by Alex Newman via The New American
With the next United Nations climate report set to be released in a matter of days, the alleged “science” behind global-warming hysteria continues to crumble in spectacular fashion. The UN claims to be more certain than ever that human activities are responsible for “climate change,” but its computer models have been so discredited that virtually nobody takes them seriously anymore — even scientists who have worked with the organization. According to experts, though, these are merely symptoms of a broader issue that must be urgently addressed: the ongoing corruption of science by a coalition of governments, institutions, crony capitalists, paid-for scientists, and pseudo-environmentalist forces.
Around the world, at least in some places, the public is slowly starting to wake up to the scheming. In Australia, for example, voters just delivered a landslide victory to a conservative coalition that promised to rein in the government “climate” schemes and kill the carbon tax. Meanwhile, independent experts and scientists continue to challenge UN theories, which have become increasingly outlandish and discredited as official data show that global warming essentially stopped more than 15 years ago — despite increasing CO2 levels. Undeterred by the collapse in its credibility, though, the UN is now claiming to be more certain than ever that “human activities” are to blame for “climate change.”
A leaked version of the upcoming UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report suggests that the global body’s “climate scientists” are struggling hard to publicly explain the lack of warming they predicted with such confidence. Among the possible explanations offered by the UN’s politically selected experts: “ash from volcanoes,” a “decline in heat from the sun,” or more heat being “absorbed by the deep oceans,” according to news reports.
Apparently, the draft UN report does allow for the possibility that the climate is not as “sensitive” to CO2 as the alarmists and their now-debunked models predicted. Scientists and experts who have worked on the UN body, however, have told The New American over a period of years that the IPCC is only interested in pushing climate hysteria, regardless of what the facts show. That appears increasingly obvious.
Now, as The New American reported last month, respected climate analysts are warning that contrary to government-funded hysteria about human carbon-dioxide emissions leading to dangerous warming, declining sun activity may spark dramatic global cooling. Among the latest predictions is the recently released “Global Climate Status Report,” produced by the respected Space and Science Research Corporation, which is forecasting a rapid transition to a planetary cooling era.
“Of the 24 global climate parameters evaluated by the SSRC, 20 show a global cooling trend, 3 show a global warming trend, and 1 shows a neutral trend,” explains the report’s executive summary. “Of the two foremost climate parameters evaluated, the integrated global atmospheric and oceanic temperatures, both indicate a declining global temperature trend is in place…. This singular fact is conclusive evidence to restate that global warming, as a natural phase of climate variation caused by the Sun, has ended.” The transition into the cooling phase could be marked by extreme weather, the report added.
Despite claims by UN climate alarmists about human CO2 “pollution” driving global warming, the SSRC and countless other experts and institutions have long pointed out that the sun is likely the primary influence on Earth’s climate. Indeed, man’s emissions of CO2 — a natural gas exhaled by humans and fundamental to life on Earth — make up just a fraction of one percent of the greenhouse gases present naturally in the atmosphere. Theories about the gas, presented by activists and institutions hiding behind a veneer of “science,” are bogus; the sun, then, is really the key to understanding climate.
“The most recent multi-centennial climate epoch which began around 1830 has ended,” explains the latest SSRC report. “This period of generally increasing warmth for the Earth, which was caused by the Sun’s natural and regular cycles of activity, reached a peak of warming between 2007 and 2008 as measured by global atmospheric temperatures in the lower troposphere.”
Space and Science Research Corporation Founder and President John Casey, a rocket scientist, former White House space program advisor, and climate researcher who this year was named “America’s best climate prediction expert,” has been on a mission to expose the climate-change scam for years. In his internationally acclaimed climate-science book Cold Sun, Casey even called the theory of man-made global warming “the greatest international scientific fraud ever perpetrated on the world’s citizens.”
“As to the corruption of science, there is little doubt that the dumping of tens of billions into the charade of manmade climate change has led to substantial corruption and failures within the scientific leadership community, including by science journals and scientific organizations,” Casey told The New American. “There are many aspects to this specific impact of the damage to the trust and integrity of science in general resultant because of manmade climate science corruption.”
Discredited “Science” and Media
Still, even amid the apparent implosion of man-made climate theories and computer models, experts predict that the establishment press will uncritically and hysterically parrot the conclusions of the soon-to-be-released UN IPCC report. As The New American has documented extensively, the global body’s reports in recent years have included numerous flagrant errors, even on basic facts. According to physicist John Droz, who has been working hard to fight the corruption of science with a network of top experts worldwide, “The reality is that the IPCC ‘experts’ know more-and-more about less-and-less.”
As just one of the latest examples of the ignorance, Droz cited a recent independent study concluding that some 97 percent of computer climate models have been shown to overestimate the amount of warming attributed to CO2 — with the average overestimation error at a stunning 100 percent. “How come we don’t see the media publicizing that 97 percent consensus?” Droz asked. “A normal distribution (bell curve) would show about 50% of these would be high predictions and about 50% low. That they are essentially all high is a clear indication of bias, plus an ignorance about CO2 inter-relationships.”
“In light of these realities, for the IPCC to claim that they now have an even higher confidence in their conclusions, is simply political posturing to justify their existence,” continued Droz, who is working with scientists, legislators, and policymakers to defend science against what he sees as relentless attacks. “The bottom line is that there is an extraordinarily large amount of understanding of this issue that we simply do not have. To spend tens of trillions of dollars to ‘fix’ something we don’t understand is insanity.”
The Assault on Science
The issue goes way beyond just climate scaremongering, though, Droz told The New American. Instead, what is going on is a coordinated assault on real science aimed at undermining the field and its credibility. Once the public, without a real understanding of what science truly is, comes to see the profession as corrupted, advocates of self-serving agendas hiding behind bogus claims of “science” will be able to impose their will far more easily.
“Political science is about promoting schemes that have economic or political benefits for a favored, usually well-connected, few,” said Droz, who has developed a detailed presentation outlining the problems he has encountered during more than 30 years of environmental advocacy. “Real science is a process where a proper assessment determines the validity of a hypothesis — AGW (anthropogenic global warming), for example. Such an assessment has four main ingredients: 1) comprehensive, 2) objective, 3) transparent and 4) empirical. No such scientific evaluation has been done concerning the AGW hypothesis, wind energy, ethanol, or any other such self-serving concoctions.”
The latest developments in the global-warming debate — rebounding Arctic ice cover despite claims that it would be gone by the summer of 2013, for instance, or the 16-year “pause” in global warming that models failed to predict — also show something important about the “science” behind the alarmism and even the “scientific” establishment. According to Droz, an environmentalist who operates a science-focused network that includes hundreds of Ph.D.s, including more than a few who have worked for the UN IPCC, the indiscriminate use of computer models has become a “major problem.” While models may have some merit, he added, “relying on them for accurately predicting such complex interactions as AGW is an egregious abuse of their abilities.”
Droz, who has been working on environmental issues for decades, is on a personal mission to defend the integrity of science from “snake-oil salesmen” purporting to speak for it — people who claim there is a “consensus” on man-made global warming and therefore the issue is settled and governments must squander trillions on various climate schemes, for instance. As far as why science is coming under attack, how the assault is being waged, what the consequences might be, and how it should be stopped, he recommends checking out his massive presentation.
Special Interest “Science”
There is a method to the madness, though. “The world is dominated by powerful interests who are promoting policies for their economic and/or political interests,” Droz continued. “When these policies are in technical areas such as energy or the environment, these promoters know that they need the imprimatur of science to give their proposals the appearance of legitimacy — as the public still holds science in very high regard.”
“What happens, though, when a true scientific assessment of their ruse (e.g. industrial wind energy) will expose it as a fraud? Then the promoters have to work extremely hard to get around the science obstacle,” he added. “After doing that many times, they have concluded that an easier route is simply to devalue science in the public eye so that it no longer has a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. They are well on their way of achieving this end.”
Countless experts, analysts, and studies have concluded that environmentalism has become akin to a secular religion in a very real sense. As such it represents a substantial threat to conventional religions — many of which have “been duped into embracing this Black Widow,” Droz said. “The reality is that this secular religion is promoting principles that are anathema to our Judeo-Christian tradition — like ‘the end justifies the means.’”
“Many environmental leaders are in the forefront of the ‘undermine Science’ movement,” explained Droz, a self-described environmentalist who used to be a member of groups such as the Sierra Club until he realized what was going on. “Their objective is that they would like their personally preferred policies to be adopted, simply because they say so — i.e., based on faith rather than fact. Once the credibility of science is sufficiently diminished, what other objective source will there be to effectively challenge their ideology? There is none, and they know it.”
What is most distressing to Droz as a scientist, he continued, is how many thousands of scientists have become complicit in the attack on their own profession. “Just because they get paid by a special interest, such as a wind developer, does that really mean that they should look the other way when it comes to doing a proper scientific assessment? Evidently so, as their commitment to upholding scientific standards, clearly plays second fiddle to collecting a fast buck,” he said. “Their worshiping at the environmental altar is completely consistent with their abandonment of professional integrity — which they evidently believe is an outdated Judeo-Christian anachronism.”
Droz outlined his arguments and concerns in a slide presentation, available at ScienceUnderAssault.info, which offers an extensive overview of the concerted attack on science. “It’s not a pretty picture,” he concluded. However, for society to function successfully, experts say the integrity of science must not be undermined.
Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, politics, and more. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
Murray N. Rothbard was the father of what some call Radical Libertarianism or Anarcho-Capitalism which Hans-Hermann Hoppe described as “Rothbard’s unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.”
This book applies the principles of this “unified moral science” to environmental and natural resource management issues.
The book started out life as an assigned reading list for a university level course entitled Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View.
As I began to prepare to teach the course, I quickly saw that there was a plethora of textbooks suitable for universal level courses dealing with environmental and natural resource economics. The only problem was that they were all based in mainstream neo-classical (or Keynesian) theory. I could find no single collection of material comprising a comprehensive treatment of environmental and natural resource economics based on Austrian Economic Theory.
However, I was able to find a large number of essays, monographs, papers delivered at professional meetings and published from a multitude of sources. This book is the result. It is composed of a collection of research reports and essays by reputable scientists, economists, and legal experts as well as private property and free market activists.
The book is organized into seven parts: I. Environmentalism: The New State Religion; II. The New State Religion Debunked; III. Introduction to Environmental and Natural Resource Economics; IV. Interventionism: Law and Regulation; V. Pollution and Recycling; VI. Property Rights: Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain; and VII. Free Market Conservation. It also includes an elaborate Bibliography, References and Recommended Reading section including an extensive Annotated Bibliography of related and works on the subject.
The intellectual level of the individual works ranges from quite scholarly to informed editorial opinion.