Retort to : The Great Shaman Shamboozle by Vin Suprynowicz

The following is an article posted to a web blog at: http://www.vinsuprynowicz.com/?p=162
My comments are in bold green , to represent the ummm.. “green” perspective a little bit… 😉

The Great Shaman Shamboozle
Steve McIntyre appears to have caught NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in a slight problem with the backup data for the outfit’s 2008 was the hottest October on record globaloney. (See www.climateaudit.org/?p=4318.)

The GISS computerized maps seemed to show readings 10 degrees higher than normal all across Russia for the month in question, which seemed a bit odd, given that snow fell that month in an area of the United Arab Emirates where the people’s don’t even have a word for snow in their language, and that from the Dakotas to China, from the Alps to New Zealand, 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperature records were set in the month of October, 2008, according to Christopher Brooker, London Telegraph, Nov. 16, 2008.

It should be pointed out that global warming’s eventual result is believed to be global cooling, thus the onset and regression of ice ages thousands of times over millions of years. It really doesn’t come as a shock that given the warming trend that has been documented by scientists (especially those not supported fully by the political community until recent years) that there would be a cooling effect, possibly rushing us into the next ice age. This is a documented possibility and end result of global warming, so to throw away the global warming argument of danger with this kind of retort is exactly the kind of isolated argument used notoriously by politicians to manipulate the masses using a central idea, vs a reasonable, multi-faceted argument. That being said, global climate change is the biggest concern, not the term global warming. The idea is simply that our unsustainable practices are contributing to global climate change, and since we have the power to change our practice to sustainable systems, it makes sense to do so.

In fact, although Russia cools rapidly throughout the fall (as both Napoleon and Hitler learned the hard way) McIntyre discovered upon closer inspection that the GISS October readings were PRECISELY THE SAME for each Russian reporting station as their September readings, a statistically impossible coincidence.

Oops.

And since GISS uses a complex algorithm to convert actual temperature readings into its reported output, the error also affected previously published readings for other months, according to the Heartland Institute’s Environment & Climate News, January 2009.

The discovery followed McIntyre’s demonstration in 2007 that NASA had been unjustifiably adding a significant 0.15 degrees Celsius to its U.S. temperature reports since 2000, the Heartland folks report.
Wow, they made a small error! That’s cause for throwing out a well documented idea! (sarcasm intended). Mistakes are made all the time in all facets of science, economics and government. Pointing out small errors may point to a growing government resolution to manipulate the public on the guise of “global warming”,  “climate change”, “the war on terror” or whatever the current catchphrase is. The concern should be rooted in the manipulation of the popular opinion, not the small mistakes. Issues should be looked at more globally, rather than at the macro level — pun intended. As for the large mistake noted and corrected above, it is the responsibility of people everywhere to challenge the data provided, as this fellow did. Good for him.

GISS did not respond to McIntyre’s e-mail pointing out their massive and obvious error, but had pulled the erroneous data off its Web site an hour later, blaming the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the London Daily Telegraph reported.

Then GISS claimed to have discovered a new hot spot in the Arctic, although satellite images show Arctic sea ice to be 30 percent more extensive than last year.

The London Daily Telegraph calls this ‘a surreal blunder (that) raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming, wrote Wesley Pruden in The Washington Times of Nov. 21, 2008.

These kind of “accidents,” which keep generating “global warming” data even as mankind faces its worst winter in decades, tend to show an increasing level of desperation. Why would that be?
This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that prevents the world from progressing to a sustainable state. I would agree that these “mistakes” could be part of a mass manipulation of data in order to exact the kind of worldwide fear that leads to a consolidation of power, higher taxes, etc. However, the problem with making a case against a well documented and studied phenomenon with a “dumbed down” retort like “mankind faces its worst winder in decades”, is that the issue isn’t captured — and the weak minded simply find it easier to follow dramatic statements rather than study scientific data.

Because those who seek to grab political and economic control of the West’s free-market economies, herding huge masses of people out of our cars and free-standing homes and into “mass transit” boondoggles and urbanized concentration ghettos where we’re more easily watched and disarmed, clearly need the hysterical ululating to continue for a few more years, at least. Only hysteria and a quasi-religious jihad can get the job done. Look what they face:
I find it funny that this the same argument purported by any of the political engines that exist in the west. To “grab political and economic control” is one of the most used fear mongering statements used over the last 60 years and has been said of communism, Islamic nations and now “environmentalists”. That’s quite a leap. There’s no question that mass transit is more efficient – -that’s just pure logic, as I’m certain the author of this article has little of, based on the arguments below. His used of keywords like “herding”, “concentration” and “ghettos” are ingeniously placed to breed fear of more efficient methods; however, it is clear that as our population continues to grow, new methods for transporting masses of people are required. That is not to say that we should take away individuality, but to provide more efficient methods. Individuality is already being eliminated by mass media propaganda and fear mongering — that should be the concern.

1) Global warming may well be over.
That’s quite the leap, but interesting that one would have to admit to a belief in something before stating that it is over. This writer doesn’t appear to believe in the “globaloney” of global warming, so it would seem contradictory to state that it “may well be over”.

2) Even if the globe continued to warm at the rate of 1 degree per century, this would be a net minor improvement, allowing us to grow wheat a bit further north. It’s the next ice age that holds the real threat.
One degree a century is not the concern as far as I’m aware. Rapid climate change is more dramatic and is the concern. Although, I do agree that the next ice age (possibly as a result of climate change induced partially by human practices) could be the next big threat to human development.

3) Carbon dioxide is not a toxin, but is natural and necessary for plant life. “Cleaning the air” of carbon dioxide is like “cleaning the earth” of topsoil.
A ridiculous statement. Here are some facts: Carbon dioxide is a toxin, but so is oxygen. The problem is in the quantity of the gas, not the makeup. Too much oxygen, along with too much carbon dioxide is toxic to human beings. It is the balance of gases that keep us alive and well. Carbon Dioxide is utilized by plant life and produces oxygen as a by-product. If we have a natural balance between plant life and human life (along with many carbon dioxide producing systems), there is no problem. But, our systems that produce carbon dioxide are growing exponentially at the same time we are reducing the plant life on the planet. It’s a pretty simple equation and if global climate change doesn’t kill us, then I’m sure throwing the ecological system on its head will! ‘ “Cleaning the air” of carbon dioxide is like “cleaning the earth” of topsoil ‘ is one of the most inane comments this author makes. No environmentalist wants to eradicate carbon dioxide — they simply want to put the balance back in place for a healthier environment.

4) If global warming were to continue and even if it were a bad thing, carbon dioxide is such a tiny part of the atmosphere — and such a minor component among the “greenhouse gases,” which also include water vapor — that no change in climate trends would result even from shutting down man’s industrial civilization entirely, overnight. Which can’t be done, since most of the world only goes along with this baloney as long as we pay them to mouth the proper magic phrases.
Again, this is a statement full of vapidity. There is no logic or morsel of truth in the paragraph above and only demonstrates again the author’s ability to mix words in order to make nothing out of something and something out of nothing.

The big rush to get all their onerous new rules and laws in place right away are part of what Andrew Thomas at The Week That Was (www.sepp.org/Archive/weekwas/2009/Jan_24_2009.htm — scroll down near the bottom) calls the great “Shaman Shamboozle.”

Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, “and his fellow witch doctors must act fast,” Mr. Thomas explains. “Using the principle of the Shaman Shamboozle, the evil global warming spirits must be chased away before it is obvious to the tribal masses that the climate is actually getting cooler. In doing so, the shaman ecologists can claim that President Obama’s ‘green initiatives,’ i.e., taxing anything that emits carbon dioxide, were successful. At that point, their political power over the tribe will be complete and irreversible.”
There is no question that politicians use many methods to accomplish their goals, including the foremost use of issue isolation — that of taking a simple, but highlighted issue and wrapping other more complex manipulations into it without the public’s knowledge. This issue is somewhat irrelevant in this problem, whether it is the “war on terror” or “global climate change”.

It would all be a bit amusing if there weren’t real world consequences. Thanks in part to the absurdity of turning corn into motor fuel — a process which uses more petroleum than it saves — “Foreign Affairs” reports world food prices have risen 83 percent since 2005, leading to food riots in 30 countries. Things would have gotten even worse if the EPA hadn’t backed off its proposed “belching and cow-fart tax” late last year — a rule which would have cost cattle, dairy and hog producers $11 billion per year, driving many out of business.
Another supposed fact on turning corn into motor fuel is again, incorrect. There are processes that have shown that biofuels have limitations today and the net energy gain from them are low compared to the net energy gain in drilling for oil. The author is confusing his issues though. Burning biofuels will ultimately have the same effect when it comes to carbon dioxiode emissions. There are benefits in cleaner burning fuels though, and certainly electric vehicles are making inroads to the mainstream.
See www.teslamotors.com.

Global food prices have risen as a direct result of rising oil prices, that have been manipulated up until the recent past to all time highs. It has nothing to do with environmentalists or actions against global warming. To the author: Nice way to manipulate the facts in your favour though!

Buying into the Globaloney (unless the government there is smarter and more cynical than it appears, instead harboring ulterior motives), the desperately poor African nation of Chad banned the burning of charcoal — the nation’s main fuel — last month. Soldiers and police have been beating up demonstrators, who can’t scrounge enough cow dung and tree branches to make up the difference.
I don’t know anything about Chad and this policy, but I think the author points to his own flawed argument with his statement, “instead harboring ulterior motives” — Knowing everything we know today about political corruption, especially, and I hate the generalize, but AFRICA!! C’mon. Do you really believe the country of Chad banned charcoal to save the planet!? I mean, really? This would be something to certainly investigate more fully…

“Chadians must find other ways to cook and forget about charcoal and wood as fuel,” explains Environment Minister Ali Souleyman Dabye to the U.N. “Cooking is of course a fundamental necessity for every household. On the other hand … with climate change every citizen must protect his environment.” (www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=82436.)

“Better to die swiftly and en masse than to continue dying slowly as we are now,” responds one protester, quoted in the January, 2009 newsletter of the Arizona-based Doctors for Disaster Preparedness.

Meantime, Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn’t believe that humans are causing global warming. “I don’t think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect,” said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.

Dr. Schmitt (geology) contends scientists “are being intimidated” if they disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels. “They’ve seen too many of their colleagues lose grant funding when they haven’t gone along with the so-called political consensus that we’re in a human-caused global warming,” Schmitt explains. See http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=2809
Fair enough, Dr. Schmitt. You have as much right to your opinion on something that you have never studied in-depth, as I do. I’m not sure if humans are having a significant effect on global warming or not, but wouldn’t it make sense to look for solutions that ensure we aren’t having an effect, or even if we’re not, how we can prevent it? By the way, the statements by the astronaut don’t agree with the author of this article, since he is not saying that global warming does not exist, just that he doesn’t believe that humans are causing it. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a problem. By positioning these statements at the end of this article, the author simply tries to use an “educated” source to hold up his argument, while those with half a brain can discern that his arguments are flawed and manipulative.

The little boy points at the naked emperor. The little boy opens his mouth to speak. What was that? What did he say?

4 Responses

  1. Ed Says:

    Another ridiculous blog;
    I could counter all your points, but why??? What a bore! To try to educate someone as close minded as this. I will mention your first and last statement only in my response.

    You say:
    It should be pointed out that global warming’s eventual result is believed to be global cooling, thus the onset and regression of ice ages thousands of times over millions of years.

    This is not only a completely false statement, but even if it was… Why wouldnt they name it correctly and call it what it really is? This fact alone should, if it truely is your belief, should clue you in to the fact that there is something being hidden, grossly overexagerated and manipulated. Doesn’t that implicate a fruad in itself? Which also by the way implies a conspiracy by the very definition.

    you say: “since he is not saying that global warming does not exist, just that he doesn’t believe that humans are causing it. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a problem.”

    Thats the whole point. If humans arent causing it. Then the whole point for the dog and poney show about manmade global warming should be moot.

    Or should I say …. uhhh what is it then? Gee could it be the sun?? Do you think???
    The earth has always been changing. Its been warming and cooling all through history over and over for billions of years, even before man existed. As does the rest of the universe.

    If it is the sun and natural cycles of the earth…………
    DONT TREAD ON ME!!!!

    Your comments lack insight and a true undrstanding of the science or lack of, and the motivation behind this huge falacy about man made global warming.
    I suggest you do a bit more reseach into the otherside of this story.

  2. admin Says:

    Thanks Ed for your comment, despite the insults and negative tone. It is important that other insights are heard on every side of a multi-faceted debate, but let me respond to your comment:

    You wrote:

    “Another ridiculous blog;
    I could counter all your points, but why??? What a bore! To try to educate someone as close minded as this.”

    I find it rather amusing that the people who tend to have no facts to support themselves, like the author of the original blog I commented on, also tend to rebut arguments with insults and some variation of an expression that it’s not worth their time to respond. Of course, this happens sometimes to the intelligent, open-minded and well-researched individuals as well. So, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your emotional response was just a form of exasperation and that you have now reconsidered and would be happy to counter all my points. This is how we learn — by open debate, rather than personal attacks. I’m sure you get that, don’t you?

    You wrote:

    “This is not only a completely false statement, but even if it was… Why wouldnt they name it correctly and call it what it really is? This fact alone should, if it truely is your belief, should clue you in to the fact that there is something being hidden, grossly overexagerated and manipulated. Doesn’t that implicate a fruad in itself? Which also by the way implies a conspiracy by the very definition.”

    I would be happy to see where you believe this to be false. Please provide some references to this falsity, since every global warming period has been documented to have preceded extreme global cooling and at that extreme, the onset of ice ages. Even in recent recorded history, warming periods have preceded cooling periods and during the warming periods, pre-industrial economies have boomed as a result of the abundance of agricultural production. In the cooling period, these pre-industrial economies have contracted and sometimes resulted in death and famine in large areas. Because I’m referring to pre-industrial climate change, I am trying to point out that the climate change we may be causing as a direct result of human consumption of copious amounts of fossil fuel (at an increasing level) may just be escalating this cycle, to our detriment.

    Please supply your references to this supposed falsity and I would be happy to read them. The argument of “Global Climate Change”, which is the TRUE argument, although oppositionalists like to simply refer to one facet of it, “Global Warming”, because they find it easier to segment the argument into smaller components, so they can attack the overall theory without having to, or wanting to understand the entire argument. It is a common tactic in irresponsible debate and used highly to manipulate lesser minds. Based on that, your argument does not hold water for me regarding the mass conspiracy as a result. However, I have never debated that political and intra-political factions may be using the science to rape the public. But, that is another issue entirely. Case in point: I go back to my other comments on slavery in the US. I think we can all agree that slavery is wrong; however, it has been documented that Lincoln (a large slaveholder) who touted the freedom of slaves to the public in the USA, was using that point to rally support for his agenda to stop the opposition to the single republic. Was he manipulating the public while holding on to his slaves? Possibly. Was the end result of this rally of human emotion against the “tyranny of slavery” a noble cause? I think so. Was the end result of the political machine a good thing? Debatable. The point is, whether the cause is correct or not, political factions use these causes to gain support. It doesn’t mean the actual cause they support (in theory) is incorrect.

    You wrote:

    “Thats the whole point. If humans arent causing it. Then the whole point for the dog and poney show about manmade global warming should be moot.”

    It would be helpful if you could take my paragraph in context, rather than picking out a sentence and attributing an argument to just that sentence. (See above for my comments on out-of-context arguments.) I was simply pointing out that the author of the blog was using a statement at the end of his article to support his views, but again, the view did not agree entirely with his viewpoint that global warming is fake. The view he tried to attribute to his own was different, that global warming may be occurring, but the astronaut did not believe it was directly caused by human beings. I was pointing out the clever manipulation tactic and then I went on to debate the astronaut’s viewpoint.

    You wrote:

    “Your comments lack insight and a true undrstanding of the science or lack of, and the motivation behind this huge falacy about man made global warming.
    I suggest you do a bit more reseach into the otherside of this story.”

    That is really the point of these articles!! To understand the other perspective. Something that I think you may not want to do. But that’s fine for you. You are unimportant to me as I don’t know you and although I respect your insight, I have to refer to my first statement above: I find it rather amusing that the people who tend to have no facts to support themselves, like the author of the original blog I commented on, also tend to rebut arguments with insults and some variation of an expression that its not worth their time to respond.

    I could repeat your statement back at you, but what does that accomplish?

  3. Ed Says:

    You, my friend, have a one sided point of view and no facts what so ever to back it up.
    Well of course you dont. There are no facts to back it up.

    Good luck with your blog.
    Really!!!

    As we come into a new age of enlightenment, I hope you are struck by a clearer view and understanding of the extent of the manipulation of mankind throughout history and its implications.

  4. admin Says:

    Ed, making statements from your one-sided perspective, doesn’t make it fact. I wish you would actually back up what you say, rather than the classic — “Oh, you’re going to confront me with ‘show me the facts’, so I’m just going to tell you you are wrong instead! That’ll fix ’em!”

    But, thanks Ed for your comment, if sincere, about the blog. It is intended to shed light on environmental issues, not debate only one topic in the conspiracy realm. Albeit, that topic is very interesting.

    As to your comment about mass manipulation, I don’t think you’ve read my comments clearly enough to see where we may agree.

    If you change your mind and actually debate me, it would be a pleasure to read your arguments supported by references.

Leave a Comment

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.