Climate scamming, part four
My, oh my. Oh dear. It simply can't be. In previous Climate Scamming articles of The B2 Journal, you were informed that consensus in true science is an impossibility - a myth. You were offered a common-sensical refutation of the validity of man-made global warming. You were warned that the Drive-by Media was carrying water for a political party and agenda-driven special-interest groups.
And even if you scoffed at common sense, it appears that ever-increasing numbers of the world's scientists are not.
The American Physical Society (APS), an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members emphatically do not believe in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."
Incontrovertible? It seems the proverbial worm has turned ... and better a late return to sanity than never.
Scientific method vs consensus
In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."
The APS is opening debate to the scientific community by publishing a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity - the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause - has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.
"In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth." -- Lord Monckton
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors."
Exaggerations? Errors? Like the EPA's false and now-debunked report on the perils of second-hand smoke? How about omissions as well, like the scientific fact that good old water vapor, H2O, is four times the greenhouse effect catalyst than is carbon dioxide, CO2?
For you non-science people out there, skepticism, not consensus, is the true mechanism of proper scientific method. But I suppose distortion of the scientific method is considered "consensus" when you're scheming to implement a hidden agenda.
Natural cycles vs conjecture
In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."
According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."
Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."
Cui bono?
That is the real question, isn't it? Who benefits from the scam? Do yourself a favor and start digging for the answer. Hints: Think transfer and retention of political power, redistribution of personal and national wealth, and societal reformation.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: 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.
After man-made global warming I'm thinking alGore and his like-minded thuggery will go after the production of Twinkies. Scientific studies have shown that Twinkies last nearly forever, degrading slowly in landfills so therefore they are evil. However, by ridding the planet of Twinkies, they will doom the survivors of a nuclear holocaust since Twinkies would be our only source of food. Instead we'll have to eat the mutated super-cockroaches that will surely survive.
Assuming the cockroaches don't eat us first.