I & I Editorial BoardI&I Editorial
Give the green shirts long enough and they will reveal their true intentions. This happened most recently when a Massachusetts official said “we have to break” the will of the average person to cut greenhouse gas emissions. It’s another in a long line of admissions made by the climatistas – thank you, Steven Hayward, for adding that descriptive term to our lexicon – that inadvertently exposes their authoritarian urges.
Ranting last month before the Vermont Climate Council, David Ismay, Massachusetts Republican Gov. Charlie Baker’s undersecretary for climate change, said that “60% of our emissions come from residential heating and passenger vehicles,” produced by people on “the street” and seniors on fixed incomes.
“There is no bad guy left,” he continued, “at least in Massachusetts, to point the finger at, turn the screws on, and break their will so they stop emitting. That’s you, we have to break your will.”
He then added “I can’t even say that publicly.” Which itself says a lot.
Baker appeared to be unhappy with the comments and indicated that Ismay was going to get what we hope, but cannot assume, will be a stern a lecture from another administration official. But no one can, as lawyers like to say, unring that bell. Ismay’s comments are out there, and they disclose more than the alarmists want known.
They hope to push through their agenda behind a wall of deception that is fueled by much of the media, activist researchers, unelected officeholders, and probably every Democrat in this country and their leftist counterparts in the rest of the West.
Yet at unguarded moments, global warming warriors have told us what’s behind the climate scare. Christiana Figueres, one-time executive secretary of United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the climate activists’ agenda is not to protect the environment but to pull down capitalism. In 2015, she said the task ahead was “to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
The late Rajenda Pachauri, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Chairman until 2015, is another zealot who exposed himself. He openly conceded “the protection of planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems” was “more than a mission” to him. It was his “religion” and “dharma.”
Meanwhile, the global warming narrative continues to unravel:
- Roger Pielke Jr., a professor at the University of Colorado’s Department of Environmental Studies, says a significant volume of climate research is “untethered from the real world” while at the same time “focused on implausible scenarios of the future.” He lamented “the unstoppable momentum of outdated science.”
- Chinese researchers believe the warming trend we’re in now began in 1825, and, according to Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post, have concluded that “man-made carbon dioxide emissions could not fully explain such an early rise” in temperatures.
- West Virginia University biologists have found that trees are slowing the accumulation of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere by “consuming more carbon dioxide than previously reported.”
- The Global Warming Policy Forum reports: “There has been no significant warming trend for 5 years, as NOAA has confirmed.”
Even though Joe Biden’s climate czar John Kerry has admitted that “we could go to zero (CO2 emissions) tomorrow and the problem isn’t solved,” there remains a manic, economically destructive urgency to “do something.” Why? Apparently we have to “break the will of the people” because, well, just because.
We hope the West, if not the world, soon sees the alarmists for what they are: Charlatans and hacks who cover up their pursuit of political and personal agendas with an ornamental layer of environmentalism. It’s no overstatement to say they pose a danger to us all.
— Written by the I&I Editorial Board
Using these vague “policy violations,” Google is now threatening to demonetize us. It’s part of Big Tech’s effort to silence conservative voices.
A great editorial! Unfortunately, we live in a USA where currently the truth about climate science and other matters is labeled “disinformation” and banned or suppressed in varied ways by social media, mainstream media, big tech, etc. When Real Scientific Climate Truth is deeply buried and suppressed in favor of Official Climate Religion, there is a low probability that “the West, if not the world, soon sees the alarmists for what they are.”
We know from totalitarian communist eastern Europe and the USSR that economic progress (& human freedom) wither when Official Truths and Controlled Explanations become the norm. Climate is just one aspect of this strange movement that seems dedicated to bringing on a new Dark Age and a New Feudal Economy. Since Capitalism liberated people from Feudalism, it is Backwards Progress. Wind, solar and the like are great ideas, but an official authoritarian “climate religion” intolerant of opposing views is a bad idea.
Let’s discuss the science here.
What are the hottest years in recorded history?
People who say “let’s discuss the science here” usually only want to accept the science that supports their view. There are many variables and points to be made from all different sides of a discussion, and they are sometimes subjective, and it would be nice if it could be a civil discussion accepting all viewpoints without condemnation. I also happen to think Bart Starr was one of the greatest quarterbacks to ever play the game. Pick a side and talk amongst yourselves. See, lots of different viewpoints and opinions based on different facts which bolster each person’s opinion.
Okay, I’ll bite: What evidence do you have it is not happening?
Look up the ten hottest years in recorded history.
george227 asks a great question which leads to many more, including: If we are using adjusted temperatures rather than raw terrestrial and orbit-based records, where is the raw data and open debate on adjustments? Where we have proxy data before widespread temperature records, what was the cycle length between warm and cool periods? How does that cycle length compare to periods where we have reliable terrestrial and other temperature records?
Good questions. All of them have been addressed and answered in science.
How many sources of science do you read? Not political comments about science, but the science itself? I read several every day.
Maybe you can start here: physdotorg
1934?
Hottest years recently, 1934 and 1936. Of course the medieval warm period contained warmer years than the 1930’s, then the Roman warm period was warmer than the medieval warm period, and of course the Minoan warm period was warmer yet, but there was little recorded history back then.
Those were regional, not world-wide.
“…in recorded history?”
See, this is how the climatistas operate. They ask tailored questions to get the answers they want.
We know very well that global temperatures prior to recorded history were much, much higher than they are today.
We also know the temperature of past climates from evidence.
Are you not aware of science?
I am genuinely surprised to see the amount of misunderstanding of science here. Please read the science before making statements in public. I suggest some references likes Science News or phys.org.
I am serious. Without this knowledge, you are risking embarrassment.
There is a guy like you on every thread like this:
“Please go do research to prove ME right while I ignore every point you make!”
Please make a point in science.
Back it up.
Thanks.
So the climatistas goal is to destroy capitalism, and BLM’s goal is to destroy faith and family. What a team.
Somehow it comes as no surprise that climate activists view car and plane travel as the preserve for the elite, and cramming the proles into subsidized urban housing(densification). And their tactic is to make you feel guilty for “destroying the planet,” if you refuse to bike everywhere and freeze during the Winter.
I do not bike. My electric car is clean and is powered by the solar system on the roof of our house. The PV system paid back in three years, now giving us free power for the household and two EVs.
Arizona must be nice! Try it in Seattle, Captain Planet…
I am in Northern Cal. It has been cloudy the past few weeks.
Summer wipes out the power debt.
Seattle has hydro.
There are renewables everywhere.
Conservatives are the authoritarians.
I sometimes feel as though I have been damned. I earned my Ph.D. in Chemistry 45 years ago and then embarked on a great career as a researcher publishing more than my fair share of papers and being the recipient of more than my fair share of awards. I know how to do science and I can read/understand the articles often cited by various factions concerning global warming, the COVID-19 “pandemic”, etc.
I feel damned because I read these stories about how the Earth is going to be destroyed from global warming, but, when I read the research papers claiming this, I see horrible science with absurd analyses/results based on untested assumptions with missing controls, etc. When I raise these points I am immediately shot down as being a “denier”, not being the “right kind of scientist” to be able to understand the work, in the pocket of “big oil”, etc. When I point out the various warming and cooling periods just during humanity’s written history that have been extensively documented, confirmed countless times in various scientific studies, and how they just disappear in the global warming literature, they demand I believe their own sketchy data while ignoring the reams of data denying their claims.
Their flaws are easy to see using arguments without data. For example, does anyone realize that this is the first time a huge multinational effort has been undertaken to solve an existential crisis for which we have not defined our goal? We have not defined what a “safe” level of CO2 in the atmosphere might be nor have we defined the term “safe”. If we do not know what our ultimate goal is, then how do we know when we are finished? Likewise, if we do not know what our goal is, then how can we do a serious cost benefit determination to measure the costs of doing nothing vs. the cost of trying to address this global warming?
Then there is the absence of common sense. Not that long ago everyone was speaking about peak oil, how many years of coal we had left, etc. While we continue to discover more and more oil, those discoveries are smaller and more difficult to reach thus having the effect of putting off the year of peak oil to sometime this decade. In other words, sometime soon we are going to start running out of petroleum and other fossil fuels. If we reach actual peak oil sometime in the next decade or two (which is close to a certainty), then why do all the global warming models assume a continuing increase in CO2 production from the burning of fossil fuels through the end of this century? It simply makes no sense.
These are all major flaws and I have yet to address the actual science and the incredible short comings there.
Given all of this, perhaps worst of all is the arrogance of the global warming cult. Imagine a student in their freshman Chemistry class telling their professor he is stupid and/or a bad chemist because he does not agree with the global warming dogma. It happens. Many of these people have adopted with an amazing zealotry for the global warming mantra and anyone who disagrees is a fool in their eyes. They demand to see your CV to determine if you are a good scientist or not when they can not even understand the titles of any papers you wrote. They lack the depth to understand how trivial things are not significant while they trivialize major issues. Despite all of this, they maintain they know everything and you know nothing.
After a decade or two of this you begin to feel damned for you know the truth because you can understand much of what is occurring and yet all you get is pushback, insults, and worse. Then, when you retire and think you no longer have to face these fools for they no longer have any impact on your life, up comes COVID-19 and it all starts all over again. It’s like living in a Kafka novel.
You cannot effectively confront the dogmatism of a fanatic religion with reason, e.g. Galileo/geocentric universe.
Oh,good!
Let’s discuss the science.
What are the hottest years in all of recorded history?
Superb comment. Thanks for taking the time to write.
Let’s discuss Ocean Acidification.
I will bet you do not understand it,and probably are not aware of it, because it does not get covered in right-wing press, since they are against the facts of science.
george227–Your assumptions here seem rather arrogant and thus not likely to help discussion. Original poster mentioned decades of life experience following doctoral work in chemistry. A better assumption is that he is aware of ocean acidification and understands better than most. Consider engaging with what he actually wrote if you desire open-minded discourse.
I understand Ocean acidification…but what I want to know is, do you walk to work? Can’t even bike because the industrialization of making a bike would cause an uptick in CO2 causing ocean acidification. Whoops, can’t really live in a house as well because like the bike, that is industrialized as well. Can’t eat out in restaurants, buy food in grocery stores because they all are part of our industrialized world. So since none of us want to go back to living in a cave and hunting and growing our own food, then the only answer is de-population of the world to solve your problem of ocean acidification. That is what all the climate change and I will add your “ocean acidification” really comes down to.
The globalist elites say 500 million people is “sustainable” for the planet. So get in line with the rest of the climate alarmists and sacrifice yourself for the good of the planet.The globalists technocratic corporatists, thank you.
Well, gosh, what are your specific charges with the science?
Let’s get to it.
I welcome anyone who can set me straight.
The current Climate Change/Global Warming cult/religion was the brainchild of David Rockefeller and friends in 1968 when they determined to create a movement on the idea that human consumption and population growth were the major world problems. Their first project was to fund a junk study at MIT called “Limits of Growth”. Enter Maurice Strong, Rockefelller’s friend and fellow “oil” man. In 1971 Strong was named undersecretary of the UN, also a trustee of Rockefeller Foundation. Strong was an early protagonist of the unfounded theory that man-made emissions from transportation vehicles, coal plants and agriculture caused “dramatic” rising temperatures globally which threatens our planet and subsequently, humankind. Strong invented the term, “sustainable development”. These two “oil” men funded and marketed the concept of Global Warming, death to the planet because of the density of population and populations carbon footprint. They enlisted Al Gore, George Soros took Rockefeller’s place and they indoctrinated through the public school arena and universities since the 1970’s until now the cult like following of “save the planet” from global warming, now…climate change which occurs because of our use of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels bad…heavy carbon emitters…must abandon carbon energy sources or our planet is going to die, hence we all die. The constant fear that their foundations and money continue to promulgate has gotten so absurd that every crazy weather event is treated as a climate crisis. As a scientist, you should be able to explain that CO2 cannot soar up into the atmosphere from our transportation vehicles or coal plants. CO2 is an invisible gas essential to plant photosynthesis and life forms on our earth, including humans. CO2 has the molecular weight of approximately 44 while our air which is oxygen and nitrogen has a weight of 29. Therefore the gravity of CO2 is some 1.5 times greater than air which would determine that CO2 exhaust gases from vehicles or our power plants do not rise up into the atmosphere to create greenhouse effect. The entire globalist cabal latched onto this Global Warming, Carbon Exchange, Sustainable Development where it now effects trade, stock markets, nations governments, business development, housing etc. Why, what is the goal? First, understand it has nothing to do with science even though they have wrapped it into pseudo science from scientists who have been bought and paid for to give it a sense of legitimacy. It is simply “the” avenue by which the globalist cabal will destroy economies and most specifically, the US economy. It is the Great Reset. At DAVOS 2021 Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum is promoting the great reset and reality it is the blueprint for the global tenchocratic totalitarian corporativism of the world…one world government run by a group of elite globalists (unelected) technocrats with depopulation (less than 1 billion people on the planet)…Climate Change is the methodology to which they will achieve this technocracy, one world government, because its ideology embraced by the world governments will deliver huge unemployment, destruction of the world’s industrial base. resulting in economic collapse which is all done by design. As a scientist, you know this has no scientific basis, and with a virtual monopoly on media, including social media they have been able to indoctrinate “warming and climate change” everyday for years to the planet’s masses. It is simply cover and the means to reset the economic and political power of this planet, putting it into the hands of a few globalists. Your scientific knowledge has no power against that kind of indoctrination. Don’t waste your time. Better that you read up on Maurice Strong, Soros, Rockefeller Foundation to understand how we got here and where it is all going. Read, “The Great Zero Carbon Criminal Conspiracy”…these people are truly evil, having created wars, conflict, economic and humanitarian disasters in nations throughout the world. Climate Change is not Science, it is Political, power and greed which has been the true disaster throughout the history of the planet.
Cleetus: I am sorry, but you have miscalculated…you think that the Climate Change is sincere and honest science. Nothing could be further from the truth. It started with Rockefeller and Maurice Strong and others in 1968 when they came up with the idea that human consumption and population growth were the major world problems. Think about it…two oil guys, richer than anyone could imagine deciding this was the way to go to reach a technocracy of one world government. They funded a junk study at MIT called the Limits to Growth” in 1972 to get the ball rolling. As a scientist you know that CO2 is some 1.5 times heavier than air (oxygen and nitrogen)…Therefore, how could CO2 jettison 12 miles into the atmosphere causing greenhouse effect? Instead of reading science journals, scientists need to start reading the political history of the Global Warming/Climate Change movement and the elitist goals. Through CO2 Climate Change, through nation “agreements” such as the Paris Climate Change Accord the results will be deindustrialization of the most advanced economieS (USA, Europe) and bring about the collapse of industrialized nations. This must happen in order to change the economic model moving to a one world government, powered by the elitist globalists technocratic corporatists. They have invested huge amounts of money, time and marketing to convince the world population and those in powerful industrialized nations that CO2 emissions were/are going to tip the planet into irreversible ecological catastrophe. This is a ploy to attack humanity “itself” because if they are successful, if people do not wake up, deindustrialization and economic collapse will continue and it is all by design using Global Climate Change as the catalyst. This is what is now being called the “Great Reset”. As a scientist, you have the historical scientific data on warming trends, oceans rising/falling and you see that they do not jive with what is being “marketed” to the masses, you have admitted that. You are looking in the wrong journals, trying to prove that your “science” is the accurate one. It’s not science, it is political and always has been. They created the Climate Change cult by design. Read, “The Great Zero Carbon Criminal Conspiracy”, that should get you started and then read the Agenda for the Great Reset.
It is easier to fool a person than to convince them that they have been fooled….
we have a lot of defendants now and let’s sue their asses.
…”the ornamental layer of environmentalism” is a perfect description. Good article.
Naomi Klein is perhaps the most honest voice on the alarmist side of the climate crisis TM discussion. From a book blurb on Amazon: “A brilliant explanation of why the climate crisis challenges us to abandon the core “free market” ideology of our time, restructure the global economy, and remake our political systems.”
It’s the global iteration of Rahm Emanuel’s immortal words, Never let a good crisis go to waste.
NASA reports that the sun is entering a low solar activity phase. The last such phase occurred in the 1600’s and caused a mini ice age. The rent seekers will destroy the fossil fuel industry, have nothing to replace it with and the population will be unprepared. Nuclear is now much safer, more reliage, and carbon free. For some reason the same rent seekers do not want to talk about it.
We can talk about nuclear power: We cannot afford it.
Look up the V. C. Summer plants.
France affords nuclear power just fine.
France wants to know if they can send you their high-level nuclear waste.
Nobody has found a way to store it for the required time. Our own high-level storage at the Waste Isolation Pilot Project was burned by the fires started by the waste, contaminating the earth around it.
Look up WIPP and find out France is turning away from nukes.
Joe Biden, our commander of climate, has detailed Long John Kerry as his climate czar while ol’ Joe busily controls the rising temperatures and hot air windstorms surrounding his son Hunter, the smartest man Papa Joe has ever known. Long John is a natural because he windsurfs off Martha’s Vineyard and knows all about seaside wind patterns and how they affect the lobster catch. I am happy that Kerry has found a home with the Biden political family since his stepson is a person of interest along with Hunter in some of the suspected shenanigans. Families that prey together stay together.
Unlike anyone else here, I earned a Master of Science in this field.
Let’s discuss the science shall we? We can start with ocean acidification.
Are you concerned? Are you even informed?
We are approaching the conditions which led to The Great Dying.
Look it up.
Well, then, George, please explain how the sun plays little to no role in the climate models? (Per the IPCC) Why is their science such junk? Comparing one 20 year period over another as it relates to climate is ridiculous, we have only a 130 year climate “record” versus a 4.3 billion year Earth, and much of the climate data is suspect . Why are real scientific means not employed, but instead the use of the deceptive and unhelpful assessments of “high confidence ” that the results are correct to “low confidence”. We usually use the word correlation, but even that is too broad. “Confidence” in the result is simply not scientific and disguises the broader questions that remain unanswered.
If we are in a solar minimum, why is it getting hotter?
What little is “known” about the Great Dying is that it occurred over a period of 60,000 +/- years about 251,000,000 years ago. At what stage of this process are we currently?
Thanks for the reply. You can find out for yourself by comparing the present pH of the seas now with that of the Great Dying.
It is accompanied by heat-induced deoxygenation:
https://phys.org/news/2020-04-bad-alive-links-ocean-deoxygenation.html?
The fact that the climate frauds don’t advertise is that there is zero reproducible experimental evidence that CO has any kind of thermal effect on the atmosphere. That’s zero, nada, zilch. Climate phonies are very careful to not reveal this fact to the public.
Wow. That is really something.
I suggest you read some science.
Should I give you some references?
I am surprised you do not know this.
Go here: http://gsp.humboldt.edu/OLM/Courses/GSP_216_Online/lesson2-1/atmosphere.html
Lucy of Charlie Brown fame to Linus: “Liberal scientist can prove that global warming is real”.
Linus to Lucy: “They can’t even tell the difference between boys and girls”.
On April 22, 2008, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, which made the same assertions.
It is not possible to average temperatures over the globe over a year and produce anything meaningful. Many people in the public are statistically naïve and these climate frauds take full advantage of that. We can only measure temperature at a point and then assign that temperature to a polygon. The selection of the size and location of the polygon is completely and inextricably arbitrary/subjective. Accordingly, a fraudulent climate scientist (and let me assure you, there are many) can come to any conclusion they want by way of selection of “representative’ polygons. Global warming is blatant fraud.
No. It does not work that way.
And I take the word of scientists over internet folk.
Why don’t some of you start reading phys.org?
I will take God’s Word over “so called” science. God created the Earth and all the universe in 6 literal days. This was done about 6 to 8 thousand years ago. I trust that God who created it can keep it and us till the end.
Is that really true?
Really?