“Climategate” Swept Under the Rug by Liberal Media
Satellite image of present-day Greenland. Did you know that Greenland used to actually be "green" during the Medieval Warm Period, which is when the Vikings settled there in mass?
Two newspaper headlines on the same day, tell it all: “Global Warming May Require Higher Dams, Stilts”, and “UK University to Probe Integrity of Climate Data”.
Corrupt data – to everyone brought up as a fervent believer in the nobility and integrity of science and scientific data – it comes as a shock: scientists (or technicians working for scientists) intentionally “lose” (or modify) data because of a political agenda. However, with all the monetary grants – US and UN, from politically correct “greening” programs – it shouldn’t be surprising. After all, temperature data at various locations and time is an “up-and-down” matter – simple to modify or overlook a few numbers: a bit more on the “up” side, a bit less on the “down” – what’s the harm if it supports the basic, ideological, highly laudable and firmly-believed-in theme of “Save the Planet” (and of course, the validation of a current government grant can only help guarantee follow-on study grants).
To skeptical cynics, this global warming has always been “junk science”. a scam: from Al Gore’s 100 million dollar, Nobel-winning film, to the numerous government programs for “clean-green” energy – all being driven by well-funded government programs – and accommodating scientists. Certainly, there now seems to be just cause for much skepticism, that ideological “politics” may have been the forcing function behind what seems to be the new “religion” of global liberal idealism.
Snapshots of the “greening” avalanche of legislation impacting America:
- It started easily and understandably with a popular, clean-cut “hiking” organization, the Sierra Club – since nuclear energy is certainly a man-made danger, why not advocate the banning of such power plants? (After all, accidents and horrible consequences certainly can occur.) Legal prohibition of nuclear power plants (but only in the US – clean nuclear energy is used everywhere else) began in the 1970’s; then coal and oil resources were blocked with land laws; then officials bought into the “green” agenda, tax credit laws were passed, taxpayers being burdened with research-and-development grants to improve the efficiencies of “clean” energy projects like wind and solar power. However, the vast oil resources of the US on the continent (e.g. Alaska), or in off-shore beds, shale, etc. were banned – however, at the same time the US is paying billions to other countries for development of their off-shore sources.
- Promoted by heavily-funded environmental groups, lawmakers succumbed to special-interest pressures – passing laws, while environmental groups filed lawsuits – and gradually low-cost energy sources for electrical energy in America were ruled out, one-by-one.
- It is estimated that the pro-green, global-warming research and development programs enjoy a 1000-to-1 law-maker-pressure-ratio compared to pure climate or cost-effective-energy studies.
- In 1988, the US Environmental Protection Agency held a conference in San Francisco, for atmospheric scientists and environmental researchers. The meeting took place in a theater-like lecture room, the seats rising rapidly toward the back and curved to face the center stage. Attending were scientists from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Stanford Research Institute and local colleges. The EPA man at the lectern informed the audience that the next big national problem was “global warming”, that human carbon dioxide emissions were trapping the earth’s radiation in a “greenhouse effect”, causing the atmosphere to heat beyond its normal temperature and leading to environmental disaster. He announced that the EPA would therefore, now concentrate its research funding toward quantifying the disasters caused by our carbon dioxide emissions. In the audience, Dr. Edwin Berry, PhD, asked, “How can the EPA defend such a global-warming hypothesis when the effects of clouds have been omitted – affecting heat balance far more than carbon dioxide; the EPA hypothesis contradicts the paper by Dr. Lee in the Journal of Applied Meteorology showing the atmosphere does not behave like a greenhouse?” The response was, “You do not know what you are talking about. I know more than you, because I am a lawyer and work for the EPA.” (After the meeting, many attending atmospheric scientists working for public agencies, sought out Dr. Berry,said they were afraid to speak out, fearing for their jobs.)
- Law-makers have now passed legislation that establishes – legally – the harmfulness of carbon dioxide – California AB32 (based upon “science fiction” to many environmental scientists, e,g, Dr. Berry. Apparently overlooked, is the well-known symbiotic exchange relationship between plant and animal life – of oxygen and carbon dioxide.)
- In July 2008, Dr. S.S. Young of the National Institute of Statistical Sciences, wrote to California Governor Schwarzenegger complaining that none of the authors of the report to the Air Resources Board was a qualified statistician – thus that bills were being passed into law without a proper scientific basis.
- Last year the California Air Resources Board admitted that the author of a research study on diesel soot (Mr. Hier Tran) had falsified his claimed PhD degree. The basis of highly controversial and costly regulations, such legislation has drastic consequences for all diesel-powered enterprises, e.g. trucks, buses and diesel-powered machinery, forcing the upgrading of all diesel equipment to minimize emissions.
- Just recently, on October 31, 2009, the Columbia Falls Aluminum Company in Montana – once the largest aluminum plant in the world – was shut down, because it was not allowed to buy the electrical power it needed to continue operations, by the (ultra-liberal) Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and ideological politicians.
- On the agenda of the Obama administration, already passed by the House of Representatives, is the “Cap-and-Trade” legislation, which, per critics, will have monstrous consequences upon America: taxing industrial emissions and forcing US manufacturing companies into buying pollution credits – thus significantly increasing costs for all manufacturing processes in the US. Prices would be raised for energy obtained from coal, natural gas and oil; the Treasury Department estimates federal receipts of 100 – 200 billion dollars annually, or about $2000 per family per year. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that a forced reduction of 15% in US carbon dioxide will cost American families $1600 per year. China however, although producing much more pollutant than the US, has stated it would not undertake any reductions, nor would India, etc. Undoubtedly, if such a bill is passed by the Senate and signed by President Obama, millions of US jobs would be shifted abroad due to cost-economy consequences, certainly by US companies having foreign manufacturing facilities.
- Yet, just prior to this “Climategate” problem being disclosed, Pres. Obama was planning to attend the highly publicized UN world-wide international conference in Copenhagen, on reducing world-wide carbon dioxide emissions – and was poised to commit the US to the potentially disastrous Cap-and-Trade carbon dioxide reductions.
How will this disclosure of politicized science end? The global greening force in recent years has taken on the momentum and power of an avalanche or tsunami by the liberal and ruling elite in America, by the Obama administration, and by the Democratic majority in Congress. Will the recent disclosures of faulty science, of falsified data and erroneous extrapolations, be ignored by most media sources in the US – swept away by only challenging the motives of the whistle-blowers (already in the news by some politicians, e.g. Barbara Boxer of California), and pay scant attention to any realities of blatant and misleading temperature data and prognostications? The challenges voiced by skeptical scientists heretofore, had no more effect than attempting to shout against the screaming fury of a North wind: pointing out that global climate changes have both warming and cooling cycles; that durations last ten to twenty thousand years; and that the total impact of mankind is probably trivial. The avalanche of the momentum of US and world-wide “greening” programs – seems so politically supported and well-funded that it can only be slowed gradually – by the reluctant acceptance by a growing body of scientists – risking both their reputations and research grants 0 to “disprove” what has become a religious frenzy of common knowledge – zealous extremists bent on “saving the planet from destructive human-kind”.
Aaron Kolom qualifies as a “rocket scientist” with over 50 years aerospace engineering: Stress Analyst to Chief of Structural Sciences on numerous military aircraft, to Corp. Director Structures and Materials, Asst. Chief Engineer Space Shuttle Program through first three flights (awarded NASA Public Service Medal), Rockwell International Corp.; Program Manager Concorde SST, VP Engineering TRE Corp.; Aerospace Consultant. Visit his website at http://www.brainwashedandmiracles.com to learn a bit about Science vs the Bible, from conflict to confirmation.
Comments? Leave your intelligent feedback down below or consider following CollegeTimes on Facebook or Twitter to stay updated or to get in touch!
Share This Story:
Please scroll down to leave a comment.
Whilst it’s true to say that there is biased data being floated around by “both” sides, it is reasonable to say that a bit of prevention now by both the public and by companies can greatly reduce any potential problems in the future. This is not unreasonable to do, if you were to think of the planet as you would your house, you would realise that all the toxins, garbage, etc that you leave piled in the corner whilst perhaps not affecting you adversly, would certainly begin to cause problems of various forms down the line for your decendants, perhaps you don’t care that your great, etc grandkids might be affected but then again maybe, like me you do care. Strike a reasonable balance, if not for yourself, then for furure generations, it won’t hurt, promise.