We
are bombarded on a daily basis in the mainstream media of stories
warning us of the dire necessity to accept the concept of a warming
world. We
are told of rising sea levels, melting polar and glacial ice in both
hemispheres, methane escaping from tundra because of thin ice and warm
conditions along with claims of the last decade existing as the warmest
on record.
To
those who work jobs, busy raising families, or otherwise preoccupied
with duties required of a modern society, these claims seem legitimate
and cause concern about the world’s climate situation. However, for some
who analyze these articles and claims for accuracy and truth, find that
what we are told simply doesn’t add up. With a little detective work,
one will find these claims misleading and false with absolutely no real
science backing them up.
The
claim that the world has experienced it’s warmest decade since 2000 is
absolutely false. Real recorded temperature data during this time from
various weather stations around the globe actually shows a cooling
trend. NASA and the World Meteorological Organization both say the
Earth has experienced massive warming during this time. The bottom line is
both can not be correct. The main reason NASA and the WMO have data
showing a warming trend during this time is because they are not
recording actual temperatures taken, but are presenting the public with
overall temperature projections from computer generated models. Such
models have nothing to do with actual temperatures, but show a
temperature model made from actual data, along with an assumed warming
of a particular period of a certain area. Thus, their computer models
show rising temperatures. These models are nothing more than computer
generated data, manipulated to show a preordained outcome. It ends up
being corrupted data, designed to manipulate the public into believing
Global Warming/Climate Change, when it really isn’t happening.
The
claims of melting polar and glacial ice are false as well. Actual
scientific observations show both the North Pole and Antarctica to have
more ice today both in area and thickness, than they had in 1970.
Glacial ice packs advance and recede according to precipitation and
haven’t lost any ice due to warming anywhere on the globe.
We
have been told for years of the sea rising and flooding shallow areas
of the globe. Again, this is not happening. Monitoring stations around
the world have recorded no rise in sea levels anywhere, with the
exception of levels generated by storms or tsunamis. The proof of this
lies in the recent purchase of a multi million dollar beach front home
by Al Gore.
Stories
of disappearing islands due to rising sea levels have been reported,
but upon inspection of the claim, one finds this also inaccurate. A few
months ago, a story made the headlines “Moore Island Disappears Due To
Global Warming,” claiming that this island in particular, disappeared
under a rising ocean caused by Global Warming. What they neglected to
tell us was that this island did not even exist before 1970 when a
cyclone created it by depositing mud and silt in the area from runoff of
the areas many rivers. Since then the island disappeared and reappeared
many times, with high and low ocean tides as it does today.
The
claim that we must curb greenhouse gases such as CO2 because it causes a
cap in the atmosphere, holding in radiation from the sun and
drastically warms the world, is also nothing more than a lie.
First
of all, there has been no actual increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as
we are led to believe; it is only an assumption made because of
deforestation and increased output by industry and automobiles by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Again, manipulated
computer data, designed to show a desired outcome. Even if it were true
that CO2 levels are drastically increasing, it still would not
contribute to Global Warming.
The
planet Mars can be used as a prime example in the fact that most of
its atmosphere is composed of CO2. However, the planet never reaches a
high temperature of above the 80 degree range, even in it’s warmest
areas. The planet does receive enough radiation from the sun to generate
warm temperatures, but the nights are very cold, as most of the sun’s
radiation escapes back into space, indicating no Greenhouse effect.
One
could argue that Venus has an atmosphere mostly of CO2 as well and it
has a runaway Greenhouse effect, but upon further inspection, Venus
would be very warm regardless of it’s atmospheric composition because of
it’s close proximity to the sun.
So what we have here is a bunch of lies, wanting us to believe in a warming planet when the evidence says otherwise.
Why the push for adopting Global
Warming/Climate Change laws, when they are based on lies and deception?
It is all about politics and nothing to do with climate.
The
Global Warming idea has been on the table since the Clinton
Administration, and is nothing more than a political scheme to make a
few investors in Green technology rich and to enact laws for the purpose
of allowing the US Government more control over it’s
citizens and governments of the world in general. To put it succinctly;
more power over their people.
Since
9-11, we have lost more personal freedom and civil liberties than ever
before. Now we accept our phones being tapped, bank accounts
scrutinized, internet monitored, being frisked and stripped to the nude
before getting on board an airline, and FBI checks for menial jobs such as washing dishes.
If
any Global Warming/Climate Change legislation is passed here in the US
or adopted by the world’s governments, we can expect even more drastic
limits on our personal freedoms and civil liberties. Some of these
limits will include what type of automobile we can drive, how far we
are allowed to commute to work, having our utilities turned off for long
periods of time to bring us in line with an allotted power usage
limit, and even what color we can paint our homes.
The
inflated prices from such legislation are yet another story. We can
expect to pay triple for just about everything we use such as gasoline,
utilities and food because these items will be severely taxed as fossil
fuel based commodities, and since it takes petrol products to transport
much of what we buy, these items will also rise in price astronomically.
It doesn’t stop there, as all green based items will also share the
price hikes because it takes fossil fuels to produce them.
In
these days of high unemployment and the overall depressed economic
situation, in not only the US but the world, any enacted
climate legislation would be unacceptable.
We need to recognize Global Warming/Climate Change for what it really is: a political agenda, nothing more or less.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading …
About Tony Elliott
Truth AdvocateFreelance WriterAuthorCommentatorResearcher
- Web
- More Posts (66)
|
|
Posted in 
Add to Google
I have come to the reluctant conclusion, End Bringer, that you really don’t know what statistics is. I suggest that you find someone you would be inclined to trust, who has done some work in statistics, and who would be able to enlighten you about it as a discipline.
Statistics is not Republican or Democratic; it’s a valuable branch of mathematics, and scientists genuinely and validly find it useful in their work. I would not have thought that such a statement would be up for debate. Still, till you know what statistics is and what it can and can’t do, there’s not much point in having a discussion about what statistical models do and do not prove.
It’s occured to me Zander that your use of preparing for bad weather and a happy marriage makes Global Warming more akin to the Y2K problem people were saying would end the world as we knew it. And what ws the outcome of that?
Just a thought.
No, “highly probable” is not the same as “guesswork”.
It’s guess work, not science. Statisticly it’s “highly improbable” that terrorists will successfully hijack multiple airplanes and attack the US. 9/11 showed the glaring flaw with THAT.
“Scientists don’t claim perfect certainty; they do, however, claim a high enough degree of probability that it is reasonable to act.”
*snort* That’s a load. There’s no question things like Global Warming and evolution are treated as a ‘Wake up to the 21st century and live outside of caves.’ fact. To say other wise is disingenuous.
“In reality, it’s perfectly scientific to use one’s understanding of physics to extrapolate out whether Mars will strike the Earth in the future, and to plan accordingly.”
Wow. I couldn’t give a better example of how laughably flawed this understanding of “science” is even if I tried. The fact is Zander such things are nothing more than speculative guess work. It’s nothing more than hypothesizing without going through the trouble of experimentating a hundred times.
To observe such things only for a brief period in a cycle then suddenly announce what will happen is not even remotely scientific. It gets even worse when the result is during a time people of today can’t directly observe which real science requires. Whether you like it or not.
“In reality, you are applying a different standard to global warming than you do to anything else, in order to head off the proposed political solutions.”
No in reality I’m applying the same standard we use to know with certainty that water is composed of H2O, how the lightbulb works, and what allowed the creation of computers. None of which required statistics of any kind (and the lightbulb would never have been made if they were applied). As such it’s actually applying the same standard across the board. That things like man-caused Global Warming can’t be addressed by this standard just proves what I and other critics have been saying all along – it’s not science.
“Does anything in life work like what you’re proposing?”
Science does. What ever else you’re proposing are things I simply don’t use science to prove and I don’t demand others obey simply on personal hunches. And if you’re going to envoke examples of weather, I think anyone who’s ever payed attention to weather predictions knows how often THOSE are wrong.
“Or do we simply use the best information available to us to come up with reasonable solutions to the problems we face?”
Except you admit there is no proof of any problem with any certainty. There’s just brief periods of observation and speculative guess work about what may happen in the distant future. As such I don’t see the need to act out of fear.
Which again proves what I’ve said all along – Global Warming is unfalsifiable and unscientific.
No, “highly probable” is not the same as “guesswork”.
Statistics allows you to make statements from a sample that you know to be highly probable about the population, with a certainty of at least 95% (the usual boundary for a significant coefficient).
In other words, statistics treats as provably real an effect that has only a less than 5% chance of having arisen at random. That is very different from a guess that has a roughly equal probability of being true or untrue.
Nobody here is arguing that with perfect certainty, reducing carbon dioxide emissions will translate into a slower rate of global warming which in turn will harm humanity less than allowing global warming to proceed unchecked. Scientists don’t claim perfect certainty; they do, however, claim a high enough degree of probability that it is reasonable to act. As best as they can tell, the notion that we can pump endless amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere without damaging humanity’s ability to thrive on the earth is exceedingly low. I trust that judgement.
Second, in your example: if a century of reasonably reliable data shows that Mars is steadily coming closer to Earth, and our current best understanding of physics suggests that it will hit us in the future, then I would suggest that it is reasonable to act now to prevent Mars from striking. Your solution is to wait till you personally observe Mars striking Earth before you will accept the need for preventive action, because only direct observation is scientific!
In reality, it’s perfectly scientific to use one’s understanding of physics to extrapolate out whether Mars will strike the Earth in the future, and to plan accordingly.
In reality, you are applying a different standard to global warming than you do to anything else, in order to head off the proposed political solutions.
Do you wait for perfect certainty through personal observation that a snowstorm has hit before you lay in supplies, shovels and salt? Do you wait for perfect certainty that you and your wife will be blissfully happy together for all your lives before embarking on a relationship? Does anything in life work like what you’re proposing?
Or do we simply use the best information available to us to come up with reasonable solutions to the problems we face?
“Statistics enables you to use large volumes of data to move from mere guesswork to conclusions that are highly probable.”
You lost this when you envoked “highly probable”. That’s guess work no matter how you slice it. And as far as Global Warming is concerned, it’s really akin to only briefly observing Mars during a period where it’s comming closer to earth then saying ‘the statistical data says it’s going to hit us’.
Probably due to not socializing health care fast enough…or something.
“In medieval Europe, the view that the Earth was flat was not common.”
I believe time didn’t begin with medieval Europe, did it?
“Lenski and Miller show that a new form of life can evolve in the lab, over the course of tens of thousands of bacterial generations”
We’re straying off topic so this is the last time I’ll address this issue, but all Lenski and Miller proved is that it takes a period of highly controlled conditions to produce any results that don’t really resolve the debate. For Lenski e.coli simply produced e.coli. Miller could only produce the simplest of nonfunctioning ammino acids under conditions few believe would be accurate.
“If you will only accept evolution when you personally witness sludge becoming a human being, then you have closed your mind off from any possibility of being proved wrong”,
You mean demanding evidence from actual science. Again.
Not one thing resolves the bebate of “millions of years of guideless evolution”. Just like Global Warming the controversy is comfortably outside science’s ability to observe and repeatably experiment. Citing lab experiments, which involve an intelligent agency by definition, as proof of what happened “millions of years ago” is akin to citing the first Lunar Landing as evidence that ‘Mankind was on the moon a million years ago.’
The two are both fundamentally unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. And thus will continued to be rejected by the properly educated and nonconformist.
End Bringer,
You say that “statistical modeling is just the epitome of guess work.” It is not. My wife does this for a living. Statistics enables you to use large volumes of data to move from mere guesswork to conclusions that are highly probable. Just because you personally don’t understand how it’s done, doesn’t make it a useless discipline, just as the fact that I know nothing about chemical engineering doesn’t make it useless.
It’s also false that “95% of scientist [once] thought the world was flat.” In medieval Europe, the view that the Earth was flat was not common. When Columbus discovered what he thought was the East Indies, people were surprised, not because they had thought the Earth was flat, but because they thought rightly that the Earth was a bigger ball than Columbus thought it was.
Lenski and Miller show that a new form of life can evolve in the lab, over the course of tens of thousands of bacterial generations. If you will only accept evolution when you personally witness sludge becoming a human being, then you have closed your mind off from any possibility of being proved wrong, because what you’re looking to have proved in the lab is not evolution, but magic. If it did happen in the lab, I suspect you would simply declare it a miracle and continue believing that evolution is wrong.