1. You have to play the game.
2. You can’t win.
3. You can’t break even.
4. You can’t quit.

It’s all about energy and entropy my friend.

Harry I fear you casting pearls before swine.

Aryan Physics Revisited: A Comparison of 1930s German Physics and Global Warming Science Today by James H. Rust, Professor of Nuclear Engineering (ret.)

For more than a quarter century controversy has embroiled the scientific community over whether carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas formed from burning fossil fuels, is causing increased global temperatures with catastrophic consequences. This is also called anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Many supporters of AGW are adamant in their views and refuse to acknowledge the existence of scientists or the science that refutes their views. Some advocates could be described as self-assured, arrogant, and using unflattering terms to describe those who disagree with them.

The possible threat of AGW spawned research funds from the United States government to study climate science. An excellent paper by Joanne Nova titled “Climate Money”
traces the way money was spent from 1989 to 2008 in the amount of $79 billion. Research supporting AGW was able to generate more money; so the financing system fed upon itself. If initial research proved AGW did not exist, future funding would have ceased. Yet to be reported, the United States economic stimulus funds for 2009 will allocate billions of dollars spent in anticipation of AGW.

Advocates of AGW have had much media attention so many have become household names. Five names are Dr. John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology; Dr. James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies; Nobel Prize Winner Al Gore, former United States Senator and Vice President; Nobel Prize Winner Paul Krugman; and journalist Ellen Goodman.

Doctor Holdren co-authored a book Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment in 1977 with Paul and Anne Ehrlich . This book describes means of population control of forced abortions, sterilizations, babies seized from single or teen mothers, etc. During Dr. Holdren’s confirmation hearing before the United States Senate in 2009, it was pointed out he had predicted in 1986 one billions deaths due to AGW by 2020. The question today about Dr. Holdren’s prediction is whether one hundred million will die annually for the next decade or will one billion die during 2019.

Dr. Hansen is a strong advocate for AGW testifying to this effect before the United States Senate in 1988. Recently, Dr. Hansen called for CEOs of fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for “high crimes against humanity and nature.” He testified in the defense of six British conservationists who vandalized a new coal power plant under construction .

The attitudes of Nobel Prize Winner Al Gore are well summarized by an article by John Dendahl “Nobel Peace Laureate Al Gore is a Threat to Peace” . Nobel Prize Winner Gore made the statement years ago “the science is settled” on AGW. MIT Professor Richard Lindzen wrote an article in the April 12, 2006 Wall Street Journal titled “Climate of Fear”
. In this article Prof. Lindzen wrote Senator Gore in 1992 tried to bully dissenting scientists to agree with his climate alarmism. Later Vice President Gore tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists.

Nobel Prize Winner Paul Krugman wrote in the June 29, 2009 New York Times his feeling about the June 26, 2009 debate on the Waxman-Markey Bill – “And as I watched the deniers make their argument, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason-treason against the planet.”

Journalist and AGW expert Ellen Goodman wrote “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.”

To illustrate uncivil behavior by AGW advocates is not confined to the United States; a June 16, 2009 meeting between Australian Senator James Fielding, Australian government AGW proponents, and four independent climate scientists is reported by Dr. David Evans .

Senator Fielding and four independent climate scientists met with the Minister for Climate Change Peggy Wong, Chief Climate Scientist Penny Sackett and Professor Will Steffen to discuss current science on AGW. The government scientists were aloof, self-assured, and created an aura of intimidation. They made no eye contact or shook hands at the end of the meeting.

In another vein, President of the British Science Association, Lord Robert May of Oxford, addressed his association and said faith groups could lead in the policing of human behavior In a plea to enforce climate change, Lord May said, “How better it is if the punisher is an all-powerful, all-seeing diety.”

After WWI, a movement was started to promote accomplishments of German physicists which soon took on racial aspects because these accomplishments were restricted to Aryan or German physicists . Thousands joined this movement and notable members where Nobel Prize Winners Johannes Stark and Philipp Lenard. Naturally, Aryan Physics excluded the works of Jewish scientists; most famous being Albert Einstein.

Many physicists, including Stark and Lenard, joined and became active members of the National Socialist Party. This provided a perfect match with National Socialists views on race. They saw that the works of Jewish scientists were stricken from textbooks, papers could not be published in scientific journals, research funds denied, and finally by the mid 1930s, employment with universities or research institutions terminated. Jewish science was ignored. Supporters of Aryan Physics could be described as self-assured, arrogant, and using unflattering names to describe Jewish scientists. This author strongly states this essay does not imply any connection of advocates for Aryan Physics to the atrocities committed by advocates of National Socialism.

Finally Aryan Physics fell apart because it was recognized the Secrets of the Universe could not be unlocked without use of Einstein’s Theories. For the record, Nobel Prize Winner Stark was jailed for four years after WWII.
A link between National Socialism and Conservatism movements was reported by German historian Uekoetter’s The Green and the Brown: a History of Conservatism in Nazi Germany published by Cambridge Press in 2006. A detailed review of this book was written by William Walter Kay . Conservatism movements started in Germany in the late nineteenth century and found easy mixing with National Socialism with their members having memberships in their local groups and the National Socialist Party. Millions of trees were planted in the name of Adolf Hitler.

The behavior of many AGW advocates is remarkably similar to that of supporters of Aryan Physics in 1930s Germany. They ignore entreaties of scientists who disagree with them. They attempt to stifle publications of research papers, obstruct funds for research that challenges AGW, and refuse public debate on the science of AGW.

It is ironic that scientists who question AGW are placed in a similar position as Jewish scientists in 1930s Germany. Their fate is most certainly not as grim. Labelling those who question AGW as deniers implying they deny the Holocaust is immoral.

The mixing of science with forces (such as politics, religion, or advocacy groups) contrary to scientific principles of postulating theories and then using observations to prove or disprove theories have been around since the birth of human thought. Noteworthy is Galileo Galilei being found vehemently suspect of heresy and forced to recant his belief the sun was the center of the solar system instead of the earth in 1634. This setback may have slowed development of astronomy; but did not seriously alter world’s history.

Germany’s experience with Aryan Physics may have cost them, and indirectly Japan, greater harm from WWII. Without Jewish physicists, the Germans were years away from developing an atomic bomb. The scientist who fled Europe in the 1930s insured the United States would successfully develop an atomic bomb in time to force a conclusion to WWII.

Subscribing to AGW may produce a large global impact if nations decide to alter means of energy production because of a perceived belief in catastrophic events due to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. The proposal to reduce the world’s production of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels in 2050 to fifty percent of the level of 1990 will have negligible impact on global warming or any other climate change. Great economic damage will be done to the earth’s inhabitants with energy shortages and vastly higher energy costs. Undeveloped nations will be doomed to maintaining the same lifestyles as years in the past. All will suffer except those who trade in energy credits and produce alternative energy sources.

Much has been written about the science of climate change and the influence of carbon dioxide. A recent 2009 book Climate Change Reconsidered–The Report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change contains numerous references as current as 2009. The futility of trying to restructure the United States energy production from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources by 2050 is well described by Donn Dears 2009 book Carbon Folly .

A vast amount of material is available to support the thesis of a similarity between militant advocates of Aryan Physics and AGW. Internet reference were given for this essay and those willing to check these references and use available links can have months of reading.

Your next slide further asserts that “delusionists” like those named are wrong to engage in policy debate, which naturally should be the exclusive preserve of you and JQ (with hands out for more largesse from Ms Wong?).

You then make much of Ross Garnaut’s hired hands Breusch and Varhig who were told, as Ross said on Monday, to treat the GISS and Hadley (and other non-satellite) temperature data as if it was unemployment data or some such. The satellite data were specifically excluded. How convenient! And being given Gistemp as a tablet from the mountain, they were precluded from assessing the provenance of that and the other instrumental sets. It is well documented by Anthony Watts that the NOAA sets are substantially rigged, by systematic exclusion of sites that show cooling or no trend in favour of airports and the like, as even NOAA now admits, see http://wattsupwiththat.com and today:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/19/more-on-noaas-fubar-honolulu-record-highs-asos-debacle-plus-finding-a-long-lost-giss-station/

Steve McIntyre has similarly exposed the failure of Phil Jones of Hadley-CRUT at UEA, Norwich, to archive his source data. In the absence of that we have no means of knowing whether or not he “homogenises” (his term) world temperature, by using “CC” (“climatically correct”) stations to replace “CiC” stations. At all events it is odd that Mauna Loa and Cape Grim although deemed good for measuring [CO2] are apparently not CC enough for their temperature records to be included in the Gistemp and Hadley GMT indices.

“Check your sources” was what I was taught – but not Breusch & Varhig, who were paid not to, nor Harry Clarke when he slags off those who do check the basic data and science.

* Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity
from NCEP reanalysis data
Garth Paltridge & Albert Arking & Michael Pook, Theor. Appl.Climatology 2009

In the interests of a balanced debate…

What an excellent idea. After that we could adopt Paul Krugman’s suggestion and have a balanced debate of the shape of the earth.

For background material, the Flat Earth Society is at http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm and of course if respected New York Times columnist Tom Friedman has written a best-selling book, The World is Flat, there must be something to debate, must there not?

It is a clear articulation of the problems with the theory of AGW.

Harry I have read the science, and flimsy is the best polite term to use.

I suggest you also make a list of all the vested interests who wish to push climate change – governments want new taxes, green extremists wish to close down the oil, gas and mining industries, bankers want to trade derivatives, publishers want to sell newspapers, people want to sell solar panels and windmills, scientists want grants etc etc.

What you have in reality is a whole lot of vested interests trying to politicise and distort the science. That is what the argument is about from the sceptics’ point of view.