Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 02/19/2011 10:02:18 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
The climate change deniers have no one but themselves to blame for last night’s vote.
I’m talking about those who deny NATURAL climate change. Like Al Gore, John Holdren, and everyone else who thinks climate change was only invented since they were born.
Politicians formed the IPCC over 20 years ago with an endgame in mind: to regulate CO2 emissions. I know, because I witnessed some of the behind-the-scenes planning. It is not a scientific organization. It was organized to use the government-funded scientific research establishment to achieve policy goals.
Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. But when they are portrayed as representing unbiased science, that IS a bad thing. If anthropogenic global warming – and ocean ‘acidification’ (now there’s a biased and totally incorrect term) — ends up being largely a false alarm, those who have run the IPCC are out of a job. More on that later.
I don’t want to be misunderstood on this. IF we are destroying the planet with our fossil fuel burning, then something SHOULD be done about it.
But the climate science community has allowed itself to be used on this issue, and as a result, politicians, activists, and the media have successfully portrayed the biased science as settled.
They apparently do not realize that ‘settled science’ is an oxymoron.
The most vocal climate scientists defending the IPCC have lost their objectivity. Yes, they have what I consider to be a plausible theory. But they actively suppress evidence to the contrary, for instance attempts to study natural explanations for recent warming.
That’s one reason why the public was so outraged about the ClimateGate e-mails. ClimateGate doesn’t prove their science is wrong…but it does reveal their bias. Science progresses by investigating alternative explanations for things. Long ago, the IPCC all but abandoned that search.
Oh, they have noted (correctly I believe) that a change in the total output of the sun is not to blame. But there are SO many other possibilities, and all they do is dismiss those possibilities out of hand. They have a theory — more CO2 is to blame — and they religiously stick to it. It guides all of the research they do.
The climate models are indeed great accomplishments. It’s what they are being used for that is suspect. A total of 23 models cover a wide range of warming estimates for our future, and yet there is no way to test them for what they are being used for! climate change predictions.
Virtually all of the models produce decadal time scale warming that exceeds what we have observed in the last 15 years. That fact has been known for years, but its publication in the peer reviewed literature continues to be blocked.
My theory is that a natural change in cloud cover has caused most of the recent warming. Temperature proxy data from around the world suggests that just about every century in the last 2,000 years has experienced warming or cooling. Why should today’s warmth be manmade, when the Medieval Warm Period was not? Just because we finally have one potential explanation – CO2?
This only shows how LITTLE we understand about climate change…not how MUCH we know.
Why would scientists allow themselves to be used in this way? When I have pressed them on the science over the years, they all retreat to the position that getting away from fossil fuels is the ‘right thing to do anyway’.
In other words, they have let their worldviews, their politics, their economic understanding (or lack thereof) affect their scientific judgment. I am ashamed for our scientific discipline and embarrassed by their behavior.
Is it any wonder that scientists have such a bad reputation among the taxpayers who pay them to play in their ivory tower sandboxes? They can make gloom and doom predictions all day long of events far in the future without ever having to suffer any consequences of being wrong.
The perpetual supply of climate change research money also biases them. Everyone in my business knows that as long as manmade climate change remains a serious threat, the money will continue to flow, and climate programs will continue to grow.
Now, I do agree the supply of fossil fuels is not endless. But we will never actually “run out”…we will just slowly stop trying to extract them as they become increasingly scarce (translation – more expensive). That’s the way the world works.
People who claim we are going to wake up one morning and our fossil fuels will be gone are either pandering, or stupid, or both.
But how you transition from fossil fuels to other sources of energy makes all the difference in the world. Making our most abundant and affordable sources of energy artificially more expensive with laws and regulations will end up killing millions of people.
And that’s why I speak out. Poverty kills. Those who argue otherwise from their positions of fossil-fueled health and wealth are like spoiled children.
The truly objective scientist should be asking whether MORE, not less, atmospheric carbon dioxide is what we should be trying to achieve. There is more published real-world evidence for the benefits of more carbon dioxide, than for any damage caused by it. The benefits have been measured, and are real-world. The risks still remain theoretical.
Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth. That it has been so successfully demonized with so little hard evidence is truly a testament to the scientific illiteracy of modern society. If humans were destroying CO2 — rather than creating more — imagine the outrage there would be at THAT!
I would love the opportunity to cross examine these (natural) climate change deniers in a court of law. They have gotten away with too much, for too long. Might they be right? Sure. But the public has no idea how flimsy – and circumstantial – their evidence is.
In the end, I doubt the IPCC will ever be defunded. Last night’s vote in the House is just a warning shot across the bow. But unless the IPCC starts to change its ways, it runs the risk of being totally marginalized. It has almost reached that point, anyway.
And maybe the IPCC leadership doesn’t really care if its pronouncements are ignored, as long as they can jet around the world to meet in exotic destinations and plan where their next meeting should be held. I hear it’s a pretty good gig.
on Saturday, February 19th, 2011 at 11:03 AM and is filed under Blog Article.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Several threads going on Last Nights vote.
I am told that this fellow messed up the troposphere sensing data because of a failure to adjust for degradation of the satelite orbits over time. I am also told he is not a denier, but says we can’t do anything about it. No time to check out this information but will be back tonight.
Drudge had a report that the Republicans in the house, not only were not only voting to defund the Climate Change people, they voted to get rid of nine of Obama’s Czars, including the science Czar and Health care Czar.
There is a lot of Action....MSM seems to be very selective on what they publish!
*********************************************
Dr. Spencer’s first popular book on global warming, Climate Confusion (Encounter Books), is now available at Amazon.com and BarnesAndNoble.com.
The Bad Science and Bad Policy of Obama's Global Warming Agenda (Encounter Broadsides) [Paperback]
ping.
Defunding is nice and all but when do we get justice?
How many 100’s of billions of taxpayer’s dollars were spent on this sham? I want Al Gore and every alarmists that made a living off this laughable marxist eco fecal freak hoax PUT IN JAIL FOR LIFE.
Obama isn't going to do anything!
There WERE corrections made in the satellite sensing records some fifteen+ years ago. (The changes amounted to less than 1/2 of 1/10 of one degree in the final temperature.)
The corrections WERE found, announced, analyzed, and PROMPTLY fixed.
And THAT is how real “science” is done. Analysis is never finished, and the “science” is ALWAYS subjected to continuous and open review using open records and a continuous chain of custody.
The climate change deniers (Hansen, Mann, Briffa, the IPCC, NOAA, NASA-GISS, NSIDC, etc.), however, coverup their errors. Al Gore’s climate change deniers hide the records, destroy them (as in East Anglia), hide behind “peer-review” by their cronies aided by denialist editors, fire editors that attempt to support open unbiased research, break the law, hide Freedom of Information Act requests, delete emails, illegally share research data that is under review, and illegally conspire to get more funding from taxpayer dollars.
Oh. By the way, climate change deniers have extorted 89 billion in funds the past years.
NOBODY - no “big oil money” in particular - has sent taxpayer money for unbiased climate research. Only for climate change denial funding by the DOE, EPA, and NOAA, NSIDC. So, if you believe that “science” can be actually corrupted by money, then YOU must believe that the democrats’ international climate change deniers HAVE ALWAYS BEEN already corrupted by their power and the money extorted from the US taxpayers.
Also: The DOD money is corrupted as well: The USAF is the largest payer of “green energy” in the world. What should be going to actual defense, is going to fund the democrat’s climate change denial industry.
I am glad you believe in CORRECTIONS, because I believe you have made a number of mistakes. You repeatedly refer to climate change deniers (like the IPCC, Hansen, Al Gore, etc). I think what you mean is climate change supporters, or climate change believers, or something similar. I don’t have time to check them now, but I hope your other assertions are far more accurate. Perhaps some fact checking is in order.
Hey if you have any links on that,...drop it on here.
not surprised by your statement....some years ago they had a big group in Mass... I believe... doing computer weather studies.
Ping
Awesome.
Ever wonder why you never stop hearing about studies finding GW responsible for everything from kidney stones to cannibalism? Explains Richard Lindzen (Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT): "It's become standard that whatever you're studying, include global warming's effects in your proposal and you'll get your (government) funding."
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.