Posted on 07/29/2013 8:28:25 AM PDT by rktman
Please allow me to recount the details of my personal path to CAGW scepticism. I have never previously found myself at odds with the scientific mainstream and at times it feels quite odd. Perhaps others here have similar experiences?
(Excerpt) Read more at wattsupwiththat.com ...
From what I hear, there has never been a scientific consensus on this subject.
There has been a liberal consensus, pushed by liberal politicians, Hollywood idiots, liberal talking heads on TV, and other assorted left leaning people. They are behind global warming because they have been told that is what they should think. But a consensus of liberals on some subject is very different than a consensus from the scientific community.
My personal path was when I saw the odious Al Gore choose this as his public issue in the late 1990’s.
My simple logic is - when perhaps the stupidest politician on the planet chooses an issue to sustain his career, you know the whole thing is foul.
I’ve been proven correct ever since.
I have read that the first politician to jump on the AGW bandwagon for political reasons was Maggie Thatcher.
Was looking for arguments for switching GB from coal (unions were giving her fits) to nuclear.
“Please allow me to recount the details of my personal path to CAGW scepticism. I have never previously found myself at odds with the scientific mainstream and at times it feels quite odd. Perhaps others here have similar experiences?”
That’s it?? Maybe more lies on the other side of the link?
But, but, but............ algore invented the interweb, he and Tipster were the basis for “Love Story” and he is now a renowned climate scientist. What could possibly be wrong with this picture?
“I have never previously found myself at odds with the scientific mainstream ...”
Fear not, you are not even close to being at odds with the scientific mainstream. Only the MSM claims that there is a “consensus” on this, and remember that MSM folks report what they hear without question because a simple differential equation is something forever beyond their meager intellect.
Besides, review a bit of history and check out the “consensus” for plate tectonics, the theory of atoms, and either of the relativity theories.
The purpose of science is not “consensus,” but a testable theory which can accurately predict.
The climate change gang of jokesters have an unequaled record of lying, data altering, and inability to correctly predict.
AWG is an excuse for the Progressives to squash energy production to spread Americas wealth world wide, and get rich on the process.
The rest is all smoke and mirrors.
Same with me. And it wasn't just Gore, but other hard leftists and the totally corrupt environmental organizations. When they jumped on board, I knew immediatly that something was fishy about the science. That inspired me to look harder and I found nothing but junk science behind their claims.
That's what got me with the "carbon credits" business. Never gave much thought to that, other than it being the usual attack on the industrialized West, until I saw an article on how it was supposed to work. They would be traded on an exchange, and Goldman Sachs, et al would be the middlemen, charging commissions on every transaction. As often posted here, "Follow the money".
What explains the move from the “impending ice age” concerns of the 1970s toward the “impending global warming” concerns of today?
The communists are better organized.
Interesting. My "skepticism" started in about 1991. My first question was based on my highschool science education. I had been taught that the earth routinely goes through climatic cycles from hot to cold. There have been ice ages and periods when there was no ice at the poles. When it was suggested that the global temperature might raise by a couple degrees F every 100 years, I remember thinking that seemed reasonable. After all, a few thousand years ago, much of North America was covered in miles of ice. Then the earth warmed apparently. In college I asked someone, "What would the average global temperature be if humans never existed? What is the control for the science.?" This confused my liberal colleague. In all science, there has to be a control from which to measure. What should the temperature of the earth be? I also asked what caused the little ice age and the medieval warming period recently when vikings farmed on Greenland? It seemed the believers had never considered anything that remotely pertained to standard scientific methods and questions. By 1995, I was adamantly calling BS based on the lack of science and calls for consensus. WTF is consensus in science. Science isn't democracy where people lobby a theory for support and make it fact when they think they get 50%.
I was extremely distrustful of it from the very start, as soon as it began to clearly mirror the 1970s scam by (butterfly expert and science fraud) Dr. Paul Ehrlich. His infamous “the population bomb” hysteria.
(His very name is a slur of Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich, one of the greatest scientists in history.)
His thesis went way beyond that of Thomas Malthus, in predicting that soon the Earth would have a human population well over 8(?) billion, that all our resources would be exhausted, and that starvation, pestilence, pollution and horror would slaughter billions, and all of it in the 1980s. Kind of a Soylent Green world.
So, he suggested that the world needed an authoritarian, one-world regime to prevent human birth at all costs, including contaminating food with drugs that caused sterility, forced abortions, etc.
The dude was (and still is) a monster.
Yet on closer examination, he also advocated many of the same “solutions” proposed by the MMGW hysterics today.
And the two things together is indicative of scoundrels.
1) There is a problem that will create enormous destruction.
2) Everyone must do exactly as I say, because only I have the solution to the problem. Any other ideas are heresy.
Importantly, they spend almost all their time on getting political power and money, and none on the actual problem. And if someone says, “There might be a problem, so here is an easy, cheap way of solving it”, they have to be stopped at all cost.
Because the bottom line is not the problem, or solving it; but to amass totalitarian political power and money. They figure that if they can achieve *those* goals, the problem will solve itself.
Two things did it for me.
One, I read reports referring to warming on Mars, and Pluto, and Jupiter, and various moons of Jupiter and Saturn.
And two, I saw that scientists who wanted to investigate any possible link between planetary warming and solar output were attacked and mocked and accused of bad faith.
And I thought, that’s weird. Wouldn’t scientists want to study something like that?
Did not get past the title. I am already full up with Al Gore Weariness -why read about how it took someone even longer to reach the same position?
It is the passion and emotional investment that betrays their dishonesty. They don't want to debate and don't want to hear opposing views. Their ideology tells them AGW should be true, therefore the matter is settled.
Like medicine (Obamacare), politics should not influence science.
LOL! The pro agw crowd never wants to hear the facts because “the science is settled”. Kind of like a 3 day old buritto settling in your gut. Ends up a load of crap.
Nope. Read the posts after the article. AGW is dead.
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.