Realities Of Climate Change, Politics And Public Knowledge.
Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
The minute a small cabal hijacked climate for a political agenda it determined that setting the record straight required political answers. Naomi Klein admitted it wasn’t about the science directly. That fighting climate change was necessary to combat capitalism. This was the objective all along and expressed in 1993 when Senator Wirth admitted,
“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing …”
The “right thing” is achieving Maurice Strong’s objective of getting rid of the industrialized nations.
Too many skeptics continue to think that scientific points are going to change the public understanding. Most of the public don’t understand, but, more important, don’t want to understand. I doubt the 75% who failed the Yale Education Climate Change test lost any sleep. Polls, such as those of the Pew Center and overall analysis of trends indicate global warming or climate change are not a concern for most people. I suspect they don’t care because they don’t understand or want to understand. They also know how about the unreliability of weather forecasts, and that is all the science they need. One Pew pollconfirms that the public believes global warming is a political issue. Because of this, politicians and environmentalists with political agendas continue to control the story.James Delingpole puts the amount of money wasted because of this control at $4 billion a day.
Because science is ideally amoral and apolitical most scientists avoid politics, which results in a failure to provide necessary information to open-minded politicians and media. They need this to counter the pseudo-science of the IPCC proponents. They knew what to do from the start. Stephen Schneider set it out succinctly in Discover magazine a year after Hansen appeared before Wirth’s Senate committee and put the entire issue into the political realm.
On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but& which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
If this sounds familiar today, it is because it summarizes the words in the recent Encyclical of Pope Francis. Schneider is wrong. There is no decision about right and wrong, which is why the Pope’s connection with climate deceivers contradicts his central role as upholder of truth and is so deeply troubling. It is the rationale Naomi Klein and other use, which is why they brought her on board. It is basic Alinsky; the end justifies the means.
I spoke about the need to counter the false science from a political and social perspective, in my presentation at the First Heartland Conference in New York ten years ago. I pointed out that Gore’s movie was a brilliant piece of propaganda. A view supported by Justice Burton the UK judge who ruled on its use in the classroom.
It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political.
Justice Burton recommended teachers provide balance by also showing The Great Global Warming Swindle. I proudly advised producer Martin Durkin and appeared in the movie. I also warned him that the US media would not run it, as proved the case, although it is now generally available. The problem is that only a small percentage of people watch documentaries on television. Gore bypassed that by using Hollywood to make the movie but also to market it through all their traditional venues. They knew how to achieve Schneider’s goal of getting “broad-based support” and “capturing the public’s imagination.”
Skeptics have, for a variety of reasons, avoided the “Hollywood” approach. It is a major error. We need to realize that tactics are tactics, and that the adage that you fight fire with fire is true. The first thing to do in any strategy is define the problem and the second is to determine the target and thirdly use tactics appropriate to the situation.
The problem is a failure to explain climate science and its abuse in a way a majority can understand. The following points are gleaned from my experience with media interviews, school visits, questions after a presentation, and questions via email. They represent the issues I confront every day. They are the real challenges anybody trying to offset the misinformation about climate and climate change must consider. They are the political dynamics that influence how you help people understand and deal with science issues.
1. People can’t believe a small group of people could mislead the world. Nowadays, the explosion of conspiracy theories because of the Internet, make the idea even more remote and unpalatable. They need to heed world-renowned anthropologist Margaret Mead’s observation.
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
This comment implies that “thoughtful” and “committed” are pursuing positive changes. History indicates they are never positive as power centralizes and corrupts and people lose freedoms.
2. People can’t believe scientists would distort, manipulate, or do anything other than proper science. They accept the view that science and scientists are amoral and apolitical. As Mary McCarthy said,
“In science, all facts, no matter how trivial or banal, enjoy democratic equality.”
This is reinforced by the practice of most scientists to avoid politics. The public assumes the silence is a tacit agreement with what is in the media about global warming.
3. It is mostly the politicians who talk about the 97% manufactured consensus. The public asks as happened to me twice on radio this week,
“How come thousands of scientists believe there is global warming and climate change?”
The simple answer is, very few are familiar with the science. They, like most of the public, assume other scientists would not distort, manipulate, or do anything other than proper science. When scientists find out, they are shocked as exemplified in Klaus-Eckert Pulscomment.
Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data—first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of
what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.
IPCC proponents promoted and perpetuated this deception through science societies as I explained.
A particularly egregious exploitation was carried out through science societies and professional scientific groups. They were given the climate science of the IPCC and urged to support it on behalf of their members. Certainly a few were part of the exploitation, but a majority, including most of the members simply assumed that the rigorous methods of research and publication in their science were used. Lord May of the UK Royal Society was influential in the manipulation of public perception through national scientific societies. They persuaded other national societies to become involved by making public statements. The Russian Academy of Science, under its President Yuri Israel, refused to participate.
4. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, “Never in the history of mankind have so many been deceived by so few, with so few facts.” The more you try to counteract what the public knows using scientific facts, the more you lose the battle. If you use scientific facts you must couch them in terms and analogies everybody understands. I know this from 25 years of teaching a compulsory science credit course for Arts students. The abilities and techniques I developed there of explaining climate in ways the public understand made me a double threat to IPCC proponents because I was also qualified.
5. Most people don’t know what is “normal” or “natural” in nature. This made it easy to imply or infer that they were abnormal or unnatural. It works well with the modern practice of “sound bites” in which information is presented without context. Climate change is innately historical and demands context. There are two basic options to counter the problem. Publish the context for each story as soon as possible after it appears. Publish stories of true facts that are outside of people’s comprehension using analogies. For example, alarmists add human scale to stories with analogies. One year they reported Arctic sea ice melted more by an area the size of Texas than the previous year. Texas is 695,662 km2, which is approximately 4.6% of the total Arctic ice of 15 million km2. The change is within the natural annual variability, but Texas is big so it must be a problem.
6. We tell people CO2 isn’t causing the warming but fail to explain why. This is for people who don’t know what a greenhouse gas is or that water vapor is far more important. (Figure 1)
Figure 1 Source: Yale Education Climate Change Test.
We then fail to explain what is the most likely cause. As politicians learn to their peril, you can’t just be against something.
Today they push the global warming claims with increasing deception because the 21stParis Conference of the Parties on climate is scheduled for 7-8 December 2015. They consider it imperative to pass a Kyoto type set of policies. Ironically, one thing that diminishes their chances is continued economic decline, the very objective of Wirth, Klein and the gang. It is ironic because politicians will reset their priorities to promote development, growth, and job creation because they don’t want angry voters. What they will get is angry global warming activists with a political agenda.
6 thoughts on “More Proof that Climate Change Hysteria is a HOAX!”
George Meredith MD
It’s About Planet Earth’s Wobble, Stupid!
To Modify Rising Sea Levels, restore the estuaries!
Al Gore and Barack Obama and the rest of the tree huggers would have us believe that if we were to all drive these silly little Chevrolet Volts, plug in to some Rube Goldberg electric Windmill and eat bamboo shoots, that we could change global warming with its associated sea level rise. But we pragmatists know that this is not the case.
Consider: because the planet Earth wobbles on its long axis over a 23,000 year cycle, its inhabitants must endure glacial and glacial melt cycles. Glacial and interglacial periods. For instance, our Western Atlantic shoreline was 65 miles east, 11,500 years ago. Witness the carbon dated walrus tusks that scallop boats have dredged up in the Norfolk Canyon. And in another 11,500 years, our mid Atlantic shoreline will once again be on Broad Street in what was once downtown Richmond, Virginia. Witness the carbon dated whale skeleton (fossils) that have been found in and near Richmond.
Understand: As the earth wobbles on its axis, the Atlantic Ocean’s shoreline advances and recedes on a precise 23,000 year cycle. Based on the status of the polar ice cap vis a vis its line of declination to the sun. This has been going on for millions, of years. And no Obama Volt, electric windmill or government mandated bamboo shoot diet is going to change that!
However, there are some embarrassingly simple things that the current residents of today’s receding Western Atlantic shoreline can do to modify the effects of this “sea level rise”. Specifically, we should stop squandering the navigation channel dredge spoils that America’s central government is, at some considerable expense, parking in a series of ill conceived USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers) vertical dredge spoil sites. Such as Craney Island and Popular Island in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Instead, through the use of hydraulic rotary cutter head pipeline dredges and Rolligon amphibious ditcher-spreaders, use these navigation channel dredge spoils to reconstruct the fringe marshes and tidal creeks of Planet Earth’s coastal estuaries. And thus modify the flooding associated with major rainstorms, hurricanes and big gales caused by rising sea levels but accentuated by over a century of estuary shoreline dredging and bulkheading.
Listen! The answer to modifying the local effects of rising sea levels involves reestablishment/establishment of large, healthy fringe marshes (living shorelines). And by unblocking those tidal marshes that have been cut off from their estuaries by poorly planned roadways and rail lines.
Simply by depositing navigation channel dredge spoils on a long intertidal slope just seaward of certain bulkheads and eroded shorelines nearby, beautiful, vibrant fringe marshes could be reestablished in one short year. And by enlarging culverts that pass beneath obstructing roadways and rail lines. An added bonus: an acre of salt marsh can remove as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as can ten acres of (tree farm) pine or maple plantings.
There are a number of important studies on modifying the impact of rising sea levels, reestablishment of critical tidal marshland sponge effect, as well as estuary tidal water cleanup. The first is the work of former US Senator and American sportsman John Breaux. Witness: the pipeline dredging of shipping channels in the Mississippi River and placement of the associated dredge spoils, on long 1:6 intertidal slopes just seaward of eroded shorelines. So as to reestablish healthy fringe marshes. Within one year, without marsh grass planting, and without rip rap sills, new living shoreline (fringe marshes) can be established (reestablished)’. In the United States, these marshland restoration projects are ongoing or already established in Galveston Bay, in Little River Marsh, New Hampshire, in coastal New Jersey and Delaware, in coastal Louisiana, in south San Francisco Bay and elsewhere.
The second study is that of BC Wolverton, a NASA environmental engineer. Wolverton has shown that new (living shoreline) marshes can remove sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus, raw sewage, Hepatitis A viral particles, heavy metals, coliforms and PCBs from the waters that flow through them. During twice daily tidal cycles. Accordingly, water clarity is markedly improved and thus the ability to grow submerged aquatic vegetation is enhanced! In addition to restoring the vital sponge properties of tidal marshlands. Sponge properties that are essential to modify the damage caused by rising sea levels. Especially during hurricanes, during gales and during heavy rain storms.
And pipeline dredge restoration of fringe marshes could be done for practically nothing. Especially when considering the savings in disposal (repositioning) navigation channel dredge spoils….cf: instead of transporting same to some distant, government designated vertical dredge spoil deposition site.
Planet Earth needs tidal marshes, not granite rip rap sills, volunteer trash pickup programs, oyster reefs, rain barrels, expensive Bacterra storm water filers, buffer zone shrub plantings and the other feel good-do nothing projects that the tree huggers are so aggressively promoting.
Listen! To modify the effects of rising sea levels, we must reestablish the fringe marshes and unblock those tidal marshes that have been degraded by poorly planned roadways and rail lines. Once the tidal marshes are restored, the storm water will take care of itself! But not vice versa. Al Gore and Barack Obama, again, I plead with you and your collaborators to use your library cards before you offer more illogical, poorly researched concepts as those you have pushed off on an incredibly naïve public.
Pay attention, stupid! It’s about the Planet Earth’s Wobble! And about man’s dredging and bulkheading of vital (sponge) estuaries!
George Meredith MD, President
Linkhorn-Rudee Waterway Fund
To learn more about economical marshland restoration, storm water management and the sponge, search: George Meredith MD Marshland Restoration Pipeline Dredging Comments
Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge with us, Mr. Meredith!
It is unbelievably refreshing, to hear someone speak about about the absurdity of the faux-green climate/environmental scam. It saddens me to see people following behind these alarmists, blindly, while very little effort in researching, would show another side to the story. A far less hysterical, and far more sensible story, because it’s the truth! Honest efforts, that could be made to protect our environment, have been cast aside, in the frenzy over CO2, and fossil fuels. Our agricultural lands, are being used for wind, solar, and bio-fuels. This entire system is backwards! Politicians are making decisions, that should only be made by scientists. Unbiased scientists, with proof that their ideas are feasible. You have shone a light on an extremely important part of the equation. With sincere gratitude, Shellie Correia
Appreciating the hard work you put into your website and detailed information you provide.
It’s great to come across a blog every once in a while that isn’t the same out of date rehashed information. Great
read! I’ve bookmarked your site and I’m adding your RSS feeds to my
Thank you so much, Lisette! Your kind support is appreciated!
Marshland Restoration by pipeline dredge, Ms Alex Cortez prior to your wild eyed New Green Deal,
Ms. Alex Cortez….just because this approach won’t bankrupt us, does not mean it won’t work….get down off your barstool use your library card before you offer more of your harebrained ideas!
George Meredith MD
Common sense and rational thinking are not Ms. Cortez’ strong points… I doubt she has ever owned a library card!