Anthropogenic climate change is the hypothesis (not a theory) that CO2 is causing global warming. But what if it’s not true? What if we are being lied to? Could it all just be a ruse to make money? Maybe.
I am a climate change sceptic. This does not mean that I am sceptical about climate change.
How can that be?
Firstly I’d just like to say goodbye to all the people who have just stopped reading this. You see for them, there is no doubt. The climate change debate is over. The results are in and I’m clearly one of those insane heretics who should be boiled with all the other frogs. I understand Stalin shared a similar perspective.
This is just one of the problems faced by anyone who dares to challenge the hypothesis (and it is a hypothesis) of man-made (or anthropogenic) global warming. Contrary to popular belief it’s actually fine to debate it, no matter how angry other people get when you do.
Of course if you publicly declare that you are not a ‘true believer’ you will be accused of a range of crimes against humanity.
At one end of the accusation spectrum is the simple suspicion that you’re an idiot (admittedly this has some merit in my particular case.) However, if you persist, the rage will rapidly escalate, heaping ever more vitriol upon you, until you become Satan’s henchman or (even worse) an oil company employee (bastard!!)
I speak from amused experience. Maybe I’m a masochist?
Still none of this is particularly surprising seeing as we all know, or at least we should, that 97% of the world’s leading climate scientists agree that CO2 emissions are lethal.
This is something that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have busted a gut to drill into our tiny minds. We simply MUST accept that we are silly humans who are killing the planet by living on it.
They then go on to tell us that unless we (meaning you and I) ‘do something’ about climate change we are, scientifically speaking, “fucked.”
The oceans will rise, crops will fail, the plankton will die, ecosystems will collapse and all life on this planet (especially yours and your children’s) will be extinguished in a completely avoidable and stupid way.
Wow! Pretty alarming stuff. I don’t know about you but that all sounds absolutely terrifying.
Ok so I’m paraphrasing the anthropogenic global warming dictum but I’m sure you’re familiar with the tale. Even the most casual of observers must have got the message by now. The climate debate is officially over. How could anybody miss it?
It’s on the news, in the news, it is the news. It’s taught to our children at school (whether we like it or not,) broadcast constantly in the mainstream media and is apparently the direst issue ever faced by mankind.
Of course, part of this is actually true. Not the science bit (that isn’t) but the bit about the debate being over.
For the first time ever in the history of science (well, apart from the Manhattan project) there is no debate. And the world’s political leaders have not been shy about telling us that the scientific arguments are over.
Here’s an example.
“. . . . the debate is over. Climate change is a fact”
[Barrack Obama President of the United States in his 2014 State of the Union Address.]
Hmmm. Science without debate? How peculiar.
However, this is a very specific use of language. Saying ‘climate change’ is a fact is a bit like saying ‘water’ is wet.
As I said earlier I am a “climate change sceptic.” But this does not mean I reject the evidential fact that the Earth’s climate changes.
There is absolutely no doubt at all that climate changes. Moreover there isn’t one single (serious) “climate change sceptic” who claims otherwise.
There are many who want to give the impression that the sceptics deny “climate change” but they don’t. That suggestion is a lie.
Every single serious “climate change sceptic” accepts that the planet goes through thermal cycles. At times it cools at others it warms. This, they argue, is due to a number of factors including, among others, the Earth’s variable orbit, alignment of the poles, seismic and solar activity etc.
Furthermore all these “climate change sceptics” accept that, since the late 1970’s (at least) the general trend has been global warming (although it’s actually cooled a bit since the late 20th century.)
So what, you may ask, is all the fuss about?
Well, initially we need to briefly look at how the climate change “consensus” has unfolded and also how the current narrative has helped to shape the political debate.
A Brief History of Anthropogenic Global Warming and the IPCC.
Since the industrial revolution, from the early part of the 19th Century onwards, we humans have steadily increased the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.
In 1975 Wallace Broecker published a paper entitled: “Climate Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?” This paper prompted a flurry of further research with opinion fairly evenly divided between scientist who accepted and others who questioned Broeckers projections.
In 1988 two UN bodies, ‘the World Meteorological Organization’ and ‘the United Nations Environment Programme’ created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC.) The IPCC remit was to assess “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.”
This is an important statement because it shows that the IPCC was established on the understanding that anthropogenic global warming, which they initially called “human-induced climate change,” was an accepted risk. So, from the outset, the IPCC wholeheartedly accepted that CO2 emissions were driving climate change.
Whatever anyone says about the scientific consensus that exists in 2016, no one can legitimately suggest that anthropogenic global warming was an indisputable scientific fact in 1988. And yet the IPCC was formed on the basis that it was.
Another thing to note about the IPCC is that they were formed by the U.N. They did not come together as a group of concerned scientists who needed to tell the world about the impending apocalypse. They were formed as a political organisation by the politicians.
Since 1988 the IPCC has written five “assessment reports,” referred to as AR1 to AR5 respectively. Their AR1 report served as the basis for negotiating the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). AR2 led to the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol to UNFCCC in 1997 and AR3 led to Agenda 21 and so on.
So the IPCC has been the central authority on global climate change since its inception. Governments have created a range of policy initiatives based upon the IPCC assessment reports. These policies often stem from the Conference of Parties (COP) where the world’s leaders meet to discuss the IPCC findings. Recently COP21 convened in Paris following the IPCC AR5 report.
The IPCC, we are told, has helped us to understand that the increasing rate of large scale industrialisation, since WW2, has belched out so much dirty, filthy CO2 that the planet is now heating up at an unprecedented rate. This rise in temperature is actually dangerous and may result in catastrophic consequences for our species (and all the other ones too.)
So, given all this, what do I mean when I say I’m a climate change sceptic?
Well, quite simply, I believe that pretty much everything we have been told about (man-made) anthropogenic global warming appears to be evidentially false.
Not only that, everything we have been told about the supposed scientific consensus is also apparently false.
Some may even think it’s a deliberate lie. (I do.)
Reasons To Be Sceptical About The IPCC and Athropogenic Global Warming.
Look, I am no scientist. Minds, far better than mine, have argued the science for many years. But nor am I a complete dullard. And neither are you.
My understanding of climate change, just like yours probably, comes partly from my limited ability to understand the science (I read the scientific papers, I just don’t understand them.) However, as a layman, my understanding predominantly comes from what I am ‘told’ by the ‘experts.’
This, I feel, is an overwhelmingly common experience. In fact I would suggest that the millions of people who are currently “absolutely certain” that the climate change debate is over, know about as much about climate science as I do.
So my scepticism hasn’t come from my profound understanding of the science of climate change because I have none to this day. Rather it came from my reasonable suspicion that much of what we have been told appears to be deliberately biased.
My unease started when I discovered that those who told me that I’m responsible for destroying the planet I live on, had carefully selected the science they chose to share with me.
It deepened further when I discovered “the statistics” I have been “shown” told only a tiny part of the climate story. It became more entrenched when I discovered that many of “the facts” that I’ve been given were not “facts” at all.
But the last two nails in the lid of my own particular sceptic’s coffin have nothing at all to do with science.
Quite simply it seems the people who claim to be the world’s leading experts on climate change, the ones who advise all of the planets policy makers, not only have vested interests in maintaining the anthropogenic global warming theory but aren’t “all of the world’s leading experts” either.
One should always be suspicious of “experts” I feel. ‘Ex,’ as in ‘has been’ and ‘spurt’ as in ‘drip under pressure.’ (I’d just like to thank my dad for that particular pearl of wisdom.)
But the real clincher is that the global, corporate and financial oligarchy, who rule this planet, stand to make $Trillions from the policies they have created in response to IPCC alarm.
It’s all about making money you see. A shed load of it.
Think not? Well let’s take a closer look at some of the “facts” we have been told.
Reason to Question Athropogenic Global Warming Science?
The IPCC use data collected from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) to show us all what this looks like (see below.)
This clearly shows an average global temperature rise of approximately 1 degree Celsius between the late 19th century and today. Furthermore the IPCC have used this data to state that about 66% of that global warming has occurred in the post ww2 period. This, they say, is because of increased CO2 emissions.
To further support their case for anthropogenic global warming, the IPCC used the now infamous “Hockey Stick Graph” to show the apparent alarming rate of global warming by displaying the global temperature over the last 1000 years.
The “hockey stick” graph was the result of the first comprehensive attempt to reconstruct the average northern hemisphere temperature over the past 1000 years, based on numerous indicators of past temperatures, such as tree rings. It shows temperatures holding fairly steady until the last part of the 20th century and then suddenly shooting up.
It has been widely used by the IPCC most notably in their AR3 report in 2001. However it is perhaps most famous for its prominence in Al Gore’s 2006 movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”
That seems pretty conclusive then. Case closed. Turn the TV off and get peddling.
The only slight problem with this is that it’s utterly meaningless because it is based upon heavily manipulated data. In fact, it is this manipulation of data that should raise doubt for anyone who is aware of it.
In 2009 the Climategate Scandal broke. Over one thousand emails from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (CRU) were “hacked.” I say hacked because this is what was widely reported. However there is no evidence at all that it was hacked, all we know is that a person going by the handle of ‘FOIA’ released the data. It is just as likely that it was ‘leaked’, probably by a disgruntled researcher who couldn’t put up with the scam any longer.
These emails revealed that the CRU had deliberately altered some of the data to fit in with the theory of anthropogenic global warming. In particular emails between the director of the CRU Phil Jones and some leading contributory researchers seemed to indicate a determined attempt to falsify research.
In an email to Michael Mann’s team (the guy who produced the hockey stick graph) Phil Jones said: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Decline? What decline? And what is Mike’s Nature trick?
Prompted by these questions the CRU received a number of Freedom of Information Requests (F.O.I) to reveal the raw data so that other scientists could verify their work.
Now in the U.K an F.O.I requires public funded bodies, such as the CRU, to release information upon receipt of a formal request. However when researchers tried to secure this data the CRU initially refused to publish it.
They did subsequently release the raw data and it showed that, far from rapidly increasing, surface temperature recordings showed that the temperature had been in ‘decline’ since 1998. ‘Mike’s nature trick’ was to add recent recorded surface temperatures to the projections from the historical tree ring data.
Voila! A decline becomes a massive increase.
Turns into this:
Guess which one the IPCC chose to use.
Now the green lobby has claimed that the 2009 ClimateGate proved nothing. They assert that sceptics have misinterpreted both these emails and the data. This opinion has been wholeheartedly endorsed by the establishment.
Sir Muir Russell led a six-month inquiry into the affair and said the “rigour and honesty” of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) were not in doubt.
Yet in 2010 the U.K Information Commissioner’s confirmed that CRU had twice broken the Freedom of Information regulations – once by ignoring the request, and twice by refusing the actual data. Theses breaches carry a civil penalty in British Law.
Despite Sir Muir Russell’s opinion, the fact is that the CRU broke the law. No one at the CRU has ever been held accountable for these crimes.
This is far from the only time the data used to inform the IPCC conclusions has been brought into question. There are numerous incidents where some research, included in the IPCC reports, appears to be based upon manipulated or heavily skewed data.
One of the IPCC claims was that 2014 was the “hottest ever year.” This data was offered by GISS but recording sites listed by NOAA show that, in South America for example, NOAA has very few temperature stations in the areas which supposedly recorded a rise.
When researcher Paul Homewood looked more closely at the data he discovered that, for an area covering 1.6million square kilometres there were a total of 3 temperature recording stations.
Focusing upon 1 of the 3 rural recording stations in Paraguay (Puerto Casado,) he gathered the raw data. GISS reported that this data looked like this:
But when Homewood mapped the raw data it looked like this:
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the GISS data largely came from the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN), managed by the US National Climate Data Center under NOAA, which in turn comes under the US Department of Commerce. Again, very obviously, this organisation is beholding to the politicians. This is not a trustworthy source for “unbiased” and objective scientific opinion.
Furthermore, in the early 1990’s, the number of stations more than halved, from 12,000 to less than 6,000 – and most of those remaining are concentrated in urban areas or places where studies have shown that readings can be up to 2 degrees higher than in the rural areas. The vast majority of the stations removed were in rural areas.
But these are just the tip of the iceberg (pardon the pun.) There are literally thousands of reports of this kind of manipulated data.
For example, in New Zealand, there was a major academic row when “unadjusted” data showing no notable trend between 1850 and 1998 was shown to have been “adjusted” to give a warming trend of 0.9 degrees per century. This falsified new version was of course cited in an IPCC report.
In effect, that pattern that emerges throughout all of these questionable scientific studies is that historical temperatures are reduced and the computer models predicting future temperatures are increased.
But more than that, it is also clear that the IPCC tend to pick the studies which support their anthropogenic global warming theory whilst rejecting those that raise any doubt.
For example the 2200 page IPCC AR5 Synthesis report (the one that brings all the studies together) has approximately 2 pages of content that speaks about the Sun. You know, the big yellow thing that provides all of the energy on the planet.
They are so convinced that solar activity has nothing to do with climate change that they have dedicated 0.1% of their efforts to the subject.
Now, as I keep saying, I’m no scientist but even I can figure out that the Sun must have something to do with the Earth’s climate?
And I’m not alone in this opinion. Between 2008 and 2012 there were 123 published, peer reviewed papers that questioned the IPCC’s conclusions from previous reports. The IPCC chose to include a total of none of these papers in their collation of the peer reviewed papers.
So there is plenty of reason to be sceptical about some of the IPCC’s claims about climate research and the supposed scientific “consensus.”
It is also justifiable to be less than convinced about the IPCC’s climate predictions.
The IPCC Anthropogenic Global Warming Prediction Problem.
Firstly the IPCC claims that the rate of warming is “unprecedented”, meaning it’s never happened before. Except that it has. Many, many times.
Climate change occurs over hundreds and thousands of years. What the IPCC is “showing” us is a very, very small slice of climate change data. With the exception of the discredited “hockey stick” most of the IPCC graphs that we are shown in the media relate to the warming period since the 19th century.
Using this sample size to conclude that the planets climate change is “unprecedented” is a bit like declaring that all food on the planet is poisonous because you ate a dodgy curry last night. It is evidentially unprovable.
False in other words.
So, if the IPCC claim is correct, we need to evaluate over a much longer timescale than the last 140 years.
We can do this by looking at the ice core data from the Greenland ice sheet. This shows temperature variation over the last 10,000 years.
The IPCC statistics that we are “given” relates mainly to the tiny little red bit at the end of the ice core graph above.
As you can see we are currently in a cooler than average period. In fact (“fact” as in evidentially provable) of the last 10,000 years approximately 8,500 of them have been considerably warmer than the one we’re in now. The overall trend (shown by the green “average” curve) has been cooling.
We somehow managed to survive these years despite the fact that we had nothing like the advanced technology that we have today. One wonders what the IPCC inspired doom merchants are so scared off.
The IPCC and its supporters have been quick to state that this ice core data only demonstrates temperatures in the northern hemisphere. They claim that, unlike their own high quality data, this only gives a partial picture whereas they have collated data from across the globe.
The only slight problem with this argument is that, of all the data they have collated, these ice core records are not among them.
Why not? Could it be because it doesn’t “fit in” with their climate models or the narrative we are being given?
In all honesty I don’t know, but the mere fact that so much research is entirely absent from their reports raises significant questions.
But even the IPCC accept the veracity of this study so, in reality, rather than ‘spin land,’ we are not in an unprecedented warm period in the northern hemisphere. We’re actually in a relatively innocuous colder period.
That’s not what we’re told though is it?
“Aaah yes.” Say the IPCC “but it’s the rate of warming that is unprecedented.”
The only slight problem with that “fact” is that it isn’t one. A look at the ice record above shows us that during the Medieval Warming period (which was by no means the most dramatic) the temperature shift was far more marked than anything we are seeing today.
We can see there have been several periods of very rapid change in the Earth’s climate throughout its geological history. The Minoan and Roman warming for example. It is true that we are currently in a period of global warming but it is neither remarkable nor anything to be particularly alarmed about.
Indeed warming isn’t really a problem. When the Earth has been much warmer than it is today it has usually coincided with periods of greater biodiversity, not less.
The real global species killer has always been a rapid cooling. The last mini ice age (the Maunder Minimum) ended in the early part of the 18th Century. Unsurprisingly (seeing as we are not currently in an ice age) the planet has been warming ever since.
Scientists are not sure about the precise factors that prompted these dramatic climates changes. Though there is clear evidence to suggest that it was closely related to solar activity.
However, whatever did cause them, it certainly was not the industrial activity of man.
But it is when we look more closely at the climate change models that supposedly predict the future (a first for science, some might say) that a great many more questions arise.
According to the IPCC, anthropogenic global warming will potentially cause between a 2 degree and a 4.8 degree Celsius rise in average global temperature over the next century. Such a dramatic climate shift will cause sea levels to rise of between 26 and 82 centermeters.
“Without adaptation, hundreds of millions of people will be affected by coastal flooding and will be displaced due to land loss by year 2100”
[Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) 2015 AR5 Report]
The IPCC claim that this will occur primarily due to the thermal expansion of the oceans, melting sea ice, glaciers and increased precipitation.
However, it gets worse. Much worse.
We will also see an increase in “extreme weather events.” More droughts, more floods, more storm surges, forest fires, crop failure, population shift away from coastal areas and disruption to the food chain causing global famine. This is not an exhaustive list (far from it) but you get the idea. Or rather you’ve been given the idea.
The IPCC are fond of issuing, or supporting, these kind of alarmist statements. But they are not the only ones. A number of both governmental and non-governmental organisations have issued some frightening future projections.
“The alarming rate of change we are now witnessing in our climate as a result of greenhouse gas emission is unprecedented in modern records.”
[The U.N body the World Meteorological Organisation]
“The January-November 2010 surface temperature anomalies are the warmest (along with 2005) in the 131 year analysis period. Global warming amounts to 0.8 °C over the past century, with the largest warming in remote regions including high latitudes”
[ NASA GISS ]
“The UK has experienced 9 of the 10 warmest years on record since 1990”
[ UK Met Office ]
“Eleven of the 12 hottest years on record have occurred since 2001”
[ World Meteorological Organisation ]
“Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850”
[ IPCC AR5 2013 ]
“Population displacement could increase tensions and potentially the risks of conflict.”
[The U.N body the World Health Orgainistion WHO]
With all these august bodies making such awful predictions of calamity shouldn’t we all be terrified? Well I certainly think that’s the idea.
However, maybe not. When we look at some of the alarmist predictions, and compare them the evidential reality, they start to appear to be little more than scaremongering.
For example, In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010.
I don’t know about you but, in 2016, I’m not really aware of millions of climate refugees on our planet.
Millions of refugees from conflict and war certainly, but climate refugees, no!
You need to understand that the IPCC projections, and many of their conclusions, are based upon their climate models. These are essentially computer programs which researchers use to predict future climate change.
The IPCC puts a great deal of faith into these models but, as with any computer program, their results are entirely dependent upon the quality of the data being put into them.
This seems even more odd when the IPCC themselves have stated that their own models can’t really work.
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
[IPCC Working Group 1 for AR4 – 2007]
All of the models referenced by the IPCC assume that CO2 is a considerable driver of climate change. However many scientists have raised concerns that this is not the case.
For example The UK Met Office model HadCM3 was used in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (AR3, 2001) and model HadGEM1 used in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4, 2007).
These earlier model produced future temperature predictions that looked very alarming. However even the IPCC ws forced to scale back upon its more dramatic predictions and by AR5 a less dramatic rise was predicted.
This has prompted the following statement from the IPCC:
“(there is) a net energy uptake of the earth system … it is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations.”
[IPCC AR5, 2013]
Now remember, we are told categorically by the media, NGO’s, government and some high profile scientists that the scientific debate is over.
So some of you may be surprised to read the following statement from a former NASA scientists.
“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!”
[NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein]
Logically, before you can simply accept what the IPCC says, you must seek to understand why a respected scientist would say something like this. Not doing so would be intellectually lazy in the extreme.
It is perhaps important here to establish the difference between a scientific hypothesis and an accepted theory.
A hypothesis proposes a possible explanation for observable data. Scientists are duty bound to try to disprove that argument through experimentation. Only after all avenues to test the hypothesis are exhausted and all experimental data supports the hypothesis, without exception, can it ever become an accepted theory.
This is an essential tenet of the scientific method.
If “anyone” can present data that refutes the hypothesis then it has not been proven. It remains a hypothesis, not an accepted theory. Effectively the argument cannot be proven and further research must be undertaken. The theory is not sound.
As we have already discussed the IPCC was founded upon the principle that anthropogenic climate change was an accepted risk.
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations.”
[IPCC AR4, 2007]
We are told this is the “theory” of anthropogenic climate change. The hypothesis has been proven in other words.
So logically there cannot be any data measurements that do not fit in with the hypothesis. If there are any at all, the hypothesis must logically remain “unproven.”
Below is a graph that shows data gathered from NOAA (as a great deal of the IPCC data is.) The blue line shows average global surface temperatures and the red line depicts the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 levels since the mid 1950’s.
As you can see, whilst the general temperature trend has been upwards, there are two distinct periods where the CO2 levels were rising yet surface temperatures were declining.
This does not fit in with the hypothesis that CO2 causes global warming. Remeber what the IPCC states is that their is a causal relationship between CO2 and increasing temperature. It states that man made CO2 is “causing” global warming.
Therefore further investigation is necessary before “anthropogenic climate change” can move from hypothesis to accepted theory. Perhaps if we look at temperature and CO2 levels over a longer timeframe we’ll have a better idea.
The two graphs below show temperature variation and recorded CO2 levels at the Greenland Ice Sheet over the past 11000 years. The blue line is temperature and the red CO2.
It clearly shows that temperature has fluctuated dramatically despite a relatively steady increase in CO2 levels over the last 7000 years.
Of particular interest to us is the record over the last 4000 years.
Despite an increasing rate rise of CO2 levels, the temperature trend has clearly been downwards. This simply does not fit with the hypothesis that CO2 is driving global warming.
The hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming is evidentially unproven.
So concerned are many scientists about the apparent lack of scientific rigour in the IPCC models that more than 31,000 of them are signatories to the Non Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
They point out that it is not only hard to see how CO2 can be the driver of climate change but also the IPCC models are obviously wrong because they assume an unproven hypothesis as fact.
Yet this is probably the first time you’ve heard about the NIPCC isn’t it? You really should be asking yourself why?
The first IPCC models related to data sets spanning back to the late 1980’s. Therefore scientists have now had nearly 30 years of real measurements to compare to the models predictions.
The graph below shows the various IPCC model predictions. Each coloured region corresponds to a particular model used in an IPCC report.
The black squares show actual recorded temperatures.
This clearly shows that the temperature data is consistently at the low end or below the IPCC model predictions.
The fact is that many scientists doubt the IPCC’s conclusions.
“CO2 has not a causal relation with global warming … the main argument is the absence of immediate correlation between CO2 changes preceding temperature”
[ Soares, 2010 ]
Due to the availability of real measurments that coincide with IPCC predictions it is abundently clear to many scientists that the IPCC predictions are wildly innacurate in their upper range and only partially accurate at the lower range. When the NIPCC mapped the average IPCC prediction (shown by the red line below) against the actual temperature measurments (blue & green), the innacuracy of IPCC alarmism appears even more rediculous.
So, given all this clear scientific debate, how and why are we told that there is almost universal agreement amongst the scientific community that anthropogenic global warming is a threat to our lives?
The Anthropogenic Global Warming 97% Consensus Farce.
As I have repeatedly said, I am not a scientist. However you don’t need to be a scientist to establish that the debate over whatever is causing climate change is far from over.
But it is when you look at the fervent demands of the establishment that we should unquestionably accept the ‘proven’ case for anthropogenic global warming that things really start to look “fishy.”
Let’s take a closer look at the oft quoted statement that 97% of scientists agree that we’re all doomed, unless we stop burning fossil fuels.
This first appeared, in the form it’s used today, in a 2009 article in “Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union” by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran.
Yes, you did read that correctly. Maggie Zimmerman was a student when she made the 97% consensus suggestion.
Now I’m sure Mrs Zimmerman is far cleverer than I but, when she made her findings public, a world leading authority on climate change she was not.
But how she came to the 97% figure beggars belief.
Mrs Zimmerman collated papers from 3146 scientists. Of these only 79 past her ‘climate scientist’ test. That is that at least 50% of their peer reviewed papers were focused upon climate change. Of these 79 people 97% agreed that anthropogenic global warming was likely to be the cause of recent temperature change.
So that’s 77 out of 3146. (Don’t laugh.)
I’m no genius but that seems kind of short of a consensus to me.
Others, eager to prove the 97% consensus have had a go but have singularly failed to do so. Frankly the 97% consensus has been. . . . . . . er . . . . . . made up!
So maybe we should look to the “world’s leading experts” on climate change. The IPCC.
After all they claim to represent 2500 of the most eminently qualified climate scientists on the Planet.
But hang on doesn’t the NIPCC have 31,000 signatories (more than 9000 with PHD’s?) That’s more than 10 times as many “scientists” as the IPCC claims to represent and by far the largest collection of scientific opinion on the subject. So what have they said?
“there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
But they are not the “accepted” authority that we are all told to pay heed to, are they?
So let’s pretend that we can completely ignore this massive swathe of scientific opinion. Let’s just look at the IPCC’s claim to be representative of the world’s leading experts on climate change.
We can do this thanks to the work of one woman. Rather than simply accept everything that she was being told by the IPCC, in 2010 Donna Laframboise was the only investigative journalist on the planet who actually checked to see if the IPCC’s claims about itself were justified.
You may ask yourself why no one else in the mainstream media bothered to do so.
Regardless of whether or not we can accept that a scientific consensus exists, The IPCC claim that all of their reports are based upon the very best “peer reviewed” papers.
“The IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.”
[Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman – 2009]
In response to such statements Laframboise decided to check each of the papers cited in the IPCC’s 2007 AR4 report. With more than 18,000 references to check Laframboise sought help from a team of volunteers and commissioned something she called the citizens audit.
Their findings were startling.
Of the total 18,531 papers 5,587 were not peer-reviewed. Among these documents were press releases, newspaper and magazine articles, discussion papers, MA and PhD theses, working papers, and advocacy literature published by environmental groups.
In 21 of the 44 chapters in the IPCC’s 2007 report more than 40% of the papers were not peer reviewed.
But we’re not told this.
OK! So if we ignore the fact that clearly there is no scientific consensus; if we disregard the fact that the IPCC has mislead people about its own standards of scientific rigour at least we can be assured that the IPCC is an unbiased and objective scientific body.
Surely they are at least that?
Well no actually. Remember the IPCC was created by the U.N. So from its very inception it was, and remains, an overtly political institution. A fact that becomes glaringly obvious when we look at those who contribute to its findings.
The IPCC is full of scientists with strong links to environmental and green activist groups.
Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing at all against people expressing passionately held beliefs. However, if a body is supposed to be the ultimate bastion of scientific opinion (upon whose guidance I am forcibly told to rely,) it absolutely does matter to me if the people who produce the reports have very large axes to grind.
“……..important factors are scientific integrity, objectivity, openness and transparency, achieved through a rigorous review process for all IPCC reports.”
[World Meteorological Association]
So I would expect the IPCC to be guided by neutral, dispassionate, disinterested scholars.
But that is not the case.
Of the hundreds of people who contribute to the IPCC reports only 71 were ‘selected’ to work on the 5th synthesis reports. Also known as the AR5. These are the final reports that are disseminated to the media and then, via the global news network, to us.
One of these leading summary writers was the astrophysicist Michael Oppenheimer. He has been employed by the very wealthy Environmental Defence Fund (EDF) for more than 20 years. He led the writing of Chapter 19 (Emergent Risks and Key Vulnerabilities)
Another was Australian marine biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg. He has over 20 years of close ties to activist groups like the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace. He was the lead on Chapter 30 (Open Oceans).
Then there’s Dr Alistair Woodward. He has previously written that, with regard to climate change, “we need to move beyond dissent and denial” and “The science demands action.” He was in charge of Chapter 11 (Human Health).
These men may be brilliant minds but, with regard to anthropogenic global warming, you cannot consider them to be even remotely objective.
Imagine if you read an official scientific report on “The Minimal Effects of Chocolate Consumption on Childhood Obesity.” Then discovered that it was written by a team who worked for Nestle.
How much faith could you place in such a report?
And yet you are told that you should have complete faith in the IPCC. It is being rammed down your throat.
“Some may still deny the overwhelming judgement of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, crippling drought, and more powerful storms.”
[U.S President Barrack Obama 2013]
Then we have the case of “coordinating lead IPCC author” Richard Klein. In 1997 Klein became the youngest ever coordinating author.
In IPCC terminology this means that he was in charge of collating all the papers for final chapters in the AR reports. Between 1997 and 2003 he led on this crucial task no less than 3 times. He was grandiosely declared by the IPCC as one of the “the world’s leading climate experts.”
Impressive! The only slight issue you may have with this is that Richard didn’t achieve his PhD until 2003. He was a graduate student throughout this period.
The IPCC claim that their publications are written by the world’s greatest experts in climate science (which incidentally isn’t even a science at all but rather a range of scientific opinion from many different disciplines) is simply not true.
So as we can see there are good reasons to question the legitimacy of the IPCC as an objective scientific body. Obviously it isn’t. Similarly it is clear there is no real consensus amongst scientists and the debate regarding anthropogenic global warming is not over.
So why, given this level of uncertainty, would governments be so keen to wholeheartedly endorse questionable science? More surprisingly, why would global capitalists and oil oligarchs be eager to convince you that you need to adopt a smaller “carbon footprint?”
Why would energy and oil companies, like Enron and BP, be pushing an agenda which, on the face of it, threatens their own business model?
Of course most global warming alarmists will be apoplectic with indignation at this question.
How dare I suggest that global capitalists and the evil oil companies are behind the so called “green agenda?”
However the fact remains that they are.
As ever the truth can be revealed if we simply “follow the money.”
The Money To Be Made From Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Firstly we have the $90 trillion of global energy investments pledges that have emerged from COP21 Paris conference. Now the green lobby will say “quite right too.” However few, if any, ever ask why huge global corporations such as General Electric, DuPont, Johnson & Johnson, Pepsi, Siemens, AIG, BP, ConocoPhillips, GM and many more would be so eager to invest in green initiatives.
Why would big pharma, oil companies, car manufacturers and junk food pedlars be so environmentally conscientious? Especially when green initiatives would seem to be an existential threat to their own business.
Why would EDF, Engie, Air France, Renault, BNP Paribas and a host of other big polluters fund the Paris conference?
I don’t know. Maybe they’ve all recently developed a social conscience?
But just before we assume that’s the case let’s see if we can identify any possible ulterior motives.
Let’s take a look at the Green Climate Fund.
The Green Climate Fund was established following COP16 to supposedly facilitate investment from massive financial interests in developed countries into “green infrastructure initiatives” in developing countries.
So that means building up a staggering amount of taxpayers money and then spending a bit of it on green infrastructure projects, that will be run for the profit of the multinationals that implement them, using the “investment capital” they’ve so generously taken from you.
The objective is to construct an investment portfolio worth a projected $100 billion per year by 2020.
This will, of course, be administered by bankers and global oligarchs like the Rothschild’s and the Rockefeller’s. A fact that has not gone entirely unnoticed.
“For some, another contentious issue is that the GCF is flowing its money mainly through international organizations, such as multilateral or private banks such as the World Bank and Deutsche Bank — rather than sending it directly to institutions in developing countries where the projects are taking place.”
[Nature Magazine – International Journal of Science]
So with global “one world government” oligarchs behind this massive slush fund you might expect a bit of global government propaganda from them. In fact, so proud are they of their global government ambitions that they openly advocate it:
“a new and equitable form of global governance to respond to the global challenge of climate change”
[Green Climate Fund]
Yet this is all just the tip of the iceberg. In November 2015 Global finance for “green initiatives” reached a staggering $391 billion per annum.
So does this mean the oligarchs that rule the planet have finally turned over a new leaf and discovered their love for humanity?
Well let’s see how these global “green investments” actually impact upon people. You know the real, working people of this planet. The 99.999% of us that aren’t global, collectivist capitalists. How is all this green love playing out for us?
The European Union’s emissions trading system (ETS) is the largest single carbon “cap and trade” scheme on the planet.
What cap and trade schemes mean is that polluters require “permits” to put CO2 into the atmosphere. So big European polluters like Associated British Foods can purchase “carbon credits” to offset against their emissions. The idea is that the number of permits is progressively reduced thereby forcing polluters to reduce the amount of CO2 they put into the atmosphere.
This is a good thing say those who want to convince us that CO2 is a terrible menace.
And why wouldn’t they want to convince us when the market they have created for these “credits” is worth an estimated €150 billion per year. That’s right these “pollution permits” have a monetary value and are traded just like stocks and shares.
So see if you can get your head around this. 20 years ago this market did not exist. It was not possible to trade “carbon credits.” That economic value was completely non-existent.
But if you convince everybody that CO2 is going to kill them then Voila! You have created a multi-trillion dollar business overnight.
And who are the people who are profiting from this? That’s right. The same banksters and global capitalists who own the corporations that are supposedly polluting the planet in the first place.
If this stuff doesn’t make you cry it sure should make you laugh.
Then there’s the lunacy of things like the U.N’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM.) This allows huge multinational to “offset” their own emissions by “trading” up to 50% of their emission total against “green infrastructure initiatives” in developing countries.
So effectively this enables the big corporations to carry on emitting CO2 providing that they can demonstrate that they’ve stopped a developing country from doing the same.
It seems that the technological advantages that come from the industrialisation of an economy; the economic growth that generally benefits everybody in an industrialised nation; the mechanism that provides us in the west with all the amenities we enjoy, is actively being stifled and suffocated for the developing nations.
Lets’ take the example of the people of Kauguda village in the Kalahandi district of Odisha, one of the poorest districts in India.
The basic CDM plan, funded by the World Banks so called “Bio Carbon Fund” was to create CO2 sinks in the Odisha district by planting Eucalyptus forests. By doing this big polluters like, oh I don’t know, multi-national paper mill industrialists, could carry on chugging out their CO2. They could do this because of their commitment to CDM.
The front companies for this little scheme in the region was JK Paper ltd whose board chairman, Shri. Harsh Pati Singhania, is President of ICC India (International Chamber of Commerce – India.)
JK paper convinced the local farmers, who up to that point had maintained a meagre yet sustainable existence from their farm land, to give up farming in exchange for forestry. JK paper told them that they could then sell the timber to their local JK paper mill.
So poor unfortunate souls like Kauguda farmer Dinabandhu Gand were told by JK paper that they could stop farming, receive high quality saplings and technical support, help with land management and harvesting and dramatically improve their family’s future.
Encouraged by the promise of a better life Dinabandhu was given a loan of Rs 50,000 from the local branch of a regional rural bank (supported by the Bio Carbon Fund.) From that “loan” Dinabandhu was compelled to spend Rs 30,000 on saplings from, you guessed it, JK Paper. JK gave him 4000 saplings in return. So these were pretty expensive saplings.
However 4 years later, having spent all of the original money on fertiliser and labour costs Dinabandhu had to flee to Mumbai to escape crippling debt and to work as a factory labourer.
70 of the original 4000 saplings survived, his farm land was ruined beyond repair and JK paper, having done quite nicely out of the initial loan deal, never gave him the support they promised. Eucalyptus plantations across the region sucked all the water out of the land, increasing the risk of drought and destroying communities that had lived there for countless generations.
Not very “green” or humanitarian really.
But looking closer to home what is this bourgeoning Carbon Trading economy likely to offer us.
“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. . . . . . that will cost money, they will pass that money (cost) onto consumers.”
[U.S President Barrack Obama 2008]
Oh! So it appears that these kind of corporate schemes, whilst ensuring huge trading profits for the financial elite, may actually cost people like you and I more money. Who would have imagined that?
If anyone reading this supports the green agenda (and I doubt there will be many given what I’ve said so far) they will no doubt have the usual suspicion that I support (or am supported) by an oil company somewhere along the line. I’m not, I have no affiliation with any such organisation.
However the same cannot be said for the green lobby.
BP is listed as a major contributor to Conservation International and ExxonMobil has donated $100 million to Stanford university so that researchers there can find “ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming.”
One of the oldest, richest and most influential environmentalist groups the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club is a vigorous campaigner against the coal industry. In February 2012, it was reported that the Sierra Club had secretly accepted over $26 million in gifts from the natural gas industry, mostly from Chesapeake Energy.
Does any of this mean that these gigantic corporate institutions care about the planet? Of course not. Corporations have one and only one concern. To generate profits for themselves and their shareholders.
Does anyone really believe that the global political class are equally “environmentally concerned?” With few notable exceptions they are in the business of wielding executive power. They are also frequently funded by the large corporations.
For example the Sierra Club is partnered with the political pressure group American Votes who lobby on behalf of the Democrats.
Of course the green lobby is far from unique in accepting corporate funding and using it to influence policy.
However what we are witnessing, and being subjected to, is not agreement between the green lobby, big business and politicians but rather an alignment of interests.
It’s almost as if a bunch of megalomaniacs had created a problem, reacted to it and proposed a solution that benefits themselves at everybody else’s expense.
Now where have I heard that before?