jump to navigation

Society being misled by proponents of human induced climate change June 19, 2011

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , ,
trackback

Society being misled by proponents of human induced climate change

By: Kelvin Kemm
Engineering News, 17th June 2011

I believe that, in the future, when people look back at the history of current decades, they will wonder how a sophisticated, technological society could be so misled by proponents of human-induced climate change, when so much scientific evidence is available to show that clear logical alternatives are available to the hysterical incantations of the doom-and-gloom cult.

It is actually fascinating to watch global climate change science being mixed into the extreme green emotional blender to such an extent that the truth becomes passing fragments in the swirl of emotional and distorted public discourse.

Against this background, it is necessary to stand back and pick out the truth and form a coherent picture that stands the scrutiny of correct scientific assessment. Correct scientific assessment was pioneered by people such as Sir Isaac Newton. The process has a long history, and is composed of well-defined protocols.

In the midst of the climate debate of confusion and counterclaim, painfully few members of the public stop to ask for the real credentials of the people making dramatic public statements that seem to be scientific.

Prior to the well-known climate conference in Copenhagen, Belgium, then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown made a dramatic speech in which he said that mankind had 50 days to save the world. He was looking for political points rather than scientific truth, just as some of Sir Isaac Newton’s detractors were over 400 years ago.

In a speech delivered in October 2009, Brown said: “But the threat is not confined to the developing world. The extraordinary summer heat wave of 2003 in Europe resulted in over 35 000 extra deaths. On current trends, such an event could become quite routine in Britain in just a few decades’ time. And within the lifetime of our children and grandchildren, the intense temperatures of 2003 could become the average temperature experienced throughout much of Europe. In Britain, we face the prospect of more frequent droughts and a rising wave of floods.”

So, why did he find it necessary to refer to the summer heat of 2003, when it was 2009? He said that the high temperatures of 2003 could become the norm in Britain “in just a few decades’ time”. He had no evidence for such a statement. In the meantime, Britain and Europe have had a couple of the coldest winters ever, with airports and roads being closed owing to record snowfalls.

Read the rest here

About these ads

Comments»

1. karin1941 - June 19, 2011

Yes – in 2000 years our descendants will look back on this era in wonderment and question what all those concrete footings found all over the the world were for. Something stood on them but what? Big wind mills? Were they some sort of religious movement of wind worshippers?

I have written logical rebuttals to the AGW theory for years but there are none so deaf as those who won’t hear – sigh!

2. Oliver K. Manuel - June 20, 2011

I agree, Karin.

AGW (CO2-Induced Global Warming) is indeed scientifically bankrupt. World leaders apparently used AGW as the “Common Enemy” of people all around the globe to unite them so they would not unleash a full-scale nuclear exchange that might kill everyone – including even the world leaders.

AGW also leveled the economic playing field worldwide by pinching off the tail pipes of the most active Western economic engines.

These research papers [1,2] explain the operation of Earth’s heat source – the Sun.

1. “Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate”, Journal of Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002):

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0501441

2. “Earth’s Heat Source – The Sun”, Energy and Environment 20, 131-144 (2009):

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

3. Oliver K. Manuel - June 20, 2011

Three years ago, I was invited to attend a celebration for 50 Years of Space Science Discoveries at the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Headquarters in Washington, DC.

This was a public meeting of the Space Science Board chaired by NAS President, Dr. Ralph Cicerone at NAS Headquarters on 26 June 2008.

At that time I was still unaware of the “real game plan” for the AGW story. When the opportunity presented itself, I therefore marched to the microphone and asked publicly (and in writing with references to peer-reviewed papers):

“Can the Space Science Board help NASA move away from the untruths that are wrecking our economy?

• Earth is bathed in a steady flow of heat from Hydrogen-fusion in the Hydrogen-filled Sun.

• Solar neutrinos from Hydrogen-fusion melt (oscillate) away before reaching detectors.

• Earth’s climate is immune from cycles of solar activity (sunspots, flares, eruptions).

• Therefore CO2 from our economic engines caused global warming.”

There were, of course, no replies.

I had stumbled on the real purpose of the AGW story and mistakenly assumed it was an overlooked consequence.

However unless we selflessly help world leaders find a scientifically valid “Common Enemy” that they can use to unite the world better than AGW, they will not abandon the AGW story.

That is the reason for the present stalemate.

The AGW story has been exposed.

Leaders of the scientific community and the news media risked their reputations to help world leaders sell AGW as a scientific fact.

The world now faces a serious dilemma.

4. rogueoperator - June 20, 2011

Thank Gaia there seems to be plenty of sane people on this issue. One persuasive point that I use is to point out that mankind could obliterate industrial civilization, go back to the cave (no fire, of course), and the climate would be changed…maybe an iota.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

This provokes the universal response among the true believers: But don’t you to save the planet? Or: Aren’t you for clean air? Or: Aren’t you for clean water? Or: Do you want to just let Big Oil pollute the earth?

These people have a warped sense of ego, and to point out that the earth doesn’t give a sneeze about mankind’s “greenhouse gases” just puts them into an institutionalization-worthy conniption fit.

5. David44 - August 21, 2011

Hope your science is better than your geography. Copenhagen is in Denmark (rhymes with Svensmark.)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31 other followers

%d bloggers like this: