Michael mann reviewing climate change claims is stalinism watts up with that gas 93

###########

I think it can be confusing to talk simply about Left and Right in the climate debates because at the surface things may appear to be of the Left. However, dig a little deeper and the Right is doing very well from selling non-dispatchable renewables technology in huge quantities and thereby driving up the cost of energy. This is illustrated in the book [Ref. 1] by Oxford University’s energy economics specialist, Dieter Helm, from which I quote below:-

[pages 102 – 103]. “This is how Europe got its short-term 20% renewable energy target. But it would be too great a compliment to the green political movement to give them all the credit for the Renewables Directive. They have been aided and abetted by industrial interests for whom renewables represent a very large carbon pork barrel. Subsidies attract industry, and with guaranteed contracts and political support, major European companies began to sing the greens’ tune. Siemens led the way in Germany … The renewables lobby groups grew in size and influence, and the lobbying became overt, loud and very effective, funded by the companies that stand to gain electricity deregulation choices and challenges most from the subsidies.”

[page 240]. “Few politicians stand up and spell out that climate change is all about coal, economic growth and population growth. It is as if the three new coal power stations that have been opening every week in China and India don’t matter, as long as we open a few wind farms in Europe and install some insulation in our houses … Contrary to what many politicians would wish us to believe, energy policy cannot deliver both sustainable and cheap energy simultaneously … all across Europe we have been led gas kinetic energy formula to believe in this miracle, but it is just not happening … The cost of the decarbonisation of entire economies is likely to be very high, and it is going to involve sacrifices.” End of my quotes from Helm.

Even then, Mark, the right tends to be for less government (and not for using government as a tool to crush those with an opposing opinion). where as the left wants the government to not only put it’s stamp of approval on their social issues and but also to put it’s boot heel on anyone who is against their social issues. Don’t fall for the left’s framing of social issues as the right trying to force their social issues on everyone else. that’s a more apt description of what the left does (as usual the left project their bad habits onto the right).

For those on the right what you do in your bedroom is your business and that’s where is should stay, to the left the government has to acknowledge what you do in your bedroom (and change centuries old customs, traditions, and definitions along the way) and crush anyone who doesn f gas regulations 2015’t approve of it. Most of the social issues and government involvement on the right is attempting to remove the left enshrining their social issues into the law (for example abortion or gay marriage) and protecting peoples freedoms from being crushed because they don’t have the “right” opinions rather than enshrining their own social issues into law.

Scott Adams has wisely pointed out that a climate crisis is being presented to the public the same way scams are introduced. In the real world, if you tell businessmen that everyone agrees on something, that businessmen will know you are scamming them. If you refuse to answer the questions and claim that the debate is over, it is a sign that you are scamming people. If you refuse to present your raw data, you are a scammer.

Micheal Mann has always behaved like someone who was perpetrating a scam, and he continues to act that way in this latest article. This is probably why half the population does not believe in an impending climate change disaster. These people don’t have the scientific background to even begin questioning the science, but they are wise in the ways of the world, and can recognize a scam when they see it.

Good scientists don’t act like con men. Climate alarmists have acted like con artists from the beginning, starting with Hansen’s AC trick during his testimony before Congress in 1988 to Michael Mann’s continuous attempts to suppress and demonize all opposing viewpoints. It takes the brazen balls of a con man to write: “Stalin embraced lysenkoism as the basis for Soviet agricultural policy, while also denouncing and persecuting Lysenko’s scientific critics”, when the author has embraced a climate change crisis as the basis for global energy policy, while consistently denouncing and persecuting scientific critics!

Did Einstein belittle those that questioned his theories? NO. He simply told them to disprove them. It would only take one instance to do so. That’s what is important about the 1930″s being as warm (or warmer gas works park address) than today without CO2. Like it or not, that is the one instance that disproves today’s theory that CO2 is THE driver of temperature.

You can’t ever prove a Theory but you can disprove one. You can run 10,000 experiments that show your theory predicts something but it still remains a Theory. But, it only takes one experiment to show your Theory is incorrect. Better yet, it won’t become a Law until you know enough to put it down on paper as an equation. A mathematical fact.

AGW and CAGW don’t even have physical experiments that prove them correct. Global temperature calculations don’t even include CO2 as a variable, so they can’t prove or disprove anything about what drives temperatures. GCM’s are only computer programs of how someone thinks things work. They can’t prove or disprove anything either unless the “equations” that drive them have also been proven to be accurate. Somehow with GCM’s we have mixed up physical science with computer games.

“Propagandiste volubile du régime soviétique et du marxisme-léninisme, Lyssenko grimpe les échelons du Parti communiste de l’Union soviétique et, rompant avec le scepticisme rationnel et avec la méthode expérimentale, dénonce comme « contre-révolutionnaires » les généticiens scientifiques qui osaient discuter ses postulats. Lyssenko entend « appliquer la dialectique marxiste aux sciences de la nature » et, inversement, à démontrer la validité de la méthode dialectique par les sciences naturelles3. Bénéficiant du soutien de Joseph Staline, il gagne encore en influence et élimine sans états d’âme ses adversaires, jugés comme « saboteurs » et déportés au Goulag.

“Spreading propagandist of the Soviet regime and Marxism-Leninism, Lysenko climbs the ranks of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and, breaking with rational skepticism and the experimental method, denounces as “counter-revolutionaries” scientific geneticists who dared to discuss his assumptions. Lysenko intends to “apply the Marxist dialectic to the natural sciences” and, conversely, to demonstrate the validity of the dialectical gas x tablets himalaya method by the natural sciences3. With the support of Joseph Stalin, he gains in influence and eliminates without qualms his opponents, deemed “saboteurs” and deported to the Gulag.

malkom700… Idai was not the strongest tropical cyclone to hit Mozambique in the last 30 years, which averages almost 1 tropical system per year. Good records don’t seem to go back very far, so it is impossible to determine if there is any trend in Indian Ocean cyclones, but we do no that there is no trend in total cyclone energy around the planet.

Where longer records exist in other basins, we find all kinds of trends, up and down, that last maybe 10 to 15 years, but no trend over the length of the entire record, so even if there is an upward trend in the frequency or intensity of Indian Ocean tropical cyclones, It doesn’t say anything about climate change, because such trends naturally occur without climate change.

Climate crisis skeptics are very much awake and more knowledgeable than most about the full body of scientific evidence. The actual science does not support the notion of a man-made climate crisis! The science does support a slight man-made electricity meaning warming that is almost entirely beneficial, but indiscernible from natural climate variation. Everyone I know who has taken the time to understand the full body of science around climate change, has come to a very similar conclusion quite independently.