Kyoto Premise: anthropogenic Green-House Gas emissions & climate change
Something is rotten in the state of scientists (not science), and the "Kyoto
Premise on anthropogenic Green-House Gas emissions & climate change" is an
excellent example of this. Or has it always been this way, with Kyoto only
being the "biggest and baddest" example?...
There are many fantastic scientists and engineers doing fun and brilliant work - certainly
beyond whatever I can ever hope to do. And the level of education, access to
huge amounts of information and funding, powerful new instrumentation, mathematical and
statistical tools, computers, and the internet give scientists far more power
to their jobs. Scientists must also "explore" ideas and a great diversity of perspectives and
opinions is essential.
I certainly don't think that I am anywhere close to the top level of scientists.
Not at all. So how can I (and other scientists) criticize scientists? Actually,
this web section is a critique of the "scientific consensus", or "science cult"
that seems to infect a majority of the scientific population. "Blowing in the wind"
(politically correct winds) is how we seem to behave, rather than using the mental tools
scientists and engineers pride themselves for. And that's why I single out scientists
as a group,
not because they are different in this manner from doctors, lawyers, pipefitters,
etc; but because they, MORE than others, should be relatively immune to it. But
they may not even be much better than any other group of people.
So what about intensely brilliant scientists, the ones who can reason their
way infallibly through complex subjects? What do they say? First of all,
I'm not one of them, and based on past controversies in science, most of us
can't pick them out reliably (otherwise
scientists wouldn't chase "false gods" like the rest of the population). Furthermore,
even if scientists are extremely good at one area certainly doesn't guarantee that
you will get sensible responses for other areas (markets, politics, religion, whatever).
Still, I prefer to believe that there are "super-scientists" who really do think
far more rigorously than the vast majority of scientists. Most of the ones that I
know and trust who work on climate change aren't "towing the Kyoto line".
This document is being prepared as of mid January 2007.... (soon). Obviously,
I'm lacking definitions, background, and content. Hopefully it will be
out before the UN-IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, and we can see if I
have made a fool of myself, ...to come soon...
Here are some of my documents:
Note that there are MANY books and articles by other scientists and commentators
on this theme, an this appears to have been a constant throughout history.
Several references are provided below. Probably the best for the whole area
of environmentalism was written by Bjorn Lomberg in the Netherlands. He covers
Climate Change in one of his chapters. The book by Essex and McKitrick
was one of the early books to really lambaste the science of the Kyoto Premise,
and McIntyre was instrumental in the rejection of the fraudulent "hockey stick" graph of
temperatures over the last thousand years, which was psychologically the most
influential illustration used to convince the public about the importance of the
25Sep09 The End of Enlightenment? -
To suggest that we could lose Enlightenment in our era is madness. With perhaps tens of thousands of
universities, tens of millions of scientists, and billions of people aware of the ongoing successes
of science, together with wonderful and astounding advances in genetics and all other fields, there would
seem to be little chance of falling into a Dark Ages. But that is probably what the ancient Greeks thought as well,
and it took 1,500 years to get it back. Thw "Strategically Evil Scientists" suggest in this presentation
that not only is the Loss of Enlightenment a possiblity in the "near future" (0 to 200 years), it will likely
be caused by the behaviour of scientists and NOT by religious groups, most likely during a period of great
societal stress. You may be right, we may be crazy, but it just may be lunatics you're looking for...
The Financial Post, part of Canada's National Post newwspaper, has been the only
major Canadian media source brave enough to challenge many of the politically-correct
nonsense in this country. Sometimes right, sometimes wrong, but always ready to
think critically. So perhaps it is natural that they have posted an awesome
series of articles blasting the Kyoto Premise over the last 3 to 6 years.
In 2007, Lawrence Solomon has put together a concentrated series on the views of
scientists who take apart the Kyoto Premise. Only a few of the articles are listed below. Lawrence Solomon publish a book compilation of his work, "The Deniers : The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud."
Abdussamatov, look to Mars for the truth on global warming
Akasofu, Little Ice Age is still with us
Allegres second thoughts
Dyson, Fighting climate fluff
Friis-Christensen, Science, not politics
Griffin, NASA chief silenced
Gunter, Bright sun, warm Earth Coincidence
Jaworowski, The ice-core man
Kirkby, clouded research
Kukla, Forget warming, beware the new ice age
Landsea, The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science
Lindzen, The original denier into the cold
Nordhaus, Discounting logic, economic implications
Patterson, Solar output drives climate change
Reiter, Bitten by the IPCC, climate and pandemics
Revelle, Gores guru disagreed
Shaviv, Limited role for C02
Solanki the heats in the sun 09Mar07
Solomon, End the chill
Solomon, They call this a consensus
Svensmark, The sun moves climate change
Tennekes, the limits of predictability
Tol, Warming is real and has benefits
von Storch, Dire forecasts arent new
Wegman, Statistics needed
Weiss, Will the sun cool us
Wingham, Polar scientists on thin ice
Zichichi, Some restraint in Rome
The scientists aren't wearing any clothes!
The pulic has been persistently misled for almost two decades (perhaps more)
about climate change, global warming, the principal drivers of climate, and
the role of man-made Green-House Gases (GHGs). It's not so much a problem of
ideas that don't pan out (that's science!), but the "manufacturing of consensus"
(here I'm stealing and perverting one of Noam Chomsky's titles, I think) and the
D-cubed misportrayal of certainty, consensus, and the invisibility of
tremendous flaws and gaps in theories that really should be profiled.
Science has to be crazy and fun - at least some scientists have to be wandering
around in conceptual never-never land in order to find new things, and to break
the chains of our current beliefs and knowledge. And people can be right for
all of the wrong reasons. So the message here is definitely NOT to somehow
clamp down on science, to audit and manage it into irrelevance, or worse, to be
another tool for justifying yet another decision, wacko or prescient. The issue
is to address our lemming-like desire to jump onto a belief, a cult, a religion of
the politically-correct science of the day. Because once huge decisions and
actions are misled by science that does not admit its own shortcomings and
uncertainties, it then becomes bad science. And policy that seeks to turn
science into bad science is bad policy, whether by intent or by a desperation
to seek divine or scientific support for what is the necessity of making decisions
in the absence of complete or reliable information.
So what's the answer to climate change? I don't know, but if you look at the data,
credible analysis, and especially the regular flaws in much of the analysis,
it points in many directions, but not particularly strongly in the direction
that the Kyotoists are promoting! The Precautionary Principle won't help you
here as much as many believe. Few scientists seem to realize that the principle
requires us to plan for a plethora of possibilities at a given level of "unknown
or unproven" risk - which rapidly escalates into contradictory action plans and
an essentially infinite demand on resources. For example, this means preparing
for global cooling as well as global warming. Surprise, surprise - and I know
the vast majority of scientists don't want to hear that!!! If, like most,
you are a beleiver rather than a critical thinker, then your unwavering
belief in the Kyoto Prmemise absolves you of the necessity of attention and
consciousness being diverted to anything else.
Re-Prioritize, Re-Structure, and Re-Process: Climate Change Science and Policy
It's clear to me that the massive sums put into Climate Change science and policy
have produced some wonderful results, and some catastrophically bad results, perhaps
best illustrated by the policy side. I still have to put together a string of
documents on this issue, but in a sense some general issues are that scientists
have to be able to play around to get good results, and that turning science
into a means of pushing propaganda and belief systems is a really bad idea.
I'm certain that wasn't the stated goal of science and policy leadership, but it
has been the result. That in no way resolves the scientists and policy analysts
for personal failures to ensure honest, diligent, and competent work before
hyping catastrophe scenarios to the public, or more importantly, not to
"shut out, shut up, and shut down" other scientists and policy analysts. When analysing
the activity of neuron cultures, regular synchronous firing is an indication of
dysfunctional behaviour, excessive climate stability is a scary thing (maybe),
and "scientific consensus" should be regarded as an oxymoron and a danger signal,
especially when that happens with complex systems and new areas of research, and most
importantly, when we are dealing with "politically correct" issues.
Canada should dramatically cut the excesses of climate research funding by
one-third to one-half as a means of:
The majority of the remaining Climate Change budget (yes, billions and billions)
should go towards real climate change drivers, intermediates and models, i.e.:
- standing back and reflecting on the catastrophic results of science and
policy so far,
- to put a stop to the serious mis-prioritization of society's resources
that this represents, and
- to build new scientists and new institutions with alternative and diverse
thinking, processes and approaches to the climate change subject, who are
selected, managed and funded by new science managers and scientific institutions, and by
new policy analysts and policy institutiosn (diversified, competitive,
non-central government, non-UN centric).
This implies massive cuts to, or elimination of (in Canada only), the following areas:
- Solar physics and its "astronomical associates" (Earth orbital, axis precession/
obliquity etc, galactic rays) and geology ( geomagnetics, geothermal -
even though no-one else cares about them) as the primary drivers of climate
(the biggest chunk of Climate Change funding); and
- Clouds, glaciers ([dirty and clean] * [ice sand snow] - as these have drastically different
albedo), ocean currents, and evolutionary biology - as the dominant Earth moderators
of climate; (the second biggest chunk of Climate Change funding). We need new people!!
Clearly you should take all of this with a grain of salt, and it is of course very
limited in scope (just look at the teams working on the UN-IPCC reviews!).
But we need to recognize the huge failures of the current philosophies, processes,
institutions, and participants. The above
re-prioritizations won't solve the basic problem of how did we get into
this mess to begin with (that's another theme in development), but if all that
happens is that the next 20 years of research and policy makes another mess, then
at least that's a change if not a progress, and other scientists and policy analysts
will get a chance to produce real results for society and for scientific curiosity.
They could hardly do worse than the current "politically correct crowd".
- General Circulation Models - ultimately we desperately need models that
actually work, but not the cult that seems to have built up around them.
Simpler models work better than todays GCMs over all timescales greater than
a few weeks, and they are far more robust with respect to the "small-world
universal function approximation" challenge discussed elsewhere on my website.
We need new scientists, institutions, processes, policy analysts, and
non-government institutions to drive this.
- Green House Gases - Probably 90% of this funding should go towards
the most important GHG of all by a long shot - water vapour. Only a maximum
of 10% of Canadian funding should be allocated to anthropogenic GHGs
(CO2, CFCs etc) as far too much is spent on this elsewhere in the world anyways.
It might be best to spend no Canadian money in this vastly over-rated area of research.
- Impacts and adaptation - Like GCMs, this is an important area of research,
but it has been totally screwed up by scientists, their managers and policy
analysts who still haven't figured out (or effectively communicated to the
public) that there are many BENEFITS to climate change. Losers focus on the
negative, winners take advantage of the opportunities. We need new people,
institutions and processes.
- Mitigation studies and actions - besides limiting this to the low-cost
"solutions" that have a more important reason for implementation (i.e. energy security),
mitigations studies and actions should be curtailed, in particular any "irrversible"
actions (such as permanent CO2 sequestration underground).
My interest in the area of climate change springs from having
being involved in the initial stages of science program definition
for Canada's Action Plan 2000 on Climate Change. Even before that I
was sceptical about the "Kyoto Premise" (KP defined later),
but the more I looked into the various areas of science the worse it
looked – and solar physics was an obvious huge gap.
Furthermore, really great scientists who dared to either question the
KP, or whose results were perhaps seen to be a threat, were really
trashed by many other scientists. Add to that what looked to be a
sick peer review process in Science, Nature, and several other
high-profile scientific journals, and the contrarian in me really
came out. (At some point in the future I'll put together a short note
on "The real issue behind the Kyoto Premise", something
brought out by many if not all past scientific breakthroughs and the
reactions of the supposedly rational scientific community.)
Here are some initial documents that address this issue.
(some of this is listed on my "Climate and sun" webpage as well:
- Bjorn Lomborg "The Skeptical Environmentalist - Measuring the Real State
of the World" Cambridge University Press 1998, United Kingdom
- Christopher Essex, Ross McKitrick "Taken By Storm: The Troubled
Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming"
- David Archibald "The Past and Future of Climate" May, 2007
- Lawrence Solomon, journalist for the National Post newspaper in Canada,
series "The Deniers" on scientists demolishing the Kyoto Premise
- Bill Howell
"Are we ready for global cooling?" - A short presentation plus
comments originally presented 14Mar06. Needs corrections
and comments! (some time later...)
- Bill Howell,
"A critique of Al Gore's film "An inconvenient truth" Although good in overall
content and superbly presented, this film is an excellent example of "D-cubed"
thinking (dysfunctional and/or dishonest and/or delinquent). Presented as an
initial table of quick comments.
Amazon.com lists a number of related books, which I have not read yet:
- Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media by Patrick J. Michaels
- The Satanic Gases by Patrick J. Michaels
- Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years by Dennis T. Avery
- Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming by Patrick J. Michaels
Directory of available files for this webpage: