The entire concept of being scared of change is what drives and motivates people to be fearful and even paranoid in the modern environmental movement. The reason for this at its heart is that people are fearful of change. And nowhere has society changed more than in modern society where we have gone from an agrarian society to a modern office worker society in just 100 years. This dramatic change has left people without an outlet to discuss each change individually and so these people no longer promote such ideas as conservation and science when they advocate for change. And so these people have turned into fear hustlers and fear promoters who spread their fears to everyone else under the guise of “the environment” or even homeland security. These calls to change the world are based on the simple concepts of fear and paranoia.
Note: The terms used here are alarmists or believers for people who support and otherwise believe that global warming is caused mostly by man.
Sceptics is used as people who are sceptical that man has a “large” impact on climate and tend to believe that Global warming is either caused partially or “very little” by man or is too small to detect to no impact at all.
Projectionism is defined as attributing one’s one thoughts, feelings or behaviors onto another person or set of people to prove a point. There could be a point that this is done all the time in politics as a “pre-emptive” attack on the other side to stop the other side from insulting said person. In that case, it seems like a case of sour grapes when someone is just insulting back with the same insult and this tool is used rather successfully in politics. Any insult or derision given to one side is often (but I should caution and say not always) more appropriate for the person making such remarks. Although there are many cases of this in the media and elsewhere, the same is true in global warming or climate change politics which I will remind people is no longer about science but more about politics and religion now where it takes a “leap of faith” to believe in the science or not.
Pictured: Michelangelo’s painting of God; A very appropriate picture for an essay on projectionism.
Recently, it has become apparent through the release of approximately 5000 emails from scientists and various activists and others that even more shady behavior has been going along in climate science. The last piece of the puzzle in this regard of course is the political connection, but the obvious connection between science and activists is very apparent and it occurs among all of the famous climate scientists and they are influenced by and influence activists with their techniques of working together for the “cause” (As they call it.)
Several emails in particular highlight this rather unhealthy relationship. Science always gets ideas wherever it can receive them, but it should never be influenced by this and conversely balanced activism should never have scientists telling them “which scientists they can trust.”
But for now just the emails I will discuss: (2890 first) http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=2840
………CRU’s position (we don’t take positions!), well my position is simply that we can’t use hurricane changes as a detection variable, but precautionary principle clearly suggests (given some theoretical grounds for danger) we should reckon our systems are going to have to cope with more and worse in the future.
The previous discussion involves hurricanes and a discussion between Mike Hulme (scientist) with WWF who at this time wanted to broadcast how global warming was causing hurricane Floyd. Just yet another unhealthy relationship there and some very interesting things said by a so-called scientist in that email.
Other emails that show this connection include: 5233 which shows a discussion of how the WWF can use more radical (or sober as they call it) portraits of the GCM results by not making the results statistically significant. The scientist again in this case is M. Hulme who has no problems with this omission of facts at all. 4330 is another interesting email in this regard which once again shows outside contact between WWF, scientists and in this case the email itself shows us plenty at the end of it: (Email is to Mike Hulme).
……….I particularly like one of his statements which went something like ‘It would be very presumptious of us if we thought we could exactly model something as complex as the natural environment…..’ a good way of describing the complexity we face.
I will make fresh contact with WWF this week to see if they have any interest in trialling the disc and creating teacher guidance notes on potential uses for the disc.
Jane Measures BP Britannic House
Now stopping there for a second, there are plenty of emails that I recommend reading that have similar veins in this with connections between the scientists and the green organizations. The relevant emails in this regard are:
1006, 1216, 2890, 3141, 4127, 4221, 4280, 4330, 5233. (some have been mentioned earlier, but that is just the exhaustive list.)
Again, this shows us that there is definite connections between scientists and activists which goes far beyond normal working relationships and go towards a belief and or cause (as they call it.) I seem to think this is evidence that we must be careful and we must act now.
The BBC has already been shown to be biased as in this news article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066706/BBC-sought-advice-global-warming-scientists-economy-drama-music–game-shows.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
This bias where activists and scientists would give the BBC advice on how to show only one side of the issue is very clear and the BBC actually paid these people to help them stay biased. That is a nightmare coming to the BBC as it shows that not only did they use public funds to help them deceive their own public, but they would also allow these same scientists and activists to edit programs to show the right message for “the cause.”
And we could go on and on how the plot has thickened in the AGW debate since the release of more emails which shows even more scientists who broke the law (but will not be prosecuted due to statute of limitations issues.) In other words, the emails prove even more so then the first set of climate-gate emails that these scientists lie, cheat, steal and do anything they can get away with to fulfill their false science under the guise of the “pre-cautionary principle.” This is strictly speaking nothing about science but more about a cult. The BBC is biased as shown, and there are roughly 220,000 emails still locked away to be released for various reasons. These emails at some point will be released and if they hold as many bombshells as this current set does, well then…the end result is exactly the same and the level that this corruption exists to is anyone’s guesses. I will remind everyone that very few emails have surfaced between politicians and scientists which I will remind everyone is sure to be contained in the remaining emails.
So if this does not break the camel’s back, the next batch ought to ruin more than some scientists and activists.
Let us also remember that these same scientists telling the world that they never lied when the evidence is right in front of the scientists is even more outrageous. The only solution to this is obvious, and it involves removing green activism in any form by removing the tax-exempt status these organizations have and taxing them and putting rules on them as far as lobbying in politics goes. As for the scientists, I fully believe a good portion of them do deserve jail time for breaking laws. And the solution is to wash them out of academia first and then prosecute them for crimes they have committed including fraud.
Same goes for the activists, if they committed fraud on people by lying and cheating to generate income in any form, they too are guilty of fraud under our laws.
So the evidence is there for everyone to read, the question is what are we going to do about it? Are we going to allow them 2 years again to get off with a slap on the wrist for employing these techniques?
Or will we actually hold them accountable for their actions as normal people should be?
Any scientist that even attempts to come to conclusions on global warming with 100 or even 1000 years of data is a fool. To insist that the temperature trends of BEST mean anything or that any trends that we see have meaning is assuming so much when what we really lack is real information….the warming over the last 100 years for instance is nothing but a second in a day of the climate, and to claim that you know everything there is to know about the climate based on 100 or even 1000 years is to be the expert fool. I think the problem here is an educational issue where scientists so fell in love with ideals and computers that they forgot the first step in the scientific process where we actually have to prove what they state. In this case, we are left with science in shambles, and a bunch of expert fools running around telling us how we must live our lives.
As this chart shows here, the more long-term trends show us the current trends as being less scary. If you notice the long-term graph above, the rise in temperatures that has occurred recently is not very scary at all and look rather normal when you look at the big picture. Should we allow people who show us clipped versions or “selected versions of reality” really tell us how to live our lives? I think this picture here tells us all we need to know in that regard. Nothing scary is occurring and even if CO2 has an impact, it is more than likely minor and the warming we have seen in the last 100 years is natural and nothing to be concerned about.
Nothing is as foolhardy as telling people how they should live. In our society, our Government does this over and over again and with reckless abandon. Once upon a time for instance in the US the bureaucracy had a motto of “do not harm.” Well that time has gone and went and the politicians here and in Australia especially recently have gone and either went mad or become struck stupid. Whatever the reason, politicians seem to be actively trying to destroy our countries in the name of minority groups such as greens who are nothing but activists who make a living on spreading fear and mayhem to increase their donations and/or keep their business of bilking the common man out of their hard-earned money so they can live the easy life pampered and sitting in their arm-chairs. These minority groups are really nothing but socialists which I will explain later, but rest assured that any solution they have involves a strong central Government to tackle said problem with a solution set that can only be accomplished via that same principle.
This is especially apparent today in Australia. The Clean Energy Bill formally passed the lower house of the Australian Congress if you will which is where it would have a large fight to pass. A bill where 60% of the population was strongly against it and where 30% were in favor….a bill where the Government promised that if elected it would not implement a carbon tax. The people are the ones who are getting the bum rush on this one.
Basically, Australia just passed a law to “tax Carbon Dioxide. ” Yes, they have implemented a tax on the same air we exhale and just like the US before this, they are taxing it calling this air pollution. Before I go into why this is foolhardy, I wanted to look at specifics of this bill and look at why it is important here in the US especially that we learn why this is something to watch for in the future.
Most notably, this bill is so bad that they HAD to put in a stipulation to make it so that it is just as bad to repeal it as it is to pass it. The economic effects are drastic and terrible, and the worst part of it at all is this: Anyone who tries to repeal it is going to be on the hook to the super-rich who buy carbon credits for quite a bit of money if you repeal the act. This is scandalous to say the least to pass a law which writes in stipulations that the super-rich are to be paid off by someone whether it is the Government or some other entity. Quite wrong if you think about it.
One of the largest issues today is the question of how to regulate greenhouse gases. Most of the Obama administration’s efforts to do so hinges on the supreme court’s 2007 decision otherwise known as the “endangerment finding”. This decision unknown to most people did not state that the EPA “must regulate greenhouse gases.” On the contrary, the decision made no claim in either direction on that particular point. The decision merely stated that the EPA’s current arguments against stating that GHG’s are not pollution were not valid. This part of the decision, however, is deeply flawed as well.
Picture courtesy of: http://www.solstation.com/stars/earth.htm
It is quite telling when we are told one thing and then…well yes that thing comes true but only because people forced it to happen. It reminds me of a self-fulfilling prophecy which if you think of it is the most common type of prophecy that ever comes true. This is because the prophecy causes people to act in a certain way to make sure it happens just as it is written. Just like predictions of doom and gloom occur, those same predictions are reported as fact from media and other political activists who want to say: “We said X and you see X happened, so listen to us.”
The largest issue with this type of logic is of course the problem that every prediction or prophecy if you will that is predicted is not reported so if you predict 100 things to happen and only 10 happen, well that is rather bad but the worst of it is that you would expect at least 10 things to happen regardless. Therefore, these predictions and/or prophecies are nothing but worthless ramblings and the people who fall for this line of thinking are falling for logical fallacies. Yes, the entire AGW movement or global warming movement is based upon nothing but computer models when you get down to it. Read More: https://benfrommo.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/a-time-to-kill-civilization-part-2/ As such, the end result is that the entire movement is more religious in that you have to take a leap of faith to believe in the movement in the first place. This belief separates this movement from reality and as you go further down the road to cult-like thinking…well yes then it becomes nothing but a bunch of hot air and wild prophecies that are nothing to reality.
Picture from: http://www.amoreconvenienttruth.com/
Once upon a time in a land very close to us, chads saved the country from being violated by a true lunatic. Not just any chads, but “hanging chads.” These improperly completed voting slips changed the results of the election for better or for worse and the nation hung on just for a bit longer. Or maybe we can thank Florida for in actuality for selecting a better man for the office. Hate him or love him, George W. Bush was a much better president than Al Gore could have ever been. I personally do not like George W. Bush very much, but on the other hand, the alternative here was much worse.
On the other hand, some people say that it was not chads, but a conspiracy and yet others still claim that it was the fault of the US election system that was to blame. Recount upon recount occurred, but as we all know the story unfolded as we know it did. The first time the supreme court of the US ever decided an election for itself.
The rest of this article is going to be rather surprising. I am not going to focus on criticizing the man or otherwise deriding him like most people would and since this happens enough anyway, I think it is clear to put this thought forward: Al Gore has serious issues. Since he never got help for any of these issues in the past, he goes on as if he has no problems and will not face his demons. We all have our demons and it is important to recognize them and to deal with them. From there, we can move on and live functional lives no matter what life throws at them. People may claim that Al Gore never faced a real life, but I will throw this in here right now: he has from one event lived the worst of the worst and we should recognize that the man does deserve to be ridiculed for a lot, but on the other hand we should be trying to get the man help too.
In my previous post, I went into the philosophy of AGW (catastrophic) and how it emphasizes the destruction of our society for some far-out fantasy. This is the basis of healthy scepticism on CAGW and I think its key to note 2 things in particular:
1) Until you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that man is “destroying the planet” you can not radically transform society. That is just illogical. So therefore the big mistake in simply believing because we can not prove it wrong. This turn evidential procedures on its head when normally new theories in science have to displace old theories and old ideas. To put it into perspective, to say that the climate changed naturally before man and then suddenly it stopped changing is so silly as to be comical.
2) Any transformation must be quantified and otherwise explained as to why we are making these changes and what it is we are going to accomplish. We can not afford to remake society in such a drastic method as the greens want us to. The UK for instance on their quest are going to spend just short of 1 TRILLION pounds and for this they are not going to save the world. This huge expense is not justified by science, but by a belief that man is inherently evil.
This story is from back in Jan. six monthes ago from today (Jan. 2011) and its worth a relook.
Back in Jan., green organizations pushed the not so news that whales were in danger versus the lives of sailors who were under threat back then from pack ice that had formed rather unexpectantly. Needless to say, this situation worked itself out and the sailors were all rescued by big ice-breakers. But the point was that the article on “whales being threatened” was in the very same waters that these sailors were in the process of dying. In any regard here is the post in its entirety from back then:
Yes, some whales *might cough cough be at risk due to oil exploration. This might not
seem like much of a story, but it contrasts with the story of 348 members of two
fishing ships stuck in pack ice that formed very quickly in the same sea. Is
there even one mention of this occurance in those stories? Nope, not even