It's 54 pages. I'm on page 32 at the moment, and it's been quite enlightening so far. I've not been able to find any points made so far that I substantially disagree with, though a few of the findings are worded more accommodatingly than I think my findings would be, reading the evidence supporting GWPF's own findings. It is cutting, though. Really cutting. Taken with its citations, it seems so far to be a definitive review of events, with wide implications.
Yeah! LOL! I presume the Bish is at a press conference today, announcing the release. I know he's in "the big smoke", so probably can't do the computer thang. I still haven't worked out who "Today's Moderator" is!
Ken Stewart's at it again, this time focusing on the urban HQ (adjusted) stations for Australia. He has found a 70% warming bias in the adjustments over the raw data. Once again, we find many earlier measurements have been cooled, with the effect that the warming trend becomes steeper over the whole series.
A caveat here is that the urban stations are not used for climate purposes (they are not included in the Australian data which goes on to become part of the larger global database). Having said that, as most people live in urban areas there is always going to be some interest in temperature records for these places. The papers (if not scientists) are always quick to point out whenever this or that town breaks a record.
I was a little surprised to see that Melbourne wins the prize for the station with the greatest downwards adjustment. With so much growth this station should be adjusted downwards to account for UHI (urban heat island effect), but it's a little surprising because Melbourne has set a record or two recently for hot weather, even after a degree of cooling adjustment.
Here's the difference in trend graph-
Many sites show cooling in the raw data, but Ken again finds that adjustments have turned a cooling trend into a warming trend. For example, here's raw and adjusted for Echuca.
Here's a quote from one of the online comments in Fred Pearce's article on the GWPF report. Apparently this commenter was highly unimpressed by the factual nature of said report. This isn't a sarcastic/joke comment...
Sorry but the term 'Global Warming' is so last week.
It's now 'Global Climate Disruption'
It's both easier to sell and allows eugenics to become a politically acceptable solution.
"Global warming could be a thing of the past, thanks to the Barack Obama administration.
No, the White House has not single-handedly managed to stop the apparent rising temperature – but it does think the terminology oversimplifies the problem.
According to U.S. science adviser John Holdren, the public should start using the phrase ‘global climate disruption’ because it makes the situation sound more dangerous."
It's a bit silly. I don't think it's a name that will stick, it's a whole extra word for starters. 'Global Weirding' was a name that was tossed around recently.
I think Holdren is wanting something where you can point to a particular flood/drought situation and say it's a case of 'Global Climate Disruption'. 'Disruption' has a more negative connotation for people than 'change', which could actually imply a positive. But adding 'global' won't work as you're still talking about very localised events which may have very local causes. Very hard to rule out the local or make blanket statements about particular events. I saw some graphs the other day which showed split temperature trends for both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Strangely, Southern Hemispheric temperatures are actually pretty flat, there's really no warming going on at all if you take the SH as a whole, it's all confined to the Northern Hemisphere. When you add both hemispheres together you get a rising trend, and then we label that trend as 'Global Warming'. But that is unrepresentative of reality as half of the globe doesn't appear to be warming at all. 'Northern Hemispheric Warming' doesn't have a very nice ring to it, and anyway- it's three words again.
Want to add anything? How about you give us your opinion on the GWPF report? Ross McKitrick also has a new report out. If you read them then you could reflect on your statements of confidence on the thoroughness of the various climategate enquiries to date. I'm up for a discussion about that. If you like.
Cognitive dissonance is a difficult thing for some to overcome.
Been busy the last few days and haven't had a chance to read Ross's paper yet. I gather it's very detailed and thorough but I'll have to wait until tomorrow before I'm likely to get the chance to go through it myself.
The new "Global Disruption" and "Global Weirding" monikers are part of the new PR/sales campaign. A lot of effort is being made to align climate concerns with situations like the Pakistan floods, so that connecting them in the future will supposedly be simpler and more effective in creating alarm.
I really don't think they understand at all, in any slight way, the extent that this purposeful manoeuvring towards more effective alarm ringing completely undermines the trust that people bestow upon them.
My bet is that we'll see much more of the following, isn't it wonderful to see that now 'Climate Change' has gone the rules have been changed.
John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, advocated having the Federal Communications Commission force radio and television stations to surrender free time for advertisements calling attention to what he called “the population-resource-environment crisis.”
He cited, as examples of the type of advertising he was talking about, ads produced by Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, and Zero Population Growth (ZPG).
Holdren made his argument for using the FCC to advance his vision for population control and environmentalism in the 1977 book, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. Holdren co-wrote the book with renowned population-control advocates Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55643
However much I might agree that we need to cut back on population growth (voluntarily), Holdren has speculated much further into scenarios of forced abortions, removing children from single mothers, compulsory sterilisation at puperty, etc... he's quite the ideas man! His continuing public adoration for the ideas put forward in the work of his mentor and later colleague Harrison Brown (and vicariously through Brown the work of Charles Galton Darwin, a leading eugenicist of the early 20th C who was very influential on Brown) considerably strengthens the case that Holdren was heavily influenced by the early 20th Century eugenics movement.
Holdren has even written a book called 'Essay's in Honour of Harrison Brown', which focuses on Brown's 'The Challenge of Man's Future', a book which he has continuously praised and cited throughout his career as a primary influence on his own work.
Here's a Brown quote from 'The Challenge of Man's Future'
"Is there anything that can be done to prevent the long-range degeneration of human stock? Unfortunately, at the present time there is little, other than to prevent breeding in persons who present glaring deficiencies clearly dangerous to society and which are known to be of a hereditary nature. Thus we could sterilize or in other ways discourage the mating of the feeble-minded. "
and
"Although there are admittedly numerous individual fluctuations, it does appear that the feeble-minded, the morons, the dull and backward, and the lower-than-average persons in our society are outbreeding the superior ones at the present time."
and
'First, man can discourage unfit persons from breeding. Second, he can encourage breeding by those persons who are judged fit on the basis of physical and mental testing and examinations of the records of their ancestors.'
Nice...
Brown was himself influenced by the work of Charles Galton Darwin- their ideas, and even terminologies are quite similar.
"...These feeble-minded can be regarded objectively by their superiors, and so might be amenable to the same sort of control as is applicable to domestic animals. This restraint of the breeding of the feeble-minded is important, and must never be neglected.... "
Niiice...
Galton apparently couldn't come up with a better guide than class differences on who should be allowed to breed and who shouldn't. Seems fair I guess...
I don't often agree with you Racer X NZ, but in this case I think you're right. Being an advocate for population reduction is one thing, but eugenics relates to something else entirely. Both Brown and Galton were members of the International Eugenics Society. That Holdren would write a book praising a man who is a known eugenicist is fairly self evidently damning of Holdren, I would say. The Holdren quotes which can be found in Ecoscience which touch on these matters are more euphemistically phrased than the words of Brown or Galton, but they imply to cover similar ground.
From Ecoscience-
"Involuntary fertility control
...
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births. "
Notice the phrase, 'with official permission'. Scary...
Other readers here might think I'm being unfair and taking quotes out of context. It certainly does seem to be extremely 'out there'. I advise anyone interested to check out a couple of pages which go into the relationship between John Holdren and Harrison Brown (and Ecoscience and The Challenge of Man's Future) in more detail. The majority of the information there has been penned by Holdren and Brown themselves, or is a matter of public record. It's worth reading through everything there. In the end you might not be convinced- my own opinion is that it is atleast naive to suggest that there is no concern. That Holdren is now concentrating on global warming is troubling to me (he kicked off his career on the dangers of Global Cooling). He is obviously a 'desperate situations call for desperate measures' kind of guy and yet he has quite a record of retrospectively ludicrous failed predictions. It's a wonder to me that he still believes his own stuff.
Personally, with history as a guide, I would take anything Holdren says about GW with a rather large dose of salt. The contents of a salt mine ought to do it...
Thanks for the research, I'm not posting this for sensationalism, rather because it appears to be the new direction that's being followed.
Bill Gates is another one to watch.
Microsoft founder and one of the world’s wealthiest men, Bill Gates, projects an image of a benign philanthropist using his billions via his (tax exempt) Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, to tackle diseases, solve food shortages in Africa and alleviate poverty. In a recent conference in California, Gates reveals a less public agenda of his philanthropy: population reduction, otherwise known as eugenics.
In plain English, one of the most powerful men in the world states clearly that he expects vaccines to be used to reduce population growth. When Bill Gates speaks about vaccines, he speaks with authority. In January 2010 at the elite Davos World Economic Forum, Gates announced his foundation would give $10 billion (circa €7.5 billion) over the next decade to develop and deliver new vaccines to children in the developing world. [1]
The primary focus of his multi-billion dollar Gates Foundation is vaccinations, especially in Africa and other underdeveloped countries. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a founding member of the GAVI Alliance (Global Alliance for Vaccinations and Immunization) in partnership with the World Bank, WHO and the vaccine industry. The goal of GAVI is to vaccinate every newborn child in the developing world. http://www.voltairenet.org/article164347.html
Anti-fertility vaccines As Jurriaan Maessen reports, the World Health Organization, one of GAVI's partners, teamed up with the World Bank and UN Population Fund in the 1970's under the “Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation”. The Task Force,
“...acts as a global coordinating body for anti-fertility vaccine R&D in the various working groups and supports research on different approaches, such as anti-sperm and anti-ovum vaccines and vaccines designed to neutralize the biological functions of hCG. The Task Force has succeeded in developing a prototype of an anti-hCG-vaccine.”
In 1989 research was conducted by the National Institute of Immunology in New Delhi India on the use of 'carriers' such as Tetanus Toxoid and Diphtheria to bypass the immune system and deliver the female hormone called human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG). The research paper was carried in the Oxford University Press in 1990 and was titled "Bypass by an alternate 'carrier' of acquired unresponsiveness to hCG upon repeated immunization with tetanus-conjugated vaccine." The Rockefeller Foundation is listed in the document as giving grants for the research. By delivering hCG within a Tetanus vaccine - which acts as the carrier - the human body treats hCG as an intruder and creates antibodies against it. This has the effect of sterilizing women who receive the vaccine, and in many cases miscarriage when given during pregnancy.
Yeah, I don't know. I don't have any kind of handle on the motivations of Bill Gates from a eugenics perspective, I don't feel I can comment on that at all. From your first link it isn't exactly clear cut that Gates is suggesting using vaccines to lower population, it is the authors emphasis which draws that link (he also mentions 'health care' in there, which also obviously doesn't seem to relate specifically to population reduction). Also, the article begins by conflating general population reduction with eugenics, which is really about selective breeding with the assumed aim of improving the gene pool. They are different things. Maybe you could argue that since there is a focus on the developing world(?) that it's deselecting against various races/economic groups. Again, I don't know. I'm just speaking out of ignorance on what these companies may or may not be up to. It would take me a lot of work before I felt I would be able to make any kind of an informed comment here- vaccines are of course another area which is highly politicised. Commenting on your last link though, I would definitely say that any kind of coercive or invisible approach where people are unaware that they are receiving sterilisation drugs is naturally deeply troubling and extremely unethical, and needs to be exposed (if true).
edit: PS, lets get off the eugenics stuff, I shouldn't have bought it up really- it's just that anytime I see Holdren in the media, emotions start to flare
I did watch the TED talk with Gates at the bottom of the first link. He has really signed up for global warming certainty. I do agree with him that we need an energy revolution, and that energy needs to stay cheap so that developing countries aren't harmed. I basically agree with a big R&D push and a diverse approach to energy solutions. Thorium reactors (LFTR) is another nuclear approach which apparently shows a lot of promise over current reactors (being safer/cleaner/cheaper)
Just so there's no misunderstanding, this is calving and it's a natural process with no relevance or connection to climate change, plus or minus. As the report points out, the same thing but bigger was observed ~50 years ago (1962), before the supposed "modern anthropogenic warming" phase kicked in.
His continuing public adoration for the ideas put forward in the work of his mentor and later colleague Harrison Brown (and vicariously through Brown the work of Charles Galton Darwin, a leading eugenicist of the early 20th C who was very influential on Brown) considerably strengthens the case that Holdren was heavily influenced by the early 20th Century eugenics movement.
