There is no evidence against Global Warming! Really!
Posted on 05/29/2011 7:17:16 AM PDT by RogerFGay
I was disappointed upon seeing a Global Warming “science” pitch recently published in Politico. Cold shoulder for climate change was written by sports writer turned outdoors, travel and entertainment reporter turned environmental journalist Darren Samuelsohn.I won't pick apart details of the entire article. It's based on the old propaganda template: warmers are scientists, skeptics are right-wing ideologues. No mention of the much larger number of professional scientists and engineers who have gone from skeptical to calling the whole thing a fraud. In Samuelsohn's world, warmers and their climate theories have been “exonerated” and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is slated to rise in public status again.
Sameulsohn's background – about as far from scientifically educated as possible – is rather typical for environmental journalists. The rank and file tend to drive the ad nauseam element of Global Warming Propaganda - the endless repetition of an idea in the hope that it will begin to be taken as the truth. What else are they qualified to do? We can kind-of understand this serving up of a previous season's warmed over nonsense by someone without enough knowledge to be embarrassed by it. It's a living, right?
So I doubt he had a clue that his article contained one of the most basic bits of evidence that the global warming scare is a complete fraud and the IPCC is a scam.
“We need to equip ourselves with the ability and capacity to deal with the heightened scrutiny … which we have been subjected to recently,” IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri said earlier this month during a conference in Abu Dhabi.Warmers tend to think of science as magic. Chant the word “science” enough and a cow pie should become the Mona Lisa if that's what you say it is. But what is it about (real) science that implies such overwhelming credibility? If your answer is “the scientific process” then congratulations; you're light-years ahead of environmental journalism.Scientific process: If you're asking, “What's that?” then let me give you a hint. Skepticism and scrutiny are essential to the process. If ideas are not exposed and tested with skepticism and scrutiny, it isn't science. A “skeptic” is the the more likely scientist than the “open-minded” unskeptical believer. The mere fact that a Nobel Peace Prize recipient says something doesn't make it true. That an article is “published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal” does not make everything in it true either. Publications communicate ideas, which are then subject to skepticism and scrutiny. That's scientific process.
The word of a “scientific committee” cannot be presumed truth. The so-called “scientific consensus” on global warming is meaningless (and still would be even if it actually did favor their argument as they insist). A good example of scientific perspective on such things is illustrated by Einstein's response to a 1931 pamphlet entitled “100 authors against Einstein.” The pamphlet was commissioned by the German Nazi Party as a clumsy contradiction to Relativity Theory that did not fit the canons of the “Aryan science.” Similarly, the IPCC and modern leftist political operatives define acceptable scientific views to conform with a political and economic agenda and support it with a claim of a consensus view. Einstein’s answer; “If I were wrong, then one would have been enough.”
Scientific fact is not determined by appointments and elections. It didn't matter how many Nazi supporters lined up against him or how strong their influence on public discussion. Nor does the past few decades of political influence through biased funding and its impact on the number of scientific journal articles determine the truth about global warming. Science is not conducted by committee and certainly not by political appointees in an intergovernmental panel.
What IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri reveals in his statement is that scrutiny has been missing from the IPCC process – something many of us “skeptics” already knew. The IPCC was established in 1988. That makes 23 years of non-science. The problem isn't confined to United Nations' activities and their reports that warmers treat as the bible of climate “science.” It's found throughout the entire chain of “climate science” activities and it's been intentional and systematic. (That's also an important part of what was exposed to the general public through Climategate.) “Science” is the basis of their claim of credibility, and it's the one thing they've avoided doing.
Some of the warmers have Ph.D.s. In fact, there are plenty of them, and they understand all this too. The global warming scam isn't just the product of uneducated sports writers trying to make a living. It is a fraud. Science is something done by scientists. But who is a scientist and who is not, is not determined by who holds what scientific degrees. Degrees don't make scientists. Scientists are people who actually do science. Having made claims to scientifically established facts without subjecting them to the rigors of scientific process is a fraud to. The people who do it ar not scientists. They are frauds too.
IPCC is a political organization whose stated purpose is to advise governments on policies to respond to climate change which is assumed a priori to exist. If there is no AGW, there is no reason for IPCC to exist. All those bureaucrats and NGO plugs will have to give up their cushy careers and get honest work somehow.
I don,t know anything about global warming, but probably as much as the Global warming frauds who want to use it to gain dictatorship over the entire planet.
But needless to say its not just about global warming fraud, its getting to be fraud about everything we do in our daily life, everything that government can use to ride roughshod over the people.
bump
Don’t worry about Mathews grand kids and great grand kids, he’s p-ss on them himself if he could, makes a tingle go down his leg
You are disappointed to see LIBERALISM on Politico???? You’re kidding, right!
I asked him the critical question in an email one day. I asked him if when the voting by scientist on AGW was done, was the vote of a Botanist weighted the same as a vote by a meteorologist. He assured me that only weather scientist voted.
I am still laughing at that one.
Ping
For you next effort I recommend another article exposing the fact algore warming is actually being taught in pulik skools. Grandson was visiting a while back and informed me that man was the cause of global warming. Asked where he got that notion; "School". It goes without saying he and I had a discussion about it; as much as one can have with an eleven year old. He's only in 5th grade for crying out loud!
Their young heads are being filled with so much PC mush it's going to be difficult to maintain the fact this is an unexpurgated fraud being perpetrated on the unwashed. The LONG MARCH THROUGH THE INSTITUTIONS continues almost unabated.
Germany ‘Sliding Head Over Heels Into Eco-Dictatorship’
Global Warming on Free Republic
Thanks! Some great comments after the article also.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.