Latest posts by Nancy Thorner and Bonnie O'Neil (see all)
- How and Why Did America Come to Embrace Socialism? - February 7, 2019
- Common Core Curriculum Fails to Educate While Incubating Progressivism - June 11, 2018
- Biased, Progressive Media is Uprooting the Nation’s Founding Principles - April 20, 2018
Man-made climate change alarmists continue to be caught revising history. There is a simple concept that continues to be on display here: If present reality, facts and figures aren’t cooperating with your desired goal, just change them to fit your desired outcome. “Fiddling” with temperature data is the biggest science scandal to date, and one of the least reported by the main stream media.
A report published in 2012 by Charlotte Meredith notes 100 reasons why climate change is natural and not man-made. Meredith’s list of 100 is excellent and should convince any climate alarmist to have second thoughts about man-made global warming. Consider the following:
- Data indicates there were warmer periods in our Earth’s history, at least 800 years before the more recent increases in CO2 levels.
- After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
James Taylor, senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News, disputes the 10 assertions assembled by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) which are considered by EDF to be the most powerful global warming assertions in the alarmists’ playbook.
Obama’s budget calls for billions in Climate Funding for renewable energy and emissions reductions. This revelation should make sensible people wonder how the world survived for billions of years without funding? Interesting reading is“How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming” and Meteorologist: ‘In the business world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data’…
Suspension of disbelief applicable to global warming
Samuel Coleridge, poet, literary critic, and philosopher, coined the term“suspension of disbelief” in 1817:
“It is a tacit understanding between storyteller and audience. The storyteller weaves a fantastical tale and, for the duration of the tale-telling, the audience willingly suspends its disbelief in, say, talking animals or scary monsters or post-apocalyptic Earth. But there are limits to suspension of belief. If a storyteller creates a paradigm, and the audience buys into it, that paradigm can’t suddenly be turned upside down.”
This governing suspension rule also is applicable to global warming. The scientific community has told the tale that human activity is dangerously overheating the planet. The left-leaning mainstream media has amplified that alarmist narrative. As the saying goes: “Tell a tale often enough and people will begin to believe it to be a fact.”
A dichotomy exists between this nation’s government and the public’s perception of Global Warming. With data surfacing that denied the Earth was warming, and in fact showed it could be cooling, the term began to morph into a safer label: “climate change”. A recent January Pew Research Center Poll shows that the public disagrees with claims of man-made climate change. Other surveys have shown people are more likely to say they agree that climate change is real, but they do not express fear or consider it a significant threat to them. One big exception is President Obama. As confirmed by White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest on Tuesday, Feb. 10, President Obama stated in an interview with Vox, that climate change is a bigger threat to national security than terrorism”. Obviously, the President has not been reading the newest data from unbiased and credible sources on either of those subjects.
It is understandable that the public has been at odds with President Obama’s perception of global warming, which can be attributed to the public becoming less and less willing to become alarmed over unproven claims produced by climate change promoters. Consider the February 15th post at Heartland’s “Somewhat Reasonable” which spoke of severe cold weather occurring in New England, the Northeast, Michigan and Chicago. A group of climate change activists at Yale University had to cancel its scheduled global warming protest, due to severe cold weather. America is not alone in suffering winter disasters. The Guardian reported the death rate in England and Wales nearly a third higher than normal for this time of year, as was also the situation in the prior five years.
The suspension of public belief by the American people seems to be related, in large part, through direct observation of what is happening around them. Enough time has passed without witnessing Al Gore’s threats becoming a reality, such as massive icebergs melting, with polar bears stranded, and seas rising. The public also noticed that when the warming trend stopped, its promoters found a new, less restricting label: “climate change”. They hoped most people would not realize the all-encompassing terminology gave climate alarmists a huge umbrella under which to peddle their propaganda. The new name allowed most any weather condition to be blamed on man-made causes.
Even though global warming was no longer the trend, and in spite of reporters being told by their superiors to stop interviewing ‘irrelevant’ climate change critics, more and more people began to doubt the whole premise of man-made climate changes caused by burning fossil fuels.
Bad environmental reporting abounds
A post originally published at Roy Spencer’s blog, calls out Justin Gillis, a New Climate Science reporter, for his recent NYT article “What to Call a Doubter of Climate Change?” as an example of just how bad environmental reporting has become. In his article Gillis expounds upon a fight that has been going on for a long time, which is what to call the various factions in the long-running political battle over climate change. Through a public appeal that garnered 22,000 plus signatures, the resulting petition asks the news media to abandon the most frequently used term for people who question climate science, “skeptics,” and to instead call them “climate deniers”. Roy Spencer, as a skeptical Ph.D. climate scientist, and having worked in the climate field for over a quarter century, reflected how he doesn’t know of any other skeptic who even “doubts climate change”. Our climate system has changed and will continue changing, as evidence proves it has been doing long before anything man could possibly have done to facilitate the change. Furthermore, most skeptics believe humans have at least some small role in that change, but tend to believe it might well be more natural than SUV-caused.
The United States isn’t the only country who is pushing the UN’s Agenda 21 on Climate Change through its own EPA regulations and President Obama’s executive orders. A world wide effort is taking place. Two hundred countries will get together in June to agree on a draft to slow climate change. The draft document will serve as a blueprint and is the first step towards negotiating a deal to be agreed upon in Paris later this year and scheduled for implementation in 2020. This UN action is all happening under the premise held by a panel of UN climate scientists who continue to claim man-made climate change is causing downpours and raising sea levels, due to ice melts and extreme heat.
Debunking UN claims that last year’s temperature caused a rising sea level, a new paper shows temperature and sea levels were 20 to 30 feet higher during the past interglacial cycle,125,000 years ago, than at present – and all without human intervention. The authors wrote, “[S]ea-level rise in the Last Interglacial period was driven by the same processes active today – thermal expansion of seawater, melting mountain glaciers and melting polar ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica – most was driven by polar ice sheet melt. All of the factors or processes listed are natural and are common between ice ages, regardless of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.” The paper was published in the January issue of Quaternary Science Reviews.
In another recent article published in the Wall Street Journal, skeptical environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg makes several excellent points. He stated that while carbon dioxide emissions are rising faster than most scientists have predicted, data shows we are seeing 90 percent less temperature rise than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The various horrific weather events that were supposed to flow from global warming have not come to pass. Contrary to predictions, Antarctic sea ice is expanding, the rate of sea-level rise is slowing, and droughts and hurricanes are not increasing in number, duration, or strength. Lomborg reported that climate change is not worse than we thought [and though] we’re told that things are worse than ever, the facts disagree.
Thorner and O’Neil’s Part 3 article on this subject, indicated volcanoes on land were designated as a natural source of CO2. A paper published in Geophysical Research Letters explained that vast ranges of undersea volcanoes flare up on regular cycles, ranging from two weeks to 100,000 years. The cyclical outbursts are apparently tied to short and long-term changes in Earth’s orbit, as well as sea levels. The volcanoes may also help trigger natural climate swings. If confirmed, that information will be more proof that humans play a relatively small role in any climate change, and that it is our own Earth and sun that are the indicators of our climate and its constant changes.
Preview of addendum to Part 4
Because of the length of Part 4, as originally written, the authors thought it best to divide so reading wouldn’t be too time consuming.
There exists an urgency for the public to know what the UN Agenda 21 is all about as it relates to the environment. Evident is the push to limit the use of fossil fuels under the assumption that the burning of fossil fuels is the main cause of man-made global warming, but might there be a convert reason at play, that of reducing populations by making life even more difficult for third world poor populations to prosper?
Questioned and documented in our Addendum to Part 4 is whether the rate of people reproducing needs to be controlled in order to save the environment. It is postured that human population growth is a major contributor to global warming, as humans use fossil fuels to power their increasingly mechanized lifestyles
- Thorner & O’Neil: Fighting climate change through compact cities without cars (Part 1)
- Thorner & O’Neil: UN promotes Global Warming consistent with Agenda 21 (Part 2)
- Thorner & O’Neil: Man’s folly to curb CO2 emissions continues to advance unabated (Part 3)
[Originally published at Illinois Review]