The climate picture is confusing as evidence mounts that the claim of human (anthropogenic) caused global warming (AGW) is wrong yet almost daily headlines suggest it isn’t. There always was a war, but it is intensifying because the Climate Conference scheduled for Paris in November 2015 is likely the last chance for some form of international climate agreement.
Who is winning the war that developed because a small group decided to use climate science for a political agenda? People want to know the truth as evidence and facts accumulate to contradict what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted about global warming. One problem is, as Aeschylus said, “In war, truth is the first casualty.”
It shouldn’t be a war, but rather a scientific process of hypothesis testing by scientists in their proper role as skeptics. Normally after testing a hypothesis is accepted or rejected. In the case of the AGW hypothesis, the testing was sidelined. As Richard Lindzen, MIT professor of Atmospheric Meteorology said years ago, the consensus was reached before the research had even begun. Now the word “consensus” is used politically and falsely to claim a majority of scientists agree. Evidence shows the hypothesis is wrong, but nothing does that more than the fact that all their predictions are wrong.
The public is aware because of cold weather, which likely explains why polls show the public is unconcerned about global warming or climate change. The Pew Centre consistently places global warming near the bottom in the US:
Why is there no connection between public and political concern? The answer is in the origin of the false information. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urges extraordinary actions:
The secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, is to join a public march calling for action on climate change this weekend. “I will link arms with those marching for climate action,” Ban told a press conference. “We stand with them on the right side of this key issue for our common future.” His unusual step – high-ranking officials do not normally attend mass public protests – is a measure of how high the stakes are at a summit next week of world leaders, called by the secretary-general, to discuss climate change.
He has no choice because the U.N. is the source of evidence and warnings about climate change. Maurice Strong, a master of political and bureaucratic organization, established the IPCC through the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO). In her revelatory book Cloak of Green Elaine Dewar concluded, Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.
The result was that national weather department bureaucrats who push the UN climate change agenda control the IPCC. It is a loop of control very difficult for politicians to break. In each country, they are not in control because they don’t understand the science or are afraid to challenge their government appointed “experts”.
The global warming issue is a frightening, textbook example of Mary McCarthy’s observation that, “Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of despotism.”
As Lindzen, a former member of the IPCC, explained:
It is no small matter that routine weather service functionaries from New Zealand to Tanzania are referred to as ‘the world's leading climate scientists.’ It should come as no surprise that they will be determinedly supportive of the process.
Bureaucratic control explains the continued, almost total political support for the IPCC.
The meeting at which the IPCC was organized in Villach, Austria in 1985 occurred under the chair of Gordon McBean, Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment Canada (EC). Other weather offices with very direct involvement in the IPCC included the UKMO and NOAA. Sir John Houghton moved from the UKMO to act as the first co-chair of the IPCC. NOAA employee Susan Solomon’s contribution includes co-editing IPCC Reports. People like Houghton and Solomon are scientists, but a problem of objectivity develops when they work for government.
Traditionally people tended to trust bureaucrats. The trust varies nationally, but even in the US the authority of branches of government benefit from the view that bureaucrats are just following orders and don’t have a political agenda. This is particularly true of issues like weather and climate. People can’t imagine why or how they could have a political agenda.
Two issues that further entrench the power of bureaucrats include that they outlast most politicians, and their department policy becomes the base for all other departments. They also have direct unquestioned input to the schools. A relatively few teachers who understand the science and the need for objectivity provide balance.
Maurice Strong used his skills to place national bureaucrats in control of the IPCC in order to control the politicians. They are the major explanation for the contradiction between the public view expressed in the polls, the failed predictions, the falsified and contradicted science and the politicians. As Laurence. J. Peter said: “Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time the quo has lost its status.”
When the status also fits their personal political agenda they can make it last even longer, however, their time is running out.
A few countries like India and China are already resisting the push for a global climate agenda. They make conciliatory but meaningless public statements, like China did after the meeting with Obama. That produced what Charles Krauthammer called "The Climate Pact Swindle."
Mahatma Gandhi said, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” This identifies four stages in a political war. Right now, the climate war is in stage three as IPCC proponents use all their ammunition to prevent defeat at the showdown in Paris.
Follow The Megaphone on Twitter.
JOIN TheRebel.media for more news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.