Why does the climate movement spend so much ink driving fear into those who may take a contrary position to climate change? First, promulgating dire consequences if immediate action is delayed, can be an effective method of swaying opinion when the facts don’t. Second, instilling fear into anyone who may think contrary to the movement can both diminishes the risk of scholarly opposition, and dry up research funding as politicians weigh the cost to their positions.
Climate science is so rife with variables, it needs dozens of sophisticated computer modeling algorithms to coalesce the data. The margins of error are exponential, as you consider the thousands of data collection sites, sensors, mathematical and computational errors and not to mention human error. This is not a science where you read a thermometer today and compare it with the reading 20 years ago and conclude its getting warmer. In part 3 of these series you will get an idea of how much error potential there is in the calculations, how inaccurate the historical data is that today’s data and how much climatologists don’t know about how all the planets systems act and react together to give us climate. You will also be surprised to know how low the confidence level is on accuracy of the methodology and resulting conclusions.
What does a movement do when they are trying to prove something the mechanics of which they themselves are struggling with. A movement that has had numerous scandals, from emails revealing data manipulation, to reports of measurement tampering and rushing reports has created a credibility problem. What kind of strategy could you employ to try and mitigate the damage? Well first, you could declare the subject closed for discussion, then promulgate the debate is over and that the science is settled.
In 1992 Al Gore made this statement,
“Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.”
Statements like these are designed to pressure those who are of contrary opinion, to get into line with everyone else. It is called censorship through peer pressure, every kid in the school yard is familiar with this tactic. The insinuation is, are you stupid? Everyone knows this or that to be true and if you don’t agree, you will be subjected to ridicule. Which is generally uncomfortable so people tend to avoid it by keeping quite.
In 2009, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs authoritatively said thousands of scientists have concluded climate change is happening and it is not something that is in dispute any longer. Gibbs was careful not to say they agree with a man made correlation. Then when asked to comment on the thousands of scientists who are skeptical of this theory, his response was one of dismissal.
In 2010 Lisa Jackson, EPA Chief said climate science was settled when defending Obama’s 10 billion dollar EPA budget to curb global warming New York Times
2011, the National Association of Scholars (NAS) interviewed S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist and professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia who founded the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). Singer estimates,
“the number of skeptical qualified scientists has been growing steadily; I would guess it is about 40% now.”
More on this in the part 3 of Climate Politics – Skeptics.
So, once you have unilaterally pronounced the debate is over, your free to digress from the science, allowing you to move on to a personalized campaign to demonize, censor and shame anyone who disagrees with you. Opponents of global warming are accused of being in “Big Oil’s” back pocket and attacks on credentials become the focus, as skeptics are labeled as on the fringe of science. The accusations go two ways though as there is “Big Money” in carbon science as we remember the 16.5 TRILLION the United Nations was after in Paris this year. Not to mention the billions Al Gore has made on carbon. How many Gores are out there?
Now that the science settled, if anyone questions the validity or accuracy of any aspect of the theory of global warming, they are no longer a skeptic, they are a denier or an idiot that should be locked up. Scientists are skeptics, deniers are ideologs. Denier is a philosophical term that denotes ignorance, so now it is acceptable to dismiss any rebut brought to the scientific table and move directly into political mode with character and credibility attacks. These types of attacks have always been a good a good indicator of a weak position because if you have a strong position, you argue the data and let the facts stand for themselves.
When does a movement turn from facts to fear? When it wants the attention off the facts, data and methodology. It is a distraction from the real issues.
There are trillions of dollars at stake, careers have been built on the theory, research grants depend on the so called crisis. This so called crisis is the Vegas for climate scientists. Al Gore, one of the loudest voices of climate alarmist syndrome (CAS), is heavily vested in the enviro-business. According to Forbes, by 2008 Gore had invested 35 million dollars into hedge funds and private partnerships. His alarmist rhetoric seems to be profitable. By 2009, the New York Times reported Gore was on track to become the first carbon billionaire. The media unfortunately has joined the agenda chorus by celebrating 15 years of headlines that this year is the “last chance” to save the planet. Shame you them.
15 Years Of Fear Mongering
- 2001; A Global Warming Treaty’s Last Chance; Time Magazine
- 2005; “With time running out for the global climate, your meeting in Montreal represents a last chance for action.” Environmentalist Mark Lynas
- 2007; Climate talks ‘last chance‘ to avoid catastrophe; NZHarold.NZ
- 2008; Poznan provides last chance to curb climate change; WWF Uk
- 2009; Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary General, The Telegraph
“catastrophic consequences” unless a new international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions is reached.”
- 2009; At the COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009, Al Gore, citing new high resolution climate modeling, prediction was ice free Arctic by summer. Many leaders propagated this agreement would be the last chance for planet earth. Youtube Speech
- 2011; Last Chance; SpiroNews
This week the World Council of Churches general secretary, Reverend DrOlav Fykse Tveit, called the United Nations UNFCCC COP 17 meeting a “last opportunity for the international community to be responsible in addressing climate change”, and called on the meeting to “act now for climate justice.”
- 2012; Tomorrow, the whole world talks about irreversible global warming as this year’s international climate change summit begins. Examiner
- 2013; Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’ (WRONG)link to skeptic page
“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.”So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”
By Jonathan Amos Science reporter, BBC News, San FranciscoWednesday, 12 December 2007 Professor Wieslaw Maslowski
- 2015; Climate change: Paris ‘last chance‘ for action; BBC
- 2015; Obama: “No greater threat to future than climate change”; CNN
After at least 1.5 decades of crying wolf, is it any wonder that for public, the planets demise from global warming has blown away. Why is there such an urgency and why is the media playing along year after year, decade after decade?
As for the media, could be a simple as partisanship. The left media support the left and to be honest, the right supports the right. What about the politicians. Some say the driving force is an old one, money. As discussed above, there are trillions involved. But why the urgency? Some believe, that the money and will to act is going to dry up. Either because it is only a matter of time before the science falls apart, or the climate hiatus that started between 1995 and 1998 will continue for another decade to two. More on the pause in part 3-Skeptics.
A new study just erased the 15 to 18 years of no temperature change, to the delight of climate ventures and grant recipients everywhere. How, they went back into history and lowered, or adjusted the bias of the temperatures, so now today’s temps create a spread.
Another indicator of the agenda is the way the media has jumped all over this new study. One study, that disagrees with all the others that supported the temperature stability. What happened to the thousands of scientists who went before this new study? Well, that is all wiped out by one study that meets the agenda criteria. When a skeptical study is published, it is rebuked and mocked because it does not fit the agenda. You can’t have it both ways.
Is it also interesting that the elements of climate change that are focused on as planet threatening, are the ones that are a vehicle for revenue? If you can control the use of Co2 and methane, you control every aspect of the population and industry. The profits from regulation and financial fraud are staggering so if this agenda is true, those opposed must be silenced.
- Reddit has banned climate change deniers, and ripped its own reputation to shreds
- Climate change deniers should be prosecuted Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
- Poll: 27% of Democrats Want Global Warming Doubters Prosecuted
- Unions at France Television called for their weather chief Mr Verdier to be fired
- Professor fired after expressing climate change skepticism
Fear and censorship are the weapons of a weak position. When you can’t win on the issue, your only course is to shutdown discussion and try to sway opinion with fear. Ask yourself, who benefits from this? Why now, are there calls for legal action against those who disagree? Because skepticism is what is standing in the way of the cash cow and political power. If you breath, eat, move, or produce anything, you will be subject to regulations, fines, permits, quotas taxes and anything else governments can think of to squeeze tax dollars out us. The UN in Paris is looking for 16.5 trillion dollars, yes that is with a T, to mitigate weather. Something, they can’t guarantee for the next few days, but tell us they are certain about for the next few decades.
Maybe the real fear should be entities who create laws and regulations that make those who lobby and support them, tens of millions of dollars. A wise man once said, “follow the money”. Though climate alarmists like to proselytize the connection between oil companies and skeptics, they never talk about the trillions involved in the climate industry.
This is not a scientific issue, it is a political one and the next installment, Skeptics, will clear the air on some issues and point you to resources that will help you understand the “science” a little better. What if the United States stopped all of its Co2 production, people and animals stopped breathing, vehicles stopped and industry shut down and the economy was destroyed? How much would that help?
Secretary of State John Kerry; COP-21 climate conference in Paris
“… The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.
If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions –- remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions -– it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65% of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.”
Developing world? Interesting to note that the UN regards China, the soon to overtake the United States as the largest economy on the planet, as a developing nation. As such, could receive billions if not trillions from the US and Canadian tax payers. Below, UN Statistical annex (PDF)