May 06, 2015

Who's winning the Global Warming War?

Tim BallRebel Columnist

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:

A UN poll of over 6 million people confirmed the lack of concern, with "Action on climate change" coming last after "Political freedoms," "Reliable energy at home" and "A good education." 

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 for more news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-05-17 13:07:37 -0400
Here’s why liberal win when they control the language, thereby keeping people ignorant.
The statement, “Scientists are in consensus.” is itself wrong.
Scientists DON’T do consensus.
What a scientist does, via experimentation, is come up with results to a question.
If the results remain 100% consistent, he then as a “Proof” which he can use to form a “Hypothesis.”
It is then the job of his fellow scientists, from any field whatsoever inclined to be involved, to disprove the Hypothesis. They are supposed to do whatever it takes to disprove the Hypothesis, scientifically SHRED it, and if they can’t then ALL they are supposed to say is, "I tried, but I can’t fine anything wrong with the Hypothesis.
At that point, the Hypothesis becomes a “Theory” and at any point, if even a single piece of information, or new data, contradicts the Theory, then the whole thing is debunked, and the original scientist must either review his original data, and if he can’t find the flaw, or show why those claiming he is wrong, are themselves in error, then the Theory and Hypothesis are discredited.
Scientists do NOT go around backing each other’s claims.
commented 2015-05-14 10:15:04 -0400
It ain’t Isis, it’s Ipcc booger eaters and their political/armed puppets/sustainable development crews condemning humanity to global genocide.
commented 2015-05-14 05:51:41 -0400
People like Maurice Strong and Al Gore are prime examples of croneyism and patronage run amok. They built their fortunes in the fossil fuel and tobacco industries and now claim moral superiority by decrying the evils of those same industries. But why?
Follow the money. These guys are heavily involved in the creation of carbon emissions trading, an entirely new international floating economy, similar to the currency market, but solely concerned with buying and selling hot air at fluctuating rates — rates dependent on artificial price-fixing that can effectively control the variations in supply and demand, and in turn impacts every other national and international market, from currency to tangible commodities. This is essentially world domination.
Manipulation of markets is hardly new, and many governments engage in it. For example, China has been long accused of maintaining an artificially depressed yuan to strengthen its exports.
Speaking of China, it’s curious what Strong, Trudeau and the like find so enamouring. Maurice Strong is a particularly vocal advocate and has fairly strong ties to China (having fled there amidst one of several UN scandals). Strong is associated with China’s new Carbon Corporation, and since its inception the value of the yuan has been steadily rising.
I wonder whether a quick peek at Strong’s investment portfolio would reveal large holdings of Chinese yuan.
commented 2015-05-10 18:10:07 -0400
The original framework for creating the Globull Warming scam involved the New York offices of Enron and heavy duty politicians and government officials in Washington. Massive new taxes for governments and huge profits for well connected rent seekers fueled the “massive public interest in saving the planet”.
commented 2015-05-09 08:40:06 -0400
The man made global warming is a fraud perpetuated by groups that have a financial interest in continuing this fraud. The whole IPCC reason of existence is perpetuation of the misinformation and getting funding from various sources and governments. Al Gore became an multibillionaire just from being the spokesperson for this fraud. Also it has been adopted by many leftist organizations and parties to use as a tool to fight against conservative parties that are sceptical about the validity of this whole theory.
commented 2015-05-07 11:21:46 -0400
I don’t believe in the whole global warming but I’m no scientist so my opinion is just an opinion. I have no “proof” either way but still I wonder at all those that warn us all that catastrophe is just around the corner where people will cook like eggs on the sidewalk, or not.
It is like cancer which we dread and scour for information on how to prevent it. The answer is simple. Don’t eat or drink anything, breathing is also out. Hide till the sun goes down and run when it comes back up. Now live a long and health life. Feel free to pass this to your Dr for perusal and advise.
The weather changes, always has and always will. No power on earth will ever change that except in California they had a smog problem for a while and then promptly fixed that. The bringer of smog was identified and eliminated. Now that was science at work. China has the same problem and so did Japan till they went nuclear. Someone didn’t listen to the technicians when they complained. Thanks to their failure to listen the loose screw has been tightened. There is a lot we don’t understand and the gobbledy goop is always present yet some non scientific minds are right behind the scientists that are split on everything from soup to nuts.
I just look for the money till I find it. Scientists sell out too. So do Doctors and Lawyers and anyone else that wants more.
But I’m no scientist. (disclaimer)
commented 2015-05-07 11:18:33 -0400
Just a euro-socialist agenda to slow US productivity in the face of tanking euro productivity.
Europe is a mound of unionized/regulated gridlock and rather than fix their crap, Europe (which continues to see the world as their colonies) imposes fraud and make work to grind the rest of the world’s productivity lower.

Just another “big gubbamint” scam that steals from taxpayers.
commented 2015-05-07 10:11:14 -0400
Thank you Dr. Ball. Please keep putting the truth out there.
commented 2015-05-06 22:52:59 -0400
commented 2015-05-06 14:16:22 -0400
Excellent read, to the point.
commented 2015-05-06 13:13:45 -0400
Great article Dr. Ball
commented 2015-05-06 12:21:55 -0400
Thank you Dr. Ball. Out of the fog of battle will often come one clarion voice of reason and common sense. You are one such voice on this tipic.