Home » Comment and analysis
Category Archives: Comment and analysis
By Jerome Ravetz
To start, ‘quality’ now means ‘goodness’. But it is not a simple property. In fact, it is complex, recursive and moral. First, for any thing or action, there are a plurality of attributes of quality, each of which will have its own criteria and standards. These do not come from nowhere; for each there will be a social system that defines and then monitors them. This immediately raises the question in the Latin motto, ‘who guards the guardians?’
For each answer, the question is reiterated, and so there is a recursive process. The tasks are different, at the different levels; and ultimately there is a sanction in an informal, perhaps indefinable thing called ‘public opinion’. We see this most clearly in the case of school exams, where children are tested by special agencies, and these are inspected by other agencies, up to the political level where a Minister is responsible; and (as happened not long ago) if things go very wrong then the Minister resigns because public opinion has made their position untenable.
There is a distinction between quality control and quality assurance; the latter refers to the total complex process. The maintenance of quality is very much a moral process. This is because it is impossible to make a complete specification of tasks at the lowest level; evasion of imposed standards is always possible. Hence if operatives do not believe in the system to some extent, it will fail. Their adherence to the system will depend on their morale, and that is conditioned by what they observe of the behavior of those who govern them. In that sense, corruption starts at the top.
By Nils-Axel Mörner
Paul Driessen (photo left) and Ron Arnold just published a very interesting article (CFACT, April 17, 2016) where they write:
What we contest are false assertions that “humans are creating a dangerous climate change crisis.” We do not accept false claims that “the science is settled” and will not be limited to discussing only “what we must do now to avert looming climate catastrophes.”
That’s not just constitutionally protected free speech. It is the foundation of scientific progress and informed public policy.
The words are very well formulated, and it perfectly well fits with the basic idea of the foundation of our Independent Committee on Geoethics.
The authors continue:
Meanwhile, EPA and other federal agencies, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climate activist organizations, state legal and environmental agencies, and legions of scientists who receive government grants for advancing the “manmade climate cataclysm” mantra are themselves engaging in what many say is truly misleading or fraudulent climate science, policy and regulation.
Millions in poor countries die annually from preventable diseases, because hysterical climate claims justify denying them access to affordable modern electricity and transportation that could be provided by coal, natural gas and petroleum products. In developed nations, climate hysteria has cost millions of jobs, adversely affecting people’s living standards, health and welfare. In European countries, thousands are dying each winter, because they can no longer afford proper heat.
The problem is not human intervention in the climate; it’s improper political intervention in climate science. It has corrupted scientific findings from the very beginning.
Let me congratulate the authors for their excellent review based on true Science and Geoethical principles. The full text is accessible on the web (address above).
For the past few decades, the media and a few high-profile public figures (chiefly Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States and winner of a Nobel Prize for creating terror in the minds of millions) have been screaming at us that we are all doomed because the climate is changing! Not only is it changing, it is OUR Entire Fault!
We puny humans have really done it now, in our quest for cheap energy and hot cars, we have spewed this horribly polluting but invisible gas into the atmosphere. That’s right, you are exhaling this “pollutant” as you read this. The gas to which I refer is none other than Carbon Dioxide (CO2)!
Uberto Crescenti: Dipartimento di Ingegneria e Geologia Università G. d’Annunzio Chieti-Pescara (Italia) e-mail : email@example.com
Translation and comments by Franco Maranzana, Consulting Geologist
Abstract. The article deals with the prediction of the future climate of our Planet. At present we have some reliable data on the past through the historical studies of the climate. They cannot be projected towards the future. Hence, the catastrophic predictions of the IPCC and of those adhering to this organization, These predictions cannot be seriously taken into consideration but they influence the world economy because of the application of the Kyoto Protocol which, only in 2013, has mobilized some 160 billion dollars on the so called carbon tax.
In the occasion of the Lectio Magistralis at the Royal Society of Arts of Edinburgh, on 31 October 2011, Matt Ridley stated :” Never count on the consensus of experts about the future. The experts deserve to be listened to themes related to the past. Futurology is pseudoscience”. Such a statement very seldom can so well be applied to the field of climate predictions.
On August 13, President Anote Tong of Kiribati sent a letter to all the world’s governments where he urged for a moratorium for coal mining under the assumption that CO2-emision affects global climate and under the claim that his islands are serious threatened by a rising sea level. He ended his letter by saying that it is a matter of ”moral obligation”.
In Science and Geoethics, we, too, have obligations – and this is to ensure that all claims are based on a solid scientific ground, and are in harmony with physical laws.
Because of this one of us sent an Open Letter to President Anote Tong of Kiribati dated November 26, 2015 (and posted on ResearchGate under DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2766.4723 where it is accessible).
This letter demonstrates that the existing tide gauges (ten) “fail to support your idea of a rapidly rising sea level”, and the all over ending conclusion reads:
So, indeed, what you claim with respect to sea level rise and CO2-effects is not founded in facts and physics. This means that it violates both science and geoethics.
If President Tong’s August letter is nonsense, we now come to the Fraud issue.
“I’m not a great one for shouting fraud, but I can’t see that there is any other conclusion that one can draw”(from the blogger Bishop Hill).
Somebody on Kickstarter is trying to raise funds for a film about Kiribati called “ANOTE’S ARK: What if our homeland was swallowed by the sea”.
The promoters claim “Kiribati faces the unstoppable rise of sea level, which will engulf it before wrong. Can these people survive as their country disappears?
Their argument is false (see the Open letter). Still, the promoters have attracted “50 backers” providing a total amount of 25,166 USD (by January 26).
In conclusion, false statements are being used to raise money. Isn’t this what we normally label “fraud”?
For the principles of Science & Geoethics
Nils-Axel Mörner and Willie Soon
A new video by ‘Windows on the World‘ featuring Organisers, speakers and attendees at the Paris Climate Challenge 2015 event.
The Independent Committee on Geoethics thanks Mark for his involvement and technical support.
By Patrick Moore
Paris – There are two climate conferences going on in Paris this month. One, the 21st Conference of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP21) attended by about 40,000 people, and the other, The Paris Climate Challenge 2015, attended by about 40 people.
The big conference is conveniently situated next to Europe’s largest private jetport, all the better to bring in the thousands of dignitaries from around the world. How else could they attend without flying in fossil-fuel-powered aircraft? There is no discussion of science at this conference as the science is considered to be settled. Catastrophic human-caused global warming and climate change will be upon us unless we can keep temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius. The only way to do that is a drastic reduction in fossil fuel consumption with a goal of terminating it altogether as soon as possible. This would eliminate 85 percent of civilization’s energy supply in a world where more that a billion people still have no electricity.