David Evans: Climate Coup — The Politics

How the regulating class is using bogus claims about climate change to entrench and extend their economic privileges and political control.

Guest Post: Dr David M.W. Evans, 29 Feb 2012, last updated 13 Mar 2012, latest pdf here

The Science

The sister article Climate Coup—The Science (a more mainstream version of The Skeptic’s Case) contains the science foundation for this essay. It checks the track record of the climate models against our best and latest data, from impeccable sources. It details how you can download this data yourself. It finds that the climate models got all their major predictions wrong:

Test Climate Models
Air temperatures from 1988 Actual rise was less than the rise predicted for drastic cuts in CO2
Air temperatures from 1990 Over-estimated trend rise
Ocean temperatures from 2003 Over-estimated trend rise greatly
Atmospheric hotspot Completely missing – water vapor feedback not amplifying
Outgoing radiation Opposite to reality – water vapor feedback not amplifying

The latter two items are especially pertinent, because they show that the crucial amplification by water vapor feedback [i] assumed by the models does not exist in reality. Modelers guessed that of the forces on temperature, only CO2 has changed significantly since 1750. The water vapor amplification causes two-thirds of the warming predicted by the models, while carbon dioxide only directly causes one third. The presence of the amplification in the models, but not in reality, explains why the models overestimated recent warming.

Who Are You Going To Believe—The Government Climate Scientists or Your Own Lying Eyes?

The climate models are incompatible with the data. You cannot believe both the theory of dangerous manmade global warming and the data, because they cannot both be right.

In science, data trumps theory. If data and theory disagree, as they do here, people of a more scientific bent go with the data and scrap the theory.

But in politics we usually go with authority figures, who in this case are the government climate scientists and the western governments—and they strongly support the theory. Many people simply cannot get past the fact that nearly all the authority figures believe the theory. To these people the data is simply irrelevant.

The world’s climate scientists are almost all employed by western governments. They usually don’t pay you to do climate research unless you say you believe manmade global warming is dangerous, and it has been that way for more than 20 years. [ii] The result is a near-unanimity that is unusual for a theory in such an immature science.

Sideshows Instead of the Whole Truth

The government climate scientists and mainstream media have kept at least two important truths from the public and the politicians:

  1. Two thirds of the warming predicted by the climate models is due to amplification by water vapor feedback, and only one third is directly due to CO2.
  2. The dispute among scientists is about the water vapor feedback. There is no dispute among serious scientists about the direct effect of CO2.

They seek to persuade with partial truths and omissions, not telling the truth in a disinterested manner. Instead, we are treated to endless sideshows. Issues such as Arctic ice, polar bears, bad weather , or the supposed psychological sickness of those opposing the authorities, tell us nothing about the causes of global warming. They divert public attention and the water vapor feedback escapes scrutiny—hidden in plain sight, but never under public discussion.

The Silence of the Mainstream Media

The data presented in Climate Coup—The Science is plainly relevant, publicly available, and impeccably sourced from our best instruments—satellites, Argo, and the weather balloons. Yet it never appears in the mainstream media.[iii] Have you ever seen it?

If the mainstream media were interested in the truth, they would seek out the best and latest data and check the predictions against the data. They don’t.

Global warning has been a big issue for years. Yet all of the world’s investigative journalists—those cynical, hard-bitten, clever, incorruptible, scandal-sniffing reporters of the vital truths who are celebrated in their own press—all of them just happen not to notice that the climate models get all their major predictions wrong? Really? Even though we point it out to them?

Good detectives do not overlook clues. The presented data contains half a dozen clues of brick-in-your-face subtlety. How could anyone miss them? Will the journalists who read this paragraph now follow the instructions on downloading the data, and report on what they find? No.

Perhaps they think it’s all too complicated, that it will make our brains hurt? A story with two numbers is too hard? No, we all understand a graph of temperature over time and can spot trends. Judging by the huge response on the Internet, the public want well-explained technical details about the climate.

The government climate scientists and their climate models said it would warm like this and heat up the atmosphere like that. But it didn’t, just download the data and check.

The media are withholding this data, so the “climate debate” is obviously not about science or truth. It must be about politics and power. Reluctantly, uncomfortably, the only possible conclusion is that the media don’t want to investigate the claims of the government climate scientists. Why? Who benefits?

Jo Nova

About these ads

5 responses to “David Evans: Climate Coup — The Politics

  1. chuck in st paul

    None of the LSM or the sheeple have ever grown up past high school. They are each and all deathly afraid to say the emperor has no clothes lest they be cut from the herd and shunned. What a bunch. On another thread I referenced Cher’s song title, “Gypsies, Tramps, and Thieves.” How apropos.

  2. There is obviously some great “TRUTH” that only the insiders are privy to. A truth that is just too dangerous for the little people to know.

    I mean, how else can you explain this cognitive dissonance?

  3. Markus Fitzhenry

    The ideology that suburbanites can grow a cleaner better world by restricting co2 emissions is entrenched. As is the humanistic satellite industries of abatement, protection and compensation. There is climate change in a legal framework, coastal planning, health, construction and others, every facet of development has an overemphasized climate change bent.

    Politicians of the left and right in western societies have to favour the environmentalists to retain power. Undue power and influence is then given to a minor political persuasion whose demographics give rise to an unbalanced representation in bureaucracies and academia. The saturation of climate change studies and the number of electives available to it scholastically has mushroomed with every graduation.

    Billions have been spent building the climate change empire and those who are well rewarded by it, those who have invested in it, those whose reputations and livelihood depend on it, will not yield without compelling reasons. Behind them are wall of troglobites. Propagandised masses of idealistic gullible worshipers who think they are duty bound to save the Earth. Indeed a formidable foe for realists to conquer.

    Until recently, by chance due to a natural oscillation of climate, the realists have not been able to make any advances in the way media represents them in the scientific debate. The respect for realists is growing, the economy is pushing back against unrealistic energy policies and it is getting cold. The tide has turned but it will be some time yet before the field of climate science divests itself of politicized vested interests.

    Current attitudes amongst the milieu are split 50/50. Eighteen months, ladies and gentlemen and history will kiss this pig with lipstick goodbye.

  4. Eric Baumholer

    The fact is, you can sell almost anything by pointing to CO2, green, ‘earth friendly’, etc. Everything from low-flush toilets to windmills to tiny cars to photocopying machines, and everything in between. This puts massive, privately-funded advertising dollars behind the global warming threat. You can bless nearly any governmental policy/bureaucracy the same way. You can fund virtually any research project with that angle. All this makes consumers and taxpayers feel green and virtuous, and journalists feel green and virtuous, while heaping money and power on warmists and their friends in industry, government, and science.

    Then there’s the religious angle, with a clever twist. Instead of Heaven in the afterlife, greenism offers Heaven on Earth. It even appeals to agnostics and atheists. See? Everyone wins!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s