Short Circuiting The Scientific Process – A Serious Problem In The Climate Science Community

Another harsh example:
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200906075057/energy-and-environment/eco-colonialism-degrades-africa.html
June 7, 2009
by Willie Soon and Paul Driessen
Eco-Imperialism.com
Green, UN, rich nation and African elites impose deadly anti-development colonialism
Sub-Saharan Africa remains one of Earth’s most impoverished regions. Over 90% of its people still lack electricity, running water, proper sanitation and decent housing. Malaria, malnutrition, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and intestinal diseases kill millions every year. Life expectancy is appalling, and falling.
And yet UN officials, European politicians, environmentalist groups and even African authorities insist that global warming is the gravest threat facing the continent. They claim there is no longer any debate over human-caused global warming – but ignore thousands of scientists who say human CO2 emissions are not the primary cause of climate changes, there is no evidence that future warming will be catastrophic, and computer models do not provide valid projections or “scenarios” for the future.
[Global] Warming alarmists use the “specter of climate change” to justify inhumane policies and shift the blame for problems that could be solved with the very technologies they oppose.
Past colonialism sought to develop mining, forestry and agriculture, and bring better government and healthcare practices to Africa . Eco-colonialism keeps Africans “traditional” and “indigenous,” by insisting that modern technologies are harmful and not “sustainable” in Africa .
Abundant, reliable, affordable electricity could power homes, offices, factories, schools and hospitals, create jobs, bring clean running water, and generate health and prosperity. But Rainforest Action Network and other pressure groups oppose coal and natural gas electricity generation on the grounds of climate change, and hydroelectric and nuclear power for other ideological reasons. They promote wind turbines and solar panels that provide electricity unreliably and in amounts too small to meet any but the most rudimentary needs.
Biotechnology could produce bumper crops that overcome droughts, floods, insects, viruses, and even global warming and cooling. But Greenpeace and Sierra Club oppose this precision hybrid-making technology, and instead promote land and labor-intensive subsistence farming.
DDT and insecticides could slash malaria rates that Al Gore and other climate alarmists falsely claim are rising because of global warming. But Pesticide Action Network and other activists stridently oppose their use, and the European Parliament recently imposed new pesticide restrictions that will further restrict African access to life-saving chemicals.
Recent incidents dramatize how depraved and deadly global warming politics have become.
In Gambia , a UN-subsidized “national ministerial dialogue” promoted extremist views on “catastrophic climate change” and “sustainable development.” A Forestry and Environment department representative asserted that it would be “nearly impossible to adapt to … impacts such as the loss of the West Antarctic ice sheet … and [resultant] 5-15 meter sea level rise.”
There was no mention of the near-zero probability of such an event happening. Average annual temperatures in Antarctica hover around minus 50 Centigrade (-58 F), while average temperatures for the two-month summer in its Western Peninsula are barely four degrees above freezing.
Scary tales of runaway temperature spikes melting 200,000 cubic miles of peninsular ice might be expected from Al Gore and James Hansen. But when Gambian ministers engage in such unscrupulous propaganda, they further degrade the health and welfare of their people.
Cameroon hosted a “fact-finding” visit from seven senior British Members of Parliament, who declaimed that climate change is “a jinx that threatens humanity more than HIV/AIDS.” They were joined by Cameroon ‘s Minister of Forestry and Wildlife in urging that forests be managed to increase absorption of planetary carbon dioxide and “reduce global warming.”
Few climate actions, however, come close to the travesty being played out in nearby Chad . There the government has banned the manufacture, importation and use of charcoal – the sole source of fuel for 99% of Chadians.
“Cooking is a fundamental necessity for every household,” its Environment Minister pronounced. But “with climate change every citizen must protect his environment.”
The edict has sent women and children scavenging for dead branches, cow dung, grass and anything else that burns. “People cannot cook,” said human rights activist Merlin Totinon Nguebetan. “Women giving birth cannot even find a bit of charcoal to heat water for washing,” said another.
The government admitted it had failed to prepare the public for its sudden decree, but announced no change in plans – saying only that scarce propane might be an alternative for some. When citizens protested, they were violently dispersed by police.
“We will not give up,” a women’s group leader said. “Better to die swiftly than continue dying slowly.”
So this is where radical climate change alarmism has taken us. When the health of Planet Earth is at stake, human life means little – even if the “disasters” are nothing more than worst-case scenarios conjured up by computer models, headline writers, Hollywood , and professional doomsayers like Gore, Hansen and NOAA alarmist-in-chief Susan Solomon.
“Every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh , an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned,” British arch-environmentalist George Monbiot hectored readers of The Guardian, in a typically hysteria-laced column.
One has to wonder if he would apply the same standard to eco-colonialist executives who continue to perpetuate poverty, disease, malnutrition and death in the name of preventing “global warming disasters” that fewer and fewer respectable scientists still believe are caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.
As economist Indur Goklany and even the UN climate panel acknowledge, future generations will be far richer than today’s. Poor families today should not be asked to bear the burden for richer families tomorrow, especially to guard against speculative climate and sustainability “disasters” whose “solutions” are worse than the purported problems.
The United Nations, European Union and United States need to address Africa ‘s real problems and replace lethal eco-colonialism with fact-based science and humane public policies. And African countries need to take command of their future.
Africa needs to curb corruption. Adopt property rights and free enterprise principles. Promote sustained development. Utilize disease-preventing insecticides and modern agricultural biotechnology.
Rely less on foreign aid that is shriveling in the global recession and often comes with conditions and prohibitions that keep communities and nations deprived of energy and mired in poverty. Work with companies that want to develop natural resources, to get help building hospitals, schools and large-scale power plants that provide dependable, affordable electricity.
In short, Africa needs to remember Milton Friedman’s sage advice: “Poor countries should not do what rich countries did once they became rich. They should do what rich countries did to become rich.”
______________
Soon is chief science adviser for the Science and Public Policy Institute and author of numerous papers on climate change. Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power Black Death.

Benjamin P. (09:11:09) :
That’s just speculation Anna. Where is the evidence to support that?
Jump up and down a few times. If Anna is wrong, you will find yourself in orbit.

Smokey (13:28:47) :
The Brit MP’s no doubt realize that they are endorsing policies that directly result in the unnecessary deaths of Africans. But like all Leftists in power, they don’t care.
And there isn’t much difference between the British MP’s, and Hansen, Gore and their acolytes…
…lookin’ at you —> Joe Romm.
Smokey,
As I see it the UN, their followers and servants are purpetrating a crime against humanity in a way that keeps them out of the courts.
They have learned from the NAZI practices and kill by policy without ever haveing to say “Wir haben es nich gewüsst”.
Fortunately we know better and we will put these rats aside before they are able to cause any further damage.
I did not forget the day when Vaslac Claus held his excellent speech before the EU Parliament and the left stood up and walked away.
They took a severe beating at the last EU elections and a major hift to the right took place.
The left is taking hits globaly and there will come a moment in time where we can restore (undo) this madness.
GB will be freed from one of the most prominent architects of the current AGW policies as Mr. Brown will be forced to pack his suitcase and go.
The current US Administration will be confronted with the same faith.
We will send them home.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/the_collapsing_global_left_1.html
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/new-jelly-pump-rewrites-carbon-cycle

Anthony,
Still think that the educational angle is worth a thread. It points to an area that needs real attention.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/03/7435
Teacher Under Fire For Showing Gore Film Without Rebuttal
by Ben Fulton
“It’s very difficult to find materials on the other side of the debate that are science-based,” Gentry said. “That comment’s going to get me into trouble, but it’s true.
“Yes, a good teacher would present all the different ways in which we know why the climate changes. At the same time, current data show that our climate has never changed this fast before.”

Ron de Haan,
Scary article. This part bothered me a lot:
Cameroon hosted a “fact-finding” visit from seven senior British Members of Parliament, who declaimed that climate change is “a jinx that threatens humanity more than HIV/AIDS.” They were joined by Cameroon ’s Minister of Forestry and Wildlife in urging that forests be managed to increase absorption of planetary carbon dioxide and “reduce global warming.”
Few climate actions, however, come close to the travesty being played out in nearby Chad . There the government has banned the manufacture, importation and use of charcoal – the sole source of fuel for 99% of Chadians.
“Cooking is a fundamental necessity for every household,” its Environment Minister pronounced. But “with climate change every citizen must protect his environment.”
The edict has sent women and children scavenging for dead branches, cow dung, grass and anything else that burns. “People cannot cook,” said human rights activist Merlin Totinon Nguebetan. “Women giving birth cannot even find a bit of charcoal to heat water for washing,” said another.
The Brit MP’s no doubt realize that they are endorsing policies that directly result in the unnecessary deaths of Africans. But like all Leftists in power, they don’t care.
And there isn’t much difference between the British MP’s, and Hansen, Gore and their acolytes…
…lookin’ at you —> Joe Romm.
Smokey,
The UN, it’s followers and servants is purpretrating crimes against humanity at a scale that dwarfs that of the NAZI’s, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the Spanish flue put together.
They have learned from the Neurenburg trials and organize their crimes in a manner that keeps them out of court.
The only way to beat them is the politcal way.
I remember the left fractions walking away from the excellent speech held by
Vaclav Claus in front of the EU Parliament.
The latest EU elections have been devastating for the left and their power base is crumbling as is the AGW doctrine.
Let’s make it clear to them that this time there is no “Wir haben es nicht gewüsst”.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/the_collapsing_global_left_1.html

I would tell you there’s very little practicle difference between Al Gore and Joseph Stalin. They both claimed to have the best of intentions for ‘the people’ at heart.
Al Gore’s net worth is now in the 100 million U.S. dollar range, or so I am told. He lives a privileged life of mansions and private jets while advocating policies and limits that doom millions and that he himself is unwilling to follow.
He has accomplices in the ‘scientific’ community that obscure and taint the data, and insists that any evidence that run’s contrary to his ‘true knowledge’ be demonized, and those who produce it be ostracized from the scientific community.
Just my opinion.

Re: Leif Svalgaard (12:49:36) & Chris Schoneveld (12:19:40)
How about blaming the education system? (…and then tracing back further to investigate what is screwing *it* up?)

I’ve noted engineers here test their designs to destruction.
I had to program a machine without access to the actual machine, so all my destructive analysis had to be conducted in my head with what ifs.
I wish that I had charged them on a 5% of savings for 2 years basis. Over the original programming, I saved them £5000/Week +.
Oh well, one lives & learns

http://www.visandvals.org/Opening_Pandora_s_Box.php
Opening Pandora’s Box: Classifying CO2 as a “Pollutant”
By Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson
June 08, 2009
A few days before “Earth Day” (which happens to be the same day as Lenin’s Birthday), America’s ideological greens and reds received a present they have been desiring for many moons: The Environmental Protection Agency—egged on by the U.S. Supreme Court—officially designated carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant. That means that either congress or the EPA is expected to produce a plan for regulating this common gas.
So opens a new chapter in regulatory absurdity, a veritable Pandora’s Box of complications.
A generation ago, it was considered great progress against pollution when catalytic converters were added to automobile engines to change poisonous carbon monoxide to benign carbon dioxide. Now, CO2 has been demonized.
The EPA’s characterization of CO2 as a pollutant brings into question the natural order of things. By the EPA’s logic, either God or Mother Nature (whichever creator you believe in) seriously goofed. After all, CO2 is the base of our food chain. CO2 nourishes plants, plants nourish animals and humans, and plants and animals serve a variety of human needs. “Pollutants” are supposed to be harmful to life, not helpful to it, aren’t they?
Of course, it is true (although greens often ignore it when trying to ban such useful chemicals as pesticides, insecticides, Alar, PCBs, etc.) that “the dose makes the poison.” Too much oxygen, for example, poses danger to human life. So, what is the “right” concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere? There is no right answer to this question. The concentration of CO2 in earth’s atmosphere fluctuated greatly long before humans appeared on earth, and that concentration has fluctuated since then, too.
The current concentration is approximately 385 parts per million. Some scientists maintain that 1,000 parts per million would provide an ideal atmosphere for plant life, accelerating plant growth and multiplying yields, thereby sustaining far more animal and human life than is currently possible. Whatever standard the EPA selects will be purely arbitrary.
“Forget about the plants, Hendrickson,” say the greens. “What we’re trying to control is how warm the earth’s atmosphere gets.” To which I reply, “With all due respect, are you kidding me?”
As with a “right” concentration of CO2, what is the “right” average global temperature? For 7,000 of the last 10,000 years, the earth was cooler than it is now; mankind prospers more in warm climates than cold climates; and the Antarctic icecap was significantly larger during the warmer mid-Holocene period than it is today. Are you sure warmer is bad or wrong?
And how do you propose to regulate the earth’s temperature when as much as 3/4 of the variability is due to variations in solar activity, with the remaining 1/4 due to changes in the earth’s orbit, axis, and albedo (reflectivity)? This truly is “mission impossible.” Mankind can no more regulate earth’s temperature than the tides.
Even if the “greenhouse effect” were greater than it actually is, the EPA and Congress would be powerless to alter it for several reasons:
1. Human activity (according to NASA data) accounts for less than 4 percent of global CO2 emissions.
2. CO2 itself accounts for only 10 or 20 percent of the greenhouse effect. (This discloses the capricious nature of EPA’s decision to classify CO2 as a pollutant, for if CO2 is a pollutant because it is a greenhouse gas, then the most common greenhouse gas of all—water vapor, which accounts for almost 3/4 of the atmosphere’s greenhouse effect—should be regulated, too. The EPA isn’t going after water vapor, of course, because then everyone would realize how absurd climate-control regulation really is.)
3. Even if Americans were to eliminate their CO2 emissions completely, total human emissions of CO2 would still increase as billions of people around the world continue to develop economically.
Clearly, it is beyond the ken of mortals to answer the meta-questions about the right concentration of CO2, or the optimal global average temperature, or to control CO2 levels in the atmosphere. I feel sorry for the professionals at EPA who are now expected to come up with answers for these unanswerable questions.
However, I do not feel sorry for the political appointees, like climate czar Carol Browner, and the whole Al Gore, left-wing political fraternity, because it looks like they are about to get what they want—the power to increase their power over Americans’ lives and pocketbooks via CO2 emission regulations.
The big questions facing us regular citizens is whether Congress or the unelected folks at EPA will decide questions like:
— Who will be forced to drive and fly less often? (If we quit using every gasoline-powered vehicle in the country, we still wouldn’t reduce CO2 emissions as much as Al Gore wants.)
— How much economic pain should be imposed on Americans for heating and cooling their homes? (Your 75-percent-higher electric bill will fund President Obama’s “green jobs” machine.)
— Which businesses will need to move offshore to power their operations at a competitive cost? (This is nothing new. EPA regulations started to off-shore oil-refinery jobs decades ago.)
The impact of CO2 regulations will hurt us far more than CO2 itself ever could. We need a miracle, folks. Let’s hope that someone nails shut the lid on this Pandora’s Box before it swings wide open and infests us with a multitude of plagues.
Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and contributing scholar with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.