Politics took over climate science through exploitation of public fear and lack of knowledge

How the world was misled about global warming and now climate change

Once you realize humans are not causing global warming and/or climate change, then you need an explanation for how and why so many people appear to think they are.  In two previous articles (Environmental Extremism and Historical and philosophical context of the climate change debate.) we examined the philosophical and historical context of climate change and specifically the focus on humans as the cause.

We explained the philosophical concept of uniformitarianism that dominates western science; the incorrect idea that change is gradual over long periods of time. We looked at how the scientific method of testing the theory that human CO2 was causing warming/climate change was effectively bypassed. Now we need to examine how politics took over climate science through exploitation of public fear and lack of knowledge.

Michael Crichton’s State of Fear is a first class exploration of how special interest environmental groups operate and use fear. Evidence of lack of knowledge is provided by the ability to say climate change is something new and more extreme than ever before when it isn’t. 

Being called skeptics supposedly discredited those who had knowledge or understood the science and the theory. This failed after it was pointed out that all scientists are skeptics and the warming due to human CO2 theory was discredited because the earth cooled slightly from 2000 while CO2 increased. Rather than acknowledge the failure of the theory they moved the goalposts to claim humans were causing climate change so those who disagreed became climate change deniers. The silliness of this claim, apart from the obscenity of the holocaust connotation, is that most deniers are, like myself, anything but deniers. I have spent a career educating people about how much climate changes naturally.

Previously we touched on the political climate engendered by environmentalism and its exploitation by those who want a new world order and believe this is achieved by shutting down the industrialized nations. Chief among these is Maurice Strong who said in 1990 “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?...In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”  He told Maclean’s magazine in 1976 that he was “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.” Presumably this explains the duplicity in making a great deal of money as an industrialist.  He also warned that, “...if we don’t heed his environmentalist warnings, the Earth will collapse into chaos.” Unfortunately, the world listened and the chaos is being caused by policies that evolved from his actions.

But that aside for now, the question is how would you cause the collapse of the industrialized nations? An analogy is useful to understand how Strong and a few like-minded people did it. Compare the nation to a car and think about how you can stop the engine. You can squeeze the fuel line and starve the engine, however, if you did that in any country people would react quickly and negatively. Witness the public reaction to dramatic increases in gasoline costs. However, you can stop an engine by plugging the exhaust. Strong’s method is not a physical stop as you do with an engine, but a metaphorical stop. Show how one part of the industrial exhaust is causing catastrophic global warming putting the survival of the planet in jeopardy and you have your instrument.

Now you need a political vehicle to carry that instrument. It is almost impossible to convince all governments separately, as Kyoto and current climate negotiations prove. His experience told him the United Nations (UN) was his vehicle. Elaine Dewar, wrote about Strong in her book “Cloak of Green” and concluded that he liked the UN because, “He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda.”
The challenge was two fold. Advance the political agenda and provide the scientific evidence to provide legitimacy. Organization of and appointment as first Secretary General of the United Nations Environmental Program established in 1972 provided the political platform. Out of that agency and in conjunction with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed to provide and advance the scientific evidence. This is the group touted as the consensus on climate change research. It is anything but, and has been a political agency from its inception, but it has convinced the public that humans, especially their CO2, are causing climate change by continuing to publish periodic reports. We will examine their work in the next article.

Other events were providing the fertile social and political ground needed to further the goals. Anything that would suggest human activities and particularly industry were causing environmental problems became a focus. The Club of Rome was formed in April of 1968 and led to the publication of the book “Limits to Growth”. Paul Ehrlich’s “The Population Bomb” published in 1968 added academic legitimacy to a major fear. A report Strong commissioned for the first UNEP conference and prepared by Barbara Ward and Rene Dubos titled, “Only one Earth: The care and maintenance of a small planet” essentially became the first state of the environment report. It reinforced the shrinking planet perspective provided by the photographs taken by Apollo 8 astronauts.

Wonderful political catch phrases appeared, such as Dubos’ “Think globally, act locally” or the Brundlandt Commission’s “Sustainable development” which were widely disseminated and adopted by the public. The latter phrase was a typical vague political statement. It meant everything to everyone, but nothing to anyone. Development had come to mean constant growth and in that context was clearly not sustainable. It was an oxymoron that prefaced a series of such contradictions about to emerge as politics and emotion overtook science and logic. It also gave the moral high ground to the extreme environmentalists, a position from which they could bully society and suppress scientists who dared to question.

These groups were provided a world platform and ascendancy by receiving Consultative Status at the 1992 conference Strong organized and chaired in Rio de Janeiro. The idea of Consultative Status was resurrected along with the concept of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) from original ideas incorporated in the UN Charter. The conference was dubbed the Earth Summit, but as with the current debate large segments of society including industry and business were essentially excluded. They were subsequently given token status by establishment of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBSCD), but who has heard of them? One critical piece was established at the Conference to further Strong’s agenda of controlling climate science through politics; the Climate Change Convention out of which the Kyoto Accord was to emerge. 

Now everything was in place to control the science and further the political agenda. Now policies could evolve, but because they were based on incorrect science would have devastating consequences. Now the challenge was to perpetuate the misinformation and divert scientists who despite personal attacks, denial of funding, and exclusion from national and world level conferences continued to pursue the scientific method. We will examine how that was achieved in the next article. 

Global Warming Series:

Part 1: Environmental Extremism
Part 2: Historical and philosophical context of the climate change debate.
Part 3: How the world was misled about global warming and now climate change
Part 4: How UN structures were designed to prove human CO2 was causing global warming
Part 5: Wreaking Havoc on Global Economies
Part 6: The Hockey Stick scam that heightened global warming hysteria
Part 7: The Unholy Alliance that manufactured Global Warming
Part 8: UN’s IPCC preying on people’s ignorance
Part 9: Carbon Taxes: Hand over your money! “We are saving you from yourself”
Part 10: Environmentalists Seize Green Moral High Ground Ignoring Science

Dr. Tim Ball  Bio

Dr. Tim Ball Most recent columns Copyright © 2010 CFP Dr. Tim Ball, is a member of CFP’s Speakers’ Bureau. Tim Ball on ClimateGate Video 1 Video 2 “Dr. Tim Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.  Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, Friends of Science and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.” Dr. Ball can be reached at: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) Older articles by Dr. Tim Ball