Category Archives: L1

“Climate Science” is Upside Down (recap)

Short recap for the FSM viewers and readers:

The so-called “climate science” is completely upside down.  The anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide (CO2) is beneficial for humans and nature.  Approximately 15% of the world’s agricultural production is due to the elevated amount of CO2 in the air (see reference [1]).  The small and slow warming, which is expected from CO2 release, is also beneficial for humans and nature.  (There was steep warming probably due to solar activity increase in the 80’s and 90’s but no warming in the last 19 years.)   The claims that “climate change” is to blame for all the world’s disasters are nothing but myths.  I cannot go into details in this short post, but the science matters were mostly settled in the 1983 Nierenberg Report with the most un-alarming conclusions.  After that, the genuine scientific research and observations suggested that there’s even less concern to be had about potential harm and actually more benefits. For example, it was found that increase of CO2 concentration in the air not only enhances plant growth but decreases plant water demand [1].  The politics of climate alarmism (conceived by the United Nations politicians) gave birth to the perverted “climate science,” not other way around.  Continue reading “Climate Science” is Upside Down (recap)

Rupert Darwall, The Age of Global Warming

Darwall, Rupert. The Age of Global Warming: A History , 2014.  Selected quotes (emphasis is mine):

“In 1966, [Barbara] Ward gave a lecture, Space Ship Earth, in which she argued that mankind’s survival depended on developing a government of the world. The longevity of China’s government, Mao being the latest dynasty, demonstrated that world government was possible. If two thousand years of rule can work for twenty-five per cent of the world’s population, ‘we can hardly argue that the task of government becomes a priori impossible simply because the remaining three-quarters are added’, Ward argued.” (Kindle Locations 1744-1748)

Yes, they used to honestly say world government, rather than evasive global governance.  And they wanted to create it by annexing the rest of the world to Mao’s China.  Continue reading Rupert Darwall, The Age of Global Warming

Heidelberg Appeal’s Anniversary – 4,000+ scientists, 70 Nobel Laureates

June 2, 2017 (four months from today) will be the 25 year anniversary of the Heidelberg Appeal.  This historical document signed by more than 4,000 distinguished scientists, including 70 Nobel Laureates, was released in the beginning of the infamous “Earth Summit” (Rio de Janeiro, 1992) to oppose environmental obscurantism, including climate alarmism. Among other things, the Heidelberg Appeal said:

We want to make our full contribution to the preservation of our common heritage, the Earth.

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.

We contend that a Natural State, sometimes idealized by movements with a tendency to look toward the past, does not exist and has probably never existed …

We intend to assert science’s responsibility and duties toward society as a whole.

We do, however, forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet’s destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudoscientific arguments of false and nonrelevant date.

The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology, and Industry …

These wise words by the most distinguished scientists in the world Continue reading Heidelberg Appeal’s Anniversary – 4,000+ scientists, 70 Nobel Laureates

Bill Nye the Fake Science Guy on the Fake News

Apparently, producers and editors of the leftstream TV channels lost ability to distinguish fiction from reality.  Such TV genres as reality shows, environmentalist propaganda, and the liberal drivel in general blend reality and fiction in various ways.  Combined with echoes of academic postmodern contructivist theories, this leads to the current post-truth reporting.  Alternatively, the leftstream TV expresses contempt to its viewers.  Whatever the cause, the fictional character “Bill Nye the Science Guy” has been presented as a real scientist on ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN.

Bill Nye the Fake Science Guy Collage from ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN.

If you watch news on any of these channels, these might be fake news.  New York Times has called this actor “the science guy” as well.  Bill Nye receive BS in mechanical engineering in 1977 and worked as an engineer for some years after that.  By 1993 his engineering gig was over.  He has been an actor and a “TV personality” for the last 20 – 25 years.  He can be called a former engineer, if it helps.

Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Selfie of Bill Nye with Obama is from The Federalist.

Lindzen: Global Warming and Irrelevance of Science

Excerpts from 2015 essay Global Warming and Irrelevance of Science by Prof. Richard Lindzen.

In many fields, governments have a monopoly on the support of scientific research….

…, the powers that be invent the narrative independently of the views of even cooperating scientists. It is, in this sense, that the science becomes irrelevant. This was certainly the case in the first half of the twentieth century, where we just have to look at Lysenkoism [1] in the former Soviet Union, Social Darwinism, and Eugenics throughout the western world [2], as well as, in the 1960s, the unfounded demonization of DDT [3]. Each phenomenon led to millions of deaths. And, in each case, the scientific community was essentially paralyzed, if not actually complicit. …

The implausibility or even outright silliness whereby global warming became global warming catastrophism (sometimes referred to as CAGW, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) is so extensive that one hardly knows where to begin. …
Continue reading Lindzen: Global Warming and Irrelevance of Science

Brilliant Richard Lindzen, more links

Personal pages: MIT, Cato Institute, Heartland Institute.  Articles and essays in WattsUpWithThat. Examples:

How to Discuss CAGW (Lecture in Norway, 2015)

Lindzen: A recent exchange in the Boston Globe clearly illustrated the sophistic nature of the defense of global warming alarm

Laboratory Earth: The Planetary Gamble We Can’t Afford to Lose by Stephen H. Schneider (1997), Reviewed by Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, MIT (1998). Few quotes:

“One would think it would be possible to present a coherent argument and discussion in a small book (154 pages plus 17 pages of introduction and preface), but Stephen Schneider fails.”

“As best I can tell, Schneider is trying to endorse both the study of the Earth as a system and the integrated assessment of potential damage from possible global warming. Schneider’s prejudice is revealed when he presents the Paul Ehrlich-John Holdren formula, I=PAT: Environmental Impact equals Population times Affluence per capita times Technology used. This is in the part of the introduction where Schneider introduces population, affluence and technology as “the enemy”. Here he also informs us that an altered climate is a “damaged climate.” Continue reading Brilliant Richard Lindzen, more links

Climate Alarmism Command

Do you still believe that climate alarmism is a grassroots movement?  Do you still believe it is based on science, or possibly exaggerated or misunderstood science?  No, it is a centralized command & control structure with aspirations to become a “global governance” (they shy away from the phrase “global government”). Read what they say and think again.

*** James Gustave Speth [Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality in the Executive Office of the President, 1979-1981], Peter Haas. 2013. Global Environmental Governance: Foundations of Contemporary Environmental Studies:

The challenge of the global environment is fundamentally one of effective governance—global environmental governance.

Global environmental governance is the intersection of global governance with environmental affairs.
Continue reading Climate Alarmism Command

Climate Alarmism is like a Deadly Virus

Climate Alarmism can be compared to the HIV virus.  After entering a society, it attacks the main defense of the society against itself and similar threats – the scientific enterprise.  After the scientific enterprise was weakened enough, the society becomes defenseless against any pathogenic agenda, alleging scientific justification.  Climate Alarmism brings with it a number of such agendas, from shutting down the national energy infrastructure to banning free speech to submitting to the UN.  America became infected in 1992 through Al Gore and Timothy Wirth.

The World Wildlife Fund, having annual income around $800M, is one of the main culprits.  Continue reading Climate Alarmism is like a Deadly Virus

Richard Lindzen on the Climate of Fear, 2006

On the persecution of scientists dissenting from con science of climate alarmism.  Excerpts from Climate of Fear, Wall Street Journal, 2006.

Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm … Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. [In 2006 – AH] Continue reading Richard Lindzen on the Climate of Fear, 2006

William Happer’s 2009 Senate Statement

Statement to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee by William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University, made on February 25, 2009.  Excerpts:

Sometimes the obsession for control of the climate got a bit out of hand, as in the Aztec state, where the local scientific/religious establishment of the year 1500 had long since announced that the debate was over and that at least 20,000 human sacrifices a year were needed to keep the sun moving, the rain falling, and to stop climate change.
Continue reading William Happer’s 2009 Senate Statement

Richard Lindzen, 2010 House Testimony

Global Warming: How to approach the science.
Richard Lindzen. Testimony at House Subcommittee on Science and Technology hearing on A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response. November 17, 2010. Selected quotes, emphasis is mine.

“In my long experience with the issue of global warming, I’ve come to realize that the vast majority of laymen including policymakers do not actually know what the scientific debate is about. In this testimony, I will try to clarify this. Some of you may, for example, be surprised to hear that the debate is not about whether it is warming or not or even about whether man is contributing some portion of whatever is happening. I’ll explain this in this testimony. Unfortunately, some part of the confusion is explicitly due to members of the scientific community whose role as partisans has dominated any other role they may be playing.”

Continue reading Richard Lindzen, 2010 House Testimony

Richard Lindzen on IPCC and climate dispute, 2001

From Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 2 May 2001

“I have been involved in climate and climate related research for over thirty years during which time I have held professorships at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. I am a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and the author or coauthor of over 200 papers and books. I have also been a participant in the proceedings of the IPCC (the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The questions I wish to address are the following: What can we agree on and what are the implications of this agreement? What are the critical areas of disagreement? What is the origin of popular perceptions? I hope it will become clear that the designation, ‘skeptic,’ simply confuses an issue where popular perceptions are based in significant measure on misuse of language as well as misunderstanding of science. Indeed, the identification of some scientists as ‘skeptics’ permits others to appear ‘mainstream’ while denying views held by the so-called ‘skeptics’ even when these views represent the predominant views of the field.”

Continue reading Richard Lindzen on IPCC and climate dispute, 2001