majority scientific view that most of the modest global warming in the last quarter of the last century — about half a degree centigrade — was caused by man-made carbon emissions, then you must also accept that we have to decarbonise our economies.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I have no idea whether the majority scientific view (and it is far from a consensus) is correct. Certainly, it is curious that, whereas their models predicted an acceleration in global warming this century as the growth in emissions accelerated, so far this century there has been no further warming at all. But the current majority view may still be right.

Even if it is, however, that cannot determine the right policy choice. For a warmer climate brings benefits as well as disadvantages. Even if there is a net disadvantage, which is uncertain, it is far less than the economic cost (let alone the human cost) of decarbonisation. Moreover, the greatest single attribute of mankind is our capacity to adapt to changing circumstances. By adapting to any warming that may occur over the next century, we can pocket the benefits and greatly reduce the disadvantages, at a cost that is far less than the cost of global decarbonisation — even if that could be achieved.

Moreover, the scientific basis for global warming projections is now under scrutiny as never before. The principal source of these projections is produced by a small group of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), affiliated to the University of East Anglia.

Last week an apparent hacker obtained access to their computers and published in the blogosphere part of their internal e-mail traffic. And the CRU has conceded that the at least some of the published e-mails are genuine.

Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals.

There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay.

It is against all this background that I am announcing today the launch of a new high-powered all-party (and non-party) think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (www.thegwpf.org), which I hope may mark a turning-point in the political and public debate on the important issue of global warming policy. At the very least, open and reasoned debate on this issue cannot be anything but healthy. The absence of debate between political parties at the present time makes our contribution all the more necessary.

Lord Lawson of Blaby was Chancellor of the Exchequer 1983-89. He will be speaking at an Institute of Economic Affairs debate on climate change at the Institute of Directors in London today.

 

Take a look at this


Michael winning

Over at The Englishman’s Castle it says that some Russian fellows have hacked into the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit, and published all its files. I won’t put them up here in case its actionable but you can have a look for yourself. I’ve scanned down them and if it’s a hoax, it’s pretty convincing and very very detailed!

Climate Change, and what people really think


Update:- Good physics-based demolition of the CO2 myth over at Counting Cats….h/t the Devil

David Davis

I was intrigued just now by something Bishop Hill has done, in placing different strands of opinion about AGW and climate change generally, on a sort of Johari Window.

Here it is, but do read his piece.

COPENHAGEN conference and greeNazis: preparing the world for food-rationing…


David Davis

It implies over at The Englishman’s Castle that the Global-Food-Management-Gestapo, the GFMGs (as they will now henceforth be known – here’s one who’s been hiding in the woodword for some time! Here’s another. They are mass-murderers who will try to invoke global food rationing and soon, starting in nations which they hate) while cleverly appearing to shoot themselves in the foot and perform what appear to be self-contradictory activities, so as to promote the effect of people wanting to minimize the importance of what they do, are actually following a clever and strategically-focussed agenda.

Surely, food is delightful, and absolute food is absolutely delightful? No?

Do follow the links of the Englishman to Lord Stern, English pigswill, and the Affair of the Coptic Pigs. If it was not frightening, it would be funny.

You have to buy one of these


David Davis

I just chanced on this. It looks very fine. The Officers of the Libertarian Alliance will, naturally, be thinking of ordering some, for the Committee, but sadly funds do not run to this sort of extravagance. So it’s “theory A”, then.

100 watt light bulbs.


Fred Bloggs.

0209-MATT-web_1473184a

Although there is a store in Southport which has a large sign saying  “We now stock 100 watt light bulbs.”

Here’s the details:
Chris Taylor Electrical Supplies
01704 544047

Enjoy.

Global-warm-mongering: we are too calm and rational, we try to ascertain truth and not to emote, and that is why we will fail.


David Davis

We don't think like they do, for we are rational beings

We don't think like they do, for we are rational beings

I spotted this just now:-

Here.

Above is the thing again that will shoot us in the foot, for our not being able to talk the talk like the enemy does.

Libertarians are good at not only debunking (rationally) the wicked and deliberate falshoods of the Enemy, but also as satirising and laughing our socks off at their logical and hypocritical inconsistencies. But this is not enough.

We need to be able to appeal to the “hearts” of the slaves, off our own backs and without the use of rationality which takes too long and requires too much effort on the part of observers. We should also be using the emotional blackmail and emotional weapons which the Enemy, being “strong in and on media aspects, as is natural”, uses so well.

I think we are f****d, basically.

Green bastards getting really dangerous now….


I think they really mean to do this unutterably evil and destructive stuff.

Will we, perhaps and regrettably, really have to kill them all? It is to be hoped that – before it is too late and the planet is ff****d into an iceball – they will be able to distinguish what is objectively good, and follow it. As Auberon Waugh would have said: “I do not know”.

David Davis

At least we could chop up and burn the “cloud ships” to keep warm for a few days, after the earth has got covered with ice. I really don’t think these bastards ought to be permitted to buy and operate expensive toys whose effects they don’t begin to understand. The fact that it will be also with other people’s money is neither here nor there…

…because libertarians spend too much time arguing about how wrong things are if done by force with tax-money, and not enough time actually assaulting the Enemy-Class’s primary premises about whether certain things ought to be done at all.

temperature swings_2400BC_to_now

Holocene_Temperature_Variations

Hitler-Cactus having a rest for a bit


David Davis

A while ago, we explained about this plant. Just as an update for those who were interested the last time around, it’s resting right now, but hopes to be back with more flowers nest April and May.

Global warming obviously suits it

Global warming obviously suits it

Lovely stuff over at The Englishman’s place


David Davis

Do, please, go and split your pants at the wit of the commentators.

The Moonbats complain about people like us, who love to do what we do about “global warming, for no money, because we believe we are right. Their problem is that they’re not only piss-poor unamusing writers with better educations then ours, and who should therefore know better how to do it: they are also in the wrong, and know it.

The Libertarian Alliance “Empty Human Skull Award”, No-1


Given weekly, from now on, for “The most dangerous person on the planet”. Primarily for

“services to the Human Race that will lead directly or indirectly to its rapid extinction in geological time terms.”

Awarded today to Beth Stratford.

These people really are dangerous, much much worse and “more serious” than the Taliban (whatever he might be) or “Islamic Fundamentalists”. The latter can be cured 100%, with $20,000 each plus a sexy “Palestinian” girl and a 4-yr-old Golf GTI. I estimate that $100 million and 5,000 chicks would crack the “war on terror” – and the government’s old-car-scrappage-scheme can provide all 5,000 cars for about another $15 million.

The Beth Stratfords can’t be fixed so simply: they really believe what they are saying, unlike the former.

The dollars the Stratford-types already have: the girl won’t do it for them (I don’t blame her) and they (say they) don’t like cars. So we are temprarily stuffed for a bribe. Suggestions, any one?

[ITEM: http://greenhellblog.com/ added to bog-roll. And this is a frightening one from them, which I confess I didn't know about.]

Buy this book now


David Davis

I am obliged to The Englishman’s Castle ticket-office-and-souvenir-bookstall, for flagging up this book, which we all ought to buy a number of copies of and force our GreeNazi friends to read.

MPs and social death: how many more?


David Davis

One has to wonder who’d want to be an MP these days, after all the moolah-hoo-hah. Certainly Geoff Hoon, whose name has spawned a new pejorative (I always said – from 200 onwards – how could one give a job to someone called Hoon? It, the act of hiring someone called that, defied logic and rationality) and Alastair “Eyebrows” Darling, would want to hang their heads for the rest of their lives at Toynbee Hall.

Perhaps there were fault-lines in the “system”? Or perhaps there were not, and someone clever went along and told all these guys what they could do, and get away with? But either way, the MPs set it up themselves.

I don’t think MPs ought to be paid. Anything. Nothing at all. Then we’ll only get the right type. Prince Philip would do, so long as he agreed to spank Charles every day thereafter, for gassing on mindlessly and hysterically about the rainforest.

Oh, and as I am an upside-down-Gramscian, lefty pop singers and their wives, and anybody at all who supports AGW, need not be selected either. Given the choice, Constituency Associations, who would have to be either shopkeepers, or any other sort of Masterless Men, would probably give them a wide berth naturally.

Emissions


Fred Bloggs

I just designed yet another picture today, I think you’ll like it:

cARBON POSITIVE

Not the real Endarkenment, then…


David Davis

Poor, sad, tormented Prince Charles is at it again: not actually the Green Custard, but the blathering on about “climate change”, this time in front of the Pope.

Oh, the irony! The fulfilment of his wish will bring about precisely what he fears. Really, the world is upside down.

And why do women persist in covering their heads in fromt of the Pope? It just plays into the hands of certain pre-capitalist tribalisms, and shoots us all in the foot.

Christopher Booker confirms what I said earlier about British State national curriculum GCSE physics papers


David Davis

He says what he says here. I had previously put these up here.

I now put up a new one here.

http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-PHY1H-W-QP-JAN08.PDF

And here’s the answers:-

http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-PHY1H-W-MS-JAN08.PDF

This is not physics: it is brainwashing by GramscoFabiaNazis who know precisely what they are doing, and why, to the children of the people who taught the rets of the world how to know how to recognise their snake-oil, and refuse it.

Far from “not wearing seat belts” or “not having wind turbines”, being a “crime”, this destruction of originally-held common scientific knowledge, in an entire population, is a crime of the First Order. These people ought to be…I can’t bear to say what [should be done to them]…the police will kick down my door.

Easter Sunday pretty funny


David Davis

I ought to read Iowahawk more often, me.

It’s a nice fine English spring afternoon here in the Frozen North, like not enough of these come due to golbal cooing now, and I have ritually drunk wine with my wife and children in the garden, so now I can say something here.

PS: To the social service Nazis whose gamma-minus semi-automata are set to read the “extyremist blogs”: my wife and children do  __NOT__  live in the garden all the time, OK? So don’t come for them. Just stay going shopping for Burberry stuff at TKMaxx, and having meetings sometime.

A good old British 1950s sports car…


…it’s just the lack of a couple of nice chrome-plated bumpers that spoils the look.

David Davis

Bet it goes like a greased pig through a sausage-factory full of angry butchers, though. And yes Tony, the BMW 507 is very nice. But I could never afford one.

And where are the two bolt-on spotlights to go, then?

And where are the two bolt-on spotlights to go, then?

Christopher Booker debags climate-change scumbags (again)


David Davis

Sealevel-submergence scumbags debunked.

The IPCC “needed to show a trend”…..

North Polar Ice thickening: what a bummer for some.


David Davis

How sad for these poor men. The entire article is a scream.

And poor sad tormentd Prince Charles really does appear to have bouhgt into the global warming scam 100%.

 

http://alphainventions.com

The Gramsco-Greenazis have nobbled the telegraph


David Davis

Today, there are at least five major news or feature-refs to climte change, implicitly meaning AGW. Here, here, here, here, and here.

and, why do these bloody models always look so effing miserable? There they are, their names and fizzogs in lights, modelling the planet’s most expensive togs, and yet they’re always scowling as if they’ve just eaten a piece of dogshit:-

 

.....yuk!

.....yuk

…and you sort of feel sure that Mr Versace or whatever his name is ought to have been able to afford to give the poor girl a nice pair of b***s, before sendng her out like that….like this one:-

 

Ta, they feel better, can I go on the catwalk now?

Ta, they feel better, can I go on the catwalk now?

Kicking Anthropogenic Global warming downhill before it’s too late


The Devil spots this Japanese report: let’s hope more scientists break ranks.

God help us if this is not an early April Fool wind-up


David Davis

This madman plans to fire trillions of mirrors into space, to “stop global warming. I really do begin to believe that some of these mountebanks are starting to believe their own witchcraft.

Read the whole thing: it’s eitherw ritten by an imaginative but scientifically-illiterate hobbledy-hoy, or else by some very evil and wicked men.

People who haven’t built a gun before ought not to be allowed anywhere near where extra-powerful ones are to be constructed.

Very bad NASA satellite launch failure…..why?


…because we will not now get the truth in time.

David Davis

The global-climate-change-Gramsco-MarxiaNazi-buggers, and their   _very_   close friends who are the starvation-driving-mass-people-slaughterers, will not now be faced with the evidence – which is that Man is   _not_   causing “global warming”. Thye have cleverly scuppered the satellite – and can simultaneously discredit what ordinary people call “rocket-science”….so that it’s for them a “one-stone-solution to a two-bird problem”.

As regards rocket-science, they will be able to sya how inept we all are, and should stay here and subsistence-farm with chicken manure and stuff.

As regards “global warming”, they will be able to say that “the Science” is “still settled”, for there is still “no” evidence for their hypothesis being proved not to be true.

See?

Simple really.

You just do the insurance-equivalent of setting your car on fire, to claim the dosh and pretend it was all right anyway.

Oh, for f*** ‘ s sake…..


David Davis

Biohazard, envirocrime, HP sauce. What the hell are these people thinking they are doing?

Thanks for spotting this….


…and so today, the British Open Grauniadista-tweaking-contest Grand Challenge Cup goes to The Landed Underclass….for finding this rather fine material. Stylistico-philosphically-speaking, I have my covert suspicions that Landed and Belfry may be the same man – just using two different pub disguises, but I’m keeping quiet about that one.

David Davis

And this is good stirring stuff. I’m not surprised that the “left” is eternally whingeing that there are few outstanding, fast-responding socialist blggers: the people they’d need are all writing for the enemy.

Dolphins can’t be as smart as Einstein then, after all.


David Davis

Honestly, the things we do for all the other blasted vertebrates, and they still don’t learn already.

Personally, I blame global warming on the trilobites for spending too much time shagging, and thus for forgetting to leave us their clay tablets: and on the dinosaurs for not leaving us their backed-up computer-records, of global surface, atmospheric and extra-solar temperatures, sampled over a large enough number of locations.

The 100-typewriting-Chimpanzees, in the Nissen Hut, tell me that Dolphins have sex for fun. Well, they can’t have been paying much attention then.

Lunch!

Lunch!

More lunch!

More lunch!

Stop Climate Change (errr?)


David Davis

Be like Dirty Harry and make these dudes’ day. Via Counting Cats and The Devil.

The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam


David Davis

reprinted from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eurorealist/message/27001

By John Coleman

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints.

Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led tthe public to be skeptical that any runaway global warning. There is now awareness that there may be reason to question whether CO2 is a pollutant and a significant greenhouse gas.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government? And how will we ever stop it?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.

These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 41 hundredths of one percent.

[BLOGMASTER: I want to correct an error in the reprinted article above: the CO2 precentage is 0.031%, which is 3.1 humdredths of one percent.] [Sorry]

Several hypotheses emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation’s bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been led to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

At the same time, that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950’s as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, “It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!” The student described him as “a wonderful, visionary professor” who was “one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming,” That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.

So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his move, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

What happened next is amazing. The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us “the sky is falling, the sky is falling”. The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, “My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways.” He added, “…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer.”

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, “I think so, but I do not know it for certain”. I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It’s a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.
Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when they are asked about we skeptics, they insult us and call us names.

So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of this is a long way from over.
And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming. It is _the_ hoax. It is bad science. It is a highjacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.

John Coleman
1-28-2009

Story Created: Jan 28, 2009 at 6:19 PM PST

Story Updated: Jan 29, 2009 at 9:15 PM PST

Mr Eugenides guesting at The Devil does “climate change” wonderfully well.


Update1:- (from the Devil today 29th Jan 2009) where he picks up from Tom Nelson that more and more people are noticing the glaring contradictions and total lack of scientific rigour emanating form the warmists’ camp.

David Davis

We ought to use him to warm the planet for it will need it. Antarctica is of course getting both colder and warmer at the same moment, so the “mystery of global warming’s missing heat” is of course solved: the models predicted it all along. So pay up, taxpayer-suckers.

Ahhhhh… climate change truly is irreversible…..


….so we have to act even faster to reverse it….

Er…ummmm?

David Davis

Harold Ambler on Huffington Post, refuting some Al Gore


David Davis

I can be very slow, sometimes. Tip the Devil.

Rolls Royce Phantom: the car for Al Gore … and you


David Davis

I chanced on this. Good car, nearly 3 tons, o-60 in under 6 seconds, 18 mpg tops. I’ll have a six-pack. They can tow my friends’ tractors out of the mud.

Eat my slipstream-dust, greenazis and Gramsco-Marxians.