Global Warming: Are Politicians, Institutions and Scientists Worried About Funding in Face of REAL Science Disclosures? Prepared to Perpetuate the BIG LIE or simply say they don’t know what is happening to a scientific certainty?
Have we reached the tipping point?
No, not the tipping point for irreversible climate change leading to a planetary disaster as many global warming activists would have you believe, but the tipping point when the global warming activists are confronted with scientific observations that puts their global warming hypothesis in question.
The problem being faced by even the most credential climate activists is that their dire predictions, especially in the mainstream media, have given rise to those who are demonized as “skeptics” or, more pejoratively, as deniers. It appears that there is no real “consensus theory of global warming.”
What are they really saying?
Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled -- DEBATE about the reality of a two-decade pause in global warming and what it means has made its way from the skeptical fringe to the mainstream.
In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity - the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels - would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded.
- Another paper published by leading climate scientist James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal.
<<To refer to James Hansen as a leading climate scientist is grossly misleading. He is the leading global warming activist and has been since his paper 40 plus years ago was cited in the prediction of the possibility of another mini-ice age. Coincidently, the demon was also carbon dioxide and many of the same politically-driven carbon-dioxide curtailment public policies cited today were also cited as prescriptions. >>
- International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years "at least" to break the long-term warming trend.
<<How convenient is it for climate activists to cherry pick their timelines and heavily manipulate their data to prove their specious hypothesis – especially when any time frame less that 800 – 1000 years would produce inaccurate results. It should be remembered that the rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide lags the rise in temperature by 800 – 1000 years (depending on the dataset used) and that there is no current explanation why we have cooler temperatures and higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.>>
- But the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted. Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years. "The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations," says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. "If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change," he says.
<<Science is not performed by consensus and no matter how many people may agree with you, the output of models, especially those that do not agree with observed values, is not scientific fact. We are recently learning that the speed of light in space may not be constant, something which will not upset the laws of physics other than to treat the speed of light as a variable and not a constant. Like all hypotheses, the findings of the research group working on the speed of light will be discussed, verified, amplified, refuted or modified as additional work is done. This is the scientific method, unlike the pronouncements from a relatively small gaggle of scientists whose reputations and funding depends on their allegiance to politics and public policy rather than science.>>
- Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions. The Economist says the world has added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010, about one-quarter of all the carbon dioxide put there by humans since 1750. This mismatch between rising greenhouse gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now, The Economist article says. "But it does not mean global warming is a delusion." The fact is temperatures between 2000 and 2010 are still almost 1C above their level in the first decade of the 20th century.
<<There are four important points to consider when speaking about the observed temperature rise in the first decade of the 20th Century. One, it would appear to be a normal occurance of nature to see the temperature of our planet warm as we emerged from the Little Ice Age. Two, the timeframes used by most scientists for the modern generation are wildly smaller than required to really view long-term trends. Three, since we have become industrialized, we may be observing the “urban heat island effect” rather than true warming. Especially when researchers combine disparate datasets (tree rings, observed land temperatures, observed sea temperatures, and satellite data> to feed the incomplete or flawed models that produce the dire projections. And four, we still have no reason to believe that these observations are not just part of nature’s normal variability and that any signal of man’s influence is being incorporated and dissipated in nature’s self-regulating mechanism. After all, we are part of the planetary ecosystem whether or not we like it.>>
"The mismatch might mean that for some unexplained reason there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-2010. "Or it might mean that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period." The magazine explores a range of possible explanations including higher emissions of sulfur dioxide, the little understood impact of clouds and the circulation of heat into the deep ocean. But it also points to an increasing body of research that suggests it may be that climate is responding to higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. "This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy," the article says.
<<It appears that there is much work to still be done and that basing any public policy that restricts economies and freedoms on what might be”anomalies” is both foolhardy and downright dangerous.>>
- There are now a number of studies that predict future temperature rises as a result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions at well below the IPCC best estimate of about 3C over the century. The upcoming IPCC report is expected to lift the maximum possible temperature increase to 6C. The Research Council of Norway says in a non-peer-reviewed paper that the best estimate concludes there is a 90 per cent probability that doubling CO2 emissions will increase temperatures by only 1.2C to 2.9C, the most likely figure being 1.9C. Another study based on the way the climate behaved about 20,000 years ago has given a best guess of 2.3C. Other forecasts, accepted for publication, have reanalyzed work cited by the IPCC but taken account of more recent temperature data and given a figure of between 1C and 3C.
<<The United Nations has a history of admitting to the overstating of scientific research for the purposes of increasing public awareness and issue-based funding. They are not a credible source of information when it comes to their self-interest which would convey great regulatory and taxation powers to an institution that currently begs member nations for support.>
Bottom line …
With the current level of corruption in both political and global climate research institutions, we cannot allow corrupt politicians and their special interest supporters develop public politics which greatly affect our economy, way of life and freedoms as they attempt to implement the tenets of a centrally-planned international socialist society.
It should be recognized, especially after ClimateGate-2 and ClimateGate-3 e-mail dumps, that many scientists and their institutions have acted improperly and many deserve both defunding and criminal sanctions. While there are honorable well-credentialed scientists with valuable input on global climate, many are simply afraid to jeopardize their jobs and research grants to become politically active or make media statements which would bring them the scorn of those who might peer review their research.
Even if we stopped the production of all man-made carbon dioxide on the planet, it still would be 600 – 1000 years before we might see any results, if at all because of nature’s normal variability. The Earth has been hotter, colder, with more atmospheric carbon dioxide and less atmospheric carbon dioxide – all before the industrial revolution. All of the fear and dire predictions are being promoted to promote a political agenda. Or as the wise men say: follow the money and the power.
“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell “Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar “Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS
“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS