In his June 14 commencement address for the University of California-Irvine, President Barack Obama called those who don't believe in climate change "a fairly serious threat to everybody's future." Regarding the speech, The Associated Press reported, "President Obama said denying climate change is like arguing the moon is made of cheese." He proclaimed, "Scientists have long established that the world needs to fight climate change."
The emphasis on a single government policy strays far from the flowery rhetoric found at the traditional graduation ceremony — especially in light of the timing. While the president was speaking, all of the progress made by America's investment of blood and treasure in Iraq was under immediate threat. Instead of addressing the threat now, why is he talking about "a threat to the future" that might happen in the next 100 years?
The answer, I believe, is found later in his comments. In his speech, Obama accused "some in Congress" of knowing that climate change is real, but refusing to admit it because they'll "be run out of town by a radical fringe that thinks climate science is a liberal plot."
Perhaps he's read a new book by a climatologist with more than 40 years of experience in the discipline, "The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science" by Tim Ball, PhD, which convincingly lays out the case for believing the current climate change narrative is "a liberal plot." In the preface, Ball states, "I've watched my chosen profession — climatology — get hijacked and exploited in service of a political agenda." He indirectly calls the actions of the president and his environmental allies "the greatest deception in history" and claims "the extent of the damage has yet to be exposed and measured."
It is not that Ball doesn't believe in climate change. In fact, he does. He posits, "Climate change has happened, is happening and will always happen." Being literal, Obama's cheese comment is accurate. No scientist and no one is Congress denies natural climate change. However, what is in question is the global warming agenda that has been pushed for several decades that claims that the globe is warming because of human-caused escalation of carbon dioxide. When global warming alarmists use "climate change," they mean human-caused. Due to lack of "warming," they've changed the term to climate change.
Nor is Ball against the environment or even environmentalism. He says, "Environmentalism made us aware we had to live within the limits of our home and its resources: we had a responsibility for good stewardship." But "the shift to environmentalism was hijacked for a political agenda." He points out "extremists demand a complete and unsustainable restructuring of world economies in the guise of environmentalism" and claims "the world has never before suffered from deception on such a grand scale."
Though it is difficult to comprehend that a deception on such a grand scale, as Ball projects, could occur, he cites history to explain how the scientific method was bypassed and perverted. "We don't just suddenly arrive at situations unless it is pure catastrophe," he writes. "There is always a history, and the current situation can be understood when it is placed in context."
In "The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science," Ball takes the reader through history and paints a picture based on the work of thought leaders in their day such as Thomas Malthus, The Club of Rome, Paul Erlich, Maurice Strong, and John Holdren. Their collective ideas lead to an anti-development mindset. As a result, Ball says "Politics and emotion overtook science and logic."
Ball states "In the political climate engendered by environmentalism and its exploitation, some demand a new world order and they believe this can be achieved by shutting down the industrialized nations." He cites Strong, a senior member of The Club of Rome, who in 1990 asked: "What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of rich countries?" A year later, The Club of Rome released a report, The First Global Revolution, in which the authors state, "In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. ... The real enemy then is humanity itself."
Ball concludes, "Because they applied politics to science they perverted the scientific method by proving their hypothesis to predetermine the result." The results? "The sad truth is none of the energy and economic policies triggered by the demonization of CO2 were necessary."
Obama said, "Scientists have long established that the world needs to fight climate change." Yes, some have — many for reasons Ball outlines. But, surely not all. Next month, hundreds of scientists, policy analysts and thought leaders who don't agree with the president's statement (including Ball and myself), will gather together for the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change. There, they won't all agree on the reasons, but they'll discuss and debate why each believes climate change is not a man-caused crisis. In real science, debate is welcome.
The computer models used to produce the scientific evidence and to provide legitimacy in support of the political agenda have a record of failed projections that would have doomed any other area of research and policy. Ball points out, "It is time to expose their failures to the public before their work does too much more damage."