Top Left Link Buttons
  • English
  • German

Green New Deal

Category Archives

Like Father, Like Son: Prince Charles Demands Environmental War Drive at COP26

Like Father, Like Son: Prince Charles Demands Environmental War Drive at COP26

Nov. 2, 2021 (EIRNS)—While the Queen ensured that Prince Phillip’s virus hovered visibly over the proceedings, recording her video for the Royal Family’s reception for the world leaders gathered to open COP 26 with the late His Royal Virus’s picture prominently next to her, Prince Charles well saluted his father’s Nazi-like approach to depopulation, demanding that this be accomplished by replacing governments by a global system of private interests imposed through “a vast military-style campaign.” 

Twice he insisted that “a war-like footing” be adopted. “Climate change and biodiversity loss … pose an even greater existential threat than the COVID-19 pandemic, to the extent that we have to put ourselves on a war-like footing,” Prince Charles asserted from the outset. “We know what we must do. With a growing global population creating ever increasing demand on the planet’s finite resources, we have to reduce emissions urgently, and take action to tackle the carbon already in the atmosphere, including from coal powered power systems….” 

“Our efforts cannot be a series of independent initiatives running in parallel; the scale and scope of the threat we face, call for a global systems-level solution, based on radically transforming our current fossil fuel-based economy to one that is genuinely renewable and sustainable…. 

“We know this will take trillions, not billions of dollars. We also know that countries, many of whom are burdened by growing levels of debt, simply cannot afford to go green. Here what is needed is a vast military-style campaign to marshal the strength of the global private sector. With trillions at its disposal, far beyond global GDP, and with the greatest respect, beyond even the governments of the world’s leaders, it offers the only real prospect of achieving fundamental economic transition,” he concluded. His ghoulish speech can be found here,

HRH’s reference to a military approach is not mere metaphor. As EIR reported in its Oct. 1, 2021, Daily Alert, the British Crown’s premier policymaking think tank, the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA)—known as Chatham House—had just published a paper, “Building Global Climate Security,” arguing that since climate change poses such a serious threat to global security, it will now be necessary to rethink “traditional security concepts,” because climate change is “the most serious threat to global security we face,” and the “security community” is going to play a major role in enforcing green fascism and depopulation. For example: the RIIA paper enthusiastically noted that since there are growing calls to legally define “ecocide” as a crime under the International Criminal Court (ICC), the chance of the armed forces being called on to defend against ecocide “looks increasingly likely.” 


Experts Speak Out Against Suicide in the Name of Climate

Experts Speak Out Against Suicide in the Name of Climate

Oct. 31 (EIRNS) – Quite a number of seasoned experts on power, carbon, and weather are challenging the premises of the Suicide on the Clyde in Glasgow. Among those who have not yet participated in Schiller Institute and LaRouche Organization events, are Bjorn Lomborg, Robert Bryce, and Richard Lindzen.

Swedish economist Lomborg was quoted in Manila Times: “You’ve probably seen the latest alarming headlines: Rising sea levels from climate change could flood 187 million people out of their homes. Don’t believe it. That figure is unrealistic — and it isn’t even new. It appears in a new scholarly paper, whose authors plucked it from a paper published in 2011. And what the earlier paper actually found was that 187 million could be forced to move in the unlikely event that no one does anything, in the next 80 years, to adapt to dramatic rises in sea level.

“In real life, the 2011 paper explained, humans ‘adapt proactively,’ and ‘such adaptation can greatly reduce the possible impacts.’ That means ‘the problem of environmental refugees almost disappears.’ Realistic assumptions reduce the number to between 41,000 and 305,000 — at most, less than 1/600th of the figure in those headlines.

“Sober scientific findings get less attention than alarming and far-fetched scenarios…. We have more knowhow and technology than ever to build dikes, surge barriers and dams, expand beaches and construct dunes, make ecosystem-based barriers like mangrove buffers, improve building codes and construction techniques, and use land planning and hazard mapping to minimize flooding….”

Bryce, a regular Forbes contributor on energy and power, spent two days with no power in Texas in February. He testified Oct. 27 at the House Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee on the American power grid. Whereas from 2000-2007 there were fewer than 100 blackouts in any year around the country, in the past three years there have been 220, 278, and 383 blackouts as interruptible sources have been pushed out and onto the grid. “These policies are not just wrongheaded, they are deeply dangerous,” Bryce told the Committee. “Banning the use of liquid and gaseous fuels will reduce America’s energy security because it will concentrate our energy risks on a single energy network, the electric grid. Furthermore, they would require an electric grid with more than two times the capacity of today’s grid. That’s a largely fanciful notion given that the electric grid is faltering under existing demand.” His Forbes piece is here.

Richard Lindzen is emeritus Professor of Meteorology at MIT. He is quoted, also in Manila Times by author Yen Makabenta. After explaining that the demanded “climate mitigation” measures will have no effect on climate, Lindzen says: “Consider what the climate system actually is. This system consists in two turbulent fluids interacting with each other. They are on a rotating planet that is differentially heated by the sun. A vital constituent of the atmospheric component is water in the liquid, solid, and vapor phases, and the changes in phase have vast energetic ramifications. The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and re-emission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2 percent perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds, ocean circulations, and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multi-factor system, what is the likelihood that the climate (which itself consists of many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomalies) is controlled by a 2 percent perturbation in the energy budget due to just one of the numerous variables, namely CO2?

“Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic…. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure.”


CLINTEL Challenges IPCC Conclusions to Its Chairman

Oct. 28, 2021 (EIRNS) — Fresh from challenging the Schachtian axioms of the COP26 conference in a joint statement with the Schiller Institute, CLINTEL (the Climate Intelligence group, consisting of nearly 100 scientists, engineers, and professionals disputing the apocalyptic nature of climate change) has pointed out the numerous discrepancies between the IPCC’s full report and its Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). These are sufficient to challenge the conclusions and proposed actions to be taken, nominally based on the AR6, “The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report,” but actually based on the Summary for Policy Makers, drawn up by working group 1 [WG1]), which, CLINTEL alleges and demonstrates, misrepresents the latest objective climate science in six key areas.

Attention: Dr Hoesung Lee, Chair of the IPCC, c/o WMO, 7bis Ave de la Paix, CP2800, CH-1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland.
Critique of the AR6 WG1 Summary for Policymakers (SPM):


Dear Dr. Lee,
We have now carried out an interim review of the AR6 WG1 Summary for Policymakers (SPM) and believe that it misrepresents the latest objective climate science in six key areas:

1. It is not “unequivocal” that human influence alone has warmed the planet; the observed modest warming of ~1°C since 1850-1900 has occurred through some as yet unresolved combination of anthropogenic and natural influences.

2. The new “hockey-stick” graph (Fig SPM.1), when analysed in detail, is a concoction of disparate indicators from various time periods over the last 2,000 years, which together fail to recognise the intervening well-established temperature variability, for example of the Roman and Medieval Warming periods and of the Little Ice Age.

3. The incidence of so-called “extreme weather” events is erroneously misrepresented in the SPM compared to the more accurate depictions in the draft main report, which latter identify no statistically-significant trends in many categories over time.

4. Developments in the cryosphere are also misrepresented in the SPM, particularly noting that there is virtually no trend in Arctic sea ice in the last 15 years.

5. Likewise, developments in the ocean are erroneously misrepresented in the SPM; in particular, the likely modest GMSL [global mean sea level] rise to 2100 does not point to any “climate crisis.”

6. The CMIP6 [Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase] climate models are even more sensitive than the already overly-sensitive CMIP5 models of AR5, and ignore peer-reviewed scientific evidence of low climate sensitivity. The models lead to invalid conclusions on ECS [climate sensitivity estimates] and “carbon budgets”; the likely global temperature increase to 2100 does not indicate a “climate crisis.”

These concerns are summarised in the table overleaf and are then analyzed in more detail in the pages that follow. Our more detailed analysis will follow in due course.

We regrettably conclude that the SPM is erroneously pointing to a “climate crisis” that does not exist in reality. The SPM is inappropriately being used to justify drastic social, economic and human changes through severe mitigation, while prudent adaptation to whatever modest climate change occurs in the decades ahead would be much more appropriate. Given the magnitude of proposed policy implications, the SPM has to be of the highest scientific standards and demonstrate impeccable scientific integrity within the IPCC.

You may recall that, in 2010, the InterAcademy Council carried out an independent review of the IPCC procedures at the request of the then UN Secretary-General and IPCC Chairman. Among its recommendations were that reviewers’ comments be adequately considered by the authors and that genuine controversies be adequately reflected in IPCC reports. The AR6 SPM inspires little confidence that these recommendations have been put into effect.

We conclude that the AR6 WG1 SPM regrettably does not offer an objective scientific basis on which to base policy discussions at COP26. It also fails to highlight the positive impacts of slightly increased CO2 levels and warming on agriculture, forestry and human life on earth.

Yours sincerely,
Guus Berkhout, President of CLINTEL (https://clintel.org),
Jim O’Brien, Chair of the ICSF (www.ICSF.ie).


EU Gas Shortage: What About the Netherlands?

Brussels is blaming Putin for causing gas shortage in the EU. As ridiculous as this can be, the established media and politicians trumpet this lie around. But nobody mentions that the Netherlands, once a major provider of gas to Europe, is curbing its production right now.

The Dutch government had decided to shut down the Groningen gas field, because of fear of earthquakes, and began to wind it down last year. Earlier this month, Dutch Home Affairs Minister Kajsa and Economic Affairs Minister Stef Blok said that the government will not increase natural gas production from the Groningen fields to head off the impact of soaring gas prices. The gas taps will only be turned on again if there are very cold winters, not for price rises, the ministers said.

If reactivated fully in an emergency, Groningen could alleviate the scarcity. It delivered 88 billion cubic meters at its peak in 1976 and above 30 billion cubic meters just five years ago. Natural gas production in the Netherlands has been falling in recent years, and in 2020 totaled 20 billion cubic meters. This was the lowest production of natural gas in the Netherlands since the turn of the century.

Gas consumption in the EU amounted to 521 billion cubic meters in 2019, and it dropped to 380 cubic meters in 2020, due to lockdowns. As demand resumed this year, and Gazprom increased its supply, the Dutch could help fill the gap. But maybe the Dutch government wants to let “creative destruction” get its way…


Webcast: We Are Facing “Fascism with a Green Face”, and We Should Call It That!

As energy hyperinflation is taking off, as a result of both objective and subjective factors, Helga Zepp-LaRouche said that this is what her husband uniquely warned about when the Club of Rome first began pushing its anti-human slogan of “limits to growth” in the late 1960s. This is Schachtian policy, she said, a strategy of the leading oligarchs running the world economy, to drastically reduce the world’s population, using the same methods Schacht applied in Germany under Hitler. This has now been openly identified in an article in the October 4 “Economist” magazine, “The Age of Fossil-Fuel Dependence Is Dead”, and in Klaus Schwab’s new book, “Stakeholder Capitalism”, as the dark future they intend to impose. Zepp-LaRouche stated that this is “fascism with a Green face”, and should be identified as such, to mobilize people to defeat it.

In addition to destroying the world’s physical economy, they are engaging in an assault against the idea of human creativity, which is the one source of innovation which has demonstrated that, as LaRouche wrote, “There Are No Limits to Growth.” And at the same time, they are conducting provocations against China which could lead to war. She reiterated her view that collaborative efforts among nations, including the U.S., Russia and China, to reconstruct Afghanistan and Haiti, can provide a basis for overcoming this otherwise deadly threat to humanity.


Hamilton, China, and LaRouche: Economic Development Is an Inalienable Right

Those familiar with the fifty-plus-year forecasting practice and record of economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche will perhaps recognize the deeper significance of the following statement, a significance probably unknown to the writer himself. In a London Guardian October 1 op-ed entitled “America faces supply-chain disruption and shortages. Here’s why,” author Matt Stoller says: “… what we’re experiencing is also the net result of decades of policy choices starting in the 1970s that emphasized consumer sovereignty over citizenship. The consolidation of power into the hands of private equity financiers and monopolists over the last four decades has left us uniquely unprepared to manage a supply shock. Our hyper-efficient globalized supply chain, once romanticized by men like Tom Friedman in The World Is Flat, is the problem. Like the financial system before the 2008 crash, this kind of economic order hides its fragility. It seems to work quite well, until it doesn’t.”

It is not enough to point out that what seems to be a sudden seizing up of the trans-Atlantic goods-distribution system is not the product of the Covid pandemic of the past 20 months, but something more “long-range.” History is never “objective” in that way. What was the agency that was at work here? Thirty-five years ago today, an “event” occurred that, if omitted from current history, renders it impossible to fully understand what is happening now.

THE PRICE FOR CHANGING HISTORY

Lyndon LaRouche, in 2004, in a report titled “The Night They Came to Kill Me” explained the true, “subjective” nature of that “objective” trans-Atlantic-wide economic devolution. “On October 6, 1986, a virtual army of more than four hundred armed personnel descended upon the town of Leesburg, Virginia, for a raid on the offices of EIR and its associates, and also deployed for another, darker mission. The premises at which I was residing at that time were surrounded by an armed force, while aircraft, armored vehicles, and other personnel waited for the order to move in shooting. Fortunately, the killing did not happen, because someone with higher authority than the Justice Department Criminal Division head William Weld, ordered the attack on me called off. The forces readied to move in on me, my wife, and a number of my associates, were pulled back in the morning……

“The 1973 campaign for my ‘elimination,’ the near-slaughter of Oct. 6-7, 1986, and the stubborn effort to exclude me from the debates now (in 2004), are each and all products of the same issue of my fight against the effort of certain liberal economists, and others, to put the world as a whole under the thumb of the policies of former Nazi Economics Minister Hjalmar Schacht.

“The ultimate origin of these and related actions is not the U.S. Department of Justice, but a much higher authority than the U.S. government, the same assortment of Venetian-style international financier-oligarchical interests, and their associated law firms, which unleashed the wave of fascist dictatorships in continental Europe over the interval 1922-1945. The common feature of those international financier interests, then, back during 1922-1945, and today, is their present commitment to imposing Schachtian economics upon both the U.S.A. itself, and also on the world at large…

“The shift of the U.S. and British economies away from the U.S. ‘s leading role as the world’s greatest producer nation, toward a pro-Schachtian, ’post- industrial’ utopianism, was the hall- mark of the 1966-1968 Nixon campaign for the Presidency. The follies of this ‘post-industrial’ shift into wild-eyed monetarism, led the U.S. government to the point, that it must abandon its foolish post-Kennedy economic and cultural policies, or make exactly the choice I had warned that I feared they would make. Nixon’s decision of August 15, 1971 made the march in the direction of ruin and fascist-like dictatorship inevitable.”

Today, as in 1986 and 2004, there are two systems of choice before the world. There is the system of “Reesian choices,” named after the Tavistock Institute’s John Rawlings Rees, typified by the “development policies”—policies of financial looting—of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) toward the continent of Africa ever since the period after JFK’s assassination. Then there is the “American System” of “Hamiltonian” choices, of what has recently been called “win-win cooperation” by the nation of China. For example, when China’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Geng Shuang, recently told that body that the international community should “spare no effort in humanitarian assistance and post-disaster reconstruction” toward Haiti, he opened a “strategic flank in the mind,” that is a far more powerful idea than that of the self-doomed “Operation Orcus/Global Britain” military adventure hurtling to its strategic doom in the trans-Pacific theater.

COMPLETING HAMILTON’S UNFINISHED “HAITI MISSION”

The United States used to think that way. In 1861, the United States, under Abraham Lincoln, dispatched Ambassador Anson Burlingame as diplomatic emissary to a China then subjugated by the British Empire through the Second Opium War. Today, in 2021, China attempts to reach a United States whose leadership and institutional structure, as well as cultural institutions, have now also been subjugated, and largely devastated by the same “Opium War” method—though this time, not external force, but seduction through Winston Churchill’s “Empire of the Mind” was used. The United States was induced, through the Tavistock Institute and its Frankfurt School subsidiary, to destroy itself, to de-industrialize itself, to reject scientific progress itself, and, now, to depopulate itself. The just-announced proposal, however, for a joint, international mission to defend the sovereignty of the nation of Haiti from the international drug mafias that now subjugate it, by demonstrating, through construction of ports, rail, and power, including nuclear and thermonuclear power, that “economic development is a human right,” if accepted, can bring the United States itself back to its senses.

The LaRouche proposal for the emergency reconstruction of Haiti, introducing the higher-order concept of development corridors and an ” economic platform” into one of the poorest areas of the world, provides, as with Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s Afghanistan proposal, and especially if successfully advocated by a group of Americans representing the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites, including those that hail from Haiti, a way for America to return to its previous Hamilton/Lincoln/Roosevelt outlook, that Frederick Douglass, America’s ambassador to Haiti, represented in his living person.

The uncorrected flaw in the American Revolution was, as all know, the inability to resolve the Africa chattel slavery matter at the beginning of the creaton of the nation, largely because of the influence of John Locke and his Royal Africa Company on the constitution of South Carolina, and other Southern states. But slavery was not the desired system, originally, even in the Southern colonies. Auguste Levasseur, Secretary to Lafayette, recounted in 1824:

“In about the year 1680, the General Assembly of the State of Virginia requested of the parent state that it finally put an end to this commerce in human flesh, infamous and unnecessary in the future, since now the population was numerous enough and active enough to cultivate a land that required only the lightest work to reward the tiller richly. Other Colonies repeated this cry of justice and philanthropy, but the parent country was callous and responded only by this atrocious resolution of Parliament: The importation of Slaves in America is too lucrative for the Colonies to be able to insist that England renounce it forever. This response was accompanied by threats to which it was necessary to succumb since they were in no condition to resist them. Nonetheless, the General Assembly renewed several times its demand….”

Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton’s support for the Haitian Revolution, and his co-authorship of Haiti’s Constitution, flowed from his notion of “Artificial labor” as expressed in his 1790 Report on the Subject of Manufactures. Is Thomas Jefferson’s then-opposition to Haiti’s self-government consistent with the now-present United States policy, itself opposite to that of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, of allowing, tolerating, and in effect aiding in the never-ending torture of that population, through refusing to take down the “Dope Inc.” financial oligarchy that dominates it as surely as did the slave-masters of 1791? China, which has, since the Bandung conference of 1955, and now even despite the fact that it is not diplomatically recognized by the government of Haiti, insisted that economic development is a human right for that nation. It has now posed to the entire international community that the same problem China has successfully tackled and solved internally—the eradication of poverty—be solved worldwide. The Global Development Initiative premiered by Xi Jinping at this United Nations session has now placed “economic development as a human right” on the world table. Executive Intelligence Review has answered the United Nations, and the world, by providing a policy orientation for the now-distracted United States. The plan for Haiti invokes, implicitly, FDR’s Four Freedoms, and, explicitly, LaRouche’s Four Economic Laws, to chart a way forward, not only for Haiti, not only for the Caribbean, but by means of eradicating poverty through economic cooperation, for “everywhere in the world.”

“YOUR DEATH WILL SAVE THE PLANET”

There is only one problem. The financial neo-Malthusians intend to use the illiterate argument that “natural law” is above human rights, to introduce what Fred Wills used to call “the doctrine of regrettable necessity” as the means to argue that billions will have to go away to save the planet. The bill is beginning to come in for this sophistry, in astronomical gas and electricity prices, hyperinflation, supply chain breakdowns, cuts in living standards, and drops in life expectancy that, while blamed on the coronavirus pandemic, preceded it. As stated by Klaus Schwab in the book Stakeholder Capitalism:” The same force that helps people escape from poverty and lead a decent life is the one that is destroying the livability of our planet for future generations. The emissions that lead to climate change are not just the result of a selfish generation of industrialists or western baby boomers. They are the consequence of the desire to create a better future for oneself.”

Except that Schwab isn’t actually referring in this passage to “western baby boomers,” but to both the Chinese policies for the development of African nations, and the desire of African nations to create a better future. As the Club of Rome’s Alexander King wrote: “The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” Especially the “high birth rate” in Africa—too many African “carbon footprints.” So, regrettably, Africans must be reduced in their numbers, by any means necessary, in defense of natural law.

China’s calling the attention of the world to the crisis in Haiti at the United Nations, seen from the standpoint of the proposal in Executive Intelligence Review written by Richard Freeman and Cynthia Rush, places the United States in the position to choose, not the Tavistock choice method, but the “win-win” method which was always the essential characteristic of the American System which, as Henry Carey put it, “is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating vehicle equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.”


South Africans ‘Stand Up for Nuclear’ at Annual Rallies

Sept. 30 (EIRNS)—Despite the green psychosis that has overtaken South Africa, more than 400 South Africans participated in the annual “Stand Up for Nuclear” events on Sept. 18 in Pretoria and Cape Town, and at the proposed nuclear site, Thyspunt.

Despite demands from the international bankers that coal be abandoned—even while South Africa is overwhelmingly dependent on coal for generating electricity—South African public opinion about nuclear energy is still ambivalent, at best. “Stand Up for Nuclear South Africa” and related efforts intend to change that.

Participants in the Sept. 18 events included nuclear industry professionals, politicians, educators, and students.

The main event was a three-mile walk across the township of Atteridgeville in Pretoria to the Phatudi Comprehensive School, where Zizamele Mbambo, Deputy Director General of Nuclear in the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy, gave the keynote address.

On the streets, the activists—equipped with loudspeakers, banners and posters—demanded that government include nuclear in the green finance taxonomy. They engaged the surrounding communities on the merits of nuclear energy, including its huge potential to end load-shedding (power shut-offs, now 25% of the time) and reduce the cost of electricity.

The coordinator for Stand Up for Nuclear South Africa, Princess Mthombeni, told Executive Intelligence Review that “we are planning other initiatives such as the upcoming energy debate, as well as outreach programs that aim to engage communities and other stakeholders such as trade unions.”

Stand Up For Nuclear SA is a program of trade union NEHAWU’s Professionals Technical Committee, in collaboration with other organizations including South African Young Nuclear Professionals Society and Women in Nuclear South Africa. NEHAWU is the National Education, Health and Allied Workers’ Union.

Stand Up for Nuclear is also held annually in more than 80 cities around the world, including New York, Seattle, Paris, and London; the number is growing. The South African organizers say that it has been led since 2016 by Environmental Progress, an American environmental movement led by Michael Schellenberger, to inform societies about the harmful effects of the indiscriminate expansion of renewable energy and the necessity of nuclear power.


Transport Sector Associations Warn of Massive Disruption Of International Supply Chains

Sept. 29 (EIRNS) – The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and other industry groups representing 65 million transport workers globally today issued a public letter addressed to the heads of state gathered at the United Nations General Assembly, in which they warned of a “global transport system collapse” if governments do not restore freedom of movement to transport workers and give them priority to receive vaccines. “Global supply chains are beginning to buckle as two years’ worth of strain on transport workers take their toll,” the groups wrote. “All transport sectors are also seeing a shortage of workers, and expect more to leave as a result of the poor treatment millions have faced during the pandemic, putting the supply chain under greater threat,” it added.

The other signers include the International Air Transport Association (IATA), the International Road Transport Union (IRU) and the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF).

The U.S., like other countries, is already suffering significant shortages and inflation, as a result of the sharp inflation of energy prices, in part due to the Green de-carbonization agenda, along with industrial closings. This is expected to worsen sharply between now and year-end. CBS TV’s Oakland affiliate reported: “Retailers are sounding the alarm on the upcoming holiday shopping season due to serious supply chain issues that are slowing shipments of manufactured goods around the world.” They quote John Drake, VP of Supply Chain Strategy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce: “There are not the people in place to move the containers and the chassis where they need to go. So you’ve got a lot of stuff piling up at the ports and at the warehouses. When that happens, the harder it is to get the stuff that is ready to move.” The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are particularly backed up.


Climate Models: With Enough ‘Free Parameters,’ Data Will Confess to Anything

Aug. 3, 2021 (EIRNS)—One of the criticisms leveled against the climate models used to terrify the world with the unfathomable horror of a change of 1.5 degrees by the turn of the century, relates to how modelers deal with uncertainties.

The entire Earth is a very complex system to model, and our understanding of many of its processes—wind patterns, rainfall, ocean circulation—is incomplete. This means that models cannot claim to be based purely on fundamental physics and well-known laws of nature, the way a simple physics demonstration used in a classroom would.

Instead, each of the uncertain values that is incorporated into the final model has some “wiggle room” in the specific value given to it.

If there are only a few uncertainties, the model as a whole will have only a few adjustment points, and there may be a very small range of setting the uncertain parameters that results in the model accurately producing past data, against which it can be verified.

But if there are many “knobs” on the machine, so to speak, there can be many ways of adjusting them such that the model matches the past relatively well (given the extremely incomplete data, no one expects perfection), while offering wildly different predictions for the future.

Climate models have many free parameters, many knobs to adjust, such that their matching past data says little about their ability accurately to predict the future. In this sense, you can get the underlying climate data to confess anything you’d like about the future, including out- of-control warming.

The Executive Director of the CO₂ Coalition recently wrote about the origin of climate models: “The father of these models was Cold War military theorist John von Neumann, who wanted to see if we could cause drought in the Soviet Union. He failed, thank goodness. Von Neumann joked, ‘with four parameters I can draw an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.’”

Professor Will Happer uncovered a 2010 paper by Jürgen Mayer et al. (DOI: 10.1119/1.3254017) that does just that. They use a Fourier coordinate expansion with four complex parameters to successfully parameterize a shape resembling an elephant. And adding a fifth causes the trunk to move around as its path is traced.

(Unlike the cases in climate models, in this case there was no data against which to validate the parameters, so the authors were completely free to set them as they pleased.)

What can a climate modeler achieve with hundreds or thousands of free parameters?


NASA’s Goddard Institute Pours Cold Water on Climate Change Sales Pitch

NASA’s Goddard Institute Pours Cold Water on Climate Change Sales Pitch

Aug. 1 (EIRNS)–Under the headline “U.N. climate panel confronts implausibly hot forecasts of future warming,” a July 27 article in Science magazine covers the bombshell that has just hit the IPCC’s climate modelers: “Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the model makers themselves, believe are implausibly fast.”

Now, the article says, “scientists have scrambled to understand what went wrong.” Some of them are wondering how they can “turn their models into useful guidance for policy makers” – which was their supposed raison d’être in the first place! Worst of all for them, their feet are being held to the fire by Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who said: “It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this [fixing the models].”

The IPCC is in trouble, because by the time the modelers’ bias was exposed, the supercomputing runs were already done and the IPCC report, based on these implausible fast warming rates, was nearing completion. The IPCC is now perilously close to being totally discredited, even by its own disciples. Meanwhile, other scientists, who actually measure phenomena rather than fiddle with models, are using recent observational data [gasp] “to rein them in.”

Here is a warning by one of the IPCC’s own climate projection leaders, Claudia Tebaldi, a climate scientist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: “For now, policy makers and other researchers need to avoid putting too much stock in the unconstrained extreme warming the latest models predict.”

Already climate papers are appearing using CMIP’s [Coupled Model Intercomparison Project] unconstrained worst-case scenarios for 2100. “But,” says the Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, “that practice needs to change. You end up with numbers for even the near-term, that are insanely scary—and wrong.”


Page 1 of 5123...Last