There is little doubt in my mind that most climate research studies are influenced by institutional and researcher bias. Not that the majority of researchers are overtly dishonest in presenting their findings, but they and their institutions are more likely to pick projects which are likely to be funded by a corrupt government agency for the purposes of promoting a public policy advantageous to the party in power. And, by this means, produce a preponderance of studies that are overwhelmingly positive in favor of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) and the need for further funding of facilities and researchers.
The facts: global climate change is the result of a naturally chaotic heat transfer system with the major components being the Solar Output, the Earth’s position relative to the Sun, the Earth’s rotational dynamics, the Earth’s tectonic plates and volcanic action, the deep ocean currents and the greatest greenhouse gas of all, water vapor. Yes, man’s activities do have an effect on our ecosystem, but not to the extent that man can alter the system dynamics of the world.
And, there is a cadre of international socialists whose philosophy is based on big governments, government by an enlightened ruling elite, central planning based on the need to conserve finite planetary natural resources for succeeding generations. The accrete power by creating and managing scarcity. Hence, their international bid to control population growth and use global warming as scientific justification for their actions.
Overlooking the fact that the science is not settled, that most of their assertions can easily be proven wrong and that demonizing the opposition does not provide a credible defense against actual science. They label people “deniers” in the best Orwellian fashion, although science is a process of controlled skepticism. One posits a hypothesis, develops an experiment to confirm the hypothesis, publishes the results for the scientific community. The community will independently replicate the experiment and comment on the findings – agreeing, disagreeing, conducting additional experiments or offering alternative theories. proposing additional experiments.
Perhaps the best example I can provide concerns the demonization of carbon dioxide as the driver or contributing factor to global warming.
- The Earth has been hotter, colder, with greater and lesser concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, before the significant influence of man’s industrial revolution.
- Global warming is a natural and expected occurance as the Earth emerges from the Little Ice Age. While we do not know the extent of the global mean temperature increase or the inflection point where the global mean temperature will reverse and plunge downward into another Ice Age, we do know the system is chaotically variable and that it would require a massive intervention, far beyond man’s ability, to reverse or sustain the trend.
- Research studies show that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide lags the rise in temperature, so carbon dioxide is not likely to be the causal factor. And this lag is between 600 to 1,000 years depending on the dataset used for the calculation. Thus, if man stopped all carbon-related activities today, we would not know the results for 600 – 1,000 years.
- The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide can be explained by simple science. As the oceans warm, the carbon dioxide dissolved in the water outgasses to the atmosphere; much as opening a cold beer on a warm day will allow the carbon dioxide to bubble out of solution and enter the atmosphere.
- The models that show carbon dioxide re-radiates heat are misunderstood by the public. First, carbon dioxide does not add energy to the system – and cannot produce a rise in temperature. And two, carbon dioxide (like the significantly more potent water vapor) retards cooling. Pretty much while the moist tropical areas retain heat into the night – naturally skewing recorded temperatures.
- Computer models do not produce facts, in fact, they are inaccurate, incomplete and have arguably dubious assumptions and highly manipulated temperature input.
- There is the probability that what we are actually measuring with terrestrial thermometers is the urban island heat effect and little else.
You don’t understand …
The educational system has been infiltrated by socialists and communists who are doing everything in their power to dumb down the population so there political assertions can be taken as fact without critical analysis. In today’s celebrity-driven culture, most people are content to leave governing to those who want to rule the planet, rarely questioning their motives until catastrophe strikes. To this end, the government and their sympathetic activists are advantaged if they can make the population that they are incapable of understanding their world and to leave the heavy lifting to a cadre of enlightened elites.
Climate Change is not an All-or-Nothing Proposition, Researcher Says
An Ohio State University statistician says that the natural human difficulty with grasping probabilities is preventing Americans from dealing with climate change.
In a panel discussion at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting on Feb. 15, Mark Berliner said that an aversion to statistical thinking and probability is a significant reason that we haven’t enacted strategies to deal with climate change right now.
Berliner, professor and chair of statistics at Ohio State, is the former co-chair of the American Statistical Association’s Advisory Committee on Climate Change Policy, and as such, he spent two years talking with U.S. Congressional staffers about climate change.
As a result, he’s come to the conclusion that Americans need to understand that climate change is a range of possible events that are more or less likely. However, the negative impacts of climate change can be reduced by taking some moderate actions today, he said.
“The general public has an understanding of tipping points, the moment beyond which things become inevitable. But as soon as you start thinking of climate change as inevitable, it’s easy to throw up your hands and say, ‘it’s too late, so why bother to do anything?’” Berliner said. “It’s like a two-pack-a-day smoker deciding not to cut back on the cigarettes, because he’s as good as gone.”
“The situation is not hopeless. Instead of taking an extreme all-or-nothing view about climate change, we can think of it as a spectrum of possible problems, and look for a spectrum of practical solutions that will do the most good,” he said.
“One of the criticisms of climate change research is that different computer models give different answers,” Berliner said. “But the key is not to pick the right climate model, but to pick the right elements out of each of the models.”
I call BULLSHIT!
- The researcher is obviously a climate activist who has spent a considerable amount of time (2 years) trying to persuade members of Congress to adopt his viewpoint.
- There are no obvious climate strategies to deal with climate change right now other than change zoning/building requirements to prevent people from building or overbuilding in climate-dangerous areas. Truth be told, the increasing property damage is from overbuilding in inappropriate areas. With respect to Katrina, much of New Orleans was built below sea level and used massive dikes to hold back storm surges. Does it not make physical sense to rebuild the city on higher ground and insure immunity from storm surges? Why would the government ignore science and support this practical, but not politically acceptable, mitigation measure.
- The researcher is conflating and confusing weather (short-term events) with climate change (long-term events), so there is no need to understand climate change as a range of possible events. This is pure political rhetoric. Weather is a short-term phenomenon, but climate change is an issue covering a span of hundreds or thousands of years. Even if we were to accept outlier results, the estimation of these probabilities in a naturally chaotic system is beyond man’s computational prowess.
- With global climate change, there is no tipping point – the process is continuous rather than discrete. And even a real tipping point, like the catastrophic eruption of a major volcano or the terrestrial crash of an asteroid, would have a limited effect lasting years, not decades. There is an inflection point, where the trend turns downward towards colder climate, but that is a function of climate’s natural variability and cannot be influenced by man at the present time.
- The situation is not hopeless. Man will continue to adapt to changing climate by shifting locations, building stronger shelters, adopting better clothing or engineering a solution to the immediate problem. Has anyone else noticed than man lives, reproduces and thrives in hostile climates, both cold and hot, over the years? It is theoretically possible that the Mayan civilization died out – not because of the shift in global weather as has been speculated, but the poor political choices of their leaders.
- As for the spectrum of practical solutions, this appears to be the salami technique of politics – start with consuming a few slices, until one day you find you have eaten the entire salami. Just accept this political solution today for a better tomorrow. Even though there are no practical solutions that affect global climate or even the weather next week.
- As for picking and choosing the right elements out of each models – I want to scream! One, we do not know the answer, so how can we possibly pick the best pieces out of flawed models to cobble an unknown solution? What the idiot-savant wants you to believe is that out of deeply flawed and inaccurate models, we can pick and choose elements which support our hypothesis. Scientific madness at its worst.
Bottom line …
Look around you. Can we trust the Obama Administration – which openly lies to the American public? Can we trust activist-scientists whose e-mails have disclosed scientific corruption designed to mislead the public?
Are you willing to opt for bigger government, higher taxes, fewer freedoms and a corrupt government in exchange for a promise that they can change the global climate? Something that even reputable scientists believe is impossible?
The leftist rail against the government’s involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan and now they want to implement policies that will cost us more than all of the wars we have fought – all based on nothing more than science fiction based on a few scientific observations?
In order to trust – you must have a partner you can trust. And, the as we have learned from the Clintons, Bushes, Obamas – these ideologically bent corrupt politicians cannot be trusted with our money, our lives or our future.
Make up your own mind. Prove me wrong.
And shoud you want to look at the subject of AGW objectively, you may wish to start here.