Difference Between Propaganda and Reality

Daily Bell

Politicians Haven't Listened ... Merkel Climate Advisor Blasts Global Inaction ... Politicians need to get their act together on climate change, says Chancellor Angela Merkel's leading climate advisor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber just days before the global warming conference in Qatar. The World Bank agrees, releasing a report on Monday highlighting the serious consequences that await should global temperatures continue rising unchecked. – Der Spiegel

Dominant Social Theme: Climate change is a terrible thing.

Free-Market Analysis: First it was called "global warming" and now "climate change." But no matter what it is called, it is still a power elite dominant social theme. The idea is that humans are responsible for a great upswelling of heat and humidity around the world.
The world may be getting warmer, or maybe not. But the meme rolls on. A subdominant theme is simply that humans are a curse upon the world and that their destructive tendencies must be controlled.

The people doing the controlling, of course, will be the self-appointed elites that apparently run the banking system and seek to create a formal world government. They use fear-based dominant social themes – promotions – to frighten people into adopting globalist solutions to phony scarcity problems.

Global warming – climate change – is a foundational meme. It allows the controlling elites to recreate society based on scarcity rather than plenty. It provides a rationale for the total reorganization of society in a manner that is ever more conducive to societal control.

People will have to monitor their very exhalations and ensure that they do not eat too much lest they leave an overly large "footprint" on the Earth. In order to ensure that people are adequately modest in their lifestyle and habits, more and more laws will have to be enacted.

The beauty of global warming from a power elite standpoint is that it is truly a global problem demanding global solutions. Thus, the UN can be brought to bear and its globalist mandate extended. Here's some more from the article:

As representatives from almost 200 countries prepare to meet next week in Doha, Qatar to reach agreement on measures to slow global warming, climate scientists are sounding the alarm for more aggressive action. Climate change must become a priority they say.
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a leading German climate scientist and the government's chief advisor on climate-related issues, warns that the goal of keeping global warming below two degrees Celsius by 2100 will only be possible with a massive rethinking of priorities. 

"We're currently on a course to see a 3.5 to 4 degree (6.3 to 7.2 degree Fahrenheit) change by the end of the century," Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), told SPIEGEL. "We've stressed time and again, that we need nothing less than a new industrial revolution, but many politicians haven't listened. They've just sat back."

Schellnhuber says that the European Union could easily achieve a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent by 2020 relative to 1990, instead of the 20 percent it has committed to. Schellnhuber asked Chancellor Angela Merkel to form a "coalition of the willing." But unfortunately, he said, climate change is "not the highest priority" for Germany's leader.

Schellnhuber's comments in SPIEGEL came as a report he compiled with the World Bank, entitled "Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided," was released on Monday. Timed to coincide with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting in Qatar, the study focuses on the consequences of a global four-degree temperature increase by the end of the century. The report notes that food shortages, massive water scarcity, rising sea levels, cyclones, drought and an irreversible decrease in biodiversity would result.

We can see from all this that the European political machinery (the world's political machinery, in fact) continues to provide extensive support for global warming ... climate change. The reality of global warming is far from affirmed but the sociopolitical consensus grinds on.

Of course, there is this, posted back in July by Newsbusters.org:

"New Study Thoroughly Debunks Global Warming, Will Media Notice?"

A new study published in the journal Nature Sunday completely debunks all previous claims that temperatures in recent decades are in any way historic demonstrating instead that things were much hotter on this planet during Roman times:

The website of Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz published a ... reader-friendly explanation of the study Monday:

Professor Dr. Jan Esper's group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC. In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling. 

"We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low," says Esper. "Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today's climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods." [...]

There are many other reports like this but they are not taken into consideration. The ongoing pursuit of solutions to a likely nonexistent problem is symptomatic of a power elite theme.

These themes and sub-themes are launched on the world as promotions and thus "reality" is not to be recognized. It is a signature of propaganda – and what we call directed history, as well.

Conclusion: When we see a "problem" acted upon at the highest levels, even when there is significant question as to its veracity, the chances are we're witnessing political support of a promotion, not government action designed to address a legitimate problem.

Global Warming Meme Powers Hurricane Coverage

The Daily Bell

Global warming likely driver for intense hurricanes, scientists say ... President Barack Obama says he's confident that state and federal governments have done all they can to prepare for the superstorm barreling up the East Coast ... As America's financial and political capitals braced for what the National Weather Service has called a storm of historic proportions, the subject that politicians here dare not mention has suddenly been pushed to the forefront of public attention by the massive power of nature. Both U.S. President Barack Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney suspended their campaigns Monday. Obama was at the White House where he was briefed on storm preparations. He said there is a potential for fatalities as the storm hits the coast. – Vancouver Sun

Dominant Social Theme: Definitely global warming!

Free-Market Analysis: This Vancouver Sun article is typical of some of the coverage of Hurricane Sandy, which hit New York City and environs yesterday.

It is written by William Marsden, author of Fools Rule: Inside the Failed Politics of Climate Change (Knopf). We looked up the book on Amazon, and here's a description:

This eloquent, rage-inciting polemic about the global failure to deal with climate change will appeal to readers of Tim Flannery, George Monbiot and Bill McKibben – and anyone concerned with the economic and environmental future of our planet ... In Fools Rule, Marsden illustrates how inefficient and short-sighted political negotiations have become despite mounting scientific evidence that immediate action is essential to curb the effects of climate change.

At the slightest sign of environmental catastrophe the doomsters show up and begin to write articles. Hurricane Sandy brought forth dozens of articles in the mainstream press speculating that the hurricane was a global warming event.

Marsden's article is especially good because it has all the hallmarks of a fear-based promotion. These are what we call dominant social themes, archetypes created by a power elite to frighten the middle classes into giving up power and wealth to specially created globalist solutions.

The Marsden article is typical of a controlled mainstream media provocation. The blurb about Marsden doesn't mention that his book is a polemic. The article itself poses as a kind of analytical evaluation when it is no such thing.

The headline is misleading, as well. "Global warming likely driver for intense hurricanes, scientists say ... " This is a strange headline, indeed. It implies a majority consensus of scientists believe that Hurricane Sandy was the result of global warming – now referred to as climate change.

But, in fact, the article can simply be read as statement that "some" scientists believe global warming is driving such storms. The implication, though is that a majority of scientists believe it. Here's some more from the article:

No scientist will ever say that one single weather event can be traced to climate change, a topic the presidential hopefuls have rarely raised in this campaign. But in the wake of last year's Hurricane Irene, which caused about $15 billion dollars U.S. in damage from South Carolina to Vermont, and given the steady rise in ocean temperatures as well as air temperatures, to simply dismiss Hurricane Sandy as a freak occurrence would be folly, Prof. Raymond Bradley, director of the Climate Systems Research Center at the University of Massachusetts, said.

In an interview, he said that with higher sea-surface temperatures, which are caused by man-made global warming, "when storms develop, when they do hit the coast they are going to be bigger and I think that's a fair statement that most people could sign onto."

He said he believes Hurricane Sandy "is going to be a catastrophe for New York and New Jersey."

His statements are buttressed by a new peer-reviewed study recently published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science that concludes that higher surface temperature create large storm surges in cyclone activity.

"The largest cyclones are most affected by warmer conditions and we detect a statistically significant trend in the frequency of large surge events (roughly corresponding to tropical storm size) since 1923," the authors state. "In particular, we estimate that Katrina-magnitude events have been twice as frequent in warm years compared with cold years."

In other words, global warming is causing more intense storms, Bradley said.

But, of course, there is no consensus on climate change. For every "convinced" scientist, there is a skeptical one. You'd never know that from articles like this, however. Here's an excerpt from a 2010 article posted at Climate Depot:

More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims ... More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.

This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report − updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming "consensus" − features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.

This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report's release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.

The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The publication of this paper and others at the end of the decade made it most difficult for the elites behind thismeme to continue to insist on global warming as an established fact. In fact, thanks to the Internet, the debunking of global warming has been so thorough that even the rejiggered nomenclature – "climate change" – is rarely mentioned.

All of these memes are aimed at increasing globalist control and creating a pretext for legislative change and subsequent laws that expand government's reach over food, water and energy – the building blocks of human existence.

What's been encouraging about the past decade is the difficulty the elites are having in promoting these themes. Global warming, Peak Oil, even the war on terror itself have all come under fire as 'Net-based information educates people and debunks falsities.

Nonetheless, the propaganda rolls on. Questionable statistics, extreme opinions and falsified facts mark a number of elite memes. The mainstream media jumbles them together to create an appearance of consensus where none exists.

This article ends with the following statement: "Bradley said that some scientists believe that this high-pressure front from the north is a result of global warming, but he added that this is not proven."

Conclusion: This statement, of course, casts into doubt the rest of the article. No doubt they were hoping you wouldn't read that far.

Prof. Pielke Jr.: It's been 'more than 7 years since' Cat 3 or larger made landfall, 'longest such span in over a century'

'To call Sandy a harbinger of a 'new normal,' in which unprecedented weather events cause unprecedented destruction, would be wrong...Connecting energy policy & disasters makes little scientific sense....No evidence of increasing extreme river floods. Historic tornado damage decreased since 1950...drought in U.S. central plains has decreased in recent decades'

Thursday, November 01, 2012

By Marc Morano  –  Climate Depot

[The below article was written by Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. and appeared in the October 31, 2012 of the Wall Street Journal. Selected excerpts are reprinted below.]

Roger Pielke Jr.: Hurricanes and Human Choice - Wall Street Journal - October 31, 2012

'Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought.' Connecting energy policy and disasters makes little scientific sense.'

By ROGER PIELKE JR.

Selected Excerpts: (For full article go to WSJ - Subscription required - Also see Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.'s website here & full free version here.)

But to call Sandy a harbinger of a "new normal," in which unprecedented weather events cause unprecedented destruction, would be wrong. This historic storm should remind us that planet Earth is a dangerous place, where extreme events are commonplace and disasters are to be expected. In the proper context, Sandy is less an example of how bad things can get than a reminder that they could be much worse.

[...]

While it's hardly mentioned in the media, the U.S. is currently in an extended and intense hurricane "drought." The last Category 3 or stronger storm to make landfall was Wilma in 2005. The more than seven years since then is the longest such span in over a century.

Flood damage has decreased as a proportion of the economy since reliable records were first kept by the National Weather Service in the 1930s, and there is no evidence of increasing extreme river floods. Historic tornado damage (adjusted for changing levels of development) has decreased since 1950, paralleling a dramatic reduction in casualties. Although the tragic impacts of tornadoes in 2011 (including 553 confirmed deaths) were comparable only to those of 1953 and 1964, such tornado impacts were far more common in the first half of the 20th century.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that drought in America's central plains has decreased in recent decades. And even when extensive drought occurs, we fare better. For example, the widespread 2012 drought was about 10% as costly to the U.S. economy as the multiyear 1988-89 drought, indicating greater resiliency of American agriculture.

There is therefore reason to believe we are living in an extended period of relatively good fortune with respect to disasters. A recurrence of the 1908 San Francisco earthquake today, for example, could cause more than $300 billion in damage and thousands of lives, according to a study I co-published in 2009.

[...]

Another danger: Public discussion of disasters risks being taken over by the climate lobby and its allies, who exploit every extreme event to argue for action on energy policy. In New York this week, Gov. Andrew Cuomo declared: "I think at this point it is undeniable but that we have a higher frequency of these extreme weather situations and we're going to have to deal with it." New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke similarly.

Humans do affect the climate system, and it is indeed important to take action on energy policy—but to connect energy policy and disasters makes little scientific or policy sense. There are no signs that human-caused climate change has increased the toll of recent disasters, as even the most recent extreme-event report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finds. And even under the assumptions of the IPCC, changes to energy policies wouldn't have a discernible impact on future disasters for the better part of a century or more.

The only strategies that will help us effectively prepare for future disasters are those that have succeeded in the past: strategic land use, structural protection, and effective forecasts, warnings and evacuations. That is the real lesson of Sandy.

Mr. Pielke is a professor of environmental studies and a fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado.

(For full article go to WSJ - Subscription required -- Also see Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.'s website here.

BS detectors

Climate Etc.
Judith Curry

Most likely, their bullshit detectors just went on high alert. – Greg Breining

Amidst the many explanations for rational skepticism in the face of consensus ‘truth’ about climate change, the ‘BS detector’ explanation deserves more investigation and discussion

A cool-headed climate conversation with Aerospace legend Burt Rutan describes a rational BS detection process.  If you don’t know who Bert Rutan is, see his Wikipedia bio.  Some excerpts:

Even though I’ve been very busy throughout my entire career developing and flight-testing airplanes for the Air Force, I’ve always pursued other research hobbies in my time away from work. Since I’m very accustomed to analyzing a lot of data, about three or four years ago many alarmist claims by some climate scientists caught my attention. Since this is such an important topic, I began to look into it firsthand.

Although I have no climate science credentials, I do have considerable expertise in processing and presenting data. I have also had extensive opportunities to observe how other people present data and use it to make their points. There is a rampant tendency in any industry where someone is trying to sell something with a bunch of data, where they cherry pick a little bit…bias a little bit. This becomes quite easy when there is an enormous amount of data to cherry pick from.

The first thing that got my attention, a lot of people’s attention, was statements that the entire planet is heading towards a future climate catastrophe that is attributable to human carbon dioxide emissions. So I decided to take a look at that and just see if this conclusion was arrived at ethically. It’s obviously an extremely important issue which has gotten a huge amount of media attention.  I was particularly concerned because the proposed solutions will have enormous impacts upon costs of energy, which of course, will increase costs of everything.

Many people seem to get much of their information from what they see in newspapers. I may be considerably different, in that I always like to look at both sides of things that I take special interest in. So when I decided to look closely at the anthropogenic [man-made] global warming crisis claims, I avoided focusing on media reports, and instead, went directly to available raw climate data. The intent was to see if that data might just as reasonably be interpreted differently.

Then, what really drew me into the subject, was when I found that I couldn’t obtain the raw data that I was looking for. I was shocked to find that there were actually climate scientists who wouldn’t share the raw data, but would only share their conclusions in summary graphs that were used to prove their various theories about planet warming. In fact I began to smell something really bad, and the worse that smell got, the deeper I looked.

I even read Al Gore’s book, which was very enlightening…but not in a good way. When you look for data to back up his claims, you immediately discover that they are totally unsubstantiated. This was frankly astonishing because analyzing data is something I’m very good at. All my professional life I have been analyzing complex flight test data, interpreting it and presenting it. Something that I always did in flight test is to make a chart that shows every bit of the data, and only then, decide later on the basis of real observed results which parts of the data were valid.

What I’m doing really, is just put out all of the data I can in order to enable anyone to look at everything before arriving at a conclusion. If someone forms a conclusion at the onset, they can always find and focus only on data that supports their theory.

Larry, I wasn’t really taken back so much by the hostile responses.  I expected some of that.  But later when I decided to answer some of the more than 150 comments posted at the Scholars and Rogues website, I was surprised that I was often attacked in a very personal way which denigrated my intelligence and accused me of bias. I have no reason to have any bias. Some said I was obviously being paid for by oil companies, which seemed like a joke.  If you go through and read my responses you will find that I did so with hard data that alarmists will not publish. But they don’t hesitate to publish personal attacks.

Larry, I’ve done all I plan to do on this for now, and have moved on to other interests. This debate will all get sorted out, and I am confident it will be for the better.  When I started, I strongly believed that the debate needed me because I didn’t see anyone out there really looking at the data the way an engineer looks at.  Now I see that other people are doing this, including climate scientists and non-scientists the world over by the tens of thousands, people who are actually looking at the real data just like I have. I still follow the status of the debate, and occasionally comment on it.

Whether or not you agree with Rutan’s interpretation and analysis of climate data, the approach that he has taken provides a classical example of a BS detector in action.

Conspiracy theorists (?)

The latest ‘explanation’ for lack of belief in the IPCC consensus ‘truth’ is that these non believers are conspiracy theorists.  See Stephan Lewandowsky’s editorial Evidence is overrated if you are a conspiracy theorist.  Lewandowsky’s ‘evidence’ was a scammed internet survey.  Bloggers such as Steve McIntyre,Anthony Watts, BishopHill, Lucia, JoNova are all over this, and have exposed the scam (note: there are multiple posts on each of these blogs).  BS detection in action.  While I have used the term ‘auditors’ for deep investigations of problems with climate data, BS detection seems much more apt for this particular issue.

Lew, get a clew.  I hope this experience with the skeptical bloggers has revealed what they are really all about, as they have revealed YOUR conspiracy by finding a really big pile.

The ‘conspiracy’ among green climate bloggers  has been further revealed by the leak of John Cook’s secret forum (link).  SkepticalScience seems to becoming the ringleader for conspiratorial activities by the green climate bloggers.  All this is high entertainment for those of us who follow the climate blog wars.  But take a step back, and consider how bad this makes you look, and how poorly it reflects on the science and ’cause’ that you are trying to defend.

Motivated (?) reasoning

Reflecting on this general topic has led me to a new insight, or at least to a new hypothesis.  Serious social scientists have identified a split (liberal vs conservative) in terms of support vs skepticism of the climate change argument, with the conservative skeptics being generally more educated on the topic.  How to explain this, other than motivated reasoning by the conservatives?

Here is an alternative hypothesis:  the motivation reasoning is on the other side, the liberal defenders of the CAGW consensus.   Once the ‘consensus’ argument stepped beyond climate science into the realm of ‘dangerous’ impacts and ‘solutions’ involving global changes in governance and energy policy, BS detectors were triggered in people who didn’t share that motivation.

Activate (?) your science

Climate Etc.

Judith Curry

We need bold science and bold action.   There is a vital role for governments to play, but equally importantly is the role of academia, civil society, and industry.  Harnessing that collective commitment is underway – but it remains to be seen if changes will be rapid and substantial enough. Her Excellency noted in her powerful opening remarks that there is a significant gap between the accelerating pace of degradation and the rate of effective response.
   
Each of you here can influence the rate of response by activating your science.  - Jane Lubchenco, NOAA Administrator

NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco gave the keynote presentation at the recent   International Coral Reef Symposium in Cairns, Australia.   The text of the speech is found here.  Some excerpts:

Scientists – YOU and I ! –  with our knowledge of the threats, consequences, and likelihood success of options for solutions, have a particular responsibility to share our findings broadly, develop useful and useable decision-support tools, team up with local communities and industry partners, and help craft practical solutions.

Your knowledge and your passion are sorely needed.  But your knowledge must be shared in ways that are understandable, credible and relevant to decision-making at multiple levels.  Learning to become bilingual – to speak both the language of science and the language of lay people is a skill more scientists need to learn.  You’ve all heard the phrase ‘learn by doing’?  The same applies to teaching: ‘teach by doing…not by preaching.’

This is, in fact, happening in many parts of the world. Scientists, communities, NGOs, industry and governments are collaborating to develop management solutions that provide for immediate local needs and enable healthy, resilient reefs. These are powerful, hopeful signs, they are simply not at the scale commensurate with the threats.

This is a story of leadership, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary partnerships across many types of partners, peer learning, and science to develop and implement creative solutions that address food security in the face of climate change and ocean acidification.

The world, its coral reefs and the millions of people that depend upon them need more bold action – action that is science-and ecosystem-based,action that is embraced locally and nationally, action that values tomorrow as well as today. And we need bold science – science that is use-inspired: i. e., it is cutting-edge but relevant and focused on solutions. 

Each of you here can influence the rate of response by activating your science.

I invite you to do more than create new knowledge.  Share it! Put it to use with partners and a sustained engagement.

In short, activate your science.

Donna LaFramboise doesn’t like what Lubchenco had to say:

In Lubchenco’s universe there is apparently no danger of scientists going overboard, of unconsciously biasing their research. She seems to think that earning a scientific degree somehow transforms individuals into infallible beings who will never fall victim to self-delusion, whose judgment will always be impeccable.

The latest issue of Nature Climate Change has an article by Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows entitled A new paradigm for climate change that make similar points:

How climate change science is conducted, communicated and translated into policy must be radically transformed if ‘dangerous’ climate change is to be averted.

We urgently need to acknowledge that the development needs of many countries leave the rich western nations with little choice but to immediately and severely curb their greenhouse gas emissions. But academics may again have contributed to a misguided belief that commitments to avoid warming of 2 °C can still be realized with incremental adjustments to economic incentives. A carbon tax here, a little emissions trading there and the odd voluntary agreement thrown in for good measure will not be sufficient.

Scientists may argue that it is not our responsibility anyway and that it is politicians who are really to blame. The scientific community can meet next year to communicate its latest model results and reiterate how climate change commitments and economic growth go hand in hand. Many policymakers (and some scientists) believe that yet another year will not matter in the grand scheme of things, but this overlooks the fundamental tenet of climate science: emissions are cumulative.

There are many reasons why climate science has become intertwined with politics, to the extent that providing impartial scientific analysis is increasingly challenging and challenged. On a personal level, scientists are human too. Many have chosen to research climate change because they believe there is value in applying scientific rigour to an important global issue. It is not surprising then that they also hope that it is still possible to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. However, as the remaining cumulative budget is consumed, so any contextual interpretation of the science demonstrates that the threshold of 2 °C is no longer viable, at least within orthodox political and economic constraints. Against this backdrop, unsubstantiated hope leaves such constraints unquestioned, while at the same time legitimizing a focus on increasingly improbable low- carbon futures and underplaying high- emission scenarios.

On a professional level, scientists are seldom trained to engage with policymaking; where opinions are encouraged and decisions informed as much by ideology as by judgement of the science, economics and so on. Policymaking is necessarily a messy process. Scientists, however, often assume that the most effective way of engaging is by presenting evidence, without daring to venture, at least explicitly, broader academic judgement. Perhaps, for narrowly defined disciplinary study, this is entirely appropriate. Yet many highly respected researchers are emerging with interdisciplinary expertise. Academic training has begun to foster the ability of researchers to embed quantitative analysis within a wider sociopolitical and economic context. Nevertheless, reluctance to proffer academic judgement confidently remains, particularly when such judgement raises fundamental questions about the viability of so-called real-world economics.

AMS Statement on Climate Change

Climate Etc.
Judith Curry

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) has just published its new statement on Climate Change.

The statement is billed as an ‘Information Statement’ of the AMS.  This statement is part of the AMS series of Policy Statements, see this link for Guidelines for Statements of the AMS.   From the Guidelines:

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) promotes the development and dissemination of information and education on the atmospheric and related oceanic and hydrologic sciences and the advancement of their professional applications.

Information Statements are intended to provide a trustworthy, objective and scientifically up-to- date explanation of scientific issues of concern to the public at large. They are informational only and do not make recommendations or take positions on issues. Information Statements should use language easily understood by a lay reader and avoid technical terminology and jargon. Information statements are typically no longer than 2000 words.

The AMS wrote a previous statement on climate change in 2007 [link].

The link to the new statement can be found here [link].

Excerpts from the statement are appended below, providing a sense of the overall content:

Background

This statement provides a brief overview of how and why global climate has changed over the past century and will continue to change in the future. It is based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature and is consistent with the vast weight of current scientific understanding as expressed in assessments and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

How is climate changing?

Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence.  Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land.

Why is climate changing?

Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation.

Human activity also affects climate through changes in the number and physical properties of tiny solid particles and liquid droplets in the atmosphere, known collectively as atmospheric aerosols. Examples of aerosols include dust, sea salt, and sulfates from air pollution.

Land surface changes can also affect the surface exchanges of water and energy with the atmosphere. Humans alter land surface characteristics by carrying out irrigation, removing and introducing forests, changing vegetative land cover through agriculture, and building cities and reservoirs. These changes can have significant effects on local-to-regional climate patterns, which adds up to a small impact on the global energy balance as well.

How is the climate expected to change in the future?

Future warming of the climate is inevitable for many years due to the greenhouse gases already added to the atmosphere and the heat that has been taken up by the oceans. 

In general, many of the climate-system trends observed in recent decades are projected to continue. Those projections, and others in this section,  are largely based on simulations conducted with climate models, and assume that the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will continue to increase due to human activity. Global efforts to slow greenhouse gas emissions have been unsuccessful so far. However, were future technologies and policies able to achieve a rapid reduction of greenhouse gas emissions — an approach termed “mitigation” — this would greatly lessen future global warming and its impacts.

End of the Global Warming Debate as We Know It?

Daily Bell

Christy is a data maven. He spends "tedious" weeks and months examining surface observations as well as weather balloon and satellite measurements to build "datasets from scratch to advance our understanding of what the climate is doing and why." He uses the datasets "to test hypotheses of climate variability and change." Yes, it's called the scientific method ... Christy found that there were several years with more than 6,000 record-setting highs before 1940 but none with record highs above 5,000 after 1954. "The clear evidence is that extreme high temperatures are not increasing in frequency, but actually appear to be decreasing." – Globalwarming.org

Dominant Social Theme: The sky is falling.

Free-Market Analysis: John Christy may just have ended the climate change/global warming argument as we know it.

Christy recently provided devastating testimony (see article excerpt above) to a Senate Environment & Public Works Committee hearing entitled "Update on the Latest Climate Change Science and Adaptation."

Who is Christy? According to Wikipedia, he's a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) "whose chief interests are satellite remote sensing of global climate and global climate change."

He is best known, jointly with Roy Spencer, for the first successful development of a satellite temperature record, Wikipedia tells us. And what he's done is compile a list of US temperatures going back decades. He's listed the highest recorded highs and lowest lows and then plotted these as data points to establish a trend.

This is a very simple way to establish whether temperatures are on their way up generally or on their way down. It is much simpler and more direct than trying to monitor ocean currents, sun spots or even whether certain glaciers are melting on the North or South Poles.

It is such a simple idea we wonder why it hasn't been thought of before. Of course, actually, we think we know. Global warming is a most questionable occurrence, but the powers-that-be have actively promoted it whenever possible. They have no interest in debunking it.

Global warming is a classical dominant social theme of the power elite, it seems to us. The idea is to frighten Western middle classes via scarcity-based promotions into giving up power and wealth to specially prepared globalist institutions.

Global warming is a core meme because it offers the elites justification for numerous kinds of command-and-control activities. If the power elite is going to take over the world, formally anyway, it will need to exercise an enormous amount of control over the world's six billion inhabitants.

By putting forth the apparent fiction that the world is warming due to human actions, the elites can install numerous types of political, economic and social constraints. People's consumption of energy can be monitored, their actions restricted, their opportunities to travel and congregate can be withheld due to various "global warming" or "climate change" programs.

All this is very useful to a power elite that obviously believes it will have to generate significant justifications for overseeing humanity in the most detailed way within the context of global government.
The Internet itself – a miscalculation of the power elite – has done much to undermine elite promotions generally and global warming in particular.

In desperation, the elites have realigned the nomenclature of their non-existent climatic disturbance. It is now known as "climate change" but it is nonetheless de-bunkable. And it seems Christy has definitively debunked it. Here's more from the article:

Much of what passes for climate science today is, in Christy's words, "opinion, arguments from authority, dramatic press releases, and fuzzy notions of consensus generated by a preselected group."
... Such assertions, Christy shows, are not based on real data. One way to measure trends in extreme weather is to compare the number of state record high and low temperatures by decade. Many more state high temperature records were set in the 1930s than in recent decades. Even more surprising, "since 1960, there have been more all-time cold records set than hot records in each decade."
There is no discernible greenhouse "fingerprint" in these data.

One might object that state temperature records are not informative, because the number of data points — 50 — is so small. So Christy also investigated "the year-by-year numbers of daily all-time record high temperatures from a set of 970 weather stations with at least 80 years of record." He explains: "There are 365 opportunities in each year (366 in leap years) for each of the 970 stations to set a record high ...
Christy emphasizes that he is not using these data to prove that U.S. weather is becoming less extreme or colder. Rather, his point is that "extreme events are poor metrics to use for detecting climate change."

... Christy has devoted much of his career to developing a satellite record of global temperatures. Satellite datasets "are not affected by these surface problems and more directly represent the heat content of the atmosphere." Satellite data indicate that IPCC climate models are too sensitive and project too much warming.

The IPCC models, of course, are models generated and disseminated by the United Nations. IPCC stand for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and it is UN affiliated.

The IPCC is behind much of the propaganda disseminated about global warming and climate change. IPCC bureaucrats cited popular articles as established scientific fact in various presentations but were later forced to retract such statements.

The UN generally and the IPCC specifically have been used as vehicles to promote global warming and "carbon pollution." But now it would seem that there is solid data provided by Christy that can rebut global warming once and for all.

Conclusion: We're not surprised that Christy's bombshell research has not received the widespread coverage it evidently deserves. Please spread the word ..

Is the Carbon Tax the Death of Democracy?

DiscerningKate
Kate Johnston

On July 1st 2012, Australia joined nations around the world in their move towards a carbon economy through the implementation of a Carbon Tax, which will become an Emissions Trading Scheme in 2015. Yet the underpinning justification for this move, the science behind man-made global warming, is not even close to being settled. In fact, an increasingly large body of scientists and researchers are telling us the exact opposite of what the United Nations and governments around the world would have us believe. It is now evident that the science behind man-made global warming that dictates government policy is false, manipulated and corrupt and exists solely to meet a pre-determined political agenda whilst attempting to pass it off as credible science.

Central to this article is the role of the United Nations in all of this. Their treaties, summits and bodies have been responsible for providing the framework and political will  that has moved the ‘environmental movement’ to where it is today.

This article seeks to go into more depth into current day science which overwhelmingly suggests that global warming is not caused by human Carbon Dioxide emissions. Furthermore, I will outline the role of key players on the international stage that have worked tirelessly to convince us otherwise.

Finally, I will begin to look in more depth at what the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is and where it actually originated. As the article progresses it will become clearer that the Carbon Tax and Emissions Trading Scheme do absolutely nothing for the environment. Given this is the pretext used by governments for introducing carbon economy, I will attempt to convey some deeper social, political and economic influences at work here. In doing so, I hope to assist in understanding the reasons why we are moving towards a carbon economy and how this global movement abolishes our inalienable rights as human beings and basic freedoms – most of which many of us take for granted.

The United Nation Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC)

According to the UN IPCC’s website “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.”

The UN IPCC’s findings are directly responsible for government policy being implemented around the world and this is carried out through four assessment reports produced in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007. There are currently 192 countries signed up to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – an important international framework that commits governments to tackle climate change through a reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions. There are 194 recognised countries in the world (depending on your source).

Despite its global dominance, overwhelming evidence suggests that these powerful assessment reports that dictate policy and directly responsible for the introduction of the Carbon Tax are false and full of misinformation. How is it that such a powerful tool as the United Nations with immense influence over world governments was able to progress so far in an agenda that was based on lies?

Key Players

One name that constantly comes up in regards to the global ‘environmental movement’ (Climate Change Industry) is Maurice Strong. Strong has been driving the climate change bandwagon since its origins back in the 70′s. Having made his fortune in oil, Maurice became very involved with the United Nations and headed many programs and summits on climate change. Maurice Strong fled to China in 2006 after being implicated in a million dollar bribe to himself involving the Oil for Food Program. He has been there ever since and is still very active in the ‘environmental movement’.

To further understand how we got ourselves to where we are today, we have to understand where the myth of man-made global warming really gained traction. Al Gore’s book and ‘documentary’ - An Inconvenient Truth - was a hit worldwide, it even received not one but two Oscars! Reminds me of when Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize – what a joke! Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, was highly successful in instilling fear around the world that imminent climate cataclysmic events would soon follow all because of human produced Carbon Dioxide. The documentary spread like wild fire and found its way into classrooms across America. The fate of humanity was sealed; disaster would fall upon us and entire cities would be under water, unless, we acted now. Complete lies!

So what else do these two powerful men have in common besides being strong proponents behind the ‘environmental movement’? It’s called The Chicago Climate Exchange and it is North America’s sole carbon exchange centre (think stock market). Yes, that’s right these men are raking in massive profits from the global Emissions Trading Scheme. Conflict of interest? I think so! The same men that sold us the myth of man-made global warming are the same men that sold us the ‘solution’ of a Carbon Tax and Emissions Trading Scheme and now they’re profiting off their lucrative investments which are based on lies.

Dr. Vincent Gray senior climate skeptic and UN IPCC expert reviewer

Dr. Vincent Gray is an internationally eminent retired scientist with a Phd in Chemistry from Cambridge, who enjoyed a long career as a coal industry researcher before spending the last 22 years of his life in climate science. He lives off his pension and receives no funding for his climate research work, hence his interest in the climate debate is not influenced by any financial ties or interests.

He has published hundreds of scientific papers spanning many topics with several on climate appearing in peer-reviewed publications. But due to the institutional corruption and politicisation surrounding the Climate Change debate, much of his work is censored. He also authored two books; The Climate Change Delusion and Confessions of a Climate Skeptic.

Dr Vincent Gray is an expert reviewer of all four UN IPCC assessment reports and is responsible for over 1000′s of comments on the reports most of which were ignored. The blatant disregard of contrary scientific findings by the UN IPCC conveys the UN IPCC political agenda at the expense of the science. Dr Vincent Gray’s comments were not peer-reviewed; an essential method used in the science world to ensure consensus and accurate scientific findings.

In an interview with Dr. Vincent Gray, I asked him about the UN IPCC’s credibility and track record.

“The 1992 Rio Conference endorsed a legally binding definition of ‘Climate Change’  that the climate is largely controlled by human-produced trace gases.”

“They wished to show that the globe is warming, but this cannot be done as it is impossible to measure the average temperature of the earth.”

I delved further, questioning the system that governs the Climate Change Industry where Dr Vincent provided some further interesting insight.

“The whole system is supported, supervised and financed by the governments who signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change.”

“They intimidated editors of scientific journals to control the ‘peer review’ process in their favour.”

“They took control of many university departments, National science organisations and media outlets.”

“People who tell the truth are intimidated.”

Dr Vincent’s comments on the UN IPCC reports conveys the inherent institutional corruption that occurred allowing inaccurate science of ‘man-made global warming’ to infiltrate society’s perceptions thus forming the foundation of government policy.

Science – The Facts

The next section of this article will be concerned with the science underpinning man-made global warming, specifically human Carbon Dioxide emissions and whether or not humans are responsible for a rise in temperatures, Global Warming and/or Climate Change. This key point is at the heart of the entire debate because it is on this false and misleading science that a global re-structuring of the economy, politics and society as we know it is occurring. So if the science that justifies the Carbon Tax, Emissions Trading Scheme and other massive global transformations are in fact based on lies, wouldn’t you like to know?

Firstly, the world hasn’t actually been warming since 1998, it’s been cooling. This explains why ‘Global Warming’ has been re-branded as ‘Climate Change’. UN IPCC’s underpinning science purports that a rise in man-made Carbon Dioxide emissions is responsible for a rise in temperature, but this simply isn’t true. It is the other way around. It is temperatures that dictate Carbon Dioxide levels. Dr. Tim Ball a prominent speaker on Climate change and climate skeptic outlines this in a radio interview with Alan Jones.

UN IPCC temperature data, from which their conclusions on man-made global warming are drawn, is fundamentally flawed for several reasons. The data is taken from weather stations from around the world and then assembled into computer models which frame our understanding of global warming today. Yet in 1990 when over 6000 weather stations worldwide were being used, three quarters dropped out which left a clear bias towards warmer temperature recordings from the remaining active weather stations. This suggests that the recent warming that we know of is connected to the methods of recording and not an actual increase in temperature. More details about how this crucial data is flawed can be found within this report from Science and Public Policy.

Dr. Vincent Courtillot, Professor of Geophysics at University Paris Diderot formed a research group with other established scientists from around Europe to determine the cause of temperature fluctuation. After requesting UN IPCC’s data that forms their theory of man-made Global Warming, he was denied, therefore he and his group had to re-collate the data independently. His research found that temperature change is determined solely by Solar activity. Yes, that’s right the sun dictates temperature, not Carbon Dioxide levels of which humans have a minuscule influence compared to what is produced naturally by nature. Their scientific findings are well documented and can be viewed here. 

And what about the global rise in sea levels devastating coastal cities around the world? Well science around the world shows no change in Global Sea levels, with Tidal Gauge stations recording an average of 18cm Global Sea Level Rise every century with no variation recorded during increased temperatures. That’s 1.8mm a year. This information can be viewed from a joint report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change – A consortium of independent scientists established to analyse published and peer-reviewed literature available on global warming from around the world producing a report that directly responds to the UN IPCC’s reports. Another excellent research paper on sea level rise around the world can be viewedhere.

A 1000 international Scientists who dissent and disagree with man-made global warming speak out in the Climate Depot Report. One scientist, Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center said:

“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!”

The information is available for anyone to read. We have been lied to. Global warming is a scam. But why has the United Nations gone to such great lengths to have us believe otherwise? Is an Emissions Trading Scheme so important? Or is there something else going on?

The Carbon Tax and Emissions Trading Scheme

The initial step of the Carbon Tax in the move towards a Carbon Economy is underway. If left unchallenged, the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) will be introduced in 2015 paving the way for the new Global Carbon Economy. This integrated global economic system is based on trading and control of carbon emissions. This is how it works; companies are designated with an amount of carbon credits in line with the government’s cap of carbon emissions that they’re allowed to emit. Companies that emit less are left with carbon credits which can be sold for a profit. Alternatively, if they use all their credits they purchase more carbon credits from companies around the world on the carbon exchange market. The idea is to give an economic incentive to polluters to reduce their carbon footprint. As the world moves closer to their goal of reducing emissions as outlined at the United Nations Kyoto protocol, we are told that we are helping the environment by limiting pollution. But again, the incentive for polluters only occurs if it is profitable. There is much criticism about the effectiveness of this system where it is currently implemented in Europe and has nothing short of failed. Fraud and corruption are rife and emissions have not yet been reduced – and even if they were it wouldn’t actually have any effect on the climate change anyway!

Eventually the Emissions Trading Scheme and carbon credits will be transferred to individuals in the form of a carbon card, much like a credit card we use today only it is for our energy consumption. Individuals will be designated with an annual carbon allowance to meet their energy, fuel and travel needs. The concept remains the same as the Emissions Trading Scheme, only the individual is designated carbon credits to be exchanged on the Carbon Stock Exchange markets. Plans in the UK for the carbon trading credit cards are well underway and will follow around the world soon enough. As nations attempt to meet their emission reduction goals, individual carbon allowances will also be capped and decrease over time.

This system of carbon trading and carbon economy is in the hands of themajor banks such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan. Personally, I don’t feel too good about handing over the reigns of control of many aspects of my life to be regulated by the banks and governments. How do you feel about that?

Social Transformation

As we slowly move into a carbon currency, we replace our current price based system with one that deals with energy, which will essentially lead to a cashless society. We are already seeing this happening voluntarily around the world. As people increasingly start to use their credit cards for all their transactions, money in circulation will eventually be replaced with purely electronic transactions and energy allowances or individual carbon credits. This was on the Bilderberg 2012′s Agenda with the move towards electronic I.D. cards already happening – an essential step towards a cashless society. Every detail about us is recorded on these cards through micro chip technology. But keep in mind, individuals in a cashless society hands over all their rights to the government and banks that control the system.

Another worrying aspect of the ‘environmental movement’ in the name of ‘saving the planet’ is the United Nations’ Agenda 21 for Sustainable Development, adopted by more than 178 governments around the world at the United Nations Rio Earth Summit in 1992. Agenda 21 is a detailed global action plan already adopted and being implemented by governments around the world which openly calls for population reduction, abolition of property rights and a complete re-structuring of populations around the world into high-volume smart cities. This is not a joke; it is an United Nations international treaty and a working document that governments are already implementing on both national and local level. I will dedicate an entire article to this issue in the coming weeks.

But probably of most interest about the Emissions Trading Scheme and the move towards a carbon economy is its startling parallels with Technocracy. Technocracy is a social movement and alternative political system that gained quite a bit of traction in the US in the 1930′s during the Great Depression. It is a social, economic and political system based on individual’s energy consumption and is controlled wholly by experts and scientists – not elected leaders like the system we live in today. Instead of people being rewarded with money for their work, they would be given energy allowances. One key aspect of Technocracy is the Energy Distribution Card. Sounds familiar? Well it should, the idea is being rolled out around the world now all in the name of fighting man-made global warming yet the idea originated long before man-made global warming even existed. Are we moving towards a Technocratic society?

Central to Technocracy is a system that allows for the measurement of energy consumption of both individuals and households. The political system cannot be implemented otherwise. This may sounds familiar to some of you as the Smart Grid and Smart Meters currently being rolled out around the world. This technology is being hooked up to households around the world and infrastructure is being designed that will allow Smart Grids to be integrated into a much larger global system of measuring energy production and consumption.

A brilliant question by Patrick Wood, “Who is orchestrating this?”

So now what?

All of the ‘solutions’ I have outlined in this article are being sold to the world via media and education in the name of ‘saving the environment’. But the very same entities responsible for creating the ‘solutions’, are the ones responsible for the problem to begin with and pose a serious threat towards truly sustainable solutions. The state of technology and resources existing today to transform our society towards a truly sustainable global community are infinite. All that stands in our way are the political, economic and social systems currently in place. But we must remember that they only exist because we allow them too.

One way or another a fundamental transformation of our global society is underway. The only question we need ask ourselves is do we want to be a part of the alternative and co-create a sustainable global community together? Or do we want to let the bankers, politicians and technocrats do it for us under the guise of ‘sustainability’ whilst moving towards a world where every aspect of our lives are governed and controlled. Freedom as we know it will no longer exist and along with our freedom will go the mechanisms that are now available to us to protect it.

Things are moving fast, faster than we can comprehend. It’s time to make your choice. By doing nothing, you are complicit to their plan. By remaining indifferent you allow this repressive and controlling global system to be built right in front of your very eyes. But by saying no, educating yourself and beginning to actively participate in opposing this system you make room for the new fair, equal and just paradigm. A world to be built by the collective, by all of us. An alternative system that we can all be proud to call our own. We don’t have much time left, we must act and we must act now.