Pages

March 11, 2011

The debate is over

Over at Climate Etc. there is currently a post titled "Talking Past Each Other?" It is a discussion on a recent study about the dynamics of the climate change debate. To put it simply "Can't we all just get along"

Whenever I read these types of discussion it inevitably is about somehow bringing the sides together in order to discuss the science or the policies relative to the science. In other words "How can we debate the science like adults" or some such thing.

There is a very simple answer to this, you can't really debate the science, because it never has been a scientific debate, it's a political debate and always has been. The science part of global warming has always just been a means to an end for the political agenda behind it.

Scientist who are not heavily vested in the politics of global warming like to hide their heads in the sand and pretend that it is all about the science. However their actions or lack of actions show that they are no more  than "useful idiots" to those who have manipulated the climate science community into a political agenda. As long as they can keep the arguments on some sort of pseudo-intellectual plain they can ignore the cancerous puss which controls their profession. Or more likely they suffer from what Upton Sinclair so aptly observed:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."
The climate science community is very good at not understanding that politics, not science is the driving force behind their field. If they really were worried about the scientific debate they would put a stop to the obvious propaganda that is so much a part of their science discipline. But they don't, more often than not they promote it without actual scientific evidence to support it, they just advance a narrative.

In the past week alone we have two very good examples of why this isn't science, it is an agenda.

From Grist today 3/11/11 at 11;00 AM

Today’s tsunami: This is what climate change looks like


As the tragedy in Japan is unfolding, global warming propagandist are writing articles tying it to global warming. From the above article:

So far, today's tsunami has mainly affected Japan -- there are reports of up to 300 dead in the coastal city of Sendai -- but future tsunamis could strike the U.S. and virtually any other coastal area of the world with equal or greater force, say scientists. In a little-heeded warning issued at a 2009 conference on the subject, experts outlined a range of mechanisms by which climate change could already be causing more earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanic activity.

"When the ice is lost, the earth's crust bounces back up again and that triggers earthquakes, which trigger submarine landslides, which cause tsunamis," Bill McGuire, professor at University College London, told Reuters.

Melting ice masses change the pressures on the underlying earth, which can lead to earthquakes and tsunamis, but that's just the beginning. Rising seas also change the balance of mass across earth's surface, putting new strain on old earthquake faults, and may have been partly to blame for the devastating 2004 tsunami that struck Southeast Asia, according to experts from the China Meteorological Administration.

Even a simple change in the weather can dramatically affect the earth beneath our feet:

Putting aside the typically sick opportunism, is that really science? I guess so the writer is quoting a scientist who actually promotes such nonsense. Does the so called consensus scientific community ever condemn such unscientific speculative crap? On occasion a scientist might decry such overblown outlandish claims, but on the whole they go pretty much unchallenged by the consensus community. They allow this sort of science (?) to be promoted in the name of climate change science because it serves their purpose, in swaying public opinion, so they think. That is not science, that is politics. If they seriously wanted to stop this kind of reporting, they could, but they don't.

The other day NOAA scientist came out and reported:

Natural Causes Drove Russian Heat Wave, Study Finds


However back last year as the event was going on it was reported this way:

 Aug. 12, 2010

Climate experts agree: Global warming caused Russian heat wave


Did scientist come forward to squelch this speculation? On the contrary, from the story itself:

Russia’s heat wave simply would not have happened without the influence of fossil fuel pollution on our atmosphere. University of Texas climate scientist Michael Tobis is “hazarding a guess” that “the Russian heat wave of 2010 is the first disaster unequivocally attributable to anthropogenic climate change”:
But right now I feel like hazarding a guess. As far as I understand, nothing like this has happened before in Moscow ... The formerly remarkable heat wave of 2001, then, is “the sort of thing we’ll see more of” with global warming. But it may turn out reasonable, in the end, to say “the Russian heat wave of 2010 is the first disaster unequivocally attributable to anthropogenic climate change.”
Meteorologist Rob Carver, the Research and Development Scientist for Weather Underground, agrees. Using a statistical analysis of historical temperature records, Dr. Carver estimates that the likelihood of Moscow’s 100-degree record on July 29 is on the order of once per 1,000 years, or even less than once every 15,000 years -- in other words, a vanishingly small probability. However, those tiny odds are based on the assumption that the long-term climate is stable, an assumption that is no longer true.

Like Dr. Tobis, Carver believes that manmade global warming has fundamentally altered weather patterns to produce the killer Russian heat wave. “Without contributions from anthropogenic climate change,” Carver said in an email interview with the Wonk Room, “I don’t think this event would have reached such extremes or even happened at all”:

So, not only did Dr. Carver or Dr. Tobis attempt to squelch speculation without scientific proof, they promoted it. The so called consensus community seldom acts scientifically at all. How do you have a scientific debate with people who do not operate as scientist?

Since even before the infamous day in June of 1988 when a US Senator left the windows of a Senate Hearing Room open  in order to make James Hanson's testimony "hotter", the global warming debate has been nothing but politics, For the deluded to believe that this has anything to with science only goes to show how successful the progressives have been.

The  IPCC has been shown without a doubt to be an agenda driven entity with predetermined outcomes to their science, fully willing to use unscientific methods and studies to promote their agendas. And intelligent people are still talking about debating the science?

The debate is over, the political movement behind global warming is what needs to be debated...and destroyed, for the good of mankind.

1 comment:

  1. Good post!
    But did you really mean cancerous "puss"?

    ReplyDelete