State of Mankind

A New Way Of Thinking

VI. Climate Change

CHAPTER VI  

 Global Cooling, Warming, Climate Change, Etc.  

  “The day before yesterday they called it “Global Warming.”  Yesterday  they called it “Climate Change.”  Today they call it “Energy Security.”  Tomorrow they will call it what it is-Absolute Rubbish.”  -Lord Monckton  

                The subject of environmentalism would not be complete without a look at its Holy Grail—global warming.  For clarity, as stated before, we are not arguing against positive environmental actions, but looking at elitist organizations and their agendas and those things they promote.  Difficult as it may be, we must avoid the trap of confusing true environmental respect and conservation with the ideas these organizations propagandize.  

               Once again, if a tour of the globalist, elitist, environmentalist websites is taken (See the Club of Rome, Club of Madrid, Club of Budapest, European Council on Foreign Relations, Green Cross International, Gorbachev Foundation, Clinton Global Initiative, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and many others linked to these), they all push for global governance, social and environmental justice, and they preach global warming.  The mainstream media has also pushed the idea of global warming, without any opposing view represented.  They often even claim that there is no sane opposing view.  So, it’s time to look at the facts.  For the purposes of this book, only some basic facts will be viewed, as this is a very complex issue.  The studious reader can learn all about the fine details of the argument by visiting:  

realclimate.org, for the alarmist (Al Gore type) view.  

scienceandpublicpolicy.org, for the opposing view.  

These two sites have the needed related links to get to others who share their views.  Now, for a brief description of the debate:  

                The IPCC (Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change) produces the widely accepted (and alarmist) assessment reports.  It was formed by a joint venture of the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization in 1988 for the purpose of assessing “the scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information relevant for understanding the risk of human-induced climate change.”  Alarmists consider the IPCC to be the gold standard of climate science.  “Deniers”, if there is such a thing, consider the IPCC to be an agenda driven agency who would be out of business if they came to any conclusion contrary to human-induced climate change (considered a given fact in their mission statement).  

                The IPCC points to a consensus which is that there is a 90% probability that human actions have caused more than half of the warming measured in the latter part of the 20th century.  Both sides agree that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that carbon dioxide is building up in the atmosphere.  There is disagreement on how much CO2 will build up.  The IPCC computer models suggest it will start rapidly accumulating and reach 836 ppmv by 2100.  The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) follows the measured result, which shows a linear buildup to 570 ppmv by 2100.  The IPCC’s basic claim is that the earth will become less able to absorb the increased CO2, while the SPPI claim is that the math doesn’t support the IPCC claim, and the IPCC is not counting on factors such as increased plant growth, from increased CO2, using up more CO2.  Both sides agree that the increased CO2 should lead to some warming.  The debate is about how much warming will be caused and what can be done about it.  

                Often, lost in the shuffle of the press, is the IPCC story about how they figure on a 3.4 deg. C estimate for temperature increase by the year 2100.  It is actually quite simple.  Carbon dioxide building up in the atmosphere acts as a blanket, which of its own power would be responsible for about 1/3 of the estimate.  The other 2/3 is figured because the temperature rise from the carbon dioxide would then cause increased water vapor, which is a much stronger greenhouse gas, to trap more heat.  The other scenarios they depict are projections of what this extra heat may cause (melting glaciers, rising sea level, droughts, hurricanes, etc.).  

                Those who do not agree with the IPCC assessment are often called “deniers.”  This term applied somewhat to early attempts to deny that there was any climate change happening, by some politically motivated non-scientists.  The current anti-alarmist movement is composed of mostly retired scientists and activists who (contrary to what the popular media generally reports) donate their time and often pay personally for their research.  There are also some current professors such as Richard Lindzen of MIT who vocally speak against the “consensus.”  They will be referred to as skeptics.  There are also a number of ‘skeptical’ statements signed by tens of thousands of scientists.  

                There is also a third group.  In analyzing just about anything, we have to ask is it true or false or how true is it, which is the discussion between the alarmists and the skeptics.  The next question is, if it is true, does it matter?  We could argue all day about the details of Jupiter’s red spot.  We could spend billions of dollars making and sending probes to find out the exact truth, but does it matter?  There is no agreement on this issue either.  Even environmentalist scientists who believe at least somewhat in Global Warming often disagree with the alarmist point of view that it would be a catastrophe.  Dr. Daniel Botkin wrote a piece called Global Warming Delusions (Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, Oct. 21, 2007).  The entire article is worth reading.  I will highlight a few of his statements, as he is possibly the most credentialed person to talk about this subject, a biologist/ecologist who believes  at least somewhat in global warming, and believes the government has a large role to play in protecting the environment.  He is president of the Center for the Study of the Environment and professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara.  

                “I am a biologist and ecologist who has worked on global warming, and been concerned about its effects, since 1968.  I’ve developed the computer model of forest growth that has been used widely to forecast possible effects of global warming on life—I’ve used the model for that purpose myself, and to forecast likely effects on specific endangered species.”  

                “Global warming doesn’t matter except to the extent that it will affect life—ours and that of all living things on Earth.  And contrary to the latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin.  Most evidence suggests the contrary.”  

                “I’m not a naysayer.  I’m a scientist who believes in the scientific method and in what facts tell us.  I have worked for 40 years to try to improve our environment and improve human life as well.  I believe we can do this only from a basis in reality, and that is not what I see happening now. …the popular imagination today appears to have been captured by beliefs that have little scientific basis.”  

                “Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate.  They tell me that my belief in open and honest assessment is naïve.  “Wolves deceive their prey, don’t they?” one said to me recently.  Therefore, biologically, he said, we are justified in exaggerating to get society to change.”  

                “The climate modelers who developed the computer programs that are being used to forecast climate change used to readily admit that the models were crude and not very realistic, but were the best that could be done with available computers and programming methods.  They said our options were to either believe those crude models or believe the opinions of experienced, data-focused scientists.  Having done a great deal of computer modeling myself, I appreciated their acknowledgment of the limits of their methods.  But I hear no such statements today.  Oddly, the forecasts of computer models have become our new reality, while facts such as the few extinctions of the past 2.5 million years are pushed aside, as if they were not our reality.”  

                “My concern is that we may be moving away from an irrational lack of concern about climate change to an equally irrational panic about it.”  

                “Many of my colleagues ask, “What’s the problem?  Hasn’t it been a good thing to raise public concern?”  The problem is that in this panic we are going to spend our money unwisely, we will take actions that are counterproductive, and we will fail to do many of those things that will benefit the environment and ourselves.”  

                “For example, right now the clearest threat to many species is habitat destruction.  Take the orangutans, for instance, one of those charismatic species that people are often fascinated by and concerned about.  They are endangered because of deforestation.  In our fear of global warming, it would be sad if we fail to find funds to purchase those forests before they are destroyed, and thus let this species go extinct.”  

                I agree with Dr. Botkin and consider him an important person in this aspect of the debate for a number of reasons.  First, he is commenting on his profession (biology, ecology) to which he has devoted his life.  If anyone searches the internet on Dr. Botkin, the results are clear that he is passionate about nature.  He has studied the ideas of global warming and its effect on species for many years.  Being this close to the science for this long, I believe he well understands the limitations of climate prediction.  He is also in the position of being an expert on what the results will be to the ecology.  

                I also believe that Dr. Botkin reveals something even more shocking.  The fact that many scientists know that many things pushed by the alarmists are exaggerated or even false, but either aid the falsehoods or say nothing, because they agree with the agenda of deceiving people into changing their behavior to a ‘greener’ way of life [the deception and its results are the problem, as we will later see, not the lifestyle].  If this assertion by Dr. Botkin is true, it would definitely cast a shadow on much of climate science, and cause that we should study everything very closely to determine if the scientific method was used.  Further, one must question if great evils could happen when ‘the ends justify the means’ becomes the mentality.  

                First, let’s go through the science a little closer.  The IPCC claims a 90% probability that more than 50% of the warming in the latter part of the 20th century was caused by man.  Is this scientific?  In this statement is the admission that they simply don’t know.  There is no empirical evidence.  90% is also a number contrived by people paid to “understand the risk of human-induced climate change.”  If there is little or no risk, they have no job.  90% is high enough to get billions of dollars.  It’s just a fact worth looking at.  Would we risk building a 1 million dollar building if there was a 90% chance that the main beam was strong enough to hold the weight?  Not at all.  We would want the engineers to use true science to calculate the beam needed before making the investment.  The politicians would have us invest, by most accounts, hundreds of billions of dollars per year into ‘cap and trade’ schemes on a paid 90% claim.  Why are we making this decision?  Professor James Lovelock, a true believer in environmentalism (you’ll remember him from the Club of Rome and its groups), tells us the story (subtly admitting that he is on the inside of this):  

                “Most of the ‘green’ stuff is verging on a gigantic scam.  Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted [remember these people like Morgan and Rockefeller].  It’s not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it’ll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning.”  (see “One last chance to save mankind”, New Scientist, 23 January 2009)  

                Is carbon trading a scam?  Lord Monckton does the math:  CO2 in 2100 (836 ppmv, UN est.) minus CO2 in 2000 (368 ppmv)=21st century increase (468 ppmv).  Divide by 21 Century warming (3.4 deg. C, UN est)=concentration increase per degree C (140 ppmv/C) X CO2 emissions per ppmv (14,150 million tons CO2)=emissions cuts for 1 deg. C (2 trillion tons).  Divide by Waxman Markey cuts per year (5 billion tons)=years to prevent 1 deg. C warming (400 years) X 100 years warming (3.4 deg. C)=years to stop 100 years warming (1,360 years) X 180 billion/year cost of Waxman Markey=$250 trillion.  

                He’s being sarcastic, but the point is taken.  Carbon trading will cost a lot and do very little.  

                So, from where did this idea for carbon trading come?  The deep studier will find that the recommendations of the Club of Madrid’s ‘Global Leadership for Climate Action’ (GLCA) is the main culprit.  GLCA is actually a joint venture between the Club of Madrid and Ted Turner’s U. N. Foundation.  Among its members is found George Soros who has no training in environmental issues, but has become the world’s 35th richest person, mainly from the derivatives market.  The GLCA recommended either a carbon tax or carbon trading scheme, making it clear that carbon trading (though more difficult to put in place) would cost less and be preferred by industry.  

                Back to the science of global warming.  The next part of the IPCC claim is that 50% of the warming is due to man.  While both sides agree that there has been some warming, the amount is seriously disputed.  Retired Meteorologist Anthony Watts and  Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo have both (mainly at their own expense) documented (after double checking the data with NOAA and NASA’s GISS) that the temperature averages suddenly rose in 1990, just as more than half of the measurement stations in the USSR were closed.  There was also suddenly a difference between the satellite records and the land records.  Joe D’Aleo explains:  

                “At the end of 1989 more than half of the stations in the USSR were shut down.  The bulk of the difference between the satellite and surface trends occurs at the time and location where this network discontinuity occurs.  Hoyt estimates that this “major flaw in the surface network” accounts for half of the observed warming, bringing the satellite and surface trends much closer into agreement.”  (the Hoyt reference is to Douglas Hoyt, a solar physicist and climatologist with nearly 100 published scientific papers to his name).  

                So maybe half the warming IS caused by humans—the humans who shut down the stations. 

  

1990 is an interesting year.

                Another scientific point to discuss is the rate of carbon dioxide buildup.  IPCC estimates 836 ppmv by 2100, SPPI estimates 570 ppmv.  There is agreement that the measured results point to the 570 number where the 846 is based on the opinion (90% certain?) that things will change.  Neither number is totally scientific, as no one knows all the factors involved.  I would assert that the IPCC number is totally unscientific, as it makes assumptions on the unknown.  The 570 ppmv is at least based on a measured and mathematically calculated trend.  It is things like this that cause many scientists, and many of us with a high-school knowledge of the scientific method to question the IPCC.  

                The final science analysis to be done before leaving it to the study of the reader is in the basic idea of global warming.  The idea that increased CO2 will cause increased water vapor to cause the amplified warming effect.  It’s a great theory, but doesn’t pan out in real life.  The IPCC claimed the effect would be greatest in the upper tropical troposphere.  Weather balloons were sent up through the decades to measure and found nothing.  The best the gurus at realclimate seemed to come up with was to nitpick a few (small percentage) of operations errors.  While they may be able to claim that the measurement was not totally accurate, and therefore their theory hasn’t been scientifically disproven, they also must admit (though they don’t) that their attempt to prove it came up negative.  Furthermore, if we take away 2/3 of the projected effect, the 3.4 deg. C turns into 1.1 deg. C (basically not worth the worry).  

                So, it must be admitted that if the science is this unsettled, it seems blatantly dishonest to have presented the issue the way it has been presented.  As far as honesty goes, Climategate was the end of the road for many of the alarmists.  Climategate refers to e-mails between a number of prominent alarmist scientists which were made public in December 2009 by a hacker (maybe whistleblower is a better term).  While the alarmist ‘establishment’ claims the E-mails were embarrassing and showed poor conduct, the skeptics claim it was blatant deception and junk science.  We’ll use one of the most famous as an example and let the reader decide.  

                For background it’s worth mentioning that one of the biggest dividing lines in the climate debate is called the Hockey Stick.  This refers to a graph, created by Michael Mann, which shows a pretty stable planetary temperature for over 1,000 years, ending in a dramatic temperature increase in the latter part of the 20th century, resembling a hockey stick.  Skeptic Steve McIntyre (also mathematical guru) smelled a rat because the widely proven Medieval Warm Period was absent.  McIntyre tried and tried to get Mann’s data (data sharing is normal scientific procedure, as is skepticism).  Mann would not give it to him, afraid he was just trying to find problems.  That’s exactly what should be done.  McIntyre did, however, get enough information and pieced together the mathematical puzzle well enough to prove that the graph had problems.  In 2006, the Wegman Panel (a committee of experts) was appointed to review Mann’s graph.  They stated:  

                “The controversy of Mann’s methods lies in that the proxies are centred on the mean of the period 1902-1995, rather than on the whole time period.  This mean is, thus, actually decentred low, which will cause it to exhibit a larger variance, giving it preference for being selected as the first principal component.”  

                “The net effect of the decentering is to preferentially choose the so-called hockey stick shapes.”  

                     

         Top: Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’ graph.  Bottom: Data corrected version showing the Medieval Warm Period.  

                To translate for us regular people, Mann’s methods made it so that random numbers would produce a hockey stick, thereby proving global warming.  The mathematical problems behind this had already been proven.  The graph was known to be garbage in 2006, but this didn’t stop it from being used by many prominent people afterward (Al Gore being one).  This portion of the Climategate e-mails, deals with the making of this graph, and reveals more than just the mathematical deception uncovered by the Wegman panel.  

                The scientists working on the data which produced the hockey-stick graph used tree rings as temperature proxies for past climate.  It is well known that tree ring measurements are affected by a number of factors, of which temperature is only one.  Keith Briffa (working with Michael Mann on the data) decided to check his tree ring data against actual measured temperature in the timeframe that it was possible.  He found that while the tree ring data often followed temperature, in the latter part of the 20th century, in particular, the measured temperature went up while the tree ring data showed a decline.  Remember that they used this data to hide the Medieval Warm Period.  Tree rings had been proven by thermometers to not record temperature reliably.  Bothered by this, Briffa writes the following E-mail to Mann (the commentary data is derived mainly from John P. Costella’s report ‘Climategate Analysis’):

“I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data” but in reality the situation is not quite so simple.  We don’t have a lot of [temperature] proxies that come right up to [today] and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies) [have] some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming.  I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.” []=added for clarity  

                Let’s analyze what Keith Briffa is saying here.  The IPCC wants (is putting pressure for) a “nice, tidy story” about the “unprecedented” warming we are experiencing.  This research is for the next report by the IPCC, and funding depends on the same.  Briffa then states that it isn’t so simple because the tree proxies don’t match the recent warming (thermometer data).  Basically, he is stating that the tree ring proxies are junk.  He goes on:  

“I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.”  

                This statement supports the Medieval Warm Period, but ruins the argument Mann is trying to make about unprecedented warming.  (Remember, they are trying to use “unprecedented” warming to prove mankind’s causing global warming because the measured temperature in the upper tropical troposphere didn’t support their theory to begin with).  Michael Mann replies to Briffa’s E-mail:  

“I walked into this hornet’s nest this morning!  Keith and Phil [refers to Phil Jones] have both raised some very good points.  And I should point out that Chris [Chris Folland], through no fault of his own, but probably through me not conveying my thoughts very clearly to the others, definitely overstates any singular confidence I have in my own [Mann and coworker’s] results.”  

                So Mann has no confidence in his own work!  No wonder he wouldn’t give any information to Steve McIntyre.  He goes on:  

“I am perfectly amenable to keeping Keith’s series in the graph, and can ask Ian Macadam (Chris?) to add it to the [graph] he has been preparing (nobody liked my own coloring conventions so I’ve given up doing this myself).  The key thing is making sure the [lines] are vertically aligned in a reasonable way.  I had been using the entire 20th century with the corresponding [average] values of the other [lines], due to the late 20th century decline.”  

                Mann wants to use Keith Briffa’s data, but it needs to tell the same story.  

 “So if Chris and Tom (?) are ok with this, I would be happy to add Keith’s [line to the graph].  That having been said, it does raise a conundrum:  We demonstrate … that the major discrepancies between Phil’s and our [line] can be explained in terms of [statistical excuses].  But that explanation certainly can’t rectify why Keith’s, which has similar [properties] to Phil’s, differs in large part in exactly the opposite direction that Phil’s does from ours.  This is the problem we all picked up on—everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably consensus viewpoint we’d like to show with the Jones and Mann results.”  

                Mann incriminates the IPCC with him, showing that they all wanted to show the consensus viewpoint regardless of what the data showed.  Mann now explains what they should have done:  

“So, if we show Keith’s [line] in this plot, we have to comment that “something else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case.  Perhaps Keith can help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the [data] and the potential factors that might lead to it being “warmer” than the Jones and Mann results?  We would need to put in a few words in this regard.  Otherwise, the skeptics would have a field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the … estimates.  I don’t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have to give it fodder.”  

                Mann believes all the lines should agree, though the data doesn’t, but he doesn’t want to give that “fodder” to the critics.  Mann then creates the graph which was actually used in the IPCC report, which has all the lines, but Briffa’s line ends in 1961, and the other proxies end in 1981 so the decline (the proof that the tree rings were worthless as thermometers) is left out.  The next E-mail relating to this is from Phil Jones to Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes, Keith Briffa, and Tim Osborn regarding a diagram for a World Meteorological Organization statement.  It is worth noting that Phil Jones (England) and Mike Mann (USA) are supposed to be doing independent evaluations, so as to confirm (or theoretically disprove) each other’s results.  

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”  

                John P. Costella in his report ‘Climategate Analysis’ describes this sentence this way:  

“Those thirty-three words summarize the hoax so magnificently succinctly that the Nobel Committee should consider retrieving their Peace Prize from the IPCC and Al Gore, and re-issuing it as a Literature Prize to Phil Jones.”  

“This email was sent less than two months after the one analyzed above.  Clearly, Mike Mann’s problems with Keith Briffa’s data—that it didn’t agree with the real temperature measurements from 1961 onwards—had by this time spread to the other “temperature proxies”, albeit only from 1981 onwards.  Jones reveals that Mann did not address this problem by making honest note of it in the paper that he and his co-authors published in Nature, but rather by fraudulently substituting the real temperature data into the graphs, for the past twenty or forty years as required.”  

“That Mann did so would, in and of itself, disqualify him and all of his research from any future consideration in the annals of science; but here we have the other leader of the field, Phil Jones, bragging that he admired the “trick” so much that he adopted it himself.  Moreover, his email was sent to the major players who dominated this field.  It is the silence of these conspirators over the intervening decade that has forever damned the field of “climate science” to a state of irreversible ignominy, and will almost certainly lead to the incarceration of the principal perpetrators in the near future.”  

                John Costella wrote his report just as the Climategate scandal broke, which I read, along with all the E-mails, and found it informative and fascinating.  The one thing he didn’t realize is that the perpetrators of this scam have brought a lot of money to their universities and the administrations are of friendly disposition.  Mann and Jones received a ‘slap on the wrist’ from their respective schools and went right back to work.  To my knowledge, no criminal charges have ever been filed, probably due to the complexity of the issue.  Perhaps Quigley explains it best:  

“…This group, which in the United States, was completely dominated by J. P. Morgan and Company from the 1880’s to the 1930’s was cosmopolitan, Anglophile, internationalist, Ivy League, eastern seaboard, high Episcopalian, and European-culture conscious.  Their connection with the Ivy League colleges rested on the fact that the large endowments of these institutions required constant consultation with the financiers of Wall Street (or its lesser branches on State Street, Boston, and elsewhere) and was reflected in the fact that these endowments, even in 1930, were largely in bonds rather than in real estate or common stocks.  As a consequence of these influences, as late as the 1930’s, J. P. Morgan and his associates were the most significant figures in policy making at Harvard, Columbia, and to a lesser extent Yale, while the Whitneys  were significant at Yale, and the Prudential Insurance Company (through Edward D. Duffield) dominated Princeton” (Page 937).  

                Quigley goes on to explain how the major players at the major Universities were chosen by the international bankers.  If this still happens today (I’m sure grants are still given today, and logic would say there are strings attached  [see http://sppiblog.org/news/4527#more-4527]), it would well explain why investigations into climate scientists didn’t go very far.  Another factor would be that it would be easy to confuse many outside people when arguing about statistics or climate science.  The insiders, as we have seen, have already  chosen their sides.  

                But why would the International Bankers or the Roundtable Groups care at all about climate science?  Why is there an agenda to explain climate alarmism in a “nice, tidy story” so average dummies, like myself, can understand?  What is the IPCC not telling us (or is it telling us everything)?  

One ResponseLeave one →

  1. Brinton

     /  August 11, 2011

    Just a quick update on the Climate debate. See: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45447
    The claim that Global Warming was killing the Polar Bears was proven incorrect long ago, but it is finally coming under investigation.

    Reply

Leave a Reply