Australian Logic On Climate Policy Demonstrates Extent Of Bureaucratic Control
This article first appeared on www.therebel.media
Global warming was the topic of a hearing before both houses of Congress in March 2007. Representative John Dingell (D-MI) chaired the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing with former Vice President and Academy Award winner Al Gore as the star witness. Gore is the person who said
“The science on global warming is settled.” “The debate in the scientific community is over.”
An Australian headline says “Australia Cuts 110 Climate Scientist Jobs.” The sub-headline reads,
Because the science is settled there is no need for more basic research, the government says.
This is a clever and humorous ploy but reflects complete political failure, especially the ability to control bureaucrats, policy, and funding. What is happening is the Australian government is eliminating climate scientists working at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO). They are using a very reasonable argument promoted by proponents of AGW to do what they haven’t the political nerve to do. It is the politicians job to control the bureaucracies, but these actions indicate they are intimidated by the scientific bureaucrats.
Maurice Strong knew this and set up the entire anthropogenic global warming (AGW) scam through the bureaucracies of the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the bureaucrats in the weather offices of individual member nations. Canada was deeply involved from the start when Gordon McBean, Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment Canada (EC), chaired the founding meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Villach, Austria in 1985.
Canadian politicians lost control from the start. They couldn’t and wouldn’t challenge the science and thereby couldn’t challenge the diversion of funds EC proposed to pursue their goal. According to the Auditor General, EC spent $6.8 billion from 1997 to 2005 on climate change. Contrary to funding policy almost all went to people and programs supporting the government position. Diversion of funding to climate change left other legislated requirements incomplete. It became so bad that public complaints about poor service triggered an internal investigation by The Impact Group. They hired Price Waterhouse, who carried out public hearings. I attended the Vancouver meeting and received the report shown in Figure 1.
In a review of the Impact Group Report, Ken Green wrote,
Elements of an “Action Plan for Climate Science Research at Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC)” (obtained through an Access to Information request) indicate that Canada’s climate change science program is being driven by a predetermined political agenda with a clear disregard of scientific needs.
Stephen Harper tried to stop EC by quietly cutting funding and paid a high political price. It didn’t matter that EC’s self-generated report acknowledged their work on global warming was political. It didn’t matter that contrary to government policy all climate research funding came from EC. It didn’t matter that every forecast EC made for 3, 6 and 12 months or longer are completely wrong. It didn’t matter that every IPCC forecast made was wrong and the Canadian computer model contribution was the worst of an ensemble of models (Figure 2).
Justin Trudeau is now replacing the funding Harper cut. This is in addition to the $4.1 billion he committed to the Climate Green Fund that was given impetus through the COP21 Climate Conference in Paris.
The role and power of bureaucracies are a fundamental part of the shift to socialism and total government control. Politicians of all persuasions, but especially those who should oppose the trend, are so busy staying in office that they will not do what is necessary to recover control. A measure of the problem is provided by the few that try surreptitiously, like Harper. It is also underscored by the resort to trickery such as the Australian ploy that the science is settled so no more research is required.
As Richard Harris cynically observed.
“Probably the most distinctive characteristic of the successful politician is selective cowardice.”