You have a friend who questions your denial of any climate change based upon carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of carbon containing fuels. He says that since so many scientists, scientific organizations and the federal government make this claim, there must be some truth to the claim that atmospheric carbon dioxide radically affect climate. You have already replied, but I would like to accentuate your reply and add a few comments of my own.
The answer is simply MONEY! It stems from Pres. Obama's ideology of redistributing world wealth, which means taking money from US citizens and redistributing it to other peoples of the world. The United Nations is also jumped on this opportunity, because it is loaded with representatives of Third World countries, who see the opportunity of increasing .national wealth with money from the US.
In addition, Pres. Obama is a believer in big government, and big government always requires significant revenues. Since government never makes or sells anything, it's only source of revenue is from taxes on individuals and corporations. As that transfer of money takes place from individuals and corporations, it not only increases the size of government and the power thereof, it also decreases the financial assets of individuals and corporations. In other words, this is also another form of wealth redistribution.
One of the natural attributes of human beings is to desire a leader to which they can serve allegiance. That is the basis on which kings and emperors developed in previous times. It has carried forward in present time to presidents and prime ministers of countries. With this tendency, there are a great number of people in the US, who demonstrate their allegiance to Pres. Obama, no matter what the facts are for any particular item under discussion.
This leads to the power of the "bully pulpit", which means that Pres. Obama can address the public on television and automatically obtain public support for anything that he wishes to present, simply because he is the President. However, there will always be people with analytical ability, who will disbelieve at least some of what the President is professing. The farther out from realism that the President professes, the larger will be the number of analytical disbelievers. However, there will always remain a very large number of emotional supporters. Rush Limbaugh calls these people "low information voters".
In addition to the use of the bully pulpit on a non-analytical public, the federal administration also has the opportunity with its tax revenue to BUY positions on anything it wishes. In the case of carbon dioxide and climate change, it does this with the use of billions of dollars in federal grants to university scientists, and scientific organizations to support the program through the use of "research". These grants of federal taxpayer money go to individuals for specific projects, the outcome of which must be to support the theory that atmospheric carbon dioxide must be controlled. University scientists are human beings and susceptible to human fallibilities. They know where their bread is buttered, and they know that in order to obtain continued grants, they must come up with the answers desired by the Federal Administration. They tend to rationalize this to actually become believers, in spite of any scientific facts that may be discovered or should be considered to the contrary. In other words, the emotional desire for self-preservation clouds their perspective with respect to true scientific analysis.
This carries further into the area of propaganda. The "bought" scientists and their organizations recognize that to preserve their income with continuing grants, they must contribute to the bully pulpit of the President by use of their own propaganda techniques. Therefore, they scream and holler to discredit any scientists, who are considered disbelievers.
Your friend then asks the question that if there are disbelievers, why don't we hear from them? The answer is simple. Once again, it's MONEY! Those persons who are on the "payroll" are much more motivated than those persons of simple scientific integrity. People who have the most to lose will holler the loudest.
It has been said that the disbelievers of anthropogenic climate change are being paid off by coal producers. It is possible that there's some semblance of truth in this claim, but I could find nothing to support it. Conversely, there is considerable information about the billions of dollars of grant subsidies to scientists through various federal agencies.
With all that said, there are several references involving scientists, who are not convinced that atmospheric carbon dioxide has any bearing on climate change. The first is a Wikipedia list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
There are four groups of scientists as follows:
* 1 Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections (6)
* 2 Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes (20)
* 3 Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown (9)
* 4 Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences (3)
The above scientists are from various universities and geophysics and astrophysics societies.
Forbes also has an interesting article entitled, "Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority of Scientists Skeptical of Global Warming Crisis".
Global Research says, "Climate of Fear: Global Warming Alarmists Intimidate Dissenting Scientists into Silence". "There is a sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis." http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-of-fear-global-warming-alarmists-intimidate-dissenting-scientists-into-silence.
The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works says, "Over 700 dissenting scientists (updates previous 650 report) from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore". "The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2008 and 2009, as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data, and 'inconvenient' developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the 'science is settled' and there is a 'consensus'. On a range of issues, 2008 and 2009 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm ; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick '; etc.". http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674E64F-802A-23AD-490B-BD9'FAF4DCDB7
"In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 and 2009 as the years the 'consensus' collapse. Russian scientists 'rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming'. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a 'considerable presence' of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: 'Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate'. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC 'be called to account and cease its deceptive practices', and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is 'settled'. A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 'showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report'.
And there are others.
It is interesting that nobody addresses a simple scientific conjecture. That is, what scientific mechanism can be proposed which could possibly account for only 0.05% carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere affecting climate change?
No comments:
Post a Comment