Quote: The 'Old' Consensus? [Excerpts]Did NASA scientist James Hansen, the global warming alarmist in chief, once believe we were headed for . . . an ice age? An old Washington Post story indicates he did.On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined "U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming." It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man's use of fossil fuels.The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in "the next 50 years" fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees.Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, "could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."Aiding Rasool's research, the Post reported, was a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen," who was, according to his resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time.So what about those greenhouse gases that man pumps into the skies?
Weren't they worried about them causing a greenhouse effect that would heat the planet, as Hansen, Al Gore and a host of others so fervently believe today?"They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere," the Post said in the story, which was spotted last week by Washington resident John Lockwood, who was doing research at the Library of Congress and alerted the Washington Times to his finding.Hansen has some explaining to do. The public deserves to know how he was converted from an apparent believer in a coming ice age who had no worries about greenhouse gas emissions to a global warming fear monger.This is a man, as Lockwood noted in his message to the Times' John McCaslin, who has called those sceptical of his global warming theory "court jesters." We wonder: What choice words did he have for those who were sceptical of the ice age theory in 1971?People can change their positions based on new information or by taking a closer or more open-minded look at what is already known. There's nothing wrong with a reversal or modification of views as long as it is arrived at honestly.But what about political hypocrisy? It's clear that Hansen is as much a political animal as he is a scientist. Did he switch from one approaching cataclysm to another because he thought it would be easier to sell to the public? Was it a career advancement move or an honest change of heart on science, based on empirical evidence?If Hansen wants to change positions again, the time is now. With NASA having recently revised historical temperature data that Hansen himself compiled, the door has been opened for him to embrace the ice age projections of the early 1970s.Could be he's feeling a little chill in the air again.("The 'Old' Consensus?", "Investor's Business Daily," 9/21/2007.) End of QuoteGlobal Warming. In view of the political, and more importantly, religious elements that drive this movement, this is an area needing watchfulness. Further, revelations that James Hansen received $720,000 in 2006 from leftist George Soros might be an indication that scientific consensus has a price.
A letter to an editor
Regarding the recent onslaught of publicity surrounding the ëglobal treaty', greenhouse gasses and the subject of global warming in general. Personally, I'm quite tired of pseudo-scientist enviro-zealots going completely overboard on a subject who has no scientific relevance at all - their assumptions regarding the theory of global warming do not remotely resemble science, whatsoever
.
I've read a great deal on the subject of global warming in the past few years. In fact, I started out with a very open mind on the subject, but quickly realized that this ëtheory' was nothing more than an absurd myth. It is absolutely incredible that an argument still exists on the subject - obviously it provides a great deal of job security for thousands of individuals. I'm certain that it would be much cheaper to place these well meaning dolts on unemployment rather than continue this ludicrous investigation.
While I acknowledge that ground level temperatures on earth have risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past hundred and forty years, I also realize that cities have sprung up and grown dramatically in that same period. What materials are these cities comprised? Let's see....trillions and trillions of tons of brick, mortar, stone, block, tar, concrete, asphalt, etc.
I do have a degree in mechanical engineering and I passed my heat transfer requirement with flying colours.....but I really don't need those credentials to understand that these cities are massive ëheat sinks' which have grown at an amazing rate over this period of time. I can watch the weather report every night and see that the temperatures in Baltimore and Washington, DC are often 4 - 7 degrees warmer than they are at my farm in Walkersville, MD. I often see differences as much as 10 degrees (or more) at night, when these massive heat sinks are dissipating the heat that they collected all day.
It's truly amazing that most global warming fanatics are too obtuse to realize this phenomenon, especially when they preach that the most noticeable increases in temperature are at night. There is one other crucial titbit of information that supports the idea that warming is a ground level phenomenon caused by urban sprawl - we've used satellite data for approximately twenty years to study atmospheric temperatures....and they have shown a slight decrease in global temperatures....remarkable, isn't it?
I've enclosed two charts which were provided in a recent Washington Post article - it is readily apparent that temperature fluctuations on this planet are a very normal occurrence....without our influence. Scientists (and pseudo scientists) are looking at data from the last 140 years - this is merely a blip in time and many individuals are jumping to ridiculous conclusions, including a couple of well known individuals located on Pennsylvania Avenue.
There is little doubt that in three hundred years we will look back at this atrocious episode in the same manner that we currently view the Salem witch trials of the 1600's. The fallacy of global warming is driven by a mob mentality, which lacks any semblance of scientific evidence - in fact, the scientific evidence that exists completely undermines this stupid theory. The arguments of the global warming faction are mind boggling - as each of their predictions fails to materialize, they are only momentarily swayed and revise their predictions accordingly. They are also great manipulators of the news of natural events after they occur. The zealots point at normal events and declare that most of these occurrences are obviously the result of global warming - warm weather, cold weather, hurricanes, hail, flooding, high tide, low tide, turbulent weather, calm weather, the sun rising in the east, the sun setting in the west, inflation, death and taxes - you name it, global warming is the culprit. Ironically, while these zealots are dying to tell everyone ëI told you so', they are continually stymied by bad predictions and repeatedly rely upon the occurrence of normal events to prove their counterfeit theory.
Meanwhile, the press has promulgated the myth since apocalypse makes compelling news, while evidence disproving global warming results in a very slow news day. The nay-Sayers are automatically shunned and branded as conspirators siding with the evil oil empire. I can honestly say that the only kick-back I receive from the oil industry is 6 cents a gallon at the gas pump on Thrifty Thursdays.
In conclusion, I'd like to make one very important point. I'm very pro-environmentÖ. But I'm also anti-stupidity. Global warming is a very stupid non-scientific myth. It's time for someone to stand up and say, "the King has no clothes." No, wait a minute, who are we kidding here? It's time for someone to stand up and say, "the King has no clothesÖ. And he's quite ugly too." Let's stop funding $2.1 billion annually on a fairy tale, and for God's sake, do not legislate the eradication, reduction, moderation, elimination, termination, dissolution, or regulation of anything based on something THAT DOES NOT EXIST!
No comments:
Post a Comment