Mod+ 234. GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND OUR ILLUSION OF CONTROL

You've been bobbing and weaving all over the place...

It’s you who’s been doing all the "bobbing and weaving". For the past several days now I've been trying to get you to address my response to the McKitrick issue that you asked me about. Instead of answering, you keep on adding issue on top of issue blatantly attempting to muddy the waters. It’s obvious you’re ducking the issue and is readily apparent to anyone reviewing our exchanges. You’re not arguing in good-faith.

I've posted your request below again for your review. I will get to the other items in your last two posts after you address this one:
What I want is your own words on why McKitrick is wrong in saying that the C20th uptick is an artefact of the arbitrary redating of cores
I'll restate my answer to you again as follows:

McKitrick is wrong to say that uptick is an "artifact of the arbitrary redating of cores" because the temperature data for the uptick was obtained from the instrumentation records. Consequently, the core data was not used for the purpose of quantifying the uptick therefore any redating that may have been done played no role in its formulation in Marcott's paper.
Do you disagree with any part of my statement above? If so, specifically which part? (Please answer the question directly without adding new layers to it as with your previous two posts.)
 
Last edited:
Of course the larger point that keeps getting lost (at least from my perspective) is that the connection between these wacky ideas on global warming and policy make absolutely no sense.

Alex, can you please provide a specific example of what you consider to be a "wacky idea" as it relates to global warming?
 
I'll restate my answer to you again as follows:

McKitrick is wrong to say that uptick is an "artifact of the arbitrary redating of cores" because the temperature data for the uptick was obtained from the instrumentation records. Consequently, the core data was not used for the purpose of quantifying the uptick therefore any redating that may have been done played no role in its formulation in Marcott's paper.
Do you disagree with any part of my statement above?

It isn't a simple question of agreeing/disagreeing with the statement. There's what Marcott claims, and what actually happened.

Marcott claimed, belatedly, that the instrumental record had been used for the C20th uptick all along. However, he didn't make that plain in the original paper, and when McIntyre discovered the redating of the cores, Marcott didn't deny he'd done that, saying that the redating process didn't lead to a robust result for the C20th. It was only later, after this challenge, that he came up with the explanation that he'd used the instrumental record.

Well, if he had, then why didn't he make that clear in the paper? And why did he accept that McIntyre had uncovered the redating that he actually admits to having done? How could McIntyre have picked that up from the paper if it hadn't been done? Why would he have even bothered if it were plain the instrumental record had been used?

What Marcott says is inconsistent. Either the C20th data as published in the paper came through redating, or it came from the instrumental record. Had he said the former in the paper, it would have been laughed out of court.

Had he said the latter, it quite probably wouldn't have got accepted because the graph was an artificial construct formed by the splicing of two series having markedly different resolutions. It's not the first time that trick has been used, and Marcott et. al were perfectly happy to let people think the graph all came from the proxy record until challenged.

Whichever way you slice it, it's the usual murky picture we've all come to know and love from freshly-minted phDs in climate science. Michael Mann was the other classic example with his much-derided hockey stick.

How you can defend all this nonsense is beyond understanding.
 
Last edited:
We seem to be unable to distinguish between the evidence that global warming is happening and the ideas put forward by a range of people (many which I disagree with) about how we respond to the problem of global warming. They are two separate issues.
 
...as you will know, excess winter deaths, particularly in the elderly, have increased since they went up...

Like you, I argued against CAGW for a few years, but I don't do it anymore... didn't matter how many people I 'educated' on the other side of the argument, there was always new ones appearing and you had to start from scratch again. I felt like I did my stint, but I applaud you for keeping up the fight.

However, I did notice this comment from you (above), and I remembered an article written by Monbiot in the Guardian in 2010 a on a similar subject that linked energy companies profits to winter mortality in the elderly. At the time I decided to check out his claims, just for the hell of it... as he was arguing for CAGW all the time... I've posted my response to his article below. Dunno if it still holds, but it certainly gave me an alternative perspective on the line he was shoveling, you might find it interesting...



A mere cursory look at the studies on winter mortality - freely available on the internet - demonstrates just how badly researched Monbiot’s article really is.

Healy (2002): Excess winter mortality in Europe: a cross country analysis identifying key risk factors.

Warm housing is important but it can coexist with high winter mortality, and outdoor cold stress has been independently associated with high excess winter mortality. Campaigns to reduce exposure to cold outdoors provide obvious scope for future preventive action. Donaldson and Keatinge (2002): Excess winter mortality: influenza or cold stress? Observational study.

Mortality increased to a greater extent with given fall of temperature in regions with warm winters, in populations with cooler homes, and among people who wore fewer clothes and were less active outdoors. The Eurowinter Group (1997): Cold exposure and winter mortality from ischaemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, respiratory disease, and all causes in warm and cold regions of Europe.

The continuous high daytime temperatures maintained in these homes did not prevent mortality among the residents from rising in winter by a percentage similar to that among the general population. Extensive outdoor excursions by able bodied residents, and perhaps the residents' preference for open windows and no heating at night, provided their only substantial exposure to cold. The simplest explanation is that though the quality of life was higher with heated housing, the beneficial effects on mortality of the high indoor temperatures were balanced by the adverse effects of increased exposure to cold outdoors. The results therefore suggest that the traditional tendency of the British to expose themselves to fresh air may be as important as poor heating in causing excess mortality during the winter. They also support previous evidence that cold weather causes death mainly by means other than hypothermia. Keatinge (1986): Seasonal mortality among elderly people with unrestricted home heating
 
Last edited:
Conspiracy by whom?

In November 2009, servers at the University of East Anglia in UK were hacked into and emails were stolen. A selection of emails between climate scientists were published on the Internet and a few quotes used out of context to claim global warming was all just a vast conspiracy. This incident was nicknamed “Climategate.”

Despite a vast media frenzy, a number of independent investigations all cleared the scientists of any wrong doing; many quotes were taken out of context, such as “hide the decline”, statistical “tricks”, “can’t account for lack of warming” to make it look sinister and many media outlets were unable to explain this allowing conspiracy claims to go unchallenged.

More information about all the investigations from skepticalscience.com (which, unlike its name suggests, tackles all climate skeptic and denialist arguments head-on):

Media Lens also provides a useful article with a number of links from another authoritative web site: RealClimate, a site run by climate scientists at the forefront of climate research. But what was also interesting from Media Lens was the quote they got from James Hansen, the US scientists who brought climate change to the world’s attention in 1988:

The media have done a great disservice to the public. This mess should be cleared up in the next year or so, although the damage may linger a while, because some people who paid attention to sensationalism may not bother with accurate explanations of the truth.

The impression left from this affair is that there are some parts of the media that care less about responsible reporting than about selling newspapers or other ware. Some of the problem may be honest ignorance, as the quality of science reporting has declined in recent decades. And of course some media are controlled by people who have a political axe to grind
.

— James Hansen, email to Media Lens, Gates of Delusion; Media Distortions And Real Climate Scandals, Media Lens, February 22, 2010

As much as “Climategate” was a non-issue, it seems that an anti-climate campaign scandal has been uncovered.

In February 2012, leaked internal documents from the right-wing organization the Heartland Institute appeared to show that rather than being a think tanks, it was more like a lobbyist, funded by many large corporations and individuals with an aim to discredit climate change science and propagate denialist views (amongst many other campaigns). They also pay some scientists and others because they are skeptical on climate change. It was even planning a school curriculum to keep teachers from addressing climate science.

And the documents have also revealed the value of disseminating denial messages to influential business outlets:

Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out

Heartland Institute Exposed: Internal Documents Unmask Heart of Climate Denial Machine, DeSmogBlog.com, February 14, 2012 (Emphasis by DeSmogBlog)

(DeSmogBlog exposed the leaked documents and provides far more details.)​


http://www.globalissues.org/article/710/global-warming-spin-and-media#Climategatethescandalthatwasnt


For many years, talk of climate change led to a lot of skepticism and denial, typically from corporate-backed interests such as energy companies. For example, just recently, the British Royal Society, and separately, the Union of Concerned Scientists reported on ExxonMobil waging a campaign of disinformation on global warming between 1998 and 2005, funding right wing think-tanks and journals such as the American Enterprise Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. And “with the help of right-wing media, such as the Wall Street Journal, … columnists deliberately spread disinformation about climate change.”

As another example, the Australian Broadcasting Company (ABC) revealed that some business lobby groups have influenced the Australian government to prevent Australia from reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This lobby group included interests from the coal, electricity, aluminum (aluminium), petroleum, minerals and cement industries. The documentary exposing this revealed possible corruption within government due to extremely close ties with such industries and lobby groups, and alleged silencing of government climate scientists.

Often funded by such corporations, many lobby and interest groups tried to undermine reports of climate change and its impact, for it threatened their position and economic future. For example, noting the above ExxonMobil case, Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientist’s director of strategy and policy says, “These groups promote spokespeople who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings or cherry-pick facts in an attempt to mislead the media and public into thinking there is vigorous debate in the mainstream scientific community about global warming, when in fact there is none.”

Professor Matthew Nisbet notes the influence of conservative think tanks in science and environmental skepticism. Writing in ScienceBlogs he notes “A new study by a team of political scientists and sociologists at the journal Environmental Politicsconcludes that 9 out of 10 books published since 1972 that have disputed the seriousness of environmental problems and mainstream science can be linked to a conservative think tank.”

Other times, some scientists in earlier years showed skepticism based on science, but as data and research improved over time, most changed their positions to indicate some sort of concern or agreement about climate change and human effects/causes.

In more recent years, many large companies that have formed these coalitions or funded such lobby groups have now distanced themselves from those past positions, either as they accept climate change is happening or because they see their reputation being damaged by such association (or both).

Furthermore, some businesses are urging world leaders to tackle climate change. Some are even asking for regulation to help reduce their economic uncertainty, to provide a level playing field (so as to try and take measures but not lose out to competition form a rival that may not take such a view).

In countries, such as the United States, that have been openly hostile toward actions on climate change in the past, local governments, states, and businesses have started to take action anyway, showing that buy-in and support from industry is a key to tackling these concerns.

However, some are still trying to undermine climate change action through deception. As the British paper, the Guardian reports, scientists and economists have been offered a lot of money to undermine a major climate change report in February 2007, from the IPCC (this report is mentioned further below). The “American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration” was accused of such practices.

Refer to:
Reactions to Climate Change Negotiations and Action
 
Just to add to Jules post above, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, who Alex linked to further up the thread (GWPF basically discredited each inquiry that investigated and cleared the University of East Anglia CCU scientists) are effectively taken apart here by Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/archives/34578

The Foundation was publicly launched on 23 November 2009 by its chair, Lord Lawson of Blaby. In a truly astonishing coincidence, this was just a few days after the publication of e-mails that had been hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. Lord Lawson used the so-called ‘Climategate’ e-mails as an opportunity to promote his Foundation in an article in The Times while stating his opposition to efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He also claimed that global warming had stopped, denied there was a scientific consensus, and accused the CRU researchers of “manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend” and other serious misconduct. [my emphasis]

Kind of unbelievable but GWPF actually have charitable status in the UK (ha, ha!) , so if they are found guilty of lying to the public they will lose that. Charities must be honest to the public who often fund them of course.
 
GWPF actually have charitable status in the UK (ha, ha!) , so if they are found guilty of lying to the public they will lose that. Charities must be honest to the public who often fund them of course.

though I'd be hard pressed to give them even a peanut...
 
Good work Keith, though background checks are not appreciated around here.

Your link lead me to an article entitled:

Recycling the myth that global warming ‘stopped in the mid-1990s’

My question is ' Who are the ones distorting the data?

Read the story for yourself.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/archives/28189

David Rose of the Mail on Sunday?, give me strength as they say...he's well known of here (irony). Thanks for that Jules. Seems the GWPF are at it again!

If you want some extra ammo on this specific issue there's this very recent from the Guardian (November 2013) Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows

http://www.theguardian.com/environm.../nov/13/global-warming-underestimated-by-half



cheers for now, it's rather late here :)
 
I thought this was a good visual: Global Warming since 1997


Authored by Kevin Cowtan from the University of York and Robert Way from the University of Ottawa
(anyone please feel free to do background checks)
Sleep tight.
 
Last edited:
In my previous two posts I used quotes from several leaders in the environmental movement and their supporters to expose what I can only interpret as blatant misanthropy on their part. Now I've gathered a few more quotes to demonstrate that much of the fury behind activist pronouncements of catastrophic global warming has its roots in a compulsion to control the rest of us, and an ends-justify-the-means approach to attaining that goal.

Now, I'm all for trying to prevent the hunting and slaughter of whales and baby harp seals, and I'd like to save the redwood forests too. But it's very hard for me to take these green leaders and their supporters seriously when they openly refer to people as viruses and talk about using global warming as a vehicle to help bring about whatever social changes they deem worthwhile. In addition, I think lots of climate scientists are guilty of letting their emotions color their research, and I believe this happens on both sides of the issue.

Anyway, here's my latest batch of quotes that I think are helpful in understanding some of the background in the global warming debate:

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

"We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."
-- Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."
-- Daniel Botkin, emeritus professor of ecology at UC Santa Barbara

"That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
-- Stephen Schneider, Stanford University environmentalist

“No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
--Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister

“If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”
-- John Houghton, lead editor of the first three IPCC reports

"It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."
-- Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist and manager of NOAA's Atmospheric Chemistry, Carbon Cycle, & Climate (AC4) program

“What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-CO)

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. ... But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
-- Alexander King, Bertrand Schneider, Founder and Secretary, respectively, The Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, pp. 104-105, 1991

".... central to the task of strengthening global environmental governance
is reform of the vast United Nations system. ....What is needed is a transfer
of financial and technological support from North to South, from wealthy
developed countries to debt-ridden, trade-starved developing countries."

-- Hilary F. French, co-author of Worldwatch's ANNUAL REPORT

"The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope."
-- David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club

"A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income."
-- Club of Rome

"A New World Order is required to deal with the Climate Change crisis."
-- Gordon Brown, former British prime minister

"Now is the time to draw up a master plan for sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all resources and a new global economic system. Ten or twenty years form today it will probably be too late."
-- Club of Rome

“I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”
-- James Lovelock, scientist, environmentalist and creator of the "Gaia hypothesis"

I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause.
-- Michael Mann, climate scientist and creator of the "Hockey Stick" climate reconstruction graph.

Edited to remove this misquote:
"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis..."
-- David Rockefeller

Edited to remove this accurate but misleading quote:
"The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to – compliance”
-- Dixy Lee Ray, former governor of the US state Washington

Dixy Lee Ray was a skeptic of CAGW. In the paragraph above, she was summarizing the position of the majority in UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development).

Doug
 
Last edited:
In my previous two posts I used quotes from several leaders in the environmental movement and their supporters to expose what I can only interpret as blatant misanthropy on their part. Now I've gathered a few more quotes to demonstrate that much of the fury behind activist pronouncements of catastrophic global warming has its roots in a compulsion to control the rest of us, and an ends-justify-the-means approach to attaining that goal.

Now, I'm all for trying to prevent the hunting and slaughter of whales and baby harp seals, and I'd like to save the redwood forests too. But it's very hard for me to take these green leaders and their supporters seriously when they openly refer to people as viruses and talk about using global warming as a vehicle to help bring about whatever social changes they deem worthwhile. In addition, I think lots of climate scientists are guilty of letting their emotions color their research, and I believe this happens on both sides of the issue.

Anyway, here's my latest batch of quotes that I think are helpful in understanding some of the background in the global warming debate:

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis..."
-- David Rockefeller

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

"We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."
-- Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."
-- Daniel Botkin, emeritus professor of ecology at UC Santa Barbara

"That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
-- Stephen Schneider, Stanford University environmentalist

“No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
--Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister

“If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”
-- John Houghton, lead editor of the first three IPCC reports

"It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."
-- Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist and manager of NOAA's Atmospheric Chemistry, Carbon Cycle, & Climate (AC4) program

"The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to – compliance”
-- Dixy Lee Ray, former governor of the US state Washington

“What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-CO)

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. ... But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
-- Alexander King, Bertrand Schneider, Founder and Secretary, respectively, The Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, pp. 104-105, 1991

".... central to the task of strengthening global environmental governance
is reform of the vast United Nations system. ....What is needed is a transfer
of financial and technological support from North to South, from wealthy
developed countries to debt-ridden, trade-starved developing countries."

-- Hilary F. French, co-author of Worldwatch's ANNUAL REPORT

"The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope."
-- David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club

"A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income."
-- Club of Rome

"A New World Order is required to deal with the Climate Change crisis."
-- Gordon Brown, former British prime minister

"Now is the time to draw up a master plan for sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all resources and a new global economic system. Ten or twenty years form today it will probably be too late."
-- Club of Rome

“I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”
-- James Lovelock, scientist, environmentalist and creator of the "Gaia hypothesis"

I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause.
-- Michael Mann, climate scientist and creator of the "Hockey Stick" climate reconstruction graph.

Doug
Hi Doug. What's your source? We are at the stage of the debate where everything needs to be referenced (my view).
 
In my previous two posts I used quotes from several leaders in the environmental movement and their supporters to expose what I can only interpret as blatant misanthropy on their part. Now I've gathered a few more quotes to demonstrate that much of the fury behind activist pronouncements of catastrophic global warming has its roots in a compulsion to control the rest of us, and an ends-justify-the-means approach to attaining that goal.

Now, I'm all for trying to prevent the hunting and slaughter of whales and baby harp seals, and I'd like to save the redwood forests too. But it's very hard for me to take these green leaders and their supporters seriously when they openly refer to people as viruses and talk about using global warming as a vehicle to help bring about whatever social changes they deem worthwhile. In addition, I think lots of climate scientists are guilty of letting their emotions color their research, and I believe this happens on both sides of the issue.

Anyway, here's my latest batch of quotes that I think are helpful in understanding some of the background in the global warming debate:

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis..."
-- David Rockefeller

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

"We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."
-- Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."
-- Daniel Botkin, emeritus professor of ecology at UC Santa Barbara

"That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
-- Stephen Schneider, Stanford University environmentalist

“No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
--Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister

“If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”
-- John Houghton, lead editor of the first three IPCC reports

"It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."
-- Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist and manager of NOAA's Atmospheric Chemistry, Carbon Cycle, & Climate (AC4) program

"The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to – compliance”
-- Dixy Lee Ray, former governor of the US state Washington

“What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-CO)

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. ... But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
-- Alexander King, Bertrand Schneider, Founder and Secretary, respectively, The Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, pp. 104-105, 1991

".... central to the task of strengthening global environmental governance
is reform of the vast United Nations system. ....What is needed is a transfer
of financial and technological support from North to South, from wealthy
developed countries to debt-ridden, trade-starved developing countries."

-- Hilary F. French, co-author of Worldwatch's ANNUAL REPORT

"The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope."
-- David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club

"A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income."
-- Club of Rome

"A New World Order is required to deal with the Climate Change crisis."
-- Gordon Brown, former British prime minister

"Now is the time to draw up a master plan for sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all resources and a new global economic system. Ten or twenty years form today it will probably be too late."
-- Club of Rome

“I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”
-- James Lovelock, scientist, environmentalist and creator of the "Gaia hypothesis"

I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause.
-- Michael Mann, climate scientist and creator of the "Hockey Stick" climate reconstruction graph.

Doug

Hey Doug. Where are you getting your quotes from? I fear that some of these quotes are taken out of context or are just plain wrong. For example, the first one is taken from this speech. At 4:25 is the quote, and the version you posted is absolutely, egregiously wrong.
 
though I'd be hard pressed to give them even a peanut...

Greenpeace also have charitable status, as do a host of other environmental organisations. That status isn't without its critics, however.

full article: http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/2843

The environmental group Greenpeace is recognised as a charitable non-profit organisation in Germany. But now the German government is planning to reduce the tax benefits associated with this status – and Greenpeace activists are furious. But is Greenpeace really a ‘charitable’ organisation? Does society benefit from its campaigning?

German Greenpeace activists are a persistent lot. The organisation spends millions of Euros every year on sometimes spectacular initiatives. It also publishes numerous leaflets and pamphlets, many of which focus on arguing against the introduction of genetic engineering (GM) technology into agriculture and food production in Germany. Its efforts have made an impact: public scepticism about GM remains high, and German politicians are wary of openly promoting the planting of GM crops.

One reason why the Hamburg-based organisation has been able to carry out such high-profile activities is because it is accorded charitable status, which means it is exempt from big tax burdens. Recently, however, the German government announced its plans to reform German laws on charitable organisations and donations, and Greenpeace, and other groups, have been up in arms ever since.

Greenpeace may have a high public profile, but donations to the organisation have stagnated in the past few years. In December 2006, Greenpeace leaders announced that they were laying off 20 of their 160 employees in Germany, and cutting the pay of the remaining workers. Two months earlier, in October, German Greenpeace announced that it was discontinuing its Einkaufsnetz campaign, which it had launched in 1997 to encourage Germans to change to more fuel-efficient cars, buy organic foods and invest in alternative energy sources. Apparently, the project turned out to be too costly, and had a limited success rate. Now, the government’s announcement of reforms to the law on charitable organisations puts Greenpeace’s very existence at risk.

In Canada and New Zealand, Greenpeace has had its charitable status revoked:

See: http://business.scoop.co.nz/2011/05/09/greenpeace-too-political-to-register-as-charity-nz-court/

Greenpeace too political to register as charity, NZ court rules

May 9 (BusinessDesk) – Environmental lobbyist Greenpeace of New Zealand Inc. is too involved in political causes to register as a charity, the High Court has ruled.

Justice Paul Heath turned down an appeal last Friday that Greenpeace could register with the Charities Commission after the body rejected its 2010 application.

Justice Heath said Greenpeace’s political activities can’t be regarded as “merely ancillary” to its charitable purposes and that the commission was correct in disqualifying it for registration over the potentially illegal activities.

Though the pursuit of peace could be “worthy,” that didn’t necessarily make it charitable, he said.

“The commission was correct in holding that non-violent, but potentially illegal activities (such as trespass), designed to put (in the eyes of Greenpeace) objectionable activities into the public spotlight were an independent object disqualifying it from registration as a charitable entry,” Justice Heath said in his judgement.

“In qualitative terms, the charitable purposes of Greenpeace could be met without resort to the type of political activities that deny its right to registration.”

In November last year, Greenpeace claimed its stated objectives of promoting disarmament and peace weren’t central to its goals, and that based on a public benefit test it was a charitable entity.

Justice Heath rejected that assertion, saying “the extent to which Greenpeace relies on its political activities to advance its causes means that the political element cannot be regarded as ‘merely ancillary’ to Greenpeace’s charitable purposes.”

He said Greenpeace viewed itself more as an “advocate rather than an educator,” and cited the commission’s examples of Greenpeace’s non-violent action including a protest over Fonterra Cooperative Group’s increasing use of coal, and a campaign opposing the importation of palm kernel oil that also targeted the dairy exporter.

No order was made as to costs because the issues raised “were of some public importance,” Justice Heath said.

I used to be a Greepeace member, making monthly contributions, until I became interested in the global warming debate. If they actually did the kinds of things they were supposed to do and weren't involved so much in political activism that doesn't have much to do with real environmentalism, I might still be a member.

One is actually hard-pressed to find any nominally environmental organisation these days that isn't up to its neck in political advocacy. "Environmentalism" has become a Trojan Horse for that. Some perceive that as pushing an agenda for the redistribution of wealth; I'm not so sure myself. It may be more focussed on Malthusianism and have essentially elitist aims more akin to totalitarianism than socialism. Many sincere environmentalists may be manipulable "useful idiots" unaware that they're being duped.
 
Hey Doug. Where are you getting your quotes from? I fear that some of these quotes are taken out of context or are just plain wrong. For example, the first one is taken from this speech. At 4:25 is the quote, and the version you posted is absolutely, egregiously wrong.

Thanks Bishop, for pointing this one out. I found a link with a transcription of what Rockefeller said, and at the moment I'm persuaded that he was misquoted, perhaps deliberately. I'll remove his quote from the list.

Doug
 
The issue is not that the Global Warming Policy Foundation is political. Its that its dishonest and manipulative. They have deliberately disseminated and promoted inaccurate and misleading information in direct contravention with its stated purpose.

Funding Sources
The foundation has rejected freedom of information (FoI) requests to disclose its source of funding on at least four different occasions. As a charity, it is would normally not be required to report its sources of funding.[12] The judge ruling on the latest FoI request, Alison McKenna, said that "the GWPF wasn't influential enough for disclosure to be merited". Bob Ward, the policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, commented:

"These [FoI] documents expose once again the double standards promoted by ... the GWPF, who demand absolute transparency from everybody except themselves...The GWPF was the most strident critic during the 'Climategate' row of the standards of transparency practised by the University of East Anglia, yet it simply refuses to disclose basic information about its own secretive operations, including the identity of its funders." [12]

AND GUESS WHAT its headquarters occupy a room at the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining
 
Last edited:
Thanks Bishop, for pointing this one out. I found a link with a transcription of what Rockefeller said, and at the moment I'm persuaded that he was misquoted, perhaps deliberately. I'll remove his quote from the list.

Doug
Can we have the sources for the rest please.
 
Back
Top