Global Warming Hoax Update
Tags: Global Warming Hoax.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
The whole thing is falling apart rapidly, now:
The London Times continues to follow the glaciergate story–and it keeps getting worse.
The latest disclosure: Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s (formerly) prestigious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (known as the IPCC), may have raised millions of dollars for his New Delhi institute on the basis of the totally bogus ‘glaciergate’ claim by the IPCC that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035.
According the the London Times, Pachauri’s institute got money from the European Union and the US-based Carnegie Corporation to investigate a prediction that never had any scientific backing whatever, and one which all serious glacier scientists instantly recognized as impossible. The bogus claim was frequently repeated in the fundraising efforts — and reiterated as recently as January 15 when the IPCC was already under intense pressure to admit it had blundered.
This is now more than an example of eye-popping incompetence and gross neglect of elementary scientific standards by a body on whose authority the world is expected to make multi-trillion dollar decisions affecting every business and every person on the planet.
It is now, potentially, a criminal issue.
It certainly is – and we need to start investigating, from Gore on down, for possible fraud. These people have been running a confidence game…maybe they didn’t start out, and maybe some of them were bamboozled in to it, but we need to know. And those who knew it was false from the start and/or became aware of its falsehood and failed to expose it, need to go to jail.
How much money have we spent on this scam? Money which could have been used for other, much better purposes? If it can be shown that people died for lack of support because money was diverted to the bogus claims of global warming, then we might have manslaughter cases to make against the hucksters.
Just burns me up that they got away with it for so long – and are still trying to defend their fantasy, at least long enough to rake in some more billions of dollars. This must be stopped and the guilty must be made an example of in order to keep people honest on these issues in the future.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
31 Responses to “Global Warming Hoax Update”
Caucus of Corruption
Believing in AGW is the same as believing that UHC will save money.
How much money have we spent on this scam? Money which could have been used for other, much better purposes?
Beginning several years ago Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish economist and head of The Copenhagen Consensus Center, convened a panel of some of the brightest economists in the world for a symposium on how our civilization should prioritize our resources. The process has been repeated several times with different demographic groups since, but in each case the end result is pretty much the same. On the list of global priorities, addressing global warming/climate change always comes in last or near the bottom in terms of bang for the buck.
These people have been running a confidence game…maybe they didn’t start out, and maybe some of them were bamboozled in to it, but we need to know. And those who knew it was false from the start and/or became aware of its falsehood and failed to expose it, need to go to jail.
I would agree with you, Mark, although some of them have suggested that WE be prosecuted for questioning them. Those people need to be among the first in the dock.
If you stop to think about it, this really has been the near perfect scam. They’ve pulled it off for over 20 years, wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in the process, with the potential, if it’s not stopped, to waste trillions, or possibly even tens of trillions. One of the most disingenuous claims of the Left is that the wealthy have become so on the backs of the poor, and yet that is exactly what will happen if we pour trillions of dollars into a scam whose main accomplishment will be to make people like Algore wealthier.
The reason, IMO, that the scam has succeeded for so long is that it appeals to a large number of people on a number of different levels. I think it probably started out with a few left-leaning “scientists”, self-serving politicians and a few fame-seeking journalists driven by a combination of money and power. After James Hanson’s Congressional testimony in the summer of 1988, the whole issue kind of took on a life of its own. Billions in grant money started flowing to the scientific community, much of it not so much to study the issue as to confirm the issue. Models were developed, not to reflect observations but to confirm preconceived, agenda-driven notions. I suspect a lot of honest and sincere scientists got caught up in it and found it was much easier (and more profitable) to just go along to get along. The fact that it has become largely a Left-Right issue rather than a scientific issue is, to me, the biggest red flag of all.
The Left, particularly those aptly described as “useful idiots”, largely buys into the scam because to do otherwise would be completely contradictory to their world view. Some, like ricorun, buy into it because of the intellectually dishonest reasons that (a) right or wrong, it will be the impetus to transition to healthier, renewable energy sources; and (b) they can make money off that transition, even if the under-lying science is completely dishonest.
Aside from the fact that I have a personal aversion to anyone profiting from other people’s misery, over the last couple centuries civilization has gradually transitioned from burning wood to coal to fuel oil to natural gas to nuclear power without the population being frightened into doing so. The fossil fuels that we currently still burn to create electricity and heat are burned in a substantially more efficient way than they were just a couple decades ago.
The current French nuclear reactor designs that recycle nuclear fuel have all but eliminated the need for massive waste storage facilities, a fact that I believe is one of the major driving forces behind the climate change/global warming/green movement, a movement largely made up of Socialists, Marxists and other assorted anti-capitalist Leftists. For two decades they’ve seen control of the world’s energy as a means of both money and power. Now that nuclear power has been refined to a degree that it could provide economical, clean energy for decades to come, they see their chances for riches and power slipping away. In spite of hundreds of millions of dollars being spent in the last year or two on climate change propaganda, the number of people who actually buy into the hype is decreasing at a pretty significant rate.
It certainly is – and we need to start investigating, from Gore on down, for possible fraud. These people have been running a confidence game…maybe they didn’t start out, and maybe some of them were bamboozled in to it, but we need to know. And those who knew it was false from the start and/or became aware of its falsehood and failed to expose it, need to go to jail…Mark
—————————
Why in the heck is it taking so long for the lawsuit against Gore by John Coleman and 30,000 scientists to get to court?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ
What is the holdup here; the justice system can’t possibly be that slow, can it? Whatever happened to due process?
CO
go to page 203 in ARGUING with IDIOTS for the answer to your retarded smarmy wise ass remarks
spook
anything that the left, (commies) support will lead to misery, death, and enslavement.
The Science is Scuttled — what a marvelous play on words.
The only downside I see to the present direction of this debate is that the skeptic community may be accused of piling on.
BREAKING NEWS: scientist admits IPCC used fake data to pressure policy makers.
The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”.
But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece
probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”.
I suspect that the probability of the IPCC disappearing before 2035 is even higher, heh.
They’re going to keep pushing for the global-warming hoax, because they want control, you see, they are the modern day Darwinists, who, like Hitler are openly hostile to God, and will perpetrate violence against Christians everywhere…they only reason they haven’t done it yet, is because the majority of Christians still have their guns. Should they ever push through gun-control and they succeed with it…you can look for the gas-chambers to be brought back, the starvations, etc that Hitler used.
Don’t wait that long, though, use those guns to defend your rights…you have a second amendment to keep and bear arms, so cherish it…or else lose it and your life to the modern-day Hitlers waiting with salivating mouths to take them and your lives.
Awake, Awake, I say, America must awake!
Spook,
OK, I certainly don’t want to argue GW with you but if you’re going to throw around statements like that you need to back it up. Statement in question “They’ve pulled it off for over 20 years, wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in the process”
Please show me evidence of hundreds of billions being spent on GW research. Put up or shut up.
FMY, sorry, that should have been tens of billions — at least the part spent on research, which obviously hasn’t ALL been wasted. I have no idea how much has been wasted in carbon credit trading, as it has largely been a European phenomenon, and a failed one at that. It HAS been estimated that the Kyoto Protocol, full implemented would cost the world economies over $100 billion per year through 2100.
How much did the Green Jobs disaster cost Spain? How much to put Kyoto together? How much to put Copenhagen together? How much has GE spent on their “green” light bulbs, and advertising? How much was spent putting together the IPCC reports? How much money was spent to pay the scientists, pay for the work in getting the samples, the travel expenses, etc? How much is spent on other green initiatives throughout the world? How much for the green legislation in ALL the other countries wasting their time and money on this stupidity? How much have companies spent trying to conform to these standards?
Hundreds of billions? That’s a low-ball estimate of what this scam has cost the world so far, with the promise of costing far, far more in the future.
Are you guys actually suggesting that investigating this would be a more effective use of Congress than looking into whether some baseball players used steroids?
Hard to believe…..
Considering the incompetent scum we have in Congress and Senate right now, Amaz, we should count ourselves lucky if ALL they would do is investigate steroids.
Amazona,
Good point – if we put our Congressional clowns in charge of it Lord only knows what political Frankenstein’s monster will emerge…
Spook,
They also lucked out in that right after 1988, the warming of the earth became unmistakable – year after year, it was clearly warmer than the year before. Of course, this didn’t mean that humans were causing it, but for the non-scientific mind who is also busy with the day to day of life, it seemed to make sense that carbon emissions could cause global warming. I, myself, was agnostic on the subject until, oh, I guess two years ago – since then, I’ve become ever more convinced that it was a fraud, with “climategate” and “glaciergate” just putting the finishing touches on.
And, of course, very large numbers of people got on board – including plenty on the right side of the aisle (though I don’t recall that any really rock-ribbed conservative ever bought the story, hook line and sinker). When the mega-corporations joined the bandwagon, that is what really got the ball rolling – we have at my employer “Sustainability Action Teams” who are busy day by day figuring out ways we can fight “climate change”. In an economic downturn with profits dropping like a rock, the bosses of my corporation are still shoveling money at AGW. Why? Because it buys them peace with the left.
But its coming apart at the seams, now.
I am just amazed that you people don’t want to save the Obaminable snowmen from the Himalayan glacier ice melt.
I think it is worth billions to do so.
It was never about climate change, or “saving the earth”, to the ideologues at the top of the Progressive food chain. It was always about weakening the loathed capitalist system and generating vast wealth for themselves, while consolidating power in an ever-growing government.
They knew could create a whole new genus of Useful Idiots, and generate all sorts of chaos and dissent, so helpful to the erosion of an existing government model and the introduction of new one.
It’s always been about the ‘transformation’ of the United States. It’s always been a watermelon phenomenon—green on the outside, but red at the core.
Spook,
And there you have it. Off by an order of magnitude. Probably more, I don’t even believe tens of billions. I’d say more like 100’s of millions and much of that was multipurpose in that it was general research. And you are the one complaining about the calculations.
Spook: Some, like ricorun, buy into it because of the intellectually dishonest reasons that (a) right or wrong, it will be the impetus to transition to healthier, renewable energy sources; and (b) they can make money off that transition, even if the under-lying science is completely dishonest.
I don’t see what’s intellectually dishonest in recognizing that the “under-lying science” isn’t the only important consideration underlying the need to transition to renewable energy. As for making money off that transition, it’s not about me. I plan on doing that regardless of how things shake out. What I’m concerned about is that the US as a nation will fail to sieze the opportunity.
One thing I find intellectually dishonest is to ignore the fact that other major players are moving ahead on the renewable energy front with increasing velocity. China, for example, after years of dragging their heels, recently announced that it plans to spend several hundred billion dollars to develop and deploy renewable energy sources. They’re not doing it to enslave their masses (they’ve already done that), they’re doing it because they realize (1) that their cities are choking in dirty air and there is as yet (and maybe never will be) an effective and economical way to clean up coal plants; (2) that fossil fuel sources, particularly oil and in their case natural gas, are becoming more unreliable and unstable while their demand for energy rapidly expands; (3) that a transition to other forms of energy is therefore necessary and inevitable and; (4) that there are piles of money waiting to be had for those who get there first.
And contrary to what Lomborg appears to believe, there are technologies that exist now which are already pretty darned close to achieving parity with fossil fuel sources other than dirty coal. The bottom line is this: to continue to believe that aggressively pursuing renewable energy sources will be economically ruinous one has to also assume (as Lomborg does — read his stuff carefully) that (1) fossil fuel prices will remain stable at present prices long into the future, and; (2) the cost of renewable energy technologies will also remain fixed at present prices long into the future. As I pointed out to you a couple of years ago or so, those are the basic assumptions he uses when his group run their models. But as myriad studies from myriad sources have indicated, both of those things are unlikely in the extreme. Consequently, it is intellectually dishonest to continue to assume them as facts.
4moreyears: And there you have it. Off by an order of magnitude.
Kind of ironic, considering the topic.
Probably more, I don’t even believe tens of billions.
I’m not sure, but I wouldn’t be too surprised if Spook’s new estimate is in the ballpark.
But an ardent RRL footsoldier has to fall back on the tried and true socialist tactic of merely redefining terms, and/or rewriting history.
4more reminds me of the mouthbreather who, when I quoted Robert Morganthau’s lament that the money spent on the New Deal had not made any difference at all, blithely stated “Morganthau was wrong”.
Yeah, the secretary of the treasury who presided over the spending spree of FDR, who was the architect of the New Deal, was “wrong” because some 21st century NeoLeft acolyted didn’t like what he had to say.
And now 4more just dismisses the number of billions because he doesn’t want to admit how much money has been thrown at THIS scam.
4moreyears—sounds like a bitter hate-driven racist who hopes Obama will be somehow eliminated after being reelected.
Creepy………….
Actually what’s creepy is that “blogsforbush” is still here at all. Mark must be taking quite a tax writeoff for advertising his “book” because there certainly isn’t any significant trafic and NO ad revenues. I feel a bit sorry for him. Good luck with your hating, it does seem to make you all very smug and happy.
I’d say more like 100’s of millions and much of that was multipurpose in that it was general research.
To paraphrase a recenter commenter: Please show me evidence of hundreds of millions being spent on GW research. Put up or shut up — dickhead!
4yearsold
Good luck with your hating, it does seem to make you all very smug and happy.
Ha Ha Ha…….thats it flip out the old well used lefturd “HATE”….”RACIST”…..accusation when you have been thoroughly trounced.
SORRY but that old smoke screen is not a show stopper here, we are seasoned veterans of troll breath and are not intimidated by that sort of false accusations.
For a person who belongs to the most vile hate filled party in America, and is a lemming for an overt racist zer0 your accusations are nothing but pure B.S.
Poor whiny RRL lemming 4more, stunned by the growing realization that this nation will only vote in his kind if they pose as reasonable and rational human beings, hiding their true identities, and will rise up to kick the tricksters out when they show their true colors, feels the need to cruise the grownup aisle of blogdom and leave a few troll droppings to mark his passing..
That, and the reek of irrational hatred, the telltale scent of his kind.
Almost as if on cue it turns out that 1198 state legislators just covered my back on the charge of “intellectual dishonesty”. They just submitted a letter to the President and Congress calling on them to pass comprehensive clean energy jobs and climate change legislation. Their argument was based on three primary things: (1) the benefits to the economy of CLEAN ENERGY JOBS, (2) the benefits to NATIONAL SECURITY, and (3) the boon it would be for AMERICAN LEADERSHIP AND INNOVATION.
Go figure.
Perhaps next I should mention excerpts from Bush’s State of the Union Addresses wherein he repeatedly stressed the need to make America much less dependent on foreign sources of energy. Obviously he wasn’t too concerned about global warming, so why was that? Well, the reasons he kept mentioning are (1) economic concerns and (2) national security concerns.
Duh.
So I have to ask, who is really being intellectually dishonest? It seems pretty obvious to me that it’s those that think global warming is the overarching concern.
There is nothing wrong with energy independence. As a matter of fact, conservative bloggers right here on B4V have been arguing for it for years. It defninitely IS a matter of national security, as well as economic stability.
And yes, the claim that the goal is to somehow alter climate change IS intellectually dishonest.
Alternative energy sources are very important for a variety of reasons, ranging from economic to environmental, but to claim they will affect variations in climate is simply bogus.
Amazona: There is nothing wrong with energy independence. As a matter of fact, conservative bloggers right here on B4V have been arguing for it for years. It defninitely IS a matter of national security, as well as economic stability.
It may be true that some have. But those that do typically do so in an intellectually dishonest manner: they typically claim that we can either (1) aggressively pursue our domestic oil reserves to make us energy independent, or; (2) build lots of nuclear plants. Or some combination of the two.
The first is obviously intellectually dishonest because we don’t have enough domestic oil reserves to make more than a small contribution towards the goal of energy independence. Every little bit helps though, and I for one am all for it. But still, it’s naive at best, and seriously dishonest at worst to believe it will make much of a dent in the problem. And that’s a fact I haven’t heard even acknowledged, much less discussed, by “conservative bloggers right here on B4V”. Why is that?
The second is more disingenuous than naive, because building lots of nuclear plants IS possible. But for one thing, unless the energy so created is transferred to the transportation sector, it won’t affect our addiction to oil. So again, what are the indications that “conservative bloggers right here on B4V” realize that conundrum, much less offered some sort of solution? Would you like to be the first?
For another thing, I am left unconvinced that nuclear power is some sort of silver bullet capable of solving all of even our stationary, or “grid” energy problems. I’m not saying it can’t solve some of them, but not nearly all of them. There are lots of reasons for that. One is that nuclear plants are expensive relative to many other options, and the price is going up much faster than many other options. Another is that nuclear power requires considerable amounts of water. That makes them (and likewise, any other source that requires considerable amounts of water) problematic in places where water resources are at a premium. By the way, wind and solar PV do not require water.
Another is that in order to be even reasonably cost effective, nuclear plants come in only one size: jumbo. A typical nuclear plant generates about 1GW or more of power — more than enough to supply the population of, say, Nebraska, many times over. See the problem? Also impacting the cost-effectiveness of nuclear generation is this — they’re essentially either on or they’re off. In other words, they are best used to supply base load power. Trying to use them for peak loads as well is very, very inefficient. Coupling them with smart grids and smart appliances (which would level out the load somewhat) would definitely help. But again, I have never heard a single “conservative blogger right here on B4V” address that issue, much less suggest a solution — never mind support the adoption of smart grid technology. Further, because of their size, turning them off (which has to happen for maintenance purposes periodically) has another serious repercussion: you have to compensate for a large loss of supply. That makes a robust transmission grid mandatory — much as it is mandatory for large sources of intermittent supplies such as those provided by wind or solar. And again, I have never heard a single “conservative blogger right here on B4V” address that issue either. All they’ve done is bitch about the intermittency of wind and/or solar power, never once giving any inclination that they acknowlede the fact that a substantial increase in nuclear power would require a more robust transmission grid in much the same way as a substantial increase in wind and/or solar would. Is that “intellectual dishonesty”, or is it just ignorance? Unfortunately, those seem to be the only two options. And neither of them are very flattering.