Why should you and I be concerned about disinformation on the climate?

The following quote is taken from the abstract of a peer reviewed science paper published September, 2020: …”We examine the relationship of global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration at the monthly time step, covering the time interval 1980–2019, in which reliable instrumental measurements are available. While both causality directions exist, the results of our study support the hypothesis that the dominant direction is T → CO2. Changes in CO2 follow changes in T by about six months on a monthly scale, or about one year on an annual scale.”  In other words, warming is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2, not humans burning fossil fuels.  This paper confirms the work of several other scientists.  (Full science paper at this link:  https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/2/3/72/htm)

Why should you and I be concerned?

“The world spent US$3,660 billion [$3.66 TRILLION] on climate change projects over the eight-year period 2011–2018.  A total of 55% of this sum was spent on solar and wind energy, while only 5% was spent on adapting to the impacts of extreme weather events,” according to recently released calculations by The Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES), a multi-disciplinary and independent research group.  The world spent over $2 Trillion on wind and solar power in the period 2011 to 2018, and only one-tenth that on adapting to extreme weather events. That is counter-productive, upside down investing.  Wasted public resources.

Humans must adapt to hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, tropical and winter storms, i.e. weather events.  Fossil fuels are necessary for that adaptation.  Contrary to what has unfortunately become common knowledge, CO2 from fossil fuels does not cause any measurable warming or climate change.  In an essay posted on its web site, CERES goes through some of the problems created by governments attempting to shift from reliable sources of electricity to unreliable solar, wind and other so-called sustainable types of energy. This huge malinvestment is hurting the poor the most. These damages are largely ignored by the misleading statistic: “the social cost of carbon.” https://www.ceres-science.com/index.html

Leftists, the UN, the EU and “The Squad” of Democrats in Congress want far more money and control.  The U.S. House of Representative recently passed a new bill targeting greenhouse gasses and climate change.  The title of the bill is: The Moving Forward Act.  One section of interest is: Subtitle G—Treasury Report on Data From the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. This section authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to: “[Determine] the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by each taxpayer for the purpose of imposing a fee on such taxpayers with respect to such emissions.”

Meanwhile, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson is reportedly planning a 200% increase in electricity rates for the UK.  But experts say that will not be enough to cover the cost of his wind and solar expansion.  If this fraud continues, the same will happen in America and everywhere. https://www.thegwpf.com/boris-johnson-announces-200-rise-in-electricity-prices/

Prof Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the founders of the Germany’s environmental movement who formerly ran Germany’s national energy program, said in an interview last week that the claimed climate catastrophe “is not taking place” and that policymakers are trying to use “panic and fear to get the people to act.” “Vahrenholt also believes electric cars powered by batteries is not a feasible technology, and that other experts quietly call it “a crackpot idea”, and don’t speak up for fear of losing research funding. The vast majority of funding comes from the German government.” “Climate science is exaggerated, filled with fairy tales and the Paris Accord is “already dead.” He says “there is no tipping point” and he expects “civilization to go on for another 7,000 years.”  https://notrickszone.com/2020/10/07/german-prof-climate-science-politicized-exaggerated-filled-with-fantasy-fairy-tales-paris-accord-already-dead/

Mr. Rupert (R.C.E.) Wyndham of Cornwall, UK considers this global warming fraud to be a crisis of morality.  I agree.  Teaching children fear and false information is a form of child abuse, is it not? Mr. Wyndham knows how to turn a phrase and has written multiple letters to those in positions of moral authority.  The following is an excerpt from a letter he addressed to Archbishop Vincent Nichols, Westminster Cathedral, with cc: to Pope Benedict XVI, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, the Prime Minister, the Abbott of Downside Abbey, and Ed Miliband, MP.

To those who come to “Climate Change” with open eyes (not to mention open minds), it merely constitutes a trend – as unmistakeable as tracks in the snow, the cupidity and mendacity of politicians, the poltroonery of establishment scientists and their journalistic lapdogs or the catastrophist phantasmagoria of anthropogenic global warming pseudo-environmentalists. Furthermore, the perception is strengthened to the point of absolute confirmation by the predictions of dissenting mavericks…

And, dare it be said, for those such as yourself, in the vanguard of so called “faith communities”, who arrogate to themselves the role of moral leadership, this gives rise to serious questions, does it not? Indeed, in many ways, “Climategate” is less about the “science” – which anyway is garbage – than it is about the integrity of the scientific process, an issue of immensely greater ethical significance for all who value truth as well as democratic accountability.  AGW science has been exposed as a fraud, by far the gravest in the entire history of science. The AGW hypothesis itself is no better than a glib and distorted misrepresentation of a 100 year old speculation relating to the so-called Greenhouse Effect allied to invented evidence concocted within the guts of a computer by individuals with a predetermined agenda coupled with huge personal vested interests – financial and otherwise. We now know unequivocally that not just the notorious Mann, Bradley Hughes hockey stick, beloved of AGW propagandists, is a worthless contrivance, but even the very temperature record itself is largely a fiction – maybe entirely. … AGW is a hypothesis that is intellectually so indefensible, so tawdry, so dishonest, so self-serving, so mean spirited, so corrupting that, quite simply, it cannot be espoused with honourable motivation; it has to be the product either of nefarious purpose, of unassailable gullibility or of mental aberration. Any person who describes him/herself as a scientist, who promotes or condones AGW, is no better than an alarmist, a mountebank, a bare faced liar. By virtue of that fact alone he/she is a scoundrel.

That, of course, leaves you in a quandary, does it not? Either you repudiate this ethical obscenity and, in a spirit of Christian repentance, exercise moral authority or you continue to promote it and abrogate moral authority. Although religious leaders often seem to find the concept seductive, what you cannot do is both to wolf your bun and hang on to your penny.

On 3 November I wrote to you in response to your call for a moral crusade on the subject of “climate change”. At the suggestion of Prof. David Bellamy, I sent a copy to The Tablet. From you nothing has been heard – well except second hand, 350 ppmv (Lordy, lordy!). That is no surprise. One gets very used to AGW protagonists seeking the shadows. From The Tablet came what read like rather a startled holding letter, since when nothing. As a New Year resolution, perhaps it could be suggested that you try to be braver, and preach not simply to the converted but debate also with those who might bring to bear a more detached and questioning approach…

I do not live in hope, however.

Yours sincerely

R.C.E. Wyndham

PS The seer of Lambeth Palace, of course, has a real problem. Two thirds of his clergy’s pension fund is tied up in investments founded in this claptrap. Compared to that, down the road what matters a few female or fairy prelates?

(If you enjoyed Mr. Wyndham’s turn of phrase, here is his letter to the head of the Royal Society, the UK’s premier science establishment.  http://joannenova.com.au/2013/04/rupert-wyndham-takes-on-paul-nurse-and-the-royal-society/)

Finally, recently there have been the usual eruptions of summertime pseudo-scientific and media reports that Greenland, the Arctic and Antarctica are melting, etc.  Coincidentally, this past week the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) reported the Greenland ice sheet has never before increased 4 gigatons (Gt) during summer, but it has just done that, citing records that go back to 1981.  The records show that the 4 Gt increase exceeded the mid-August record by over two gigatons.  Keep your ski clothes.  https://electroverse.net/greenland-gains-a-record-smashing-4-gts-of-snow-and-ice/

Aloha,

Bud Bromley

About budbromley

Bud is a retired life sciences executive. Bud's entrepreneurial leadership exceeded three decades. He was the senior business development, marketing and sales executive at four public corporations, each company a supplier of analytical and life sciences instrumentation, software, consumables and service. Prior to those positions, his 19 year career in Hewlett-Packard Company's Analytical Products Group included worldwide sales and marketing responsibility for Bioscience Products, Global Accounts and the International Olympic Committee, as well as international management assignments based in Japan and Latin America. Bud has visited and worked in more than 65 countries and lived and worked in 3 countries.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Why should you and I be concerned about disinformation on the climate?

  1. Philip Mulholland says:

    Bud,
    Prof. Demetris Koutsoyiannisis a hero of mine, he is an eminent hydrologist, a field of study that fully qualifies him as a proper earth scientist, sadly however he fails with this first sentence:
    “It is common knowledge that increasing CO2 concentration plays a major role in enhancement of the greenhouse effect”
    The greenhouse gas conjecture only works if the solar irradiance is diluted by a factor of 4. Here is an alternative model in which the solar irradiance is diluted by a factor of 2. With this model atmospheric thermal radiant opacity is an irrelevant feature of planetary climate dynamics.
    https://media-exp1.licdn.com/dms/image/C4D12AQE54-Is_9zL7w/article-inline_image-shrink_1000_1488/0?e=1608163200&v=beta&t=OTMgkQG2fqBovynuzXRWpfZi2solSd5d5tdRyeJWsXE

    Liked by 1 person

    • budbromley says:

      When I first read the first page of this paper, I had the same reaction. But as I read further and then re-read it I understood what I call the continental European politeness and style of technical persuasion most commonly witnessed in scientific conferences. In fact, it is common knowledge in the western world…and we are trying to repair that mistake, but in contrast to American gringo style and British front bencher style, the continental style “beats around the bush” rather than punches in the face.

      It is common knowledge, but it is not correct knowledge. It is common knowledge because it has been taught in schools for 40 years and a de rigueur part of almost every western media and government agency for 30 years and agitprop throughout the arts and science world. It is now accepted by most people as common knowledge. We and 20,000+ people know this common knowledge is wrong. It is ”flat earther” common knowledge promoted by the hubristic religion of man. Unlearning is far more difficult than learning. In my opinion, this carefully worded paper will help people unlearn what they think they know without setting off the massive cognitive dissonance which usually results in rejection of the new information.

      In fact, these scientists are confirming once again what other scientists and skeptics have already explained.

      Aloha, and thanks for reading and your comment.
      Bud

      Liked by 1 person

    • budbromley says:

      Philip, is there a link or citation for this paper? The link provided only takes me to the graphic, which is unattributed.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.