theB2Journal

Climate scamming, part one

There is a difference between a deeply-held belief and calculated conjecture. There is also a difference between a rational theorem supported by scientifically sound proofs, and politicized doctrine built upon data manipulation, arguable scientific methodology, and narrowly-focused research parameters cloaked in the guise of high-minded beneficence.

And perhaps of greater import is the considerable difference within the community of science between those who challenge unanswered questions with objectivity and without pre-established conceptions, and those who interpolate experimental outcomes to facilitate the advancement of a conceived phenomenon.

Propaganda coup

Such is the case regarding climate change. There is and has been an ongoing battle between the "man-made" global warming devotees and those who do not subscribe to that faith. If one takes the time to analyze, it becomes readily apparent that we have been witness to one of the most successful and craftily implemented public relations campaigns in modern history, and there is no more flagrant example than the earth-in-the-balance docubabble known as An Inconvenient Truth.

But regardless of your personal belief, regardless of how you tip one way or the other, you have been and are being conned. After the dust of argument settles, after suffering through exhausting claim after exhausting counter-claim, emotion-driven belief is all that is left for you to grasp.

On the one hand, there are more than 10,000 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, environmental scientists, and life scientists attached to major universities and research organizations around the world who steadfastly maintain that the fervor over global warming is alarmism. On the other, an equal number of scientists in the same fields and at the same places of research and academia have embraced the theory with a devotion bordering on religious fanaticism.

The truth is, and despite rampant speculation and data manipulation, we are confident of only a scant few facts related to climate change. But what we can say with a degree of certainty is that without man's help, the earth has undergone climate change in the past and will do so in the future. We can also cite a few historic climate change factors with which almost everyone agrees:

Any honest, ethical analysis of the man-is-to-blame global warming theorem should incorporate every available aspect of scientific investigation, be conducted without the constraints of a narrowly-focused timeline of historical climate data, and should consider all reputable findings as plausible and not be summarily dismissed.

I say should because sadly, that is not the case. Global warming protagonists scoff at any findings even remotely contradicting their theory, and antagonists sniff at what they consider to be flawed scientific method and contrived data interpretation. Even the simplest presentation foments intense debate. Instead of the reasoned pursuit of valid data, we are continuously treated to a zealous, unsubstantiated mantra:

For example, global warming devotees decry the current melting of glaciers in Greenland and cite this as theoretical proof. Yet according to a newly-published Danish study, Greenland's glaciers have been steadily melting for more than a century, and suggest that the ice melt is not a recent phenomenon caused by global warming but rather a naturally-occurring phenomenon that is periodic in nature. In the world of ethical science, there can be no factual consensus when there is conflicting evidence.

In fact, there is no such thing as consensus in science, as it is in of itself disputation of proper scientific practice.

Conform or be persecuted

Today, the man-made global warming theory draws popular support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The theory is incessantly driven in the media and is taught as Gospel in public schools and universities.

Without having the luxury of indisputable scientific data to warrant any arrogance or condescension, acolytes of this new religion nevertheless demand proof of a negative. Those who oppose the theory that man is to blame are shouted down and labeled reactionary, blind, ignorant, or evil. While legislation is passed and social programs are enacted to contend with an unproven theory, its critics are harshly dealt with and thus remain largely silent.

"If anyone disagrees with the man-made global warming scheme, then they also don't believe the Holocaust took place."

This is a shell game, a scam of epic proportions and other, darker motives are lurking behind a movement that pretends altruism. Debate is suppressed, data is manipulated, and the toadies who inhabit the Drive-By Media genuflect and scrape while performing the bidding of their overlords. And always, always — any scientist who dares to dispute runs the risk of having his or her funding or position disembowelled.

In fact, eco-zealots who are making profitable careers out of attacking the proponents of natural climatic change have gone so far as to charge that if anyone disagrees with the man-made global warming scheme, then they also don't believe the Holocaust took place. Unscientific denigrations such as this are patently absurd and quite despicable, as they cheapen the horror of genocide and demean the memories of its victims.

Politicized science is professionally abhorrent, but science driven by ideology is dangerous and as we have seen in our past, can do great harm to people and nations. Its malevolence is only compounded when an uncritical media aids and abets.

I am a proponent of climate change but not of global warming as it is presented. I believe climate change to be a natural and normal part of earth evolution. I believe this because the scientific data that supports claims of past cooling cycles, heating cycles, and cataclysmic disruption are sound. I grew up in an area where lakes were gouged out during the last great Ice Age which followed a global warming cycle, so I have no doubt it occurred - naturally.

Prediction crap shoot

I have been trained in the physical sciences and from my professional experience in emergency management, I have noted that without fail, the finest meteorological and climatological minds in the world still cannot accurately project a five-day cone of influence pathway for a tropical cyclone. How is it they cannot do that but yet can confidently predict the specific effects of global warming on a planetary scale, in specific locales, with such precision fifty years hence? One hundred years hence? Five hundred years hence?

The last few years, we have been subjected to a daily onslaught of presumption as the Drive-by Media parroted disinformation, proclaiming that more powerful and more frequent cyclonic storms were here to stay as a direct result of man-made global warming. In fact, the most severe period of tropical cyclone activity occurred from the 1930s through the 1950s. We are experiencing a natural, normal periodic shift, a cycle that has occurred in the past and that will occur in the future.

Ocean levels will rise, ocean levels will fall. The ice shelves will recede, the ice shelves will grow. Continents will continue to drift, land masses will continue to change, the climate will continue to vary. Meteors will continue to impact earth, earth will continue to wobble in its elliptical orbit. Super volcanoes will erupt, and the sun's photosphere, chromosphere, and corona will continue to fluctuate.

And all of this will occur without the merest nudge from mankind.

I believe all of this to be true, and I do not believe it is caused by anything that man has done. When in doubt, follow the money. The mullahs behind this new religion are on a quest for power and redistribution of wealth — not truth.

© 2005 the b2 journal