Global Warming The Anthropocentric Crisis
Politics / Climate Change Feb 16, 2010 - 01:18 AM GMTBy: Arnold_Bock
The global climate warming fuss is not principally an environmental issue but, rather, it is a manufactured crisis supported by copious amounts of manipulated science, reinforced by opinion leaders and promulgated by the cheerleading of the mass media. Global warming has become the mother of all politically correct issues.
Various components of the warming cause, which are only tangentially related to the environment, have been outlined at some length
in Part 1 (Global Warming: The Man-Made Crisis), Part 2 (U.S. and Canada Are Global Warming Scapegoats) and Part 3 (Why Should WE Make Sacrifices to Offset Global Warming?) of this series. However, it is important to comment on what has been regularly presented as scientific justification for sounding alarm bells over climate change, if for no other reason than to set the record straight.
Global Warming is Not a Proven Fact
Simply put, climate change – originally an emerging new ice age, then global warming and now climate change – is not a proven fact. To sarcastically mimic the affected gravitas of certain warming experts, we might call it an “anthropocentrically manufactured” issue.
As mentioned in Part 2, in the late 1960’s the United Nations assigned Canadian Maurice Strong, a man possessed of a strong belief in the merits of global governance and the need to establish transnational governmental institutions, to head up what subsequently came to be known as the global climate change initiative.
Mr. Strong, aptly named in spite of possessing the forgettable demeanour of a faceless bureaucrat, has had a successful career as an entrepreneur, businessman and government executive building impressive business and political connections throughout the world. His skills and contacts have made him personally wealthy. He has been able to knit together an extremely effective network of the world’s decision makers in both government and business. While ideologically anchored, he is a master pragmatist in the pursuit of his objectives.
Because of his attributes he was the perfect person to place in charge of an issue designed to further advance his goals and those of other believers in global governance. He moves with ease between and within the world’s governments and business sectors. He isn’t threatening...merely effective. In fact, he is so effective that few people even know his name. People in the know such as Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations, published an open letter carried on Mr. Strong’s personal website lauding the man’s Homeric attributes. Not least is that he says Mr. Strong is among the world’s leading environmentalists. Google goes even further to designate him “the world’s leading environmentalist.”
Among Mr. Strong’s first tasks was to obtain and distribute funding to the scientific community for climate change research. Credibility provided by science experts, coupled with their academic credentials and computer models, was critical to the success of presenting and portraying global warming as a factual crisis. He made himself its champion. In other words, global warming was presented as a certitude casting about for the scientific imprint to endorse it as fact.
Needless to say, scientific process is corrupted if it isn’t free to explore where the data takes it. Moreover, the data and processes must be freely available and fully open to challenge if its results and conclusions are to be validated. Because scientific research into global warming became a veritable gusher of ever more and larger government and UN funding, the process became corrupted at record speed.
Individual scientists exhibiting normal human frailties frequently tilted their findings to what was expected. Many succumbed to the lure of ever more research funding and professional status. Those at the climate research apex became celebrities whose status and research findings were cited as unassailable proof for the urgent claims of global warming doomsayers. Scientists who wouldn’t pitch to the predetermined conclusions of the warming playbook were elbowed to the fringe only to witness their research funding evaporate as quickly rain water in a desert.
Climate change as an issue was well managed and effectively lubricated with ample funding. Its central operatives were able to turn it into a crisis of truly global scope and proportions publicized by opinion elites everywhere. Anyone exhibiting the temerity to challenge its received wisdom was cut from the climate warming corral. No debate of consequence was welcomed or countenanced regarding the scientific merits of global warming. Everyone was repeatedly assured that the “science proves” that global warming is indeed a fact.
If or when pushed, questioners were informed that “peer review” by scientists had confirmed the conclusions and settled the issue. There was no debate because there was no need for one. Case closed.
Carbon emissions targets had to be set and assigned, and trading in carbon credits needed to begin immediately if the globe’s population was to avert pending climate calamity. The recent Copenhagen, Denmark UN climate conference held in December 2009 was intended to have national governments sign off on their assigned CO2 emissions targets as presented and endorsed in the Kyoto, Japan Protocol of 1997. Full implementation would begin virtually immediately.
Global Warming Science Deception Revealed
Unfortunately, from the perspective of climate change believers and advocates, the equivalent of an atomic bomb blew up in their faces in late November 2009 just prior to the Copenhagen confab. It seems a disgruntled insider at the Climate Change Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in England hacked their computer and released some 3,000 documents involving data, research findings and email communications among climate research insiders. What makes this treasure trove so damning is that these particular researchers are among the inner guard of the climate change cause. They are some of the leading figures comprising the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Email communications among these climate expert insiders discusses how to prevent sceptics from publishing their contrary findings in peer reviewed journals. They plotted to destroy and suppress the raw data supporting their findings and conclusions and discussed methods to manipulate inconvenient data to be more supportive of their perspective. These scientists also attempted to hide or delete temperature data when that data didn’t show rapid warming.
IPCC scientists had become super sensitive following conclusions reached independently in 2003 by two Canadian researchers, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. Their analyses debunked the infamous “hockey stick” graph, popularized by the research and computer models of Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann, which purported to prove that the mean temperatures in the northern hemisphere over the past millennium remained flat until 1900, after which temperatures showed a sharp and continuing rise.
After that scientific and public relations debacle, climate research insiders became increasingly paranoid causing them to quietly suppress and replace numbers and undertake whatever measures necessary to prevent the publication of studies which arrived at conclusions different from those deemed to support the warming consensus.
More troubling yet are quotes like these from the East Anglia University papers. “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t....” “We will keep them out somehow even if we have to redefine what peer review literature is....” “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.”
Global Warming’s Climategate is a Slippery Slope
Fallout from the East Anglia University papers continues, with the moniker “Climategate” now usually attached. It has been adopted as the handy abbreviation for this most unfortunate chapter in the corrupt use of the scientific process. Climategate may ultimately prove to be a watershed in the battle for public opinion simply because, until now climate warming advocates had the distinct advantage of claiming most scientific opinion was on their side. That badge of pride seems now to be eroding faster than air escaping from a tire punctured by a sharp spike.
Rapidly rising ocean levels caused by shrivelling polar ice caps had science on its side, until recently. As this piece was being written, the crumbling cascade of scientific certainty has been dealt another lethal blow. Two years ago the UN’s IPCC claimed with great fanfare that climate change would melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035. That high profile prediction by the climate science establishment was taken as fact emanating as it did from the citadel of so many august climatologists.
What happened to this prediction? Graham Cogley, a Canadian geographer, initiated a process which ultimately revealed that this dramatic prediction was nothing more than a decade old speculative opinion by little known Indian scientist, Syed Hasnain, eight years earlier while responding to a query by the New Scientist magazine. There was no research of any kind behind the opinion.
So why and how is so much conventional scientific wisdom being so thoroughly discredited? Clearly, the scientific process is being shown to have been corrupted, hence the faulty methodology and conclusions but why errors on such a grand scale?
Lord Acton once said: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Could it be that access to seemingly unlimited quantities of research money, shielded by the consensus of a cause, might also have the same effect as monopoly power? Perhaps
Lord Acton's words should be updated to read that “power and money corrupts, and a manufactured crisis of global proportions is guaranteed to be corrupt.”
By: Arnold Bock
© 2010 Copyright Arnold Bock- All Rights Reserved
Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisors.
© 2005-2022 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.
