All Projects [Home] — Publications • Modern Environmentalist • Climate Change • Environment • Energy • Role of Government
January 8, 2009
Sustaining the Unsustainable
How has the scam that humans are causing global warming worked so effectively? One answer is exploitation of fear, the technique of which was accurately explained in the late Michael Crichton’s book “State of Fear.”
Much fuel for the fear was effectively built into the structure and methods of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Of the 2,500 people involved, only 600, most of whom are not scientists, are in Working Group I (WG I) and produce the Science Report. 1900 people produce the Reports of Working Groups II and III (WG II and WG III). They accept without question WG I’s conclusion that human CO2 is causing runaway global warming and then extrapolate what will happen. WG II examines the “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” so their work is the major source of disaster predictions such as glaciers melting, sea level rising, more severe weather, including droughts, hurricanes, and tornadoes. They include social disasters such as famine and collapse of economies, among many others. WG III plans for mitigation, however, they also accept the scenarios of WG I and WG II and foolishly plan a singular strategy.
While they mitigate for a range of scenarios, they all assume warming - the only difference is the degree. The scenarios are based on many assumptions built into economic computer models that seem as bad as the climate models. Henderson and Castles are major critics with telling concerns about what is wrong with the economics. (climateaudit.org)
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT and a participant in the IPCC, was more scathing. He called the scenarios “children’s exercises.”
A measure of their inadequacy is a failure to anticipate the current recession and financial turmoil.
A second way the scam has worked is exploitation of people’s lack of knowledge. It’s a classic theme in literature. “A Connecticut Yankee in the Court of King Arthur” is Mark Twain’s 1889 book about a man mysteriously transported back to Mediaeval England. Ridiculed for his dress and knowledge he threatens court magician Merlin who conspires with the King to have him burned at the stake. Knowing a solar eclipse was due, he accurately predicted the event thus saving his life. He uses his simple knowledge that made him superior to those of his time. When the King dies the Yankee forms a republic and declares himself ruler. The IPCC and those who support the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis use the public’s lack of knowledge to push simplistic and selective science to effectively rule. They are in good company. Christopher Columbus used his fore knowledge of a lunar eclipse to maintain and increase influence over a population in the West Indies.
Most people don’t know the difference between weather (the atmospheric conditions of the moment) and climate (the average weather conditions in a region or for a period of time). Most don’t know the difference between meteorology (the study of physics of the atmosphere) and climatology (the study of weather patterns in a region or their change over time). Most think meteorology is the more important discipline, but meteorology is a subset of climatology. Most think climatology is a new discipline. It is not. The word climate derives from the Greek word klimat meaning angle of the sun and they used that knowledge to identify the three climate regions, cold, temperate and hot zones.
Climate was essentially forgotten until the 20th century and even then not until the latter half.
Through the first half of the 20th century, climatology was a nearly stagnant field. The prevailing view saw climate as a static average condition, pinned down by tedious statistics.
My career spanned a major portion of this time so I have watched climatology develop, change, and become important for the wrong reasons. It became important because it was politicized. It was politicized because it provided fear and lack of knowledge; ideal vehicles for control.
I learned early how much climate changes, particularly through Hubert Lamb’s stupendous encyclopaedic work titled “Climate: Present, Past and Future” published in 1977. An attempt to smear my credibility labeled me a climate change denier. Ironically, my entire career involved determining the extent and cause of climate change and educating others to that knowledge. Personal attacks reflect how I am a threat to the desire to exploit lack of knowledge. They also try to shut down the search for knowledge by claiming the science is settled.
Most people have no idea of the extent of natural climate change. It’s talked about as something new thus implying it is human related. We are told it is occurring at an unprecedented rate that can only be explained by human activities. Neither is correct. Every time such claims are made it is easy to find similar or more dramatic examples in the historic record. The response follows a pattern. Question the validity of the work, attack the researcher(s) personally, or manufacture something to refute the finding. The “hockey stick” was a classic example of the latter as it tried to deny existence of the Medieval Warm Period (900 - 1200 AD) because it was clearly warmer than today. This exposed their claim that the latter part of the 20th century was the warmest ever.
The Connecticut Yankee used his knowledge of a natural event to bamboozle the people. Proponents of AGW do the same thing. Almost every day there is another story presenting a natural event with the implication it is unnatural. The fact it makes the news amplifies and exaggerates but also implies it is unusual. These media abilities are not new. English Poet William Cowper wrote about it in 1782.
The Progress of Error
How shall I speak of thee or thy power address,
There is a difference today. The Internet is democratizing knowledge. No longer is it the exclusive domain of a few people. People involved in a story can provide the real story. It is as if the people in the Connecticut Yankee’s Republic quickly learned his secrets and commandeered his power. More people are able to get access to more information. They are asking questions from a multitude of angles quickly exposing errors and falsehoods. A statistician who quickly saw the fallacious use of statistics even if, initially, he didn’t understand the climate science debunked the “hockey stick”. They are also learning how much climate has changed in very short periods.
Fear of global warming is subsiding as the globe cools; as other issues such as a weakening economy become more important; and as more scientists speak out.
Mahatma Gandhi identified four phases in the transition to the truth. “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” I believe, based on a career educating people about climate change that we are in the third phase. Claims of doom are more extreme as they try to sustain the unsustainable. Al Gore the master of alarmism says, “This year coming up is the most important opportunity the world has ever had to make progress in really solving the climate crisis.” Stanford biologist Terry Root claims, “We’re out of time. Things are going extinct.” Like others who make similar claims he doesn’t name one. Sorry Terry, extinction is normal and has occurred far more rapidly in the past. It is a natural pattern that has always occurred and always will. (Source)
The scam is being exposed with increasing speed. The most frequent comment I get after a presentation is, “I had my suspicions, but I didn’t know enough to know.” That, like the climate, is changing.
Tim Ball, Senior Fellow
has an extensive scientific background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history. He is a regular contributing writer for Country Guide magazine and a researcher/author of numerous papers on climate, long-range weather patterns, the impacts of climate change on sustainable agriculture, ecosystems, historical climatology, air quality, untapped energy resources, silting and flooding. He had a long academic career at the University of Winnipeg until he moved to Victoria in 1996. He has a BA from the University of Winnipeg, an MA from the University of Manitoba and a PH.D (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England. On Dr. Ball as a climate change "denier" - more . . . and more . . .