Thread: Global warming hoax: The Utter Desperation of Global Warmists

Global warming hoax

The Utter Desperation of Global Warmists

Alan Caruba Thursday, April 5, 2012

In the “glory years” of the global warming hoax, you had Al Gore picking up Oscars and Nobel Prizes (shared with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and government employees like James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies were picking up wads of cash as awards, speech fees, and grants.

The folks who conjured up the computer models featured in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports also did quite well for themselves, along with all the others who climbed on the gravy train of global warming grants.

And then in 1998 a cooling cycle set in. It was hard to hide because the weather satellite data was indisputable, but try to hide it they did. Even then, however, there was a handful of outspoken meteorologists and climatologists who were trying hard to get out the message that the perfectly natural warming cycle was over and had been replaced, thanks to—guess what?—a lower output of solar radiation by the SUN.

Still the warmists persisted, infiltrating school systems to frighten children, brainwashing students in colleges, and coercing the public through apocalyptic books, through magazine and newspaper articles, and on television and the Internet.

In 2009, the release of a huge cache of emails between the IPCC global warming perpetrators instantly became known as “Climategate” as the world learned that it was all a scam, a hoax, a fraud based on deliberately falsified computer models, and force fed to the public.

The desperation of the warmists was palpable.

In 2006, Grist, an eco-magazine, called for Nurenberg-style trials for skeptics. By 2007, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. had called any doubts about global warming treason. “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.” Two years later in 2009, Kennedy called coal companies “criminal enterprises”, declaring that their CEO’s “should be in jail…for all of eternity.” In 2008 NASA’s Hansen was calling for trials of climate skeptics for “high crimes against humanity.”

Didn’t like the warmist’s bogus science? A former member of the Clinton administration, Joe Romm, defended a comment on his Climate Progress website that warned that a generation of brain-washed youth would see to it that skeptics would “be strangled in their beds.”

Today, another Clinton appointee, Carol Browner, former Environmental Protection Agency administrator is one of Obama’s “czars” and the unseen specter whispering in the ear of Lisa Jackson, the current EPA administrator. She is joined by John Holden, an Obama science advisor, and Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu.

If threats of jail and murder couldn’t shut up the skeptics, then Professor Kari Marie Norgaard, speaking at a warmist confab, “Planet Under Pressure”, put forth the notion that any science-based skepticism—based on actual, not fictional data—should be “recognized and treated” as some sort of aberrant behavior.

Doubt global warming? Well, you must be nuts!

Norgaard is a professor of sociology and environmental studies at the University of Oregon. As she put it, “Climate change poses a massive threat to our present social, economic and political order. From a sociological perspective, resistance to change is to be expected. People are individually and collectively habituated to the ways we act and think. That habituation must be recognized and simultaneously addressed at the individual, cultural and societal level—how we think the world works and how we think it should work.”

“Should work”? The Earth—the oceans, the clouds, and its entire eco-system—doesn’t give a rat’s patoot about how warmists and other weather crazies think it “should work.” All that intellectual claptrap adds up to a totalitarian belief that people who disagree with global warming should be jailed or killed.

And in true totalitarian fashion reminiscent of the Stalin era when people simply disappeared from public records and reports, on April 2nd Norgaard’s bio for Whitman College could no longer to be found on the its website. True to the eco-fascist approach, she had become a liability, a non-person for having revealed their plans for humanity.

Regular people who actually do something useful with their lives know that intellectuals like Norgaard hold them in utter contempt, but it is those who profess belief in global warming that should be regarded with grave and serious suspicion.

Those who use global warming, i.e., the assertion that carbon dioxide emissions should be restricted and controlled, are the true enemies of progress, of freedom, and of humanity.

In the twentieth century intellectuals foisted Communism on the world, thus ensuring that millions of Russians, Chinese, Cambodians and others would be killed for their dissent. Intellectuals are always the first to embrace every dictator and to excuse their methods.

The warmists are increasingly desperate as their dreams of global domination are falling apart.

In Europe and here in America all their schemes to replace the real production of electricity with solar panels and wind turbines are being rejected. Their plans for herding populations into cities and onto mass transit meet with resistance. Parents are objecting to their eco-curricula in schools. Al Gore has become a joke.

Consider this, if they were in charge, anyone who voiced dissent from their global warming-climate change lies would be in concentration camps, undergoing “re-education”, being “treated” with mind-altering drugs, or dead.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

The Utter Desperation of Global Warmists

Planet under Pressure Conference, environmentalist wackos

When is Global Warming Enough?

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh Thursday, April 5, 2012

It depends who you ask. Professor Kari Norgaard from Oregon University thinks, “If you don’t believe in climate change you must be sick.” If you are a skeptic of global warming, you are a racist. Overcoming this challenge, she continued in a paper presented at the Planet under Pressure Conference in London, March 24-29, 2012, is similar to overcoming “racism or slavery in the south.”

Yale University Professor Karen Seto, who also attended the conference, told MSNBC: “We certainly don’t want them [humans] strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together.] In her view, humans are foreign to nature, we pollute it, we corrupt it, and eventually destroy it.

The scientists attending the Planet under Pressure conference in London “put out a statement calling for humans to be packed into denser cities so that the rest of the planet can be surrendered to Mother Nature.” (UK Daily Mail)

“Cultural resistance to accepting humans as being responsible for climate change must be recognized and treated as an aberrant sociological behavior.” (UK Daily Mail)

Even Rush Limbaugh spent a segment on his April 2 show, talking about “environmentalist wackos” who teach “impressionable young skulls full of mush,” and, “they’re coming out of Oregon University believing this. And if they are not challenged anywhere the rest of their life they’re going to believe this anywhere they go, and some of these students end up at the EPA or end up in a Democrat administration either at the statehouse level or at the presidential level. This is what passed for science education for over ten years now, and it is not science. It’s pure politics. It’s pure politics disguised as science.”

Rush continued, “I looked at this woman’s bio. I wanted to find out a little about her. ‘I enjoy being outdoors, especially hiking, whitewater rafting, kayaking, skiing, both telemark and cross-country. Pretty much any excuse I can get to sleep on the ground.’ So it’s okay for her to go out and enjoy nature, but not the rest of us. It’s fine for her because she’s sensitive and understands, and she knows not to trample on the twigs or whatever it is she knows not to damage when she’s out there. Anyway, it all adds up to centralized command-and-control power, federal government getting bigger. This woman would support that to deny people the right to go into whatever she thinks is nature. Look, it’s lunacy. But she’s teaching students. They’re a dime a dozen, these people. They’re all over the place.”

It would be nice if it were just about the federal government getting bigger. It is the One World Government plan headed by the United Nations with its Agenda 21 and the Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development. It is about spreading the wealth of developed nations to developing nations, including technology, with stated disregard for patent rights and private property.

Case in point, Professor Richard Norgaard of the University of Berkeley presented a paper at the Planet under Pressure Conference on “Reducing Economic Disparity.” It is about “Planetary Stewardship,” “Sustainable Development,” and “Anthropocene,” all concepts developed by a group of academicians.

David Norgaard, Professor of Energy and Resources at the University of California discussed justice for poor countries and “massive ecological debt” that industrialized countries had incurred.

“We have gained our position by hurting others.” We need to make the economy work for us. The invisible hand (of the market) needs to be told where to go. Once it’s told where to go the invisible hand will work very well - and so it’s not a critique of markets, it’s a critique of markets that tell us how we live rather than setting markets up to help us live the way we want to live.”

I think Adam Smith would be rolling in his grave at the bastardization of his “invisible hand,” the hallmark of successful capitalism, unimpeded by centralized government control. Adam Smith did not include any part of socialism, communism, or spreading the wealth to non-producers in his 1776 book, “The Wealth of Nations.”

Elizabeth Thompson, Executive Coordinator of Rio+20 in June 2012, and former Minister of Energy and Environment of Barbados, was asked if decision-makers were ready to act:

“The level of dialogue is broadening, because all over the world people have marched in relation to current conditions, because people have occupied Wall Street and other locations, because there has been an Arab Spring. And all of it has been saying: let us have sustainable development - we want development but we want it to be sustainable; we want a larger share in democracy and how we are governed.”

I am not sure Americans want democracy and chaos, we saw how well that worked in Greece and the Middle East, especially the ginned up takeover of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood. We are a Constitutional Republic and we certainly do not want UN Agenda 21 with its Sustainable Development and Smart Growth plans that rob citizens of their proprietary rights, self-determination, and sovereignty.

Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General, delivered a video message at the Planet under Pressure conference on the new initiative Future Earth, the contract between science and society. He said, “Scientific advice is sometimes unclear or even contradictory.

Scientists themselves often work in silos, ignoring broader factors.” But, “I am also ready to work with the scientific community on the launch of a large-scale scientific initiative.” I am scratching my head when I read these contradictory statements.

The conference introduced a new scientific term, “nitrogen footprint.” Will Steffen informed the conference attendees on the first day, “the nitrogen cycle has been even more disturbed than the carbon cycle.” Sybil Seitzinger, Executive Director of International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, announced in her summary of the proceedings, “The nitrogen footprint of the conference had been reduced by 30 percent through actions taken by the organizers to lower the meat content of the catering facilities and to promote waste efficiency by the use of food bags.” Nitrogen occurs in all living organisms, primarily in amino acids. “The human body contains about 3 percent by weight of nitrogen, the fourth most abundant element after oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen. Nitrogen resides in the chemical structure of almost all neurotransmitters, and is a defining component of alkaloids, biological molecules produced as secondary metabolites by many organisms.” (Encyclopedia)

Aside from the fact that liberals are ignoring the truth that water, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and sunlight are the building blocks of life, where will the food come from if we are all moved into high-rise, high-density cities in order to give land back to wilderness. Where and how will we grow enough food? Perhaps that is one of the desired consequences, culling the herd through starvation.

December 2011, the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change released its report on global food security and published recommendations for the Durban climate conference. The title of the report was “Achieving Food Security in the Face of Climate Change.”


The climate change/global warming hoax must now be closely associated and connected with the planning, growing, and distribution of food under the United Nations guidance and supervision.

“Consensus is growing we have driven the planet into a new epoch, the Anthropocene, in which many Earth system processes are now dominated by human activities.” (State of the Planet) Whose “consensus” might that be, the academic ruling elite of the United Nations?

“Politician, public servant, scientist or citizen, community or company, we are the shareholders of Earth Incorporated.” (Elizabeth Thompson) Who formed this one-world-company, Earth Incorporated? Was it third world nations at the United Nation with its 3,000 “experts” in climate change, environmental geo-engineering, international governance, the future of oceans and biodiversity, global trade, development, poverty alleviation, and food security?

Dr. Mark Stafford Smith, conference co-chair of Planet under Pressure said, “But we need to provide more open access to knowledge, we need to move away from Gross Domestic Product as the only measure of progress, and we need a new way of working internationally that is fit for the 21st century.”

Translating his statement, we must adopt the UN Agenda 21 goal of creating a UN Sustainable Development Council to integrate social, economic, and environmental policy at the global level (One World Government), steal intellectual property, private property, one set of rules for global sustainability for all nations, regardless of national boundaries, and the taking of wealth in the form of property, land use and water use.

When is Global Warming Enough?

Polar bears are thriving

The Drowning Polar Bear Myth

Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser Thursday, April 5, 2012

Unwelcome news – for the drowning polar bear myth believers: Not only are the bears not drowning, they are thriving instead.

In case you forgot, the polar bears were all to drown from an increased loss of ice cover claimed to result from mankind’s burning of fossil fuels.

Countless non-governmental organizations (NGOs) make their living from this polar bear doom scenario.

The polar bear subpopulation living along the western shore of Hudson Bay was supposed to be most threatened by the increasing carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere.

All computer models predicted the bears’ imminent demise.
The latest survey of the western Hudson Bay polar bear subpopulation, just released by the government of Nunavut, indicates a number of 1013 bears in 2012.

That compares to 610 bears in 2011 (count by Environment Canada), and 935 bears in 2004.
Obviously, the bears have not been reading the models’ predictions as they should have. Just can’t rely on Mother Nature anymore.

The Drowning Polar Bear Myth