Sunday, November 22, 2009

Climategate - Is The Evidence For Humanity's Involvement In Climate Change An Elitist Sham?

Elitists love to impose their self-aggrandizing importance and perceived intellectual superiority upon society. The reality is almost always something different. It seldom involves an intellectually-reasoned or science-based argument at all. Which is the reason why no other society than democracy has ever survived. Elitism is the greatest repression of human achievement to ever be perpetrated on humankind. And as we have cited hundreds of times in the last four years, the American people are in a fight for their ideals against the powers of elitism both from the left and the right. Elitists have been and continue to attempt to hijack democracy.

It's been a while since we have talked about global warming on here. As a contrarian, I remain dubious as to humanity being the primary cause. Is humanity contributing to climate change? That's undeniable. How much is the issue at hand. Is is one one-thousandth of one percent? Five percent? We simply don't know. But I believe more scientific data supports the planet is doing what the planet will do regardless of humanity. And thousands of scientific experts agree with that perspective.

Mind you, I do not belong to the Luddite movement as defined by many equally ridiculous anti-science politicians who eschew tree hugging, protecting the whales, attempting to stem the spread of genetically-modified foods, dealing with pollution, etc. Because we are slowly destroying the beauty of nature and if we don't wake up, we may end up destroying ourselves. As comedian George Carlin said, the earth will do just fine. It's only a matter of whether we survive our own foolishness. But these are separate issues. It's common sense to paint ourselves into the future health of our planet. But it is elitist political ideology which has generally forwarded the premise that humanity is the primary input to climate change.

Al Gore, as an example, knows about as much about the science of global warming as he does about the science of the internet. He claimed the internet as his invention and claims to understand the science behind global warming as well. Hogwash. He has repeatedly shown he has little reverence for science as it pertains to this issue. Gore's recent remarks that the earth's crust, core or whatever is several million degrees shows his utter scientific ignorance. (That's only a few million degrees hotter than the "surface region" of the sun. Same elitist megalomania that led this same dimwitted politician, with no scientific training in college or after the fact, to claim authorship of the internet. Doh!) Gore is driven by a biased political ideology rather than an unbiased search for scientific truth that is validated on some level by the public discourse and scientific peer review. If he supported science, he wouldn't try to quell its dissent. And he most certainly has as witnessed countless times including a link below.

The only thing worse than a politician who believes they are capable of setting scientific agendas is one who eschews science all together. We see both of these dynamics at work today as often countering forces. Both our prior President and current President are guilty of attempting to either stop science or determine its future.

When all of humanity becomes gripped by a scientific movement led by a politician, a politician with zero scientific training, my radar goes up. When this same politician wins a Nobel Prize based on work that indicts humanity as the main cause of that pseudo-scientific/pseudo political movement - climate change - my radar goes up a little more. When he wins an Academy Award for the same work, it's anecdotally a near certainty the movement is dubious. Tie that in with the work of many scientists that clearly refutes political claims made by said politician and one has the makings of a great hoax.

Here is what you may not read in the mainstream media. An acknowledgement by a well-respected top government scientist who was fired because he challenged Al Gore on the science behind his global warming claims. Science that a politician refused to consider because it would interfere with policy. Policy is doublespeak for ideology or doctrine. Doctrine is completely rejected by science. Instead, it is a form of control or social conditioning. Were Gore in search of the truth he would have embraced public dialog and the work of this scientist or any other scientific claim to determine truth. The goal of science is to determine truth. The goal of many politicians is to set ideology. What we see in Gore's actions are more than telling. It's also interesting that Gore seems to be positioned to profit handsomely from his views with an investment in a carbon trading company. And Gore's partner in his investment? Why none other than a former Goldman Sachs senior executive. And the idea for carbon trading? None other than now imprisoned Enron executives. Truth is undeniable. So is transparency. Funny how that works.

Many scientists are now attributing the change in climate to changes in the earth's core, solar activity and extra terrestrial energy sources. While we don't understand the causes of these dynamics, we do understand their impacts quite well - something doctrine clearly doesn't care one bit about. Yet the reality is forces of nature are many millions of magnitudes more powerful than any possible effect humanity could have on this planet. Could these forces be intertwined with human involvement? Sure. They most certainly are. And we should be very concerned about the state of the planet. But here are a few remarks from 650 of the top scientists refuting the conclusions by many politicians plus a link to their full report available from the U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment.

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

"Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

I really appreciate the last remark. It reminds me of the faith in the completely unscientific scientific models and the associated voodoo science that has tanked Wall Street and our economy. Deficient models. More appropriately termed "Garbage In => Garbage Out" or GIGO theory.

Alternatively, if you are convinced that the world is warming and it's a long term climate change caused primarily by humanity, are you sure it's based on incontrovertible science? How many scientists have you seen espouse this view and where did you see them? Television? Is the corporate media performing in a self-serving role rather than educating society? Of course they are. When politicians and power-seekers determine the course of action in science we seldom seek truth and enlightenment but rather ideology.

It's a noble cause to clean up the planet and embrace sustainable ecological economics. But, to use policies of fear and tax penalties that will impose greater burdens on citizens and businesses exactly at a time when they can't afford it, is not the right strategy. Instead it is an ideology. We, through our government, should provide incentives for society and business to innovate. Then we can all reap the benefits of job creation, sustainability and improved ecology.

There have been many claims by scientists and many seekers of truth that climate data is being manipulated to support an elitist agenda. A few days ago the term Climategate was coined to describe some level of misinformation about climate change has been hacked and has now entered the public domain. Let's watch and see how deep this Climategate goes. Transparency is a beautiful thing. It's the very basis of democracy and the enemy of ideology.

posted by TimingLogic at 5:23 AM