Lies, Damn Lies & Statistics

I've blogged about my concerns regarding climate change before. Now a recent incident involving the Climate Research Unit located at the University of East Anglia has revealed to the world that the data and methodology used by that institution to create reports intended inform policymakers was corrupt, spurious and deeply flawed - as were the conclusions in those reports.

I was tipped to this by John Gormely on his radio show today where he was interviewing Kate McMillan, author of the weblog "Small Dead Animals". Kate has done a superb job of gathering the most useful links in this emerging story under the ongoing title - "The Sound of All Hell Breaking Loose". If you care at all about the Earth and our economic and political future you need to read up on this - and then remember it at the next election, and the one after that, and the one after that.

The real tragedy in all of this will be the huge damage done to the scientific community in general. If it results in a "cry wolf" response from the public world-wide (as I suspect it will) then I can safely predict humanity will fall victim to a true catastrophe soon - even though we will likely be warned about it. We just won't believe the messenger.

The image linked to this post is not the property of the author and is used without permission with purely illustrative intent and with no intent to defraud or injure the original owner.

No Change to Climate Change Strategy

"When I use a word I choose it to mean exactly what I want it to." - the hookah smoking Caterpillar in Alice in Wonderland

About two years ago the term 'global warming' was struck from the environmentalists' lexicon. The reality was that it has ceased to be a useful pseudo-scientific/political term and actually had become a liability because evidence was already mounting that 'warming' wasn't what was happening. Instead those in charge of shaping the message began employing the term "climate change".

Why?

Thankfully, a few scientists had staunchly adhered to the scientific principle of rigorous observation as a means to develop a theory regarding what was actually taking place. They had remembered that science is never complete or finished with a subject - it is always seeking a deeper understanding and to create a more accurate model. And what these scientists were discovering was coming into direct conflict with the "global warming" descriptor so the name was changed to try to duck the inevitable questions that their findings would raise.

I initially became aware of these changes through a number of articles that were placed in inconspicuous locations in newspapers and magazines by editorial choice and a then by more articles which could not be so easily relegated to the lower left corner of page 6. In particular it was the excellent journalism of Lorne Gunter that brought together for me several of the disparate threads of this emerging story and began to give it a fuller shape and treatment. Beginning in 2008 he wrote a number of articles including the four linked here (one; two; three; four). Read them. Go ahead. I've got time - even if you want to read the comments - it's cool. I'll be here when you get back. The only thing you have to lose is your media-induced ignorance about this subject.

Well, now that you're semi-up-to-speed let me preface the next portion of this blog by saying that I'm an ecologist, too. I recycle - very thoroughly. My wife and I have been purchasing energy efficient appliances and making upgrades to our homes to reduce our use of energy since our first home almost 25 years ago. I am a supporter of efficient and appropriate use of our wealth and resources and I take personal responsibility for the part of creation I am able to influence and steward. That being said, I also do not support public policy and the spending of our tax dollars on initiatives that are useless.

And that is where we are today. It is part of the obvious passion Mr. Gunter has for the truth that he has published his latest article on climate issues now - when nationally and internationally we are engaged in the process of discussing and shaping policy to address these challenges. As you will undoubtedly know the leaders of the industrialized world are currently meeting to discuss a new initiative to replace the ill-conceived, poorly-implemented and ultimately failed Kyoto Accord. But the rhetoric, the science and most importantly, the political perspective at the discussion table has not changed to properly recognize and deal with the truth.

I know the pollsters will say that a majority of North Americans are concerned about the climate and ecology of the Earth, but the polls that have been taken have been constructed to create data that seems to support the view that the majority of people believe the scientists and their reigning theory. This, I believe is far from the truth.

As an example - if someone who believes wholeheartedly that 'global warming' is the greatest threat we face and that the theory that it is largely (if not entirely) the fault of human activity, especially free-market industrialism and life-style - and someone like myself, who does not believe such things, were both asked-

"How concerned are you with climate-based issues?",

-we would both answer that we are and rate our concern at the top of whatever scale we were given by the pollster. But our real underlying concerns and our convictions as to what solutions might be the best to employ would likely be radically different in important ways.

Still, the politicians would see the results of such a poll and conclude that this issue must be addressed and that the advice they have been receiving to attack CO2 emissions must still be a valid strategy to employ. The media, the scientific community, politicians and business have all aligned themselves along this policy vector because they all will benefit in some way through pursuing it. Largely, it will ensure political power and control for the politicians while it will ensure economic power and control for everyone else.

Frighteningly, it is becoming more and more evident that the strategies and initiatives we have been pursuing will NOT result in the Earth's climate becoming a New Age 'Garden of Eden' as so many advertisements for consumer products promise. This is not to say that every initiative and policy has been so flawed that no good at all has come of them. Some good has been done. Certainly public awareness of ecological issues is much more prevalent than over three decades ago when I was in high school. But awareness is not the same as true and useful knowledge - and is almost useless (maybe even dangerous) without it.

What shocks me the most is how the media, the scientific community and the political parties have either ignored or willfully limited free and open debate on these issues. If we all were generally appalled but the discovery that there were no "WMDs" in Iraq to truly give impetus to the US-led invasion of that country, how much more should we be appalled to learn that scientists have known for years that their climate prediction models were not working and that new empirical data was invalidating their predictions of our climate future? How appalled should we be when we realize that billions of tax dollars have been already spent and are yet committed to policies shaped by this erroneous information? How appalled should we be that business, the media and academic institutions have been willing to literally sell us all a "bill of goods" for their own benefit - ignoring the truth and the mounting evidence?

I don't want to be in opposition to those who claim to be concerned about global climate issues, but the leaders of the "global warming" - now the politically correct "climate change" - movement used fascist strategies to vilify and censure those who were as equally concerned for the planet and its future but who questioned the science and its conclusions. I say "fascist" not for its shock value but because it most accurately describes what has obviously been at the heart of this debate - a consuming desire for control, even if motivated by noble intentions. At the heart of all fascism is the desire to control and limit freedom and choice. And the first casualty in the pursuit of that desire is always the truth.

Not once in the last decade have I, or thousands and thousands of others like me, said, "There is no problem". What we have said is, "The problem is NOT as you describe it to be." But our overtures to discuss this and find common ground were drown out beneath the angry rhetoric that labeled those with doubts as "heretics", "immoral" and "evil". We should all remember that the weakness of any position or argument can easily be measured by how low those who support it must stoop to defend it.

Today - this very day - your political representatives are engaged in negotiations that will decide how billions of our tax dollars will be allocated now, and in the future, to deal with global climate issues. I am not here calling for those dollars to not be spent. I am calling for them to be spent wisely and well!

You can have an influence in this issue by writing letters and sending then to your MP, MLA, the Premier of your Province, the Prime Minister, the Leaders of the political parties or whoever your political representatives might be - and to international representatives as well. Ask them to answer - or even if they are aware of - the questions raised by people like Lorne Gunter and others who are speaking out on this topic. Demonstrate that you ARE concerned, but that you no longer want a public opinion polling company with a built-in political agenda to do your talking for you. And keep reading, keep learning and stay engaged.

It's our planet.

This issue affects us all.

Shalom

The Great "Climate Change" Debate

I have been skeptical for some time about the position the most strident proponents of "global warming" have taken, mostly due to the inordinate amount of effort they have expended to limit debate on the subject. When the rhetoric took on the tone of religious debate about three years ago, I was fairly convinced that we were being sold a bill of goods. When my wife began working for a major western Canadian university she told me that professors indicated to her that they had to write their research proposals with an intentional eye on keeping their lines of research within the sphere proscribed by the "green" science cabal - or at least avoid asking questions that might ruffle feathers - or else they ran the risk of not receiving the funding they need. When the lines of scientific research are constrained by what amounts to social and political policy - however well-intentioned it may be - then it has lost it's academic independence and, I would argue, much of its usefulness to humanity.

One of the writers who has consistently poked holes in the "global warming/climate change" conclusions and proposals is Patrick Bedard, a staff writer for Car and Driver (Yes, yes I can hear the cat-calls and hissing saying "Vested interest!" - SHHH CHILDREN! Listen and LEARN!). Mr Bedard is an engineer, and his mantra isn't "cars at any cost" it's more "does this add up?". If you take the time to survey a few of his articles you'll quickly come to see that he does his homework and he doesn't fudge the figures. Now his perspective is going mainstream thanks to a recent article by Lorne Gunter.

Of course, if one has been paying attention to stories on the fringes of the media and the subtle shifts in the rhetoric of the "green" movement, these revelations should come as no surprise. A recent report suggested that the climate change movement was heading for a "tough decade" because global temperatures were trending down, not up - a fact Gunter's article supports. And the label "global warming" has been shifted over recent months to "climate change" - a suitably non-specific moniker that can be interpreted in any fashion to fit the facts. It seems that political expediency, power and money have co-opted the science community, the media and our political leaders. And we probably shouldn't be surprised.

I am a Christian, and as such I am deeply concerned that we take seriously how we use God's creation. I believe we are charged with stewardship of this planet, and all places we may touch - but if we are to be able to do this we need truth in the information we use to help us make our decisions. We need scientists, academics and researchers who are politically, socially and economically independent so they can pursue the lines of investigation they want to without fear of reprisal or censure. And helping maintain and protect this independence must be the first and the constant goal we should pursue in science.

Sadly, most people want the "academic eggheads" to provide us with solutions that we can understand with eighth-grade education and that can be explained in 30 seconds by some "talking head" on the six-o-clock news. And we want solutions that will not require much from us. We are the common denominator in this power struggle and it is by and to our low expectations and selfish lifestyles that the arguments and policies of our leaders are shaped and directed. We are getting what we demand - just like angry, hungry babies. We should be getting what we need.

So my exhortation to the one or two of you who read this blog is this - do some more reading on this. Don't let me or others make up your mind for you. Question those who are sanctimoniously using their authority to dictate what questions may be asked and what answers may be accepted. And talk amongst yourselves. Then talk to your local politicians, write letters to the editors of newspapers, email the news directors of broadcast news, comment on the electronic news sites and share the info. Because - and here I agree wholeheartedly with the leaders of the "green" movement - we ALL need to get involved.

Up to this point there has been no real debate on this subject - it's high time we had one.

Kicking Glass

I took a picture today of about a dozen glass containers sitting on the ground beside a Loraas recycling bin. I can't post it because my personal computer is "in the shop", but rest assured dear reader, (if you exist) I will post it soon. It is an image that should be used to indite and shame our provincial politicians.

Glass manufacturers have been recycling their product since the 1600's or even much earlier but we can't do that in Saskatchewan unless the containers we do deal with once contained either sugar-loaded drinks or alcoholic beverages.

Saskatchewan.
Can't.
Recycle.
Glass.

Morons can recycle glass - but not Saskatchewanites. We have 2 BILLION excess dollars in our provincial coffers that have not been budgeted to be spent on anything yet and we still can't recycle pickle jars. And our provincial members of the Fourth and Fifth Estates should also be ashamed because they are saying NOTHING about this.

If I even hear ONE person say anything about how it isn't "economically viable" to recycle general glass products at this time I'll go ballistic!. That is exactly the kind of thinking that has gotten us to the ecological crisis we now face. If we can't do the right thing because we can't AFFORD to do the right thing then we are officially screwed to a wholly breathtakingly new and frightening level.

So John Gormley et.al., before you claim to be "holding the politician's feet to the fire" let me hear you get our provincial Minister of the Environment on you radio show and ask him a couple of hardball questions about glass. And Premier Wall, before you go off spouting about how great we are in Flatland and how we're ready to move into the future let's see if you and your cabinet can figure out how to do something Europeans have been doing since before Samuel de Champlain discovered how bad the black flies were in northern Ontario.

'Nuff said.

In Search of the Free Lunch

At my friend Lee Distad's blog was a recent comment to an article he published that got my gears turning. You can read the article and the comments, including mine here.

I urge you to do your own investigation into the claims this company is making, if you want to be informed when the media "reports" on this subject. Sadly, you won't be getting useful information from most mass media outlets.

As promised, I am going to spend a few electrons in explaining the Biblical theological truth as to why we can't find an energy "free lunch" in the universe. As I do, remember that people have understood this truth for 5000 years or more, so this ain't news, folks.

In Genesis 3 we find the story of the fall. Humans mysteriously reject God's authority, in spite of having a relationship with Him and fully understanding their position in creation. Both men and women fail, there is no gender bias here unless you want to read it in. Both knew what they were doing was wrong.

God's response is gracious. Instead of wiping the slate clean and starting over, or not starting at all, He allows for hope, but there are immediate consequences. In Genesis 2 God made humans the "stewards" of the created earth. It was ours to care for in partnership with God, and it was easy work because our relationship with God was righteous, and thus our relationship with creation was righteous, too.

The fall and the introduction of sin created a series of events that changed all of that, resulting in humanity's relationship with God and the natural created order being broken. Nature is no longer our partner in life. We are at odds with the universe. But we are still the stewards of earth, though our job has become much, much harder.

In Genesis 2 we are in the garden with a purpose for the garden - "to work it and take care of it". After the fall only "painful toil" will garner us what we need to survive.

Unlike the media image of the "stereotypical evangelical", I'm not an anti-ecology guy. I am deeply concerned for the earth and I am upset by what we do to it. My family met and exceeded the "one ton challenge" and we still seek ways to do better. But I also have no illusions as to whether or not we can come to some Utopian point where we are in complete harmony with nature. Nature isn't even in complete harmony with itself. If there were no humans on the face of the Earth natural pathogens would wipe out massive populations of plant and animal life all on their own. Weather patterns, huge storms, forest and grassland fires, volcanic activity and other geological and climate events would shatter vast eco-systems and destroy natural habitats. Imbalances in animal, plant, bird, fish, reptile and microbe populations would spell doom for thousands of species. In truth, natural processes have brought many, many more species of plants and animals to extinction than humans have in our entire history.

Before we hear the argument that "natural processes" work and that "death" is part of life I must remind you that the Christian, and the more ancient Jewish understanding is that death is bad. That death can serve any purpose that appears to be good is a miracle of God.

Now all of this is no justification for the squandering of natural resources nor the raping of the earth's riches. And humanity will have to answer for that, of that I am most sure. But the path to shalom (which means essentially the "perfectly balanced life" or "true peace") goes directly through our relationships, firstly with God, then one another then the rest of the world. As long as our sinful greed, fear, violence and mistrust are prevalent, any attempts to heal our broken relationship with nature are doomed to ultimate failure.

The truth is that if we were to choose to live in a world where the one rule was to love others - to make a conscious choice of the will to choose the true good for others, all others - our ecological problems would be few.

My hope for the ecology and for humanity rests in Christ. The Bible says "God so loved the world". My faith is in the One who loves everything, crabs and cheetahs, sagebrush and sycamores, turtles and tigers, dolphins and dung beetles - and us. I know that when we live our lives in love with Jesus we will love what He loves - and the more of us who do, the more of us there will be to change the way we relate to the world and it's natural beauty and resources.

We won't find an energy "free lunch" that will allow us to continue to live self-indulgent lives of leisure and indifference. If you really think about it, such a discovery would spell our ultimate doom as the only possible destination for humanity at the end of such a road would be a world so decadent and corrupt that it would implode.

The irony is that Jesus is the "free lunch" we all need and are looking for. And He is free. But don't take my word for it. Read it for yourself.

Shalom