Like Our Facebook Page

Sunday, February 28, 2010

Global Ecosystemic Meltdown!

Global Ecosystemic Meltdown! Sounds scary, doesn’t it? That is the latest term for global warming coined by Daphne Wysham, a major climate alarmist at the Institute for Policy Studies. In a recent podcast interview with’s Rob Kall titled "DAPHNE WYSHAM climate change- how to respond to global warming deniers, when they point to snow 02 17 2010" the two shamelessly discussed how to propagandize the world about the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hoax.

At 8:15 into the interview Mr. Kall asked, "How do we come up with language that is really clear and that makes anybody who supports climate change denial feel like an idiot?" Well, good luck, you need it. Is this any way to carry on a serious debate? If they really had the science behind their position the facts would speak for themselves. There would be no need for making anybody "feel like an idiot".

So, in the spirit of Mr. Kall’s question let me do my best to make him and Ms. Wysham look like idiots. Lets start with her question about what conspiracy we climate realists think they are engaged in. She asked, "What conspiracy could these scientists be engaged in? It's clearly beyond the pale, to imagine a conspiracy by scientists-- for what reason?." The answer is simple, it’s not a conspiracy, it’s a gravy train. Namely, in the US, the four billion dollars a year spent by the government on climate research. Of course, one must be on the "right" side of the debate to cash in. Witness noted Meteorologist William Gray’s experience with federal funding being denied to him since he went against the orthodoxy. Yes, four billion dollars will buy plenty of consensus.

Moving on, Ms. Wysham stated that glaciers around the world are in retreat. This is not as absolute as other alarmists who claim that all glaciers are melting, but it’s close enough. One need only point to the Hubbard Glacier to debunk this one. See here for a list of growing glaciers around the world.

As usual, the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report was cited as evidence that the science is settled. To quote from the 2007 report:
Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the
observed global warming over the last 50 years. This conclusion
takes into account observational and forcing uncertainty, and
the possibility that the response to solar forcing could be
underestimated by climate models.


The understanding of anthropogenic warming and
cooling influences on climate has improved since
the TAR, leading to very high confidence7 that the
global average net effect of human activities since
1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative
forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m2 (see Figure
SPM.2). {2.3., 6.5, 2.9}

Footnote 7:

In this Summary for Policy makers the following levels of confidence
have been used to express expert judgements on the correctness of the
underlying science: very high confidence represents at least a 9 out of
10 chance of being correct; high confidence represents about an 8 out
of 10 chance of
being correct (see Box TS.1)
How nine out of ten chances becomes settled science escapes this author. The IPCC report is clearly stating that they don’t know for sure. It might be Human emissions or it might be the Sun.

Lastly, let me ask here the question that they’re ignoring from my comment to the interview. At 2:10 into this interview with the BBC Prof. Bob Watson, definitely no "denier", stated that the Earth has warmed by three quarters of a degree centigrade during the last century and a half. This is nothing. How is it supposed to be the cause of a great crisis?

Once again, the alarmists are shown to be making much ado about nothing. The only question to be asked now is when will we be able to discuss the subject rationally rather than having to deal with propagandistic terms like Global Ecosystemic Meltdown and climate change denier?


  1. I hadn't bothered to listen to this podcast that was highly promoted at OEN - nor even look at the comments, until now. It does not appear that Rob got more than one agreeing comment (out of 9 separate individuals, not counting Rob himself) and he has numerous supporters at that site. So I wonder if those many general supporters - mostly those who likely label themselves "progressives" as he does - do *not* agree with his or his interviewee's views regarding "climate change" but just are not willing to publicly make that disagreement known. Or maybe they hang on to the idea of man caused climate change despite the scientific facts to the contrary, for whatever reason they have.... and one could theorize here about those who are in this category but do not have grant money at risk.

    BTW I rarely listen/watch any audio/video for information since it is not easy to really critique what is being said as is easily possible with the written word. One must be highly motivated to stop, consider and even replay to get the full message of these auditory media. Failure by so many listeners may be part of the reason why there are still a great many acceptors of this distortion of science.

  2. One target of this article posted a comment to it at another location. Read it here: