There’s a worldwide failure of leadership as western politicians of all persuasions pursue destructive monetary and energy policies. The insanity that going further into debt will reduce debt beggars description. It’s equaled by the fallacy that reducing CO2 will stop global warming or climate change. Both ideas were academic in origin then used for a political ideology that has consistently failed. Saying something is academic means it has little relevance to the real world. As a result the politics has nothing to do with reality as spiraling debt and energy costs devastate economies.
People understand the illogic of monetary policies as debts and deficits balloon and CO2 levels increase while temperature decreases. They know science fails when predicted temperature increases don’t occur. They don’t understand why politicians don’t understand and offer policies to make everything worse. They understand they’ll pay heavily for insane monetary and unnecessary energy policies. In Britain the Climate Change Act to cut CO2 levels by 80 percent in 40 years will cost up to £18 billion each year until 2050. UniCredit, a Europe-wide banking organization is more pessimistic
“According to our analysis, a typical UK energy bill could rise from the current level of £1,000 per year to over £2,000 per year by 2015.”
Obama promised skyrocketing energy prices but a majority didn’t believe him. Monetary and energy policies are perfect if the goal is to destroy western economies. A thesis unfolding as Vaclav Klaus anticipated in his book Blue Planet in Green Shackles.
Premeditation means to think out or plan an action beforehand. It’s usually a good thing, however, it’s unacceptable in law and science. The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) premeditated science of global warming by planning to prove the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis that human CO2 is causing warming. They assumed a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase and programmed computer models accordingly despite the fact every single record shows the opposite. Models projected an increase in temperature that didn’t happen. It didn’t matter. The political objective of forcing governments to reduce CO2 and ultimately eliminate all fossil fuels was achieved.
The IPCC achieved their goal by focusing on very few variables from a vast complex weather system with CO2 almost the total focus. They built computer models from inadequate data and serious limitations in understanding most weather variables and mechanisms. They wrote in Chapter 8 of the 2007 Science Report, Nevertheless, models still show significant errors” and “Models continue to have significant limitations”. Model failure was manifest in incorrect predictions or projections.
Despite this they published the incredible predetermined claim that,
“Another unusual aspect of recent climate change is its cause: past climate changes were natural in origin (see FAQ 6.1), whereas most of the warming of the past 50 years is attributable to human activities”
without it raising red flags. It is scientifically unsupportable. Dr. David Wojick says,
“The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
Diminished public concern about warming hasn’t deterred the politicians. They’re still focused on CO2, and usually refer to it incorrectly as carbon. Most governments have CO2 reduction policies; many impose direct and indirect taxes and legislation restricting CO2 production. These are reinforced with subsidies to alternate energies ostensibly because they produce less CO2. Private industry seized opportunities created by the focus to produce ‘green’ products to improve their public image. The meaningless term “Carbon Footprint” is now part of common language.
Article 1 of the UNFCCC, defined Climate Change as
“a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.”
This makes human impact the primary purpose of the research. But you can’t determine this unless you know the amount and cause of natural climate change. Properly, a scientific definition would put natural climate variability first.
The cynical phrase the, “IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy…” underscores the deception. Neutrality is impossible because the science is deliberately not neutral. They deliberately avoided neutrality through the Summary for Policymakers (SPM), which is always dramatically different than the Science Report. Any intelligent person participating in the IPCC process must realize the vast difference between the Science Report of Working Group I and the SPM.
To ensure people, especially the media, read the SPM and not the Science Report it is release months before the Science Report. It’s more logical to produce the Science report first. There is only one reason for producing the SPM first. The final product achieved the result of deception in full daylight because as David Wojick, IPCC expert reviewer, explained,
“Glaring omissions are only glaring to experts, so the “policymakers” — including the press and the public — who read the SPM will not realize they are being told only one side of a story. But the scientists who drafted the SPM know the truth, as revealed by the sometimes artful way they conceal it.”
“What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment.”
IPCC computer models are the only place where a CO2 increase precedes a temperature increase. The deception is the cornerstone of premeditated climate science and the basis of unnecessary energy policies. Failed leadership combines this with illogical monetary policies that place western economies in jeopardy.
Tags: energy prices, western economies, co2 levels, energy bill, uk energy <BR/>Related articles: