Bafflegab and BS in the climate debate

[Part 3 of a 6 part series examining the so-called "consensus" in the climate science community, the scientists who dare dissent from political correctness and a new, less partisan way to promote rational climate policy] In part 1 and part 2 of this series, it was shown that the supposed consensus in the climate science community that our CO₂ emissions are causing dangerous global warming is not substantiated. Here we examine the contents of a typical open letter to government in support of the CO₂/climate crisis hypothesis to see if it is provides meaningful guidance to public policy formulation.

---

Besides examining precisely who agrees with the official statements from prominent science bodies, it is also important to assess how closely they come to addressing the most important question of all for human societies, namely,

"having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do you find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming?"

It must be "dangerous global warming" that scientists are asked about because, if it is not dangerous, then, while it is an interesting scientific question, it is not a significant public policy issue and so not worth vast investments of public funds to 'stop' (if indeed 'stopping' climate change were even possible). Again, let us examine the CGU/CMOS et al open letter to the Government of Canada as a sample since it employs many of the same tactics used in other such public declarations. Like most documents of its kind, the majority of the letter is self evident 'boiler plating' with which no sensible person would disagree. This lulls readers (and likely many scientists considering endorsement) into simple acceptance, rather than critical thinking. "Major initiatives and changes are needed to adapt to our new climate" is a good example. International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) Chair, Professor Tim Patterson, a paleoclimatologist at Carleton University, told the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in 2005, "the only constant about climate is change; it changes continually" so of course we need to adapt to "new climate[s]", whatever their causes. Human societies have either successfully adapted to climate change or perished for millennia. Some of the open letter is clearly wrong, such as "Current and anticipated impacts of climate change in Canada are well documented." ICSC Science advisor Dr. Tim Ball explains, "Much of what is actually happening with regards to our climate is unknown since we have less weather stations now that in the 1960s. The funding for operating these vitally important stations was largely diverted to financing the construction of primitive and flawed computer models - they were again 100% wrong with their Prairie forecast for this spring and early summer in that the prediction of "hot and dry" turned out to be "cold and wet". Consequently, we certainly do not have good documentation of climate change or its impacts in Canada. The belief that "anticipated impacts in Canada are well documented" is even more absurd since they are based on models we already know don't work." Some of the CGU/CMOS et al letter diverts the reader to somewhat related but different topics: "With vigorous action we can develop more efficient processes that reduce emissions, improve the quality of air we breathe and the water we drink, maintain the integrity of our ecosystems, and open new economic opportunities." By associating the climate change issue with clean air and water, etc., it seems to make severe CO₂ controls and planetary climate control sound wholesome, instead of what they really are--expensive and largely impossible. The closest the CGU/CMOS et al document comes to addressing society's critical question (does CO₂ cause dangerous global warming?) is the assertion "Rigorous international research... reveals that greenhouse gases resulting from human activities contribute to the warming of the atmosphere and the oceans and constitute a serious risk to the health and safety of our society, as well as having an impact on all life." The first part of this sentence is obvious. "Practically no one doubts that so-called 'greenhouse gases' (human GHG emissions are primarily CO2 in most nations, including Canada and the U.S.), whatever the source, contribute to the warming of the atmosphere and the oceans." If they didn't, the Earth would be a lifeless, frozen ice ball. Our scientists at ICSC would have no trouble endorsing that part of the AGU letter, even though they don't conclude that the warming is significant enough to be "dangerous". The second part of the sentence is odd and, perhaps intentionally, difficult to interpret. Combining it with the applicable phrases from the first part of the sentence gives, "Rigorous international research... reveals that greenhouse gases resulting from human activities... constitute a serious risk to the health and safety of our society, as well as having an impact on all life." The last part of this is self evident--CO₂ does have an impact "on all life". Indeed it is the 'staff of life' as it is a critical reactant in plant photosynthesis. But the other part of the sentence is a complete red herring. The science societies endorsing the letter are not qualified to professionally determine that CO₂ emissions "constitute a serious risk to the health and safety of our society". Perhaps medical researchers and safety engineers could, but they would dismiss such a claim out of hand since CO₂ is no where near levels at which it would pose a health or safety risk to society. Perhaps the authors of the CGU/CMOS et al letter meant that the warming caused by human CO₂ emissions would be dangerous, but they didn't actually say that. The CGU/CMOS letter makes other statements that seem meant to lead the reader into thinking they are addressing the critical question for society listed above, but in fact they do not. They list many "current and anticipated" destructive impacts of climate change. Besides the fact that even CMOS members are known to completely disagree with some of the supposed currently observed impacts, "increased melting of glaciers and permafrost" and "more extreme weather", being examples, there is no time frame given during which the "anticipated" impacts are forecast to occur. This is simply because no one really knows when they will occur. Given a long enough time period, centuries to millennia, all of these scenarios may very well come true someday. This, in addition to the fact that the letter does not actually state that human CO₂ emissions are responsible for these "current and anticipated" impacts, gives no real guidance to today's public policy formulation. Again, it is meant to do so by implication but completely fails to address the key issue. The same sort of analysis must be applied to all open letters and other advice to government on both sides of the climate issue. Do they actually provide substantive, scientifically-founded guidance from well qualified experts in the field or are they mostly bland, feelgoodery coupled with just enough sensationalism to ensure they are reported on favorably by a headline-seeking mass media? When they are noticed by mainstream press at all, open letters from skeptics of the CO₂/climate crisis hypothesis are invariably subjected to rigorous examination and this is how it should be. But reporting uncritically on open letters and other statements from scientists on the politically correct side of the debate, as most media do, does not serve society well. [Coming in Part 4: Statements and open letters from skeptical scientists have been generally ignored, or maligned by mass media and so few in the public know about them and governments consequently brush them off with impunity. What has gone wrong?]