You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you. Eric Hoffer
James Hansen, head of NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), and Andrew Weaver, lead author of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports, made statements clearly designed to frighten people.
Both men are politically active in climate change and at the forefront of the attempt to convince the world that CO2 is a problem. Their remarks are intended to scare people by threatening impending doom – nothing new – except there is increasing urgency and fear because their message is failing. As Andrew Weaver summarized, ”All those fossil fuel emissions need to be eliminated. And we must do so quickly if we are to have any chance of stabilizing the climate and maintaining human civilization as we know it.”
Hansen increases urgency for action claiming we are on the verge of a tipping point, defined as follows. “Tipping points can occur during climate change when the climate reaches a state such that strong amplifying feedbacks are activated by only moderate additional warming.”
We’re reaching a tipping point, but it’s not the one Hansen anticipates. We’re close to the point where the public and politicians realize they have been totally deceived about the nature and cause of climate change. Even before a shift to concern about the economy polls showed a growing shift in public opinion.
Weaver is also troubled by his own definition of dramatic change occurring. He wrote in a March 24 article, in the Vancouver Sun, “There are many depressing things about being a climate scientist these days. The emerging data is going from bad to worse and the political leadership is still acting as if we have all the time in the world to deal with global warming.”
Yes, it’s depressing but because people are not fooled any more and politicians are not acting as Weaver expects. And yes, emerging data is going from bad to worse, but only because it shows CO2 is not causing warming.
Other remarks by both men indicate their fear. For example, Hansen said, “The democratic process doesn’t seem to be working.”
It’s a bizarre comment from a civil servant prior to his apparently breaking US law (the Hatch Act) again by participating in a public protest at the headquarters of E.ON, a power firm in Coventry, England. The push for elimination of CO2 emissions is failing because, despite his histrionics, democracy is working.
A few days later in the Vancouver Sun article ironically titled “’Environmentalists’ are abandoning science,” Weaver wrote, “The scientific community has a very solid understanding of what is causing global warming: It is overwhelmingly because of the combustion of fossil fuels. Thus, the solution to the problem is as simple as it is daunting: The elimination of fossil fuel use in our economies.”
Weaver claims he and his IPCC colleagues “have been as a clear as we know how about the science and the measures needed.” This is simply not the case. Their rules mean they only look at human causes of climate change. They produce a political summary for policymakers then used to make sure the science report agrees with the summary. (Canada Free Press)
More important, the entire claim of human caused CO2 global warming is based on computer models that simply can’t work.
It’s not surprising Hansen and Weaver are computer modelers; they have the most invested in these claims and the most to lose professionally and politically. I watched over the years as computer modelers took over and dominated climate science, particularly through the IPCC. But as Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics at Princeton, said in the May 1999 issue of the American Physical Society and still valid today, “They are not yet adequate tools for predicting climate.” However, “If we persevere patiently with observing the real world and improving the models, the time will come when we are able both to understand and to predict. Until then, we must continue to warn the politicians and the public: don’t believe the numbers just because they come out of a supercomputer.”
Or as Pierre Gallois put it, “If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no-one dares criticize it.” – but more and more people are criticizing it.
Why have two prominent scientists made such unsupportable sensationalist comments? Simple – they’re losing control of their ability to achieve their political objectives. Here is a list of events raising their fears:
• Even the lowest computer model temperature projections have overestimated the reality. They failed to project the cooling that has occurred since 2000.
• That cooling occurred as CO2 levels rose in complete contradiction to IPCC assumptions.
• Scientists doing proper science yet derogatively labeled skeptics by Hansen and Weaver have consistently shown the fallacy in the assumptions and methods of the IPCC.
• The Kyoto Accord has failed and attempts to find a replacement are failing.
• Proponents of the claims of human induced global warming, such as Al Gore, have lost credibility by making money from the sale of carbon credits.
• Increasingly illogical statements, such as the claim that current cooling is due to warming, raise doubts even if you don’t understand the science.
• More and more politicians, such as Northern Ireland’s Sammy Watson and Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus are speaking out against global warming claims.
• The real cost of reducing CO2 emissions and the inadequacies of alternative fuels are emerging.
• The public does not see warming as a concern. A Pew Center poll of January 22, 2009 showed it 20th on a list of 20 top priorities. On March 25, 2009 the Gallup Pole reported, “Global warming is clearly the environmental issue of least concern to Americans. In fact, global warming is the only issue for which more Americans say they have little to no concern than say they have a great deal of concern.”
• The growing lack of commitment of the Obama government who they believed would implement their policies. Hansen notes, “he was growing “concerned” over the stance taken by the new US administration on global warming.”
Instead of accepting that their science and proposed actions are wrong they blame the people. Hansen’s comment that democracy isn’t working means it is not doing what he wants. Weaver’s remark that, “The public debate is becoming a caricature” is an arrogant insult and sadly typical of my experience with too many of the climate modelers. The people whose fears and lack of knowledge they exploited and who they thought were too stupid to understand are using democracy to stop the fraud. Hansen and Weaver’s comments disclose their fears as Hoffer predicted.