Why are there so many Believers in Human Induced Climate Change?

Up until recently I have been puzzled by why so many people believe that humans are causing catastrophic changes to climate even though there is ample evidence that the main proponents use outright falsehoods and twisting of the truth allied with denouncing those who have a difference of opinion by calling them names rather than disproving their facts. I think I have a handle now on why this is so as a result of several items I have come across on the internet and through personal experience.

The first example, and one that took me completely by surprise at the time is a brief interview of Christopher Hitchens on the subject of climate change. Many may know of him as he has been a vociferous opponent of religion such as his book "God is not Great". Here is a link to his Wikipedia biography: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens . Simply put, and he does present very convincing arguments, religion requires one to have blind faith. Take for example confessing one's sins to ensure you will go to heaven otherwise you will go to hell. That assumes a) that there is an afterlife and b) that no matter how bad a person you are, as long as you "confess your sins" you will be "saved" and will go to heaven. It is this type of thought that Hitchens railed against.

But in one interview he was asked what he thought about "climate change" and here is the transcript of his reply:

"The argument about global warming is not whether there is any warming but whether or not and to what extent human activity is responsible for it. My line on that is that we should act as if it is, for this reason, which I borrowed from Jonathan Schell's book on the nuclear question, The Fate of the Earth: We don't have another planet on which to run the experiment. Just as we don't have a right to run an experiment to run an experiment in nuclear exchange on this planet, we have no right to run an experiment in warming it either. So if it turned out to be that there was no severe global warming threat or that it wasn't man-made, then all we would have done would be make a mistake in analysis - which we could correct from. But if it turned out that there was and we didn't do anything about it, then it would be too late to do anything at all. And that would lead to disaster."

"[W]e should act as if it is"? When the subject is religion he takes the opposite view, which he frequently described eloquently, that one should NOT assume the worst, just in case! That is exactly why confessing one's sins, just in case there is an afterlife is so wrong! So this begs the question how could a learned man such as Hitchens come up with such an idea that is antecedent to his usual line of thought?

This is where a blog entry by Scott Adams' of the cartoon strip "Dilbert" fame recently wrote dealing with what he calls "cognitive blindness": the inability to see the strong form of the other side of a debate (see http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154679929646/watching-the-climate-science-bubbles-from-the). In this post he goes on to say:

" I noticed this phenomenon [cognitive blindness] when I started blogging about climate change. The citizens who side with the majority of scientists in saying climate change is influenced by humans and the prediction models about doom are accurate have – as far as I can tell – never seen the strong versions of the argument on the other side. (I know because I ask about it.) They have only seen the weak versions presented by their own side. And the weak version of the argument goes like this: “The other side are science deniers and quacks.”".

Up to that point I totally agreed with him but then he adds this comment:

"My bottom-line belief about climate science is that non-scientists such as myself have no reliable way to evaluate any of this stuff. Our brains and experience are not up to the task. When I apply my tiny brain to sniffing out the truth about climate science I see rock-solid arguments on both sides of the debate".

What rings so false about this last statement is that everything I have read and heard is that there are no "rock-solid" arguments by the proponents of Climate Change and that rather than defending any criticism  with supportable facts they always fall back on calling those opposed names, such as "deniers" and "quacks".  All people who have had at least a high school education have the means to ask critical questions based on whether or not the information they have been presented coincides with what they have previously been taught. If no inconsistencies can be found then it is reasonable to at the very least assume that the idea presented is plausible. And there lies the problem of why so many accept what others cannot; they do not ask the critical question "does this mesh with what I know to be true"?

This same point I saw presented in another blog called "Manhattan Contrarian" and I found his description more eloquent that mine:

"If you are a reasonably intelligent person, and you are willing to spend a few hours on an issue, there is a very workable method to discern which side of a debate is not playing straight with you.  This method is the same method generally used by judges and juries in deciding which side is going to win a trial.  The method is this:  look to which side has and provides the best answers to the hard questions posed by the other side.  If one side refuses to answer hard questions, or is evasive, or refuses to provide the underlying methodology by which it came up with its answers, then that side has a problem.  And rightfully so." 

Anyone who has read my previous posts that deal with the subject of "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" know that the reason I do not accept the premise is that there are too many disconnects with what I know is reality, in part due to my advanced training but primarily because of the basic learning we have all been subjected to. This includes what is "climate", "photosynthesis", "average" and of course "accuracy and precision". On top of that, as I have worked with computer models for a long time now, I know that it is very difficult to represent complex phenomena with mathematical equations. The more complex the system the less likely they can be modeled with any sort of accuracy. And "climate" is one of the most complex systems we have to deal with on a daily basis and the reason why even forecasting days ahead is typically fraught with error!

In closing I didn't really get on this train of thought until I was talking with a friend and the subject of "climate change" came up. Even though I had explained many times before the weaknesses and errors of the proponents he is still a firm believer. If today is hotter that he remembers for this time of year and the news accentuates that by repeating the same fact less statement and saying we are to blame he remains convinced it must be true thus showing his cognitive blindness.  This I find ironic because like so many others like himself he enjoys summer more than winter, revels in spring coming earlier than usual or fall arriving later. Basks in the sunshine and thanks god for such a blessing but then takes on his shoulder what he believes is his share of the blame for any weather phenomenon that he considers bad; while only god can create good it is man that creates all that is bad and we must own up to that "fact". Such self righteous self conceit I have nick named the "god complex" in that too many people think we have the power of god. While we do have a knack for self destruction we really are at the mercy of nature and to think we can control nature is deplorable!

Environmentalism has replaced Socialism

Politics, for me, is a fascinating subject in that there are so many shades of meaning such that it is hard to differentiate those who favour one political philosophy from another. In Canada we have three main parties and several also ran's that lie more on the fringes. The three I am referring to are the Conservative party, the Liberal party and the New Democratic party (NDP). In a "perfect" world they would be labelled as being right wing, centrist or left wing where by the "right" and "left" originated with the French parliament during the French Revolution whereby the monarchists sat to the right of the chair of the parliamentary president.

In more modern times those who support "capitalism" are considered to be right wing, or "conservatives" and those who support "socialism" are left wing or "socialists". "Liberals" traditionally have tried to find a happy medium between the two extremes; except in Canada where by all three major parties are in essence centralists in that our "conservatives" support socialistic policies and our "socialists" support capitalistic policies.

No matter which party one was previously aligned with the common thread was what was best for the people of Canada. A case in point are the farmers of the prairies, the birthplace of the NDP and where Provincially they have been well represented for a long time. Farmers in essence are independent businessmen, capitalists, but with no control over critical aspects of whether or not they make a profit; the weather and grain prices. When times are tough (the grain markets are doing poorly or the weather prevents a good harvest) they band together to help one another survive until next season; they are socialists. But when times are good (the prices received for their grains more than meet costs or the weather has resulted in a bumper harvest) they stand apart and are capitalists again.

We are now in strange times in that environmentalism has infiltrated both the Liberals and the NDP to the point that neither party are about what is best for society. Instead society has become the scapegoat for everything that is imagined to be wrong with the environment such as the supposedly imperiled woodland caribou or climate change. The Liberals embraced environmentalism the earliest and the NDP are trying to as well thanks to the LEAP Manifesto.

One politician who sees clearly the problem with adopting the draconian actions of the Liberals and NDP is Brad Wall of Saskatchewan as illustrated in this video:

https://www.facebook.com/kenneyjasont/videos/10154749705632641/

While he believes in climate change he does not agree at all with the policies being put in place by the Liberals, both Federally and Provincially across this country. Government is financed by taxes. Taxes are paid by working people. If people lose their jobs due to untested and unproven environmental policies then we are due for economic collapse.

What is most puzzling though is how did this come about? How did two political parties lose sight of who they are supposed to be representing, the people of Canada? Not too long ago Barbara Kay, a columnist with the National Post wrote a piece titled "The deplorables' get their moment. Break out the pointed hoods". She tells about how radicals now pretend to be others as a means of attaining their own agenda; a methodology created and promoted by Saul Alinksky who wrote a book called "Rules for Radicals". In it he encouraged radicals to work within the system while accruing power to destroy it. If you think of it Gerald Butts, former CEO of the World Wildlife Fund of Canada and now Justin Trudeau's principal secretary and previously the principal secretary for former Premier Dalton McGuinty's fits that description to a tee.

So in summary Canada's political system has devolved whereby the Liberals and the NDP have become corrupted from within to the point that they care not for you and I, the people of this country. The Green party never did and the Bloc want to tear the country apart for different reasons but with the same result. At this point in time there is only one party that is left to for Canadians and ensuring Canada survives and we with it; the Conservative party.

Junk Science

In recent years we have seem a proliferation of "Junk Science".

First we need to define what is meant by "junk science". In summary it is faulty scientific analysis typically used to advance special interests and hidden agendas. A common feature is using data sets that are not made freely available to anyone else so that verification of the conclusions drawn can be made and confirmed by other researchers. Another feature is to use slip shod methods.

As a scientist involved with the mining industry I have a moral, ethical and legal obligation to apply full disclosure, ensure proper validation of my raw data and not to make false or misleading statements. As a result I have to ensure accuracy (how close a value is to the actual) and precision (how close measured values are to one another).

Here is an image that illustrates the two (http://www.mathsisfun.com/accuracy-precision.html):

A common modern day use of junk science is the support for "global warming" and "climate change". With the former researchers have collected temperature data from around the world and then averaged them to get what they call the "Global Average" and typically show that number as being at least accurate to the first decimal place (first order of magnitude). In reality the raw data was collected by a myriad of measuring instruments none of which were calibrated to one another which ensures low precision. In addition the measurements were taken in non-suitable locations such that they typically are biased towards populated areas and certain countries in which some sort of network has been established. This has resulted in clustering of the data. If no declustering has been applied then a spatial bias is introduced. The net result is that once averaged any honest researcher would not ascribe a high precision to the results and should only report whole numbers with no decimal places as there is too much uncertainty. Instead we see global average temperatures reported to two significant digits implying a precision that is impossible to obtain.

To illustrate further, think of how you would get a precise measure of the average temperature in, say your living room. Would you take a single measurement in the room? If so where should it be knowing ahead that as warm air rises any measurement closer to the ceiling will be higher than any measurement close to the floor. Keep in mind too that due to air currents we can get some stabilisation of the temperature but there still will be pockets of stagnant air which are either warmer of colder than what the true average is. How do we overcome these issues? Normally one would systematically, using the same measuring instrument, take sample readings at regularly spaced intervals throughout the room making sure no area is over sampled or under sampled. Pretty tough to do for just a room yet we are led to believe we can do it for the whole world and we are not even considering the effects of diurnal variations (day and night) nor elevation and latitude!

Another aspect of global warming/climate change, as we only have poorly measured actual temperature data for roughly a century or so is to use proxies; data sets derived from other means to which we can ascribe a temperature equivalent. A common one is through the use of dendrochronology or, tree rings. While tree rings vary in width depending on the local climate they actually are a poor stand in for temperature as a tree will have widely spaced tree rings if the growing conditions are optimal; warm but not too warm yet also wet but not too wet and therefore not a good measure of temperature alone.

Another factor is the location of the tree species. As Bristlecone Pine trees are very long lived they have been sampled relatively extensively. The problem though is that they only grow in areas where few other plants can grow such as the upper reaches of mountain ranges. So you have a tree that grows in a very forbidding climate zone and you expect to get a reliable proxy of global temperature? Not likely. So the use in generating a temperature time series such as what Thomas Mann did to generate his now infamous "hockey stick" temperature graph is of course junk science and not to be trusted at all!

Other proxies are available and have been used, such as oxygen isotopes measured in ice core samples and marine sediments. But like tree rings they are neither accurate measures not precise. Typically precision and accuracy  are illustrated by showing error bars, like the gray bars in the image below, which by the way is the one originally created by Mann et. al. (1999).

The above chart is from http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp and can be considered a source of junk science as the chart is mixing two different data sets (tree rings and actual temperature measurements) plus has obviously been massaged (altered) as it does not show either the well documented medieval warm period or the little ice age as shown in the chart below (from http://www.passionforliberty.com/2013/08/31/climategate-part-three-what-does-the-data-really-show/)

This web site also has raw temperature data that for some areas dates back to the 1850's. Take a look of the charts of this raw data and compare to the above chart where it is obvious from the red and blue lines that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) can't make up their mind how they wish to doctor the data just so long as it has the near term temperature spike; junk science.

For another perspective, this time by Dr. Richard Keen, a climatologist by training:

Climatologist Dr Richard Keen - Show Me The Data

In summary the real problem with junk science is that it fools just about everyone who is not a scientist and even many who are, but for emotional reasons believe this nonsense. If I was caught doing the same thing with a resource estimate not only would I lose my license to practice I would face serious financial penalties! Unfortunately it is the victims of the government policies enacted to fight a non-existent foe that are being punished financially by these practitioners of junk science; the general public and not the perpetrators of this farce. 

On "Arrested Development"

Earlier this morning I was mulling over writing about "Junk Science" and how it and "Fake News" have merged to give us a Main Stream Media (MSM) that no longer fact checks and presents as news falsehoods. But then I read today's edition of the National Post and this was the headline:

"Arrested Development"

http://business.financialpost.com/features/arrested-development

The story summarises pretty well how any development, even when it has been subjected to rigorous environmental review, is attacked by Environmental Non Government Organisations (ENGO's), Not In My Back Yard types (NIMBY's) as well as First Nations trying to extract a better deal through extortion and obstructionism. All represent a distinct minority of the population but who are against any development and are given unfair and unjust coverage by the MSM such that the politicians who make public policy believe them rather than the person who is paying the bills and suffering the job losses, the average Canadian.

I have been searching for some time for a media source that I can rely on for truthful reporting and the only Canadian one I have found is the National Post. But even it is seriously wanting in that while it has on staff a number of pundits and columnists who mostly provide well reasoned commentary representing a variety of views the same cannot be said of the news editors who regurgitate the same nonsense as the rest of the MSM totally devoid of ethics and truth.

So now I am in a blue funk as while I try to be cautiously optimistic for the future I see nothing but doom and gloom ahead. We have a Prime Minister who is so blinded to reality that he is willing, as are all but two Provincial Premiers, to saddle all of us with job killing carbon taxes. In addition it was announced that the Federal Liberal Government is looking at taxing my health benefits that supplement the shoddy health care system we are so "proud" of. 

Here I have been "retired" all of 6 years and I see no resurrection of the mining industry that has served me and this country well. I see my pension, which at first I thought was alright, looking awfully inadequate; I can't even afford to move to any other place where I could be better off!

Just over a year ago the phrases "Anyone But Harper" and "Sunny Ways" turned the tide during the last Federal election. We are now into the dark of the storm and I do not think we will survive. I hate being repetitious but to once again paraphrase John Donne. For whom does the bell toll? It tolls for us Canadians, as we are doomed as long as the Liberals, both Provincially and Federally are in power. The only hope we have is that we can survive long enough to turf the bums out and even then it likely will be too late.

Musing on “Electoral Reform”

As happened a number of times over the last several years the topic of “electoral reform” has made it into the headlines. Personally I do not see a need and am puzzled as to why it has gained as much traction as it has unless very few have thought about the reasons and the ramifications.

The primary reason I accept the current system (First Past the Post or FPTP) is that it makes logical sense. Those of us in a particular riding must choose one person from a slate of typically 3 to 4 to represent our collective interests in the legislature, whether provincial or Federal. It is no different than a multiple choice test whereby there can be only one correct answer. The winner is the fraction based on the total divided by the number of choices plus 1.

Like so many words in the English language, “majority” can be interpreted in different ways. In the case of multiple choice, such as the current electoral system in Canada, a “majority” is the choice that has more votes than any other choice just as illustrated above, and not the sum of the others. But the problem is that far too many people say that a true majority, having 50% plus at least 1, is required irregardless. To show that FPTP is fair take for example the last Federal election whereby the Liberals got 39.5% of the vote, the Conservatives 31.9%, the NDP 19.7%, the BQ 4.7% and the Green Party 3.5%. Keep only the top two and discard the others (remember, we are only choosing 1 representative and to evaluate who has the 50% plus 1 majority we need to reduce our list down to two), and rescale so that the percentages sum to 100, then the Liberals would have had 55.3% and the Conservatives 44.7%. I would say that justified the Liberals ending up with 54.4% of the seats in the House of Commons. So what is so wrong with that?

The funny thing is that the ones who promote the 50% plus 1 majority before rescaling are typically those on the losing side and thus wish to call into question the legitimacy of the winner rather than facing up to their own inadequacies. Should such attitudes be tolerated? Absolutely not as that kind of self-serving distortion of the facts is at the core of bi-partisanship which in turn makes cooperation and compromise next to impossible.

So these losers have tried promoting alternative systems with one of the more popular ones being “proportional representation” whereby a party gets a number of seats in the legislature proportional to the total vote that they received. The real scary problem with this is that the selection of the representatives is no longer in the control of the electorate but instead in the hands of the party itself as they choose who will sit in the legislature representing their party. In essence it is truly undemocratic as “democracy” is supposed to be “government by the people”.

We, the people, have seen enough erosion of our trust through the loss of democracy within our political parties; once elected by party members as “leader” they are in effect dictators who are then difficult to remove. No wonder Justin Trudeau is so enamoured with the leadership of China and Cuba. You don’t need to be smart to be a dictator. Just ruthless and power hungry.