Time to Debunk Misguided Science Underlying Paris Climate Agreement

“THE BIGGEST DECEPTION IN HISTORY”

by Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris, ©2017

Announcement from the White House made on December 12, 2015 on Paris climate change agreement

(Jul. 7, 2017) — On June 1, President Donald Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the United Nations Paris Agreement on climate change. He correctly identified it as a very bad deal for America.

In July 1997, the U.S. Senate reached a similar conclusion about the U.N. climate change policy-making process in general. Senators from across the aisle unanimously endorsed the Byrd/Hagel resolution, which stated that America should not be a signatory to “any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC]…that would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States” and did not include emission reductions for developing countries that were similar to those imposed on the U.S.

This is why the Clinton administration never submitted the Kyoto Protocol, which is based on the UNFCCC, to the Senate for ratification. It is also why former President Barack Obama approved the Paris Agreement, which also rests on the UNFCCC, as an “executive agreement” instead of submitting it for Senate approval as required by the Constitution for international treaties. He knew that the Senate would reject Paris as not in America’s best interests.

The Paris Agreement is not just bad for the U.S. According to Australian author and climate analyst Iain Aitken,

“To achieve the goal agreed in Paris of a maximum 20C increase in global temperatures above pre-industrial levels has been estimated to have a global cost of $17 trillion by 2040 (about 800 times more than was spent on all the Apollo missions to the moon) – and it would require carbon dioxide reductions about 100 times greater than those pledged in Paris.”

So, even if the man-made climate change problem were real, the actions specified by the Paris Agreement would solve nothing. And since the climate alarm is not based on sound science, no treaty based on the UNFCCC makes any sense. Kyoto, Paris, Copenhagen, Durban, Cancun, Warsaw, and all the other U.N. climate deals are merely political solutions to a non-existent problem without scientific justification.

Yet the Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted last month showed that a majority of Americans opposed the President’s decision to pull out of Paris. This is largely because most people are unable to differentiate between climate change propaganda, as promoted by the U.N. and activists such as Al Gore, and climate change science conducted by independent researchers.

Even pollsters who apparently support the climate scare recognize that public knowledge about climate change is poor. For example, in their biased 2010 study “Americans’ Knowledge of Climate Change,” investigators from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication created a multiple-choice test to examine, “what Americans understand about how the climate system works, and the causes, impacts, and potential solutions to global warming.” They concluded, “In this assessment, only 8 percent of Americans have knowledge equivalent to an A or B, 40 percent would receive a C or D, and 52 percent would get an F.”

The focus therefore must be on educating the public about the realities of climate science. This is especially important now since Trump is talking about the possibility of the U.S. agreeing to a new version of the Paris Agreement, but one “on better terms, fairer terms.” There is no need for a deal at all since there never was a problem in the first place.

On June 30, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt announced that he is launching a program to critique climate change science. He will apparently bring in experts from both sides of the debate in order to determine the actual state of the science, something the EPA should have done long before saddling industry with expensive climate change regulations. Global warming campaigners will do everything in their power to block Pruitt’s review since it will demonstrate that, rather than being settled in favor of climate alarm as eco-activists claim, the science is still immature.

Those who created the global warming scare knew that 85% of the public would not understand the science and the remaining 15% would not question it. Pruitt must therefore use his evaluation to help the public understand what is, and what is not, known about climate change science.

He must also promote the concept that “being a skeptic…is quite alright,” as Energy Secretary Rick Perry said last month.  Indeed, science requires unfettered skepticism to advance. But the climate scare is more like an extreme religion than science at this point. And, when people start questioning such extreme belief systems, they rapidly lose the blind faith essential to the religion’s survival.

Handled effectively, the EPA science evaluation should lead many in the public to ask their representatives, “Why are you supporting the expenditure of billions of tax dollars on such an uncertain cause when funds are desperately needed to address society’s real, well understood issues?”

Aside from ignorance, or cowardice in the face of political correctness, politicians will have no answer. The climate scare, the biggest deception in history, will then be over.

_________________________________

Dr. Tim Ball is an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba. Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition.

7 Responses to "Time to Debunk Misguided Science Underlying Paris Climate Agreement"

  1. David James   Friday, July 21, 2017 at 1:15 PM

    Jim Ring does not quote the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Chapter 14, Section 14.2.2.2 last paragraph but takes a single sentence out of context – the first sentence in the quote below. The context of the quote is provided in the following sentences:

    “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential.”

    In short, the IPCC is saying that we cannot precisely predict the future climate state; however, we can produce a probability distribution of possible future climate states, which is precisely what the IPCC report proceeds to do.

    Jim Ring has misrepresented the IPCC report by selecting a single sentence that serves a convenient purpose out of context, and choosing to ignore the text immediately following, not to mention essentially entire sections of the IPCC report where they do indeed detail the probabilities of future climate states from model ensembles.

  2. Jim Ring   Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 7:19 PM

    IPCC Third Assessment Report
    Chapter 14
    Section 14.2.2.2

    Last paragraph:

    “In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

    This information was not included in the Summary Report for Policymakers given to the press and public.

    If the climate is indeed a coupled non-linear chaotic system (who can doubt the IPCC) then there is no rational or scientific basis to make a definitive statement about a future state of the climate.

    At this point the coupled non-linear chaotic nature of the climate makes scientific observations academically interesting but individually they have no relevance in predicting the future state of the climate. The climate is a system which means the relationships among these observations are what is important not the observations themselves.

    All the public discourse regarding the future state of the climate has been based on the false premise that the current climate models are predicting the future state of the climate when in fact the models are merely projecting these states.

    Predictions are the purview of science. Model projections can only agree with predictions when the models duplicate the real world.

    To base public policy on an unknowable state of a system defies common sense. However, too much money and political power is at stake for the Central Planners to do otherwise.

    I would argue that the Climate Model True Believers are the ones taking an unscientific approach to the subject.

    In January 1961 President Eisenhower in his Farewell Address identified the situation in which we find ourselves today:

    “Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
    In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
    It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

    Other relevant publications from Eric Hoffer are: “The True Believer” and “The Temper of Our Times”

    From “The Temper of Our Times”: “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business and eventually degenerates into a racket.”

  3. william partridge   Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 8:03 AM

    The SUN NOT CO2 DRIVES CLIMATE change.Why is this robust science not beeing reported?

  4. John Sexton   Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 3:08 AM

    David James, learn some basic science. Here in NZ the South Island is in shut down because of snow and ice. Carbon dioxide is the basis of all life on earth.

  5. Sharon Rondeau   Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 4:16 PM

    I place a copyright mark next to all bylines of editorial writers in the interest of avoiding any potential plagiarism.

  6. David James   Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 3:54 PM

    “Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris, ©2017”

    Do they really need to copyright their nonsense?

  7. James Rust   Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 10:33 AM

    Very good article. Hopefully this will be passed around to the citizens of the U. S. so they can stimulate debate on the subject of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels causes catastrophic global warming (climate change).

    Such lying goes on in the debate by the proponents of this scare. They changed global warming which has not take place the past 19 years to climate change that has always occurred the past 4.5 billion history of the planet. Then carbon dioxide has been change to carbon pollution which is the soot from unhindered combustion of coal.

    James H. Rust, professor of nuclear engineering (ret. Georgia Tech)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.