Global Warming (Photo credit: mirjoran)
Over at WUWT, news of another batch of sensitive emails revealing the inner workings of the few, (not thousands), of scientists who are responsible for initiating the carbon based attack on our civilization. An attack supposedly based on science which allegedly proves that CO2 emissions contributed by mankind’s industrial energy thirst are statistically certain to be driving our climate into an irreversible, lifestyle and economic, global, catastrophic future.
There, is, however, an alternative hypothesis of which I am a supporter, that strongly suggests almost the opposite. In fact, that a man-made scam of global proportions is threatening our future civilization on the back of the above CAGW claim.
This debate rages ever onwards, with more and more clarity supporting us so-called ‘deniers’ of ‘climate change’. At the same time, the civilization-crushing wheel of carbon controls and trading rolls on, initiated by some scientists who probably in good faith, created the global warming picture. This, even though a decade or so earlier a global cooling scenario was underway with precisely the same political agenda until it became untenable.
The press, including much of the scientific branch, heavily influenced by political and financial persuasion, have conned the public into an almost religious fervour, literally blaming ourselves for destroying our planet. Certainly major pollutions are having a devastating effect, but to concentrate all this energy on CO2 as an/the important villain is clearly unscientific and illogical.
Governments, in some cases also conned, but in other cases I am sure, are in with the globalist movement that drives the destructive vehicle forward. Scientists, once genuinely providing what looked like evidence that warming was real, partly caused by CO2 and becoming destructive, are now caught in a cleft stick, having to defend themselves frantically for the sake of pride and income, as their hypothesis of CAGW is now becoming more and more untenable.
The public, already seriously brainwashed, and who can blame them?, also hang on to their beliefs with fervour, for their pride and intellect are now threatened. They clearly show little comprehension of the possibility of their having been misled and are fixated into a state of being incapable of logical thinking.
If one reads reader comments on social websites, it is possible to find the most inane statements about ‘climate change’ causes and solutions, beliefs that border on childishness. On scientific sites such as WUWT, opposing comments are fewer and more sensible, in general. Nevertheless a lack of logical analysis sometimes applies, in particular from the readers who are often labelled trolls and have obviously fallen for the propaganda or are deliberate stirrers.
After what has become a huge preamble, I would like to refer to some of what has been said by the releaser of this new group of emails, when he explains his philosophy on his ‘whistle blowing’.
“That’s right; no conspiracy, no paid hackers, no Big Oil. The Republicans didn’t plot this. USA politics is alien to me, neither am I from the UK. There is life outside the Anglo-American sphere.
If someone is still wondering why anyone would take these risks, or sees only a breach of privacy here, a few words…
The first glimpses I got behind the scenes did little to garner my trust in the state of climate science — on the contrary. I found myself in front of a choice that just might have a global impact.
Briefly put, when I had to balance the interests of my own safety, privacy\career of a few scientists, and the well-being of billions of people living in the coming several decades, the first two weren’t the decisive concern.
It was me or nobody, now or never. Combination of several rather improbable prerequisites just wouldn’t occur again for anyone else in the foreseeable future. The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen. Later on it could be too late.
Most would agree that climate science has already directed where humanity puts its capability, innovation, mental and material “might”. The scale will grow ever grander in the coming decades if things go according to script. We’re dealing with $trillions and potentially drastic influence on practically everyone.
Wealth of the surrounding society tends to draw the major brushstrokes of a newborn’s future life. It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods.
We can’t pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it’s not away from something and someone else.
If the economy of a region, a country, a city, etc. deteriorates, what happens among the poorest? Does that usually improve their prospects? No, they will take the hardest hit. No amount of magical climate thinking can turn this one upside-down.
It’s easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our “clean” technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized.
Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc. don’t have that luxury. The price of “climate protection” with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations.
Conversely, a “game-changer” could have a beneficial effect encompassing a similar scope.
If I had a chance to accomplish even a fraction of that, I’d have to try. I couldn’t morally afford inaction. Even if I risked everything, would never get personal compensation, and could probably never talk about it with anyone.
I took what I deemed the most defensible course of action, and would do it again (although with slight alterations — trying to publish something truthful on RealClimate was clearly too grandiose of a plan ;-).
Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far.”
So here we have some insight into this part of the ‘climate change’ debate, or debacle as I like to call it. I see this as pure commonsense. Genuine human endeavour. Down to earth, devotion to truth and justice. Stark contrast to the ‘climate changelings’
Just to finish off, in reading one of the related articles below, This extract of an email from one of the “warmist” scientists is enlightening: (Reference here.) [Formatting slightly edited]
“Three Final Points
>
>There are three important points to make about the reported warming of the last 20 years:
>
>1. The warming has occurred mostly at night and not during the day. This result is inconsistent with a warming caused by greenhouse gases, but is consistent with urban heat island and other surface effects.
>
>2. The reported warming has occurred only at the surface and not in the upper atmosphere. This type of warming is completely opposite to what is predicted if greenhouse gases are the cause.
Again these observations are consistent with problems in the surface measurements.
>
>3. The warming has occurred primarily in the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes with little in the polar and tropical
regions. This result is consistent with urban influences, but is
incompatible with the climate warming predicted from
greenhouse gases which predict it to be largest in the polar regions.>In short, the reported warming is inconsistent with warming due to greenhouse gases in its temporal, vertical, and
geographical distribution. The reported warming is consistent with problems in the surface network.”
If this is an example of “settled science” and of “97% climate scientists agree” I am very pleased and comfortable to be on the skeptics side of the debate. Sincere thanks to ‘Mr FOIA’ for his endeavours and public service.
Thank also to WUWT for their/his wonderful contribution to my and the public’s understanding of genuine climate science and the fight for truth.
Source article linked here.
Related articles
- Climategate: FOIA – The Man Who Saved The World – Telegraph Blogs (tarpon.wordpress.com)
- Another Hockey Stick? (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Confessions of an Unbeliever (part 1 of 2) (morningafteramerica.blogspot.com)
- Global Warming? Many Reputable Scientists Say No. (theburningplatform.com)
- Climategate 3.0: NASA scientist on hockey stick: ‘what Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is…’ (junkscience.com)
- Climategate 3.0: MetOffice rebukes UEA for claiming global warming causes extreme weather (junkscience.com)
