Let me start with what caught my eye first.
The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK)
52 scientists participated in the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers, stating that there was a "consensus" that determined that global warming was man made and yet 400 scientists disagree.
This was just released from the U.S. Senate Committee Environment and Public Works.
This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.
It gets worse, or better, depending on your beliefs.
Any time anyone affiliated with the government tells you "the debate is over," hang on to your wallet. Taxes (i.e, theft of your money by your government) are about to be imposed.
One of the first things they teach you in science classes is that there is no such thing as something being proven as a fact. There are only hypotheses that have been tested and stand as the basis of what we know unless and until they are disproved.
What we DO know, from the data and evidence collected, is what I have been harping on and saying and spouting for longer ago than I wish to remember. The Earth goes through periods of warming and cooling. There are times when it is WARMER (such as when T-Rex and the gang roamed the Earth) and times when it is COOLER (this would be the time period that Ug the caveman lived with his wife Ugli, and he spent the day hunting woolly mammoths so that she could cook a mammoth steak for dinner and make woolly mammoth clothes for the Uglings).
Warm periods...and COLD periods...
Right now we're between two cold periods, so that would lead us where, by using logic as our guide in developing a rational argument that isn't based on political hype and media hysteria? Yes, Johnny, that would lead us into a WARM period.
I theorized long ago while sitting in philosophy class in college (and probably concentrating more on the hot little brunette behind me than on the lecture, but that's just my mind rambling so let's just pretend I didn't mention that) that everything in the Universe operates on frequency ranges (as a telecommunications contractor, frequency is something I deal with from time to time). It hit me like a thunderbolt from a clear blue sky. My professor could tell I had had an epiphany, evidently, because he looked at me with this rather odd smile on his face that said "you've just stumbled on to one of the great truths of the Universe." I'm still waiting for someone with a bit more mathematical skill (OK, a lot more mathematical skill) to validate my hypothesis, but that was the thought that sprang into my mind.
Let me explain in a little more coherent way. Suppose you drew a straight line and then superimposed a sine wave over the line. It would look something like this:
Now, at the top of the wave, you could put "hot period," and at the bottom part of the wave, you could put "cold period," adjust the wavelength to represent the correct number of years, and voila, you have a frequency chart showing the Earth going through cycles of global warming and global cooling. As you look over the number of CENTURIES involved in the global cycles of warming and cooling, it would be logical to conclude that Man has made about as much difference on the temperature of Planet Earth as dinosaur farts did. In fact, I'm not the only one who thinks this way:
The bottom line is this: If you want to do something real about Global Warming, let's begin with removing politics from science. We can't continue to demand that scientists produce something by specific deadlines in order to justify their research. When we put that kind of political pressure on our scientists, we wind up with information that is geared toward telling the politicians what they want to hear rather than allowing the data and research to bear the true fruit of what the evidence shows. We wind up with scam artists like Al Gore preaching gloom and doom to us in order to have us buy "carbon credits" so that he can make a profit from it when people go out and buy trees from the companies he and other doomsday prophets are invested in.
Is this a politically correct way of thinking? No. It's a realistic way of thinking. Political correctness is an indoctrination into thinking like a group of people want you to think, rather than using your own rational mind to come to a conclusion based upon fact rather than feeling. If you think I'm wrong about how politics influences science, I'm going to leave you with this little reminder from Newsweek about global COOLING from 1975:
Feel free to use your own minds to think about this, rationally. Just remember, as you do, that 400 scientists have come out denouncing Al Gore's 52 scientists and their "Inconvenient Truth."
Once and Always, an American Fighting Man
.
The bottom line is this: If you want to do something real about Global Warming, let's begin with removing politics from science. We can't continue to demand that scientists produce something by specific deadlines in order to justify their research. When we put that kind of political pressure on our scientists, we wind up with information that is geared toward telling the politicians what they want to hear rather than allowing the data and research to bear the true fruit of what the evidence shows. We wind up with scam artists like Al Gore preaching gloom and doom to us in order to have us buy "carbon credits" so that he can make a profit from it when people go out and buy trees from the companies he and other doomsday prophets are invested in.Is this a politically correct way of thinking? No. It's a realistic way of thinking. Political correctness is an indoctrination into thinking like a group of people want you to think, rather than using your own rational mind to come to a conclusion based upon fact rather than feeling. If you think I'm wrong about how politics influences science, I'm going to leave you with this little reminder from Newsweek about global COOLING from 1975:
The Cooling World
Newsweek, April 28, 1975
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
Feel free to use your own minds to think about this, rationally. Just remember, as you do, that 400 scientists have come out denouncing Al Gore's 52 scientists and their "Inconvenient Truth."
Once and Always, an American Fighting Man
.
