Posted by
Steve on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 1:52:51 PM
Since we have not had an update on global warming for a while, I thought it would be a good time. Since our last visit, more and more real scientists have decided that their professional reputation is more important than political correctness. That translates into more scientists coming out to say that global warming is nothing more than a hoax.
The entire basis for global warming has been the predictions of global catastrophe that will occur if we do not take drastic action today. The drastic action is always more government control over our lives. There is never a solution that takes in market conditions, always government control over our lives. That should raise questions in people’s minds. Why won’t market conditions ever produce results similar to that of governmental control over our lives? Why do we always have to have more government? The answer is that we do not always have to have more government control. It is just that the people that believe in big government also believe in global warming. That means a big government solution to the “problem” that does not exist.
Global warming predictions have been computer generated. When I was working for a computer start-up company back when a small computer filled a room, the mantra was “garbage in, garbage out”. That means that if you put bad information into a computer, you would get bad information out of the computer at the other end. The people that programmed the computers believed that global warming would occur in a certain way. They programmed the computer to produce that result. When they put in their information, they were surprised to find out that the computers were telling them exactly what they expected. That was fantastic news because it meant that their theories about global warming were correct. (Not) They then published their findings and told everyone what they found out. All they proved was that they could program computers to give those expected results.
How accurate have these computer models been to the actual data? To say that the computer models were inaccurate is an understatement. You could have had a 6 year old throw darts at a chart with rain, sun and other climate information on it and been more accurate. Wildly inaccurate would be downplaying how inaccurate the computer models have been. You wonder how these “scientists” could believe that they could accurately predict the climate 50 or 100 years into the future, when they could not predict the weather even 7 days away.
One rule in science is to take what has happened and use that to project what will happen in the future. They took a one degree temperature rise and said that would go up to some astronomical figure. There is no evidence to lead them to that conclusion, just that is what they wanted the climate to do to justify their funding. When data was inconsistent with their theory of global warming, they either changed the information or just ignored the data altogether. The big example here is the medieval warming period.
The IPCC (The UN’s group that works on climate change) just ignores the medieval warming period. When you check their temperature charts, the medieval warming period is not there. They just basically draw a straight line through the period. To make it more appealing, they put some peaks and valleys, but overall it is a straight line. This is scientifically unethical. But, since almost the entire IPCC is made up of politicians, not scientists, they do not have a problem with ethics. The IPCC, according to Al Gore, is the scientific community consensus on climate change. Less than 1 in 10 members of the IPCC are scientists and most of them are not in the physical sciences, like physics, chemistry, climatology or biology. Probably only ¼ or less of the scientists on the IPCC is in the physical sciences. That means 1 out of every 40 members is truly a scientist that covers the fields involved in climate change. To call a group like that the leader in climate change is to make a mockery of the term.
My credibility is that I am a scientist. I teach biology at a college in the Phoenix metropolitan area. I may have my statistics a little bit off on the IPCC, but the basic idea is sound. When I say ¼, it could be 1/3 or some other figure. When I say, 1 out of 10 it could be as high as 1 out of 5. The point is still the same. Most of their members are politicians. Those that call themselves scientists have degrees and specialties that are not those that are generally involved in climate change research. By that I mean research on climate change itself. I do not mean the effects of climate change; anyone can claim that as a field. I mean research in why the temperature is going up or down, not the effects on this or that population.
Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid want to take this global warming hoax and attach a tax to energy using the Cap and Tax Bill. The official reason is to reduce Carbon Dioxide. Carbon Dioxide is a naturally occurring essential gas. It is not a greenhouse gas that has anything to do with temperature. I should rephrase that. It is not a greenhouse gas that has much effect on the temperature. That is to say that Carbon Dioxide can go up and down dramatically and the temperature does not respod. All scientists know this. Non-Scientists can be fooled by anyone with a good story. Al Gore is the one with a good story in this case.
In summary, the global climate change hoax is the largest hoax ever presented to human beings. That so many people have bought into the hoax tells you how gullible people generally are. Even scientists were buying into the hoax, until the evidence piled up so much that they had to choose between their credibility and their political correctness. Those scientists that have to rely on their credibility have come out against global warming. There are some scientists that still believe in the hoax. These scientists generally do not have to rely on their credibility to get funding. They are a much tougher nut to crack than the ones that have to rely on their credibility.