Climate Change: Globalist Hot Air? Part III.
This is the third of a multi-part series
Part III.
Previously, we looked at the IPCC and the role that politics plays in its election and report publication processes. We also looked at its connection with the Kyoto Protocol, which upon objective examination is nothing more than the forfeiture of western technology and knowledge to poorer countries in the interests of cleaning up the environment. Next, we took a look at the scientific techniques involved in reaching all of the doomsday conclusions and examined why many of these techniques were biased in favor of the conclusions they reached.
How Climatology stacks up against the Heavyweights:
Even Einstein’s famous theory of General Relativity has been put to the test on occasion. Since the wide acceptance of the Big Bang theory, astronomers have long held that the Universe would follow the physics model of an explosion, eventually slowing down its expansion, until it collapses from the force of gravity. They set out to measure how much the Universe was actually slowing down, giving a possible clue to the timing or nature of its demise. The readings were off the scale. Unable to make sense of their measurements, they thought that Einstein’s theory was broken. The world was in chaos. Only after shedding their biases and taking stock of what they were seeing, did they realize the Universe was actually still expanding. When they reran their experiments using the new information, Einstein’s theory worked once again and the world was in harmony.
Science is not even sure that the expansion of the Universe will slow down. The key is whether it contains enough mass. The jury is out on that one too.
Intellectual Dishonesty
The Earth has been found through hard science to be 4.5 billion years old. It also has gone through multiple Ice Ages, likely including a “Little Ice Age”[1]. There is even a “Snowball Earth” theory. Not surprisingly, the IPCC said that a cooling pattern of less than 1º C that lasted for 400 years in the Northern Hemisphere is insignificant [2], yet a .3 to .6º C warming over what they claim was the entire planet over the last century means that we have to give our technology away to Third World countries, stop driving SUVs and ditch our fireplaces or we’re doomed in a generation.
The IPCC cannot have it both ways. Why is a drop of less than 1º C insignificant if it lasts 400 years, but an increase of less than 1º that took 100 years significant? Biased research, that’s why…
Our planet is but one tiny, insignificant grain of sand floating in the cosmos. Our Sun warms our planet and gives us life, yet also produces coronal mass ejections (CME) and perpetually bombards our planet with a solar wind that screams through space at hundreds of kilometers per second. The Sun will likely end in about 5 billion years as a Red Giant, incinerating everything in the solar system. How’s that for global warming?
I must confess I knew there would be negative reactions to this article. I made several disclaimers that I did not question the underlying science and that one should wait to read the entire article before opening one’s mouth. Well, many people rejected that advice, and ended up looking quite foolish in the process. A researcher we’ll call “Brad” emailed me from Antarctica. He told me he was currently involved in research way down south, trying to study how excess CO2 affects the shell formation of marine animals. Server logs verified he was in fact with the US Antarctic program. After essentially calling me a liar, he ended up admitting that he had somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction and actually emailed me before he had checked his facts or even completed reading the introduction; before I even set out to refute the science.
The ideology of liberalism is so infectious, even researchers themselves aren’t aware of the extent of their own bias.
Many liberals simply cannot believe that anyone would disagree on this issue, and are reacting like Eddie Murphy in Beverly Hills Cop, covering their ears and childishly pouting: “La la la la, I am not listening to you, Jeffrey!”, burying their heads in the sand and avoiding my footnotes like the plague. I have been accused of preventing the development of cleaner energy and wanting to remain dependent on foreign oil, called a retard, a dumbass, told that my “childern” (sic) will pay for it and despite the fact that I have shed blood in defense of this country, was told by a self-professed “devout Christian” I have no right to express these views. According to many, Al Gore’s Academy Award and Nobel nominations (entirely politicized institutions in their own right) are conclusive proof that I was wrong.
In my introduction, I made light of the sorry state of our education system. These responses to solid research should remove any doubt as to the failure of said system. What these poor souls don’t understand is that the harm in taking this report as fact, is that the prevention of the free exchange of ideas is generally referred to as Fascism. Patriotic Americans hate fascists. I eat Fascists for breakfast.
Anyone not encouraging this science to be put to the test is waging an intellectually dishonest argument by trumpeting its validity, but not encouraging its dissection. True men of conviction would INVITE independent scrutiny with great fanfare. Those who declare the debate over are intellectually bankrupt.
The preponderance of the evidence accumulated over 150 hours of research indicates that there is so much consternation and disagreement in the scientific community over the methods of multiple regression and null hypothesis testing, particularly when combined, that this report is based on flawed logic and cannot be trusted. The only “Inconvenient Truth” is the one that liberals refuse to acknowledge, even when their noses are rubbed in it.
In the end, it seems that the increased emissions from Nancy Pelosi’s new, bigger jet, along with the hot air emanating from liberals and the U.N. are far more significant contributors to global warming than America’s love affair with the automobile will ever be.
Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis 2.3.3 - Was there a Little Ice Age and a “Medieval Warm Period”?
