The CO2 Climate Change Cult Series

Part 7 of 8:

The False Doctrine

Part 1 of 8: Blame Everything On Man-Made Climate Change
Part 2 of 8: Greenpeace and Oxfam Manipulating Science
Part 3 of 8: The Stigma of Being a Climate Denier
Part 4 of 8: Environmental Journalists - Suzanne Goldenberg
Part 5 of 8: Environmental Journalists - Damian Carrington
Part 6 of 8: Environmental Journalists - George Monbiot
Part 7 of 8: The False Doctrine
Part 8 of 8: Solutions

By: Shawn Alli
Posted: October 25, 2014

part7 co2 cult graphic

Full resolution jpg

*All individuals and organizations receive 7 full days of pre-publication notice.

 

*Disclosure: I am a climate denier, albeit a more rational one. In Part 3 I explain why I'm a climate denier and not a climate skeptic.

 

*Disclosure: I am NOT funded by any oil, natural gas or coal corporations. I am NOT funded by any private interest groups (NGOs, foundations or political entities).

 

This article is the seventh instalment of an ongoing series of articles to unpackage the entire man-made CO2 climate change cult.

 

 

The idea that the evidence of man-made CO2 climate change is "convincing," is relative to ones perception and ideologies. Many objective and impartial scientists believe that they have no ideologies and never work to prove what they want to prove. This is a nonsensical belief.

 

Under the ideologies of racism and eugenics, Western-European scientists in the past intentionally prove what they want to prove. The same concept is true in the present. The ideologies of man-made CO2 climate change are underpinning the science behind the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

 

One example of this ideological science is the IPCC's claim of the Himalayan glaciers disappearing in 2035. [1] It's only because of climate skeptics and deniers that the IPCC retracts their nonsensical claim three years later. [2] But despite the admission of error, the Chair of the IPCC Dr. Rajendra Pachauri refuses to apologize. [3] The fact that the public outrage surprises him and damages the IPCC's credibility, [4] demonstrates that the IPCC is 100% out of touch with the global general public about climate change.

 

The reason why the error is such a large problem is because of two reasons: science and socio-economic-political implications. The CO2 cult holds the IPCC to the level of god-like status, forever defending their cause. This pushes CO2 cult believers to claim that the IPCC reports are the highest form of climate knowledge on the planet:

 

Dave Reay - climatologist:

The conspiracy theorists may be having a field day, but if they really knew academia they would also know that every published paper and data set is continually put through the wringer by other independent research groups. The information that makes it into the IPCC reports is some of the most rigorously tested and debated in any area of science. [5]

 

George Monbiot - Guardian:

2004:

We now know, for example, that the Himalayan glaciers which feed the Ganges, the Brahmaputra, the Mekong, the Yangtze and the other great Asian rivers are likely to disappear within 40 years. [6]

 

Though Monbiot uses the term "likely" he also uses the term "know" instead of "believe."

2009:

...as a result of the IPCC's extremely careful and laborious review and consensus process. This lends its reports great scientific weight...[7]

2013:

Reaching agreement among hundreds of authors and reviewers ensures that only the statements which are hardest to dispute are allowed to pass. Even when the scientists have agreed, the report must be tempered in another forge, as politicians question anything they find disagreeable: the new report received 1,855 comments from 32 governments, and the arguments raged through the night before launch. In other words, it's perhaps the biggest and most rigorous process of peer review conducted in any scientific field, at any point in human history. [8]

 

Newsweek staff:

Scientific truth is not decided by majority vote, of course (ask Galileo), but the number of researchers whose empirical studies find that the world is warming and that human activity is partly responsible numbered in the thousands even then. The IPCC report issued this year, for instance, was written by more than 800 climate researchers and vetted by 2,500 scientists from 130 nations. [9]

 

In an email request for comment I ask Reay, Monbiot and Newsweek if their above position still stands relative to the 2035 error.

 

None of them respond.

 

The fact that the highest form of Western-European empirical knowledge can be distorted by a scientist giving a quote to a journalist, [10] proves that the IPCC's information is just as fallible as industry funded scientific journals or scientists attempting to prove their ideologies.

 

Personally, I don't have a problem with scientists attempting to prove their ideologies using the scientific method. Contrary to popular opinion, this is what the majority of scientists are doing now. I have a problem with scientists when they deny their own ideologies and call it "objective impartial research."

 

The peer-reviewed process is merely an "attempt" at higher knowledge utilizing the current scientific method. It doesn't actually mean it "is" higher knowledge. The data and interpretations are still fallible.

 

This attempt at higher knowledge is merely the best that Western-European society currently utilizes. I'm particular about using the term "Western-European society" because it fails to take into account different forms of knowledge or even recognize them as knowledge. But that's for another article.

 

The second reason why the global general public outrage is so large due to the 2035 error is the socio-economic-political implications. If a particular apocalyptic claim is true, then individuals need to prepare and adapt to the impending scenario. Apply this to all of the apocalyptic scenarios and then ask the question what if it's false. All of the preparations (political, social, economic and financial) are unnecessary due to an exaggerated scenario based on junk ideological science.

 

Another crack in the IPCC's armor is the infamous hockey stick graph that shows rising average global temperatures. Personally, as a climate denier and a philosopher I find the logic erroneous. The idea that the ice temperatures in Greenland millions of years ago can show what the temperatures are in...let's say Egypt at the same time period, are 100% erroneous.

 

And yes, I'm aware of wind currents and how they spread globally; but that doesn't mean that the temperature in one area 10,000 years ago is the same temperature of a different area at the same time period.

 

In reality, the ice core data doesn't give the global general public any significant information about the weather/climate in a particular area at a particular time period. The same logic applies to tree rings as well.

 

The idea that an "average global temperature" is even accurate is 100% erroneous. And it's important to point out that the Earth doesn't claim that it has an average temperature. CO2 cult believers are claiming that the entire massive planet has one average temperature that's accurate and can be used to create "climate models." As a climate denier, I believe that the science is 100% erroneous. But that's just me.

 

The purpose of these articles is for the growth of humanity (be it emotionally, mentally, socially, culturally or spiritually). This means that my perspective on average global temperatures being an erroneous foundation for climate science is irrelevant. What matters is what the global general public (the audience), believes. And so I'll move forward in the hockey stick graph issue which uses average global temperatures as an accurate scientific foundation.

 

The hockey stick graph is the brainchild of Michael E. Mann, a prominent climate scientist. It shows that average global temperatures are rising due to CO2 emissions from the industrial revolution which continues in the present era. On the surface the logic appears to be correct. The advent of the industrial revolution does put massive amounts of CO2 emissions in the planet's atmosphere.

 

This should be an open and shut case.

 

The reason why it's not is because of the Medieval Warming Period (MWP). This is a time period where the average global temperature of the planet increases significantly from 950-1250.

 

The problem is that such a period is at least 500 years before the industrial revolution. There are no copious amounts of CO2 or methane spewing from coal, oil or natural gas power plants during this period.

 

How does the IPCC deal with this issue? They call it an anomaly:

Continental-scale surface temperature reconstructions show, with high confidence, multi decadal periods during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (year 950 to 1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th century. These regional warm periods did not occur as coherently across regions as the warming in the late 20th century (high confidence). [11]

 

One manipulation tactic that CO2 cult believers use is to present graphs of the last 200-1000 years which shows that man-made CO2 emissions are causing the average global temperature to rise.

 

By not showing the MWP CO2 cult believers are intentionally manipulating the global general public and distorting reality.

 

But even if you dismiss the hockey stick graph argument and the fraudulent data from climate scientists, you have to face the reality that global warming ends in 1998.

 

After years of voracious denials from the CO2 cult about the planet warming and junk science that says global warming = extreme weather patterns, the IPCC finally admits the stall of global temperatures in kind terms in Working Group 1 of their fifth assessment:

The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998 to 2012 as compared to the period 1951 to 2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from natural internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that natural internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of natural internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols). [12]

 

Basically, natural factors are responsible for the lack of warming. The IPCC believes (and yes, it is a belief), that the stalling is due to "natural internal variability."

 

CO2 cult believers are really saying that from the 1800s-1998 man-made causes are responsible for the increase in average global temperatures; but from 1998-2012 natural factors are responsible for the stalling of global temperatures. This is junk environmental ideological science at its best.

 

In an email request for comment I ask numerous climate scientists three questions:

1) Does a climate model exist prior to 2012 that shows a lag in global average temperatures from 1998-2012?

2) Does a new climate model exist that shows a lag in global average temperatures from 1998-2012?

3) Are Western-European clean-air acts in the last decade causing the lag in global temperatures?

 

Dr. Kevin Trenberth (University Corporation for Atmospheric Research) says:

"There is a new paper just out (yesterday) by Meehl et al in Nature Climate Change which shows that
1) a subset of models in CMIP5 produced a hiatus in global warming
2) the hiatus was predictable by models if they were initialized in the mid 1990s

This highlights the natural internal variability role of the climate system in the temperature changes since 1998, as we have also shown in our work.

3) No"

 

Professor Richard Somerville (University of California) says:

1) "No, and I would not expect a climate model to show such a "lag" (or "pause" or "hiatus"), because such models are not expected to predict short-term natural climate variability such as ENSO. See above. In brief, the question is not a very good one, because the answer "no" does not in any way weaken the scientific case for man-made climate change.

2) Same answer as 1).

3) No, because there is a lot of evidence showing that the "lag" (or "pause" or "hiatus") is due to natural causes. See above."

 

Professor Tom Wigley (University Corporation for Atmospheric Research) says:

"THE MAIN ISSUE HERE IS THE CHANGE IN THE PLANET'S TOTAL HEAT CONTENT. THE ATMOSPHERE IS ONLY PART OF THIS. HEAT CONTENT CONTINUES TO INCREASE, AND THERE HAS BEEN NO SLOWDOWN IN THIS. THIS IS IN COMPLETE ACCORD WITH MODEL EXPECTATIONS.

WHAT HAS CHANGED IS THE PARTITIONING OF HEAT, SPECIFICALLY BETWEEN THE ATMOSPHERE AND OCEAN. THE HEAT THAT HAS NOT APPEARED IN THE ATMOSPHERE WENT INTO THE OCEAN. WE HAVE OCEAN TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS THAT SHOW THIS.

THIS, IN TURN, IS A RESULT OF A CHANGE IN THE OCEAN'S VERTICAL CIRCULATION. SUCH CHANGES OCCUR ALL THE TIME. THEY OCCUR MAINLY DUE TO NATURAL VARIABILITY. NATURAL CHANGES LIKE THIS CANNOT BE PREDICTED BY MODELS. THEY ARE PART OF THE NOISE WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY UNPREDICTABLE (ALTHOUGH NOT ENTIRELY) UPON WHICH HUMAN INFLUENCES AND THE EFFECTS OF OTHER EXTERNAL FORCINGS ARE SUPERIMPOSED (THE SIGNAL). MODELS PREDICT THE SIGNAL. THEY ALSO GENERATE INTERNAL NOISE, BUT EACH MODEL HAS ITS OWN NOISE SIMULATION. IN THIS SENSE EACH MODEL IS SIMULATING WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN A DIFFERENT PARALLEL UNIVERSE, ONE THAT DIFFERS FROM THE ONE WE LIVE IN. MODELS SHOW THE NOISE FLUCTUATIONS, AND THE STATISTICAL PROPERTIES OF THESE AGREE WELL WITH THOSE IN THE REAL WORLD. HOWEVER, THE TIMING OF THESE FLUCTUATIONS VARIES FROM MODEL TO MODEL (I.E., FROM UNIVERSE TO UNIVERSE).

CHANGES LIKE THIS COULD BE (AND HAVE BEEN, AND ARE IN MODELS) IN EITHER DIRECTION. IN THE PERIOD 1910 TO 1940 (ROUGHLY) THE WORLD WARMED MUCH FASTER THAN THE EXPECTED EXTERNALLY-FORCED SIGNAL. IN THIS CASE MORE HEAT WENT INTO THE ATMOSPHERE AND LESS INTO THE OCEAN, THE OPPOSITE FROM THE RECENT SLOWDOWN. I WROTE A PAPER ABOUT THIS IN 1987...

Wigley, T.M.L. and Raper, S.C.B., 1987: Thermal expansion of sea water associated with global warming. Nature 330,
127-131.

THERE IS NOTHING SURPRISING ABOUT THE RECENT SLOWDOWN IN ATMOSPHERIC WARMING.

2) SEE ABOVE.

3) NO. SEE ABOVE."

 

Professor Ken Caldiera (Carnegie Institution of Washington) says:

"Generally, climate is about long term trends and not shorter term fluctuations. I believe that 1998-2012 was hotter than any other period in recorded history. Models have successfully predicted that the mean over that period would be greater than the mean of prior periods, but I think most models would have predicted a warming trend over that period. It is much easier to predict a mean than a first derivative.

There is nothing in the recent pause that would cause scientists to question fundamental climate physics. The hottest 15 years on record gives little cause to doubt basic climate science.

My understanding is that the cleaning up of sulfate pollution from power plants is likely to have made the polar region warmer than if these pollutants had not been cleaned up.

The dominant theories for the pause in warming involve increased ocean heat uptake."

 

I have to call garbage on some of the responses to Question # 1.

 

After 1998, if I ask a climate scientist about a possible lag in the average global temperature I would bet $20.00 that they would deny the possibility of a lag. Professor Wigley points out that there's nothing surprising about the temperature lag. I would correct him and claim that there's nothing surprising about the temperature lag "now," due to the passage of time; but in 1998 it would be very surprising.

 

The recent 2014 article that Dr. Trenberth points out, [13] that takes into account the lag is impressive. However, I argue that climate models are now (and in the last few years) being created to match the reality of the average global temperature.

 

Hence, climate scientists are starting with a result and creating a model that proves it. This is ideological science at its best. And this is what a lot of Western-European science is about, explaining past events through particular ideologies.

 

In regards to the third question, all of the climate scientists reply with an adamant no. I'll admit that the third question is a trap question to see if any climatologist is incompetent enough to believe that clean-air acts are causing the lag. Luckily for them, no one falls for it. But there's a reason why I ask the question (which will become clear as you read on).

 

The reason why ALL of the climate models are wrong is because the CO2 cult is attempting to control the planet via predictable laws. Newtonian physics heralds the era of predictability and control. But the mathematical theory called chaos theory (also known as the butterfly effect), throws this idea in the garbage.

 

Chaos theory is about non-linear and non-deterministic chaotic systems (practically all human phenomena), being extremely sensitive to initial conditions.

 

In an email request for comment I ask climate scientists:

4) Do you believe that any climate change model is fairly accurate taking into account chaos theory?

 

Dr. Trenberth says:

"All climate change models are imperfect and can and will be improved. They are merely tools for use. They should not be misused."

 

Professor Somerville says:

"Yes, because many aspects of long-term climate change can be predicted despite the unpredictable and chaotic nature of short-term fluctuations, as discussed above. The fact
that "climate" is predictable when "weather" is not illustrates this, a simple example being that a forecast made in January cannot predict the weather in Toronto on July 1, but it is safe to say that next summer will be warmer than last winter. Thus, the long-term climate prediction that global warming and its many consequences will continue throughout this century and beyond, with a severity that will depend mainly on future emissions of heat-trapping gases, remains valid despite the existence of unpredictable "chaotic" short-term natural variability."

 

Professor Wigley says:

"CHAOS AND RANDOMNESS ARE NOT THE SAME THING. THE CLIMATE SYSTEM SHOWS A LOT OF RANDOM VARIABILITY (NOISE...SEE ABOVE) AS A RESULT OF THE MANY COMPLEX INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THE VARIOUS COMPONENTS OF THE SYSTEM. THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM CHAOS. CHAOS IS A WELL-DEFINED MATHEMATICAL TERM, ONE THAT IS OFTEN MISUSED BY THE PUBLIC (INCLUDING YOU, I SUSPECT). MODELS ARE DEVELOPED TO ESTIMATE THE UNDERLYING SIGNAL. THEY HAVE DONE SO WELL IN THE PAST, NOT JUST FOR GLOBAL-MEAN TEMPERATURE, BUT ALSO FOR THE PATTERNS OF CHANGE, BOTH VERTICALLY AND HORIZONTALLY, FOR TEMPERATURE AND A HOST OF OTHER VARIABLES. THIS IS AN AREA OF CLIMATE SCIENCE CALLED "DETECTION AND ATTRIBUTION". THERE ARE MANY, MANY PAPERS IN THIS AREA, THEY EMPLOY SOPHISTICATED AND RIGOROUS STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES TO SHOW THAT THE DETECTED ANTHROPOGENIC SIGNALS ARE HIGHLY STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT."

 

Professor Caldiera says:

"Every climate model beyond the very simplest exhibits chaotic behavior. Obviously, the models do not get all of the modes of atmosphere/ocean interaction correct, so saying that the models are fairly accurate in representing the details of chaotic interactions would be stretching things a bit.

All models are more-or-less useful simplifications of the real world and so by necessity neglect some processes. It is possible that there are important processes that the models do not represent.

I am not really up on what the models predicted for this period, but I think few realizations in the CMIP5 archive predicted such a pause. It is hard to say if there were N copies of the Earth, how many of those copies would have exhibited this pause?"

 

For the most part, the four climate scientists agree that chaos theory is taken into account in climate models. But I argue that they don't understand chaos theory at all.

 

In chaos theory every variable, no matter how small, relative to the dynamic system/moment/phenomenon, will make a large difference in the long run. There is no such thing as randomness in chaos theory. No variables or effects are "random." There's always a cause. Climate scientists that don't know the cause of a particular action that affects the climate/weather erroneously call it randomness.

 

And not only that. But variability or "noise" is intrinsic to the chaotic system. There is no such thing as a clean model of what a chaotic system is "supposed to be" without the variability/noise.

 

The Earth is one giant non-linear and non-deterministic chaotic system with no clean model of how it's supposed to look without variability.

 

At humanity's current level of development, taking into account a potentially infinite amount of chaotic non-linear systems interacting with the larger chaotic non-linear planet is impossible to model. Hence, there is absolutely no way that any current climate model can be accurate. It's all guesswork based on past trends.

 

Fighting the Good Fight

The reason why none of these problems matter to CO2 cult believers is because of the social/spiritual fulfillment they get from fighting for the planet. Salon's 2005 article, "Climate warriors and heroes," says it all. [14]

 

Simply put, the majority of individuals in the Western-European world have absolutely no meaning in their lives...and they know it. Some individuals live check to check, while others are a slave to their debt or their middle income lifestyle.

 

But what they all have in common is the lack of meaning and purpose in their lives. And unfortunately (fortunately in my eyes), the current generation cares about leading a life that's meaningful and soul-fulfilling.

 

Such individuals need meaningful vocations to justify their existence; and the issue of man-made CO2 climate change gives individuals an opportunity to justify their existence fighting a "righteous cause" in the face of corrupt and greedy private interest energy groups.

 

By fighting the good fight in their mind they're giving meaning and value to their lives. Even if they don't live to see the success in their lifetime they'll forever have the perception that they're the "custodians" or "keepers" of the planet.

 

Another fascinating dimension (when individuals become part of the CO2 cult) is the social dimension. Many individuals from all walks of life, all nationalities and all specialties interact under one cause. This eventually leads to lasting friendships, partnerships, marriages, and future generations of CO2 cult believers.

 

This is another reason why CO2 cult believers tow the line. To question CO2 cult doctrine is not only bad for the individual, it's bad for the social and emotional bonds.

 

I argue that many CO2 cult believers don't really believe in the dogmatic CO2 cult doctrine, but they have so much invested with them that it's pointless to leave now. It's better to just go along with it without voicing dissent.

 

While some CO2 cult believers may pay lip service to the CO2 cult, others need to justify their existence by being persecuted by the enemy, like Dr. David Suzuki.

 

In November 2013 Suzuki creates a mock trial to decide whether his environmental actions represent seditious libel. (Please see the article, David Suzuki's Mock Trial is Out of Touch with Reality). [15]

 

In reality, no such thing is occurring.

 

Though the Canadian Harper government forces him out of his own foundation, [16] calling it persecution is going over-board.

 

I argue that CO2 cult believers like Suzuki, Bill Nye and Al Gore have some of the largest carbon footprints in their lifestyle. It would be interesting if a journalist can actually estimate the carbon footprint for all three climate advocates in the last decade relative to their lifestyle.

 

Evidence of Cult-Like Status

While many environmental journalists and climate scientists would admonish my use of the term "CO2 cult" to describe the climate change movement, the evidence says otherwise.

 

In September 2011 the editor-in-chief of the journal, Remote Sensing, resigns in protest to a peer-reviewed article by notable climate skeptic Roy Spencer. [17] However, as of October 2014 the paper has yet to be retracted.

 

In an email request for comment I ask mathematicians/physicists:

1. Do you believe that any climate change model is fairly accurate taking into account chaos theory?

2. Do you believe that Bill Gates' equation (at his 2010 Ted talk):

S (total sum) CO2 ?Temperature Increase ? Negative Effects

...is accurate?

 

Most don't respond. I believe this is due to fear of being labeled a climate skeptic.

 

Dr. Jon Borwein (University of Newcastle) says:

1. "Yes, I am certain they do."

2. "It is a set of implications and they are settled science."

 

Professor Clint Sprott (University of Wisconsin) says:

"First of all, I've never liked the term "chaos theory." No one has ever been able to explain to me what is the "theory of chaos." I assume you mean the unpredictability that is intrinsic to chaotic processes. Chaos obviously limits our ability to make long-range weather predictions (more than a week or two), and may do the same for long-range climate prediction (more than a century or two).

However, I suspect the climate models are pretty good at predicting the next few decades, since chaos is not likely to play a role on those time scales. All the models predict a significant warming over the next century, and the disagreements are perhaps a factor of two, which is probably representative of the likely uncertainty in the predictions. As much as I would like to believe that chaos has something useful to say about climate change, I suspect technological innovations and economics are more likely to determine the extent of global warming than any chaotic dynamic.

Bill Gates has nicely captured the extent of the problem and the possible solutions in his simple equation."

 

The fact that a mathematician and a physicist believes that Bill Gates' CO2 equation is accurate is definitely an ideological cult-like answer and not an objective impartial one that takes into account chaos theory.

 

In regards to the third trick question I give to climate scientists, in the same 2010 TED talk Bill Gates says that:

It's [CO2 emissions] been constantly going up. It's only various economic changes that have even flattened it at all. [18]

 

This answer is 100% false.

 

According to the email responses from the climate scientists, clean-air acts have no significant effect on the temperature lag. And the fact that a mathematician and a physicist would potentially agree with this statement is evidence of their CO2 cult ideologies.

 

And the money shot that clearly shows the evidence of cult-like status is when I ask environmental journalists, climate scientists and climate advocates whether they agree with a peer-reviewed article that claims an increase in CO2 emissions cause an increase in rape.

 

I contact numerous environmental journalists, climate scientists and climate advocates (as you can see from the list below):

 

Environmental Journalists:

George Monbiot - Guardian
Suzanne Goldenberg - Guardian
Damian Carrington - Guardian
Fred Pearce - Guardian
Duncan Clark - Guardian
Adam Vaughn - Guardian
James Randerson - Guardian
Dana Nuccitelli - Guardian
Fiona Harvey - Guardian
John Vidal - Guardian
Andrew C. Revkin - New York Times
Justin Gillis - New York Times
Brad Plumer - Vox
Michael McCarthy - Independent
Geoffrey Lean - Telegraph

 

Climate Scientists:

Professor Ken Caldeira - Carnegie Institution of Washington
Professor Inez Fung - Berkeley
Dr. James Hansen - Columbia University
Professor Syukuro Manabe - Princeton
Dr. Roger A. Pielke, Sr. - Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences
Professor Raymond T. Pierrehumbert - University of Chicago
Professor Keith Briffa - University of East Anglia
Professor Tom Wigely - University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Professor Richard Somerville - University of California
Dr. Kevin Trenberth - University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Professor Phil Jones - University of East Anglia
Dr. Michael E. Mann - Pennsylvania State University
Dr. James White - University of Colorado

 

Climate Advocates:

Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson - American Museum of Natural History
Bill Nye
Dr. Phil Plait

 

In an email request for comment I ask all of them:

1. Do you believe that a 2014 peer-reviewed article that causally connects an increase in rape with man-made CO2 climate change to be credible?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069613001289

 

Most don't respond. I argue that this is due to their cult-like status, no reason to feed the climate deniers now.

 

Only 8 of the recipients respond:

 

Fred Pearce - Guardian:

"Why did you single out rape? The paper is making a connection to a wide range of crime rates. It seems basically to confirm the well-known "long hot summer phenomenon". In hot weather people get out on the street and more social interactions (and maybe hotter tempers) tend to cause more crime. Plus maybe the fact that when its real cold criminal stay indoors like everyone else. That seems to work for burglary.

He then scales that up to climate change. Fair enough. But I don't find the conclusion self-evident. Are people programmed to go and commit crimes when it is above a certain temperature? Or do they commit more crime when it is hotter than usual. Is it temperature per se, or relative temperature. That's not so clear. If the former then his statistics may have some credibility. But if, as I suspect, it is the latter, then it won't make any difference. He should have discussed this.

Also is it a big deal? He says the effects are "substantial", and comes up with some big numbers -- but over 90 years. But the percentage changes (1.5-5.5%) are quite modest.

So: credible, yes. proven, no."

 

Andrew C. Revkin - New York Times:

"That's quite a paper. I can't dig in to the details at the moment but have seen a host of similar analyses purporting to make such correlations but failing pretty badly in the end."

 

Professor Raymond T. Pierrehumbert - University of Chicago:

"I am not qualified to comment on sociological impacts, and the means used to draw causal inferences. Many factors go into determining crime rates, of which weather is only one, and while I do think that there is good statistical evidence for cold weather suppressing crime, I would not feel qualified to pass judgement on the use of these correlations for predicting what will happen in response to anthropogenic global warming."

 

Dr. Kevin Trenberth - University Corporation for Atmospheric Research:

"No. There are (statistical) associations that may not be causal. In general population is increasing and so is temperature and although there is a complex relationship (more people burn more energy) one does not cause the other."

 

Professor Ken Caldeira - Carnegie Institution of Washington:

"My understanding is that there is a correlation between anomalously high local temperatures and events such as riots, but my understanding is that there is little correlation between mean temperature of a city and the likelihood of riot in that city. (That is, a riot might start on a hot summer night in New York, but a city with higher average temperatures such as Dallas is not more likely to have a riot.)

Since the paper looks at monthly departures rather than mean temperatures, it seems it cannot have much to say about the effect of a change in means.

I am highly skeptical of the claims made in the article, but I do not have the information at hand needed to falsify the claims. Thus, I remain highly skeptical but cannot with confidence reject the hypothesis at this time.

That said, if you asked me point blank whether I believe that there is strong evidence that climate change WILL cause an increase in rape, my answer would also be 'no'.

However, if you asked me point blank whether I believe that there is strong evidence that climate change would NOT cause an increase in rape, my answer would be 'no' also.

If you force me point blank whether I believe that climate change will cause an increase in rape and forced a yes or no answer, my answer would be 'no'."

 

Professor Richard Somerville - University of California:

"My field is climate science, not criminal justice or any area of social sciences, so I really can't comment on that article."

 

Dr. James Hansen - Columbia University:

"interesting, but I cannot easily evaluate"

 

Professor Tom Wigely - University Corporation for Atmospheric Research:

"No comment."

 

So the total is:

4 for no comments/not qualified
1 for credible
3 for not credible.

 

The fact that only 3 out of potentially 31 individuals believes that the peer-reviewed article is not credible is beyond disturbing and evidence of the cult-like status of the majority of environmental journalists, climate scientists and climate advocates.

 

Rape, along with other crimes, has no causal connection with CO2 emissions. Period.

 

There is no room for debate.

 

The same is true for alcohol. Despite popular opinion, alcohol doesn't cause aggression or violence; it merely brings out that which already exists in the individual.

 

The idea that climate scientists are not "qualified" to comment on this is proof of their cult-like status.

 

Individuals that believe in causal connections between CO2 emission with rape and violence are definitely lacking in intellect.

 

The CO2 Climate Change Cult Series will continue on October 31, 2014 with Part 8 of 8: Solutions.

 

 

References:

[1] 10.6.2 The Himalayan glaciers. Climate Change 2007: Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Fourth Assessment Report. 2007.

[2] Carrington Damian. IPCC officials admit mistake over melting Himalayan glaciers. Guardian. January 20, 2010.

[3] Adam, David and Pearce, Fred. No apology from IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri for glacier fallacy. Guardian. February 2, 2010.

[4] Goldenberg, Suzanne. Head of UN climate body admits surprise at fury over blunder in report. Guardian. November 19, 2010.

[5] Ravilious, Kate. Hacked email climate scientists receive death threats. Guardian. December 8, 2009.

[6] Monbiot, George. Goodbye, kind world. Guardian. August 10, 2004.

[7] Monbiot, George. Time to change 'climate change.' Guardian. March 12, 2009.

[8] Monbiot, George. Climate change? Try catastrophic climate breakdown. Guardian. September 27, 2013.

[9] Global Warming Deniers Well Funded. Newsweek. August 12, 2007.

[10] Pearce, Fred. Debate heats up over IPCC melting glaciers claim. New Scientist. January 11, 2010.

[11] B.1 Atmosphere. Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report. 2013. p. 5.

[12] Ibid. p. 15.

[13] Meehl, Gerald A., et al. Climate model simulations of the observed early-2000s hiatus of global warming. Nature Climate Change, Vol. 4, No. 10, September 2014. p. 1-5.

[14] Climate warriors and heroes. Salon. November 4, 2005.

[15] The Trial of Suzuki.

[16] Boesveld, Sarah. David Suzuki resigns to save foundation from 'bully' charitable status threats. National Post. April 14, 2012.

[17] Hickman, Leo. Journal editor resigns over 'flawed' paper co-authored by climate sceptic. Guardian. September 2, 2011.

[18] Bill Gates_ Innovating to zero (TED Talk 2010). YouTube video. Posted by TED, February 20, 2010