The ‘Madhouse Effect’ caused by climate scientists

I have seen this happen in my life, and described it but did not give it a name … police are sure they have identified the perpetrator of a crime, but do not have evidence that will stand up in court. So they manufacture it. They are justified in their minds in doing this because they are sure the person is guilty and belongs behind bars. The end justifies the means.

This is common not just in police work, but many other fields, including climate science.

The name given this behavior is “noble cause corruption“, and that phrase was coined by Professor of Philosophy Edwin Delattre in 1989. Wikipedia has a nice entry on it, using the movie Dirty Harry as an example. In that movie, Detective Harry Callahan uses intimidation, violence and murder to achieve justice.

I just had a fifteen minute wait, no longer, for an appointment, and that was enough time to read Understanding the Climate Change Movement Part 2: Noble Cause Corruption, by Dr. Paul Rossiter, whose doctorate is in physics. In the article he takes the Climate Change movement to its origins, and is the second person I have read who traces it back to the Club of Rome.

Here is a snippet from the article, from the 1991 Club of Rome report: The First Global Revolution by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider:

“The common enemy of humanity is man”.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself”.

“The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leadership and innovation”.

“Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”

That sums up Climate Change Alarmism. It seeks to end democratic governance and human progress that results from cheap energy. The end justifies the means. They needed a cause so big that it transcended borders and governments. But it is far more in tune with the words of H.L. Mencken, that …

“The urge to save the planet is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”

Dr. Judith Curry, herself a victim of slander by climate scientists, refers to their collective movement as a “Madhouse Effect.” It is indeed noble cause corruption, writ large:

  • Rampant overconfidence in a simplistic theory of climate change.
  • Enforcement of a politically motivated, manufactured ‘consensus.’
  • Attempts to stifle scientific and policy debates.
  • Activism and advocacy for their preferred politics and policy.
  • Self-promotion and ‘cashing in.” [Think Al Gore]
  • Violation of the traditional norms of science: disinterestedness, organized skepticism.
  • Public attacks on other scientists who do not support the ‘consensus.’
  • Institutional rewards for ‘madhouse scientists.’

(Her emphasis. This link is to a video that features her.)

I have watched Dr. Michael Mann, originator of the infamous Hockey Stick, in countless interviews and debates. I have read his Climategate emails. He is hard to take. As with Al Gore, he seems free to make any outlandish statement, apparently knowing he will not be fact-checked in our news media. I have even seen him break down in tears in a news panel interview, showing that his shame knows no bottom. I find him a repulsive man, and at the same time, I strive to understand … he’s just an actor, and that is what actors do. They act. Have I forgiven Anthony Hopkins for his portrayal of Hannibal Lecter? No. There is nothing to forgive. It was just good acting.

Anyway, the article is well worth your time if you are looking for insight into the Madhouse Climate Scientists movement.

20 thoughts on “The ‘Madhouse Effect’ caused by climate scientists”

  1. Webster’s definition of bureaucracy:
    1a: a body of nonelected government officials
    b: an administrative policy-making group
    2: government characterized by specialization of functions, adherence to fixed rules, and a hierarchy of authority
    3: a system of administration marked by officialism, red tape, and proliferation

    Everywhere we are confronted with bureaucracy. Whether at a government meeting, or at church or school or joining the military, all of these things are bureaucracy. Life overflowing with bureaucracy.

    I am beginning work on a piece about bureaucracy following a stinging defeat at the hands of our very own Gallatin County Commissioners, who dissolved our local zoning district, board of adjustment. It existed since 1996, when the zoning district was formed. No discussion, no questions, just done in a most authoritarian manner — 2 Republicans, one Democrat, all in agreement. A local newspaper reporter was present, took notes, checked the names for proper spelling, but the editor refused to run the story. More later.

    Major “news stories” are generated by and for bureaucracy. There are rules you know. Hierarchy trumps evidence and reason. There must be a movie for that too.

    Like

    Reply

  2. Hooey. The good news is there are far more of us (those that care about the environment) than you (those who don’t). Depending on your age, it’s sad you will not live to see the folly of your current lack of real knowledge. But your kids will.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Hooey. I’ve looked at the science behind the claims made by the alarmists. It is all … hooey.

      Have you? Or, have you, Enlightened One, merely, taken the word of authority figures as gospel?

      Like

      Reply

    2. You are believing a disturbed little girl reading from prepared scripts? Whose family is rife w/actors? Do not question just h o w she was granted a world stage & a U.N. meet & greet. All righty then.

      Like

      Reply

    1. Greta Thunberg supposedly came to NY on a solar-powered ocean craft. Now THAT is something worth looking into … that they maybe placed it in the harbor and filmed her getting off (it), or that it made the trip but she didn’t. It’s like Jane Fonda going to North Vietnam … only happens in photographs.

      Like

      Reply

      1. I had the same thought Mark. She’s probably flown everywhere then enACTs a little showpiece just for the media. She or her handlers have the media on speed-dial, but so did Princess Di.

        Like

        Reply
  4. Pingback: The ‘Madhouse Effect’ caused by climate scientists — Piece of Mindful – New Human New Earth Communities

  5. Thank you for bringing Edwin Delattre to my attention.

    ‘Noble cause corruption’. That’s a new one for me, I like it.

    Aptly describes the behaviour of ideologues and dogmatists of all stripes.

    Once they believe in the cause, ethics / virtues / standards are superseded.

    We see this in the ‘truth’ realm and broader conspiracy culture all the time.

    It is exacerbated by the online nature of the subculture.

    Just as the toxicity of modern ‘progressivism’ is exacerbated by its heavy reliance / existence on ‘social media’ i.e. people sitting on their couches typing words on a screen.

    Much easier to call a person a boogeyman (bigot / racist / denier / shill / agent) from behind a screen than to do it in person.

    Indeed, it is much easier to simply be disrespectful online than in person.

    For a lot of folks, it is also more fun, apparently.

    Like

    Reply

    1. There’s a word for that too, you’ve probably heard it … cyberdisinhibition. When dealing with folks online we do not see facial expressions or body language, and tone of voice is absent. It is not a human being.

      Like

      Reply

  6. Rossiter either misunderstands, or has his own issues with the truth when he says: “The IPCC provided the ideal platform for NGOs like Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, Friends of the Earth, the David Suzuki Foundation and the Environmental Defence Fund to push their Green/Left agendas, either through lobbying or direct involvement of personnel.”

    With the possible exception of Friends of the Earth, this list represents the most powerful, neoliberal, bunch of environmental sellouts on the planet. Power and money is their obvious mission, not some imaginary “Green/Left” agenda. They function very much in the traditional evolution of any bureaucracy — a bigger budget. Nothing gets in the way of their whoring for money and power.

    I am particularly sensitive to the effects of this misdiagnosis. The impact is similar to the constant mislabeling by Limbaugh when he screams about “radical liberal left” Democrats. Democrats are as neoliberal as they come, same party, different wing. Democrats adhere to the principles of “free-market” environmentalism. I do not. Most grassroots environmental groups don’t either.

    What Rossiter and others do not recognize is the larger con to save capitalism using the fake Green/Left agenda as cover. Misdiagnosis leads to incorrect treatment.

    “It is clear that the major players cited above all share the “noble cause” of globalisation, either under the socialist banner or some specific authoritarian organisation like the UN, tearing down successful industrial economies and redistributing their wealth in the process.” Here Rossiter exposes his hidden agenda, which plays to his source of funding and power, the same way it does for the fake environmental crowd.

    The Green New Deal, the comprehensive global plan resulting from all this pseudo science, and all these decades of two-faced acting is not out to “…tear down industrial economies…” it is to protect and defend the status quo in perpetuity. The status quo is neoliberal economics, a hybrid ( Austrian and Chicago “school) form of capitalism which began in Chile with a CIA coup and the assassination of its duly elected President. Cory Morningstar is simple the best at explaining what’s really going on. http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/09/26/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-natural-climate-manipulations-volume-ii-act-vi/

    Like

    Reply

    1. Agree and disagree … that is, I think the Green New Deal represents a real agenda, but for us, not them. Our lives will be diminished, theirs will not change.

      The easiest clue to seeing the real agenda behind this farce is that China and India are building hundreds of coal-fired power plants, not even scrubbed, while we are converting to natural gas. If we reduced our CO2 output to zero by 2050, it would not make an iota of difference. They know this, these Green New Deal monsters.

      Like

      Reply

  7. Of course they (GND monsters) do, but the “ends” or “primary agenda’ is not as the author concluded: “It is clear that the major players cited above all share the “noble cause” of globalisation, either under the socialist banner or some specific authoritarian organisation like the UN, tearing down successful industrial economies and redistributing their wealth in the process.”

    India and China are the “…successful industrual economies of today…,” not the US, EU or the Brits. That ship sailed. Blaming a “socialist” conspiracy is classic Limbaugh. Neoliberalism is not a socialist construct, it is its opposite.

    It’s not about nations. It’s not about CO2, it’s about global economic growth and profit, and control the herd, control of resources needed to make cell phones, electric autos, and 5G (Fifth Generation) technology, which is all a pretty much “done deal.” Neither nations, nor people, are of any concern to corporate capitalists, especially the global variety. Consumers, yes, individuals, no.

    Like

    Reply

    1. FWIW, I pay very little attention to terms like “socialism,” “capitalism,” “fascism,” “neoliberalism.” Noam Chomsky said about the latter that “they are neither new nor liberal.” There are no pure economies, and socialism is as much a part of ours as it is Europe’s. “Capitalism” doesn’t even exist, as far as I can tell. I am attracted to “conservatism” in its pure form, but to conflate that with “free markets”, which also do not exist, is a mistake, in my view.

      Just my opinion, and I stand by it. For today. Check in again tomorrow.

      Like

      Reply

  9. I agree that it’s all about money and power. What’s needed is a balance of conservatism and socialism. and this is what the neolib/oligarchs have destroyed with propaganda and fake news.
    CO2 is not a pollutant.

    Like

    Reply

    1. “What’s needed is a balance of conservatism and socialism.”

      What do you mean by “socialism”?

      If it is the generally accepted definition, you rely on thieves and thugs to care for our planet where needed (real pollution is very real)?

      Where does that faith come from?

      Like

      Reply

      1. “Socialism” is like “democracy,” “fascism,” “communism,” a scare word that has no real underlying meaning. Other expressions, like “free markets,” “free trade” or “freedom” itself are similarly devoid of meaning, and are mere virtue signals. Real governance is pragmatic, relying on policies that work. Sometimes they are “socialistic,” as with health care, which is effective. But I would not rely on such policies to make automobiles, or we would all be driving Yugos. I laugh at those who say our US health care industry needs a dose of free markets. The profit motive has made our system unworkable, monopolistic, wildly expensive. Of course we turn to government to treat people who are not profitable for private medicine. The private sector cannot deal with poor people unless subsidized. There are no “free market” solutions in health care.

        Socialism is merely a solution to problems that the private sector cannot afford to deal with, like pollution, urban planning, public heath, infrastructure. Fixing these problems does not generate profit. Back in the 1960s the US created Medicare for seniors. Why? Insurance companies wanted nothing to do with senior citizens. They were not profitable. They left them out in the cold. Socialism was the fix. It worked.

        Like

        Reply

Leave a comment