Now suppose you were one of those big supporters of climate change. Now also suppose how you would feel when faced with the fact that we have nothing in the way of a significant hurricane, really, since Sandy, and we’re also now at a 60 year low for tornado activity. All this despite the fact that there has been no major reduction in carbon dioxide levels being released into the atmosphere. Such evidence does very little to bolster your never-ending claims that man is the cause for what now would appear to be nonexistent climate change. So, if the way that we currently come up predictions regarding man’s supposed impact on the climate, what better way to solve that problem then to simply alter how it is that those predictions are manufactured?
So it would now appear that something like that may now actually be in the works. And in what would really be nothing more than a pure waste of what are increasingly scarce resources, the National Science Foundation (NSF), believe it or not, an United States government agency, together with the Department of Agriculture have now come up with a plan to waste, whoops I mean spend, upwards of $18 Million over the course of the next five years to develop, wait for it, wait for it, what it refers to as a much more "reliable" method to manufacture climate change predictions for the next few decades. But I am curious about something, I’m wondering just whose definition of "reliable" will be used? Perhaps, Al Gore’s?
Anyway, the "funding opportunity enables interagency cooperation on one of the most pressing problems of the millennium: climate change and how it is likely to affect our world," according to NSF’s official request for bids. So, since when is this whole bogus climate change nonsense a pressing problem? What it is, is a nonexistent problem, hence this would be a blatant waste of $18 Million. "This solicitation is intended to support development of reliable regional and decadal climate predictions that take into account the influences of living systems and are essential for projecting how living systems might adapt to climate change and its consequences for their physical environment," or so the program solicitation explains.
Current methods of predicting future climate change have been proven to be wildly inaccurate, but I would argue that that has been more by design, than anything else. There never really has been any rhyme or reason to the methodology used, because that makes it all the easier to manipulate the data generated. And what has recently sent those disciples of manmade climate change into an absolute tizzy, is the fact that none of the 73 computer models used by that group of propagandists, known as the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), predicted that there would be no statistically significant global warming for the past 17 years as determined by actual temperature records stored in five different databases worldwide.
And despite the near endless claims that climate change caused by global warming is what continues to be behind all manner of "extreme weather," a new study by the SI Organization, Inc., a systems engineering firm, ranks 2013 as "one of the least extreme U.S. weather years ever," noting that "there has been no major hurricane in either the Atlantic or eastern Pacific, which only occurred one other year in recorded history – 1968." SI also points out, "Whether you’re talking about tornadoes, wildfires, extreme heat or hurricanes, the good news is that weather-related disasters in the US are all way down this year compared to recent years and, in some cases, down to historically low levels."
But when Eric C. Itsweire, program director at NSF’s Directorate for Geosciences, was asked how the lack of global warming over the past 17 years impacts the project's primary assumption that climate change is "one of the most pressing problems of the millennium." He replied in the typical language used by those devoted protectors of the faith, saying that "there is more than one aspect in assessing whether there is climate change, so there is not a simple answer to your question. That’s more a policy question." Then this climate change scam artist lied through his teeth saying, "There’s no political agenda on our end." Itsweire then went on to add, "We’re just a research agency trying to get the best ideas to understand the complicated system we live in."
Theoretically, the increasing of what’s defined as being ‘scientific knowledge’ about the Earth’s complex climate system is not the only goal of the $18 Million taxpayer funded study, at least according to NSF’s own request for bids, which are due December 23. We’re told that the results will be also used to "effectively translate climate predictions and associated uncertainties into the scientific basis for policy and management decisions related to human interventions and adaptation to the projected impacts of climate change." So what kind of "policy and management decisions" might they be referring to? NSF, by the way, has a $6.8 Billion budget, and is described as being is an independent, federally funded agency.
Look, I don’t mean to sound like a conspiracy nut here, but I am more than just a little curious about something here. Knowing the mentality those who are behind the perpetuating of this junk science, if the models as they currently exist can’t be made to come up with the desired result, than why shouldn’t I be at least a little suspicious when I’m told the plan is to now alter completely how the data is to be gathered? Look, the bottom line here is that I simply don’t trust these people. It is simply not possible for man to effect the climate, one way or the other. This entire manmade climate change scam has been instigated by those who see it as way to bring and end to capitalism. Which is why Democrats are the biggest proponents of this nonsense.
No comments:
Post a Comment