CLIMATE CRAZIES: All of a sudden Holy Grail of climate change is lost or destroyed
PERHAPS IT’S TIME for that celebrated sceptic – Richard Dawkins – to write a sequel to his controversial work The God Delusion (2m copies in 30 languages), which he could call The Climate Delusion. Sadly, it’s unlikely Dawkins will write it. He appears, curiously for one of his searching intellect, to be on the side of the crazies.
While one would be an idiot not to be concerned about pollution, that’s a different issue from the doomsday scenarios of the climate crazies. They seek to spend trillions of tax dollars fighting nature in the juvenile belief we can somehow alter weather patterns. Further, they believe that if we don’t redesign our weather patterns then life as we know it will be destroyed. Well it will, of course, be destroyed in roughly four millions years by natural forces over which we have never, and will never, have any control.
In December this year climate crazies from everywhere will gather in Copenhagen (son of Kyoto) in an effort to persuade politicians to force society to change lifestyles currently enjoyed by around 1,5bn people and after which the other 5bn are in hot pursuit, led by the Chinese and Indians.
Patrick J Michaels, a Cato Institute environmentalist in Washington, points out the Kyoto Protocol – if fulfilled by every signatory – would reduce global warming by 0,07 degrees Celsius per half century, too small to measure because the earth’s temperature varies by more than that from year to year.
As Copenhagen (what a swell place for a convention) approaches, it’s appropriate to look at the interesting genesis of this cult of the climate. Michaels informs us that in the early Eighties scientists at England’s University of East Anglia, funded by the US Department of Energy, started its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world’s first comprehensive history of surface temperature. Its authors were scientists Phil Jones and Tom Wigley. It served as the primary reference for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was the basis for the IPCC’s claim of a “discernible human influence on global climate”.
Unlike most scientists, Jones is very touchy about any challenge to his findings. He told an enquiring fellow scientist who asked for the original data: “We have 25 years or so invested in this work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
However, the data was supplied to those considered sympathetic by the climate crazies. Now, conveniently, the original “Jones and Wigley” data – which can be said to be the foundation of climate change madness – has been lost. Faced with requests for the data from respected scientists, Jones first replied there were “confidentiality” agreements between the CRU and countries that supplied the data. Some were produced, mainly vague documents from Third World countries.
Faced with a request for the raw data – already under serious and doubting scientific scrutiny – from Roger Pielke Jnr, an esteemed environmentalist at the University of Colorado, Jones made this tortuous reply: “Since the Eighties we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the Eighties meant we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We therefore do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (ie, quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
That’s after already supplying one scientist with the data just a few months ago. All of a sudden this Holy Grail of climate change is lost or destroyed. If, as expected, the US Senate drops capand-trade climate legislation it’s likely President Barack Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency will try to impose regulations on emissions.
However, unlike laws, such regulations can be attacked on scientific grounds. It should be quite a bun fight.