I’ve never been a believer in this whole cockamamie theory that the planet is getting warmer and that it’s somehow my fault. It’s always seemed that those behind the advancing of this con job had more than one ulterior motive. And if I remember correctly, it was many of the same characters who, back in the 70s, were warning us all about the coming ice age. But when that didn’t exactly pan out for them they merely shifted gears, so to speak. So one scam morphed into another.
So you can only image how I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when old Al Gore got the news about how it was that the co-founder of Greenpeace told a Senate committee that there is "no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years." I bet old Al had an old fashioned conniption fit and, most likely, went straight through the roof. Seeing that would have made my day!
So anyway, what I’m thinking that might have really pushed Al just a little closer to the edge is the fact it that Mr. Patrick Moore, who, I guess, happens to be a fella who back in 1971 helped form the famed environmentalist wacko nut-group, testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee saying that "if there were such a proof, it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists." That certainly seems pretty cut and dry to me.
Mr. Moore continued in his testimony, saying, "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states: ‘It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.’" Adding, "'Extremely likely’ is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines ‘extremely likely’ as a ‘95-100 percent probability.’ Look, the gaggle behind all of this nonsense is clearly not interested in any actual science.
And Mr. Moore then went on to say something that I think most of us non-believers have always believed to be the case. That this entire premise of supposed man-made climate change has been concocted. He said, "But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been ‘invented’ as a construct within the IPCC report to express ‘expert judgment,’ as determined by the IPCC contributors."
Apparently, Mr. Moore, who appears to be a very sincere individual, departed Greenpeace in 1986 after 15 years because he said the group "took a sharp turn to the political left and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective." He told the Senate committee that political bias has tainted climate-change "science." Gee, now there’s a no-shit item. I think we all already knew that about this rather strange group which is comprised primarily of those who are most comfortable on the extreme left.
And another little key indicator here which proves that this entire "global warming" scam is based on nothing more than junk science of the purest kind, was made all the more obvious when Mr. Moore pointed out, "The increase in temperature between 1910 and 1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970 and 2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910 to 1940 to 'human influence.' Obviously, the "global warming" scam artists want to have it both ways.
Mr. Moore also went on to ask the question, "They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase ‘since the mid-20th century.’ Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by ‘human influence,’ when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910 to 1940?" Those pushing this theory seem to be rather selective regarding the ‘science’ that they try use to bolster their idiotic claims.
Mr’ Moore also went on to criticize the over-reliance on computer models in defining the pattern of any climate change. "These judgments are based almost entirely on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate," he said. Now look, I think we’ve known since the beginning of this computer age all that the data can be manipulated. Because as we all know, when it comes to computers, garbage in equals garbage out.
Mr. Moore said, "As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it's sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods." And yet we’re constantly being lead to believe that our computers are infallible.
Mr. Moore ended his testimony with a statement that one would be hard-pressed to challenge. He told the committee, "I realize that my comments are contrary to much of the speculation about our climate that is bandied about today." Now ain’t that the truth. How much time and, even more importantly, money have now been wasted on this scam? It’s absolutely ridiculous that we’re even still treating this as being something that we need to be genuinely concerned about.
No matter how much proof is provided that what’s claimed to be occurring here, really isn’t, we continue to have liars like Barry wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on ‘green energy’, and buffoons like John Kerry-Heinz running around telling us that ‘global warming’ is the equivalent of a weapon of mass destruction? And it’s all a scam that provides to Barry a rationale for the government to have more control over the cars we drive and the energy we’re allowed to use in our homes.
No comments:
Post a Comment