and the Political Agenda
www.signs-of-the-times.org
see also Global Warming Swindle (Video)
What
is the truth about Climate Change?
By Laura Knight Jadczyk
Some time ago I wrote about Climate Change as being probably
the most pressing problem facing humanity today. It is so
pressing that I am convinced that possibly 90% of the human
race - over 6 billion people - could be at risk of certain
death in the very near future - like within ten years - if
this matter is not addressed adequately and appropriately
very, very soon by our "glorious leaders" who seem to have
little on their mind other than blowing up innocent people.
But then, that war-mongering has a hidden agenda behind it:
to grab and hold resources.
But rest assured that the intent is not to grab and hold
those resources for you and me; it is to get them for the
"elite," that 6% of humanity that is on the top of the heap
and intends to stay there regardless of the fact that those
genes should never be passed on.
Well, the Climate Change Confusion factor is heating up.
Channel 4 recently broadcast a special on the "Climate Change
Swindle," that was intended to "expose the myths about
climate change that have been promulgated in order to
hoodwink the world into accepting the man-made theory of
global warming."
As far as it went, this special wasn't too bad. However, it
didn't really tell the whole story which is that, yes,
Climate Change is real and a serious threat, but not for the
reasons given.
As it happens, one of the experts included in the
presentation has now announced that he was badly mis-quoted,
or quoted out of context, and he is back-pedaling like mad.
Keep in mind that this is really just a distraction,
something to keep the masses busy so that they don't see the
real agenda: that it is intended that they should be "left
out in the cold" because they didn't act to get rid of
corrupt leaders in time to do anything to prepare for what is
coming.
To make the point, let's look at this little debacle a bit
more closely. Expert in oceanography quoted in Channel 4's
debunking of Global Warming says he was 'seriously
misrepresented'
It was the television programme that set out to show that
most of the world's climate scientists are misleading us when
they say humanity is heating up the Earth by emitting carbon
dioxide. And The Great Global Warming Swindle, screened by
Channel 4 on Thursday night, convinced many viewers that it
is indeed untrue that the gas is to blame for global warming.
But now the programme - and the channel - is facing a serious
challenge to its own credibility after one of the most
distinguished scientists that it featured said his views had
been "grossly distorted" by the film, and made it clear that
he believed human pollution did warm the climate.
Comment: This sentence right here is the first "twist." If
the reader will go to Professor Wunsch's website and read his
actual comments, they will discover that he did NOT say the
"human pollution did warm the climate" in the sense that this
writer is trying to convey - as if that was all there was to
it.
What Dr. Wunsch actually said will be discussed further on.
Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been
"completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally
misled" on its content. He added that he is considering
making a formal complaint.
A Channel 4 spokesman said: "The film was a polemic that drew
together the well-documented views of a number of respected
scientists to reach the same conclusions. This is a
controversial film but we feel that it is important that all
sides of the debate are aired. If one of the contributors has
concerns about his contribution we will look into that."
Any complaint would provoke a crisis at Channel 4, now
recovering from the Jade Goody Big Brother storm. It had to
make a rare public apology after the Independent Television
Commission convicted previous programmes on environmental
issues by the same film-maker, Martin Durkin, of similar
offences - and is already facing questions on why it accepted
another programme from him.
The commission found that the editing of interviews with four
contributors to a series called Against Nature had "distorted
or misrepresented their known views".
Professor Wunsch said: "I am angry because they completely
misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in
which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going
to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to
be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what
is going on. If they had told me even the title of the
programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am
the one who has been swindled."
Comment: Here we see the professor's point: that it is not so
simple as being ALL human caused, nor is it totally non-human
caused. His point is how COMPLICATED the subject is.
When told what the commission had found, he said: "That is
what happened to me." He said he believes it is "an almost
inescapable conclusion" that "if man adds excess CO2 to the
atmosphere, the climate will warm".
Comment: Notice here that Prof. Wunsch is not saying that
human caused CO2 is the major factor.
He went on: "The movie was terrible propaganda. It is
characteristic of propaganda that you take an area where
there is legitimate dispute and you claim straight out that
people who disagree with you are swindlers. That is what the
film does in any area where some things are subject to
argument."
Comment: Notice that Prof. Wunsch is here saying that there
IS legitimate dispute about what causes global warming.
Mr Durkin last night said that Professor Wunsch was "most
certainly not duped into appearing into the programme" and
that it "had not in any way misrepresented what he said".
Before the programme was shown, the IoS asked Channel 4 why
it had commissioned another film from Mr Durkin and, further,
whether it was making any special checks on its accuracy.
A spokesman said the programme made by Mr Durkin for which it
had had to apologise was a decade old, adding: "We treat
Martin as any other film-maker."
Comment: Now we come to the propaganda and damage control:
The cold, hard facts about global warmingWhat do most
scientists believe caused global warming?
Comment: Notice how the question is phrased: using the terms
"most" and "believe." The word "most" is quite misleading,
though "believe" is pretty much right on; has nothing to do
with facts and data.
The vast majority are convinced it is human emissions of
carbon dioxide.
Comment: In fact, this is NOT true. It is an out and out lie.
It was established scientifically 180 years ago - and has
never been seriously disputed - that natural levels of the
gas given off by decaying vegetation and the oceans help to
keep the Earth warm; without it, and other natural greenhouse
gases, the planet would be some 20C colder and we would
freeze.
Comment: So far, so good. But here comes the twist:
Adding even the so far relatively small amounts from human
activities makes us warmer.
Comment: This is where we find the major dispute. It is clear
that the amount of CO2 emissions that are produced by human
beings in our time do not anywhere come close to the volumes
of CO2 emissions that have been produced at other periods of
history that did NOT result in Global Warming. So the human
factor is very much in question.
Has the world warmed before?Yes, and big warmings over
prehistoric times were not started by increasing CO2 levels;
changes in solar activity are more likely.
Comment: Another twist. There is clear evidence of other
warmings that were definitely related to increasing CO2
levels that were precipitated by solar activity and OTHER
causes. It is disingenuous to suggest that other warmings
were not related to rising CO2 levels.
Levels of the gas started rising some 800 years into the
warming, but then probably reinforced it, making it bigger
and longer. Temperature and CO2 are interdependent; when one
goes up the other follows. This time it is different because
vast amounts of the gas are being artificially put into the
atmosphere by humans.
Comment: So, they clarify here, just to cover their behinds,
but that doesn't excuse the preceding twist. As it happens,
the current "global warming" spell is following this same
pattern. Nothing new here.
What about more recent history?There was a warm period in
Europe in the Middle Ages, again probably caused by solar
activity, but it does not seem to have been a worldwide
phenomenon, although records are scanty.
Comment: What a load of horse hockey! How easy it is to say
"it doesn't appear to have been worldwide" when the records
are scanty. And again notice that the cycle was related to
the Sun. But NOW, of course, the determination has been made
to blame it on strictly human activity no matter what, and
that is what this writer seems to be doing.
So is the sun responsible now?Some sceptics say so and
probably it played the major role until quite recently. But
over the past three decades, solar activity has scarcely
risen, while temperatures have shot up - a fact disguised in
the film. What has gone up is CO2 and even top sceptic Nigel
Lawson admits it is "highly likely" that the gas has "played
a significant part" in global warming this century.
Comment: Notice how cleverly the writer says "Some sceptics
say so" instead of saying "many EXPERTS say so" and "probably
it played a major role until quite recently." What a load of
hooey.
There are quite a few experts - and considerable data to back
it up - who are saying that the solar activity HAS increased.
To back this up, it is pointed out that nearly every other
planet in our solar system is ALSO experiencing Global
Warming.
So, who is swindling who?
Now, let's look at Prof. Wunsch's actual comments:Partial
Response to the London Channel 4 Film "The Great Global
Warming Swindle" Carl Wunsch 11 March 2007I believe that
climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has
a major human-induced component.
Comment: Notice here that Prof. Wunsch says, very carefully,
that Climate Change (notice he doesn't even use the term
"Global Warming,") "almost surely" - that is to say, it's not
a fact established by any hard data - "has a major
human-induced component." That is to say, there is a lot more
to Climate Change than human activity, though he BELIEVES
that component might be major - "almost surely." ALMOST.
But I have tried to stay out of the "climate wars" because
all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what
we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is
happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of
rhetorical excess.
Comment: Here Prof. Wunsch is making the very careful point
that what scientists know firmly and what they suspect are
two very different things. And indeed, the rhetoric in the
media, driven by political agendas, is quite excessive,
particularly relating to the human element relating to
"Global Warming."
In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on being
very careful of, and protective of, our authority and
expertise.
Comment: We see here that Prof. Wunsch's primary concern is
his reputation among mainstream scientists. That should give
us some warning...
The science of climate change remains incomplete.
Comment: You can say that again! But the rhetoric in the
media, including the above article from the UK Independent
debunking the debunking of Global Warming is just another
case in point.
Some elements are based so firmly on well-understood
principles, or on such clear observational records, that most
scientists would agree that they are almost surely true
(adding CO2 to the atmosphere is dangerous; sea level will
continue to rise,...).
Comment: Notice his qualification: "most" scientists. Not all
scientists. And in fact, quite often it is the scientist who
goes against the "textus receptus" of the standard theory who
is right.
Other elements remain more uncertain, but we as scientists in
our roles as informed citizens believe society should be
deeply concerned about their possibility: a mid-western US
megadrought in 100 years; melting of a large part of the
Greenland ice sheet, among many other examples.
Comment: Notice that he precedes the remarks about the
possibilities of a megadrought in 100 years and the melting
of the Greenland ice sheet with "Other elements remain more
uncertain..." Next we get to the nitty gritty of his
position, the one he has taken to preserve his reputation
among his fellow scientists as well as the scientific thought
police:
Increased Hurricane activity is also part of "Global
Warming." Hurricanes are huge machines that exchange heat and
cold in our environment. An increase in heat can lead to a
sudden cooling via violent storms, as the fossil record
shows...
I am on record in a number of places as complaining about the
over-dramatization and unwarranted extrapolation of
scientific facts.
Comment: But didn't he just say that there were possibilities
that were uncertain, but that he felt that, as a scientist,
there should be concern about them? Doesn't he think it is
possible that extrapolating "a mid-western US megadrought in
100 years; melting of a large part of the Greenland ice
sheet" from the condition of Global Warming is perhaps
unwarranted, especially considering the fact that the RECORD
shows that every period of Global Warming was followed by a
sudden and rapid Global Cooling? An Ice Age? What's wrong
with THOSE facts, that specific data that is, as the good
professor points out, "based so firmly on well-understood
principles, or on such clear observational records"??
Thus the notion that the Gulf Stream would or could "shut
off' or that with global warming Britain would go into a "new
ice age" are either scientifically impossible or so unlikely
as to threaten our credibility as a scientific discipline if
we proclaim their reality.
Comment: And here, Prof. Wunsch demonstrates that he is
either not a real scientist, considering all the data, or he
is more driven by his concern for his reputation among the
politically controlled scientific community than he is
concerned with a real threat to humanity. Theres is certainly
evidence that the Gulf Stream has shut off before, and there
is evidence of sudden glacial rebound associated with this.
They also are huge distractions from more immediate and
realistic threats.
Comment: Are they? Sudden Glacial Rebound seems rather
immediate and realistically threatening to me and a lot of
other experts.
The rest of Prof. Wunsch's complaint focus mainly on trying
to get himself out of hot water with the mainstream
scientific community. And here we come to just how the good
Professor can be an agent for political agendas without even
intending it or being conscious of it.Yesterday we carried an
interesting article, How The Media and Establishment
Brainwash The Public. We carried this article not because we
"believe" in "creationism," but because the example of how
things work is very simple and important.
Anyway, I am going to paraphrase a bit of that article for
the present purpose:
There are two broad categories of theories about Climate
Change: first, are those who think that Climate Change is
caused by human activity. Second, are those who think that
Climate Change is natural and cyclical and the cycle can be
known by examination of the historical data. There are
actually several different camps (i.e. different theories)
within each group, and there are hybrid groups (i.e. hybrid
theories), but let us assume there are only two simple
groups.
To visualize the two different camps, suppose there is a
large field and there is a fence that bisects the field and
you are standing at one end of the fence looking down the
fence. On the right side of this fence are the Human Caused
Global Warming advocates (the people who make up the
"establishment" and are ruled by the politics of the day
because that is how they get their funding) and on the left
side of this fence are the Natural cycle advocates (the
people who disagree with the "establishment" point of view).
You have the choice of siding with the establishment or the
renegades.
In some cases this choice could affect your job. For example,
if you taught biology in a public high school, and you taught
Natural Cycles in your classroom, you might lose your job.If
you are only looking for the benefits, and a promotion, then
there is no question as to what theory you will teach. The
Human Caused Global Warming side of the fence has virtually
all the benefits.
Suppose you want to know the truth (as best as you are
capable of honestly determining as an "open-minded" person) -
is Human Caused Global Warming (HCGW) or Natural Cycle
Climate Change (NCCC) correct based on the evidence currently
available?
Suppose that you decide to start your decision making journey
by talking first with the HCGW crowd; because everything you
have heard in school is that HCGW has been proven to be true.
So you head to the right side of the fence and start talking
to an HCGW advocate.
Suppose this person tells you all the reasons why Global
Warming is caused by human activity. He might go into
"well-understood principles", or claimed "clear observational
records" and claims that "that most scientists would agree
that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is dangerous; sea level
will continue to rise, and so on.
After this conversation, you start to walk away, but the
person stops you. Then this same HCGW advocate starts telling
you all of the things that are wrong with the NCCC crowd. He
tells you one theory after another of the NCCC group, such as
their nonsense about the Gulf Stream etc, and why each theory
cannot be true and what a bunch of goons they are.
After this conversation, you now feel that you understand
both the HCGW's and the NCCC's theories of Climate Change.
You decide it is not necessary to go to the left side of the
fence and talk to a NCCC representative because you already
think you understand their views and why their views are
wrong.
A
Common Mistake
If you made such a decision, you would be making a common
mistake: you have heard both sides of the issue, but from
only one person on one side of the fence. You have really
only heard how the people on one side of the fence feel about
the issues. But you haven't heard the arguments of the NCCC,
from a NCCC expert, nor have you heard why the NCCC advocates
think that the HCGW's are wrong.
There are actually four categories of the two sides (these
are the four things you need to hear to make an informed
decision):
1) pro-HCGW (from the HCGW side), 2) anti-NCCC (from the HCGW
side), 3) pro-NCCC (from the NCCC side), 4) anti-HCGW (from
the NCCC side).
In other words, from the right side of the fence you have
heard the pro-Human Caused Global Warming arguments and also
from the right side of the fence you have heard all of the
anti-Natural Cycle Climate Change arguments. But note that
you have not heard the pro-Natural Cycle Climate Change
arguments, from a Natural Cycle Climate Change expert, nor
have you heard the anti-Human Caused Global Warming
arguments, from a Natural Cycle Climate Change expert.
You have only heard two of the four categories because you
have only heard from one person who is on one side of the
fence.
Do you really know both sides of the issue?
No you don't! You only know one side of the issue and two of
the four categories. Until you go to the left side of the
fence and hear about the pro-Natural Cycle Climate Change
views, from a NCCC EXPERT, and you hear the anti-Human Caused
Global Warming views, from an NCCC Expert, you don't have a
basis for making an objective decision.
Comment: And what is at the root of it all?
A media that is controlled by political elements for a
definite and specific agenda, and it ain't in your best
interests, nor has it ever been.
Take that to the bank.
FAIR USE
NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material, the use
of which has not been specifically authorized by the
copyright owner. This website distributes this material
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use
of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C
§ 107.
NOTE TO AUTHORS: If you are the author or owner of an article
or video that I have made available through THEINFOVAULT.NET
and you do not wish to have your article or video posted on
theinfovault, please contact me and I
will remove the item.