the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Id’s crazy

Posted by Jeff Id on August 11, 2010

I believe the IPCC was set up with intent to provide an exaggerated science for the unstated purpose of increased government control over the global economies, to repress capitalism, and promote socialistic ideals under the guise of environmentalism.  The creators knew that the scientists would go along with it for their own reasons and that the strongest believer scientists would necessarily be sorted to the top of the pile according to the structure of the IPCC.  I also believe the fragmented intent of the structure with dozens of subgroups was done to make the funding far more difficult to track, such that the magnitude of the expenditures was basically untrackable.

The goal of increasing global governance based on anti-capitalist thinking where the global government controls industry is massively beneficial to a very small group people in charge.   In this scenario, the largest businesses and first to go along with the new governance benefit right along with those who are taking control of their output. Those who are harmed by these policies are the poorest.  Unlike the popular euro-mantra, capitalism does not widen the gap between rich and poor, it allows private people to be rich and creates more money for the poor.  Americas poor are better off than China’s middle.

Don’t forget the golden rule – – He who has the gold, makes the rules.

So let’s hear it, what’s wrong with my statement?

176 Responses to “Id’s crazy”

  1. Bad Andrew said


    You mis-spelled ‘believe’ in the first sentence. 😛


  2. RickA said

    Because your position is based on “intent” it requires knowing the motives and thoughts of the people involved in the “conspiracy”.

    What I think is wrong with this position is that there is no way to objectively determine whether your position is true or false, unless you actually get a principal involved to confess (or learn to read minds).

    No one is going to admit your thesis.

    If you asked anyone, they would say they were merely distilling the best science to help policy makers make decisions based on the best science.

    My guess is that the IPCC was set up for multiple reasons, and sure they wanted to use it to “spin” the science in the best light possible to advance some agendas.

    But whenever I read about conspiracies, I start to cringe.

    So what is the point of speculating about this or that conspiracy?

    That is what I think is wrong with your statement – it is pointless (in my opinion).

  3. PeterB in Indianapolis said

    The UN clearly has a “Global Governance Initiative”.

    There is nothing “Conspiracy Theory” about this, it is stark reality.

  4. Jeff Id said

    #1 I believe u r right.

  5. Lohman said


  6. alan143 said

    I pretty much agree with your summary, though I think it also involves the famous “Limits to Growth” paper from the Club of Rome, and something called the Rimini Protocol.

    Both of these posit that the Earth’s useable resources are finite and will deplete at a rate defined by world population size and average consumption, and that we’re about at peak consumption now. The UN’s aim is avoid resource wars by reducing consumption in a controlled – i.e. socialist – way (using carbon emissions as the proxy) and tackling the heaviest consumers first for obvious reasons.

    As for the largest businesses colluding in the whole process, well yeah, those guys will try to make a buck out of anything that moves!

  7. PhilJourdan said

    It depends upon what you count as the China Middle. If you count it as the middle 75% of the population (much like the US is), then you are correct. However, applying the standards of America to China in regards to the strata of income, then the middle class of China is on par with that of the US.

    Otherwise, I see nothing wrong (but then I can’t spelll either.).

  8. Gnomish said

    “Don’t forget the golden rule – – He who has the gold, makes the rules.”
    Fallacy of the dropped context is used to evade responsibility.
    I make the rules – for me and nobody else.
    You do the same for you.
    I am responsible for my choices.
    You are responsible for yours.
    No third party makes any rules for us, Jeff.
    If it seems that way, you have to learn to say NO – and mean it.
    Self ownership has this as the price.

  9. Mike said

    RickA #2 asks, “So what is the point of speculating about this or that conspiracy?”

    Answer: because it helps to frame the issues. If CAGW was solely a science issue, that would be one thing. But it is not; it is (patently) a political/economic issue and has been from the get go.

    Science won’t solve the political/economic aspects, because science didn’t beget them. I encourage the science debate, but I also know that ultimately the larger concern is about freedom.

  10. GHowe said

    I think Al Gore would agree. He is just an entrepreneur, you know

  11. PeterB in Indianapolis said

    “No third party makes any rules for us, Jeff.”


    You are incorrect. Third parties make rules for EVERYONE, and they do it ALL THE TIME! That being said, 99.99999% of those “Third Party Rules” are completely invalid, but their non-validity does not negate their existence.

    You can avoid a good percentage of them a good percentage of the time, but due to the LEOs and such, you cannot avoid 100% of the “Third Party Rules” 100% of the time. Such is reality.

    Your idea would work much better, as those of us who try to do things that way know very well. However, even the most independent and free man is going to run afoul of some “Third Party Rule” or other from time to time, no matter how much we strive to avoid it. This will be true until we have the sense to eliminate mechanism by which one man claims superior knowledge of other men’s lives such that that one man can make illegitimate rules in an attempt to run the lives of others.

  12. boballab said

    For those going for you can’t determine intent, probably missed this news report becasue it came out right after Climategate and basically got lost in the pile:

    Document Reveals U.N.’s Goal of Becoming Rule-Maker in Global Environmental Talks

    The UNEP That We Want

    At the request of UNEP and with funding from the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and UNEP, IISD convened a group of individuals with substantial experience in international environmental affairs to reflect for a day on the nature and evolution of our environmental challenges, to discuss appropriate responses and to consider the role of UNEP in deploying these responses. They met in Prangins, Switzerland, on September 17, 2007. This note summarizes some of the reflections recorded during the day.

    The environment should compete with religion as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity. To do that, however, it will have to make itself relevant well beyond the world of those already concerned with the environment, including very prominently its own formal constituency. Indeed, unless UNEP succeeds in recasting the debate, it is highly likely that the economic community will do it—badly, and on its own terms. It is already happening in the field of climate change.

    The world will be driven by the decisions made by investors and consumers. UNEP must work out who best influences investment decisions and address them; it must identify what influences consumer choice, and focus on influencing that.

    UNEP needs not only a politically compelling narrative, it needs to find the right voice and vehicles to deliver it. The
    new UNEP narrative must help it to ensure the evolution of its constituency. UNEP must focus on priorities that meet two characteristics: they should appeal to the more powerful ministers responsible for economic policy; and they should empower environment ministers at the cabinet table. UNEP’s message is not for environment ministers—the already-converted. It must focus on making the case that disruption of environmental services will disrupt real lives and economies. In other words, UNEP should aim higher.

    We have established that we must give environment ministers the tools with which to be relevant to finance ministers and heads of government. This includes developing economic tools that take the environment into account. This will help shift the focus to economic management and away from the environment per se. It will help shift the focus to the root causes of our environmental challenges and away from the challenges themselves. And it will place UNEP in charge of the environmental hinterland on which economic development depends if it is to deliver prosperity, stability and equity.

    Such a focus will help UNEP rise above the limitations that its governance structure places on it in reality. It is not so much a counsel to move away from a focus on governments but to supplement it. And with governments, the focus should be on recruiting to the cause those countries that will be the most significant over the coming 20 years—such as China and India. With these countries, the challenge is to get to the finance ministers, not merely the environment ministers. The Environmental Management Group should be used more judiciously as an outreach tool to other members of the UNEP family.

    Beyond governments, it is essential to mobilize a range of other communities that are natural or potential supporters of UNEP’s mission. This way, UNEP works not with one agenda but with a series of parallel or interwoven agendas, and multiplies the potential sources of support. UNEP has a large natural constituency and this constituency needs to be harnessed to the UNEP mission without appearing to make an end-run around the member governments. This includes finding the right way to interact with, and draw the best from, the university and student community, and think tanks. In this respect, it has an asset in the Executive Director, whose background and experience spans several of the key constituencies.

    It is clear that UNEP must take advantage of windows of opportunity to make its case. Like a surfer, it must spot the waves it can ride. The biggest, most magnificent political wave at present and in the immediate future is climate change, and UNEP should not fail to ride it. But it must find and occupy its niche.

    These are excepts from a report asked to be made by the UNEP. You can read the full thing here:

    Click to access 113009_IISDreport.pdf

  13. boballab said

    Hit enter to soon the emphais int he excerpts are mine not from the report in my previous posts

  14. greg2213 said

    Can’t say as I see anything wrong with your statement.

    No conspiracies needed here. CAGW is the dream concept which unites all sorts of leftist ideals with power politics and big corporate & tax money. Of course the IPCC conveniently facilitates all of these ideals.

    IPCC charter: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization for the purpose of assessing “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change…

    There are several groups of people, not mutually exclusive, either running or supporting the CAGW issue and the IPCC. “Power and Money” is what ties all these groups together.

    The people looking to make a lot of money: from Al Gore & Paachauri to Goldman-Sachs and any other corp that can play the credits game or get rich Gov contracts for making green stuff.

    The people who want to shackle the economies of the US and other western countries, either for rivalry (EG. China,) or Envy (many 3rd world countries.

    The people who want to shackle the economies of the US and other western countries, since said countries are Bad Bad Bad for what they did to the wholesome and pure 3rd world when they brutally conquered it.

    The people who strongly believes that the 3rd world deserves reparations (wealth distribution) from the 1st world that so brutally… you get the idea.

    The Governments who see all those delicious tax revenues.

    The Luddites who think knocking our technology back, a lot, (and maybe adding in some major depopulation)is the only thing that can help the distressed Mother Gaia.

    The related group that thinks human-kind is no more than a disease that needs to be wiped out (except for a privileged few?)

    The group that thinks that we the people are too stupid to rule ourselves, and so they, the Enlightened, the Intelligent, the Left must “reluctantly” take on the job of controlling our pathetic little lives. (Commies and Socialists, raise your hands.)

    The scientists who want fame, glory, or just a really secure job (some of them have families, after all.)

    There may even be a few who really believe in the catastrophe who aren’t motivated by money and power, or hate of the human race, and who just want to save us all.

    And probably a few others.

    I think Obama belongs to at least five of the groups.

  15. RickA said

    #9 Mike:

    A million people can post on whether they agree or disagree with Jeff’s statement.

    How do we decide whether Jeff is correct or not?

    There is no way to decide.

    Everyone who agrees is expressing their opinion as to intent or motive.

    Same with everyone who disagrees.

    So – I was merely pointing out that his statement will lead to a debate similar to the debate over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

    We can all agree or disagree with the statement – but there is no way to prove who is right or wrong.

    So what is the point.

    I don’t see how framing the issues helps resolve whether the IPCC was created to promote socialistic ideals (as an example).

  16. GHowe said

    Greg2213-good summation, I think you got em all. The Luddites crack me up.

  17. Titan28 said


    I agree with your statement, although I’m not sure you could prove intentionality. Alan 143 at #6 brings up a solid point, that the Club of Rome et. al. was an early if not progenitive shot across the bow at enengy consumption inspired economic growth. Consider as well works like The Whole Earth Catalogue (1968), Small is Beautiful (1973), Where the Wasteland Ends (1972). So anti-growth views were in the air in the late 1960s. What happened, I think, with the IPCC, is that a bunch of people who all went to the same or similar schools, received similar educations, married and worked with each other, and lived in the same communities discovered not only that they all thought alike–capitalism is evil–but that they had along the way discovered Truth. These are the same people who spoke out against killing the sabre-toothed tiger on the grounds that doing so would upset the balance of nature.

    It saddens me that scientists have eaten from the same fruit as the IPCC churls. But it wasn’t long ago that someone took a poll of climate scientists and it was revealed that the majority of them expressed an impatience with democracy (the people are stupid school of thought). They believed as well that some kind of “revolt of the engineers” thinking, men with white lab coats, ought to be making decisions for us.

    Didn’t any of them watch monster movies? If only more people had stayed out of school (mind forged manacles)and spent the extra hours watching Frankenstein, The Mummy, The Hideous Sun Demon, Dr. Cyclops, The Angry Red Planet, etc., the hubris that’s got them all so inflated right now would not have made it out of the oxygen tank.

  18. Mark F said

    Revolt of the engineers? Puhleeze! That’s what we need NOW, as a counterbalance.

  19. Margaret said

    Actually Id I don’t think people are able to scheme and plan in the way you say. Perhaps I am naive…

    I think the IPCC was set up by people who were genuinely concerned that there is a change and it could have an effect.
    BUT that these people were flawed:
    1. They were so committed to the cause they were prepared to lie, cheat and mislead to promote it. They lacked, in other words, integrity. In part this was because they were “bought” — some by the money it created, some by the fame it brought them, but most I suspect by the feeling that they were doing good – an almost religious rationale.
    2. They were also dominated by a particular world-view. It is the view that collectively we can make all things “right”. This is the view that leads to call for Government or International controls — if we only act together we will conquer the world! They were so unaware of their world-view that they have never questioned whether everyone subscribes to it — let alone whether it is right. I suggest that anyone who has worked in a government agency on one of the “wicked problems” (eg trying to change disfunctional families) would have told them very quickly the limitst to what the government can do — but they were so sure of their world-view they wouldn’t have listened.

    I think though your piece displays another world-view – that those who oppose us are “evil” or “malicious” — and fundamentally disagrees with any suggestion that collectively we can improve things. This world-view also needs to be critically examined against the evidence – and I think it will not stand up.

  20. boballab said

    It’s not a question of opinion or interpretation, it’s a matter of reading the documents the UN has put forth with their agenda clearly spelled out:

    Fully implement the outcomes of the decision on international environmental governance adopted by the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme at its seventh special session 46

    141. Good governance at the international level is fundamental for achieving sustainable development. In order to ensure a dynamic and enabling international economic environment, it is important to promote global economic governance through addressing the international finance, trade, technology and investment patterns that have an impact on the development prospects of developing countries.

    Page 56
    (emphasis is mine)

    Now if you read through that document you keep stumbling over something called Agenda 21.

    Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.

    Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.

    The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of UNCED, to monitor and report on implementation of the agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels. It was agreed that a five year review of Earth Summit progress would be made in 1997 by the United Nations General Assembly meeting in special session.

    The full implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Commitments to the Rio principles, were strongly reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 26 August to 4 September 2002.

    You can read the whole thing there, where they lay out the role NGO’s, Unions and Science will play in policy and decision making for bascially everything in the the terms of “sustainable development”.

  21. Borepatch said

    I’m not sure you need to make the case that the IPCC has been set up to grab power from the very beginning. It seems fairly innocuous in what it did in the 1980s, for example.

    Rather, Jerry Pournelle’s “Iron Law of Bureaucracy” seems sufficient to explain what the IPCC has become. The law states that each organization will contain two types of people: people who seek to further the organization’s stated goals, and people who seek to further the organization. The second type will take over the organization.

    Certainly the IPCC today acts as you describe. I’d think that the natural progression of organizational dynamics over 25 years is enough to explain why.

  22. C Monster said

    What better method to ‘put the means of production off limits” and “eliminate private property” than to regulate CO2–emitted by every industrial and biological activity (skip the veggies) by international fiat.
    They make no bones about it. Thankfully, they are also incompetent.
    To paraphrase Hitchcock, “We are protected by the enormity of their stupidity.”

    In short, no–you’re not wrong.

  23. Philemon said

    What struck me was who pushed it to begin with: Occidental Petroleum, Pew Trust (Sun Oil), Rockefeller Bros., Shell, BP, and Maurice Strong (Canadian Oil, plus Rockefeller man).

    The big players in the oil business have been major contributors to environmental and conservation causes from the beginning of the national parks. They are also deeply interconnected with the banking industry. It is self-interest. Of course, many of these same people will tell themselves that what is good for them is good for the country or for the planet (except perhaps for some of their independent upstart competitors), but bottom line is cui bono.

    The EPA began propagandizing their starting-level employees mid-90’s. Some nuclear folks started playing the same tune when it looked like they might be able to use it to their advantage. Various funding agencies like it as a way to claim they need bigger budgets. Confluence of interest.

  24. M. Simon said

    This one is for RickA:

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
    – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

    “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
    – David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

    “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
    – Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

    “A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
    – United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

    „We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.“
    – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

    „The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.“
    – UN Commission on Global Governance report

    „In my view, after fifty years of service in the United National system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.“
    – Dr. Robert Muller, UN Assistant Secretary General

    „Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced – a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.“
    – UN Agenda 21


    Where they have more.

  25. Brian H said

    Jeff: oil keerekt.
    Margaret: giving the benefit of the doubt to those who want to subjugate you is exactly the “edge” they count on. You’re co-operating beautifully.

  26. Robert of Ottawa said

    One can take many positions concerning this pleasantly argumentative post. However, #3, PeterB in Indiana has it nailed.

    The UN does want to become a global government; global governance was central to the Copenhagen (dis)accord.

    Therefore, as much as I’d like to argue the finer points of your paragraphs over a beer or two, and there are many, I say that your proposition is correct, proved so by facts, not rhetorical logic and discovery of fallacy.

  27. M. Simon said

    Let me just add (for the irony and confirmation depts.) that I posted my comment before reading past RickA’s comment. So I would like to add:

    “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
    – Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

  28. Matt Y. said

    Nothing wrong with a clear and concise summary of the painfully obvious…

  29. Steve Fitzpatrick said


    Well you haven’t had a good rant in a few days…. I hope you feel better now! 🙂

    While I do think there are many extreme left politicians who use climate science to carry their water, I also think that many (if not almost all) climate scientists actually believe their own press releases. They mostly entered the field already holding strong “green/environmentalist/anti-growth” views, and that is bound to influence how they view “the science”.

    IMO, this strong ‘green’ POV leads to an aversion among many climate scientists to a) reduce uncertainty of the consequences of CO2 emissions, and so better quantify the risks, and b)talk about costs and benefits of immediate draconian action versus a more measured approach.

    This was clearly evident in the recent exchange between Roger Pielke Jr and Michael Tobis. Roger kept saying that different people will obviously assign different ‘values’ to controlling temperatures via public actions, while Michael refused even to consider the possibility… to him the danger to Earth’s environment is so extreme that NOBODY can honestly think immediate action is not morally DEMANDED! I think Micheal Tobis really believes most everything he says, though that makes lots of people believe Michael is a bit unhinged.

  30. Warren said

    I can’t find anything wrong with your statement Jeff, unfortunately I agree way too much with it.

    Pity science as it was can’t still be science without the political and money grabbing consortium.

    Take care.

  31. Brian H said

    Steve #29:
    But Tobis is just flotsam carried along in the stream. Not a planner, shaper, or Person of Power. So his sincerity is irrelevant, except as a symptom.

  32. Duster said

    You all might want to toss this into the mix:

    The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

    I rather doubt that things divide neatly into left and right or capitalist vs. whatever; at least I see no evidence of it. The type of mind that would be eager to “run the world” for its own good, or for any other reason, would have a definite entry in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Which in turn suggests that the Peter Principle has finally triumphed and the lunatics are now in charge of the asylum, or at the very least making a serious attempt to achieve that end.

  33. Brian H said

    Actually, Tobis reminds me of that 17-yr old blonde kid whose tearful video telling people to stop dissing his beloved Obama (pre-election) went viral. LOL

  34. For those that doubt there is proof corroborating Jeff’s position (M.Simon correctly names Maurice Strong, Margaret is naive), see the following:
    Maurice Strong was the one who opened the UN to NGOs to give them power since “sovereign” nations were not cooperating.

  35. Jason Calley said

    Jeff, I think you are correct; CAGW theory is NOT just a mistake, it is a scam — at least it is a scam when we are talking of the movers and shakers in popularizing CAGW. The common green leaning warmist is probably sincere: you may be able to use reason there. Even so, the ones I speak with have an enormously powerful emotional bias to protect their beliefs.

    Several posters have pointed out the importance of seeing it as a scam. Imputation of motive is important. If we see the leaders of the CAGW push as merely mistaken but sincere, we will imagine that they can be stopped by facts and science. If we see that they are scammers, then we will remember that political and economic methods are needed. These people are NOT nice people. They are not upstanding people who have inadvertently wandered into error. They want to control your life, and they want to control (and charge a percentage on) essentially all energy used on the planet. They are trying to place themselves as parasites on you, and your children and on all future generations. Look at how they live. They fly in personal jets and buy homes near the sea. At the same time, they want you to ride a bicycle and live in an efficiency apartment. They are thieves who want to you sign a contract without disputing the small print.

    They are nothing more than the 21st Century version of the old slave capture gangs. If they put in place the system they wish, they will become the overseers of an unknown number of generations of serfs. Hell no!

  36. omanuel said

    Surely Id is crazy!

    The editor of Nature – Dr. Philip Campbell – has a BSc in engineering, a MSc in astrophysics, and a PhD in atmospheric physics.

    Who could better guide the public’s understanding about the Sun’s origin, chemical composition, source of energy, and influence on changes in Earth’s climate?

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  37. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    Duster #32,

    Is that site a joke or for real? Seriously funny.

    Looks like it was written by either a clever prankster or….. by Micheal Tobis himself.

  38. Omanuel: Your sarcasm is definite. Campbell was kicked off the UEA review committee.

  39. Brian H said

    After a quick tour, including a few of the videos, I think Tina is absolutely serious. You, sir, are a metastasized cancer cell!

  40. Brian H said

    Oops. That would be Nina, not Tina.
    My suggestion to all such people is that they practice retroactive auto-abortion.

  41. Steve Fitzpatrick said


    If it is a serious site, then it is even more funny. Hope Nina doesn’t throw herself off a high building; that would upset her friends, and be messy besides. Oh well, I guess even the most extreme crazies have their place.

  42. Jeff Id said

    Like it or not, it is the world we live in.

  43. Brian H said

    #0, #1;
    Another error: “setup” is a noun, never a verb. Use “set up” (2 words) for that. >:)

  44. Jeff Id said

    You win the game. Thanks.

  45. Art Ford said

    Rest assured, you’re not crazy. Some more quotes from our glorious “elite” leaders reveals their plans.

  46. stan said

    Just because the Soviet Union collapsed, Cuba is a basket case, and the Chinese are turning into a dictatorship with capitalism, does not mean that there aren’t a whole bunch of marxists in the West still pining for the overthrow of free enterprise. As has been noted many times, a lot of them turned to environmentalism for a new faith to believe in (or a new vehicle for their dream of ascension to power). A lot of greens are watermelons. So are most all of the reds in the West. The standing ovation for Chavez and his rant at Copenhagen should have confirmed the high percentage of watermelons in the crowd.

    One of your points that needs to be stressed is that this crowd is bent on hurting the poorest. They don’t give a damn about the poor other than as pawns to be used to secure power. Their callous disregard for the millions who have needlessly died of malaria should be all the proof one ever needs on that score. These are some frighteningly cold-hearted bastards who are using global warming and other environmental scares to try to acquire more power and control.

  47. omanuel said

    Alan Cheetham: Campbell was kicked off the UEA review committee?

    I thought he resigned, as a gentleman and a scholar.

    As editor, Campbell is guided by Nature’s own Mission Statement of 1869: ” . . . to place before the general public the grand results of scientific work and scientific discovery; . . . to aid scientific men . . . by giving early information of all advances made in any branch of natural knowledge throughout the world, and by affording them an opportunity of discussing the various scientific questions which arise from time to time.”

    I copied this from a recent issue of Nature and sent it to Dr. Campbell today.

    If I don’t get a response from him by this weekend, I promised to distribute the message far and wide.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  48. Brian H said

    Idealists may well be even more ruthless than the power-mad; they have advance justification for every atrocity in service of the Cause. The current miscegenistic half-breed beasts are even more dangerous. So much so that their success would destroy the very prize they hope for, count on, and strive to acquire.

  49. Omanuel: The article I linked about Campbell said “forced to resign” – but it also said “quits” and “stepped down”.

  50. JAE said

    I think your statement reflects reality. However, I am HOPEFUL that the bastards finally got caught by the normally sleeping majority, and that they have lost so much credibility now that they will NOT only be able to pull this scam off (LOL), but they will be very hard-pressed to come up with a new scam for many years that will not be simply laughed at.

    And all this sick comedy is being magnified by the uncomprehensible idiocy clowns like Al Gore and the Obama Administration, demonstrating just how far these moronic idealogues will go to commit most of us to economic suicide.

    IOW, I think the enviro-extremists shot themselves in both feet this time. (Probably just dreaming…)

  51. omanuel said

    Alan Cheetham: I received a response almost immediately, but not directly from Dr. Campbell himself:

    “You are currently not allowed to comment owing to misuse”

    Do you think someone was offended by Nature’s Mission Statement of 1869 ?

  52. Greg F said

    In comment # 14 I think Greg2213 gives a pretty good list of the assorted groups of people involved. What I think is missing is how it all evolves. The group that I believe is the seed is the one Greg2213 described as:

    There may even be a few who really believe in the catastrophe who aren’t motivated by money and power, or hate of the human race, and who just want to save us all.

    These are the useful idiots. They are the group that creates the movement that provides the political power to the less than scrupulous actors. They are the ones that provide the opening that the con man exploits. All movements like this are created by idealist who are naive to reality. This group evolves over time into its own hierarchy which makes manipulation of the group as a whole possible.

    I am old enough (55) to have witnessed the birth and evolution of the environmental movement. I have also spent that last 2 years working for a not for profit that is deep into environmentalism. There are a spectrum of people in the useful idiot category that share one thing in common. An unquestioning belief in the movement to save humanity.

    There are some genuinely nice people that simply want to be part of the solution. They still maintain a strong sense of right and wrong. You can have a discussion with these people but it will be short. As true believers rational objections to what they believe are uncomfortable for them. Their psychological defense is to rationalize their beliefs which generally boils down to their belief in their own good intentions. And they really do have good intentions. They will still smile at you and be truly concerned with your well being. They will hold no malice against you because you disagree with them. They simply will avoid any conversation you attempt on the subject.

    As you go up the ladder of power the attitude of the ends justifies the means becomes prevalent. Above the well intentioned are a group that can be thought of as middle management. If you question their beliefs they will become offended. They are more emotionally invested in the cause then the previous group. They are self righteous. They tend to be college educated with degrees that I would refer to as toilet paper degrees. They are the “yes men” and the snitches.

    At the top of this group is the leaders. They are fanatics, self righteous, self centered, ruthless, political, elitist, and generally not to bright. They will fawn over those higher up in the hierarchy (especially politicians). They will use their power to enforce the party line. It is equivalent to the high school click mentality. They are easily manipulated by those they view as higher up. They are very dangerous people.

    Although I broke this group down into 3 groups it really is a continuous spectrum. This is the group where the power originates. The group becomes the propaganda machine that promotes the myths of environmentalism to the public. It is the group that will work to transfer more and more power to the unscrupulous con men they think are as equally committed to the cause. These are the people that through their unquestioning beliefs pave the road to dictatorship. This group is the useful idiots.

  53. JAE said

    Meant to add this link to support my rant in #50, but forgot:

  54. GHowe said

    Either you must not fall in their “scientific men”category, or there are no scientific questions arising. Now you will probably be put in the category “Comment Misuser”, with all the ramifications, poor fella. Its probably time for those folks to update the ol’ mission statement eh?

  55. Brian H said

    As I commented there, it’s funny how errors interact. It may well be that warming DECREASES hurricanes, as the temperature gradient between topics and poles flattens. So fewer storms may be evidence that it’s warming!

    Which is good. Warm eras were boom times for humanity and the res of the globe’s denizens. Halocene Optimum, anyone? Please?

  56. Brian H said

    Correction: Holocene, not Halocene.

  57. omanuel said

    #54 GHowe:

    Perhaps they never read Nature’s Mission Statement. As I mentioned earlier, I copied it directly from a recent issue of Nature.

    Part of my complaint concerned the fact that this was what I purchased when I subscribed to Nature, and it didn’t seem to match what I was receiving. – Oliver K. Manuel

  58. Brian H said

    Slightly OT note: mean Arctic temps have dropped below freezing (for good, it looks like, for the rest of the year) about 10 days earlier than usual. Oh, nooossse! 😉

  59. Brian H said

    Sorry, link for the above:

  60. GHowe said

    #57 Dr. Manuel:

    I remember from my TQM and ISO training, it all starts with the mission statement. If the members of an organization, that makes it living with words, can not follow, or perhaps not even read, its own mission statement, then they should update it. Or offer a full refund. 🙂

  61. Kan said

    #18 MarkF

    “Revolt of the engineers? Puhleeze! That’s what we need NOW, as a counterbalance.”

    That is what has been happening right now. The reason the CAGW movement has lost some steam and is having to defend itself, is due to retired scientists and engineers looking into their work. Look at the autobiographical post/comments here at tAV to see the experiential makeup of the questioners.

    These people have some very serious knowledge and experience (and seem to be a bit perturbed 🙂 ).

  62. Brian H said

    Do you suppose they think many or most of their successors are unworthy? 🙂

  63. Judas priest said

    I agree entirely with your post. The proof is revealed in the actions/results of the IPCC.

  64. Greg. Cavanagh said

    I clearly remember when carbon trading was first mooted, there was such talk as;

    The UN is a government entity with no electorate and no ability to self fund. Its entire existence is/was funded by donation by member countries. Putting themselves in a neutral position for carbon trading on a global scale would single handily would be capable of funding the entire UN machine.

    I believe the authority and control mechanisms built into the carbon trading and monitoring was an afterthought. But one they recognised and quickly built upon early.

  65. sod said

    always stick to a conspiracy heory. never accept a simple explanation.

    the world is warming. it is a fact.

    the cause is CO2 produced by humans. it is a fact.

    the vast majority opf scientists expct some additional serious warming n the future. another fact.

    so they come together, to write scientific papers about this event.

    no world government anywhere.

  66. michel said

    “So let’s hear it, what’s wrong with my statement?”

    Your approach is all wrong.

    You think this is a case of global conspiracy. In fact, it is a case of mass hysteria. Read Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds once again, carefully. These waves of madness happen all the time, in the stock market, in computers (millenium bug) in religion, in economics, in sexuality. Read about the masturbation mania at the turn of the last century. Think about the implications of the New Reading and the New Math in the UK, which have reduced a couple of generations to illiteracy and innumeracy.

    People repeatedly lose all sense of evidence and reality, and they do so en masse. This is no different.

  67. Espen said

    I was an active environmentalist in my teens, and read a lot of eco-philosophy stuff during the obligatory introductory philosophy course at the university, and I think you underestimate the role of the philosophical/ideological underpinnings of the environmentalist movement. It’s not just a question of “promoting socialistic ideals under the guise of environmentalism”. In fact, during the radical seventies, there was often quite a chasm between radical socialists, whose ideal world was inhabited and governed by heavy-industry workers, and radical environmentalists, whose ideal world was inhabited by self-supplied farmers on “sustainable” farms.

    I think the powerful ideological fundaments actually can rather be traced back to christian puritanism. It’s the same fears: We have sinned, and God (now replaced by “Gaia”) will take revenge. And there were so many “signs” , e.g. the forest death scare in Europe during the early eighties, or currently the mysterious honey bee death, or also very real local ecological catastrophes during the seventies and eighties.

    So what’s wrong with your statement? Well, I don’t think the IPCC is part of such a pure conspiracy as you think. But the way it works bears similarity to how it always has worked when religions and ideologies are exploited by ruthless opportunists.

  68. michel said

    I would add, that in the 20C their hysterias were often murderous, partial list:

    The Zulu terrors under Chaka and successors
    The Belgian Holocaust in the Congo
    WWI and trench warfare
    The Armenian massacres
    Soviet Communist Revolution
    Ukraine deliberately caused famine
    The purges in the Soviet Union
    The Nazi Holocaust
    The Japanese massacres in China
    The Chinese Great Leap Forwards and associated purges
    Pol Pot
    Sendero Luminosa

    One gets tired and disgusted thinking about it.

    Calvin was right. We are born sinful. The number of the elect is tiny. We are predestined. Works do not contribute to salvation. We are saved through faith. There is Grace. Grace is freely given, does not depend on our merits, inclines without necessitating, and is always efficacious.

  69. sod said

    I would add, that in the 20C their hysterias were often murderous, partial list:

    The Zulu terrors under Chaka and successors
    The Belgian Holocaust in the Congo
    WWI and trench warfare
    The Armenian massacres
    Soviet Communist Revolution
    Ukraine deliberately caused famine
    The purges in the Soviet Union
    The Nazi Holocaust
    The Japanese massacres in China
    The Chinese Great Leap Forwards and associated purges
    Pol Pot
    Sendero Luminosa

    which of these events was based on a scientific consensus, again?

  70. Espen said

    Sod: Scientific racism was pretty much “scientific consensus” up to the 1930s. You may now answer your question yourself.

  71. Suibhne said

    Putting Lord Oxburgh in charge of an inquiry into Global Warming Fraud was sure to guarantee the highest levels of moral probity.

    Members of the British house of Lords would never stoop to low commercial pressures.

    The fact that he stood to lose millions from his “green” investments would not influence him one jot and any remarks to the contrary would only be made by a person in the pay of “big oil”.

  72. mrpkw said

    It is not a conspiracy.

    It’s “groupthink” among people who have common ideology and goals/agenda.

  73. Varco said

    SOD, please explain your statement “the cause is CO2 produced by humans. it is a fact.”. Where is this ‘fact’ proven? As with most I agree that physics tells us CO2 plays a role but I am unaware of any proof (apart from computer model speculation – not the same thing) that either:

    – CO2 is ‘the cause’ of the recent global warming
    – That CO2 produced by humans is any more significant than that produced by other sources

    So, I’m glad you are in a position to enlighten me.

  74. Jason Calley said

    Several posters have stated that the CAGW group is an example of mass hysteria, popular delusion and group-think. They are correct. Sort of. Or not. Again, remember that we are not speaking about a mono-lithic crowd. Various fractions — and factions — have their own unique outlook. As for the top leaders and instigators, I do not see how anyone can observe how the CAGW leaders live, compare it to their rhetoric, and not conclude that they are, at best, world class hypocrites, but more likely, cheats and liars. Again, look at the evidence; Al Gore, Maurice Strong, these men live lives of extravagant CO2 production and have become VERY rich and powerful during the course of extolling the virtue of a small carbon footprint. If you see a televangelist preach on the virtue of being a good Christian, but then find that he is a serial adulterer, a drug user, owner of multiple planes, limos, and mansions, and wears a $250,000 dollar watch while paying his servants under the table to avoid taxes — what is the logical, reasonable conclusion? Would you say that he is most likely a sincere minister of the faith, just a little mistaken in his scriptural interpretation, or would you say (knowing the human propensity to lie in order to amass wealth and power) that he is probably a scam artist? Is the case different with CAGW leaders? The data manipulation is blatant. The refusal to conform to actual scientific standards is blatant. The personal enrichment and empowerment is blatant. What would it take to convince you that these leaders are not good people who have made a mistake of reasoning? What does the evidence point to?

    As for the “useful idiots”, the foot soldiers of the movement…my experience with them is that they are, for the most part, people who have accepted various statements and press releases as facts, but never did any deeper research. Now that they have developed a strong belief, their emotions prevent them from easily performing rational analysis. What follows is an actual example of a conversation with such a friend. Let me stress that this friend is NOT stupid; he is very bright on electronics and math, and is, I believe, basically an ethical person.

    Him: So, you don’t accept the idea that we humans are warming the world?
    Me: I think the data is so screwed up that we honestly do not know what the world as a whole is doing.
    Him: Why do you think that?
    Him: Why do think that scientists would do something like that with the data?
    Me: Well, we can discuss that, but be aware that we are now leaving the subject of science and climate and data. That subject we are talking about now, is psychology and opinion — NOT science! We are changing the subject and talking about something else now, correct? This is psychology, NOT climate science or data, right?
    Him: Yeah, sure.
    Me: We are changing the subject now. This is no longer about science, this is about human actions and about my opinion of them, right?
    Him: I understand.
    Me: Based on the patterns of manipulation, based on the repeated and long term nature of the adjustments, based on the refusal of upper scientists to share data or how their software works, I think that this is deliberate fraud.
    Him: So the reason why you do not believe in global warming is that you think the scientists are conspiring against us?
    Me: No! No, no, no! I do not believe in global warming, because I do not see any reliable data to support it! We were not talking about science, we were talking about my opinion of human actions, remember? The data, the science, is one subject. My ideas about climate change are based on what I see in the data, not on how I feel about the scientists. I think these people are committing fraud because of the patterns I see in the data adjustments. Two different subjects, science and human psychology!
    Him: So you think that climate change is a fraud because the scientists are lying?
    Me: No!

    I could not get him to see my point. The data drives the interpretation of the science. Period. My belief in the fraudulaent nature of the upper “scientists” has nothing to do with whether I accept global warming or not. In my opinion, he was so emotionally vested in the belief in global warming that he could not accept an agument against it based on data. Despite everything I said — and despite his previous agreement that we were changing subjects to discuss human behavior instead of climate — he could not seperate the two. He is NOT stupid. He is just human.

    The funny thing is that now he has come to the conclusion that the reason why I do not accept the evidence for CAGW, is that I have an emotional bias against it, and find such a belief too uncomfortable to embrace.

    You can’t make this stuff up.

  75. stan said

    In politics, shared hatreds make the best friendships. [See e.g. the Democrats in the US. Or the environmental/globabl warming coalition.] A coalition based on shared hatreds requires the constant demonization of the objects of the hatred. It keeps the group united and motivated.

    Gotta stoke the hate.

  76. mrpkw said

    # 74
    I don’t think it’s either mass hysteria or popular delusion but stark raving ignorance.

    I have had many,many,many conversations like the one you listed in that the AGW supporters have zero idea of how the “hockey stick” graph was made or how the temps are collected and adjusted. Most just parrot the news they hear.

  77. stan said

    OT, anyone know what this is about?

    We’ve seen degrading sensors on sats before. Anyone up on the story?

  78. Jason Calley said

    Correction to my comment on #74

    I can see that an editorial side comment I included was cut by the posting software. The blank statement by “Me:” above should be (in context):

    Him: Why do you think that?
    Me: ***At this point I did my best to explain some of the findings of E. M. Smith about GISS and their repeated manipulation and misuse of raw data. I ended by asking for a move to have all climate scientists release their raw data and software so that others could give a fair and reasoned analysis.****
    Him: Why do think that scientists would do something like that with the data?

  79. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Jeff ID, in my view the best one can do in making rationale judgments about why scientists, advocates and organizations like the IPCC act the way they do is to look at their views regarding policy and mitigation for AGW and its potential effects.
    In today’s world mitigation is going to be a government responsibility, a point that libertarians like myself can argue about but the practical matter is that current political orthodoxy accepts it is government that will mitigate. I have argued all along that scientists, advocates and the IPCC, and other like-minded organizations views on the consequences of government mitigations goes a long way in determining their inclinations to call for immediate mitigations and that it also flavors the subjective probabilities that scientists put on the potential detrimental effects of AGW.

    I think what sticks in your craw is the subjective measures that these people and organizations place on the evidence for the extent of AGW and potential detrimental effects arising from it when a more objective view places higher uncertainties on those measures.

    I think we have to face up to the fact the prevailing view of the intelligentsia is that government involvement is almost always a good thing and particularly so in major issues like AGW. The recent reaction to the financial crisis was for massive government involvement/interference and that was a nearly complete global reaction. From my blog readings of comments by many climate scientists about issues of policy and mitigation, I find that they hold very similar views to the prevailing one noted here.

    Therefore it is rather easy for a scientist of that mind to quickly raise her/his hand when a show of hands is required to put a probability on the extent of AGW and its detrimental effects such as done with the IPCC. I would bet money on the views of these scientists to be one of: even if we are wrong there will not be major problems or unintended consequences in getting the government involved in controlling GHG emissions, and, in fact, the government should be involved in this control anyway.

  80. M. Simon said

    The current miscegenistic half-breed beasts are even more dangerous. So much so that their success would destroy the very prize they hope for, count on, and strive to acquire.

    I’m a half breed and my children are quarter breeds. Miscegenation strengthens the breed by reducing inbreeding. Of course my kids are cross cultural and by all accounts brilliant. #2 son will be teaching English and American culture to Russians this fall. Courtesy of a Fulbright grant. He also graduated with honors from UChicago. Not too shabby for a quarter breed. #3 son is studying Electrical Engineering and #1 daughter is in Chemical Engineering at school. And #1 son is a poet. A nice well rounded mix of ‘breeds.

    The problem is not who the people are screwing. It is who is screwing the people. Small people with fat heads. Fat heads have been discouraged in my family. It is unseemly.

  81. John Whitman said

    You said, “I believe the IPCC was set up with intent to provide an exaggerated science for the unstated purpose of increased government control over the global economies, to repress capitalism, and promote socialistic ideals under the guise of environmentalism.”

    My analysis of the situation is that there is a philosophic position held by what I would call ideological environmentalism (as opposed to, say, practical environmentalism). What that philosophic position is I describe at the end of this comment.

    There are groups of people who realize that the ideological environmentalists can be utilized as an effective tool to achieve political ends and financial ends. You are right, the UN via the IPCC is one of those (many) groups. They front themselves as sympathetic to the ideological environmentalists, but have aims different than the ideological environmentalists.

    I think it is reasonable to say that the basic philosophy motivating the ideological environmentalist is something like an anti-human focused nihilism. They seek to destroy human achievement on earth.

    I think the philosophical views of the groups who use the ideological environmentalists as tools to achieve political and financial gain, however, are consistent with a Hegelian philosophy. In the philosophic chain starting with Kant, you pass through (among others), Hegel on your way to Marx.

    Relax, the battle is philosophical and is simple. Question everything all the time.


  82. M. Simon said

    We are saved through faith.

    I have faith in Ohm’s Law. Except when power dissipation is exceeded. I have faith in the speed of light and its corresponding wave length. Kirchoff had some good points too.

    God is not going to get us out of this mess. Men and women will do the job.

  83. Mark F said

    80: Perhaps the term “half breed” should not have been used by the author, as it casts a negative reflection upon racially mixed people. I suspect that “watermelons” would have been closer. But many of us are old enough to occasionally let slip an anachronistic term without really thinking about what it means or meant. (I remember helping a Nigerian friend work through a problem with his employer who was playing games with profit sharing, and made reference to a woodpile, totally without thought, and to my extreme discomfort….)

  84. M. Simon said

    Sod asks:

    which of these events was based on a scientific consensus, again?

    You must be late to the game. Scientific Socialism was why the Communists were going to outperform the haphazard capitalists. That accounts for about 2/3s or 3/4s of the bodies. And remember (from your history) the ironclad logic of the very popular Eugenics movement? That sort of thing underpinned the logic of the Germans 1933-45. And it was quite popular in the US for a while. You must have forgotten the forced sterilizations. Very scientific.

  85. M. Simon said

    If you see a televangelist preach on the virtue of being a good Christian, but then find that he is a serial adulterer, a drug user, owner of multiple planes, limos, and mansions, and wears a $250,000 dollar watch while paying his servants under the table to avoid taxes — what is the logical, reasonable conclusion?


  86. Brian H said

    M.Simon: I thought it was clear I was speaking metaphorically, of ideological/political miscegination –the “breeding” of idealists with power-seekers. If there is hybrid vigor as a result, it is the vigorous ruthlessness which was the topic I was discussing.

    Selective literal-mindedness is not a helpful discussion tactic.

  87. Brian H said

    Heh. In the day, after a discussion of the peculations and excesses of the good Rajneesh with a couple who (still) followed him, I got them to at least chuckle by saying, “Well, if you’re going to buy into a spiritual scam, it might as well be a Baghwan!”

  88. M. Simon said

    Brian H,

    You need to flag your metaphors (is there a metaphor tag?) because it was not obvious to me from the context. Fortunately it was clear in your mind.

  89. stan said


    I think it’s a lot easier to argue gross incompetence. They don’t check their instruments. They don’t check each other’s work. They don’t release their data or code. The databases are a quality control nightmare. They routinely screw up their stats and their code. They don’t follow the scientific method or adhere to the basic principles of forecasting. It’s a disaster.

    You don’t have to speculate on WHY they are so incompetent. You merely need to relate all the ways they screw up.

  90. bob said


    I would have ignored your comments just a couple of years ago, but the existence of the Hockey Stick Team serves to remind us that organizations are designed with agendas, and when agendas are not made public, these organizations these agendas are conspiracies.

    I originally thought the Team organized to salvage the declining career of Dr Mann and his seriously refuted series of Hockey Stick papers. Climategate showed me that there are more dimensions to the climate show that I originally supposed.

    The Team uses its connections to control the climatology peer review process as much as possible. The Team uses the Real Climate web site to try to sell their version of climate science and to trash other views. A Team member insinuated himself into a gatekeeper/editor position with Wikepedia, keeping out “non-approved” science.

    The completeness of the Team’s efforts to control the climate message indicates that there is a pretty good plan involved. It may be a good assumption that Fenton Communications (or connected group) wrote a plan for the Team as part of their left-wing funded, free-of-charge service to left-wing advocacy groups like the Team. That was their business, and they were good at it.

    The Team effort is a conspiracy, and their social network as outlined by Wegman is only about 40 to 50 scientists. It is remarkable how effective they have been in misleading the American public.

    I don’t believe that 97% of all the climate scientists in the world have banned together in a conspiracy to make me believe all the catastrophic climate stuff. I do believe that there is a conspiracy to sell me on the idea.

    I agree on Id’s take on the IPCC. All it takes are a few crooked people in a few critical places to change the world.

  91. Brian H said

    You need to sharpen your BS-focus. That 97% figure is concocted by starting with the highly selected and filtered publication record of the Team and its gatekeeper network, bolstered by counting the entire membership of professional associations whose administrators have been co-opted and have made “policy” statements without authority, mandate, discussion or justification.

  92. BarryW said

    You give them too much credit. They saw a means to their ends and used it. There will always be statists that believe that they should be running the world in all walks of life. Some just find themselves in positions where they can indulge their nightmares dreams. They have been trying to find a way to impose their control but have lacked the rationale since the fall of the fascists and communists ideologies. Socialism is just a tepid version of these two totalitarian ideals.

    The scientists are a product of an education system gone bad. The boomers (of which I am one) were taught by the elitist philosophunculists teaching amphigory as science in those fields that were soft in nature (anthropology, and climate for example). While they may have learned the basics of their craft, the philosophical underpinnings were lacking. Hence they can’t see that their perversions of their fields is wrong as long as the “right” answer is produced. No different that the Fabians and their “some eggs must be broken to make an omelet” attitude towards the Soviets.

  93. Brian H said

    amphigory, huh?

    The sun was shining on the sea,
    Shining with all his might:
    He did his very best to make
    The billows smooth and bright –
    |: And this was odd, because it was
    The middle of the night. 😐

    The moon was shining sulkily,
    Because she thought the sun
    Had got no business to be there
    After the day was done –
    ‘It’s very rude of him,’ she said,
    ‘To come and spoil the fun!’

    The sea was wet as wet could be,
    The sands were dry as dry.
    You could not see a cloud, because
    No cloud was in the sky:
    No birds were flying overhead –
    There were no birds to fly.

  94. michel said

    Sod, you ask how many of the murderous hysterias of the 20C had to do with scientific consensus. We need to exclude wars, which are perhaps a special kind of murderous hysteria. If we look at many of the others, they were at least strongly influenced by the sort of cluster of policy ideas and scientific ideas which characterizes AGW. Take the masturbation hysteria. That was both moral and medical. It is bad for people, and it is bad. It is bad because it is bad for them, in part. Take the Nazi program. It had its intellectual roots in Eugenics. Take the Lysenko mania: a crazed scientific theory that became ideological dogma. The Great Leap Forward had its intellectual roots in an economic and social theory about how economic development could and would happen.

    Wars are perhaps sui generis. But in general, mass human movements which end in murder, hysteria and mass delusion are quite commonly rooted in mistaken theories about the world which are then used to sell crazed policies which, even were the theories correct, probably would not achieve their stated ends.

    This is common in the AGW movement also: the idea that we can get to 80% reductions of CO2 emissions by the means proposed either at Copenhagen or Kyoto is a typical example of it. As is the total lack of any evidence that ever in history reductions in CO2ppm have ever caused falls in temperature. The insistence on regarding windmills as a means of reliably generating large amounts of usable electricity is another case.

    No, its hysteria through and through, once you are aware of the marks, you can see them.

  95. Brian H said

    Lewis Carroll must have been channeling the CRU modelers from the future when he wrote that!

  96. PeterB in Indianapolis said

    Ahh Poor Sod,

    He gets asked for proof of his statement that THE cause of warming is anthropogenically emitted CO2 (which cannot be proven), and he gets some REALLY good answers as to which genocides were caused by scientific consensus, and he miraculously disappears!

    Some people just can’t handle being asked for factual proof or given factual proof. It impedes their desire to stir up the pot without having to make useful contributions to the conversation.

  97. Jason Calley said

    Stan at 1:15 pm says: “I think it’s a lot easier to argue gross incompetence.”

    Hey Stan, I understand what you say, but I respectfully disagree. Here’s why: If they were merely grossly incompetent — as opposed to knowingly fraudulent — I think that there would be a more even split in errors and adjustments that favor cooling global temperatures when compared to errors that show warming global temperatures. I guess the reason why that great preponderance of warming adjustments and errors is such a flag to convince me of fraud is that I cannot think of any honest sort of incompetence that manifests so completely toward always showing warming. Am I missing something? Can you point me toward some sort of incompetence that will almost always create warming errors and so rarely create counterbalancing cooling errors? If I am being unfair I will gladly change my stated opinion, but can you point me toward an incompetence that only works toward warming?

  98. Eric Steig said


    You wrote “Am I missing something?”

    Umm.. yes, you are. The guys who are popularly accused of fraud — the CRU folks — show *less* global warming than anyone else. That would seem to disprove your basic thesis, wouldn’t it?

    Meanwhile, back on planet earth

    REPLY: Hi doc. If my presentation of a method here which guarantees to produce increased warming from the same data makes me a believer in extreme AGW, I suppose you are right. 😉

    Actually, I doubt very much that you yourself (or your students) would have participated in the deletion of inconvenient data. CRU isn’t taking any more flack than they deserve IMO. I wish the lesson from the whole thing were to not delete data you don’t like and loosen up the stranglehold on journals for new methods, such as MMH’s proof of models overshooting reality. Santer’s stuff (and the models) deserve criticism. You wouldn’t believe how hard those boys worked to keep a criticism off the books.

    I read your linked paper, it will be interesting to see if they have resolved the station dropout issues. I noted the UHI handwave as they drove past too, and am wondering if you have a favorite paper on the topic. I’ve not given up on replicating your 50 station paper either, it’s just really difficult and time consuming to identify which series is which from the data you gave.

    Finally, I’ve written to Roman a request that he consider using his anomaly offset calculation method to reconstruct Antarctic trends from station data using the next closest station offset by monthly least squares. A paper could be quite simple and perhaps the slightly improved method of combining anomalies and calculating trends would be of interest to the community. — it makes a little more warming too.

  99. Carrick said


    the cause is CO2 produced by humans. it is a fact.

    I suspect other human activities influence climate besides CO2 (farming, grass lawns,other land use changes etc).

    then there’s this. I know this is a shock, but there are other causes of climate change besides humans.

  100. Margaret said

    Margaret: giving the benefit of the doubt to those who want to subjugate you is exactly the “edge” they count on. You’re co-operating beautifully.

    And thinking people wants to subjugate you is normal ????

    What a strange worldview!!!

  101. Kan said


    “And thinking people wants to subjugate you is normal ????”

    Given very careful consideration of the history of mankind…


  102. Geoff Sherrington said

    Here is part of what failed to make the grade at Copenhagen. Note the bit on passing Sovereignty to a body with the capacity to pu ish your country if you do not give enough to others.

    Ref FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2 of 15 September 2009, that contains inter alia

    38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:

    (a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

    (b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund

    including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to

    address loss and damage from climate change impacts, including insurance,

    rehabilitation and compensatory components, (c) a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation

    window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest

    incentives relating to REDD actions.

    (c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for

    adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; (c) a short-term technology

    action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on

    adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting

    and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and

    verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of

    technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre

    for information exchange.

    Please see for the lengthy papers

  103. michel said

    “I guess the reason why that great preponderance of warming adjustments and errors is such a flag to convince me of fraud is that I cannot think of any honest sort of incompetence that manifests so completely toward always showing warming. Am I missing something?”

    Yes, you are underestimating the propensity of the human species to get caught up in group consensus. There are these great waves of mass opinion – they happen in all sorts of areas, and the participants and fellow travellers stop thinking critically and looking at the evidence, or look at the evidence through wishful eyes. Or sometimes, make the evidence fit their thinking, though often without any intent to defraud.

    Look around you. In economics think about the canal boom, the railway boom, the south sea and missippi bubbles, the Darien scheme. In medicine think about the recent hysteria about MMR and autism. Think about the heart disease – cholesterol link, the uncritical prescibing of Vioxx. We are about to descend into another of these, with proposals for the mass prescription of statins. In religion, think about witch mania. In politics, think about the collective farm madness in the Soviet Union. The purges.

    We are just like this. We get collective manias. The thing you have to watch for is the excessive enthusiasm of the proponents, that is a sure sign. Everyone knows some new thing. Opponents are the enemies of society, or health, or morality. The most worrying thing about AGW is that you do not need fraud or conspiracy as an explanation of why this hallucination should have become so widespread. Human nature will suffice.

    The good news is that these crazes evaporate eventually. The bad news, it takes a long time, and they do a lot of damage. One day all those rusting windmills will be tourist attractions, like the statues on Easter Island, or the lines in the mountains the South American dying civilizations built, in order to bring back the rain. Tragic really. The rule seems to be, that the manias have to consume in their futile efforts large proportions of the available social resources. Otherwise maybe they do not seem worth all the energy. So before the windmills attract tourists, and their futility becomes clear, expect whole coastlines to be covered with the things. Them, and the carcasses of their slaughtered birds.

  104. Jason Calley said

    Michel says: “Yes, you are underestimating the propensity of the human species to get caught up in group consensus.”

    Actually, I think you are very much correct when speaking of the average CAGW supporter. I have little doubt that the run-of-the-mill, concerned-about-global-warming, person falls exactly into the group you speak of. One of the things that always amazes me is that the average CAGW “enthusiast” (if I may use that word in a non-pejorative way) has such a small fund of actual information on the subject when compared to the huge amount of belief held. This is a pretty good marker for people who have accepted a belief which did not pass through the intellectual, linear-thinking part of the brain before taking residence. A very good friend of mine — not the friend I mentioned in an earlier post at comments 74 and 78, but also VERY bright — was trying to convince me of CAGW, and during the conversation I made mention of how CO2 was under 400 ppm. “No! It’s a lot more than that! It’s at least three or four per cent!” We had to go look up the figure before he believed me. Here was a man (VERY bright — just a reminder!) who was trying to get support for actions that would require the global control of almost all energy used on the planet, and yet he did not even know the amount of CO2 with two orders of magnitude. He became somewhat angry when I continued to bring up data and numbers. You are correct: collective manias are like that.

    Having agreed with you about confirmation bias and group concensus, I remain unconvinced that the core promoters of CAGW are just victims of confirmation bias. Is it possible that they are? Yes, it is possible. I may be wrong. As a human I know that I am liable (as are you!) to fall victim of confirmation bias and emotional influences on the thinking process. I try as rigorously as I can to be objective, but no one is completely successful in doing so. The question, though, is always, in the face of uncertainty, how would you bet? I see a situation where those pushing the hardest for acceptance of CAGW are in a position to benefit personally from it. Some benefit academically, some politically, some financially, some by various combinations of those factors. Some stand to benefit ENORMOUSLY, to become tremendously wealthy and powerful. Unbiased reading of history shows that people who desire such levels of wealth and power are seldom swayed by ethics or morality. I also see that many of the upper CAGW promoters do not reflect their beliefs in their real-world actions. Maurice Strong flies in private jets and lives in mansions, creating a huge carbon footprint. Same with Gore. I think this is a clue. I look especially (though not exclusively, by any means) at E. M. Smith’s analysis of GISS and GISTEMP software and it’s changing data set, and what I see is more indicative to me of scientific dishonesty than of incompetence.

    Here is a question for you, Michel. If you have time to answer, I would find your thoughts worth reading. What would it take to convince you that the lead scientists at GISS or CRU, or the lead spokepeople for CAGW such as Al Gore, were actually, knowingly saying things that they knew to be untrue? Would you have to see a confession of lying, or would there be some circumstancial evidence that would suffice? Would you use this same standard for other subjects, in other words, if someone were being charged with a home break-in, would you need a confession, or would circumstancial evidence be enough? Sorry if I am over-analyzing here, but simply, what would you consider to be sufficient evidence to convince you of CAGW fraud?

  105. Jason Calley said

    Eric Steig says: “Umm.. yes, you are. The guys who are popularly accused of fraud — the CRU folks — show *less* global warming than anyone else. That would seem to disprove your basic thesis, wouldn’t it?”

    Eric, I hope that you meant that to be just a rhetorical statement, one designed to sound like a rational rebuttal without actually being one.

    If, on the other hand, you honestly think that you were making a logically sound argument, I suggest you go back to Logic 101.

  106. Geoff Sherrington said

    98. Eric Steig says “The guys who are popularly accused of fraud — the CRU folks — show *less* global warming than anyone else. That would seem to disprove your basic thesis, wouldn’t it?”

    You confuse the types of allegations. The CRU emails have enough evidence of unfair play to convince me that honesty was below par, in matters like FOI and making it difficult for others to publish and losing data then finding data and cherry picking. But, that alleged lack of honesty was not used to put a slope on the global warming curve in an overt manner.

    Like may others here, I believe that the trend has been artificially steepened in the early years (older is colder), until about 1950, when the trend was artificially increased. My personal guesstimate is that the globe warmed below 0.4 degrees C since year 1850. Contrary to your assertion, CRU have shown more global warming than is likely to be correct. They have done this through devices like overly enthusiastic bucket corrections for SST and unjustified assumptions about polar regions. I would use “noble cause corruption” as a term, not “fraud”.

  107. PhilJourdan said

    Sod #65

    the cause is CO2 produced by humans. it is a fact.

    Sadly the level of scientific expertise on the AGW side is very poor. Or else they would know that facts in science are as rare as hen’s teeth. At best (and incorrectly) they can aver it is a theory. in truth it is just a flawed hypothesis (flawed does not mean incorrect, just that there has been no corroborative testing to the hypothesis).

  108. Brian H said

    Phil — don’t bother pointing out such basics to Sod. He’s a troll-bot who merely parrots the CAGW Narrative™. He’s been at it for years, without a break or without acknowledging a smudge or flaw on its perfection. Fuggedaboudit.

  109. michel said

    “Would you use this same standard for other subjects, in other words, if someone were being charged with a home break-in, would you need a confession, or would circumstancial evidence be enough?”

    Yes, I would use the same standard. But the amount of proof I would require would vary with the circumstances. We recognise in common law jurisdictions that the standard of proof in civil cases is less severe than the standard in criminal cases. For a breakin, under criminal prosecution, the standard has been beyond a reasonable doubt. For a civil prosecution, the preponderance of the evidence is enough.

    So is fraud proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the climategate letters? Not to me. As a juror I would acquit or in Scotland judge the case non-proven, because of the possibility of the defence of wishful thinking or over enthusiasm or collective rush to judgment or plain stupdity. Is it proven by the preponderance of the evidence? I am not convinced that it is enough to prove fraud. It certainly proves very bad conduct, unprofessional language and reports of and incitement to wrong and unprofessional behavior, some of which may have contravened the FOI. Not to mention great stupidity. But that is not fraud.

    What would it take? Well, Jeff’s case is implausible and very hard to prove. You first need to find a pattern of deliberate fabrication of data. But then you need to prove conscious conspiracy to do this with a certain aim in view. I don’t think the evidence is there for the conspiracy. It seems so totally implausible that people bent on world government and socialism would pick such an improbable method of getting there. If that is where you are going, at least pick a method that has some chance of success. Why would you make up data, in a way that is bound to be discovered, in order to lend support to an argument that it really does not particularly support? This is just silly. I guess your counter argument would be, they are stupid enough. Maybe. But is it proven? Not to me.

    A much more plausible explanation of the hysteria is the bandwagon effect. And people join them for a variety of reasons, idealism, self interestedness, blindness, prejudice, the usual stuff. They also occasionally commit fraud, academic fraud is known. But the sheer stupidity of the climate science people, their ignorance of statistics and other disciplines and scientific method is really all you need to invoke to explain their mishaps. Fraud is not an hypothesis you need when dealing with such levels of incompetence. I mean, using Tijlander upside down? Do you really think any sane and intelligent conspirator would do that?

    Terrifying as it seems, given the respect they have been held in matters of public policy, I really think they screwed up because they don’t know any better!

  110. Brian H said

    Sorry, that’s mostly nonsense. Jones claimed to have deleted masses of data in the emails, in response to demands for FOIA release, and it was subsequently ‘found’ that all that data had been ‘lost’. Michel, researchers do not ‘lose’ the basic raw data upon which they have been basing their work for years. Even imagining it is ‘unreasonable’.

    As for ‘improbable method’, it is a method explicitly laid out by powerful political figures and forces decades earlier: create a crisis worthy of seizure of global oversight of population, energy use, and financial movements. The ‘impending Ice Age’ of the ’70s almost got nominated, but when that turned to warming, they also turned on a dime and proceeded to fund the creation of a ‘consensus’ that horrible heat-disasters were a) imminent, and b) our fault.

    Leveraging the modern reverence for ‘science’ was counted on to legitimize the power grab, and it almost worked, and may yet. But the cost to science’s reputation and authority has been severe.

  111. Geoff Sherrington said

    When you people have seen repetitions of scaremongering over decades by a dissident minority, when you see the same names cropping up under different banners, when you realise that there IS a sub-group of the permanently disaffected, then you might have something to discuss. When you can show that there is NO grand sceme to make small numbers of individuals immensely rich from invented fear, then sure, come back and write about it.

    Bill Gates made his fortune from computer programs – that was his product. There is a small part of the community that seeks to make a lovely living by preying on outlandish fear. Fear is their product, their stock in trade. (There is larger precedent that preaches eternal damnation, but that’s an older, blunter group that in general knows little about manipulation of science, let alone of science itself).

    The difference between the global warming scam and others before it is in planning. Decades of work were put into the selection of malleable individuals and getting them into positions of high policy and decision making. Some of the key players remain to be identified and linked. Yes, there are some “Mr Bigs”.

    Indeed, there is another difference. If computer program development was suddenly stopped, society would cease to advance so quickly. If Global Warming was to stop being an issue, society would have … yawn.

  112. Brian H said

    The insider Chinese take:
    Low Carbon Plot (PDF file)


    China, as a responsble big country must continue to act as the representative who acts in the interests of the Third World, and must expose the lies of America and the other countries who use carbon tax as a way to continue to [oppress] the peoples of the Third World, to look after the national interest, and sustain the advantages of development, and avoid carbon taxes like Japan’s “[factory agreement?]“, thus becoming chains constraining China’s future development.

  113. michel said

    Brian H, I am not skeptical of misconduct. That there was both misconduct and wishful thinking seems clear from the record. What I doubt is that there is adequate evidence to suggest that there is a secret directed conspiracy directed by powerful unnamed people in the UN and in national positions of influence. This conspiracy (no convincing evidence for its existence is ever put forward)is supposed to have hit on the idea of inventing climate change, and in particular a warming trend, as a way of securing power. They are supposed to have invented the idea of warming, despite knowing perfectly well that warming was not going to happen. Then they are supposed to have caused their henchmen, who seem in your account to include UEA staff, to have fraudulently faked their data and results to give the impression of disastrous warming. They expected that what would happen is, the world would become alarmed, and before they were found out by the absence of any warming, they would have succeeded in seizing power.

    All this in order to account for the prevalence of a temporary hysterical delusion about global warming, now in the process of dying out as it signally fails to get any warmer, the ice fails to melt, the hurricanes fail to arrive in any great numbers, the sea level does not rise….

    Your explanation is unscientific, in the sense that it posits a complex mix of unobservable entities interacting with each other, when the results (the hysteria) can be explained perfectly well by non-conspiratorial causes we observe all the time.

    The interesting similar question has been raised about financial bubbles. Why do analysts recommendations all cluster and all get very positive during bubbles? One explanation would be that the Bilderburg group has infiltrated all the brokerage houses and decides to inflate a bubble at some point, and then coordinated action takes place to put out puffery. Another would be simpler. It would say that analyst herding occurs, because the penalties of being a young, non-conforming analyst who is negative and wrong are career ending; other strategies when they fail are less penalized.

    Or as Keynes said, as long as you go bust in good company, no-one will blame you. All that is going on in climate is herding by some rather stupid and incompetent people. Now, you wonder why there are so many in climate science? Its because it was definitely a Grade B career all those years ago. If you could make your way in some harder and more demanding science, you did. Those who could not, did climate science….

  114. Brian H said


    Your explanation is unscientific, in the sense that it posits a complex mix of unobservable entities interacting with each other, when the results (the hysteria) can be explained perfectly well by non-conspiratorial causes we observe all the time.

    All that is going on in climate is herding by some rather stupid and incompetent people.

    Not true.
    “Scientific explanation” does not apply meaningfully to social and political events, as the dismal performance of the Soft Social Sciences, not least of which is ‘Political Science’ spun off from Marx’s ‘Scientific Realism’ nonsense. Human motivations and movements are not in the same category as natural phenomena, despite wishful claims to the contrary.
    I repeat that the sequence of events in respect of the creation and heavy funding of (e.g.) UN-centered Globalist institutions, and the PLANNED exploitation of an environmental crisis mentality (candidates have ranged from exhaustion of resources, to world-wide agricultural failure, to global cooling, to population explosion, to …) to ram through deeply subversive alterations to world governance and financial controls, is not a random fluctuation of crowd hysteria. As Bill Clinton once said, “In politics, if it happened, it was planned.” Not all plans succeed, but this one is far advanced.

    And the people doing the herding are far from stupid and incompetent.

    While scientific disproof (and how, pray tell, did the burden of proof get switched to the ‘disproof’ side?) is important, even crucial, it is not where the real action is. “Follow the money.” Those dispensing it are not doing so without a very large and specific return on investment in mind.

  115. Sleepalot said

    @ Jason Calley

    (Imho, ianae, etc)
    Your “friend” set you up as an expert (“Him: So, you don’t
    accept the idea that we humans are warming the world?”) and
    then subjected you to questioning until you broke. (See:
    Socratic irony.) He wasn’t seeking to understand your point
    of view.

    Better to answer his question with a question (eg. “No. Do
    you? Why?”)

  116. stan said


    Sorry if I wasn’t specific enough. I was responding simply to your friends question about the quality of the data. Yes, I think there is all kind of evidence of malfeasance beyond the negligence. However, you win the argument against the assertion that global warming is supported by a zillion scientists by simply showing negligence/incompetence. And it is much, much easy to make the case.

  117. michel said

    I guess I cannot imagine people being stupid enough to try what Brian H is suggesting. Imagine it, they are all sitting around over drinks someplace, and one of them says, lets make up the story that the planet is warming disastrously. If people start to believe that, then it will be obviously a global problem, so we will succeed in proposing global solutions, ie world government.

    Great, one of them says, but it is not actually warming. No problem, we will just get our trusty conspiratorial sleepers in East Anglia and NASA to make up studies and data to show it is. Then what we’ll do, we’ll persuade them all that they have to go back to the year 1860 in terms of energy consumption per capita, and when they do that, we will live in luxury. It will be great. There will be hardly anyone but us with cars, the roads will be empty. Wonderful.

    Yes, the reply comes, but what happens when it doesn’t actually get any warmer? What happens if all the bad data is discovered? What happens if people just refuse to lower their energy consumption? What if the only way we can reduce energy consumption that much is to close down the auto airline coal oil and chemical industries? And go back to composting and horse drawn plows? What happens if windmills do not in fact generate any usable electricity?

    You cannot really imagine a meeting where someone does not say this, or instructions being delivered from Bilderburg to UEA and NASA which do not prompt these kinds of questions. After all, what happens if one of the researchers asks, what if we get found out faking our data?

    The problem with the idea is that it is obviously a stupid one. It obviously is not going to work. It is obviously not a way of bringing about global government. I don’t know exactly how you would go about that, but this is not a plausible way of doing it. And, its defects are obvious — the bottom is falling out of the Global Warming market, as it was always and predictably going to.

    No, the most plausible explanation is that we have a bunch of third rate intellects, naive in the extreme about politics and how science works in a relatively open society, who got carried away with themselves, reacted badly, and are now running scared.

  118. Brian H said

    Sorry, Michel, your personal inability to visualize people “sitting around over drinks” planning to create and use crises is irrelevant, except that it may indicate your lack of imagination. Progressive literature is rife with specific plans to do exactly this. Even the UN’s Agenda 21 emphasizes the need to create public fear in order to leverage global economic management/control.

    Your rosy assumptions that pure incompetence is to blame is beginning to sound very much like a desire to justify and conceal these global control ambitions.

    Engineered crises are the SOP of virtually every group trying to overthrow an existing order and replace it with their own ‘enlightened’ regime. Some are more drastic than others; check out the Cloward-Piven Strategy, which was implemented in the ’70s to successfully bankrupt NYC, for example. This one is remarkable mainly for the scope of its intended outcome.

  119. Brian H said

    P.S. The pushback you posit from failure of CAGW’s predictions may well, we hope, frustrate the scheme. But don’t take it for granted. The funding and pressure to accelerate measures to control “man-made global warming” are still increasing, and authors trying to publish contrary evidence are encountering even more censorship. The recent whitewash “enquiries” are examples of the brazenness of the authorities and academia in protecting the push to impose controls based on the ‘consensus’.

  120. boballab said

    What is amazing is that people have not learned the lessons of history. You can go back and see one conspiracy after another that was successful in overthrowing governments and taking control:
    Both the First and Second English wars. Matter of fact it was a conspiracy between an imprisioned King Charles I and a group of Scots that kicked off the Second Civil War.

    As a result, some of their General Assembly members signed a secret treaty with Charles I in 1647, known as The Engagement, which promised that Charles would support the establishment of Presbyterianism, in England for a period of three years, in return for a military alliance with the Covenanters.

    Then we have the American Revolution, you know where a bunch of people sat around tables in what is now known as Independence Hall and conspired.

    The First Continental Congress was a convention of delegates from twelve of the thirteen North American colonies that met on September 5, 1774, at Carpenters’ Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, early in the American Revolution. Called in response to the passage of the Coercive Acts (also known as Intolerable Acts by the Colonial Americans) by the British Parliament, the Congress was attended by 56 members appointed by the legislatures of twelve of the Thirteen Colonies, the exception being the Province of Georgia, which did not send delegates.

    The Second Continental Congress was a convention of delegates from the Thirteen Colonies that met beginning on May 10, 1775, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, soon after warfare in the American Revolutionary War had begun. It succeeded the First Continental Congress, which met briefly during 1774, also in Philadelphia. The second Congress managed the colonial war effort, and moved incrementally towards independence, adopting the United States Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776. By raising armies, directing strategy, appointing diplomats, and making formal treaties, the Congress acted as the de facto national government of what became the United States.[1] With the ratification of the Articles of Confederation in 1781, the Congress became known as the Congress of the Confederation.

    Then we got such sweethaearts as the Nazi’s

    On 5 January 1919, the locksmith Anton Drexler, and five other men, founded the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP — German Workers’ Party), the predecessor of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP — National Socialist German Workers’ Party).[26][27] In July 1919, the Reichswehr intelligence department despatched Corporal Adolf Hitler, as a Verbindungsmann (police spy) to infiltrate and subvert the DAP. His oratory so impressed the DAP members, they asked him join the party, and, in September 1919, the police spy Hitler became the party’s propagandist.[26][28] On 24 February 1920, the DAP was renamed the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, against Hitler’s preferred “Social Revolutionary Party” name.[26] Later, in consolidating his control of the NSDAP, Hitler ousted Drexler from the party and assumed leadership on 29 July 1921.[26]

    The Beer Hall Putsch (also known as the Munich Putsch,[1] but in German referred to as the Hitlerputsch or the Hitler-Ludendorff-Putsch) was a failed attempt at revolution that occurred between the evening of 8 November and the early afternoon of 9 November 1923, when Nazi Party leader Adolf Hitler, Generalquartiermeister Erich Ludendorff, and other heads of the Kampfbund unsuccessfully tried to seize power in Munich, Bavaria, and Germany. Putsch is the German word for a military coup d’état.

    The Reichstag fire on 27 February 1933, was Adolf Hitler’s raison d’état for suppressing his political opponents. The following day, 28 February, he persuaded Weimar Republic President Paul von Hindenburg to grant him, as German Chancellor, an emergency-powers decree suspending civil liberties and the governments of the German federal states. On 23 March, with an Enabling Act (four-year Presidential decree-law power circumventing the Reichstag), the Reichstag conferred dictatorial powers to Chancellor Adolf Hitler, who subsequently personally managed the political emergencies of the German State, by decree. Moreover, then possessing virtually absolute power, the Nazis established totalitarian control; they abolished labour unions and political parties; and imprisoned their political opponents, first at wilde Lager, improvised camps, then in concentration camps. Nazism had been established, yet the Reichswehr remained impartial, Nazi power over Germany remained virtual, not absolute.

    Having eliminated the political enemies of his Government and his party, Hitler then purged his rivals from the Nazi Party, especially the allies of Ernst Röhm, leader of the Sturmabteilung (SA), and of Gregor Strasser, leader of the Nazi left wing. In 1934, to ensure the Nazi Government of the Reichswehr’s support, for a coup d’État, they were assassinated during the Night of the Long Knives (30 June–2 July) purges; later, upon the death of President Von Hindenburg, on 2 August 1934, as President and Chancellor of Germany, Adolf Hitler possessed virtually absolute power; yet the Reichswehr was not yet formally obeisant.

    Then there is the Bolsheviks

    The October Revolution was led by Vladimir Lenin and was based upon Lenin’s writing on the ideas of Karl Marx, a political ideology often known as Marxism-Leninism. It marked the beginning of the spread of communism in the twentieth century. It was far less sporadic than the revolution of February and came about as the result of deliberate planning and coordinated activity to that end.

    You can find plenty more conspiracies in history, some failed some succeeded. but keep in mind that all you need for a conspiracy is just two people to agree to work towards a common goal:

    con·spir·a·cy   /kənˈspɪrəsi/ Show Spelled[kuhn-spir-uh-see] Show IPA
    –noun, plural -cies.
    1. the act of conspiring.
    2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
    3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
    4. Law . an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
    5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

    As seen by definition (1 and 5) what has been happening is a conspiracy. You have a group of people (IPCC)are working in combination to bring about a given result (capping carbon emissions). Also look up the base word conspire:

    con·spire   /kənˈspaɪər/ Show Spelled [kuhn-spahyuhr] Show IPA verb, -spired, -spir·ing.
    –verb (used without object)
    1. to agree together, esp. secretly, to do something wrong, evil, or illegal: They conspired to kill the king.
    2. to act or work together toward the same result or goal.
    –verb (used with object)
    3. to plot (something wrong, evil, or illegal).

    As shown above again by defintion there is a conspiracy and conspiracies take place eveyday for even the most mundane reasons. If you work on a joint project at your job, that by definition is a conspiracy.

  121. Duster said

    Barry #92

    Neither Anthropology nor climatology are “soft” sciences. They are in fact difficult, immensely so. They deal with inherently complex (both mathematically, AND socially and politically) subjects. Computers offered a hope that massively multivariable problems could be dealt with in detail and an actual _science_ in the sense of being able to reliably issue deterministic predictions of the “if P happens then Q will follow” form. About that same time Lorenz published his paper on strange attractors and Mandelbrot published on fractals. So, just as the “boomers” such as you and I hit college age, the entire idea of a deterministic science for complex problems fell in the drink.

    Entire disciplines retired into hand waving in response. Purported philosophers started tossing around four-bit words for two-bit ideas and a whole raft of newly minted “scientists” coming on line went post-modern rather than accept that their work was going to be inherently hard and would never lead to great syntheses of knowledge. Socially, we saw a resurgence of pseudo-sciences on a global scale, everything from astrology to “creation science,” and nonsense like intelligent design. Religious fundamentalism became a “legitimate” point of view that was “entitled” to be heard. As the mother in Futurama put it, “I don’t understand evolution and I have to protect my daughter from undertanding it!”

    We were bombarded as individuals and as small groups with words like “empowerment,” “entitlement.” Politically correct speech became required lest some socially less-than-ept subgenius had their feelings hurt by bad words. At the same time, politics appears to have moved from a process of social debate and compromise to a “team” sport. Rather than deal with the uncertainties of reason we are now attempting to run a civilzation on “convictions” and as a writer I’ve admired remarked, “convictions make convicts.”

  122. sod said

    sorry, i was away for a couple of days.

    it is impossible to have a meaningful debate with people, who deny that humans are the cause for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere.

    we know how much CO2 we produce. we know how much the CO2 in the atmosphere increased over the last decades. the numbers add up. (actually sea and plants have removed a part of the additional CO2)

    if you deny facts, you can t be part of a reasonable discussion. sorry.

  123. BarryW said

    Duster #120

    They shouldn’t be “soft” but that’s what they are as taught and practiced as you very ably described. When the output of a science is unverifiable/unfalsifiable by others it’s “soft” by my definition. Would that it were different, but that’s what they’ve turned their disciplines into.

  124. BarryW said

    Brian H #119

    It doesn’t take an overt conspiracy, just like minded individuals working towards the same goal independently (sort of like an ant colony). Think of Communist “fellow travelers”. CAGW was an opportunity that fell into their laps and has been ably exploited to their own ends. They’ll get the power they want and then fight over the bones among themselves, but first they have to get the control centralized so they can keep it to themselves. People don’t read Orwell closely enough, those weren’t fantasies he was writing.

  125. GHowe said

    Sod- OK, tootles.

  126. PhilJourdan said

    Sod #121 – if you deny facts, you can t be part of a reasonable discussion. sorry.

    Thank you for a demonstration of a close minded person. According to Websters dictionary, I believe they classify that as an ignorant person. The wise one is he that knows that he knows not.

  127. Brian H said

    I find that a rather puzzling assertion and comparison. That “fellow travelers” exist hardly discounts the existence of the cabal at the core. Rather the opposite. My contention is that it is implausible to attribute the actions of Watermelon International to spontaneous and coincidental alignments of independent groups and forces.

    Especially, I reiterate, when “progressive” writers have EXPLICITLY been communicating for most of a century that this sort of thing was what they were trying to set up and fully intended to fully exploit.

  128. boballab said


    My earlier comment is still stuck in moderation since it goes way indepth on what is a conspiracy but you actually gave the defintion of a conspricy from the dictionary:

    individuals working towards the same goal

    Here is two of the definitions from Dictionary online as an example:

    con·spir·a·cy   /kənˈspɪrəsi/ Show Spelled[kuhn-spir-uh-see]
    1. the act of conspiring.

    2. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

    Which takes us back to the root word conspire:

    con·spire   /kənˈspaɪər/ Show Spelled [kuhn-spahyuhr]

    –verb (used without object)
    1. to agree together, esp. secretly, to do something wrong, evil, or illegal: They conspired to kill the king.
    2. to act or work together toward the same result or goal.

    And your analogy of an ant colony is not apt since an ant colony works on one “intelligence’ only: The Queen Ant. The worker ants do not “think’ or decide for themselves they do as they are told.

  129. Duster said

    “sod said
    August 16, 2010 at 2:01 am

    it is impossible to have a meaningful debate with people, who deny that humans are the cause for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere.

    we know how much CO2 we produce. we know how much the CO2 in the atmosphere increased over the last decades. the numbers add up. (actually sea and plants have removed a part of the additional CO2)

    It is also impossible to have meaningful discussions with people who presume they know everything that needs to be known, and completely impossible to have a discussion of any science involved. If we agree that we know for example, only roughly how much carbon we pump into the atmosphere, and only have a vague guess, probably not within an order of magnitude, what the biosphere soaks up, then a meaningful discussion can take place because no one is asserting they know all they need to. Blinded by the light of our knowledge leaves us prey to the unperceived extent of our ignorance.

  130. Duster said

    Barry #122

    Actually, the science side is generally reported well enough to be replicated, but all too often social custom or preconceptions interfere with the process. For instance, you will find innumerable studies of the poor and middle classes in the US and Europe, but where is there any study of the wealthy? Social sciences are generally forced to be incomplete because whole classes can exclude themselves from scrutiny. Another real problem is that much of the science, not unlike climatology, is still couched in 19th century theory, which tends to be mechanistic rather than systemic. Complexity and chaos theory is probably one of the critical advances of the 20th century, but no social policy maker or advisor to such a policy maker really wants to either hear or to say, “it can’t be predicted accurately,” or “we really don’t know, and the science does not yet exist.”

  131. Brian H said

    #129, #122:
    Whether experimental or observational, Social Sci. studies do not often (ever?) produce repeatable cause-effect connections, just correlations and multivariate analyses. The researchers are very happy if they can “explain” 20% of the variance at a softish 95% confidence level. In such an environment, an awful lot of hand-waving goes on.

  132. sod said

    It is also impossible to have meaningful discussions with people who presume they know everything that needs to be known, and completely impossible to have a discussion of any science involved. If we agree that we know for example, only roughly how much carbon we pump into the atmosphere, and only have a vague guess, probably not within an order of magnitude, what the biosphere soaks up, then a meaningful discussion can take place because no one is asserting they know all they need to.

    you are wrong. of course.

    we do not need to know, how much CO2 is taken up by the biosphere. we know rather well how much fossile fuels we burn. and we also know rather well, how much additional CO2 is in the atmosphere now.

  133. Espen said

    we do not need to know, how much CO2 is taken up by the biosphere. we know rather well how much fossile fuels we burn. and we also know rather well, how much additional CO2 is in the atmosphere now.

    But this is really a straw man you’re setting up, Sod, because we still don’t know how large the effect of the additional CO2 on temperatures will be, and we also really don’t know if positive effects of a temperature rise will outweigh the negative effects or not.

    The only thing we know quite well, is that very man species of plants will react very positive to even much higher CO2 levels than today.

  134. Dean said

    Id is crazy, as are most of you.

    This isn’t just the IPCC.

    The National Academy of Sciences came out with a multi-volume report in May re-stating their agreement with the IPCC for the umpteenth time.

    NOAA just came out with this:

    Are all of these organizations, and the many others that agree also a part of this conspiracy, or are you all actually crazy? Note that these recent reports by NAS and NOAA are not just solidarity statements agreeing with the IPCC. They involve their own research with many researchers. While I don’t know for sure, I would assume there is overlap with people working in IPCC, but the point is that these organizations long predate IPCC. The same people could make the same mistakes, if there were some, but organization intent can’t be similarly duplicated. The NAS was created during the Civil War.

    The issue in this thread isn’t really the accuracy of the AGW hypothesis, it is the conspiracy theory that it is an intentional socialist inspired takeover.

  135. Mark T said

    I don’t know for sure, I would assume there is overlap with people working in IPCC, but the point is that these organizations long predate IPCC.

    A large overlap…

    but the point is that these organizations long predate IPCC.

    and they all receive their funding from the same sources.

    but organization intent can’t be similarly duplicated.

    You know this to be true, or just assume so? Follow the money and intent/motive is easy to uncover.

    The NAS was created during the Civil War.

    So. The US government was created nearly 100 years prior to that and look what sort of ideological mess it has become. Pretty bad given its rather altruistic beginnings. Just because the NAS, or any other organization started out virtuous, does not in any way imply it will stay that way. MADD, Greanpeace, and many others too numerous to count have all strayed from their original mandates.

    It does not take massive involvement to create a massive conspiracy. It only takes a few placed in the right positions of power and massive groupthink to carry out their will.

    it is the conspiracy theory that it is an intentional socialist inspired takeover.

    All you have to do is read the publicly available UN Constitution to see that is the plan. It doesn’t take rocket science to uncover the truth – it takes willful ignorance not to see it.


  136. Brian H said

    It happens that NAS and NOAA are far down the road to complete loss of integrity and reputation. You could hardly have chosen more suitable illustrations of the nature of the “consensus”.

  137. Dean said

    I suppose my comment was partly predicated on Jeff’s “set up with intent” and the NAS could not have been set up with that intent.

    But sure, if you’re really into conspiracy theories, they could have been taken over since then by socialists and global governance ideologues. But wrt the NAS, I suppose I would like to see more proof just than the fact that they happen to agree with the IPCC. The UN obviously has global governance at some level in its mission. But not the NAS. (Nor the WMO – co-sponsor of the IPCC)

    But overall, this thread only reinforces the opinion that many of us hold of those who completely or mostly reject AGW, which is that since you find the solutions unacceptable, so you will find any possible reason to deny the problem. The other side of that is those people who accept the problem because they _like_ the solutions. But neither affects the underlying science, and nature doesn’t care about our ideologies and politics.

  138. Mark T said

    But sure, if you’re really into conspiracy theories, they could have been taken over since then by socialists and global governance ideologues.

    You don’t have to believe in “conspiracy theories” to see what is going on. And, for the record, conspiracies happen all the time – every time a few people get together and agree to do something among themselves, it is, by definition, a conspiracy. Most conspiracies are benign.

    Keep in mind the NAS leadership and the NAS itself are two different things. This is a problem I already hinted at which plagues any organization that has elected leadership. For example, do you really thing the AARP members are as liberal as the organization presents itself? They draw their membership from the largest block of true conservatives on the planet yet somehow stand for every left-wing idea you can imagine.

    People that seek elected office in just about any organization (and government) tend to be of the activist/involved mindset seeking to make some sort of change in the world (or their small part of it). It is not hard, nor does it take much “conspiracy,” for these types to reach office and ultimately bend the “common view” to their own through various means.

    True to, organizations such as the NAS, when making these blanket position statements, rarely rely on their own knowledge of the problem. They, like most, trust the scientists views they are basing their decisions on. So when you say “they happen to agree with the IPCC,” it is little more than a circular argument or self-confirmation.


  139. Brian H said

    Sorry, Dean; your argument turns about much more powerfully than it works for you. The solutions proposed for CAGW are of a piece with the left’s solutions for everything else: more power to enlightened overseers, namely themselves. The dismal record of such solutions when applied never seems to fizz or faze.

    The pathetic inadequacy of the “models” as justifications for any policy whatsoever, much less draconian choking off of the globe’s supplies, is reason enough for any judicious and circumspect person to withhold support.

  140. Duster said

    sod said

    you are wrong. of course.

    we do not need to know, how much CO2 is taken up by the biosphere. we know rather well how much fossile fuels we burn. and we also know rather well, how much additional CO2 is in the atmosphere now.

  141. Geoff Sherrington said

    Dean said
    August 17, 2010 at 10:56 pm “But sure, if you’re really into conspiracy theories, they could have been taken over since then by socialists and global governance ideologues. But wrt the NAS, I suppose I would like to see more proof just than the fact that they happen to agree with the IPCC. The UN obviously has global governance at some level in its mission. But not the NAS. (Nor the WMO – co-sponsor of the IPCC)”

    Dean, I think you are confusing a structure with a group of individuals within it.

    Certainly, some years ago, I would not have had an inclination to link the University of East Anglia with misbehaviour. Maybe even today I would suspect that most of its members are normal, hard-working people doing what Universities do best. However, this does not eliminate the possibility of a corps within that University that works to a long term, planned agenda with people allocated tasks by the pullers of the puppet strings. The Climategate emails – and I have read about all of them all by now – inarguably support this proposition.

    By analogy, the WMO does not seem to have been set up for purposes similar to those of the Strategic Air Command. That does not exclude the presence within the WMO or its offshoots of a corps with long term plans to do what the SAC could do better. Various literature from its bastard child, the IPCC, strongly points this way.

    I’d imagine a majority of bloggers on this page would agree with me that there are or were people who sought to dominate others through pseudo-scientific manipulation of power. That’s people, not organisations – that’s the distinction I’m trying to emphasise. It’s next to impossible to attempt personal domination without a structured organisation around you, so organisational names get dragged into the argument, even though many of their members might be harmless.

    Those who write here that people are so pure that they would not dream of domination are living out a fantasy, which is a life choice open to them. But they should not try to argue that this fantasy is reality, or even the norm. History teaches otherwise.

  142. Jeff Id said


    “I’d imagine a majority of bloggers on this page would agree with me that there are or were people who sought to dominate others through pseudo-scientific manipulation of power. That’s people, not organisations – that’s the distinction I’m trying to emphasise. It’s next to impossible to attempt personal domination without a structured organisation around you, so organisational names get dragged into the argument, even though many of their members might be harmless.”

    That’s my point, once the structure is in place, people inside it quickly realize what leads to more power and success – IOW money. Conveniently those with a socialist view of government happen to like the repression of industry angle by AGW, if they make it to the IPCC they also happen to have already gravitated toward environmentalism. Over time, the top guys naturally are chosen from the extremist environmentalists. Were I sitting in the room when the IPCC was formed, I would have been able to predict the outcome.

    An issue was required, they started with CFC’s which has turned out to be a disastrous waste of money to this point. The issue wasn’t big enough though. AGW, came about and every angle of it has been exaggerated to an extreme in the IPCC reports. It’s so bad they are citing magazine articles, misquoting numbers, producing and promoting fake hockey sticks, preferring models with 2 to 4 times observational trends, all to make ever more extreme claims. All in the name of environmental socialism.

    I would be shocked to learn that those who conceived of the IPCC didn’t whisper exactly these general outcomes when it was tasked with the AGW project.

    Yup, I’m crazy to some but to me those who don’t see it are blind to the world they live in – and they deserve what they get. In the meantime, many of the scientists if not most, don’t realize that they have been preferentially sorted since school for their views. Not through continued conspiracy directed from the founders, but through the natural process of a system designed to bias its result towards extreme conclusions.

    What does Pachuri see when someone predicts the rapid melting of the Himalayas – he’s not a scientist, if someone is willing to make the claim, he sees a mechanism for promoting his organizations influence – which get’s more money, fame, and prominence on the world stage. A guy like that wouldn’t be able to run a lemonade stand in business, but in the land of government, he’s the boss. Are politicians any different.

    Narcissists elected and supported by the public which is being constantly fed incorrect data by the government controlled media. Scientists who know they have consensus, but don’t grasp why technical minded people disagree. The same scientists who give standing ovations to murderous dictators like Chavez. It’s simple really, but it’s also very difficult to break up because the information flow is dominated by the socialist view.

    You can say, naw it’s no conspiracy Jeff, there is no global march to socialist world government. I say you need to use your head and quit getting your information spoon fed to you by the media. They wrote exactly what they were going to do in Copenhagen’s original summary. Create a world environmental government controlled by a few people appointed by the countries which sign, for the purpose of directing money from about 10 semi-functional countries to the ‘poor’ countries of the world. None of which would do a single damned thing about global CO2 output. Hmmm….. When they write it down, how come some people still claim it isn’t true??? Are you saying the document was fake, or have you just not done your homework?

    So when scientists write that I’m missing the point of the IPCC and the great work they are doing, I have to wonder how they become so naive as to miss the systematic exaggeration of the science and the fat cats on top pushing for a hundred billion dollars a year of wealth redistribution. IMO, They believe so much in their work that they don’t notice they are being used. All this means is that there are a lot of good scientists, which have risen to the top of their professions, on the backs of a political system which promotes extreme conclusions.

    The same things happen in every government organization on earth, so it’s not like there isn’t precedence and it’s really not like it wasn’t predictable.

  143. Jeff Id said

    #137, I do reject the solutions proposed, I don’t reject better ones.

    The trick to science, which scientists typically understand, is to let the data take you where you are going. Again, I’ve published many critiques of skeptic papers here, I’ve also produced global temperature trends using methods guaranteed to make a higher trend from the same data with the same gridding. How is it that I can write multiple threads arguing for the AGW effect and still claim the above?

    What does that say? Am I afraid to support AGW, or am I just doing what a normal person would?

    The magnitude AGW is an entirely separate issue from the solution. You need to dis-aggregate the two if you want to understand the science. If the problem is real and severe, a better case needs to be made. If the problem doesn’t exist, the same is true.

    My answer is we don’t really know yet what CO2 will do, but we will have a much better idea in 30 years.

  144. Brian H said

    And, FWIW, 30 years is not “too late!!!”. The slowness of any purported benefit of ‘de-carbonization’ means there is little or no penalty for ‘watchful waiting’. So, of course, ‘tipping points’ (unknown unpredictable scary phase-changes of climate systems) are invoked to imply that any little increment to ‘forcing’ variables might be the one to cause disaster, so there’s no time to waste!

    Which is pretty much content-free posturing.

  145. Dean said

    My background in politics has led me to believe that ANY organization that has any measure of influence or power, whether explicit in the form of governance or implicit in the form of lobbying influence, that people will attempt to control or direct that organization to get their way. The only time this is avoided – the only time – is when an organization is powerless and irrelevant, from a political standpoint.

    That doesn’t mean that I think such efforts always succeed. For many organizations, the test of their worth is how they deal with such efforts.

    Nor are fields which in theory shouldn’t do this – like science – immune. I believe that there are no exceptions to the above. All organizations that have or gain strength and influence will at the very least go through such a phase, where people will attempt to get control and use an organization.

    So I’m not coming at this from a position of naivete.

    Now for some organizations, and I think the best examples might be the EU or the WTO, global governance is an obvious part of their mission. When it is public and stated, it’s not a conspiracy. True to for the UN too, though I think to a lesser degree.

    But my question for you about the NAS – which I think is the best test case here – is whether the fact that they support AGW is all the proof you need? Note that while the NAS has released supportive statements, for which there would be a natural tendency to support fellow scientific organizations, the May releases (as well as the NOAA one recently) involved extensive work on their own. They were not statements.

    I know that conspiracies exist, though I think that probably the great majority of conspiracies that the conspiracy theorists push do not. But one of my criteria for a conspiracy is that the more people who have to be in on it, the less likely it is to be a true conspiracy. It’s one reason (though not the only one) that I never believed in the so-called 9-11 Truth conspiracy theory that Prez Bush and Co planned the 9/11 attacks.

    Believing that virtually every scientific academy in the world has been taken over by socialist-loving, global-government-loving leftists strikes me as such a ridiculous conspiracy at a similar level with the lefty Bush-Cheney-Twin-Towers-Planned-Demolition theory. It does seem to be a stand-in for conservative concern over how to deal with AGW – better to deny the problem than just oppose solutions you don’t like.

    Mind you – this is separate from whether the science supports AGW, and even further from what policies would be most appropriate for dealing with AGW. I’m only addressing the intentional conspiracy aspect of the issue here.

  146. Jeff Id said

    “Believing that virtually every scientific academy in the world has been taken over by socialist-loving, global-government-loving leftists strikes me as such a ridiculous conspiracy”

    That’s irritating, nobody made the claim that every anything happened, only that the most extreme science rises to the top. I do believe it is being done with intent, and I do believe that the politicians are very happy with what they have wrought on the science.

  147. boballab said


    When it is public and stated, it’s not a conspiracy

    Thats incorrect. It doesn’t need to be secret and hidden for it to be a conspiracy. I have put the definition up before and MarkT has pointed it out as well, all it takes for something to be a conspiracy is for a group of people to work towards a common goal. A Boy Scout troop is by definition a conspiracy, A little league team is by definition a conspiracy. Both are groups of individuals acting for a common goal. In the case of the Boy Scout troop it is learning what the Scouts have to teach, for the little league team it’s to win baseball games. Both are not hidden and entirely public but still conspiracies.

    I believe you are conflating that all conspiracies are CRIMINAL Conspiracies, well they are not. It is just like Rectangles and Squares, by definition all squares are rectangles but by definition all rectangles are not squares. The same applies to conspiracies so ask yourself this question:

    Are the people working for the IPCC working towards a common goal?

    If you answer yes then you have just identified a conspiracy.

  148. Brian H said

    As has been pointed out several times, but doesn’t seem to register, speaking of “the NAS” or other similar organization as though it was of one mind, or even that the executive and spokespeople reflect, or have even consulted with or polled, the membership on this topic is serious over-reach. It is even doubtful that the leadership has a mandate to pronounce in such matters.

  149. Brian H said

    In principle, you’re mostly right about “conspiracies”, but in practice there is a connotation of covertness about goal-sharing groups to which the term is applied. In this case, it is not unwarranted. What is presented as having goal ‘A’ shows strong evidence of having goal ‘B’ as its true guiding principal. I.e., ‘A’ is saving the world from the ravages (unproven, and historically wildly inaccurate) of over-heating, and ‘B’ is obtaining a death-grip on the globe’s energy budgets and the associated financial flows.

  150. Dean said


    Jeff – I admit to conflating your original post with some of the comments. If that overstates what you intended to say, my apologies.

    Nonetheless I think that your original post was stronger than “the most extreme science rising to the top.”

    You said this: “I believe the IPCC was set up with intent to provide an exaggerated science for the unstated purpose of increased government control over the global economies, to repress capitalism, and promote socialistic ideals under the guise of environmentalism.”

    I don’t think this has been proven, and since the NAS has taken the same position as the IPCC wrt AGW, I made a connection there and suggested that if you believe that of the IPCC, then you would likely believe it of the NAS. Some responders here clearly think so, but you have not responded to that point. If you think the above about the IPCC, but not the NAS, then how do you differentiate. If you do think that of the NAS, then I think my opinion in my previous comment applies.

    As to the definition of conspiracy, in looking it up I see that there are some definitions that are much more benign. But if any two people working openly towards a goal is a conspiracy, which I think is not the normal connotation, then the word loses value. Of the many definitions I found, this one is closest to my usage: an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons.

  151. boballab said


    At last you grasp the point.

    To Brian and Dean, yes people have a tendency to connotate Conspriracy to mean just the dark, evil and secret plottings of bad people.
    However the word does not “lose” it’s meaning when it is applied to what it actually means. What is lost is the marginalization that people can use when someone mentions that there is a conspiracy, by labling that person a “conspiracy theorist”.

    In documents the UN has had outside groups make for them and in documents of their own making they very explicity state they are going to use “Climate Change” for the political goal of a world socialist government. Just because they didn’t hide that fact doesn’t mean they are not conspiring to bring it about. Notice they are not going out of their way to announce that they are doing this either.

  152. Brian H said

    I think the denizens of UN Agencies feel a (mostly justified) sense of invulnerability because they are protected by the lunatic majority of “nation states” in the General Assembly which routinely puts Sudans etc. in charge of Human Rights Commissions etc. There is no outrage which is beyond them.

  153. Dean said

    “the IPCC was set up for the purpose of exaggerating the science”

    This seems to be accepted here and no proof is required.

    As to “the worse the AGW problem, the more their power and influence expands”, this is true in theory of any organization that deals with problems – of any kind. That doesn’t mean there aren’t problems.

    It’s all a plan; AGW is either false or at least completely unproven; thus any organization that supports it is a part of the plan. Those organizations benefit from it, so that seems to be the only proof needed. Circular reasoning.

    Of course I recognize that most of you think the same of somebody like me. But I’m in agreement with every scientific academy in the world, in countries where the political structure and process is very different. You’ve all seen the lists of these academies.

    That I’m placing some trust in their expertise doesn’t mean I haven’t put some effort into learning the details myself. It’s not blind trust. But for them to all be wrong, they all have to be in on this. Sorry, there is no evidence of that. You only seem to need to know that they agree with the IPCC. You focus on the IPCC because the UN is a favorite target of the right. It’s just another form of cherry-picking. They are an easier target than the NAS.

    The entire conservative political litmus test on AGW is going to be a major embarrassment in a couple of decades once we get past the current politics and the issue is common sense. Hah – I remember when Cap and Trade was the conservative answer to AGW. Now it’s just head in the sand.

  154. Jeff Id said

    “Hah – I remember when Cap and Trade was the conservative answer to AGW. Now it’s just head in the sand.”

    Cap and trade was never the conservative answer. It was the answer of the politicians who called themselves conservative tho. It’s the worst of all ‘solutions’ imo.

  155. Bad Andrew said

    “The entire conservative political litmus test on AGW is going to be a major embarrassment in a couple of decades once we get past the current politics and the issue is common sense.”


    I guess we’ll see you again in a couple of decades then, when the currently absent common sense part of AGW kicks in. 😉


  156. Brian H said

    I’ve mentioned William Nordhaus’ “A Question of Balance” global economic model book, based on his DICE emulation, as reviewed by Dyson. He takes AGW as given, and does cost-benefit on the alternative responses.

    I’ve now found a link on his personal site to a proof copy in PDF format. Well worth reading, or sampling. Of all the mitigation strategies, over the course of a century, from doing nothing to the Gore-Stern draconian controls, the best is a cheap carbon-free energy source. This hypothetical “low-cost backstop” isn’t specified. A carbon tax is moderately positive. Kyoto and doing nothing are both more or less a wash, and Cap&Trade is moderately negative. Gore & Stern are disasters.

    (In case you were wondering, Nordhaus has published and been peer-reviewed up the kazoo. 😉 Yale faculty, y’know!)

  157. Brian H said

    Forgot the link to the Dyson review; worth reading for itself.

  158. Brian H said

    P.S. About C&T; I doubt the original proposers, current boosters, or William Nordhaus took into account the fact that it is turning out to be an absolute cornucopia for shysters and gamers and flippers and players–and insider manipulators like Gore and Pachauri.

  159. Mark T said

    What is lost is the marginalization that people can use when someone mentions that there is a conspiracy, by labling that person a “conspiracy theorist”.

    That’s Dean’s (or any other advocate) sole goal. Marginalize. Immediate marginalization is straight out of the “believer’s” playbook. Don’t address the argument, marginalize the arguer. Marx said this is what you should do. Pick any controversial topic and you’ll see it happen repeatedly. You’re a bigot if you don’t want the mosque, a racist if you don’t agree with affirmative action, a denier if you don’t agree with AGW claims. The list is endless.

    He is transparent, this Dean character, and no different than any other “believer” I’ve ever run across.


  160. Brian H said

    I correct myself: Nordhaus takes explicit account of corruption and “rent-seeking behavior” in his book. He uses it to recommend taxes rather than traded permits.

  161. Geoff Sherrington said

    If, as I have, you have been President or a Committee member of a scientific or commercial organisation – and we can include the aforementioned USA NAS in this context – you will have found that it’s not a terribly thought-provoking exercise to rubber stamp a government proposal that a mainstream course of action be endorsed. You will sometimes find that most of your colleagues do not know enough about the topic to make an informed endorsement. Such exercises are distractions from their specialist lines of research, nothing to see here, move on, next science item please, Mr Chairman.

    It happens occasionally that someone DOES know and DOES care enough to break the sleepy silence. It’s sad that that has not happened at a number of Learned Societies so far.

    In an opposite direction, it can also happen that the Chair or a colleague will say “I’ve got this in hand and we’ll raise it later”. That’s a stage when the dirty business can go on, when those who seek to profit set up structures to profit, often being less than open and truthful with those around the table.

    As Jeff noted in 142 agreeing with my 141, it’s people within the structures that set out to do the damage, not the structures themselves. The NAS, so far as I’m concerned, is quite a fine body; but it is not one that actively seeks out troublesome colleages with doubtful intentions. That’s not a high point on its Charter. Nor, I suspect, is there much past experience in dealing with awkward revelations with a capacity to embarrass. When you get that high in the Club, the finer points of the after dinner port are more interesting than a long story of so-and-so pooping in his trousers in public. Who cares if he did?.

    Pass the port from right to left.

    Life’s a bitch sometimes. Just as you get old enough and wise enough to comprehend the actions of the juveniles, you tend to lose your network of similarly influential people and you become less effective at grouping and teaching the real lessons of Life. So, if you are a theorising youngster, pull your head in for a while and listen to reality on this thread.

  162. Mark T said

    It is even doubtful that the leadership has a mandate to pronounce in such matters.

    Typically they do not, though neither do they need membership approval to make such pronouncements.

    I’m just waiting for the IEEE to make such a pronouncement. They have been rather quiet on the subject, probably because their membership contains what I would describe as the largest group of “deniers” of any professional organization in the US. I have yet to meet another EE the buys into AGW wholly, let alone CAGW. Still, they have been pushing research into green energy solutions, though I suppose that is not such a bad thing per se (and certainly expected even from a capitalist viewpoint – fossil fuels are not expected to last forever), but it may just be a precursor.


  163. Mark T said

    You will sometimes find that most of your colleagues do not know enough about the topic to make an informed endorsement.

    Most don’t even care; they sign up for the trade rags and a bullet on their resumes. I’m in the IEEE simply so I can cheaply (relatively) access one of the largest signal processing databases available for any research I am conducting. Sometimes I even read the Spectrum (their primary publication). I have never even voted in leadership elections in spite of over 15 years of membership. I don’t care, nor do I have reason to care.


  164. boballab said

    Well Jeff if your Crazy so is Dr. Spencer:

    DUMP the IPCC process.

    The reason why is because the IPCC process was never created to achieve what the U.N. claims, and what most people believe it exists for.

    The IPCC was created to use the scientific community to build a case for regulating CO2 emissions. Period.

    While you might believe otherwise, climate scientists back in the 1980s did not get together and decide “let’s create the IPCC and investigate the evidence for and against manmade climate change”. Instead, politicians and politically savvy opportunists saw global warming as the perfect excuse for instituting policies that would never have been achieved on their own merits.

    Read the rest over on his blog at the link provided

  165. Brian H said

    Yes, Spencer puts it precisely and concisely. The IPCC is a tool of politicians, being used to leverage and manipulate scientists for a power-magnification scheme. Its methods are those of PR agencies and political pressure groups everywhere: image management, denigration of opponents, false-flag maneuvers, etc. Pachauri is at it non-stop; he’s some piece of work!

  166. Brian H said

    As I posted on Spencer’s site:

    Jerry Pournelle, whose background in science and politics is hardly to be matched, posits the Iron Law of organizations: after a (variable) period of time, the originators and founders and their goals are taken over by the routinizers and rule-writers and clerks. The resultant bureaucracy has two goals: expansion and permanence. The IPCC/Copenhagen cabal intended to write that into the deal: universal governance and complete absence of accountability.

    Nice work if you can get it.

  167. Geoff Sherrington said

    As I have blogged elsewhere, the dies were cast in the 1970s. Some names persist, with activism rather than science causing them to be remembered. The main, early cast is in the 1984 book “The Apocalyptics” by Edith Efron (Simon & Schuster NY). Edith dissected the global protest movement organization on the basis of those promoting a global cancer epidemic caused by man-made chemicals. She also demolished the postulate – and was correct. All of her many references were taken verbatim from the authors or from recorded speeches; none was taken from an industry source, so the book could be seen to be untainted.

    It was our failure of vigilance that let CO2 matters get so serious. This IPCC stuff is precisely the type of junk that neeeds to be seen early and nipped in the bud with good science.

    We owe thanks to early adopters of the blog method, like Jeff, who provided an important platform to address the deficiencies.

    Keep in mind, though, that a portion of the population will remain convinced that the IPCC was right. Illustration – why is there an astrology chart in so many newspapers and magazines? We know it is nonsense, yet it persists. After a while we can’t be bothered to remove it.

  168. Brian H said

    From a review of the book, “Climate: The Counter Consensus by Robert M. Carter (Stacey International, 2010)”,

    As far as we can determine, during the period from 1943 to 1975 the Earth cooled by nearly a degree Celsius (although anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide were rising sharply), and this trend precipitated fear of a new ice age. However, following the switch in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from cool to warm in 1975–76, global temperatures began to rise and the ice age scare quickly gave way to the global warming scare, and within thirty years or so to the situation where we were on the point of wreaking great harm on our nation.

    Bob Carter discusses the motivating forces behind the intellectual and moral corruption which has been the central issue in this story, and here we find a scientist who is bewildered by what he has seen. He accepts Aynsley Kellow’s arguments concerning the corruption which follows from adherence to a “noble cause”—in this case “saving the planet”. In my view this is a serious misreading of the situation and it follows from a profound misunderstanding of the nature, doctrine and purposes of the environmentalist movement, which has been driving the Anthropogenic Global Warming fantasy for more than twenty-five years.

    The Greens are the political face of the environmentalist movement and they have become extremely influential, not only as separate political parties, but as factions within the major parties throughout the Anglosphere and very clearly within our own Liberal and Labor parties. Because they have been able to play the political game with great skill they have not been subjected to proper scrutiny. John Howard, for example, failed to realise that the environmentalist movement is an existential threat to Western civilisation, indeed to all civilisation.

    The core articles of faith of the Greens are the sanctity of “nature”, and the depravity of mankind. Their hatred of mankind is revealed time and time again in their oft-expressed desire to see new plagues wipe out the greater part of the world’s peoples. The creation of more and more “wilderness”, from which humans are barred, is a manifestation of this awful misanthropy, and the ultimate goal of this movement is an Earth which is no longer polluted by any human beings at all. It is an anti-theist movement with a deep hatred of its own kind, which it sees as depraved and incapable of redemption.

    There is a growing realisation in the democracies of the Western world that they have been conned by the thermo-maniacs.

  169. Brian H said

    With apologies to Yoda, “there is no ‘dies’; there is only ‘dice’!” 🙂 😀 😉
    Sorry. Couldn’t resist. 9-/

  170. Brian H said

    Follow the money:

    Make a super-GHG, and then get paid billions to destroy it. Very clever, those Chinese!

  171. DeWitt Payne said

    Re: Brian H (Aug 31 03:01),

    As long as we’re nitpicking, Jacta alea est can be translated as the dice (plural of die) are cast or the die is cast as ‘alea‘ denotes the game, not the physical die. See here for example.

  172. Brian H said

    Fair enough! But getting back to English, how do you feel about ‘mouses’? 😀

  173. DeWitt Payne said

    I don’t know about mouses. My Firefox spellchecker didn’t underline it in red. I guess it depends on whether you’re talking about small furry creatures or the things we use to move the cursor on the screen. Mousies on the other hand…

    “Love to eat them mousies, Mousies what I love to eat. Bite they little heads off… Nibble on they tiny feet.”—B. Kliban

  174. stan said

    Brian H,

    You need to read this about govt bureaucrats. It’s solid.

  175. Brian H said

    #173, DeWitt;
    As a verb, “to mouse” now means to use a computer mouse, so present tense singular third person is legitimately “mouses”. 🙂

    #174, stan;
    Good write-up, but he didn’t quite get to the point of explaining the “controlled by a cabal of its enemies” law. It feels like there’s more to be said there, something along the lines of “solutions are bureaucratic suicide”.

  176. ICgqix said

    Click This Link zolpidem generic ambien – order ambien online overnight

Leave a Reply to Jeff Id Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: