Fraud Passed Off as Science
“Valid criticism does you a favor.” – Carl Sagan, Demon Haunted World, p 32
A procession of academics, bureaucrats, “activists,” and corporate shills tell everybody else that global warming is manmade. Fudging figures, publishing biased papers and extremely misleading graphs, and otherwise engaging in very unscientific practices are routinely used. Then, they proceed to assert causation on the basis of correlation, as if umbrellas cause it to rain.
Those who promote fear through misinformation, focus almost exclusively on CO2, and ignore the enormous concentration of water vapor, the dominant greenhouse gas, which is some forty times more concentrated in the atmosphere than CO2. While flying across Canada, I took photographs such as the one above without ever seeing land for hours.
Promoters of The Global Warming Fraud are raking in billions of tax dollars for research grants by means of increasingly outlandish and emotionally biased one-sided claims.
If you read no further, please just scroll down to see first The Scary Graph and then The Scary Graph More Honestly Presented.
It is important to note that the widely quoted “97% of scientists” who are claimed to support anthropogenic global warming actually consists of 79 scientists hand-picked by University of Illinois master’s student, Kendall Zimmerman and her advisor, Peter Doran, from a pool of 3,146 who returned surveys. Seventy-nine divided by 3,146 = .0251. This is not science, it is the anti-intellectual instigation of fear for pay. (“Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” published in Earth & Space Science News, 20 January 2009.) Question #2 was Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
Note that “significant contributing factor” is very different from CAUSING climate change, previously called “global warming.”
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” – Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015
“The inconvenient truth is that it’s not about carbon – it’s about capitalism. … we can seize this existential crisis to transform our failed economic system and build something radically better [socialism, of course].” – Naomi Klein, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate
The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – United Nations International Panel on Climate Control, 2007
Whistleblowers at the U.S. government’s official keeper of the global warming stats, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), claim their agency doctored temperature data to hide the fact that global temperatures plateaued almost 20 years ago.
The Heartland Institute
The most important fact about climate science, often overlooked, is that scientists disagree about the environmental impacts of the combustion of fossil fuels on the global climate. The latest data, as well as much in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, show that nature, not human activity, is the chief driver of changes to the earth’s climate.
Fossil fuels made possible all three Industrial Revolutions that transformed the world since 1750. Alternative energy sources – such as wind, solar, and biomass – are prohibitively expensive, unreliable, and cannot power the world’s modern economy. Continued responsible use of plentiful and cheap fossil fuels is essential to future human prosperity.
Conducting a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) on the impacts of climate change – and on proposals to mitigate future climate change – is complicated and difficult. Preliminary applications, however, reveal the social costs of limiting greenhouse gas emissions exceeds benefits by orders of magnitude.
500 peer reviewed papers published in 2016 were skeptical of the “consensus” of human caused climate change.
282 peer reviewed papers published in 2015 were skeptical of the “consensus” of human-caused climate change.
248 peer reviewed papers published in 2014 were skeptical of the “consensus” of anthropogenic climate change. http://notrickszone.com/248-skeptical-papers-from-2014/#sthash.XYODyXVZ.dpbs
Relevant Details, Perspective, and Discussion
Newspapers, magazines, television programs, classrooms, and conversations all over America are awash in fraud which is being covered by the mantle of “science.” The birth of The Global Warming Fraud can be traced to a conference organized by anthropologist Margaret Mead, in 1975. You can read the paper documenting the conference here. Anyone who dares to challenge this sacred majesterium of “science” is a heretic and an ignoramus, according to advocates of The Global Warming Fraud. Nobody wants to be called stupid, much less really be stupid. So most people go along to get along with those whose favorite word is, “consensus.” Take the easy way and agree with them… or else.
“We’ve got to do something,” we are told. And now! Not necessarily. There are at least seven caveats the global warmers must address before “doing something” remotely as extreme as proposed. They must provide:
1. Conclusive evidence of a long-term increase in global warming,
2. Compelling evidence that increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing global temperatures, not the reverse,
3. Compelling evidence that the anthropogenic component of carbon dioxide increases is indeed critical to CO2 increases.
4. Compelling evidence that the global effects of an increase in a few degrees will be as devastating as has been, and continues to be, claimed.
5. Compelling evidence that the anthropogenic component can be sufficiently reduced to effect a material reduction in future warming and consequent devastation.
6. Compelling evidence that earth’s inhabitants can and will reduce the global human carbon footprint to 80% of 1990 carbon dioxide emissions, without catastrophic consequences far worse than the effects of a degree or two or three increase in average global temperatures.
7. Compelling evidence of their own integrity, honesty and lack of bias everywhere, including research, presenting data objectively, and avoiding even the appearance of bias.
Observations which lay bare the Global Warming Fraud
1. The claimed long-term increase in global temperatures is simply not happening.
On February 1st, 2014, NOAA and NASA held a joint press conference in which they released data about 2013’s global surface temperature. They made reference to a “pause” in the temperature that began in 1997. Dr. David Whitehouse, science editor for the BBC, noted that “When asked for an explanation for the ‘pause’ by reporters, Dr. Gavin Schmidt of NASA and Dr. Thomas Karl of NOAA spoke of contributions from volcanoes, pollution, a quiet Sun, and natural variability. In other words, they don’t know.”
Henrik Svensmark, the director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute, believes that “World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more.”
The global mean temperature has increased 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880. This is a trivial amount considering the passage of 135 years.
2. Carbon dioxide is the effect, not the cause.
“Do I need to tell you that this graph does not reflect man-made carbon dioxide production?” – Murry Salby
Heat increases carbon dioxide, not the reverse.
The following map shows sources of carbon dioxide worldwide. They are NOT in American industrial areas, but in the hot, humid tropics of equatorial South America and Africa.
3. The anthropogenic component is insignificant.
Human caused carbon dioxide is 3% of the total, with 97% coming from natural causes.
The basis of global warming/climate change/human Armageddon is, they claim, a “rapid increase” in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide worldwide caused by humans burning fossil fuels. An annual increase of 1.3 parts per million, on the greenhouse gas base of 15,500 parts per million, is not a “rapid increase.” The Scary Graph below was drawn in this manner to evoke emotion, not reason, not fact. It shows only carbon dioxide.
The Scary Graph
The knee-jerk reaction is, “We’ve got to do something (to reverse this trend in the Scary Graph)!” The trouble is, that “something” will cost many trillions of dollars more than it has already cost the world. Not so fast. Science should not mislead, but mislead the Scary Graph (Keeling Curve) does, here and now, and very badly. Fraud is the criminal act of intentionally misleading others to take their money.
To clearly demonstrate why the Keeling Curve is fraudulent, consider this graph showing a population “explosion”:
It is not an “explosion” at all, this increase of 1/1,000,000. Here is the population “explosion” much more honestly presented, in comparison to the misleading graph:
The Scary Graph misleads and distorts, which science should never do. It misleads and distorts in more ways than just the scale of the graph.
Water is by far the dominant greenhouse gas, not carbon dioxide. Adding just the 1.5% water component (1.5% of 1,000,000 is 15,000) flattens the scary graph curve more than any of the other preceding factors.
Atmospheric water vapor + carbon dioxide total 15,500 parts per million, at the top of this graph. Total carbon dioxide, natural and anthropogenic, are the red line at bottom.
Can you imagine learned people demanding a worldwide economic depression on the basis of this graph, which is far more informative and comprehensive than any of those above it? The greater warming power of water vapor and clouds (15,000 ppm) as compared with carbon dioxide (400 ppm) is experienced on a cloudy night, when temperatures are much warmer than on a cold, clear night. What is the miniscule annual increase of 1 part per million of carbon dioxide divided by the total greenhouse gas concentration of 15,500 parts per million?
The Scary Graph is a construct spanning fifty years. It is not going to change substantially for decades.
4. Effects of global temperature increases have been dramatically overstated. Why? For money.
There’s money on the table if you can prove that CO2 increases the temperature, said British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. The Royal Society then formed the International Panel for Climate Control (IPCC). Thus began the distortion of science for billions of research dollars, which emphasized drama, not science.
“Certainly, Mrs Thatcher was the first world leader to voice alarm over global warming, back in 1988, With her scientific background, she had fallen under the spell of Sir Crispin Tickell, then our man at the UN. In the 1970s, he had written a book warning that the world was cooling, but he had since become an ardent convert to the belief that it was warming, Under his influence, as she recorded in her memoirs, she made a series of speeches, in Britain and to world bodies, calling for urgent international action, and citing evidence given to the US Senate by the arch-alarmist Jim Hansen, head of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
She found equally persuasive the views of a third prominent convert to the cause, Dr John Houghton, then head of the UK Met Office. She backed him in the setting up of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988, and promised the Met Office lavish funding for its Hadley Centre, which she opened in 1990, as a world authority on “human-induced climate change”.
In 2003, towards the end of her last book, Statecraft, in a passage headed “Hot Air and Global Warming”, she issued what amounts to an almost complete recantation of her earlier views.
She voiced precisely the fundamental doubts about the warming scare that have since become familiar to us. Pouring scorn on the “doomsters”, she questioned the main scientific assumptions used to drive the scare, from the conviction that the chief force shaping world climate is CO2, rather than natural factors such as solar activity, to exaggerated claims about rising sea levels. She mocked Al Gore and the futility of “costly and economically damaging” schemes to reduce CO2 emissions. She cited the 2.5C rise in temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period as having had almost entirely beneficial effects. She pointed out that the dangers of a world getting colder are far worse than those of a CO2-enriched world growing warmer. She recognised how distortions of the science had been used to mask an anti-capitalist, Left-wing political agenda which posed a serious threat to the progress and prosperity of mankind. As Margaret Thatcher put it: global warming is proving to be “a marvelous excuse for international socialism.”
-“Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum” – NASA, Oct 7, 2014
“I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.” – Dr. Richard Lindzen
“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.” – Climate scientist Stephen Schneider, interview with Discover magazine, October, 1989
British environmental expert James Lovelock now admits he was an “alarmist” regarding global warming. Lovelock previously worked for NASA and became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism. In 2007, Time magazine named Lovelock one of its “Heroes of the Environment,” and he won the Geological Society of London’s W0llaston Medal in 2006 for his writings on the Gaia theory. That year he wrote an article in a British newspaper asserting that “before this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.” (Independent.co.uk, 16 January 2006)
“If present trends continue, the world will be … eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” Kenneth E.F. Watt, in “Earth Day,” 1970.
5. Medieval environmentalists say to the third world countries, “You can only have wind and solar powered electricity.” Because of their prohibitive cost, this is really, “You cannot have electricity.”
Environmental extremists prevent development, and romanticize peasant life, even as they jet-set around the world. They are anti-car, anti-growth, anti-U.S. Communists have moved into the global warming movement because it is anti-capitalism. Their actions are cruel and oppress the poor in particular. Humans everywhere long for greater prosperity, irrespective of their current condition. To ask the world’s poorest, who live on an average of $2 per day, to reduce their ecological footprint is hopelessly unfair, unrealistic and unattainable.
“Global warming policies are having a disastrous effect on the world’s poorest people.” – Paul Diesen
Is that the life you want? The life of a Cuban? If so, you and other environmental extremists are in the extreme minority worldwide. Approximately 1,200 coal-fired power plants are on the drawing board for construction. Many are in China and India, the largest and third largest CO2 emitters in the world. http://www.wri.org/publication/global-coal-risk-assessment
China builds a new coal-fired power plant every ten days, and will continue to do so through at least 2020. It will be economically and socially devastating for Americans to follow the dictates of environmental extremists and cut our carbon emissions 80% from 1990 levels, especially when the population will continue to increase. Such draconian demands will cause a permanent depression throughout the United States. Our children deserve better, particularly given the burdensome debt we are passing on to them. Let’s not make things worse.
6. The consequences of following the mandates demanded by global warming advocates would wreak unimaginable hardship, nationwide and worldwide. People cannot and will not acquiesce to sacrifice their freedom to travel.
Following the environmental extremism promulgated by the United Nations and President Barack Obama, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05, on June 1, 2005. It requires that all Californians reduce greenhouse emissions “to 80% below 1990 levels” by 2050. As America’s population rises inexorably, this requires everyone to cut energy use by roughly 90%. Is the reader prepared to make such a sacrifice? To impose it on our children and grandchildren? Are world leaders exemplary in cutting their own carbon footprints? Why should everyone else sacrifice when world leaders show not the slightest inclination of doing so? Why are local and world leaders such hypocrites, such poor examples?
7. Bias, blatant dishonesty, misrepresentation, and hypocrisy characterize many aspects of the global warming movement.
The Scary Graph may be one of the best representations of environmental extremists’ widespread efforts to mislead everyone. Why would intelligent scientists do this? For billions of government dollars, far greater sums than “big oil” could possibly pay.
Why you are being misled, by Roy Schneider, climate scientist
Why you are being misled, by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, quoted by the Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998:
“No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits… Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Philip E. Tetlock published the results of a study in 2005 that showed experts were no better at predictions than chimps throwing darts. “There’s an inverse relation between fame and accuracy.” – Tetlock
Colorado State University Professor Temple Grandin overcame autism to become one of “The 100 Most Influential People in the World,” according to Time magazine.
“The world needs unique perspective,” the poster in Denver International Airport reads, above. That is the essence of scientific discovery, not “consensus.” The Wright Brothers are perfect examples of what unique perspective can accomplish. And they were not college educated engineers by any means but simple bicycle mechanics.
“I’m a skeptic. …Global Warming it’s become a new religion. You’re not supposed to be against Global Warming. You have basically no choice. And I tell you how many scientists support that. But the number of scientists is not important. The only thing that’s important is if the scientists are correct; that’s the important part.” – Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate, Physics
“The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we’re gazing into the energy future, not because it’s unimportant, but because it’s beyond our power to control.” – Robert Laughlin, Nobel Laureate, Physics
“The scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities.” – Robert Jastrow, Scholar, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1949-1950, 1953), Assistant Professor of Physics, Yale University (1953-1954), Chief, NASA Theoretical Division (1958-61), Founding Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (1961-1981), NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1968), Professor of Earth Sciences, Dartmouth College (1981-1992), Chairman, Mount Wilson Institute (1992–2003), (Died: February 8, 2008)
“Until a man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge.” – Thomas Alva Edison
Climate Change Reconsidered II, by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (Policymakers’ summary of this 1,200 page book)
Small sample of videos challenging the Global Warming Scam
February 1, 2017 News Item Johnny Depp’s former business managers countersued the actor yesterday saying his lavish lifestyle cost more than $2 million a month to maintain. Depp paid more than $75 million to buy and maintain 14 homes, including a French chateau and a chain of islands in the Bahamas. Depp also bought a 150-foot yacht, fine art and memorabilia requiring 12 storage facilities to maintain, the lawsuit said. Oh and he also flies on private jets, while of course preaching environmental snobbery and “conservation,” Hollywood hypocrite style.
In January, 2017, Barack and Michelle Obama flew from California to the British Virgin Islands via Ted Branson’s private jet, just days after flying Air Force One, a jumbo jet, from Washington, D.C. to California for what the Obama’s called (another) vacation. So coast to coast and then back across, after Obama has preached environmental sanctimony to the world.
The Fallacy of Scientific Consensus
Claudius Ptolemy (85AD – 165 AD) made the plausible but entirely erroneous scientific claim that the earth was the center of the universe. This was the “scientific consensus” for more than 1400 years. Nicholas Copernicus (1473 – 1543) proposed a heliocentric theory which was accepted by Galileo Galilei (1564 – 1642) but few others.