Posted on 11/20/2019 4:49:16 AM PST by Kaslin
The absolute worst case of professional incompetence and dishonesty is in the area of climate science. Tony Heller has exposed some of the egregious dishonesty of mainstream environmentalists in a video he's titled "My Gift To Climate Alarmists." Environmentalists and their political allies attribute the recent increase in deadly forest fires to global warming. However, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, forest fires reached their peak in the 1930s and have declined by 80% since then. Environmentalists hide the earlier data and make their case for the effects of global warming by showing the public and policymakers data from 1980 that shows an increase in forest fires.
Climate scientists claim that rising sea levels are caused by man-made global warming. Historical data from the tide gauge in Lower Manhattan shows that sea levels have been rising from about the time when Abraham Lincoln was president to now. Heller says that sea levels have been rising for about 20,000 years. He points out that anthropologists believe that when the sea level was very low people were able to walk from Siberia to North America.
Hot weather is often claimed to be a result of man-made climate change. Heller presents data showing the number of days in Waverly, Ohio, above 90 degrees. In 1895, there were 73 days above 90 degrees. In 1936, there were 82 days above 90 degrees. Since the 1930s, there has been a downward trend in the number of days above 90 degrees. If climatologists hide data from earlier years and started at 1955, they show an increase in the number of above 90-degree days from eight or nine to 30 or 40. Thus, to deceive us into thinking the climate is getting hotter, environmentalists have selected a starting date that fits their agenda.
You might ask: "Who is Tony Heller? Does he work for big oil?" It turns out that he is a scientist and claims to be a lifelong environmentalist. From what I can tell, he has no vested interests. In that respect, he is different from those who lead the environmental movement, who often either work for or are funded by governments.
Once in a while environmentalists reveal their true agenda. Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC's fourth summary report released in 2007, speaking in 2010 advised: "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world's wealth." U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres said that the true aim of the U.N.'s 2014 Paris climate conference was "to change the (capitalist) economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution." Christine Stewart, Canada's former Minister of the Environment said: "No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits. ... Climate change (provides) the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." Tim Wirth, former U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs and the person most responsible for setting up the Kyoto Protocol said: "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
Not all scientists are dishonest and not all news reporters are leftists with an agenda. But one wonders at the deafening silence where there's clear, unambiguous evidence. For example, if ocean levels have been rising for some 20,000 years, why do scientists allow environmentalists to get away with the claim that it's a result of man-made global warming? Why aren't there any reporters to highlight leftist statements such as those by Edenhofer, Stewart and others who want to ride global warming as a means to defeat capitalism and usher in socialism and communism? I would prefer to think that the silence of so many scientists represent their fears as opposed to their going along with the environmental extremist agenda.
Michael Mann?
I once saw a government RFP that stated something to the effect that proposals that didn’t include a discussion of climate change wouldn’t automatically be rejected.
Heller does a great job. He is a software engineer as well as a geologist and nature enthusiast. He is funded by donations by fans of his you tube channel and the like when he is not working as,an engineer.
A few years back we here in Michigan were talking about how lake Michigan’s water levels were alarmingly low. Some people were citing “global warming” as the reason.
Now? We are talking about the high lake water levels.
There are numerous historical examples of scientists kow towing to the prevailing religious, political and cultural winds. In Germany over one hundred of the most prominent German physicists signed a letter denouncing Einstein and his theory of relativity not on a scientific basis but because he was Jewish. In Russia, all biologists and geneticists had to praise and accept the bizarre theories of Lysenko who was Stalin’s favorite. In the United States medical scientists who challenge the prevailing nonsensical new orthodoxy regarding homosexuality and gender are harassed and punished.
Power and gold make the rules but cannot alter or establish truth.
They obviously do not. The conclusions are reached, couched in the popular terms du-jour, and in accordance with the proclivities of the funding source. Then the data and methodology are manipulated to support that conclusion. They have abandoned the scientific method. They misuse and abuse computer modelling to the point that in "climate research" computer modeling is analogous to CGI support in making a movie - the script is written and the B-roll shot, just fill in the blanks...
This makes so-called "climate scientists" generally, in fact almost completely dishonest as a group. The few with any integrity left have apparently been summarily run out of the field. Thus the fear factor. Those who might actually want to do the right thing, explore real science in the field are afraid of being knocked out of the field if they do.
Chances are, if someone is an active "climate scientist" or "climate researcher" today, they are almost certainly both dishonest and afraid.
Does the guy know the difference between a male and female? That is the important question facing our culture.
Looking at the Wikipedia entry (which I do more as entertainment than a search for the facts) it said this, which is archingly typical presentation by the Left:
"...Christopher C. Horner is an attorney in Washington, D.C. and a Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who opposes the mainstream view of climate change and has been prominent in promoting climate change denial. He is the author of three books disputing the scientific evidence for man-made global warming. Horner had a financial relationship with coal companies who provided him with funds. Horner has been criticized for hounding climate scientists with frivolous requests for documentation and emails..."
"Documentation!? We don't need no stinking documentation!"
I was reading about how ancient peoples would offer sacrifices in the winter to ensure the onset of spring. These sacrifices were often costly and, if spring didn’t arrive, would put their survival in jeopardy.
If spring always arrived, wouldn’t the sacrifice be unnecessary?
The point being, spring didn’t always arrive. There have been times in the past where it stayed cold, whether due to volcanic eruptions putting ash in the air and causing the earth to cool, or possibly asteroid strikes doing something similar.
The “climate” of the earth has always been in flux. Using only the past couple of hundred of years as a baseline, as some measure of perfection that needs to be maintained, is folly.
We would be much better served using our technology to prepare for and deal with inevitable swings in our temperature, instead of trying to prevent them.
Yeah...that made me laugh too. Given the way Christopher Horner wrote his book, I suspect it made him laugh a little as well to read that.
He started his book by talking how the Leftists rifle his trash he leaves out looking for any links to the petroleum industry, sexual relations with other men, or any other negative information, and when he talked to another like-minded significant person, and they both had a laugh when the other guy revealed his trash was being rifled as well!
If the government changed to paying people to find there is no warming, what would happen to the results from all these “climate scientists”?
Yes, and the transition from science to propaganda started a long time ago too. I had a subscription in the early 60's but let it drop in the mid 60's because their BS has started even back then.
Whoa.
Which reminds me of an old joke:
What's the difference between a snowman and a snowwoman?
Follow the money.
In almost every case in today's world, follow the money.
Snowballs. Or melting rate.
Heh, heh.
Just be forewarned. Lysenkoism is coming back and will be the cudgel used against Intelligent Design. Especially when looked at through the lens of Epigenetics and Lamarckism.
But that's the way to bet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.