Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
Current attacks on those who question the science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are signs of desperation. You can detect the exasperation in this comment by President Obama.
“So unfortunately, inside of Washington we’ve still got some climate deniers who shout loud, but they’re wasting everybody’s time on a settled debate,” Obama said, doubling down on remarks made during his State of the Union Address this year by adding that, “Climate change is a fact.”
Whoever said it wasn’t a fact? Does the President believe that if humans disappeared climate change would stop? If he does, it is a reasonable, but ludicrous conclusion to draw from the IPCC claim that 95+ percent of climate change since 1950 is due to human production of CO2.
Why is the most powerful person in the world ranting against a few people expressing different views? If they are so wrong why does he bother? He insults people by suggesting they are dupes. John Kerry made even more irrational comments.
“We don’t have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society.”
These are uneducated, intemperate, dismissals, even for politicians. Why do they feel so threatened by what the deniers are saying? It is a classic example of protesting too much.
There is clearly a counterattack emanating from a siege mentality White House driven by four major conditions.
- It is the avowed primary policy driver for President Obama’s domestic and foreign policies.
- The last chance for a global climate policy occurs December 2015 in Paris (COP21).
- Polls, especially from the UN, show the public does not consider climate change a concern.
- Major countries, such as India, are already announcing ambivalent positions on CO2 reduction and refusal to limit burning coal.
Responses to claims by scientists who challenged IPCC science were always political. IPCC defenders know a scientific response to the scientific challenges were a waste of time because of the general lack of scientific knowledge. They know the IPCC Report of Working Group I The Physical Science Basis is indefensible because the document lays out all the severe limitations of the science. They know the science is wrong because the predictions are always wrong. If they don’t know these things, then their ignorance is willful. Something apparently confirmed by their failure to acknowledge the problems and correct the science. Instead, they ignore the evidence and resort to ad hominem[1] attacks.
Labeling legitimate scientists as “global warming skeptics” exploited the public failure to know that skepticism is the role of science and scientists. Those pushing the IPCC claims did not look at the scientific evidence that skeptics produced to contradict the hypothesis. They knew the public didn’t realize the implications of the fact that CO2 continued to increase, but the temperature didn’t. It was only when cold winters conflicted with claims of global warming that they acted (Figure 2). They could no longer ignore their frozen lying eyes.
Figure 2 (Published in 2008)
Evidence of the impact appeared in a 2004-leaked CRU email from the Minns/Tyndall Centre on the University of East Anglia (UEA) campus that said,
“In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media.”
To which Swedish Chief Climate Negotiator Bo Kjellen replied,
“I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming.”
They didn’t address the science. They changed the label to “climate change” and amplified the personal attacks, as skeptics became deniers, with all the holocaust connotations. The name “climate change denier” is wrong on many levels. Its creation and use prove the creators and users do so to exploit the public lack of understanding. As usual, IPCC proponents ignored or deflected all scientific challenges. The overarching theme of the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) illustrates a similar response. Ignore the scientific questions and attack the individual. One of the most egregious examples disclosed by the emails was the attack on Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas by John Holdren.
Holdren moved the goalposts again in 2014 and launched a full assault with the 840 pages “National Climate Assessment”. In that publication, he initiated the term “Climate Disruption”. It achieved Holdren’s objective as CBS News explained in, “Report Uses Phrase ‘Climate Disruption’ As Another Way To Say Global Warming.”
Climate change’s assorted harms “are expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this century and beyond,” the National Climate Assessment concluded Tuesday. The report emphasizes how warming and its all-too-wild weather are changing daily lives, even using the phrase “climate disruption” as another way of saying global warming.
It is interesting because it is the first label that is not just scientific. A disruption is a break or interruption in normality, so the inference is that an abnormal disruption in climate is due to humans. So far, an ad hominem name is not attached. Maybe it’s because denier still works, but more likely it is built in and unnecessary. The ad hominem attacks prove that the entire IPCC process was and remains political. If it were about science, it couldn’t fulfill George Will’s comment that,
“When a politician says, “the debate is over,” you can be sure of two things: the debate is raging, and he’s losing it.”
If you are in the group who call challengers, climate change deniers, it implies that you deny that climate changes. The distinction between human-caused change and natural change is irrelevant at this point because the public knows virtually nothing about natural change. If they did, they would not be so easily misled. I wonder how many understood what Dr. Philip Lloyd said in his assessment of temperature records?
Holocene century-on-century changes have a standard deviation close to 1 deg C, so if there is a signal due to carbon dioxide, it still has not emerged from the background noise.
You are also in the group that believes “the science is settled” and “the debate is over”, which allows you to ignore the evidence and pursue personal attacks. People in this group, including the mainstream media, have a political agenda,.
In the countdown to Paris and the end of the Obama administration we see; increasing personal attacks on scientists doing their job properly; false claims about extreme weather; continued denial that current climate change is within the range of natural variability; and continued denial or avoidance of contradictory evidence. We are experiencing the supposed, but unnecessary, emancipation from fossil fuels. Irving F Stone (1907-1989), a true investigative journalist, described what is happening.
Every emancipation has in it the seeds of a new slavery, and every truth easily becomes a lie.
[1] Ad hominem; (of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic. 2. relating to or associated with a particular person:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Holdren/Kerry/Obama are trying to set the stage for the new totalitarian state.
No, they are not. The rhetoric is getting out of hand.
Heh, it’s all over but for the fat lady, and the encores unto farce.
===========
Brute– No…. You are incorrect.
Leftists have made it VERY clear that CAGW was designed to be the conduit through which the UN, central and local governments and/or government organizations will implement command and control policies, which will have huge impacts on how humans live: where we can live, how much energy we can use, how much water we’re allocated, what we can eat, what we can drive, land use, zoning laws, what type of energy is available, what can be built on private property, massive EPA regulations, massive global wealth redistribution through carbon taxes/subsidies, etc.
Just read UN’s Agenda 21, and also see all the EPA rules and regulations that are being implemented under the auspices of CAGW to appreciate how CAGW is ALREADY being used to implement massive rules, regulations, mandates, taxes, subsidies, through local and federal government polices.
Yes, they are. The rhetoric (‘propaganda’ fits much better) is straight out of NAZI Germany. There are no nations in the World at this time that cannot be accurately described as fascist of the national socialistic type. except perhaps North Korea, which maintains strict Maoist-type communism (another form of socialism). You need to wake-up to reality and read some history books (and some economics books).
It sounds to me like Obama would like to hold skeptics guilty of endangering national security, and lock us up. Perhaps that is just his desire and not his plan, but it certainly makes him look like a totalitarian-wannabe.
Another example of why you hire professionals for the top jobs.
There is no such thing as climate change scientifically speaking – period – end of story.
But wait how could any reasonable person say such a thing? Everybody has heard of climate change; everyone is talking about climate change; it’s on the news; it’s in the press; it’s in print, even the President of the United States says that climate change is real. So how can I say that there is no such thing as climate change scientifically speaking?
That’s simple – because you’ve all been duped by a play on words – it’s called ‘word magic’. And just because everyone is saying it doesn’t make it true.
Let me explain. Scientifically speaking we have ‘climate variation’ not ‘climate change’. You see climate variation is scientific terminology whereas climate change is political terminology.
Climate variation is a real scientific term that both accurately and objectively describes the cyclical nature of climate. Climate change is a manufactured political term that’s subjectively applied by the user to evoke an emotional response from their audience. Scientists that are claiming there is climate change or who are using the term climate change in their ‘peer reviewed’ scientific studies and writings need to be called out for using such unscientific, unprofessional and inaccurate terminology.
President Obama has over-stepped his intellect. He has repetitively stated that ‘the facts are in’,and ‘97% of Climate Scientists are in agreement’, and ‘the debate is over’. What a flaming ass. No scientific matter is ever over until your theory has become a law – and climate change is still a raging debate with no conclusion in site.
As for those 97%, well maybe someone needs to tell the President there is no such thing as a Climate Scientist. you cannot go to college and become a Climate Scientist and it is NOT a recognized professional title by any scientific organization. It’s been made up by those who have a political agenda. Sorry Mr. President you have your facts all wrong and we can see your progressive slip showing. Oh…and you’re still an ass. A…progressive…ass!
Well said. I have a comment presently stuck in moderation on a similar theme.
The mistake here is that because climate naturally changes that people consider that climate change is real. The misconception is that change in and of itself is not climate change, nor evidence of climate change. That is a subtle, but very material distinction which does not appear to be sufficiently recognised and/or understood.
Any change which is within the bounds of natural variation is precisely what climate itself is.
I emphasise that any change within the bounds of natural variation is not climate change.
The real issue is why are we letting warmists define climate on a 30 year span? What is the scientific justification for this? Why isn’t climate defined and assessed on the basis of a much longer period such as 100, or 300 or even a 1000 years? That is a legitimate scientific question that needs to be addressed and answered.
If there are natural cycles of periodicity (which appear to be the case although the jury is still out), why is not this period included in the length/duration over which climate is assessed/to be assessed?
what about becoming a climatologist?
Well. For the IPCC there was never any doubt.
ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
In the Psychopathic Mind of the IPCC Humans ARE the agents of Cause Climate Change and Weather on Earth!
A corn crop fails in Kansas: The Humans Did It!
A potato crop fails in Ukraine: The Humans Did It.
A Hurricane batters New Orleans: The Humans Did It.
Your child’s tooth is decayed: Humans Did It.
Emperor Bon Ki-Moon, UN, Wolfenstein High Command in NYC calling Field Marshal Angela Dorothea Markel in Germany: “We will need 300 sarin death camps to achieve the required culling. Can you DO IT!
Markel: Sig Heil Mein Fuhrer. My Wurm Is For Your Baby.
For leftist political scoundrels that are more interested in political agendas than scientific truth, “Climate Change” is semantically the best term to use to assure “The Cause” continues as long as possible, because “climate change” is non-nulifiable….
For the past 4.5 billion years, global climate has always been “changing”. For leftists, both rising and FALLING global temperatures have been blamed on manmade CO2 levels…. Trying to disconfirm “Climate Change” is like trying to nail mercury to the wall… It can’t be done.
It’s also hilarious to see leftists ranking years rather than dealing with the reality that global temp trends have been flat for almost 20 years…
Ranking years is statistics for children, as It provides almost NO information. It’s equivalent to a 40 year-old man saying he’s still growing for 20 out of the last 20 years, he’s been at his tallest height…. Hey, he can even show a linear increasing trend line from age 13 to 40, which “proves” he’s still growing!!… How childish…
I can’t believe more people can’t see through this charade.
Perhaps the biggest hurdle in disconfirming the CAGW hypothesis is that so many “scientific” organizations still show tacit (often explicit) support of the CAGW hypothesis….
I think once the 25-year mark of flat/falling/static/slightly rising threshold passes, a number of directors of these organizations will finally HAVE TO give up supporting the CAGW hypothesis. If current trends continue for another 5~7 years, CAGW model projections will be 3+ standard deviations off from reality for over a quarter of century, which will make it impossible for these scientific organizations to support CAGW and not risk crossing the line of malfeasance of public funds, which is an actionable criminal offense.
Leftists will NOT risk criminal lawsuits and politicians will not risk losing votes over CAGW.
So few people understand what ad hominem originally and properly means that the only way the confusion could be ended is to retire the phrase (most people think it is a synonym for *personal attack” using which makes them sound intelligent), but the definition you quote is one of the worst I have seen from a (presumably) “reputable” source.
Apart from that, a useful article.
Atmosfear sucks
There’s another group of true ignoramus, the “it’s for the children” mob … probably covered in this explanation, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/23/why-its-so-hard-to-convince-warmists/
There’s another group of true ignoramus, the “it’s for the children” mob … probably covered in this explanation, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/23/why-its-so-hard-to-convince-warmists/
If you think about it, the straight shaft of the Hockey Stick is the very essence of climate change denial.
Chris
Global warming morphed into climate change and carbon dioxide into carbon. The latter was more significant because school science teaching the carbon (dioxide) cycle in nature labelled all living things as villains for breathing and plants not helpful by converting carbon dioxide into plant cell growth through photosynthesis – not even mentioning chemical conversion of CO2 into carbonates bicarbonates in seawater.
Assuming the obvious, that global warming will cause direct melting of polar ice caps, let’s look at the RATE of sea level increase since the mid-1800s. Google the data with this search: Battery NOAA Sea Level. The chart will show a strict linear trend of increase, not the least bit influenced by the world population increase from 1 billion to 7 billion since the beginning of that chart. Given that burning of hydrocarbons MUST have increased at least an order of magnitude in that time, the data completely mitigated against any influence of man on sea level rise and thus global warming.
The more I think about it, the more I consider myself to be a climate change denier.
The problem here is what is climate. Everyone accepts that climate is not an absolute and constantly changes and indeed has been changing ever since the Earth developed an atmosphere and oceans.
Given that climate is constantly in flux and constantly changes, it means that change by itself is not climate change nor evidence of climate change.
Further, temperaature is merely one parameter amongst many that go to define what climate is.
The issue as I see it is twofold. First, that the planet, on a global basis, only has 3 climatic states, glacial, inter glacial and nearly ice free. The concept of global warming or global climate is farcical and misconceived since climate, at any given time, is regional not global. So too with warming; some parts of the globe appear to be warming, some appear to be cooling, and some parts appear to be undergoing little change in temperature.
Second, what is climate? To me climate is not and cannot properly be defined over a short period, such as 30 years, and is something to be measured and assessed on a multi-centenial if not millenial time scale. Climate consists of many parameters each of which have bounds, ie., an upper and lower bound. Claimate constantly meanders between the upper and lower level of each of these bounds, and may for many many years be at or towards the upper limit of the bound, or the lower liommit of the bound, or somewhere in between. That can be lengthy periods of warmth, or coolness, or drought, or floods, or snow, or little or no snow, storms, or little or no storms, of high winds, or little or no wind, the length and start/end of the seasons may meander a little such that for example winter may onset later (or earlier) and come to an end sooner (or later), but none of that is climate change.
In otherwords, natural change/variation is what climate is, and this is not in itself climate change. If this natural variation is to be measured on a multicentenial (or even millenial) basis rather than an artifically short (and an absurdly short one given that the globe is some 4 billion years old) period such as 30 years, then there has been no climate change in my life.
Indeed, as I often note, I am unaware of any region/country that has undergone climate change these past 50 or so years in the sense that it has changed its Koppen (or equivalent) classification. When this clasification was made there were some areas/regions that were on the cusp of two climate regimes and these areas.regions are still on the cusp of such.
The debate has been skewed by allowing the warmist to define climate as some 30 year norm. What is the scientific justification for such? That is a key element of this debate.
It is necessary to retake the ground that natural variation occupies, and the implication of such before one can even begin to consider what recent observational data is telling us about the climate system on planet Earth how it behaves and how it responds to changes in the composition of the atmosphere, and solar insolation (both TSI, and variations in composition, and variations in clouds), and albedo.
Over and over again, there’s this pigheaded idea that one could argue with armed robbers, and that’s the only thing we can or should do.
Socialists and environmental thieves are armed robbers. How do you fight an armed robber? By endlessly discussing his “terminology”?
Israel doesn’t discuss much a question of Europeans attacking “Jews” or “Israel.” Their policy is based on the assumption that behind any attack on Israel is rabid Jew-hatred, deep-rooted in Christian myths and in the desperate need to find any scapegoat that is weak and/or far away, instead of pointing the blaming finger at yourself.
Israel’s policy is realistic, and that’s why it is successful — in the most antagonistic surroundings.
Fight the green fascism: fight it with everything you got. You will never convince a robber to stop the robbery.
Global warming, climate change, climate disruption
If the science is settled, how come the name for it isn’t?
There is no such thing as a single planetary climate. As Richard Verney says [May 25, 2015 at 3:51 am]:
From The Galactic Atlas of Habitable Planets:
/Mr Lynn
I see people are no calling alarmists DBs – Deaf to reason, blind to facts.
Don’t let Mr. Stealey hear that.
;-}
Have they ever documented the so called tropical tropospheric temperature anomaly? That was part of their original story telling. Seems to me that any surface warming without tropospheric warming is game over, go home and back to the drawing board?
The Tropospheric Warm Zone was hypothesized to be a fingerprint of CO2 based warming. When it could not be found, the Modellers should have re-worked their hypothesis. They did not.
The Scientific Method was abandoned. Then and there, it stopped being about science.
I would say the climate change, that has been in part generated by humans, had taken already a big toll. And it also costed a lot of money, spent with intention or circumstantially. I believe that oceans represent the second most important factor, after the sun, that is influencing climate and that it’s important to discuss about oceans and how our activity on the sea lead to climate change.
The toll taken by “climate change” has been from idiotic public policy based upon the myth of primarily man-made global warming. Humans do affect the weather in some localities, but not enough to have a measurable effect on global temperature. No anthropogenic signal is detectable in the small amount of global climate change over the past century, fifty years or whatever unit of time you chose to use since the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid-19th century.
The oceans affected by naval and merchant ships operating and sailing the seas back and forth should have been the hottest topic in the debate on climate change since meteorology was established as a science in the late 19th century. Instead of that, oceans were ignored up to the late 20th century and not even today do they enjoy the significant position they deserve. Oceans are, as I mentioned before, a decisive climatic force, the second after the sun. I emphasize with the idea that Naval War had a great impact in the climate change. I suggest visiting http://www.1ocean-1climate.com to read more about this thesis.