A Short Critique of Climate Change. Jr. Elgin L Hushbeck

tion>

      

      A Short Critique of Climate Change

      Elgin Hushbeck, Jr.

      Topical Line Drives

      Volume 25

      Energion Publications

      Gonzalez, FL

      2017

      Copyright © 2017, Elgin Hushbeck, Jr.

      Unless otherwise noted, all temperature references are in degrees Celsius.

      ePub Edition

      ISBN10: 1-63199-396-8

      ISBN13: 978-1-63199-396-1

      Print Edition:

      ISBN10: 1-63199-393-3

      ISBN13: 978-1-63199-393-0

      Energion Publications

      P. O. Box 841

      Gonzalez, FL 32560

      [email protected]

      energion.com

      Acknowledgements

      While there are many people that have influenced my opinions on this issue over the four decades I have been considering it, I would like to particularly thank Chris Eyre, a self-styled supporter of the need for immediate action to counter global warming who has challenged me to be better in our discussions, and who gave me insightful critique of an early draft of this book. I also greatly appreciate the extremely valuable editing and comments of Helen Wisniewski. And of course, I must thank my friend and editor Henry Neufeld for his efforts and support.

      Prequel: The Nobel Prize

      The Nobel Prize, since its establishment in 1895, has become the symbol of singular excellence in broadening the horizons of a field of knowledge. It declares, someone has not only mastered the field, but has made a significant contribution to expanding it. Marie Curie won the prize twice, once in Physics and again in Chemistry. Albert Einstein won the prize for his work in Theoretical Physics and the discovery of photoelectric effect, while Werner Heisenberg won the same prize 12 years later for the creation of Quantum Physics.

      To be a Nobel Laureate says something and gives instant status and clout to a man or woman of science. Thus, it is not too surprising in the ongoing debate over Climate Change to see so many of those raising the alarm about the impending danger pointing to their (or the scientist’s they are citing) status as a Nobel Laureate.

      Rajendra Pachauri, for example, until recently the chairman of the premier Climate Change organization, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has frequently been described as “a Nobel Laureate” or as a “winner of the Nobel Prize”, as in this press release: “Speaking at today’s BMW Group sustainability summit in Berlin, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Nobel Laureate and Chairman of the UN IPCC…”

      Not only do they make the claim for themselves, numerous high government officials, such as U.S. Secretary of State and Prime Ministers, along with government and non-government organizations like UNICEF and the World Wildlife Fund, and of course news outlets like the BBC and New York Times have likewise pointed this out about Pachauri and others working for the IPCC. After all, can you blame them when the stakes in the Climate Change debate are so high?

      There are at least two problems with this; the first being that the prize in question is not the Nobel Prize in Physics or even Chemistry, fields that would relate to the science behind Climate Change. The 2007 prize being referred to is the Nobel Peace Prize. It was not won because of the scientific work on Climate Change, but for educating the public on the dangers of Climate Change based on the belief that, if left unchecked, Climate Change would lead to war.

      The second problem really came to forefront in late 2012 when Michael Mann, the originator of the iconic Hockey Stick graph so key to Climate Change, and another of the many IPCC members prominently claiming their status as a Nobel Laureate, filed a lawsuit against some journalists and publishers criticizing his scientific work. In the words of his complaint filed with the court he argued they had tried “to discredit consistently validated scientific research through the professional and personal defamation of a Nobel prize recipient.”

      Yet Pachauri, Mann and the others claiming to be Nobel Laureates based on the 2007 Nobel Peace prize are not, with one exception. The prize was given to the IPCC and Al Gore, so while Al Gore can legitimately make the claim, being part of the IPCC does not make one a Nobel Laureate any more than does being part of any of the many other organizations that have won the prize. Thus, shortly after Mann’s complaint was filed with the court, he had to amend the complaint and the IPCC posted on its website, the Peace Prize “was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner.”

      While ultimately of little importance in the overall debate over Climate Change this does highlight many of the key problems; the appeals to authority, inflated claims, media exaggeration, and how things change so drastically when one looks behind the curtain to see what is really going on.

      Why Climate Change

      This book originally started as an article on how agenda often takes precedence over truth and how damaging this can be. I believe claims without examples are largely meaningless and so needed a well-known example. In my opinion, the most glaring current example is the alarmism over Climate Change. Since those taken in by the alarmism would not accept the premise, I started to write about the problems, but soon realized this would need to be more than just one or two; I would need to go deeper to show the theory is at best problematic.

      It is important to make clear this remains only a brief overview and I have skipped lots of information. This book is not meant to be a complete in-depth analysis of the pros and cons of the various issues involved in the climate change debate. It is a short critique of the dominant view presented by the popular culture.

      I will be presenting a some of the reasons why I question that human caused Climate Change poses a serious danger. If you accept the danger is serious, my goal is not to convert you, but to provide enough information so: 1) you realize there are legitimate reasons to question the orthodox view 2) you become more skeptical of the orthodox position and 3) you are interested enough to investigate this issue more in depth. However, if all you do is come away with a better understanding of the problems that cause many to question the theory, this book will have served a valuable purpose.

      Concern

      Many on both sides of this debate agree, supporters and skeptics alike, if we get the answer to this issue wrong, countless numbers of people will suffer and many will die. Supporters see the damage as more long term with the destruction caused by increased temperatures and rising sea levels. Skeptics see the danger in the near term as the burdens of the proposed remedies leave people worse off, or in poverty and starving. Either way people’s livelihood, well-being, and lives are at stake. Thus, if you are concerned about people, you should be concerned about the issue of Climate Change.

      While certainly less important, another concern for me is the corruption of science I see taking place in the Climate Change movement, a movement that extends far beyond the scientists. I believe Climate Change will eventually be seen as the largest fraud in the history of science. It will damage the hard-earned respect and trust science has earned for decades, if not longer. I believe this damage is already happening, and the only question is how much damage will be done and how long it will take for science to recover. In their attempt to justify political changes, advocates have effectively moved the theory that humanity faces a serious threat outside the boundaries of science into pseudoscience. In some cases, even into a religion with dogmas that cannot be questioned, but only accepted, with any dissent being punished.

      Scientific Certainty?

      Why can I so confidently make such statements? To begin with, consider the following key claim by the IPCC, a claim which they have made repeatedly, and is found in the fifth IPCC report finalized in 2014.

      The