How to Win the War on Global Warming
This was the title of a recent special issue of Time Magazine
The moment saw it, I immediately recalled the climactic line from the movie Wargames, when the military computer Joshua discovers the futility of nuclear war and announces – “A strange game. The only winning move is not to play”.
I state my view straight up with no sugar on top. Global Warming Alarmism is Bullsh**. It is the greatest scientific embarrassment of the 21st century. I have not yet seen any evidence that proves that human activity has had a significant impact on Global Climate.
Children are having nightmares about disappearing polar bears and living in underwater cities. Billions of dollars are being spent on promoting monopoly money (carbon credits) and the whole thing stinks.
Amongst the most recent stupidities, the great polluting nation of New Zealand has announced that its Kyoto Protocol liability will exceed $1 Billion. Our own Government plans to spend $2.3 Billion of the budget windfall on fighting climate change.
In the process or whipping up this world frenzy, I have seen the following fundamental scientific and logical errors:
- Lack of falsifiability in weather predictions
- Combining measurements obtained using inconsistent methods, e.g. those used to produce graphs of historic temperature, ice thickness
- Mapping a relationship between variables by curve fitting instead of creating a correct model of the underlying process
- Retrospectively adjusting models to fit experimental data after abherrations are found
- Violating Occam’s Razor
- Confusing causation and correlation
To my knowledge, these are the only things that have been proven:
- We have more Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere today than we did at the turn of the century, largely attributable to industrialisation
- Global temperature was in a downward trend between 1940 and 1970 and since then has been in an upward trend.
- Animal migration and breeding is linked to the weather in a certain area.
I include the following websites that do a far better job of explaining the specifics:
http://junkscience.com/Features.html
Basic Greenhouse Equations ‘Totally Wrong’
I expect a barrage of criticism, so I preemptively will answer the following questions:
What about the Polar Bears stranded on ice?
This is a myth that originated from a widely published photo. Polar bears can swim.
What about the Movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”?
A High Court judge in the UK found that the contains 9 scientific errors covering many of its key points concerning attribution of certain events to anthropogenic climate change.
What about the “Scientific Consensus”?
Science is not a popularity contest. The only valid science comes from the application of the scientific method – you need to have a testable hypothesis.
In any case, there certainly is not a scientific consensus. The following links on Wikipedia describe the controversy and scientists who oppose the “Mainstream Assessment”.
What about the IPCC report?
Short answer: the contributors who disagreed had their opinions suppressed.
OK Mr Skeptic, then, do you believe that CFCs harm the Ozone Layer?
That was genuine science. The ability of CFCs to break down Ozone was experimentally proven, and the presence of CFCs was detected in the upper atmosphere.
In fact, the evidence was so convincing, that the Montreal Protocol that phased out the use of CFCs was ratified by more countries than the UN Declaration on Human Rights.
What has made Global Warming Alarmism so popular?
These are my guesses:
- Economic rivalry between Europe and the USA
- A convenient distraction for the UN to cover up its failure to act on Human Rights Abuses throughout the world
- A way for the Left to attack Capitalism
- A sure-fire way to attract research funding for academics who otherwise struggle for money
I will update this article with more comments at the next convenient opportunity.
Comments
2 Comments on How to Win the War on Global Warming
-
PR on
Sat, 5th Jul 2008 12:02 pm
-
Ponzi Schemes and Carbon Reduction Schemes | Here's Trouble on
Fri, 26th Dec 2008 5:03 pm
There have been many such cons in the past and for example Y2K. Anthropomorphic climate change has the same hysteria around it as Y2K did in 1999. Y2K was mostly a con by IT companies to scare you into buying their products and services. I remember a report in the 90s where Russia was criticized as being irresponsible for not doing enough to protect against Y2K. Russia response was that the considered the issue and believed it was not a big deal. The US wasted $40 Billion on Y2K while Russia spent only $200 Million just to be on the safe side. Russia was proven right and Americans were proven to be suckers. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2000/jan/09/y2k.observerbusiness
Even if Anthropomorphic climate change is a real problem, will the proposed solutions which will cost Trillions of dollars to the Global economy really going to make a difference? People think that carbon trading is like trading a tangible commodity. It is not. Much of it is smoke (pardon the pun) and mirrors . If someone is missing a ton of copper, sooner or later they will come looking for it. If the atmosphere has an extra billion tonnes of CO2 that accountants say shouldn’t be there, is the atmosphere going track down who put it there and make them take it back?
[…] what was has been achieved by thist? Apart from the fact that Global Warming Alarmism is bullsh**, China’s own CO2 emission growth will of course outstrip our savings within several months. […]
