Climate Science Turned Monster

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

The public just doesn't seem to be afraid of the Global Warming scare tactics
The public just doesn’t seem to be afraid of the Global Warming scare tactics

Promoters of ‘official’ climate, which is defined as the works of the UN IPCC, are desperate. Twenty of them, including Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) members like Kevin Trenberth, asked the Obama administration to file Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) charges against climate deniers. All but two of the twenty are at Universities, and the two are career bureaucrats associated with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). They all live off the public purse, but somehow in the weird world of climate science that is untainted money. The RICO charge is ad hominem, not about the science. If Virtually all the research funding for global warming comes from government and goes to those supporting the unproven hypothesis. There is no comparison between the amounts of government money going to the ‘official’ side of the science and that going to skeptics.

Their RICO charge is so ridiculous it hardly warrants a response, but it does require scientific perspective. It is important to note that none of the authors of the academic peer reviewed papers and books, they claim provide the evidence for their charge, signed the letter. It is likely that most, if not all of them or their institutes, receive funding from a government beyond their academic or government salaries.

The RICO charge is a particularly nasty form of ad hominem attack. By applying it in the global warming case, it tries to make criminals out of people doing their job properly. The real criminal part of their enterprise is that skeptics are doing what scientists are supposed to do, that is disproving the AGW hypothesis. They accuse these properly named scientific skeptics of performing the scientific method, either through ignorance of the method or to silence them. The twenty, like the IPCC and its supporters, directly or indirectly thwart the scientific method by accepting the hypothesis as proven. They then deflect or ignore overwhelming evidence that the hypothesis is wrong including failed predictions (projections). They consistently refuse to consider the null hypothesis.

The attack is not surprising because the IPCC created a monster and were driven to keep it alive. Once you create the monster it becomes uncontrollable and even if it becomes a threat to society, the creator will resist its destruction; worse, you have to keep feeding the monster and will take extreme measures if necessary. This inevitability is the moral message of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.

Establishment of the IPCC through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) put national weather office bureaucrats in control of national climate policy and most of the research funding. They appointed the members of the IPCC and used their offices to promote and perpetuate the unproven hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Extreme measures taken to keep the monster alive included adjusting the record to eliminate previous warm periods and lowering the historic instrumental record to increase the slope of the curve to create or accentuate warming. More recently it was the adjustments designed to offset the pause they directly contradicted the hypothesis. They were on a treadmill for two main reasons. By accepting the IPCC AGW hypothesis as proved, required ignoring or diverting from evidence. It was the destructive effect T.H. Huxley identified when he wrote,

“The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

By convincing politicians to establish policy based on their information, it became difficult to admit they were wrong.

The natural tendency of any bureaucracy is to perpetuate its existence. This includes expanding the scope and scale of the work, promoting speculative dangers and threats to society, emphasizing the urgency to resolve the problem, and involving as many other public and private agencies as possible. This list summarizes the claims of those making the RICO charge. The structure and involvement of people and agencies has become so large that reduction or elimination is virtually impossible. It parallels the idea of “too big to fail” but becomes, “too important to fail”.

Another challenge is that the numbers of people involved, directly or indirectly, becomes large enough to influence votes and keep the monster alive. For example, how many tax accountants, tax lawyers, IRS employees or anyone else in the taxation industry would vote for a flat tax? Other than those with a vested interest there are many others who Niccolo Machiavelli identified when he said,

 

One who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived.

It is also why Upton Sinclair said,

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”

 

There is also the problem of admitting error that many find difficult. Tolstoi summarized their plight.

“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

In The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science, I identified some of the groups and agencies across the world involved in the promotion and opportunities that the global warming deception offered. They include

· Members of the cabal who chose climate and environment as vehicles for their political agenda.

· Academics attracted by the significant amounts of funding offered.

· Academics with political sympathies for the cabal’s objectives.

· Bureaucrats employed by the national weather offices that comprise the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) chosen as the vehicle for controlling the IPCC.

· Bureaucrats with political sympathies with the cabal objectives.

· Bureaucrats in other government agencies, such as Agriculture or Transport that are secondarily affected by weather and climate issues.

· Departments of Education who directed unbalanced teaching of only the ‘official’ science as Justice Burton UK court ruled.

· Politicians who saw an opportunity to “be green.”

· Politicians who saw an opportunity for more taxation.

· Businesses that saw an opportunity for a profitable business guaranteed by government policy and funding.

· Individuals who saw a career or business opportunity.

· Environmental groups who supported the political objectives of blaming humans for the world’s ills.

· Non-Government Organizations (NGOs). Maurice Strong reconstituted the term coined by the UN in 1945 for the Rio 1992 conference. It purportedly gave voice to organizations not part of a government or conventional for-profit businesses. At Conference of the Parties (COP) climate meetings, they constitute at least half of the attendees.

· Most of the media who actively supported the AGW hypothesis.

· National science academies persuaded by the British Royal Society to support the IPCC position.

There is one thing likely about most of these people, 97 percent of them know little or nothing about climate change.

The Climate Conference of the Parties (COP21) scheduled for Paris is clearly facing failure, which is pushing IPCC defenders, such as the twenty making the RICO request, to extremes. Their comparison of scientists trying to perform proper science to organized crime leaders is beyond outrageous. It is especially egregious because the people making the charges are guilty of scientific malfeasance. While not necessarily criminal, it is worse in the damage it has and will do to everyone. The monster they created using incorrect science became the justification for imposing destructive, expensive, and completely unnecessary policies on the world. These policies will do far more damage to the poor and the environment they claim to protect. As it was anonymously said,

If an honest man is wrong, after demonstrating that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
217 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
asybot
September 19, 2015 9:36 pm

Dr Tim Ball, I heard to part of your program on Ian Jessop’s radio show ( Sept 17th) regarding comments you made about he University system. Is there a transcript available? Although I only caught part of I fully agreed with you at the time but would like to read the whole thing, thanks.

Gary Hladik
Reply to  asybot
September 19, 2015 10:16 pm

Listen here:
https://soundcloud.com/ian-jessop-cfax
Go to the 17 Sep 1 PM audio clip, starting about 7 minutes in.

co2islife
Reply to  Gary Hladik
September 20, 2015 4:37 am
asybot
Reply to  asybot
September 20, 2015 3:20 pm

Thanks guys great!

LarryFine
September 19, 2015 9:42 pm

Warmists stopped doing science, and now they want to criminalize science so nobody can do it?

Eugene WR Gallun
September 19, 2015 10:03 pm

Dr. Tim Ball — Exactly — Eugene WR Gallun

LarryFine
September 19, 2015 11:45 pm

According to the letter these scientists all signed off on, one of the things Global Warming is supposed to cause is “increasing ocean acidity”. Do they not know that the oceans aren’t acidic, and so they cannot become “increasingly” acidic?
In addition to that error, it’s impossible for the oceans to become acidic because there isn’t enough carbon atoms in the atmosphere to convert 300 million cubic miles of sea water into an acid. So, the oceans will remain alkaline, and in fact warming would cause them to become even more alkaline.
Dr. Eastbrook deals with this at about the one hour mark in this Congressional hearing.
http://youtu.be/kFyH-b3FRvE

ralfellis
Reply to  LarryFine
September 20, 2015 3:08 am

Well worth a look at this video.
An interesting presentation.
R

ralfellis
Reply to  LarryFine
September 20, 2015 3:15 am

And don’t forget “The Climate Swindle”.
Would you believe that this was a 2007 program – and yet the Global Warming bandwagon rolled on regardless…..

co2islife
Reply to  LarryFine
September 20, 2015 5:10 am

That video is wonderful. Best quote “you’ll never see this on TV.”

LarryFine
September 19, 2015 11:55 pm

These scientists also mentioned the supposed “stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years”. What stability? Proxy data, archeology and historical records prove that there was a Roman Warming Period, a Medieval Warming Period, and a Little Ice Age, none of which were caused by man.
In any case, it’s too little late for Obama’s injustice department to get any such convictions, but perhaps President Trump or Cruz should use RICO to go after radical Warmists all over the world. Hoisting them on their own petards, as it were.

MarkW
Reply to  LarryFine
September 20, 2015 10:19 am

Don’t forget the Minoan Warm period from about 3000 years ago. It was warmer than both the Roman and Midieval Warm periods.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
September 20, 2015 10:21 am

The modern warm period is cooler than the Midieval warm period of 1000 years ago.
The Midieval warm period is cooler than the Roman warm period of 2000 years ago.
The Roman warm period is cooler than the Minoan warm period of 3000 years ago.
Anyone else noticing a pattern?

LarryFine
Reply to  MarkW
September 20, 2015 12:47 pm

,
People who learned Math the Common Core way will never spot the pattern because they learned to count like a carnival horse, by stomping their feet.

Nik Marshall-Blank
September 20, 2015 12:39 am

How pathetic to try to associate challenging AGW with the Tobacco industry. It’s like saying anybody who paints pictures of architecture is a Nazi because Hitlers main painting subject was architecture.

September 20, 2015 1:02 am

Reblogged this on Wolsten and commented:
“If an honest man is wrong, after demonstrating that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest.”

David Cage
September 20, 2015 1:24 am

They achieved the same result here in the UK by making false accusations of hacking against those who released the data proving at the very least an element of corruption and dishonesty by climate scientists.
the really damning evidence never got to the public thanks to this threat.
Even it you can readily prove you are innocent of the charges the legal fees will financially destroy an ordinary person beyond any hope of recovery.

MarkW
Reply to  David Cage
September 20, 2015 10:22 am

They have even coined a term for the tactic: lawfare.

ralfellis
September 20, 2015 1:27 am

Quote:
This includes expanding the scope and scale of the work, promoting speculative dangers and threats to society, emphasizing the urgency to resolve the problem, and involving as many other public and private agencies as possible.
____________________________________
And covering up any defects in their scam.
I blogged on the UKs Grauniad newspaper about this recently, and ran rings around their Warmist bloggers, because they did not seem to know any of the contrarian data in this field. So what did the Grauniad do? — They closed the thread and deleted all my comments.
Its no wonder these people are so ignorant about climate science, they live in a Warmist bubble created and promoted by the likes of the Grauniad and the BBC.
http://www.grauniad.co.uk

September 20, 2015 1:57 am

Climate science is a cancer that eats away all the funds from regular science.

Dodgy Geezer
September 20, 2015 2:26 am

…The natural tendency of any bureaucracy is to perpetuate its existence….
This was, of course, specifically noted by Parkinson in his famous book: ‘Parkinson’s Law’…

MarkW
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
September 20, 2015 10:23 am

I’m pretty sure Murphy covered it as well.

September 20, 2015 2:27 am

Isn’t it time to start libel lawsuits against all of the signers?

gnome
September 20, 2015 2:36 am

Oh my goodness gracious me – we must be doing something about the global warming deniers. Are we not scientists! We are scientists and we must be acting before the world is being destroyed.
Come Mahendra- you too must be acting for saving the world.

Roy
September 20, 2015 2:38 am

Is it a criminal offence in the United States to engage in a conspiracy to subvert democracy and suppress freedom of speech? If so, when will the plotters who wrote the letter face charges?

MarkW
Reply to  Roy
September 20, 2015 10:24 am

When we have an honest govt.
Drudgereport has a poll that finds that 75% of Americans believe that govt is corrupt.

Reply to  MarkW
September 20, 2015 1:01 pm

Who the heck are these 25% who think differently?

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
September 20, 2015 6:34 pm

They are the ones who work for the corrupt govt.

September 20, 2015 3:09 am

I am not a lawyer, especially not a US lawyer, but this actually seems to me to be prima facie case of a criminal conspiracy to defraud and to oppose freedom of speech.
I wonder if a charge could be brought against Trenberth et al?

old44
September 20, 2015 3:42 am

Richard Feynman:
“In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
Do ANY of the projections by climate scientists match the unadulterated data collected over the last one and a half centuries?

Science or Fiction
Reply to  old44
September 20, 2015 2:50 pm

I was intending a short reply, but I just couldn’t stop. Thanks for the quote by Richard Feynman. This clearly shows that he had adopted Popper´s empirical method, commonly known as the hypothetic-deductive method, simply put:
1 A hypothesis is proposed. This is not justified and is tentative.
2 Testable predictions are deduced from the hypothesis and previously accepted statements.
3 We observe whether the predictions are true.
4 If the predictions are false, we conclude the theory is false.
5 If the predictions are true, that doesn’t show the theory is true, or even probably true. All we can say is that the theory has so far passed the tests of it.
As phrased by Karl Popper i The logic of scientific discovery:
“According to my proposal, what characterizes the empirical method is its manner of exposing to falsification, in every conceivable way, the system to be tested. Its aim is not to save the lives of untenable systems but … exposing them all to the fiercest struggle for survival.”
Clearly, a skeptical attitude is valuable to the method, as a theory is corroborated and merited by the severity of the tests it has been exposed to and survived. A skeptical attitude is required to design and conduct proper tests. Any proponents of the IPCC climate theory who calls their opponents “skeptics” demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the scientific method.
Popper also states:
“But I shall certainly admit a system as empirical or scientific only if it is capable of being tested by experience. These considerations suggest that not the verifiability but the falsifiability of a system is to be taken as a criterion of demarcation. In other words: I shall not require of a scientific system that it shall be capable of being singled out, once and for all, in a positive sense; but I shall require that its logical form shall be such that it can be singled out, by means of empirical tests, in a negative sense: it must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience.»
One problem with the IPCC climate theory is that the theory allows everything. It allows: Increasing temperature, non-increasing temperature (hiatus), decreasing temperature, more ice, less ice, more rain, less rain, more snow, less snow, more drought, less drought, more wind, less wind. And – the sea level is rising anyhow. A theory which allows everything explains nothing.
Ref. Contribution from working group I to the fifth assessment report by IPCC
TS.5.4.1 Projected Near-term Changes in Climate
Projections of near-term climate show small sensitivity to Green House Gas scenarios compared to model spread, but substantial sensitivity to uncertainties in aerosol emissions, especially on regional scales and for hydrological cycle variables. In some regions, the local and regional responses in precipitation and in mean and extreme temperature to land use change will be larger than those due to large-scale GHGs and aerosol forcing. These scenarios presume that there are no major volcanic eruptions and that anthropogenic aerosol emissions are rapidly reduced during the near term.
TS.5.4.2 Projected Near-term Changes in Temperature
In the absence of major volcanic eruptions—which would cause significant but temporary cooling—and, assuming no significant future long-term changes in solar irradiance, it is likely that the Global Mean Surface Temperature anomaly for the period 2016–2035, relative to the reference period of 1986–2005 will be in the range 0.3°C to 0.7°C (medium confidence).
Taking into account that the Global Mean Surface Temperature is already roughly about 0.3°C above the reference period of 1986-2005 (Not sure, but I was told so) The hiatus could last to 2035 without falsifying the theory. It could even go down a bit since they use the terms likely and medium confidence. Hence I cannot see that the theory is falsifiable in the near-term. As the climate theory by IPCC isn´t falsifiable in the near term, I guess it shouldn´t either be regarded as empirical or scientific in the near-term.

Erik Christensen
September 20, 2015 4:40 am

Great post by Dr. Tim Ball – bravo!

Eliza
September 20, 2015 4:47 am

Nice post but useless we need this as posted above and it has be lawyers not bloggers anymore…
“I am not a lawyer, especially not a US lawyer, but this actually seems to me to be prima facie case of a criminal conspiracy to defraud and to oppose freedom of speech.
I wonder if a charge could be brought against Trenberth et al?”
They HAVE to be charged

Coeur de Lion
September 20, 2015 4:49 am

What about the 31000 named American sceptical scientists in climate.petition.org? Are they all to be imprisoned?

Bruce Cobb
September 20, 2015 5:44 am

The Frankenstein monster depicted in the cartoon (which I printed out when it first appeared, and put it on the refrigerator, where it remains) was meant as a humorous way of showing people’s general response to the fake manmade warming scare. An apt monster for the multi-faceted, and incredibly difficult to dispatch Climate Cabal though would be the Hydra, of Greek mythology:
comment image

Gerald Machnee
September 20, 2015 6:17 am

You have to note that Obama is gullible enough to accept or believe what that bunch has to say since it fits in with his plans.

Paul Coppin
September 20, 2015 6:52 am

It would be interesting to know how many of that List of 20 have failed grant applications (or successful ones, for that matter) with foundations heavily supported by the petrochemical industry. How many have their knickers in a knot because they didn’t get the grant money they believed they deserved. In fact, how many looked for funds via the very industry they seek to punish…?
As for Trenberth – he needs to spend less time looking for the missing heat, and more time spent looking for his missing common sense.

September 20, 2015 7:42 am

I already think there will be a day (if it doesn’t get omg is it cold soon) that most of us will be put on trail for crimes against humanity. All those island nations are now under water and canal st in NYC is under 20 feet of water. To think I am a deiner! Both poles have melted, hurricanes are stronger and more frequent than ever and large swaths of the Midwest US are still in an epic drought. Just as predicted.

Marcus
September 20, 2015 8:16 am

I think this RICO idea is going to come back and bite them in the @ss in the next few years !!!! Hopefully, a little jail time will do wonders to wake these Eco-terrorists to the world of reality !!

MS
September 20, 2015 8:32 am

Keep in mind that most people have never heard anything that conflicts with the “official” version of climate change. They don’t seek out or research matters, and believe what is shouted at them a hundred time per day. Unless there is a well-funded counter argument made to the people at large (and not simply those of us who are truth junkies), the “official” version will remain official. I see this in so many, many areas, not just climate change.