I heard that Bill Nye (the science guy) recently had a debate with Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee regarding "climate change" and the recent extreme weather events. Bill Nye is actually an engineer, and Marsha Blackburn is a member of Congress. Neither is specifically trained in climatology or meteorology. Was this really a substantive debate on the subject? Not really.
Bill Nye told Representative Blackburn that “we have overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing." Climate change is a pretty drastic term to use when we only have data that shows a rise in global temperatures over a relatively short period. The scientists overwhelming agree that we had an ice age and much warmer periods over millions of years, and those events happened when the population of humans was quite small. Those humans didn't drive SUV's or even hybrid automobiles, they didn't burn coal to produce electricity, and they didn't heat their caves with natural gas or propane. It would be nonsensical to debate that the temperatures on the planet have not risen over the past 20 years or so. On the other hand, to say that these temperature changes are the result of something humans have done by burning fossil fuels is a pretty big leap too.
Mr. Nye said that “there is no debate in the scientific community." Representative Blackburn responded by noting "two vocal dissenters, Richard Lindzen of MIT and Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, who claim that humans are not causing climate change." This dissent is a pretty amazing thing when you consider this. Judith Curry is a "climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology." Richard Lindzen is an "atmospheric physicist, known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry." Can you imagine that after attending college for about 7 or 8 years in pursuit of a PhD in Climatology or Atmospheric Physics, your research for writing your dissertation shows that global warming isn't real? What are you going to do with that scientific conclusion? If there is no such thing as man-made global warming, there isn't much need for a degree in climatology? Who will take a course in a subject about nothing but "souped up" meteorology? How many government grants will you get to fund your research to prove that there is nothing to worry about?
Back in the 1970's and 1980's, there were periods of several days every 4-5 years where the low temperatures in the Ohio River Valley got down to -20F to -25F. The scientists were all worried about the aerosol hair sprays and deodorants destroying the ozone layer. There was also grave concern about acid rain. Of course, there was a lot of talk about global cooling. Now, of course, that has given way to global warming, and any of us that has lived in the Ohio River Valley since the 1970's knows that this is the first year since about 1989 that we have had very cold temperatures and quite a bit of snow. This data has been lauded by the environmentalists as proof that we have global warming. Of course, temperature data that shows the temperature at spots all over the globe is readily available today, and it requires only simple math to prove whether the average daily temperatures are rising, falling, or staying the same. If the data shows that the temperature has risen over a 20 year period, then it would be difficult to argue against this conclusion unless the data was falsified.
There have been incidents where data falsification occurred, but that is beside the point I'm trying to make. To prove that global warming has occurred is not proof that the climate is changing. According to these same scientists, the stories of Adam and Eve in the Bible are mythical, and the Earth has been around for millions of years. There have been numerous, long-term global temperature events in that million year history of the Earth. The scientists are looking at real global temperature data that was accurately collected and compiled over maybe 100 years or less. How can they make any conclusion about the global temperature trends from this limited set of data? The answer is that they can take that data and massage it with computer simulations and statistical analysis, and the data will say whatever the scientist wants it to say.
Now the environmentalists have gone another step further to making themselves right all the time. They changed the description from global warming to climate change. Now, if we have a week of hotter than average temperatures, that is climate change. If there is above average snow, that is climate change. John Kerry even made the statement last week that increased volcanic activity was a sign of climate change. Does he realize that a volcano erupts when very hot molten rock comes from inside the Earth? Hey John, the lava and volcanic ash don't just fall from the atmosphere; they come from under the ground!
Do you remember the year when Florida had three hurricanes in one year, and Al Gore told us it was caused by the warmer ocean waters? He said it was going to be like that every year now because of global warming. Since then, Florida hasn't seen a similar outbreak. Then we were told that Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming. Was Katrina an extremely powerful hurricane? No. It just made landfall in a location where it pushed a lot of storm surge water into Lake Pontchartrain, and the high water level caused some levees to break. If New Orleans was located on higher ground, this would have been a run-of-the-mill hurricane. The folks in Mississippi would have suffered a lot of damage near the waterfront, but that almost always happens with a hurricane of moderate strength.
When the MessAPolitico is trying to make political hay of anything, be wary of the "facts" they spew around. Politicians know that about half of the populous has an IQ score below 100. These folks are gullible, and the MessAPolitico doesn't find it to be "dirty pool" to take advantage of this gullibility. The MessAPolitico is willing to destroy our economy for their personal political gain. Keep this in mind when you go to the polls during the upcoming primary season. It's time to replace the career politicians with leaders, statesmen, and stateswomen. If you don't do this in the primary, you're likely to have a choice of bad or worse on the general election ballot. Then too many people will just stay home on general election day because neither RepubliCrat will take care of business. We must turn this around now before it's too late. I'm not talking about it being too late to reverse climate change; I'm talking about saving America.
No comments:
Post a Comment