How They Lie To Us

[matthew]

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
By Bob Carter
(Filed: 09/04/2006)

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).


Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.

Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.

There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.

First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.

On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.

Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.

The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.

The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.

As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution.

Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body, designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the Partnership receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there?

• Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research

[matthew]

My reply:

I was presented with this article by someone arguing that Climate Change/Global Warming was an alarmist myth… that the facts were stacked against the theory. And my, what a case is presented here. Seems airtight enough…and it is written by a Professor and Geologist, so it must be accurate, no?

No.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what they want us to take away from “opinion” articles like this; numbers, statistics, facts and someone official-sounding with a Doctorate or Position of Intellectual Authority. Joe Sixpack isn’t going to argue with Professor Bob Carter, especially if he is the type inclined to rail against “liberals” or “chicken-littles”. I am struggling with my own natural inclination to be intimidated by so-called experts and scientists; we are taught that “scientists” are the good guys…science = good. Fact is, just like any human endeavor, science has its bad guys. This article is an example of “Astroturf”.

Bob Carter is indeed a Professor at James Cook University and is “engaged in paleoclimate research”, but the article does not mention that he also works for Tech Central Station. A quick investigation and you will find that he’s a regular contributor at Tech Central Station.com, a Pro-Free Market website funded by (amongst others), ExxonMobil, AT&T, The Coca-Cola Company, General Motors Corporation, Intel, McDonalds, Merck, Microsoft, Nasdaq, PhRMA (the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; the trade arm of the pharmaceutical and  biotech industries of the U.S.). Yes, he is representing some of the wealthiest, most ecologically destructive corporations on the planet, not at all happy with pesky regulations (as ineffectual as they are, the corporations would like a world without any). It’s a right wing think tank:

“…TCS doesn't just act like a lobbying shop. It's actually published by one--the DCI Group, a prominent Washington "public affairs" firm specializing in P.R., lobbying, and so-called "Astroturf" organizing, generally on behalf of corporations, GOP politicians, and the occasional Third-World despot.”

Astonishingly, Carter argues in the 2004 TSC article above that “the human production of greenhouse gases is helping to hold our planetary environment in its historic, benignly warm, interglacial mode” (which contradicts his 2006 Telegraph UK article where he says the temperature actually dropped despite an increase in emissions). Clearly the man is not on our side.

Still, other than realizing the fact that he is an industry shill, I did not immediately seek out the actual study to which he referred.  What does it tell us?. For one thing, he is lying through distortion.

What is the first thing one sees on the page of this environmental research group, whose study apparently suggests that Global Warming Ended in 1998?

A press releases with the headlines:"Northern Hemisphere getting warmer over a larger area"” and "Global Temperature for 2005: second warmest year on record"…yeah, so, “WTF?”

Well, this is what the fuck: The Global Temperature Record Carter Refers To.

Technically Carter does not lie, he simply manipulates information that would be damaging to industry’s case. Did Global Warming end in 1998? Not at all, in fact there has been a fairly consistent upward trend since 1980. So how did he not lie and what did happen that allowed him to distort the truth? Well, this is genius: from 1998-2005 temperatures did not increase above the temperature of 1998. What happened in 1998? We set a record for the earth’s highest recorded global temperature. What happened in 2005? We set a record for the second highest recorded global temperature. These two highs give damage control (Prof. Carter) his selective window.

If one looks at the statistics in the graph, he could have written the same article in 1995 and said "There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1990" and then said, "Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1990-1994 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero)." .

What a brilliant distortion it is though: two frighteningly high global temperatures...highest in recorded history within only SEVEN YEARS OF EACH OTHER...and in the MIDST OF A DEFINITE GENERAL INCREASE IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE (1980-2005)...surely bad news for industry which wants to deny the fact of global climate change...but no, because 2005 was only the SECOND highest temperature on record, and 1998 was an extraordinarily high PEAK, he can actually state that "global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease...)"...but only because 1999 and 2000 were lower than that peak. Never mind the fact that 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2005 (there was a slight drop in 2003, but it then resumed) were all increases over the previous peak of 1997, and of each other (i.e. the upward trend continues). His ‘argument’ (the one he is clearly making for big industry) is utterly disingenuous. Besides, it completely ignores the fact that the particularly strong ENSO of (beginning in the winter of 1997) 1997-1998 which certainly brought up the global temperature of 1998.