« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

President Eisenhower Predicted Global Warming

His Farewell Address Describes Modern ?Science? To a Tee

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

Eisenhower’s Farewell Address

In the section of President Eisenhower’s Farewell Address that I quoted above, we see exactly how Anthropogenic Global Warming took over and ravished Earth’s environment. The physical and logical tools of research became too steep an investment to undertake without significant political or corporate support. The providers of this financial and material support came to influence the results of the actual research, independent of, and at times athwart the actual physical conditions occurring in situ. Finally, the scientists, themselves became enriched, empowered and corrupted by a march through the very political and corporate bodies that supported vast and far-flung scientific research. The results of this research then became synonymous with what would require much more research and power for the scientists and politicians in charge of the research. The Greenhouse Effect became a veritable 5th Horseman of the Post-Industrial Apocalypse.

You will read other, competing theories of how Global Warming works. They measure CO2 levels at the Mauna-Loa Observatory, and track temperatures via the NASA-GISS thermometer network. Some claim that increasing quantities of Greenhouse Gases trap outbound solar radiation and lead to significant warming of the upper Troposphere which then sabotages the natural mechanisms controlling and moderating terrestrial climate.

The Denialists that reject this view may still repent and be saved. You still have dwindling hours in hand to cut your check to Earth First! And buy lots of Al Gore’s Carbon Indulg, err, I mean Carbon Credits. The UN IPCC publishes a frequently updated Book of Revelations that details how nefarious corporate Infernalists will die in lakes of fire reminiscent of the far left panel of a famous Hieronymus Bosch Triptych.

The Warped World In Which Global Warming Actually Threatens Our Lives

But anyone foolish enough to buy the UN IPCC’s version of how Global Warming works instead of Good Old General Eisenhower’s are admonished to peruse the actual commentary of the scientists who work for the UN IPCC. Eisenhower’s first point involved the vast expense and scale that were required to perform adequate professional research on difficult Geophysical problems. Jim Lacey cites a recently-divulged back-office communiqué between the scientists that describes how dependence upon vast government resources undercuts professional objectivity.

”I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.”

(HT: National Review)

Once the honesty of the scientific research became a function of the willingness of interested political actors to continue supporting the scientific efforts, the outbreak of fraud, waste and abuse became as predictable as a crooked deal involving Jim Corzine. Lacey describes the rationale behind the grotesque exaggerations that became standard fare in each increasingly hysterical piece of climate “research.”

“Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions — bad politics — to one about the value of a stable climate — much better politics. . . . the most valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as possible.”

Having established that politics would drive the science, it then became a necessary piece of self-preservation for the self-interested political scientists to take over much of the politics. When researchers shot holes in the AGW “consensus”; the proponents of this meal ticket cum end of the world scare launched forth their inquisition. Dr. Michael Mann became particularly famous for fixing people’s attitudes in a way that ratiocination and scientific method never seemed to have a part in. Here is James Delingpole’s description of how Michael Mann adjusted people’s perception of the truth.

“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thus far unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests. Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.”

(HT: Wall Street Journal)

And when fixing people didn’t get the job done, they could always go back and burn all evidence of their rigging of a scientific consensus. Here is an example of leading English Academic and researcher, Dr. Phil Jones, explaining how he intended to send his primary research data right down the memory hole. He did so with explicit knowledge and cooperation from the United States Government. The Daily Mail describes the process.

‘Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. ‘I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.’

Dr. Jones was the go-to-guy for handling those pesky FOIA requests from evil Denialists as well.

‘I’ve been told that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is above national Freedom of Information Acts. ‘One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.’

But why would these noble public servants go to such Orwellian means to deceive the taxpayers who funded their vital and civic-minded research? Because they were dramatically over-selling their case! As one climate scientist emailed to Michael Mann’s co-author of the famous “Hockey Stick” Paper:

Why don’t you just give these people the raw data? Are you hiding something — your apparent refusal to be forthcoming sure makes it look as though you are.

One thing that may have been hidden is the following “Quantifying climate sensitivity from real world data cannot even be done using present-day data, including satellite data. If you think that one could do better with paleo data, then you’re fooling yourself. (HT:Wattsupwiththat) Maybe this is just my layman’s interpretation of this email passage, but….This would imply that there is no method currently available to physical science to verify ANY of the climate forcings that are shown as detrimental in the voluminous UN IPCC reports. In even plainer terms, Global Warming is political bull-[decency edit]!

So, like President Eisenhower predicted in the Winter of 1961, Global Warming has occurred. The science became too expensive to privately fund as a disinterested public enterprise. The politicians seized upon this problem as a powerful mechanism to warp the public’s perception of reality. The scientists, themselves, got in on the corruption jack-pot, and the end result of this was the rampant Global Warming that occurred in every major American Newspaper – even as the snow fell yesterday in Huntsville, Alabama.

COMMENTS

  • andystone

    and detached regard for the facts. When NASA’s top climate scientist is arrested for protesting by the White House – and hardly any eyebrows rise – we know that era has ended.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      nt.

      • andystone

        in the sciences, I know how research works. Some fields are a lot less corrupt than others, but climatology seems like a pretty nasty harbinger.

  • creinstein

    I am working on a video based off of www.surfacestations.org where I will show that 90%+ of all the weather stations the NOAA uses are improperly placed.

    The video will be the first in a series demonstrating to the public the falseness of global warming.

    Ironically I plan to play it where Earth First started… in Portland Oregon.

    As a candidate I expect the dirt to be slug on my reputation in return, but I plan the sink the HMS Falsehood (HMS is His Madeup Science)

    The video will be started on the first and with any luck end mid month…

    This lie can be destroyed, and the careers of dozens of liberals with it. We can end this charade and all regulations tied to it!

    I am Michael Harrington and I endorse this message!

    • auntvick

      and I endorse Michael Harrington! Good Luck!

    • norris

      In the 1950′s and before weather stations were located in private homes airports and radio stations,they took several readings per day from mercury thermometers and phoned them to the weather .bureau times and accuracy were not perfect to one or two degrees.I missed the part where Ike mentioned global warming.

      • Repair_Man_Jack

        which stations needed to be shut downin order to get the results from NASA-GISS that he personally wanted. It’s wonderful the things that modern technology make possible.

  • anjinconsulting

    and was touted by ‘leading scholars and universities’ and promulgated into U.S. government policy.

    Nothing new here folks, move along…

  • sparetire

    I find the lock-step Republican/Conservative stance on climate change (perhaps better said “on science issues in general”) to be hugely disconcerting. I’m as fiscally and socially conservative as they come, but the environmental stance is a loser for Republicans. Your entire argument boils down to piecemeal ad hominem. Al Gore maintains five gigantic mansions with the carbon footprint of a NASCAR event, and he flies in fossil fuel-guzzling private jets; therefore, anthropogenic global warming is a myth. How is that science? Nobody claims that the models are simple, but dozens, hundreds of peer-reviewed works from independent labs certainly verify the correlation of global temperatures with CO2 concentrations. Are you denying that correlation? Are you denying the steady increase in temperatures beginning simultaneously with the industrial revolution? Come on. Like any real science, sure, nobody has proven that man has changed the environment. Nobody has proven that gravity exists. But anthropogenic global climate change has reached the status of scientific theory, and it has done so for good reason.

    Rather than denying that current human activity is damaging the environment, why not argue the means of fixing this problem (a problem that is apparent to everyone but the, dare I say, fringe). Use the power of fiscal conservatism to propose real sustainable (ahem) solutions to fix the environment, while maintaining the essence of freedom and capitalism.

    This stubborn clinging to an ignorant claim that climate scientists are somehow not scientists is at best bad politics. It’s a losing issue. The young earthers and their ilk make true political conservatives into the punchline of a hard-to-argue-with joke. Your ad hominem attacks on select scientists and politicians, by the way, does not make you a scientist.

    • bs61

      Didn’t you see in the first dump of emails that they blackballed CATO peer review guy because he was not a AGW guy, he wanted to see their raw data. That they advised their scientist to delete all of their emails at the end of research?

      They are corrupt and if there is actual global warming, let the free market come up with solutions, not government!

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      ?Quantifying climate sensitivity from real world data cannot even be done using present-day data, including satellite data. If you think that one could do better with paleo data, then you?re fooling yourself.”

      If you cannot quantify climate sensitivity to a forcing, than you have no clue what impact that forcing has on temperature.

      • sparetire

        is a political loser. It just is. And by the way, cherry-picking a single quote, or a series of quotes, is not science. These quotes are years old. No context is included, here or in similar rants. As is the nature of human communication, context may simply be implied and not available to an external reader. Did you read the _Science_ article? Do you have absolutely any clue what “climate sensitivity” even is?

        No, AGW has not been “proven.” Nor has “evolution.’ Or “gravity.” Stop it. You young-earthers are turning the Republican party into a joke. Sure, challenge the models, challenge the conclusions; that’s how science works. But to completely flat-out deny that human activity negatively impacts the environment is flat-out wrong. Plus, it’s bad for politics, bad for the country.

        “let the free market come up with solutions”

        Exactly. New plank of the Republican platform: the environment is a priority, and proper policy can allow capitalism to fix it. Big oil is a dinosaur (figuratively, of course). Drop it.

        You’re on the wrong side of history, here, folks.

        *done*

        • streiff

          that is why it is called a “law” not a “theory.”

          Also labeling people who disagree with a theory as “anti-science” is not only silly but “anti-science” itself. Science is not dogma. That is why “anti-science” researchers at CERN did this experiment and, unlike the global warmists, have been very transparent about both methods and data.

          • rickdeckard

            sparetire, you can find entire collection of emails here. Complete emails are available with parts emphasized. Any quoted excerpts point to the original source material. Where emails are a reply, the original email is referenced and published. If that isn’t enough context, Andrew gives a link to the zip file where you can download all the emails FOIA has published so far.

            Maybe you could comb through the set and find the emails that show how the Team welcomed peer review with open arms, and advocated for opposing views to be published freely in the spirit of objective scientific debate.

            Be sure to get back to us if you find the email where the Team says they were only joking when they tried to get people fired for disagreeing with them.

        • JSobieski

          The relevant question is:

          Does man have a MATERIAL impact on the climate of the planet

          If I chop down a tree or plant a seed, I am impacting the planet. . . . on a de minimis level. The questions are those of scale.

          Chemistry generally, and eco-systems more specifically, have all sorts of feedback loops.

          For a period of time, people thought the ozone hole would cause temperatures to RISE because more radiation would ENTER the atmosphere.

          For a period of time, people thought the ozone hole would cause temperatures to FALL because the hole made it easier for radiation to LEAVE the atmosphere.

          Then for no apparent reason, the ozone hole went away. Now people are concerned that the closing of the ozone hole is a bad thing.

          http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100505-science-environment-ozone-hole-25-years/

          Global cooling vs. Global warminig. Ozone hole growing vs. Ozone hole closing. Butter vs. margarine. Caffeine good vs. Caffeine bad.

          The fact that you don’t even understand these concepts shows that you are on the wrong side of a basic high school chemistry book.

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          Climate sensitivity involves the extent to which the climate changes in proportion to being exposed to a driving force. Therefore, if you wanted to know how much an increase of 15ppm in atmospheric CO2 would change the Earth’s Mean Diurnal Temperature (i.e. How much GW could this induce), it would behoove you to be able to quantify climate sensitivity.

          If you found yourself int he situation where “Quantifying climate sensitivity from real world data cannot even be done using present-day data, including satellite data.”, than you have no clue to what extent any increase in CO2 would effect a change in the temperature on the Earth’s Upper Troposphere. In other words, you would be lying to the public, on the taxpayer dime, about your absolute believe in a completely untestable scientific hypothesis.

          • sparetire

            Great that you emphasized gravity. I suppose evolution is ‘just’ a theory. I suppose we could argue the semantics of “law” vs. “theory” in this context, but that’s for a board with a more scientific bent.

            Apparently I’ve got a losing argument here, considering I’m up against such general chemistry experts. Plus, I guess snow in Alabama is proof enough that the global climate is A-OK.

            Carry on.

          • JSobieski

            and act all sanctimonious about it.

            Carry on! You might want to use a teleprompter next time.

            A-OK!

          • streiff

            between a law, like thermodynamics, and a theory. It isn’t semantic. It is a matter of what the words mean to actual scientists which obviously isn’t you. For those of us who actually work inside multi billion, that’s with a B, scientific research organization we know the difference. The strengths and shortcomings of evolutionary theory are well known to scientists and would hardly be used as an example by anyone but a semi literate shill.

            If you can’t accept that then I really don’t see what value you bring to the site and I am more that willing to remedy that particular shortcoming.

            The fact that you simply don’t know what you are talking about is painfully obvious to everyone by now and by the way you are skulking off, apparently even to you.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            You challenge me on whether I even know what Climate Sensitivity is. I take time out of my busy day just to talk you through how a sensitvity interacts with a forcing to produce an output. I hoped for more gratitude. But instead, you gripe because I actually discuss a phenomenon involving physical chemistry using the lexicon of physical chemistry. Pathetic.

            I’m reminded of an old Veep Debate between Lloyd Benson and Dan Quayle.

            Benson: “You, Sir, are no Jack Kennedy.”
            Quayle: “That, Sir is an insult and uncalled for.”
            Benson: “You made the comparison, Senator.”

        • JSobieski

          http://socioecohistory.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/time-magazine-april-1977.jpg

          Any theory that fluctuates between predicting opposite results is by definition, logically incoherent.

  • http://jakespeaks.wordpress.com/ Jake W

    Lately, I’ve been borrowing a term from, of all places, Philip Pullman’s “His Dark Materials” (the Golden Compass and its ilk) to refer to the scientists that bow before the altar of global warming. “Experiemental theologists” really seems to fit them.

    And it ticks secular Liberals off as well because it turns one of the most notable anti-Christian works against them, heh.

  • pj2012

    Ike was a wise man indeed… from global warming to…

    “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military?industrial complex.” He said, “we recognize the imperative need for this development … the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist … Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

    My father served under Ike in WWII (Stationed in France, England and Germany) as a young man in his early 20′s. It forever changed him my mother said. After leaving her in London and going to fight the Germans, seeing the death camps, trying to save his buddies as he watched them depart this world and all. During that time he sustained a major injury to his back that would often plague him throughout his lifetime.

    In the mid 60′s he didn’t want his see his 2 sons (my older brothers) be drafted to fight in Vietnam (thankfully they never did get drafted). He felt strongly that war should always be the last option. I’m more thankful today for his service to his country than I was back then. I wish he was alive today so I could tell him.

    Oh… Sorry… way off topic… oh yes… global warming… climate change… let the free market come up with solutions, not government. That’s what I think. I do my part, I recycle, my car gets 40+ miles to the gallon… etc..

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      When I see that creepy, brown-nosing 2LT Obama always making sure Gen. Electric has fresh coffee and bright, spit-shined boots, I see the undoubtible wisdom you have contributed to our humble thread with your presence here. Thank you.

      • pj2012

        I’ve been reading the RedState.com posts and comments for awhile now and I appreciate being given a place to have a voice.