By Dr. Tim Ball, Canada Free Press, November 16, 2009
“When you point your finger at someone, three fingers are pointing back at you.” Anonymous
Finger pointing rarely includes facts, especially in the climate debate. The first finger said we were global warming skeptics, but was turned back when it was explained all scientists are skeptics.
The second finger claimed we were climate change deniers. It was turned back because the opposite is true; we’re telling the public about the extent and speed of natural climate change. As Copenhagen nears, it’s evident no agreement is possible so rhetoric, and alarmism abound. Finger pointing has a new form, being a denier is now a disease. They never consider the failure is due to facts proving the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis wrong. With the left it is always someone else’s fault.
Just the Facts
Extreme left journalist George Monbiot ignored all the facts I provided when he was pointing a finger at me. He’s ignoring them again, which forces him to assume the deniers are at fault. He wrote, “There is no point in denying it: we’re losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere that cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.”
The sphere is expanding for several reasons.
- All evidence rejects the hypothesis that human CO2 is causing warming or climate change.
- Facts are gradually getting to the public despite obstructionism by journalists like Monbiot.
- Temperature projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are consistently wrong.
- Record cold temperatures are occurring everywhere.
- Motives of those pushing the need for reduction in CO2 are being exposed.
- Economic costs of a completely unnecessary action are emerging.
- If you shoot the messenger it changes the question to, “Who is the denier now?”
Denialism is defined as “the practice of creating the illusion of debate when there is none.” It’s a variation on “the science is settled” theme, but personalized to say you deny the facts that prove it’s settled. I experienced it this week and learned there’s no rational response. A person presented herself as a journalist writing an article on climate change. I don’t refuse interviews and assume the person is seeking balance. The article was about “denialism”, which the journalist claimed was a serious threat and I was a prime example. It evolved there was no balance, the journalist believed the science is settled and I was refusing to concede.
I explained how I am the antithesis of a denier. I explained how the scientific method was thwarted and the AGW hypothesis became fact before the research began. I was told this was clear evidence of my denial. As the chosen representative of denialism I wanted the facts and science I was supposedly denying. I asked what percentage CO2 was of greenhouse gases. The answer; “I ask the questions.” I ended the interview, an action that will probably appear as clear evidence of denial.
Leftist politicians are pointing the same fingers. Australian Prime Minister Rudd said in a recent speech, “climate-change skeptics, the climate-change deniers, the opponents of climate-change action are active in every country.”
He wrapped the charges in the standard environmentalist argument of the precautionary principle. Of the Australian opposition he said, “You are betting our jobs, our houses, our farms, our reefs, our economy and our future on an intuition on a gut feeling; on a political prejudice you have about science.”
It is the finger of guilt. What he denies is those impacts will occur if you implement his proposed climate-change action.
But who has the political prejudice?
Logic says it’s those who want to stifle debate, to silence individuals and groups. All I’ve ever sought is a full and open debate. It was what 59 fellow skeptics and I sought in a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister.
A new book with another twist accuses those trying to uncover the facts of a cover-up. I hesitate to give the book attention but as an example of the illogic, lies and nastiness in the climate change debate it must be exposed. James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore’s form of the denialism charge is in their book titled, “Climate Cover-Up” subtitled, “The Crusade to Deny Global Warming.” They’ve likely achieved a new low with two major errors in the title. Nobody denies warming; the issue is the cause. The word “crusade” implies a religious quest, but the real crusade is to force acceptance of the hypothesis by personal attacks. Scientists as skeptics were subjected to an inquisition as befalls non-believers.
Disclosure; I’m a victim of their attacks and accusations. The false information about me leaves little doubt the rest is equally questionable. I was a threat from the beginning because I identified the hoax early in a peer-reviewed article, “An Iconoclast’s View of Climatic Change” in the 1992 Canadian Water Resources Journal. The editor published but with the bizarre condition he provide the title. When I saw his choice I agreed because, unknown to him I already realized I was challenging a religion. Hoggan and Littlemore falsely linked me to the oil and energy industry. They said my failure to follow through on a lawsuit to stop their false information was proof of guilt. Truth is I could not afford to continue the action. Besides, Hoggan was supporting the person who made the false accusations. The book smears by suggestion, implies guilt by association, and uses various forms of ad hominem attacks. They don’t discuss the scientific facts.
Hoggan and Littlemore are major players in the attacks and real cover-up. It is their expertise. Hoggan is a master of spin who owns a large Public Relations company. Littlemore is a political journalist. Hoggan set up a web page called Desmogblog and hired Littlemore and Kevin Grandia, to produce material replete with personal attacks, while ignoring the science.
Hoggan is Chair of the Board of the David Suzuki Foundation, a political environmental group that receives funding from oil and energy companies. With the twisted logic of true believers somehow this is not tainting and neither is money from government or any other agency. Hoggan’s clients include alternative energy companies, like Ballard Engineering, who benefit from showing CO2 is causing global warming or climate change, but somehow that is not a conflict. But none of that is important; the issue is the science and the facts, which they consistently ignore.
Knocked Out by the Facts
The final finger of denialism pointed so directly by Monbiot is, ironically, an eloquent description of his own position. The reason he writes, “There is no point in denying it: we’re losing” is because the fingers have curled into a fist and it is aimed right back at him and the other real deniers. As James Howell (1594 - 1666) said, “Burn not thy fingers to snuff another man’s candle.” See post here.
By Noel Sheppard
World leaders meeting in Singapore have decided to punt on reaching any firm agreement at next month’s global warming conference in Copenhagen.
The decision represents a huge setback to the Obama administration’s goal of passing a cap and trade bill this year, which conversely is great news for virtually every company in America that has been worried about the higher cost of doing business that would come from the enactment of such legislation.
As the New York Times reported moments ago:
President Obama and other world leaders have decided to put off the difficult task of reaching a climate change agreement at a global climate conference scheduled for next month, agreeing instead to make it the mission of the Copenhagen conference to reach a less specific “politically binding” agreement that would punt the most difficult issues into the future.
“There was an assessment by the leaders that it is unrealistic to expect a full internationally, legally binding agreement could be negotiated between now and Copenhagen, which starts in 22 days,” said Michael Froman, the deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs. “I don’t think the negotiations have proceeded in such a way that any of the leaders thought it was likely that we were going to achieve a final agreement in Copenhagen, and yet thought that it was important that Copenhagen be an important step forward, including with operational impact.”
The agreement on Sunday codifies what negotiators had already accepted as all but inevitable: that representatives of the 192 nations in the talks would not resolve the outstanding issues in time. The gulf between rich and poor countries, and even among the wealthiest nations, was just too wide.
Among the chief barriers to a comprehensive deal in Copenhagen was Congress’s inability to enact climate and energy legislation that sets binding targets on greenhouse gases in the United States. Without such a commitment, other nations are loath to make their own pledges.
Administration officials and Congressional leaders have said that final legislative action on a climate bill would not occur before the first half of next year.
All together now—aaaawwwww!
See more here.
Icecap Note: Is Big Al’s “Gore Effect rubbing off on Obama? Obama was in China following a rare November snowstorm and during a cold wave.
By the way, if you doubted their were ulterior motives in the support that Copenhagen and Cap-n-Trade have received from Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citi, JP Morgan, GE and many other corporations and folks like Al Gore and George Soros, see this actual investment email brochure here. Guess whose pockets the huge profits these circling vultures expected would be coming from? Given so much at stake for UN, the world’s governments, the NGOs, the corporations that have gone green and the big players in the shadows, don’t write off some kind of agreement/treaty at Copenhagen that will start the world down the path towards one world governance under a green banner.
----------------------------------
Polls in both the US and UK are showing increasing skepticism among the public.
Global warming is not our fault, say most voters in Times poll
UK Times Online
Less than half the population believes that human activity is to blame for global warming, according to an exclusive poll for The Times. The revelation that ministers have failed in their campaign to persuade the public that the greenhouse effect is a serious threat requiring urgent action will make uncomfortable reading for the Government as it prepares for next month’s climate change summit in Copenhagen.
Only 41 per cent accept as an established scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made. Almost a third (32 per cent) believe that the link is not yet proved; 8 per cent say that it is environmentalist propaganda to blame man and 15 per cent say that the world is not warming. Tory voters are more likely to doubt the scientific evidence that man is to blame. Only 38 per cent accept it, compared with 45 per cent of Labour supporters and 47 per cent of Liberal Democrat voters.
The high level of scepticism underlines the difficulty the Government will have in persuading the public to accept higher green taxes to help to meet Britain’s legally binding targets to cut carbon emissions by 34 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050. The recession appears to have made tackling climate change less of a priority for many people. Only just over a quarter (28 per cent) think that it is happening and is “far and away the most serious problem we face as a country and internationally”, while just over half (51 per cent) think it is “a serious problem, but other problems are more serious”.
Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said that growing awareness of the scale of the problem appeared to be resulting in people taking refuge in denial. “Being confronted with the possibility of higher energy bills, wind farms down the road and new nuclear power stations encourages people to question everything about climate change,” she said. “There is a resistance to change and some people see the problem being used as an excuse to charge them more taxes.”
Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said: “The overwhelming body of scientific information is stacked up against the deniers and shows us that climate change is man-made and is happening now. We know that we still have a way to go in informing people about climate change and that is why we make no apologies about pushing forward with our new Act on CO2 campaign.” See post here.
47% Blame Global Warming on Planetary Trends, Not Human Activity
Rasmussen Poll
Nearly half the nation’s voters still believe that global warming is caused primarily by long term planetary trends, not human activity.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 47% of voters blame global warming on planetary trends, while 37% of voters take the opposite view and blame human activity. Just 5% point to some other reason.
Voters continue to believe the president holds the opposite view. Fifty percent (50%) say President Obama blames global warming on human activity, while only 20% think he blames planetary trends. But another 21% are not sure what the president believes.
These results come as the White House may have to push back plans for its aggressive legislation to combat global warming. That effort included new spending on green technology and jobs but may be too much due to the high level of government spending already accumulated this year.
Belief that human activity is the primary cause of global warming has declined significantly over the past year. In April of last year, the numbers were nearly the mirror image of the current numbers. At that time, 47% blamed human activity and only 34% named long term planetary trends as the reason for climate change.
Sixty-two percent (62%) of voters consider global warming to be a serious problem, including 34% who see it as very serious. The number who see it as a Very Serious problem has declined seven points since January and thirteen points since April 2008.
Most voters (58%) view finding new sources of energy as more important than reducing the amount of energy now consumed by Americans, a finding that has remained fairly consistent throughout the year. A third of voters (34%) take the opposing view and say it is more important to reduce energy use.
California is expected to implement energy-conserving regulations any day now that manufacturers and retailers say will in effect ban the sale of big-screen TVs in the state. But new polling shows that 66% of Americans oppose a law that would effectively ban the sale of big-screen televisions to save energy.
Fifty-two percent (52%) of voters support the building of more nuclear power plants in the U.S., while 35% are opposed. While the number who see a need for more plants is relatively unchanged from last month, the number opposed is up nine points since that time. On just about everything concerning energy policy, there is a significant partisan divide. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republican voters blame global warming on planetary trends, while half of Democrats (50%) blame human activity. Fifty-one percent (51%) of voters not affiliated with either party blame planetary trends.
More than half of Democrats (52%) consider global warming to be very serious, compared to just 18% of Republicans and 29% of unaffiliateds. See poll here.
Update: See how Global Warming Fatigue Spreads in this new post on the Resilient Earth by Dog Hoffman here.
See how Gore gets heckled in a Boca Raton speech here.
A Discussion Paper on the state of Himalayan Glaciers, prepared by Mr V K Raina, ex Deputy Director of GSI, was released by the Minister for Environment & Forests, Mr Jairam Ramesh. The Paper presents a detailed historical review of the research to date spanning more than 50 years, and includes a perspective on the impact of climate change on the glaciers. The Ministry invited comments on the Paper. We are pleased to offer comments by Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a former Environment Canada Meteorologist, prolific author and IPCC reviewer.
November 12 2009
Comments on the Himalayan Glaciers Discussion Paper (Report by V K Raina)
By Dr. Madhav Khandekar
This discussion paper is a comprehensive and a well-researched report on the Himalayan Glaciers, its history and geology and the present state of the glaciers in the context of the current debate on global warming. The author is a geologist by training and has attempted to provide an excellent overview of the state of some 50 glaciers (out of a total of about 10,000 in the Indian region of the Himalayas) which have been studied during most of the 20th century, with an accelerated study and monitoring since the IGY (International Geophysical Year) of 1957. Among many important conclusions drawn by the author, the following statement best describes the present state of the glaciers:
“Glaciers in the Himalayas, over the past 100 years, behave in contrasting ways. Some glaciers (ex, Sonapani) have retreated by as much as 500m in the last 100 yrs, while others (ex, Kangriz) have retreated just by an inch or so during the same period”
The author concludes further that “It is premature to make a statement that the Himalayan Glaciers are retreating abnormally because of global warming”
It must be realized that the Himalayan Mountains are the world’s tallest and perhaps the most difficult mountain chains to monitor and study adequately to assess the impact of recent warming. Among many weather and climate parameters are the mean temperature and the precipitation (snow during the winter season and rainfall during the Indian summer Monsoon from June-September). Available observations suggest some warming (perhaps significant warming in some areas like The Tibetan (Qinghai-Xizang) Plateau) of the Himalayas, however it is difficult to link the recent shrinking and retreat of many Himalayan Glaciers to warming alone. The total annual precipitation and its inter-annual variability seems to play an important role in the shrinking of the Himalayan glaciers just as it does elsewhere (ex, Mount Kilimanjaro, see Kaser et al Int’l J of Climatolgy 2004).
Another recent paper (Dahe et al 2006, J of Climate ) makes a climatological analysis of snow depth over western China (including the Tibetan Plateau) from 1947 thru 1997 using (NOAA) satellite SMRR data. It is instructive to read the following quotes for Dahe’s conclusions:
“Snow cover is far from a pervasive feature over the Tibetan Plateau. Only in the peripheral mountains is any appreciable snow cover noted. In the vast interior, snow cover is rare or thin, patchy and of a short duration. The annual cycle of (Tibetan) snow is characterized by an early peak in January, a very slow snow decay and a long snow dissipation progress from February to June”.
In recent years, there appears to be an increasing snowfall accumulation in the foothills of the Himalayas (especally in the Kashmir Valley region), while snow accumulation may have decreased in the regions where most of the glaciers are located. The decrease in snow accumulation over higher elevations may be due to changes in the large-scale circulation patterns (ex, southward displacement of the sub-tropical Jet Stream), which could be linked to inter-annual variability of the Indian summer Monsoon.
In summary, the most plausible explanation of shrinking of the Himalayan glaciers at present is the lack of adequate snow accumulation during the winter season. It is premature to link the recent shrinking of the Himalayan glaciers to observed warming of the earth’s mean temperature in the last 30 years. See PDF here. See 2008 paper on IPCC alarmism here.
Dr Madhav L Khandekar
Expert Reviewer IPCC 2007 Climate Change
Markham Ontario Canada
See Cliff Ollier on Himalayan Glaciers here.