April 21, 2008
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2704
QUOTE: "the scientific method of testing the theory that human CO2 was
causing warming/climate change was effectively bypassed"
Politics took over climate science through exploitation of public fear
and lack of knowledge
Once you realize humans are not causing global warming and/or climate
change, then you need an explanation for how and why so many people
appear to think they are. In two previous articles (Environmental
Extremism and Historical and philosophical context of the climate change
debate.) we examined the philosophical and historical context of climate
change and specifically the focus on humans as the cause.
We explained the philosophical concept of uniformitarianism that
dominates western science; the incorrect idea that change is gradual
over long periods of time. We looked at how the scientific method of
testing the theory that human CO2 was causing warming/climate change was
effectively bypassed. Now we need to examine how politics took over
climate science through exploitation of public fear and lack of
knowledge.
Michael Crichton's State of Fear is a first class exploration of how
special interest environmental groups operate and use fear. Evidence of
lack of knowledge is provided by the ability to say climate change is
something new and more extreme than ever before when it isn't.
Being called skeptics supposedly discredited those who had knowledge or
understood the science and the theory. This failed after it was pointed
out that all scientists are skeptics and the warming due to human CO2
theory was discredited because the earth cooled slightly from 2000 while
CO2 increased. Rather than acknowledge the failure of the theory they
moved the goalposts to claim humans were causing climate change so those
who disagreed became climate change deniers. The silliness of this
claim, apart from the obscenity of the holocaust connotation, is that
most deniers are, like myself, anything but deniers. I have spent a
career educating people about how much climate changes naturally.
Previously we touched on the political climate engendered by
environmentalism and its exploitation by those who want a new world
order and believe this is achieved by shutting down the industrialized
nations. Chief among these is Maurice Strong who said in 1990 "What if a
small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk
to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?...In order to
save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet
that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our
responsibility to bring this about?" He told Maclean's magazine in 1976
that he was "a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology."
Presumably this explains the duplicity in making a great deal of money
as an industrialist. He also warned that, "...if we don't heed his
environmentalist warnings, the Earth will collapse into chaos."
Unfortunately, the world listened and the chaos is being caused by
policies that evolved from his actions.
But that aside for now, the question is how would you cause the collapse
of the industrialized nations? An analogy is useful to understand how
Strong and a few like-minded people did it. Compare the nation to a car
and think about how you can stop the engine. You can squeeze the fuel
line and starve the engine, however, if you did that in any country
people would react quickly and negatively. Witness the public reaction
to dramatic increases in gasoline costs. However, you can stop an engine
by plugging the exhaust. Strong's method is not a physical stop as you
do with an engine, but a metaphorical stop. Show how one part of the
industrial exhaust is causing catastrophic global warming putting the
survival of the planet in jeopardy and you have your instrument.
Now you need a political vehicle to carry that instrument. It is almost
impossible to convince all governments separately, as Kyoto and current
climate negotiations prove. His experience told him the United Nations
(UN) was his vehicle. Elaine Dewar, wrote about Strong in her book
"Cloak of Green" and concluded that he liked the UN because, "He could
raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted,
control the agenda."
The challenge was two fold. Advance the political agenda and provide the
scientific evidence to provide legitimacy. Organization of and
appointment as first Secretary General of the United Nations
Environmental Program established in 1972 provided the political
platform. Out of that agency and in conjunction with the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) was formed to provide and advance the scientific evidence.
This is the group touted as the consensus on climate change research. It
is anything but, and has been a political agency from its inception, but
it has convinced the public that humans, especially their CO2, are
causing climate change by continuing to publish periodic re****ts. We
will examine their work in the next article.
Other events were providing the fertile social and political ground
needed to further the goals. Anything that would suggest human
activities and particularly industry were causing environmental problems
became a focus. The Club of Rome was formed in April of 1968 and led to
the publication of the book "Limits to Growth". Paul Ehrlich's "The
Population Bomb" published in 1968 added academic legitimacy to a major
fear. A re****t Strong commissioned for the first UNEP conference and
prepared by Barbara Ward and Rene Dubos titled, "Only one Earth: The
care and maintenance of a small planet" essentially became the first
state of the environment re****t. It reinforced the shrinking planet
perspective provided by the photographs taken by Apollo 8 astronauts.
Wonderful political catch phrases appeared, such as Dubos' "Think
globally, act locally" or the Brundlandt Commission's "Sustainable
development" which were widely disseminated and adopted by the public.
The latter phrase was a typical vague political statement. It meant
everything to everyone, but nothing to anyone. Development had come to
mean constant growth and in that context was clearly not sustainable. It
was an oxymoron that prefaced a series of such contradictions about to
emerge as politics and emotion overtook science and logic. It also gave
the moral high ground to the extreme environmentalists, a position from
which they could bully society and suppress scientists who dared to
question.
These groups were provided a world platform and ascendancy by receiving
Consultative Status at the 1992 conference Strong organized and chaired
in Rio de Janeiro. The idea of Consultative Status was resurrected along
with the concept of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) from original
ideas incor****ated in the UN Charter. The conference was dubbed the
Earth Summit, but as with the current debate large segments of society
including industry and business were essentially excluded. They were
subsequently given token status by establishment of the World Business
Council for Sustainable Development (WBSCD), but who has heard of them?
One critical piece was established at the Conference to further Strong's
agenda of controlling climate science through politics; the Climate
Change Convention out of which the Kyoto Accord was to emerge.
Now everything was in place to control the science and further the
political agenda. Now policies could evolve, but because they were based
on incorrect science would have devastating consequences. Now the
challenge was to perpetuate the misinformation and divert scientists who
despite personal attacks, denial of funding, and exclusion from national
and world level conferences continued to pursue the scientific method.
We will examine how that was achieved in the next article.
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"How does a small increase in a very small component [of CO2] have such
a large apparent effect [On Climate]? The truth is that no one has yet
shown that it does." Don Aitkin
|
