THE MYTH OF GLOBAL WARMING By: Hal Morris February 15, 2021 PART II The discussions on the need for changes to prevent our world from the catastrophic effects of global warming and climate change have strayed from scientific evidence supporting a hypothesis to a political charade, as evidenced by the emergence of the Al Gore movie The Inconvenient Truth. Entering the climate debates from stage left, we have a former vice-president Al Gore, out of work, and seeking a payday, latches on to climate as a vehicle to get attention and, at the same time, make some money as a frontman for climate and environmental radicals and activists. After leaving the vice president's office, Gore's net worth was under 2 million dollars, primarily accumulated due to inherited farmland, zinc mine stock, salary, and other small stock investments. Climate comes calling, and estimates are he netted over $100,000,000 on climate activities alone. When added to the worth of Gore's inherited investments, estimates of his climate, and environmental investments alone, his total net worth is over 300 million dollars. Gore's climate change movie used false evidence to enhance his appearances worldwide as the spokesperson and expert on climate or global warming. Ivar Giaever, a former RPI professor, is a Nobel prize-winning physicist and was a strong supporter of Obama and Al Gore. He initially supported President Obama claiming that "no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change." Seven years after his endorsement, Giaever wrote to Obama and said, "Excuse me, Mr. President, but you are dead wrong. Dead wrong." At the 65th Nobel Laureate Conference in 2015, he called the former president's claim a ridiculous statement and declared I don't see that Carbon Dioxide is a cause of all this problem. (Climate Change, Marc Morano, Regency Publishing, 2018.) Former UNIPCC lead author, Richard Tol, a professor at the Vrije University, Amsterdam, among the most cited climate researchers, testified at a 2014 Congressional hearing, "The climate has become a new religion, and that people who disagree would be treated as heretics." (Interview of Richard Tol, Moreano and Curran, Climate Hustle.) The scientific evidence that Gore relies upon is essentially based upon reports and data generated by the UN-IPCCC. Making his case and predictions on the danger of burning fossil fuels to our environment is based upon faulty research. An example is establishing a viable political conclusion and then manipulating data guaranteeing the political message outshines the true scientific conclusions. As criticism grew over Global Warming, the Gore advocates changed their tune and now called it Climate Change. Rex Murphy of the Canadian Broadcast Company deftly describes the scandal now known as "Climategate" by writing, "Climategate pulls back the curtain on a scene of pettiness, turf protection, manipulation, definance of freedom of information, lost or destroyed data, and attempts to blacklist critics or skeptics of the global warming cause." He further goes on to state " you wouldn't accept that at a 9th-grade science fair." (Politically Correct Guide to Climate Change, Marc Morano, Regency Publishing, 2018.) In actuality, they announced that Carbon Dioxide is released into the atmosphere by human burning of fossil fuels causes the harmful "Greenhouse" effect. The IPCC researchers then manipulated data to reach the conclusion they wanted. They manipulated data and photographs and created a chart of temperatures (Mann Graph) that supposedly recorded temperatures that showed a sudden and rapid increase in temperature when the industrial revolution years started to the present day. Al Gore also used a 1998 research study produced by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes, financed by an UN-IPCC working group, which produced the now notorious "Lamb Graph" or the "Hockey Stick Graph" as evidence of temperature increases when fossil fuel burning increased. The study set out to rewrite history. When viewed, it looked like a hockey stick shape with a relatively flat handle until the 20th century when a dramatic rise takes place, the blade, and thus a hockey stick's shape. In his presentations, Gore consistently referred to the research, stating the accelerated rise was unnatural. It reinforced the connection between a temperature increase with fossil fuels' burning and increasing carbon dioxide, forming the glass ceiling. Scientific investigators discovered that the graph represents a false manipulation of data. The researchers found that the tree ring data initially used showed a temperature decline in the 20th century. They then altered the graph, dropped tree ring data, and substituted actual temperatures for the 20th century to fit the narrative. Even worse, they eliminated data from the graph data that showed sharp increases in temperature during years in the 13th and 14th centuries, increases in temperature more extensive than the 20th century well before the onslaught of fossil fuels. The Hockey Stick Fiasco failed a basic scientific test, known as reproducible results. It is common for scientists to share their methodology and program data when conducting scientific research. Other scientists used the same data and procedures to reproduce the original results, which would indicate the validity of the research. Scientists working on limited data and methods have consistently failed to replicate their results. Reviewers of the Mann study concluded in effect; the Hockey Stick data and graph were meaningless. The reason for limited data is that Mann refused to share critical methodologies and data used. A further examination of the peer group of 43 scientists who initially favorably reviewed the study showed that they were funded by the IPCC and reviewed each other's papers, another loss of creditability since all were connected to the same organization. Tit for Tat! John Daly, a noted biochemist, and research scientist, and member of the Academy of Science, explained: "What is disquieting about the 'Hockey Stick' is not Mann's presentation of it originally. As with any paper, it would sink into oblivion if found to be flawed in any way. Rather it was the reaction of the greenhouse industry to it--the chorus of approval, the complete lack of critical evaluation of the theory, the blind acceptance of evidence which was so flimsy. The industry embraced the theory for one reason and one reason only--it told them what they wanted to hear." ( The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science, Tim Ball, Stairway Press, 2014) Gore also announced and emphasized that 97 percent of scientists supported climate change theories and supporting models. The media, of course, jumped into the fray by supporting Gore and publicizing his claims. The major flaw in Gore's presentations was his announcement that 97% of scientists agreed on the premise of human-made global warming. Wow, that is truly an impressive amount; until further review of the supposedly 11,944 scientific papers discovered, only 64 of the papers endorsed the claim of human cause. That number represents 0.5% at best. Another survey conducted by the University of Illinois researchers of the 97% claim showed that this conclusion was faulty. "The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, from the University of Illinois. The survey results may have deeply disturbed the researchers -in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio of 75/77 produces the 97% figure that the pundits now tout." (PoliticallyIncorrect Guide to Climate Change, Marc Morano, Regnery Publications, 2018.) But wait, there's more! (Marc Moreno, "It's All Wrong": UNIPCC, Autor Dr. Richard Tol Slams Media for False Claims about Alleged 97% Consenses, 9/2015.) (Valerie Richardson, Obama's 97% Claim Consensus, "Deniers"Washington Times, 4/25/2016.) Marc Morano, in 2007 wrote a Senate report that reviewed seven hundred dissenting scientists on human-made global warming. The information updated in 2010, showing the number of dissenting scientists exceeded over one thousand. The United Nations officials and the media insist we must immediately act on climate, or a calamity facing humanity will occur. Rajendra Pachauri, former head of the UNIPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), whose members are nominated by climate activists, stated UN Climate reports were tailored to meet governments' political needs. Another UNIPPC Offical said openly that the "UN Climate Panel is attempting to redistribute de facto the World's wealth by climate policy." (Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change, Morano, Regnery Publishing, 2018) Their research models are built upon the manipulation of data. Indeed the flawed concept that human carbon dioxide causes warming and climate change was based upon an unproven theory by people and organizations having a political ideology. Researchers used political instruments to promote a theory to change industrialized nations' political and economic systems to redistribution of wealth. What is sad is that we, in the United States, together with countries around the world, have let ourselves be duped by The Club of Rome and their infiltration of the United Nations. As a result, we are developing global energy policies and economic policies on incorrect science promulgated by radical extremists. Currently, the Biden administration's actions on climate, via executive orders, demonstrate the dangers of enacting decrees avoiding open and transparent debate on their merits. The lack of a free press is a determining factor in the public's lack of knowledge and awareness of climate change's extent and nature. A true examination of climate science together with a candid, open discussion of the research available should be standard in an open democracy. But alas, it isn't. Thus the public at large doesn't receive the information it needs to understand that; · Temperatures vary considerably and in very short time periods. · Global temperatures were much warmer than today. · Temperature increases precede CO2 increases. · Current changes are not unprecedented. The Myth Of Global Warming, Part III will examine the current political and economic problems about to be inflicted upon the United States due to the pressures to implement the "Green New Deal," the political nirvana of solutions now popularized, |
No comments:
Post a Comment