J. Richard Wakefield
June 21, 2016
At a meeting the residents of Middlesex Centre had with town council, I had a brief few words with the mayor. I pointed out that human caused climate change is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on humans. His reply is the standard one gets to such a statement.
“97% of scientists agree we are causing the climate to change.”
Think about that for a second. How many scientists are there in the world? 10 million? 20 million? No one really knows. And what value would an archaeologist’s opinion on climate change be worth? They, along with chemists, and a few other disciplines that have nothing to do with research in climate science, would only parrot what the climate scientists would be saying, assuming climate scientists know what they are doing. Right…
So is that 97% agreement of the world’s scientists really true? Nope. It is the biggest lie ever inflicted on the people of the world. Certainly those who have a vested interest in keeping the human caused climate change myth alive want it to be true. So it became true.
The reality is that the 97% came from this paper by John Cook of the inappropriately named science blog Skeptical Science. The survey wasn’t of the worlds 10 plus million scientists. It wasn’t even a survey of climate scientists. It was a survey of a handful of abstracts in the scientific literature.
“0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%”
Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950.
Nothing about that, of course, in the press. Keep the myth alive at all costs. Why? We will see at the end of this.
The 97% isn’t the only lie, however certainly the biggest of them all in climate science. But there are many other lies that are being exposed to no avail. In the report the Council used, on page 3, we have this statement under the heading Climate Change.
A report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that, on average, temperatures in Canada increased by more than 1.3 degrees Celsius between 1948 and 2007 – a rate of warming twice the global average.30
Reference 30 isnt even a science paper. It’s this:
Raveena Aulakh, “IPCC Report: Canada at Greater Risk From Climate Change,” Toronto Star, September 30, 2013.
It’s an opinion piece in the Toronto Star!
So what does the actual science say? I downloaded Environment Canada’s daily temperature data for a number of cities in Canada. Few go back 100 years, but Ottawa (Station 4333) does. I have posted a detailed analysis of temperature data for that station here. The bottom line is that summer temperatures have actually gotten cooler. The growing season increased by some 30 days, and winters have been getting less cold.
Don’t take my word on it, how about this science paper from the year 2000.
On page 406, the author states:
It is apparent that warming in spring maximum temperature contributed the most to the positive trend in the annual mean of daily maximum temperature.
He noted that the temperature changes over the last 100 years has not been even across Canada.
The greatest warming, which is in the Prairies, is about 1.5 over the 99-yr period.
There’s were the 1.5C seems to have come from. He concludes with:
Like other parts of the world, Canada has not become hotter (no increase in higher quantiles of maximum temperature), but has become less cold.
When you look at the data what you find is that in the period 1900 to 1930 Ottawa, and most of south eastern Canada, had short hot summers, with long deep cold winters. That trend shifted (recall from Part Two about cycles and climate shift trend changes) to longer cooler summers, and shorter milder winters. Spring arrives sooner for the most part. And this is somehow a catastrophic future?
The paper also discusses precipitation. Figures 8 and 9 show rain and snow changes. It is interesting to note that Southern Ontario doesn’t show any change in snow accumulation, but does show an increase in rain. However, he notes:
Annual precipitation increased by 12% in southern Canada during 1900–1998. The increase in total precipitation resulted from a steady increase during the 1920s to 1970s.
Figure 16 of the paper shows that the only places that experienced any increases precipitation was those areas where it was warmer. That is mostly on the west coast, and hence doesn’t include Southwestern Ontario, where we experienced dryer and cooler temperatures for the most part.
He concludes with:
Total precipitation has also increased over the last 99 years by 12% in southern Canada. It should be mentioned that the increases in annual precipitation totals do not directly relate to the period of increased cloud cover. Precipitation has a steady increasing trend from the 1920s to 1970, while the major increase in cloud cover occurred during 1936–1950 in mid-latitude Canada (Henderson-Sellers, 1989). The Total precipitation has also increased over the last 99 years by 12% in southern Canada. It should be mentioned that the increases in annual precipitation totals do not directly relate to the period of increased cloud cover. Precipitation has a steady increasing trend from the 1920s to 1970, while the major increase in cloud cover occurred during 1936–1950 in mid-latitude Canada (Henderson-Sellers, 1989). The precipitation trend appears to have stopped in about 1970 for the annual time series but not for seasonal time series. There were increasing trends in winter and autumn, decreasing trends in spring and no trend in summer (not shown).
The ratio of solid to total precipitation has also increased; but the trend is not significant. Decreasing trends were observed mostly in southeast Canada in spring. These may be related to changes in both precipitation and temperature and will be discussed later. The time series of the areas affected by abnormal/extreme precipitation and temperature show gradual changes, suggesting the trend detected in precipitation and temperature was not caused by climate jumps.
Sounds complicated. That’s because it is. It’s the climate! Nothing in the climate is simple.
Now we get back to the human caused climate change and how that unproven assumption underlies everything.
In all other sciences, to establish a connection between event A and event B it is required to run laboratory experiments. Tests are run over and over, referred to as double blind tests. But that hasn’t happened in climate science. As we saw in Part Two, 95% of climate science is done with computer models. NO EXPERIMENTS ARE EVEN POSSIBLE.
Why? Because we can’t turn back the clock, remove human industry from the face of the earth, along with all humans, and watch to see of the climate doesn’t warm. But even if we could do that, it wouldn’t tell us anything.
Recall in Part Two were I stated that changing the initial conditions can have a radically different ending. That’s the nature of chaos theory. One would have to go back in time and rerun the climate for thousands of test runs! Only then could one get enough statistical data to make any conclusion. Obviously, that is not possible. So we are stuck with flawed computer models.
A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models’ descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading.
The bottom line is emphatically: the science is not settled. In fact, the very assumptions that underlie the science is highly suspect, see here. The theory of human caused climate change exists only in computer models. But why is this myth kept alive?
As in everything, follow the money. See here, here and here for examples. Can you imagine what would happen when the world finally wakes up and sees that there is nothing abnormal happening. That the climate changes on its own. And that it doesn’t matter how much taxes is leached from the public, the climate will continue to change (maybe even heading to global cooling). There is so much money at stake that the powers that be would do anything, anything, to keep the myth alive. Careers and reputations are at stake here.
The sad part is, the lower levels of government, like our council, who are not alone, get sucked up in this lie because they don’t know any better. They don’t realize they are being duped in the biggest scam in human history. And we taxpayers pay the ultimate price. All because of a lie.