Jack Shallard
Political manoeuvrings will tomorrow once again triumph over science, common sense, and citizens when the ETS is enlivened to do something it cannot do. Once again our politicians have run roughshod over the citizens of this country. They have again failed to give due credence to the views of the people and are charging ahead like the proverbial bull in a china shop when most countries are pausing and taking a breath to re-assess. The spirit of democracy! What happened to it? It seems to be about as broke as the Greek economy.
When future generations look back on the ETS scheme, it is almost certain to go down in history as stupid, as will the people who promoted it. It is addressing the wrong issues and doing it the wrong way. It is based on far more hearsay than validated science. It will have as good as no impact on man-made global warming. And it will create unnecessary costs and tax people needlessly, for no measurable gain on a global scale.
Science used to be science. It depended on objective observation, testing, re-testing, and verifying of non-manipulated data in an independent environment by people of integrity. But the political world has stolen science for its own nefarious ends. It has commercialised, politicised, and manipulated it to support its own political agendas. It has taken objective truth out of science and replaced it with subjective preference. It's time to give science back to scientists without intimidating them to give the answers politicians want for their political agendas. But masses of genuine informed independent scientists around the world haven't been listened to.
In the US alone, over 31,000 US scientists, including over 9,000 PhDs have signed the Global Warning Petition Project. This essentially says CO2 is a good thing and ETS is a bad thing. The site is worth a serious visit. This is what they have signed up to: here and here. The petition states:
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.This petition was inaugurated in 1998 and refreshed in 2007/2008. It began soon after the December 1997 Kyoto meeting that Al Gore participated in. It collected a lot of support in 1998/ 1999, then quietly but consistently until it was refreshed in 2007/ 2008 and leapt to over 31,000 scientifically qualified supporters. Now, it takes a lot of work to round up that many scientists, especially when for the most part they cannot sign online but must fill in and post a form. So there are probably many more petition supporters in the US; in fact, probably most informed independent scientists.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
This whole new global warning cult: Is it a fiasco, or a fraud, or a rort? Or all three? A fiasco is a ludicrous failure. It will certainly end up like that, if it hasn't already. A fraud is a deceptive falsehood or misrepresentation aimed at gaining an unjust advantage. It certainly contains elements of this. A rort is a dishonest manipulation, akin to fraud. It is often associated with political expediency or manipulation. So it certainly also qualifies as a rort.
The fiasco is so crazy it is hard to believe it has actually been happening. And to think that a few mischievous and misguided people and nations tried to impose some horrendously costly and stupid formulae on everyone else is beyond comprehension. That is, provided you study the facts rather than being naively misled by the hype and misinformation. Misinformation! This has almost become a global sport!
With that introduction, the proponents will now be itching to leap in with teeth bared and vitriolic daggers drawn, but probably with very few substantiated facts. Make no mistake; most sensible people are green at heart, but in a factual and sensible way; not in the deluded and political way so often represented by off-the-rails greenism.
To start with, anyone in his or her right mind knows only too well that we have to do something drastic about environmental pollution. Of course we have to address water quality, air quality, petrol fumes, plastic throw-aways, smog, chemical waste, battery waste, and all the other nasties. No question about it. But we have certainly been very slow at getting around to it. And lots of vested interests are getting in the way of real progress. There is no question we have a heap of work to do in this area and we should get on with the job and do it. We must do all we can to reduce energy consumption, reduce dumping in environmental landfills, clean and purify our water courses, and so on.
But to significantly link this with cosmic global warming, so-called, is where it goes right off the rails. Our responsibility is to look after our local environment, but it is sheer arrogance for us to think we can have any real impact on the global and cosmic scenes. Time honoured changes in global patterns are in the cosmic realm. They always have been and always will be. They are God‟s territory and he is in control of his creation. Does He not command the winds and the waters and they obey Him? Environmental pollution and the impact man can have on global warming are simply two different things that should not be confused.
The real debate is not about renewable energy or pollution, or even how we can save the planet. We all agree these are good things to work on. Nor is it about whether carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas. It is about whether man's actions on such things as emission trading schemes can prevent climate change. And they cannot. The impact of an emissions trading regime will be so infinitesimal the whole thing is a very costly disaster!
The green fraternity has time and again fallen into the trap of building its theologies on a superficial approach but failing to understand the underlying facts and impacts. So it has hatched lies that have been sold off as truth. It has created a perception that CO2 is a nasty pollutant when in fact it is a great and green-friendly essential ingredient for life. It is colourless, odourless, non-toxic, and absolutely essential for life. It is also an essential ingredient of soft drinks and beer, like it or not. It is a critical component of plant growth and actually makes the planet greener. We need it in abundance in the future to get the plant growth we need to feed people around the world. Reduce it, and we will reduce our ability to feed starving nations.
Genuine groups around the world have been uncovering facts with a far greater ring of truth. The Climate Sceptics in Australia work from the premise the leaders of Australia should base their decisions on facts rather than moods. Hard to argue against. And they do set out a lot of useful information that resonates as being seriously factual.
The integrity of the work done by these climate sceptics far exceeds that of Al Gore and his cohorts. His claims and his „science fiction‟ movie (An Inconvenient Truth) are seemingly riddled with extravagant versions of the truth; we might call this a close affiliation with lies! His war cry has been that the “science is settled” and there is an overwhelming “consensus” in favour of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. His opponents treat this as a rather pitiful lie. They point out that no such “consensus” or “settled science” exists.
He, his supporters, and publicity people at the United Nations, have frequently claimed that only a few sceptics remain. Highly untrue. Another lie. It is hard to find even a handful of independent supporters whose work has been peer reviewed and carries a credibility banner. The support for his hypothesis is largely from people who are funded by vested interests, not independent, whose work has not been independently peer reviewed, and whose methodology is designed to agree with the predetermined hypothesis. They even bully that no further discussion of the science is warranted before legislative action is taken to heavily tax, regulate, and ration hydrocarbon energy. Perhaps this lack of verifiable evidence is why Al Gore has consistently refused to debate the issue with several people who have challenged him to put the facts on the table.
Rather than expose the truth, Gore tries to bluff it by assuring us that "the debate in the scientific community is over." Has he told the scientists? Apparently not! Since when can you close down scientific research anyway? This arrogant manipulation has sown the seeds for a science awakening. Many perceptive scientists want to claim their discipline back from the political world, including cult greenism, and refresh its objective purpose.
Yes, the world‟s surface temperature does vary up and down over the centuries, but all within a limited range. And the weight of reliable scientific evidence seems to indicate it is moving up gradually, but that it hasn‟t gone above the average of the last 3000 years as yet, as far as we can tell. So there is no evidence that there is an overheating issue.
This whole thing is seen as a scientific scandal of astronomic proportions. The unbelievably sloppy work of the CRU and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has been totally discredited now it is known they got their data from ropey sources, as has the fantasy work of the AWG (Anthropogenic Global Working Movement). The climate change movement is littered with scientists who have bailed out once they have started to understand the facts. Many have bailed from the crazy suggestions that CO2 will fry the planet. Even Professor Phil Jones, of Climategate fame, has acknowledged that there has been no "statistically significant" warming in the last fifteen years, and acknowledges his records aren't something to be proud of.
Predictions based on computer models are not predictions or computer models at all. They are simply, as one authority put it, alternative scenarios and arithmetic outputs. And when the data falls apart, they are worse than useless. Have people really forgotten the formula: garbage in equals garbage out? The result of fallacious models based on unsubstantiated evidence has lead to hugely extravagant statements about the collapse of the earth's physical attributes. Do you really believe the world's glaciers are melting so fast that the Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035, as claimed in a benchmark report issued by the IPCC about two years ago? And didn't the scientists behind the warning this year admit that this assertion was simply based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal published some eight years before the IPCCs 2007 report? And are Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea at such a rate that we can be sure they will never be at least substantially replaced? And do you really believe we can actually reverse this trend anyway?
Is it possible a clear message was sent to the Copenhagen summit earlier this year? Didn't Copenhagen, and surrounding areas, get cold and snow beyond any normal expectation while the summit was on? And wasn't much of the United States snow-bound beyond normal expectation at the same time?
The University of Pennsylvania's Institute for Law and Economics recently conducted a cross examination of global warming science by using appropriate evidential cross examination techniques. It concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming proponents fails to stand up to scrutiny.
The cross-examination, carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, found that “on virtually every major issue in climate change science, the reports [of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other summarizing work by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even disagreements.”
Professor Johnson, who expressed surprise that the case for global warming was so weak, systematically examined the claims made in IPCC publications and other similar work by leading climate establishment scientists and compared them with what is found in the peer-edited climate science literature. He found that the climate establishment does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it “seems overall to comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favour of a predetermined policy preference.”
The 79-page document effectively eviscerates the case for man-made global warming.
Here are some words from a few other authorities that show we should wait and learn. How about the reported statements of Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
And the testimony of Professor Tim Patterson, Carleton University paleoclimatologist: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame." Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Enough said. They haven't listened. And the frightening part is not a hand full had the nous or integrity to say, “Wait!” And now we will have to live with the pointless costs and administration of one of the most moronic decisions you could imagine in your wildest nightmares.
Jack Shallard
Rotorua
30 June 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment