Between Global Warming and Global Governance – Concern for Environment is a ‘Hegelian Mind Fck’!

 
Zahir Ebrahim
December 12, 2008

Question: 'Do you really believe that mankind doesn't have anything to do with the climate change? I've posted countless articles, videos on this topic. Pollution is NOT good for our planet and/or ourselves. Ice is melting. Droughts are occurring worldwide. There's going to be wars over water in the future. There is a limited amount of oil and we cannot keep using it as our only fuel source.'

Project Humanbeingsfirst Responds
Actually, if you look at the coefficients of contributions, things become manifest. Pollution isn't exactly the same thing as global warming, or global cooling, although it certainly impacts them both.
Yes, reducing pollution is very important, so is increasing sustainable living, and respecting the power of the earth to create bounties which make our lives both comfortable and pleasurable. There is a self-sustaining and auto re-generation cycle in the eco-system which can withstand some harvesting, some abuse and some pollution, but crossing the threshold can destroy it, or make the replenishment cycle inordinately long. So we must live far below that threshold of tolerance of the environment. This is but a truism. Only a moron would deny any of it, or work against it. They can be safely ignored, if not outright consigned to the looney bin.
This isn't what is being talked about here however, although, the disinformationists would like one to think so. This is exactly the conclusion you have unfortunately jumped to as well, despite having read so much of my work and knowing that I am really not idiotic, nor unscientific, nor irrational. Of course, if one asked Mr. Paul Craig Roberts who apportioned the following epithet for me “you are a completely stupid fool, a disgrace to humanity”, it might lead to a different conclusion. But assuming one does not share in that invective, why would one automatically jump to the conclusion that when a man of science challenges global warming, they are denying the obviousness inherent in the question that you posed?
I say this not to critique, but just to point out how powerful and successful the disinformation and psyops have been. It is the same Foundations who have seeded the sustainable living mantra as population planning. Care to guess who those might be? It is the same impetus that led to NSSM 200 in 1974 which made population control in poor countries a national security imperative for the United States – the country which excels in harvesting the poor nations of all their natural resources and foisting dictatorships upon them! Care to know who seeded it? I happen to know of the team who got the Nobel Prize on this climate issue last year – they are all imperialists, in on the con-game, just like Hillary Clinton and Al Gore. You can easily find the Pakistani on the team who shared in that Nobel prize amidst much hoopla in Pakistan. Visit his website, and try to determine his axioms in the space of world-government, war on terror, 911. They match the axioms of the state as far as I have been able to tell – and I looked at it last year to check-out what kind of people win a Nobel Prize in climate and environment. When the ruling-elite pushes a mantra, knowing what I know today, my first take begins with searching for their motivation. If one does, what on the surface appears to be a good deed, but with evil intentions and Machiavellian motivations, I have no use for such criminal 'good', and neither should you.
The following is the real fact of the matter. I only illustrate the principle. One can chase it down from then on. In order to keep things straight in the head in the obfuscating space of social sciences laden with deception and political motivations, I tend to rely a lot on thought processes borrowed from computer science and electrical engineering. You may have seen my description of the 'bit' for example. Here is a passage from one of my recent essays on monetary stuff:
'It is also very convenient for the learned to mix up the 'highest order bit' with 'lower order bits' of a complex matter – irrespective of deliberately or inadvertently – for the plebes can hardly tell the difference. And that's just wonderful for creating clever red herrings when the latter are emphasized, and the former is ignored! Surely whatever one comes up with is always a solution to something, and that's just as undeniable as any pathetic tautology. But is it a solution to the 'most significant bit'? Has the problem itself been accurately diagnosed, and the systemic multi-lateral illness accurately mapped out to its very DNA? Not when the sacred-cow axioms remain untouchable! And this is indeed how one wins a Nobel Prize and lucrative appointments. [a30] In some cases, even stays alive.
To explain the commonsense concept of 'bit' drawn from electrical engineering, it's like having a “one” in the 7th decimal place, and also in the 2nd decimal place, to create the total amount One million and Ten dollars, $1,000,010, and while auditing the books, focussing on the digit position which identifies the Ten dollars and not the one which identifies the Million! The significance of this is not lost to the banksters!' -- The Monetary Conspiracy for World Government**
Applying that prioritizing, or weightage if you will, principle to this topic of “Global Warming”, one observes that the coefficient, or the bit position, or weightage occupied by the planetary level changes in the solar system due to sun's activity is actually a higher order bit position, than the contribution to the measurements from human activity.
And as is entirely obvious from Mr. Gideon Rachman's article why this is politically motivated, the reasons become clear why this confusion is deliberately being created. If you accept the Capitalist conspiracy for world government, as I have described it, and if you accept the NSSM-200 agenda for population reduction as I have also described it, tying in the hand of Rockefeller to the UN and their agenda for population reduction (citations for these statements are in my various essays), then you must realize why the ruling elite wants to control 'life activity', and carbon-credit is their architecture of control!
It is somewhat akin to acquiring control of a nation's money supply in the guise of managing the economy better. Few in the public understand why such a control is bad anyway, but those who do try to understand it are thrown layers upon layers of obfuscation. Something similar is happening here. Think of acquiring control of 'carbon-credits' almost equivalent to acquiring control of a nation's money supply! This will control every aspect of sustaining life, just as control of money determines every aspect of sustaining the economy. You name it, between the two of them, it will control it in a world-government. And the first recipient of these controls, the carbon-credit specifically, is the developing world, the Global South, because that is where development must be arrested, and populations thinned out! Just as control of money was first exercised where there was a superfluity of industry and commerce, control of 'carbon-credit' is intended to be exercised where there is a superfluity of populations aspiring to grow their nascent economies!
Now, whether there is planetary-level (solar-system level) global warming, or global cooling, is also an entirely orthogonal issue from human contribution to despoiling its environment. Both the former two factors, if they are dominant, tend to occupy the higher order bit relative to human contribution. Wit the Ice-age, followed by the Holocene age. No factories and polluting industries were present then. Unless we explode 10 hydrogen bombs in geostrategic locations to usher in a manmade nuclear winter (and I exaggerate, a smaller number will surely do it), the contribution from coal and cow's emissions (the latter, believe it or not, is also apportioned carbon-credit as I have humorously read somewhere) remain in the lower order bits. They are surely non-zero, and if planetary-level climactic changes in the solar system become normal, as they do between their cyclic extremes, then these lower order bits will become the new higher order bits for management. That's just common sense.
So there are two real issues. First is the following scientific measurement – which can be fairly objective – what is the temperature activity in the solar system. For instance, is Mars cooling down or heating up in the past decades. Since there is no known life or industry on Mars, that can readily answer the question quite accurately for earth too. But better and longer running data is available for earth as well, which is why scientists are dissenting as noted in the Senate Minority Report that I have cited in my response to Mr. Gideon Rachman! I do not know of a single lay person who has actually read that report as yet, or its 2007 predecessor report from last year. Most arguments are religiously being fanned out of sheer ignorance, rather than simply asking the quantifiable questions: what is the empirical measurement data (instead of the sociological one)? How was it taken, where was it taken, what time span does it measure, and what is the conclusion?
The second real issue is the sociological one that you have alluded to, such as oil consumption, human activity, etc. Please apply those concerns to the Western world first, and specifically to the Americans, not to the entire world, as the affluent Global North is, and has been, the biggest pig. In the Global South, people can hardly make ends meet, they barely subsist on dollar a day wage. And 2/3rd of all humanity lives there. They are routinely harvested of not only what's under their soil, but also what's above it, trees! Thus notice how Rachman has employed the mantra of Global Warming. Even if one assumes for the sake of making the following point that it is the man-made coefficient which is dominant – Gideon Rachman does not advocate that the Western world create a protocol to reduce their gluttonous consumption, but jumps straight to world government! And as everyone knows, the biggest violators of Kyoto, were indeed the Americans themselves. They refused to ratify it! And that, is indeed the second real issue.
I am a scientist. I look at data and reach conclusions. I further look at data forensically, and even look at forces that remain hidden, as well as those which are apparent. My writings are testimony of that. I have no reason to obfuscate or deny any of these factors. Whereas those who are pushing them, have a politically motivated agenda, as has already been shown. Just as the scientists at NIST fudged the reports on how the towers fell, and Popular Mechanics dished out disinformation on how it could have happened, it is already in ample evidence that science is permeated with politics, like every other human endeavor! So before looking at the scientists' results and reading their papers, look at their motivation. Whom do they shill for?
I would be happy to address further questions from anyone. This topic does require doing substantial due diligence before forming opinions. Remember that the subject matter is no less laden with deception, than any other topic which relates to world government, from 'war on terror' to 'money as debt' to the Federal Reserve System. You can't simply pick up a text-book (or 10 books) on any of these topics and assume what you are reading is entirely correct, as one normally does at a university in a typical science curriculum. There, the measurement of learning is often how accurately one has understood what the books are teaching, and one gets an 'A' for perfect recollection and/or solving problems based on the axioms in the books which are rarely if ever challenged. The axioms are taken on faith and assumed correct. One takes F=MA for granted.
Here, you have to assume that the text-books/articles/literature/Nobel-Prizes could also be lying, telling half-truths through omissions and distortions, or spinning politically motivated mantras as axioms upon which all further discussions are being based. Just like 911 and the 'war on terror'. That is quite a difference in approach to studying! It requires one being a Sherlock Holmes trying to solve a complex puzzle laden with deliberate red herrings more than being a naïve grad-student!
Hope this fleshes out all the dimensions of the question. For the simple reason that Global Warming mantra is to be Machiavellianly employed to control humanity, and we have even seen a glimpse of that in the Financial Times editorial, I oppose it. If it turns out that the human emissions are the most significant bit, let the affluent nations bring themselves down to the level of poor nations before demanding from them to do anything. After all, the ruling-elite are pitching that we are one ship of humanity and global control is necessary. Let not the upper-deck live in plunderous wealth while the lower decks are thrown to the sea! That is only fair for something as intimately shared as the environment!
Zahir Ebrahim


- ### -


Pertinent Updates and Related References: (Last Updated Sun, April 14, 2013)
[1] No Need to Panic About Global Warming – The Wall Street Journal, op-ed January 27, 2012: There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy; and Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming – The Wall Street Journal, op-ed February 21, 2012: The authors of the Jan. 27 Wall Street Journal op-ed, 'No Need to Panic about Global Warming,' respond to their critics.
(Zahir's Take: Full text from both these WSJ op-eds reproduced below – signed by 16 prominent scientists in the field, including the well known MIT Professor, Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, see item [15] below. What is missing in the two op-eds by these brilliant scientists despite their most perceptive insight: “One reason to be on guard, as we explained in our original op-ed, is that motives other than objective science are at work in much of the scientific establishment.”, is any explicit indication of the real motivation behind the fiction of Global Warming apart from “but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."”. They inexplicably fail to see the elephant in the bedroom, that the exercise of so much state power behind fabrication of this pretext is primarily intended for ushering in the global carbon credit scam as a means of full spectrum control over human life. Nevertheless, putting the non junk hard science of these dissenting scientists with the political science that drives the hard road to world order, also coherently explains why billionaire Bill Gates, the retired founder of Microsoft, is so altruistically pursuing his global vaccination program for reducing the earth's population in the Third World by drawing upon the fiction of Global Warming and the alarmist mantra of reducing CO2 emissions to save earth. Watch Bill Gates' presentation at TED talk, read these op-eds by the non junk scientists, and the ‘Hegelian Mind Fck’ behind concern for environment, concern for over population, and concern for global health with its concomitant legally forced vaccination regimens in the Third World nations, all begin to make sense. The entire house of cards and fear-mongering is built on the single fiction of Global Warming. Take away that fiction and what remains? A new fiction will be invented. Watch Bill Gates first: http://youtube.com/watch?v=6WQtRI7A064 )
[youtube=http://youtube.com/watch?v=6WQtRI7A064]

[WSJ op-ed January 27, 2012] Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.
The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.
Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.
Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.
A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.
If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.
Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.
[Signed by]
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
[WSJ op-ed February 21, 2012] Editor's Note: The authors of the following letter, listed below, are also the signatories of "No Need to Panic About Global Warming," an op-ed that appeared in the Journal on January 27. This letter responds to criticisms of the op-ed made by Kevin Trenberth and 37 others in a letter published Feb. 1, and by Robert Byer of the American Physical Society in a letter published Feb. 6.
The interest generated by our Wall Street Journal op-ed of Jan. 27, "No Need to Panic about Global Warming," is gratifying but so extensive that we will limit our response to the letter to the editor the Journal published on Feb. 1, 2012 by Kevin Trenberth and 37 other signatories, and to the Feb. 6 letter by Robert Byer, President of the American Physical Society. (We, of course, thank the writers of supportive letters.)
We agree with Mr. Trenberth et al. that expertise is important in medical care, as it is in any matter of importance to humans or our environment. Consider then that by eliminating fossil fuels, the recipient of medical care (all of us) is being asked to submit to what amounts to an economic heart transplant. According to most patient bills of rights, the patient has a strong say in the treatment decision. Natural questions from the patient are whether a heart transplant is really needed, and how successful the diagnostic team has been in the past.
In this respect, an important gauge of scientific expertise is the ability to make successful predictions. When predictions fail, we say the theory is "falsified" and we should look for the reasons for the failure. Shown in the nearby graph is the measured annual temperature of the earth since 1989, just before the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also shown are the projections of the likely increase of temperature, as published in the Summaries of each of the four IPCC reports, the first in the year 1990 and the last in the year 2007.
These projections were based on IPCC computer models of how increased atmospheric CO2 should warm the earth. Some of the models predict higher or lower rates of warming, but the projections shown in the graph and their extensions into the distant future are the basis of most studies of environmental effects and mitigation policy options. Year-to-year fluctuations and discrepancies are unimportant; longer-term trends are significant.
Graph Reality Versus AlarmFrom the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth's temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.
The Trenberth letter tells us that "computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean." The ARGO system of diving buoys is providing increasingly reliable data on the temperature of the upper layers of the ocean, where much of any heat from global warming must reside. But much like the surface temperature shown in the graph, the heat content of the upper layers of the world's oceans is not increasing nearly as fast as IPCC models predict, perhaps not increasing at all. Why should we now believe exaggerating IPCC models that tell us of "missing heat" hiding in the one place where it cannot yet be reliably measured—the deep ocean?
Given this dubious track record of prediction, it is entirely reasonable to ask for a second opinion. We have offered ours. With apologies for any immodesty, we all have enjoyed distinguished careers in climate science or in key science and engineering disciplines (such as physics, aeronautics, geology, biology, forecasting) on which climate science is based.
Trenberth et al. tell us that the managements of major national academies of science have said that "the science is clear, the world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible." Apparently every generation of humanity needs to relearn that Mother Nature tells us what the science is, not authoritarian academy bureaucrats or computer models.
One reason to be on guard, as we explained in our original op-ed, is that motives other than objective science are at work in much of the scientific establishment. All of us are members of major academies and scientific societies, but we urge Journal readers not to depend on pompous academy pronouncements—on what we say—but to follow the motto of the Royal Society of Great Britain, one of the oldest learned societies in the world: nullius in verba—take nobody's word for it. As we said in our op-ed, everyone should look at certain stubborn facts that don't fit the theory espoused in the Trenberth letter, for example—the graph of surface temperature above, and similar data for the temperature of the lower atmosphere and the upper oceans.
What are we to make of the letter's claim: "Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record." We don't see any warming trend after the year 2000 in the graph. It is true that the years 2000-2010 were perhaps 0.2 C warmer than the preceding 10 years. But the record indicates that long before CO2 concentrations of the atmosphere began to increase, the earth began to warm in fits and starts at the end of the Little Ice Age—hundreds of years ago. This long term-trend is quite likely to produce several warm years in a row. The question is how much of the warming comes from CO2 and how much is due to other, both natural and anthropogenic, factors?
There have been many times in the past when there were warmer decades. It may have been warmer in medieval times, when the Vikings settled Greenland, and when wine was exported from England. Many proxy indicators show that the Medieval Warming was global in extent. And there were even warmer periods a few thousand years ago during the Holocene Climate Optimum. The fact is that there are very powerful influences on the earth's climate that have nothing to do with human-generated CO2. The graph strongly suggests that the IPCC has greatly underestimated the natural sources of warming (and cooling) and has greatly exaggerated the warming from CO2.
The Trenberth letter states: "Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused." However, the claim of 97% support is deceptive. The surveys contained trivial polling questions that even we would agree with. Thus, these surveys find that large majorities agree that temperatures have increased since 1800 and that human activities have some impact.
But what is being disputed is the size and nature of the human contribution to global warming. To claim, as the Trenberth letter apparently does, that disputing this constitutes "extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert" is peculiar indeed.
One might infer from the Trenberth letter that scientific facts are determined by majority vote. Some postmodern philosophers have made such claims. But scientific facts come from observations, experiments and careful analysis, not from the near-unanimous vote of some group of people.
The continued efforts of the climate establishment to eliminate "extreme views" can acquire a seriously threatening nature when efforts are directed at silencing scientific opposition. In our op-ed we mentioned the campaign circa 2003 to have Dr. Chris de Freitas removed not only from his position as editor of the journal Climate Research, but from his university job as well. Much of that campaign is documented in Climategate emails, where one of the signatories of the Trenberth et al. letter writes: "I believe that a boycott against publishing, reviewing for, or even citing articles from Climate Research [then edited by Dr. de Freitas] is certainly warranted, but perhaps the minimum action that should be taken."
Or consider the resignation last year of Wolfgang Wagner, editor-in-chief of the journal Remote Sensing. In a fulsome resignation editorial eerily reminiscent of past recantations by political and religious heretics, Mr. Wagner confessed to his "sin" of publishing a properly peer-reviewed paper by University of Alabama scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell containing the finding that IPCC models exaggerate the warming caused by increasing CO2.
The Trenberth letter tells us that decarbonization of the world's economy would "drive decades of economic growth." This is not a scientific statement nor is there evidence it is true. A premature global-scale transition from hydrocarbon fuels would require massive government intervention to support the deployment of more expensive energy technology. If there were economic advantages to investing in technology that depends on taxpayer support, companies like Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, Solar Millenium, SpectraWatt, Solyndra, Ener1 and the Renewable Energy Development Corporation would be prospering instead of filing for bankruptcy in only the past few months.
The European experience with green technologies has also been discouraging. A study found that every new "green job" in Spain destroyed more than two existing jobs and diverted capital that would have created new jobs elsewhere in the economy. More recently, European governments have been cutting subsidies for expensive CO2-emissionless energy technologies, not what one would expect if such subsidies were stimulating otherwise languid economies. And as we pointed out in our op-ed, it is unlikely that there will be any environmental benefit from the reduced CO2 emissions associated with green technologies, which are based on the demonization of CO2.
Turning to the letter of the president of the American Physical Society (APS), Robert Byer, we read, "The statement [on climate] does not declare, as the signatories of the letter [our op-ed] suggest, that the human contribution to climate change is incontrovertible." This seems to suggest that APS does not in fact consider the science on this key question to be settled.
Yet here is the critical paragraph from the statement that caused the resignation of Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever and many other long-time members of the APS: "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." No reasonable person can read this and avoid the conclusion that APS is declaring the human impact "incontrovertible." Otherwise there would be no logical link from "global warming" to the shrill call for mitigation.
The APS response to the concerns of its membership was better than that of any other scientific society, but it was not democratic. The management of APS took months to review the statement quoted above, and it eventually declared that not a word needed to be changed, though some 750 words were added to try to explain what the original 157 words really meant. APS members were permitted to send in comments but the comments were never made public.
In spite of the obstinacy of some in APS management, APS members of good will are supporting the establishment of a politics-free, climate physics study group within the Society. If successful, it will facilitate much needed discussion, debate, and independent research in the physics of climate.
In summary, science progresses by testing predictions against real world data obtained from direct observations and rigorous experiments. The stakes in the global-warming debate are much too high to ignore this observational evidence and declare the science settled. Though there are many more scientists who are extremely well qualified and have reached the same conclusions we have, we stress again that science is not a democratic exercise and our conclusions must be based on observational evidence.
The computer-model predictions of alarming global warming have seriously exaggerated the warming by CO2 and have underestimated other causes. Since CO2 is not a pollutant but a substantial benefit to agriculture, and since its warming potential has been greatly exaggerated, it is time for the world to rethink its frenzied pursuit of decarbonization at any cost.
[Signed by]
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
[2] Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995, dailymail.co.uk, Jonathan Petre,14th February 2010, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html ; and The professor’s amazing climate change retreat, dailymail.co.uk, 13th February 2010, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1250813/MAIL-ON-SUNDAY-COMMENT-The-professors-amazing-climate-change-retreat.html
  • 'Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
  • There has been no global warming since 1995
  • Warming periods have happened before – but NOT due to man-made changes'
climategate-u-turn-dailymail-uk-on-thin-ice-the-hockey-stick-graph-fraud-feb-14-2010
[3] Bloom exposes more global warming scammers at the European Parliament, Strasbourg, 20 January 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYj5baVfB0Y
[youtube=http://youtube.com/watch?v=vYj5baVfB0Y]


[4] Global Warming Fraud Collapses Amidst Deception And Scandal, prisonplanet.com, Wednesday, January 27, 2010, http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-warming-fraud-collapses-amidst-deception-and-scandal.html/comment-page-2#comment-711495 ; and The billion-dollar hoax, HeraldSun.com.au, January 27, 2010, http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/the-billion-dollar-hoax/story-e6frfhqf-1225823736564
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org Says in its Letter to Editor to both:
January 27th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Hello.
Don’t be fooled. The agenda for which global warming was constructed has obviously nothing to do with weather, climate, or environment. But with full-spectrum control of human life through the architecture of carbon-credit.
And that agenda can be pushed with many more mantras, including still, climate-change (in any direction).
Try not patting one’s self on the back like the anti-war movement did with the size of turnouts irrespective of whether it actually scuttled war or not. Here, unless and until all the diabolical architectures of global governance, inter alia, carbon credit, are scuttled, “the mad faith that has cost us so many futile billions already” will not only continue to cost several times that, but also cement incremental faits accomplis through various manufactured ‘hegelian mind fcks’ longer matters linger.
Thank you.
Zahir Ebrahim
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
[5] IPCC officials admit mistake over melting Himalayan glaciers, guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 20 January 2010, http://guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake
[6] The Record Company and How the Hegelian Dialectic Works, Marlena Doucette, AFP, Wednesday, 20 January 2010 http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/12635-the-record-company-and-how-the-hegelian-dialectic-works.html
[7] Rothschild Rues Difficulty Of Activating “Global Governance Agenda” At Copenhagen, Steve Watson, Infowars.com, Dec 16, 2009 http://www.truthnews.us/?p=3456
[8] The hockey stick is wrong and result of bad science http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1k4mFZr-gE
[youtube=http://youtube.com/watch?v=-1k4mFZr-gE]

[9] 'Global Warming' establishment scientist Prof. Stephen H. Schneider of Stanford University has Journalist Phelim McAleer thrown out for inconvenient questioning: Armed Response to 'Climategate' question http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI
[10] ClimateGate Who's Who http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu_ok37HDuE
[11] ClimateGate Who's Who References http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v05N8KGWpVo
[12] Climategate Code Proves Inadequate, bogus data http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8X2P3072Tg
[13] UNESCO Statement, 1946, Cited in 'The Move to Depopulate the Planet' By Stephanie R. Pasco http://humanbeingsfirst.wordpress.com/files/2010/01/cacheof-the-move-to-depopulate-the-planet-by-stephanie-r-pasco.pdf
As long as a child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness can produce only precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The schools therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes that favor jingoism (nationalism)…we shall presently recognize in nationalism the major obstacle to development of world mindedness. We are at the beginning of a long process of breaking down the walls of national sovereignty. UNESCO must be the pioneer.” -- William Benton, Assistant U.S. Secretary of State at UNESCO 1946 (UNESCO is the United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organization)
[14] Council on Foreign Relations Statement in its Foreign Affairs, April 1974, in 'The Hard Road to World Order' by Richard N. Gardner http://thepowerhour.com/articles/HardRoadtoWorldOrder.pdf
In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.
Of course, for political as well as administrative reasons, some of these specialized arrangements should be brought into an appropriate relationship with the central institutions of the U.N. system, but the main thing is that the essential functions be performed.
The question is whether this more modest approach can do the job. Can it really bring mankind into the twenty-first century with reasonable prospects for peace, welfare and human dignity? The argument thus far suggests it better had, for there seems to be no alternative. But the evidence also suggests some grounds for cautious optimism.” (pages 558-559)
[15] MIT Professor, Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, in on the Conspiracy Theory (?) – Jesse Ventura investigates Global Warming, Minute 09:45, http://www.examiner.com/x-13886-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m2d2-Jesse-Venturas-Conspiracy-Theory-TV-show-investigates-global-warming ; and http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm
[youtube=http://youtube.com/watch?v=A0rtJ9CYSdY#t=3m20s]

[16] Other Project Humanbeingsfirst Reports Related to Science, Justice, and Nobel Prizes in the Service of Empire





Zahir Ebrahim, an ordinary researcher and writer on contemporary matters, grew up in Pakistan, studied EECS at UET, MIT, and Stanford, engineered for a while in high-tech Silicon Valley (http://tinyurl.com/zahir-patents), and retired early to pursue other responsible interests. His maiden 2003 book of protest, written in the aftermath of 9/11, was rejected by countless publishers and can be read on the web at http://PrisonersoftheCave.org. His extended bio at: http://zahirebrahim.wordpress.com/bio/. He may be reached at http://Humanbeingsfirst.org. Verbatim reproduction license at http://humanbeingsfirst.org#Copyright.

First Published December 12, 2008 | Last Updated 04142013235509 7425


NB: On Global Warming 20/20 Response to FT Gideon Rachman's 'And now for a world government'

The Plebeian antidote to Hectoring Hegemons

Home is Humanbeingsfirst.org

INDEX here.

Okay to copy, print, or post this document; verbatim reproduction only.
Comment
here. Full Copyright Notice
here.