I was just reading the climate depot article “Aussies get traction on the issue of ‘temperature data homogenization’ and thinking that yes, there is growing coverage of data tampering in the media and it is almost becoming widely accepted that the “academics” have been tampering the temperature record, when I suddenly realised I had the answer to the question in my last article:
“What happens to the pope [when real world data proves him wrong]”, because they can’t sack a pope.
And the answer is simple: the catholic church as one body will unite and turn against those who caused him & the whole catholic church to be misled. The pope will not be to blame but those academics advising him. And I doubt they will distinguish between the honest and the deceptive, between those who have set high standards and those with no standards.

The”news” rush from the pope’s encyclical is now well and truly over as today I see the coverage is now of sceptics pushing back. But whilst we climate sceptics might focus on the science, the climate doesn’t actually appear to have been the purpose of this document.
Instead, reading between the lines,  climate seems to have been just a useful hook on which to hitch a lot of political ideas which the climate allows to dress up as “concern for nature”. So basically, not only is “science” being abused, but also environmentalism is being used as a political tool to push a political agenda. And to do that, the catholic teachings have to be turned into pagan environmentalism, so also the catholic church itself is being abused.
And just to explain that “one world government”. To be honest, I’ve heard some sceptics talking about “one world socialist government”. I  thought they were reading far too much into what was happening. What’s more I focussed on the science because the science clearly supports us sceptics – and I thought this “one world government” was just an obsession by those on the political wing of scepticism. But now that I see what is in the Pope’s encyclical it is clear to me they were right, and so apologies for doubting you.
I couldn’t see the harm of more decisions at a world level – co-operation at a global level is a good thing. However it’s clear that those pushing the political vision in this encyclical don’t have cooperation in mind. Instead their vision will enforce a very extreme “left” utopian idea on that world government, not in the sense of helping the poor, but in the sense of behaving like extreme left regimes tend to behave (to the detriment of the poor). So we will have something very much like Stalin in Russia, with grand utopian “5-year plans” forcing everyone to comply with some utopian anti-science vision. And because those endorsing such utopian views are always totally economically & scientifically incompetent their plans “to help the poor” will instead kill millions if not billions.

It’s the politics of the utopian vision and its inherent rejection of pragmatism. Continue reading →

Well the Pope’s encyclical has come and gone and frankly it’s not made a bit of difference – except they’ll be quite a few furious republicans and other world leaders resolved to ensure this debacle never happens again – so I expect fireworks in the near future – not necessarily all going upward in celebration but many aimed squarely at certain doors.
So I thought it was time for something more light hearted:

 

MOSCOW, June 18 (UPI) — For most conspiracy theorists, questioning the moon landing is rather passe. They’ve moved on to Benghazi, global warming and GMOs.

But one official in Russia didn’t get the memo. Russian Investigative Commission spokesperson Vladimir Markin wants an international investigation into the Apollo moon missions.
Specifically, Markin wants to know what happened to the film footage of the landings. He’s also curious about where those moon rocks ended up.
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/06/18/Russian-official-questions-US-moon-landing/5401434634287/
My take
After the way NASA fabricated global temperature data by knowingly employing a self-enriching environmental activist to do that job … it wouldn’t surprise me if NASA did fake the moon landings, but I’ve yet to see any evidence suggesting it.

Just watched the headlines on BBC news at ten after pope’s encyclical. Not mentioned at all in headlines.
What’s happened to the BBC?

I’m seeing a lot of headlines which are going to be causing really sleepless nights for those who understand government security and intelligence services. It’s ones like this:

• Pope urges revolution to save Earth, fix ‘perverse’ economy
• Pope Francis Calls For ‘Revolution’ To Save Earth From Climate Change
• Pope’s bombshell climate change views could be a ‘game-changer’

And it is not just the rhetoric. In the encyclical are calls for a revolution in world governments – indeed to bring in a new world government.
I can see why it is being phrased that way. But if I were sitting in government reading about a “revolution” and a new type of government, I have to read this as replacing the present form of government by a new government in a revolution – revolution – as in chopping people’s heads off! Are you starting to see the point!
This is technically an incitement to overthrown government – coming not from some almost unknown idiotic environmentalist, but from another (idiotic) government leader.
And what is more, this is not a message directed at governments. Instead it is directed to the people within countries. In many countries the pope, if they were someone in that country, would be technically breaking the law and no doubt getting a quick knock at the door and a few very difficult questions.
And OK, the Pope is hardly going to pick up a bomb and walk into the government offices and blow himself up – but there are many idiots who will! And the intelligence services never get praised for what they don’t let happen – but they get shit loads of criticism if some idiotic fanatic does take the pope to heart and try to start “the revolution”.

There are going to be a lot of really annoyed people after today!!

And a lot of people in the intelligence services are going to have to focus far more carefully on the activities of extremist environmentalists than ever before.

They are not going to like it!

Looking at the news coverage, a very profound realisation has occurred and it is this: most governments will be horrified by at least some aspect of this encyclical.
Basically it is nuts. And to be frank it seems many governments have gone along with these nutty ideas because they couldn’t see the harm in pandering to a few environmentalists as it kept a sizeable – but deluded number of their electorate content.
In other words, governments have tolerated this rising eco-fascism that has created a whole industry of green blobbiests who more and more try to dictate everything we do.
So, far from unite the world into action to “end fossil fuels”, a far more likely outcome appears to me that governments will end their toleration of the eco-fascist elements that have allowed these nutty ideas to flourish and seem to be advising the pope.
We’ve already seen countries like India moving against “Greenspin”. The UK government is ending onshore wind subsidies. Germany is increasing coal use. That is the real world. What the pope represents is a fictional idea of the world where energy is produced by magic where changing to bio-fuels does not lead to mass starvation of the poor.
The pope’s “vision” represents the worst possible scenario for the world: a utopian anti-science vision that not only fails to reduce CO2 but because of the stupid ideas it contains, will likely leads to mass starvation and then wars. In short, it is like Stalin’s five year plans – a great idea for the intellectuals to discuss at dinner – but appalling for those that suffer its implementation.
So, basically, I think this encyclical will be a wake-up call. The silent sensible majority will view it with horror and resolve to severely reduce the power and influence of the “grand-plan” eco-fascists whose ideas the pope now so enthusiastically proclaims.

There is a fundamental rule of politics that you try to unite people.
But reading the Reuter’s article released a few minutes ago, I see so many red flags to so many bulls that many who never paid any interest in climate are bound to feel they have to unite against this pope.
Also, what a bizarre set of objectives: “Pope calls for ‘action now’ to save planet, stem warming, help poor”

• Save planet: The planet is greening because of rising CO2 (CO2 is a plant food)
• Stem warming: satellites tell us there’s been no warming for 18 years – DONE!
• Help poor: rising CO2 is leading to record harvests. And with 1million extra deaths in winter particularly amongst the elderly poor in the UK since this scam started even if temperatures rise – rising temperature help the poor.

However what is really going to annoy world governments and turn them against this pope is the ideas of reducing the power of governments by putting them under a single (very socialist) world government.
He’s also very much said that (except for the pope) every other world leader has to do what their academics (pretending to be scientists) tell them.
So, again, this is not going to be a very palatable message.
As for the poor. Here I start seeing red! Reducing CO2 will cause starvation in the long term because it will hit crop yield boosted by higher CO2, but much worse is encouraging “bio-fuels” which will quickly kill millions and land producing food gets turned over to producing fuels. And  increasing fuel costs will kill the poor and elderly in places like Scotland with rising fuel poverty.
So, basically when none of the predicted trends in severe weather have come true, the (heavily adjusted) temperature data has not warmed at even the lowest predicted level of the IPCC in 2001 – so the science tells us the academic forecasts are wrong. This encyclical is anti-science anti-the-poor and elderly, anti-reason. In short it the victory of the carbon (credit) profiteers and as such in my view it is a totally scandalous and immoral betrayal of the people the world PARTICULARLY the poor and vulnerable.

There’s been a whole raft of articles on the web preceding the pope’s proclamation. Unfortunately, a small but obvious minority have resorted to the same childish name calling of “denier”. However, as I tried to comment on these articles and explain how childish it was, I began to notice a distinct pattern: most didn’t have reader comments. And it seems a far higher percentage than other sites.
There are two possible conclusions:

1. They don’t have comments because they are rather nasty extreme alarmists.
2. They are rather nasty extreme alarmists because they don’t have comments

And of the two, because many journalists have substantially changed their tune and those “denier” sites are really just the stragglers, I’m beginning to see that reader comments are having a very positive effect on many journalists causing them to tone down the extremist rhetoric they get in their green-spin press releases. But that effect seems to be absent from those which don’t have comments.
Which basically means that a paper which allows comments is far more in tune with its readership and so far more likely to have higher sales and therefore bigger advertising revenue.

A while back I published a consensus document called “the sceptic view“. With so many new journalists now coming to the issue of climate as a result of the encyclical, I started thinking: “what would I want them to know about our views”.
So I started thinking how I might explain the real nature of the climate “debate” and this is what I produced:
Experience versus Theory/Naivety
Sceptics are mostly real word scientists. Our survey shows most sceptics are equal in qualification to our academic opponents, but in contrast, we are engineers and scientists with experience of applying theory in real world situations. And we are sceptical of theory not because of any political views, but because in the real world with all its real complexity, simple theories often fail to work as expected. Experience makes us sceptical because our experience has taught us that you can’t just naively take theory and apply it to the real world.
In contrast “alarmists” (those who are alarmed or fake alarm due to a minute change in temperature) tend to fall into two camps. In one camp are public-sector academics who know a lot about their particular field, but who have very little real world experience or wider knowledge of climate (certainly not the broad knowledge of many sceptics) AND they have no experience of the importance of the private sector and so very little understanding of the damage their ideas could do. In the other camp are “greens” … who are mostly clueless about the science … hate industry … but are very good at raising money and copy and pasting “research”. Many are not really green at all but “anarchists” or “anti-capitalists” who are “green” only in the sense of naive.
Treading on the academic’s toes
One thing that cannot be denied, is that academics are not happy with us sceptics.  We have seen some really vitriolic comments about us sceptics. Originally I naively thought this was because they didn’t understand our views. But then I found they knew very well that we were just as capable on the science as they (even if sceptics tend to look at the science overall whereas academics tend to focus). Continue reading →