A recent study, funded by the National Science Foundation, alleges that the twentieth century has been warmer than the five centuries preceding it, and the years 1997, 1995 and 1990 were the warmest since1400 AD. Michael Mann, a climatologist at the University of Massachusetts, admits that in past centuries natural causes did correlate to fluctuations in climate changes, but that the warming during this century has been continuous and “doesn’t relate to any natural factors we looked at. Instead, it has a relationship to the increase in greenhouse gases and industrialization.”
However, this study uses a standard manipulation of statistics, by starting its data at a known low or high point, depending on what one needs to “prove.” If its data had started in 1000 AD, it would have to report that temperatures then were warmer than those of today. (The “Little Ice Age” occurred between 1100 and 1750 AD.) And if environmentalists used all known data — not just select data — then it would also be relevant to report that temperatures have fluctuated continuously over geologic time, by as much as twelve times higher than the 0.8*F rise claimed for this century.
More comprehensive studies of temperatures reveal that from 1880 to 1950 the northern hemisphere warmed 0.9*F, but when annual fossil fuel carbon emissions — the alleged cause of global warming — increased by 250% from 1950 to 1980, warming became virtually non-existent. Since temperatures didn’t steadily rise but declined when those emissions dramatically increased, then this deceptive NSF study only strengthens the fact that environmentalists fundamentally seek to destroy industrialization.
Their routine methodology of using select data out-of-context, which gives their exaggerated or mythical claims a veneer of truth, lead to last years climate accord in Kyoto, Japan. Various nations met then and agreed to impose increased or new government-backed dictates on wealthier, industrialized nations that shackle the use of their life-blood: fossil fuels.
Environmentalists formed the basis of this accord by similar pseudo- science and illogic: their upholding of a “consensus” of 2,500 scientists who endorsed the UN’s 1996 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which forecasted catastrophic global warming, and their matter-of-fact implication that a “consensus” equals truth.
First, the general circulation models on which this “consensus” agreed that catastrophic global warming exists are incomplete indicators of climate warming. These computerized climate models both failed to forecast El Nino and inaccurately projected its end by Christmas of 1997. With such blatant mistakes, how can they be relied on to forecast climate changes 100 years from today?
Second, most of the scientists of this “consensus” who signed this ICCP report were not climatologist. They included specialists in botany, biology, entomology, statistics, zoology, and oceanography, along with college presidents and numerous graduate students. Many people were counted as “contributors,” meaning their names or work were used but that they were not necessarily responsible for writing or even endorsing the report. Even people who prominently oppose the theory of catastrophic global warming were counted.
Contrast it with a petition that was signed earlier this year by an unprecedented 17,000 American scientists — 10,000 of whom have advanced academic degrees. Essentially, the petition states that the U.S. government should reject the Kyoto accord, since no convincing scientific evidence that man-made gases cause or will “possibly” cause catastrophic global warming; that the proposed limits on these gases would harm the environment and damage the health and welfare of mankind, since substantial scientific evidence shows that such warming can produce many beneficial effects for man, animals and plants; and that it would hinder the advance of science and technology.
To the consensus-equals-truth mentalities behind the Kyoto accord, the overwhelming number of signers of this petition destroys their pseudo-“consensus”. Couple this with their blatant pseudo-science, and clearly environmentalists have perpetrated another fraud.
Their response to this petition has amounted to their ignoring and downplaying it or charging that corporations financed it. In reality, it was financed entirely by private donations, with no contributions from industry. This prejudicial attack against industry grows weaker as increasingly more corporations (e.g., Mobil, Texaco, Exxon, Chrysler, Toyota, Ford, Dupont, Weyerhaeuser, Boeing, Maytag ), intimidated by the coercive powers that environmentalists wield in government (e.g., the EPA), finance environmental organizations. Furthermore, most scientists who forecast catastrophic global warming have their research financed largely by government grants, which dissolve if their work counters that forecast.
Through their corrupt scientific methodology to their exaggerated and false claims that are backed by government guns, environmentalists manipulate and coerce men into accepting their ultimate goal: returning man to his meager, pre-industrial existence.
Latest posts by Joseph Kellard (see all)
- Bush’s Religiosity Wounds the War Effort - 2004.04.25
- “The Passion” of Howard Roark - 2004.04.10
- Celebrate Individualism, Not Ethnicity - 2004.03.28
- Don’t Narrow My Gap! Why Narrowing “Income Gaps” is Unjust - 2004.02.28
- What Makes the Super Bowl “Super” - 2004.02.04