Mark Steyn:
Hysterical queens like Gordon Brown are demanding we introduce global taxation, micro-regulation of every aspect of your life, massive multi-trillion dollar transfers from the productive sector to eco-rackets and transnational bureaucracies, bovine flatulence levies and extraterrestrial surveillance of once sovereign states on the basis of fevered speculations for which there is no raw data:
The global warming scam is transparently an attempted power grab by the globalizers, and they won't go quietly. The head of the IPCC says you can't touch us:SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years...
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building...
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
There is "virtually no possibility" of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the UN's top global warming body, its chair said today.Peer review, the new touchstone of so-called integrity, is now being used to shut out dissenting opinions.
Rajendra Pachauri defended the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the wake of apparent suggestions in emails between climate scientists at the University of East Anglia that they had prevented work they did not agree with from being included in the panel's fourth assessment report, which was published in 2007.
The emails were made public this month after a hacker illegally obtained them from servers at the university.
Pachauri said the large number of contributors and rigorous peer review mechanism adopted by the IPCC meant that any bias would be rapidly uncovered.
"The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report," he said.
Besides the scheme to regulate just about everything, one of the main features of global warming is transfer payments, from the wealthy and white nations to the poor and non-white. So it's no wonder that the U.N., Obama, and Brown are all for it: it's a part of the plan to further their interests and power by any means necessary.
To judge how serious the trans-national progressive environmentalists are about global warming, just ask yourself how you would behave if you had discovered a global threat that was so catastrophic and dangerous that it was the equivalent of an asteroid heading straight for earth.
ReplyDeleteKnowing that people on the other end of the political spectrum are skeptical about anything coming from your left-wing end that smacks of global government or huge taxes, would you, knowing of this apocalyptic threat, try to take political advantage of it by proposing confiscatory taxes and a huge transfer of wealth to the Third World, accompanied by intrusive world government, thus triggering every defensive instinct of people on the political right?
Or instead would you say something like, "look, we know you're skeptical, and you're right, we've used the threat of global catastrophe in the past as an excuse to grab power. But this is too serious for that kind of thing. Look, we know you're skeptical, so YOU decide what to do, and we'll go along with whatever you come up with as long as it addresses the threat. Forget about wealth transfers to the Third World, forget about the U.N. - hell, we'll agree to abolish the U.N. if you want! - forget about taxes, whatever - we don't care, come up with the most conservative/free-market solution you want, just come up with something! And you skeptics - here, here is all of our data -- here is all of it, every bit, and every calculation, and every piece of software we wrote - you don't need to use Freedom of Information Act requests, we'll happily give you everything we've written, researched, collected - look, we'll go through it with you bit by bit and address every skeptical notion you have, respectfully and patiently -- we will help publicize every skeptical point you make so we can answer them clearly and show our good faith. This is beyond politics, this is beyond careerism, this is the future of the human race at stake!
It's obvious what they've been doing. They want a crisis they can use to shift power to the U.N. where the socialist majority can reshape the world in the way they want it to be. As Rahm Emmanuel said, "never let a good crisis go to waste". And the corollary of that is "if you don't have a good crisis, then generate one." This global warming stuff is right out of the Alinsky/Chicago Machine playbook
I strongly advise all readers to avoid, at all costs, talking with "Warm-mongers" about those emails
ReplyDeleteYou can only see the religious nature of the Global Warming scam once you question its dogmas in front of the faithful. I briefly linked to the climategate story in my facebook page, and I got a measure of the hostility it caused.
picture a Catholic feast . Then, in front of the faithful, you piss in the image of the VIrgin while screaming "fuck Christ". This is the analogous of citing climategate to Warm-mongers
Does anyone know who the major source of data and model runs are for the IPCC? I've heard the CRU was one of four. It would be interesting to see what the other major contributors are doing and how open their processes are.
ReplyDeleteJGP
Welcome back.
ReplyDeleteHey, your blogspot blog is back up!
ReplyDeleteWelcome BACK, Dennis! What a relief...for you are a squeaky clean altar boy in comparison to other blogs they might have pulled down. The injustice has obviously been remedied and rectified. We look forward to hearing/reading the details.
ReplyDeleteWelcome back.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened?
ReplyDeleteGreat to see you back.
ReplyDeletePat
Aha! I knew if I attempted to click in often enough this blog would blink back into existence. Well, not really, but I did it any way. And see? Very good!
ReplyDeleteErm, welcome back
ReplyDeleteWelcome back! After reading the recent piece by Andrew McCarthey on nationalreview.com, Iam beginning to believe that some degree of paranoia may be reasonable.If all discussion of groups must be positive, then truth no longer matters. While harmony is a good idea, the existence of negative things, often called "evil" but also simply "wrong" must be a part of human discourse. Thanks for being fair and honest.
ReplyDeleteDennis and MnMark are warning us of the tremendous danger today of the Left abusing our AGW controversy to grab power and alter massively the direction of democratic capitalism, essentially redistributing wealth and transforming the global economic order. They are right to be worried.
ReplyDeleteWhile I may sound repititious, I want to recommend the brilliant book called Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science by Paul Gross and Norm Levitt.In Chapter Six-The Gates of Eden, they absolutely skewer the radical ecology movement of the left. We all know about ecofeminists, primitivists, and Marxist ecoradicals whose political framework rigidly leads to alarmism, but hords of romantic liberals also feed at the trough of postmodern deconstruction's anti-science hysteria. Gross and Levitt attack these credentialled nutwings because they are a menace to a stable social order. Once upon a time the less scientific factions of our universities tolerated science despite widespread ignorance. This was the age of C.P. Snow's "Two Cultures" prior to the Sixties Revolution. No-one in those days tried to systematically undermine science. Today these subjectivists are a genuine enemy as they spew quack theories like Afrocentrism and the idea that white males, capitalism, and science are great evils. Global warming is their loudest alarm, however.
I once did a book called Environmental Education: A Sourcebook. It was published by John Wiley and Sons and was well-received. In it I showed teachers how to use an issue like population control as a vehicle for teaching critical analysis. I placed two great thinkers, Paul Ehrlich and Jean Meyer, in opposition to each other on the question of population as a cause of famine and disaster.While Meyer won because of The Green Revolution, Ehrlich is likely right in the long run.
My point is that Global Warming is an issue primarily for science and not the rest of us. We must solve the problem of ozone holes, species impoverishment, overpopulation, and global warming through science. Dennis and MnMark may be excessive in jumping to the conclusion that the left is basing their exploitation on false premisses. It is more likely that our pervasive industries are indeed creating greenhouse increases that cause the mean world temperature to rise. Only climate science can root out the relevant data from the background noise and provide a clear pictue of causality. In the meantime we must fight for environmental realism based upon emerging science data, exposing leftist gimickry along the way.Hysteria and alarmism of the left must be countered not by hysteria about the CRU, but by more support for real science and its power to solve even multifactoral climate puzzles. After all,despite bad apples, science is self-correcting and usually very reliable. The alternatives are not pretty.
Or, perhaps "before it became governments' whore, science was self-correcting and usually very reliable".
ReplyDelete"Cornelius Troost said...
ReplyDeleteAfter all,despite bad apples, science is self-correcting and usually very reliable."
In the past, it has been true that science has been self-correcting. However, in the past, science was not so dependent on public funding - that is to say, scientists were often funded by private interests (businesses, philanthropists, or were themselves wealthy hobbyists), or - even when publically funded - the amount of funding they required was less. Nowadays, academic scientists spend a large fraction of their time (perhaps even a majority of their time) pursuing funding in one way or another (writing proosals, white-papers, schmoozing). This ties them closer to the establishment and it's fashions. It is not clear to me that science will continue to function as it has over the last three hundred years.
There is also this to consider: science - as a whole - is self correcting. But this is not necessarily true of any given field. Example: The theory - now widely accepted - that large bolide impacts had a significant effect on the world's biota, even to the extent of causing (wholly, or to a significant degree) mass extinctions, was largely rejected by paleontologists for many years. It was proposed by people outside that field (the Alvarezes, father and son - a physicist and geologist, respectively). It was eventually accepted, largely through the work of petroleum geologists, physicists, and astronomers - not paleontologists (although there were a few young ones who took up the cause).
I agree with you that more and better science is needed. I do not discount the possiblity of AGW - there are quite real and valid reasons for supposing that it is happening.
But the climate scientists have become drunk with the power that activists, politicians, beuracrats, (and actors!) have given them. Climate science has become a fashionable ghetto, arrogantly dismissing outside scrutiny, even by scientists in other fields. That is not the way to find the truth.