Vaclav Klaus and More on the Politics of Global Warming

0
1762
Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic

Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic

BY MICHAEL R. FOX PHD – On October 21, 2010, Vaclav Klaus President if the Czech Republic, made the Inaugural Annual Lecture to the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) in England (http://tinyurl.com/27tajv3).  He addressed the global totalitarian aspects of the global warming proponents.

He, along with many others, had noticed the lack of scientific evidence demonstrating any connections between man-made CO2 and global temperatures.  He quoted Australian scientist R.M. Carter who stated in his great new book “Climate: The Counter Consensus”  “the global warming issue long ago ceased being a scientific problem.”  It most certainly is not, but instead it has become an environmental issue filled with its familiar mythologies, exaggerations, and junk science.

Klaus continues “The current debate is a public policy debate with enormous implications.  It no longer is about climate.  It is about the government, the politicians, their scribes and the lobbyists who want to get more decision making and power for themselves.

It seems to me that the widespread acceptance of the global warming dogma has become one of the main, most costly and most undemocratic public policy mistakes in generations. The previous one was communism.   Having lived for decades under the boot heels of communism, Klaus speaks with considerable personal authority in recognizing the nasty forms of totalitarianism.

The remarkable 20-year lack of evidence which would support the “man-made CO2 global warming hypothesis” remains missing and unproved, and the remarkable unscientific bullying on the part of the warming proponents, make Klaus’s remarks very credible and telling.

One is reminded of the sordid history of Trofim Lysenko of the Soviet Union who devised another bogus theory in agronomic science, with the full support of Josef Stalin (http://tinyurl.com/dmo88).   Lysenko’s bizarre theories in agronomy were embraced by Stalin and rejected by many agronomy scientists in the Soviet Union.

A number of these were put to death for opposing Lysenko’s (and Stalin’s) theories with the blessings of those in power.  This is what totalitarians do, and helps explain the many threats against those who have dared to question the global warming hypothesis and ask for simple questions.  Agronomy science in Russia has never fully recovered from the totalitarianism behind the junkscience.

R.M Carter wrote (http://tinyurl.com/y9zdbkl)  that Lysenkoism came from several roots:

  • A.  a necessity to demonstrate the practical relevance of science to the needs of society;
  • B.  the amassing of evidence to show the “correctness” of the concept as a substitute for causal proof;
  • C. noble cause corruption, whereby data are manipulated to support a cause which is seen as a higher truth; and
  • D.  ideological zeal, such that dissidents are silenced as “enemies of the truth”.

Doesn’t this look familiar to today global warming proponents and their “noble cause” who themselves have made a variety of threats toward those who are asking simple questions about the missing supporting evidence (http://tinyurl.com/382eykl)?

In addition to the lack of evidence there is a clear record of misrepresenting the actual global warming issue as the proponents know it.  For example, the famous hockeystick representation of the last 1000 years of global temperatures simply does not pass scientific scrutiny.  John Dawson author of “The Tree Ring Circus”, wrote this about the “hockeystick”:

  • 1.  “The Hockey Stick was the product of a pseudo-scientific mindset,
  • 2.  Faulty data selections,
  • 3.  Erroneous data identification,
  • 4.  Dubious statistical methodology,
  • 5. Flawed mathematics,
  • 6. A perverted peer-review process,
  • 7. A frenzied propaganda campaign,
  • 8.  Unscrupulous defense mechanism (such as avoiding contact, let alone serious discussions with those who would ask questions, and manipulating the peer review processes at journals) (http://tinyurl.com/29n85vn).

In spite of these disqualifying features of the hockeystick fiasco, it was featured many times as fact in the Assessments Reports (ARs) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), including in Summaries for Policymakers (SPM).  To the extent that such a discredited unscientific document is now used internationally to make and guide emission policies, especially in the US, is frightening.

Not only was the temperature data manipulated, with some omitted, some ignored, by the authors of the Hockeystick, the computer models were impressively inadequate. Peter Landesman has produced an analysis of the computer models used by the IPCC (http://tinyurl.com/ylbtf3c).    He is an expert in modeling with the non-linear differential equations, as used in the IPCC Global Climate Models (GCM).

Landesman says in part “I can attest to the fact that the more than two dozen non-linear differential equations in weather models are too difficult for humans to have any idea how to solve accurately. He goes on, “Each of the more than thirty models being use around the world to predict the weather is just another inaccurate approximation of the weather equations…therefore one cannot logically conclude that any of the global warming predictions are correct.”

“To base economic (and energy) policy on the wishful thinking of these so-called scientists is just foolhardy from a mathematical point of view”.  No wonder the warmers don’t provide supporting evidence and do not want to engage those who challenge them to do so.

There is serious talk in Washington DC and in many state capitals about new mitigation policies for limiting emissions of man-made CO2 in the US, by  shutting down the nation’s fossil fuel energy supplies over the next decade or two ( to mitigate the non-problem of man-made CO2), and rationing the remainder of this energy.

This will make our energy prices skyrocket, cripple the economy, and is a very dangerous, suicidal, uninformed energy and economic policy.  This is especially true when we realize that more than 99% of the CO2 in our environment is from natural sources.

Advertisements

Comments

comments