With the Inconvenient Truth dog-and-pony show making the A-list lecture circuit, you gotta wonder why a situation that has been developing for at least 50 years (heck I remember hearing about this in 1965)is suddenly, well, cool? When the PTB start allowing the plebs to hear some bad news, it's for sure not out of concern for the great unwashed. That's you and me by the way.
Part 1 today. Stay tuned for Part 2. All from the due diligence of Signs of the Times, the best news service on the web.
Blue Ibis
*****************************************************************************
Climate Change Swindlers and the Political Agenda
Laura Knight-Jadczyk
Signs Of The Times
Wed, 14 Mar 2007 07:15 EDT
(c)?
What is the truth about Climate Change?Some time ago I wrote about Climate Change as being probably the most pressing problem facing humanity today. It is so pressing that I am convinced that possibly 90% of the human race - over 6 billion people - could be at risk of certain death in the very near future - like within ten years - if this matter is not addressed adequately and appropriately very, very soon by our "glorious leaders" who seem to have little on their mind other than blowing up innocent people.
But then, that war-mongering has a hidden agenda behind it:
to grab and hold resources.But rest assured that the intent is not to grab and hold those resources for you and me; it is to get them for the "elite," that
6% of humanity that is on the top of the heap and intends to stay there regardless of the fact that those genes should never be passed on.
Well, the Climate Change Confusion factor is heating up.
Channel 4 recently broadcast a special on the "Climate Change Swindle," that was intended to "expose the myths about climate change that have been promulgated in order to hoodwink the world into accepting the man-made theory of global warming."
As far as it went, this special wasn't too bad. However, it didn't really tell the whole story which is that, yes, Climate Change is real and a serious threat, but not for the reasons given.
As it happens, one of the experts included in the presentation has now announced that he was badly mis-quoted, or quoted out of context, and he is back-pedaling like mad.
Keep in mind that this is really just a distraction, something to keep the masses busy so that they don't see the real agenda: that it is intended that they should be "left out in the cold"
because they didn't act to get rid of corrupt leaders in time to do anything to prepare for what is coming.To make the point, let's look at this little debacle a bit more closely.
Expert in oceanography quoted in Channel 4's debunking of Global Warming says he was 'seriously misrepresented'It was the television programme that set out to show that most of the world's climate scientists are misleading us when they say humanity is heating up the Earth by emitting carbon dioxide. And The Great Global Warming Swindle, screened by Channel 4 on Thursday night, convinced many viewers that it is indeed untrue that the gas is to blame for global warming.
But now the programme - and the channel - is facing a serious challenge to its own credibility after one of the most distinguished scientists that it featured said his views had been "grossly distorted" by the film, and
made it clear that he believed human pollution did warm the climate.Comment: This sentence right here is the first "twist." If the reader will go to Professor Wunsch's website and read his actual comments, they will discover that he did NOT say the "human pollution did warm the climate" in the sense that this writer is trying to convey - as if that was all there was to it.
What Dr. Wunsch actually said will be discussed further on.Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" on its content. He added that he is considering making a formal complaint.
A Channel 4 spokesman said: "The film was a polemic that drew together the well-documented views of a number of respected scientists to reach the same conclusions. This is a controversial film but we feel that it is important that all sides of the debate are aired. If one of the contributors has concerns about his contribution we will look into that."
Any complaint would provoke a crisis at Channel 4, now recovering from the Jade Goody Big Brother storm. It had to make a rare public apology after the Independent Television Commission convicted previous programmes on environmental issues by the same film-maker, Martin Durkin, of similar offences - and is already facing questions on why it accepted another programme from him.
The commission found that the editing of interviews with four contributors to a series called
Against Nature had "distorted or misrepresented their known views".
Professor Wunsch said: "I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about
how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled."
Comment: Here we see the professor's point: that it is not so simple as being ALL human caused, nor is it totally non-human caused. His point is how COMPLICATED the subject is.When told what the commission had found, he said: "That is what happened to me." He said he believes it is "an almost inescapable conclusion" that "if man adds excess CO2 to the atmosphere, the climate will warm".
Comment: Notice here that Prof. Wunsch is not saying that human caused CO2 is the major factor.He went on: "The movie was terrible propaganda. It is characteristic of propaganda that you take
an area where there is legitimate dispute and you claim straight out that people who disagree with you are swindlers. That is what the film does in any area where some things are subject to argument."
Comment: Notice that Prof. Wunsch is here saying that there IS legitimate dispute about what causes global warming.
Mr Durkin last night said that Professor Wunsch was "most certainly not duped into appearing into the programme" and that it "had not in any way misrepresented what he said".
Before the programme was shown, the IoS asked Channel 4 why it had commissioned another film from Mr Durkin and, further, whether it was making any special checks on its accuracy.
A spokesman said the programme made by Mr Durkin for which it had had to apologise was a decade old, adding: "We treat Martin as any other film-maker."
Comment: Now we come to the propaganda and damage control:The cold, hard facts about global warmingWhat do
most scientists believe caused global warming?
Comment: Notice how the question is phrased: using the terms "most" and "believe." The word "most" is quite misleading, though "believe" is pretty much right on; has nothing to do with facts and data.
The vast majority are convinced it is human emissions of carbon dioxide.
Comment: In fact, this is NOT true. It is an out and out lie.
It was established scientifically 180 years ago - and has never been seriously disputed - that natural levels of the gas given off by decaying vegetation and the oceans help to keep the Earth warm; without it, and other natural greenhouse gases, the planet would be some 20C colder and we would freeze.
Comment: So far, so good. But here comes the twist:Adding even the so far relatively small amounts from human activities makes us warmer.
Comment: This is where we find the major dispute. It is clear that the amount of CO2 emissions that are produced by human beings in our time do not anywhere come close to the volumes of CO2 emissions that have been produced at other periods of history that did NOT result in Global Warming. So the human factor is very much in question.Has the world warmed before?Yes, and big warmings over prehistoric times were not started by increasing CO2 levels; changes in solar activity are more likely.
Comment: Another twist. There is clear evidence of other warmings that were definitely related to increasing CO2 levels that were precipitated by solar activity and OTHER causes. It is disingenuous to suggest that other warmings were not related to rising CO2 levels.Levels of the gas started rising some 800 years into the warming, but then probably reinforced it, making it bigger and longer. Temperature and CO2 are interdependent; when one goes up the other follows. This time it is different because vast amounts of the gas are being artificially put into the atmosphere by humans.
Comment: So, they clarify here, just to cover their behinds, but that doesn't excuse the preceding twist. As it happens, the current "global warming" spell is following this same pattern. Nothing new here.What about more recent history?There was a warm period in Europe in the Middle Ages, again probably caused by solar activity, but it does not seem to have been a worldwide phenomenon, although records are scanty.
Comment: What a load of horse hockey! How easy it is to say "it doesn't appear to have been worldwide" when the records are scanty. And again notice that the cycle was related to the Sun. But NOW, of course, the determination has been made to blame it on strictly human activity no matter what, and that is what this writer seems to be doing.
So is the sun responsible now?Some sceptics say so and probably it played the major role until quite recently. But over the past three decades, solar activity has scarcely risen, while temperatures have shot up - a fact disguised in the film. What has gone up is CO2 and even top sceptic Nigel Lawson admits it is "highly likely" that the gas has "played a significant part" in global warming this century.
Comment: Notice how cleverly the writer says "Some sceptics say so" instead of saying "many EXPERTS say so" and "probably it played a major role until quite recently." What a load of hooey.
There are quite a few experts - and considerable data to back it up - who are saying that the solar activity HAS increased. To back this up, it is pointed out that nearly every other planet in our solar system is ALSO experiencing Global Warming.
So, who is swindling who?Now, let's look at Prof. Wunsch's actual comments:
Partial Response to the London Channel 4 Film "The Great Global Warming Swindle"Carl Wunsch 11 March 2007
I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component.
Comment: Notice here that Prof. Wunsch says, very carefully, that Climate Change (notice he doesn't even use the term "Global Warming,") "almost surely" - that is to say, it's not a fact established by any hard data - "has a major human-induced component." That is to say, there is a lot more to Climate Change than human activity, though he BELIEVES that component might be major - "almost surely." ALMOST.But I have tried to stay out of the "climate wars" because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess.
Comment: Here Prof. Wunsch is making the very careful point that what scientists know firmly and what they suspect are two very different things. And indeed, the rhetoric in the media, driven by political agendas, is quite excessive, particularly relating to the human element relating to "Global Warming."In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise.
Comment: We see here that Prof. Wunsch's primary concern is his reputation among mainstream scientists. That should give us some warning...The science of climate change remains incomplete.
Comment:
You can say that again! But the rhetoric in the media, including the above article from the UK Independent debunking the debunking of Global Warming is just another case in point.Some elements are based so firmly on well-understood principles, or on such clear observational records, that most scientists would agree that they are almost surely true (adding CO2 to the atmosphere is dangerous; sea level will continue to rise,...).
Comment: Notice his qualification: "most" scientists. Not all scientists. And in fact, quite often it is the scientist who goes against the "textus receptus" of the standard theory who is right.Other elements remain more uncertain, but we as scientists in our roles as informed citizens believe society should be deeply concerned about their possibility: a mid-western US megadrought in 100 years; melting of a large part of the Greenland ice sheet, among many other examples.
Comment: Notice that he precedes the remarks about the possibilities of a megadrought in 100 years and the melting of the Greenland ice sheet with "Other elements remain more uncertain..." Next we get to the nitty gritty of his position, the one he has taken to preserve his reputation among his fellow scientists as well as the scientific thought police:
©n/a
Increased Hurricane activity is also part of "Global Warming." Hurricanes are huge machines that exchange heat and cold in our environment. An increase in heat can lead to a sudden cooling via violent storms, as the fossil record shows...I am on record in a number of places as complaining about the over-dramatization and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts.
Comment: But didn't he just say that there were possibilities that were uncertain, but that he felt that, as a scientist, there should be concern about them? Doesn't he think it is possible that extrapolating "a mid-western US megadrought in 100 years; melting of a large part of the Greenland ice sheet" from the condition of Global Warming is perhaps unwarranted, especially considering the fact that the RECORD shows that every period of Global Warming was followed by a sudden and rapid Global Cooling? An Ice Age? What's wrong with THOSE facts, that specific data that is, as the good professor points out, "based so firmly on well-understood principles, or on such clear observational records"??Thus the notion that the Gulf Stream would or could "shut off' or that with global warming Britain would go into a "new ice age" are either scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our credibility as a scientific discipline if we proclaim their reality.
Comment:
And here, Prof. Wunsch demonstrates that he is either not a real scientist, considering all the data, or he is more driven by his concern for his reputation among the politically controlled scientific community than he is concerned with a real threat to humanity. Theres is certainly evidence that the Gulf Stream has shut off before, and there is evidence of sudden glacial rebound associated with this.They also are huge distractions from more immediate and realistic threats.
Comment: Are they? Sudden Glacial Rebound seems rather immediate and realistically threatening to me and a lot of other experts.
The rest of Prof. Wunsch's complaint focus mainly on trying to get himself out of hot water with the mainstream scientific community. And here we come to just how the good Professor can be an agent for political agendas without even intending it or being conscious of it.
Yesterday we carried an interesting article, How The Media and Establishment Brainwash The Public. We carried this article not because we "believe" in "creationism," but because the example of how things work is very simple and important.
Anyway, I am going to paraphrase a bit of that article for the present purpose:There are two broad categories of theories about Climate Change: first, are those who think that Climate Change is caused by human activity. Second, are those who think that Climate Change is natural and cyclical and the cycle can be known by examination of the historical data. There are actually several different camps (i.e. different theories) within each group, and there are hybrid groups (i.e. hybrid theories), but let us assume there are only two simple groups.
To visualize the two different camps, suppose there is a large field and there is a fence that bisects the field and you are standing at one end of the fence looking down the fence. On the right side of this fence are the Human Caused Global Warming advocates (the people who make up the "establishment" and are ruled by the politics of the day because that is how they get their funding) and on the left side of this fence are the Natural cycle advocates (the people who disagree with the "establishment" point of view).
You have the choice of siding with the establishment or the renegades. In some cases this choice could affect your job. For example, if you taught biology in a public high school, and you taught Natural Cycles in your classroom, you might lose your job.
If you are only looking for the benefits, and a promotion, then there is no question as to what theory you will teach. The Human Caused Global Warming side of the fence has virtually all the benefits.
Suppose you want to know the truth (as best as you are capable of honestly determining as an "open-minded" person) - is Human Caused Global Warming (HCGW) or Natural Cycle Climate Change (NCCC) correct based on the evidence currently available?
Suppose that you decide to start your decision making journey by talking first with the HCGW crowd; because everything you have heard in school is that HCGW has been proven to be true. So you head to the right side of the fence and start talking to an HCGW advocate.
Suppose this person tells you all the reasons why Global Warming is caused by human activity. He might go into "well-understood principles", or claimed "clear observational records" and claims that "that most scientists would agree that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is dangerous; sea level will continue to rise, and so on.
After this conversation, you start to walk away, but the person stops you. Then this same HCGW advocate starts telling you all of the things that are wrong with the NCCC crowd. He tells you one theory after another of the NCCC group, such as their nonsense about the Gulf Stream etc, and why each theory cannot be true and what a bunch of goons they are.
After this conversation, you now feel that you understand both the HCGW's and the NCCC's theories of Climate Change. You decide it is not necessary to go to the left side of the fence and talk to a NCCC representative because you already think you understand their views and why their views are wrong.
This is A Common MistakeIf you made such a decision, you would be making a common mistake: you have heard both sides of the issue, but from only one person on one side of the fence. You have really only heard how the people on one side of the fence feel about the issues. But you haven't heard the arguments of the NCCC, from a NCCC expert, nor have you heard why the NCCC advocates think that the HCGW's are wrong.
There are actually four categories of the two sides (these are the four things you need to hear to make an informed decision):
1) pro-HCGW (from the HCGW side),
2) anti-NCCC (from the HCGW side),
3) pro-NCCC (from the NCCC side),
4) anti-HCGW (from the NCCC side).
In other words, from the right side of the fence you have heard the pro-Human Caused Global Warming arguments and also from the right side of the fence you have heard all of the anti-Natural Cycle Climate Change arguments. But note that you have not heard the pro-Natural Cycle Climate Change arguments, from a Natural Cycle Climate Change expert, nor have you heard the anti-Human Caused Global Warming arguments, from a Natural Cycle Climate Change expert.
You have only heard two of the four categories because you have only heard from one person who is on one side of the fence.
Do you really know both sides of the issue?No you don't!
You only know one side of the issue and two of the four categories. Until you go to the left side of the fence and hear about the pro-Natural Cycle Climate Change views, from a NCCC EXPERT, and you hear the anti-Human Caused Global Warming views, from an NCCC Expert,
you don't have a basis for making an objective decision.
Comment: And what is at the root of it all?
A media that is controlled by political elements for a definite and specific agenda, and it ain't in your best interests, nor has it ever been.
Take that to the bank.
