Follow Us

FacebookTwitterRSSStumble UponDigg

Tags: , , , , ,

Climate debate distorted by empty rhetoric

Environment


September 12, 2012

By Tim Ball
and Tom Harris
Advisors
Frontier Centre for Public Policy

WINNIPEG, MB and OTTAWA, ON, Sep 12, 2012/ Troy Media/ – The most meaningless phrase in today’s global warming debate is ‘climate change is real.’ Those who blindly recite it, one of the silliest of the mantras chanted by climate alarmists, simply expose their ignorance.

Of course climate change is real; it has occurred continuously throughout Earth’s estimated five billion year history. What’s happening now is not new or unprecedented, even though that’s what the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), virtually all of the world’s governments, most of the press and those leading our education systems want the public to believe. Few people, even among scientists, appreciate the extent of natural climate variability, so a small group of UN insiders was able to exploit this ignorance and guided the world to wasting trillions of dollars on a non-issue.

The range of those telling us that climate change is real, implying that today’s climatic events are somehow new and unnatural, is disturbing. CSIRO, Australia’s national science agency and one of the largest and most diverse research organizations in the world, heads an important Webpage with the ridiculous ‘climate change is real’ assertion. Echoing thousands of media across the world, The Columbus Dispatch, one of America’s leading newspapers, just published a piece, entitled ‘Climate change is real, and it’s urgent.‘ Last month’s statements of the Republican governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, are a particularly egregious example of the use of this phrase by political leaders. He joins many politicians, including Canadian Environment Minister Peter Kent, whose support of the climate scare undoubtedly contributed to the results of an Insightrix Research, Inc. 2012 survey that concluded: “Our survey indicates that Canadians from coast to coast overwhelmingly believe climate change is real and is occurring, at least in part due to human activity.”

Politically correct but deceptive statements such as ‘climate change is real’ are dangerous because they influence millions of people and, ultimately, important government policy. They lead to even more ignorant statements such as that of the David Suzuki Foundation (DSF) that, ‘Together, we can turn back climate change.’

Most of those propagandizing the public in this way were alive in the 1970s when similar calls to stop climate change were heard; but then it was cooling. By DSF logic, the solution then would have been to add carbon dioxide to prevent a global cooling catastrophe.

Central to the climate scare is the IPCC campaign to show that human CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. They made it a virtual certainty by restricting their search to only human causes, omitting major natural mechanisms, and designing computer models that predetermine the result.

In the years since one of us (Tim Ball) issued a challenge for alarmists to demonstrate that CO2 precedes warming in the actual record of Earth’s climate history, no one has been able to do it. The challenge was triggered by a senior climate skeptic’s comment that it was better to accept that there was a small warming effect from human CO2, even if there was no evidence. In the real world, all records show exactly the opposite – temperature increases before CO2 does.

The IPCC has focused intensely on proving the assumption that CO2 increase causes temperature increase. When researchers published the Antarctic ice core record in 1991 it was touted as proof of IPCC dogma even though, on closer examination, the data actually showed temperature increase precedes CO2 increase. Since then, all records of any duration in any time period show the same thing.

For those who were paying attention, reality was driven home after 2000, when global temperatures leveled and gradually declined while atmospheric CO2 levels continued to rise. According to IPCC science, it should not have happened. It is revealing that climate scientist Kevin Trenberth wrote in a 2009 ‘Climategate’ e-mail: ‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.’

Alarmists could not admit that their hypothesis and its major assumption were wrong, so they simply moved the goalposts. They stopped talking about global warming and started talking about climate change. ‘Climate change is real’ became the new catch phrase and our society’s collective ignorance was exploited to allow one of the greatest hoaxes in the history of science to rumble on.

Tim Ball, a climatologist and former University of Winnipeg climatology professor and Tom Harris, Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition, are Advisors to the Frontier Centre (fcpp.org).

This column is FREE to use on your websites or in your publications. However, Troy Media, with a link to its web site, MUST be credited.  

Editor's suggestions
Report demolishes Stern Review on climate change
Report demolishes Stern Review on climate change
September 11, 2012 EDMONTON, AB, Sep 11, 2012/ Troy Media/ - The Rt Hon Peter Lilley, MP in the British Parliament and a former cabinet Minister under both Baroness Thatcher and ...
READ MORE
Report demolishes Stern Review on climate change

© Troy Media

ADVERTISEMENT
18 comments
  Livefyre
Newest | Oldest
DavidDickinson
DavidDickinson

Well, if you don't believe in global warming, there are plenty of oceanside properties for sale at bargain prices. I, for one, wouldn't want to purchase a property that might be below sea level in a couple of generations.

episkyros
episkyros

Perhaps humans are accelerating global warming, perhaps the human contribution to global warming is negligible. At this point in our history, what can we trust if not science? Is there an Uncertainty Principle in operation, and are we going to have to use Game Theory to decide the matter, given that this is a political matter in the same way that nuclear war is?

DaveMorrison1
DaveMorrison1

 @episkyros@TomHarris 

 

Episkyros said: "what can we trust if not science?" (as for the rest of what he said I don't know what he means) But trust science? I have to disagree, science has historically been notoriously wrong, and short sighted. Nowadays it is even worse, motivated by political idealism and money; which are essentially the same things. Of course this was always true, and that was why science was stagnated until the discovery of the new world; North America.

This vast expanse of land allowed men to live free, and express their ideas without consequence. But those forces from the old world are arriving on our shores; the vast empty land is now all cataloged by government control. Haters of freedom and all who dare to be free are here with our chains in their hands ready to bind us. Political correctness binds our tongue. The tongue is the ruder of our life, it controls where we go, bind that and we are easily steered into their trap.

Scientists are bound by their tongue, and those who dare to strive against these chains get their tongue ripped out by the chains. Ridiculed and maligned and discredited without cause, accused of all manner of bias regardless of the facts.

First, when I was young, it was the coming ice age, I learned in science class of all the evidence of this coming unstoppable event, but that was the problem with it, it was unstoppable, nothing we could do, no money in that. But global warming, and carbon monoxide! We exhale it with every breath! Brilliant! Its our fault and we can do something!

MONEY MONEY MONEY! Now there is a scientific theory we can do something with!

 

episkyros
episkyros

 @DaveMorrison1  @episkyros  @TomHarris DaveMorrison1, assuming you use a car, you trust science implicitly every time you turn the key of your car ignition, and also when you use your accelerator and break pedals-- you trust that the principles of electricity, motion and friction work as described in physics and implemented in automotive engineering. And by using a computer (whether PC, laptop or hand-held device), you further trust that the logic of the law of the excluded middle, implemented as open and closed circuits and further translated into the language of zeroes and ones (0, 1) not only opens your Internet browser, but takes your choice of this page seriously, and lets you sign in so that you can post your rebuttal to my post. You and I and the vast majority of people on this planet trust science implicitly-- we take it for granted. That is what I meant.

 

Given that state of things, the point I wanted to make is: do we take seriously what science has to say about what is going on, or do we just throw it into the dustbin of human culture? If we learn that a scientific observation, or hypothesis, or even theory, is off base, should we not behave with proper seriousness and find out why there was error, take that critical lesson into account, and proceed...scientifically? To use an example, do you give up on pen-and-paper writing because, the first time out, the pen fails to write, or because the ink explodes and stains your shirt pocket?

 

If you were not critical about the reasons why something did not work properly, you could not, in good conscience, put pen to a sheet of paper-- what guarantee would you have that the pen's ink would even reach the nib, or stain the paper just so to make legible marks, or that the paper would not disintegrate on contact?

 

'Money' is merely a medium of exchange, a way to relate to each other. How are you supposed to use that to know whether civilization needs to modify its modus operandi to survive changes in Earth's climate?

episkyros
episkyros

 @DaveMorrison1 Fair enough; skepticism is healthy: etymologically (the ancient Greek word is 'skepsis'), it is the original scientific ATTITUDE that motivates further research to obtain material/logical 'knowledge' (in ancient Greek, 'episteme', in Latin, 'scientia')-- because we don't know enough, if we know anything at all.

The problem of the hidden link, as the what-came-before-the-Big-Bang question is called by some, is a great example of the limits of science, I agree. Science has not found a way to conceptualize the state of existence before the 'Big Bang', which right now is the origin of existence (!). So, yeah, scientifically speaking, we theorize limbo :)

Your 'knowledge' of these ambiguities goes by a different ancient Greek term: 'gnosis' (which the Romans didn't bother to Latinize). 'Gnosis' comes not from research and/or logical thinking, but rather from the kinds of experiences (flashes of insight, intuition, dreams or other more 'mysterious' happenings-- we'll call them) that we usually call 'revelation' (from Latin 'revelatio', in ancient Greek, 'apokalypsis', degenerately used to mean 'end of times' because of the ultimate revelation to the Apostle John that closes the Biblical canon).

And hopefully, money doesn't confuse the issue :)

DaveMorrison1
DaveMorrison1

 @episkyros 

Well I, for one, am always a skeptic, Science has far too many ambiguous theories, origin of life for example, Richard Dawkins, one of the most ardent supporters of Darwinism, admitted that how the first thing ever became “alive” is unknown, and offered perhaps aliens seeded life on earth. Where did the aliens come from? He said how should we know? Their aliens! Brilliant.

The big bang theory, plausible for sure, but what was their one millionth of a second before the bang? Science does not know, and just seconds after the big bang the universe was already several light years across in size. But how could this be if nothing travels faster than light? Now I know the answers to both of these ambiguities’, but science does not.

How does gravity work? Or rather what causes gravity? Science does not have an answer for that either, so no I do not simply trust science: it is as if seeing through a glass darkly at best. Adding in political pressure, economic incentives, and social ideology can only make it less credible.

episkyros
episkyros

 @DaveMorrison1 No, you are confusing science with simple mechanics and mechanisms. My point is that you and everyone else implicitly trusts science's explanations of why things work. Why should that be any different when it comes to the climate? It makes no sense to not regard with seriousness science's "attempts to describe how" it works.

episkyros
episkyros

 @TomHarris  @DaveMorrison1 Successful civilizations always need to adapt-- by using science. That is, indeed, where the focus should be. No one, certainly not me, has proposed the idea that we are somehow "master controllers of global climate." Science means 'knowledge', not 'mastery of the laws of the cosmos', though I understand some people get excited about how knowledge makes them feel they master anything. Oppenheimer's famous commentary upon seeing the flash and mushroom cloud for the first time was an alert that we do not, in fact, control anything. All we can do is try to protect ourselves by adapting to the greater forces of life. My point is that money cannot do that.

DaveMorrison1
DaveMorrison1

 @episkyros I think you're confusing science with simple mechanics and mechanisms, Science simply attempts to describe how these things work, but science can't make anything work.

TomHarris
TomHarris

 @episkyros  @DaveMorrison1  @TomHarris episkyros asks, "How are you supposed to use that to know whether civilization needs to modify its modus operandi to survive changes in Earth's climate?"

 

Successful civilizations ALWAYS need to modify their "modus operandi to survive changes in Earth's climate". That is where the focus should be--prepare for and adapt to change.

 

But the idea that we are somehow now master controllers of global climate is so far fetched as to be ridiculous, I would say.

DavidNutzuki
DavidNutzuki

Science says we are at the brink of no return from unstoppable warming yet they still will not say it “WILL” happen.

Find us one single IPCC warning of "crisis" that isn't surrounded by "maybes" as in "possibly" and "potentially" etc. NEVER have they said it will happen, only might happen.

Help my planet is on fire..........................maybe?

Nobody has suggested scientific exaggeration of worst case scenario research was illegal.

Get up to date:

*Occupywallstreet does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded carbon trading stock markets run by corporations.

*Obama has not mentioned the crisis in the last two State of the Unions addresses.

*Julian Assange is of course a climate change denier.

 *Socialist Canada killed Y2Kyoto with a newly elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (death).

Our continued fear mongering of the voter with a climate “crisis” all but guarantees a President Romney.

geraldwilhite
geraldwilhite

 @DavidNutzuki 

 

   Excellent point!  AGW, particularly cAGW, is Obama's second weakest point, behind unemployment. It's a given that Obama is already damaged goods in coal country. But otherwise on AGW his containment of coal-fired power plants (actually caused by the switch to NG which he knew was underway in 2008)  will hold most Democratic environmentalists. Obama knows left wing AGW alarmists have no place else to go on election day.

 

   However, if Romney can sucker Obama into a Cap and Trade or similar commitment, he can make deep inroads into the Independent vote that is essential for a Republican victory.  No way in my opinion. Obama sticks to the 'we'll follow the science' policy he's had since January 2009. His science advisor Steven Chu knows very well that the CO2 hypothesis has been falsified. They have managed to make its demise a "slow-mo" collapse. If he has to, Obama may even endorse a new mantra -- "It's the sun, stupid!"

 

   Many readers of this blog still don't believe it, but East Anglia's CRU has publicly admitted that there has been NO global warming since 1997.  That's 15 years! And that's in spite of a significant rise in CO2, which is in direct contrast to the CO2 hypothesis!  Why don't you hear or read much about this?  It isn't useful to the propaganda agenda of corporate controlled media and wire services.   

 

 

JimSpice
JimSpice

You know, if you guys want us to stop harping on the Koch connections please stop making it so easy. Both these authors have close ties to Heartland/Koch.

TomHarris
TomHarris

 @JimSpice Where do you get the idea that we have any connection to Koch? We have never even communicated with them. Do you think they might contribute to our campaign? If so, please send me their contact coordinates. If they did someday contribute, they would be the first industry to do so. ICSC has no funding from corporations, government or foundations, though, once again, we welcome it.

 

That we have some connection with, and occasionally advise, Heartland is immaterial. They are free to accept or reject our advice and we do not necessarily agree with what they do, nor they with us. This is just the same as with many groups we interact with. What is your point?

 

Do you have any comment on the content of the article, or are you just hoping people dismiss what we say because of your use of the guilt by association logical fallacy? I think most people have advanced beyond such intellectual baby talk, Jim.

 

Tom Harris

ICSC