Image: How The Climate Mafia Corrupted The Surface, Radiosonde And Now Satellite Data
Data tampering by NASA has completly corrupted climate science. This video shows one example of how a corrupted NASA graph led a researcher to exactly the worng conclusion.
And when things are based on BS it’s easy to ..
Collapse of Global Warming Deception Triggers Variety of Bailouts and Revisionism
Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
We will see an increasing number of people changing their positions on global warming as the global warming ship sinks. It will take various forms including; articles appearing that subtly shift previously held positions; reevaluation of data; or finding new evidence that allows a change and perhaps worst of all those who say they knew the science was wrong all along but did not consider it important to speak out; dredging up a sentence or two from their writings that they claim showed they knew. The level of inventiveness will astonish as rats desert the sinking ship.
I am not well disposed to any of these people since the evidence was there all along. They chose not to see it, for a variety of reasons none of which are valid and as the old proverb says there are none so blind as those who will not see. I admit I hold some animosity to this group as I head to Vancouver for my first of two trials [although I received three lawsuits all from the same lawyer and all from members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)] trial for speaking out against the misuse of science for a political agenda and the scientific deception and corruption this engendered. When I realize that if even a few of these people had spoken out I would likely not have suffered the lawsuits, personal attacks, death threats and career limiting denial of funding, loss of speaking opportunities, and having my wife cry now if someone knocks on my door at four on a Friday afternoon because that is the time that all three court summons were delivered. The timing was deliberate as I only had 48 hours to respond.
I am glad Mr. McCarter finally saw the light as expressed in his article “Naïve scientists awakens to the politics underlying climate change”, but it is too late, too easy and self-serving. It is precisely his ‘I don’t want to know attitude’ that the perpetrators of the global warming deception knew would happen and exploited. What he doesn’t know is that the three Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPP) I received were not only to silence me but also to have a much wider chilling effect against anyone else who dared to speak out. It was very effective because of the silence of so many who didn’t want to know. There is safety in numbers, but a majority chose to say and do nothing. I know first-hand what Voltaire meant when he said
“It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong.”
Or for my fellow Canadian
Il est dangereux d’avoir raison dans des choses où des hommes accrédités ont tort.
Why didn’t McCarter act when the emails were leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) providing clear evidence that it was more than politics but included the abuse of science by scientists? Here is a list of the activities set out by Mosher and Fuller.
· Actively worked to evade (Steve) Mcintyre’s Freedom of Information requests, deleting emails, documents, and even climate data
· Tried to corrupt the peer-review principles that are the mainstay of modern science, reviewing each other’s’ work, sabotaging efforts of opponents trying to publish their own work, and threatening editors of journals who didn’t bow to their demands
· Changed the shape of their own data in materials shown to politicians charged with changing the shape of our world, ‘hiding the decline’ that showed their data could not be trusted.
Even if only half these charges are true, they are activities that would and should have triggered McCarter to action. It appears they did not, so the question is how much more did he need? How are things any different now that causes McCarter to respond? The apparent answer is that there are no consequences and he will be praised for his enlightenment and forgiven for his failures. Sorry, it is far too late, inadequate, and unworthy of praise. How much damage has occurred because of decisions he made to ignore the problems.
Massive amounts of damage have already occurred. People, economies, and societies have already suffered enormously. He watched as others suffered attacks, lawsuits, and bullying and did nothing. As Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” I think that the fact they did nothing eliminates them from being called good men. McCarter apologizes for Naomi Klein as a fellow Canadian, but where was he when she was appointed to Pope Francis’ committee on global warming helping him to draft the Laudate Si Encyclical? As he admits, he knew there were problems but rationalized they were political, and as a scientist, he could ignore them. He made a conscious decision to look the other way; now he wants absolution and even praises after a perfunctory mea culpa.
It is easy now as the tide is turning because Trump had the courage to cancel the Paris Climate Agreement. It is easy to jump on “the deception shouldn’t have happened” bandwagon. I can’t tell you how many people felt they were supporting me by telling me privately they agreed with me. Presumably, this absolved their conscience, but when the opportunity to speak arose at least 95 percent of them were nowhere to be seen. I used to try and understand that people did not want to lose their jobs or their income, but I don’t anymore because it is precisely this weakness that makes them vulnerable to bullies and exploiters. McCarter, by his own admission, hasn’t learned much. “So having had doubt about climate change being a political rather than scientific problem I am now a bit wiser.”Only a bit? If he had taken even a limited quiet look at what was going on, he would be a lot wiser. If he spoke out even minimally at the start, he would have experienced the push back and learned how political and nasty the attacks. He chose not to do that, and now he wants absolution for that failure. Sorry, it is too late unless he offers more than hand waving.
No, I cannot accept McCarter’s pathetic apology now it is easy. He admits in this article he knew all along but decided to do nothing. If I hear of him doing more than making an apology on friendly websites like WUWT, I will maybe temper my view. If he tries to get published in the NYT, I will have some sympathy. When I hear that his grandson was made to stand in the hallway outside his Grade six class every day for most of a month because he dared to ask questions about global warming that challenged what his teacher was saying and she knew I was his grandfather.
The only thing I can do here is quote Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemoller.
First, they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Ogden Nash wrote,
There are people who are very resourceful
At being remorseful.
And who apparently feel that the best away to make friends
Is to do something terrible then make amends.
It was a child who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes because the adults were afraid to say anything. McCarter’s story indicates that this continues and will do so until people accept the social responsibility that comes with having the privilege to practice science or do anything in society. He should read about what is happening in his Canada as the government deliberately intimidates people and moves to make alternative climate views a crime. Let him publicly fight that and earn a modicum of credibility, until then his ‘coming out’ is too little too late. For those who think his actions are sufficient as a step in the right direction I will disagree.
Yes, it is a form of penance, the “voluntary self-punishment inflicted as an outward expression of repentance for having done wrong.” However, it is completely out of proportion to the extent of the damage his failure to act created. It indicates that he still doesn’t understand.
A reply to Dr. Tim Ball
This article is in response to the personal castigation meted out by Dr.Tim Ball on myself after I wrote an earlier article on a population growth seminar that I had attended.
by Robert McCarter
I know that you have been the brunt of much of the blowback from your position on CAGW and I know that you are frustrated, especially from the lack of support of others. I even understand that you are using my once good name as an Everyman, that obsequious clod, ducking his responsibilities and making only a pathetic attempt to hide his neighbor from the Nazis knocking on the door. Perhaps it was my apologies that you found unctuous, for me they were a thin joke on being Canadian.
Please note that my article you have panned is not about my sudden and late awareness of CAGW it is about my awareness of the underlying and overzealous socialism behind it. I have of course read articles with this premise but there is such polarized feeling about socialism in the US that I added that grain of salt. It was seeing it for myself that convinced me of the political not environmental concerns that were driving the issue. I wrote the article suspecting that many others suspend belief when articles focus on leftist politics and I wanted to convey my experience to aid their own decisions about what is true. Not my intent to swing in on a low hanging bough to snatch the fruit from those who planted the tree.
You have had a lot of vitriol poured in your direction and I think that many of the readers at WUWT are grateful for the robust way you have countered. Certainly I have admired your well thought out essays. However I am not sure you should be defecating on the latter day converts, not good form for the many millions of others we have to win to this side. If you excoriate the first kid to hold up his hand, do you get many more questions. We don’t all have that fine PhD nor the tenured position in a university from which to espouse our ideas, a lot of us are just ordinary people that aren’t even listened to by our wives. Most do not have the training to make decisions from observations, most have too much trust in authority.
And I am not that latter day, I first looked at the global warming issue over 20 years ago. Once burned on global cooling, twice treading with caution. I became skeptical when I looked up the composition and overlapping absorbance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, realizing that water vapor should overwhelm the small amount of CO2 and doubling almost nothing still resulted in almost nothing. I am not a meteorologist or a climate scientist, just a ‘pathetic’ MSc Zoologist and a long time ago at that – but I keep studying. Where I work and live there is not a large scientific community and those that are there seem to be accepting of arguments from authority.
A few years ago I was fortunate to meet Brian Peckford (that one) and he pointed me towards Matt Ridley and then in turn to WUWT and other sites pro and con. For the past three years I have read many (many) articles from global population to windmills trying to suss out the signal from the noise and there is a lot of noise. I read ‘State of Fear’ a poor read as a novel but an excellent read about climate change. I bought several copies and distributed them to friends. I have continued to inundate my friends with articles from WUWT and others. Some friends could care less, others get indignant, lost one friend last week, another holding on by a fishing line. Some accept the non catastrophic story one week then along comes a hurricane and they are back to the beginning. I have about as much influence as I have flatulence but I am still passing gas.
We don’t get many lectures on population growth or climate change in our little town. I attended and I was the only person in a 200 person sycophantic audience who stood to contradict the speaker with factual information. He weaseled away his reply and the audience didn’t seem to note the deception. There is another lecture (Climate Change and Sustainability) this coming Saturday and I plan on attending, even invited some friends. Hey, I’m trying here and if I get dumped with dung how do you think I feel about next time. Are you doing the same thing as your green adversaries and trying to shut me down?
CAGW or the next great scare will not go away until we educate more people and that will not happen if it becomes an exclusive club for the cognoscenti. You have even recognized this need for better education in earlier articles. I agreed with you and as a long time educator I have developed methods to teach students to think. I even contacted you on your website about a year ago and have yet to get a reply.
Naive scientist awakens to the politics underlying climate change
Guest opinion by Robert McCarter
This is an apology to all those commentators over the years who pronounced on the underlying Marxism in the debate over climate change. I am a scientist by training and have tried my best not to sully the argument with politics, when commentary turned to ‘watermelons’ I turned to another article. Naively I thought the argument would be settled by data not dogmatism.
I recently attended a seminar given by a professor emeritus from UBC on ‘Global Population, Growth and Sustainable Development’, with an introduction by Rex Wyler co-founder of Greenpeace International. Sure that was a clue I was entering the dark lands, but my training make me want to cut out the middlemen and see things for myself.
The softening up started with the idea of social constructs that were artificial and could be replaced with ‘truer’ constructs, as an example the anthropogenic climate change construct that is ‘truer’ than the climate denial construct.
Then came the ‘ain’t is awful’ exponential population graphs, collapsing resource graphs, overflowing carrying capacity graphs and the de rigueur CO2 graph that I can summarize as ‘we’re all doomed’. Note that the population graphs only showed a global trend, and did not display how wealthy nations are getting their populations in order and limiting their growth rates such that increases are largely dependent on immigration. When reminded of this, the lecturer quickly dismissed it – ‘wealthy people are more selfish and do not want to share their wealth with their young’.
What followed was a litany of doom and gloom, how terrible things are now (longevity increasing?, health improving?, poverty decreasing?), that fracking fracking and don’t expect Elon Musk to come to the rescue (I finally agreed with something) with his electric cars and semis and emigration to more hospitable Mars – not a mention of the possible benefits of GMOs (Greenpeace after all), greenhouse greening or small modular reactors. The lecturer implied that billionaires were greedy and did little to share, ignoring that billionaires invest their money and only get a proportion of the great wealth that they create for others.
Having sufficiently depressed the audience it was time for the reveal. We are not doomed if only we change those arbitrary social constructs like capitalism. Roll back your expectations by 75%, have your governments share your wealth with the poor of the world. Hmmm he seemed to have missed the ‘give a man a fish … teach a man to fish …’ proverb. How about Cicero’s “It is human nature that what starts as gratitude, becomes dependency and ends as entitlement.”
But of course he was concerned about all of those extra resources being squandered on the hoi palloi – I get it now!
So having had doubt about climate change being a political rather than scientific problem I am now a bit wiser. Here is another guise for the Marxists, the warmunista peddling their bureaucracy controlled, idealistic sharing in a world driven by more basic motives like if ‘I work harder I gain more’. Sure capitalism has problems and has created problems but it has also created solutions. Our skies are clearer, our water safer, energy more abundant, wildlife is more protected and the future has potential for those willing to work.
ps As a Canadian I apologize for Naomi Kline.
Rent and grant seekers, the extreme “greens” – do not give up ..
GLOBAL WARMING Alarmists – The Real “Science” Deniers
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” – Bertrand Russell
A STARK lesson in climate facts and data Vs ABC groupthink eco-ideology via “denier” numero uno – Andrew Bolt of The Herald Sun.
MAKE your own mind up. Who really are the real “science deniers”, the sceptics or the “save the planet” virtue-signalling, eco-zealots? …
PAUL BONGIORNO, THE REAL DENIER
The real “deniers” are generally not the global warming sceptics but the extremists who denounce them. Take ABC commentator Paul Bongiorno, who today denied the science in attacking Tony Abbott’s speech in London overnight.
In most countries, far more people die in cold snaps than in heat waves, so a gradual lift in global temperatures, especially if it’s accompanied by more prosperity and more capacity to adapt to change, might even be beneficial.
ABC presenter Fran Kelly on ABC Radio Breakfast quoted this at Paul Bongiorno this morning. His response:
This just flies in the face of contemporary science.
Actually, it’s warmist Paul himself who flies in the face of science.
Cold weather is 20 times as deadly as hot weather... The study — published in the British journal The Lancet — analyzed data on more than 74 million deaths in 13 countries between 1985 and 2012. Of those, 5.4 million deaths were related to cold, while 311,000 were related to heat.
A new study published in The Lancet shows 6.5% of deaths in this country are attributed to cold weather, compared with 0.5% from hot weather. Most deaths will be from cardiovascular and respiratory disease, as it’s the heart and lungs that struggle when we are outside our comfort zone.
And global warming policies of the kind Bongiorno supports will make the dying worse by making electricity too expensive for the poor:
The situation has become so dire that 77 per cent of low-income NSW households are going without heating in a bid to reduce their onerous power bills, new research from the NSW Council of Social Service (NCOSS) shows. And one in three low-income earners have been forced to stop using hot water for bathing to pay for energy bills.
Then there’s the increased crops we’re getting as the world (mildly) warms.
Australia’s winter grain harvest is now officially the largest for every single mainland state.
The latest indications for the current season point to record cereal production in 2017 at the world level with total inventories hitting a new peak.
It’s the invincible ignorance of Bongiorno that staggers me. Confronted with facts that challenge his ideology he instinctively denies them, and, indeed, went on to insult Abbott as someone he falsely claimed had said he couldn’t be believed unless he’d written it down (which, incidentally, Abbott had actually done in this case).
And what of Fran Kelly? She fancies herself as someone who is pretty well informed on global warming, which she, too, spruiks.
But to Bongiorno’s false claims she offered not a word of demurral.
Astonishingly, the Fairfax reporter is also astonished by Abbott’s claim, finding it so remarkable that she leads her report with it:
Tony Abbott says voters should beware the science of climate change but argues that higher temperatures “might even be beneficial” because “far more people die in cold snaps”.
Lancet reports that more people die in the cold than the heat and Fairfax doesn’t blink. But when Abbott says it Fairfax faints.