The leaked email correspondence from the University of East Anglia, whose Climatic Research Unit is a key element in the push toward blaming humankind for the earth's natural global and cooling cycles, only graphically revealed what was known all along, that the supposedly scientifically proven conclusions of global warming science were a political fortress guarding a scientific house of cards built on manipulated data and an aggressive campaign of silencing critics and dissenters.
The Global Warming boom is big business for Green Companies and certain liberal politicians who have jumped on their bandwagon, such as Al Gore who went from a few million to a hundred million, and is likely to become a billionaire if cap and trade becomes a reality. But it is not science, not simply because it is wrong, but because it is a case of scientific conclusions being powered by political ideas, rather than the other way around.
Using the scientific method to form questions, test them and emerge with true answers is only valid to the extent that the process itself is pure. Global Warming promoters have repeatedly accused dissenting climate research scientists of being tainted by money from the oil industry. But if the science of researchers who took money from the oil industry is tainted science, then the science of those climate researchers who stand to financially benefit from green industries and those who view it as a political agenda first, must be at least as tainted.
The politicization of climate science has thrust it into the middle of a philosophical intellectual war between those who believe that humanity's impact on the planet has been a negative one and those who believe it is a positive one. The essential debate is an old one, but it has significant real world implications, the apex of which has been reached with the attempt to assign every human being living on earth his or her own Carbon Footprint, which essentially means charging everyone for their part in "warming up" the planet by driving to work, using toilet paper or breathing.
While Global Warming promoters may sell their message with fuzzy images of adorable children and polar bears, the underlying message behind their ideology is a fundamentally anti-human one, that views children as a form of biological pollution and humanity as a destroyer, ravaging not merely a few forests and streams, but destroying life on earth. From the standpoint of human intellectual history such a view is not a new one. Many religious groups had an equally negative view of humanity's presence on earth. But environmentalists have cloaked their New Age beliefs about humanity's ecological sinfulness in science. And that takes it beyond philosophy and into the realm of fraud.
There is a reason that we do not unveil research programs to study which religion is the true religion or which food tastes the best. Such ideas are inherently subjective and while scientific principles can be applied to their study, the results would only reflect human bias. Thus while some questions are unanswerable because they exceed humanity's grasp, others are unanswerable because they exceed human tolerances for bias. Global Warming has clearly become one of those subjects because it is not simply about the causes of the earth's warming and cooling cycles, but about the most fundamental human questions-- namely the purpose of man on the earth.
The passion which the Global Warming debate invokes is not motivated simply by greed, though indeed there are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, particularly if every business in the world has to buy carbon credits in order to do the most elementary things, a cost that will of course be passed on down to every single man, woman and child living on earth. But greed can only motivate people to go so far, it takes a higher passion, a fanatical belief in the rightness of your cause to push it that much further. And while the Al Gores and the companies rushing to find a way to make money from being Green may do it out of greed, many climactic scientists have been committed to pushing Global Warming because they see it as the best vehicle for transforming the relationship between man and the planet.
Essentially imagine a group of sociologists who discover an idea that they believe will force everyone to end poverty. The idea would be a compelling one, and one that they might push regardless of whether or not it was actually true. When faced with contradictory data, they would suppress it. When faced with criticism, they would suppress it and shout it down. All in the name of a higher cause that took primacy over the actual science. And that is exactly what happened with Anthropogenic Global Warming and many climate researchers who with the fervor and guarded dedication of medieval priests have assembled and championed a gigantic fraud that has captured the imagination of so many people.
Before there was global warming, there was global cooling. A theory that seems its opposite in temperature, but in fact was its duplicate in intention. Both have their origin not in a scientific method, but in an ideological one. In an agenda that proclaims apocalypse through the land in the hopes of getting mankind to live simpler and poorer lives, more in harmony with what the planet's self-proclaimed guardians think would be better for it and for us.
What has been branded as East Anglia University's Climategate is only a small peek behind the stone walls of that elite global warming fraternity, at the anger and tension, the secrets and the lies of those perpetuating the fraud for the highest and lowest reasons. The lowest of course is the hundreds of billions of dollars at stake and the highest is a quest to reduce men from the lords of nature, to its humble servants.
The world may not be set to end in fire and ice, but far more certain that fiery or snowy apocalypse, is taxes. And politicians have seen the potential uses of global warming by manufacturing an imaginary crisis that they can solve without any chance of failure, as have many of their business friends who are eager to engage in rent seeking behavior, with the planet itself being out to rent. And when all these factors are combined together, the motivating force behind promoting the myth of Global Warming takes on a terrible force, born of greed, environmental ideology and cynical politics. And all these also demonstrate all too well why Global Warming is not science. It is politics, it is ideology and big business... but it is not science.
Using the scientific method to form questions, test them and emerge with true answers is only valid to the extent that the process itself is pure. Global Warming promoters have repeatedly accused dissenting climate research scientists of being tainted by money from the oil industry. But if the science of researchers who took money from the oil industry is tainted science, then the science of those climate researchers who stand to financially benefit from green industries and those who view it as a political agenda first, must be at least as tainted.
The politicization of climate science has thrust it into the middle of a philosophical intellectual war between those who believe that humanity's impact on the planet has been a negative one and those who believe it is a positive one. The essential debate is an old one, but it has significant real world implications, the apex of which has been reached with the attempt to assign every human being living on earth his or her own Carbon Footprint, which essentially means charging everyone for their part in "warming up" the planet by driving to work, using toilet paper or breathing.
While Global Warming promoters may sell their message with fuzzy images of adorable children and polar bears, the underlying message behind their ideology is a fundamentally anti-human one, that views children as a form of biological pollution and humanity as a destroyer, ravaging not merely a few forests and streams, but destroying life on earth. From the standpoint of human intellectual history such a view is not a new one. Many religious groups had an equally negative view of humanity's presence on earth. But environmentalists have cloaked their New Age beliefs about humanity's ecological sinfulness in science. And that takes it beyond philosophy and into the realm of fraud.
There is a reason that we do not unveil research programs to study which religion is the true religion or which food tastes the best. Such ideas are inherently subjective and while scientific principles can be applied to their study, the results would only reflect human bias. Thus while some questions are unanswerable because they exceed humanity's grasp, others are unanswerable because they exceed human tolerances for bias. Global Warming has clearly become one of those subjects because it is not simply about the causes of the earth's warming and cooling cycles, but about the most fundamental human questions-- namely the purpose of man on the earth.
The passion which the Global Warming debate invokes is not motivated simply by greed, though indeed there are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, particularly if every business in the world has to buy carbon credits in order to do the most elementary things, a cost that will of course be passed on down to every single man, woman and child living on earth. But greed can only motivate people to go so far, it takes a higher passion, a fanatical belief in the rightness of your cause to push it that much further. And while the Al Gores and the companies rushing to find a way to make money from being Green may do it out of greed, many climactic scientists have been committed to pushing Global Warming because they see it as the best vehicle for transforming the relationship between man and the planet.Essentially imagine a group of sociologists who discover an idea that they believe will force everyone to end poverty. The idea would be a compelling one, and one that they might push regardless of whether or not it was actually true. When faced with contradictory data, they would suppress it. When faced with criticism, they would suppress it and shout it down. All in the name of a higher cause that took primacy over the actual science. And that is exactly what happened with Anthropogenic Global Warming and many climate researchers who with the fervor and guarded dedication of medieval priests have assembled and championed a gigantic fraud that has captured the imagination of so many people.
Before there was global warming, there was global cooling. A theory that seems its opposite in temperature, but in fact was its duplicate in intention. Both have their origin not in a scientific method, but in an ideological one. In an agenda that proclaims apocalypse through the land in the hopes of getting mankind to live simpler and poorer lives, more in harmony with what the planet's self-proclaimed guardians think would be better for it and for us.
The world may not be set to end in fire and ice, but far more certain that fiery or snowy apocalypse, is taxes. And politicians have seen the potential uses of global warming by manufacturing an imaginary crisis that they can solve without any chance of failure, as have many of their business friends who are eager to engage in rent seeking behavior, with the planet itself being out to rent. And when all these factors are combined together, the motivating force behind promoting the myth of Global Warming takes on a terrible force, born of greed, environmental ideology and cynical politics. And all these also demonstrate all too well why Global Warming is not science. It is politics, it is ideology and big business... but it is not science.
Comments
You'd think the average American would stop a moment to think of who really stands to gain in this increasing and super expensive push to become green.
ReplyDeletePolitics, ideology, big business, and the New Age. Disturbing.
The whole thing sounds like something out of a sci-fi movie but here it is happening right before our eyes.
You present no evidence supporting your opinion.
ReplyDeleteEvery university physics student (which I was one of) in the UK will spend 10 credits (usually in their second year) deriving the equations of how much air there is in the atmosphere and how much carbon dioxide we're adding to it. You also derive a few things about how carbon dioxide is relateed to increased temperature and voila, 1+1 really does equal 2.
And the global warming vs global cooling debate is derived from exactly the same science - the unknown quantity is what the melted ice will do. If it stops certain sea currents from flowing, like the gulf stream, then temperatures drop. If it doesn't, temperatures will rise. Either way a lot of people living near the coast will die.
Maybe a lot of people have a lot to gain from the green industry (it is worth $30bn apparently), but there's a lot more money in the oil industry.
And it is science. Unless you've got a degree in physics/maths/chemistry, you aren't qualified to say otherwise.
All A Scam. A dirty Politically based scam:
ReplyDeleteIt was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.
Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline [in temperature]."
The evidence I present is of a politically tainted process. The scientific evidence has been repeatedly presented by critics, whom the global warming industry has done its best to silence.
ReplyDeleteApropos silence, this is exactly what they were emailing each other, how to discard the people who don't agree with them. And again apropos silence if you don't have Fox News, or read bloggs from the right this story hardly made a ripple in the "mainstream" media, written or televized, as if it was just a storm in a cup of tea. It did not penetrate even the 10% layer of America.
ReplyDeleteYou are definitely on the right track - we are looking at a new anti-himan religion being created...I really unloaded on it in February of '09:
ReplyDelete“The Earth itself is more important than the people on it.”
That statement seems to sum up the new “Earth First” religion. It is not a new thought. Any slave-owning land master from our past could have told it to you – a Roman, a Greek, an American or Russian oligarch of landed status.
The fact is, the truth of that idea depends on the value an individual places on any unique human life. If you are a slave owner, and your priority is the production of cotton, you don’t care nearly as much about the negroes farming your land as you do about the yield that the land produces, and the profit you make from it.
If you are an egalitarian, or even simply a decent human being, you have to value the people first, and the yield after. You’d also be well warned (and most likely aware) that this thought form can be dangerous, and from time to time it gets a carpenter nailed to a tree.
At present, the “Earth First” concept is being elevated to the status of a Religion.
http://www.thepatriotaxe.com/blog/?p=164
Hasn't there been evidence of global warming not only on Mars, but Neptune's Triton as well as Jupiter? I'd have to check some articles as far back as 2007.
ReplyDeleteWasn't it Charles Long at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories publishing a study indicating a trend reversal around 1990 (again, need to return to research), but vaguely recall a change in the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface -- less prior to 90's, more for the next two decades.
There has always been controversy on the subject and these documents indicate personal opinion equations have been included (and NOT included) in presenting results.
This generation will not know the truth.
"And again apropos silence if you don't have Fox News, or read bloggs from the right this story hardly made a ripple in the "mainstream" media, written or televized, as if it was just a storm in a cup of tea. It did not penetrate even the 10% layer of America."
ReplyDeleteOh Poppy Cock! I read about it in the New York Times, and heard about it from several other media sources that are not blatantly biased from the right.
Yes you read the heavily slanted version of the story in the New York Times, usually accompanied by quotes from Anglia people and by few or none from the critics.
ReplyDeleteSultan, you forgot to mention that there has been some $79 billion spent by the US government on climate research over the past 20 years as documented by Joanne Nova Wednesday, 22 July 2009 on the Science and the Public Policy website. The "evil" oil companies have given but a fraction of that amount to climate research. The climate "skeptic" scientists have much less to lose in funding than the pseudo scientists who have been promoting AGW.
ReplyDeleteAnother point that should be noted is how the committed environmentalists are in fact the "useful idiots" of our time employed by the anti-capitalist unreconstructed Marxists who have not given up the battle of ideas that was lost by the Soviets.
I don't know if you have seen this video regarding Global Warming, it is very good.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/11/new-climate-video-catastrophe-denied.html#comments
Post a Comment