The Global Warming Golden Goose

American Thinker ^ | 12 Jul, 2022 | Norman Rogers

[MtnClimber]

Climate science was an obscure and unimportant corner of academia until the professors lucked out with global warming. The global warming idea apparently struck a spark with the government and media establishments and caught fire. Money and influence flooded from Washington to academia.

In his farewell address in 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against the scientific-technological elite being dependent upon government grants. Eisenhower feared that the elite would use their influence and expertise to warp public policy for their own benefit. That is exactly what is happening. Global warming is only one of many current scientific frauds that enhance the welfare of the scientists and bureaucrats promoting the frauds.

Since World War II, the increasing flow of big money from Washington has contributed to a gradual change in the character of research universities. Money became more important than science. Administrators who were focused on money and power grew in number and became dominant. This change in character was documented in an important essay by the MIT scientist Richard Lindzen.

Global warming provided the professors and academic administrators with a junk science golden goose. They were determined to stop anyone from killing the goose.

A narrative was developed to crush “deniers” who dared to question the global warming narrative. The deniers were depicted as agents of the international oil companies. This is somewhat comical since the oil companies were constantly searching for someone to accept their surrender. The oil companies not only had no chance of winning a propaganda war with academia and the media, they didn’t want to try. They were ready to swear allegiance to the global warming narrative. They knew perfectly well that global warming nonsense was no threat to their business. But the mob needs a villain so they weren’t allowed to surrender.

[joshua c]

The Global Warming Scam is something I use to think was created by the Third World to get its hands in our pockets and used by our own politicans to grab more power.

---

plus a lot of that money will circle back to the politicians pocket

[The Great RJ]

Climate change/ global warming has long ceased to be any valid scientific theory and has morphed into a cult religion with an unassailable dogma. No one can question this dogma without being called a denier i.e. heretic. There is even an informal Climate Change Inquisition that will seek to destroy the credibility of anyone who would dare to question the climate change dogma. I am reminded of Galileo whose scientific challenge to the Church dogma of an earth centered universe put him into house arrest for the remainder of his life and had his book put on the index of prohibited works for more than 300 years.

[gloryblaze]

You said everything I wanted to say, but much better.

[xenia]

Sounds good.... I will do that. Yes, I am a believer. Thank you.

[vrwc1]

I disagree with the author's assessment:
I don’t see an end to junk science because there’s too much money in it and the credible institutions that could puncture it lack objectivity and expertise.

The main reason that the global warming scare exists is due to NOAA data homogenization of the raw thermometer data. Those adjustments cause much of the claimed "global warming".

All it would take to end the farce would be to replace Gavin Schmidt at NOAA with a real climate scientist to correct the homogenization algorithm that is applied to raw thermometer data.

Currently past raw data is primarily cooled, and recent raw data is primarily warmed by the adjustments. This seems completely backwards. Increasing populations and urban sprawl should be causing an increase in the urban heat island effect, so the adjustments to raw data should be in the opposite direction.

[vrwc1]

Here's another reason why the global warming scare is BS. From Avalanches of Global Warming Alarmism:

Today, we have virtually no data for approximately 85% of the Earth’s surface. Indeed, there are fewer weather stations in operation now than there were in 1960.

That means HadCRUT4 and other surface temperature computations after about 1980 are meaningless. Combining this with the sensitivity (accuracy) problems in the early data, and the fact that we have almost no long-term data above Earth’s surface, the conclusion is unavoidable:

It is not possible to know how or whether Earth’s climate has varied over the past century and a half. The data are therefore useless for input to the computer models that form the basis of the IPCC’s conclusions.