Global Warming

(The theory, the science, the politics...)

As most know "climate change" the purported ecological catastrophe of human CO2 emissions, is a highly politically charged subject.  The very name "Climate Change" is political and not scientific. All acknowledge that over time climate changes, as the very definition of "climate" is a pattern of weather over a period of time. (generally considered to be a minimum of 30 years.)   The name changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change'' during an almost 18 year period when the earth's atmosphere did not warm. (The Great Pause) The theory of "Climate Change" is more accurately called C.A.G.W. for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

The theory of C.A.G.W. is wrongly thought by many to be "settled science"; which in and of itself is not a scientific term, as science properly admits its view of everything is always partial and incomplete, therefore subject to revision.

It is perhaps likely that the "settled science" perspective of C.A.G.W. Is a common perception, as that is the what is presented almost globally by many Governments, by most of the media and in most Universities and even lower institutions of learning. Many sincere men and women of science and or higher education accept this perspective without critical review, as it is not their area of research and they trust “science”.  This applies to most people’s acceptance of C.A.G.W.

However, the hypothesis of C.A.G.W. is not "settled science" and tens of thousands of P.H.D. scientists, both in the U.S. and internationally, agree with that assertion. It is a pervasive misnomer that C.A.G.W. skeptics deny science. Evidence of the political nature of such assertions is evident in that the pejorative term referencing rejection of the holocaust, "denier" is often applied to all who disagree with the C.A.G.W. hypothesis.

While it would be unnecessary and inappropriate in this letter to give a detailed summary of my 2,000 plus hours of research (reading detailed debate from both sides) regarding C.A.G.W, I will take a moment to address the “Settled Science” issue. C.A.G.W. is a complex subject, both from a Social Science perspective, and from a physical Science pursuit. In this letter, as briefly as possible, I will address the following...

1. What is the theory of CAGW?

2. Is there a scientific consensus regarding CAGW?

3. The Political agenda of many CAGW proponents.

4. Very brief summary of the benefits of CO2.

5. Factors influencing why large scale misinformation flourishes.

6. Links to peer reviewed reports referencing thousands of studies, skeptical of CAGW.

The theory of CAGW is based on the perspective that human emissions of G.H.G (Greenhouse Gases) will warm the atmosphere, and cause catastrophic harm to life on this planet. I choose the term CAGW because it best describes the theory.

“Climate Change” is a poor definition, as climate always has and always will change. Sometimes that change is beneficial to most, and sometimes it is harmful to most. To differentiate between natural change (The Null Hypothesis) and human caused change, the term “Anthropogenic” is clearly more accurate.

Almost all of the harmful effects of CAGW are based on the G.M.T. (global mean temperature) of the planet dramatically increasing, thus “Warming” is clearly a necessary component of the theory. If warming was perceived as primarily beneficial, then there would be no call for International agreements to limit GHG emissions, tax CO2 emissions, increase the cost of electricity through expensive alternative energy, legislate CO2 as a toxin, etc... Clearly it is the word “Catastrophic” that is used to justify demands for societal change and regulations.

You have likely heard that there is a 97% consensus on the subject. This is simply not true for multiple and easy to understand reasons. The 97% figure is based on significantly flawed studies. For the sake of brevity I will list just one of these for now. Curiously other 97% studies came up with almost the same percentage through different, yet equally and similarly flawed methodology. What is the origin of the false belief, constantly repeated, that almost all scientists agree about global warming?

The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey was the most cited study (referenced by Barack Obama) with this number, and represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise, who also stated they had published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists of the 3,146 scientists who responded to the survey (why distribute to them if they would be disqualified from answering) distributed to 10,000 scientists, ( most of whom ignored the survey) does not a consensus make!

Those 79 scientists ONLY stipulated that in their view humans were responsible for more than 50 percent of the warming since about 1950. (Prior to 1950 scientists state that there was not adequate CO2 emissions to affect global average temperature.) The responding scientists offered ZERO opinion on any catastrophic effects of said warming, or on how much actual warming had occurred, and zero opinion on the benefits of CO2. And they offered no opinion on the amount of warming future emissions would cause. Most skeptics would answer in the affirmative to their survey questions, the primary assertion being that at least 50 percent of observed warming since 1950 was caused by human GHG emissions.

It is cogent to reiterate the glaring error, common to all 97% studies, that preclude them from having any meaning applicable to CAGW and public policy pertinent to the theory. They all leave the “C” out of CAGW, and thereby move most skeptics into the camp of supporters of CAGW; as most skeptics accept that human GHG emissions cause some warming.

Another flaw, common to all 97% studies, is that it is likely that the majority of the alarmed “climate scientists” in those deeply flawed scientifically meaningless 97% surveys, are not specialists in the causes of climate change (attribution), but in the impacts of and remedies for such change. Many, if not most, may know only a little about the cogent studies of atmospheric physics. They may know great details about how in such and such region there was a drought, or a flood, and in that region these species were harmed, be it plants, animals, etc, and they then look at the IPCC climate model mean warming projection, which according to the observations are wrong (over warm to observations) by a factor of at least two to three, then, unaware that ALL the computer models dramatically overstate OBSERVED warming, they say, “It worse than we thought, these events will increase in the future”, and politicians will add, “ if we do not tax the air you breath now”.

Models vs observations (active link)

From there these environmental studies project that frogs will get bigger, or frogs will get smaller, or the earth will spin faster, or the earth will spin slower, or polar bears will drown, or avalanches will grow, or avalanches will reduce, or oceans will rise 23’, or bees will die, or earthquakes will increase, etc... (This is not hyperbole, as the flawed climate science peer review process has produced papers stating all of the above, and a far longer list of often contradictory reports then written here)

In most scientific fields where there is a consensus there may be a small fringe group with a different perspective. For instance there is the “Electric Universe” perspective. Regardless of what one thinks of this perspective, it has the backing of few scientists in the field, and scientists outside this area have little incentive to look into the “Electric Universe” hypothesis. Clearly science does not operate on a “consensus” regardless. Yet the fact remains that very few scientists support the “Electric Universe” theory. The so-called, “settled science” of CAGW however has a vast  international number of highly qualified PHD scientists that are deeply and rationally skeptical.

Scientists, in general, have too much respect for the “scientific method” to venture an opinion on a scientific subject they have not studied. This is less true if the scientific hypothesis is politically charged and there is social pressure to accept the narrative. Yet most scientists do not voice an opinion on a scientific subject they have not taken the time to apply or study the scientific studies relevant to that subject. In particular they will not take a politically unpopular position without due diligence. This is why the incredibly large number of scientists publicly skeptical of CAGW is, in and of itself, strong evidence that there is no consensus regarding CAGW.

Let us meet some of the skeptics… Here are Seven Eminent Physicists; Freeman Dyson, (Smartest man alive) Ivar Giaever (Nobel Prize), Robert Laughlin (Nobel Prize), Edward Teller, Frederick Seitz, Robert Jastrow and William Nierenberg, past director of the Scrips Institution of Oceanography (1965-1986), all skeptical. 

http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/07/eminent-physicists-skeptical-of-agw.html

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, California, was distributed just within the US and 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs. Other European papers have additional thousands of signatures from those skeptical scientists.

When the scientists skeptics wish to demonstrate that there is a strong scientific community of thousands of PHD scientist who reject the theory of CAGW, unlike the 97% studies, they do it correctly. The scientific position of the vast majority of CAGW skeptics is clearly outlined by Physicist Frederick Seitz, past President of the US National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University. He received the National Medal of Science, the Compton Award, the Franklin Medal, and other awards. He wrote the Petition cover letter these scientists signed. It goes to the heart of the matter…

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” (The Petition project references hundreds of peer reviewed reports supporting their position.)

Unlike all of the 97% studies, this is a clear statement directly addressing the "C" in CAGW. Now let’s take a look, at some more of the skeptics, often derogatorily referred to as “deniers”, “flat earther’s”, and “moon landing conspiracy theorists”. Many of the skeptics have suffered great harm to their careers in their defense of science. This is why many are either retired, or have protective tenure.

Among skeptics there is incredibly well published Professor Richard Lindzen who was the professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He may know more about the atmosphere than anybody else. There's Shunichi Aksofu (phd), one of the two most cited scientists in the world in Japan who's deeply skeptical. There are scientists all over the world, and thousands of them now, leading scientists like Roy Spencer and John Christy who do all the atmospheric measurements using balloons, radio signs and satellites, and Fred Singer who established the U.S. satellite weather service.

"Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in history . . .When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – stated by UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, and award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist. Physicist Dr John Clauser, joint recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, stated, “Climate science has metastasized into massive shock - jounalistic pseudoscience.” and to emphasise his concern, calling CAGW “a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.”

There are literally thousands of peer reviewed studies that are skeptical of C.A.G.W. They are published by renown scientists like... 
Dr. Tim Ball (Climatology), Dr. Patrick Michaels (Ecological Climatology), Dr. Judith Curry (Geophysical Sciences), Dr. John Christy (Atmospheric Sciences), Dr Kary Mullis, (Nobel Laureate in chemistry) Dr. Roy Spencer (Meteorology), Dr. Sallie Baliunas (Astrophysics), Dr. Willie Soon (Aerospace Engineering), Dr. William Happer (Physics), Dr. Richard Lindzen (Physics and Applied Mathematics), Dr. Don Easterbrook (Geology), and Dr. Jennifer Marohasy (Biology). Freeman Dyson ( physicist and mathematician, called "The smartest man alive" by the New York times) Dr. Bjorn Lomborg ( Environmentalist - One of TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people in the world ) Kiminori Itoh ( Ph.D. in Industrial Chemistry ) Ivar Giaever ( Nobel prize Physics) Will Happer (highly-respected physicist out of Princeton) Ian Plimer (Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne) Nir J Shaviv ( Israeli‐American physics professor at the Racah Institute of Physics of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) Craig Idso ( M.S. in Agronomy from the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, Ph.D. in Geography from Arizona State University) MJ Blatt ( Former Professor of and head of the Department of Geology and Geophysics. University of Kashmir India) Siegfried Fred Singer (Austrian-born American physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.) Jim Steel (Biology and Environmentalist Professor SFSU) The above is just a small sample of the thousands of highly respected PHD scientist, skeptical of CAGW.

In one strong survey 50% of meteorologists do not accept CAGW, and there are tens of thousands of others who make a robust challenge to the theory of CAGW.

If you are a CAGW proponent, I hope to stimulate your curiosity as to why you NEVER hear any of the above, or anything to follow in this post, on NPR, CNN, most all the legacy media, and Social Media. Everything stated is based on national and international data sets, and peer reviewed literature.

The architects of the political agenda of CAGW engage in very typical Alinsky smear and ridicule tactics, falsely claiming these scientists are “big oil shills” and “science deniers”. They are eminent scientists who are showing that observations do not support the hypothesis that CO2 is significantly or dangerously warming the planet, a hypothesis that is predicated on the false premise that historical climate has remained fixed for millennial, which is in contradiction of overwhelming evidence that temperatures were as warm or warmer than today a thousand years ago. One can point to dozens more papers that show that the medieval warm period was real, global, and as warm or warmer than today. The vast majority of skeptical scientists are not oil funded, many are retired or have protective tenure. CAGW skepticism is a grass-roots movement of very honorable scientists.

The NIPCC ( Non Governmental International Panel on Climate Change) is "an international panel of non-government scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming."

In their exhaustive reports on all aspects of CAGW concerns, they, like the Petition Project and the Web site CO2 science, reference thousands of peer review reports and open face studies. A synoptic review of these studies indicate that CO2 is strongly net beneficial, and that those benefits (globally increased bio-mass plant and crop growth, increased crop drought and heat resistance, increased crop cold and frost resistance, expanded growing zones) are increasing on a linear basis as atmospheric CO2 concentration increases, and that the purported harms, increased droughts floods, Sea Level rise, extreme weather, acidic oceans, etc... are greatly reduced from the projections and mostly or entirely fail to appear at all. Where is the Climate Emergency?

There is thus far no global increase in typhoons or hurricanes as measured by ACE - accumulated cyclonic energy. There is no global increase in droughts, floods, tornadoes, or rate of Sea Level rise based on Geo-stable tide gauges and historic records of S.L. rise since the earth emerged from the Little Ice Age. Based on that time frame sea level rise has been 1.4 mm per year, and has not accelerated. Arctic Sea ice has not trended down for 16 years and is not historically low. Indeed, within the current climate epoch, it is very high.

The purported harmful effects of CO2 exhibit a logarithmic decline as CO2 concentration increases. Each CO2 doubling is expected to produce the same initial warming; thus 100 ppm to 200 ppm, increases warming a theoretical amount, and 200 ppm has to double to 400 ppm to have the same effect as the prior 100 ppm increase, and so on - then 400 ppm CO2 concentration must double to 800 ppm to again have the same effect as the initial 100 ppm increase.  

While the harms fail to manifest, the benefits increase linearly to concentration levels well above anything likely to occur. These benefits are massive. Currently every crop on the planet grows 12% to 20% more food (conservative estimate) then it would if the atmospheric CO2 level suddenly dropped from 410 PPM to pre-industrial 280 PPM. (280 PPM CO2 is near starvation levels. If CO2 concentration had moved 125 PPM in the opposite direction to only 155 PPM concentration, almost everybody on the planet would starve, and almost all bio-life would cease.)  Also, this CO2 caused increased production of bio-life, delivers another stupendous benefit, in that zero increase in water or land acreage is required. Additionally CO2 makes crops more drought, heat, and frost resistant - geographically expanding growing zones and growing seasons!

Thus far I have mentioned that much of the pro CAGW debate is clearly political; the "Denier" label, the equating of CAGW skeptics to “flat earthers” etc, the changing of the theory from “global warming” to “climate change”. Even the deeply flawed published 97% studies are indicative of political policy, not science. Yet there is far more evidence of the political nature of many who promote CAGW.

For one the proposed solutions are not effective. By the year 2100, the Paris accord, if it had been implemented in full, would have lowered the G.A.T. (global average temperature) no more then .3 degrees. That assumption is based on using the IPCC two to three hundred percent inflated (above the observations) climate sensitivity to CO2 estimates. (Thus “catastrophic” warming would have been delayed from only 1 to 4 years by the year 2100.)

India, China, Africa, and many nations will and are continuing to build coal plants regardless of the Paris accord. Yet those nations' CO2 increase is not addressed by the proposed solutions. (Indeed, many studies show that the most effective way to lower population growth is to make energy inexpensive.) So even if all western nations ceased all production of CO2, these GHG s will continue to rise. (and the benefits as well)

Yet these proposed CAGW remedy laws do greatly increase government power and wealth for some international bodies, some nations, as well as individual wealth for some corporations. However this increase in wealth for some is at great expense of many more. (One to two trillion dollars a year) Energy tax is always a tax on the poor. And it is this lure of global political power that is so seductive to souls in delusion seeking power. Does Power Corrupt (link)

Political proponents of CAGW clearly state, in their own words, their political motivation. That motivation is support for socialism and by extension, statism and world government. While many are influenced to support the CAGW agenda by different factors, the proposed solutions ALWAYS engender the political goals of statists, while having an immeasurable effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration and G.A.T.

Beyond political power objectives, the disparate factors which influence many to accept CAGW are well studied social phenomena such as; personal wealth, and Institutional wealth. Researchers in many fields know that funding is available for their department if they can attach theoretical CAGW harm to a paper. (There is hundreds of billions of dollars a year available for research and industry) As often quoted Upton Sinclair said “'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Other known and studied bias factors are peer pressure, social and professional shadow-banning, confirmation bias, noble cause corruption, misuse of the precautionary principle, and effective propaganda of repeated and false warnings of doom by many CAGW proponents.

“The terrible truths of these experiments in human compliance and propensity to be beastly stand testament to the nature of the problem.”

• milgram showed us how people will harm people if pressured by authority

• asch showed us that people will ignore their own senses and perceptions when pressured by peer group

• stanford showed us how easily humans can be egged into abuse of power”

  As the world grows ever smaller via human technology, human systems and corporations grow ever more global. It is logical therefore that systems of human corruption can and would also became more pervasive and global in scale. The merge of One world Government and international business is not to be trusted. These people endlessly proclaim how they are doing this for the good of the world.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good, will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven, yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very “kindness” stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease, is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
– C.S. Lewis

I am perfectly willing to stipulate that some, even most scientists endorsing the CAGW conjecture, are acting in good faith. Yet it is nevertheless an indisputable fact that political agendas are a significant element of the CAGW alarmist movement, and that radical statists are using the issue as a pretext to advance their goals. It would be a grave mistake not to take this into account. Here are their own words...

“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family, tradition, national patriotism and religious dogmas.”

Brock Chisholm… Quoted in: Davis, Llewellyn B (1991) Going Home to School, p. 69 This quote is old and the providence is well supported but questioned by some. The actions of the WEF and many other quotes supporting like ideas are not disputed at all.

“The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. . . . But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.” Otmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair of Working Group III of the IPCC

“ Under my policies energy prices will necessarily skyrocket.” Barack Obama.

At the Copenhagen conference in 2009, Hugo Chavez was repeatedly interrupted by applause and received a standing ovation for ranting that capitalism must be destroyed and socialism installed in order to save the planet. http://climateandcapitalism.com/2013/03/06/hugo-chavez-on-climate-change-and-capitalism/ Venezuela today reflects very typical results of full force socialism.

”My three goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First.

”A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Ted Turner, Founder of CNN and major UN donor.

“The United Nations could become a comprehensive Planetary Regime which could control the distribution of all natural resources.. and all food on the international market.” - Former President Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren

”The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

”Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies, Author: “Population Bomb”, “Eco-science”

“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on climate models.” Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research (Again see attached graphic)

”We need to get some broad-based support to capture the public's imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, Lead author of many IPCC reports

”The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these third World countries right where they are.”
Michael Oppenheimer Environmental Defense Fund

”Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.” Professor Maurice King

”Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” Sir John Houghton, First chairman of the IPCC.

”Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” David Brower, First Executive Director of the Sierra Club

”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation.

”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment.

”Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Maurice Strong, Founder of the UN Environmental Program.

”A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies, Author: “Population Bomb”, “Eco-science”

”Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit. (There are very well researched reports on why he is wrong)

”Complex technology of any sort is an assault on the human dignity.” Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute“…

”...the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the nationals auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” ~ David Rockefeller, June, 1991, Bilderberg Conference.

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis…”
- David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member.

“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land. David Foreman, co-founder of Earth 1st

“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society.” -the UN Agenda 21 Report

These static ideals of one world government and depopulation have not gone unnoticed. One response was the Heidelberg Appeal, which was in reaction to the United Nations sponsored “Earth Summit” in Rio-de-Janeiro in 1992. It has over 4,000 signatures from scientists around the world including 72 Nobel Prize winners. Partial text:…”We are, however, worried, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress, and impedes economic and social development”… Heidelberg Appeal http://www.fact-index.com/h/he/heidelberg_appeal.html

A blogger commented “Anyone who says energy should be expensive and rationed are stating that food and health and all human activity should be rationed and controlled. In fact, they are saying that human life should be nasty, brutish and short.”  The incredible benefits of inexpensive readily available energy are well documented in numerous studies and lead to cleaner energy, lower population, and increased wealth available for real needs and problems. Many good studies show that we are not running out of resources, and inexpensive energy development will naturally and rapidly stabilize global population. ( I will add in a link at the end of this that well documents we are not running out of “stuff” or energy.)

Vaclav Klaus, former Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, wrote a book on the politics of CAGW, titled “Blue Planet in Green Shackles.”

Their own words show their political goals. Greens, Statists, Elitists and potential tyrants. It is the perspective of many that a political party that formally removes the word God from their platform, (the 2012 democratic party in the US) is bound to search for the divine attributes regardless; thus “power” in its divisive avidyic form becomes “power” over others, the basis of all crimes.

Many feel that the great danger of Statism, especially on a global scale, is a Global Government of elitist power hungry politicians in a position where humans have a horrible historic record of Democide.

169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions (20th Century Democide,)
(Definition of Democide - citizens Death by own Government, not via wars with other nations.)
Over 133,147,000 Murdered by their own government: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide

II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGA-MURDERERS
61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State

III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS
2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing
1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse
1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea

Finally, the “end is nigh” profits of doom have an abysmal record of failure...

Moscow-Pullman Daily News – 5 July 1989
“Governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.” Noel Brown - New York office of the United Nations Environment Program
The Vancouver Sun – May 11, 1982

“Lack of such action would bring by the turn of the century, an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.”
[MostafaTolba - Executive director of the United Nations Environment Program New York Times – November 18, 1982

“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment. IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri,
Independent – 20 October 2009.

“There are now fewer than 50 days to set the course of the next 50 years and more. So, as we convene here, we carry great responsibilities, and the world is watching. If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement in some future period, can undo that choice. By then it will be irretrievably too late…. Gordon Brown 2001

Quite literally there are dozens more of completely failed disaster warnings. It is actually quite surprising that they have failed so badly for almost 50 years, as the earth very naturally go thoughts periods of more extreme events.

Just take the 1930s for instance. There was a tremendous SW drought in the US causing the Dust Bowl years in the 1930s, and most of the US high record temperatures were set in that decade. In the same decade the China flood of 1931 covered more than 30,000 square miles (77,700 square km), including the cities of Nanjing and Wuhan; it ultimately led to the deaths of an estimated 3.7 million people and left 40,000,000 more homeless. In late December 1933 – The Crescenta Valley flooding occurred after 12 inches (300 mm) of rain fell in the communities of La Crescenta, La Cañada and Montrose just north of Los Angeles. On New Year's Eve, more rain fell. The result was a flood of mud and water that began around midnight, destroying more than 400 homes in the area.”

• February 4–7, 1937 – A storm resulted in the highest four-day rainfall totals at several stations in the Santa Ana River basin. The Riverside North station had over 8 inches (200 mm) of rain in that four days, which equaled a 450-year event. Other stations also received high amounts of rain within those four days.^[1]

• December 1937 – The storm of December 1937 was a record high-elevation event in the northeast corner of the state.^[1] The storm of December 9-12, 1937, in northern California, was notable both for its severity and for the extent of the area that it covered. Extreme storm conditions prevailed throughout the Central Valley, from the Kaweah River northward, and from the Salinas River Basin northward along the coast to Oregon. Some areas experienced over 18 inches of rain in two days.

• February–March 1938 – Flood in Los Angeles was caused by two Pacific storms that swept across the Los Angeles Basin in and generated almost one year's worth of precipitation in just a few days.

• If one researched, they could find far more global disasters in the same period such as “ the most powerful hurricane on record since the 1850s in the state of Florida occurred in the 1930s, the Labor Day hurricane. Barometric pressure on that was 892 millibars. It totally wiped out the keys.” There were horrible droughts floods and wild fires in Austrailia in the 1930s as well. Record droughts, floods, wild fires and hurricanes, oh my!

  Natural weather event and Politics aside, if you choose to study the science without politics, I highly recommend these sites. Bold is active links…

CO2 Science

If i looked I could find far more global disasters in the same period.

Thousand of studies by subject with emphasis on the benefits of CO2

NIPCC detailed studies on every aspect of CAGW, well laid out. Then the Petition project…

NIPCC Climate Change Reconsidered

Petition Project

And for a detailed understanding of why the earth is not now or in the foreseeable future short of either energy or resources, please read…

There is no shortage of energy

there-is-no-shortage-of-stuff

and a dozen other articles for rare earths, etc… etc…

Why resources are almost unlimited...

The host at “Musings from the Chiefo” is a rare human indeed, incredibly intelligent, formally and informally educated, with a practical, wide based and detailed memory, as well as a life time of practical application experience on a variety of subjects, all expressed from a wealth of well motivated sincerity. (I recommend reading his blog)

All the Best…