As we have dove into the whole issue of manmade global warming, or its new rebranded title of climate change, we found that Al Gore and people like him were guilty of a number of things:
- Ignoring science and realities that did not support their opinions and positions.
- Rather than have an adult conversation about climate, these types of advocates like Gore sank to the level of insulting those who dared look at ALL science by calling them a variety of names including racists, homophobes, terrorists, flat earth believers, and other slanderous names.
- Continuing to insist that politicians step up their intrusions into our lives with higher taxes, more regulations, and more control on our freedoms and standards of living based on a shaky theory at best.
Thus, let’s see the latest facts and science that prove you can be a global warming doubter and a believer in science, regardless of what Al Gore proclaims.
1) In our last post reviewed two major global warming forecasts that came nowhere close to being accurate. In 2004, the Pentagon was charged by the Bush administration to come up with a view of how global warming would change the world. The result of this research predicted climate disasters, cities being under water, widespread famine and food shortages, rioting in every major city, etc. by the year 2020. We are in that year now and obviously this forecasts of global warming was wrong on every prediction.
Back in 2009, Al Gore cited state of the art computer models that predicted within five years there was a 75% chance that the North Pole would be completely melted. Eleven years later the Pole has not only not melted but the size and density of the ice at the Pole is intensifying, not melting.
One lesson we should learn from these two forecasting disasters is to certainly not trust people who have no climate experience or education, the Pentagon and Al Gore. Which brings us to today’s non-scientist and her failed prediction:
- Chelsea Clinton has absolutely no climate expertise.
- But that did not stop her three years ago when she proclaimed that “experts say we have 3 years to get climate change under control.”
- The source of her dire prediction looks to be a Washington Post article from three years ago: “A group of prominent scientists, policymakers, and corporate leaders released a statement Wednesday warning that if the world doesn’t set greenhouse gas emissions on a downward path by 2020, it could become impossible to contain climate change within safe limits.”
- But the leader of this group is associated with the United Nations climate clique which has never been right about any climate change or global warming prediction.
2) One of the big problems we have always talked about regarding Al Gore and others like him is that they cherry pick the “science” results that suit their preconceived notions on climate, ignoring any and all scientific research that would raise doubts or topple their precarious notions on global warming and climate change. To consider ALL available research, as we have shown, would raise serious doubts about their scary theories and (failed) climate forecasts.
Consider the credentials of a climate expert, Dr. Mototaka Nakamura:
- He has a doctorate of sciences from MIT.
- He has about 25 years experience in studying weather and climate change at various universities and scientific organizations that include MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the California Institute of Technology, Duke University and other scientific bases.
- He has studied the oceans and the atmosphere extensively and has published over 20 scientific papers on fluid dynamics.
- He certainly has much better credentials on this topic than Chelsea Clinton, Al Gore, any Swedish teenager, etc.
- His first big assertion is that the underlying data for the global warming mania is not trustworthy: “Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data. Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”
- So right off the bat, he asserts that the raw data is bad and the logical conclusion is that if the raw, underlying data is bad, then any computer modeling, analysis, and forecasting will also be bad, “garbage in, garbage out.”
- Given the 100% failure of any and all climate and global warming models over the years when compared to reality this seems to be a sound conclusion.
- On top of the bad and untrustworthy raw data, the good doctor points out, as we have previously, that the industry of global warming has been caught any number of times of what he calls “data falsification.”
- Data falsification could include anything from adjusting historical raw data to better fit a researcher’s preconceived global warming theory or ignoring data that would disrupt their preconceived theory.
- Getting back to the raw data, Nakamura claims: “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.”
- He goes as far to say that manmade activities relative to carbon footprints and other factors cannot be measured and tracked, we do not have the knowledge or technology to consider all the factors that go into climate change and to try and do so results in the simplification of the analysis which results in the wrong conclusions and forecasts.
- These interacting and complex factors include mankind’s use of carbon energy sources, the sun’s activity, clouds and cloud covers, etc.: “Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet.”
- In fact, he gets pretty brutal in criticizing past climate modeling efforts: “The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naive climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. The dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.”
- The big factor that computer models ignore is solar input which most models view as constant which is a false assumption to make.
Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:
Please visit the following sites for freedom:
http://www.reason.com
http://www.cato.org
http://www.bankruptingamerica.org
http://www.conventionofstates.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w
No comments:
Post a Comment