The CO2 Climate Change Cult Series

Part 1 of 8:

Blame Everything On Man-Made CO2 Climate Change

Part 1 of 8: Blame Everything On Man-Made Climate Change
Part 2 of 8: Greenpeace and Oxfam Manipulating Science
Part 3 of 8: The Stigma of Being a Climate Denier
Part 4 of 8: Environmental Journalists - Suzanne Goldenberg
Part 5 of 8: Environmental Journalists - Damian Carrington
Part 6 of 8: Environmental Journalists - George Monbiot
Part 7 of 8: The False Doctrine
Part 8 of 8: Solutions

By: Shawn Alli
Posted: September 12, 2014

Part 1 of 8: Blame Everything On Man-Made CO2 Climate Change graphic

Full resolution jpg

*All individuals and organizations receive 2-4 full days of pre-publication notice.


*Disclosure: I am a climate denier, albeit a more rational one. In Part 3 I'll explain why I'm a climate denier and not a climate skeptic.


*Disclosure: I am NOT funded by any oil, natural gas or coal corporations. I am NOT funded by any private interest groups (NGOs, foundations or political entities).



This article is the first instalment of an ongoing series of articles to unpackage the entire man-made CO2 climate change cult.


Too many hurricanes this year? Too many lightning strikes? Too hot this year? Too cold this year? Not enough extreme weather this year? Species dying out? Not enough food on the grocery shelves? Electricity bill too high? In the minds of CO2 cult members, the blame goes to man-made CO2 climate change.


The man-made CO2 climate change theory (also known as anthropogenic global warming), is the 20th and 21st century's worst example of junk science. While many global scientists perpetuate the theory, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, also known as the god of climate science), is the financial, economic and social power base of the theory. The idea that CO2 from your biological exhalation and from industrial manufacturing is killing the earth is simply ludicrous. The idea that methane (CH4) from farting cows is "making life harder for the Earth," is disgraceful science.


The World Wildlife Fund's (WWF's) claim that CO2 is a "major source of pollution," [1] is pure environmental ideology, not impartial science, despite the US Supreme Court's ruling in April 2007. [2] The idea that the Earth's climate naturally stays the same for centuries or millenniums is junk science as well. While "climatologists" point out that the last few decades of "extreme weather" is due to man-made CO2 climate change, prior to that, any extreme weather is "natural."


The man-made CO2 climate change theory has all the trappings of a cult. An environmental cult, but a cult nonetheless. Individuals that attempt to question the "evidence based research," are cast out of the lot. Calling the man-made CO2 climate change theory merely a "theory" instead of a "fact," is heresy. The fact that the believers (journalists, politicians and scientists), are vehemently opposed to any notion or concept that challenges the theory, only proves their cult-like status.


And the worst part is that the believers, like so many religious believers, don't actually believe in the theory; they're merely part of the cult by political, economic, social or academic associations (which I'll talk more about in Part 2).


The idea in manipulating believers into thinking that everything can be blamed on the man-made climate change theory is worthy of having its own manipulation 101 university course. The climate change cult manipulates their believers at every level of experience: social, economic, political, academic, mental, emotional and spiritual. The choice of wording in making a statement may seem random or neutral to an individual, but for the CO2 cult, the words are carefully constructed to elicit a particular response.


The WWF, a non-profit environmental NGO, is an expert in subtle word manipulation. On its People at Risk webpage, their manipulation skills are of the highest level:

Mitch dumped phenomenal quantities of rain onto often illegal barrios built on deforested hillsides that quickly collapsed, causing lethal mudslides. It swept away entire villages, flattened the centre of the Honduran capital and turned rivers into lakes overnight. Some storm victims had to be buried anonymously in mass graves. [3]


The visualization of Hurricane Mitch as an angry anthropogenic Earth god taking revenge on its bad children begins to take shape in an individual's unconscious/subconscious mind. Images of humans as ants being flung and killed indiscriminately in mass amounts elicits a particularly strong emotional response. Aside from the natural empathy that an individual should feel, the statement pushes an individual into action.


Reading the above statement usually galvanizes an individual into action in some manner, opening a door and implanting a suggestion into an individuals mind when they're emotionally vulnerable due to the mass indiscriminate death by nature's hand.


While individuals may argue that I'm over-analyzing the statement (which I'll concede is a problem that many philosophers have), many individuals understand subtle manipulation and how to move the masses into action by evoking particular ideologies such as visualizations and word manipulation.


Still on the same WWF webpage the manipulation gets worse:

Even industrialized countries, with high-tech meteorological and rescue services, have begun to feel the full impact of destructive climate change. In August 2003 an extreme heatwave in France took nearly 15,000 lives - many of them neglected elderly people. [3]


The death of seniors is a low blow even for manipulation tactics. The idea of heat waves indiscriminately killing seniors who are merely trying to live the rest of their lives in peace elicits an intense emotional response.

The manipulation continues on the same page:

Some countries - especially the world's small island nations - face complete obliteration from climate change and rising sea levels. Take the Maldives - a string of coral islands in the Indian Ocean which some scientists predict will be inundated completely within 30 years. [3]


The concept of the obliteration of human life comes from the holocaust, the US government nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the threat of future nuclear war. In the above statement the WWF is framing the concept of obliteration under the banner of indiscriminate death by nature.


The last example of manipulation on the webpage is twofold:

Disasters, of course, can be tectonic (earthquakes, volcanoes) or man-made (deforestation) without being climatic. But the Red Cross - in its annual World Disasters Report - found that climatic unpredictability caused by global warming was "colliding" with social problems like rapid urbanization to create "super-disasters". [3]


Connecting a disaster to socio-economic issues is one of the best ways to pull individuals into the CO2 cult and transform them into believers. Until a natural disaster affects an individual's life, beliefs are just that, beliefs that may not necessarily be operating at the conscious level.


Many individuals have personal, political or religious beliefs but they don't necessarily apply it to their lives for whatever reason. Connecting a belief (man-made CO2 climate change theory) with an action (a disaster), is a great way to radicalize individuals into ardent believers.


The second problem with this statement is the subtle manipulation of including the possibility that "natural disasters" can happen, but are most likely influenced or shaped by the man-made CO2 climate change theory. It's common sense to know that the best form of manipulation is to mix truth with lies. By doing so the individual or organization isn't forcing their beliefs on an individual, but rather suggesting it and using the individual's visualization process and unconscious ideologies to cement the concept.


The unfalsifiable and non-causal claims are regular for the WWF:

Climate change will have major and unpredictable effects on the world's water systems, including an increase in floods and droughts. [1]


If it's unpredictable then how is it possible to prove the causal link?


In an email request for comment I ask the WWF whether they're aware that their claims about the impacts of man-made CO2 climate change are manipulative and unfalsifiable.


They don't respond.


The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), a hallmark scientific institution, uses analogies to explain the situation to the global general public:

Greenhouse gases from manmade sources such as smokestacks and tailpipes have altered our climate system. Greenhouse gases have supercharged the climate, just as steroids supercharged hitting in Major League Baseball. Over the course of a baseball season in the steroid era, we witnessed more - and longer - home runs, even though we cannot attribute any specific homer to steroids. Similarly, even though we cannot attribute any particular weather event to climate change, some types of extreme events such as heat waves are now more frequent. [4]


The fact that this is coming from the AAAS is definitive proof (not really, but I like to pretend it is), that the AAAS believes that the global general public (more or less), are only capable of understanding "complex" phenomena via analogies. In an email request for comment I ask the AAAS Climate Science Panel if they believe that analogies are the best way for the global general public to understand man-made climate change because they're not capable of understanding it without them. They say:

"Public understanding of science may be one reason why some people do not accept the reality of human-caused climate change, but it is probably not the primary reason. Some people do not accept the scientific evidence of climate change because the facts conflict with their personal, religious, or political views. Analogies or metaphors can be useful for communicating scientific information, as a way to make ideas more relevant to audiences."


Fair enough.


The American Meteorological Society (AMS) is the same. In September 2013 they use analogies to explain the "complexity" of man-made climate change in a lengthy peer-reviewed article:

To help understand the difficulty of determining the anthropogenic contribution to specific extreme events, consider this driving analogy (UCAR 2012). "Adding just a little bit of speed to your highway commute each month can substantially raise the odds that you'll get hurt some day. But if an accident does occur, the primary cause may not be your speed itself: it could be a wet road or a texting driver." Similarly, while climate models may indicate a human effect is causing increases in the chances of having extremely high precipitation in a region (much like speeding increases the chances of having an accident), natural variability can still be the primary factor in any individual extreme event. The difficulty in determining the precise sensitivity of, according to our analogy, driving speed on risks of accidents in particular conditions (wet roads, texting drivers) can explain why somewhat different analyses of the same meteorological event can reach somewhat different conclusions about the extent to which human influence has altered the likelihood and magnitude of the event. [5]


In an email request for comment I ask all of the authors the same question that I ask of the AAAS.


None of them respond.


The David Suzuki Foundation also utilizes subtle manipulation in their Impacts of climate change webpage:

Canada's forests are expected to be among the most vulnerable in the world to climate change. [6]


This is completely false. No forests/plants are "vulnerable" to man-made CO2 climate change. Plants and trees predate humans and animals. They have billions of years worth of evolution and the ability to adapt to changing environments locked in their DNA. The idea that the last 40 years or even the last 200 years of man-made CO2 climate change causes them to be "vulnerable" is nonsensical. Trees and plants are only vulnerable to deforestation, not man-made CO2 climate change.


In the IPCC's 2007 report they claim that:

Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation. [7]


Dr. Arindam Samanta, et al. 2010 peer-reviewed article in Geophysical Research Letters shows that such a claim is nonsensical:

We find no evidence of large - scale greening of intact Amazon forests during the 2005 Drought - approximately 11% - 12% of these drought stricken forests display greening, while, 28% - 29% show browning or no - change, and for the rest, the data are not of sufficient quality to characterize any changes. These changes are also not unique - approximately similar changes are observed in non-drought years as well. Changes in surface solar irradiance are contrary to the speculation in the previously published report of enhanced sunlight availability during the 2005 drought. There was no co-relation between drought severity and greenness changes, which is contrary to the idea of drought-induced greening. Thus, we conclude that Amazon forests did not green-up during the 2005 drought. [8]


Professor Chris Huntingford, et al. 2013 peer-reviewed article in Nature Geoscience also demonstrates the Earth's resilience:

Using simulations with 22 climate models and the MOSES-TRIFFID land surface scheme, we find that only in one of the simulations are tropical forests projected to lose biomass by the end of the twenty-first century - and then only for the Americas. When comparing with alternative models of plant physiological processes we find that the largest uncertainties are associated with plant physiological responses, and then with future emissions scenarios. Uncertainties from differences in the climate projections are significantly smaller. Despite the considerable uncertainties, we conclude that there is evidence of forest resilience for all three regions. [9]


However, in the interest of not manipulating readers, there are many other peer-reviewed articles capable of refuting these studies.


In March 2014 philosophy professor Lawrence Torcello makes the apparent connection between man-made CO2 climate change and death:

More deaths can already be attributed to climate change than the L'Aquila earthquake and we can be certain that deaths from climate change will continue to rise with global warming. [10]


Certain of deaths from climate change? This is blatant manipulation. To suggest that man-made climate change is responsible for the death of individuals in hurricane/earthquake zone areas is truly disgusting. In an email request for comment I ask Torcello if he believes this is a manipulative claim.


He doesn't respond.


In August 2014 Dr. Jason Box, a prominent climatologist, says that:

Even if a small fraction of the Arctic carbon were released to the atmosphere, we're f*cked.

We're f*cked at a certain point, right? It just becomes unmanageable. The climate dragon is being poked, and eventually the dragon becomes pissed off enough to trash the place. [11]




I'm detecting a good deal of alarmism through Box's environmental ideologies in these words. Box is referring to the trapped methane in the Arctic that will eventually be released due to the melting permafrost.


Personally, I know CO2 cult believers that aren't having families because of man-made CO2 climate change and the myth of scarcity. That's a huge effect. But utilizing this type of logic will eventually lead to the extinction of the entire CO2 cult. While climate deniers will cheer such an action, in the interest of fair game, I would recommend that CO2 cult believers rethink their actions.


Some CO2 cult believers even embrace their alarmism. Such is the case for prominent meteorologist Eric Holthaus:

Few things are more important to human life than the environment, but hundreds of generations of experience have baked in a reasonable assurance that the future will be approximately like the past.

For the first time in human history, it won't.

Save the specter of nuclear war or an Armageddon-style asteroid strike, there's really not. much that could wipe us out as quickly as climate change. Those two things haven't happened (yet), but global warming is happening, right now.

Within our lifetimes, we'll almost assuredly enter a climate phase that hasn't been seen since before humans even existed. [12]


Logically, there is no reason that the future has to follow from the past with 100% certainty. Just because the sun shines everyday for thousands of years doesn't mean that it's going to shine tomorrow with 100% certainty. But it's 99.9% probable that it will. The idea that man-made CO2 climate change is going to put an end to our "business as usual" mentality is false.


Continuing with the analysis...CO2 climate change can wipe out the human race?




Amazingly enough, humans are quite resilient at surviving even apocalyptical scenarios.


We're entering an apocalyptic phase pre-dating humans? That's a pretty big claim taking into account that humans have 100 years of very good historical records, 400 years of decent ones, 5500 years of "sketchy" ones, and are missing a few hundred thousand years of ancient historical records.


In 1975 Peter Gwynne, then science editor of Newsweek, paints a grim picture of the Earth due to global cooling:

There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. [13]


In January 2014 Gwynne attempts to explain the failure of his article:

When I wrote this story I did not see it as a blockbuster. It was just an intriguing piece about what a certain group in a certain niche of climatology was thinking. [14]


Starting off an article with "ominous signs" and affecting "every nation on the earth" is not just an "intriguing piece." It's an environmental doomsday article.


He makes outrageous unscientific claims in his 1975 article:

The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only ten years from now.

Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. [13]


Gwynne defends these outrageous claims by stating that:

"Newsweek being Newsweek, we might have pushed the envelope a little bit more than I would have wanted. [14]


If Gwynne has the original copy without Newsweek "sexing it up" I would believe him.


I attempt an email request for comment from Gwynne but am unable to get a hold of him despite contacting two journalists that have an association with him.


While most CO2 cult believers argue that the world will end if we don't stop putting CO2 in the atmosphere this very second, they try to take a coy prophetic attitude at the same time by saying, "But I hope I'm wrong." This action utilizes subtle manipulation.


On the one hand CO2 cult members are able to instil fear in the global general public from their doomsday CO2 scenarios; and on the other hand they can claim that it's good that their prediction is wrong, otherwise humanity wouldn't exist. This is a similar path of many failed doomsday prophets.


Personally, subtle manipulation bothers me more than blatant manipulation because the deception is so difficult to pinpoint and capable of conditioning an individual's mind without any conscious awareness of the manipulation.


Greenpeace International gets into heavy surface manipulation tactics with the extinction of millions of species due to man-made CO2 climate change:

A recent major study indicates that if global temperatures increase 1.8-2 Celsius (3.2-3.6 F), which is considered amid-range estimate, a million species would be threatened with extinction over the next fifty years. This can only be avoided by rapid emissions reductions in the next few decades. There is still time to save many species, but it is fast running out. Of course, if temperatures go even higher, more species will be lost. [15]


Greenpeace is most likely referring to a January 2004 peer-reviewed article in Nature which paints an apocalyptic scenario for all animal and plant life if greenhouse gases continue to spew out its deadly venom (CO2, water vapour and methane). [16] I ask the lead researcher, professor Chris D. Thomas, if he still believes in this animal extinction doomsday scenario due to man-made CO2 climate change. He says:

"As a philosopher, you should know perfectly well that I, as a scientist, neither 'believe' or 'disbelieve' a given scenario for future events. The article contained a number of alternative assumptions, and predictions, which help us to understand (and perhaps avoid) the possible consequences of future environmental changes. I still have every expectation that ongoing anthropogenic climate change will cause large numbers of extinctions."


This gets into a fundamental issue that philosophers have with Western-European (WE) scientists, the denial of one's belief system. Generally speaking, WE scientists abhor the term "belief/believe" and prefer the terms "assumption" and "estimate." Many WE scientists like to claim that the "evidence speaks for itself." And sometimes it does. But more often then not, the results are dependent on the methodology which is dependent on the ideology. Hence, WE scientists can prove or disprove any ideological claim.


The idea that assumptions and estimates reflect a more "impartial and objective" nature in scientific methodology is false. Scientists, like any other individual have various political, economic, social, and religious ideologies. The denial of such ideologies is nonsensical.


But the potential extinction of a million plus species? Seriously? Nothing like that is happening right now nor is it expected to happen in the future based on current trends. This is another unfalsifiable claim relative to time that Greenpeace and CO2 cult believers thrust upon the global general public.


The WWF continues the "in your face manipulation" in their Species threatened by climate change webpage:

The polar bear could disappear in the wild unless the pace of global warming slows. Dependent on sea ice, the animal uses it as a floating platform to catch prey. Experts believe that the Arctic sea ice is melting at a rate of 9% per decade, endangering the polar bear's habitat and existence. [17]


Unfortunately, the ideology of "survival of the fittest" still applies for most animals. If polar bears (or any animal for that matter), are incapable of adapting to natural changing environmental conditions, then they won't make it. Anyone who has a problem with this ideology will have to converse with nature or whatever god they believe in for answers.


But some WWF claims are just odd:

Climate change also threatens the offspring of sea turtles, as nest temperature strongly determines the sex: the coldest sites produce male offspring, while the warmer sites produce female offspring. This nest-warming trend is reducing the number of male offspring and seriously threatens turtle populations.

Since warming waters contain less plankton for whales to feed on, the availability of food due to climate fluctuations is also becoming an increasing cause of mortality. Between 300 and 350 individuals still exist, with little hope of population growth.

Bamboo, the panda's staple diet, is also part of a delicate ecosystem that could be affected by the changes caused by global warming. Poaching too remains an ever present threat, with only 1,600 individuals left in the wild.

Asia's only ape - the orang-utan - is in deep trouble. Its last remaining strongholds in the rainforests of Indonesia are being threatened by a range of pressures, including climate change, putting the animal at risk of extinction within a few decades.

With diminished living space, elephants will be unable to escape any changes to their natural habitat caused by global warming, including more frequent and longer dry periods, placing further pressure on their existence.

Higher temperatures contribute to the drying out of breeding pools, and as a result, to the deaths of tadpoles and eggs. Drier conditions also cause adult frogs to die, due to increased rates of internal water loss through their permeable skin.

Some of the largest remaining areas where tigers occur are the mangrove forests of India. The projected rise in sea levels could cause these living spaces of the tiger to vanish altogether. [17]


Man-made CO2 climate change is threatening the sea turtle population? Umm...oh...kay.


A reduction in whale population growth because of "climate fluctuations?"


The panda's life is threatened by man-made CO2 climate change? Seriously? While poaching is definitely a problem, that connects to man-made CO2 climate


The Asian orang-utan is being threatened by a range of pressures? How serious is man-made CO2 climate change threatening orang-utans relative to other threats?


Why are the elephants facing diminished living spaces? And how serious is the threat of man-made CO2 climate change relative to poaching?


A rise in sea level is threatening tigers in the wild?


Yes, warmer temperatures will dry out tadpole breeding pools. But just like the polar bears, frogs and toads either have to adapt to the changes or perish.


But the WWF takes it to the extreme for frogs and toads. In their Impacts of climate change on nature webpage they state that:

The golden toad (Bufo periglenes) and the harlequin frog (Atelopus varius) of Costa Rica have disappeared as a direct result of global warming. Species are under threat in more than one way. [18]


CO2 cult believer scientists even use peer-reviewed articles to claim that man-made CO2 climate change is the deciding factor, while diseases are a far second. [19] [20]


Fortunately, both the WWF and CO2 cult believer scientists are wrong. Scientists re-discover the harlequin frog and believe that extinct ones still exist in isolated areas:

Our findings fit into the emerging theory that species which have been presumed extinct are beginning to be re-discovered in Costa Rica and elsewhere. After severe declines, often to where zero individuals are detected in the wild, several frog species have been re-discovered in areas of Costa Rica with previous records of chytrid, as well as in areas not sampled previously.

The pattern of presumed extirpations and extinctions of amphibians followed by their rediscovery opens a series of questions about amphibian declines in general, specifically chytrid caused declines. The recent re-discovery of almost extinct amphibian species is probably due to more intensive surveys and greater sampling efforts in previously known localities and in areas poorly explored.

The first hypothesis is that isolated populations of host species may not have come in contact with chytrid fungus.

Our second hypothesis is that it is possible that some individuals within populations experiencing chytrid infection could endure and survive the infection. [21]


This re-discovery points out the failure of objective empirical observations. I'll explain relative to the extinction and re-discovery of some frogs. In the '90s and '00s scientists don't observe a particular species of frogs living in a particular area at a particular period of time. They conclude that man-made CO2 climate change is the key factor. While the empirical observations are true observations they're not objective or impartial because the scientists have environmental ideological beliefs: if they don't find any frogs it means that man-made CO2 climate change is correct and killing off a particular species.


This ideology skews CO2 cult believer scientists to subconsciously (or consciously), "not want to find the missing frogs." And this subconscious or unconscious belief then affects their actions as to whether they should look harder and in more isolated areas. In the case of the harlequin frog they don't, and then claim that man-made CO2 climate change kills them off.


I argue that CO2 cult believer scientists don't want to re-discover extinct frog populations because it degrades the argument that man-made CO2 climate change is killing off the Amazon frog population, especially when CO2 rates in the atmosphere have passed the "point of no return."


As I'll reiterate throughout the CO2 climate change cult series, I'm not against ideological science. I just want scientists to admit that they have environmental, political, cultural and religious ideologies that can shape their research, and for the most part it does.


The idea that the scientific method (reproducible results), implies objective impartial research is false. The idea that all knowledge can be found through the scientific method is 100% false (which I'll argue in future articles).


In an email request for comment I ask the WWF if they'll be updating their webpage to show the re-discovery of the Harlequin frog.


They don't respond.


But the manipulation doesn't have to be subtle or "in your face." It can take the form of mentioning one point while excluding others. I call it the exclusionary manipulation tactic. Individuals who make up the US National Climate Change Assessment are experts on this:

Ocean surface waters have become 30% more acidic over the last 250 years as they have absorbed large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This ocean acidification makes water more corrosive, reducing the capacity of marine organisms with shells or skeletons made of calcium carbonate (such as corals, krill, oysters, clams, and crabs) to survive, grow, and reproduce, which in turn will affect the marine food chain. [22]


Really? It's not because of decades of nuclear waste dumping, ocean oil spills and centuries of dumping real industrial pollutants in the rivers/lakes/oceans and the atmosphere?


In a 2004 peer-reviewed article researchers flush out real industrial pollutants causing harms to rivers/lakes/oceans:

Agricultural activities are reported to contribute about 50% of the total pollution source of surface water by means of the higher nutrient enrichment, mainly ammonium ion (NH4) and NO3 derived from agricultural inputs. Ammonia constitutes a major contributor to the acidification of the environment, especially in areas with considerable intensive livestock farming.

Sewage contains in itself a diverse array of polluting agents including pathogens (Table 2), organic substances, heavy metals and trace elements (Table 3) and so on, which pose direct and indirect effects on ecosystems and organisms. Sewage is primarily organic in nature and, therefore, subject to bacterial decay. As a result of this bacterial activity, the oxygen concentration in the water is reduced, thus sewage is said to have a high BOD. This can starve aquatic life of the oxygen it needs and also leads to the breakdown of proteins and other nitrogenous compounds, releasing hydrogen sulphide and ammonia, both of which are potentially toxic to marine organisms in low concentrations. Solids suspended in sewage may also blanket river and sea beds preventing respiration of the benthic flora and fauna. Decaying organic matter and nutrients in sewage enhance plant growth. Excessive plant growth and oxygen depletion can lead to alterations in ecosystem structure and these are both features of eutrophication.

Nowadays, persistent xenobiotic compounds have been found in every part of the ocean: from arctic to Antarctic, and from intertidal to abyssal. For example, PCBs, HCH and DDT (and its derivatives) were found in rat-tail fish collected at 3000 m depth in the Atlantic and arctic seals long after the ban of DDT and PCBs in the early 1970s, indicating the persistence of these chemicals in the marine environment. [23]


The government assessment continues with its impacts across the world:

Southeast and Caribbean:
Decreased water availability, exacerbated by population growth and land-use change, causes increased competition for water. There are increased risks associated with extreme events such as hurricanes.

Drought and increased warming foster wildfires and increased competition for scarce water resources for people and ecosystems.

Changes in the timing of streamflow related to earlier snowmelt reduce the supply of water in summer, causing far-reaching ecological and socioeconomic consequences.

Hawai'i and Pacific Islands:
Increasingly constrained freshwater supplies, coupled with increased temperatures, stress both people and ecosystems and decrease food and water security.


Umm...the Earth doesn't divide itself into fresh water and ocean water, that's an anthropogenic artificial division. Just because the global general public aren't adept at filtering ocean water doesn't mean that water is a "scarce resource."


The exclusionary manipulation tactic continues in the government assessment regarding food availability:

Climate change will also alter the stability of food supplies and create new food security challenges for the United States as the world seeks to feed nine billion people by 2050. [25]


Really? It's not because of GMO corporations, greed, political corruption and class warfare economic policy?


But the real fallacious statement is the world attempting to feed 9 billion individuals. The world is incapable of doing so, not because of "scarce resources," but because the world is an artificial social construct. The world doesn't say "I'm going to feed this population, but not the other." Humans are the ones that decide who will go hungry or not. The world doesn't make that call.


While corrupt and unethical politicians/corporations play a significant factor in the food supply chain, the Western-European public are quite capable of taking control of their food supply by growing their own food in their backyards or gardens. The fact that they choose not to do so is because food products are available to them in extravagant abundance.


The government assessment advocates the same line as the WWF in regards to heat waves:

Climate change affects human health in many ways. For example, increasingly frequent and intense heat events lead to more heat-related illnesses and deaths and, over time, worsen drought and wildfire risks, and intensify air pollution.

Climate change can exacerbate respiratory and asthma-related conditions through increases in pollen, ground-level ozone, and wildfire smoke. [25]


So man-made CO2 climate change is responsible for heat-related deaths and respiratory conditions? An individual not taking responsibility for their health doesn't enter into the mix?


Greenpeace International also gets into the health manipulation claims in its Health, food and water webpage:

Climate change increases the spread of disease in a number of ways. Perhaps most significantly by increasing the range of tropical and sub-tropical infection bearing pests, such as malaria and dengue carrying mosquitoes. Roughly 300 million more people will be at risk of malaria with global warming of about 2-3 C (3.6-5.4 F). Floods will also compromise water quality - spreading cholera and other diseases. [26]


So man-made CO2 climate change is causing 300 million individuals to be at risk for malaria and cholera? Seriously?


The David Suzuki Foundation (DSF) throws their lot into the mix as well:

According to the Canadian Medical Association, air pollution prematurely kills about 21,000 Canadians a year. Recent studies show that close to eight per cent of all non-traumatic mortality in Canadian cities is attributable to air pollution. [27]


So man-made CO2 climate change is responsible for killing 21,000 Canadians a year? Seriously? If so, a tidal wave of environmental lawsuits must be coming soon.


But the DSF reads from the same script that the WWF and Greenpeace International are reading from:

Climate change will have a strong impact on human health. As climate change brings tropical weather to higher latitudes, tropical diseases like the West Nile virus will follow. Ecosystem disruption will make the outbreak of water-borne diseases more likely. Air pollution, which in Canada is largely caused by fossil-fuel use, is already a scourge on public health. Climate change will make smog more intense, and will lead to even higher rates of asthma and heart disease. [27]


This isn't just below causation, it's below scientific correlation. Though every individual and organization has a right to express their beliefs and ideologies, manipulating the global general public through fear is pretty low. While Western-European politicians and political parties regularly use this tactic for millenniums, environmental NGOs shouldn't attempt to imitate it.


The government assessment also uses word manipulation just as the WWF does:

Because human-induced warming is superimposed on a naturally varying climate, rising temperatures are not evenly distributed across the country or over time. [28]


I like this statement, "superimposed on a naturally varying climate." As if the "superimposition" adds another degree of credibility to the man-made CO2 climate change theory. This is definitely another example worthy of a Manipulation 101 university course.


Unfortunately, unfalsifiable claims (relative to time or understanding), are a regular part of the man-made CO2 climate change theory:

There is mounting evidence that harm to the nation will increase substantially in the future unless global emissions of heat-trapping gases are greatly reduced. [28]


Where is this mounting evidence coming from? Who's funding it? What are the ideologies behind it? What agendas and corporations benefit from billions of dollars of potential actions for decades? Unfalsifiable statements like these engender the war on CO2 emissions.


The government assessment even plays the indigenous victim card:

Chronic stresses such as extreme poverty are being exacerbated by climate change impacts such as reduced access to traditional foods, decreased water quality, and increasing exposure to health and safety hazards. In parts of Alaska, Louisiana, the Pacific Islands, and other coastal locations, climate change impacts (through erosion and inundation) are so severe that some communities are already relocating from historical homelands to which their traditions and cultural identities are tied. Particularly in Alaska, the rapid pace of temperature rise, ice and snow melt, and permafrost thaw are significantly affecting critical infrastructure and traditional livelihoods. [29]


Playing the indigenous victim card elicits a quick but firm emotional response that usually leads to some sort of action, if not a change in one's mindset. Of course, none of these problems are due to intentional government interference and energy corporations offering millions to poor indigenous communities for mineral, coal, gas and oil exploration.


While there are many indigenous communities that support the man-made CO2 climate change theory due to constant pressure and manipulation from environmental groups, indigenous communities should know better. Out of everyone on the planet, individuals from indigenous communities that have a connection with their deep rooted culture should be aware of the differences between natural earth changes and man-made effects.


Finally, the government assessment sums up the impacts of the man-made CO2 climate change theory:

Climate change is increasing the risks of heat stress, respiratory stress from poor air quality, and the spread of waterborne diseases. Extreme weather events often lead to fatalities and a variety of health impacts on vulnerable populations, including impacts on mental health, such as anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. Large-scale changes in the environment due to climate change and extreme weather events are increasing the risk of the emergence or reemergence of health threats that are currently uncommon in the United States, such as dengue fever. [30]


So then prior to 40 years ago or even 200 years ago extreme weather events are due to natural climatic changes? If temperatures don't increase does that mean that no significant extreme weather will occur? What about the February 1982 PEI snowstorm? Is that natural or due to man-made CO2 climate change? How about the January - February 1977 Buffalo blizzard? Or the March 1971 Montreal snowstorm? Or the April 1967 Alberta blizzards? Or the great December 1947 North-eastern snowstorm? Or the November 1927 Vermont flood? And what about the epic March 1888 North-eastern blizzard? Are these extreme weather events natural or due to man-made CO2 climate change? If it's the latter then I'd love to see the peer-reviewed articles proving causation.


The fact that the government assessment causally connects post-traumatic stress disorder with man-made CO2 climate change is a new low. Is there no level that the CO2 cult won't go? In the future, I believe that most current diseases will be blamed on the man-made CO2 climate change theory. J. Alan Pounds, et al. 2006 article in Nature is one example:

As the Earth warms, many species are likely to disappear, often because of changing disease dynamics. Here we show that a recent mass extinction associated with pathogen outbreaks is tied to global warming. Seventeen years ago, in the mountains of Costa Rica, the Monteverde harlequin frog (Atelopus sp.) vanished along with the golden toad (Bufo periglenes). An estimated 67% of the 110 or so species of Atelopus, which are endemic to the American tropics, have met the same fate, and a pathogenic chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) is implicated. Analysing the timing of losses in relation to changes in sea surface and air temperatures, we conclude with 'very high confidence' (>99%, following the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, that large-scale warming is a key factor in the disappearances. We propose that temperatures at many highland localities are shifting towards the growth optimum of Batrachochytrium, thus encouraging outbreaks. With climate change promoting infectious disease and eroding biodiversity, the urgency of reducing greenhouse-gas concentrations is now undeniable. [31]


In an email request for comment I ask the US government climate assessment panel, Greenpeace International and the DSF the same question I pose to the WWF about whether they believe that many of their claims are manipulative and unfalsifiable. The US government climate assessment panel and the DSF don't respond. Greenpeace International says:

"I kindly refer you to our website where you can find all the answers to your questions."


Unfortunately, that's a garbage answer. Their website doesn't have such an answer.


In May 2014 Carl Safina (a notable ecologist), does a tongue and cheek opinion article for CNN regarding two peer-reviewed articles:

Causes? Seems to be mainly the warming caused by the greenhouse effects of increasing carbon dioxide from burning gas, oil, and coal. But the ozone hole, also human-caused but having nothing to do with greenhouse gases or fossil fuels, might also be intensifying the winds. [32]


The manipulation is subtle. Use a study that shows glaciers melting and leading to catastrophic consequences and interpret the cause based on your own ideologies. Brilliant.


Even though the apparent collapse will take 200 to 1000 years, it doesn't stop the usual doom and gloom scenarios that environmentalists and environmental journalists have been saying for more than 30 years. In the Guardian, Dr. Eric Rignot (author of the Geophysical Research Letters study), says:

We feel this is at the point where even if the ocean is not warming up, is not providing additional ocean heat, the system is in a sort of chain reaction that is unstoppable...So we think it is not going to be stoppable. [33]


Even if the oceans aren't warming up we're all doomed? Really?


If humans are unable to adapt to a major change in 200 to 1000 years in the future, then clearly, intelligence is not a major part of humanity's collective consciousness.


In an email request for comment I ask both authors of the glacial study about whether they believe humanity is capable of adapting to the glacier collapse. Dr. Rignot says that:

"The wealthy will adapt to sea level rise though it will be costly, very costly."


This statement presupposes that class/socio-economic warfare still exists 200 years in the future (which is quite possible). But if class warfare still exists then it shows the lack of growth in humanity's development and calls into question whether humanity is even worth saving. Ian Joughin (author of the Science study), gives a similar answer to Rignot, with the ability to adapt being dependent on the cost and rate of sea level rise.


In a February 2009 article, then-US Energy Secretary Steven Chu says:

We're looking at a scenario where there's no more agriculture in California. [34]


My over-priced bag of non-gmo project verified, but not really certified organic Lundberg Japonica Rice is from California. My over-priced certified organic beets are from California. My decently-priced container of certified organic Boku Superfood powder is from California. Living in Canada I'm better able to judge whether there's a shortage because it would be illogical to export food crops if there aren't enough to feed the Californian and American public. Clearly, supply isn't a problem.


Agriculture is still a significant part of the California economy. And yes, they are experiencing record droughts. So what are they doing about it? They're complaining that Mother Nature isn't tending to their every need in a fixed agricultural market.


While the solution is painfully obvious, I'll flush it out anyways. Water the crops yourself. That's it. A drip irrigation system is an inexpensive and efficient way to water any crops. But where's the water going to come from? Sigh. Looking at California geographically, I find a large body of water called the Pacific Ocean right off its coast. The process of filtering the water is called desalination. And the best part is that municipal governments in California are already moving toward this solution. [35]


In February 2004 the Observer publishes an article about a secret climate change doomsday report that the Bush administration suppresses. [36] Upon examination of the report I find it to be absolute nonsense:

We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately.

This scenario makes plausible assumptions about which parts of the globe are likely to be colder, drier, and windier. Although intensified research could help to refine the assumptions, there is no way to confirm the assumptions on the basis of present models.

Rather than predicting how climate change will happen, our intent is to dramatize the impact climate change could have on society if we are unprepared for it. Where we describe concrete weather conditions and implications, our aim is to further the strategic conversation rather than to accurately forecast what is likely to happen with a high degree of certainty.

As abrupt climate change lowers the world's carrying capacity aggressive wars are likely to be fought over food, water, and energy. Deaths from war as well as starvation and disease will decrease population size, which overtime, will re-balance with carrying capacity.

In short, while the US itself will be relatively better off and with more adaptive capacity, it will find itself in a world where Europe will be struggling internally, large number so refugees washing up on its shores and Asia in serious crisis over food and water. Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life. [37]


Dramatizing the impact of climate change?


Re-balancing the carrying capacity of the planet?


Disruption and conflict as the norm?


Hopefully, no Western-European democratic government is unethical enough to re-balance the carrying capacity...also known as a lighter form of eugenics.


In accordance with the tradition to "save the best for last," I give you the greatest example of manipulation by the CO2 cult, the causation between man-made CO2 climate change and the unethical human act of rape:

This paper estimates the impact of climate change on the prevalence of criminal activity in the United States. The analysis is based on a 30-year panel of monthly crime and weather data for 2997 US counties. I identify the effect of weather on monthly crime by using a semi-parametric bin estimator and controlling for state-by-month and county-by-year fixed effects. The results show that temperature has a strong positive effect on criminal behavior, with little evidence of lagged impacts. Between 2010 and 2099, climate change will cause an additional 22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, 1.2 million aggravated assaults, 2.3 million simple assaults, 260,000 robberies, 1.3 million burglaries, 2.2 million cases of larceny, and 580,000 cases of vehicle theft in the United States.

The present discounted value of the social costs of these climate-related crimes is between 38 and 115 billion dollars. [38]


And just so there's no confusion, the author, Dr. Matthew Ranson, is referring to the man-made CO2 climate change theory:

To assess how climate change is likely to affect crime rates in the United States, I combine the regression estimates...with data on simulated US weather conditions for the time period from 2010 to 2099. These simulations are based on the IPCC's A1B scenario, a "middle-of-the-road" climate change scenario that assumes eventual stabilization of atmospheric CO2 levels at 720ppm. [39]


The worst part about this nonsensical causation study is the fact that it's in a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.


Though I don't know much about the mind of a rapist, I'm sure that man-made CO2 climate change is not a significant factor in their unethical decision to rape an individual. Aside from India, rape is a chronic epidemic in Northern Aboriginal communities in Canada, where the temperatures regularly drop to -40 C.


Using statistics to create a causal connection between rape and man-made CO2 climate change is a disgusting lapse of judgement in the peer-reviewed process. And placing the social cost in the billions is an attempt to solidify the logic from an economic perspective (giving it more credibility).


In an email request for comment I ask Dr. Ranson of Abt Associates, a global for-profit research firm, whether he still believes in a causal connection between rape and man-made CO2 climate change.


He doesn't respond.


In my opinion Dr. Ranson is that which cannot be spoken of.


The CO2 Climate Change Cult Series will continue next week on September 19, 2014 with Part 2 of 8: Greenpeace and Oxfam Manipulating Science.




[1] When you change the climate you change everything. World Wildlife Fund.

[2] Environmentalists hail Supreme Court ruling on carbon. New York Times. March 4, 2007.

[3] People at risk. World Wildlife Fund.

[4] What We Know: The Reality, risks, and Response to Climate Change. American Association for the Advancement of Science. p. 2.

[5] Peterson, Thomas C., et al. Explaining Extreme Events of 2012 from a Climate Perspective. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 94, No. 9, September 2013. p. S64.

[6] Impacts of climate change. David Suzuki Foundation.

[7] 13.4 Summary of expected key future impacts and vulnerabilities. Climate Change 2007: Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

[8] Samanta, Arindam, et al. Amazon forests did not green-up during the 2005 drought. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 37, Iss. 5, March 2010. p. 1 of 5.

[9] Huntingford, Chris, et al. Simulated resilience of tropical rainforests to
CO2-induced climate change. Nature Geoscience, Vol. 6, April 2013. p. 268.

[10] Torcello, Lawrence. Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent? Conversation. March 13, 2014.

[11] Merchant, Brian. If We Release a Small Fraction of Arctic Carbon, 'We're f*cked': Climatologist. Motherboard. August 1, 2014.

[12] Holthaus, Eric. Why I'm a Climate Change Alarmist. Slate. August 20, 2014.

[13] Gynne, Peter. The Cooling World. Newsweek. April 28, 1975.

[14] Osborne, Hannah. 'Global Cooling' Journalist Peter Gwynne: Climate Sceptics Misused 1975 Report. International Business Times. January 13, 2014.

[15] Habitat Loss. Greenpeace International.

[16] Thomas, Chris D., et al. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature, Vol. 427, January 8, 2004. p. 145-148.

[17] Species threatened by climate change. World Wildlife Fund.

[18] The impacts of climate change on nature. World Wildlife Fund.

[19] Anchukaitis, Kevin J. and Evans, Michael N. Tropical cloud forest climate variability and the demise of the Monteverde golden toad. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 107, No. 11, March 16, 2010. p. 5036-5040.

[20] Pounds, J. Alan., et al. Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global warming. Nature, Vol. 439, January 12, 2006. p. 161-167.

[21] Gonzalez-Maya, Jose F., et al. Renewing hope: the rediscovery of Atelopus varius in Costa Rica. Amphibia-Reptilia, Vol. 34, Iss. 4, 2013. p. 575-576.

[22] Melillo, Jerry M., et al. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program. U.S. Government Printing Office. 2014. p. 10.

[23] Islam, Shahidul and Tanaka, Masaru. Impacts of pollution on coastal and marine ecosystems including coastal and marine fisheries and approach for management: a review and synthesis. Marine Pollution Bulletin. Vol. 48, Iss. 7-8, April 2004. p. 625, 627-628, 631.

[24] Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. p. 11.

[25] Ibid. p. 12.

[26] Health, food and water. Greenpeace International.

[27] Health impacts. David Suzuki Foundation.

[28] Melillo, Jerry M., et al. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. p. 15.

[29] Ibid. p. 17.

[30] Ibid. p. 16.

[31] Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global warming. 2006. p. 161.

[32] Safina, Carl. Rising oceans will be unstoppable. CNN. May 15, 2014.

[33] Goldenberg, Suzanne. Western Antarctic ice sheet collapse has already begun, scientists warn. Guardian. May 12, 2014.

[34] Goldenberg, Suzanne. Obama's energy secretary outlines dire climate change scenario. Guardian. February 4, 2009.

[35] Gottelier, Simon. A desalination boom in California could help it deal with 'exceptional' drought. Guardian. June 30, 2014.

[36] Townsend, Mark and Harris, Paul. Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us. Observer. February 22, 2004.

[37] Schwartz, Peter and Randall, Doug. Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security. October 2003. p. 1, 7, 15, 22.

[38] Ranson, Matthew. Crime, weather, and climate change. Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management
, Vol. 67, Iss. 3, May 2014. p. 274, 287.

[39] Ibid. p. 284.