As if on cue, I received a link on 6/30/08 to a blog by James Spann, chief meteorologist at station ABC 33/40 in Birmingham, Alabama. Posting on his station’s Weather Blog, “Global Warming Movement Turns Cool,” Mr. Spann informs readers that
*****
…the mythical UN IPCC “consensus” continues to crumble… Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist who specializes in optical waveguide spectroscopy from the University of Tokyo, and a top UN IPCC Scientist, calls global warming fears: the “worst scientific scandal in history” in the weblog of former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke.
Here is what Canadian climatologist Tim Ball says about the IPCC: “The IPCC is a political organization and yet it is the sole basis of the claim of a scientific consensus on climate change. Consensus is neither a scientific fact nor important in science, but it is very important in politics. There are 2500 members in the IPCC divided between 600 in Working Group I (WGI), who examine the actual climate science, and 1900 in working Groups II and III (WG II and III), who study “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively. Of the 600 in WGI, 308 were independent reviewers, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. They accept without question the findings of WGI and assume warming due to humans is a certainty. In a circular argument typical of so much climate politics the work of the 1900 (less than one percent of the scientific population) is listed as ‘proof’ of human caused global warming. Through this they established the IPCC as the only credible authority thus further isolating those who raised questions.”
*****
These and many other findings mentioned in Mr. Spann’s report indicate that global warming science and scientists are not quite as infallible as global warming alarmists make them out to be.
Why, then, do they persist in trumpeting their myth that man-made global warming is an incontrovertible conclusion and in discrediting their challengers as “flat-earthers” and other acrimonious names? The clear majority, if not all, of the individuals and organizations leading global warming alarmism is comprised of liberal idealists. Their drive is to attain and consolidate the power to direct the collective lives of the world’s inhabitants, resulting in the curtailment of individual liberty. To accomplish this, they must convince enough of the world’s populations, particularly those in the more influential nations, that governing for the collective good is vital to the survival of the planet and, consequently, humanity. Crisis, whether real or perceived, is therefore a beneficial tool of liberal leadership because it short-circuits debate and democratic deliberation that could lead to solutions outside of their centralized planning goals.
Consider, for instance, the admission of Mr. Al Gore himself during an interview with David Roberts of grist.org in May 2006:
*****
Q: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?
A: (Gore) I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
*****
“An over-representation of factual presentations?” In other words, Mr. Gore declares that Americans need to be lied to and deceived in order to properly comprehend global warming. Without “over-representation,” there would be no crisis, no alarmism, and, hence, no opportunity to drive the world toward the tyranny of collectivism.
Unfortunately for Mr. Gore, et. al., some of the scientists are choosing to leave the corral of deceit they have been so carefully constructing. We can only hope that the global warming “consensus” will continue to melt down.
*****
…the mythical UN IPCC “consensus” continues to crumble… Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist who specializes in optical waveguide spectroscopy from the University of Tokyo, and a top UN IPCC Scientist, calls global warming fears: the “worst scientific scandal in history” in the weblog of former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke.
Here is what Canadian climatologist Tim Ball says about the IPCC: “The IPCC is a political organization and yet it is the sole basis of the claim of a scientific consensus on climate change. Consensus is neither a scientific fact nor important in science, but it is very important in politics. There are 2500 members in the IPCC divided between 600 in Working Group I (WGI), who examine the actual climate science, and 1900 in working Groups II and III (WG II and III), who study “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively. Of the 600 in WGI, 308 were independent reviewers, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. They accept without question the findings of WGI and assume warming due to humans is a certainty. In a circular argument typical of so much climate politics the work of the 1900 (less than one percent of the scientific population) is listed as ‘proof’ of human caused global warming. Through this they established the IPCC as the only credible authority thus further isolating those who raised questions.”
*****
These and many other findings mentioned in Mr. Spann’s report indicate that global warming science and scientists are not quite as infallible as global warming alarmists make them out to be.
Why, then, do they persist in trumpeting their myth that man-made global warming is an incontrovertible conclusion and in discrediting their challengers as “flat-earthers” and other acrimonious names? The clear majority, if not all, of the individuals and organizations leading global warming alarmism is comprised of liberal idealists. Their drive is to attain and consolidate the power to direct the collective lives of the world’s inhabitants, resulting in the curtailment of individual liberty. To accomplish this, they must convince enough of the world’s populations, particularly those in the more influential nations, that governing for the collective good is vital to the survival of the planet and, consequently, humanity. Crisis, whether real or perceived, is therefore a beneficial tool of liberal leadership because it short-circuits debate and democratic deliberation that could lead to solutions outside of their centralized planning goals.
Consider, for instance, the admission of Mr. Al Gore himself during an interview with David Roberts of grist.org in May 2006:
*****
Q: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?
A: (Gore) I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
*****
“An over-representation of factual presentations?” In other words, Mr. Gore declares that Americans need to be lied to and deceived in order to properly comprehend global warming. Without “over-representation,” there would be no crisis, no alarmism, and, hence, no opportunity to drive the world toward the tyranny of collectivism.
Unfortunately for Mr. Gore, et. al., some of the scientists are choosing to leave the corral of deceit they have been so carefully constructing. We can only hope that the global warming “consensus” will continue to melt down.
