What the global warming “alarmists” would have you believe is that those to whom they derogatorily refer to as “deniers” do not believe in global climate change … which is far from the truth.
The skeptics, as I prefer to call them, have their own hypothesis on climate change and one that cannot be adequately explained by the alarmists.
The skeptics believe …
Climate change is a natural phenomenon and that the climate will continue to change over time. The Earth has been much hotter, much colder, with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and with less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – much of it before the industrialization of developed countries.
That factors other than carbon dioxide are mostly responsible for climate change and that these factors far outweigh man’s contribution to climate change via man-made activities: population expansion, increasing deforestation, increasing urbanization, increasing industrialization, increasing power generation using processes which increase carbon dioxide, the increase in pollution, the increase in livestock and man’s population growth.
More significantly, the factors which appear to affect global climate change are: the solar output of the Sun and its own variability, the position of Earth relative to the Sun, the Earth’s rotational dynamics, the deep ocean currents which seem to manifest significant weather patterns and the actions of Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas: water vapor. One may note that solar output appears to be also affecting the warming of both Venus and Mars – and they do not show any signs of life or conventional atmosphere.
In fact, the relationship between carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans and the carbon dioxide found in the atmosphere is relatively stable and forms a self-regulating feedback loop. The fact that the rise in carbon dioxide lags the rise in temperature seems to suggest that carbon dioxide is not a causal factor in temperature rise and that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide can be explained by the warming of the oceans. As the oceans warm, more dissolved carbon dioxide comes out of the oceans and into the atmosphere – which explains the situation better than the explanations offered by the alarmists.
It appears that the reason that the climate alarmists need to demonize carbon and carbon dioxide is that carbon holds the key to our world’s entire energy-driven economy and is so abundant as to affect every man, woman, child, plant and animal on the face of this Earth.
In addition, most skeptics believe that the issue of global climate change is a political issue, raised by politicians and their special interest supporters.
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is a political organization, comprised mostly of politicians and the supporters of global climate change as a means of effecting a world-wide transformation of the political structure of the developed countries and as a mechanism for global socialism and wealth redistribution.
The scientific institutions, journals and some individual scientists seem to be motivated by power, prestige and the money that is now flowing into the scientific community – provided that they support the party line of an ever increasing global temperature which demands a political solution via control mechanisms and punitive taxations to achieve an acceptable outcome. The patronage system is alive and well in the scientific community and those honest scientists who want to obtain permission and funding for their research need to almost pre-ordain the results – to those expected by the funding source, be it government or non-government foundation. Those who claim that some research is being subverted by the energy industry should realize that 95% of the research is being produced by the government and government-sponsored institutions; with a political agenda that is just as biased as so-called “industry” funding sources – often more so.
Many of the climate change models are incomplete representations of the underlying physical phenomenon and it has been shown in countless examples that the models do not correlate with the physical phenomenon, use assumptions which tend to overstate and amplify the appearance of warming – where it does not exist in the physical world. The data has been clearly manipulated and is thus subject to skepticism. The key computer modeling was done by the same scientist who developed the program to study physical phenomena on Venus and was mentioned in early reports on global cooling and the need to control carbon dioxide as a solution to preventing a mini-ice age.
Certain scientists have become evangelists for the cause – their cause which supports the further funding of their research and their growing power and prestige within the scientific and non-scientific community.
The religion of science or the science of religion?
The issue of global warming has taken on the aspects of a religion: faith and the reward of those who profess allegiance. The environmental movement has been infiltrated by the far-left: socialists, communists, anarchists and those on the far-right: fascists who believe that a government-industry cabal should rule the world. It is ironic that the socialists, communists and others do not believe in organized religions and prefer the “state” to be the moral governing authority. Especially if they control the state.
Bottom line …
The science of global climate change is far from being settled. Those scientists who are outspoken about their skepticism are openly attacked by their colleagues, ostracized behind the scenes and prevented from obtaining funding and support for their research. Big science has been corrupted by big politics and big business using the persuasive power of funding and support.
The solution is simple. While we need to keep researching the physical processes which seem to govern our environment, we also need to replace those who have succumbed to political influence. We need to remove dishonest politicians from office and replace them with honest brokers who represent “we the people” rather than themselves and their special interests.
In other words, it is best to say NO to those who want to manipulate the science for political purpose – and those politicians who want to increase their control over their constituents for their own self-interests.
There are those who will say or do anything to advance their cause, especially if it is in their self-interest. Unfortunately, this leads to the acceptance of research which sounds credible because it fits the overarching story line – not that it is well-researched or even grounded in facts.
An example …
We have all heard about the rapidly disappearing glaciers in the Himalayas. So let us revisit some of the back-story to the reports in the popular press.
The Sunday Times is reporting …
“World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown”
“A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.”
“Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.”
This is a widely-circulated IPCC report which claims to have been thoroughly peer-reviewed. From the release of the “Climategate” emails from the CRU, the well-publicized Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, we have seen how the peer review process has been manipulated and compromised by a relatively small number of prominent (and previously well-respected) scientists.
“In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.”
“It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
“Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was ‘speculation’ and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.”
The IPCC's reliance on Hasnain's 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview for the New Scientist. Pearce said he rang Hasnain in India in 1999 after spotting his claims in an Indian magazine. Pearce said: ‘Hasnain told me then that he was bringing a report containing those numbers to Britain. The report had not been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal and it had no formal status so I reported his work on that basis.’”
"Since then I have obtained a copy and it does not say what Hasnain said. In other words it does not mention 2035 as a date by which any Himalayan glaciers will melt. However, he did make clear that his comments related only to part of the Himalayan glaciers. not the whole massif."
“Some scientists have questioned how the IPCC could have allowed such a mistake into print. Perhaps the most likely reason was lack of expertise. Lal himself admits he knows little about glaciers. ‘I am not an expert on glaciers and I have not visited the region so I have to rely on credible published research. The comments in the WWF report were made by a respected Indian scientist and it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about,’ he said.”
This is not how science is done. I don’t care if the author is well-credentialed, as we have seen well-credentialed people with wacky and unsupportable theories. I don’t care if the author is well-regarded, we have seen well-regarded people motivated to take shortcuts and outright lie for personal and professional reasons. And I do not care if the author works at a prestigious institution as we have seen fakes and frauds be granted important positions at such institutions.
What matters is the science: that the hypothesis can be tested and confirmed by others without torturing the data or applying special “fudge factor” tricks to arrive at a pre-ordained result.
There are those who are honest and attempting to point out that the path is perilous and may be flawed, especially when it is corrupted by political or financial self-interest …
The lead role in that process was played by Graham Cogley, a geographer from Trent University in Ontario, Canada, who had long been unhappy with the IPCC's finding.
He traced the IPCC claim back to the New Scientist and then contacted Pearce. Pearce then re-interviewed Hasnain, who confirmed that his 1999 comments had been "speculative", and published the update in the New Scientist.
“Cogley said: ‘The reality, that the glaciers are wasting away, is bad enough. But they are not wasting away at the rate suggested by this speculative remark and the IPCC report. The problem is that nobody who studied this material bothered chasing the trail back to the original point when the claim first arose. It is ultimately a trail that leads back to a magazine article and that is not the sort of thing you want to end up in an IPCC report.”
There are those in the political and scientific community who believe it is okay to magnify your findings and conclusions in order to attract mainstream media attention and additional funding and support for your project. Somehow, if something goes wrong with the exaggeration, you can always blame reporters – especially the lazy ones who simply rely on the work of others to form the basis of their own stories.
“Pearce said the IPCC's reliance on the WWF was ‘immensely lazy’ and the organisation need to explain itself or back up its prediction with another scientific source. Hasnain could not be reached for comment.”
The consensus continues to unravel …
Again, we are not denying that there is a phenomenon called global climate change, we are simply saying we want scientists to do science – free from political input – and which reflects the best understanding of our physical world at this point in time. Not to say that theories will not be challenged, proven wrong or replaced with other theories as time goes on – for that is the way of science.
“The revelation is the latest crack to appear in the scientific consensus over climate change. It follows the so-called climate-gate scandal, where British scientists apparently tried to prevent other researchers from accessing key data. Last week another row broke out when the Met Office criticised suggestions that sea levels were likely to rise 1.9m by 2100, suggesting much lower increases were likely.”
The big lie …
The IPCC will do or say anything to promote their agenda. Consider what the IPCC’s Nobel Peace Prize – winning railroad engineer has to say about the issue.
“Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as ‘voodoo science.’”
Last week the IPCC refused to comment so it has yet to explain how someone who admits to little expertise on glaciers was overseeing such a report. Perhaps its one consolation is that the blunder was spotted by climate scientists who quickly made it public.
In all likelihood, the IPCC will simply withdraw that portion of the report and continue on as if their report reflects the “consensus opinion” of real world physical phenomena.
“Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: ‘If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments’."
Perhaps the world should reassess the motives and funding of the IPCC and further investigate its claims about global warming. There is no doubt that we need politicians who represent “we the people” and will serve as honest brokers for their constituents. In my opinion, the United Nations is a corrupt self-serving institution which is not only dishonest, but cowardly – a bunch of greedy bastards that see evil and ignore it – only to pursue their dream of more political power, dominance, unending riches and personal power as the eat caviar and quaff champagne.
-- steve
Reference Links …
Comments