The Climate Scare

By Sam Huntington

There appear to be only two camps in this debate: those who swear that climate change will destroy all human life on earth, and the skeptics who simply want to see the data that supports such claims. It doesn’t help when both sides of this issue denigrate the discussion into name calling or character assassination. Of course, two scientists in the same field who agree on anything are as rare as the pale colored unicorn. In this regard, scientists appear not too far removed from cannibals: they are happy to serve one another up for dinner. 

It is also not helpful when a PhD in animal husbandry goes on record supporting the climate change argument when he (or she) is no more qualified to do so than is a PhD in education or someone who drives a city bus. As citizens, we should be looking for a consensus among persons who actually are qualified to render an opinion about climate change.

Here's something else that doesn’t help: junk science. We define junk science as scientific data, research, or analysis that is spurious or fraudulent. In other words, arriving at scientific theories outside of the generally accepted scientific method of investigation. I have two examples of this:

• The climate change/global warming argument is that CO2 is a well-mixed gas that resides in sufficient quantities high in our atmosphere to cause global warming (greenhouse effect). Actually, CO2 is a heavy gas, not well-mixed. Both of these claims cannot be true, so which one is junk science?
• How do we know the earth is warming at an alarming rate? Well, by taking earth’s temperatures, of course. It cannot bolster the climate change position when government agencies are discovered intentionally falsifying data, and then using that data in taking their case to the public. And, once discovered, how does John Q. Citizen have any confidence in the global warming/climate change mantra or the agencies that manipulated this data. 

In 1999, NASA published a chart of US temperatures which demonstrated that the highest temperatures on record in the USA occurred in the 1930s. This was followed by a cooling trend through the turn of the century. The publisher of this data, a scientist by the name of James Hansen, concluded, “Empirical evidence does not lend support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat or drought.” The EPA independently confirmed Hansen’s conclusions in their “heat wave index.”

This view changed after Obama was installed in the Oval Office. A second NASA chart measuring temperatures after 2001 shows a dramatic increase in US temperatures. We are now learning that data collected by NASA and NOAA really amounts to scientific misconduct as both agencies conspired with one another to place sensitive thermometers at places guaranteed to register warmer temperatures. Oh, places like near the hot engines of automobiles, on top of asphalt-covered rooves, near exhaust vents of heating pumps, along airport tarmacs in July and August, and adjacent to heat-retaining rock formations.

It also doesn’t help to politicize something “as important” as earth’s environment. No good can come from this —so why are we doing it? Well, to begin with, we might surmise that the people who are engaged in this fraud have an agenda. Insofar as I can determine, there are at least three reasons. 

• There is a lot of money to be made in the climate change racket. So much money, in fact, that the best thing that ever happened to Al Gore is that he lost the presidency to George the Younger. Some have said that Gore is worth nearly a half-billion dollars and he wasn’t nearly so wealthy when he was running for high office.
• Another consideration is that it is much easier for government to control extremely large populations, such as that of the USA, when the people are made fearful to the extent that they’re willing to do or believe whatever the government tells them —unless you happen to be one of the poor saps that Obama put out of business by destroying the coal industry. Government traditionally controls people through fear and for most of the first ten years of this century, government worked over time to do exactly that in matters pertaining to the environmental and public health issues. It has even been suggested that World War III could result from our failure to address global warming/climate change. Today’s citizen, preferring emotional reaction to critical thinking has become that fearful voter, and the party seeking to capitalize on this unhappy situation knowingly falsified data to achieve that end. 
• And what of the scientists who engage in junk science/dishonesty? For starters, there are serious grants offered to universities and independent research firms who are able to find a way to agree with the government’s foregone conclusions. We’ll begin with the total annual amount of scientific funding: $86 billion. The US government has funded up to 70% of this amount, recently down to only (emphasis on only) 50%. So then, what would a scientist be willing to do in order to get a share of that (low number) $43 billion? Lie? Cheat? Steal from the American taxpayer? On a related note, what would a bureaucrat be willing to do in order to keep his five-figure annual income and hefty retirement package?

It would be interesting to know the economic impact of doing all the wrong things, for all the wrong reasons. What is the impact of shutting down entire industries —to save a planet that doesn’t need saving? I can’t help but imagine that the cost is huge. And yet ... even if we assume that the global warming/climate change argument is partially true, wouldn’t re-forestation be a better solution than pushing people toward electric cars (especially since most electricity used to re-charge such cars comes from burning fossil fuels)? And, by the way, what do we do with all those batteries once they’re used up?