Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

May 17, 2014 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

15:09

2700 Climategate: What They Aren't Telling You!

What happens if you question Global Warming or Climate Change? Is evidence that goes against the mainstream climate change narrative being suppressed for political reasons?

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
	I hope you're doing well.
	So we have a new climate gate.
	It looks like scientists are in a cover-up of damaging climate view.
	This is an echo of the climate gate scandal at the University of East Anglia.
	One of the world's top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as, quote, harmful.
	Harmful not to science, but harmful to global warming, activism, to the hysteria around it.
	Leonard Brunxton, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of the authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published.
	Quote, the problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist.
	Professor Bengtsson's paper challenged the finding of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5 degrees Celsius if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were allowed to double.
	It suggested that the climate might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September and recommended that more work be carried out to reduce the underlying uncertainty.
	The five contributing scientists from America and Sweden submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters, one of the most highly regarded journals at the end of last year, but were told in February that it had been rejected.
	A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer-review process wrote that he strongly advised against publishing it because it was, quote, less than helpful.
	The unnamed scientist concluded, quote, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of errors and worse from the climate skeptics media side.
	So, this is...
	It's important to understand.
	I obviously know climate scientists.
	I don't know whether anthropogenic global warming is going to result in a nuclear inferno over most of the Earth or five miles of ice.
	But I do know a few things which I think are important to consider.
	I hope important to consider.
	First of all, computer models are not...
	I spent over a decade in the computer world as a research and development programmer, as the head of R&D and chief technical officer in the environmental field.
	And I can tell you that computer modeling is not the same as science.
	It doesn't mean it's useless.
	It just means that when you have computer models, you have to doubly and triply check the results of those computer models against real-world measurements That you are not, you know, creating this Klingon bubble of an alternate dimension wherein everything that you want to come out can come out because you can massage the data any way you want.
	The number of variables that you can adjust for, the number of simulations that you can run, are literally infinite.
	And if you want a particular result and you don't care too much about empirical data, Then you can just tweak the variables to get what you want, which is what happened in the East Anglia memos where there was accusations and some confessions of hiding declines in temperatures and just, you feed, it's garbage in, garbage out.
	These are self-contained models and the only way that they will be falsifiable, right, this is the fundamental requirement for any scientific claim, is that there is a standard of falsifiability.
	Now the falsifiable standard for computer modeling is real-world measurements.
	So if you have a computer model that deviates from real-world measurements, then your computer model is wrong, is kind of worthless.
	Now, the climate has steadfastly refused to follow the climate models, and that is a challenge, a significant challenge.
	It's really the falsifiable standard for the climate models.
	So, for instance, we're on our 19th year of no global warming.
	A fact that was not predicted by any of the computer models whatsoever.
	That's kind of a problem, right?
	If you say the temperatures are going to do this and they stay flat, that's a significant problem.
	We, of course, are not the only planet in the solar system undergoing some unusual weather.
	The giant red spot, the cyclone pimple on the face of Jupiter, has also shrunk significantly since measurements started a few decades ago.
	And I don't think there's a lot of SUVs floating around on Jupiter's storm clouds.
	So there are significant challenges to the climate model.
	The original hockey stick graph was the result of bad coding.
	In other words, no matter what numbers you threw into that, you got exactly the same graph.
	And there is an imperviousness to the deviation between models and reality in that either the reality gets tweaked or the models get tweaked to make them appear closer together.
	But the falsifiable, as I mentioned, the falsifiability requirement, which is necessary for it to be science, it requires that the models accurately predict reality.
	So this is not occurring.
	I mean, even if we throw aside Al Gore's assertion in 2008 that all of the glaciers and polar ice caps would be gone by 2013 and they're actually larger than ever, these, I mean, if we take out the popularization of stuff or the fact that the Himalayan glaciers were supposed to be gone within a couple of years and they're bigger than ever and so on.
	So the fact is that all of these models and all of these predictions in general, by and large, Are not in accordance with the data that is coming in.
	So that's important.
	That's a challenge.
	There is, of course, a general history of science, not all of science, but some science, of following state power in order to get grants in falsifying information, things like eugenics and phrenology and so on.
	To satisfy the political requirements of those who write the checks, scientists have a long and ignoble history, as do all members of society with any significant power, be they business or unions and so on.
	Scientists have a long and ignoble history of generally serving the powers that be who write the checks.
	There are literally hundreds of billions of dollars in play in the climate alarmist industry.
	This doesn't mean that everything that they say is false, but it means we have to be seriously skeptical.
	I mean, if you saw an oil sands environmental assessment funded by the oil sands company that said the oil sands weren't a problem, it doesn't mean that it's wrong.
	It just means you have to be skeptical looking at the source of the funding.
	Now, governments love to extend and expand power, and incoherent scare scenarios are fantastic for governments to do that.
	And global warming is like the mecca.
	It's like the holy grail of incoherent scare scenarios.
	And this you can see from the very fact that those who oppose these...
	Predictions, these models, tend to be opposed.
	In fact, one man recently had to withdraw himself from a scientific group for fear of his life.
	He was getting that many threats.
	So hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists are making six-figure salaries based upon governments doling out money for this alarmist fear-mongering.
	About global warming, climate change, whatever you want to call it.
	The predictions are not valid.
	The solutions are also not valid.
	So even if all internal combustion engines and coal-fired plants and so on were to be shut down tomorrow and cease operations completely, it's a tiny part of a degree's effect in 100 years.
	I mean, it's just completely inconsequential.
	The fact that carbon emissions have been reduced by about 9% recently because people are conserving more, people don't want to commute, there's more work-at-home opportunities, a wide variety of things have come into play.
	The fact that American air quality, as it's like its fifth or sixth decade of improvement, is not really part of The fear-mongering, give us more money, give governments more power equations.
	The fact that Al Gore has made over $100 million on various cap-and-trade and carbon trading schemes that global warming serves is somehow missing from the equation.
	All you hear is like the Koch brothers and the oil companies.
	Well, but the government is outfunding The Koch brothers and oil companies by hundreds of times to one.
	So if we're going to take that this is a significant factor, we have to look more skeptically at government science than we do at oil funded or the Koch funded science or whatever.
	The reality, too, I mean, a psychologist recently has pointed out that children are undergoing significant depression and anxiety as the result of this endless terror-mongering of global warming.
	And the solution that has been proposed by the skeptical environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg, who's also been on this show in the past, is one solution, as he said, you know, you can get a bunch of ships, The clouds whiter with the salt and seawater and that will reflect more light back and will more than overcome the effects of global warming even in the worst case scenario and is very cheap to implement relative to all this other nonsense that
	isn't working except it's creating lots of jobs for people who get in line behind the fear-mongering.
	Now, the presence of excess energy relative to history is really the reason why billions of people are alive today and not dead.
	And if things like the carbon trading and capping and so on, if these things were put into place, hundreds of millions of people will die.
	They will die.
	They will not have the energy they need, and these will be huge problems.
	They will not have the economic growth they need, which will not give them the access to the medicines that they need or the food that they need.
	So, hundreds of millions of people will die If all that is recommended for global warming takes place and it isn't even really going to budge or anything that happens according to the model.
	So this is such an incoherent problem and solution.
	The problem is all modeled.
	It does not accord with real world The downside to even the most stringent and impossible implementation of anti-global warming measures will result in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people while barely budging, even by the alarmist's own estimates.
	What happens to global warming in the long run?
	And look, when hundreds of millions of lives are in play, I think we do have the right To be skeptical, we do have the right to demand a falsifiable hypothesis.
	We do have the right to demand why the models have failed to account for 19 plus years of no warming.
	Why all of the alarmist predictions always turn out to be false.
	Why is this occurring?
	There aren't more heat-related deaths in America.
	Hurricanes are at an all-time low, although they were considered to be increasing with global warming, which itself is, or CO2 emissions, which themselves are increasing.
	And last but not least, even if America were to do something internally at a time when a lot of the industrialized world is switching from coal to natural gas in terms of source power, which is much less CO2 heavy,
	Why would America or Europe or England consider that actions against CO2 emissions are essential to save the planet when by far the greatest increase in CO2 emissions are occurring in the developing economies of China and of India, where no jurisdiction occurs?
	China is building an insane number of coal-fired coalitions.
	Plants, the India economy is expanding like crazy and the amount of energy consumption and CO2 emissions coming out of those economies are huge.
	Now, if politicians in the West were hugely concerned with CO2 emissions and they had the sense or the basic geography and economics to understand that China and India are responsible for vast amounts of CO2 emissions, then their policies would be to offshore as few jobs, particularly manufacturing, as possible.
	In other words, you would try and keep jobs in the West rather than farming them out to China and to India because China and India are producing far more CO2 per head in the long run than is the West, than is Europe and the UK and the United States and Canada.
	But none of this is occurring, of course.
	I mean, massive amounts of regulations and minimum wages and support for public and private sector unions are driving Massive amounts of jobs off to high CO2-producing economies, which the politicians have no control over.
	They do have control over whether their policies will keep low CO2 jobs in the West.
	They don't have control once they are pushed through hyperregulation and taxation and you name it.
	Once they push all of these jobs overseas, then they are pushing them into high CO2 growth economies.
	But, of course, none of this is ever talked about because the narrative, fundamentally, is that you're wrong for being alive.
	You're sinful for being alive.
	This is a fundamentally religious mindset.
	You are wrong for being alive.
	Breathing, like original sin, is bad.
	The use of energy, like original sin, is bad, and you must be punished, and you must have austerity, and so on.
	And this is all...
	I mean, if you look at the amount of CO2 emissions for the Obamas to fly all over the place, Obama just had his 1,000th flight on Air Force One and the amount of security and overhead that it takes for Michelle Obama to go tour China with her kids.
	I mean, it's monstrous, right?
	So again, it's the usual thing.
	It's like the Pope preaching austerity.
	You know, for you, yes, I live in a throne of gold, but for you, austerity is very important.
	So...
	Again, I don't have any answers.
	I'm not a scientist.
	I do know that the 97% consensus among climate scientists is absolutely, completely, and totally a lie.
	And I've got videos which I can link below for more on this.
	But it was just repeated, right?
	So the fact that stuff is disproven but is still repeated, as if it's true, tells you that you are in the presence of extremely sinister propaganda machines.
	And this is something to keep your wits about you.
	The fact that humanity relies on energy production and consumption for its existing population levels is pretty significant.
	Anyone who's talking about Really, the deaths of hundreds of millions of people should be extremely cautious about the proposals being put forward.
	This is not occurring, of course.
	And in fact, it is not so much the human population that is relying on an excess of energy, but a bunch of government-paid stooges and fearmongers who rely on government money in order to maintain their careers that we should really worry about, in my humble opinion.
	This is Stefan Molyneux for Freedom Aid Radio.

▲