Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 03/27/2010 6:51:45 AM PDT by RogerFGay
Yesterday, I wrote that the IPCC should be shut down and that the core conspirators should be hunted down and prosecuted. That commentary did not go far enough. To avoid break-down of the modern world, the IPCC must be condemned and steps taken to assure that similar activities are not started in the future.The IPCC agenda supports large-scale theft of public funding, a path to international economic chaos, and a plan for a New World Order devoid of freedom and effective democracy. These are issues often discussed and without a doubt pose a global threat. Another highly destructive element, dealing with the means to the ends, is political control of the scientific process. This is (obviously) the area of activity in which the IPCC is most directly involved.
The modern world is an artifact of progress in science and technology: in transportation, entertainment, communication, energy, food from production through preparation, water treatment, industrial production, business and government processes, policing and defense to name a few key areas. Even the top political problem of the day, health care reform, is brought to you by the opportunity to live much longer and healthier lives due to modern science and technology. It's greatest problem is that cutting edge medicine and treatments are often expensive.
Progress in science and technology is gained through scientific and engineering processes. Causing large-scale damage to these processes will have a long term effect that is similar to bombing a country back to the stone-age. New investments are needed to bring the country back to its former state and the time lost in which further progress could have been pursued is lost forever. New solutions and improved cost-effectiveness are at least delayed. If the disruption continues, the ability to maintain the infrastructure suffers and economic suffering or even collapse will follow. Those countries that defend these processes progress and overtake those that don't.
We need look no further than the current administration in the US to illustrate blind destructive behavior in dealing with science and technology; so obvious as to be apparent in all parts of the development chain. The Obama administration doles out large amounts of public funding for investment in IPCC related activities and development of non-competitive pseudo-”green” technologies, passes large amounts of “green”-green (money) to political friends, and helps big donors compete with more expensive, lower quality products than those already on offer.
The engineering process is suffering directly. What is progress that will translate into next year's new products when next year's political manipulation of the market is arbitrarily controlled and currently unknown? What will be allowed and promoted in five years? What can be done, and what can be understood, if progress on its own merits no longer matters? Nothing. The rational response to such great uncertainty is lower private investment. Public funding increases its role along along with greater political definition and control of “progress.” Private companies must wait and follow arbitrarily defined political directions and vie for political favors rather than pushing competitively for real progress.
In case you haven't heard, this deep economic recession has hit the engineering community fairly hard. There are other factors involved to be sure, but let me maintain the focus. With the government so heavily involved in market manipulation through arbitrary control of science and technology, long term planning is no longer possible, or at least far less effective. Among the layoffs from private companies are engineers and scientists who were engaged in envisioning and realizing the future. As mature engineering organizations are dismantled, the ability of industry to maintain an efficient flow of innovation suffers. Industry becomes reactive rather than progressive; competitively weaker.
The IPCC demonstrates how far the politicization of science has gone. It did not suddenly pop into existence out of nowhere. The many “scientists” who routinely perform government “studies” that give whatever results politicians desire are the true bottom-feeders in the whole process, and they have been around for a good while. Their academic credentials are used to provide a superficial impression that a credible, objective analysis has been performed. But their activity is not the application of objective science. They are lobbyists being paid illegally from public funds who intentionally present false information in support of political scams. They are pervasive in the political process and are likely to be found wherever a committee has been seated to support a policy initiative.
It was in such an environment that Al Gore, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton (to name a few) all received their on-the-job training in the real-world political process. It partially explains the vast disconnect between the Political Class and The People. No political initiative is impossible. If “truth” can be manipulated to give the impression that you're right, then truth and whether you're actually right doesn't matter. Public opinion should never be a problem so long as much of the press core loyally repeats the propaganda created with the help of bottom-feeding pseudo-scientific lobbyists.
The IPCC however represents the largest and most dangerous exercise in politically controlled science since Nazi evolutionary “science” was used to justify ethnic cleansing and Communist control of agricultural “science” caused mass starvation. It ties together the corruption of science from bottom to top in the pseudo-science food chain and ties into goals of controlling and corrupting the private sector; and it does so on a global scale.
As I have said before, it is time for “responsible adults” to step in and put a stop to these activities. To not do so assures our peril. The IPCC must be condemned in the strongest possible terms and steps taken to assure that similar activities are not started in the future. Moreover, the general message must be delivered that we do not accept being lied to through the politicization of science.
ping
Exactly.....
.....Should our company build the coal or nuclear plant we KNOW is what we need BUT with the uncertainty of the current Administration and the permitting process it could end up being shelved at great expense?
-OR-
.....Should our company build a subsidized and unreliable wind farm that we KNOW is all the rage publicly with the knowledge that the lid will come off the GREEN MOVEMENT and the farm will eventually end up idled.
Long term large capital energy investment and security is presently being held hostage by your local greasy GreenPeace and USGBC activists.
The estimation of historical CO2 trajectories is indeterminate:
It is somewhat technical but it is obvious that the IPCC used the highest possible (exponential ) curve fitting method....for modeling the catasprophe caused by man ( their intent).
Web-info about CO2 and the "Greenhouse Effect" Doom; by Tom V. Segalstad
Tom V. Segalstad
Associate Professor of Resource- and Environmental Geology; and
Former Head, Geological Museum of
Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, Norway
Former Expert Reviewer with the UN IPCC,
the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change.
Created 29 June 1997; established at www.CO2web.info 15 March 2008; updated 9 March 2010.
*******************************************
I agree!!
fyi
fyi
Time to kill the IPCC....and do in Al Gore and all his friends.....
From the Weekly Standard:
thanks.
agree.
ayn rand foresaw the anti-technology, totalitarian
character of the boomer generation in a book of collected essays of the 1960’s:
*********************** ****************************************
Help! How do I know?
How do you tell a scientist from a non-scientist? Where does science end, and propaganda, politics, and opinion begin? You only need to know one thing:
…
…
Straight away, this sorts the wheat from the weeds. We don’t learn about the natural world by calling people names or hiding data. We don’t learn by chucking out measurements in favor of opinions. We don’t learn by suppressing discussions, or setting up fake rules about which bits of paper count or which people have a licence to speak.
A transparent, competitive system where all views are welcome is the fastest way to advance humanity. The Royal Society is the oldest scientific association in the world. Its motto is essentially, Take No One’s Word For It. In other words, assume nothing; look at the data. When results come in that don’t fit the theory, a scientist chucks out his theory. A non-scientist has “faith”, he “believes” or assumes his theory is right, and tries to make the measurements fit. When measurements disagree, he ignores the awkward news, and “corrects”, or statistically alters, the data–always in the direction that keeps his theory alive.
NOTES: This page was created as part of the booklet Global Bullies Want Your Money (The Skeptics Handbook, vol. II). It was inspired by requests from people who were obviously frustrated. They wanted a formula, a checklist, or a table: a way to know which side was right. The people who normally like to trust authority are the ones most likely to run into a brick wall in this debate. They trust the scientific method, but also trust the institutions, the processes, and the politics that have risen up to supposedly carry this method from it’s pure form into it’s practical output. And the two sides are at loggerheads.
I trust the scientific method, but not the human institutions (they are subject to ambition, personality, money, and conflicts of interest).
In the end, the only real way to decide is to look at the evidence. But, if you have to figure out who to trust, if that’s your chosen short-cut, then at least this is a more systematic approach than trying to weigh up the resumes on each side.
Copenhagen summit: Is there any real chance of averting the climate crisis? ( James Hansen - 2009 )
“The IPCC agenda supports large-scale theft of public funding, a path to international economic chaos, and a plan for a New World Order devoid of freedom and effective democracy.”
Isn’t this the description of the Open Society that George Soros plans to establish with the help of his bought-and-paid-for Ayatollah Obama?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
