Climate change: less of a scientific agenda and more of a political agenda

By |2014-06-29T09:48:35+00:00June 25th, 2014|CFACT Insights, Guest Insights|7 Comments

Those who don’t believe in climate change are “a threat to the future,” says the Washington Post in a June 14 article on President Obama’s commencement address for the University of California-Irvine. Regarding the speech, the Associated Press reported: “President Obama said denying climate change is like arguing the moon is made of cheese.” He declared: “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. And, as I pointed out last week, what is taking place right now in Iraq has the potential of an imminent impact to our economic security. 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.”

BALLBOOKPerhaps 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, Ph.D.—which convincingly lays out the case for believing that the current climate change narrative is “a liberal plot.” (Read a review from Principia Scientific International.) 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 the past several decades that claims that the globe is warming because of human-caused escalation of CO2. 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 he against the environment, or even environmentalism. He says: “Environmentalism was a necessary paradigm shift that took shape and gained acceptance in western society in the 1960s. The idea that we shouldn’t despoil our nest and must live within the limits of global resources is fundamental and self-evident. Every rational person embraces those concepts, but some took different approaches that brought us to where we are now.”

Ball continues: “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. 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 MalthusThe 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.”

Having only been in this line of work for the past seven-and-a-half years, I was unfamiliar with the aforementioned. But Ball outlines their works. Two quotes, one from Erlich, author of, the now fully discredited, The Population Bomb, and the other from Strong, who established the United Nations Environment Programme (the precursor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), resulted in an epiphany for me. I now know that the two sides of the energy debate are fighting apples and oranges.

I’ve been fighting for cost-effective energy, jobs, and economic growth. I point out, as I do in a video clip on the home page of my website, that the countries with the best human health and the most physical wealth are those with the highest energy consumption. I state that abundant, available, and affordable energy is essential to a growing economy. I see that only economically strong countries can afford to care about the environment. 

While the other side has an entirely different goal—and it’s not just about energy.

Erlich: “Actually, the problem in the world is there are too many rich people.” And: “We’ve already had too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease not the cure.”

Strong: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

When the other side of the energy debate claims that wind turbines and solar panels will create jobs and lower energy costs—despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I’d mistakenly assumed that we had similar goals but different paths toward achieving them. But it isn’t really about renewable energy, which explains why climate alarmists don’t cheer when China produces cheap solar panels that make solar energy more affordable for the average person, and instead demand tariffs that increase the cost of Chinese solar panels in the U.S.

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.

Throughout the pages of The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science, Ball goes on to show how in attempting to meet the challenge of collapsing an industrialized civilization, CO2 becomes the focus. “Foolishly we’ve developed global energy policies based on incorrect science promulgated by extremists.”

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.”

Heartland 2014 adObama said: “Scientists have long established that the world needs to fight climate change.” Yes, some have—many for reasons outlined in Ball’s easy-to-read new book. 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: “The error of their predictions didn’t stop extremists seeing the need for total control.”

The claim of consensus is continually touted and those who disagree are accused of thinking the moon is made of cheese. According to Ball: “Consensus is neither a scientific fact nor important in science, but it is very important in politics.”

Do you want to live in a world with “the best human health” or in one where “the real enemy is humanity itself?” Energy is at the center of this battle.

“It is time to expose their failures [and true motives] to the public before their work does too much more damage.”


Author’s Note: The title is taken from a 2011 quote from India’s Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh.


  1. gregzimmerman007 June 30, 2014 at 3:03 PM

    Obama has already ended economic growth – the economy is in a free fall. What does that have to do with Global warming?

  2. Paloma July 1, 2014 at 12:02 AM

    Welcome, Marita. I believe many of us have been stating this very same thing for at least three years. This the new new Big Lie. Add to this the fact that Maurice Strong’s pal Robert Mueller arranged/wrote the Core Curriculum now also rearing it’s head and I believe we’re seeing the rise of what conspiracy buffs long derided called “The Fourth Reich”. It might be wise to follow the money trail from Hitler’s financial team, which invested billions in foreign companies in hopes of rising again. Kinda weird, I know, but truth is often stranger than fiction.

  3. alpha2actual July 2, 2014 at 12:22 AM

    Robert Proctor coined the term ‘agnotology’ the study of how ignorance, particularly in scientific, military and technical matters, can be manufactured, manipulated by strategies and campaigns dominated by vested interests.

    So I decided to coin a synonym ‘agendaist’, but someone beat me to the punch, Onyxhawke defines agendaist as individuals who unlike most of the rest of us can only focus on one thing and their agenda is the prism through which all things are viewed, it is the one true yardstick, and the alpha and omega of their existence. They do come in all flavors, although thanks the prodigious effort they put into focusing on their totem there is no room for any other neurological function. All their efforts are twisted to viewing the entire world into classifying everyone as either with us or against us. Example is “Denier”, a pejorative referring to Holocaust Denial. Therefore I will posit that it is perfectly appropriate to refer to Anthropogenic Climate Change agendaists as climate change Nazis, as Dr Roy Spenser has suggested. This sort of obsessive, or more accurately, pathological behavior will cause an Agendaists to take a statement by a person they’ve probably never met or interacted with in anyway, and twist it to fit their agenda.

  4. wally12 July 16, 2014 at 4:40 PM

    What better way for Obama to downscale the economy of the US than by downsizing the existing energy industry. This would fit right in to his plan to make the US a less influential nation. He would like nothing better. He already has made more people dependent on the government by reducing the restrictions on food stamps, by allowing more illegal immigrants into this country which means more low cost competition for jobs that are already scarce. He is able to hide his true agenda by claiming that CO2 and humans are to blame for the harm to the planet. Thus, he claims he is the great environmentalist and only wants to save the US. He has used the EPA to do some of his dirty work of defining CO2 as an air pollutant. Of course, our government has given those powers to the EPA and how could the SCOTUS not agree with the EPA’s power. I believe more and more people are beginning to see through all these scams. Therefore, his transformation of America is to first tear it down so he and his liberal friends can redo it to a more socialistic nation. I can hardly wait for the legislature to again claim control of the EPA through new legislation and to de-list CO2 as an air pollutant in need regulation.

  5. Frederick Colbourne April 28, 2016 at 3:57 AM

    The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science by Tim Ball, Ph.D

    This link doesn’t work.

  6. Frederick Colbourne April 28, 2016 at 3:58 AM

    (Read a review from Principia Scientific International.

    This link doesn’t work.

  7. Frederick Colbourne April 28, 2016 at 5:08 AM

    The Club of Rome released a report, The First Global Revolution, in which the authors state: “…The real enemy then is humanity itself.”

    Shakespeare said it better when he put the words in the mouth of a different conspirator, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars / But in ourselves, that we are underlings.” (Julius Caesar, Act I, Scene III, L. 140-141).

    Henrik Svensmark turns this around: The fault, dear friends, is not in ourselves / But in the stars, that Earth’s climate changes. (A paraphrase, not a quote.)

    The journal: SVENSMARK, Henrik. Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges. Astronomy & Geophysics, 2007, 48.1: 1.18-1.24.

    The CERN experiment:

    Carslaw, K. S., R. G. Harrison, and J. Kirkby. “Cosmic rays, clouds, and climate.” Science 298.5599 (2002): 1732-1737.

    (To access the following PDFs, you need to removes the dashes from ‘h-t-t-p-s’.)



    The web site:

    And the video: The Chilling Stars

Comments are closed.