Government-funded climate scientists in an attempt to save their government grants are, together with their enviro-fundamentalist supporters, reacting quicker than CFCs hitting ozone to the Channel 4 expose’ The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Of course if you want to get your meaning across and correct any misunderstandings or misinterpretations then the language you use is vital; it is, after all, the only tool you have to convey your meaning to the public.

A few days after Channel 4’s broadcast and we get more vague guesses than a juror on an OJ Simpson trial. Take for instance this attempt to explain away the fact that temperature increase precedes CO₂ increases by 800 years - a point brought to the public in The Great Global Warming Swindle - contrary to the gospel of politico-science that claims that CO₂causes global warming (emphasis mine):

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO₂ did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO₂, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

Um…yes, could have, what does that mean again? Here it means “it’s possible that this is what happened”. But as most scientists will appreciate, anything’s possible; it’s whether it’s probable or not that’s the clincher - and that requires evidence.

The could have, might have, may have trend continues:

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO₂ could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

If you’re not in the mood for a grammar lesson, let’s talk evidence: We know from ice core data that CO₂ levels rise 800 years after global warming. Which is more reliable: what we know backed up by evidence, or what might be possible based on mere induction alone?

Which should form government policy, raise taxes, and be used to lecture developing countries on what they can and can’t do with their natural resources? Which gets extrapolated by certain groups’ political agendas?

So far we’ve been sold down the river with one preaching after the other that it is man-made CO₂ emissions that cause global warming.

It’s not all mythical though. There’s lots of reason to believe that

CO₂ does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway.

seeing as CO₂ absorbs IR radiation, thus stopping the radiation from escaping our atmosphere, and it’s logical to expect that an increase in reactants yields more product. But seeing as man-made CO₂ concentrations are still dwarfed by the sea’s contribution and other “organic” processes, the focus on us (in the form of hypocritically preaching to the developing world, increasing taxes for knee-jerk pilot schemes, and vote grabbing sound bites) is somewhat disproportionate (remember when that word was last used about another global myth?). Some even put our contribution at 0.28%.

Then couple this with water vapour’s far more significant role in climate, this link shows that removing water vapour would create a far more significant decrease in the Greenhouse Effect. But then again “water vapour” isn’t as effective at pointing the finger at capitalism’s trade and industry as CO₂ is. “Blinded by science” is a reality for many. This is probably why Al Gore has no problems effectively lying:

Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

It’s this massive wool over the public’s eyes that has resulted in our post-normal era of blind science. Newton, Einstein, et al., must all be turning in their graves.

And I haven’t even mentioned sunspots yet!

Then there’s this eco-living argument that lives on the Naive Borders of Reality:

The assertation that 10,000’s jobs are dependent on global warming - well surely many, many more are dependent on a high carbon economy, so the idea that the establishment has a vested interest in global warming is laughable.

Yes, why would politicians want to spread the incontrovertible ‘truth’ of the GW gospel? Um… are the eco-living brigade implying the Jesus-like Tony Blair and his John the Baptist sidekick Gordon Brown don’t want to go down in history as “the men who saved the world”? You don’t have to be an arm-chair psychologist to spot the Saviour Complex wherever it may martyr itself. Our whole Judeo-Christian culture is based on leaders making a name for themselves. Tony Blair has consistently shown his Saviour Complex with Kosovo, Iraq, Human Rights Law, and even the great distractor: Israel-Palestine.

Can you say Messianic Complex, My Own Private Historicity and Vote Winner?

And do they also mean to say that when there’s money being thrown at research institutes there are no hands more than willing to take payment? And when the money has been gratefully received do you mean there’s no pressure to produce forecasts and deductions (like the one above) to keep the money wheels rolling?

I would have thought the money talks argument works both ways.

So what is to be done?

Firstly, we must all appreciate the dangers of lying (except perhaps Al Gore who thinks good intentions are all you need): If the truth outs, you and your side are discredited and may never recover. Science is about observation, experimentation, and evidence, not conjecture and extrapolation. We’re seeing signs that the theory outlives the evidence, that the conclusions are written before the results are in.

Secondly, needlessly polluting our planet is a self-defeating exercise. However, to stop pollution, there must be economically viable alternatives ready to take its place, or economically viable purification processes. Moral indignation and taking personal offence are irrelevant: only action and solutions matter. You can’t just put people out of work and tax people into lifestyle concentration camps (try telling that to the anti-car, anti-capitalist, pseudo-progressive - usually left wing - groups) in a knee-jerk reaction so as to look as if you’re doing something about our minority contribution to the Greenhouse Effect.

Thirdly, you can’t expect one group of human beings lumbered with solar power to have to choose between having either their lights on or their fridge, while another group of people have a TV in every room , two cars, every kitchen appliance invented, and a coal-, gas-, and oil-fuelled industry with very few limits to keep them in a comfortable standard of living. (And, contrary to sub-Marxist theory, you don’t improve the have nots by eliminating the haves.) Trains, industry, and hospitals don’t run on solar power or wind power so they’re nowhere near a solution.

It’s back to the drawing board for those who really want countries to develop in a more energy efficient way.