I have been about to bust to tell you what I think about the current scandal of "Climategate." I'm sure you've been on pins and needles too what with wanting to know what I think of it. I still want to tell you about the fun holiday stuff I've been up to but I just can't stand it anymore. I simply MUST TELL YOU. See how excited I am that I'm shouting text at you?
So, if you're new here, let me catch you up to speed on where I stand on man-made global warming. I can tell you in three words:
IT'S A SCAM.
So right off the bat you're thinking that I am a flat-earther, holocaust-denier and I hate the planet. Let me stop you right there.
I don't hate the planet. It's a lovely planet created by Almighty God (not by the Big Bang Theory..gasp!) I am all for good stewardship of God's Creation and for conservation.
I also think that comparing man-made global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers is a bit of a hyperbole.
Ok, it's a lot of hyperbole. In fact, it is INSANE and diminishes the horror of the ACTUAL Holocaust and causes most rational people to dismiss your argument out of hand.
The use of Holocaust terminology has drawn the ire of Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. “The phrase ‘climate change denier’ is meant to be evocative of the phrase ‘holocaust denier,’” Pielke, Jr. wrote on October 9, 2006. “Let's be blunt. This allusion is an affront to those who suffered and died in the Holocaust. This allusion has no place in the discourse on climate change. I say this as someone fully convinced of a significant human role in the behavior of the climate system,” Pielke, Jr. explained. (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/author_pielke_jr_r/index.html#000952).Nor do I think the Earth is flat. Just sayin'.
I am not a scientist but I'm pretty sure there's a difference between scientific LAWS and scientific THEORIES.
MAN-MADE Global Warming=THEORY
So, my point is that there may or may not be global warming. If there IS global warming, it may or may not be caused by people. If it IS caused by people, we may or may not be able to fix it. And HOW we fix it...well, I'm pretty sure there's plenty to debate right there. There are plenty of reputable scientists who DON'T subscribe to the man-made global warming theory. And there are plenty reputable scientists who DO.
But there's also a whole host of scientists and politicians who are willing to lie, cheat and hide data to make sure the debate is shut down because there's a LOT of money to be made with the global warming alarmism. (NOTE: This is where the SCAM part comes into play.)
"Al Gore, the former US vice president, could become the world's first carbon billionaire after investing heavily in green energy companies." (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html).
In summary, the DEBATE IS NOT OVER. THE SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED.
So on to Climategate. If you watch the "mainstream" media you may not even know about this because they aren't reporting on it. (Sidenote: Who owns NBC? General Electric. Who is heavily invested in green energy? General Electric. Who was appointed to President Obama's Economic Advisory Team? Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric. Hmmm....so that might explain the silence of NBC, MSNBC and CNBC. So what's your excuse CBS, ABC and CNN?)
It seems that thousands of emails were hacked into at the Climate Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia (whose research the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relies heavily upon ).
These e-mails show, among many other things, private admissions of doubt or scientific weakness in the global warming theory. In acknowledging that global temperatures have actually declined for the past decade, one scientist asks, "where the heck is global warming?... The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
More seriously, in one e-mail, a prominent global warming alarmist admits to using a statistical "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. Anthony Watts provides an explanation of this case in technical detail; the "trick" consists of selectively mixing two different kinds of data-temperature "proxies" from tree rings and actual thermometer measurements-in a way designed to produce a graph of global temperatures that ends the way the global warming establishment wants it to: with an upward "hockey stick" slope.
Confirming the earlier scandal about cherry-picked data, the e-mails show CRU scientists conspiring to evade legal requests, under the Freedom of Information Act, for their underlying data. It's a basic rule of science that you don't just get to report your results and ask other people to take you on faith. You also have to report your data and your specific method of analysis, so that others can check it and, yes, even criticize it. Yet that is precisely what the CRU scientists have refused.
But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html)In summary, these prominent climate researchers conspired to use "tricks" to hide the fact that the Earth is not warming, hijack the peer review process and evade legal requests.
Does this prove that there is no global warming?
But it does cast some doubt on some of the research that the global community is relying on in claiming that the debate is settled.
And since the global community is poised to make sweeping changes in global energy polices costing our economies trillions of dollars...maybe we should have a little more debate first?
And in other news...
Yesterday, the EPA announced that AIR is a pollutant.
Yeah. Take a deep breath with me...
now slowly exhale...
you just polluted the planet...with CO2.
Nevermind that it is naturally-occuring and plants and trees need it.
Plants and trees need CO2 to survive. We exhale it and they use it to produce oxygen which we need to survive. Hmmm...it's almost like somebody intelligent designed it that way.
And now that the EPA has declared CO2 to be a dangerous pollutant...they can regulate it.
You just think we have a lot of government regulations now. Wait until the EPA starts regulating how cool/warm you can keep your house (GE's Smart Grid, anyone?) because that produces CO2 you know. Or what about coal plants, the biggest villain in CO2 production? Also, the biggest supplier of electricity. Could that "necessarily cause electricity rates to skyrocket"? (Barak Obama, San Francisco Chronicle, January, 2008.) The possibilities for regulation in our daily lives are limitless.
So there you have it in a nutshell. Whew!
Ok, now I can think about something holiday-ish. I think I'll go plug in all my Christmas lights and generate a little CO2. And I think I'll turn my thermostat up some...while I still can.