Climate Change exists, but man-made climate change does not. The hoax relies on a little bit of truth, surrounded by a bunch of lies, and a little scientific manipulation. The planet does indeed warm and cool, and it does so based on natural causes, most of which are directly influenced or associated with solar sunspot activity. The idea that mankind has anything to do with it on a scale larger than as a minor hiccup was created for the sole purpose of benefiting the environmentalist movement, and the collectivist concepts pushed by allies of the environmentalists in order to increase the level of control by government over energy usage, property rights, and population. The faithful, in order to convince the slow minds of leftist voters, have even resorted to purposely influencing scientific models in order to manipulate the results so that they reflect a desired result, when in reality they wouldn't have. However, as the evidence piles up, it is becoming harder and harder for them to hide from the truth.
A scientific paper has emerged that is being suppressed by peer reviewers, and the paper suggests that scientists have been covering up data that damages their view regarding man-made climate change. The study in question, as the claim goes, was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, and Lennart Bengtsson, an author of that study, is now saying the study is being rejected because a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful”.
Lennart Bengtsson is a research fellow at the University of Reading and said he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published because, “The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist.”
The scientist's paper challenged the finding of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5C if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were allowed to double. It suggested that the climate might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out “to reduce the underlying uncertainty”.
The five contributing scientists to the study, from the United States and Sweden, submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters, one of the most highly regarded journals, at the end of last year but were told in February that it had been rejected because, as one reviewer said, it was “less than helpful”. The unnamed scientist concluded: “Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate sceptics media side.”
Bengtsson added that it was “utterly unacceptable” to advise against publishing a paper on the ground that the findings might be used by climate sceptics to advance their arguments. “It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the [computer] models. Therefore, if people are proposing to do major changes to the world’s economic system we must have much more solid information.”
The report in question is one of many of recent papers, some of them published in the peer-reviewed literature, that call into serious question the more extreme forecasts of climate response to greenhouse gases.
Meanwhile, as evidence of lies and manipulation by politically influenced scientists piles up, evidence that global warming is a natural phenomenon and not a product of humanity's production of so-called "greenhouse gases" is also piling up. The latest swift kick of reality, pointing towards the rise and drop of climate temperatures being of natural causes, lies on the Planet Jupiter.
According to NASA, the size of the big red spot on Jupiter is decreasing. The red spot is a massive storm on the planet, that is larger than Earth, and it has shrunk to its smallest size ever measured.
Historic observations as far back as the late 1800s gauged the storm to be as large as 25,500 miles on its long axis. NASA Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 flybys of Jupiter in 1979 measured it to be 14,500 miles across. In 1995, a Hubble photo showed the long axis of the spot at an estimated 13,020 miles across. And in a 2009 photo, it was measured at 11,130 miles across.
Beginning in 2012, amateur observations revealed a noticeable increase in the rate at which the spot is shrinking -- by 580 miles per year -- changing its shape from an oval to a circle.
"In our new observations it is apparent very small eddies are feeding into the storm," said Amy Simon of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. "We hypothesized these may be responsible for the accelerated change by altering the internal dynamics and energy of the Great Red Spot."
Historic observations as far back as the late 1800s gauged the storm to be as large as 25,500 miles on its long axis. NASA Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 flybys of Jupiter in 1979 measured it to be 14,500 miles across. In 1995, a Hubble photo showed the long axis of the spot at an estimated 13,020 miles across. And in a 2009 photo, it was measured at 11,130 miles across.
Beginning in 2012, amateur observations revealed a noticeable increase in the rate at which the spot is shrinking -- by 580 miles per year -- changing its shape from an oval to a circle.
"In our new observations it is apparent very small eddies are feeding into the storm," said Amy Simon of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. "We hypothesized these may be responsible for the accelerated change by altering the internal dynamics and energy of the Great Red Spot."
Simon's team plans to study the motions of the small eddies and the internal dynamics of the storm to determine whether these eddies can feed or sap momentum entering the upwelling vortex, resulting in this yet unexplained shrinkage.
Some scientists say that the changes on Jupiter are a sign of planetary warming. The planet is experiencing global warming, without the benefit of people living there to spew pollutants into the air.
Jupiter is not the only planet, other than Earth, in the solar system experiencing a warming trend. Mars, too, has been showing signs of warming, to the point that its ice caps are melting. The simultaneous trends on both Mars and Earth have led some scientists to the conclusion that "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars,"
Some scientists have even observed, and have indicated, they believe warming trends are also hitting the other planets of the solar system, all the way out to the kind-of-a-planet of Pluto.
This is not to say I believe we should not be good stewards of our own planet. If there is gunk in the air, and gunk in the water, we ought to be responsible enough to keep it fairly clean. But to go so far as to blame humanity's microscopic influence on climate for temperature changes that are largely because of solar activity, and then to try to use those environmental claims as a political weapon against people so that government can take a larger bite out of freedom, is just evil. Such is the tools of tyrants.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The Next Climate Scandal? - Powerline Blog
Scientists in Cover-up of Damaging Climate View - The Times U.K.
Researcher predicts global climate change on Jupiter - UC Berkley News
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming - National Geographic
The Solar System Climate is Changing, Not Just Earth - Conscious Life News
1 comment:
The temptation to throw up the table and give up on the eventuality of the Global Warming debate is too damn high. Even in a "room" full of educated professionals, there are as many opinions as there are people (prime and fascinating example here http://moonbattery.com/?p=46006). I wholeheartedly agree that without an established causality, policy application is misguided and premature. Of course this begs the questions as to whether there will ever be enough information to adequately establish grounds for policy change. It's a terrifying and fascinating debate, for sure.
Post a Comment