I don’t like climate change arguments for several reasons. One is that I hate being manipulated; another is that we cannot base political policies on computer simulations; another is that everyone should beware when climateers tell us no matter how many frauds there are, it doesn’t alter the conclusions! And I cannot stand their attitude of totalitarianism for all who reject their ideas, and the way it translates into heavy taxation and hiked prices without good reason.
Most greens are just folks out for a cause-with-fun. They haven’t got a clue when it comes to the science, and almost none understand that what we are seeing is NOT a scientific movement, but a political take-over. It is communism come back from the brink; when the Wall came down, neo-Marxism simply fanned out worldwide, like a virus.
The email frauds are now being ‘investigated’ (yeah, right) and no doubt we will get a conciliatory conclusion – hope I’m wrong, but why should I be optimistic after years of being crushed by environmentalism?
Humans in Frame Again!
Even before the ink is dry on what is no doubt just a show-trial with a prepared conclusion, climateers are starting to fight back to ‘prove’ humans are responsible for the global warming they insist is still happening. Too many scientists have presented an united front on CO2 for them to just drop their frauds and deceptions. At all costs (and it will be) they must maintain their façade of science, in the hope of covering-up their bad behaviour with bluster and more bad science.
A review of 100 scientific studies now claims there is an “increasingly remote possibility” that climate change is not caused by human activity. (The Guardian, 5th March, 2010). The review was coordinated by… the British Meteorological Office (Met Office)! The very same Office that colluded with the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University. (The review was published in Science journal).
Now tell me – why should anyone listen to this review? The leader of the review, Peter Stott, asked only that people should read the science and make up their own minds. The review comes down in favour of human-caused climate change, so how can people read it without prejudice? What people must do is read ALL the science. Obviously, they need scientists to translate, but it would be a start! There is nothing wrong with being partisan, so long as everyone else knows what the beliefs are.
Peter Stott, for example, is a climate scientist and manager of ‘Understanding and Attributing Climate Change’ at the UK Met Office. The words ‘to human beings’ is missing from the title, but it is implied! Stott is also a lead author for the IPCC 2007 Report, the one that contained all the errors and frauds. Yet, in 2003, the same Stott wrote ‘Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to recent Climate Change?’ (Journal of Climate, Vol 16, 2003). The new review, of course, now puts little emphasis on the sun. His background is not really conducive to trust… and Stott and others now call on us all to ‘trust the models’!
Those Computers Still At It
The review seems to be using the same old approach that got Mann, Jones and others into trouble… the mixing of computer modelling and actual measurements.
“Scientists matched computer models of possible causes of climate change, both human-led and otherwise, to measured changes in factors such as air and sea temperatures, Arctic sea-ice cover, and global rainfall patterns.”
The problem with the science is not the observations and measurements, but the interpretations placed on them by scientists. It might surprise many non-scientists to know that few scientists work free of bias or political spin. That is why the availability of raw-data is vital, so that people of all hues can check things out.
Even when they do, the validity of measurements taken can depend on many other factors. We already know about weather measuring stations being sited close to structures that can greatly affect temperature. All the other measurements must also be affected by other factors. And no-one, it seems, can agree on what the actual Arctic sea-ice cover really is!
No Links and Too Many Variables
Even if all measurements are accurate, we still have the joker in the pack – the idea that humans cause climate change! To put it very simply, no science can ever prove such a link! It is just not possible. If 100 people all wore red jumpers and boarded a small boat that held 50, then the boat sank, it could be argued that it sank because everyone wore a red jumper! Though it is ludicrous, it could be the conclusion of some. And that is the kind of thinking prevalent in the climate change camp.
There may be more humans; there may be more CO2; but neither can be proved to ‘cause’ climate change. And that, for me, is the real issue… the matter of proof. There is no proof, and never can be, because though we can measure changes, we cannot thereby attribute them to human causation. Until science can provide a proven link between CO2 and climate change, we should not allow the half-science to influence political policies. It really is that simple.
Stott thinks that by introducing many other variables, the review can somehow ‘prove’ the case for human-caused climate change. But, this is not so, as I have shown above. In fact, the more variables that are brought into the picture, the more unlikely it is for anyone to come to a proper conclusion. This is because the more the variables, the more the variables! And each variable may counteract or act upon each other variable. Thus, the more variables that are introduced the greater are the problems of interpretation! Also, the more the variables the longer should be any test period.
The mere fact that temperature increased does not, in itself, point a finger at anyone or anything. This is because temperature highs and lows are normal for the planet. Only this time around politicians are using this very normal fact to push their global agenda of totalitarian governance. Suddenly, what is normal is being made out to be catastrophic! Even if temperature did rise more, and it did affect developing countries, it is only what will happen anyway. No-one can stop it or change it. The idea that humans are causing any changes is just a guess, something invented as a possible cause, but which has no science to back it up.
Saying It Doesn’t Make It true!
As usual, the review and The Guardian talk about ‘greenhouse gases’, when there is no such thing. The ‘greenhouse’ theory is not even a good hypothesis, so why is it still being used by scientists, who should know better? The answer is what it always has been – communistic ideas being routed through environmentalism by scientists who just get on the current band wagon to get funding.
So, as we wait for the (ready-made?) conclusions of the UK’s Committee on the antics of the CRU, we can watch out for a growing fight-back by green scientists, and by governments. Their very careful, fraudulent manoeuvres may indeed be laid bare, but they will just carry on anyway. That is what totalitarians do. The only answer is massive opposition by the ordinary people… but will they do it?
Barry Napier runs christiandoctrine.com.
The Global Green Agenda’, Barry Napier. Published, Petra Press, 2009.
For other anti-green books by Barry Napier contact the author: barry.napier@ntlworld.com
