Free Markets, Free People

Deficit Of Trust – AGW Edition

The population of Britain is apparently finally catching on to the scam that’s been perpetrated by the man-made global warming crowd, and skepticism is thankfully on the rise:

“It is very unusual indeed to see such a dramatic shift in opinion in such a short period,” Populus managing director Michael Simmonds told BBC News.

“The British public are sceptical about man’s contribution to climate change – and becoming more so,” he added.

“More people are now doubters than firm believers.”

A definite “deficit of trust” developing about the “science” of global warming – particularly that trying to hang the blame on the activities of man.

And in more “deficit of trust” news, India has declared it will form it’s own scientific panel to study climate since it finds the IPCC unreliable:

The Indian government has established its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group headed by its own leading scientist Dr R.K Pachauri.


“There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am for climate science. I think people misused [the] IPCC report, [the] IPCC doesn’t do the original research which is one of the weaknesses… they just take published literature and then they derive assessments, so we had goof-ups on Amazon forest, glaciers, snow peaks.

“I respect the IPCC but India is a very large country and cannot depend only on [the] IPCC and so we have launched the Indian Network on Comprehensive Climate Change Assessment (INCCA),” he said.

I think India picks up the fatal problem with the current “science” – it’s more of a form of evangelism than it is real science, and “facts” are manipulated (or made up) to fit.

The Dutch government is also “not amused”. The Dutch environment minister, Jaqueline Cramer, has called for a complete investigation of the 2007 IPCC report. A Dutch magazine uncovered the fact that it incorrectly states 55 percent of the country lies below sea level:

When Cramer heard of that blunder she wrote a letter to the IPCC, saying she was “not amused” there were mistakes in the scientific report she bases the Dutch environmental policies on. Now she is confronted with errors in the data about her own country. “This can’t happen again,” the minister told reporters in The Hague on Wednesday. “The public trust in science and politics has been badly damaged.”

Ya think?

Cramer puts her finger on the problem governments are now confronting given the errors, some relatively trivial and some profound, in the IPCC’s report. When will that sort of concern surface here? As recently as the SOTU, President Obama still holds to the alarmist line that the “science is overwhelming” when, in fact, the “science” is being overwhelmed by revelations of data manipulation, fraud and made-up “facts”.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

16 Responses to Deficit Of Trust – AGW Edition

  • I go for #3 (climate change is happening but it is environmentalist propaganda that its man made.)   The #4 option scares me.
    The earth’s climate is dynamic.  Beaches erode on one location and build up on another constantly.  There are short term and long term trends in temperature, rainfall, and sunshine.
    The environmentalists took that effect by attributing false causes and then exaggerated it to create a panic both to help create a political tool and for personal enrichment.
    But climates do change.  Environmentalists take advantage of the perception that this year’s climate should be just like last year’s climate.  And reflexively taking the extremist opposing view to say the climate never changed actually plays into the environmentalists hand for their next scam.  But if people would learn that some change is normal, it would make the next enviro-scam that much harder to perpetrate.

    • Yeah – no one is denying that climate change is happening, as you point out, it always has.  So the dispute comes with the claim that it is man who is the principle driver of that change and, if we change our ways, can also stop climate change that is considered “dangerous” to ourselves.  That, in my considered opinion, is nonsense.  Whatever effect man is having is minimal compared to those occurring naturally in nature and would occur whether man existed or not.

    • I think that the large number of people selecting #4 indicates that they are not fooled by the attempt to redefine the debate by changing the term “man-made global warming” to “climate change.”  When alarmists use the term “climate change” they are specifically referring to man-made global warming.  I’m sure many of them will point at the chart and snarkily comment on how dumb those people are.  But I don’t think so, I think they’re smart enough to see through the ruse.

  • The public trust in science and politics has been badly damaged.”

    I’ve said it before, this will be the result of this whole mess.  The public trust in politics has been damaged for a very long time now.  But I believe that prior to the recent understanding of just how far politics and money had warped climate science, people generally trusted scientists.  It’s one reason why the alarmists beat the “consensus” drum for all it was worth, because if people understood the depth of the divide, they might lose faith in science.  Well, that’s blown now.  Science will have to recover from this, and it will take some time, since many of the perpetrators are continuing to try to scam the public even as their reputations fall apart.
    The other result is that not only has public trust in science been damaged, but climate science itself has been set back decades.  Will we ever really know what the actual temperature record between 1850 and 1980 was with any degree of accuracy?  The original data is mostly destroyed, and what remains is a record that contains adjustments which are suspect at best and clearly wrong at worst.  More than 150 years of data collection has been polluted for the sake of personal enrichment and political games.  That is the worst part of it.

    • I think it is a good thing.  I want the public to be very skeptical, even cynical about everything the science elite has thrown at us.  This is nothing new, science has been politicized many times in the past, and this is just the latest and most ambitious scare hoax in a long line of them.

      • AND, that includes the social sciences as well as the hard sciences.  Remember that we were told by social sciences that poverty was a cause of crime.  Perhaps the largest cause of crime.
        This was used to justify trillions of dollars of income transfer payments, and anyone who dared object was tarred and feathered.  But the latest studies have now shown no link, except an inverse link (in other words crime creates poverty).
        That is just one example.

        • But the latest studies have now shown no link, except an inverse link (in other words crime creates poverty).

          Exactly, sorta. Poverty is the default human condition, but once production occurs, criminals usurp what has been produced. That can take the form of robbery with a gun or robbery with a badge/governmental credentials.

  • Lest we forget, “AGW” means man-made global warming, not climate change.  I have yet to see the treatise put forth for “AGC”, man-made global cooling . . .  and I have no idea why one condition is bad but the other is OK.

  • I love how both ALGore and Scotty Erb are keeping silent on the issue…

    In a just world, Gore would be running from the mob and their tar and feathers

    • Maybe they’re waiting to see if another shoe will drop.
      Wait, there you go. That didn’t take long!  I wonder how long people will continue to tell us that these are just minor blips that don’t compare to “the overwhelming mountain of evidence in favor of AGW”?  Hey guys, these blips ARE the evidence that all of those claims were built upon.  And it is, at best, unreliable and unverified.  Time to wake up.

  • Gee. Now the people of Great Britain and India hate Erb’s children. To them I say, welcome , scum. 

  • The researchers found that the current interglacial has indeed lasted some 2.0–2.5 millennia longer than predicted by the currently dominant theory for the way in which orbital changes control the ice-age cycles. This theory is based on the intensity of solar radiation reaching the Earth at latitude 65 degrees North on 21 June, the northern hemisphere Summer solstice. But the anomaly vanished when the researchers considered a rival theory, which looks at the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth the same latitude during the summer months. Under this theory, sea levels could remain high for another two thousand years or so, even without greenhouse warming.

    So the dominant theory regarding the current interglacial is that it is some 2.0–2.5 millennia longer than predicted. The next best says the next ice age starts in 2000 years.
    So why is anybody worried about AGW ?

  • THE scientist at the centre of the “climategate” email scandal has revealed that he was so traumatised by the global backlash against him that he contemplated suicide.
    Professor Phil Jones said in an exclusive interview with The Sunday Times that he had thought about killing himself “several times”.

    I don’t want to be cold, but talk is cheap.

    • Yeah, I’m feeling just real sorry for a guy who attempted to foist off a massive wealth redistribution process on the nations of the 1st world, or who fudged his data enabling others to do so.  Presumably he didn’t do that because he was confused, or mistaken.  He knew what he was doing.  Now if his agenda was just keeping his job, or making himself famous, or forcing people to live in a way he thinks they ought to live – all of those things mean he didn’t give a rat’s ass about the great number of faceless unknown others his decision to fudge data affected.  If he becomes a footnote to society by inhaling CO2 until he no longer functions I’m hardly going to lose much sleep over it.
      He’s thinking of killing himself why? Because he’s afraid of others? (what are they going to kill him? and he wants to beat them to it?) Or because he’s made himself a lying fool on a global scale and can’t live with embarrassment?
      You may detect complete lack of sympathy for this man, and correctly so.

  • There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.