Climate Change Deception Easy Because Most Don’t Understand.
“It occurred to me….” When somebody says “let me be honest with you” does it mean they haven’t been previously?
Two videos reveal important information about why and how the global warming/climate change deception was, and continues to be, successful. The major reason is because only 20 percent of the population is comfortable with science. Even among scientists the degree of specialization makes most of them unfamiliar with climate science or climatology. Everyone else was vulnerable to the deception that occurred, especially because it was deliberately conceived and exploited.
A presentation by Professor Murray Salby illustrates what is wrong with climate science and the climate models and why people don’t understand and were easily fooled. A presentation by Simon Buckle tries to justify the models and define the terms skeptic and denier central to public misunderstanding. He gets it wrong and only underscores the effectiveness of the deception.
Official climate science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is disintegrating from self-inflicted wounds. They did not carry out proper scientific testing of the hypothesis that human CO2 is causing global warming and latterly climate change, known as anthropogenic global warming (AGW). They worked to prove rather than disprove the hypothesis, but failed. Despite the failures they made false claims now exposed by actual events.
Several years ago I gave a separate public presentation in Washington DC after appearing before a Congressional hearing on global warming. The theme of the presentation paralleled earlier publications and presentations on the inadequacy of the computer models. It is covered in many articles on this web site including a general concern about their application in society. In one article I quote Pierre Gallois’ comment that,
“If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no one dares criticize it.”
As I wrote in one article, GIGO which stood for Garbage In Garbage Out for models in general in climate science of the IPCC became Gospel In Gospel Out.
Sufficient data from the IPCC computer model projections has accumulated to analyze what was wrong and why it occurred. None of it is a surprise, but we could only speculate because we had insufficient information about the computer codes, that are the programming instructions. Now Salby, working backward dissembles the models showing they were knowingly designed to produce a desired result.
This concept of premeditated results was the theme of my presentation to the Heartland conference on Climate Change in Washington, a couple of years ago. One slide from that presentation said,
“The computer results were predetermined.” “They set out to prove the hypothesis contrary to the scientific method.” “They did not entertain the null hypothesis.” “Despite this they convinced the world that CO2 is a serious problem.”
presentation also illustrates the problem we’ve confronted all along. The science is beyond most people”s abilities. Few will understand most of the presentation even though Salby provides a good summary in the last 15 minutes.
Buckle”s comments are unaware of what has gone on in climatology and his claims about the models are wrong. He doesn’t appear to know they were used to produce the outcome the IPCC needed for its political agenda. In doing so they stalled climate research for thirty years.
Buckle also doesn’t seem to know the terms skeptic and denier were PR words used to marginalize people studying climate who did not agree with the claims of the IPCC. Proof of their PR use was they were introduced quite separately and in response to events that challenged the AGW hypothesis.
Skeptics was applied early in the phrase “Global warming skeptic.” The public understanding of the word skeptic is different than its scientific use. Buckle explains how science works through skepticism of existing theory and provides classic examples, but that misses the point.
Deniers appeared after people like me pointed out that all scientists are skeptics and we were not rejecting that warming had occurred but only the cause, human CO2.
To my knowledge I was first publicly called a denier in a Times of London story a few years ago. However, now the term was “Climate change denier”. Two things caused the change. Explanation that scientists must be skeptics negated that form of marginalizing, but there was the added problem of temperatures not rising as CO2 continued to increase. People at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) knew the problem as 2004 leaked emails show;
“Minns/Tyndall Centre: In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media.”
“Kjellen: I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming. “
The fundamental assumption of the AGW hypothesis that an increase in CO2 would cause an increase in temperature was compromised. Global warming became climate change and global warming skeptics became climate change deniers, with all the holocaust connotations of that term. IPCC projections of warming failed because their models were programmed to have temperature increase with CO2 increase. Salby shows how and why, Buckle shows how supposedly knowledgeable people were deceived.