Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Why Do You Think We Need A Govt??

Recommended Posts

Members dont see this ad

LoL! How about Altezzaclub's-rant-to-wake-up-the-zombies-inhabiting-the-world..


or are you happy with a "high" terror alert for 'a long time'.... "Extra Police presence"? What does that mean? All they can do is stop and interrogate more members of the public going about their lawful business... oh, and intimidate them to make sure they all realise The Govt Is In Control.. You've already giving up your freedom for security.


Ah, almost as funny as the Dutch politician who was in TV's MH17 program tonight, complaining about Holland buying all its oil/gas from Russia, people who "were not sharing the same values as Holland.." He obviously didnt realise Europe's option was to buy it from the Muslims in the Middle-East, or maybe the Dutch are going back to public beheadings these days...

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Netherlands, where six per cent of the population is now Muslim, is scrapping multiculturalism. The Dutch government says it will abandon the long-standing model of multiculturalism that has encouraged Muslim immigrants to create a parallel society within the Netherlands . A new integration bill, which Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner presented to parliament on June 16, reads: "The government shares the social dissatisfaction over the multicultural society model and plans to shift priority to the values of the Dutch people.

In the new integration system, the values of the Dutch society play a central role with this change, the government steps away from the model of a multicultural society. The letter continues: "A more obligatory integration is justified because the government also demands that from its own citizens."It is necessary because otherwise the society gradually grows apart and eventually no one feels at home anymore in the Netherlands. The new integration policy will place more demands on immigrants. For example, immigrants will be required to learn the Dutch language, and the government will take a tougher approach to immigrants who ignore Dutch values or disobey Dutch law. The government will also stop offering special subsidies for Muslim immigrants because, according to Donner; "It is not the government's job to integrate immigrants." The government will introduce new legislation that outlaws forced marriages and will also impose tougher measures against Muslim immigrants who lower their chances of employment by the way they dress. More specifically, the government imposed a ban on face-covering, Islamic burqas as of January 1, 2014. Holland has done that whole liberal thing, and realized - maybe too late - that creating a nation of tribes, will kill the nation itself.


The future of Australia, the UK, USA, Canada and New Zealand may well be read here..

READERS NOTE: Muslim immigrants leave their countries of birth because of civil and political unrest . . . "CREATED BY THE VERY NATURE OF THEIR CULTURE.

Countries like Holland, Canada, USA, UK, Australia and New Zealand have an established way of life that actually works, so why embrace the unworkable? If Muslims do not wish to accept another culture, the answer is simple; "STAY WHERE YOU ARE!!"

This gives a whole new meaning to the term, 'Dutch Courage' ... Unfortunately Australian, UK, USA, Canadian, and New Zealand politicians don't have the ... guts to do the same. There's a whole lot of truth here!!!!



A Nation of Sheep, Breeds a Government of Wolves!

Let's Take a Stand!!!

Borders: Closed!!

Language: English!

Culture: The Constitution, is the Bill of Rights!

NO freebies to: Non-Citizens! We the people are coming!!!

Edited by Aussie_KE70

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't argue with that! I mean, I moan about how backward Aussie is with quaint ideas like supermarkets can't sell alcohol, but I'm not going to behead anyone over it. At least I'll wear a T-shirt and cook on a barbie!


But blowing up members of some barbaric religion on the other side of the world is not going to do anything for us at all, except have our freedoms taken away in the name of 'security'.


That means the terrorists have already won, we have lost our Aussie way of life, and no longer are presumed innocent until shown to be guilty, are spied upon by the Govt every day, have no freedom of speech, have our internet censored, can be jailed for our political or religeous views, can be jailed without charge and unable to access a lawyer, can be tortured, and our tormentors have total immunity from the law...


That's just plain tyranny! ..and of course it always starts "only in special circumstances.." then in a decade it is used everywhere.


Its become obvious the USA will bomb Syria's military as well as ISIS, anything to get rid of Bashar Assad. That will leave the way for a new president who will let the gas pipeline through from UAE/Qatar/Kuwait/Saudi right through Turkey to Europe, and end Europe's dependency for energy on Russia. Getting rid of Assad also cuts another Russian ally out, so the USA can finally tackle Iran, the one they've been trying to subdue for years!


NO-ONE will sell oil in anything except USA dollars!


Anyway, the Rockefellers are selling their oil companies and that is the greatest pointer to us all running out of oil soon, so the world will be a very different place in the future! Electric KE70 anyone....



and when people tell you democracy is the answer...


...democracy is not liberty. The meaning of liberty was explained by the French classical liberal Benjamin Constant in a famous lecture he delivered in 1819, The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns.


Said Constant:


"First ask yourselves, Gentlemen, what an Englishman, a Frenchman, or a citizen of the United States of America understand today by the word 'liberty.' For each of them it is the right to be subject only to the laws, and to be neither arrested, detained, put to death or maltreated in any way by the arbitrary will of one or more individuals.

(Not if someone in ASIO points you out and picks you up..)


"It is the right of everyone to express their opinion, (nope, can't express an opinon on many things, especially racism and terrorism)

to choose a profession and practice it, (nope, only if you get Govt permission and licences first, so THEY choose, not you)

to dispose of property, (nope, only if you get Govt permission again!)

and even to abuse it; (nope, Govt will stop you doing what you wish to your property- try cutting down a tree or building a garage.. they decide, not you)

to come and to go without permission, (nope, ID to drive or travel overseas, and if you're on a Govt list you're not allowed to)

and without having to account for their motives or undertakings. (Nope, you have to explain why you are travelling and where you are going. Some places are not allowed.)

It is everyone's right to associate with other individuals, (nope, not if they are a member of a gang or terrorist organisation, or even just support those groups)

either to discuss their interests, (nope, no freedom of speech now)

or to profess the religion which they and their associates prefer, (plenty of religions are banned, just not in Aussie atm)

or even simply to occupy their days and hours in a way which is more compatible with their inclinations or whims. (HELL NO, the Govt will spy on you every moment of your life and make sure you are living it according to they wishes at the time.. its not called Nanny State for nothing! Don't smoke dope, don't eat too much fat, don't drink sugary drinks, don't smoke tobacco, don't..)


"Finally it is everyone's right to exercise some influence on the administration of the government, either by electing all or particular officials, or through representations, petitions, demands to which the authorities are more or less compelled to pay heed." (and this is the right to be completely ignored by them.)


In fact protesting against the Govt's new teror laws will instantly get you investigated and put on a watch list for life.. Anyone up for a demonstration in Canberra against the new laws? Oh, no-one wants to ruin their future, what a surprise, everyone is terrorised into submission already.


So any "liberty" you think we have now is just an illusion left over from what our ancestor REALLY had!

Edited by altezzaclub

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, France has certanly bought the focus in on terrorism and the State. Once again no-one wants to talk about the obvious- the Police can only turn up afterwards, and you will still be dead. The real solution was to let the staff carry handguns and the terrorists would be dead along with the first couple of people they shot. I'm sure the clown in the cafe in Sydney would have thought tiddlywinks was a better pastime if he knew half the customers might have been armed. As the Police know very well, having a gun puts you in control only if everyone else is unarmed!


The mainstream media ignored the irony of the Prime Minister telling us that "free speech is the cornerstone of our democracy" and simultaneously the medical industry was calling for the anti-vaccine campaigner to be banned from speaking.


These are some quotes from the Libertarians in the UK, fairly salient at this point-



Je suis Charlie

I will repeat that this was a barbarous crime. But there seem to be barbarous crimes and barbarous crimes. Suppose the attack had not been on a cultural leftist magazine, but on the headquarters of the Front National, and the victims had been Francine le Pen and the party leadership. Would all those city squares have filled with people reciting Je suis le Front National? I hardly think so. Nor would the media have given blanket and uncritical coverage.


Cultural leftists have the same right not to be murdered as the rest of us. So far as the present lamentations indicate, they are seen by the directors of public opinion as having a greater right.


We will Never Give up Our Right to Freedom of Speech

The continuing hymn of praise to freedom of speech would sound better if it were seriously meant. I believe that the writers and cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo had the moral right to say whatever they pleased about Islam, or anything else. But I also believe that Luke O’Farrell and Garron Helm should not have been sent to prison for being rude to or about Jews. ...... Almost every day, in England alone, someone gets into trouble for opening his mouth. Where for them are the defenders of freedom of speech, now more fashionably than bravely holding up pencils or waving candles?....... Just about everyone else I have seen on the television is a hypocrite. In general, we are free to say only what the authorities want to hear.


These were Cowardly Crimes

The men who shot up the Charlie Hebdo offices are not cowards. They took a considerable risk, and it is generally believed that they will not let themselves be taken alive. This is part of what makes them and their like so dangerous. The Sinn Fein/IRA terrorists were cowards. Their speciality was to plant time bombs in shop toilets, and then run away before they went off. ....... To call them cowards is a comforting falsehood.


These were Senseless Crimes

The only senseless crime is one that has no evident purpose, or is unlikely to achieve it. The purpose of the Charlie Hebdo killings was to punish outrages against Moslem sensibilities, and to deter their repetition. Can anyone say they failed, or will fail? .....From now on, Moslems abroad and in Europe can expect a still more delicate handing of their sensibilities than is already the case. No one wants to be murdered, and one of the surest ways to avoid being murdered will be not to say anything untoward about Mohammed or his alleged teachings.


I now feel obliged to comment on mass-immigration from the Third World. Anyone who said this would be other than a disaster must have been a fool or a villain. It has forced down working class incomes. It has raised housing costs for everyone. It has increased crime and welfare dependency. It has Balkanised politics and administration and law. It has been the excuse for a police state. I am not a violent or an uncharitable man. I am committed to an abstract and universalist ideology. I do not object to a certain porosity of borders. But, like most Jews in Israel, or most Chinese in China – or like most people in all times and places – I regard every square inch of my country as the birthright of my people, and do not look favourably on levels of immigration that seem likely, within the next few generations, to dispossess us of that birthright. Yet this is where we now are, in England, in France, and in many other European and European-settled countries. I have no convincing answers to the problem we face. All I can do is predict one of two outcomes:

First, present trends will continue, and growing weight of numbers, and a greater willingness to resort to violence, will bring about the transformation of our societies in the image of the newcomers;

Second, there will be a nativist reaction, attended by expulsion and the removal of citizenship rights for those allowed to stay, and an authoritarian political settlement.

I do not look forward to either outcome. ... Anyone who can suggest a less unpleasant outcome that is other than wishful thinking will have at least my gratitude.


From http://thelibertarianalliance.com/2015/01/09/hot-air-and-the-paris-atrocities/


Politically incorrect, obnoxious to some, culturally insensitive, offensive I'm sure,... but accurate! A Govt will never be the solution to a religeous war, they will use it to remove freedoms, increase tyranny and pile on more taxes.


The quote of the week goes to a Frenchman who ran across the brothers in their escape and said something like "He told me they wouldn't harm ordinary people and we were safe. He was dressed in black and wore a hood, and was carrying a machine gun. I thought he was from the police.."


When you can't tell the criminals from the police (or the pigs from the farmers) then George Orwell was right.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, voting time for the peasants... Your time to influence the place for the next few years, your one chance to decide between Tweedledum or Tweedledee, with exactly the same outcome no matter what!...


Lets admit it, your vote doesn't mean a thing except to the person getting power in his hands, and once his empty promises have gained your vote he really couldn't give a shit about you!


The most amusing irony is when they start talking about FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY and AUSTRALIA..... where they FORCE you to vote!


Don't vote, it only encourages them.... Write across the paper that you have no faith in any of the charlatan liars and would rather appoint people to Parliament like a jury service. Anything to keep those who WANT power OUT of power...

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you can't tell the criminals from the police (or the pigs from the farmers) then George Orwell was right.


I once read Animal Farm, that was a good book.


Oh and I read a couple of Tim Winton books too. I like him.

And I read The Book Theif - also a good book. I haven't read any of the Harry Potter books though, they're supposed to be pretty good as well. Do you like Harry Potter Altezzaclub?

Edited by rian

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read a couple of my daughter's Potter books & saw the first film.... but really, I find Terry Pratchett much much better.


"Animal Farm" and "1984" should be required reading at school... They are great for pointing out what is behind our society.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This I saw pop up a couple of years back and I also didn't think any sane person could believe in it. Seems I forgot most people IN the psychiatric field are not sane!





Oppositional Defiant Disorder Is the Newest Weapon Against Political Dissent


When I went through my clinical training, the Bible of mental illness, The Statistical and Diagnostic Manual (DSM-4r) defined Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) as a highly controversial mental illness used to describe children and teens as mentally ill if they exhibited disobedience and defiance. When I was first nationally credentialed, most practitioners did not take this diagnosis seriously and we mistakenly believed that it would fade away. We uniformly believed this to be true because defiance and oppositional behaviors are hallmark traits of healthy rebellion exhibited by children and teens as they seek independence. Rather than ODD fading away, the diagnosis has become the tool of the ruling elite.

The new DSM (5) has expanded the definition of ODD to include adults who exemplify “paranoid ideation” about the government and frequently express these delusional ideations on the internet.



In its analysis of the political abuse of psychiatry in both the Soviet Union and China, The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, stated that “Psychiatric incarceration of mentally healthy people is uniformly understood to be a particularly pernicious form of repression, because it uses the powerful modalities of medicine as tools of punishment, and it compounds a deep affront to human rights with deception and fraud…” In psychiatric terms, we have become the old Soviet Union where we can be incarcerated and stripped of our rights for having the illness of “political schizophrenia”.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Australian's. We are among the most peaceful, honourable, labourable, loveable and caring people of the world. Yet, that makes us the weakest....

But we' are milked for it and put on show for the rest of the world as a pure display of conformity, submission and powerlessness under the guise of unity.

Edited by GJM85

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just figured this needs more people to see it!  The 'science is settled' mob have got their hooks into the Govt in the latest version of tulip mania or witch burning, and we are all going to pay a fortune to have our living standards lowered.  All this based on rubbish science.

Over half a century ago, C.P. Snow (a novelist and English physical chemist who also served
in several important positions in the British Civil Service and briefly in the UK government)
famously examined the implications of ‘two cultures’:

"A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the
standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have
with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of sci-
entists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how
many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response
was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is the scientific
equivalent of: 'Have you read a work of Shakespeare’s?'

I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question – such as, 'What
do you mean by mass, or acceleration', which is the scientific equivalent of say-
ing, 'Can you read?' – not more than one in ten of the highly educated would
have felt that I was speaking the same language. So the great edifice of modern
physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world
have about as much insight into it as their Neolithic ancestors would have had."

I fear that little has changed since Snow’s assessment 60 years ago. While some might
maintain that ignorance of physics does not impact political ability, it most certainly impacts
the ability of non-scientific politicians to deal with nominally science-based issues. The gap
in understanding is also an invitation to malicious exploitation. Given the democratic ne-
cessity for non-scientists to take positions on scientific problems, belief and faith inevitably
replace understanding, though trivially oversimplified false narratives serve to reassure the
non-scientists that they are not totally without scientific ‘understanding.’ The issue of global
warming offers numerous examples of all of this.

I would like to begin this lecture with an attempt to force the scientists in the audience
to come to grips with the actual nature of the climate system, and to help the motivated
non-scientists in this audience who may be in Snow’s ‘one in ten’ to move beyond the trivial

The climate system

The following description of the climate system contains nothing that is in the least contro-
versial, and I expect that anyone with a scientific background will readily follow the descrip-
tion. I will also try, despite Snow’s observations, to make the description intelligible to the

The system we are looking at consists in two turbulent fluids(the atmosphere and oceans)
interacting with each other. By ‘turbulent,’ I simply mean that it is characterized by irregular
circulations like those found in a gurgling brook or boiling water, but on the planetary scale
of the oceans and the atmosphere. The opposite of turbulent is called laminar, but any fluid
forced to move fast enough becomes turbulent and turbulence obviously limits predictabil-
ity. By interaction, I simply mean that they exert stress on each other and exchange heat
with each other.

These fluids are on a rotating planet that is unevenly heated by the sun. The motions in
the atmosphere (and to a lesser extent in the oceans) are generated by the uneven influence
of the sun. The sun, itself, can be steady, but it shines directly on the tropics while barely
skimming the Earth at the poles. The drivers of the oceans are more complex and include
forcing by wind as well as the sinking of cold and salty water. The rotation of the Earth has
many consequences too, but for the present, we may simply note that it leads to radiation
being distributed around a latitude circle.

The oceans have circulations and currents operating on time scales ranging from years
to millennia, and these systems carry heat to and from the surface. Because of the scale and
density of the oceans, the flow speeds are generally much smaller than in the atmosphere
and are associated with much longer timescales. The fact that these circulations carry heat
to and from the surface means that the surface, itself, is never in equilibrium with space. That
is to say, there is never an exact balance between incoming heat from the sun and outgoing
radiation generated by the Earth because heat is always being stored in and released from
the oceans and surface temperature is always, therefore, varying somewhat.

In addition to the oceans, the atmosphere is interacting with a hugely irregular land sur-
face. As air passes over mountain ranges, the flow is greatly distorted. Topography therefore
plays a major role in modifying regional climate. These distorted air-flows even generate
fluid waves that can alter climate at distant locations. Computer simulations of the climate
generally fail to adequately describe these effects.

A vital constituent of the atmospheric component is water in the liquid, solid and vapor
phases, and the changes in phase have vast impacts on energy flows. Each component also
has important radiative impacts. You all know that it takes heat to melt ice, and it takes fur-
ther heat for the resulting water to become vapor or, as it is sometimes referred to, steam.

The term humidity refers to the amount of vapor in the atmosphere. The flow of heat is
reversed when the phase changes are reversed; that is, when vapor condenses into water,
and when water freezes. The release of heat when water vapor condenses drives thunder
clouds (known as cumulonimbus), and the energy in a thundercloud is comparable to that
released in an H-bomb. I say this simply to illustrate that these energy transformations are
very substantial. Clouds consist of water in the form of fine droplets and ice in the form of
fine crystals. Normally, these fine droplets and crystals are suspended by rising air currents,
but when these grow large enough they fall through the rising air as rain and snow. Not
only are the energies involved in phase transformations important, so is the fact that both
water vapor and clouds (both ice- and water-based) strongly affect radiation. Although I
haven’t discussed the greenhouse effect yet, I’m sure all of you have heard that carbon diox-
ide is a greenhouse gas and that this explains its warming effect. You should, therefore,
understand that the two most important greenhouse substances by far are water vapor and
clouds. Clouds are also important reflectors of sunlight.

The unit for describing energy flows is watts per square meter. The energy budget of
this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter.
Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds
and other features, and such changes are common. The Earth receives about 340 watts per
4square meter from the sun, but about 140 watts per square meter is simply reflected back
to space, by both the Earth’s surface and, more importantly, by clouds. This leaves about
200 watts per square meter that the Earth would have to emit in order to establish balance.

The sun radiates in the visible portion of the radiation spectrum because its temperature is
about 6000K. ‘K’ refers to Kelvins, which are simply degrees Centigrade plus 273. Zero K is the
lowest possible temperature (−273◦C). Temperature determines the spectrum of the emit-
ted radiation. If the Earth had no atmosphere at all (but for purposes of argument still was
reflecting 140 watts per square meter), it would have to radiate at a temperature of about
255K, and, at this temperature, the radiation is mostly in the infrared.
Of course, the Earth does have an atmosphere and oceans, and this introduces a host
of complications. So be warned, what follows will require a certain amount of concentra-
Evaporation from the oceans gives rise to water vapor in the atmosphere, and water
vapor very strongly absorbs and emits radiation in the infrared. This is what we mean when
we call water vapor a greenhouse gas. The water vapor essentially blocks infrared radiation
from leaving the surface, causing the surface and (via conduction) the air adjacent to the
surface to heat, and, as in a heated pot of water, convection sets on. Because the density of
air decreases with height, the buoyant elements expand as they rise. This causes the buoy-
ant elements to cool as they rise, and the mixing results in decreasing temperature with
height rather than a constant temperature. To make matters more complicated, the amount
of water vapor that the air can hold decreases rapidly as the temperature decreases. At some
height there is so little water vapor above this height that radiation from this level can now
escape to space.
It is at this elevated level (around 5 km) that the temperature must be about
255K in order to balance incoming radiation. However, because convection causes temper-
ature to decrease with height, the surface now has to actually be warmer than 255K. It turns
out that it has to be about 288K (which is the average temperature of the Earth’s surface).
This is what is known as the greenhouse effect. It is an interesting curiosity that had con-
vection produced a uniform temperature, there wouldn’t be a greenhouse effect.
In reality, the situation is still more complicated. Among other things, the existence of upper-level
cirrus clouds, which are very strong absorbers and emitters of infrared radiation, effectively
block infrared radiation from below. Thus, when such clouds are present above about 5 km,
their tops rather than the height of 5 km determine the level from which infrared reaches
space. Now the addition of other greenhouse gases (like carbon dioxide) elevates the emis-
sion level, and because of the convective mixing, the new level will be colder. This reduces
the outgoing infrared flux, and, in order to restore balance, the atmosphere would have to
warm. Doubling carbon dioxide concentration is estimated to be equivalent to a forcing of
about 3.7 watts per square meter, which is little less than 2% of the net incoming 200 watts
per square meter. Many factors, including cloud area and height, snow cover, and ocean
circulations, commonly cause changes of comparable magnitude.

It is important to note that such a system will fluctuate with time scales ranging from sec-
onds to millennia, even in the absence of an explicit forcing other than a steady sun. Much of
the popular literature (on both sides of the climate debate) assumes that all changes must be
driven by some external factor. Of course, the climate system is driven by the sun, but even
if the solar forcing were constant, the climate would still vary. This is actually something that
all of you have long known – even if you don’t realize it. After all, you have no difficulty rec-
ognizing that the steady stroking of a violin string by a bow causes the string to vibrate and
generate sound waves. In a similar way, the atmosphere–ocean system responds to steady
forcing with its own modes of variation (which, admittedly, are often more complex than the
5 modes of a violin string). Moreover, given the massive nature of the oceans, such variations
can involve timescales of millennia rather than milliseconds. El Niño is a relatively short ex-
ample, involving years, but most of these internal time variations are too long to even be
identified in our relatively short instrumental record.
Nature has numerous examples of autonomous variability, including the approximately 11-year
sunspot cycle and the reversalsof the Earth’s magnetic field every couple of hundred thousand years or so.
In this respect, the climate system is no different from other natural systems.Ofcourse, such systems also do respond
to external forcing, but such forcing is not needed for them to exhibit variability.
While the above is totally uncontroversial, please think aboutit for a moment. Consider the massive
heterogeneity and complexity of the system, and the variety of mechanisms of variability as we
consider the current narrative that is commonly presented as ‘settled science.

The popular narrative and its political origins

Nowhere is the currently popular narrative concerning this system. The climate, a complex
multifactor system, can be summarized in just one variable, the globally averaged tempera-
ture change, and is primarily controlled by the 1-2% perturbation in the energy budget due
to a single variable – carbon dioxide - among many variables of comparable importance.
This is an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical think-
ing. It is, however, the narrative that has been widely accepted, even among many sceptics.
This acceptance is a strong indicator of the problem Snow identified.

Many politicians and learned societies go even further: They endorse carbon dioxide as
the controlling variable, and although mankind’s CO2 contributions are small compared to
the much larger but uncertain natural exchanges with both the oceans and the biosphere,
they are confident that they know precisely what policies to implement in order to control
carbon dioxide levels.
While several scientists have put forward this view over the past 200 years, it was, until
the 1980s, generally dismissed. When, in 1988, the NASA scientist James Hansen told the
US Senate that the summer’s warmth reflected increased carbon dioxide levels, even
Science magazine reported that the climatologists were sceptical. The establishment of this extreme
position as dogma during the present period is due to political actors and others seeking to
exploit the opportunities that abound in the multi-trillion dollar energy sector.
One example was Maurice Strong, a global bureaucrat and wheeler-dealer (who spent his final years in
China apparently trying to avoid prosecution for his role in the UN’s Oil for Food program
scandals). Strong is frequently credited with initiating the global warming movement in the
early 1980s, and he subsequently helped to engineer the Rio Conference that produced the
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Others like Olaf Palme and his friend, Bert
Bolin, who was the first chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, were
also involved as early as the 1970s.
Political enthusiasm has only increased since then as political ideology has come to play
a major role. A few years ago, Christiana Figueres, then executive secretary of UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change, said that mankind was, for the first time in history, setting
itself the task of intentionally changing the economic system.

Ms. Figueres is not alone in believing this. Pope Francis’ closest adviser castigated con-
servative climate change skeptics in the United States, blaming capitalism for their views.
Speaking with journalists, Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga criticized certain ‘movements’
in the United States that had preemptively come out in opposition to Francis’s planned en-
cyclical on climate change. ‘The ideology surrounding environmental issues is too tied to
a capitalism that doesn’t want to stop ruining the environment because they don’t want to
give up their profits’, he said.
This past August, a paper appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Littered with ‘couldbes’ and ‘mightbes’, it concluded that ‘Collective human action’ is required
to ‘steer the Earth System away from a potential threshold’ and keep it habitable. The authors
said that this would involve ‘stewardship of the entire Earth System – biosphere, climate, and
societies’, and that it might involve ‘decarbonization of the global economy, enhancement
of biosphere carbon sinks, behavioral changes, technological innovations, new governance
arrangements, and transformed social values’.

Remember, in a world that buys into the incoherent ‘precautionary principle,’ even the
mere claim of remote possibility justifies extreme action.
Presumably, the power these people desperately seek includes the power to roll back the
status and welfare that the ordinary person has acquired and continues to acquire through
the fossil fuel generated industrial revolution and return them to their presumably more
appropriate status as serfs. Many more among the world’s poorest will be forbidden the
opportunity to improve their condition.

Nevertheless, when these claims are presented to the leaders of our societies, along with
the bogus claim that 97% of scientists agree, our leaders are afraid to differ, and proceed,
lemming-like, to plan for the suicide of industrial society. Again, nothing better illustrates
the problem that Snow identified.

Interestingly, however, ‘ordinary’ people (as opposed to our ‘educated’ elites) tend to
see through the nonsense being presented. What is it about our elites that makes them
so vulnerable, and what is it about many of our scientists that leads them to promote such
foolishness? The answers cannot be very flattering to either. Let us consider the ‘vulnerable’
elites first.

1. They have been educated in a system where success has been predicated on their abil-
ity to please their professors. In other words, they have been conditioned to rationalize
2. While they are vulnerable to false narratives, they are far less economically vulnerable
than are ordinary people. They believe themselves wealthy enough to withstand the
economic pain of the proposed policies, and they are clever enough to often benefit
from them.
3. The narrative is trivial enough for the elite to finally think that they ‘understand’ sci-
4. For many (especially on the right), the need to be regarded as intelligent causes them
to fear that opposing anything claimed to be ‘scientific’ might lead to their being re-
garded as ignorant, and this fear overwhelms any ideological commitment to liberty
that they might have.
None of these factors apply to ‘ordinary’ people. This may well be the strongest argument
for popular democracy and against the leadership of those ‘who know best.’

What about the scientists?

1.Scientists are specialists. Few are expert in climate. This includes many supposed ‘cli-
mate scientists’ who became involved in the area in response to the huge increases in
funding that have accompanied global warming hysteria.
2. Scientists are people with their own political positions, and many have been enthusias-
tic about using their status as scientists to promote their political positions (not unlike
celebrities whose status some scientists often aspire to). As examples, consider the
movements against nuclear weapons, against the Strategic Defense Initiative, against
the Vietnam War, and so on.

Scientists are also acutely and cynically aware of the ignorance of non-scientists and the
fear that this engenders. This fear leaves the ‘vulnerable’ elites particularly relieved by assur-
ances that the theory underlying the alarm is trivially simple and that ‘all’ scientists agree.
Former senator and Secretary of State John F. Kerry is typical when he stated, with reference
to greenhouse warming, ‘I know sometimes I can remember from when I was in high school
and college, some aspects of chemistry or physics can be tough. But this is not tough. This
is simple. Kids at the earliest age can understand this’. As you have seen, the greenhouse
effect is not all that simple. Only remarkably brilliant kids would understand it. Given Kerry’s
subsequent description of climate and its underlying physics, it was clear that he was not up
to the task.

The evidence

At this point, some of you might be wondering about all the so-called evidence for danger-
ous climate change. What about the disappearing Arctic ice, the rising sea level, the weather
extremes, starving polar bears, the Syrian Civil War, and all the rest of it? The vast variety of
the claims makes it impossible to point to any particular fault that applies to all of them. Of
course, citing the existence of changes–even if these observations are correct (although sur-
prisingly often they are not) – would not implicate greenhouse warming per se. Nor would it
point to danger. Note that most of the so-called evidence refers to matters of which you have
no personal experience. Some of the claims, such as those relating to weather extremes, con-
tradict what both physical theory and empirical data show. The purpose of these claims is
obviously to frighten and befuddle the public, and to make it seem like there is evidence
where, in fact, there is none. If there is evidence of anything, it is of the correctness of C.P.
Snow’s observation. Some examples will show what I mean.

First, for something to be evidence, it must have been unambiguously predicted. (This
is a necessary, but far from sufficient condition.) Figure 1 shows the IPCC model forecasts
for the summer minimum in Arctic sea ice in the year 2100 relative to the period 1980–2000.
As you can see, there is a model for any outcome. It is a little like the formula for being an
expert marksman: shoot first and declare whatever you hit to be the target.

Turning to the issue of temperature extremes, is there any data to even support concern?
As to these extremes, the data shows no trend and the IPCC agrees. Even Gavin Schmidt, Jim
Hansen’s successor at NASA’s New York shop, GISS, has remarked that ‘general statements
about extremes are almost nowhere to be found in the literature but seem to abound in the
popular media’. He went on to say that it takes only a few seconds’ thought to realise that
the popular perceptions that ‘global warming means all extremes have to increase all the
time‘ is ‘nonsense’.
Figure 1: Climate model projections of rate of Arctic sea ice loss.
Source: Eisenman et al., J. Clim., 2011.

At the heart of this nonsense is the failure to distinguish weather from climate. Thus,
global warming refers to the welcome increase in temperature of about 1◦Csince the end
of the Little Ice Age about 200 years ago. On the other hand, weather extremes involve tem-
perature changes of the order of 20◦C.
Such large changes have a profoundly different origin from global warming. Crudely speaking,
they result from winds carrying warm and cold air from distant regions that are very warm or very cold.
These winds are in the form of waves.
The strength of these waves depends on the temperature difference between the tropics
and the Arctic (with larger differences leading to stronger waves). Now, the models used to
project global warming all predict that this temperature difference will decrease rather than
increase. Thus, the increase in temperature extremes would best support the idea of global
cooling rather than global warming. However, scientifically illiterate people seem incapable
of distinguishing global warming of climate from temperature extremes due to weather.
In fact, as has already been noted, there doesn’t really seem to be any discernible trend in
weather extremes. There is only the greater attention paid by the media to weather, and the
exploitation of this ‘news’ coverage by people who realize that projections of catastrophe in
the distant future are hardly compelling, and that they therefore need a way to convince the
public that the danger is immediate, even if it isn’t.
This has also been the case with sea-level rise. Sea level has been increasing by about
8 inches per century for hundreds of years, and we have clearly been able to deal with it.
In order to promote fear, however, those models that predict much larger increases are in-
voked. As a practical matter, it has long been known that at most coastal locations, changes
in sea level, as measured by tide gauges, are primarily due to changes in landl evel associated
with both tectonics and land use.
Moreover, the small change in global mean temperature (actually the change in tem-
perature increase) is much smaller than what the computer models used by the IPCC have
predicted. Even if all this change were due to man, it would be most consistent with low sen-
sitivity to added carbon dioxide, and the IPCC only claims that most (not all) of the warming
over the past 60 years is due to man’s activities. Thus, the issue of man-made climate change
does not appear to be a serious problem. However, this hardly stops ignorant politicians
from declaring that the IPCC’s claim of attribution is tantamount to unambiguous proof of
coming disaster.

Cherry picking is always an issue. Thus, there has been a recent claim that Greenland
ice discharge has increased, and that warming will make it worse.
Omitted from the report is the finding by both NOAA and the Danish Meteorological Institute that the ice mass of
Greenland has actually been increasing.
In fact both these observations can be true, and, indeed, ice build-up pushes peripheral ice into the sea.
Misrepresentation, exaggeration, cherry picking, or outright lying pretty much covers all
the so-called evidence.


So there you have it. An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated in-
cessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of
industrial civilization. What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by
industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness as well as a landscape degraded
by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panel arrays. False claims about 97% agreement
will not spare us, but the willingness of scientists to keep mum is likely to much reduce trust
in and support for science. Perhaps this won’t be such a bad thing after all – certainly as
concerns ‘official’ science.
There is at least one positive aspect to the present situation. None of the proposed poli-
cies will have much impact on greenhouse gases. Thus we will continue to benefit from the
one thing that can be clearly attributed to elevated carbon dioxide: namely, its effective role
as a plant fertilizer, and reducer of the drought vulnerability of plants. Meanwhile, the IPCC
is claiming that we need to prevent another 0.5◦C of warming, although the 1◦C that has
occurred so far has been accompanied by the greatest increase in human welfare in history.
As we used to say in my childhood home of the Bronx: ‘Go figure’.

About the lecturer
Richard S. Lindzen was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts In-
stitute of Technology until his retirement in 2013. He is the author of over 200 papers on
meteorology and climatology and is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences and
of the Academic Advisory Council of GWPF


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2015 at 12:55 PM, altezzaclub said:

"Animal Farm" and "1984" should be required reading at school... They are great for pointing out what is behind our society.

Finally got around to reading these suckers this year. Thanks for the recommendation, it must have been tough for Orwell being so far ahead of his time. 1984 is in my top ten now.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, 2019 is not going to be a good year for freedom, especially in NZ!  The laws banning guns have been sitting around on Govt books since the '90s, and one Aussie visitor is all they needed to whip them out and ram them through.

Even more important are the new laws banning free speech, as guns will get replaced by other weapons eventually, but speech won't.  It always starts with banning holocaust denial, then insulting Muslims, then denying womanhood victim status and as always it will end up banning criticism of the Govt.

Keep your eyes open...

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Create New...