Climate Change: The “Science” of it All

Part One:

I’ve lived aboard space ship Earth for over six decades now.  From the time I was very young, probably six years old, I’ve been fascinated with science.  Not one particular discipline, but, pretty much all of them.  Astronomy was my first love. Chemistry, second and physics my third.  The latter culminated in my career in RF communications, radio systems, the design and implementation of many things, including one of the largest communications systems ever, the VHF/HF portion of the White House Communications Agency’s ground network spanning the East Coast of the USA.  (Note: even that system is now outdated and probably moved on to new technologies now.)

Over my decades of life, I took every science class in elementary and High School I could, and found, once I went to college that I was not interested in “getting a degree” so much as I was interested in “knowledge and learning”.  So, instead of concentrating on either a degree or particular discipline, other than electronics and digital theory, I took to taking – or rather “wangling” myself into various writing and science courses.

What this means is that I don’t have a “degree” like most people would have.  I didn’t complete some particular subset of educational theory to give me a tiny slice of the pie of knowledge.  I didn’t concentrate on one piece, thus becoming an “expert” in that chosen field.

Instead, I’ve concentrated on gathering and learning information in the sciences and have participated in many of them “as an amateur”; that is, not being paid necessarily, to do the things I did. I’ve been involved in everything from Astronomy to Psychology to Meteorology, and may other sciences.  My “degree” of study originally was a bachelor of science in, of all things, business.  That degree fanned out into nothing but sciences, and thus I never “received” my degree. By doing this, I found that all sciences are interconnected, and each has an effect on another.  While you might say “meteorology does not affect stellar physics” you might be partially correct, but stellar physics does affect Earth bound weather, and climate.

What I did receive in my (still on going) education was a vast amount of study in many, many different sciences.  I went to college on and off for over thirty years and to this day, I still pick up textbooks and read them cover to cover.  Hey, if Abe Lincoln can become a lawyer without formal training, then anyone can learn a discipline, including any of the sciences.

Am I an “expert” in anything?  Yes, electronic theory, radio frequency theory, and the technical aspects of electronics engineering (and have taught this material in colleges as well).  I was certified in the State of Colorado as  Teacher, based not on my “degree” but my “knowledge and experience”.  I have a technical degree diploma in digital theory s a result.

I used to sit at lunch with several “colleagues” at the Missile Defense Agency, who had “Masters” and “Phd” after their names, discussing things like physics, mathematics and the like, and not only keeping up with them and their conversations, but contributing to them.  One asked me what my phd discipline was one day, not knowing I was the electronics security systems engineer.  I chuckled when he asked, and told him I was just an engineer.  He was visibly shocked.  He said he though I must have held a degree in physics based on my knowledge of the subject.

I no longer teach these days and am retired on a Sailboat.  I was, once, as a young man also a contributor to solar studies.  I was doing daily sunspot counts with my telescope and presenting the data to a large University for sun spot numbers.  I was a data collector.   Much of the data I collected went into records for the official sun spot counts.

I was sixteen at the time.

The point here is not really to tout my credentials, but rather to show that knowledge can be gained by anyone, anywhere, if they put their minds to it.  Study is study. Knowledge is knowledge.  You don’t have to have a degree from a higher learning institution just to “show you’re smart”.  A degree gets you into places because society has placed those who “pay their dues” on a pedestal, rather than know their subjects.

For instance, I probably can’t get a job doing scientific studies of the weather, but I probably COULD get a paying job at a local TV station doing the weather on the six o’clock news. (Side note: I don’t WANT a job doing these things.)  I’ve been a storm spotter for the National Weather Service, and a storm chaser, chasing with several famous figures in the past twenty years so I know about the weather.  Being a Sailor on a sail boat forces one to have even more intimate knowledge of the weather than even chasing tornadoes!

Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing, some might say.  I say, knowledge is power.  Knowledge gives you the ability to seek out more knowledge, how to study things outside your discipline.  The ability to learn gives the ability to reason, and reasoning gives you the ability to come to logical, scientific conclusions, whether it is about Politics, or Sciences.

Reasoning is the ability to discriminate between facts, fiction, opinion, truth and lies.  Reasoning, and the ability to have rational thought processes allows a person to discern from objective evidence (note the phrase “objective”) whether something is reasonable to be true or false.

If you are attempting to understand something more clearly, for instance, let’s take “Climate Change” as an example, you might read all you can on the subject, taking in the information as-is.  You read the footnotes.  You check articles.  You read a book or ten on the subject.  You take “for granted” the material is presented by someone with special knowledge on the subject, and most of us tend toward “benefit of doubt”.

The material presented, we assume is accurate, unbiased and forthright.

But, Global Warming – later called “Climate Change” has some problems.  For example, there’s the “Climategate” hoax, the attempts at changing data (which has been shown in emails that were made public) to make things appear more drastic than they are.

There are multiple graphs and charts produced by NASA and NOAA that have been modified, even changed, and data dropped off those charts.  This makes “Climate Change” suspect.

Places where sensors are set up are in urban areas, where it’s obviously hotter than out on the plains of Kansas or mountains of Colorado, and an urban area will obviously and consistently show higher temperature norms, than something distant from the massive concrete, asphalt and steel structures built by people.

When data becomes suspect, so too, does the final “answer”, in this case, regarding “Climate Change”.

Logic and reasoning, especially ‘deductive reasoning’ comes into play here.

We may deduce that because someone “modified” data, they were attempting to modify thinking.

We may deduce that because someone changed graphs they were attempting to high an important piece of information.

We may deduce, correctly, that placing temperature sensors deep in the heart of a thriving metropolis would necessarily skew temperature readings, and thus the data be factually inaccurate.

As a society, we’ve become dependent upon computers, “Google” and search engines giving us information at the touch of a button, or by clicking on a link.  But, that data isn’t always accurate.  Nor, sometimes is it meant to be.  In reality, there are two, and sometimes more than two, sides to every thing.

But, in the “Science of it All” there are facts, and there are inconsistencies that don’t fit with facts.  Throughout my six decades, one thing has been consistent when it comes to science: Scientific DoomSayers are almost always wrong.

Scientists can and do come to a consensus on things, but, it takes time, and a lot of independent studies by many people, many papers, many discoveries for this to happen.  It’s not “set by policy” as “Climate Change” has been done.  Simply setting a political policy to give monies to one type of study does not, in itself, create consensus.  Well, it does, because “money”.  Who wants to give up their piece of the pie when it is lucrative?

Speaking of pieces of the pie, and “consensus”, we should point out that the folks pushing this “Climate Change” thing are so dead set on it, they’ve started campaigns to “get the word out” and tell the masses “the debate is over”.debatover

This is, in effect, non-scientists who are pushing this agenda on the public and claiming peer-reviewed papers are “in consensus”, giving high marks to the papers in the “study”.

debate2

Why would anyone want to push such an agenda?  Look at the bottom of the second graphic above, and read after “SJI Associates”.  Now, look at the next graphic and draw your own conclusions.

debate

SJI is a design firm.  They design advertising.  They create material to entice you to BUY something.  Very interesting concept, isn’t it?  Who would have thought you’d have to hire an advertising firm to convince the public into buying science?

In part two, we will touch on why we should not be simply accepting the main stream media, or “scientists” views without study.  In part three we will discuss “scientific consensus” and the mythology of the “97% Consensus on Climate Change“.

Climate Change, Socialism and You

I remember reading Time Magazine and Newsweek, in the 1970s, and perhaps even early in my childhood, and wild statements about the coming doom of the human race, indeed, the whole planet from global cooling.

There were articles in papers, and many “scientific” magazines regarding “Global Cooling” and “The Coming Ice Age”. Enough to scare a little kid into believing some of the stuff.

I mean, after all, these words were coming from Scientists, people whom I held in high regard as a child – and to be fair still do at my many-decades removed from childhood-age.

At my old age now I’m skeptical. Skeptical of any thing that comes out from scientists, but especially from the media, alledged to be from the mouths of “scientists”. Especially of the “98% of scientists agree” nonsense.

I evaluate everything through my own brain, through my own intellect and I don’t just “believe” what people tell me. No matter which side of the political spectrum they might reside. Science is rarely, if ever, “settled”. There’s always room for growth, understanding, education and gaining new knowledge. Some sciences are hard science, without which things wouldn’t work. Gravity. Mathematics. Most physics.

Certainly, mathematics is reasonably stable. Most physics, is stable, with few new discoveries being made.

Fluid Dynamics is certainly one of the branches of physics employed in various aspects of the Earth sciences. Remember, that the atmosphere is technically a liquid. Hydrodynamics is the study of fluids in motion. All of these are connected. As are other aspects of physics, such as stellar physics, solar winds, space weather and the effects all of these things have upon the atmosphere of a planetary body, such as Earth. So, it makes sense that scientists would use “physics” to explain various aspects of the atmosphere. But, do they? I question whether they use ALL of the resources available, and the inter-disciplinarian studies of other sciences.

Somewhere in 1975 a man named Wallace Smith Broecker coined the phrase “Global Warming” inadvertently when he published a paper titled: “Climate Change: Are we on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”

In the 1980s, the “Ozone Hole” was discovered after one of the first space shuttles went up. That was a “scare”, and precipitated the “chlorofloro-carbon” scare and the aim to remove such things from spray cans everywhere. Because, you know that huge ozone layer is up there protecting us from skin cancer and too much ultraviolet radiation from the sun. (*Because, the sun is hot, it’s a massive thermonuclear, on-going, fusion reaction that isn’t going to cease any time soon… producing a LOT of heat and light. Keep this in mind as you read.)

In the 1990s, the phrase changed from “Global Cooling” to “Global Warming” to bring things back around to the 1975 paper. (Remember, in the 1960s and 1970s, global COOLING was a key phrase.)

In the latter years of 1990s, and early into the “21st Century” the phrase “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”.

Throughout all of these word and phrase modifications, this author became “suspicious”. By the time a dozen or more years went by after “Global Cooling” and the public sense of reality settled in, the new phrase came into being because the public was insufficiently “alarmed” and something needed to “trigger” the new generations of “children” and “wannabe climate experts”.

If you can keep people confused, or better, angry at their surroundings, even if the reasons are made up, you can keep them disconnected, uneducated, less-than-knowledgeable and certainly in an uproar for “change”.

Karen Christiana Figueres Olsen is a Costa Rican diplomat with 35 years of experience in high level national and international policy and multilateral negotiations. She was appointed as Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in July 2010, six months after the failed COP15 in Copenhagen.

Ms. Figueres Olsen is actually a Socialist. Her party? National Liberation Party of Costa Rica, and that party is a member in the Socialist International organization.

Parts of the following is from her own mouth. Original is from an article from a news source in Lubbock Texas that appears to have been removed now (http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/donald-r-may/2015-02-27/united-nations-official-admits-purpose-global-warming#.V-nGUOM1HmE ) :

United Nations Official Admits the Purpose of the Global Warming Hoax is
to Destroy Capitalism

It has been clear since the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union
collapsed that Global Warming (aka Climate Change) is a Marxist Hoax.

When the dream of a Soviet Utopia collapsed, Marxists in the United
Nations, the United States, and Europe needed a quick Plan B dedicated to
the destruction of Capitalism. Plan B is the claim that the normal human
use of fossil fuels could somehow catastrophically change the climate of
Earth and has all along been a Marxist plan to divert trillions of dollars
from developed nations to the United Nations. The goal has been to
replace Capitalism with a World economy totally under the control of the
United Nations.

The United Nations climate chief admitted on 03 February 2015 that the
primary goal of the Global Warming hoax has been the gradual progressive
destruction of Capitalism,

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given
ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development
model, for the first time in human history”, Ms Figueres stated at a press
conference in Brussels.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting
ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to
change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least
150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight
and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP
15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It
is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”

In other words, Climate Change is a HOAX perpetrated on the world, and upon gullible people. Left leaning people who want so desperately to change the world to some Socialist Utopian model they will do literally anything to accomplish this goal.

Socialism is the goal. The destruction of a Capitalist society is the goal. Forcing oil and gas prices to be so high no one can afford fossil fuels, forcing electric devices on us (which are ALL susceptible to EMP for instance, and expensive now. You can’t even charge an electric vehicle without the need for fossil fuels!)

Greta Thunberg recently received her “15 minutes of fame” while she because a world star “sailing” on a sailboat to the UN from Europe to preach at America. Greta (and father) no more “sailed” that ship than I did (and I’m a sailor). She caused consternation among the Left Wingers on our sailing and Cruising forums on Facebook for weeks.

The Left would post some victorious post regarding this “brave child” and the Right would debunk it. Moderators would in turn block and ban people for rude comments – or politics. Global Warming IS POLITICAL, NOT SCIENCE.

While the gullible continue to scream and shout, the rest of us have come to the learned conclusion that this hoax must stop, and we must stop teaching our children to act out in public and make them “super stars” on a stage planked with lies and falsehoods.

The human race may indeed, someday, succumb to “climate change” but it will not be brought on by ourselves, rather by the nearest start to us, the Sun. Sol is burning bright and hot, goes through cycles every 11 years for sunspots, and over a 22 year cycle where the output increases and decreases, causing more or less weather on the planet.

The Human Race has a short term, one-generational memory. They can’t comprehend or remember what happened 25-30 years ago with ease, but we can certainly compare last year with this year and say “It’s hotter now than it was last year”.

Hurricanes come and go with the seasons, the ocean’s conveyor belts work because of seasonal changes, not because of CO2 in the atmosphere. The funny thing about science is that little Fluid Dynamics portion of physics I mentioned before. We can predict pretty accurately what a swirl in the water will do, same as a swirl in the atmosphere. However, you can’t predict with any accuracy the path of a hurricane for more than three days at most, even with the best computers on the planet.

Yet, scientists want us to believe we’re all going to be dead in twelve years from our own carbon footprints?

Not buying it any more. Even though I might have been a gullible child once, long ago, I’m certain NOT a gullible adult, I certainly question everything, and “belief” in a particular “religion” is something I’m not going to take lightly. Including, but not limited to “Climate Change”.

The “Climate Deniers” like myself certainly DO grasp the difference in climate and weather, we certainly are just as educated (if not more so in some instances) than the so called “climate experts”. Calling me a “climate denier” is the same as calling me a “racist”. Neither is true, but it makes someone else feel good about themselves because they can’t explain their own science either.

No, friends, climate change didn’t start because of humans. Climate Change has been on-going since the day the Earth coalesced out of star stuff and interstellar debris, long after the fires of Sol ignited, and has continued for roughly 4.5 billion years, a span of time no one can even truly comprehend with our short (maybe sixty good years) lifespan.

We’re NOT going to die in twelve years as predicted by a 16 year old child. Or by a Socialist. Nor by twenty five of the best scientists on the planet, because, simply, they aren’t the best if they aren’t questioning their OWN science at this point, given all the hiding of data, gyrations in facts, leaving-out of information, and out and out lies.
We have a rough chance of about 1 in 300,000 of being hit by a massive comet or asteroid that will destroy this planet and most life on it. Nothing over which to lose sleep.

Chances of a plane crash, 1 in 11 million.

Chances of being hit by lightning is roughly 1 in a million.

Chances of winning the lottery, roughly 1 in 52,000,000.

Chances of dying from “Climate Change” 1 in 7.7 BILLION. Essentially zero for all intents and purposes.

Worry about getting your lottery numbers right on the next ticket and stop agonizing over death by over heating when the ice all melts. I’ll be out sailing the coasts of West Virginia if it actually happens.

https://transitiontownpayson.net/2013/04/25/who-coined-the-term-global-warming-anyway/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/09/24/socialism_not_climate_change_is_the_real_threat_141323.html

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/vetlesen/recipients/1987/broecker_bio.html

https://www.dailywire.com/news/walsh-asia-responsible-vast-majority-air-and-water-matt-walsh

https://www.discussionist.com/1015476535

In 1975, Newsweek Predicted A New Ice Age. We’re Still Living with the Consequences.

https://www.space.com/622-asteroid-chance-hitting-earth-2029-watched-carefully.html