The East Anglia Revelations Have Not Changed My Mind, Part 2
Editor’s Note: Please read part 1 here which explains some of the scientific reasons which the author does not agree with the global warming theory. In this second part he explains the heuristic reasons for not embracing the idea.
The term “heuristic” is used here as an intuitive judgment based on experiences. It’s the kind of thinking that says “when I see x, y typically follows.” When a policy message and the messenger have a self interested and/or anti-free market, anti-capitalism, and anti-American underpinning, I immediately become a skeptic. Here are several reasons why I “heuristically” disagree with the global warming hypothesis.
The left warned against global cooling in the 60’s and 70’s using the same “apocalypse soon” rhetoric we have today. Paul Ehrlich was the James Hansen of his day. When one reads the (increasingly left wing) Wikipedia entry on Ehrlich, we see revisionist interpretations. You see, his position was never “really” considered scientifically sound. He famously bet free-markets philosopher Julian Simon that commodity prices would be higher in 20 years than in 1980. He believed mankind was pillaging the earth and we were “running out” of resources. He was famously wrong. He now believes in global warming.
If Al Gore is your primary promoter, Nobel Prize recipient, and Academy Award winner, then I am not going to believe you. Gore is a self evident fraud. He promotes policies that transfer tax dollars from your pocket to his. Many alarmists disassociate themselves from Gore because he is not a scientist. But they are the ones who effectively hired him as their chief spokesman and lobbyist. Last month, Gore went on television hyping a Geo-thermal idea and said, with his usual casual pompous certainty, that the earth’s core is several million degrees. That is about the temperature of the sun’s surface. The earth’s core is 5000-6000 degrees. Since he lost the election in 2000 this has been his full time job. If he is so wrong about simple things, then my bet is he is wrong about complex things.
The hypothesis for global warming is pretty specific. Mankind is disturbing the delicate balance in nature and causing global temperatures to rise and eventually reach catastrophic levels. So why change the emphasis from “global warming” to “climate change”? There is no theory of “climate change”, only a theory of global warming. This was done because the earth stopped warming. Climate change is perfect, because one can cherry pick random weather events and say “this never happened here before.” Hurricane Katrina was the prototype. Why switch from a testable term like global warming to a non-testable term like climate change? People change the subject when they are nervous about the original one.
The researcher bias incentives are ridiculous. Governments are pushing grants on scientists to do ever more study on global warming. Phil Jones group in East Anglia had received almost $20 million in grants to study (i.e., promote) global warming. But grants will stop coming if there is no problem with global warming. When it is in one’s economic interest to come up with one answer versus another, then one needs to be skeptical. An enormous research and manufacturing “academia-industrial complex” is about to go up in smoke. They will do anything to stop this, including “lose data” and silence critics.
When they want to jail people who disagree with them, be skeptical. James Hansen, a senior NASA official and Columbia University professor, proposed just this in June 2008. Hansen is the father of the modern day global warming movement. He first advised Gore in 1988 in a now famous presentation before Congress. People like Hansen are desperate. Their entire life’s work is about to be exploded.
The proposed laws do not even lower future temperatures, by the standards of the fake global warming models themselves. The Pelosi-passed law is projected to cool the earth by a half a degree in 50 years. They make these faux precise predictions with no sense of embarrassment or irony. While such faux precision is ridiculous, these laws would transfer enormous amounts of income and wealth from average Americans to global plutocrats, corporations and deceitful professors. Yet, Lord Gore insisted this law needed to be passed to save the planet.
How can anyone believe this junk?