Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
The Trump administration is well aware of the political use and scientific abuse of climate for a political agenda. I learned how aware while attending the Heritage Foundation Climate Conference on Thursday December 8 in Washington D.C. The majority of the public sense there is something wrong as reflected in their lack of concern measured in all polls. They will be very angry when the extent of the deception is explained to them, as will happen as the new administration lays out the foundation for their policies. The question is what happens going forward. We know those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Similarly, you cannot prevent all misuses of any system and trying to do so only makes it inefficient and even unworkable. Science must be central to whatever direction taken.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) cannot survive. It was designed to achieve a deceptive result by limiting the research to only human causes of climate change. They effectively made reform or change impossible because each set of Reports is cumulative. That is, each Report simply adds new information to a very limited number of variables. The reality is you can only determine the human impact by knowing and understanding all the variables and mechanisms of natural climate. Most of the public think the IPCC look at climate and climate change in total and IPCC participants and promoters did nothing to dissuade them of that error. This is part of the proof that IPCC creators had a singular political objective for which natural variability was a problem. Without the political objective there is no need for a government agency like the IPCC even to determine natural climate and climate change.
Maurice Strong set up the IPCC through the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO). This organization is comprised of weather bureaucrats from every UN member nation. They created, controlled, and promoted the IPCC agenda so that politicians had no choice, as Strong intended. This, and President Obama’s use of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), are proof that bureaucracies must not have control going forward. Their role must be as passive collectors and disseminators of data. They should not be involved in research. This was a major part of the problem with the IPCC and weather office involvements. Scientific bureaucrats are automatically compromised by their career being subject to the whim and will of their political bosses. Skepticism, the very hallmark of science, is automatically stifled in such a hierarchical structure.
Global warming was chosen by those setting up the IPCC because they needed something they could claim was a global threat. It was a subset of Maurice Strong’s objective as Elaine Dewar determined after spending five days with him at the UN.
Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.”
Strong and his allies created a global threat that they then used to argue could only be resolved by a world government. That is not necessary as long as all the data is available to everyone so that any group can deal with local, regional, hemispheric or global weather and climate. Smaller groups offset the paradox of the ability for a few people to dominate with bigger groups. Smaller groups also accommodate the fact that different regions have markedly different geography and climate so the concerns and needs are different.
These differences were exploited by the IPCC. For example, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Report (ACIA) was prepared and controlled by a few people associated with Environment Canada (EC) who were able to present a very false picture. Despite this it became the definitive study for the entire section on Arctic climate in the IPCC Reports. People from other regions did not know about the errors or problems and so I was easily marginalized when I asked questions. The climate and problems of Australia are not the problems of Northern Canada. Indeed, they are not even the same for southern and northern Australia.
The WMO has a role to play and it was defined by Hubert Lamb as his reason for establishing the Climatic Research Unit (CRU).
“…it was clear that the first and greatest need was to establish the facts of the past record of the natural climate in times before any side effects of human activities could well be important.
The only role for WMO and all national weather offices is creation of a dense standardized grid of data collection stations including as many existing viable stations as possible. This should be integrated with the satellite data collection program. WMO will store the data and make it available at no charge to any person or group. This should include all proxy data, including everything from ice cores to tree rings to weather diaries. These agencies should only collect, store, and disseminate data. They should not do any research or forecasting. These are better left to the academic world or private enterprise as companies like Accuweather or individuals like Piers Corbyn demonstrate. It is hard to think of an area where successful results will more directly affect the viability of an enterprise than weather and climate forecasting. Indeed, a major part of the problem with government doing the job is it didn’t matter how often they were wrong there was no accountability or incentive to improve.
Besides taking the politics out of weather and climate science these changes will save money. The billions going to politically directed and useless climate change research will more than cover the data collection requirement.
It must begin with a campaign to offset the hysteria deliberately created by the founders and acolytes of the IPCC. This must be a joint campaign led by the US and any other like minded nation. At the Heritage Climate Conference one of the most effective speakers who understood the science and who confronted the challenge was Corbin Robinson Jr,, principal of Quintana Capital Group, from Texas. He said,
The coming climate science battle will also involve PowerPoints. Those who have doubts about whether humans are causing the planet to warm must develop bullet points of information easily digestible for public consumption to counteract the current climate science, the type that the average person can understand, …it was time for a broader outreach to counteract the notion that carbon dioxide from emissions was harming the planet. “I’m here with a call to action to you guys; it’s time to go on offense,” he said. “Develop a series of newspaper foldouts, develop a series of newspaper foldouts that explain CO2s, life on Earth and its beneficial effect on plant life. CO2 always was and always will be.”
This was the theme of my speech at the first Heartland Climate Conference in New York. It was also the major thrust of my involvement in establishing the Friends of Science in Calgary and the Galileo Movement in Australia. It is a challenge because the majority of the public, some 80 percent, are Arts students. I know what is needed after 25 years reaching a Science credit course for Arts students. I also know from giving hundreds of public lectures over 40 years, but especially from working with people in primary resource industries including forestry, fisheries and agriculture. The latter included writing a monthly column for Country Guide, the largest circulation Canadian farm magazine for 17 years and then an ongoing column for The Landowner since 2010. Hundreds of radio programs and most recently seven one hour Skype programs with Romanian TV. A producer contacted me after investigating the climate issue. He discovered that the Romanian people were only getting the IPCC view and he determined they should hear what they are not told.
I warned him that presenting this information was potentially dangerous. He said it was more important people know the all the science. My warning was because it is likely that my three lawsuits are related to my activities. Voltaire said
“It is dangerous to be right when people in authority are wrong.”
Many were unsure if the people in authority were finally right. Trump’s meetings with carbon footprint hypocrites Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio, seemed to signal something different. All this was put to rest with the appointment of Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Scott Pruitt as head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Conversations and information gleaned at the Heritage Climate Conference on Thursday assures me accurate climate science is in charge. The challenge is to deprogram the people, remove the exploitive agencies and rules they created, and set up a system that is as free of politics as possible.
As with all my articles, nothing is cast in stone. It is my summary of what has gone on and what I think is required going forward. It is written in the context of what is needed, namely open forums at which all ideas are given voice. From that collective wisdom we are most likely to get the best answers. It is in the spirit of the final stage of the American Revolution in which the people have access to information through the Internet. They can bypass the mainstream media, who have always acted as propagandists for the elites, to let the leaders know what they think.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m confused. I’ve read that Thatcher encouraged the IPCC (via promised funding) to create a finding that coal/CO2 was changing our environment, thus giving her a club to destroy the coal unions in GB. Am I completely mistaken? There is no mention of that here. I understand that there may no single basis for the threat of CO2, but this is completely omitted here.
Not so… that’s a conspiracy theory.
Thatcher initially supported the science and the IPCC, but in her autobiography changed her viewpoint.
a full account here
https://www.desmog.uk/2015/05/19/who-was-responsible-thatcher-s-climate-change-u-turn
On the other hand, anyone who disagrees with CAGW is funded by the Koch brothers, and or the oil companies.
Yep,
develop bullet points of information easily digestible for public consumption to counteract the current climate science /meme/, the type that the average person can understand,
“Maurice Strong set up the IPCC through the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO)”
In my book, the WMO is a rogue organization. Here is a simple example of why: The definition of longitude has been set by international treaty (to which the US, in particular, is a signatory), with values ranging from -180 to 1809; this definition is codified by International Standard ISO 6709.
In its arrogance claims to override this Standard by proclaiming a purported standard for longitude with values ranging from 0 to 360.
Rogue organization, by even this simple test!
Ask all goobermint climate employees if they work with climate models, or compiling the average global temperature, or making long term climate predictions.
Send them a message from Donald Trump:
“You’re fired !”
I’m serious about this.
It will take at least a generation, or a few consecutive years of unusually cold weather, to refute the coming climate change catastrophe fantasy.
And even if that boogeyman is killed off, another one will replace it.
How about ocean acidification?
Or GMO foods?
Or exploding silicone breast implants?
How can socialism grow without a false coming catastrophe for the goobermint to fight with more spending, and more regulations, and more goobermint employees, etc. etc.
The false boogeyman is just a marketing tool to promote BIG goobermint — good science is irrelevant — not that making wrong long-term predictions about the future climate has anything to do with science!
The quote from Corbin Robinson reads “Those who have doubts about whether humans are causing the planet to warm must develop bullet points of information easily digestible for public consumption to counteract the current climate science, the type that the average person can understand”
Well let’s give it a go with these bullet points …
(1) If one electric bar radiator at a certain distance warms you to a comfortable 42°C, will sixteen such radiators cook you at 357°C? No, and that’s because the warming effect of adding the flux of different sources of radiation is not the same as the warming effect of a single source yielding the same total flux. Hence NASA is wrong in implying in their diagrams that radiation from the cold atmosphere (including that from carbon dioxide) will triple the warming effect of solar radiation. So the whole radiative forcing greenhouse hypothesis is wrong.
(2) If the radiation from greenhouse gases raises the surface temperature by “33 degrees” as the IPCC website says, then most of that warming must be from average concentrations of just over 1% of water vapor. Let’s say each 1% does at least 20 degrees of warming. So in a rainforest with 4% water vapor do we see 80 degrees of warming? No. So the whole radiative forcing greenhouse hypothesis is wrong.
(3) The surface of Venus receives only about 10% of the solar radiation that Earth’s surface receives. But to achieve the 460°C surface temperature there would need to be about 1,000 times as much radiation. Could radiation from the less-hot Venus atmosphere support (and even raise) the surface temperature of Venus? No. So the whole radiative forcing greenhouse hypothesis is wrong.
Dr. Ball:
CAGW is a false crisis used for political gains, and you know it.
Too many writers here waste space over-analyzing temperature anomalies to two or more-decimal places, or making climate predictions that will be wrong.
CAGW is nothing more than 40 years of scary climate predictions that have been wrong for 40 years — that’s not real science!
Wrong predictions about the future climate from skeptics are not real science either!
(1) You say the IPCC does “research.”
I disagree.
The IPCC starts with the conclusion that runaway warming from man made CO2 is coming — real research does not start with the conclusion.
The only thing left for IPCC contributors to do is data mining and cherry picking to support that pre-existing conclusion — that’s not research — especially when the Summary Report’s final edit is done by government bureaucrats and climate activists, many with no climate science training.
(2) You want governments to continue collecting surface temperature data.
I disagree.
The raw data are inaccurate (relative to satellite data), don’t cover half the planet, and have been abused with repeated, suspicious “adjustments”.
Governments should stop wasting taxpayers’ money compiling rough estimates of the average surface temperature that do not benefit anyone.
Donald Trump should tell all climate modelers, average temperature compilers, and their helpers on government payrolls: “You’re fired, and predictions of the future climate are banned.”
If those bureaucrats are government union members, difficult to fire, then transfer them to Alaska to count polar bears!
In place of collecting inaccurate surface data, I propose a small group of observers looking for actual negative, secondary symptoms of climate change:
Two potential symptoms of climate change in the Northern Hemisphere would be:
(A) If the climate gets too warm, there will be millions of fat people complaining its too hot and/or moving north.
(B) If the climate gets too cold, there will be millions of senior citizens complaining its too cold and/or moving south.
(C) I’m serious about (A) and (B) — they would reveal more about climate change than estimates of the “average temperature” in tenths of a degree!
If people notice warming, and it happens to be caused by CO2, then it will mainly be warming at night in cold nations … and I imagine people living there will say: “Give us more of that!”
Excellent comment Richard Greene!
v’