Convenient Lies
Not science, but the convenient lies
spewing from the mouths of our increasingly economically-authoritarian
politicians are what drive the current hysteria over global
warming.
If you haven't already seen it, you must watch
The Great Global
Warming Swindle from Britain's Channel 4. It convincingly lays bare
the lies behind the current hysteria over allegedly human-caused global warming
(hereafter abbreviated CAGW for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global
Warming). You could also try this video.
From the video, here's what Professor Philip Stott, of the Department of Biogeography at the University of London says: "Inevitably, the moment politicians put their weight behind something, and attach their name to it in some ways, of course, money will flow."
And if you hear the CAGW propagandist's hysterical cry that CO2 levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years, you might consider it food for thought that the geologic record indicates CO2 concentrations have been dropping precipitously for the last 175 million years:
Follow the money. That's what we need to do when we consider swallowing the CAGW Kool Aid (or, to be more accurate, Flavor Aid) .
The money has partly been spent on large computers that run programs to model the planet's climate. North Dakota's State Geologist, John Bluemle says of these models, "Regarding the use of computers to model the climate, it should be pointed out that computer models are not information. They are scientists' ideas set to mathematical "music." Real information is what we can actually measure, and what we are measuring does not indicate a significant human contribution to present climate change." [emphasis added by me]
Here's Professor Richard Lindzen of the Department of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology: "Prior to Bush the elder, I think the level of funding for climate and climate related sciences was somewhere around the order of $170,000,000.00 a year, which is reasonable for the size of the field. It [subsequently] jumped to $2,000,000,000.00 a year, more than a factor of 10."
And it was Margaret Thatcher, Conservative Prime Minister of Great Britain, who started the current funding bubble for coercively financing climate research. It was she, Britain's "Iron Lady", afraid of the power of the mining unions and the instability of the oil sources, who pushed for the first first serious coercively-financed research on climate change, specifically to promote nuclear energy as a less-risky and less-polluting alternative to coal and oil. I doubt the current boosters of CAGW see any wisdom in that motivation.
On this side of the pond, the Federal government of these formerly-free United States now spends $4,000,000,000.00 every year on climate science, notwithstanding Bush the younger's supposed skepticism regarding CAGW. If every red cent of this coercive financing stopped, how much of the current hysteria would continue? Do you suppose there are a few coercively-financed jobs behind that $4,000,000,000.00 which would disappear if science were done honestly, without coercive financing? Could the current "consensus" regarding CAGW be entirely driven by the thousands of scientists who would lose their funding if they honestly admitted the problems with their hysterical promotion of CAGW?
My guess is that the hysteria would die, just as the hysteria over the supposed deleterious effects of chloroflourocarbons (Freon) on the ozone layer died down when it was noted that the ozone holes above the poles expand and contract on their own timetables, completely independent of Freon production, and far more likely under the influence of the sun's radiation and other natural agents.
If there truly were a climate catastrophe coming, don't you think even Exxon/Mobil's piddly $37,000,000.00 might produce some science that actually pointed to such a catastrophic future?
What's really happening is that all the economically-authoritarian politicians on both sides of the increasingly-blurred aisle are dying for a photogenically appealing issue that allows them to further over-regulate, over-tax, and over-control the poor saps who are paying for all this: the taxpayers of these formerly-free United States.
But what's really sad is what these economically-authoritarian politicians propose as the final solution to the CAGW problem: the Kyoto Protocol, a tyrannical call for an economic holocaust that might actually cause the end of human life as we know it, catapulting humanity back to the supposedly-idyllic Middle Ages when human life was both cheap and uncommon. At its very best, Kyoto will set back the industrialization and development of the so-called Third World by many decades, causing uncounted millions of preventable human deaths. At worst, it will cause an economic meltdown that will make the Great Depression look like a tiny blip in the stock market.
I'm a holocaust denier. I deny that we should cause an economic holocaust by implementing the Kyoto Protocol. Don't join the hysterical and unscientific calls for the implementation of this real holocaust. Save the world from greedy governments. Just say "No" to CAGW.
(Not to brag, but you might note that the aforementioned Channel 4 video was created long after, and pretty much to the exact outline of the my blog entry below, dated Sunday, June 11, 2006).
From the video, here's what Professor Philip Stott, of the Department of Biogeography at the University of London says: "Inevitably, the moment politicians put their weight behind something, and attach their name to it in some ways, of course, money will flow."
And if you hear the CAGW propagandist's hysterical cry that CO2 levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years, you might consider it food for thought that the geologic record indicates CO2 concentrations have been dropping precipitously for the last 175 million years:
Follow the money. That's what we need to do when we consider swallowing the CAGW Kool Aid (or, to be more accurate, Flavor Aid) .
The money has partly been spent on large computers that run programs to model the planet's climate. North Dakota's State Geologist, John Bluemle says of these models, "Regarding the use of computers to model the climate, it should be pointed out that computer models are not information. They are scientists' ideas set to mathematical "music." Real information is what we can actually measure, and what we are measuring does not indicate a significant human contribution to present climate change." [emphasis added by me]
Here's Professor Richard Lindzen of the Department of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology: "Prior to Bush the elder, I think the level of funding for climate and climate related sciences was somewhere around the order of $170,000,000.00 a year, which is reasonable for the size of the field. It [subsequently] jumped to $2,000,000,000.00 a year, more than a factor of 10."
And it was Margaret Thatcher, Conservative Prime Minister of Great Britain, who started the current funding bubble for coercively financing climate research. It was she, Britain's "Iron Lady", afraid of the power of the mining unions and the instability of the oil sources, who pushed for the first first serious coercively-financed research on climate change, specifically to promote nuclear energy as a less-risky and less-polluting alternative to coal and oil. I doubt the current boosters of CAGW see any wisdom in that motivation.
On this side of the pond, the Federal government of these formerly-free United States now spends $4,000,000,000.00 every year on climate science, notwithstanding Bush the younger's supposed skepticism regarding CAGW. If every red cent of this coercive financing stopped, how much of the current hysteria would continue? Do you suppose there are a few coercively-financed jobs behind that $4,000,000,000.00 which would disappear if science were done honestly, without coercive financing? Could the current "consensus" regarding CAGW be entirely driven by the thousands of scientists who would lose their funding if they honestly admitted the problems with their hysterical promotion of CAGW?
My guess is that the hysteria would die, just as the hysteria over the supposed deleterious effects of chloroflourocarbons (Freon) on the ozone layer died down when it was noted that the ozone holes above the poles expand and contract on their own timetables, completely independent of Freon production, and far more likely under the influence of the sun's radiation and other natural agents.
If there truly were a climate catastrophe coming, don't you think even Exxon/Mobil's piddly $37,000,000.00 might produce some science that actually pointed to such a catastrophic future?
What's really happening is that all the economically-authoritarian politicians on both sides of the increasingly-blurred aisle are dying for a photogenically appealing issue that allows them to further over-regulate, over-tax, and over-control the poor saps who are paying for all this: the taxpayers of these formerly-free United States.
But what's really sad is what these economically-authoritarian politicians propose as the final solution to the CAGW problem: the Kyoto Protocol, a tyrannical call for an economic holocaust that might actually cause the end of human life as we know it, catapulting humanity back to the supposedly-idyllic Middle Ages when human life was both cheap and uncommon. At its very best, Kyoto will set back the industrialization and development of the so-called Third World by many decades, causing uncounted millions of preventable human deaths. At worst, it will cause an economic meltdown that will make the Great Depression look like a tiny blip in the stock market.
I'm a holocaust denier. I deny that we should cause an economic holocaust by implementing the Kyoto Protocol. Don't join the hysterical and unscientific calls for the implementation of this real holocaust. Save the world from greedy governments. Just say "No" to CAGW.
(Not to brag, but you might note that the aforementioned Channel 4 video was created long after, and pretty much to the exact outline of the my blog entry below, dated Sunday, June 11, 2006).
Posted: Monday - March 12, 2007 at 03:09 PM
Quick Links
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Aug 25, 2008 02:10 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Aug 25, 2008 02:10 PM