WASHINGTON, May 18, 2015 – To understand climate change, we first need to look at what the past has shown us. The past will give us a look into what is happening now.
At the creation of oceans, the atmosphere was mostly carbon dioxide. Nitrogen, which now accounts for almost 80 percent of our atmosphere, was a trace element of negligible power. The animal life that existed then also exists today, leading to the interpretation that the atmosphere, even with massive amounts of carbon dioxide, was still temperate. On this, most scientists agree.
We then proceeded through the Bronze Age warming, to the cold Dark Ages, to the Roman era warming followed by a cooling trend cold enough to freeze the Danube and Rhine river systems. After medieval warming, the cooling phase was pronounced enough to cause the greening of Greenland. This is once again a timeline that most scientists agree on. The computer models given today account for none of these.The movement of climate over the millennia is not accounted for in the climate models.
Today, the major culprit of global warming is carbon dioxide, yet it is unclear why the buildup of climate change started after the warming that ended the last two ice ages. It appears that the gradual warming during the ice age may been caused by ocean warming, That warmth caused more evaporation, which increased water vapor in the atmosphere. This was a positive control in the moderation of greenhouse gases. Clouds are two-sided, and even though the bottom of clouds reflect heat back to earth, the tops of those same clouds reflect new heat away, causing an overall negative impact on global warming.
In the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on climate change of 2014, it cannot be explained how there has been no appreciable change in the climate in at least 15 years, even though during that time carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen. Climate change scientists say this is a mirage, that there actually has been change, and that warmth is being stored in the oceans. Once the information hit the mainstream, it has put pressure on scientists to explain it in the new IPCC report.
Alden Meyer of the Washington D.C.-based Union of Concerned Scientists has already stated that this needs to be addressed, that the IPCC cannot ignore it and that calling it a “quirk” of the models is stunning, in essence a non-answer.
Calling those who question the science “skeptics” or “deniers” is no longer as relevant as it once was. The opposition to data that can not be duplicated is a paramount requirement when it comes to science. If a theory is proven false, you retest and see if you get the same result.
The IPCC, Democratic Party and the scientists receiving government funding have given us end-of-the-world predictions since the 1970s. Back then it was global cooling, as even the magazine covers at the time attest.
Global warming or climate change or climate disruption is not a proven science. It has been found to have been manipulated and flawed, and it has a lower than feasible reliability to form a foundation for major changes in any country. But rather than fix the science, the climate change supporters deny and try to demonize the “skeptics.” All this accomplishes is to turn the discussion to politics rather than to honest science.
Both the hockey stick graphs showing cataclysmic results to tree rings being fabricated by Michael Mann and Phil Jones of the CRU have been manipulated to reach an already agreed upon result. Climate change and the major disruption envisioned by those who support these reports are based om “may” and “could” and supported by the political aspects of the discussion rather than actual science.
One of the contributors to the report, Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University, has declined to sign it because of the flaws. Even lead author Robert Stavins has stated that three quarters of the report was revised after a late-night meeting and after many of the contributors had already signed.
Many of the IPCC’s claims were discovered to be unfounded at a House Subcommittee on Science and Technology meeting in 2011. Dr. Daniel Botkin, professor in the department of ecology, evolution and marine biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who researches global warming, is upset by what he claims is the IPCC’s tendency to give speculative, incomplete data more weight than it deserves. These findings of climate change are not based on settled fact and instead based on an agenda that changes the basic premises of human activities.
Hardest hit will be workers and families throughout the world, but even a worldwide effort at curtailing the false premises used to push climate change will not make any discernible difference.
The IPCC report is full of uncertainty and false premises and littered with non-factual assessments. It should not be political or directed to entities that contract for government grants or stand to make money off the environmental regulations being pushed. It cannot be said that the science is settled. The science is wrong and flawed, and it needs to be looked at once again with all parties involved. We don’t need activists, we need honest science.Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Communities Digital News
• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.
This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.
Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.