! FILE: intimidate.html <! <! DESCRIPTION: Climategate in Review: <! * When Science Isn't Working, Try Intimidation .... <! <! NOTES: * File must have .shtml extension or else have <! permissions of 755 to execute SSI directives. <! <! UPDATED: 01-10-22 <! <! AUTHOR: C. Jeffery Small (firstname.lastname@example.org) <! <! Copyright 2009-2022 by C. Jeffery Small <! FILE: header.html <! <! DESCRIPTION: Climategate in Review: page header <! <! NOTES: * Filename must either have .shtml extension or else have file <! permissions of 755 to allow SSI directives to be processed. <! <! UPDATED: 01-15-23 CJS <! <! AUTHOR: C. Jeffery Small (email@example.com) <! <! Copyright 2009-2023 by C. Jeffery Small
Climategate in Review
Often, the first go-to canard of those pushing catastrophic global warming is to declare that anything that supports the narrative is climate and clear evidence of impending disaster, while facts that contradict the story are merely weather — an insignificant temporary event that should be ignored.
It is this practice that allows "scientists" and the media to report a steady diet of "hottest year on record" claims, base upon statistical mumbo-jumbo such as that identified here or here, while aggressively ignoring the fact that there has actually been a twenty year halt in global temperature increase, as reported here and here.
Notice that when it comes to reporting the hottest year, a one-year rise in an overall flat temperature trend is happily cherry-picked—over and over—and reported as significant evidence of climate change. Yet events such as Polar Vortex Triggers Coldest Arctic Outbreak in at Least Two Decades in Parts of the Midwest or Italy Experiences the Coldest September in 50 Years — With Snowfall, without ever having to investigate the causes.
In 2012, the National Wildlife Federation published a report titled, The Psychological Effects of Global Warming on the United States [PDF].
In the preface, the authors write:
"The language of science is, admittedly, not a stirring call to action. Scientists are by nature cautious, and restrained. While this report does not aim to present the forum participants as flame throwers, for this work to accomplish a primary goal, the reader will need to feel something in reading it."
Here they are clearly stating that rational scientific argument is insufficient to stir people to action, and that emotional manipulation is required in order to "accomplish a primary goal." And what are the authors' findings that will emotionally compel action?
"An estimated 200 million Americans will be exposed to serious psychological distress from climate related events and incidents: The severity of symptoms will vary, but in many instance the distress will be great."
"The mental health care system of the U.S. is not prepared to handle the wide-spread psychological stresses of climate change."
That's right, according to these professionals fully two thirds of all Americans are psychologically ill-equipped to deal with the inevitable horrors that the "looming disaster that is global warming" will rain down upon us. Of course, as always, government funds should be redirected towards these professionals so that they may prepare for the bleak future that awaits us. This estimate alone should cause skepticism in even the most ardent believer in the anthropogenic global warming crisis.
Reading through the report reveals that every dire prediction that has been made by climate alarmists over the past forty years is accepted at full intensity in order to justify the "estimates" of probable psychological impact. Yet, most if not all of these disaster scenarios have been completely debunked, while the estimates of impact are simply asserted with little to no data back the claims. This is an example of base manipulation and nothing more.
Reviewing the information above reveals an orchestrated effort by various climate scientists and government agencies to not only manipulate non-compliant data to fit predetermined conclusions, but to actively work to suppress all dissenting opinion and research from receiving an equal hearing. And if that were not enough, as Reason Magazine reported back in 2006, we find people like David Roberts from the website Grist who propose taking things a step further:
"When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards [i.e., climate-change deniers] – some sort of climate Nuremberg."
Or as Brendan O'Neill reports at Spiked,
"One Australian columnist has proposed outlawing 'climate change denial'. 'David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial', she wrote. 'Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all.'"
That's right. If you are unconvinced by the manufactured data and refuse to accept the prepackaged "official" party line, then you are not simply wrong. You are not even judged to have made a moral error. No, you stand along side Nazi war criminals who murdered millions of innocent people, and as one who is irredeemably evil, deserving a Nuremberg-styled trial for crimes against humanity.
And the death-threats have even made it into the environmentalist's public media campaigns, as seen in this advertisement:
Now, that's intimidation that should shut up the opposition!
But maybe that's just the rantings of a few nuts. So take a look at the following four minute mini-movie titled No Pressure:
Did you make it all the way through? It's certainly understandable if you didn't. The 10:10 organization, a global warming reduction group founded in 2009 by Franny Armstrong, and professing to have over 104,000 signing sponsors, concluded that in the wake of all the negative facts which had recently surfaced, the organizers needed to re-energize public awareness of their belief in the pending global environmental disaster. And they decided that the best way do do that was to show school children, employees, or any others who did not fully support their view, simply being killed! No argument. No trial. No rights. No rule of law. Just simple, direct judgment and immediate termination by the self-appointed saviors of the environment.
In the wake of widespread public backlash, the organization pulled the video, and Armstrong had the following to say:
"With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh. [...] Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn't and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended. [...] Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn."
Did you find the video funny? If not, then try to imagine the beliefs and values held by those that do. These are people who see human life as worthless, and can openly joke about exterminating anyone who simply disagrees with them. When interviewed once the controversy exploded, did Armstrong demonstrate that she understood what was wrong with her approach? No. Her response was:
"Clearly we don't really think they should be blown up, that's just a joke for the mini-movie, but maybe a little amputating would be a good place to start?"
Just how far a leap is it from the mental states of the team of around 100 like-minded activists who worked to produce this film, to actual amputations and executions? It is people who hold these same views that have made it possible for the likes of Mao, Stalin and Hitler to murder millions of innocent people, always in the name of a greater good. As Armstrong says, "Oh well, we live and learn. Onwards and upwards". And she means it! On its Backstory page, 10:10 indicates that George Monbiot is one of its muses. See the section below for a more detailed discussion of the philosophical principle that drive people such as these.
With the acceptance of the anthropogenic global warming narrative on the wane in light of all of the above facts, the environmental/political activists are shifting to a new tactic: outright indoctrination through the government run schools. In a piece titled, "Maryland Adds Environmental Literacy in High Schools", Fox News reports that Maryland is the first state to add a mandatory course in "environmental literacy" (whatever that is) to the requirements for graduation from high school. Of particular note is the fact that this new requirement was not implemented through the legislative process, but was the result of a fiat mandate issued by the MD State Board of Education and has no specified purpose or proposed curriculum.
Sarah Bodor of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation supports the initiative and says there is no mandate. "People express concern about the content but what is important to know is that this new requirement doesn't actually mandate any content at all."
Oh well then. No problem!
"The state education board leaves all content up to local school boards and a state official says 'local systems will implement the requirement as they see fit.'"
"[T]he local school boards won't get any extra money, so a group called the North American Association of Environmental Education offers a guide for teachers. An early passage from the guide says 'consumption of natural resources, air and water pollution, and the impacts of climate change are among the many complex challenges that threaten human health, economic development, and national security.' It goes on to talk about the need to 'take informed action.' And that raises some eyebrows."
"'That is not really education,' says [Myron] Ebell [of the Competitive Enterprise Institute]. 'It's propaganda and its designed to raise up a new generation of easily led and poorly educated and misinformed students.'"
The same thing is happening all across the country. See the following link for a missive — in Science Daily of all places — that rails against allowing students in California to be allowed to keep an open mind regarding the status of man's influence on the question of cataclysmic global warming. Notice that the author or authors makes their argument in 2015 by continuing to reference the claim that there is 97% consensus regarding an anthropogenic global warming crisis which was completely debunked over two years earlier!
California 6th grade science books: Climate change a matter of opinion not scientific fact
This is indoctrination, pure and simple. Impressionable students are to be exposed to a failed narrative about man's destructive impact on the environment, without recourse to alternative viewpoints, or more importantly, to real facts. And if there is any question that this is a program that will be designed to foster critical and independent thought, then please refer back to the first segment of the No Pressure video immediately above for and example of just how that sort of behavior is to be tolerated.
On February 14, 2012, an article in the UK Guardian titled, Leak Exposes How Heartland Institute Works To Undermine Climate Science, reported that "confidential memos of Heartland's climate science denial strategy" were anonymously leaked to editors at DeSmogBlog, showing that the institute was spending upwards of $100,000 to spread the message to school children that the subject of climate change was "controversial and uncertain." The leaked documents also included "its 2012 budget and fundraising plan, and minutes from a recent board meeting." However, it was soon revealed that Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute has stolen the budget document and board meeting minutes from the Heartland Institute. When these documents proved to not contain the smoking gun he was looking for, he is widely believed to have forged the two-page memo documenting Heartland's climate strategy — although he contends that he received the memo from an unidentified source. Gleick was the "anonymous" person who sent the stolen and forged documents to DeSmogBlog.
In another example, On February 24, 2014, the American Journal of Agricultural Economics published a paper titled, Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements, which openly advocates for the misrepresentation of facts in the cause of what is deemed to be a desirable outcome, as summarized in the authors' own abstract:
"It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous." [Emphasis added]
On 12-15-21 the University of Bern, Switzerland published a research paper titled, Brain Study on How to Slow Down Climate Change [PDF]
Here are a few excerpts:
"When it comes to climate-friendly behaviour, there is often a gap between what we want and what we actually do. Although most people want to see climate change slowed down, many do not behave in an appropriately sustainable way. Researchers at the University of Bern have now used brain stimulation to demonstrate that the ability to mentalise with the future victims of climate change encourages sustainable behaviour." [Emphasis in original article]
So the "we" that "want" and "do" is apparently asserted as a given scientific "fact" not requiring any justification or research. Well, we've come to expect that from many involved in climate research.
Now note that the actual experiment had nothing to do with climate change.
"'It is precisely our inability to mentalise with these strangers [i.e., future citizens] that discourages climate-friendly action,' says Daria Knoch"
Once again, an assertion without proof that bolsters the intended result of the "experiment."
"During the experiment, participants in groups of four withdrew real money
from a shared pool. Each participant decided for themself: the more money
they withdrew from the pool, the more they ultimately had in their pocket.
However, if the group of four withdrew too much money overall, this had
consequences for the next group: the payment they received was much lower.
Thus, the experiment mimicked a real situation in which the overuse of a
resource has negative consequences for other people in the future.
"While deciding on the amount of money to withdraw, some participants received a brain stimulation (experimental group): a non-invasive, harmless, mild electrical current was applied to the skull to increase the function of the stimulated brain area. The researchers in Bern stimulated an area which plays a strong role in taking the perspective of others, and discovered that it had a considerable impact: the stimulated individuals made more sustainable decisions than the participants without the stimulation (control group), by deciding not to withdraw an excessive amount of money from the pool."
Precisely which part of the brain received the stimulus and how was it established that it affected "sustainable decisions?" It's all just asserted without any scientific rigor. Without this information, no other neurological researcher could have a clue as to what was really going on here. And what does "sustainable" mean here? It is offered as self-evidently obvious. Besides a thousand other variables, calculating the net present value of money against future use is a complex analysis. There is no obvious "sustainable" choice here — unless sustainable precisely equates to self-sacrifice. Oh well, I guess we will never know.
"'Applying brain stimulation to the general public is out the question, of course,' explains Benedikt Langenbach, lead author of the study and a former PhD student at the Social Neuro Lab."
Of course it is. Until it isn't. When it is asserted that "Global climate change may be the biggest challenge faced by humanity today," then why wouldn't this ultimately be mandated for non-compliant people in the same way that Covid vaccinations and passports have been mandated in many walks of life?
You know that the wheels are really coming off the bus when you get so desperate that you resort to claims such as these.
After the November 13, 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, the
self-anointed "scientist," Bill Nye,
proclaimed that these attacks were due to climate change! How?
Climate change had created water shortages in Syria, driving
farmers off their land. With no other work available, they turn to
terrorism for a living. Obviously!
Read Nye's take on it here. And for a more balanced view on this subject, see here, here and here.
Beer Alert! As this reasoned
article points out:
"Climate change is already impacting the planet in lots of terrible ways, and the worst is yet to come. Still, some people have a hard time summoning the energy to give a shit. Well, here's the news that's gonna get them off their asses: Climate change is ruining beer. As it turns out, a warming planet is waging a multi-front war on the ingredients and processes that make delicious beer possible."
Did you know that climate change screws with the earth's rotation?
The BBC reports:
"Belgian scientists [...] say increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere will slow the Earth's rotation. This will make every day a little longer than it is already."
But wait, there's more! New Scientist says:
"Of all the possible ways in which climate change could affect our planet, this is the most bizarre: as the oceans warm up, Earth will start rotating a wee bit faster, reducing the length of a day."
Earth isn't the only thing affected by man-made global warming. Space
is under attack too! Charles Q. Choi reports
that while rising levels of CO2 warm the troposphere,
it also cools the upper atmosphere! This
"apparently" causes the atmosphere to contract, which reduces
the drag it exerts on orbiting satellites. What could happen? As Time
"With less [space junk] falling to Earth, there's more to slam into working satellites, the International Space Station and whatever else happens to be up there."
You heard it here first.
From good old reliable NBC News comes a report that:
"Tens of millions of years ago, snakes were as big as horses. Horses were almost as small as snakes. And in a warmer world, it could get that way again. [...] Here's the scary part: If it's happened before, it could happen again — and perhaps sooner than we think."
Oh, the humanity!
And the UK Guardian isn't pussyfooting around! It informs us in
uncertain terms that a study shows:
"Three Americans create enough carbon emissions to kill one person."
Oh well, we're all murderers now ... well, only if you're an American of course.
Is there anything that global warming cannot do?
|Back up to:||Index|
|Next Section:||It All Sounds Familiar|