This appeared on Facebook, is true, relevant but idealistic.
Perhaps if the mass media promoted anti-war themes, the people and governments would not react so mildly to the warmongering global destruction.
“Civilization”? Time to coin a new global term for our current human existence on Earth – instead of the Orwellian newspeak “war is peace” that we have adopted, perhaps “The Age of the Psychopaths” is appropriate?
The Facebook post was an interview for a few minutes:
A presentation that is invaluable for ‘climate change’ education.
Its introduction is revealing, the complete informative post is linked here.
Author:
C. Jeffery Small
Introduction:
The bottom line is simple:
There is no significant scientifically established correlation between human activity and the warming of the earth’s climate.
The Climategate scandal caused independent scientists and laymen around the globe to take a much closer look at the information that was being presented in support of Anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) Global Warming (AGW), and the overwhelming conclusion was that the there was no credible and conclusive evidence to support the hypothesis. And it was further shown that the scenarios predicting that the planet was nearing the tipping point for a series of catastrophic climate disasters, was totally invalidated by an examination of the facts, as well as a review of the earth’s climate history. What came to light during this investigation was the following:
Climate science research is almost exclusively funded by governments around the world. Between 1989-2009, the U.S. government alone spent $79 billion. To keep the money flowing, it was necessary to have a compelling “story” of a pending apocalypse to justify that sort of investment. The narrative of global Armageddon became the researchers’ only fixed “fact”, with all scientific data being freely manipulated as necessary in order to fit that predetermined scenario.
Politicians with a totalitarian bent saw the regulation of carbon as a potent tool for generating massive new tax revenues and for redistributing the world’s wealth, while at the same time, justifying the expansion of regulatory control over businesses and the personal activities of all citizens. Consequently, a symbiotic relationship was established between the politicians who handsomely funded the research, and the climate scientists, who fabricated a useful justification for government intervention.
People well connected to the government, such as Al Gore, saw an opportunity to make a financial killing by manipulating the environmental legislation in a favorable way. Gore and others invested heavily in carbon trading schemes which would generate millions in profits once the pending cap-and-trade laws were passed. These people then engaged in their own propaganda campaigns in order to influence a favorable outcome. Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth was one notable example.
The information presented below chronicles the facts that have been uncovered as a consequence of the many investigations being conducted subsequent to the original leaked East Anglia Climate Research Unit documents which triggered the Climategate scandal. A number of people have done an excellent job of summarizing the skeptics viewpoint. After reviewing the material below, I would recommend further investigation at the sources listed in the Skepticism section.
However, before plunging in to the details, let me make one general observation. On his website, Dr. Roy Spencer states:
“Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming …
it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade.”
This is an extremely important point. If all research is directed towards a single predetermined hypothesis then only evidence for that hypotheses will be found. There is nothing new in this as those of us around during the 1970s have seen exactly the same story, by the same participants, played out in the field of cancer research. Just as “climate change” is currently presented to the general public by the radical environmentalists and a compliant media as a man-made global catastrophe, so too was cancer presented by them as an earlier man-made cataclysm. And just as with the climate, in the 70s politicians rushed in to fund research to determine which man-made materials and chemicals were the source of the epidemic so that industry and business could be further regulated. For the better part of a decade studies—many of questionable scientific validity—were conducted, focusing on man-made products. It was not until many years later that naturally occurring compounds were investigated and it was discovered that nature was as hell-bent upon killing us as that industrialist down the street. But, of course, that new information had no impact on repealing the controls that had been put into place. All of this was documented by Edith Efron in her 1984 book The Apocalyptics.
Whenever government becomes involved in funding scientific research, the politicization of the results is inevitable. In an article by British author Matt Ridley, titled What The Climate Wars Did To Science, he offers the following observation:
“It turns out bad ideas can persist in science for decades, and surrounded by myrmidons of furious defenders they can turn into intolerant dogmas.
“This should have been obvious to me. Lysenkoism, a pseudo-biological theory that plants (and people) could be trained to change their heritable natures, helped starve millions and yet persisted for decades in the Soviet Union, reaching its zenith under Nikita Khrushchev. The theory that dietary fat causes obesity and heart disease, based on a couple of terrible studies in the 1950s, became unchallenged orthodoxy and is only now fading slowly.
“What these two ideas have in common is that they had political support, which enabled them to monopolise debate. Scientists are just as prone as anybody else to “confirmation bias”, the tendency we all have to seek evidence that supports our favoured hypothesis and dismiss evidence that contradicts it—as if we were counsel for the defence. It’s tosh that scientists always try to disprove their own theories, as they sometimes claim, and nor should they. But they do try to disprove each other’s. Science has always been decentralised, so Professor Smith challenges Professor Jones’s claims, and that’s what keeps science honest.
“What went wrong with Lysenko and dietary fat was that in each case a monopoly was established. Lysenko’s opponents were imprisoned or killed. Nina Teicholz’s book The Big Fat Surprise shows in devastating detail how opponents of Ancel Keys’s dietary fat hypothesis were starved of grants and frozen out of the debate by an intolerant consensus backed by vested interests, echoed and amplified by a docile press.”
It is important to remain aware of this history when examining the information presented here.
And finally, let us not forget what the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) itself said in the Executive Summary to its 2007 Working Group 1 (WG1) Forth Assessment Report (AR4):
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
Americans have suffered needless climate-related panic for the past 40 years—not realizing that, since 1850, our newspapers have given us a climate scare about every 25 years. And none of them was valid.
Fortunately, climate science is now good enough to predict the key abrupt climate cycles that Mother Nature visits upon earth through the millennia. After the cold of the Maunder Sunspot Minimum at 1715, for example, earth’s temperature warmed 0.3 degrees in less than 25 years. Then two centuries later, the temperatures dropped equally swiftly into the cold of the Dalton Minimum. These abrupt shifts occurred over decades rather than centuries. Some shifts have been favorable, an equal number were unfavorable – and none involved carbon dioxide.
In 1895, some scientists volunteered that another Ice Age was starting. In 1922, the Washington Post carried a major AP article…
The US submarine captain says, “We’ve all got to die one day, some sooner and some later. The trouble always has been that you’re never ready, because you don’t know when it’s coming. Well, now we do know and there’s nothing to be done about it.”
He says he will be dead by September. It will take about a week to die, though no one can be sure. Animals live the longest.
The war was over in a month. The United States, Russia and China were the protagonists. It is not clear if it was started by accident or mistake. There was no victor. The northern hemisphere is contaminated and lifeless now.
A curtain of radioactivity is moving south towards Australia and New Zealand, southern Africa and South America. By September, the last cities, towns and villages will succumb. As in the north, most buildings will remain untouched, some illuminated by the last flickers of electric light.
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper
These lines from T.S. Eliot’s poem The Hollow Men appear at the beginning of Nevil Shute’s novel On the Beach, which left me close to tears. The endorsements on the cover said the same.
Another short extract sets the theme:
I read On the Beach for the first time the other day, finishing it as the US Congress passed a law to wage economic war on Russia, the world’s second most lethal nuclear power. There was no justification for this insane vote, except the promise of plunder.
The “sanctions” are aimed at Europe, too, mainly Germany, which depends on Russian natural gas and on European companies that do legitimate business with Russia. In what passed for debate on Capitol Hill, the more garrulous senators left no doubt that the embargo was designed to force Europe to import expensive American gas.
Their main aim seems to be war – real war. No provocation as extreme can suggest anything else. They seem to crave it, even though Americans have little idea what war is. The Civil War of 1861-5 was the last on their mainland. War is what the United States does to others.
The only nation to have used nuclear weapons against human beings, they have since destroyed scores of governments, many of them democracies, and laid to waste whole societies – the million deaths in Iraq were a fraction of the carnage in Indo-China, which President Reagan called “a noble cause” and President Obama revised as the tragedy of an “exceptional people”He was not referring to the Vietnamese.
Would love to have it all here to display, but copyright responsibilities apply.
Another relevant, moving message from ‘The Planet of the Apes’:
So, are we really going there?
Some of us can see the possibility as we fail to understand just how self-destructive our world leaders are, how infinitely remote they are from human empathy, how blinkered they are as to the possible consequences.
It would be wonderful to be completely wrong about this, but forgiven for wondering.
Guest essay by Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Bill Nye looks forward to the death of skeptics in this Huffington Post essay. There is a sound basis for his wish.
While the politicized climate issue dates back to the 60’s, things really took off after the Clinton-Gore administration assumed power and funding for climate increased by about a factor of 15. This was far more than a small backwater and very difficult field could absorb, and led to a vast increase in the number of scientists who claimed their work was related to climate in order to cash in on the windfall. Moreover, the institutional structure for support of alarm was already in place with the United Nations creation of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) – both exclusively concerned with…
So much evidence of ‘cooking the temperature record books’ needs to be exposed to the public to help them decide if global warming is likely to be catastrophic, whether atmospheric CO2 is indeed a significant factor, whether GW is in fact actually happening at all as an ongoing trend, and whether the political enthusiasm for carbon controls has any valid scientific basis? And if not, the public need to consider the UN agenda behind it all!
This informative post by ‘JoNova‘ offers such evidence.
Another BOM scandal: Australian climate data is being destroyed as routine practice
Historic climate data is being destroyed
The Bureau have a budget of a million dollars a day, but seemingly can’t afford an extra memory stick to save historic scientific data.
In the mid 1990s thermometers changed right across Australia — new electronic sensors were installed nearly everywhere. Known as automatic weather sensors (AWS) these are quite different to the old “liquid in glass” type. The electronic ones can pick up very short bursts of heat – so they can measure extremes of temperatures that the old mercury or liquid thermometers would not pick up, unless the spike of heat lasted for a few minutes. It is difficult (impossible) to believe that across the whole temperature range that these two different instruments would always behave in the exact same way. There could easily be an artificial warming trend generated by this change (see the step change in the graphs). The only way to compare the old and new types of thermometer is to run side by side comparisons in the field and at many sites. Which is exactly what the bureau were doing, but the data has never been put in an archive, or has been destroyed. It’s not easily available (or possibly “at all”). We have this in writing after an FOI application by Dr Bill Johnston (see below).
It seems that I have upset a couple of followers this week, as they have dropped off the list. It would be very helpful to me, and appreciated, if I received feedback rather than silence, please!
Of course it is too late for them to get my message, but future critical readers might be kind enough to make appropriate comments.
A selection of recent posts to alert readers of serious injustice issues in the health industry. Readers keen to keep up with stuff that never makes the regular news might find Mike Adam’s blog worth following.
Click on the post titles to read the whole articles.
(Natural News) Even while the hopelessly dishonest, scientifically illiterate oldstream media continues lying to the public with the ridiculous narrative that “vaccines are safe” — read WashPost, The Atlantic, NYT or USA Today for a daily dose of vaccine holocaust denialism — the federal government has publicly released vaccine injury payout figures that prove vaccines routinely maim and kill children all across America.
(NaturalNews) One of the world’s most lucrative industries, spending on cancer drugs reached an all-time high last year, as it was valued at more than $100 billion. Spending on cancer drugs increased 6.5 percent annually over the past five years and is expected to continue growing at a rate of 8 percent each year through 2018, according to figures provided by the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics.
(Natural News) Omega-3 fatty acids have been attracting a lot of nutrition headlines lately as studies continue to reinforce their known benefits and even uncover some new ones.
While Omega 3 has long been linked with brain health, new research shows how dietary essential fatty acids could help treat Alzheimer’s disease and other conditions during their early stages.
(Natural News) Is anyone surprised? Amazon.com, led by globalist profiteer Jeff Bezos — also the owner of the America-hating fake news rag known as the Washington Post — now wants to be your medication dealer. According to numerous media reports, Bezos plans to take over the pharmaceutical retailing industry and turn Amazon.com into an elaborate drug dealing machine that earns $50 billion more each year while poisoning the world with toxic prescription medications.
(Natural News) The number one fuel that creates cancer cells and causes them to spread throughout the human body is food that contains chemicals. Processed sugar, insecticides, herbicides, nitrates in meat, hormones in meat and dairy, artificial sweeteners and genetically modified “anything” just begins the laundry list of American foods that are manufactured, dosed and processed with carcinogenic, cell-mutating chemicals that cause the uncontrolled multiplication of deadly cells in the human body. Consuming these non-natural concoctions is literally a “recipe for disaster,” and the very organizations that claim they’re searching “for the cure” are recommending we eat more chemicals, even while we are battling cancer. If that’s not the most insidious scheme on planet earth, then we all better wake up fast and smell the toxic coffee that’s brewing right under our noses.
(Natural News) A recent headline in the U.K.’s Daily Mail boldly declares, “Vitamin D will NOT protect your child from a cold: Myth-busting study says ‘more isn’t always better’ to help toddlers stay healthy.” This disingenuous headline infers that vitamin D has no protective effect against colds and flu. In fact, the study it goes on to cite, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), only compared the effects of two different dosages of vitamin D administered to children. It did not compare the health of children who were not given vitamin D supplements at all, to those who were.
(Natural News) The following bombshell story appears on GM Watch and was published on August 2, 2017. It appears on the same day that the New York Times published another bombshell story revealing Forbes.com to be a propaganda rag for Monsanto. What’s abundantly clear in all this is how Monsanto’s web of criminality, lies and deceit is rapidly unraveling, and the evil corporation is facing billions of dollars in damages from multiple lawsuits across the country.
It relates to a Wall Street Journal article published by he and David Henderson.
My introduction:
A refreshing new look at an exceedingly important aspect of the IPCC/UN endeavours to impose global controls that are purportedly based on scientific evidence and statistically valid projections.
Denial of the IPCC claims is far more convincingly supported by valid science but the propaganda juggernaut is so powerful, it swamps any chance of the real science breaking through the barriers.
There is an undeniable political agenda behind the ‘climate change’ movement that also requires to surface as a public concern. It is probably the most important factor if our civilization is to continue in a humane manner. (Again ignoring the obvious fact that our current standards of humanity are actually, scaringly inhumane. Killing each other in cold blood being accepted as normal behaviour, any resemblance of adherence to “rules of war” are lost in the warmongering Western countries leaders and the pathetically irresponsible media. The fact that we have agreed rules of war is itself an indictment on our collective sanity and intelligence. A civil ‘civilization’ would rule out wars as acceptable behaviour. I know, a practical impossibility, but ideals should be at the forefront of our behaviour, not forever lost! )
An eventual arrival at the actual post theme and the introduction of economics into the picture.
John Cochrane’s belief in the importance of economics in the ‘climate change’ picture is well supported by his post and makes sense, as he says, regardless of any scientific or political factors.
When considering any particular aspect of suggested future changes, the financial costs should be considered and transparent. The total costs of alternative energy sources – setup, operational, resources, end-of-life (replacement, decommissioning and waste products).
The costs of phasing out existing energy sources, loss of output, loss of jobs and related business and local public welfare.
The article could be summarized by this extract:
Climate change is often misunderstood as a package deal: If global warming is “real,” both sides of the debate seem to assume, the climate lobby’s policy agenda follows inexorably.
It does not. Climate policy advocates need to do a much better job of quantitatively analyzing economic costs and the actual, rather than symbolic, benefits of their policies. Skeptics would also do well to focus more attention on economic and policy analysis.
The article commences:
On Climate Change
David Henderson and I wade in to perilous waters in the July 31 Wall Street Journal. We try to stake out a different and more productive conversation than the usual shouting match between alarmists and deniers.
Climate change is often misunderstood as a package deal: If global warming is “real,” both sides of the debate seem to assume, the climate lobby’s policy agenda follows inexorably.It does not. Climate policy advocates need to do a much better job of quantitatively analyzing economic costs and the actual, rather than symbolic, benefits of their policies. Skeptics would also do well to focus more attention on economic and policy analysis.
As usual, I have to wait 30 days to post the whole thing.
As economists, we both have a healthy skepticism of large computer based forecasting models. The famous 1972 club of Rome forecast that we would run out of resources, and the grand failure of large scale Keynesian models in the late 1970s are two humbling examples. The “climate” models also feature a lot of questionable economics. A crucial question — how much carbon will the world’s economies add on their own, without Paris-accord policies? That’s economics, very questionable economics, and not meteorology.
That said, however, the point of the oped is to try to shift the debate away from climate science and mixed climate-economic computer models. Stop arguing about climate, and let us instead investigate costs and benefits of policies. That strikes us as a much more fruitful place for discussion. If you are wary of the climate policy agenda, the costs and benefits of those policies are more fertile ground for discussion than the science of carbon emissions and atmospheric warming. If you only argue about the climate, then you implicitly admit that if the models are right about climate, the whole policy agenda follows. Do not admit that point. They may be right about climate and wrong about policy.
A further comment is prompted by another part of his article –
For the record, I favor a uniform carbon tax in place of all the other direct energy regulations and subsidies. (A neighbor just showed me his electric car, purchased in addition to a regular car, for one reason only: you can ride it solo in the HOV lane, a right worth thousands in California.) The rate on such a tax can be raised or lowered as politics and science see fit. If we’re going to do something, and if the health of the economy is a prime consideration, then we must do something economically efficient. (David disagrees, but he can explain his views in his own blog.) As I favor a uniform VAT in place of the idiotically complex income and corporate tax system. I recognize the essential failure of our political system to enact simple transparent reforms, but that’s a question for another day.
It seems to me that, after all his pertinent, impartial and interesting comments, his favouring a carbon tax is contrary to the economic considerations to which he has given importance. He fails to justify its need or effectiveness.
The reality of what is actually happening in the world, in the context of terrorism and wars, is not to be found in the public media.
The same claim can be made of many issues, but this post concentrates on warfare.
The reality is not deeply hidden, but requires a little time and effort to seek, and certainly is easier to understand with an open mind.
This ‘TIP’ presentation requires a little time and not much effort, and only a very closed mind would fail to see the significance of the message.
Clearly, terrorism is not what most people think it is, because it is largely created and supported by Western agendas. Careful thought is required as to what opposition is best required and likely to be actually effective. The ramifications extend to all countries and all people need to apply clear-thinking and clear understanding, to ensure that their own country is not completely hood-winked into following the devestation of warmongering and loss of privacy and freedoms.
‘TIP’ offers these additional posts of relevance:
Why Can’t People See What’s Happening? https://theinternetpost.net/2017/07/26/why-cant-people-see-whats-happening/
US contributed to creation of ISIS, now tries to claim victory over it – Iraqi VP https://theinternetpost.net/2017/07/24/us-contributed-to-creation-of-isis-now-tries-to-claim-victory-over-it-iraqi-vp/
F11 toggles full screen view of web page window.
Ctrl F adds a word search tool to the toolbars.
Crtl + , - zooms in and out on your screen.
Ctrl/Shift/T re-opens last closed TAB.
TIPS:
To believe the mainstream media is to risk ever knowing the truth about the real world. To believe government, (any government), issued information without considering their agenda(s), is to risk being brainwashed.
WISDOM
"Our lives begin to end, the day we become silent about things that matter".--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
"I am only a child playing on the beach, while vast oceans of truth lie undiscovered before me". - Isaac Newton
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” – Albert Einstein, who also said:
"The minority, the ruling class at present, has the schools and the press, usually the church as well. under its thumb. This enables it to organize and sway the emotions of the masses, and makes its tool of them!" And,
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence."
The art of writing is the art of discovering what you believe.
— Gustave Flaubert
A dialogue with attached videos of what you really need to know for topics in chemistry.... so you cannot tell your teacher that you did not understand :)
