Climocentrism: The New Geocentrism

“Trees don’t lie, but [some] climate scientists do.”
-Tony Heller (@ 8:58 of video below)

One of the most embarrassing aspects of the historical record of the Christian Church was the stubborn, persistent belief that the earth was flat and/or our solar system was geocentric. This thinking was based on misinterpretations of a number of Scriptures. But we now know (despite the assertions of a few current flat-earthers) that our solar system is heliocentric—the sun is its center—and the earth rotates on its axis as it revolves around the sun.

But despite mounting evidence, the historical Church clung to its misinterpretations rather than reinterpret those passages to align with contemporary scientific data. Something somewhat similar is occurring in the realm of climatology, though with a twist. The current ideology of “climate change” does not align with historical climatic evidence, so some climatologists simply—and deceptively—change the climate data. This puts a whole new meaning on “climate change”.

There is historical data of a Medieval Warm Period (MWP; ca. 950AD to 1250 AD), which was followed by a Little Ice Age (LIA; ca. 1300AD to 1850AD). Both tree ring data and historical evidence indicate the MWP had average temperatures exceeding those of today—well before the Industrial Age—and the LIA had average temperatures colder than the past 150 years. This casts doubt on the role of anthropogenic (human-caused) CO2 emissions from the use of fossil fuels in climatic changes. In fact, I’m old enough to recall that there was a growing scientific consensus in the 1970s of an impending ice age [see this 1978 video from Columbia University and (then-)leading world climate scientists, sponsored by the US Army and the National Science Foundation, narrated by Leonard Nimoy], with its causation linked to emissions from fossil fuels. But, of course, now the theory is the converse: anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing ‘global warming’! As Tony Heller deadpanned (going from my memory) in a recent video, “Fossil fuels sure are powerful.”

In Heller’s video below is a screenshot of a statement by Dr. David Deming of the University of Oklahoma College of Earth and Energy regarding the subject “Climate Change and the Media”, entered as part of U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Hearing Statements (12/06/2006):

I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” [11:16 in video below].

And that’s precisely what Michael Mann did in his reconstruction of climate data. Mann minimized the heat of the MWP, minimized the cold of the LIA, and inflated recent temperatures, in order to falsely portray recent temperatures as exceeding those of the MWP, trending upwards climactically, resulting in his infamous “hockey stick” graph. You can read the background and results of the court case in which Dr. Tim Ball won Mann’s defamation suit relating to it. Ball even received all court-related costs as part of the settlement, because Mann refused to provide to the court the underlying evidence for his “hockey stick” in order to ‘prove’ his case. From the article:

Tim’s [Ball’s] famous words [were] that Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State,” a comical reference to the fraudulent ‘hockey stick’ graph that knowledgeable scientists knew to be fakery.

In his videos, Tony Heller has been posting actual historical data, such as from newspaper articles from across this spinning spherical earth, in order to compare with current data manipulations from climate ‘scientists’. Below is his most recent vlog. Heller provides much food for thought:

See Tony Heller’s blog for more.

Ted Turner’s Math Problem

For the past few years I’ve seen a particular quote attributed to Ted Turner – media mogul who founded CNN & major promoter and financial supporter of the United Nations – with a myriad of sources cited for the statement.  Most of the quotes reference a 95% population reduction.  However, I wondered if it were really true.  So began (about six months or so ago), in earnest, a search for the true source of the purported quote.

After a few days of internet searching I deduced that if there really was a quote with this sort of verbiage, it was likely in an edition of Audubon magazine.  After a few false starts, I finally found a very helpful new and used magazine collector/retailer who was willing to indulge me in my quest by checking the tables of contents of issues I thought may contain the statement.  At last, it was found!  However, the quote does not specifically state the words “…95% decline from present levels…”, but the wording clearly amounts to same.

The quote in question is from the November-December 1991 (Vol. 93, No. 6) Audubon in a piece by Bruce Stutz titled “Ted Turner Turns it On” [pp 110-116].   Here’s a portion of the page [113] from which the offending quote is taken with a bit more context provided:

Here’s the applicable selection:

…If we had a much smaller population, and over time we could have an ethic where we had only one child, and over maybe 300 or 400 years we could cut back to 250 million – 350 million people… [p 113]

That’s quite staggering when one considers that the current US population is 315 million!  To illustrate that Turner wasn’t somehow confused with his depopulation suggestion, he states quite clearly that the then current world population was 5.3 billion (currently just under 7 billion) with a US population of 250 million [p 112].

With all the necessary figures, let’s do a bit of math.  To make this much simpler, we’ll round off to 5 billion (as Turner does himself in the selection above), assume a zero population growth (i.e. as many die “naturally” will be born) during the relevant time period, and assume the rate of population decrease in the scenarios below would remain constant throughout the applicable time period.  First, we’ll take the ‘worst case scenario’ – the shortest timespan (300 years) to achieve the smallest ‘ideal’ population (250 million):

5,000,000,000 – 250,000,000 = 4,750,000,000

OK, so that’s a net reduction of 4.75 billion people or exactly 95%.  Now let’s take the total and divide by the number of years to see how many will be reduced per year (using 365 days to keep it simple):

4,750,000,000 / 300 = 15,833,333 annually

…which breaks down to a mere:

43,379 per day

Now, let’s take the ‘best case scenario’ (400 years to achieve a population of 350 million):

5,000,000,000 – 350,000,000 = 4,650,000,000

That’s a net reduction of 4.65 billion people or exactly 93%.  That’s MUCH better, right?  Now let’s take that total and divide by 400 to arrive at quantity to reduce per year:

4,650,000,000 / 400 = 11,625,000 annually

…or:

31,849 per day

OK, now we can all sleep a bit better.

Oh, but wait!  There’s been another twenty years since Turner spoke these words and an increase of (rounding) 1.5 billion more people.  Oh well…

Of interest is that Turner himself has 5 children.  Perhaps he arrived at this revelation of the need for such a drastic population reduction after he’d already sired his children.  Darn the luck.   Surely though, he’s willing to sacrifice 4 of his children for the ‘greater good’, for Gaia, isn’t he?  Oh, but what about the grandchildren?

Decisions, decisions…. What’s a man to do?