Increasing evidence is stacking up against the claim of climate change, but the propaganda continues.
Albert Einstein once famously quipped: “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.” This was obviously a joke, but it pointed to a very serious and pervasive problem within the scientific community—one that continues to this day. The intention, I assume, behind his joke was to observe just how easily facts can be warped to serve an agenda. The job of a scientist, in its purest form, is to search for understanding by reaching into the void of what we do not know, not to selectively piece together evidence to suit a theory that one has already fully constructed. But science is often funded by the state, and given that, it is easily, and frighteningly corruptible.
Ashley Pratte of the Young America’s Foundation recently interviewed students on the UCSB campus, asking them their opinions on climate change and global warming (otherwise known as what climate change used to be called before the lack of evidence necessitated a name change—soon to be climate disruption). The responses were not atypical of what one might expect at a university, given universities are liberal indoctrination centers. For your edification, and general amusement, I present to you several of the most egregious answers:
- “Rising sea levels–global warming is responsible for that.”
- “It’s gonna get really hot.”
- “I think we can tell every day that the temperatures are getting warmer.”
- “All the evidence is there…”
- “Take a look around, and if you compare before we made such drastic changes till now, it’s real.”
- “Wake up. Look at the facts…well, it’s a widely accepted theory. I mean, gravity’s a theory.”
- “The data’s there…with the climate going up, and up.“
In an article for Forbes, Peter Ferrara wrote of the Little Ice Age, which occurred from approximately the mid 1200’s to the beginning of the 1800’s. During this time, it was reported historically that the Thames river would freeze solid, New York harbor froze in 1780, and “Oxygen/isotope analysis from the Pacific Islands indicates a 1.5 degree Celsius temperature decline between 1270 and 1475 A.D.” This was a period of globally cooling temperatures, which followed several hundred years of warming. These temperature changes were related to the natural changes of the sun and the ocean. That is all well documented, and understood.
Now, with the global warming–sorry, climate change–sorry, climate disruption crusaders on the loose, we are constantly and continuously bombarded with this one simple idea: global warming/climate change is real, it is anthropogenic, and because the majority of scientists “agree” on this, it cannot, and must not be disputed. But what are the facts? I have no party allegiance in terms of facts. If climate change were in fact man-made, I would have no problem believing that fact, and I would gladly join the fight. The bible even tells us to take care of the earth we have been given by God. So it’s not as if I hate the trees. What I do hate is being manipulated in order to serve an agenda.
Climate alarmists allege that the earth is warming because of our carbon emissions. But is that true? The Economist puts it quite succinctly, saying “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Even with that massive output, the global temperature has not risen in the last 18 years. So, if the climate is being affected by carbon emissions, as is being alleged by climate change activists, doesn’t it seem odd that during the period in which the most carbon was released into the atmosphere, the temperature has not risen at all?
Peter Ferrara claims that it is not carbon emissions that lead to fluctuating temperatures, but rather the oscillations of the ocean:
“The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.”
In the April 27th, 2013 issue of The Sunday Telegraph, Christopher Booker wrote:
“Last week it was reported that 3,318 places in the USA had recorded their lowest temperatures for this time of year since records began. Similar record cold was experienced by places in every province of Canada. So cold has the Russian winter been that Moscow had its deepest snowfall in 134 years of observations.”
This year alone, the United States has shattered numerous cold records. Everything that is occurring is defying all the projections made by climate scientists. Ferrara concludes his article with this:
“But there is a fundamental problem with the temperature records from this contentious period, when climate science crashed into political science. The land based records, which have been under the control of global warming alarmists at the British Met Office and the Hadley Centre Climate Research Unit, and at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the U.S., show much more warming during this period than the incorruptible satellite atmosphere temperature records. Those satellite records have been further confirmed by atmospheric weather balloons. But the land based records can be subject to tampering and falsification.“
My point is that there is ample, and increasing evidence stacking up against the theory of anthropogenic global warming (climate change/disruption), yet the propaganda has reached an all time high. Why is this? Because, as Ferrara brilliantly concludes, there is an agenda behind the data. If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.
This notion has grown from being a simple idea, a theory, into a beast that cannot be killed. There are numerous possible reasons behind this. First, and foremost, there is always money to be made through panic. The green initiative has helped many turn a profit. But I think there is a deeper agenda here, and it is to gin up fear in order to get votes. The monolithic left (not just the Democratic Party, but all who subscribe to modern liberal ideas) have whipped up this fictional, yet terribly frightening beast, and they have gone on to tell the commoners (us) that this beast will kill them if they don’t do something about it. The commoners, who have been convinced that this wicked beast is quite real, due to the media’s collusion with the monolithic left, have become terrified. They ask “What can we do?” The left tells them “Vote for us, and we will save you.” But they don’t stop there; they go one step further, telling the commoners “If you vote for the other guy, we will all die.” It’s a classic propagandist move, right out of the playbook, and one that works supremely well.
Power is hungry, and it cannot stop filling its gullet. The evidence is not on the side of the climate alarmists, yet they myth of anthropogenic climate change has pervaded, as you can see in the responses from the students at UCSB. They repeat what they’re told by their teachers, with little regard for the truth, and no effort to seek out alternate explanations, such as a proper scientist would do.
Climate science has been corrupted by politics. It’s as plain as the nose on my face. But dare to speak up, and you will be mocked, and castigated for your beliefs.
If you are a believer in anthropogenic climate change, all I ask is that you look at the evidence I have presented, read the rest of Peter Ferrera’s article, seek out the alternative viewpoint in a rational way, without judgment, and reach into the void with your own hands, and mind. Do not change your facts to fit your theories, change your theories to fit your facts.