Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Global Warming charade just another Intelligent Design

The big red flag in the history of the Global Warming thesis should have been the declaration that the science is settled. The science is never settled. It's an egregious claim even for politicians to make let alone scientists who should know better. By issuing this heavy handed statement they gave themselves permission to begin the process of shaming governments, business and the populace into compliance with their agenda for good or for ill.

In advanced societies people and business will only go so far, eventually the proscribed remedies cost real money. As well, people are smart enough to understand the concept of throwing money down a rat hole. It's when the limit has been reached as to what people will do voluntarily to mitigate their so-called "carbon footprint" that the anthropogenic global warming pushers resort to dangerous and destructive activities. 

The pushers have every right to their opinion. They have every right to express their opinion and try to convince others that theirs is the right and moral position. They don't, however, have the right to declare the truth and then get laws passed or create regulations based on that truth that will severely degrade the economic destinies of the multitudes while enriching the few. Yet, this is exactly what has happened - even as evidence pours in that the science is not settled and that the pushers routinely lie about and obscure their own "facts".

The fact is that climate and its variables are not that well understood. The effect of solar variability and cosmic influences are not well understood. The very nature of the self correcting biosphere is not well understood. Then with all this uncertainty to claim that  the effects of mankind's activity and particularly an increase in the trace gas C02 makes it conclusive that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is upon us is the height of scientific arrogance. (please refer to )

I'm reminded of another thesis that has no place in the law or the school house. After the Christian fundamentalist failure to elevate Creationism to level of Darwinian Theory in the schools (primarily because it was clearly theistic and not science) a new idea emerged called Intelligent Design. ID was presented as an answer to Darwinism by auguring for irreducible complexity among other things and against natural selection. The issue for ID arises when you wind up in a spiral of infinite regression trying to identify the designer as being anything but God. There is no empirical evidence of a first cause or prime mover if you will, and there never will be. Therefore it isn't science. While there are gaps and holes in Darwinian Theory there is empirical evidence that aspects of the theory are true and demonstrable.

I happen to believe in a "first cause" or God, but I do so on faith because all any of us can ever observe or hope to measure are second causes. The wonders and mysteries of this beautiful world and awesome creation may forever be hidden from us, because until we are unleashed from our mortal coils we are on the inside looking out. We will never be in a position to report on the ultimate "truth". Like a drop of water flowing downstream we can't see the river to even understand that we are in the river.

ID proponents unable to prove it is even a workable theory try to use public opinion and the courts to get into school curriculum along side evolution. Science isn't done in a courtroom or with sound bites.

So too with the proponents of AGW, unable to sufficiently tip public opinion or persuade the corporate world to go all in due to their own untrustworthy science they have used the tremendous power of governments and a willing mainstream media to shove wasteful and damaging policies down our throats toward their end goals. The thing to ask is are they even being honest about those goals? Is it really about green energy and saving the Earth?

So-called “Green” energy is dubious because it doesn't come close to living up to its hype and it harms taxpayers: inefficient technologies like solar and wind energy survive only through taxpayer-funded subsidies. The federal government investing billions in numerous “green” energy projects that have gone bankrupt has literally stuck taxpayers with the tab. Green energy is also destructive because it has been used to enrich government cronies and the war-chests of politicians, while established industries are unreasonably regulated with the specter of punitive expense to companies and rate payers. People will gladly pay for value, and a clean environment has value, but a scam is a scam.

A scam always has an ultimate goal underlying the mechanisms of the play. Obviously this is usually money, of course. It may well be the case with the Climate Change industry, and probably is, but I think it's more sinister than just money. I think there are two things that drive this scam at its core. One being the destruction of Western Civilization and the other a massive reduction in the human population. The two go hand in hand. Western Civ represents growing economies and wealth and thus a support base for more and more consumption. World poverty is going down faster than at anytime in history - this is bad for the saviors of the planet.

The saviors themselves will never suffer nor will their families, but everyone else will.



Dan Pangburn said...

Discover the cause of the warming, the end of it, why temperatures are headed down and what to expect.

There are only two primary drivers of average global temperature change. They very accurately explain the reported up and down measurements since before 1900 with R2>0.9 (correlation coefficient = 0.95) and provide credible estimates back to the low temperatures of the Little Ice Age (1610).

CO2 change is NOT one of the drivers.

The drivers are given at

Ugh said...

Dan, I took the time to read your article and while I am (obviously) no scientist I was able to discern your 2 main points and concur that it matches other articles and studies I've read. Not only that it makes so much sense that: one, the Sun would be powerful source of energy that would affect the planet and two, that 70% of the planet covered by oceans would be a huge factor in climate change. C02 doesn't make sense to me when water vapor vastly outweighs a trace gas in heat trapping capacity. But mankind's activity doesn't produce additional water vapor but it does C02 therefore a convenient target. I hope you don't mind I add your link to my post


Dan Pangburn said...

Ugh - Thanks for the comments, and I don't mind at all.