ESSENTIAL READING!

With the world in the grip of an almost religious mania over the dangers posed by Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), we have attempted to address this issue to establish what information is accurate, and what is media hype.

The initial idea for this part of our work grew out our decade long correspondence on a variety of topics.  As Jade's 25 year long professional association with the Environmental Movement kept bumping up against Mike's strategic viewpoint and natural cynicism, it occurred to us that our joint approach may be useful.  Our intention was to address a number of Environmental topics, and provide a Research Resource based on reliable research, hard science, and a balanced and objective viewpoint.

With regard to Global Warming/Climate Change, we both had a number of questions for which there were no ready answers.

Through a variety of sources it quickly became clear that something in the science industry and the environmental reporting business was amiss.  We noticed that almost every media article written approached any element of climate change or global warming with stout warnings and end-of-the-world-scenarios but in the context of words like ‘possible’, ‘probable’, ‘likely’, ‘potential’, and ‘projected’ with the implication that such unsupported conjecture was factual and beyond question.

While we had never expected to find hard evidence in the popular media, we were actually startled to find that hard facts were few and far between and even more rarely provided within any larger scientific context.  Even within the popular science media “facts” were usually unsupported, and any larger context was commonly conjectural or merely implied.

We also noticed that scientific journal papers addressing issues of Climate Change or Global Warming were commonly written as if it were already an established fact that catastrophic events are imminent and (almost) unstoppable.  Few papers made any observable effort to be objective.  Too many papers addressing a narrow subject finished with unscientific conclusions involving extreme projections or forecasts without any related cross-disciplinary evidence or analysis.  It was also interesting to note that some papers heady conclusions appeared to contradict their content.  We briefly speculated about some hitherto unreported link between headlines, funding and academic standing:  this topic requires further study.

It also became increasingly clear that the scientists and non-scientists arguing against AGW were asking some pertinent and incisive questions, and that these questions were being ignored or avoided by pro-AGW advocates, or were being answered in simplistic and unscientific terms, or just lead to the authors being hounded as “climate deniers” and “contrarians” with a fervour that would have Torquemada grinning with delight.

We acknowledge that some of those arguing against Anthropogenic Climate Change are “influenced” by the oil companies and their cohorts.  We also acknowledge that some of the pro-AGW scientists and writers are “influenced” by funding bodies and activist interests.  Like every other form of research involving corporate, government, and activist interests we are careful to assess the provenance of our sources.  Rule 1 of such research is “follow the money” on all sides of the discussion.  (Note:  your humble authors are poor and fund this research from their own pockets.  Such is the price of objectivity.)

Any scientific question where one side of the discussion is howled down and actively discouraged from commenting, or reporting their findings, causes concern regarding the motivations of both sides, not just the one being censored.  Scientific censorship is simply un-scientific.  Where the science question involves financial or professional interests…

Two key questions?

It was at this point that we reviewed our research to date, and decided that the entire AGW issue could be proven by answering two key questions:

1.        is the Earth’s atmospheric temperature increasing?  and,

2.        what is the mechanism through which CO2 heats the atmosphere?

Further research on these topics indicated that there has been an uneven rise of about 0.6^oC over the last 100 years, and that the physics and chemistry of CO2 quoted as causes of atmospheric temperature increases were in fact almost meaningless.

The variations of temperature over the last 100 years indicate that atmospheric temperatures actually declined during the 1940-1970 period when atmospheric CO2 emissions were increasing during the post-World War 2 industrial expansion.

The effects of CO2 are closely inter-related with the effects of water vapour, and the atmospheric impacts of water vapour are extremely complex and little understood.  This latter lack of understanding is due primarily to cloud formation and albedo, and is also further compounded by changing surface reflectivity due to land use changes and similarly little understood effects such as the El Nino cycle.  There is no direct evidence linking atmospheric temperature with changes in CO2 levels.  Suggested links are speculative and, at present, unsupported in fact.

In short, our answers were:

1.        there has been a slight temperature increase that is equally explained by a natural cycle,  and

2.        there is little evidence indicating that increasing levels of CO2 have had any role in the slight atmospheric temperature increase observable since Industrialization.

In addition, we were impressed with the evidence of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Cores which indicate that historical increases in CO2 usually occurred around 800 years after atmospheric temperatures increased.

Recent developments in Solar and Space research have also interested us, in that they suggest that the Earth’s record of temperature changes can be attributed to changes in the Sun and the Solar System’s movement through space.

In short, we concluded that the scientific evidence for AGW is not clear and is far from conclusive.  As objective observers we found the “contrarians” much more convincing than AGW advocates in terms of their scientific arguments.

***  What is a Concensus of Scientists?

From this point, while keeping a weather eye on scientific developments, we began to examine the non-scientific aspects of the AGW phenomenon.

We mentioned our findings regarding the popular media above, so we spent a little time examining this area again.  Apart from speculation passing as fact, we noted some of the other “tricks” used to “spread the faith”.

A prime example is the well-worn term ‘a consensus of scientists’.  Journalists appear to consider that it is OK to write anything as being factual as long as 2 conditions are met:  one, that it comes by way of somebody purporting to have some form of scientific expertise;  and, two, that it is noted that whatever has been written reflects the views of “a concensus of scientists”.  As long as these two conditions are met, it seems that journalists do not feel obliged to check their facts, nor to find out if this concensus of scientists even exists or what fields of expertise are included.

We then asked ourselves just what is so special about a consensus of scientists?  A consensus is merely a “majority of opinion”.  We all have opinions – some are even worth listening to.  A consensus of voters determines who governs (for better or worse).  A consensus of Jurors determine a verdict based on evidence (well that’s good).  A consensus of sports commentators makes…  OK, we’ll skip that one.  What exactly is the implied significance of a “consensus of scientists”?  Does it relate to their training as objective observers?  Does it relate to their general trustworthiness?  Does it relate to their knowledge of and expertise in the subject being studied?  Does it relate to their current work in the field under discussion, whether they are teachers or researchers or analysts or have moved on to another job?  Who counts them and who judges whether they are qualified to have their opinion sought?  Does a consensus have a hollow voice?

We haven’t determined who introduced this term, but it is interesting how often it is used to bolster an AGW argument.  We have not found any reference to an actual count, survey, or poll of scientists in reference to the AGW theory, any of its arguments, or any of its evidence.  The phrase appears to have been deliberately contrived as an impressive, but unsupported, vehicle to convince a scientifically unsophisticated audience.  It should also be noted that such a consensus also once believed that the universe revolved around the Earth, that personality was determined by bumps on the skull, and that the Big Bang and Tectonic Plate theories were rubbish.  Sadly, it appears that no such consensus was ever reached on just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

We also became rather concerned about the role of the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in this “consensus of scientists”.  Any scientific organization which publishes a Summary of its science, then relies on a mix of scientists and government politicians, representatives, and policy experts to write its Final Report to be released months after the Summary is obviously scientifically suspect.  The fact that billions of dollars of research funding flows from the involved governments to the involved scientists is also scientifically suspect.

***  Peer Review:  An Unscientific Process?

Another example of media “trickery” is the sanctity of the “peer review” process.  In scientific circles it is standard practice for papers to be circulated amongst expert peers prior to publication.  The implication is that any published work in a reputable journal has the endorsement of experts in that specialization.  This process is an excellent means for ensuring scientific orthodoxy, but is not “friendly” to new ideas, especially if these new ideas may mean that established experts are even partially wrong.  In a perfect world where scientists are truly objective and seek only the truth, this process would work well.  In the real world where scientists are dependent on research grants and surviving academic attacks on their work, the peer review process is less than truly objective.

In what seems to pass for a debate on AGW, it is a standard tactic amongst AGW advocates to literately sneer at contrarians with phrases like “they have never published peer-reviewed articles”.  All this means, in fact, is that the contrarians have not had their views endorsed by the pro-AGW side of the debate.  The history of Science is full of contrarians in various fields who have gone from being shunned by their peers to being the next generation’s leading authorities.

You may ask what “peer review” actually involves.  In essence, it is a small number of scientists individually reviewing someone else’s research.  This review process does not require a thorough check of data and results, and often seems to be a check on how convincing the writing or presentation is, and whether it conforms to the current scientific orthodoxy.

***  Information in search of a context?

During this negative process, a longstanding friend of Jade’s had stood by and watched this unfold.  Even though she thought that we were going off the deep end, she had been supportive.  Recently she called after having read an article about the seriousness of the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet.  It was another of those end-of-the-world type articles which have readers ready to sell all they own, buy a boat and learn how to swim – a “be afraid, be very afraid” piece.  However, the last line rattled her enough to take a second look.  After an entire article full of the world is melting, swim baby swim scenarios, the very last line stated that there has been NO further melting since 2005.

At first, such inconsistencies were worrisome, but not so much as to plant serious doubt about what the media and the science industry seemed to be selling. Then Al Gore emerged as the new Messiah in this fervent new religion. He burst on the scene to save us all with a movie that did nothing but heap fear and guilt without giving consumers but two answers…  stop driving your vehicles and using your electricity because excess Carbon Dioxide is THE problem.  Much of the science on which his film is based has been called into serious question by many practicing climate scientists who have boldly come forward with their research.

Information which contradicts the Global Warming ‘consensus of scientists’ has slowly trickled its way into the news, but it is seems to lack the WOW factor of imminent disaster.  With little effort we began finding contradictory information in many areas. Tidbits like the growth of the Antarctic ice sheet on the opposite side of the continent from the famous breaking Ross Ice Shelf. The melting of the ice sheet in Greenland revealed that it had been inhabited by farmers in farming communities in relatively recent history.  Records from ships captain talking about sailing in what is now the Arctic region without encountering ice, along with a lack of evidence showing across the board sea level rises, reports that many glaciers are growing, and more and more information showing that the warming trend was obviously part of a natural cycle began to confound what the media was reporting.

Another trend became apparent, scientists who publicly stated that they disagreed with this “consensus of scientists (who remained unnamed)”, were hit hard by the media. They were slandered and any possible unpleasant thing the media could use against them was aired for the world to see. But, not once was their science refuted with solid information. It was always just the opinion of someone who disagreed. Throughout the process, we have seen only slandering and tossing around of unsupported allegations, not the comparison and examination of the science.

As more and more information comes to light it is our sincere hope that people will question what they are being told.  Media sources should be held accountable for the unsupported material that they print, and the public should demand ethics and quality as well as accountability from their news sources.  The damning of a person because of their opinion rather than a reasonable examination of the information on which that opinion is based, is another thing readers should disallow.

*** Simple Solutions to Complex Problems

An element of this AGW phenomenon that has concerned us greatly is the attention given to atmospheric CO2 levels.  Al Gore, the IPCC, Stephen Schneider, realclimate.org and the other bandwagoneers have identified CO2 as the al Qaeda of Global Warming.  Governments are being pressured to create Carbon Trading schemes to force industry to reduce carbon emissions.  Entire populations are being exhorted to use less hydrocarbon-based fuel.  Al Gore has addressed the US Congress on Global Warming and spent much of this time promoting Carbon Trading as the solution.  The latest IPCC report pretty much says that with carbon trading we can solve this problem.  Australia is in the process of jumping on this bandwagon…

So, what else do we know about CO2 and Carbon Trading.  If you can find an authoritative source indicating just how CO2 heats the atmosphere in chemical terms within the context of a clear understanding of water vapor’s heating effects, then you would seem to be on your own.  IPCC avoids the issue, and existing scientific references ignore that fact that we do not know enough about water vapor’s heating effects to know how CO2 fits into this picture at all.

And why Carbon Trading?  Al Gore is pretty keen on it, but that is quite logical given that he and some friends from Goldman Sachs created a carbon trading company before he hit the eco-road.  It is through this company that he offsets his enormous residential electricity bills in Tennessee.  Does this constitute conflict of interest?  You be the judge.  And while you are considering your verdict, consider the other corporate entities jumping on the Carbon Trading bandwagon.  What is in it for them apart from good publicity?  And what about the green groups, the environmental activists, and those who care for our global environment…  those who identify and promote the local issues?  Enjoy them while they last, friends, because now that the corporates have identified a way to make money from green issues the activists are on their way back to the fringe of politics and public consciousness.  They want you to believe that Carbon Trading will save the day, even if CO2 has no proven way of heating our atmosphere.

Another interesting point about Carbon Trading is that it actually does practically nothing to impact the current levels of CO2 emissions. It will potentially keep the levels of emissions from rising but the predicted rises are not what these guys are screaming about. They are screaming about what has already been released and pointing the long finger of guilt toward the public consumer. They leave out that the public consumer has no other choice if they are going to drive or use electricity. Rather than force industry to switch to clean fuel production for the public, they continue to support the in-place energy production methods and blame the consumer for using it.  Expecting the public to actually believe the nonsense about there being no ready alternatives.  Oh really?  Is yet another fallacy being promoted as fact?

In short, think about what you read, and do a bit of research to see where the facts lie.