Friends of Science Calgary

The Sun is the main driver of climate change. Not you. Not carbon dioxide.

The Donald and the Touchstone

By William Kay, manager of ecofascism.com

Touchstones change colour when rubbed against gold. They can gauge an alloy’s purity. Global Warming is a touchstone of our times. Ask someone about it. If they say it’s a hoax, you’ve found gold. You’ve found someone with awareness.

On June 1, 2017 in a much-anticipated Rose Garden speech President Trump announced America’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement. [1] Festivities lasted 34 minutes beginning with an intro from VP Pence who praised Trump’s economic nationalism. Trump’s 30-minute address thrice mentioned climate. He said:

This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States.”

He quoted a Wall Street Journal editorial recommending withdrawal in part because it: “won’t matter much to the climate.”

His sole sortie into climate science:

Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree – think of that; this much – Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. Tiny, tiny amount.”

President Trump offered to renegotiate a climate accord on terms fair to the US. He then tossed the mic to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt who boasted America had lowered its CO2 emissions through private sector innovation; adding that Yankee know-how might help other countries do likewise.

Neither President Trump nor Pruitt believe in the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) hypothesis. Trump has rightly called it a hoax. (He wrongly called it a “Chinese hoax.” This hoax bears the stamp: Hergestellt im Deutschland.)

If CAGW is fake science then why mention carbon emissions and temperature increases in the same breath? Why re-negotiate climate deals when their premise is rubbish? Why reduce CO2 emissions when they are, on balance, beneficial? The Trump Administration is loathe to get embroiled in the climate science imbroglio yet can’t resist hoisting climate alarmists on their own petards when opportunities arise.

The only argument alarmists seem to have is that CAGW enjoys overwhelming support among scientists. Alarmists are the keepers of the settled science; of the purported consensus.

Arguments from authority aren’t inherently fallacious. Everyone uses them. They are often decisive in the legal arena. In the scientific arena, if the authorities overseeing a branch of science overwhelmingly endorse a proposition then the burden of proof shifts to the contrarians who must explain both the flaws within the impugned proposition AND how the authorities could be so wrong.

There exists no near-unanimous pro-CAGW consensus. Four separate alarmist papers each miraculously concluded that 97% of climate scientists endorse CAGW. This numerology gets chanted ad nauseam. These papers contain laughable attempts at statistical subterfuge. [2] One paper winnowed its sample to a clique of 75 career alarmists. Another dissembled the “Catastrophic” in CAGW such that acknowledging trace human influences upon climate became full-blown endorsement of CAGW.

While the “97% consensus” is a disgraced exaggeration; and while the undeniable presence of active controversy within climate science weakens the argument from authority; the fact remains that all major scientific academies, journals and institutes endorse CAGW.

This, however, is a manufactured consensus; politically charged from the get-go.

Rather than explore the ancient origins of climatism, let’s pick up the action circa 1974. OPEC’s oil price shock jolted European elites into re-visiting stratagems of energy autarky. They founded the International Energy Agency to promote state-subsidized alternative energy initiatives.

In 1978 then-UN Secretary General Waldheim proposed the UN lead a “coordinated and imaginative effort” in harmony with environmentalists to diversify global energy production away from petroleum and toward sustainable sources. [3] This is no conspiracy theory. Conspirators are secretive. Waldheim proposed this to the UN General Assembly with reporters from almost every news organization in the world taking notes.

Timelines tell tales. Between the mid-1970s through and the mid-1980s there arose an international crusade for non-fossil fuel based energy. This crusade was led by: West European governments; their American fifth column (Democratic Party); the UN; and thousands of enviro-NGOs. This pre-existing, up-and-running, state-embedded meta-organization subsequently, in the mid-1980s, adopted Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming as its unifying myth.

EU leaders freely discuss their entwined agendas of saving the climate while advancing European energy independence. Despite decades of resisting market forces annual EU fuel imports still tally $500 billion; their lifeblood flowing to their mortal rivals. [4]

Act One of the Fourth Reich’s [5] masterplan involves emancipation from imported fuels through massive subsidies to wind power, solar power, biofuels and electric transportation. Act Two exports the energy revolution so their nurtured manufacturers of turbines, batteries and digesters have ready customers for their wares. Reduce energy imports; increase manufacturing exports – a sieg-sieg scenario.

BREAKING NEWS! Governments fund science! Scientists are civil servants. Governments parade scientists around like cadets on public holidays.

In a convoluted shell-game a dozen US federal agencies do climate science. The GAO’s estimates:

Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014...” [6]

The pure science portion of this heist remained constant at $2 billion while the tech portion was hoisted to $9 billion. The National Science Foundation’s $7 billion budget (climate and otherwise) is spread thinly to thousands of scientists, trainees and post-docs. Regarding climate, the NSF admits: “human-caused changes to the climate system, and their consequences, provide much of the impetus for the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) climate change research.” [7]

British science is a government op. Research Councils rake in $4 billion a year from taxpayers. Climate is clearly a preoccupation of the $500-million-a-year Natural Environment Research Council. Engineering and social science councils also cash in. Climate Communication is trending. Separately, the state-owned Meteorological Office employs 200 climate scientists including the scoundrels at the pivotal Hadley Centre for Climate Science who attained infamy during “climate-gate” for manipulating temperature data and suppressing scientific inquiry.

Continental science is even more translucent and hydra-headed. Notable organizations include the German Research Foundation (overall budget $3.5 billion), the 37,000-employee Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres and the 23-member European Climate Research Alliance. Europe’s cli-sci feeding frenzy is inseverably collaborative and transdisciplinary.

The influential 400-employee Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research made ripples when Director Shellnhuber publicly dreamed of an Earth Constitution interpreted by a Planetary Court empowered to strike down pesky national laws. [8] Scores of like-minded outfits riddle Europe, and America.

M.I.T.’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change directors were aghast to hear President Trump borrow their work for his “tiny amount” talking-point. Within hours they corrected the President. [9] (Their 0.2 C guesstimate reflected Paris’s increment over Copenhagen, not the difference between Paris and laissez-faire.) Joint Program co-director John Reilly has called Trump “ignorant” and has dismissed Obama’s climate plans as “timid.” [10] Woe betide the sceptics who rest their case upon the elastic plotlines of a pulp science fiction series.

Global Warming is a big lie. Global Warming is a foundational myth of the European Union. Global Warming is a paternalistic deception fostering European hegemony. President Trump should forget about untying the Gordian Knot of climatist sophistry. He should hack it off and throw it down at the feet of the Euros chirping: “nice scam fellas, now let’s compete for the customers of the world.”

References

  1. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/01/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord
  2. https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf
  3. http://www.ecofascism.com/article18.html#Waldheim
  4. http://blog.friendsofscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/post-paris-climate-talks-and-geopolitics-wm-kay-primer-final-dec-21-2015.pdf
  5. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/15/the-fourth-reich-is-here—without-a-shot-being-fired/
  6. http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_management/issue_summary
  7. https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/climate/intro_background.jsp
  8. http://www.humansandnature.org/democracy-hans-joachim-schellnhuber
  9. http://news.mit.edu/2017/mit-issues-statement-research-paris-agreement-0602
  10. http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trump-and-the-myth-of-the-coal-revival
Advertisements

1 Comment

  1. This is a very interesting article, which in fact demonstrates the need for further research into the various funding activities of governments, industry and private foundations on climate “science” writ large and on emissions mitigation. Just to list the various types of funding now provided would be quite a task. There are subsidies to various industries, especially wind, solar, ethanol and electric vehicles. There are tax incentives and exemptions. There are widely disseminated information and film programs, many of which are propaganda. There are regulatory programs with large well-funded bureaucracies. These activities exist at multiple levels of government, including increasingly at municipal levels. No country has ever tried to develop an inventory of all the climate change expenditure programs or to tally the large costs of actions that are taken to halt industrial projects because of their alleged emissions affects. If one could, I suspect that the costs would already be counted in trillions, not billions, of dollars. Millions of people now have a vested interest in keeping the climate change industry going.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: