'Climate Change': the new Eugenics

Civilization – Niall Ferguson’s brilliant, impeccably right-wing analysis of why it is that the West is going to hell in a handcart just gets better and better. (H/T Phantom Skier)

In the latest episode, he explored how the roots of the Holocaust lay in a dry run genocide carried out by the Germans (who else?) in German South-West Africa (now Namibia) in the 1900s against the Herero and Namaqua natives. Around 80 per cent of the former tribe and 50 per cent of the latter were brutally massacred with many of the survivors sent to concentration camps where their racial characteristics were studied by proto-Dr-Mengeles as part of the fashionable new scientific field popularised by Francis Galton – eugenics.

(to read more, click here)

7 thoughts on “'Climate Change': the new Eugenics”

  1. James, I’m trying to finish my paper on global warming, but in the meantime please take a look at page 6 of Dr Roy W. Spencer’s http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/2009/110117spencer/ndx_spencer.pdf

    This compares the IPCC temperature predictions with and without positive H2O vapour feedback, and with negative feedback, as observed by Spencer and implicit in the NOAA data of water vapour in the atmosphere falling about 1% between 1948 and 2009.

    In summary: in 2100 the temperature will be 2-4 C warmer assuming IPCC models are correct in assuming positive water vapotr feedback, and assuming that future emissions of CO2 are as predicted, which I doubt, because I think fossil fuel prices will continue to rise which will naturally be a mechanism to curtail CO2 emissions in the future, at least by the West if not China. But if there is there is the observed negative feedback, you hardly get any temperature rise (about 0.5 C rise).

    Spencer did the research showing that temperature rises in the tropics are followed by cloud cover increases (from evaporation) which reflect sunlight back to space and cool the atmosphere. Water only efficiently absorbs sunlight in the form of an invisible vapour: as liquid droplets in clouds, it is a good reflector of sunlight, and the same applies to ice crystals at high altitude (or snow at the poles). So it acts to cool the atmosphere in these cases.

    As a recent exchange of comments with Martin Lack shows, a year ago the Guardian obfuscated in reporting NOAA’s Solomon on this for the past two decades, where she argued that temperature rises in the 1990s were due to a fall in H2O, and the minimal temperature rises over the past decade are due to the opposite effect.

    The key problem for me is consolidating the humidity data from NOAA for 1948-2009 with that from Dr Spencer. Spencer doesn’t seem to have looked at the NOAA data, which Dr Ferenc Miskolczi and his supporters use in a very ineffective way from the public understanding perspective. Spencer seems to suffer from this problem too, although he published in more prestigous journals than Miskolczi.

    Spencer’s argument is that CO2 global warming, after a small temperature rise in say the top 50 metres of the oceans (above the thermocline), increases evaporation slightly, and the warmed moist air then rises to form extra clouds, cancelling out further temperature rises (negative feedback by H2O against CO2).

    Miskolczi’s argument is related to this, but entirely different in mechanism. He argues that the 1% fall in H2O in the vapour (sunlight absorbing) form over the 61 years from 1948-2009 cancelled out the 25% rise in CO2, since H2O is a greenhouse gas about 30 times stronger, according to model calculations.

    Both mechanisms suppress temperature rises from CO2 emissions. The link between Spencer’s and Miskolczi’s theories comes when you think about the water vapour rising to form clouds, and being converted from sunlight reflecting vapour form into the sunlight reflecting cloud droplets. The IPCC “positive feedback” models which assume that all water vapour amplifies temperature rises from CO2 by a factor of 2 (instead of cancelling them out), are assuming falsely that the extra sunlight-heated water vapour evaporating from oceans doesn’t rise to form sunlight-reflecting clouds. It’s a totally false assumption.

    I hope you consider Dr Spencer’s evidence, because nobody else in the media will. There are 4 main coverups in climate science:

    1. the climategate temperature record fiddling (tree ring growth data depending on factors other than air temperature), which you’ve already shown the public,

    2. the NOAA graph of humidity falling from 1948-2009, cancelling out the equivalent greenhouse emission of CO2,

    3. Spencer’s satellite derived peer-reviewed and published evidence that an initial heating over oceans (which cover 71% of the globe) increases cloud cover, causing a negative feedback to set in, and

    4. satellite derived global temperature data after 1980 are explicitly biased because 62% of the surface is under cloud cover and the satellites cannot measure surface temperatures under cloud cover, so they explicitly omit the negative-feedback mechanism from the cloud cover. Earlier temperature data before 1980s was literally polluted by upwind cities and factories, while before 1960s the data is based on tree-ring proxies for temperature which are completely anti-science because we all know that tree growth depends on sunlight, rainfall, wind, etc., not just on air temperature.

  2. James, why are you 6 days behind the rest of the World? Niall Ferguson’s programme is shown first of Channel 4 at 8pm on Sundays! However, if you’re so busy that you can’t re-schedule your hectic lifestyle and/or use 4OD – Enjoy this week’s offering (next weekend) on Consumerism… I thought Niall was going to take another swipe at Islam for it’s anti-[Western/Imperial/Colonial]-ism, but he managed to control himself. Instead, he concludes that the Berlin Wall was not brought down by a man with a big birthmark on his head but by the five letters E, I, L, S, and V… which conspired to organise themselves into the two real “killer-apps” of ELVIS and LEVIS… OMG!, could the VEILS be part of the conspiracy as well?

  3. “I thought Niall was going to take another swipe at Islam for it’s anti-[Western/Imperial/Colonial]-ism …” – Martin Lack

    Martin, you’re confused again I fear. Islam has over a billion followers, and the militant extremists are a very small proportion, although they have undue media influence (like the AGW lobby). I’m a Catholic, but that doesn’t mean I fund or support the IRA terrorists. Islam’s “problem” is that it’s a religion with principles that people adhere to, unlike the hypocrisy of doublethink in certain other religions which are all too eager to sacrifice their values at the altar of political correctness. There is a confusion in some of cultures where things like deference (avoiding eye contact), sexual propriety (covering females, etc.), and the enforcement of principles by Sharia Law are misunderstood in the West as rudeness or anti-feminist. Alcohol, drugs, and moral degeneracy dressed up as liberal values need to be addressed in the West. I think by improving Western moral standards instead of selling Christianity out to the devil (disguised as politically correct liberal values), and by promoting more objective understanding of the Islamic religion, the terrorist extremists will be undermined and will lose all support.

    The real cause of terrorism is the politically correct lobby, forever trying to dress up immorality as progressive values. Complete prohibition and the complete covering up of female beauty on TV and the internet, enforced by strict punishments, will sober up the West. Unlike the immoral corruption from communism, Islam is fundamentally ethical and should be used as a template of principles by the Pope for a strengthening of Christianity. The reasons for the decline of Christianity range from the sell-out of mechanistic physics via Heisenberg’s incorrect 1st quantization uncertainty principle obfuscation in quantum mechanics, which is still popular with libertarian physicists despite the fact its classical Coulomb field is a lie, and the chaos is due physically to field quanta interactions (not the mathematical epicycle of “wavefunction collapse”), to the sell-out of Jesus’s morality.

    The groupthink libertarian approach to Islam is deliberate hatred, just as the groupthink libertarian approach to everything unfashionable is unquestioning hatred. This isn’t what liberalism is about, liberty and equal rights.

  4. Nige,

    Why do you pick me up on a light-hearted remark about Islamic fundamentalism, when the main point I was seeking to make, as was Niall Ferguson, is that our whole Western ideal of liberal democracy is fundamentally selfish and self-destructive? Given your penchant for using fascist/H.G. Wells (1984) language, I can’t help feeling that you are like the Pharisee Jesus criticised for straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.

  5. James, you need to tell your wife to keep you away from computers for at least a month on an unconditional basis. You have been doing the equivalent of (10) Commons floor arguments a day, seven days a week, for the past two years. The next step is throwing yourself under a bus, beating your family to death, or experiencing a cerebral hemmorhage. And yes, you are old enough to have a heart attack.

  6. I would love to punch out your editor at the DT. They should know better. I have 32 years’ worth of man management and five years of anticipating or participating in real combat (the former is worse, believe me; you do not know combat or you would have the wisdom yourself to know when to stop). If you have to quit to get a month away from ALL of it, do it.

  7. James,

    I just want to say how much I have enjoyed reading you over the past few years. You helped to save my soul when I was drowning in CAGW propoganda.

    Having said that, you must away for a couple of months. No computers, no tv to shout at, no newspapers, just write a fabulous book on war – or something – not CAGW or watermelon or anything pinko.

    Heal thy self. Then refreshed, decide if you really want to reenter the ring. if you do, well and good, if you dont then also good. This is for you and your family as much as anything. Someone else will rescue the standard and fly it if need be.

    Good luck, enjoy your rest and thank you.

Comments are closed.