HEADLINE: No global warming ! The truth is out...
Monday, February 15, 2010 11:42:59 AM
What is revealed now about the Global Warming Fraud or Climate Change Scam and its political exploitation is very serious indeed. Very serious for science as a whole. Billions of taxpayers' money are spent for scientific research. What does this contribute to our well-being, our safety and for society? What about democracy, when political opportunists and biased officials conspire and present obviously questionable data for policy-making? Is the public so tired of politics, that nobody cares? When we take a very critical look at some "established" sciences, we get a frightening impression indeed. More than 51 million webpages deal with scientific charlatanry, shouldn't you know. Confusing though is the name of the game called: 'politics' regarding air pressure and temperatures. If you don't know where you are talking about, just create confusion and your ignorance dissolves behind a smoke-screen of controversies. That is political reality. The climate hoax surely exposes politicians who for opportunistic reasons pretended to be 'scared' or 'concerned'. When you're so scared or too often 'concerned' you should see a physician to restore your mental stability and not sit in some parliament with its 'scary', often worrying responsibilities, I think. The BBC released material about Dr. Phil Jones standing Question & Answer. The following movie is to illustrate this only:
Url movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSoY55jCoWA
The essential point for "climate-gate" is not using falsified or invented data, like 'hockey-stick' graphs, but the malignant mixture of assumed global warming data, a connection with the for us totally insignificant CO2 gas (nobody asks why this connection was invented in the first place! It served as a method for statistical simplification of mathematical models for the atmosphere with correlations now proven to have been false) and left-wing 'green', money-squandering policies about our environment. This led to a mixture of erroneous claims telling, that when you don't use your car this will bring down global temperatures. If you use fluorescent light-bulbs you save energy (which you don't, because loss of heat produced by glow-bulbs makes you put the heating up a few degrees). The same voices tell, that our supply of oil is running out. But nobody knows what the world oil- and gas supply is and how much the Earth produces each day by its internal reactions. Oil is no fossil fuel, what many still believe as a result of the 'settled' science of geology, virtually undisturbed continuing its myth about 'plate tectonics' instead of seriously considering the ramifications of an expanding Earth. Economic arguments are brought to bear to increase taxes, even on speculation with currencies (sic), to pay for climate change. Economy as a 'science' has demonstrated its wisdom sufficiently and convincingly the last few years, I think and not to the benefit of society.
Unmistakably we came out of a Little Ice Age that ran from about 1635 to 1715 and some later ups and downs. Human involvement then was and now still is negligible. The latter doesn't mean that human involvement plays no role. Building huge city agglomerations and chopping huge forests do somewhat influence local weather patterns. It is however discussable that this would influence our global climate! The latest solar irradiation data show that an assumed upward trend in fact was going down steadily. Oceans can store heat for some time, but when more (under water) volcano outbursts can't sufficiently compensate, they will cool by winds and lack of sufficient solar irradiation. Wind-patterns and sea-flows near the south of Greenland expose this and recently made an end to the mystification of a melting North-Pole. Policies based on ignorance (because we don't understand how 'climate' works) should be avoided - at all costs. We see the reverse happening though. The flow of money determines superstitions based on unfounded fears, not scientific knowledge and understanding. The corruption of science to go after that flow is most worrying. Best recipe against this is stopping the funding until tangible, coherent and verifiable results are produced. They lack from A to Z. Best for us is to distance ourselves from such internal controversies and take everything from sciences a priori 'cum grano salis'. The beauty of science is, that it isn't settled and a scientific consensus doesn't exist!