Monday, September 28, 2009

Conclusion To This Section

This is not the end of my blog I intend to post current event articles in the future, however, it is the conclusion of this last couple of months series of posts.

In this blog I have tried to show you the reader that many of the things that you would have seen or heard about Climate Change and Global Warming in the media are not always as they first appear.

All seem to have quiet reasonable and feasible explanations that are of natural causation and have very little to do with rising levels of CO2. Especially those caused specifically by mankind.


I have shown you a disconnect between rising levels of CO2 and temperatures that stopped rising in 1998, and have been falling at various rates since about 2002. I have shown you evidence of where CO2 levels were much higher than today's levels both in the distant past and not so distant. I have shown you that temperatures have been both higher and lower that today’s and how there was seemingly no connection to CO2 levels during those times.

We have seen how politicised the IPCC has become in delivering its reports and recommendations and how claims of the worlds 2500 or 4000 leading climate scientists are in full consensus about Climate Change are not accurate. We have seen how many scientists challenge the very notion of consensus. We have seen how evidence that was previously accepted (such as the medieval warm period) was computer modelled out of existence by Dr.’s Mann, Bradley and Hughes by the infamous “Hockey Stick Graph” and how this was debunked by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick and has since been removed from publication.

We have seen how scientists, politicians and the media constantly use alarmist language to promote the perception of Climate Change and Global Warming. We have seen how they and green activist groups or individuals have constantly tried to shut down any debate on the issue and how they have constantly tried to label and denigrate any scientific opinion that does not fit with their computer modelling and/or hidden agenda’s.

We have seen a undeniable pattern of behaviour from the Pro AGW scientists when talking about man made Climate Change and their more sceptical peers. They make statements like:

"But the science shows we are to a large part responsible for the climate changing." and "There's no uncertainty that it's happening nor that humans are responsible for the vast majority of it.”

Then they never offer any definitive proof to back those comments up. Also, when referring to the sceptical scientist instead of dismissing their argument with fact, they instead resort to tactics that try to make the person seem loopy or simply ignorant by making statements like:

"People are used to academics with all sorts of fancy-sounding titles coming out with views on whether we should have the MMR vaccine, or take Ecstasy, or go horse-riding. They are used to being sceptical and interrogating the facts.” or “..those who refuse to believe in human-induced climate change are like people who refuse to believe in the theory of evolution.” or "It has been massively damaging on a public and political level that the views of a small minority of ill-informed sceptics have been given virtually equal weight to the consensus of the scientific community by the majority of the mainstream media."

They try to denigrate the sceptic’s professionalism as a scientist with comments like:

"He has a scientific qualification. That's different from being a practising climate scientist."

When the person saying this might be a Biologist, or a Palaeontologist or some other climate unrelated field themselves. Often they are not a qualified climate scientist either. Yet they try and reinforce the message that only the pro climate scientists have any consensus with comments like:

it is "absolute nonsense" that the majority of professional scientists agree with (insert sceptical scientist name).

They actively use guilt as an emotional tool to reinforce their message, such as:

"We don't like to feel that it's our fault because we drive a car, or take a foreign holiday, or heat the house,"

And reinforce the message that sceptics and non-believers are merely taking the easy option with comments like:

“those who are sceptical are taking the easy option.” and "It would be nice to not have to feel that it was a personal responsibility and I'm sure that for someone who has worked in the oil and gas industry all his life, these sort of psychological pressures are greater."

Making sure to establish a link to “Big Oil.” Finally as some sort of “evidence” they will offer up no facts but a series of unsubstantiated scares with comments like:

...temperatures will rise by up to 6 deg during the 21st century, that sea levels will rise by up to 59cm and that there will be more frequent warm spells, heatwaves and heavy rainfall….there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.

Time and again you will see that format repeated from the pro AGW scientists and their supporters in politics or the media. But as we have discovered it is often not what they tell you that is most interesting, but what they either leave out or ignore. Adjusting data to suit or in some cases just plain exaggerating to make their case. All the whilst trying to get you to not listen to the sceptics by the tactics I have just demonstrated.

As we have seen though many sceptics are nothing like how they are portrayed by the promoters of Climate Change and some elements of the media. We have seen how their opinions and scientific conclusion often dispel many of the mythologies promoted about global warming and Climate Change.

We have seen how the money and influence have favoured those that promote Global Warming and Climate Change. That donations and expectations from “Big Environment” and “government grants” are well in excess of the claims made by the promoters of Climate Change as the influence of “Big Oil” on the sceptics. We have also seen by comparison how low the levels of funding are towards the Sceptics. After repeated campaigns by activist environmental groups and the scientist that support them, have intimidated companies away from donating to their side of the debate.

We have also seen how some people and organisations who actively promote Climate Change are benefiting handsomely in financial and prestige terms by doing so, and how governments are now following suit with their emission trading schemes. Australia’s alone is estimated to reap the government an extra $11.8b in it’s first 12 months and a minimum of $12b every year after that. Money, which will prove very handy and very tempting for governments that are very cash strapped after the global financial meltdown and recouping the billions spent on stimulus packages.

In order to get the people to agree to be taxed without complaint a government must make its case. Therefore, they only quote scientists that promote their message, and either ignore or run down those that don’t comply either verbally or financially by removing their funding. They ignore any inconvenient reality, they exaggerate and hype any weather event as “proof” of their cause. They use weasel words to promote an ever more alarmist future if we don’t all submit to this new taxation. A taxation that will not lower the temperature by a single degree. It is only designed to make people more aware and to put a cost on the natural compound CO2. -
They have finally found a way to tax the very air we breath (out).

We have seen how many of the claims made in Al Gore’s 2006 movie “An Inconvenient Truth” do not hold up once they are scrutinised at the fundamental scientific level. Also we have seen much of the same results when other aspects of the Climate Change debate are examined against what is actually happening in the ‘real world’ instead of the world of ‘the computer model’. How much the scares and alarmism is based on ‘pure speculation’ and ‘junk science.’

We have seen how data is manipulated to fit to these computer models and how media reports are edited to portray the worst by either internal staff or by pressure exerted from external influence.

We have also looked at several proposed “cures” for the ailments of Anthropogenic Global Warming or Climate Change and how many of them are in fact are “cane toad” solutions. Where the cure may well end up being much more environmentally damaging to the ecology than the perceived problem.

All in all I have tried to be as comprehensive as space would allow. I have tried to reference every quote or finding and have deferred to the experts findings and explanations.

I have no doubt that this blog will be attacked by not only supporters of the environmental movement and any supporters of the Anthropogenic Global Warming faith as being biased. It is in as much as it has delivered the side of the story that is often not being heard through the mainstream media.

They may also claim it contains false and misleading information. They will do this primarily to try to distract from its contents. But as I stated in the introduction these are not my opinions they are those of the experts, I am but presenting them seeking to explain in a logical easy to read way what we might be witnessing in both our weather and our climate.

Whilst some will claim I am trying to influence peoples minds on this, it is not true I am simply presenting an alternate point of view.

I believe each individual once they have seen 'both sides' of the argument is capable of doing that for themselves.

I am, however, trying to encourage all who choose to read this to not just believe everything they are told by activists, government or “big environment” or “government grant” funded scientists looking for secure funding and a compliant media looking for a story.

I want you to look for yourself. Do your own research.To challenge what you are told and see if actually stacks up to the scare or hype you are being told.

To
“Get the facts, before they get the Tax”
, as it were.

As I believe that you, like I, will find in so many cases it does not and that we are so often simply being misled.

Thank you for your time and patience in reading this blog.

Please pass this URL on, so others may see what you have seen and learn what you have learned.


Together we might just uncover the real truth about Climate Change.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Post a Comment