Posted on 01/03/2014 2:30:30 PM PST by mononymous
Here we are, it’s winter, it’s freezing cold outside, snow is on the ground and a global warming research ship is stuck in ice looking for evidence of melting and disappearing ice. I suppose this is really “climate change,” the lingo used to cover everything that needs a weather related explanation when the obvious is too simple and when it has to be pinned on mankind. So, for instance, if it is freezing cold outside, as it should be in winter; it is not global warming but “climate change” that gave us snow. If it is an extremely hot day in August, then, it is really global warming. See how this works? By the way, what happens to the alarmists who predicted an “active hurricane season” last year, as they did the year before, when not much happens? Their salary doubled?
As the scientists should know and as Al Gore and his acolytes should learn, a single data point here and there doesn’t prove a damn thing. A flash, by the way, remember when John Glenn got a free ride on the shuttle (then in his 70s), to “study” the effects of microgravity on old folks? Well, everyone should know, including the loser Mr. Gore, that a “study” involving one person is worthless; unless, of course, said study is the study of chakra release in the confines of a massage room. (For the record, I don’t believe the rumor that it was Chopra, Deepak Chopra, that Mr. Gore wanted released from his, er, pocket!)
But seriously, scientists, again, ought to know about two things; these are:
(1) the “butterfly effect” which in chaos theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz, ScD, in the very title of his paper, “Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas?” (see following link for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Lorenz ). Essentially, it’d seem that the equations governing the outcome of weather patterns over long periods of time (beyond your 5 – 10 day forecasts) are very dependent on the initial conditions. Imagine then that these equations are complex models involving differential equations with boundary or initial conditions that no one can predict or is known; what good would solving these do? So we run through some supercomputer many different models, the point is, no one really knows. Have these scientists even used what they do know and have observed to match any of their models? Put another way, have they been able to model a system that provides an output that matches the empirical, historical data? Even if they have, however, it’d prove nothing with respect to long term prognostications because, again, the initial conditions are always changing and not really known. Those who pretend to understand all of this would also likely believe an economist who says that, based on his models, on December, 28th, 2020, the DJIA will close at 24,020 or that on January, 6th, 2014; it will close at 15,900. No one has a clue and still, to morons like Mr. Gore; this is “settled science” by “consensus” but all it really is utter crap.
This brings us to the second thing you have to wonder if “scientists” or environmentalists know or have been concerned about.
(b) I’ll call this, the “mononymous1” effect (as a placeholder, because I’d actually like to call it the “my family name” effect – in the interest in remaining anonymous, for now; this is obviously not possible). This “mononymous1 effect” is the combined effect on weather patterns and climate change due to the introduction of wind turbines into wind streams and the increased albedo of the planet because of solar panels. If the butterfly effect is real, then imagine the ripple effect of erecting wind turbines into wind streams. It’d seem, on its face, that the interruption of wind flow and the removal of energy from a wind stream would have a direct and immediate impact on weather and many perturbations on climate models. Are the “green” folks aware of any of this? is there “settled science” on this? Imagine, also, the ripple effect of changing the planets albedo (put another way, energy absorbed versus energy reflected) by using highly reflecting solar panels. Again, do the “green” people know? Has anyone got a clue? Hey, Dr. Gore, are you on to this? Have your guys studied how and if the buildings of Manhattan have produced any “climate change” or weather patterns anywhere? Get back to me…
It is one thing to care about the environment; it is, in fact, quite commendable and we should let our own conscience guide us on how we choose to “care.” It is quite another thing, however, to think you KNOW something about “climate change” or “global warming” and try to use it as a means of stealing freedom and coercing certain behavior from the gullible and collaterally, the rest of us.
Why it that prolonged heat is considered evidence of global warming but prolonged cold is irrelevant?
It isn't irrelevant, it's proof of Global Warming.
I’ve read that too.
It is a good question to which the response will be, “it is due to climate change.” It is like if there are more hurricanes this is due to climate change but if there are less than predicted or none, then there is silence. It is selective use of language and situations in order to appeal to those not capable of thinking (an example of a similar situation is any mass shooting incident). The use of language as code is quite important to liberals and their causes. Another ongoing example is the use of “income inequality” which is just class warfare. Thanks.
I hadn’t seen this; thanks for sharing. They really don’t have a clue but the whole thing has become, religion-like, an article of faith among those who think they know.
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.