How was the science of climate change perverted …
It appears that the United Nations redefined the scope of climate change to ignore the natural drivers of global climate change like the Sun’s energy output, the Earth’s position relative to the Sun, the Earth’s precessional and rotational dynamics, the Earth’s vulcanology and plate tectonics, the deep ocean currents, and the greatest greenhouse gas, water vapor, in favor of scientific studies that would support a hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. Including concentrating on datasets that would allow man’s signal to be tracked in what would be termed the background noise of normal and natural climate variability.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change -- New York, 9 May 1992
The Human Impact on Climate Change
Global warming, which is the increase in global average temperature in the course of the twentieth century, is mostly due to the increase of atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations caused by human activity; these anthropogenic emissions have increased by 70 per cent between 1970 and 2004 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 4th Assessment Report). The greenhouse gas effect in the atmosphere regulates overall temperature on the Earth’s surface. It is, in principle, a naturally occurring phenomenon by which certain gases present in the atmosphere (e.g., carbon dioxide, water vapour, methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons) re-radiate heat back to the Earth’s surface; without it our planet would be considerably colder and most likely uninhabitable.
By the mid-1980s, scientists warned that global warming beyond natural variability was occurring and that this was in large part due to human activity and the increase of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Advancements in computing technology had permitted the development of complex and more realistic models on cause-and-effect relationships and on the risks of climate change to humans and the ecosystem. In a 1985 conference, the International Conference on Assessment of the Role of Carbon Dioxide and of Other Greenhouse Gases in Climate Variations and Associated Impacts, held in Villach, Austria, scientists called on politicians to collaborate in the exploration of policies to mitigate human-induced climate change. The discovery of the ozone hole and a heat wave in 1988 created an additional sense of increased urgency for action. <Source: United Nations>
It appears that it was important to reduce the significances of observable cyclical patterns that were hundreds or thousands of years in duration so that a sense of “urgency” could be introduced into the discussion. Any honest analysis of historical cycles and a discussion of regression to the mean would lead one to believe that the heating of the Earth would cease and the trend would reverse – leading to another ice age. Observations showing that the trend line of temperature anomalies has been virtually flat for the past eighteen years or so would reinforce the idea that nature is inherently variable, the use of selected time scales to distort a climate view that can be measured in geological time frames might suggest dishonesty, and the inability of models to account for this flat trend would speak to their falsification of reliable predictors of future events.
It appears that alarming and dire scenarios were fed to the mainstream media in order to create the meme of a planetary emergency that was so severe that it could threaten life as we now know it.
Of course this led to an artificial bias towards “scientific studies” that conformed with the fashionable science of the day that continues to fund such studies. Few research dollars were allocated to broader research looking at global climate change in its entirety, lest man’s weak and pathetic input to the climate system be judged inconsequential to drive public policy and continued billion-dollar funding for research and the special interests who loved the excuse of global warming to pursue rate increases even though users paid for far fewer services. Benefiting the executive bonuses from artificially inflated revenues that should have been spend increasing resilience to natural and man-made disasters as well as increasing capacity for the future.
How scientific is science? …
First of all, we should acknowledge that science is not conducted by consensus. You cannot tally a poll of hand-picked scientists and present it as science, just as you cannot tally up all of the papers that are pro accelerated global warming and those that are pro nature’s inherent variability in a chaotic system and declare that to be science.
The truth is that there are few answers and numerous questions. Researchers are still struggling to make sense of the flat-line temperature trend and trying to explain where the heat is stored.
And we need to question the assumptions and construction of models that are incomplete and do not accurately represent a global picture. Even more, we need to question those who have handled the raw input data and statistically manipulated it – and in doing so may have introduced a warming bias where none exists. The following is a representation of a time-of-day (TOBS) adjustment to a dataset (courtesy of Steve Goddard) that shows how a bias can be introduced by the best of intentions.
Bottom line …
When the politicians benefit from promoting global climate change as a justification for public policies that drive a political agenda; when the special interests benefit from promoting global climate change for profit; and when the scientists pursue projects that are likely to be funded with government money, we need to be vigilant lest we find our freedoms slipping away in the name of fighting a bogey-man that will not even be measurable for hundreds or thousands of years.
Even worse, you can always smell the odor of corruption in the room when politicians say “trust us” and then proceed to feather their own nests. Made only more obvious when reputable scientists have a contrarian scientific viewpoint and are shouted down as skeptics, deniers, of climaphobes. Since the scientific method is one of controlled skepticism, those that are prone to label others do not know of what they speak.
“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell “Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar “Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS
“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS