I am one of the more than one thousand scientists and related professionals who signed the World Climate Declaration, an effort started by a friend of ours Marcel Crok and Guus Berkhout.
Together, they run Clintel. From Climate Intelligence. You can visit them.
Now you’d think a document insisting that there is no climate crisis, sworn to by a large number of bona fide genuine homegrown beef-not-bug-fed manly—and womanly!—scientists, would prove—as in prove—there is no mystical “Consensus” to which obeisance must be paid. It does not.
Indeed, it rather proves the opposite. For if there were no Consensus, there would be no reason for this statement.
Since so many of us say there is no climate crisis, and those in the Consensus say there is, it means we have to understand exactly what this Consensus is.
The Consensus is that collection of scientists who are led by Experts and followed by True Believers. Experts, we recall, are those who have expertise, credentials, and appointments, the folks who supply The Science to the regime. True Believers are any however minimally trained persons who work with or for the Experts.
Now there are many controversies in science, but you never hear about most of them, and shouldn’t. Take, say, how to marry the theory, or theories, of gravity with the theories of quantum mechanics. Much acrimony here. Bad blood. Funding withheld, friends rewarded, enemies punished. Curses, recriminations, fantastically clever insults and arguments hurled by one camp at the others.
But, unless you’re a physicist, none of it matters to you. It’s not that the eventual answer, presuming they come to one, won’t affect you in some way, however obscure or indirectly (maybe somebody discovers “anti-gravity”). But since the outcome is fuzzy, at best, in the minds of the regime, not many in power who decide on funding care one way or the other which team “wins”.
Which means they’re not asking you to care—the rulers, I mean. Because they are not asking you to care, we don’t have hordes of ugly little girls admonishing you for daring to disbelieve in one theory over another. (I used this example in Everything You Believe Is Wrong in the Appeal To Non-Authority Fallacy.) The media isn’t haranguing you about quantum loops, or how only deplorables doubt strings (look it up). No one is shouting about your electromagnetic footprint. Since you are not asked to care, you are not forced to care.
And you don’t, and, as said, shouldn’t. After all, what can your caring possibly do to assist in removing uncertainty in an arcane theory of gravity?
Exactly the same as it would do in resolving uncertainty in global coupled climate models. Which is to say, none at all.
Again, controversies fill every branch of science, and should. At least, there is no way to remove human nature from scientific investigation, so progress can never be linear. Besides, acrimony and debate are not terrible ways to lessen uncertainty.
Yet where The Science happens, and an official Consensus necessarily forms in the direction the regime does not want change. “The debate is over,” they insist. With a hard emphasis on insist. To question the unquestionable is to deny, hence you become a denier. Notice nobody ever calls you a “quantum gravity denier.”
Inside the Consensus, which is again formed in the minds of the regime-selected Experts and True Believers, there is no movement. There can’t be. They start with The Science, and they cannot help but end in The Science. If The Science is wrong, then it can’t be fixed. Because fixing would require debate, and the debate is over.
If the regime was as powerful in the 1970s as it is today, The Science would be global cooling. The debate would be just as over, and almost nothing civilians see would change, except for the direction of propaganda. Instead of pretending horror over every summer high, there would be fainting spells over every winter chill. Instead of headlines like “How global warming causes more snow”, we’d see “How global cooling causes more sunburn.”
This is not the say The Science doesn’t change. It does. It shifts depending on the “solutions” desired by the regime. As we have seen many times. The real science can only solved by accident, as it were.
The means the only real chance of progress is outside the Consensus. From people like those who signed the statement.
Bonus! How consensuses are formed.
Want to know why Twitter utilizes bot farms to control the narrative? Watch this video.
Want to know why it’s so important to speak out against the “official narrative”? Part 1 of 2 pic.twitter.com/KH6okNKhzO— Shannon Crawford (@shae33172) August 19, 2022
Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here; Or go to PayPal directly. For Zelle, use my email.
The 2050 Agenda (and to a lesser, yet important, extent the 2030 Agenda) is based upon the acceptance of Climate Change as fact. Anyone else will be identified as a heretic – no matter how many or how educated – by 2050 they will all be burned at the stake.
The EU writes that it will be “zero carbon” by 2050. LOL. This has been well thought through, no doubt.
These two agendas, that nobody really cares about except a cabal of global elitists, represent the Utopian, public facing, image of Orwell’s figurative totalitarian boot that stomps on the face of humanity forever.
This is what you and Climate Intelligence are up against. You are not the consensus, THEY are. The science is settled, discussion over, ur welcome. LOL.
”There Is No Climate Emergency”
If there is no climate emergency, if the whole thing is a gigantic deception/delusion, then we have an actual emergency in that our rulers are wicked deceivers and people are massively deluded.
Of course, there is no climate emergency. Climate is one or more statements about a location’s previously realized weather. It is the weather that we must, and mostly do, survive. Weather changes, by definition, so what are they harping about? Why they want power, folks, and they will use it if we let them have it. That means that Hagfish is correct. Our ‘rulers’ are wicked deceivers and too many have been deluded.
That’s why I’ve always maintained it’s a mistake to get down in
the mud and argue ‘the science’ with these people as opposed to calling
it out as nothing more than a money and power complete fraud. Now the grifts
just keep coming take the plandemic where the government paid hospitals:
$13,000 for every patient diagnosed with covid
$39,000 if placed on a ventilator
$39,000 for every death
85% of all patients placed on ventilators died.
Every death was worth almost a hundred thousand dollars to hospitals.
That’s how a ‘pandemic’ is started and paid for with your own tax dollars.
All approved by the various ethics boards superintending. The tractor trailer
morgues parked next to various hospitals was a nice touch; they thought of everything.
The govt. just successfully allocated 750 billion AGW dollars from the public purse
for their donors, who’s to say it’s not all been a stunning success. Lying and cheating
does pay, (not to mention murder).
We have an Elite Emergency!
We need to reduce Expurts and attain zero-politician targets.
There are shots for that!
“So say us all” – yes, me too, but who is listening?
What is needed is a widely disseminated debunking the public can understand: emotive rather than technical but sufficiently sciency to be both broadly correct and intellectually in-scope for media people.
That’s what I was trying to do looking at gross data on tropospheric expansion (winface.com/node/13) ( I just reloaded the data for that (my old code ran!) with the same negative result – a simple linear regression days x altitude for US sites only since 1946 now shows a very small negative slope, but that’s about the only change) But, no one’s listening…
Regarding the Twitter embedded video…
Conformity among the group in adolescents is powerful–to get along with others and not standout as a weirdo to be teased. (High school is a gigantic socialization indoctrination factory: How to go-along to get-along, follow the rules, do what you’re told, follow a regimented clock and calendar, etc.) Also, basics of survival are expressed in group solidarity, and exposed in this way as an innate instinct. The student’s explanation of going along with “wrong” answers barely touches this concept as the student himself likely doesn’t understand it sufficiently to articulate an “answer.”
This is also why so many social science/psychology “experiments” using the free-paid or nominally-paid labor of college students is such an amusing joke, e.g., their life experience is narrow and limited, and they barely present any attributes of mature adults.
During every heat wave, the warmists start shouting “See! That proves there is a man-made climate crisis!”
Yet if you, a rational person, say anything about an unusually cold wave, they’re quick to jump on you with “No, stupid! That’s WEATHER! Not CLIMATE!”
The Gores, Manns, Careys, DiCaprios, AOCs, and Thunbergs of our idiot society have successfully brought the sheep into the corral on this tremendous hoax. There aren’t enough of us left outside. We’re screwed.
“If the regime was as powerful in the 1970s as it is today, The Science would be global cooling.”
This is actually untrue. Yes, there were a (very few) papers in the late 60’s or early 70’s that seemed to suggest a period of cooling might be possible, and yes, those papers got seized on (and often misinterpreted) by a sensationalistic press (you should know , yourself, how bad the press has been at interpreting and reporting on science, and this was a problem for decades before the current Pravda Press took over) and whipped up a bit of a sensationalistic scare, but the fact is the ‘experts’ (you so hate) debunked that theory rather quickly and it remains a fact that the vast majority of what papers on climate were published in the 60’s and 70’s predicted warming, same as they had done for decades already. I’m afraid the ‘consensus’ you scoff at has been around for a VERY LONG TIME.
Now , that doesn’t mean that the “Sky is falling”, that the current environmental organizations and current governments are not running lots of money and power games for dubious emergencies and dubious solutions as we speak, but I do believe that humans are causing the Earth to warm and, because this is taking place over DECADES and CENTURIES and not millennia and eons, that this will impact some of our planet and its ecosystems very negatively due to extreme changes in so ‘short’ a time geologically.
If I had my way, we’d be moving more towards nuclear power and trying to move the most polluting industries into space and other ‘mitigations’ rather than trying to make ‘green energy’ work and making everyone poorer and more easily controlled, but that’s what the current regime is up to. Whether they want to kill lots of humanity off (some regard us as a virus) or just control everyone in some sort of New World Order global government doesn’t matter – they must be stopped. In other words, I may disagree with you about whether ‘global warming’ is a thing (and yes, I’ve read dozens of your posts on the topic and they don’t impress me as much as I think you think they should) but we both agree on the enemy and we both agree that the current ‘solutions’ are based on hysteria and counterproductive and not good for humanity as a whole , let alone an individual person.
Clarence points out what every informed person knows: “This is actually untrue.”
Clarence is soon to find out how irrelevant actual historical and scientific facts are to this website’s proprietor and his crowd of braying sycophants.
Clarence,
See all of Tony Heller’s work for instance. And, my favorite press, is this:
https://www.wmbriggs.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/wls.9.23.71.mp3
And it wasn’t as rare as you think: The Horrible Predictions Of Climate Change
Of course, the course was corrected, as you say, and for the reasons you say. But that was when the political climate was different. That is the main point. Not that things didn’t change, they did. But now they cannot.
Really nothing ever changes end of the world scams have been around since the beginning of time,
and now they’re bringing back witch burning for those pesky Constitutionalists. Woe to those that
drink from that cup the rule of law has been shredded.
Yeah, they keep on predicting a global warming or a vague “climate change” crisis and have so for years and perhaps keep pulling the goal posts on when this sort of disaster is supposed to happen. Looks like bunkum to me. Scientists can’t predict what the weather will be like within the next two weeks. Let alone, they can’t even predict the weather with certainty the next day or so. So much for the prophecy that there will be a global warming crisis. I know that line of reasoning has been stated before but, still, it illustrates how limited science is in predicting the weather outcomes.
A drive-by swing and a miss by the Lee… uh-oh… he fell out of the car and rolled into the recycling bins…
More like the Expurts hadn’t consolidated well enough yet into the major catastrophe that is THE SCIENCE ™ yet… But they were well on their way, as even as a kid I can recall the PANIC popularized by Popular Science Magazine and the like emblazoned on their front covers, with things selectively chosen from your vast majority of papers to cite. Guess which ones reached the general public!
Then as now, the Expurts panicked over over-cooling, and actual level-heads pointed out the patterns were changing to warming. But now the Expurts are panicked over over-warming, and actual level-heads are pointing out that the patterns are changing the other way again. So it is always based on based data trends, then extrapolated into DOOM!
So the Sun goes up, the Sun goes down, the Sun is closer, the Sun is farther, and Expurts PANIC in the interim and demand your conformity to their schemes and your money, and over the years they’ve managed to slowly invest their chips into the conglomerate apocalyptic dark clouds of lightning and thunder that they are today, and one can publish all of the papers they wish, but it don’t mean squat when the majority of the papers are not “official” as determined by THE SCIENCE ™.
Notice how that’s ALL-CAPS and Registered TradeMark – meaning only the elite rights holders can declare what is and is not THE SCIENCE, it’s proprietary, and you peons cannot infringe on it or else whatever excuse for a career you have is finito! And “actual historical and scientific facts” are whatever their braying sycophant public relations agencies disguised as brand news media, corporate journalism and tax-supported academia, or simply compromised judge from Epstein Island says it is.
Pingback: News Round-Up – The Daily Sceptic
The Only
Climb-it Emergency
Is When You Lose Your Balance
Just a thought experiment —
A lot of Global Warming enthusiasts and supporters tend to be fairly liberal politically speaking and as often as not think they are very sophisticated in their religious skepticism. I think the the next time someone says anything supportive of the GW agenda, I will say, “YES!! YES!! This is exactly what the Book of Revelation says! These are the End Days, RIGHT NOW and at last, THANK GOD you understand! I am so grateful that you are finally coming to understand the Word, at long last. Of course the warming is just the first step, but if that part is true then we know that the locusts and the Giant Beast rising from the ocean is true as well. How long have you been studying? Have you read the parts with the opening of the Seals? This is so exciting! Are you ready, at last to come to church with me? I can pick you up tomorrow for evening services and you can learn more about Global Warming from our End Times study group!!”
It is just fun to take someone’s Global Warming Cult beliefs and make them associate it with another belief system they hate.
Warmer Is Better! For 99% of the last ~265,000,000 years, Mother Earth has been warmer than today, by a lot. We live in the Ice Ages, people. A little more warmth is good for plants and animals, agriculture, biodiversity, productivity, the economy, general comfort, and global happiness. Warmth is a boon and a blessing, not a curse. The emperors are naked and feckless. Embrace Warmth; hug a farmer.
Briggs:
It’s surprising that no one has mentioned that your title: “…So say us all”, is a homage to the unifying morale booster scene (experienced in real life many times by those with military experience) in the second version of Battlestar Galactica. Of course, in this show “So say we all” is shouted by an ever dwindling band of humans pursed across the galaxy by machines of their own creation intent on their extermination. Might be some parallels here!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3EzRAgjo_s
All I know is that when Al Gore was Veep he told the world that way before now I would have beach front property where I am in Upstate NY but I look outside and I don’t see the ocean. Facts are that we have not changed what he said needed to be changed to prevent it from happening but I still don’t have valuable property. Should I be able to sue him for that?
Have you seen the work of Simon Micheaux? His numbers say we do not have enough mining capability nor mineral reserves to replace fossil fuels ever, at current demand, let alone by 2050. However apparently most are ignoring this ‘Science’ and moving forward with their hapless alternative energy anyway.
There is no correlation between temps and CO2 levels. More so it appears to be an inverse correlation in many but not all instances. Nor is their real scientific evidence that CO2 levels cause global temperature change. And at 0.05 percent of the atmosphere, AGW zealots, only a small fraction of all CO2 is man made; the rest occurring naturally, along with the oceans, containing large amounts of CO2 encapsulated in carbonates. The facts are the last 100,000 years it’s been a generally warming climate cycle and yet human emitted CO2 only on the scene for a few hundred years. Oh, the improvement in the lives of people on the planet and the tripling of life expectancy is exactly correlated with the extraction and consumption of carbon based fuels, Clarence!
Clarence,
“This is actually untrue. Yes, there were a (very few) papers in the late 60’s or early 70’s that seemed to suggest a period of cooling might be possible…”
Not sure where you get your historical information from, but you may want to reconsider your sources.
As Dr Briggs suggested, you really should consult Tony Heller’s fantastic collection of historical reporting of climate scams. To make it easier, here’s the link to Tony’s Global Cooling Scam collection:
https://realclimatescience.com/1970s-global-cooling-scare/
A few papers? The “Scientists” pushing the cooling scam (and the attendant “solutions”), included government and academic and academic-government institutions, NGOs, as well as “Scientists”: NSF, NASA, CLIMPA, Columbia, Brown, Council on Environmental Quality, Steve Schneider, International Study of Man’s Impact on Climate, NAS, NOAA, UC-Boulder, CIA, University of East Anglia, Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, Columbia’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, international team of specialists, John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich, and more.
The 1975 National Academy of Sciences report, expressing “The Science” and the 97% consensus of catastrophic Global Cooling, and a New Ice Age, pleaded for “immediate action”!
Your claim that the “Global Cooling” scam/scare was just a bunch of media hot air is nonsense. You’re repeating the Deny Everything approach of the current Chicken Littles. The talking points for this tactic came from “Scientific” American, a scammer publication, in its 2014 article, “How the “Global Cooling” Story Came to Be”.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/#
This article is a near textbook case study of the influence operation tactic known as “gas-lighting,” or “who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?!”
Suggestion: believe your eyes, not the scammers’ blathering.
2009 Interview On Climate Change Agenda as Rent Seeking Economic Policy (Comprehensive Views)
Interview with Dr. Eric Karlstrom and Christopher Horner
Truth Quest Radio Interview (4/21/09) 1 Hour 12 Minutes
https://naturalclimatechange.org/political-context/audio-interviews/
Pingback: Energy and Environmental Review: August 29, 2022 - Master Resource
Pingback: AWED MEDIA BALANCED NEWSLETTER: We cover COVID to Climate, as well as Energy to Elections. - Dr. Rich Swier
There’s a fair amount of Gish Galloping in this particular article, and a person inclined to follow suit could Gallop in the opposite direction with published, peer-reviewed research (and whose merits can be judged by reading the articles) rather than a series of commentaries by a single author.
That said, there’s just too many issues to untangle in this topic that real attempts to find reason are met with disdain on both sides of the question. Let’s look at a couple. This, and other issues that involve politics, are often examples of a crazy kind of natural selection based on memes, instead of genes.
Global warming (the meme) changed to climate change (the meme) because of Al Gore. Conservatives simply hate Gore and so they disbelieve any and everything he says. So, meme evolution substituted one for the other because it got more attention from a broader group of people. Clearly this has nothing to do with the possible truth of the issue, and only explains why we say one thing and not another. But, everybody “means” global warming when they say “climate change.”
And, EVERYBODY know that climate changes, so to make that observation is meaningless. But, we get bogged down in the terminology so as to avoid the issues that the terms are trying to get at. The POINT of talking about it, is because of the potential for very difficult and complex problems IF the climate really is warming. The melting of glaciers around the world, a measurable sea level rise, and changing migration patterns in birds, changing phenologies (flowering, fruiting, etc) of plants, and sea water temperatures causing corals to die around the world (and many other forms of evidence), SUGGESTS that climate is warming. But, we live fast and the world changes slowly, so if we don’t think we notice something in our daily lives, we are biased to think that nothing is really changing. We have to distrust our intuition to do good science to examine this question.
There are many global issues to worry about here. Biodiversity loss, for example, is undeniable, and we can only speculate (so far) about the implications of that loss. Fresh water levels are declining in lakes around the globe. Soil quality is declining and the need to fertilize always increasing, and so on and so forth. I’ve observed many of these patterns myself over time, and as a conservationist, I thought long ago that people needed to do better conservation and learn to live with nature. However, over that same time period, we haven’t learned, and nature has suffered, and all conservation efforts met with limited success, if any at all. But suddenly, climate change is an issue, and equally suddenly, people begin to worry about the environment, as many of us think we should have long ago. This interest in the environment and the future environment of the world may have simply caused a lot of people to (perhaps not intentionally) jump on the climate-change bandwagon because they recognized that the goals of avoiding global warming and of conservation converge – both goals require similar things – that we take care of the planet.
Sure, we’ll all be dead and gone when things get really bad (or don’t, either way). Logic, physics, chemistry, the petroleum industry itself, all suggest that greenhouse gases CAN cause increased temperatures globally, and changing life history patterns of plants and animals across the globe are consistent with global warming, and so the question isn’t really about denigrating whoever disagrees with us, but rather is about whether we are being good stewards of the planet and how we can do better.
Ranting and raving from both sides only adds more heat and CO2 to the atmosphere (humor intended), so rather than create artificial dichotomies that increase the division amongst us, we should be asking what we’d like to make better on the planet, how to improve life for not just us, but the myriad of other forms of life around us. This is the only planet we have – doesn’t it make more sense to find common ground than to get all worked and divided? Nature, by many independent measures (of life, in general, on the planet), is suffering.
Or we can Gish Gallop around, overwhelming each other with our own favorite pros and cons, and get nothing done.