Global Warming political movement really dead?

My favorite mountain in Nepal

Here's an interesting, if sketchy, article claiming the political movement is dead due to the absurdly dishonest and amateurish attempt to get it tangled up with real science. One thing I don't like about it is it doesn't list even the major highlights of the discrediting of the movement.

Most recently, we have EPA-gate, where the EPA was caught warning employees that the higher-ups DO NOT want to see science that doesn't support pro-global warming policies, and warning that people need to fall in line.

Then there was Climate-gate, which it should be recalled was the theft of email and data because Freedom of Information Act requests had been ignored and blocked for years. Legally, the information was supposed to be turned over years before.

Then there was the leading IPCC scientist being prosecuted for fraud because of his pro-warming shenanigans. The British scientists won't be prosecuted because the statue of limitations has run out --it's only six months.

Then there was the bit about the Himalayan glaciers, which was complete nonsense, and they knew it before they started collecting millions of dollars to study it, or put it into the IPCC report. Remember, it was based on gossip between two unknown Indian science students.

Next should be NASA-gate. NASA has been blocking Freedom of Information Act requests for years, and refuse to turn over their data and calculations. It is illegal, and they will probably soon be forced to expose their heavily manipulated data. The matter is in court. I don't blame them for latching onto the global warming political movement to keep themselves alive. Their very existence has been on the chopping block for years. But if their only purpose is to falsify data and provide cover for politicians, they should be on the chopping block.

www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-great-global-warming-collapse/article1458206/

An interesting quote from the article really articulates the situation well:

“The global warming movement as we have known it is dead,” the brilliant analyst Walter Russell Mead says in his blog on The American Interest. It was done in by a combination of bad science and bad politics.

The impetus for the Copenhagen conference was that the science makes it imperative for us to act. But even if that were true – and even if we knew what to do – a global deal was never in the cards. As Mr. Mead writes, “The global warming movement proposed a complex set of international agreements involving vast transfers of funds, intrusive regulations in national economies, and substantial changes to the domestic political economies of most countries on the planet.”

Another article claiming the political movement is dead

I think saying the political movement is dead is wishful thinking. The whole idea of somehow getting it tangled up with science is probably dead. The science portion is so completely and thoroughly debunked by so many top scientists over so many years that it probably can't revive masquerading as science. Remember, 34,000 top scientists including many Nobel laureates have signed a statement against global warming, then there's the 4000 top scientists who signed the Heidelberg Appeal, and the 700 who wrote their statement against global warming to our Congress. The political movement's newest position on this has been articulated in the UK and US as, "It doesn't matter if it can be proved. It's still a threat and we have to act immediately."

Huh? No matter whether it's real or not, we still need to pursue their political agenda around this issue in order to "save the world?" If anyone still has doubts about the political agenda of this movement, read the draft of the Copenhagen agreement that they wanted to get signed. It sounds like a dystopian novel, 1984 for example. Incredible control of minute details of the lives of every person on earth, unlimited powers, an unelected world government (paragraphs 36 and 38), a Marxist system enforced worldwide, including massive redistribution from countries that need to be punished (like the US) to more virtuously poor ones, discussion of forced population control, etc. Read it...and weep. It's sick.

The psychos at Copenhagen literally sat around discussing openly whether population control should be forced with financial punishments, sterilants in the water supply, or other means. Read the news reports. That's why I'm not providing links. Research it yourself. In five minutes you will realize that not only am I right, but that this is an agenda that Marxists have been pushing full-bore for over a hundred years. Confusing people with complex science gave them enough cover to get all the way to a huge international forum with this agenda, although it's bad for almost every person on earth.

I should write a full summary of the timeline of this political movement, and probably will. The short version is that the idea of using the cover of environmental concern was first proposed by a communist writer in 1947. To my knowledge, the first research to try to link CO2 to something bad began in 1954. So, for over 55 years they have been trying to make a link between CO2 and climate, and still don't have a mathematical model that works (as they had to admit in Newsweek last summer, and after $50BILLION spent on it).

Link to my post "Pointed Questions for the global warming political movement"

Their first stab at it was global cooling, a new ice age, announced by "a consensus" in 1975. By 1979 we were in a warming trend again, so they switched to global starving. That didn't work out. So they switched to global burning -- remember the dreaded, life and death ozone hole? That didn't work out, so then it was global warming. The warming cycle only lasted from 1979 to 1998 (shorter than the usual 20-30 years). Now they have gone to "climate change," which as top climatologists have pointed out is a silly name. If there is anything that is certain in climate science, it is that the climate is always changing. That's nothing new or scary.

Just for fun I'll mention that, although I understand why they chose CO2 for political reasons, though thousands of scientists believe the choice of that trace element is "absurd," it is in fact plant food. Oh, and there is no evidence that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen, and it's certainly not as high as in the Medieval Warming Period or for that matter, during the Jurassic.

CONCLUSION? The scientific part of global warming may be debunked and dead, but the political movement that started it will carry on like nothing happened. In other words, I think the article is wrong. Without the cover of "saving the world" how would they get people to agree to such a psychotic and destructive agenda that benefits the ruling class and crushes the other six and a half billion people under their boot???

I love the earth and nature, have traveled all over the world, and climbed everywhere from the Appalachians and Rockies to the Alps and Himalayas. Even as a child I went regularly into the woods near my house and picked up trash. Anything we can do to be nicer to the earth is great, but I will not sign on to draconian one world government or command and control systems to micromanage all humans. That's just wrong.