Climate Change, A Manufactured Consensus (Follow the money baby)
Posted by Jeff Id on September 1, 2008
I became interested in global warming years ago. I was concerned about its effects and what we could do about it. I am an engineer so I started with the science, reading, studying and understanding numerous scientific papers and reports. It didn’t take long before I began to quesition the conclusions and started looking deeper into the data. I became a Skeptic.
Today after ever more intensive study, I now understand that the scientific conclusion was predetermined back in 1986 and a government structure was put in place which forces a young incomplete science to reach that conclusion. I am going to keep this short so that people can grasp it more easily but the structure is huge.
The IPCC or Intergovernmental panel on climate change was formed in 1986. Its mission was to
1 -identify sources of man made climate change
2 – Asses the impacts
3 – Determine how we can prevent or mitigate climate change
The people who were in charge were some of the first to present that CO2 was going to warm the earth. There was little science to support the conclusions. Sepearate workgroups were set up for each of the above items.
1 -The IPCC cannot exist without man made climate change because it has no purpose without man made climate change to be true. If the IPCC scientists conclude there is no CO2 global warming, everyone has to go home.
2 – The impact of climate change must be severe for the same reasons as 1, everyone would go home and take different jobs.
3 – There must be a possibility of solution. If there isn’t then there is no reason for any of this to be done. Also, to maximize the money for the government group they want the solution to be expensive.
The IPCC needs to appear impartial to the world for maximum effect, so it must not directly fund any research. They instead chose to subdivide further by in 1990 recommending forming the UNFCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) it sounds like a convention but actually it is another massive organization which cannot survive without man made climate change. Again this is before climate change consensus had been reached.
The UNFCC doesn’t control funding of any organizations either. Someone must be paying for this. It turns out that funding moves through several main groups including:
GEF – Global Environment Facility
SCCF – Special Climate Change Fund
LDCF – Least Developed Countries Fund
AF – Adaptation Fund
The GEF alone reported since 1991, the Global Environment Facility has provided $7.4 billion in grants and generated over $28 billion in co-financing from other sources to support over 1,950 projects. Much of these funds are distributed under the guidelines of the IPCC recommendations to the UNFCCC to targeted projects. So at the top level of government we have identified a 35billion dollar industry who’s survival depends absolutely on man made climate change!
This is just the beginning, in addition to these main groups there are literally thousands of subgroups who’s funding and work also depend on man made climate change being true. The UNFCC wisely following the IPCC formed even more subdivisions for different areas of climate change, each subgroup depending on man made climate change just as much as the parent groups.
SBI subsidiary body for implementation
SBSTA Subsidiary bbody for Scientific and Technological Advice
These groups are reported to by individual government agencies lobbying for money for research and other items representing the collection of money for the further development of climate change. Other international organizations which are dependant on man made climate change include.
LULCF land use clanud use change and forestry
ICSU International council for science
WCRP World Climate Research Programme
IBGP – International Geosphere Giosphere Programme
IHDP – International humnd dimensions programme on Global Environmental Change
DIVERSITAS
Earth System Science Partnership
IAI – Inter americal institute for Global Change Research
APN Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research
I have missed dozens of them in this list but I am tired.
It doesn’t end there.
Individual governments have formed hundreds more agencies for the purpose of studying global warming. The US has more than 100 itself. Each of these agencies receive funding from international and local governments based on the recommendations of the IPCC climate reports.
This is clearly a highly corrupt structure which cannot be trusted to provide good science even when it comes from good scientists. It doesn’t take a degree in sociology to see what would happen to a disagreeing scientist working in this structure.
If a scientist reached a conclusion which disagrees with the group (something which happens fairly often) the IPCC will still review it for their recommendations but it will be discounted and given a minor position. This of course limits name recognition resulting in a lower level of funding. Conversely if someone uncovers science which supports the required consensus their papers often receive preferential treatment for publication, larger funding support and increased name recognition.
After twenty years, dissenters are now regarded as minor scientists because of the lack of name recognition. Many have moved on to different fields, or been relegated to minor positions due to not having funding support. This continued pressure has led the overconfident IPCC to make the statements about a scientific Consensus being reached.
Consider the conclusions this corrupt organization has reached from the three groups that report to IPCC .
1 – Global warming is very real. We may reach a tipping point from where we cannot return.
2 – The results of increased temperature are severe, sea level rise, disease, strong storms, drought , kidney stones on and on
3 – We can solve it if we get rid of our primary energy source.
In all cases the most extreme possibilities are presented as though they are fact.
The true dollars being spent on climate change is much higher than the 35billion above, it perhaps exceeds a hundred billion dollars.
When you consider that these dollars disappear if this young incomplete science were to conclude that man is not causing temperature change and thousands of powerful influential jobs would vanish, can we actually trust this source?
I don’t think so.
It should go down in history as “HOW TO MANUFACTURE A CONSENSUS”
Pete said
Nice summary. BTW, I followed the same path as you on this.
I would add that in my case, I had done turbulent flow modeling back in 1981, and so wasn’t as impressed by the color coded maps as, perhaps many might be. I specifically recall the need to make 2 “fudge factor” assumptions to address the inability to solve the turbulence terms in the Navier-Stokes fluid flow equations. The fudge factors (don’t ask me what they were called – it’s been a long time) were selected by looking at actual data for similar problem geometries.
As I understand it, the current GCMs have quite a few fudge factors/assumptions and the one that is often discussed is the water vapor forcing due to small CO2 induced temperature increases. Never mind that the models have failed to predict the future and don’t have all the physics in included. they are R&D tools that they should stay in the lab until they work (and there is some suggestion that they may not be able to unless something changes)
David said
“When you consider that these dollars disappear if this young incomplete science were to conclude that man is not causing temperature change and thousands of powerful influential jobs would vanish, can we actually trust this source?”
I cannot believe it … a scientifically illiterate Christian fundamentalist imagines that the entire world and science itself are engaged in a conspiracy against him!
Earth to conservatives: Stop living in the 19th century. The Dark Ages ended a long time ago!
Jeff Id said
Pete, Thanks for the reply. Am I correct in guessing you might be an aeronautical engineer perhaps working on pumps? I played around with some Laser Doppler Velocimetry in College in the late 80’s, because they had the equipment. Pretty cool stuff.
You are dead on about the fudge factor. I have spent some time looking and haven’t been able to locate how these scientists are estimating the water vapor created outside of places like climate-audit and real climate. I just need to spend more time.
The AGW scientists are under attack constantly and from what I read on Climate Audit, they seem in many cases to be reluctant to release their data. Even if their calculations are correct, their behavior is not too hard to understand.
Still, they have a world stage for their work like no other science, and they are demanding we give our energy sources up. For that there needs to be free access to all data, software and calculations and I’m afraid that because of their intent we won’t get it.
I’m going to keep looking for the methodology behind the fudge factor though, I bet $2 it’s not very “scientific”. Did you read this article about how they pushed through the hockey stick graph. The link below is a bit long but its very well done.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html?lastPage=true#comment1859605
Pete said
Jeff,
I don’t do any engineering anymore. The turbulence work I did as grad student was using a “K-E” turbulence model that was written by some folks at Imperial College of Science/Tech. it was so long ago that the program was entered on punch cards. One of the fun parts was watching the feeder zip through the cards when I was loading the program for its overnight batch run which consumed 1 hour of CPU time!
Even w/o the emotions that charge both “sides”, there is some very interesting research that seems to be heading toward some breakthrough understandings of natural climate variations. One could argue that the, at least misguided, and to some extent, (likely) fraudulent focus on A-CO2 may do more to damage any scientifically grounded breakthroughs.
Suppose the A-CO2 fraud is revealed, but then some well founded science reveals that there is a natural catastrophic cycle that is on the scale of 10-20 years that demands immediate action.
What impact will the just revealed A-CO2 fraud have on readiness to accept real scientific results? Note: The contrarian in me says folks may be more prepared as their attention will have been piqued.
Jeff Id said
Pete,
I am sure that just like with Global Warming, people will react after it becomes a problem.
I think a more likely scenario is that the global warming group is so entrenched and powerful that rather than the fraud being exposed they will engineer a soft landing. I would guess that it’s false arguments will continue right through the 20 year time to react to natural variation.
From the historic data temperature could easily go up but it seems more likely to go down. I hope you’re wrong about the natural cycle’s timeframe.
I have seen the historic data and it isn’t unlikely by any means. Like most science oriented people, I have been watching the sunspots (or lack of) and the sudden drop in global temperatures. I am much more worried about cooling than warming. But if we are to believe that the 18-O ratio in the ice cores represents temperature, we’ll likely be in for a hard cool off at any time in the next 2000 years weather we like it or not.
It’s too bad that people don’t have the wherewithal to look at the data for themselves. It’s hard to believe that Skeptics are the “extremists”.
As a side note, I bet that if the climate cools suddenly due to newly understood mechanisms, the same groups pushing alternative energy for global warming will continue push against big evil oil and coal for some other reason. I read one article which said we are running out of oxygen just last week:)
David said
Hello Jeff,
” … will continue push against big evil oil and coal ”
Let’s not allow anyone to harm the oil and coal industry! That would consitute a great injustice, right?
Jeff … are you employed by either the oil or the coal industry?
Jeff Id said
Davie, look around my site before you criticize. You are really missing the point of my blog.
Yes, I am president of shell oil.;)
Mongo said
Virtriol adds exactly what to this David? And to combine scientifically illiterate to Christian and fundamentalist just goes over the top. Drop the personal attacks please.
I am a Christian, but apparently an anamoly, as I also have a very solid background in science and have been following this issue for a very long time. I did not take a position on this with my faith in mind, and why science and faith are mutually exclusive must be too arcane for me to decipher.
I am a skeptic simply because I understand positive and negative feedback. I am a skeptic because when I read that the Arctic, for instance will be ice free in 4 years, I look at the very meager historical data we have and wonder how we will arrive at that from even the data that we currently have. I am a skeptic because the models used to describe our climate, are adjusted backwards, but the exrapolations forward don’t make a lot of sense. I am a skeptic as we understand so very little about all the factors involved in this – and know just how paper thin our understanding is. The bottom line onall this is – I question. I challenge – but I do so with an open mind.
I do agree, however, that there is climate change. I don’t agree that man’s activites are the primary causitive factor. I don’t agree that there is a measurable “tipping” point. That is almost laughable in it’s certainty.
Keep up the good work with blogs such as this. Dissent is healthy and should be cherished. Squelching it only makes it much stronger in the end.
Jeff Id said
Thanks for the nice answer Mongo. David is a pretty angry guy.
Paul Spite said
Jeff,
Carbon emissions have no discernable effect on climate, but our gullibility nets promoters of this “crisis” billions per year. Meanwhile they change nothing of their own lifestyles, though they also live on the planet they claim we are destroying. Claiming to want to save us from our folly, they seek to strip away our freedoms while destroying our economy. While the climate itself mocks their so-called linkages, and our economy is already on the edge of collapse, a Democratic Congress is still pushing for carbon cap legislation. What will it take to bring this farce to an end?
Your website leads me to believe we share the concerns about this attempt to sell out our country for profit and power. Would you help me promote a book I have written examining this hoax? It is intended to make readers angry over being played for patsies. If enough people read it, it would create a public backlash against that legislation, but through my own efforts, I have been unable to sufficiently publicize this work. Would you also pass this e-mail on to all your peers you think might agree and help?
The book is entitled “A Climate Crisis a la Gore” and is organized as follows:
• Introduction – the motivation behind the assembly of this information for public use.
• Part 1 – Excerpted ideas from Mr. Gore’s book, The Assault on Reason. regarding the proper and reasonable way to enter an argument or evidence are used to critique his film, where apparently he used all the assault techniques he claims to deplore
• Part 2 – A claim by claim analysis of Mr. Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. These are evaluated with simple logic, claims elsewhere in the documentary; Mr. Gore’s excerpted written principles of reasoning, and scientific research and findings regarding the subjects of his claims.
• Part 3 – A rather cynical discussion and disclosure of players and special interest groups creating the perception of a global climate crisis. The history of the movement is examined, motives behind involvement, dollar amounts of profit already being reaped by promoters, and what they stand to gain if America enacts carbon legislation.
• Conclusion – The coming economic storm resulting from enacting this legislation and a plea to readers to contact legislators demanding such laws be reconsidered.
Excerpts can be reviewed and the book ordered at Amazon.com by entering the title or ISBN# (978-1-4196-8684-9) If you are willing to inform your readers of its contents and availability, an informed (and angry) population of voters might be a real, and maybe the only, check and balance system capable of stopping Congress.
Sincerely,
Paul Spite