Thursday, December 10, 2009

Climate Change as an Excuse for Population Control and Eugenics

I'm not really all that interested in the whole global warming issue, but I am very interested in the disturbing and dangerous ideas of the anti-humanistic, culture of death, eugenics and population-control crowd. It turns out that there are significant links between the two issues. Here is a story by Paul Mulshine writing in a newspaper in liberal New Jersey of all places in which he quotes William Happer, a Princeton physicist who studies the interaction of radiation with gases and the greenhouse effect.

He is pretty outspoken on the links:

"Happer is a professor of physics at Princeton who has spent a lifetime studying the interactions of radiation with gases, a primary force behind the greenhouse effect. I gave him a call the other day to ask his reaction to the those e-mails originating from the University of East Anglia in England.

"This has done a lot of damage to the reputation of science and the climate-science business in particular," Hopper said. "I hope it is not transferred to all areas of science."The e-mails revealed what amounted to a political campaign to promote the notion of anthropogenic global warming. This didn’t surprise Happer. He served as the director of energy research at the U.S. Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993. In that capacity, he supervised all of DOE’s work on climate change. Happer said he quickly realized the climate scientists were different from typical scientists."They were a strange group of people, very politicized," he said. "They would look at you and you could see them thinking, ‘What sort of answer does he want?’ "The answer the climate scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ended up giving has been immortalized in that notorious "hockey stick" graph. In testimony to Congress earlier this year, Happer described his initial reaction to that graph."I could hardly believe my eyes," he testified. "Both the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period were gone, and the newly revised temperature of the world since the year 1000 had suddenly become absolutely flat until the last hundred years, when it shot up like the blade on a hockey stick."We all learned about the Medieval Warm Period in grammar school, Happer noted. That was a warming period during which Greenland was literally green, and the Vikings colonized and farmed it. As for the Little Ice Age, that describes a period around the turn of the 19th century when the Thames River in London regularly froze over in winter.

Whatever caused those huge fluctuations, it wasn’t carbon dioxide, he said. Solar activity and changing ocean currents provide much more persuasive explanations. So why the emphasis on CO₂?

Simple. "If you want to get rid of CO₂, you want to get rid of people," he said.We humans are CO₂ machines. Every breath you exhale has more than 100 times the carbon dioxide of the air you inhaled. And almost everything you do generates CO₂ in one way or another.

In Happer’s opinion, the carbon-control movement is really a population-control movement. He traces it back through the "Population Bomb" movement of the late 1960s all the way to the 18th-century writings of Thomas Malthus."

The population bomb was a real bomb: its apocalyptic warnings of mass famine in the 70's and 80's never came true and yet that did nothing to alter the opinion of Paul Erlich and the other "true believers" in the population reduction movement. Nothing ever could ever alter their opinion because it is not based on facts, but on a gut feeling, a religion, a mystical belief that Nature is supreme and Man is just a parasite on Nature. They essentially hate their own species and they want to see the human population diminished and perhaps even eliminated. That would be the logical outcome of their views.

You know, it is hard to think of what to say to someone who thinks humans are a cancer on the planet, instead of the crown of God's creation. It really is. Where does one start?

As a Christian, I believe that Man is the crown of God's creation and that we have the responsibility to care for the world as stewards of God who made it and continues to own it. But the creation was made especially so humans could have a place to live and worship because human beings are the only creatures made in the very image and likeness of God.

Any ideology or religion that begins with Nature worship and scorns Man as a cancer is under the judgment of the Gospel and has no place in Christian thinking. There is no doubt that elements of the culture of death today march under the banner of global warming. That in itself does not necessarily mean that the whole issue can be dismissed. The evidence must be considered dispassionately for only that way can we settle the truth of the matter. But it seems clear to me that certain elements of the movement pushing global warming as a terrible, imminent disaster are doing so in order to advance their anti-human agenda. They did it is the 70's with famine and they are doing it today with climate change.

If the earth is ever proven not to be warming beyond natural cyclical patterns, then we can be sure that even with the death of the AGW movement, the anti-humanistic, reduce the population, culture of death movement will continue marching on regardless.


Peter Dunn said...

Great post. Thank you.

David said...

Hi, I thought that you might find these two links interesting. The first is from a very libertarian blog called Spiked, which is constantly warning against the climate change ideologues:
and a BBC programme ostensibly promoting the same Malthusian propaganda the first warns against:

Josh said...

Is anyone arguing for getting rid of all carbon dioxide? (Is getting rid of all carbon dioxide even possible?) Isn't the concern about too much carbon dioxide? Would populations really die if carbon dioxide levels were simply reduced to lower levels?

"Whatever caused those huge fluctuations, it wasn’t carbon dioxide, he said. Solar activity and changing ocean currents provide much more persuasive explanations. So why the emphasis on CO₂?

Simple. 'If you want to get rid of CO₂, you want to get rid of people,' he said."

Or, perhaps this emphasis is due to the simple fact that carbon dioxide levels are much higher than they were previously. Of course, this explanation is not as exciting as a conspiracy theory. Today, is there any "[s]olar activity" or are there "changing ocean currents" that might explain global warming?

It's possible that global warming is a huge hoax. It's risky to assume that it is, however. If climate experts are correct, then global warming has the potential to kill countless creatures, including humans. Slowing it down is arguably a pro-life cause. Moreover, even if global warming has been exaggerated, reducing the use of fossil fuels has another benefit besides reducing carbon dioxide emissions--less air pollution. The burning of fossil fuels releases a variety of pollutants into the air, making it unhealthy.

Craig Carter said...

I don't promote or believe any conspiracy theories. It is all out in the open: all the world government stuff is sincerely believed to be wonderful and good by many liberals. I just think they are dangerous due to being too naive about human nature. (Funny, the same people who rail against the Imperialism of the US running the world and the "Capitalists" running the world see nothing to worry about with unelected UN bureaucrats running the world.)

Second, it is risky both ways. If you are seriously going to reduce carbon emissions to levels that scientists say would actually change the temperature (according to their theory) then the economic cost is going to be extreme. The Al Gores will tell you that "Green jobs" will save the economy but they are not serious about cutting carbon to the extent necessary to change temperature levels. They just want to dabble in carbon reductions and trading carbon credits (and get rich). From what I understand, nothing being seriously discussed in Copenhagen would actually alter the temperature of the earth in the next few decades. It is all about politics, posturing and feeling good (and making a buck).

Here are some of the risks of "doing something:"

1. A reduction in GNP leading to massive unemployment, higher taxes, & slower economic growth - a worldwide economic depression. This would mean a true reduction in lifestyle for the middle class - more people losing their homes, more food banks etc. (It would not really affect the rich.)

2. The end of fossil fuel usage could mean that most people in Europe and NA might no longer be able to afford to drive their own car. That would entail massive lifestyle changes. For people where I live, who could never afford to buy a house where they work (like me) this would be serious setback.

3. A major increase in poverty in third world countries caused by a drop in trade, a lack of foreign investment and higher prices for food.

I hear the hucksters promoting carbon trading and all that but I don't really hear anyone seriously reducing the emissions to the levels scientists say would be necessary to prevent all the flooding and famines they predict.

We are fools if we think we can stop using coal and oil and keep everything the same. The are real risks both ways and to think that the choice is between "doing something" and "doing nothing" is just lazy thinking.

We may end up with the worst of both worlds: natural catastrophes plus a world-wide economic depression that affects the poor disproportionately. This is why I'm getting tired of the sanctimonious salesmen yelling "Hurry Up and Do Something." It is not that simple.

Peter Dunn said...

Josh: CO2 is not an issue at all because it is not by any means the most important green house gas; H2O is. Water vapor in the atmosphere causes a noticeable difference in green house effect whereas when there is no cloud cover, it's as if a blanket has been is lifted, causing the earth's heat to radiate into space. Thus, when all there is are other green house gasses and no water vapor there is little noticeable green house effect. Yet to stop the green house effect of water vapor would require the abolition of evaporation. Anthropogenic global warming is straining the gnat, by fretting about CO2, and swallowing the camel, by ignoring H2O.

Dr. Timothy Ball, whose PhD is in the field of climatology and is a professor emeritus in the field, makes this observation (Source: ):

FC: In layman’s language, can you describe the role played by water vapour in determining atmospheric conditions?

TB: Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. This is part of the difficulty with the public and the media in understanding that 95% of greenhouse gases are water vapour. The public understand it, in that if you get a fall evening or spring evening and the sky is clear the heat will escape and the temperature will drop and you get frost. If there is a cloud cover, the heat is trapped by water vapour as a greenhouse gas and the temperature stays quite warm. If you go to In Salah in southern Algeria, they recorded at one point a daytime or noon high of 52 degrees Celsius – by midnight that night it was -3.6 degree Celsius. That’s a 56-degree drop in temperature in about 12 hours. That was caused because there is no, or very little, water vapour in the atmosphere and it is a demonstration of water vapour as the most important greenhouse gas.

Josh said...


Who has argued that the choices are between "doing nothing" and "doing something"? These choices are almost always a false dichotomy. You list three risks of "doing something," but you do not list risks of "doing nothing." As I have written earlier, I do not advocate that we "stop using coal and oil" entirely. (Of course, as non-renewable resources, they are running out--meaning humankind will have to reduce its reliance on them at some point.) I have suggested that reducing our burning of these fossil fuels would improve our air quality regardless of its effect on global warming. As for arguments that place economic concerns ahead of environmental concerns, I find them uncompelling on biblical-theological grounds.

By the way, William Happer (the professor quoted in the original post) is Chairman of the Board of the George C. Marshall Institute (, which is funded in part by ExxonMobil ( As you wrote in a previous post, "Follow the money."

Peter Dunn said...

Josh: If it is green house gasses that we are worried about then, what is your plan for dealing with water vapor? Let me summarize what I just wrote above: If you want to "do something" about the Green House Effect, you must abolish evaporation. Since that can't be done, nothing significant can be done to stop the Green House effect, period. Consider this: Let's say your wife overspends by $95,000 per year; and you overspend by $2500 and your children overspend by $2500. So every year you and your family borrow $100,000 dollars and you go to a family counselor. You offer to cut your overspending by 5% ($250). Your wife and children offer to cut their overspending by nothing. Do you think that your cutting down on borrowing will have any significant effect on the overall problem? (You are now overspending by only $4750, and the whole family by $99,750). If all humanity cuts its green house gas emissions the overall numbers are similar. It would result in an insignificant reduction of the green house effect because most green house gases are not man made.

Besides the science behind anthropogenic global warming has been exposed to be manipulated, fudged, and secret. Now that it is exposed even computer programmers are now saying that the hockey stick graph was completely rigged:

Finally, don't fret about running out of hydrocarbon energy. It won't happen because it is not a "fossil" fuel but an abundant supply provided by God in creation:

Finally, for many decades we've been told we only have 10 years left. So their predictions have been just as off as their computer models.

By the way Josh. I'm heavily invested in the Canadian oil industry. Just so you know that you can casually dismiss everything I say without providing any counter arguments.

Josh said...


No one is arguing about the natural greenhouse effect caused by water vapor. The argument is about the increased greenhouse effect called global warming that many scientists believe is caused primarily by carbon dioxide emissions. Your argument about water vapor is a red herring.

I am not surpised that you are "heavily invested in the Canadian oil industry." Thank you for admitting it. Of course, this fact alone does not mean your arguments are wrong. However, none of us is neutral; our self-interests slant our views.

I'm not sure where I have simply dismissed you; I have been making arguments throughout my posts here.

Peter Dunn said...

Josh: Do you have any idea what a red herring is? I don't think you know what that word means.

Did you ever stop and think that may be my views are what they are, and that is why I invest in oil and gas? That is actually the case. So my investment don't slant my views; my views slant my investments. I've been laughing my head off about the world being destroyed by global warming now for about 24 years. But I've only been investing in oil for the last 4.

Josh said...

A red herring is an argument that diverts attention away from the subject being debated (it's considered a logical fallacy). The subject being debated is an enhanced greenhouse effect (global warming) and whether reducing the use of fossil fuels would lessen or slow this effect. You introduced the subject of the natural greenhouse effect that is caused largely by water vapor. No one is arguing for lessening this effect--whether by reduction of water vapor or any other means.

I don't think any of us are without biases. The power of self-interest is strong. It's related to that theological concept we Christians call sin.

I'm done commenting on this thread.

Peter Dunn said...

Your response is completely fallacious. You have completely misapplied the logical fallacy in this case. For one thing, you have artificially and erroneously tried to separate man-made greenhouse effect from the natural greenhouse effect--no such distinction can be made!!! Certainly, if 98% or more of the greenhouse effect is natural, then man's contribution to the effect is negligible. But even the burning of "fossil" fuels is arguably also "natural" since one of the basic tenets of science is that "matter cannot be created or destroyed"--i.e., what is burned itself comes from the earth, given to us by God for our benefit to use in accordance with good stewardship.

My arguments are not irrelevant and you are unable or unwilling to respond with adequate counterarguments, so I understand why you must stop commenting on this thread. I conclude that you have no real counterarguments, except to say that because I'm invested in the oil industry I'm a sinner with self-interest that causes me to believe what I believe. That of course is ad hominem. (It is funny how easily young people today are distracted by these kinds of arguments--it shows just how bad liberal public education has been).

It is clear to me that no manner of reasonable empirical arguments will convince the global warming nuts, and as per normal, they are incapable of any reasonable argumentation of their own. When they do have arguments, they must lie, hide, and cheat. That is the lesson of Climategate, which came as no surprise to me. Anthropogenic global warming is not science: it is ideology. If it were science, then it would be falsifiable. But it is not falsifiable because it is a faith position--but it is a faith position that is diametrically opposed to the Christian faith, as Dr. Carter has shown in this post. It is no mistake that Canada's Dr. David Suzuki is well known to be anti-Christian too. If you wish to get theological, I say trust God (Craig's point), who made this creation for our benefit. Thus, the use of something which is so manifestly good for humanity--the cheap and abundant supply of hydrocarbon based energies, if wisely burnt and used to improve the standard of living of so many on the planet, is a good thing. To stand in judgment of that is to be misanthropist. These people hate humanity and humans. Now we learn that the goal of Copenhagen is to reduce CO2 emission by 80%. The only way to do that is as Diane Francis says, to institute a one-child policy world-wide--and extinguish the human race to ancient population levels. That is manifestly misanthropist and counter to God's love for all humanity. We all need to learn to trust God ( see also ).

Update: Just read this in today's Wallstreet Journal, musings of physicist who deigns to instruct presidents--the point is that even a scientist who may concede the warming effect of CO2 suggests that water vapor is far from a red herring (Source: ):

"There is another alternative: luck. Here's how it could help. Scientists are aware of a phenomenon that would counter the greenhouse effect: warmth evaporates water; water creates clouds; clouds reflect sunlight. A small cloud increase would significantly reduce predicted warming. The IPCC gives such cloud feedback only a 10% chance. My estimate is 30%. Clouds may already be kicking in, responsible for the negligible global warming of the past 12 years. Maybe, but we don't know. That's why we need luck."

These musings may be based on the government funded research of Dr. Roy Spencer.

Peter Dunn said...

P.S. to Josh:

Peter Foster in the National Post today mentions that humans only contribute only about a 20th of the CO2. In that light I must revise the above financial analogy. You, your wife and children are overspending by $100,000 per annum. She (H2O) overspends $95,000; your children (non-man-made emissions) overspend by $4750; you overspend by $250 (man-made emissions). You offer to cut your overspending by 50%-- your family now overspends by $99,775. This won't effect in the slightest your family's budget woes. It is not a perfect analogy but at least it attempts to deal with the magnitude of the numbers. If man reduced his greenhouse emissions to nothing, the overall green house effect would change by completely insignificant numbers (less than 1/4 of one per cent). The more people that believe this hoax, the more I think we are entering into a kind of anti-intellectual age of anti-reason, a new Dark Ages. At very least, people are just not good at math anymore.

Imagine if a financial planner came to you and said, I have this really risky investment, a gold mine in Timbuktu. If you invest $100,000, you could lose everything. But the rewards are great and, if all goes well, you might just make $125 per annum. You would laugh at him, because you could bank the money at ING and make $1000 per annum with no risk of losing the $100,000.

This is a very simple math problem. Michael Crichton in his novel State of Fear suggests that if the problem were seen in terms of football field, man's contribution would be one inch of 100 yards. He has developed the math much better than me; man's contribution to the problem is about 1/3600; i.e., .028% vs. 99.972% caused by nature). Can you see why I think that the anthropogenic global warming crowd is nuts and why their positions are beyond ridiculous?

Foster wrote:

"During his CNN interview, Mr. Gore went through his usual parade of extreme weather factoids, technological wonkery and green stimulus fantasies, while spouting blatant untruths. Asked about the relative contribution of humans to atmospheric CO2 emissions, he claimed that they put up "the majority" (in fact, they are estimated to contribute about one-twentieth)."

Read more: