Is it Okay to Get Politics Out of Science?
Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout…
Understanding what the word climate means is simple: it’s years of weather. Everyone knows that the weather is impossible to predict except for a few days or weeks. So, why do some people believe they can predict the climate? “Temperature oscillations recorded in Greenland ice cores over the past 500 years,” according to Dr. Easterbrook, “are truly remarkable. At least 40 periods of warming and cooling have occurred since 1480 AD, all well before CO2 emissions could have been a factor.”
A belief that summers will be warmer than winters is not a sweeping overstatement. Sane people freely generalize about easily observable things; as with most things, we all agree hindsight is the best teacher. Most of humanity probably do not think it strange in the slightest to know little to nothing about the art or science of climate prediction or even what the climate has been in the past and most of what we think are generalizations based on shows like, The Day after Tomorrow and One Million Years B.C., or episodes of the Lone [Texas] Ranger.See—e.g., 10000 Years of Greenland Climate
Given improved roads and modern grading equipment the number of days the Tioga Pass is closed due to snow is noting compared to the past even though average temperatures over the 10,000 years prior to 2000 AD were mostly warmer than today. And, there have been some legendary miscalculations — as for example, the storied weather event that trapped the California-bound emigrants of the Donner Party in the high Sierra Nevada mountains during the winter of 1846-1847.
Air and sea temperatures have failed to rise anything like as much as “global-warming” theory predicts. Explanations for the shortfall of observed outturn against theoretical projection are mutually inconsistent and scientifically dubious. I conclude that, on the balance of probabilities, the contrarians are significantly closer to the truth than the UN and its supporters. ~M of B
The mathematical climate models are simple extensions of weather programs and are nothing more than modern-day divining rods. In an earlier time in America people like Michael Mann and James Hansen were simply run out of town on a rail when they claimed they could make the rains come or not. They weren’t hired by the government or considered to be public servants and certainly wouldn’t have been allowed to be around and teach the children. Scientists in other societies laugh at the West; they do not take the science of climatology with any more seriousness than the science of ancient astrology.
The governments’ growing intrusiveness into our lives parallels its current interests. It wants to pass laws we all are required to pay for and follow, based on what the climate will be in 50 years. And yet, based on the science, the most dispositive indication of our future ruin is that we continue to pay and vote for a government that still is putting targets on the backs of our individual liberties when it comes to paying for governments’ global warming propaganda.
For example, the current EPA has no place in a free enterprise system. Consider for a moment that secular-socialists already take advantage of the fact that all businesses are at the complete mercy of an unlimited and astronomical legal expensive exposure that plaintiffs attorneys eagerly exploit as if it was a natural resource created by the Left. By defining CO2 as a pollutant the EPA has given wings to such lawsuits. Both Galileo and Franz Kafka are mute examples of what happens when the government is both the proof source and silent witness concerning all of the accused’s alleged calumnies.
Western PhD candidates are trained in the ‘hockey stick’ method, and to every government-funded climatologist everything in climate science looks like a ‘hockey stick.’ Taxpayers should want to get the politics out of science. So… George Bush was right to refuse to sign the UN’s initiative on global warming in Kyoto. It is hard to believe that the Left wishes Bush had done what Al Gore would gleefully have done: replace the use of reason in science with ideology.
“We hear a great deal about dangerous climate change,” says Dr. Philip Stott, “from the likes of Al Gore and Nicholas Stern. By contrast, I wish to speak about dangerous ‘Green’ economics. We forget at our peril that a significant portion of the ‘Green’ movement has striven for over 40 years to undermine the whole of our economic system.”
Reformed environmentalist Patrick Moore (founder of Greenpeace) went so far as to say he now believes in nuclear power and says the Left has gone over the cliff. “Nuclear energy,” Moore says, “is essential for our future energy supply, especially if we wish to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. It has proven to be clean safe, reliable, and cost-effective.” (see, Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout…)If you can look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and which will not, speak then unto me.