Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Monday, October 15, 2018

The Climate Scare

By Sam Huntington

There appear to be only two camps in this debate: those who swear that climate change will destroy all human life on earth, and the skeptics who simply want to see the data that supports such claims. It doesn’t help when both sides of this issue denigrate the discussion into name calling or character assassination. Of course, two scientists in the same field who agree on anything are as rare as the pale colored unicorn. In this regard, scientists appear not too far removed from cannibals: they are happy to serve one another up for dinner. 

It is also not helpful when a PhD in animal husbandry goes on record supporting the climate change argument when he (or she) is no more qualified to do so than is a PhD in education or someone who drives a city bus. As citizens, we should be looking for a consensus among persons who actually are qualified to render an opinion about climate change.

Here's something else that doesn’t help: junk science. We define junk science as scientific data, research, or analysis that is spurious or fraudulent. In other words, arriving at scientific theories outside of the generally accepted scientific method of investigation. I have two examples of this:

  • The climate change/global warming argument is that CO2 is a well-mixed gas that resides in sufficient quantities high in our atmosphere to cause global warming (greenhouse effect). Actually, CO2 is a heavy gas, not well-mixed. Both of these claims cannot be true, so which one is junk science?
  • How do we know the earth is warming at an alarming rate? Well, by taking earth’s temperatures, of course. It cannot bolster the climate change position when government agencies are discovered intentionally falsifying data, and then using that data in taking their case to the public. And, once discovered, how does John Q. Citizen have any confidence in the global warming/climate change mantra or the agencies that manipulated this data. 

In 1999, NASA published a chart of US temperatures which demonstrated that the highest temperatures on record in the USA occurred in the 1930s. This was followed by a cooling trend through the turn of the century. The publisher of this data, a scientist by the name of James Hansen, concluded, “Empirical evidence does not lend support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat or drought.” The EPA independently confirmed Hansen’s conclusions in their “heat wave index.”

This view changed after Obama was installed in the Oval Office. A second NASA chart measuring temperatures after 2001 shows a dramatic increase in US temperatures. We are now learning that data collected by NASA and NOAA really amounts to scientific misconduct as both agencies conspired with one another to place sensitive thermometers at places guaranteed to register warmer temperatures. Oh, places like near the hot engines of automobiles, on top of asphalt-covered rooves, near exhaust vents of heating pumps, along airport tarmacs in July and August, and adjacent to heat-retaining rock formations.

It also doesn’t help to politicize something “as important” as earth’s environment. No good can come from this —so why are we doing it? Well, to begin with, we might surmise that the people who are engaged in this fraud have an agenda. Insofar as I can determine, there are at least three reasons. 

  • There is a lot of money to be made in the climate change racket. So much money, in fact, that the best thing that ever happened to Al Gore is that he lost the presidency to George the Younger. Some have said that Gore is worth nearly a half-billion dollars and he wasn’t nearly so wealthy when he was running for high office.
  • Another consideration is that it is much easier for government to control extremely large populations, such as that of the USA, when the people are made fearful to the extent that they’re willing to do or believe whatever the government tells them —unless you happen to be one of the poor saps that Obama put out of business by destroying the coal industry. Government traditionally controls people through fear and for most of the first ten years of this century, government worked over time to do exactly that in matters pertaining to the environmental and public health issues. It has even been suggested that World War III could result from our failure to address global warming/climate change. Today’s citizen, preferring emotional reaction to critical thinking has become that fearful voter, and the party seeking to capitalize on this unhappy situation knowingly falsified data to achieve that end. 
  • And what of the scientists who engage in junk science/dishonesty? For starters, there are serious grants offered to universities and independent research firms who are able to find a way to agree with the government’s foregone conclusions. We’ll begin with the total annual amount of scientific funding: $86 billion. The US government has funded up to 70% of this amount, recently down to only (emphasis on only) 50%. So then, what would a scientist be willing to do in order to get a share of that (low number) $43 billion? Lie? Cheat? Steal from the American taxpayer? On a related note, what would a bureaucrat be willing to do in order to keep his five-figure annual income and hefty retirement package?

It would be interesting to know the economic impact of doing all the wrong things, for all the wrong reasons. What is the impact of shutting down entire industries —to save a planet that doesn’t need saving? I can’t help but imagine that the cost is huge. And yet ... even if we assume that the global warming/climate change argument is partially true, wouldn’t re-forestation be a better solution than pushing people toward electric cars (especially since most electricity used to re-charge such cars comes from burning fossil fuels)? And, by the way, what do we do with all those batteries once they’re used up?

45 comments:

  1. It is a religious faith, promulgated by a religious fervor.
    Like the X-Files slogan: They WANT to believe.
    They cannot be dissuaded by facts.
    I met a guy at a job last year.
    He was an engineer on the midnight shift and he spent all night, every night, on a spreadsheet he was constructing showing climate change, and grateful to Obama for the opportunity to be on extended unemployment while he worked on this contraption.
    This guy is an automation engineer, and not a particularly good one.
    And anti-Christian.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Ed. Why "anti-Christian " so often seems to be part of these leftist initiatives seems odd, but Marx DID say "religion is the opiate of the people," so I suppose the Lemmngs of the Left would naturally assume that attitude.

      Notice too how the Left always attacks those who question the veracity or disgaree with the tenets of their "received wisdom" on a nasty PERSONAL level.

      As Christians we are not supposd to do that, but the persistent sneering and belligerence frm the Left makes it very hard NOT to respnd in kind.

      Delete
    2. I am learning to pray for those that despitefully use me, but also to pray that there evil endeavors fail.
      It ain't easy.

      Delete
    3. Ed, I learned that during the Obama years. I despised his agenda, but I prayed for him and his family every day.

      Delete
  2. Also helping the alarmist cause is that most starting points for their temperature trends are around 1850-1870, a well-known cool period.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, SilverFiddle. The basic the once-common knowldge that the entire Solar Syatem, since it emerged (maybe!) from The BIG BANG aeons ago has been in a CONSTANT state of FLUX ever since has been lost in the I-believe-POLITICALLY-MOTIVATED non-debate over "Global Warming" –– now conveniently renamed "CLIMATE CHANGE, beause of record FREEZING temperatures that recently caused The Great Lakes to feeze solid for the first time since I-don't-know-when.

      By the way NIAGARA FALLS froze solid within the past hundred years. There are online photographs to prove it, and no one EVER said the bizarre event had anything to do with the behavior ad accomplishments of HUMAN BEINGS.

      It's much too easy for clever, unscupulous, power-hungry idividuals to panic ignorant unsuspecting masses into beieving ANYTHING.

      Why ELSE do you thunk the minions of the GLOBALIST MARXIAN LEFT long ago took pver the reigns in American Education at all levels?

      It is not by ACCIDENT that we've experienced the steady, relentless "DUMBING DOWN" of America –– and most of the Western World for nearly sixty years.

      The struggle is NEVER about TRUTH. It is ALWAYS about the unholy desire to acquire DOMINANT,ULTIMATELY DICTATORIAL, POLITICAL POWER.

      Delete
    2. Then the arctic ice isn't melting. What a relief.

      Delete
    3. Addressing Ducky ...

      Even if we agree that the Arctic is melting, so what? Does mankind, in its arrogance, really think that human behavior will substantially change life on planet earth? Well, I do suppose that in the case of massive nuclear war, this could be true ... but as good stewards to our blue planet, all of us has an interest in doing the right things for the (our) environment. Still, for as long as I’ve listened to the constant harping about global warming, climate change, and rising oceans, NYC and Boston are still above ground—and so too are the Pacific islands that are about one foot in elevation above sea level. What seems to be missing here among leftist alarmists is this fact: the history of Earth is a chronology of climate change. It’s part of the natural order of things. I have little doubt that we CAN do better —but I am unconvinced that the industrial special interests are trustworthy enough to lead us down a proper path. Environmental science has become a massive money-making industry —accomplished through instilling fear on those who must pay for its propositions. If there is a problem, my argument is this: bring that problem to the fore, lay it out on a foundation of real (versus contrived) scientific data, and then demonstrate to those who end up paying for it how the scientific solution will materially and responsibly benefit global societies.

      Let me say that people like John Holdren (Obama’s Science Advisor) are worrisome. Writing with Paul and Anne Ehrlich to address human ecology, problems and solutions, here’s what Holdren had to say: “Political pressure must be applied immediately to induce the US government to assume responsibility to halt the growth of the American population. Once growth is halted, the government should undertake to influence the birth rate so that the population is reduced to an optimum size and maintained there.” The idiot continued, “A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and de-develop the United States ... to bring our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.” How this moron would undertake to do this presents us with a worrying set of possibilities. No doubt we should begin with increasing funding for planned parenthood so that more black people can be exterminated, and perhaps also anyone who votes as a conservative.

      Sam H.

      Delete
    4. " ... but as good stewards to our blue planet, all of us has an interest in doing the right things for the (our) environment. "

      Just ask ExxonMobil. Surely you would find their coverup of data supporting climate change and the resulting cover up funding as troubling as you find Holdren's.
      Holdren's worst sin seems to be disagreement with a conception of stewardship which allows no possibility of our trashing the place.

      Your final sentence is absurd.

      Delete
    5. I agree with Ducky that Planned Parenthood is absurd and pretty much on the same level as the eugenics implemented in Germany, the USSR, and in Southeast Asia in the last century.

      Delete
    6. Is eugenics synonymous with genocide, Mustang?

      Delete
    7. @ Franco ... Just adding my opinion: I think if it is a national policy to murder several millions of people (babies, Jews, politically dangerous people) in order to mold society (human populations) into what national leaders want it to be , then I think there is a connection between genocide and eugenics.

      Sam H.

      Delete
    8. Thanks Sam. Franco, I probably used the wrong word to make my point.

      Delete
    9. Thanks for answering my question. No criticism of anyone was implied, I was honestly curious that was all.

      Delete
  3. When I was in college (1968-1973), all the liberal professors were yammering on about "the coming Ice Age."

    When I trotted home that lie, my father put that lie to rest: Dad, a farmer in his younger years, was an avid follower of weather trends and, born in 1911, he had observed a great deal for himself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You've raised a very important point, AOW. Once upon a time intelligent people developed faith in the perceptions they gathered from observation and expeience, and were able to draw intelligent conclusions as to what was and was not true.

      My father, born in 1908, was unable to go to school past the eighth grade, because my grandfather did not believe education beyond the Three R's had any practical value!

      NEVERTHELESS, my father, who was extremely intelligent and filled with heathy intellectual curiosity, was able to educate HIMSELF –– not by taking in a lot of cockamamie THEORIES affixing BLAME for social problems and aberrant human behavior put forth by agenda-driven "intellectuals" of dubious loyalty to the United States, but by READING every great book he could find, and by TEACHING HIMSELF to understand the PHYSICS of his time, and to master TRIGONOMETRY and the pruncples of ENGINEERING.

      Father learned so well –– entirely ON HIS OWN –– that he became highly proficient in Mechanical and Structual Engineering, and became so well respected by Industry that he was sought after to design and supervise the construction of monorail conveyor systems that moved parts through assemly lines in several important factories.

      His biggest job was for IBM. It involved the design and installation of over TWO-THOUSAND, FIVE-HUNDRED MILES of track attached to the superstructure that supported the roof in one very large building.

      I don't mention this just boast about my father's accompiishments, but to emphasize that father's success was possible becase in HIS dat a man of PROVEN CAPABiLITY could rise high on the corporate ladder simply because he could demonstrate his COMPETENCE to leaders who valued competence above far above "theoretical" qualifications.

      In other words you did not NEED an academic degree to be considered for any position in industry then. You only needed to be able to PROVE you COULD DO the job.

      Today the world seems to be run by over-educated SIMPLETONS who have little of practical value to contribute anywhere.

      Delete
    2. My father dropped out of high school at the end of 10th grade to travel so as to watch his favorite baseball team: the New York Yankees. Dad had a lot of observations about them, too, including Babe Ruth's lack of need to follow training; he broke all the rules, but yet....

      Anyway, Dad did not despise or neglect science, particularly with regard to the almanac and soil testing. But when "experts" made declarations that were not true but instead promotion of an agenda, Dad went with his gut and the evidence he could see with his own two eyes.

      Dad (1911-1998) and Grandpa (1883-circa 1945) had compendia of their own observations. That's 1.25 centuries -- and doesn't count what Grandpa learned from his elders, all of whom kept detailed records with regard to the weather.

      Delete
    3. Having experienced similar circumstances the story of your father's success ring true. US business is a different reality now.

      Knowledge does not automatically insure that wisdom will follow.

      Delete
  4. A second opinion on your well mixed gas conjecture

    I can't find an article in a peer reviewed journal that argues otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Second opinions are good. On the other hand, Patrick Lockerby’s opinion is no more persuasive than my own. Patrick is a retired engineer. He builds computers, dabbles as a programmer, and he’s a linguist specializing in language acquisition and computational linguistics. He is not a scientist, and while his opinions are interesting, has no bona fides in geophysics, ecology, hydrology, glaciology, or atmospheric science.

      Sam H.

      Delete
    2. You have offered no official statements that CO2 is well mixed.
      As it stands your statement is simply unsupported opinion.

      Delete
  5. "re-forestation" would in fact be a great thing, but I remember reading just a few weeks ago that scientists were complaining about an area (I'll have to dig back and find the article, going by memory here)that was causing issues as the foliage was reaching record levels or something to that affect and in turn was making the atmosphere worse. as we all know plants eat CO2 and in turm spit out oxygen, as always the lies continue

    ReplyDelete
  6. Just remember, the University Discourse always supports and seeks to rationalize the Master Discourse to the Hysterics (normal people) in a way that will result in a continued obedience to and support of the Master. In our 'Democratic' society, the Master is no longer a monarch or king, but instead our elected "Representatives" professionals who practice the University Discourse and earn their living in University or Deep State civil service positions (ie- NASA/NOAA) aka -"authority figures".

    But the source of ALL authority is simply "power" (not "truth"), and they have the power to tax us to their hearts content to study whatever ridiculously complex or implausible scientific theories they choose, because we, the "hysterics/common people" can never be as "educated" or "well read/expert" as them. The "mandarins" are the experts, and we are all taught that they know best.

    Believe the experts, or disbelieve them at your own peril. I for one, don't care what they believe. They know about as much about climate science today as doctors knew about medicine centuries ago when they prescribed bleeding and leeches.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...because if they knew ANYTHING, their climate models would be accurate. And we ALL know that they are NOT.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. So how does this work? You take a mathematically complex subject like climate and if you can't produce a predictive model in one try it's junk science?

      Delete
    4. How does this work?

      Okay. I'll TELL you. You take a legitimate social problem or a NATURALLY OCCURRING phenomenon, use the massive power of a complicit nationwide Communications Industry to declare it an anthropogenic "LIFE-THREATENING CRISIS" –– a DIRE EMERGENCY –– that only increased govenment power fueled by ever-escalataing taxation that cripples productivity and profitability could possibly "FIX," and Bob's your uncle!

      In short it's obviously a diabolical SCAM designed to further enhance TYRANNICAL DICTATORIAL CENTRALIZED POWER.

      In other words it's BUNK.

      The "scientists" and the nattering nabobs of negativism who who promote this fraud have obviously been CORRUPTED by the lure of filthy lucre AND the inoxicating promise of securing a permanent privileged status for themselves in the Brave New World by currying favor with the DICTOCRATIC class.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    6. IN the words of AOW, herself:

      Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:

      1. Any use of profanity or abusive language

      2. Off topic comments and spam

      3. Use of personal invective

      Unfettered INSOLENCE qualifies as PERSONAL INVECTIVE.

      I hope the blog adminstrators do their duty.

      Delete
    7. One try? The IPCC's been trying for decades and still doesn't have one that's worth 2 sh*ts.

      You'd think they'd be good at it, but apparently programming the actual climate isn't as easy as programming the REST of their npc's.

      Delete
    8. Franco,
      Unfettered INSOLENCE qualifies as PERSONAL INVECTIVE.

      I don't see it that way. Why? Because the definition of insolence can be subjective.

      That said, I removed the comment because it had other "offending" qualities.

      Delete
    9. So, you see "INSOLENCE" then as similar to PORNOGRAPHY, AOW?

      Impossible to define legally, but everyone knows what it is when they see it.

      I think most of us know when we've received a direct insult. I certainly do, and it is not subject to the interpretation of others.

      Our favored thorn in everyone's side, Canardo, is the very PERSONIFICATION of INSOLENCE.

      HOWEVER, what I SHOULD have said was something more like this:

      "Canardo gives here a perfect example of the way leftists habitually use insult, sarcasm, sneering derision, arrogant dismissal, and name-calling when they have nothing of SUBSTANCE to use in their vain attempts to refute an argument."

      Delete
    10. Franco,
      Enough of defining insolence. Remember that I work on a daily basis with teenagers. :^)

      I do applaud the final paragraph of your above comment.

      Delete
  7. Round 1 goes to Ducky.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous,
      Sez you. Others will not have the same interpretation.

      Delete
    3. Franco,
      Please! Discussing other bloggers in that manner needs to be discouraged.

      Delete
  8. All we have to do is put enough thermometers in the Arctic to lower the Earth's average temperature. Duh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL! -- More truth there than the warmists care to admit

      Delete
  9. If multiple Scientist have a consensus--then
    it ain't Science!
    If ice melts from the surface then it is warming. That happens every year, natural.
    If ice melts from underneath---then
    it is from ocean floor Volcanoes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point. Melting ice in Antarctica is attributed to a massive volcano. Maybe we should pass legislation against volcanoes and tax the hell out of the American people to enforce that legislation.

      Sam H.

      Delete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

!--BLOCKING--