'Finally, it is essential that intellectual integrity be restored to the scientific profession. Too much money has been devoted to funding global warming scientists, who have depended for their livelihood on a high level of public and political anxiety about global warming, and have hence tended to suppress the evidence against the popular hysteria. .... Enlightenment standards of scientific integrity have been subverted by government cash and media hysteria. For the sake of all our futures this must never be allowed to happen again.'
Martin Hutchinson, http://www.tbwns.com/2015/07/20/the-bears-lair-global-warming-hysteria-one-huge-ghastly-mistake/

Wednesday, 2 February 2011

CO2 Alarm Virus epidemiology: identifying some vectors in the USA.

A very useful annotated summary of some educational initiatives in the US funded by federal agencies on climate:

'Nearly 100 ‘Climate Education Programs’ funded by NASA, NOAA, NSF & EPA'

The author introduces his study as follows:

'Four Federal agencies are funding at least 95 'Climate education programs'. These programs are specifically designed to influence students, teachers, and the public in general about climate change. Based on their summaries (which I will share) these programs are not intended to present information and let the public decide for themselves. Instead, they are designed for two goals. One, to influence the public to accept and take action on climate change. Two, to increase the future workforce involved in climate change fields. I will take each agency in turn, look at their stated goals, then look through some of the programs they have funded.
To be very clear, these programs do not further climate research. They are not studying the atmosphere or oceans. They are not studying clouds or albedo. We know nothing more about the state of our climate from these programs. Their sole purpose is education.
I'm going to explain my own view shortly. I do believe that the climate is changing, and that humans have had a minor role in this occurring. I do not believe that the future of the planet is in jeopardy. I object to these programs for multiple reasons, but one main contention is the fact that they all make the assumption that future climate change is overwhelmingly negative and that we absolutely must take serious action now. These programs all appear to assume catastrophic warming will occur unless action is taken. Enough of what I think. Look at the programs yourselves and see what you conclude.'


My comment appended to the above post:

'Excellent work to bring all this together and annotate it so wisely. In 2010, it seemed clear that the flimsy basis for alarm about rising CO2 had been so exposed, and that the unpleasant, self-seeking nature of the handful of individuals and organisations at the core of the alarmism was so visible, that this particular scare was over. But your work here helps show how deeply and widely the activists, acolytes and others have spread their scaremongering, enjoying their chunk of the billions of dollars diverted to this destructive, soul-destroying, and demented ’cause’. Well done! We still have a long, long way to go to get over this, and a lot of waste and societal loss is no doubt still to come as a result.'

Hat-tip:  http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/

CO2 alarmism is not a win-win game: here is the progress that it threatens

Hans Rosling shows just how much development there has been over the past 200 years in terms of life expectancy, and the correlated per capita income for the countries of the world.  The impact of WWI and the flu epidemic can be detected in the time sequence, and possibly WWII.  One has to wonder if the effect of CO2-reduction policies in industrialised countries will also be detectable in due course.  Overall, the most dramatic good news is the great progress of Latin American and Asian countries, not least India and China, both of which may gain some short-term but substantial benefit by selling products such as wind-turbines and solar panels to CO2-reduction countries, while burning as much coal as they need to get them through this phase of their industrial development.  But if more industrialised countries are damaged by expensive energy costs, not to mention demoralised, frightened people, then the overall effect could be harmful for everyone.
 
Hat-tip: http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/16497-200-years-of-global-development.html
 
Watch it here: