Posted on 11/20/2019 4:49:16 AM PST by Kaslin
The absolute worst case of professional incompetence and dishonesty is in the area of climate science. Tony Heller has exposed some of the egregious dishonesty of mainstream environmentalists in a video he's titled "My Gift To Climate Alarmists." Environmentalists and their political allies attribute the recent increase in deadly forest fires to global warming. However, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, forest fires reached their peak in the 1930s and have declined by 80% since then. Environmentalists hide the earlier data and make their case for the effects of global warming by showing the public and policymakers data from 1980 that shows an increase in forest fires.
Climate scientists claim that rising sea levels are caused by man-made global warming. Historical data from the tide gauge in Lower Manhattan shows that sea levels have been rising from about the time when Abraham Lincoln was president to now. Heller says that sea levels have been rising for about 20,000 years. He points out that anthropologists believe that when the sea level was very low people were able to walk from Siberia to North America.
Hot weather is often claimed to be a result of man-made climate change. Heller presents data showing the number of days in Waverly, Ohio, above 90 degrees. In 1895, there were 73 days above 90 degrees. In 1936, there were 82 days above 90 degrees. Since the 1930s, there has been a downward trend in the number of days above 90 degrees. If climatologists hide data from earlier years and started at 1955, they show an increase in the number of above 90-degree days from eight or nine to 30 or 40. Thus, to deceive us into thinking the climate is getting hotter, environmentalists have selected a starting date that fits their agenda.
You might ask: "Who is Tony Heller? Does he work for big oil?" It turns out that he is a scientist and claims to be a lifelong environmentalist. From what I can tell, he has no vested interests. In that respect, he is different from those who lead the environmental movement, who often either work for or are funded by governments.
Once in a while environmentalists reveal their true agenda. Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC's fourth summary report released in 2007, speaking in 2010 advised: "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world's wealth." U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres said that the true aim of the U.N.'s 2014 Paris climate conference was "to change the (capitalist) economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution." Christine Stewart, Canada's former Minister of the Environment said: "No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits. ... Climate change (provides) the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." Tim Wirth, former U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs and the person most responsible for setting up the Kyoto Protocol said: "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
Not all scientists are dishonest and not all news reporters are leftists with an agenda. But one wonders at the deafening silence where there's clear, unambiguous evidence. For example, if ocean levels have been rising for some 20,000 years, why do scientists allow environmentalists to get away with the claim that it's a result of man-made global warming? Why aren't there any reporters to highlight leftist statements such as those by Edenhofer, Stewart and others who want to ride global warming as a means to defeat capitalism and usher in socialism and communism? I would prefer to think that the silence of so many scientists represent their fears as opposed to their going along with the environmental extremist agenda.
All you need to know about global warming and rising sea levels...
Obama just purchased a $16 million beach house.
There’s no grant money to be had if you admit Global Warming is a hoax.
When sea levels rise, they rise everywhere. The beaches I want to as a kid are the same now as they were then.
Paid off by special interests!
Dishonest. Afraid.
For sale.
I'm sure there lots of honest "climate scientists" and unbiased MSM "reporters" < /sarcasm>
I’ve been staring at the tide at the nearest beach for three decades almost day and night looking for a move.
Boy do I feel silly.
I can name lots of honest climate people, there’s ..., wait, and there is .... hmmmm. Give me a minute, I am sure I can come up with a name, just need more time to think about it.
In a nutshell...that the root of much of it.
There are ideologues who believe it root and branch, too...and getting grants is a nice byproduct for them.
But scientists who see it for the hooey it is are attacked and driven out of the educational bastions that are fostering that crap.
So, most of them who disagree with it simply shut up to save their jobs.
A GREAT book that discusses this aspect a little bit is “Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed” by Christopher Horner.
True. Only 97% of them are
That is a great political cartoon...thanks for posting it!
So correct on a few different planes...
“Climate scientists” and “MSM reporters” like working.
They like money.
They like a roof over their head.
They like food in their stomachs.
They are human.
So—they must lie.
If this was the Middle Ages they would be getting their paycheck from the Church and would be leading the Inquisition.
It is up to us to understand human nature—and expose their lies.
Scientists should be objective. They should search for the truth without bias. Science is not a matter for belief.
But it isn’t! Huge numbers of “scientists” are liberals who got into science to change the world. The Scientific American, a magazine that was once a respected, real science magazine, has become a liberal rag.
Not just the money...it’s the ease of data generation that draws so many in.
Lazy scientists can pick and choose data to come to a conclusion that is stated openly in the government grant because the grant application says the conclusion will be reached with the proper amount of money.
Amen to all that. Us Horner still around? Seems like he used to be a regular guest on Hannity and was often referenced by Rush.
Yeah, but it’s funny how much “research” is necessary to “study” something that has already been “settled”.
Now, ‘getting your name out there’, going to or organizing big conferences at which the scientific ‘stars’ are wined and dined, and becoming somewhat of a celebrity in your field is the draw. So, the science is less trustworthy now than it has been maybe ever.
This is also promoted by universities. The ‘leadership’ at these places are often political hacks with little understanding of what constitutes good science, and their criteria for whether someone is successful or not is the amount of grant money they bring in and how well known they are.
People like Mann are emblematic of the ‘connected’ and known science mafia who control way too much and who suppress competitors and those whose data conflict with their own.
So, yes, there are plenty of scientists who are dishonest and who will fudge or overstate data to further their careers, and there are scientists who are afraid of these people - because they can suppress or ruin your career.
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.