Global warming hoax
Energy Policy Held Hostage by Global Warming Dogma
Hans Labohm & Fred Engel
The man-made global warming hype is second to none. This hoax has survived for some twenty years and still features high on the national and international political agendas given the views recently given by President Obama. The subject still seems to enjoy broad support among some members of the scientific community, politics, part of the business sector, international institutions as well as the media and the public at large. Nevertheless, it is really a great amount of ado about nothing at all.
In promoting the global warming scare, the media stubbornly stigmatize carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant. Apparently, those who promulgate that idea have forgotten what they have been taught at school. After all, carbon dioxide plays a crucial role in sustaining life. Without it the earth would be a dead planet. CO2 is indispensable for plants, animals and people to flourish. Consequently, environmentalists should actually love CO2. But because of a relentless flood of misinformation about CO2, portraying it as the culprit of an imminent climate disaster, they don’t.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acts as the world’s unique provider of knowledge on climate change to governments. It has narrowed down the definition of climate change to man-made climate change, mainly caused by the anthropogenic emission of CO2 from burning fossil fuels. From a scientific point of view this is not just peculiar, it is fundamentally untenable.
Once every four or five years, the IPCC takes stock of the peer-reviewed scientific literature in the climate field, which results in reports of thousands of pages, that no policymaker is able to digest. Therefore, it also publishes a more easily accessible summary for policymakers of a few tens of pages, which is supposed to present the crux of the findings of the underlying reports. However, the summary is not a purely scientific document, but rather a political document, because it has to be approved line by line by people, who do not act as pure scientists, but more importantly, who also have to take account of the views of the governments they represent.
The IPCC consists of three working groups. Working Group I deals with the physical science basis. Working Group II focuses on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Finally, Working Group III reports on mitigation of climate change. It should be underlined that the Working Groups II and III, take the conclusions of Working Group I for granted. It will be clear that if Working Group I would prove to be wrong, all the work of the other two Groups will be pretty pointless.
The IPCC’s quasi monopoly position is quite unusual. In many instances and particularly in science, we value "second opinions" on matters which are of vital importance to us. But in the field of climate science dissenting views from thousands of eminent and well-qualified scientists have been systematically ignored by governments, even when they came from experts who are attached to the most prestigious universities and scientific institutions in the world.
Many national governments and scientific institutions which are dealing with various aspects of climate change, are working on the adjustment of their national policies in line with the findings of the IPCC, presuming that climate change will be the major challenge of the future. Like the IPCC’s Working Groups II and III, they do not dispute the outcome of the findings of Working Group I. They just slavishly accept the man-made global warming dogma and act accordingly. In doing so, prevention of climate change gets an overarching priority, which is supposed to permeate into every relevant policy area, thereby pervading every nook and cranny of the tissue of our societies and, ultimately, inducing profound changes of our economies and the life styles of our citizens.
Perhaps more than any other policy field, energy policy will have to bear the brunt of the ‘fight’ against climate change. For many years already, it has been held hostage to the global warming dogma, the latter seeking a transition to a sustainable future of the world economy, without CO2.
Traditionally, energy policy has been aiming at affordable prices and security of supply. Today these objectives have to give way to reductions of CO2 emissions, since climate policy dictates the promotion of solar and wind power. But these alternatives are far more expensive and far less reliable than conventional energy sources, including nuclear.
All this implies economic retreat, including a lower standard of living with high price levels for fossil fuels and electricity. It goes without saying that this would put the economy in a tailspin, creating even more uncertainty for the population and turn our current recession into an endless depression.
Why is it that people don’t resist this illusory climate behemoth? The answer is clear: 20 years of misleading climate propaganda has suppressed critical thinking about the issue, even among some scientists.
As things stand today, it is quite unfortunate that the great majority of the population has no clue whatsoever that the global warming dogma, as promoted by the IPCC as well as Al Gore and his acolytes, has been convincingly falsified. The dogma is just not supported by facts, observations and measurements. Consequently, it is belief but not science.
Perhaps the most comprehensive and most authoritative critique of the man-made global warming paradigm can be found in the report: ‘Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate’. It has been a common effort of dozens of eminent scientists, coordinated by Dr. Fred Singer, the well-known American climatologist. The report, which has been published by the Heartland Institute, can be downloaded from the Internet.
One picture can explain more than a thousand words. The graph below shows (i) satellite measurements of the worldwide average temperature of the lower troposphere, (ii) measurements of the surface temperature of the earth, and (iii) a constant rise in the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. All figures are taken from official sources. The temperature curves look pretty similar. While CO2 goes up, they wobble up and down with sharp declines in 1998 - 1999 and since 2007. If CO2 (irrespective of its origin: natural (96%) or man-made (4%)) would be a major climate forcing, it should be visible in this graph. As a matter of fact, it isn’t. The complete lack of any correlation between temperatures and CO2 is striking.
Unfortunately, this picture, which defies the man-made global warming hypothesis, is sorely lacking in all ‘official’ publications. What would happen if, for instance, companies would withhold such a crucial piece of information in their reports to shareholders? They would be taken to court – and rightly so.
Isn't it about time to substitute facts for beliefs?
Hans Labohm is a Dutch independent economist and author. Together with Dick Thoenes and Simon Rozendaal, he co-authored ‘Man-Made Global Warming: Unravelling a Dogma’. He is an expert reviewer of the IPCC.
Frederik Engel is a retired American executive. He has an abiding interest in two of our country's most challenging subjects, i.e. energy and global warming.
Hans Labohm & Fred Engel
The man-made global warming hype is second to none. This hoax has survived for some twenty years and still features high on the national and international political agendas given the views recently given by President Obama. The subject still seems to enjoy broad support among some members of the scientific community, politics, part of the business sector, international institutions as well as the media and the public at large. Nevertheless, it is really a great amount of ado about nothing at all.
In promoting the global warming scare, the media stubbornly stigmatize carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant. Apparently, those who promulgate that idea have forgotten what they have been taught at school. After all, carbon dioxide plays a crucial role in sustaining life. Without it the earth would be a dead planet. CO2 is indispensable for plants, animals and people to flourish. Consequently, environmentalists should actually love CO2. But because of a relentless flood of misinformation about CO2, portraying it as the culprit of an imminent climate disaster, they don’t.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acts as the world’s unique provider of knowledge on climate change to governments. It has narrowed down the definition of climate change to man-made climate change, mainly caused by the anthropogenic emission of CO2 from burning fossil fuels. From a scientific point of view this is not just peculiar, it is fundamentally untenable.
Once every four or five years, the IPCC takes stock of the peer-reviewed scientific literature in the climate field, which results in reports of thousands of pages, that no policymaker is able to digest. Therefore, it also publishes a more easily accessible summary for policymakers of a few tens of pages, which is supposed to present the crux of the findings of the underlying reports. However, the summary is not a purely scientific document, but rather a political document, because it has to be approved line by line by people, who do not act as pure scientists, but more importantly, who also have to take account of the views of the governments they represent.
The IPCC consists of three working groups. Working Group I deals with the physical science basis. Working Group II focuses on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Finally, Working Group III reports on mitigation of climate change. It should be underlined that the Working Groups II and III, take the conclusions of Working Group I for granted. It will be clear that if Working Group I would prove to be wrong, all the work of the other two Groups will be pretty pointless.
The IPCC’s quasi monopoly position is quite unusual. In many instances and particularly in science, we value "second opinions" on matters which are of vital importance to us. But in the field of climate science dissenting views from thousands of eminent and well-qualified scientists have been systematically ignored by governments, even when they came from experts who are attached to the most prestigious universities and scientific institutions in the world.
Many national governments and scientific institutions which are dealing with various aspects of climate change, are working on the adjustment of their national policies in line with the findings of the IPCC, presuming that climate change will be the major challenge of the future. Like the IPCC’s Working Groups II and III, they do not dispute the outcome of the findings of Working Group I. They just slavishly accept the man-made global warming dogma and act accordingly. In doing so, prevention of climate change gets an overarching priority, which is supposed to permeate into every relevant policy area, thereby pervading every nook and cranny of the tissue of our societies and, ultimately, inducing profound changes of our economies and the life styles of our citizens.
Perhaps more than any other policy field, energy policy will have to bear the brunt of the ‘fight’ against climate change. For many years already, it has been held hostage to the global warming dogma, the latter seeking a transition to a sustainable future of the world economy, without CO2.
Traditionally, energy policy has been aiming at affordable prices and security of supply. Today these objectives have to give way to reductions of CO2 emissions, since climate policy dictates the promotion of solar and wind power. But these alternatives are far more expensive and far less reliable than conventional energy sources, including nuclear.
All this implies economic retreat, including a lower standard of living with high price levels for fossil fuels and electricity. It goes without saying that this would put the economy in a tailspin, creating even more uncertainty for the population and turn our current recession into an endless depression.
Why is it that people don’t resist this illusory climate behemoth? The answer is clear: 20 years of misleading climate propaganda has suppressed critical thinking about the issue, even among some scientists.
As things stand today, it is quite unfortunate that the great majority of the population has no clue whatsoever that the global warming dogma, as promoted by the IPCC as well as Al Gore and his acolytes, has been convincingly falsified. The dogma is just not supported by facts, observations and measurements. Consequently, it is belief but not science.
Perhaps the most comprehensive and most authoritative critique of the man-made global warming paradigm can be found in the report: ‘Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate’. It has been a common effort of dozens of eminent scientists, coordinated by Dr. Fred Singer, the well-known American climatologist. The report, which has been published by the Heartland Institute, can be downloaded from the Internet.
One picture can explain more than a thousand words. The graph below shows (i) satellite measurements of the worldwide average temperature of the lower troposphere, (ii) measurements of the surface temperature of the earth, and (iii) a constant rise in the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. All figures are taken from official sources. The temperature curves look pretty similar. While CO2 goes up, they wobble up and down with sharp declines in 1998 - 1999 and since 2007. If CO2 (irrespective of its origin: natural (96%) or man-made (4%)) would be a major climate forcing, it should be visible in this graph. As a matter of fact, it isn’t. The complete lack of any correlation between temperatures and CO2 is striking.
Unfortunately, this picture, which defies the man-made global warming hypothesis, is sorely lacking in all ‘official’ publications. What would happen if, for instance, companies would withhold such a crucial piece of information in their reports to shareholders? They would be taken to court – and rightly so.
Isn't it about time to substitute facts for beliefs?
Hans Labohm is a Dutch independent economist and author. Together with Dick Thoenes and Simon Rozendaal, he co-authored ‘Man-Made Global Warming: Unravelling a Dogma’. He is an expert reviewer of the IPCC.
Frederik Engel is a retired American executive. He has an abiding interest in two of our country's most challenging subjects, i.e. energy and global warming.
posted by Schaesberg at 6:19 PM
<< Home