Saturday, June 15, 2013

Weighing In On Climate Change

Global climate change has been a contentious topic going back to at least the 1970s when pop scientists and their journalistic hangers-on warned of an impending ice age. The latest hysteria involving global warming – just a scant decade or two later suffers from even worse politico-scientific terrorism.
There are two aspects to the war which must be recognized to discern the motives of the global warmers. The first is the science. Is there global warming, and how does one know if one has it? How significant is it, and what are its impacts? Even more interesting is, what is causing it? The transitional question leads to the second aspect of equally grave consequence, to wit, if the world is undergoing global warming, what does one do about it?
It is this last question which puts us most at odds with the globalist Nazis who, as North American MOSSAD Director Rahm Emmanuel once said, “Never waste a good crisis.” The Nazi elite are forever manufacturing security scares in order to justify ever more totalitarian government. When a mayor declares that merchants may no longer sell beverages of a certain size, as Mayor Bloomberg recently did, you know you are governed by Nazis. And we, by the way, believe that the Mayor was absolutely correct about the toxicity of the poison which Coca Cola, Pepsi, and other sweetened drink vendors hawk.
We take the position that even if long term global warming is in progress, government is not the solution. There are some problems even too big for big government. As American history has shown over the past 100 years, big government is the Agent Orange to civil and productive life.
Before delving into the scientific data, we observe that climate change is usually not sudden, and that if it is there is precious little one could do about it. Sudden intense volcanic activity in the Mediterranean during the early Middle Ages had a significant effect on weather and health, but the best response would have been evacuation of the area if the eruption could have been predicted. So how do you plug a volcano?
Our other observation regards causality, scientific method, and time. With weather and climate change occurring continuously over ages and eons, it is impossible for a (quack) scientist to make any causal inferences about cause and effect with a few years' worth of data - to say nothing about direction of the trend. A few years is noise on the planetary timeline. The attempt to isolate causality requires control of significant variables which is at best unlikely and at worst a fool’s errand. We endorse the scientific inquiry into climate change provided that it respects the Scientific Method, and does not substitute coincidence for causality.
We would also add that destruction of the planet’s eco system to enrich the bank accounts of Wall Street banksters is a vile act of rape which should be regulated or controlled. In particular, all deforestation of the Amazon rain forest should stop immediately pending a better understanding of its role in the planetary ecosystem. And that could take decades or more.
Finally, we note the supreme hypocrisy of many global warming terrorists, with Al Gore the leading example. Mr Gore has been observed riding around in large Sport Utility Vehicles and purchasing large homes consuming large amounts of energy. This fact alone demolishes the urgency or significance of the global warmers.
So what does the evidence show about global warming? In ‘Game changer’ – Antarctic melt due to warm water, not air temperature, Antony Watts reports that in a comprehensive study by University of California (Irvine) funded by NASA, the Antarctic ice mass which did melt is largely attributable to water temperatures rather than to atmospheric temperature change. Now that information hardly demolishes the global warming thesis inasmuch as the debate shifts from the atmosphere to the waters. But the difference is more than nuance and completely different than with what we are brainwashed.
More fascinating is that the Antarctic ice mass grew between 1980-2010 according to the University of Colorado National Snow and Ice Data Center. In an article entitled Antarctic Sea Ice for March 2010 Significantly Greater Than 1980, Admin of Global Warming Hoax reports that both the mass and concentration of ice grew roughly 14% and 30% respectively. The warmers have claimed that the Antarctic is disappearing. The evidence seems to refute the thesis.
Now having said all of this, our evidence does not prove that there is no global warming – only that no evidence for it has been produced in the area of the Antarctic, one of the favorite places the warmers point to. If there is global warming, we need stronger evidence, and we will follow the facts, not the politics or agenda of control.
Climatology is too broad a topic to be considered in short blog posting, so we will continue to post our findings. We caution all to follow the scientific method, discern between coincidence and causality, and avoid bombastic rhetoric – even though some might consider our labels of the warmers hypocrisy. Perhaps so, but we are impatient with knee jerk responses to complex problems – especially in areas where time is measured in eons and ages, rather than months and years.

Copyright 2013 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.


Anonymous said...

Actually, the Antarctic is NOT gaining ice and snow mass; it is shrinking, from the bottom up, due to sea current changes driven in large part by global warming.

An interesting report from NASA confirms other recent studies about the importance of ocean currents on basal melting of ice shelves contributing to the ice mass loss in Antarctica

Antarctic Paradox: ocean warming melting ice shelves causing sea ice expansion (April 1, 2013)

Increasing Sea Surface temperatures in tropical pacific impacting West Antarctica (December 24, 2012)

Don't buy into faith-based thinking. Check the scientific facts for yourself. I'm just sayin'...

Anonymous said...

this article is by Stanford physicist and Nobel Laureate Robert Laughlin, who manages, in contrast to the majority writing on the subject, to frame the debate without becoming hysterical (granted, it's fairly difficult to get hysterical when operating in geologic time....):