Across the world, students are skipping classes to draw attention to what they see as the failures of governments to take sufficient action to stop dangerous climate change. Hundreds of thousands of students from more than 100 countries participated in protest marches last Friday, holding up signs with such ludicrous proclamations as “1.5 to stay alive.” This refers to the UN’s flawed assertion that we must prevent 1.5 degree Celsius of warming since pre-industrial levels to avoid climate catastrophe.
A few of the students seem to know that climate changes all the time and today’s climate, and its recent changes, are completely normal and of no risk whatsoever. In fact, the last 10,000 years is a geologic period known as the Holocene Optimum since climate has often been optimal for human flourishing during this period. Indeed, the planet has, fortunately, been warmer than today for some 90% of the Holocene, while civilizations grew.
But the students are marching because their teachers and mass media have convinced them that scientists agree that carbon dioxide (CO2) from human activities is causing a global warming emergency. The students are unaware that the scare is based only on one thing—a group of untested computer models that have never been right in their forecasts. And in science, if your prediction is wrong, the science is wrong.
The frightening part is that the UN agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that made the erroneous predictions, knew that their models couldn’t work. In their Third Assessment Report (TAR), they wrote that:
“In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
Biases are normal in many aspects of life, of course, but they become a serious problem if you are making decisions while unaware of the biases in the information you are relying upon. Like most of the public, the student protestors are clearly unaware of a massive, deliberately premeditated bias in the IPCC research. Most people, including these schoolchildren, think that the IPCC looks at climate change in total. It doesn’t. The entire objective of those who established the IPCC was to turn the world’s focus to reducing CO2 emissions.
To do this they had to control and limit the climate change investigation. They achieved this by narrowly defining climate change for the IPCC. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) sets the ground rules for the IPCC. And through the UNFCCC’s definition of climate change, the IPCC has been directed to study only human causes of climate change. In particular, UNFCCC Article 1 defines climate change as:
“a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods”.
This definition predetermines the outcome of the IPCC’s work. But you cannot isolate our contribution to climate change without a thorough understanding of natural changes and mechanisms. And our understanding of natural climate change is still highly immature.
To demonstrate how devastating this is concerning what the public and the children believe, consider the three greenhouse gases (GHG): water vapour, CO2 and methane. Together they are only 1% of all the gases in the atmosphere. Of that 1%, water vapor, the most important GHG, is 95%, CO2 is 4% and methane is 0.36%. Of the total 4% CO2, the human portion is just 3% of that, or 0.0012% of all the gases in the atmosphere. The IPCC admits that humans produce water vapour but argue that the amount is completely insignificant relative to the total in the atmosphere. They say that even though they don’t know how much there is or how much it changes.
So, the IPCC built computer models that only include a minute fraction of the total atmosphere. By doing this, they were able to program them to produce the result they wanted, namely that CO2 emissions from human activities were causing global warming. And that, spread as reality by the deceivers, drives the children out to protest with the naïve belief that eliminating CO2 will stop climate change. It also provided a vehicle of control over industry, development, and society. It was the perfect vehicle for socialist and controlling governments like that of former-President Barack Obama. It was the basis for the Paris Agreement on climate change that ratified the Green Climate Fund that penalized developed nations and gave the money in a pure socialist re-distribution of wealth to less developed countries.
President Donald Trump saw the inequity of this deal, especially for America, and in June 2017 announced that the US would withdraw from the Paris Agreement.
The public reaction to Trump’s move was surprisingly muted, partly because people knew even less about it than they did about its base, the pseudo-science. Fortunately, Trump is now confronting the bad science because it is distorting everybody’s understanding, making logical, sensible, practical living with nature impossible. It created false emotional control over the people and the moral high ground over everything.
The appointment of Dr. William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus, at Princeton University, now senior director of the National Security Council office for emerging technologies, to create and head the proposed Presidential Commission on Climate Security reflects the commission’s importance. If you are going to set plans and policy on climate, it is critical to get the science as accurate as possible. That is far from the case to date with the IPCC and, in America, it’s member, the bureaucrats at NOAA.
Happer is forming a Red Team, a group of scientists ignored up to now as global warming skeptics or, more recently, smeared as climate change deniers. They never denied global warming or climate change. They knew the science created to claim that humans were the cause of both was completely artificial and one-sided.
The scientific method involves the creation of a hypothesis that other scientists then test. The testing never happened with the global warming hypothesis. Every attempt was blocked or ignored. Senator Timothy Wirth orchestrated the first great deception with a hearing in the Senate at which NASA GISS employee James Hansen made the ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim that he was 99% certain humans were causing global warming. The headline from a scientist was necessary but Wirth didn’t really care because, as he explained,
“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
The Trump Administration cares and wants a workable economic and environmental policy based on sound science. However, this can only occur when the full picture of global warming, and latterly climate change, is understood by the public. Good luck with your project Professor Happer.
Dr. Tim Ball is an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba. Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition.