The nature of our opposition

As an enemy of the state I find my opposition is numerous beyond my abilities to count. I find opposition on the far left, the far right, in the middle, and from people whose politics defy being categorized. What these people all have in common is a deep belief that it is the state itself can be our salvation. Consider the “watermelons” (green on the outside and red on the inside) who want to use the state to force mankind back into a preindustrial state of being: they see the state as the ultimate salvation of life on this planet!

The  modern liberals “progressives” are by far the worst of the bunch as they are forever preaching that “the ends justify the means” and hence morality, ethics, honest debate, or any objective standard of behavior does not apply to them since they are trying to “save the world” and/or liberate mankind. I have been accused of being far to concrete and absolutist since I believe that there are, indeed, eternal truths that lead to an unchanging morality that is not relative to the situation at hand. There are things that are right and things that are wrong.

I find that many moderns claim that those who don’t believe that the end justifies the means are guilty of some sort of belief in a moral sense and code delivered by some deity either mystically or via some ancient revelation as in the Christian Bible. This, of course, means to them that I am sincerely deluded and they love to beat up on this straw-man version of where folks like myself find our morals. To the progressive as well as many other statists, morals just get in the way of whatever program they want to see enacted by the force and brutality of the state this week.

aa_live_and_let_liveBut the fact is that we can develop the whole of our morality from one simple axiom. That axiom is often called the non-aggression principle. By this we simply mean that we have no right at all to commit aggression against someone who has not aggressed against ourselves first.

The wiki at the Mises Institute defines the non-aggression principle thusly:

The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that “aggression” is inherently illegitimate. “Aggression” is defined as the “initiation” of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance. (link)

The Mises Institute wiki entry goes on to say that the non-aggression principle has a long tradition that stretches back into the mists of time but that market anarchists and other schools of libertarianism have done the most to popularize the principle in these modern days. Many, such as Rothbard himself, have pointed out that non-aggression is a basic part of philosophical Taoism and has been for at least three thousand years.

What is special about the non-aggression principle? It is simply a statement of basic fairness that we all know deep in our hearts. This principle allows mankind to cooperate with one another and to build society which is the hallmark and basis for our very survival. In the early days, the European colonists of North America thought that banishment from the community was tantamount to a death sentence and most of the time they likely were right. Humans must cooperate with each other to find the peace, prosperity, and enjoyment of life that we all seek. This cooperation must be voluntary and based on mutual respect and trust — and only the non-aggression principle is going to serve us in this regard. The servant and his master do no cooperate because of mutual, voluntary trust but rather the servant fears the master and the relationship is based on force, fraud, and intimidation.

Force, fraud, and intimidation are the calling card of all states and their minions. The record of the state throughout history has been one of death, destruction, injustice, brutality, greed, murder, torture, and all the rest. The record of the state serves to prove to us that there is a better way. That better way is non-aggression leading to voluntary, mutual, beneficial cooperation among people.

The great philosopher, historian, and economist Murray Rothbard developed his entire “anarcho-capitalist” system from the simple starting point of non-aggression. To me, the starting point of non-aggression (or do unto others as you would have them do unto you) is the ultimate tool to answer any problem of morals or ethics. I find the there is no “moral relativism” in the moral questions of life. Moral relativism (like the end justifies the means) is the tool of those who seek to brutalize others even if they claim the brutalization is for your own good. (it never is)

I submit to my friends and foes alike, that there is one simple and unchanging rock that you can use to discover the deeper truths of how we should live and that rock is the non-aggression principle. You should meditate on that principle long and hard. Apply it in your daily life. Only bad Karma will come from violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.


Private Property in Society

There has been a lot of back and forth lately between libertarian supporters of property rights and those who call themselves libertarian (or even anarchist) who think that no one may “own” anything. And so, this post was born in my mind to address a few aspects of the nature of private property and society.

Is there any social problem which, at its core, is not produced by a disrespect for the inviolability of property interests? Wars, inner-city gang conflicts, environmental pollution, the curricula of government schools, the “war on drugs,” restrictions on free expression, affirmative action programs, monetary inflation, same-sex marriages, realty, eminent domain, taxation, gun control, displaying the “Ten Commandments,” violent crime, rent control, terrorism, government surveillance of telephone and computer communications, zoning laws and urban planning, prayer in schools, government regulation of economic activity, . . . the list goes on and on.

In each such instance, conflicts are created and maintained by government policies and practices that forcibly deprive a property owner of decision making control over something he or she owns. Whether the ownership interest is in oneself, or in those external resources that a person requires in order to promote his or her interests or to otherwise express one’s purpose in life, the state is inevitably at war with property owners. ~ Law Prof. Butler Shaffer

One of the problems that arise is that most people don’t understand the definition of ownership in the first place. Ownership means that you have total control over the use of a thing. You may use it, give it away, leave it to whomever you choose when you die, or exercise control over the property for any other purpose. In this meaning of ownership we see that every state that has ever existed was socialistic to some degree or the other.  No matter what form the state’s government took, the state claimed the rightful authority to control the individual’s property anytime it saw fit to do so.

The communist system is based on the premise that the state owns all productive assets and that there is no private ownership at all. Other socialist systems nationalized only certain tools of production and communication, at least openly, but all socialist systems asserted the right of the state to take anything at any time from any subject under its rule. Fascism is a socialistic system in which title to property remains in private hands, but control is exercised by the state and always remember that control is ownership. In reality, the modern U.S. is not all that unlike the fascist systems of the past.

The question of how property is to be owned and controlled and who has this control is the most fundamental question we must address because the answer tells us whether the state owns us and we are slaves, or if we own ourselves as free men and women. We hear many claims that the communist regimes of the U.S.S.R. were the polar opposite of the fascist Nazi regime and most people do think of these two regimes as polar opposites;  but they were exactly the same in that the state claimed total control over the lives and property of every single subject within its geographic borders. Both systems thought that no one could exist outside of the state. These two states were both extreme examples of the totalitarian state — modern real world examples of dystopia.

All political systems are wars against the private ownership of property but most desire to hide that fact and so build up myths that make it appear like the people are able to “own” property and personal items. The state does this by excluding property rights from almost every political argument or policy. For example, if a company pollutes a river and thus harms people downstream, the company will face sanctions for breaking the law of the state and harming the environment, but in a just society it would be the owners of property downstream that would bring suit against the company for damages to their righfully owned property.

Ludwig von Mises once wrote that private ownership of the means of production is the fundamental institution of the market economy. He wrote that private ownership was the institution that characterizes the market economy and if it was absent then there could be no question of a market economy. The U.S. is a country that pretends to be a market economy but, in fact, is a crony-capitalist or corporatist economy.

We could go down a list of “social” problems and see that each one is easily solved if there is private ownership of all things, but becomes intractable if the matter rests in the hands of the state. One of the most important examples is the difference between a crime committed against a victim like murder, rape, assault and so forth and a “victim-less crime” like drug use, prostitution, gambling and so on.  Victim-less crimes are an assault against the property rights and liberty of the people. I have every right in the world to bet my money on a pony if I chose to do so. The criminalization of any voluntary action is a violation of individual property interests.

Should prayer be taught in schools? What about the new Common Core State Standards for Math and Language? If there were no government schools and all education was a private mater then there would be no controversy at all. It would be a matter of the family’s choice on how and were to have their children educated.

We should all know about the economic problem often called “the tragedy of the commons” were “public” property is mismanaged and overused while private property is maintained and used as wisely as the owner can. The state can not manage anything as well as the highly interested private owner can, nor can the minions of the state even have access to the vast array of information that is available. What over 300 million Americans know by daily observation and experience is not available to a relatively small, finite bureaucracy in the capital.

Individual liberty and social order are the two sides of the same coin. Individual liberty can not give rise to the voluntary and mutually beneficial division of labor that leads to social order and stability without the basis of private property.  If “everyone owns a thing” then in reality no one owns it, but in fact the criminal gang called the state does. The modern Americans who call themselves “liberal” (but are anything but that) love to claim that they are working for “social justice” by using the state to impose their vision upon the rest of us by force, fraud and intimidation. In reality, they are just making all of use poorer than we would otherwise be as they make themselves feel good. As the wag once said, it is easy to be very generous with other people’s money.

6a00d83452719d69e2014e86055c29970d-800wiWe have the situation were there are “things” and “land” on this earth that have economic value because people need or desire them. We have far more needs and desires than we do things, so there must be some way to balance out the needs and desires of the many — a hard task for anyone or any group to do. The way to do it is to let the free market and private property sort out the needs and desires via the free economy where the price signal will properly ration these “things”. It is only through the peaceful market rather than by the force of the state’s guns that we may achieve the maximum peace, prosperity, and pleasure in this world.

If you find someone who claims to be an “anarchist” or a “libertarian” who is against private ownership, then you have found one who is deluded or untruthful. There is no freedom without private ownership of property. Maximum liberty is when there is no state at all and all property is in the hands of individuals or groups of individuals.

Market Anarchism

I find that many people that I know on social media call themselves “libertarian” and yet seem to miss the whole point of the thing. To be a libertarian means that you reject the coersive aggression into the lives of the people by the entity called “The State” that claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within its geographical boundaries. In other words, a libertarian is a “live and let live” kind of person who thinks voluntary cooperation among people is the standard we should strive for.

What is a libertarian? From the Mises Wiki we see:

Libertarianism is a political philosophy[1] that views respect for individual choice and individual liberty[2] as the foundation of the ideal society, and therefore seeks to minimize or abolish the coercive actions of the State as that is the entity that is generally identified as the most powerful coercive force in society.[3][4] Broadly speaking, libertarianism focuses on the rights of the individual to act in complete accordance with his or her own subjective values,[5] and argues that the coercive actions of the State are often (or even always) an impediment to the efficient realization of one’s desires and values.[6][7] Libertarians also maintain that what is immoral for the individual must necessarily be immoral for all state agents, and that the state should not be above the natural law.[8][9] The extent to which government is necessary is evaluated by libertarian moral philosophers from a variety of perspectives.[10][11]

The “libertarian” label is now used since the “liberal” of “Classical Liberalism” came to mean the opposite of liberty after the socialists started calling themselves “liberal” decades ago. If one looks at the liberals of the 18th and 19th century he will see where the libertarians came from; their heritage. I once saw a writer claim that it all boils down to the assertion that all libertarians believe in the Non-Aggression Principle. I think that is a fair litmus test, after all, the only way to minimize coercive actions in society is to try to make everyone adhere to the non-aggression principle.

There has developed over time the notion that the very nature of the state prevents the state from being able to follow the non-aggression principle and therefore we must reject it. That leaves anarchism which is defined as having no monopoly ruler. So very many then ask us, “what in the world happens then”? They think that gangs of roving bands will rape, rob, and pillage the people of every town. What force will keep the peace?

There are various labels for the nature of the society that we envision, but “market anarchy” is as good as any and some say it is better than most. It is the doctrine that the legislative, adjudicative, and protective functions should be entirely turned over to the voluntary, consensual forces of a market society. These functions are now unjustly and inefficiently monopolized by the brutal, coercive, aggressive State. The term “market” turns a lot of people off as they are trained to hear “Wall Street Banksters” when they hear “market”. But here we just use the term “market” as in “free market” to mean the voluntary exchange of goods and services among willing trading partners free of coersive intervention.


Market Anarchy can be defined as “the doctrine that all forms of government are unnecessary, oppressive, and undesirable and should be abolished.” In its essence anarchism is a negative in that it holds that the state (some say “government”) is evil and should be abolished. Other than this doctrine it would be difficult to list the many various beliefs that all anarchists hold. What will come after the state is defeated could take many different forms and there have been various groups predict or advocate various ideas.

Anarchists see a common thread behind most of mankind’s problems, namely the state. After all, we saw a hundred million people murdered by various governments around the world during th 20th century. This is an endless historical pattern. The state arises and then the rulers and their minions live by looting and enslaving the population. These ruling classes have tended to use their ill-gotten gains to build armies and then wage wars for various reasons … mostly false ones. Even when not at war with some other state a nation’s government is continually looting the people and making their lives poorer than they otherwise would have been.

Market anarchy has been more broadly known as “anarcho-capitalism” and I use the two terms as synonyms. Market anarchists believe that in an anarchist society people would expand private property to encompass the entire social realm. While no anarcho-capitalist has ever denied the right of people to voluntarily pool their private property and form cooperatives, jointly owned land, worker-owned firms, or communes — they believe that these attempts at private socialism will fail as they always have in the past.  Market anarchist see private property as the bedrock of an anarchist society. They also believe that several property, including business organizations like corporations, are not only perfectly legitimate but likely to be the predominant form of economic organization under anarchism. Market anarchists generally place little value on equality, believing that inequalities in income and wealth are not only perfectly legitimate, so long as the means of getting the wealth was legitimate under the non-aggression principle, but are the natural consequence of human freedom. They believe that different people have different beliefs, habits, talents, and desires — there are vast natural differences among people.

Many people such as Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard, Butler Shaffer, Bob Murphy, and Walter Block have written about the free market’s ability to provide legal and protection services as all market anarchists believe. Most of the recent prominent market anarchy (or anarcho-capitalist) writers have been academic economists and have tried to spell out the workings of their preferred society in rather great detail but the simple message is that the state’s government is now abusing you to a great extent and that only by eliminating the state may we live in peace, prosperity, and voluntary cooperation.

The bedrock of freedom and liberty is the right to own and control property. If the state or the collective can tell you what you can and cannot do within the privacy of your home then you are not free nor do you really own your home since “ownership” means control over the use and disposition of a thing. At the present time government agents of the state can invade your home by breaking down your doors, kill your dog, tear up the house, and terrorize your family all at their whim. What, you still think the 4th amendment means anything? Your property belongs to the state and so do you yourself. The state owns you: you are enslaved.

Market anarchists can not tell you exactly how a world without a monopoly on force and brutality called the state would look like; but we can tell you that it would be vastly better than the evil we are living under today.

Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. ~H. L. Mencken

Withdraw your support of the state.

State, Government, Governance, and Anarchy

Today let us look at the difference between violent political rule under a centralized state and governance in civil society. The Anarcho-capitalist or Voluntaryism movement has been growing significantly over the last few years. There are many reasons for that growth, but I think mainly it is that the idea of liberty sells well; but we could be more clear on a few things. For example, many people have trouble grasping anarchy because they are conflating ‘the State’, ‘government’ and ‘governance’. These things are not all exactly the same thing. If we don’t all use the words properly then we risk ‘talking past each other’. Obviously, if you talk to someone and they think that the absence of The State is the absence of any social order, or governance, then they can only envision a “Mad Max” type situation.

We must drive home the reality that all “States” are governments, but not all government requires the State. Some of my voluntaryist friends go so far as to insist that we use the word ‘governance’ rather than ‘government’ for the social organization in an anarchy situation and they have good reasons for that. The primary reason is that the word “government” comes with tons of bad baggage. I still tend to call the entity that governs, no matter if it is a state or not, by the name “government”.

In an anarcho-capitalist society, there would still be governance. Let me type that out one more time: in an anarcho-capitalist society there would be governance. What makes anarcho-capitalism “anarchy” is the absence of the monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given territorial area by “the State” but, never the less, even without the State there will still be governance.  We envision governance by your peers through social and commercial means. There will be ostracism and acceptance, traditions, and all the other aspects of civil society that one sees throughout history.

Anacho-capitalists foresee governance of social behavior, disputes, and justice by competing courts along with defense and security agencies. These private agencies will help ensure protection though the recognition and respect of the individual’s property rights. Businesses and commerce will be regulated or governed through the totally free market which involves supply and demand, the price signal, profit and loss, competition, and customer satisfaction. There will, no doubt, be commercial ostracism via credit ratings, boycotting, reputation, and so forth. There will be risk management and socialization of that risk through insurance agencies unencumbered by State mandates. We see self-government through the individuals’ pursuit of their rational, subjective self-interest. Yes, we see them having to bear the responsibility of their own actions through the decentralized accountability systems arising out of the market.

Anarchism does not mean no governance but rather it means no State. In a purely capitalist, free market society you would have no coercive authority over you as there is no State to impose its violence and brutality upon you. Instead all social and commercial relationships would be private, peaceful, and voluntary. If you seek employment, your employer would not be your ruler since you can leave at any time and look elsewhere. You grocery store would not rule you as you could go down the street to a competitor. No group can lobby for a law against smoking pot as there would be no coersive state for enforcement, but there could be areas of private property where no smoking of any kind would be allowed. (my house for example) In short, all commercial and social relationships would be voluntary.

Anarcho-capitalism (also called market anarchy) or Voluntaryism is the only moral, practical and workable way to abolish the State and maximize human prosperity, liberty and justice. Humanity would live in far greater abundance and with far superior technology than it would under any form of State rule.

For many anarchists the conflation of ‘government’ and ‘the State’ is probably more stylistic than anything, but to those who don’t understand anarchy we do them a disservice by continually saying that we want to eliminate all government when we mean we want to eliminate the Monopoly State. We have to remember that for many non-anarchists different perceptions of what we mean are leading to problems in understanding and we end up talking past each other.


If a non-anarchist understands the concept of ‘no government’ as no rules, no governance, and no society then we can see why they would be horrified at our political philosophy. I would be too! There would be chaos and misery — a Mad Max world. But anarcho-capitalists do not advocate rejection of governance and society, nor do we think an ordered society would be absent if the State did not exist; rather we see justice, moral behavior, and prosperity would be maximized in the absence of the State by the governance arising via mutual voluntary cooperation.

I think anarcho-capitalists, voluntaryists, market anarchists, and especially myself could do a  better job of communicating our ideas of what a market anarchy would look like to those we are trying to inform. Then, maybe, many more people would be open to discussing our ideas.

I answer three Global Warming Cultists

This blog probably would have died after a year or so like so many other one-writer blogs do, if I had not been told that I just had to try Twitter. Ever since I joined Twitter, there have been no shortage of ideas for blog posts. In fact I am way behind in responding on a couple of issues that I promised I would get to this summer. Ah, if only time was unlimited. It may be that time itself is the most scarce thing of all.

Today, I am responding to three friends that I met in the comments area of Glenn Greenwald’s blog about five years ago and then later started interacting with them on Twitter. They range from libertarian leaning all the way to the hard-core progressive left,  but all are decent people who can think for themselves. Friends. These people, Joe , Presumptuous Insect , and Rena , all decided one day recently to claim that catastrophic, anthropogenic, CO2 caused global warming was going to kill us all and send those thoughts my way on twitter. I don’t know who was behind the idea to gang up on me late one night when they knew I was already asleep, but I suspect Joe. Well, friends, it is not going to get too hot on planet earth. The political scam of the “fight to save the earth” itself might well kill off a lot of people by driving up energy costs well beyond what we poor folks can pay, but there will not be any drastic warming.

So, even though I don’t like to do “global warming” here at this blog since others cover that subject much better than I can, I am going to respond to the trio on the issue in this post. Before I launch into a talk on temperatures, let me first exhibit a couple of representative tweets.

Presumptuous Insect

  Awful. The elderly really cannot tolerate heat. I guess they have the “freedom” to die now.

I live in central Florida and it is much warmer here, on average, than in New York. Even so, we don’t have tons of elderly dying off each summer due to the heat. Why is that? It is because freezing cold kills people, not warmth. With warmth you can take measures like staying inside in the a/c or just sitting in the shade with an iced tea. Please don’t try to destroy the world’s modern economy by claiming that a fraction of a degree on average is going to kill off the old folks. I am one of them and I tell you it just ain’t true.

I honestly do think the denial is directly related to the very real shortcomings of the market to control AGW.

I have covered this issue many times as has Rothbard, Block, and many others. We feel comfortable in saying that private contractual cooperation among free people whose property rights are respected and protected will deal with the problem of pollution better than the current system of control by the nation-state. I do not detect any ‘fear’ of environmental issues on the part of Anarcho-Capitalists in the least. What I do detect is a willingness on the part of most libertarians to read the damn charts and look at real world data with a scientific outlook like the one they trained me in science to have back in college: “being skeptical even of one’s own work is the default position of the scientist”. (See Karl Popper)

I saw one tweet where The Bug wanted to move the goal posts yet again by saying:

“Some prefer term ‘climate collapse’ as more accurate as that phrase takes emphasis off just warming & looks at all anomalies”

Well after 17 years of no warming and global colling since 2002 I can see how she might want to change the fraud’s slogan yet again. After all, consider this:

Professor Judith Curry of, the chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, on June 14, 2013: “Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 year ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002 (note: I am receiving inquiries about this from journalists). This period since 2002 is scientifically interesting, since it coincides with the ‘climate shift’ circa 2001/2002 posited by Tsonis and others. This shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provides a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so, rather than a flat trend from the 15 yr ‘pause’.”

And to beat all, these cAGW cultists (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) sent me all these tweets in the very week that Steve McIntyre has been vindicated in his destruction of the “hockey stick” in the early Bfiffa papers in the publication of the Briffa et al 2013 paper. Yes, Briffa has admitted defeat and given up trying to run shoddy statistical analysis past real statisticians. The CRU has abandoned the shoddy one tree super-stick.

The problem with the cultists is that every prediction has been wrong and the real world data does not match their theory and yet they still think CO2 is a poison. Are we to criminalize human breathing?

All the data sets have been “adjusted” to show more present warming but even those data sets can’t hide the decline in temperatures that run counter to the CO2 hypothesis. But consider one long, long data set from England.

Central England Temperatures: Do They Provide Evidence That Current Global Warming Scare Is Totally Blown Out of Proportion?

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Now keep in mind that the chart above goes from 1659 to only 2009 and so does not show the latest present cooling that has stumped so many of the climate alarmists. However, look at it. The slight rise in temperatures is exactly what has been going on since the end of the Little Ice Age that the cultists love to use as a starting point to show warming. Hell, we should be glad that the temperatures have warmed since the 1800s!

The chart is from the Central England Temperature dataset which is reputed to be the oldest in the world. It has over 350 years of temperature records drawn from “multiple weather stations located both in urban and rural areas of England, which is considered a decent proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures – not perfect, but decent.” Climate Cycles Change provides us with some analysis.

The first characteristic of the graph to note is the green trend line. That line indicates an overall warming of 0.26°C per century rate since 1659. So, for some 350 years central England, and the world, have been warming. No big surprise there since Earth has been continuously warming since the end of the Little Ice Age; and, at the end of that 350 year trend line of warming is the first decade of the 21st century.

The second characteristic of the graph is that temperatures just seem to have this habit of going up and down, for extended periods. What’s really amazing is that they did this consistently before the large increase of human CO2 emissions, pre-1946. Okay, maybe that’s not so amazing since this is called temperature variability and represents the natural, dynamic nature of our climate….That variability, as displayed by the CET data in the graph, has experienced temperature changes as much as 2.5°C from one year to the next. A change of 2.5°C in a single year! Keep that figure in mind as we further analyze the dataset. Please note, the graph also reveals very similar temperature variability post-1946, after the huge atmospheric input of human CO2 emissions.

That Climate Cycles Change post was inspired by an analysis of CET by Czech physicist Lubos Motl. Because the CO2 hysterics and fraudsters make such a big deal of the very slight warming trends seen in the past 30 years, Lubos Motl applied the same technique to the full CET dataset of 350 years.

Let us see what Motl found:

In the late 17th and early 18th century, there was clearly a much longer period when the 30-year trends were higher than the recent ones. There is nothing exceptional about the recent era. Because I don’t want to waste time with the creation of confusing descriptions of the x-axis, let me list the ten 30-year intervals with the fastest warming trends:

1691 – 1720, 5.039 °C/century
1978 – 2007, 5.038 °C/century
1977 – 2006, 4.95 °C/century
1690 – 1719, 4.754 °C/century
1979 – 2008, 4.705 °C/century
1688 – 1717, 4.7 °C/century
1692 – 1721, 4.642 °C/century
1694 – 1723, 4.524 °C/century
1689 – 1718, 4.446 °C/century
1687 – 1716, 4.333 °C/century

You see, the early 18th century actually wins: even when you calculate the trends over the “sufficient” 30 years, the trend was faster than it is in the most recent 30 years.

Climate Cycles Change confirmed this analysis with charts of its own. What they all show that is that the current 30 year history of climate in England is far from being dramatic, dangerous and unprecedented. The CET changes in the last 30 years have been well within the normal and natural cycles of climate change in England.

I was first concerned that the so-called climate scientists (alarmists like Hansen of NASA) were frauds and anti-science because the love to start their alarming charts at the end of the Little Ice Age. By starting at the end of the LIA one can easily (and understandably) show warming — and thank the gods for the warming. There was a Forbes story not long ago that detail a bit of the climate history of the LIA.

Around 1250 A.D., historical records show, ice packs began showing up farther south in the North Atlantic. Glaciers also began expanding on Greenland, soon to threaten Norse settlements on the island. From 1275 to 1300 A.D., glaciers began expanding more broadly, according to radiocarbon dating of plants killed by the glacier growth. The period known today as the Little Ice Age was just starting to poke through.

Summers began cooling in Northern Europe after 1300 A.D., negatively impacting growing seasons, as reflected in the Great Famine of 1315 to 1317. Expanding glaciers and ice cover spreading across Greenland began driving the Norse settlers out. The last, surviving, written records of the Norse Greenland settlements, which had persisted for centuries, concern a marriage in 1408 A.D. in the church of Hvalsey, today the best preserved Norse ruin.

Colder winters began regularly freezing rivers and canals in Great Britain, the Netherlands and Northern France, with both the Thames in London and the Seine in Paris frozen solid annually. The first River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1607. In 1607-1608, early European settlers in North America reported ice persisting on Lake Superior until June. In January, 1658, a Swedish army marched across the ice to invade Copenhagen. By the end of the 17th century, famines had spread from northern France, across Norway and Sweden, to Finland and Estonia.

Reflecting its global scope, evidence of the Little Ice Age appears in the Southern Hemisphere as well. Sediment cores from Lake Malawi in southern Africa show colder weather from 1570 to 1820. A 3,000 year temperature reconstruction based on varying rates of stalagmite growth in a cave in South Africa also indicates a colder period from 1500 to 1800. A 1997 study comparing West Antarctic ice cores with the results of the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two (GISP2) indicate a global Little Ice Age affecting the two ice sheets in tandem.

The Siple Dome, an ice dome roughly 100 km long and 100 km wide, about 100 km east of the Siple Coast of Antartica, also reflects effects of the Little Ice Age synchronously with the GISP2 record, as do sediment cores from the Bransfield Basin of the Antarctic Peninsula. Oxygen/isotope analysis from the Pacific Islands indicates a 1.5 degree Celsius temperature decline between 1270 and 1475 A.D.

The Franz Josef glacier on the west side of the Southern Alps of New Zealand advanced sharply during the period of the Little Ice Age, actually invading a rain forest at its maximum extent in the early 1700s. The Mueller glacier on the east side of New Zealand’s Southern Alps expanded to its maximum extent at roughly the same time.

Ice cores from the Andeas mountains in South America show a colder period from 1600 to 1800. Tree ring data from Patagonia in South America show cold periods from 1270 to 1380 and from 1520 to 1670. Spanish explorers noted the expansion of the San Rafael Glacier in Chile from 1675 to 1766, which continued into the 19th century.

The height of the Little Ice Age is generally dated as 1650 to 1850 A.D. The American Revolutionary Army under General George Washington shivered at Valley Forge in the winter of 1777-78, and New York harbor was frozen in the winter of 1780. Historic snowstorms struck Lisbon, Portugal in 1665, 1744 and 1886. Glaciers in Glacier National Park in Montana advanced until the late 18th or early 19th centuries. The last River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1814. The Little Ice Age phased out during the middle to late 19th century.

The Little Ice Age, following the historically warm temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted from about AD 950 to 1250, has been attributed to natural cycles in solar activity, particularly sunspots. A period of sharply lower sunspot activity known as the Wolf Minimum began in 1280 and persisted for 70 years until 1350. That was followed by a period of even lower sunspot activity that lasted 90 years from 1460 to 1550 known as the Sporer Minimum. During the period 1645 to 1715, the low point of the Little Ice Age, the number of sunspots declined to zero for the entire time. This is known as the Maunder Minimum, named after English astronomer Walter Maunder. That was followed by the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830, another period of well below normal sunspot activity. …

The increase in global temperatures that humanity has since since the end of the LIA in the 1800’s is simple a reflection of the end of the Little Ice Age and natural climate cycles. Look up in the sky at noon some day and see the big ball of fire that drives our weather. It is not some trace gas of 400 parts per million in our atmosphere. The global temperature trends since the end of the LIA have followed ocean temperature cycles and not CO2.

I would like to introduce you to a chart from Wikipedia which is notoriously pro-alarmist. The chart is one of climate history over the millions of years and represents our best understanding of ice core data and other proxy data that yields this climate reconstruction. This chart is not controversial.

Temperature History

Temperature History, click to enlarge

Please look at the last 100 million years or so and see the steep decline in global temperature. It was this chart or charts much like this one that helped fuel the “new ice age scare” of the 1970s. There is little that can be done about the long term cooling other than using our technology to adapt to it. There is just not much grant money going to flow from studying natural cycles of millions of years compared to a nice short term warming cycle that can be played into a “world threatening crisis”. But the warming stopped in the ’90s friends. It has been cooling since ’02. Wake up, you have been played for a sucker.

Why did the governments of the world back the cAGW scam? Because it meant ever more control over your lives. The whole play reminds one of the GWOT. In both cases an imaginary hobgoblin was used to scare the pants of the public to get them to demand government action. The same tactic works every time it seems like.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. ~ H.L. Mencken