WhatFinger

"No demonstrated causal connection."

Climate scientist: New alarmist global warming report totally bastardizes the concept of 'risk'

By Dan Calabrese ——--April 1, 2014

Global Warming-Energy-Environment | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

The global warmists are at it again, as the always are because alarmism in the service of expanding government power is their stock and trade. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (note that they all come from government) has just released a new "report" that is not really a report at all, but the latest round of wild-# guesses about what might happen as a result of global warming.
As you might expect, they claim we are headed for catastrophe unless massive tax increases and governmental controls on industry are implemented immediately. The New York Times predictably gives the report prominent attention:
In particular, the report emphasized that the world's food supply is at considerable risk -- a threat that could have serious consequences for the poorest nations. "Nobody on this planet is going to be untouched by the impacts of climate change," Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of the intergovernmental panel, said at a news conference here on Monday presenting the report.
The report was among the most sobering yet issued by the scientific panel. The group, along with Al Gore, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for its efforts to clarify the risks of climate change. The report is the final work of several hundred authors; details from the drafts of this and of the last report in the series, which will be released in Berlin in April, leaked in the last few months. The report attempts to project how the effects will alter human society in coming decades. While the impact of global warming may actually be moderated by factors like economic or technological change, the report found, the disruptions are nonetheless likely to be profound. That will be especially so if emissions are allowed to continue at a runaway pace, the report said. It cited the risk of death or injury on a wide scale, probable damage to public health, displacement of people and potential mass migrations. An accompanying Times editorial claims dishonestly that there is no disagreement among scientists about the whether man-made global warming is happening. As we told you last week, there is plenty of disagreement, and scientists who do not work for government or rely on government for funding have a very different take on a) whether man-made global warming is real; and b) whether it would be a good or bad thing if it it was. One of the most prominent among these is Dr. Roy Spencer, who served as a senior scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA's Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. He takes IPCC to task for completely misappropriating the use of the word "risk" in its "report."
Now, I can understand using terms like "possibilities" when it comes to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). It's theoretically possible that the average warming of the last 50+ years was mostly human-caused, and it'spossible that the slight sea level rise over this time was more human-caused than natural (sea level was rising naturally anyway). But we really don't know. And the idea that severe weather, snowstorms, droughts, or floods have gotten worse due to the atmosphere now having 4 parts per 10,000 CO2, rather than 3 parts per 10,000, is even more sketchy. Mostly because there is little or no objective evidence that these events have experienced any long-term increase that is commensurate with warming. (It's possible they are worse with globally cool conditions…we really don't know). But the main point of my article is that the IPCC has bastardized the use of the term "risk". Talking "possibilities" is one thing, because just about anything is possible in science. But "risk" refers to the known tendency of bad things to happen as a result of some causal mechanism. Walking across the street raises your risk of being hit by a car. We know this, because it has happened many thousands of times. Cigarette smoking raises your risk of lung cancer. We know this because it has happened millions of times (and is consistent with other medical evidence that human tissue exposed to repeated injury, anywhere in your body, can result in the formation of cancerous tissue). But when it comes to climate change, there is no demonstrated causal connection between (A) an extra 1 CO2 molecule per 10,000 molecules of air, and (B) any resulting observed change in weather or climate. There are theories of how the former might impact the latter. But that's all. You cannot use the term "risk" to describe these theoretical possibilities. The fact that the IPCC has chosen to do so further demonstrates it is an organization that was political in its intended purpose, with the ultimate mission of regulating CO2 emissions, and operates within an echo chamber of like-minded individuals who are chosen based upon their political support of the IPCC's goals.
Dr. Spencer is one of many prominent and credible voices holding global warmists to account when they put out nonsense like this. The truth is that no one has any idea what will happen with global temperatures in the future, just as no one knew 20 years ago when these same people started issuing dire predictions that turned out not to be true. And no one knows what the real effects or "risks" would be under any given climate change scenario. But those who come from government, and have an agenda of government growth, want to sell us on the idea that climate change is certain, and that it carries with it certain consequences that can only be prevented by bigger and bigger government. That's why the climate scientists who are associated with the UN keep issuing reports like this, and government-loving media keep reporting what they say as if it is the unassailable truth. Don't believe it. And when they come up with their next excuse for why government absolutely must be given new powers immediately, don't believe that either.

Support Canada Free Press

Donate
Subscribe

View Comments
Dan Calabrese——

Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain

Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.

VIEW Comments

Sponsored