This is the first post and sections of it will also be placed onto the “About This Blog” page for future reference by visitors.
This blog is not going to be about whether the planet is warming up or not. Historically it’s always been warming and cooling. But over the last 2 decades a certain United Nations organisation and other scientific institutions have been issuing alarms that the planet has been warming at an unprecedented level and that it’s because of human activities that it’s happening.
But is it really?
There is a plethora of information supporting the alarmist side of the issue. But there doesn’t appear to be as much information quite so readily available to the general public on the denial side. Maybe I’m just not looking in the right place.
So successful have been the alarmist cries for action been that my fear – and one of the reasons for starting this blog, is that people aren’t listening to an alternate view anymore. They are blindly following and swallowing anything they read or see on TV that reinforces their belief that it’s actually happening. Another is that the cries for action by climate alarmist seems to be growing ever more strident with information that is flat out wrong. For instance a recent article was published saying that 97% of scientists supported global warming – was complete nonsense.
For those seeking a bit more information that counter many, if not most of the claims made by alarmists might refer to the book, “Climate: The Counter Consensus” by Professor Robert M. Carter. This book will be one of the sources I will use for any arguments against global warming caused by humans. Here is one extract that resonated with me:
… the greatest damage that has been inflicted by those whipping up the hypothetical threat of human-caused global warming is that the subsequent hysteria has overwhelmed mature consideration of the much greater and proven threat of natural climate change – (Professor Carter).
Who knows if he’s right or wrong, but I personally know people who simply refuse to read anything that contradicts the alarmist claims that humans are creating a problem for the planet.
Actually the history of this debate can be traced even further back to the beginning of the Industrial Age, and particularly with the beginnings of using fossil fuels. Over time, the terms “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” have come to be understood to mean dangerous warming of the planet caused by human activities such as land clearing and emissions of CO2 “greenhouse” gases from vehicles and factories.
There is so much misinformation, deception, cherry picking of facts, exaggerations and outright lies propagated by both sides of the debate that it’s hard to know where the actual truth lies.
Here is what we DO know to be scientifically and factually true, and apparently has been accepted by scientists across the board:
1. Global climate has always changed and always will.
2. Human activities definitely affect local climates and have a summed potential to affect global climate.
3. Carbon Dioxide is a mild greenhouse gas.
The term “climate change” as its taken to mean dangerous global warming is something of misnomer. But for the sake of simplicity in this blog I’ll continue to use the term to mean “dangerous global warming caused by humans”.
Comments are welcome but please read the rules shown on the “About This Blog” page.
Scientific Consensus and Scientific Proof?
The words “scientific” and “consensus” are two words that just don’t go together. A scientific fact is a hypothesis that is published and rigorously tested by a variety of other scientists to produce the same result. There is no allowance for a “logical conclusion” or a “balance of probabilities” or “circumstantial evidence suggest …” And it only needs one scientist to find the proof.
Consensus is about agreements and whenever consensus is involved there is inevitably politics – or to look at it another way, politics is all about consensus. You can have real science or consensus but you can’t have both. Claims of consensus has historically been used to avoid debate and declare that the matter is settled. It’s still not proof on an issue.
The Search for Proof
“Before human-caused global warming can become an economic, social or environmental problem, it first has to be identified by scientific study as a dangerous hazard for the planet, distinct from normal climate change” – Prof. Robert Carter
Literally trillions of dollars have been spent in the search for such proof. No unambiguous or substantive proof has yet been found despite alarmist claims that it has. Much of the “evidence” is based on computer modelling of just the last 150 years and which is vulnerable to the information that is fed into it. Scientific papers are sprinkled with words like “may”, “could” “potential” and so on. Since no unequivocal proof linking mankind to global warming has actually been found, the term “scientific consensus” was born. The term lends itself to the lesser scientifically educated masses that it must therefore be true.
For over the last 2 decades the average people of the world have been told that the “science is settled” on the hypothesis that humans are causing dangerous global warming. Many scientific institutions and governments have become fully convinced on the truth of it. Some Western democracies are even striving to force carbon trading tax systems onto the world in an effort to reduce CO2 into the atmosphere.
So how is it possible that something that has not been proven can be accepted as a truth?
There is no simple answer. It lies in a myriad of reasons which will take time to explore which will be presented to you over time. And I will be exposing the inaccuracies and deceptions used by both sides of the issue wherever I find them.
“The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance. We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we’re told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems”. Michael Crichton 2003: http://www.pe.tamu.edu/DL_Program/graduate_seminar_series/Documents/MichaelCrichton_evironmentalism.pdf