APS and the Global Warming Scam


Recommended Posts

Bob, Bob. We know, we know.

--Brant

but thanks for all the detailed info

Then why the word "scam"?????? If an actual condition is dismissed as being a lie, then we will not prepare ourselves adequately for the climate changes that are bound to come, driven by natural processes. Will the Objectivists of the future deny a coming Ice Age even as glaciers loom on the horizon?

"Scam" refers to the politicalized "science" of AGW, not the inevitable climate changing over time. These fraudsters dropped AGW and switched to CC as a defensible position akin to the position that water is wet. As for the rest, the future will have to take care of itself as there is no known way to stop global cooling. Consider Yellowstone blowing up. It's due to. Every 600,000 years it goes "blooey!" What's to be done? Damned if I know.

--Brant

I, like a loyal subject to President O'bama, will wait until I am told what to do by our benevolent regime even if I have to freeze to death. Anything to transform this evil destructive capitalist conspiracy to kill all of us for shameless racist profit. People of color all over the world will perish for profit...SHAME!!

I am from the D. H. Lawrence school...

Self Pity

I never saw a wild thing

sorry for itself.

A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough

without ever having felt sorry for itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 989
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I have no idea  who started the notion that global warming is a hoax.    Tyndall showed that CO2 retards the out-radiation in the IR bands back in 1880.  So we get a blanket effect. CO2 does not

Technically Lindzen is correct.  But blanket is a good analogy.  Blankets keep your body from losing heat quickly on a cold night.  The CO2, NH4 and H2O(g)  slow down the rate at which IR energy is ra

I am glad you posted that.  I was going to post Palmer's lecture.  it is excellent and it deals quite well the difficulties in making decent models of climate.  His discourse on the Navier Stokes equa

President O'bama's Green Quarterback comes out of twenty-five years of government "civil service" employment in Connecticut and Massachusetts.

Her underlying degree was in "social anthropology.****"

She definitely loves pussy...

Visiting a Missouri farm in 2014

Gina_McCarthy%2C_Administrator_of_the_En

At any rate, this brittle bureaucratic bishop of climate change and global warming,

will become the face of Obama’s sweeping ambitions to tackle climate change as a legacy issue and will write rules that will force the coal industry to change its ways.

McCarthy has spent the past four years working hard on clean-air rules, as Jackson’s right-hand woman on clean air and climate-change policy. If confirmed, however, McCarthy would likely take on an even more prominent role than Jackson, as EPA prepares to take on a new slate of aggressive new regulations to cut climate-change pollution from the nation’s coal-fired power plants, a task unprecedented in sweep and scope, and one fraught with legal and political complications. http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/gina-mccarthy-obama-s-green-quarterback-has-a-history-of-working-with-industry-20130304

Jeff Sessions takes her to task on her climate change models.

Watch the uncomfortable head denying motion as she becomes arrogantly upset at being asked a specific question about their models.

Her eye rolling is just priceless.

The transcript is included.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/06/jeff-sessions-leaves-epa-chief-unable-to-justify-money-grab/

A...

****aka a bullshit degree -

Topics of interest for social anthropologists have included customs, economic and political organization, law and conflict resolution, patterns of consumption and exchange, kinship and family structure, gender relations, childbearing and socialization, religion, while present-day social anthropologists are also concerned with issues of globalism, ethnic violence, gender studies, trans nationalism and local experience, and the emerging cultures of cyberspace,[3] and can also help with bringing opponents together when environmental concerns come into conflict with economic developments.[4] British and American anthropologists including Gillian Tett and Karen Ho who studied Wall Street provided an alternative explanation for the Financial crisis of 2007–2010 to the technical explanations rooted in economic and political theory.[5]

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

If this is not some rope a dope Republican public relations ploy, it could be a Cloward and Piven moment.

It is also within the Alinsky rule of using "their" rules against them.

The chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources confronted U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe on the issue at a budget hearing Thursday. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, said the Fish and Wildlife Service is required to formally consult on any plan that could pose problems for an endangered species.

Excellent gambit.

A consultation process on endangered species issues could take time, slowing down the rules aimed at lowering carbon emissions from coal-burning power plants, the largest U.S. source of emissions that scientists have linked to warming of the planet. The Environmental Protection Agency last year proposed the most significant of the rules, setting federal standards for existing power plants, and it is getting ready to finalize it this summer.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article15397277.html

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well. It's settled then.

She is absolutely correct and her pious prognostication permits us to drag her out of her citadel and begin by confiscating and re-distributing all the assets of the Anglican Church of England.

We can start with:

The Church Commissioners hold investments whose value was approaching £5.5 billion at the end of 2012. The fund includes stock market and property investments, including UK urban property, rural and development land, and a stake in global property funds.

Investment strategy

The Commissioners aim for the best return from their assets to help sustain the nationwide ministry of the Church, without undue risk and in line with their ethical investment policy. Their long term target is a return of at least RPI plus 5% over the long term.

Investment strategy is the responsibility of, and regularly reviewed by, the Commissioners' Assets Committee, assisted by the property and securities groups, both of which are made up of staff and trustees.

Then we can really get busy on the rest:

https://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/structure/churchlawlegis/property.aspx

I am really getting sick of these marxists.

caveman-smashing-laptop-smiley-emoticon. Ludites Unite You Have Everything To Gain With Out Chains!!!!

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Secret-Science-copy.jpg?resize=580%2C402

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good one...

Here is another...

Clinton-on-Jenner-copy.jpg?resize=580%2C

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're standing on my shoulders!

--Brant

it's a topper!

oops, Brant is way too smart for me!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're standing on my shoulders!

--Brant

it's a topper!

oops, Brant is way too smart for me!

1 + 1 = 3.

You call that "smart"?

I can match up with any in your head stupidity

--Brant

don't even try

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're standing on my shoulders!

--Brant

it's a topper!

oops, Brant is way too smart for me!

1 + 1 = 3.

You call that "smart"?

I can match up with any in your head stupidity

--Brant

don't even try

See what I mean, he even uses the teachings of common core to out smart me...

He is a post Machiavellian...

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're standing on my shoulders!

--Brant

it's a topper!

oops, Brant is way too smart for me!

1 + 1 = 3.

You call that "smart"?

I can match up with any in your head stupidity

--Brant

don't even try

See what I mean, he even uses the teachings of common core to out smart me...

He is a post Machiavellian...

Ah. We can end this here. I get both a compliment and the last word, leaving Adam with--zip.

--Brant

but my appreciation for a good set-up man!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've written somewhere about the Man-Made Climate Change folks resembling a doomsday cult where they announce the end of times, the date comes and goes and nothing happens, then they simply set a new date.

Previously, I said the similarity was in the predicted effects. Global Warming morphs into Climate Change. Bad Weather, once considered proof, now become Weather and Climate are different. And so on.

I never thought about the tipping point.

But here is an article showing the failed tipping points, one after another. As soon as one passes, they predict another.

25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’
by Michael Bastasch
05/04/2015
Daily Caller

From the article:

For decades now, those concerned about global warming have been predicting the so-called “tipping point” — the point beyond which it’ll be too late to stave off catastrophic global warming.

It seems like every year the “tipping point” is close to being reached, and that the world must get rid of fossil fuels to save the planet. That is, until we’ve passed that deadline and the next such “tipping point” is predicted.


The list is pretty funny (until you think of all the money and power that has been involved), so I recommend going to the article and seeing for yourself.

I would call this the Jehovah's Witness Syndrome, except the JV folks made fewer doomsday predictions.

:smile:

For students of propaganda and persuasion in the centuries to come, this whole Man-Made Climate Change movement will become a fascinating classic case study for how to win, then lose a story war.

I'm living right in the middle of it and I learn more and more about what works and what doesn't each day.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have to act right fucking now because then we can claim that our having acted right fucking now is what prevented the doomsday scenarios from actually occurring, rather than that they just naturally didn't happen because they were never going to happen. Just as every possible outcome is proof of man-made global warming, every possible outcome is also proof that government power/centralized control is the solution to all problems real or imagined.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've written somewhere about the Man-Made Climate Change folks resembling a doomsday cult where they announce the end of times, the date comes and goes and nothing happens, then they simply set a new date.

Previously, I said the similarity was in the predicted effects. Global Warming morphs into Climate Change. Bad Weather, once considered proof, now become Weather and Climate are different. And so on.

I never thought about the tipping point.

But here is an article showing the failed tipping points, one after another. As soon as one passes, they predict another.

25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’

by Michael Bastasch

05/04/2015

Daily Caller

From the article:

For decades now, those concerned about global warming have been predicting the so-called “tipping point” — the point beyond which it’ll be too late to stave off catastrophic global warming.

It seems like every year the “tipping point” is close to being reached, and that the world must get rid of fossil fuels to save the planet. That is, until we’ve passed that deadline and the next such “tipping point” is predicted.

The list is pretty funny (until you think of all the money and power that has been involved), so I recommend going to the article and seeing for yourself.

I would call this the Jehovah's Witness Syndrome, except the JV folks made fewer doomsday predictions.

:smile:

For students of propaganda and persuasion in the centuries to come, this whole Man-Made Climate Change movement will become a fascinating classic case study for how to win, then lose a story war.

I'm living right in the middle of it and I learn more and more about what works and what doesn't each day.

Michael

We are nowhere near the point where we will become another Venus. In a billion years or so the Sun will be burning mostly helium instead of hydrogen and it will be much hotter. Then the oceans will evaporate and Earth will become Hell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The current warming trend IS real.

The Sun has been unusually quiet for some time. The peak of its last cycle was flat. Winters have been progressively longer with record braking bitter cold in the higher latitudes. There's record breaking drought in the lower latitudes.

Looks to me like there's another cooling cycle well in progress.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ba'al: I weep for the future of humanity.

--Brant

crying-into-tissue.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Ironically, here is an indication that the man-made climate change folks are starting to lose the story wars big time. I got this off Drudge, so it's not some article buried somewhere on a small blog.

Climate: There's no denying this label packs a political punch
by Jean Chemnick,

E&E
May 15, 2015

I could quote from the article, but it speaks for itself. The main points to look out for are:

1. There is now a recognized specialist in a new field: "climate linguistics."

2. There are lawsuits by big organizations over the slant of climate language.

3. Most serious of all, the people trying to reframe the language in favor of the man-made climate change side are not only admitting this openly, they are showing how they did it.

Anybody, and that means anybody, who studies covert persuasion knows that it doesn't work well (if at all) once people know you are using it on them when they know how you are using it.

The lawsuit is forcing this knowledge out into the open. And what does that mean?

Just look. It's all there in the article.

Some of the man-made climate change proponents (the ones I think of as dorks) who entertain the conceit that they are oh-so-smarter than the rest of humanity (as they constantly tell us) are falling into an elementary-level propaganda trap. They are owning up to the dirty tricks they have been doing and letting folks know how allegedly clever they have been all along. Don't believe them? They tell you how they did their dirty tricks.

But they make it clear they still want the dirty tricks to work.

Dayaamm!

They are shooting themselves in the eye (not the foot). This expression comes from an old cartoon where the character tried to shoot a shotgun, it didn't go off, so he turned it around to look down the barrel and see what was wrong as he pulled the trigger.

:smile:

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to Michael for upturning more research on Story/Climate wars.

1. There is now a recognized specialist in a new field: "climate linguistics."
2. There are lawsuits by big organizations over the slant of climate language.
3. Most serious of all, the people trying to reframe the language in favor of the man-made climate change side are not only admitting this openly, they are showing how they did it.


I wouldn't call Brigitte Nerlich a recognized specialist in a fresh field just yet. The recognition was given by the E&E reporter, Jean Chemnick -- by way of stating that Nerlich studies the 'language' of the climate debate (both in scientific papers and in other forums). Nerlich is certainly not alone in writing and researching the 'language' of climate science debates and communications, so though you will find nothing on the internet of 'climate linguistics,' there is plenty on "iinguistics of climate" **

I hope I don't seem pettifogging to point out a distinction and a temporal aspect. Here is George Lakoff in 2010 on NPR, Linguist Weighs In On Framing Climate Change. And here is opinion-researcher Frank Lutz from 2002, in Terms of Engagement, suggesting “It’s time for us to start talking about ‘climate change’ instead of global warming. Climate change’ is less frightening.”


Looking at Nerlich's university page, it looks like she has paid attention lately to what is said in climate debates, "linguistics of climate change," joining a raft of others who study and opine even if not always in published research. Whether we will end up with a new set-aside discipline, I am not so sure, though the "climate story wars" is certainly of intense interest in several fields. See a few interesting sites and pages I cite below, and refer to the Yale climate change communication project I have noted before.


Certainly the topics of Chemnick's article are potent. What to call the various factions of opinion, what to call the gradations of confidence in particular scientific hypotheses, what to call the 'wings' of debate, how to use language, story, psychology, sociology to advance a point of view or political goal.

-- we certainly get up to some heated language on this forum, too -- see below all the invective from Brant's link. Such is the way a public forum represents fraught and fractious issues. If I weren't so modest, I would call myself a leading specialist in climate linguistics at Objectivist Living, as deputy to the leading specialist, MSK himself!

On the second point, there is a threat of legal action from ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), no suit filed yet against the two entities noted. ALEC has lost some important sponsors of their work, so maybe this is an effective way to cow other organizations from libeling them ..

As to the third point, I will support Michael's assertion that 'proponents' are publishing in plain sight their plans to ,manage language in favour of their goals. Cited in the E&E article is George Marshall. He is a longtime environmental activist and self-styled radical. His 2014 book is called Don't Even Think About It: How Our Brains Are Wired To Ignore Climate Change. Earlier this month the radical wrote, "I now believe that the most radical thing that I can do is to break out of the safety zone of left/liberal environmentalism and actively engage with conservatives." From a Guardian article touting his book:

Climate change can be anything you want it to be. It can be here or there, in the present or the future, certain and uncertain. It seems that we see climate change as a threat – and are therefore able to harness that innate reaction to an external enemy – only once it is poured it into the mould of our familiar stories, with their heroes and villains.
So my fellow advocates for action create this enemy narrative with dramatis personae from our past struggles – corrupt politicians, malignant corporate executives, fat bankers, lazy journalists, slippery lawyers and an apathetic public. All the while, however, our opponents are mirroring these actions. During a raucous evening with members of the Texan Tea Party I was told in predictably blunt language that liberal environmentalists are the real enemy, and that we have invented this scam to extend government control. Like most conservatives, they failed to see that it is climate change itself that poses a threat to their values, freedoms and property.

Anybody, and that means anybody, who studies covert persuasion knows that it doesn't work well (if at all) once people know you are using it on them when they know how you are using it.


Michael, you are probably the most immune of anyone here to manipulation, in terms of having your opinions changed by dirty tricks or strategies originating from the side of AGW proponents. As you let me know, you have some fatigue with the issue, and so you are on alert for the grossest methods of persuasion.

I am what passes for a climate change "alarmist" here on OL, maybe alone in having been convinced. It is in my interest to limit my vocabulary, to replace emotive/biased terms with more neutral items.

Thanks for digging up the article and highlighting the recurring issues, Michael. You might be interested in yesterday's dustup at Watts Up WIth That, a skeptic site, upon the publication of another 'science communication' progressive AGW-ish team of opinion mobilizers:

On a slightly related topic Here's are phrases dug out at Brant's link. As an expert on linguistics of climate at OL, all I can do is sigh. What are the linguistic lessons I can take from them? Am I a villain or a virtuous inquirer or what?

  • Fascist cat out of the Warmist bag
  • Total Libtard Meltdown
  • climate catastrophists
  • climate alarmist
  • eco-catastrophists
  • compliant academics and an obedient and gullible mainstream media
  • Warmist Hoax
  • Warmism has replaced Marxism
  • Global Warming Is A Fascist Hoax
  • Warmism is not science, it is religious fanaticism.
  • Warmist religious kook


_______________________

** The discourse of climate change
Media coverage of climate change
Linguistic Representations of Climate Change Discourse and Their Individual and Collective Interpretations
Lawmakers avoid buzzwords on climate change bills
ForaTV forum: The linguistics of climate change, video featuring Lakoff.
The linguistics of climate change, article in Astrobiology, featuring Nerlich and her research.

Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

I haven't heard "warmist" used in a derogatory manner in the mainstream. And on considering it through a propaganda lens, it sounds more like a kindergarten taunt to me than a term loaded with dark emotions from other uses.

I have heard "denier" over and over. Now that's an emotionally loaded term starting with the widespread "holocaust denier."

But regardless, the thing that burns me, really burns me, is that in the event there is something serious going on with the climate that humans are contributing toward, these true-believer jerks that keep popping up in the mainstream used that seriousness for a cheap power grab, gobs of illicit money, and corruption of the scientific process. They did it on purpose using all the dirty tricks in the book rather than seek the truth.

All one needs to do is look at their poster-boy Al Gore selling his ideological progressive TV channel to an organization funded by profits from fossil fuels just so he can get a waaaaaaaaaaaayyyy above the market price for it.

Fuck them.

They are not friends of mankind. And I don't believe a damn thing they say.

I hold someone like you, who I believe is honestly concerned, way above those jerks, even as we agree and disagree with this or that. Why do we believe differently? Maybe it's a tribal thing, I don't know. Maybe not. It's only a starting stance, anyway. We are both honest and bow our opinions before objective facts. That I know, so I keep a place open inside me.

But the mainstream? The independents in the mainstream?

People who have become irritated with the sleaze like me are simply tuning out. They don't even keep a place open in their hearts and minds anymore. Like I said before, climate change is now a topic for party-jokes--not just for for the true-believers on the "denier" side, but for the independents. The independents are now openly mocking global warming.

And what do the idiots do? The same con games that got them here.

I'm not bringing up this propaganda stuff to gloat or covertly chip at the credibility of the idiots. I'm trying to shine a light (granted, a tiny one given the size of OL) and hope those who believe there is a problem will wake up.

The day of the climate liars has passed. Or at the very best (for them), their time is now passing.

I don't think there is any going back.

So I say to people like you, get away from those assholes. Let people know clearly that you see, acknowledge, and reject their sleaze. That you think these jerks damaged serious climate warning with pure greed and power-lust. That they corrupted and oppressed the scientific community. And that it's time for this crap to stop.

Then I don't think independent people will be adverse to examining the climate warnings again.

My own interest in climate change has morphed into studying the propaganda. As I don't believe a thing these idiots say anymore, and, frankly, I don't believe the true-believers on the other side, either,--and most of all, I don't know who is telling the truth because it's all mixed with bullshit--this is a great real-time case study in public persuasion for me.

Have you noticed that if you mix slop with truth, you don't really dilute the slop? You just make more slop? And if you mix bullshit into pure truth, even just a little bullshit, you make the truth stink of shit?

Once people are holding their nose and going ewwwwwwwwwww... you can't spin it anymore. Or worse, the more it spins, the worse it smells.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Were these folks warmists?

Screen-Shot-2015-05-16-at-7.54.12-PM.png

Hmmm I wonder what is going to happen to our beautiful Arctic Ice?

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Were these folks warmists?

Screen-Shot-2015-05-16-at-7.54.12-PM.png

Hmmm I wonder what is going to happen to our beautiful Arctic Ice?

A...

The were 1/10 th right. The Northwest Passage is now open for more than half the year.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now