It's About Freedom, Not Climatology

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare


DIGG THIS

When Vaclav
Klaus
, who has just won reelection as President of the Czech
Republic, states that he has comparative advantage over other speakers
on the issue of Climate Change, he is trenchantly correct. Klaus
lived under the last large central planning scheme — communism.
He rejects the offer to live under the even more draconian central
plan of our time — climate alarmism and environmentalism.

Klaus
explained his déjà vu vantage point to over
five hundred participants at the 2008
International Conference on Climate Change
assembled
at Times Square New York City on March 2–4. Stressing his personally
acquired wisdom, Klaus said, "Future dangers will not come
from the same source [communism]. The ideology will be different.
Its essence [environmentalism and climate alarmism] will, nevertheless,
be identical — the attractive, pathetic, at first sight noble idea
that transcends the individual in the name of common good, and the
enormous self-confidence on the side of its proponents about their
right to sacrifice the man and his freedom in order to make this
idea a reality."

"What
I see in Europe and the U.S.," Klaus cautioned, "is
a powerful combination of irresponsibility, of wishful thinking,
of implicit believing in some form of Malthusianism, of a cynical
approach of those who are themselves sufficiently well-off, together
with the strong belief in the possibility of changing the economic
nature of things through a radical political project."

Klaus focused
on facts that showed that decreases in CO2 emissions in the EU have
come about because manufacturing radically disappeared when the
communist economy collapsed. Future decreases appear to rely on
miracles or the deliberate pushing of the EU countries back into
the Dark Ages. Carbon dioxide decreases are not normal for growing
and prospering civilizations, given current technology. Most of
those assembled would not consider such decreases to be either needed
or desirable.

Klaus brought
to our attention that the thinking of the climate alarmist is the
same as Hayek's portrayal of central planners in The
Fatal Conceit
. He boldly challenged the large assembly,
"We have to restart the discussion about the very nature
of government and about the relationship between the individual
and society. [Freedom] should be the main message of our conference."

The aim and
objective of this stimulating gathering was to collapse the fake
"consensus"
on human-induced catastrophic global warming. Achieving this is
a necessary step toward turning climate alarmism into climate realism.
The step was taken. "Consensus"
collapsed
. Over one
hundred scientists
were provocative proof of the absence of
"consensus" that has been touted by alarmists.

These scientists
presented, exchanged and debated research showing global warming
to be mostly natural, definitely moderate and realistically unstoppable.
They held no consensus in their approaches or their results. Enter
the dawn of climate realism.

The New
York Times on Tuesday, March 4, ran an article by Andrew C.
Revkin titled "Cool View of Science at Meeting on Warming."
Written as a criticism, Revkin wrote that "the group…displayed
a dizzying range of ideas on what was, or was not, influencing climate."
That was the very point of the conference.

No "consensus"
can be touted when, in fact, so many scientists do indeed dispute
what data are meaningful and causative of the highly complex dynamics
of climate change. Several, like Dr.
Willie Soon
, astrophysicist and geoscientist, displayed data
showing
the sun
to be the more likely driver of temperature variations,
as compared to carbon dioxide radiative forcings.

Howard Hayden,
physics professor, concluded that astronomical phenomena cause about
seventy-five percent of the fluctuations in Earth's temperature.
The combined effects of all greenhouse
gases
, changes in surface reflectivity of the sun's radiation,
and other Earthly changes account for no more than about three degrees
Celsius of the changes during transitions between ice ages and interglacials.
Hayden provided a repeatable sound bite when asked about computer
models that are the basis for alarmist views. He simply said, "Garbage
in; gospel out."

Dr.
William M. Gray
, meteorological researcher for more than
forty years, contributed that the deep oceans, not carbon dioxide,
are driving climate. Rather than global warming, Gray believes a
recent up-tick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend
of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation
patterns. Contrary to mainstream thinking, Gray believes ocean temperatures
are going to drop in the next five to 10 years.

Dr.
Vincent Gray
, knows water vapor to be the principle greenhouse
gas as others do. However, Gray emphasizes that climate models fail
to reflect the fact that water vapor is extremely variable. Gray's
work finds that the global warming claim fails on two fundamental
facts: 1.) No average temperature of any part of the earth’s surface,
over any period, has ever been made. 2.) The sample is grossly unrepresentative
of the earth’s surface, mostly near to towns. No statistician could
accept an “average” based on such a poor sample. It cannot possibly
be “corrected.” Dr. Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert
Reviewers Panel since its inception, has written to Professor David
Henderson, to support the latter's
call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures.
Gray's call
for such a review ends with these harsh words, "The disappearance
of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable. The
reason is that the world will slowly realize that the "predictions"
emanating from the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any "global
warming" for the past eight years is just the beginning. Sooner
or later all of us will come to realize that this organization and
the thinking behind it is phony. Unfortunately severe economic damage
is likely to be done by its influence before that happens."

Dr
Roy Spencer
, NASA senior scientist, produced recent
evidence for reduced climate sensitivity
. Background “noise”
in climate systems creates temperature variations that are not random.
This "noise" exceeds all of the warming that has been
thought to have been made by humans. Climate models don't handle
clouds and convection in the tropics well. Precipitation systems
interactively regulate the climate system. Computer models predicting
climate change are necessarily flawed. Spencer releases his new
book March 27, 2008: Climate
Confusion — How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering
Politicians, and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor.

Dr.
Robert Balling
, professor of climatology, questioned what the
increase in global temperature does and does not tell us. Water
vapor and non-solar control seem dominant. The theory, measurements,
and understanding of the greenhouse effect are advancing rapidly,
and drastically changing the original predictions from only a few
decades ago. Measured warming has been nowhere near the earlier
predictions, and the mathematical models are being constantly revised.
Both Balling and Dr. Ross McKitrick highlighted failings
in data collection.
Many temperature stations have been discontinued.
Technology for recording temperatures has changed. Urban heat-island
effects continue. Data adjustments made by alarmists appear biased.

Dennis
T. Avery
, and co-author S.
Fred Singer
, wrote Unstoppable
Global Warming — Every 1,500 Years
They presented
their findings
and stressed, "Most of our modern warming
occurred before 1940, before much human-emitted CO2. The net warming
since 1940 is a minuscule 0.2 degree C – with no warming at all in
the last nine years. The Greenhouse Theory can't explain these realities,
but the 1,500-year cycle does." The cycle is solar induced.
Ice
cores show sun, not humans, controlling Earth's climate.

So, no consensuses
surfaced.

None need exist
when the subjects are scientific.

Hypotheses
and theories should continue to be tested.

By different
skeptical approaches each scientist at this gathering proved he
was courageous. Why courageous? Because, to be a climate change
skeptic is political-funding suicide. Few feel they can step forward
before they retire. Many, even when gathered together and taking
courage from the presence of so many others, felt they had to step
away from being in group pictures. Those are choices. They are respected.

Debunking the
false "consensus" position of climate alarmists didn't
end with the mere conclusion of the conference. Several synchronous
efforts include: A Manhattan
Declaration on Climate Change
. It was endorsed by scientists
and researchers. The document stated clearly that "Global warming"
is not a global crisis. This tangible product with many signatories
declared among other points: That attempts by governments
to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual
citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly
curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations
without affecting climate; the furtherance of the nascent International
Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
publication of a current and future Nongovernmental International
Panel on Climate Change report (NIPCC)
a new journal on climate science; making video presentations from
the conference online; making audio CDs of either a session or the
complete conference available; enlistment of interested parties
into a speakers bureau; and a 2009 London conference being planned.

This agenda
is aggressive, necessary, and appreciated. Hopefully there will
be many others who step up, especially in response to Vaclav Klaus'
plea that we recognize that the issue has never been global climate
cooling or global climate warming. It has always and ever been about
political power and control of earth's population.

For
over seventeen years I have witnessed at United Nations international
gatherings so much ego, money and meeting time being poured into
this global central plan to ration energy — to control carbon dioxide
by controlling people. To control people by controlling carbon dioxide.
To brand the stuff of life — carbon — a deadly pollutant. Political,
activist and business careers, especially legal careers, now depend
upon creating this new bureaucratic global layer of rules and regulations.
The new-age rulers want the wealth and power that will accrue to
them as they impose their centralized, consummate plans upon us.

The Czech Republic's
President stands firm, honoring the lives and liberties of his citizenry
against this particular brand of fresh oppression. Would that these
United States had such a courageous leader.

March
11, 2008

Floy
Lilley [send her mail]
is an adjunct faculty member at the Mises Institute. She was formerly
with the University of Texas at Austin’s Chair of Free Enterprise,
and an attorney-at-law in Texas and Florida.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts