Thursday, June 15, 2017

Let's take a quick look at the climate change delimma 3

It is an unfortunate truth that so much of science today is fraudulent.  This item details that roughly 70% of all scientific studies cannot be duplicated, and that includes climate science.  Quote: "BBC News Science Correspondent Tom Feilden noted last week, "Science is facing a 'reproducibility crisis' where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests." This isn't just his journalistic opinion, but the conclusion of the University of Virginia's Center for Open Science, which estimates that roughly 70% of all studies can't be reproduced.  And this includes the field of climate change, by the way. It's a disaster. Being able to reproduce others' experiments or findings from models is at the very heart of science. Yet, radical climate change advocates would have us spend 2% of global GDP, or roughly $1.5 trillion a year, to forestall a minuscule amount of anticipated warming based on dubious modeling and experiments.   Meanwhile, the federal government spends literally billions of dollars a year on climate change, with virtually none of the money funding scientists who doubt the climate change threat. There is no serious debate. This is a problem for all of science.  Worse, our government's own science fraud is a big problem. Dr. John Bates, a former top scientist at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, recently detailed how a government paper that called into question the 18-year "pause" in global warming was based on "experimental" data and politicized. That "paper" was used to justify President Obama's signing of the Paris climate agreement."   

There are a good number of additional reasons but I will stop here.  

Do we want to continue to be conned into believing lies based on flawed scientific studies funded by governments who use climate change to promote the socialist game of robbing the rich and giving it to others and calling it saving the planet from calamitous  "climate change"?   

Concluding Thoughts.

Here is an assessment that speaks to the arrogance of the climate change advocates and their intense disdain for those who do not accept their plans.  Quote: "Let me pause to protest this “denial” language. It attempts to appropriate the widely shared disgust toward “Holocaust denial,” a bizarre and bedraggled movement that belittles or even dismisses the actual history of one of the 20th century’s most egregious mass crimes against human rights and dignity. Using that language to silence questions about an attempt to centrally plan the energy sector is a moral low that debases the language of denial.  This rhetorical trick reveals all you need to know about the desperate manipulation the climate planners are willing to engage in to realize their plot regardless of popular and justified skepticism concerning their regulatory and redistributionist policies.  And you wonder why many people have doubts about it. And what are the specifics of that agenda? The Paris Agreement is a “voluntary” agreement because its architects knew it would never pass the US Senate as a treaty. Why? Because the idea of the agreement is that the US government’s regulatory agencies would impose extreme mandates on its energy sector: how it should work, what kinds of emissions it should produce, the best ways to power our lives (read: not fossil fuels), and hand over to developing world regimes billions and even trillions of dollars in aid, a direct and ongoing forcible transfer of wealth from American taxpayers to regimes all over the world, at the expense of American freedom and prosperity.  And you wonder why many people have doubts about it."  And, "You might think that the election of Trump would offer some lessons. But that is not the way the arrogant minds behind the climate agreement work. They respond by merely doubling down on disdain, intensifying their commitments to each other, heaping more loathing on the workers and peasants who have their doubts about these deals." 

The state of climate change is in fact on thin ice.   This piece provides a partial explanation. Quote: "Sometimes, reality is too painful for progressives to confront. That’s when they typically start creating their own alternative realities. As Andrew Klavan and Ben Shapiro demonstrate, both the hysteria and the reality of climate change are not really helpful as far as producing solutions that will actually benefit mankind."  And, "From Klavan’s perspective, movies like Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth present a fiction that while gripping, bears no resemblance to actual reality. Therefore, solving the “problems” it presents is like hypothesizing all of the ways a fictional movie’s villain can live on to see two or three hugely profitable sequels.  In short, climate change believers are either living in a fantasy, or a nightmare that’s in such slow-motion that it’s possible to walk out for popcorn and literally not to have missed a thing when one returns."  Watch the video.

This is a quote taken from a email.  "The President is absolutely correct that "this agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States."  The UN's own computer models reveal the Paris Agreement would bring about no meaningful adjustment to the temperature of the Earth – even if every nation complied with it 100% – which will never happen.  Strangling America's energy supply while other nations expand their use of fossil fuels as fast as their economies will allow does nothing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (assuming that’s even desirable) or affect the climate, unless you're talking about the economic climate in nations like China and India that are keen to manufacture the products we price our factories out of.  As the President pointed out, "under the agreement, China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years — 13.  They can do whatever they want for 13 years.  Not us.  India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries.  There are many other examples.  But the bottom line is that the Paris Accord is very unfair, at the highest level, to the United States."  On his way out the door President Obama raided the treasury and transferred a billion dollars to the UN "Green Climate Fund."  The UN is looking for $2 billion more from America right away and to ramp up to even larger sums from there.  President Trump is not going to play this game anymore. He said, "In 2015, the Green Climate Fund’s executive director reportedly stated that estimated funding needed would increase to $450 billion per year after 2020.  And nobody even knows where the money is going to."   

George Burns

No comments: