Earth Heating Up
By Ninad D. Sheth
It was presented as fact. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, led by India’s very own RK Pachauri, even announced a consensus on it. The world was heating up and humans were to blame. A pack of lies, it turns out.
The climate change fraud that is now unravelling is unprecedented in its deceit, unmatched in scope—and for the liberal elite, akin to 9 on the Richter scale. Never have so few fooled so many for so long, ever.
The entire world was being asked to change the way it lives on the basis of pure hyperbole. Propriety, probity and transparency were routinely sacrificed.
The truth is: the world is not heating up in any significant way. Neither are the Himalayan glaciers going to melt as claimed by 2035. Nor is there any link at all between natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and global warming. All that was pure nonsense, or if you like, ‘no-science’!
The climate change mafia, led by Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), almost pulled off the heist of the century through fraudulent data and suppression of procedure. All the while, they were cornering millions of dollars in research grants that heaped one convenient untruth upon another. And as if the money wasn’t enough, the Nobel Committee decided they should have the coveted Peace Prize.
But let’s begin at the beginning. Mr Pachauri has no training whatsoever in climate science. This was known all the time, yet he heads the pontification panel which proliferates the new gospel of a hotter world. How come? Why did the United Nations not choose someone who was competent? After all, this man is presumably incapable of differentiating between ocean sediments and coral terrestrial deposits, nor can he go about analysing tree ring records and so on. That’s not jargon; these are essential elements of a syllabus in any basic course on climatology.
You cannot blame him. His degree and training is in railroad engineering. You read it right. This man was educated to make railroads from point A to point B.
THE GATHERING STORM
There are many casualties in this sad story of greed and hubris. The big victim is the scientific method. This was pointed out in great detail by John P Costella of the Virginia-based Science and Public Policy Institute. Science is based on three fundamental pillars. The first is fallibility. The fact that you can be wrong, and if so proven by experimental input, any hypothesis can be—indeed, must be—corrected.
This was systematically stymied as early as 2004 by the scientific in-charge of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Change Unit. This university was at the epicentre of the ‘research’ on global warming. It is here that Professor Phil Jones kept inconvenient details that contradicted climate change claims out of reports.
The second pillar of science is that by its very nature, science is impersonal. There is no ‘us’, there is no ‘them’. There is only the quest. However, in the entire murky non-scientific global warming episode, if anyone was a sceptic he was labelled as one of ‘them’. At the very apex, before his humiliating retraction, Pachauri had dismissed a report by Indian scientists on glaciers as “voodoo scienceâ€.
The third pillar of science is peer group assessment. This allows for validation of your thesis by fellow scientists and is usually done in confidence. However, the entire process was set aside by the IPCC while preparing the report. Thus, it has zero scientific value.
The fact that there was dissent within the climate science teams, that some people objected to the very basis of the grand claims of global warming, did not come out through the due process. It came to light when emails at the Climate Research Centre at East Anglia were hacked in November 2009. It is from the hacked conversations that a pattern of conspiracy and deceit emerge. It is a peek into the world of global warming scaremongering—amplify the impact of CO2, stick to dramatic timelines on destruction of forests, and never ask for a referral or raise a contrary point. You were either a believer in a hotter world or not welcome in this ‘scientific fold’.
HOUSE OF CARDS AND COLOUR OF CASH
So we have the fact that a non-expert heads the IPCC. We have the fact that glaciers are not melting by 2035; this major scaremongering is now being defended as a minor error (it was originally meant to be 2350, some have clarified). The date was spouted first by Syed Hasnain, an Indian glacier expert, in an interview to a magazine. It had no scientific validity, and, as Hasnain has himself said, was speculative.
On the basis of that assertion, The Energy and Resources Institute (Teri) that Pachauri heads and where Hasnain works in the glaciology team, got two massive chunks of funding. The first was estimated to be a $300,000 grant from Carnegie Corporation and the second was a part of the $2 million funding from the European Union. So you write a report that is false on glaciers melting and get millions to study the impact of a meltdown which will not be happening in the first place. Now if this is not a neat one, what is?
The biggest hoax in this country is that we have a functioning democracy. Instead of fighting for that, the Right has been brain-washed to fight against it.
For thirty years now, regressives have been teaching Americans that it’s well and proper to hate their own government. Never mind that those same right-wingers most often have been the government over the last three decades. And never mind what it means to hate a government in a democracy, where the people doing the hating have chosen that government. The effects of this massively destructive impulse have been profound, and go a long way toward explaining the unraveling of American society and political culture we’re now living through and living with.
Governments do some truly horrid things sometimes, it’s true, along with some pretty wonderful things as well. But policies, and the vehicle for those policies, are not the same thing. It’s time that we had some leadership who reminded Americans that government, for all its flaws, is not inherently evil. Indeed, it can profoundly impact people’s lives for the better, including protecting people from predators of all sorts. Which is precisely why the purveyors of unmitigated greed in America so badly want us to hate it.
It seems, as always, that the hate spews from your mouth, not others. What is your primary problem? The “right is always wrong, the “left” is always right. You have a major attitude problem. You cut and paste without your thoughts, and you have an alleged MBA? [personal comment deleted] Nothing changes with you.
Decorum reminder: Please keep conversation focused on issues and not the personalities of the people using this website. Sentences beginning with “You are an…” or the like are probably not the way to go.
The biggest predators we need protection from are the people who’ve figured out they can vote themselves treasure from our pockets. This includes Congresspeople, friends of Congresspeople, government employees, welfare recipients etc, etc. Who protects us from the government? If our various units of government didn’t confiscate such massive amounts of private wealth (to dole out according to their whim), big business wouldn’t be in bed with government in the first place and we’d have a free market. Any involuntary transfer of wealth is immoral, whether it’s to GE or the welfare queen down the street. Everything that’s wrong with government, business and society can be attributed to the massive wealth transfers government designs. Too much money causes corruption. Shrink government down to core functions (like protecting the citizens from invasion, force and fraud), leave charity to the charitable and everything will sort itself out in freedom.
Cap and trade wouldn’t be on the table, there’d be no climate scam if it weren’t for the incentive of big taxpayer bucks! If we aren’t entitled to the fruits of our own labor how can we be free? Who owns my hands, my mind? Who owns the products they produce? Me, or the federal government?
Socialists will inexplicably argue that more government, more regulation and bureaucracy is the answer to corruption and freedom will ensue – if only we can get the government big enough and seize enough through taxes. It’s paradoxical at best.
More government = more corruption, less personal wealth. More regulation = less freedom.
It’s impressive how the left has equated freedom with greed. It reminds me of how effectively the abortionists have equated abortion with women’s rights – as if the lynchpin to suffrage and female equal rights is abortion. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, well, men will be raping and beating women, and they won’t be able to work or own property… Same kind of psychosis with the left’s fixation on “greed.” You want to keep what you earn? You want to make your own decisions? Freedom? How selfish and greedy! It’s Orwellian Newspeak. But I digress.
Government IS inherently evil. The founders knew that and also that it’s a necessary one, which is why the Constitution was created to severely restrict government’s power, to narrowly define it’s legitimate purposes and create a system of essentially, gridlock. Unfortunately, those barricades got burned down a long time ago. We’re charged with rebuilding them and forcing government back into it’s narrowly defined space in society.
When the feds are actually banning Edison’s light bulb in the name of Mother Gaia, and in an attempt to legislate the creation of a global thermostat, things have clearly gone too far.
Well said and I will not get personal any longer. That said, the hair sticks up in the back of my head when I read certain comments that are meant to demean people.
It is you who want to demean. That is a common personality flaw, and it is also hypocritical.
We live now in the United States of Corporate America. So those who’ve been voting for that for decades now: Congratulations.
“There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.” William Jennings Bryan, 1896
In the Republican and Democratic parties you of the common herd are not expected to think. That is not only unnecessary but might lead you astray. That is what the “intellectual” leaders are for. They do the thinking and you do the voting. They ride in carriages at the front where the band plays and you tramp in the mud, bringing up the rear with great enthusiasm. E.V. Debs, June 16, 1918
cor•poc•ra•cy (kôr-pÅk’rÉ™-sÄ“)
n. pl. cor•poc•ra•cie
A society dominated politically and economically by large corporations.
I quess cut and paste is your forte?
Who is banning “Edison’s” light bulb? Hyperbole anyone?! Who ever said freedom was greed? Not any Liberal or Socialist I know or read (or cut and pasted from). You fringies just make stuff up as you go along. Quite infantile. AND Dan actually wrote “Government is inherently evil.” That is ridiculous to say the least. You might as well have said People are inherently evil. You particular people are really out there, but you actually believe you are paragons of sanity. WOW… You remind me of fundamentalists. And do you believe that it was Islamic fundamentalists who perpetrated 9-11? Need I say more? Well, don’t mind if I do…
Fundamentalism is a specific form of sabotaged-by-big-business Protestant Christianity that arose in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, one that expressly excluded most Protestant denominations. They are the anti-Deists, the anti-Jeffersons.
Jefferson removed the miraculous and spiritual from his Bible, not necessarily due to disbelief but because he wanted to concentrate on the actual message of Jesus, as opposed to the mystical and ethereal interpretations emphasized by some of his later followers. Jefferson was interested in the intelligent organization of society, not the vagaries and impenetrable metaphysics of the supernatural. The presence of a fantastic spiritual realm did his world of reason no harm nor good. The intelligent organization of society that Jefferson observed in the Bible, however, did a world of hurt to elitists then and today. They subverted the threat the same way they did the threat from a potentially liberal media: they bought it.
The term “Fundamentalist” comes from a series of essays by conservative pro-business preachers contained in twelve volumes entitled “The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth.†They, like all of their fundamentalist contemporaries, were shilling for corporate interests. The essays were written by 64 British and American conservative Protestant theologians between 1910 and 1915. Using a $250,000 grant from Lyman Stewart, the head of the Union Oil Company of California, about three million sets of these books were distributed to English-speaking Protestant church workers throughout the world. This is the origin of the transmutated pro-corporation, pro-business, anti-Gospels, form of non-Christianity that is warping the minds of millions of hapless Americans today.
Fundamentalism in modern times includes Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority down to their fellow loons, charlatans, and hucksters such as Oral Roberts and Pat Robertson. The common thread running through fundamentalism is the alliteration of Christianity by moneyed interests and removal or distortion of Jesus’ message of anti-materialism, anti-hedonism, and anti-wealth. Anything in the Bible that is a threat to business is ignored (I got your “eye of the needle†right here) or “transmutatedâ€. Business neutral themes are retained. Any pro-business messages that are lacking are invented.
Who banned Edison’s light bulb? Congress, and George W Bush signed the bill into law. The ban on incandescent lights takes effect in 2012. It was part of an energy bill. I’m sure we can all imagine who got that page slipped into the bill.
Rob, I would suggest that you to bed. This cut and paste is getting troubling.
The truth shall set you free, maybe. But first you have to open your eyes and your mind. You all seem to continually close both, especially at the first hint of anything left of a vanilla milkshake.
HERE IS THE BEEF
In 1980 the top 1% owned 20% of Total Financial Wealth
In 1989 it was 36%.
An 80% Increase via good old Ronnie enrich the rich policies and shaft middle class.
Even his Econimic Advisor David Stockman said Reagun’s Tax Cut was Trojan Horse to enrich the rich.
And GHW Bush called it Voodoo economics.
Bush II took over and now 20% own 93% of Total Financial non-home Wealth.
Top 2.7% got four times as much of Bush Tax Cuts as bottom 80%.
Those are, primarily, Wall Streeter who own our major corporations.
During Bush II, 2,300,000 jobs were sent to CHINA.
We get the point that you hate republicans and Bush OK? What else is new??
Nope – wrong, partially. Yes I do hate 99% of the Republicans I’ve seen or read about. But I also hate many many Dems as well. Why do I hate these certain types and certain people? Because they are out for themselves and are stealing from you and I, not only money but power. I don’t discriminate my disgust and hatred. It appears that you and your type does however. Do you?
I chase people who cheat and steal. I think I know the difference much better than you.
I was going to comment again, however I have to hold back. Hope and pray he does not fly a plane.