Friday, January 27, 2012

Confessions of a Lukewarmist

Rady Ananda
Activist Post

Today, the Wall Street Journal published a letter from 16 distinguished scientists addressed to political candidates entitled, No Need to Panic About Global Warming.

“Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now,” they write, a fact that “is known to the warming establishment…”

The piece directly attacks the notion that carbon dioxide emissions are warming the globe, concluding with:

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of ‘incontrovertible’ evidence.

The term ‘incontrovertible’ refers to a policy statement of the American Physical Society which states, “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.”

These guys are no lightweights. The group includes a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, the aerospace engineer who designed Voyager, past and present editors of scientific journals; professors from Princeton, Cambridge and MIT, and the president of the World Federation of Scientists.

This letter propels my shift from ardent warmist to lukewarmist, to, eventually, full blown skeptic, it seems.

In 2006, I was amused at the irony of my global warming action on a street corner in frigid temperatures, though I understood that anecdotal data is not a mathematically sound method of discerning trends. A slick patch of ice at the curb prompted warnings from me that people heeded probably far more than my warmist sign.  My inner sadist was even more amused when people didn’t absorb my ice patch warning, though I still feel a little guilty by the hurt look in one guy’s eyes when he caught me snickering as he slip-slided away.

My own doubts about global warming did not begin until Climategate 2009, when the University of East Anglia was caught publishing false data showing temperature increases.  Significant errors in a report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), where it grossly exaggerated glacial retreat, also raised a question.

But I held fast to the belief that global warming must be real because forests are being denuded, deserts are growing, mass tracts of prairie and wetlands are being converted to asphalt and concrete, and the toxicity of our atmosphere is directly attributable to 150 years of military and industrial pollution.

In 2010, an independent investigative body told the IPCC to stop lobbying on behalf of global warming programs.  Members of the IPCC were also ordered to reveal their financial connections to such programs.  In the end, the warmists were found innocent of any wrongdoing.

Cognitive dissonance is bearable with topics that seem remote. But because chemtrails feel like a more immediate threat than global warming, IPCC promotion of geoengineering strengthened my doubts about warming.

In UN Climate Concern Morphs into Chemtrail Glee Club (Dec. 2010), I wrote of the connections between Indian businessman and economist, Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the IPCC.  In his comments at Cancun’s opening ceremony, he stated, “The scope of the AR5 has also been expanded over and above previous reports, and would include, for instance, focused treatment of subjects like clouds and aerosols, geo-engineering options,” and the usual climate-related issues.

A close look at Pachauri revealed his extensive interests in companies that stand to benefit from geoengineering schemes.  In the Science and Public Policy Institute’s April 2010 investigative report entitled, “Dr Rajendra Pachauri and the IPCC – No Fossil Fool,” Pachauri is criticized for using his IPCC position “to attract major funding to his own organization, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI).”

The IPCC’s assertion that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 “was based on a decade-old interview of one climate scientist in a science magazine, The New Scientist,” which apparently misquoted him, reported the New York Times in January 2010. The scientist, Dr. Syed Hasnain, is a glacier specialist who works at Pachauri’s TERI research institute.

But my doubts did not develop into full-blown skepticism until Climategate 2.0, when the November 2011 leaked emails showed that IPCC scientists discussed manipulating the data to agree with policy, and began deleting their emails.

“The science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” wrote one IPCC scientist, Peter Thorne.

In journalist Andrew Orlowski’s first look at the Climategate 2.0 emails:

To their credit, some of the climate scientists realised the dangers of the selective approach politicians demanded, which meant cherry-picking evidence to make it suitably dramatic, and quietly hiding caveats.  ‘We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest,” pleads Thorne, in another email from 2005.  Thorne noted that a telltale ‘signature’ of greenhouse gas warming was absent.  ‘Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous.’

Charges of intellectual corruption stem from the fact that the IPCC did not clarify that its conclusions were based on a fair amount of uncertainty: the data was based “on modern temperature trends and historical temperature reconstructions,” Orlowski summarized. With that speculative data as its starting point, models were then built to predict future temperature trends and impacts, which East Anglia climatologist Phil Jones describes as “all wrong” in one of the leaked emails.

But what is most shocking to me is that those scientists deliberately deleted emails to hide their uncertainty from the public.  No doubt that is what triggered someone to snag them before the evidence disappeared.

Global Warming Initiatives

Like 95% of the public, I’m reliant on scientific integrity, no matter how wary I am of corporations and governments. As I morph from science-educated warmist to skeptic, I follow a variety of sources to give myself the best chance of ascertaining the truth of climate change.  The models presented in college made logical sense, but, I have since learned, failed to include decades of deliberately altering the atmosphere with aerosols aimed at altering the weather.

No one at Ohio State mentioned the 1977 United Nations ban on hostile environmental modification programs enacted after the US chemtrailed Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, creating deluge after deluge.  I doubt the school mentions to undergraduates the 2010 ban on “friendly” ENMOD programs, either, despite the incredibly toxic effects of these programs.

While industry-funded organizations posing as populist fronts continue to deny decades of geoengineering activities, simple logic refutes this.  The UN would not ban fictional activities based on conspiracy theories.  They have hard evidence.  Some of that evidence led the UN’s World Meteorological Organization to complain in 2007, “In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects.”

When governments actually admit to chemtrails, they advise it is done to combat global warming, to provide rain or drought as needed, or to weaken or redirect hurricanes and other storms.

The extent of government-industry deception over climate and ENMOD is deeply disturbing, while indisputably toxic drilling on land and sea remains legal.  Hypocrisy can be cynically amusing, but overturned paradigms can be emotionally devastating.

While warmists may eventually be proven correct that industrial pollution is warming the planet and changing its climate, honest climatologists at the IPCC admit that the evidence is not yet solid.

While watching Fargo, my college roommate, who delivered newspapers in Cleveland during the wee hours of the morning, repeatedly replayed the scene where a kid tosses a paper from his bike, causing it to slide out from under him.  She bellowed with laughter.  I think her inner sadist is bigger than mine.  I also think Frances McDormand is one of the most talented actors in Hollywood, though she did attend an Oscar party in 2006 to benefit “global warming initiatives.”

It is those initiatives that concern me the most.  Geoengineering deliberately alters the chemistry of the sky and seas.  Regardless of whether humans have suicidally warmed the planet, the last thing we need to do is pile more pollution on top of what the military-industrial complex has already pummeled the biosphere with.

** Updated Jan. 30, 2012 to correct duration of military-industrial pollution from 15 centuries to 150 years.

Rady Ananda is an investigative reporter and researcher in the areas of health, environment, politics, and civil liberties.  Her two websites, Food Freedom and COTO Report are essential reading.

Thyroid cancer, fracking and nuclear power 
PIPA vote stalled while US censorship still grows
EU signs ACTA, global internet censorship treaty


This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.


Anonymous said...

"Like 95% of the public, I’m reliant on scientific integrity, no matter how wary I am of corporations and governments. "

Intercept said...

Excellent follow-up to the Wall Street Journal article.

Anonymous said...

Immanuel Velikovski said that Venus was a new planet and that it would be red hot. When the Russians landed on Venus and found this was true, the Astronomers desperately searched for a rationalization that would save their false theories of planet formation. They found it in a paper by a college student on CO2 causing "Global Warming." Supposedly a phony "greenhouse effect" caused Venus to go from an average temperature of 80 degrees to 954 degrees! Later this fantasy was used in an attempt to steal money thru a global "carbon tax." The CO2 lie goes back to the heat of Venus.

Rady said...

thx, Intercept.

@anon 5:42 pm, but that piece says "Greater CO2 concentrations lead to higher temperatures."

That's the point specifically refuted by scientist skeptics.

your link lays out the info like it's rock solid indisputable fact, when in reality, even IPCC scientists admitted in their leaked emails that a lot of uncertainty remains.

All we want is the truth; we don't need government propaganda.

Anonymous said...

@ Rady

Anonymous said...

"That's the point specifically refuted by scientist skeptics. "

Verb: refute
1. Overthrow by argument, evidence, or proof
2. Prove to be false or incorrect

scientist skeptics have done neither. for them to refute something, it must be accepted beyond all reasonable doubt that their position is in fact the case.

just because the skeptics disagree, doesnt mean anything is refuted.

perhaps co2 is not the only cause.. who knows what part haarp or chemtrails play in all this.. and it is not to argue the case for any useless taxes, but to ignore all the evidence that something is terribly wrong, by simply opening your eyes and looking around.. pretending theres no problems with extreme weather events, record breaking event one after another.. isnt going to help anyone.

Anonymous said...

I too was a warmist in the 80s which was a warm decade. It did seem like if global warming was happening it would start off like many events of the 80s like the fires in Indonesia and the drought in Florida. However I remembered climate scientists in the 70s were wondering whether a new ice age would come along. I was looking into end of the world scenarios and an ice age would certainly end the world as we like to live in it. Now an ice age is climate change. The last one ended 10,000 years ago and the Earth has been warming since then. The little ice age of (mainly) the 1600s and the medieval warming when Vikings colonized Greenland are apparently the normal vagaries of our climate. So was the warming in the 80s and 90s. While it is true that we now have the technological capability to wreck the environment - it appears to me that nuclear accidents like Chernobyl and Fukishima, the militaries using depleted uranium in the hundreds of tons are much more important dangers. Not to mention GM crops or...

Messenger said...

It gets better

Rady said...

@anon 11:53 pm, yes, there's another interesting email:

“What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation?” muses one scientist. “They’ll kill us probably.”

Anonymous said...

Here's something I don't understand and I don't think is ever taken into consideration.

For every gas there is a mean velocity or a probablity distribution. It's something I learned in college physics. (Wikipedia here for an overview

One of the problems that the professor loved to give us was what the velocity of a gas would be at different temps and then if it exceeded the escape velocity of gravity that would explain why it was rare or not found.

If the earth was really heating as quickly as the alarmists say, couldn't that be verified by the composition of the atmosphere changing and wouldn't the "evaporation" of the high energy gasses offset warming?

Anonymous said...

I am a solarist, and so are many, many scientists. In fact, I suspect the majority of honest scientists would certainly agree with something like:

"Variations in solar radiation have some impact on climate fluctuations. Human activities also have some impact. Our central problem is to sort out exactly how much and what kind of effect these two forcing mechanisms exert on the climate."

The real argument global-warmists offer in the policy debate is this:

"We simply do not have the necessary time to sort out exactly what drives climate, because the effects of climate will be felt.... well, right now. So we are entitled to offer a scientific inducement for humanity to begin mitigating one apparent causative agent, whether it is the real culprit or not. And if it is solar...God help us."

It is clear this is a political not a scientific angle of attack. It is also clear that the exact same policy inducement would explain a 15-year-old program of intensive geo-engineering outside the realm of public discourse.

Gabe said...

Hey great article. When it cooled down in 2008 I predicted it would based on the silence of the sun. Sun spots gone = temperature down. Predictions are that after this year the sun is going to have a very quiet decade. So my new prediction: temperatures are going to plummet over the next decade, and the chemtrail goons are going to jump up and take credit for it. I'M SICK OF THE LIES! Thanks for the article (I, too am a converted true believer -- I wouldn't even WATCH The Great Global Warming Swindle back in '05)

Anonymous said...

This is an amazing record of your transformation from warmist to skeptic. You are not alone, I'll bet most of the people you know were once a warmist, and most of those who write on your blogs were once warmists until a few years ago. Each one has their story of the transformation.

Anonymous said...

....which is exactly what respectthescience is: government-sponsored propaganda.

Mauibrad said...

Right on Rady! Some of the same key points I have noticed.

Toxic geoengineering is more of a threat to the health of those living on the planet than is CO2.

Anonymous said...

Well I was never a warmist. Cynicism > skepticism. Al Gore is a politician. Which kinda means you have to assume he's full of shit and is concealing another agenda. On further investigation it turns out that yes, Al Gore is indeed full of shit.

Anonymous said...

The Earth is easily capable of handling any global warming produced by humanity, The Earth, or Grandma Earth to be exact, being a living entity endowed with true/[spiritual] intelligence and not the intellect found within humans. This is because Spirituality, the 4th dimension out of the 5 dimensionalities every true human has, is real. Spirituality, however, is beyond the grasp of any agency within The Material, especially not the Religion & Religiosity conceptualised by humans, R&R being the MO of Humanity, oka Ownership Issues.

That which is materially tangible is within the bounds of the 3-dimensional human but spirituality being intangible and is the super, ad infinitum, set of The Material, is beyond knowledge, knowledege being The Potential whereas Empowerment is The Kinetic. Every human is only a partial human, all having our animal and vegetative legacies. To become a full or fuller human, one needs to realise one’s spirituality. Trying to own The Earth through some concept/thought of the past or future, will not work other than facilitating greed, greed being fear expressed whereas fear is none other than greed suppressed. As Gandhi suggested, “We must be the change we seek”, meaning that reality is one’s experience whereas others’ reality is merely one’s knowledge. A Simplicity which Eludes, especially the overly complex, oka The Stupid, whereas those who worship another are overly simple, oka The Dumb, Stupdity & Dumbness being of fact and not of indulgence.

To realise [because mere knowledge/religiosity is supremely inadequate] one’s spirituality, one only needs to be effortlessly Pure within Desire whereas those who merely Desire Purity are catered for by their Fame, Fortune & Immortality, oka of Might, Might being limited by The Physical Cosmos whereas Spirituality is unlimited/infinite - should one be pure enough within one’s desire to realise the reality, there being no such thing as Desiring Purity when one is not Pure within one’s Desire, Another Simplicity which Eludes, Over being Under expressed whereas Under is merely Over suppressed, yet Another Simplicity which Eludes. See what happens when we assume knowledge/The Potential as empowerment/The Kinetic? Stupdiity-cum-Dumbness, Stupidity being Dumbness expressed whereas Dumbness is merely … surely you must know the answer by now. Trust in only real when faith is real otherwise trust is merely relinquishing consequences, consequences like being taxed for nothing real other than to gift some half-humans yet another level of comfort, comfort being the saint you do not know whereas cruelty is the devil you know only too well. ASWE. Stop the religious activity, be your own master and soon, you will neither have the desire to master others or be mastered by others. Yet ASWE. At this rate, it would best to let the chimps loose and govern mankind instead of the other way around, the zoo being when one steps out of one’s abode, ASWE. Global Warming? Humbug !

Rady said...

interesting info; thanks to all who provided them

@Brad -- yeah, geoengineering scares me more.

hyperzombie said...

I also started out as a warmist, then in the late 90's the hockey stick graph came out and from that moment I knew that the IPCC was corrupt and climate science at best was incompetent and at worse an out and out fraud. How could they erase 2000 years of human recorded climate history buy reading tree rings on the coast of russia? Insane, but the media and the world government bought it hook line and sinker. Now no matter what happens weather wise it is caused buy evil CO2 emissions, flood/drought, warm/cold, snow/no snow, wind/calm, even if glow in the dark cheese wheels fell from the sky, it would be blamed on global warming. The world has gome temporally insane, funny to watch, too bad it is costing us all a massive amount of money.

Anonymous said...

Put no credence in the statement by the American Physical Society. It was orchestrated by a cabal, and was ramrodded through. The same attempt was made by them to force it through AAPT (American Association of Physics Teachers), and frankly... we got quickly distant from that. We have enough to do to get people to even TAKE physics anymore so they even understand a damn thing about thermodynamics.

Post a Comment