CLIMATEGATE - Warming bubble burst

.




We told you so... LINK

[en Francais]

The Big Electron

Critique of environmentalism and perspective on our place in the world by George Carlin...
..

..

The Problem with Scientist Denyers…

Are scientists who are not on the corporate payroll objective and disinterested?

This may be a purely theoretical question since even universities are corporations directed by board members with corporate and finance allegiances and since government scientists are managed via a corporate-friendly political apparatus (that’s an understatement). But let’s pretend that tenure and government grants might confer some measure of independent thought.

Are scientists who are not on the corporate payroll objective and disinterested?

The fact that many “independent” scientists are either for or against interpreting “the data” as showing CO2-driven global warming suggests that independent thought may exist among scientists, on at least one side of the climate change debate. But let us not draw premature conclusions.

David Noble, in The Corporate Climate Coop, recently exposed some of the corporate scheming that has boosted and supported mainstream global warming alarmism. Likewise, in Global Warming: Truth or Dare? I have analyzed some of the motives that unaligned scientists have for trumpeting global warming as a dominant threat to human kind. But what motives do unaligned scientists have to be so-called denyers?

Part of the answer is the same as for the scientist believers. Both believers and denyers are drawn to popular themes, powerful players, and media attention. Public scientists want to be useful beyond blatant corporate servitude and beyond training the obedient and indoctrinated service intellectuals of tomorrow. They, like most professionals, often seek meaning and societal recognition beyond tenure and a pay cheque.

And they know an opportunity when one smacks them in the face… In the words of Dick Peltier, Director of the University of Toronto’s newly funded Centre for Global Change Science (InterActions, Fall 2007, p.11):

“Faculty engaged in scientific research on the ongoing environmental crisis came together to discuss how best to take advantage of this exciting opportunity.”

Crisis as opportunity… Finally, public science is learning from high finance and corporate exploiters. A healthy business ethic has now completely permeated the ivory tower. The world can sleep a little more soundly.

The corporate ideology of profit as a cure and trickle down as the best of all possible solutions is not only a justification for planetary destruction, however. The ideology itself, although barely developed beyond a mantra, is also the motivating thread for most “independent” scientist denyers.

This was made abundantly clear in a recent open letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations signed by over one hundred top “independent” scientist denyers (National Post, December 12, 2007): LINK.

The letter’s first paragraph explains that:

“We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.”

Somehow, these brilliant minds have come to the observation and conclusion that “economic growth and wealth generation” is a recipe for environmental preservation and amelioration. The spectacular correlation between mass poverty and associated environmental degradation and increased profit and wealth for the wealthy has somehow escaped their quantitative analysis.

Could these hard-science practitioners have strayed into the make-believe world of economists – the same economists who now propose carbon credits as something other than a scam that will benefit global finance racketeers and a tool that will serve the most powerful global players?

.

As protectors of the now-abandoned corporate stance, the signatories of this open letter to the UN are truly exemplary:

.

“the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity.”

Whose prosperity? A large faction of elite corporate and finance power want this – they have engineered it. Wake up.

“attempts to cut emissions will slow development”

Burning fossil fuel equals “development”? Well then, let’s burn more. Wouldn’t bigger hummers be safer?

“Attempts … constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.”

Who said anything about allocating resources? Some corporations would make less profit, the largest would make more, and massive government subsidies to corporations (such as those that keep the US military economy afloat) and to private capital managers (such as those inherent in the fractional reserve banking system) might be modestly redistributed. These hard scientists seem to think that “society” makes resource allocation decisions.

The open letter’s last paragraph closes on a humanitarian note:

“National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead.”

Hey! How many of the signatories of this open letter have ever made moves to help “our most vulnerable citizens”? Let’s see, our most vulnerable First World citizens would be “our” aboriginal peoples… Our most vulnerable world citizens would be Third World citizens displaced from their lands by corporate “development” that serves Third World debt, the most powerful lever of extortion on the planet…

Our most vulnerable citizens can now breathe a sigh of relief knowing that scientist denyers have noticed their plight. I expect this will help them as much as carbon credits and emission ceilings.

RELATED

Are Physicists Smart?

Politics of Climate Change

Scientist’s blog cited in US Senate speech on global warming turning point

US Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, delivered a more than two-hour floor speech on October 26, in which he cites Professor Denis G. Rancourt (University of Ottawa, Editor/Manager of the Climate Guy and Activist Teacher blogs), in some detail here…:

EPW-Senate.gov/Inhofe-speech

The citations are drawn from (and linked to) Rancourt’s February 2007 article Global Warming: Truth or dare? which will be print-published in part in the next issue of DESIGNER/builder magazine.

This may be the first time that authoritative material is used in the US Senate directly from a scientist’s blog; thereby circumventing the scientific peer review process, that has recently been severely criticized.

The complete citation is as follows.

‘Unverified, remote, and abstract dangers'

The global warming scare machine is now so tenuous, that other liberal environmental scientists and activists are now joining Giegengack and refuting the entire basis for man-made global warming concerns.

Denis G. Rancourt professor of physics and an environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, believes the global warming campaign does a disservice to the environmental movement.

Rancourt wrote on February 27, 2007: "Promoting the global warming myth trains people to accept unverified, remote, and abstract dangers in the place of true problems that they can discover for themselves by becoming directly engaged in their workplace and by doing their own research and observations. It trains people to think lifestyle choices (in relation to CO2 emission) rather than to think activism in the sense of exerting an influence to change societal structures." (LINK)

Rancourt believes that global warming "will not become humankind's greatest threat until the sun has its next hiccup in a billion years or more in the very unlikely scenario that we are still around." He also noted that even if C02 emissions were a grave threat "government action and political will cannot measurably or significantly ameliorate global climate in the present world."

Most significantly, however, Rancourt -- a committed left-wing activist and scientist -- believes environmentalists have been duped into promoting global warming as a crisis. Rancourt wrote: "I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized."

"Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass," Rancourt added.

Finally, Rancourt asserted that in a warm world, life prospers. "There is no known case of a sustained warming alone having negatively impacted an entire population," he said, "As a general rule, all life on Earth does better when it's hotter: Compare ecological diversity and biotic density (or biomass) at the poles and at the equator," he added.

Indeed, 2007 has turned into the "tipping point" for the unsubstantiated fears and gross distortion of science by activists who have committed decades trying to convince the world it faced a man-made climate crisis. Rancourt so eloquently summed up the movement as one featuring "Unverified, remote, and abstract dangers."

One theme of the Senator’s speech is that 2007 is a turning point in becoming conscious of the fabricated nature of the global warming threat.

Climate Guy and Activist Teacher have argued that such consciousness would be a contributing small step in the overall turning point towards global fairness and democracy that must occur, if it is accompanied by deep activism of the heart rather than replaced by another superficial myth of the mind again intended to divert our attention and energy. Examples of past and present such superficial myths of the First World middle class mind are: acid rain, ozone depletion, soil depletion and peak oil. These sanitized and distributed-responsibility abstracted phenomena replace the real problems of continental-scale profit and power driven finance and corporate extortion and exploitation, enabled by genocidal destruction and backed by military might.

9-11 and global warming are both inside jobs

Glimate Guy has recently come across the most remarkable and in-depth article on how and why the Twin Towers collapsed…! It was published in the November/December 2001 issue of the print magazine DESIGNER / builder: A Journal of the Human Environment and has not previously been posted on the web, but HERE IT IS.

DESIGNER / builder (Db) is a gem of a small-circulation radical magazine out of Santa Fe, NM. Db’s publisher Kingsley Hammett located and interviewed now 67 year old Jim Malott, a welder, architect, and jet crash expert who followed the birth and rise of the Twin Towers with the passion of an investigative photo journalist and materials engineer enthusiast… His analysis is unparalleled and puts the mainstream scientific community to shame.

The article contains dozens of historic photographs – a must read for all 9-11 activists.

In a nutshell, the business lobby transformed building code regulations in order to maximize profits for powerful interests, while covering their asses with made to order safety tests… Sound familiar?

First World activists turn to tenuous 9-11 conspiracy theories about homeland threats while the real crimes are the murderous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the broader global stranglehold that they enforce and the profits that they directly generate…

First World climate change activists turn to tenuous model predictions anchored on CO2 while the real crime is the global-scale exploitation and resource extraction monster that feeds financial lust at the cost of everything.

They’re both inside jobs, performed by the power insiders that compulsively strive to generate continuously growing returns on capital, here on this finite planet.

Let’s get away from the red herring details and take down the beast. Capital concentrations that change human and geographical landscapes are tyrannical. Profit predation is democracy’s main enemy and the planet’s worst scourge. People need to control their own spaces: We don’t need landlords. We don’t need maximum profit.

Fight it where you can: At work, at home, at school. Don’t let capital, corporations, institutions, or anyone be the boss of you. Fight back. Don’t drop out. Don’t cooperate. Don’t hide. Fight the machine! That’s something we can all do that’s good for everybody and good for the soul. Risk it. Do it. You can’t learn it from a book!

First World wimps and gatekeepers are accessories to murder and genocide.

RELATED LINKS
Gradual Change Is Not Progress
Balance Kills
Global Warming: Truth or Dare?
DESIGNER / builder magazine
Archive.org posting of the full original article with pictures

Put your global warming glasses on!

That's right! Let's all change our incandescent light bulbs to these expensive, unreliable, impossible to recycle, made in Third World slave camps, mega manufacturing-packaging-transportation footprint, mercury-gas-loaded kind... Let's trust the manufacturers on this one. Better to be safe than sorry, right? (Yet another victory for the precautionary principle.)

In addition, there is that wonderful psychological side benefit that you have empowered ordinary citizens by training them to participate in solving problems via add-campaign-induced consumer choices. (And they can spend the projected electricity savings on credit now.) Luckily for the planet, it's easy to market green responsibility.

How Many Scientists?

David Noble asks: How many scientists does it take to change a light bulb?

Answer: A consensus.