Heres my latest re-written thing... LYSENKOISM: A Reason to Fight When writing about climate science, there is technical information aired on both sides of the debate to bolster ones point of view. With the blogs following up on a piece, back & forth comments can get fast and overwhelming with the amount of information flying around. There is a point where it all seemingly collapses of its own weight into sound and fury, signifying nothing. So I have to ask myself, why would anyone want to participate in something that seems to be going around in circles? For me, the reason is to expose an agenda that is terribly wrong and which is having, as policy unfolds, negative life-changing effects on everyone. With the great controversy that has raged for years on climate science, there was information that got my attention in 2009 leading up to the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December of that year. The movement attributing pervasive 20th century warming mainly to human-caused Co2 emissions, also known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), was already huge and newsworthy – so I began to study it. It was obvious from the outset that those making the movement happen were from the political/environmental Left with two of its leading activists being former Vice President Al Gore and Dr. James Hansen of NASA. The movement also included, significantly, an array of well-funded environmental/conservation and scientific organizations. These groups, through their journals and periodicals and with full support from the mainstream media, were coming down hard on scientists and anyone who would question alarmist methods and results. Rather than allowing any dialogue (which is standard scientific protocol for doing good research), the alarmist industry mounted a full-blown demonizing attack with the goal of stopping all criticism of their science. Within their general policy of intimidation, some extreme techniques were, and continue to be employed. One of those was to portray skeptical scientists and others as heretics, proposing incarceration (complements of Dr. Hansen) for the crime of spreading information that would supposedly put the world and its inhabitants at risk. This threat of incarceration to prevent criticism, has been used repeatedly by totalitarian regimes throughout history. Prior to the Copenhagen Summit (Dec, 2009), I learned of the United Nations role in advancing the human-caused Co2 narrative. One can say that the IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UNs global-warming policy arm created in 1988) in cooperation with Dr. Hansen, Mr. Gore and others, set in motion a rampant world-wide feeding-frenzy and condemnation against any and all opposition to their AGW agenda that continues to this day, 25 years later. Here is what Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville from 2001 to the present (Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA 1986-2001) said about the IPCC, where most climate policy has originated: “The IPCC process for reviewing the science of global warming and climate change has been a peculiar perversion of the usual practice of scientific investigation. Science normally involves the testing of alternative hypotheses, not picking the first one that comes along and then religiously sticking to it. But that is exactly what the IPCC has done.” “The truth is that the IPCC doesnt actually do scientific research. It is primarily a political advocacy group that cloaks itself in the aura of scientific respectability while it cherry-picks the science that best supports its desired policy outcomes, and marginalizes or ignores science that might contradict the party line.”* “The primary goal of climate research is no longer the advancement of knowledge, it is instead the protection and dissemination of the IPCC party line. The peer review process for getting research proposals funded and scientific papers published is no longer objective, but is instead short-circuited by zealots adhering to their faith that humans now control the fate of Earths climate.” These quotes are taken from Dr. Spencers 2010 book, “The Great Global Warming Blunder”, pp XIV-XVI. What we have seen in recent newspaper guest opinions (Marty Essen 7/17/13, Van P. Keele–7/24/13(Bitterroot Star) and Doug Nation 8/17/13(Ravalli Republic) is a repeated litany of alarmist items, printed and spoken just about everywhere for many years – blaming human activity for global warming. It is known as the Alarmist Narrative, what some of us would call the chicken little syndrome. This endless tirade against the global warming skeptical viewpoint and its proponents, makes one wonder if these writers take turns every week or two, publishing essentially the same letter. Conformity to the alarmist position is somewhat expected because of the writers demonstrated political leanings. It is shameful, however, that we have been relentlessly seduced, pressured and intimidated from all directions into accepting the content of their writings. They use the same formula employed by a multitude of governmental agencies, science and conservation organizations, media and individuals, who have been willing advocates of climate science alarmism for the past two decades. What we have been experiencing seems to be somewhat of a religious war, with the alarmist industry intent on making its dogma the law of the land. There are currently legal attempts ongoing in all 50 states to incorporate alarmist mythology(the science is settled, there is a consensus, etc.) into state environmental law, with well-funded leftist organizations making it happen. Please go to: climatephysics/montana-hj-10-rebuttal/, and to: climatelawyers/post/2013/04/29/Climate-Change-Legal-Theories-The-Atmospheric-Public-Trust-Doctrine-Moves-Another-Step-Forward.aspx Is there any substantive difference between what they are doing and what any conspiring religious order, cult or government might want to do? And that is to take control of the political/cultural landscape by infiltrating our institutions and changing the laws. It seems that we are being had by a group advocating for basic ideological change, subverting climate science for its own nefarious purposes. The phrase, we are being had, refers to the vast majority of people in America and around the world, who have trusted alarmist information in good faith. Partly because of what appears to have been a policy of demonizing scientists who challenge alarmist science, of keeping their research from being funded by controlling the peer-review process, and of preventing their results from seeing the light of day – we have seen an effective system of censorship being practiced. When one considers that there has been, for all practical purposes, a black-out of challenging the alarmists science for years, along with the aforementioned demonizing, we are talking serious indoctrination, with little chance for people to have an unbiased view. Included in the majority are the good church-going leftists, many of whom who sincerely and actively perpetuate the alarmist narrative. Do they qualify, according to V. I. Lenins reputed designation, as useful idiots? In an earlier letter (Bitterroot Star, 7/13/11), Mr. Essen tells of showing his young student audience a dramatic example of warming – the photo of a Canadian glacier with a large lake at its base. He says That lake wasnt there 50 years ago...it is there because of human-caused global warming. What he doesnt say, because he hasnt checked the literature, is that those glaciers have been steadily melting since about 1820, the beginning of a natural warming period, long before the widespread burning of fossil fuels. Documented evidence from studies of Glacier National Park and glaciated areas elsewhere shows there is no correlation between the rise of Co2 and glacial melting. “The vast bulk of the glacial retreat in Glacier National Park occurred between 1830 and 1942 when the airs CO2 concentration rose by 27ppm(parts per million), which is less than 1/3 of the total increase experienced since the start of glacial recession.” Then from the mid-1940s through the 1970s, when the airs CO2 rose another 27ppm,“retreat rates slowed substantially and several modest advances were documented”* (G. I. Pederson, et al, 2004, American Geophysical Union) climatewiki.org/wiki/Glaciers_in_North_America Does this mean there hasnt been global warming? No. The glaciers have obviously been melting. But they began retreating at the end of The Little Ice Age around 1820-40, a natural, long-term glacial fluctuation. Causes of global warming and their relative effects are still being determined, with much research indicating natural causes. I havent heard of anyone who thinks the earth hasnt been warming. To portray global warming skeptics as deniers is an epithet that survivors of the Jewish Holocaust take exception to. Holocaust deniers are those who believe that Hitlers genocidal killing of 6 million Jews never happened. The alarmist industry apparently co-opted the denier label for the purpose of demonizing skeptics. The new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) director, Gina McCarthy, in her first address to EPA employees, opened her remarks saying that she hoped there werent any deniers in the audience! Everyone should know (if public schools would do their job) that skepticism is an essential part of the scientific method. It is how scientists upgrade their research, keeping themselves and other researchers honest and motivated to get the science right. It seems that Mr. Essen, with his dramatic example of glacier-melt, employed a commonly used manipulative trick known as setting up a straw-man for his student audience. Straw-man is a bogus enemy or issue, easily attacked or criticized, to distract one from the real problem or enemy, allowing one to score an easy victory or propaganda point. Does this qualify as intentional indoctrination of uncritical minds? Even though Mr. Essen probably believes his own rhetoric, it is still indoctrination. In another example of incomplete information widely used as a talking point, Mr. Doug Nation claims that the Swedish physicist/chemist, Svante Arrhenius, in 1896 (Nobel Prize–chemistry,1903), determined that a doubling of Co2 in the atmosphere would warm the earth 5-6deg.C per century, a figure in the range used by the IPCC for its prediction of disastrous warming. What Mr. Nation didnt say, is that Dr. Arrhenius, in 1906, upon seeing some new research, changed the results of his original research, and revised his 5-6degC figure downward to 1.6degC per century, a negligible amount of warming with a doubling of Co2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius The IPCC continues to use the higher range(4-8deg.C) figure. Some of us see a dangerous game being played here to keep people believing that human-caused warming is endangering the world. Why? Possibly to institute environmental rules that could facilitate profound political change. If we are on the verge of a global-warming disaster, and believe that we are responsible, then we will likely submit to environmental rules and political change that may have nothing to do with global-warming. “Weve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”(Timothy Wirth, Pres.,U.N. Foundation, 1998-2013) The concept of implementing correct policy, which is what the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit was intended to achieve, is to establish enforceable world-wide environmental rules. One can easily imagine the ultimate effects of these rules – the transfer and concentration of enormous political power and wealth into the hands of a small international elite. This scenario has obvious dangerous implications for the advance of absolute power. Fortunately, a great hero (in my view) stepped up to help prevent these draconian plans from becoming a reality. This was accomplished by the leaking of over 1000 private emails, thereby exposing a massive fraud by scientists from the Climatic Research Center of East Anglia University in Great Britain, and a core of influential alarmist scientists around the world. The Climatic Research Center is where the lions share of alarmist science has originated. This fraud became known as Climategate. We are describing here a relatively small international group of activist scientists and bureaucrats whose political desires were and are apparently more important than publishing honest science. This game-changing event, Climategate, occurred a mere month before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change began. What was exposed in those emails? It was the whole sordid package of information distortion, manipulation and outright lying coming from some of the worlds most powerful and influential climate scientists. Here are examples of what they did: change temperature data to make the warming look worse than it was (hide the decline that was actually happening); prevent skeptical climate scientists research from being peer-reviewed, published, and funded, with the pervasive collusion of world-wide media, environmental, and political forces from the Left; engage in character-assassination to destroy reputations and ruin careers of honest scientists who dared to speak out against alarmist secrecy, methods and results; and they illegally withheld their own data from scrutiny. They were trying to change the basic methods of science, established successfully for the better part of a century, into a politically infused and dishonest system. This was, and continues to be, when one considers the alarmist industrys networks and support systems being widespread as we now know them to be – one of the historically worst-case scenarios of politicizing science. There is no way to deny the powerful incriminating effects of the Climategate emails. Not only are the email participants seen as corrupt, but the alarmist movement as a whole has been damaged, having lost credibility with large numbers of people, including many of the worlds best scientists. We also know that the scandal was just the tip of the iceberg. While Climategate helped to implicate the alarmists and exonerate the skeptics somewhat, the alarmist industry has doubled down, trying to give the impression that nothing has changed, its overall credibility intact. But the evidence shows there has been no global warming for the past 18 years, warming that the IPCC computer models, almost without exception, had predicted as escalating. Four years after Climategate, in spite of the models failure, the alarmist propaganda machine continues to roll, well-lubricated from deep leftist pockets. As an example of widespread AGW indoctrination, witness the barely noticed infusion of ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability) cells into a huge number of cities, towns and counties of 84 different countries! When one peruses ICLEIs website, the alarmist belief system appears to be an integral part of its long-term sustainable development plans. iclei.org/ The concept of Lysenkoism comes to mind here. Trofim Lysenko was a Soviet biologist who operated with great power under Joseph Stalin. In 1964, the Soviet nuclear physicist Andrei Sakharov, spoke out against Lysenko: “ He is responsible for the shameful backwardness of Soviet biology and of genetics in particular, for the dissemination of pseudo-scientific views, for adventurism, for the degradation of learning, and for the defamation, firing, arrest, even death, of many genuine scientists.” (Wikipedia – Trofim Lysenko) “Lysenkoism is used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.” (Wikipedia) The IPCC was apparently set up to investigate primarily the extent of anthropogenic global warming. Before much research was assembled, the new agency seems to have decided that carbon dioxide was the culprit. This is from Dr Spencers book, The Great Global Warming Blunder: “ In the early 1990s, shortly after the IPCC was organized, President Clintons chief environmental scientist, Dr. Robert Watson, told me that after he had helped get Freon banned – next on the list to be regulated was carbon dioxide.* There was no mention of investigating the science behind the claim that global warming was man-made, only a specific policy outcome that the IPCC was going to support. Dr. Watson later became one of the IPCCs directors, from 1997 to 2002.” The agency has published other dramatically manipulated data. For example, the Little Ice Age(LIA)and Medieval Warm Period(MWP), two large-scale, long-term geologic/climatic events that have been scientifically widely accepted as real, and which were included in the 1990 IPCC report, shown in graphs/data, etc., magically disappeared from the next IPCC report eleven years later. They simply disappeared! This was done by replacing the original data and graphs (secreted to a place for censored data) with the new (and infamous) hockey stick graph and research, courtesy of Penn State Universitys Dr. Michael Mann, and inserted into the 2001 IPCC report, thus showing the dramatic 20th century warming result they wanted. By eliminating the MWP and LIA, they could then correlate the rise of Co2 emissions with the only serious warming in sight, a hockey stick blade showing the 20th century. Oh, the power of a corrupt scientist backed by a corrupt agency! The IPCC has never shown the slightest interest in publishing research that investigates natural causes of climate change. Why? I guess that kind of research just doesnt fit their narrative. (*italics mine) Peter MacLachlan – Hamilton, Montana – October 11, 2013
Posted on: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 23:16:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015