Why I believe that “climate change” (CC) is junk science.
1. The
“hiatus” in warming. For the past 18 years, there has been no statistically
significant change in the global mean temperature (GMT). When I saw a link to
an online article about this (don’t remember what organization posted it, but
it wasn’t a CC skeptical one). The article said that there probably wasn’t a
hiatus after all – it was just poor recording of temperatures. “Probably”, the
recorders measuring sea temperature didn’t dip their thermometers into buckets
of sea water soon enough – allowing the water to cool off.
a. What
evidence is there that this took place?
b. What
if the buckets were kept in a place warmer than the water in the buckets?
c. Why
did “global warming” become “climate change”?
i.
Is it because the globe has steadfastly refused
to warm during this “hiatus”?
ii.
Is it a way to blame me and my 148 tons of
automobiles in case global cooling inconveniently occurs?
2. “Climategate”.
The hacked emails of the Climate Research Unit show that its members tried to
cover up their own research that might have indicated CC was not occurring or
not serious. They also showed attempts to “investigate and expose” skeptical
climate scientist Steve McIntire, as well as assertions that they “must get rid
of” the editor of science journal for publishing papers contradicting CC.
a. Are
these people hiding evidence?
b. Are
they intimidating skeptics? I’ll answer that myself: the derogatory term “denier”
says it all. And I have heard some climate scientists claim that the CC people
are doing just that.
c. Is
the “science” of CC so fragile that contrarian articles will debunk it? If
skeptical articles are indeed wrong, the pro-CC crowd should be able to show
why. Apparently, it’s too hard.
d. http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
Note first the quote from H.L. Mencken – and then look at all the quotes by the
people who want more and more power over us.
3. Weather-related
disasters are more common. But the weather is not any more violent than in the past.
a. There
are more people in areas prone to dangerous weather.
b. The
government is partially responsible because it subsidizes flood insurance.
4. Two
existing, reliable and safe energy sources that already exist can help reduce
CO2 emissions.
a. Natural
gas, which is mostly methane, which is mostly hydrogen. Of course, there are
many on the left who don’t like the method that has produced much more natural
gas – the decades-old and proven safe practice of hydraulic fracturing.
b. Nuclear
power, which is advocated by Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace
Canada.
5 The
models used by CC scientists can’t predict the past. Why should we believe
anything based on these models?
6 Follow the money and power. Who benefits from the “catastrophe” of CC?
a. Al
Gore and his ilk.
b. Scientists
who get government grants to find more “danger”.
c. The
low-lying countries who are promised “reparations” for the alleged damage caused
by countries like the US.
d. Politicians who get
to exercise more power over us.
Labels: big government, climate change, junk science
posted by R.H. Timberlake III @ 8:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home