01 April 2008

Climate Change Swindlers and the Political Agenda



Laura Knight-Jadczyk

Signs Of The Times

Wed, 14 Mar 2007 07:15 EDT














©?
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 warming


What 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 Mistake


If 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.



1 comment:

JaaJoe said...

Have any of you guys hear what the New Jersey Nets are doing to in the fight against global warming? Not only are there games now carbon-neutral, but they traded Jason Kidd to the Dallas Maveriks for the a “better environment” also. Julianne Waldron explained to the media that Kidd was giving off to much Carbon dioxide. “Jason Kidd always hustles when he is on the basketball court, and we all admire that greatly. But all of that running up and down the court, pushing the team out on fastbreaks, expending extra energy just to make a few extra points and possibly win a game, caused all of the players to breathe a great deal more heavily and thereby expel extra amounts of carbon dioxide into the air, and we all know that is bad for the environment. We made the difficult decision to trade Kidd in order to save the planet.” Check out this article I found on it Environmental Activism is the Key to the Current Success of the New Jersey Nets