Is Global Warming Happening? Is Climate changing really happening the way the spin experts are saying? No. There is the common ups and downs of weather happening which always happen, but no global warning. Let’s be clear about the entire debate about Global Warming, or now they use Climate Crisis, the point is money. It is not about saving the planet, but about getting money out of the forever deep pockets of Americans. The Carbon tax will tax industrialized nations (like the US, Canada, England, EU, Japan, etc. but China and Russia are strangely missing) to give that money to places like small broke countries in Africa and Asia. Why? Because the industrialized nations are producing a lot of CO2 (necessary for plants to grow but the way). Where there is money collected and money distributed, then the bureaucracy retains a goodly part for itself. Communism promises to take from the rich to give to the poor, but do you really see key Communist party members in any Communist nation barely making it personally? No they are filthy rich. How does that happen? Because the bureaucracy takes illegally and generously for themselves from their treasuries.
For those idealistic souls, you may want to save the planet, but those at the forefront of Climate Change enforcement want to see trillions of dollars going through their coffers and a lot staying in their own pocketbooks. How altruist does that sound to you? While they pump up do gooders by criticizing those “bad capitalists” who are destroying our world (why do they always want to cast their opposition into destroying the world while they never do anything wrong?), their take their own generous share of the pie.
This is an interesting article on climate change, and just how embarrassing past statements about global warning re becoming to these “expert scientists.” I would repeat some points from the article.
Several years ago, “experts” proclaimed that “snowfalls were a thing of the past.”
Since then, the dire predictions of extreme global warming have failed to materialize. Glacier National Park had to remove its “Gone by 2020″ signs.
More recently, ice covered parts of the Sahara Desert for just the fourth time in 50 years.
In the Sahara Desert of northwestern Algeria, just outside the town of Ain Sefra, sand dunes were streaked with ice crystals as far as the eye could see. Local photographer Karim Bouchetata captured the unusual weather in pictures and videos that have since made headlines around the world.
…Snow and ice accumulation in the northern Sahara is unusual, but not unprecedented. Tuesday’s dusting marks the fourth time in 42 years that Ain Sefra has seen snow, with previous occurrences in 1979, 2016 and 2018. Those past snowfalls were much heavier than this week’s display; in 2018, some areas of northwestern Algeria saw up to 15 inches (40 centimeters) of snow, while the 2016 blizzard dumped more than 3 feet (1 m) in select regions, Live Science previously reported.
The “experts” have been wrong. The list of climate-prediction fails is vast, and I suspect that I will be adding to it over the next four years.
Even though the models are flawed, and numerous, dire predictions have been wrong, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer suggested that Biden consider declaring an emergency on climate change on Monday.
Yes, that is exactly the point. By making something an emergency or capturing a valid emergency like Covid 19 and driving things to where you want them, you “use” the emergency for your own personal or party purposes. That is what is happening with many of the emergencies of the Democrat party.
Table of Contents
Understanding what Democrats are really doing
Let me update you to reality. The Democrat party hates America. They hate loyal Americans, they hate the Republican party (and anybody else that upholds America’s founding principles), and they have a passion to “make America and Americans pay”. Pay for what? For being what they are, capitalists.
Democrats have no love for this country. They don’t care about the environment either. Biden stopped America’s fuel independence his first day in office. No more oil. Stop the pipeline. What did that do? America cannot shut down all their oil based power plants from one day to another. So no oil crosses the Canadian border into the US. China buys it all and then resells it at a higher price to the US. Instead of a clean way of moving in to where it needs to be (a pipeline), they will use trains and trucks. Right. More environmentally friendly.
Everything has to be powered by solar panels or wind mills. China produces 60% of the world’s output of the rare elements necessary for making solar panels. So, Joey Biden gives all this to make China wealthy off of the US, and cobble the US energy-wise. How has this worked out in Democratic California? Rolling blackouts and brownouts across the state of California. What does it take to make people understand what DOES NOT WORK?
“Follow the Science”
Let me just review some times first. A scientist has to accept God before starting anything. That is because “there is no science to follow” if you do not accept that God created the world, and He imposed a set of principles and rules (actually this is Jesus Christ who created and sustains the world, the eternal Wisdom of Proverbs 8), and that sets up things for science. Why is this an absolute necessity? This is because without this constant “laws of nature” you would do the same thing over and over again and get different results each time. Any scientist knows that whatever principle or law of nature you use, if there is a constantly different result, there is another law of nature you are missing.
So what is evidence, the facts of the matter, is what is important. This is the law that a scientist studies. If you discard the existence of God, and his hand on things to make things continue steadily with every experience, you only end up with chaos.
So, climate “experts” say our world is dying. This is true. God says that Satan and sin have caused our world to decay and get worse because of their spiritual actions. This affects things physically. We all die because we all are sinners. But this principle or law is observed physically in the things of the world. So it is first stated by God, but then we see evidence of this consistently around and about us. But what about the climate? Is the changes in our climate a crisis? Not really.
It is very renown that the weather is very unpredictable in many ways. Somethings can be predicted like a hurricane. that already exists and is advancing towards a place. But even that is not so sure, because it changes its course and can intensify or simply dissolve and disappear before it arrives!
What has happened in our world is not a climate crisis, but a crisis by activists that pretend to be climate experts. They use computer modeling, and this is not scientific. It is grossly inaccurate most of the time. The only kind of surety in computer modeling is in a very short time frame. When a hurricane is only 100 miles from Miami and it is advancing quickly, then it is probably accurate that it will hit Miami. Extend that back a 1000 miles back to Africa and two weeks back, and they have no idea where nor when it will hit.
So when climate experts predict that the oceans of the world will rise feet in 10 years, even that they have done, and it was wrong. Climate change goes up and down, one way then reverses itself. These experts have no scientific explanation (that can be repeated accurately) as to why there is a global freeze when they are predicting that the global is universally warming. They sound like people peddling fairy tales instead of scientists. Because they can model it on a computer means nothing. Literally there are hundreds of computer climate modeling software, and they all give conflicting and different conclusions and that is their trend. Science, (remember above?), is the study of those laws or principles of God that are consistent. If you predict something and it is not always the same prediction and always the same evidence afterwards, then you don’t have any concept of the principles you are pretending to be an expert on and explaining.
Curry is a scholar, not a pundit. Unlike many political and journalistic oracles, she never opines without proof. And she has data at her command. She tells me, for example, that between 1910 and 1940, the planet warmed during a climatic episode that resembles our own, down to the degree. The warming can’t be blamed on industry, she argues, because back then, most of the carbon-dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels were small. In fact, Curry says, “almost half of the warming observed in the twentieth century came about in the first half of the century, before carbon-dioxide emissions became large.” Natural factors thus had to be the cause. None of the climate models used by scientists now working for the United Nations can explain this older trend. Nor can these models explain why the climate suddenly cooled between 1950 and 1970, giving rise to widespread warnings about the onset of a new ice age. I recall magazine covers of the late 1960s or early 1970s depicting the planet in the grip of an annihilating deep freeze. According to a group of scientists, we faced an apocalyptic environmental scenario—but the opposite of the current one.
But aren’t oceans rising today, I counter, eroding shorelines and threatening to flood lower-lying population centers and entire inhabited islands? “Yes,” Curry replies. “Sea level is rising, but this has been gradually happening since the 1860s; we don’t yet observe any significant acceleration of this process in our time.” Here again, one must consider the possibility that the causes for rising sea levels are partly or mostly natural, which isn’t surprising, says Curry, for “climate change is a complex and poorly understood phenomenon, with so many processes involved.”… She says that “nothing upsets many scientists like uncertainty.”
“Climatology has become a political party with totalitarian tendencies,” she charges. “If you don’t support the UN consensus on human-caused global warming, if you express the slightest skepticism, you are a ‘climate-change denier,’ a stooge of Donald Trump, a quasi-fascist who must be banned from the scientific community.”… What could lead climate scientists to betray the very essence of their calling? The answer, Curry contends: “politics, money, and fame.” Scientists are human beings, with human motives; nowadays, public funding, scientific awards, and academic promotions go to the environmentally correct.
“Climatology is becoming an increasingly dubious science, serving a political project,” she complains. In other words, “the policy cart is leading the scientific horse.”… The nuclear industry, Curry says, took advantage of the situation to make its case for nuclear energy as the best alternative, and it began to subsidize ecological movements hostile to coal and oil, which it has been doing ever since. The warming narrative was born.
Over the last year or so (article was written in winter 2019), moreover, the planet has started cooling, though “no one knows whether it will last or not, or whether it will put all the global-warming hypotheses in question.”
Be Consistent in the use of “evidences”
What is worth noting in all of this is that (1) the pro-climate crisis people do not use scientific theories and evidence that have a sound foundation in much scientific data. They use models, which is simply a computer’s option, guess, set up by people with a point to prove and they cannot find any actual scientific evidence. (2) Every piece of evidence, no matter how small, proves global warming, but any global cooling evidence is ignored. The polar ice packs for example, are used as evidence in the years they grow smaller, but in the years they grow larger, that is ignored and denounced as any evidence of anything. (3) Unscientific logical jumps abound in Climate Crisis theories and computer models. For example, the sun throws off magma material into space constantly, but not consistently year over year. In the years of high magma discharge, that hits the earth and warms things. This fact that is measured scientifically year after year is prohibited to be factored into climate warming models. In the 1860s there was a global warming trend, but modern coal-gas-oil production had not really started much. Climate crisis crazies cannot explain that piece of evidence. If anything, it should make all of the people giving present day predictions and end of the world declarations pause and caution, but it doesn’t. A true scientist that bases his declarations on theory proven by abundant evidence would not make unsupported or contradictory to evidence statements. Political hacks would very quickly.
News Articles on Climate Change and Global Warming[catlink name=”climate-change”]