The origin of the global warming politics, can you help?

Posted: January 27, 2017 by tchannon in Politics, propaganda

Tim writes,

Warwick Hughes is one of the handful of veterans who are in a position to know most of the history of the man-made global warming story. I am promoting his blog item to try and widen the number of brains who might be able to help with far history.

IPCC, News and Views, Surface Record
What are the origins of the global warming bandwagon
January 24, 2017 Warwick Hughes

I have tried over the years to find a single point that birthed global warming as we know it. My guess has been that it originated during the Carter years possibly in the US Dept. of Energy. With the Trump ascendancy it seems timely to throw this open to readers to see what emerges. History of climate change science
Timeline – The Discovery of Global Warming – American Institute of Physics – Global Warming: How It All Began by Richard Courtney – A History of the Disastrous Global Warming Hoax by Alan Caruba March 2014 – The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment was held in Stockholm, Sweden from June 5–16 in 1972. Global Warming or climate not mentioned in 26 bullet points

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=4954

I’ve quoted all Warwick’s article, I hope acceptable under the circumstances. There are 11 comments over there (Australia) so far.

Does history matter?

In general yes it does. Victors write words, often lies and spin. I can give many examples. Victors here means the wrong person or body. That’s not what happened but they had the power of publishing, perhaps the money to do it too.

True histories?

With this one we want to know the names and organisations. Perhaps it goes deep into government. I think it does, into the establishment, I have seen some dire words from a long time ago.

Perhaps too there is the long trail back into the 19th century. That I suspect was more about individuals acting alone.

Then we have the Pugwash matter, they took on the AGW meme, perhaps helped start it. Dishonest lot. Their words, web site has fairly recently been sanitised, airbrushing away their history on this one. You need to research carefully.

Richard Courtney is another veteran.

Warwick mentions Trump. This might have more connections than is obvious. Back during the 1970s the world took a sharp turn in economics, away from any worth in money etc. Now Trump is a part turn back. Maybe this flows into the World government idea.

Post by Tim

Comments
  1. carol says:

    I went to a meeting once where the speaker (now dead) blamed it all on John Houghton. He was prejudiced I think as Houghton was an evangelical, or so he said. Houghton might be a good place to start from a British point of view but I would think it was given birth in the US as they have shouted loudest. Obviously, as it grew in momentum lots of people got on the bandwagon, especially those who hoped to gain financially. I don’t see this as a peculiarity of climate science (although the politics involved is probably novel) as many of the consensus theories have a mechanism to drown out alternative ideas. It seems quite rife to me and has probably always been that way. Scientists may be used to having to toe the line and biting their lips, in almost every field you can think of. The most open one at the moment I would think is space as new things are being observed all the time and people can speculate freely (to a degree).

  2. ivan says:

    Follow the money, in this case backwards, is the best option. Something like this does not run and grow without money and a few people making a lot of it.

    After that you need to look at organisations, Club of Rome, UN with Agenda 21, NGOs and end with the supporters of the New World Order.

  3. Sage Vals says:

    In the UK, perhaps try the white paper ‘This Common Inheritance’, 1990? While there had been concern about AGW in some quarters before that, this seems to be the point when Government funding starts in earnest, creating the climate change ‘industry’ we know today.

  4. JB says:

    The Club of Rome’s 1993 report The First Global Revolution specifically mentions global warming on their page 75 (86 in the PDF). There are probably earlier incidences, but none comes to mind at the moment. Global cooling and in turn population control were the biggest scarecrows in the 50s and 60s. After that was CFCs.

    Much of this stuff in the US is buried in the Rockefeller Foundation.

  5. David Ashton says:

    In the 70′ s and 80’s Kissinger was travelling the globe telling world leaders that what was needed, to prevent wars, was a common enemy so everyone was on the same side. This was taken on board by the Bilderbergers, and other New World Order proponents.

    In the late 80’s the greens were looking for the next project, after their success with CFCs and the Montreal Protocol. They were also being joined by the lefties who had lost their political battle, and we’re looking for an alternative antiestablishment cause. The greens initially thought of using global cooling and the early onset of a new ice age as the scare story, but temperatures started to rise again. So they switched to global warming, resurrecting the Arhenius hypothesis. [It should be remembered that less than ten years earlier a >700 page report on the factors influencing climate had been published by an eminent US meteorological institution and this had not once mentioned the effect of CO2 or radiative forcing]. So having succeeded in getting the international laws to eliminate emissions of CFCs, they started their campaign to get CO2 similarly stigmatised with the ultimately objective of laws to eliminate its emission.

    So, we had the the common enemy wanted by the Bilderbergers and the committed ‘army’ to spread the word. The new generation of politicians bought into it as a means of control over the people, and a new source of tax revenue. Industrialist, particularly the oil industry, bought into it as a means of controlling the demand and hence price of fossil fuels. They feared demand exceeding supply too quickly before depletion of reserves pushing the price too high and making alternative energy more competitive. Alternative sources have very high capital requirements but once built can have low variable costs, the opposite to fossil fuel based sources, and would inhibit their route back into the market when the price fell. Just ask why is climate change almost always top of the agenda at Davos, when there is no evidence that the relatively small amount of natural warming has had any detrimental effect on the worlds economy. In fact the opposite is true, extreme weather events are fewer rather than greater, and crop productivity is higher due predominantly to the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

  6. oldbrew says:

    It hit the front pages here…

    Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate
    By PHILIP SHABECOFF, Special to the New York Times
    Published: June 24, 1988
    http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html

  7. Don B says:

    Try “The Age of Global Warming: A History,” by Robert Darwall.

  8. E.M.Smith says:

    The process started with The Club Of Rome in the late ’60s to early 70s with their pushing The Limits To Growth by Meadows et. al.. Later they morphed that push into a Global Warming idea, but based on the same “computer projection” fake fears process. Exactly how it diffused from The Club Of Rome out to others is an interesting bit of historical archeology, as is the tap root in the Limits process and book, but it starts with The Club Of Rome.

  9. clipe says:

    “melt the polar ice craps”?

  10. hunter says:

    Not to beat the same drum, but that Ted talk I posted talks about the deceptive tactics used by the anti-nuke movement. I believe the success of that phony movement, along with the Paul Ehrlich population gambit were the foundation pieces that the climate madness has built on.

  11. JohnM says:

    A timeline can be found at Bernie Lewin’s web page https://enthusiasmscepticismscience.wordpress.com/chronology-of-climate-change-science/. In fact all of his website is worth a read.

    For other information try http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_science_corrupted.pdf.

    Bernie mentions the notion of CO2-driven warming being raised in 1953. The second reference cites a NYT article quoting Bert Bolin, first IPCC chairman, saying in 1958 that the world was going to warm because of CO2 (this despite knowing precious little about natural climate forcings).

  12. JohnM says:

    Arrgh! I forgot to mention …

    “A History of the Science and Politics of Climate Change: The role of the intergovernmental panel on climate change” by Bert Bolin, Cambridge University Press, 2007. (ISBN of paperback: 978-0-521-08873-2)

  13. richardscourtney says:

    Dear Tallbloke:

    Thankyou for mentioning my article which relates the origin of the political global warming scare. I am surprised that you did not link to the version of it that you have posted on your website at
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/richard-courtney-the-history-of-the-global-warming-scare/

    Many (notably the Club of Rome and Bert Bolin) had attempted and failed to create the political scare during the century before Mrs Thatcher (later Baroness Thatcher) created it in the early 1980s (i.e. long before others in the USA joined it).

    My account (which I have linked and is on your website) states and explains;

    “The hypothesis of man-made global warming has existed since the 1880s. It was an obscure scientific hypothesis that burning fossil fuels would increase CO2 in the air to enhance the greenhouse effect and thus cause global warming. Before the 1980s this hypothesis was usually regarded as a curiosity because the nineteenth century calculations indicated that mean global temperature should have risen more than 1°C by 1940, and it had not. Then, in 1979, Mrs Margaret Thatcher (now Lady Thatcher) became Prime Minister of the UK, and she elevated the hypothesis to the status of a major international policy issue.”

    I hope this is helpful.

    Richard

    [mod note] Tim is the author of this blog post

  14. Ewing Caldwell says:

    The late Nigel Calder documented some of it in his 1995 (or there abouts) book The Manic Sun. Might be worth a look.

    [mod — Tim: I hope the family is well. We remember Nigel Calder warmly. I hope that one day those who pushed him out will hang their heads, do that right thing, including writing the missing obituaries. ]

  15. oldbrew says:

    JohnM’s first link says:

    1900 The CO2 climate-forcing theory collapses

    In three papers published in 1900 and 1901, Angstrom concludes from laboratory experiments that CO2 absorbs infrared mostly within the range of the spectrum in which water vapour is also opaque. Upon such evidence the CO2 climate-forcing theory is widely rejected during the early 20th century. The first of these papers is: Knut Ångström, “Über Die Bedeutung Des Wasserdampfes Und Der Kohlensaüres Bei Der Absorption Der Erdatmosphäre.” Annalen der Physik 4(3): 720-32. (pdf)

  16. dai davies says:

    An early input was Inadvertent Climate Modification published by MIT Press in 1971, and ‘hosted’ by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences. The preface gives details of the process and people involved in the lead-up to the report.

    CO2 gets a few references but they only add up to a few pages of almost 300. It was a fairly moderate scientific report by today’s standards. They put “greenhouse effect” in quotes, but accept Arrhenius without mentioning any controversy.

    They say “Manabe and Wetherald’s results still appear to be the most reliable ones … They found that a doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration will increase the average surface temperature by 2ºC;” then later “The 2ºC change would constitute a modification of climate which could trigger other warming mechanisms and possibly lead to irreversible effects” referring back to the earlier claim “However, unlike the warming in the first half of our century, which stopped in the forties, a sustained warming might result in the melting of sea ice in the Arctic and might be accompanied by climatic changes over a considerable portion of our planet.”

    So, while not quite scaremongering, perhaps, the were laying the foundations.

  17. I know that the former Swedish prime minister Olof Palme often had Bert Bolin as a sparring partner in tennis, as he used to play tennis once or two times a week to keep fit. They knew each other since childhood as they went to the same school as children. Palme was murdered in 1986, which was two years before the IPCC was formed. I’m sure that Palme’s connections with other socialists such as the Norwegian prime minister Gro Harlem Bruntland “Bruntland report”, with the Club of Rome and with Maurice Strong played a part in the fact that Bert Bolin became that head of IPCC and that this theory became a mainstay in UN’s environmental activities. The idea is that the world is running out if resources and that we therefore need a global based rationing scheme of these resources, managed by the UN. That’s where this theory comes in handy.

  18. dscott says:

    I was reading somewhere that the German insurance company RWE had pushed Global Warming as a means to justify an increase in insurance premiums back in the 1980s.

    In Florida, the insurance companies justified their massive increases in property insurance premiums based on Global Warming and NOT actual loses.

  19. oldbrew says:

    dscott – another case of models trumping reality?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s