The Warmist Cult
By Andrew Thomas
I have been reading that the world is going to end on May 21, 2011. This is extremely distressing to me, since I have a daughter who is getting married on this date and it's too late to reschedule the wedding.
This apocalyptic prediction is being promoted by a group of religious cultists. Big surprise. They are being led by radical evangelist Harold Camping. He has been labeled a "false prophet", mainly due to the fact that his predictions are not reliable. His previous pronouncement of the "end times" was September 6, 1994. As the thousands of cult leaders before him, his track record as a prognosticator stinks on ice. Nevertheless, his devoted followers will uncritically follow him into the abyss.
In a similar manner, the global warmist cult has its false prophets as well. George Soros-sponsored climatologist James Hansen leads with the prediction that we only have two more years before it will be too late to save the world from a fiery fate. I would be more inclined to take him seriously if he hadn't previously made a number of erroneous apocalyptic pronouncements. In the mid-1980's he confidently proclaimed that the Earth would be 2 to 4 degrees warmer by 2010 and New York City highways would be under water.
Leading global warming proponent and climate scientist Phil Jones (co-creator of the infamous "hockey stick" graph used by Al Gore in his infamous fiction film "An Inconvenient Truth") revealed that he destroyed the original raw data that supported the global warming hypothesis, making it impossible to review or verify his findings. Additionally, Jones and other climate science associates actively suppressed any scientific studies which disputed their claims, as evidenced in the "Climategate" e-mails.
Jones confessed last year that no warming of the Earth has actually occurred for the past fifteen years. This has been confirmed by NOAA satellite temperature data records.
The lead author of the also infamous UN IPCC report, Dr. John Christy recently admitted that global warming is a "non-falsifiable hypothesis". This means it cannot be classified as an actual scientific theory, but instead relegated to a quasi-religious dogma based upon a belief rather than verifiable facts.
Since the principle warmists have admitted the sham or have been revealed as "false prophets", I view those who remain "true believers" to be truly pathetic individuals. They are cultists worshiping at the altar of Gaia, anxiously wringing their hands in fear and demanding tribute and sacrifice from the masses.
This Shakespearean comedy would be hysterical was it not for the tragic fact that billions of dollars have been squandered and continue to be stolen from our economy and our personal finances because of this blatant falsehood and these misguided individuals.
A US Senate report on EPA global warming policy released in September, 2010 indicated that the EPA estimated that an expenditure of $78 billion per year until 2100 (90 years) will result in lowering the Earth's temperature by 0.006 to 0.0015 degrees centigrade. If the average of these predicted temperature reduction figures (0.00375 degrees) is used to calculate the cost of lowering the Earth's temperature, the result is a mind-boggling $1,900 trillion for each degree of lowered temperature.
Since the entire US economy only consists of about $15 trillion this year, it will take every dollar bill on the planet for the next 90 years to make an insignificant dent in the phantom global warming threat. In other words, the whole idea that human beings can affect the temperature of the Earth is preposterous and the EPA has admitted as much.
Coincidentally, an official report from an economically-troubled Japan just revealed that the country spent $78 billion on global warming research that was determined to be "fruitless". Imagine if they had used that money for a better purpose, such as improving the safety of their nuclear reactors.
For that matter, imagine what the US could do with the extra trillions of dollars we will "fruitlessly" flush down the toilet in the worship of Gaia if the warmist cult has its way. Could we find cures for cancer and heart disease? Could we permanently address worldwide hunger with advanced agricultural processes? Perhaps we could use it to eventually colonize Mars.
With that amount of capital, the possibilities for realistically improving our lives are limitless. Maybe we should just be more pragmatic and actually balance the budget first.
Maurice Strong, another George Soros-sponsored false prophet and primary architect of the UN global warming and global governance project Agenda 21, once asked "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
It's becoming apparent as the facts are revealed that this is a cult with a suicide pact. And all of us are expected to drink the Kool-aid with them. We need to end this dangerous farce now.
americanthinker.com
------------------------
Followups to above:
Is Global Warming Alarmist James Hansen a Shill for George Soros?
By Jake Gontesky | September 26, 2007 | 09:58
The claims against anthropogenic global warming skeptics are often the same: they're all shills for big oil or other industry wishing to poke holes in the 'consensus theory' of global warming (which isn't a consensus at all). Under the so-called "politicization of science" program, George Soros' (the favorite fundraiser of many democrats) has reportedly given as much as $720,000 to Hansen to help package his alarmist claims and get them pushed by the mainstream media (The Soros Threat to Democracy):
How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute , which gave him "legal and media advice"?
That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program.
So he got some big paychecks from Soros - but was there a quid pro quo? The evidence certainly indicates as much:
That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly "censored" spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda.
Hansen even succeeded, with public pressure from his nightly news performances, in forcing NASA to change its media policies to his advantage. Had Hansen's OSI-funding been known, the public might have viewed the whole production differently. The outcome could have been different.
Did Soros' funding pay off? You be the judge. Do a quick google search on James Hansen to read any of the thousands of mainstream media stories touting Hansen's claims of censorship by the Bush administration. This wouldn't be the first time credibility questions have been raised regarding Hansen and his alarmist claims [see "When does 1,400 Media Interviews = Muzzled" (03/20/07)].
But the alarmist's favorite poster-boy James Hansen is hardly the only benefactor of Soros' funding designed to get more media play for politicized topics important to the left - check out the full article for more on the non-disclosure disclosures regarding immigration and other big topics of the day.
Read more: newsbusters.org
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
By Jonathan Petre
Last updated at 5:12 PM on 14th February 2010
Comments (976) Add to My Stories
Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
There has been no global warming since 1995
Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
Data: Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'
The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.
The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
More...MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: The professor's amazing climate change retreat
Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.
Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.
Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.
That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.
According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.
Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.
Enlarge
But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.
Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.
‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’
He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.
And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.
Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.
But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.
Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.
‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’
Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.
Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.
Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.
But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.
He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.
He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.
Read more: dailymail.co.uk
NOAA February Data Confirms U.S. Has Been Cooling The Last 15 Years: -1.9°F/Century Trend
c3headlines.com
Former UN IPCC Lead Author & Climatologist Dr. John Christy Slaps Down Extreme Storm/Climate Claims! -- Read his 21-page testimony! Visit Site
Christy: 'Extreme events are poor metrics to use for detecting climate change' -- Warns of 'setting up the classic 'non-falsifiable hypothesis.' We were told by IPCC that 'milder winter temps will decrease heavy snowstorms' --
After winters of 2009-10 & 2010-11, we are told opposite' --
'Climate science is a 'murky science.' -- 'Dramatic press releases, & notions of consensus tend to pass for science in our field when they should not.'
climatedepot.com |
