|
Alternative Climate Thinking |
|
Join the Fight Against Hyperbole and Propaganda in the Sciences |
|
Page 2 |
|
The Reason We’re Here
Not Quite the Beginning, But… The year 2005 was a turning point for us concerning the then coined issue of “Global Warming.” We had never been supporters of the hypothesis of global warming and with only a few exceptions over the last 20 years it was of relative insignificant concern both scientifically and politically. However, several events during this year prompted us into becoming more vocal than usual concerning this subject. First off, during the first half decade of the new millennium, decisions concerning this hypothesis were rapidly being forced upon the entire world regarding the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and its attempt to go into full operation on February 16, 2005. The Kyoto Protocol is an international “treaty” whereby countries agree to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases they emit IF their neighbors do likewise. It is a very complex accord that essentially allows trading (buying) pollution credits between countries (if the country in question cannot make their quota). Like nearly everything these days, you can buy your way out of trouble for a certain price. It’s essentially a legal form of extortion. For a policy analysis of the Protocol in all of its glory, click here.
Proudly, the United States is still a non-party in the ratification of this ridiculous “contract.” However, that doesn’t mean that we are untouched by the ramifications of this absurd (climate) premise. Just after the major November election of 2008, after Obama had won the presidency but before he was inaugurated, Barack Obama announced that the United States would enter a “cap-and-trade” system to combat global warming. The cap-and-trade bill, called the American Clean Energy and Security Act (aka Waxman-Markey Bill), has since been passed in the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009 and now awaits debate, analysis and vote in the Senate. Thus, we are currently on our way to our own internal form of the Kyoto Accord. Only difference is that we will keep the flow of money within our borders (for the most part) instead of redistributing it throughout the entire world. So in all reality, we have also caved into the system and are just self administering the penalties to our people and their (our) businesses. There are so many arguments against this bill based on cost benefit analysis, job loss and further reduction in developing our own extensive resources; I will leave it to you to do that homework. AND, this is not even taking in to account that the ENTIRE premise is built upon a weak scientific HYPOTHESIS to begin with! My advice – contact your US senator before it’s too late and tell him/her to vote against the bill.
What’s in a Name? A hypothesis is defined as a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon, or in other words – an educated guess. In the recent context of global warming or more appropriately anthropogenic global warming (climate change) a hypothesis has been set forth that describes man’s contribution of greenhouse gases (primarily CO2) into the atmosphere as the chief cause of the rise in average global temperature. But still, it’s only a hypothesis…certainly NOT fact and not even a working theory (although the climate modelers will likely tell you different because they can’t model a hypothesis…but that’s exactly what they are doing!). We even see this showing itself in the semantics of the phrase “global warming.” Global warming was THE tagline or catch phrase favored up until 2005 at which time was quickly changed to the more generic “climate change” largely due to the ambiguous and sometimes confusing connotation that global warming brought with it. For the longest time global warming was thought to mean just that – global warming. Who knew just about any negative change in the atmosphere could be, or would be, attributed to global warming (including global cooling!). So you can see the confusion. You see, the recent climate had been showing cooling since 2000 and some were starting to take notice and ask questions. No doubt the powers at be (political interests, et al) funded a market analysis of the problem and arrived at the all encompassing climate change. So now, if the climate changes in any way, they have it covered.
And now, for yet more terminology: The word consensus. What exactly does it mean and what does it have to do with science. The most simple and all encompassing definition of the word which all forms of consensus seem to share is general agreement. However, as with anything that has to do with the subject of climate change, all is really not that simple…which is why this word is thrown around so much. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard that, “…the consensus among scientists is that global warming is real…” Many of us who work in the atmospheric sciences sort of just looked around at each other in amazement, saying or thinking, “Really?” We were all included by default. Somehow, the scientists involved with the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) alone make a consensus. Interesting in that I’m a signatory of the Global Warming Petition Project (GWPP) which has over 31,000 signatures (actually, the number is around 33,000 as of this writing. For details of this petition, click here). Overall, there’s a 15 to 1 ratio (and over a 3 to 1 ratio if you only count those with PhDs) between those who have signed the GWPP and those who have worked for the IPCC over the years. Believe me when I say that there are many, many more out there believe along the same lines as the GWPP but haven’t put name to paper yet for a wide variety of reasons - not the least of which is fear of losing research funding or even their jobs. Perhaps I should have stated this earlier, but consensus really has no place at all in the sciences! It is best practiced in governmental politics and has both psychological and philosophical ramifications…exactly why it has been used in the case of climate change. Look at the governing body (IPCC) from which the consensus was made…it’s just that – a governmental (political) body, not a scientific one! The so called “science” in the IPCC (a United Nations product) has been virtually controlled by politics from the very beginning (1988). It’s more than a little strange in that it took a relationship with a former Vice President and the production of a docudrama motion picture (with 9 major errors) before they won a Nobel Prize…for Peace, not Science! [By the way, for those of you with kids or for those of you who work in elementary or secondary education, you might want to find a way NOT to include The Inconvenient Truth in your curriculums since there are so many flagrant scientific errors…not to mention the hypothesis it’s based on. The only thing that could be worse would be making the showing of The Day After Tomorrow (2004) mandatory. You laugh, but some of you may remember that it was selected as one of the most “socially significant” motion pictures of all time by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in 2007. I wish I were kidding.]
There are really so many pieces to the consensus pie that I could write a treatise on it alone, so I’m going to end it here. I think you know where I headed anyway. Science is supported by skepticism…without it you don’t have science. Science is not a democratic process…you don’t vote on it. It is what it is and that’s all. Bottom line and truthfully, there is no consensus. |
|
To contact us: |
|
E-mail: contact@climatethoughts.org |
|
"Barbra Streisand told Diane Sawyer that we're in a global warming crisis, and we can expect more and more intense storms, droughts and dust bowls. But before they act, weather experts say they're still waiting to hear from Celine Dion." --Jay Leno |
|
"Al Gore announced he is finishing up a new book about global warming and the environment. Yeah, the first chapter talks about how you shouldn't chop down trees to make a book that no one will read." --Conan O'Brien |