Guest opinion; Dr. Tim Ball
At the Paris Climate Conference of the Parties (COP21) we witnessed the biggest display of failed leadership in history from 195 countries. They established incorrect and misdirected policy based on failed and falsified science. It is a classic circular argument on a global scale. They invented the false problem of anthropogenic global warming/climate change and now they want to resolve the problem, but with a more disastrous solution.
Most countries were puppets that aspired to lead the deception but lacked the power so they contributed by serving as lackeys. Either way, all were purchased with promises of money. The majority receives money from successful countries, but all of them have an excuse for another tax. As George Bernard Shaw said,
“A government with the policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul.”
These leaders are all examples of Lord Acton’s dictum that,
“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
In fact, the entire quote is even more revealing.
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you add the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it.
Obama used the Paris to advance his personal agenda regardless of the evidence. John Kerry said this when he admitted the agreement was not binding. Rules or agreements are meaningless without enforcement mechanisms. Kerry said it was unenforceable because Congress would not approve it. This allowed Obama to blame Congress when it was Russia, India, and China who wanted a non-binding agreement. Kerry knows Congress wouldn’t approve it because as a Senator he voted against the Kyoto Protocol, arguing it would cost jobs and hurt the economy. Of course that did not prevent him claiming the Paris Agreement would create jobs and economic opportunity against all evidence.
The Climate Green Fund (GCF) was a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol. As a Senator in 1997 Kerry voted against Kyoto. Technically, they did not vote directly against Kyoto. They voted on the Byrd/Hagel resolution explicitly that said the US Senate would not approve anything that harmed the US economy. Kerry and the Senators agreed 95-0 that Kyoto was harmful. Their green image was faded but intact.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) requires COP act on the science created for them by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is why the leaked emails exposing the scientific corruption were so effective in diverting them away from Kyoto at COP 15 in 2009. They recovered quickly because the following year at COP 16 in Durban they introduced the replacement GCF that became central to the Paris Conference.
What is the situation post-Paris? They created a global policy to take money from a few developed nations and give it to the developing nations. The Paris communiqué says,
Among these concerted efforts, advanced economies have formally agreed to jointly mobilize USD 100 billion per year by 2020, from a variety of sources, to address the pressing mitigation and adaptation needs of developing countries.
Governments also agreed that a major share of new multilateral, multi-billion dollar funding should be channeled through the Green Climate Fund. At the G7 Summit in June 2015, leaders emphasized GCF’s role as a key institution for global climate finance. Many developing countries, too, have explicitly expressed their expectations from the Fund in their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs).
The acronym INDC is bureaucratese at its best. This charade is an unnecessary waste of taxpayer’s money based on the false IPCC science exposed by the leaked emails. The falsifications continued because the public didn’t understand and as the Senator Cruz hearings demonstrated it is a widely accepted and essentially unchallenged story. The redistribution of wealth continues almost exactly as the Kyoto schemers planned. But the problem is worse than that because the money is to offset warming when all the natural mechanisms of climate change indicate the world is cooling and will get colder.
IPCC proponents realize that this is the trend so they did what they always do, produce a paper claiming another human activity is likely to make their predictions invalid. Gavin Schmidt and the NASA GISS gang did this recently in a paper titled, “Implications for climate sensitivity from the response to individual forcings.” It produced the intended headlines such as Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels ‘COOLS planet’, says NASA” in the UK Express. Maybe they could blame the government Chemtrail program?
The final socio-economic cost of Paris is almost incalculable. For example, how do you put a value on the loss of credibility of science? What are the lost opportunities for improving the quality of life through science and technology restricted by the extremism of a few Green Luddites?
I recently participated in a Skype interview on a live Nigerian broadcast about Climate Change. I don’t know how the producer got my name, but it was immediately evident that they were not aware or welcoming of my views. Fortunately, they couldn’t shut me off because it was live. However, they did shuffle me off quickly and went to another guest. The other person, as I understand, was a representative of the Nigerian government promoting the real danger of global warming and the dire need for action – send the money.
He began his rejoinder with the phrase, “With all due respect to the good professor…” a euphemism for “What you just heard is completely wrong.” The person is saying I am not qualified to say this, but if I don’t make this argument, my job is gone. I did not hear his entire response, but it was built around the precautionary principle that even if the “good professor” is right, we should act.
Maurice Strong and the drafters of Agenda 21 anticipated such a situation when they wrote Principle 15.
Principle 15: In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
This means don’t let facts get in the way of policy. You don’t need evidence just “threats” are adequate reason. My portion of the Nigerian interview began with the host referencing the University of Notre Dame ND – Gain Country Index study that lists the countries of the world and their preparedness for climate change. Figure 1 shows those countries deemed best prepared and Figure 2 those least prepared. Others produced similar measurements and show the results in world maps (Figure 3).
Figure 3 shows the ND – GAIN index on a world map. It shows that prepared countries are middle and high latitude while unprepared are in the tropics. Some produced similar indices but with a different emphasis (Figure 3). The map shows regions “most” or “least” at risk. In other words, they need to be the best prepared, but the ND-GAIN index shows they are the least prepared.
The IPCC claim global warming is almost certain, so their policies are designed for that inevitability. They also claim that the greatest warming will occur in high latitudes, so Figure 3 is incorrect. Figure 1 shows that those high latitude countries are best prepared, but that is also incorrect because they prepare for warming.
The predominant message says global warming is a potential worldwide disaster with only negative impacts. Thirty years ago global cooling was presented in a similar singular way. Lowell Ponte wrote in his 1976 book The Cooling
It is cold fact: the global cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species.
Change one word “cooling” to warming and the governments are exploiting the same fears. On the cover of The Weather Conspiracy prepared by a team of investigative journalists in 1977 it says,
What does it mean? Many of the worlds leading climatologist’s concur. We are slipping towards a new Ice Age. Why is this so? How will it affect food scarcity, rising costs? How much is it a threat to the quality of life – the very fact of our existence on this planet? What is going to happen? What can – and can’t – we do about it?
In the 1970s political pressure for action only came from a general concern about adapting and preparing for the future. In 1973, the US Office of Research and Development (ORD) was confronted with the forecasts of global cooling. Statements like Ponte’s required further research and planning. The CIA produced two reports, one titled “Potential Implications of Trends in World Population, Food Production, and Climate” (Office of Political Research – 401, August, 1974). The report notes,
“The precarious outlook for the poor and food – deficit – countries, and the enhanced role of North American agriculture in world food trade outlined above were predicated on the assumption that normal weather will prevail over the next few decades. But many climatologists warn that this assumption is questionable; some would say that it is almost certainly wrong.”
The CIA used the word climatocracy to describe the role of climate in political action. (Amusingly and perceptively, the spell checker tried to replace climatocracy with cleptocracy). Climatocracy is more applicable today. Political involvement in climate research is global and profound. Demand for action is very strong. Frighteningly, the demand is for action to deal with only one possibility based on the false assumption that today’s forecasts for the next 50 and 100 years are more accurate and certain than the belief in 1970 that cooling was inevitable. That forecast was wrong, as was every forecast the IPCC made since anthropogenic global warming became the scare in the late 1980s.
The sensible policy when you lack understanding is to do nothing. The proper course of action is for governments to face the truth and admit the science is wrong. Unfortunately, the lack of leadership they’ve already demonstrated guarantees that will not happen. They are obliged to do something in response to the hysteria they created.
There is a policy that can salvage something out of this self-inflicted chaos. It is a classic game theory challenge based on the knowledge that cooling is a much greater threat than warming, especially for middle and high latitude countries. It is important for those nations listed as “well prepared” in Figure 1 because they prepare for warming when the probability of cooling is much higher and more threatening. All nations, but especially them, must ready for cooling. If you prepare for cooling, and it warms the adaptations are much easier. If you prepare for warming and cooling occurs the adaptations are difficult and in some instances impossible. But don’t expect any such logical, rational, leadership from the Paris world leaders, they only like games they create and control to improve their image of saving the planet and humanity.
Politics is the diversion of trivial men who, when they succeed at it, become more important in the eyes of more trivial men.
George Jean Nathan