Skip to comments.Losing the Climate Debate, That's Ok, Just Change History
Posted on 12/23/2009 7:19:55 AM PST by Tom Hawks
During the 70 years that the communists controlled the Soviet Union, they had a peculiar way of teaching history to the people. They would teach things as historical fact that never happened. If you were one of those who took umbrage with their revisionist history lessons, you would soon find yourself living in a tiny apartment in a part of the country where they laugh at anyone who claims the world is getting warmer. In a communist country this is the only way to convince the masses that they are actually better off than anyone in the history of the world has ever been. We now joke about the way the Soviet Union and China used to dissimulate information in order to control their people, but look around and you will notice that there are people in America that are attempting the very same thing here. That's right, there are many Americans today who would like nothing better than to convince the rest of us that their false beliefs are true. Take the global warming debate as an example. There are many global warming alarmists who would like us to believe that historical records back up their cooked scientific data claiming that man can, and has, affected the climate of the world in a negative way.
Oh, now I have done it! I have accused the global warming crowd of using bad science and twisting history to help make the masses believe them. Well, allow me to introduce you to a Mr. William Connolley. Mr. Connolley is a United Kingdom scientist and a Green Party activist who, until this past September, just happens to also be the editor of most everything pertaining to the world's climate at the most read encyclopedia the world has ever known, Wikipedia. Just so you know, Wikipedia is the online source, that 90% of all schools and colleges around the world prefer that their students use when looking for facts about any subject the instructor is teaching. So we are talking about information that is used to indoctrinate the children of the world, or better yet, the future leaders of the world. When I learned what Mr. Connelley was doing at Wikipedia I had to write about it.
Everyone knows about the leaked e-mails that have been sent between some of the leading scientists who believe man is responsible for world wide climate change. In these e-mails, the scientists admit to falsifying their data and destroying evidence so they cannot be caught. Well it seems that there is a lot more in these e-mails then we first thought. We have now found out that the scientists involved in Climategate are also involved in revising history to help their cooked scientific data fit with the historical record of climatic change for the last 1000 years. Long before these charlatans worried about their emails surfacing, they worried about how they could justify their scientific data with the historic fact of the Medieval Warming Period and the Mini Ice Age. This is a quote from one of the many e-mails that were sent between scientists of climate studies.
"We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period"
It would almost seem like a joke, if it were not one of many extensive and illuminating transcripts that provide an unvarnished look at the struggles that the climate practitioners underwent before settling on their scientific dogma. What it does is give you an idea of their collective mindset when they considered the effects that the Medieval Warming Period and the Mini Ice Age would have on their ability to convincingly prove that their scientific data is correct. These leaked e-mails show a pattern that goes back over 15 years as to how they eventually came to the conclusion that they needed to change history to fit the results of their flawed scientific data.
Well eventually the whole matter came down to a political solution that was offered by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the highest..... (This is a long article, but well worth reading if you have the time, or at least bookmark it for a later read.)
(Excerpt) to continue reading "Losing the Debate, That's Ok, Just Change History" follow the link
Most HS and College teachers do not allow Wiki as a source. Plus, the emails do not say “we must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”.
Otherwise, a good example of what the article is claiming.
I was just reading “Eating in America,” a good book written apparently by Lefties (because of their constant “Indians were superior to Europeans” stuff). Nevertheless, they dedicate quite a bit of space to the appearance of warm-weather foods (including grapes) as far north as Greenland when the Vikings were sailing in the western Atlantic. Hmmm. Are they all gonna have to change, too?
What is "Global Warming"?
It is the theory that the mean temperature of the earth is increasing due to the greenhouse effect, caused by greenhouse gases such as CO2, which is produced by humans burning of fossil or carbon based fuels for energy. The solution to this is the reduction of the use of carbon based fuels.
OK, now that we agree on that, let's step through this.
1st, what is the "right" mean temperature of the earth?
Has it ever changed without man's influence?
2nd, the greenhouse effect in and of itself is not a bad thing, it is a good thing - we'd freeze to death at night or in the winter without it.
3rd, What is the most abundant, and also the most contributory "greenhouse gas"?
No, it's water vapor, comprising 95% of the greenhouse effect. Man's contribution to the amount of water vapor is less than .001%, so we can ignore it.
Back to CO2. CO2 contributes around 3.6% to the greenhouse effect.
But what percentage of CO2 is natural and how much man-made? 97% of CO2 is naturally occurring, 3% due to man's actions.
This amounts to a 0.117% man-caused contribution to the greenhouse effect due to carbon emissions.
So, even if we ELIMINATED the use of carbon based fuels for energy production, thus destroying our lifestyle and civilization, we'd have less than a .117% effect on "global warming".
Now, I know that leftists are married to these "solutions" and will want to implement them anyway, regardless of their ineffectiveness. Now, can we discuss why? (topic for another post)
It appears to be a quote from an email that existed before the climategate emails:
We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period,” David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, was e-mailed by a major participant in the IPCC assessments. As Dr. Lindzen confirmed, this was accomplished by the Third Assessment in 2001.
Yes, it’s in this Senate hearing as an unattributed email.
But it’s not in the whistleblower set of emails.
No doubt that they eliminated MWP, it’s in the open literature. Or it WAS, and the new releases don’t have it.
what I read is that the great hockey stick graph produced about 1998 that shows global temperatures warming and carbon dioxide level rising from 1820 onward...
the data set that produced that graph consisted of 12 trees cherry picked from a group of 32 trees in siberia.
those data sets have since been destroyed. when larger samplings have been tested ... they show no such hockey stick leap since 1820—when sampled in the context of the last 1000 years. Which includes both the big warm period of the medieval and the big cooling period of the little ice age.
If you sample the last 100,000 years. we’re in an extended interglacial warming spell and overdue for a temperature snap...downward.
The global warming crowd was a global cooling crowd until the early 80’s.
Forty years ago they claimed we were heading into an ice age. Now they claim that we are headed for warming instead.
A) they misinterpreted the results (genuine mistake)
B) man’s industrialization has so much rectified the cooling trend we’d started through industrialization that now we are heating too quickly
C) temperatures are fluctuating through extra-terestrial (not Earth-caused) means (e.g. the sun or other radiation)
D) some agenda (and profit) driven scientists selectively culled results data and jetisoned any figures that could cause counter arguments to the findings.
That's why they now call it "global climate change" and cover themselves forever trying to hold the temperatures the way the were in 1820.