The “Scientific Consensus” has fallen and it can’t get up

Last week a notable left wing climate scientist admitted to a crowd at the Aspen Environment Forum that the effort to win the scientific debate on the cause of climate change had been lost.  Jonathan Foley, director of the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota said:

“Climate scientists — stop talking about climate science. We lost. It’s over. Forget it,”

No matter how exciting this may seem on the surface to the skeptics who have long battled establishment propaganda on anthropogenic global warming, Foley’s statement was not a concession of strategic defeat, only tactical realignment.  Foley continued by saying climate scientists and supporters of regulation and taxation of carbon dioxide need to try a new rouse to dupe an American public wise to autocratic power grabs disguised as societal stewardship.

“The skepticism around climate change has created a trap for us,” Foley said. “Stop digging yourself into the hole. Get out of it. Talk about it a different way. Reframe the issue.”

http://www.postindependent.com/article/20100729/VALLEYNEWS/100729865/1083&ParentProfile=1074

It is Foley’s audience at the Aspen Environment Forum that possibly could use a reframing of the issue.  Cap and trade is not about Mother Earth or environmental protection nor has it ever been.  It is another derivatives market heavily invested on the ground floor by Wall Street and energy industry titans (for example Enron was one special interest behind the first attempts to legislate cap and trade).  These players are not the traditional allies of Greenpeace and the EPA.  Any cap and trade law adopted by Congress will have no appreciable effect on climate and it is likely to have little effect on overall carbon dioxide levels either.  There has been a verified net increase in emissions since the EU enacted its carbon trading scheme for example.  If any environmentalist could rectify these numbers with the notion of environmental protection I would be impressed.  The best attempt is to state the caps are not strict enough.  Despite these claims, no matter what the caps are, they can always be exceeded simply by passing cost on to consumers.  Surplus credits are inevitably sold to another polluter resulting in a zero sum game.  Actually, it is only a zero sum game in terms of pollution.  It is a huge profit making mechanism and dangerous reverse trading pyramid of carbon that could threaten the financial industry the same way securitized mortgages have for the last two years.  The profits are not confined to traders on Wall Street; the government fine collectors will have their share too.

Data is readily available on the percentage change of CO2 emissions in the best “lab test” we have for cap and trade which is the EU. Here are some numbers.

Country Verified emissions Change from 2005 – 2007

Austria -4.9%
Belgium -4.6%
Cyprus 6.2%
Czech Republic 6.5%
Germany 2.5%
Denmark 11.1%
Estonia 21.5%
Spain 1.6%
Finland 28.5%
France -3.5%
Greece 2.0%
Hungary 2.6%
Ireland -5.3%
Italy 0.2%
Lithuania -9.2%
Luxembourg -1.4%
Latvia -0.2%
Netherlands -0.6%
Poland 3.2%
Portugal -14.4%
Sweden -20.8%
Slovenia 3.8%
Slovakia -2.8%
United Kingdom 5.8%

Total change was a net increase of 1.9% during Phase I in 2005-2007. Cap and trade is all cost and no benefit.

“Americans should ask themselves whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2. Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent. Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States.”

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/19076/capandtrade.html

Perhaps Mr. Foley could have admitted to the conference that the real reason Americans are not behind carbon legislation is not because we need the argument reframed like petulant children, it is because a large percentage of the population understands that scientist do not agree CO2 is causing any of the current warming.  Mr. Foley could have actually given some credit to the fact that we commoners can, in many instances, understand the science or at least geology.

We have seen Climategate and we have seen what makes up this dwindling consensus.  We know of petitions of 33,000 scientist against anthropogenic global warming versus 1,500 scientist in the IPPC does not make a consensus.  Some of us maybe have even dabbled in the scientific method a little and understand that a “scientific consensus” is not even part of the scientific method.  You have theories and laws both supported by observation, facts being testable and repeatable, theories falsifiable and revised or discarded, but you have no panel of scientist declaring in the media that things are “settled”.  If it is a scientific fact, it is a fact and it is known and not in dispute.  There is no consensus needed to determine the acceleration of gravity.  It is funny to hear the disgraced Al Gore compare skeptics to “Flat Earthers” when it is he who sounds an awful lot like the Catholic Church in the age of Galileo.  The Church of the Middle Ages declared that the geocentric universe science was settled as well. Instead of metaphorically burning you at the stake as the Warminst do to the skeptics with slanderous public statements, the Church actually set you on fire. I guess we can thank Al Gore and his ilk for stopping short of those ends.

The basis of this entire religion of the Warmist is the IPCC and their now 1,500 scientist still hanging on for dear life and funding.  However, many abandoned ship long ago and speak out against the whole IPCC process.  The chief IPCC author on the 3rd assessment report, John Christy is one of the more high profile and vocal critics of the IPCC and claimed consensus.  John Christy was a scientist at NASA who compiled the first global data set for temperature.  Every manipulated climate model is based off Christy’s work, only with the parameters adjusted to achieve a desired politically acceptable result.  Christy finds himself outside of the so-called consensus and does not believe any of the signatures of anthropogenic warming are present.  As Christy has stated in radio interviews, many of the people left in this consensus are not even climate scientists yet they are presented to the public as someone who has researched causation as he has.  The fact is, many in this consensus probably have no more knowledge on the cause of global warming than the average informed citizen.

For information on climate data, John Christy and Roy Spencer visit their University of Alabama Huntsville website.

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy_bio.html

Scientists all over the world have sued the IPCC for placing their names on an assessment report in which they do not agree with the findings or the process of peer review.  These scientists have gone on record stating there is no peer review process and often times the scientist reviews their own sections of the report while all dissenting opinions are stricken.  The IPCC process is all politics, not science.  Science is observation.  Computer models that are manipulated to produce predictions 100 years in the future and not at all representative of real world variables is not science, it isn’t even pseudo-science, it is propaganda and lies and this is why the argument has be “lost.”

Where is the evidence for the Warmist?  They have their Sims computer games for climate but wish to ignore the mountains of geological evidence against CO2 as the cause.  They also like to ignore that big ball of burning hydrogen in the sky.  They choose to erase whole sections of geological history such as the Medieval Warming Period, Little Ice Age while trying to find ways to “hide the decline.” They also like to forget that we are still technically in an Ice Age, the Cenozoic Ice Age as a matter of fact and at some point, things warm up.  In geologic time that has been over the last 12,000 years so far as we have been in the Holocene interglacial period.

What the Warmist like to point to is not causation, it is impact.  Sea ice levels, baby Polar Bears, these are impact assessments and not causal explanations.  However that is exactly the type of “evidence” provided by the Warmist in this debate. When devising a devastating set of policies that threaten to destroy standards of living and deprive the developing world of cheap energy (which will lead to untold human deaths and suffering), we should require more than manipulated data and transparent scare tactics on which to base our opinions.

For a very simple graph of geological time variances of temperature see here.

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

As a cursory examination of the graph above will show you this is far from the “hottest time in history”, in fact, the globe is usually much warmer and completely ice free. Life has flourished in these times (when there was life). Consider the claim that this is the “highest CO2 levels in history.”  Please observe some past CO2 levels on the link below.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Seems the EPAs toxic substance carbon dioxide is actually a life giving gas and plant food.  In this debate on cap and trade and carbon taxation, we the public who will bear the cost of all these usurpations are not getting the facts from the mainstream media or a majority of the ruling class.  At best we are getting a positive argument backed with normative evidence.  Many people simply want cap and trade or a carbon tax to price fossil fuels out of existence because they believe it is necessary.  The necessity should stand on the merits of the evidence alone and not be based upon reframing or conflating issues such as energy dependence with socialistic central planning agendas.

I wear many hats but history, economics and political observance have always been a passion. I am a graduate of the University of Cincinnati College of Business with a degree in Information Systems and Digital Business with a minor in European History. I work for a small mom-and-pop IT consulting and software design company. We deal in servicing mostly government funded non-profit mental and behavioral health care agencies in the state of Ohio. In this I deal with Medicaid and Medicare funds and have a little insight on the boondoggles of government there. Thankfully the undemanding nature of my daily profession gives me ample time to read and stay aware of our current state of affairs which I find stranger than fiction in many instances. In addition to being in the IT field, I have also been self employed with a small contracting company so I might know a thing or two about the plight of small business that employs 71% of the American workforce. I however don't draw my knowledge from my day jobs, which I have had a few; I draw it from an intense obsession with facts and observation about the world in which I live. I do have formal education in things such as history, economics and finance particularly as it pertains to global issues, but I have come to find much of what I thought I knew from the formalities of a state university I had to unlearn through much time and independent research. I hope you enjoy what I bring you which is not often heard in the mainstream news outlets. I would like to think my own personal editorializing is not only edifying but thought provoking while not at all obnoxious. That last one may be a hard to achieve.

1 Comment

  1. Scott

    August 5, 2010 at 8:10 am

    This article is a real eye-opener.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>