Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
The story of how Maurice Strong and the Club of Rome set up the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to direct political and scientific focus on CO2 to ‘prove’ it was causing global warming is well documented. If you want a detailed account read my book, The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science or a simpler, abbreviated version for the non-scientist titled Human Caused Global Warming: The Biggest Deception in History. The books are unique because they integrate how the science was created to achieve the political agenda. Focus on the bad science was necessary, but once demonstrated, demands an explanation of the motive.
Consensus was a central theme to the political promotion of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) from the start. Initially, it was the 6000+ representatives of the IPCC. Later, it became the manufactured percentages of 95 of Naomi Oreskes and 97 for John Cooke. However, there was another form of manufactured consensus that continues to influence public and political opinion. It is a more powerful form of consensus because it encompasses an appeal to authority. Not only do the ordinary people support the cause and claims but also those with standing, even though it is usually self-assigned. The two best examples used to promote the consensus of authority in the climate deception are the Nobel Prize, jointly awarded to Al Gore and the IPCC and the openly declared support of scientific societies for the IPCC Reports.
I know that these are still major arguments used to support the claims of the IPCC because they are cited in most legal documents I receive and are quoted in almost every media interview I have ever done. In both cases, they make a mockery of all the Nobel awards even though in the case of Gore and the IPCC it was the Peace Prize. The Nobel Committee provide evidence of the phoniness of the entire exercise. First, they list their prize under the field of “humanitarian work, world organizing.” Then they justify it as a Peace Award as follows;
According to the IPCC, there is a real danger that the climate changes may also increase the danger of war and conflict, because they will place already scarce natural resources, not least drinking water, under greater pressure and put large population groups to flight from drought, flooding, and other extreme weather conditions.
As I read that, they are accepting the IPCC’s word for the danger. This is incredible and shows they did not do their homework or even if they did, failed to understand there is no empirical evidence to support the IPCC claims. It underlines how phony these awards and ripe for political exploitation.
Those are bold charges, but they are supported by what happened with the award to Al Gore. Here is what they posted
According to the Nobel Committee, Gore is probably the single individual who has done most to rouse the public and the governments that action had to be taken to meet the climate challenge. “He is,” in the words of the Committee, “the great communicator”.
The problem is Gore received his award in the same week that Justice Burton of the UK Court released his judgment of Gore and his movie.
I viewed the film at the parties’ request. Although I can only express an opinion as a viewer rather than as a judge, it is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film. It is built round the charismatic presence of the ex-Vice-President, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming. It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political. Its theme is not merely the fact that there is global warming, and that there is a powerful case that such global warming is caused by man, but that urgent, and if necessary expensive and inconvenient, steps must be taken to counter it, many of which are spelt out. Paul Downes, using persuasive force almost equivalent to that of Mr Gore, has established his case that the views in the film are political by submitting that Mr Gore promotes an apocalyptic vision, which would be used to influence a vast array of political policies, which he illustrates in paragraph 30 of his skeleton argument:
“(i) Fiscal policy and the way that a whole variety of activities are taxed, including fuel consumption, travel and manufacturing …
(ii) Investment policy and the way that governments encourage directly and indirectly various forms of activity.
(iii) Energy policy and the fuels (in particular nuclear) employed for the future.
(iv) Foreign policy and the relationship held with nations that consume and/or produce carbon-based fuels.”
4. Martin Chamberlain, who, with equal skill, has adopted a very realistic position on the part of the Defendant, does not challenge that the film promotes political views. There is thus no need to consider any analysis or definition of the word ‘political.’
The judge also ruled that
There are errors and omissions in the film, to which I shall refer, and respects in which the film, while purporting to set out the mainstream view (and to belittle opposing views), does in fact itself depart from that mainstream, in the sense of the “consensus” expressed in the IPCC reports.
He later lists nine errors, although, Lord Monckton showed there are many more. It is important to note that the Wikipedia entry on the trial works very hard to discredit Monckton because of his efforts to obtain funding for the working-class father of the child forced to submit to the biased presentation without proper balance, as the law required.
The question is why didn’t the Nobel Committee know about all this information? Obviously, they did no research and simply gave the prize as they were directed. Do they apply a similar laxity of investigation in any other discipline? The information given at the trial was publicly available because the major witness at the trial was the late Professor Bob Carter. Few people were more industrious and rigorous as he published extensively and traveled the world spreading the information. He was a contributor and reviewer of the monumental Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
A most troubling aspect of this abuse of awards is that it diminishes the value of the award for those who earned and deserved it. But it gets worse. Here is the most disgraceful, disgusting and shameful part of Gore’s award.
As media do a victory lap over Friday’s Nobel Peace Prize announcement, it seems a metaphysical certitude that few Americans are aware of the other 180 nominees for the award besides the Global Warmingist-in-Chief Al Gore.
For instance, meet Irena Sendler, a 97-year-old Polish woman who saved 2,500 Jewish children from certain death in the Warsaw ghetto during World War II.
Hadn’t heard of her? Well, don’t feel bad, for since the Nobel Committee announced the nominees in February, there have only been 107 reports about Mrs. Sendler being one of them. By contrast, Al Gore and “Nobel” have been mentioned in 2,912.
To put an even finer point on the astounding difference in media coverage, since the nominees were announced, Mrs. Sendler has been referred to in only six newscasts on television and radio, one by conservative Glenn Beck. Gore’s Nobel nomination was discussed in 249!
Well, how does Irena Sendler’s contribution to “Humanitarian work and world organizing” compare with Gore’s promotion of a falsely created scientific fraud?
In 2005 Brian May or Lord May (another undeserving award), President of the Royal Society gave an address speaking to his belief that a major function of the Society is to spread what it considered important. Here are two quotes from the address that explain why other scientific groups and societies around the world were used.
The remainder of the Address will survey some specific threats to tomorrow’s world, in the form of climate change, diminishing biological diversity, and new or re-emerging diseases. The increasingly deliberate internationalisation of scientific institutions, particularly in response to the above-noted problems, will be emphasised.
In what follows, I concentrate on three particular problems: climate change, biological diversity, infectious diseases. In each case, the problems are essentially global, not recognising the boundaries between human states. Correspondingly, the involvement of the scientific community – in basic understanding, in practical measures, and in policy recommendations – needs to transcend national boundaries.
The cachet of the Royal Society was sufficient to convince most scientific societies to support the claims of the IPCC. One society, the Russian Academy of Sciences under the recommendation of Yuri Izrael, Director of its Institute of Global Climate and Ecology, refused to participate. He was also Vice-chair of the IPCC and said after a visit to a cooling Antarctic
“Climate change is obvious, but science has not yet been able to identify the causes of it.”
He also stated,
“There is no proven link between human activity and global warming.”
In most cases, the society accepted and promoted the IPCC support without consulting the members. When Emeritus Professor of physics, the late Hal Lewis discovered that the executive of the American Physical Society (APS) had given their support he resigned in a very public protest. As he wrote in his October 2010 resignation letter,
“the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”
If it is that obvious, why didn’t Lord May or members of the Royal Society see it? This granting of unwarranted awards to bolster credibility is a disgrace, but typical of why politics and politicians are held in such disdain. It is likely Al Gore had a great deal to do with it because he used the power of the Vice-Presidency in so many self-serving ways. Remember, Barack Obama also received a Peace Prize that puzzled even ardent supporters. Gore’s presence, influence and aggrandizement are everywhere throughout this entire climate deception story. As usual, people know these machinations occur but still have a hard time believing it.