![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Anthropogenic Global Warming is such a Fraud
Mother would do more damage in a few minutes catastrophically blowing the top off one of her many many volcanoes as she does do occasionally, than the whole lot of us could do in a decade. Here's some good proof that the whole concept of human caused global warming is a fraud perpetrated by the IPCC.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Burt_Rutan_calls_AGW_a_Fraud.htm
Of particular note are these things regarding the creation of the 2001 scare tactic chart:
1. The 2001 chart ignored already well established and correct scientific data gathered over a long period of time and a wide range of findings throughout the globe and charted in favor of a very small period of data gathering in a very restricted area. "Specifically, the fraud was identified by showing that the critical data for the chart came from cherry picking just a handful of Siberian trees (tree ring proxy to estimate temperature)..."
2. Scientists on this project not following standard practices for gathering proofs. "My most alarming finding was that many of the top climate scientists do not respect or use a proper scientific process..."
3. The program used to create the 2001 chart was later found to have been tweaked to cause a hockey stick effect (showing a level temp and then a sudden spike). "The fraud was not limited to the tree cherry picking. The computer code for presentation had been tweaked such that a hockey stick shape is produced even if the data set is developed with a random number generator! ..."
4. The 2001 charge was removed because it was found to be the result of blatant fraud (unfortunately AFTER the creators of it were awarded multiple prizes for it's findings. "Noting that the “hockey stick” chart was removed in later editions of the IPCC “scientific” reports supports the conclusion that something is indeed wrong. It was removed because an outside investigation was conducted that resembled a proper engineering review - with a finding of fraud."
The whole article is intersting, but if you don't have the patience to read the whole thing, just the key points are very telling. The thing I noticed in recent years just from my own experience is that our media has stopped using the word "Global Warming" now since we've had 10 years of global cooling, and now just use the 'all encompassing' phrase "Climate Change". Never mind that this is a living planet that is in a constant state of change, not a fixed environment. Of course the climate changes. It always has, and it always will. Human's can't stop that any more than they are any significant cause.
My question about this becomes: Who has benefited from leading people to believe in this bunk. As a scientific mind myself, I find this kind of fraud (which I already knew about but most of the time I just roll my eyes at it) dishonorable enough without thinking about the marketing that has gone into it and the products pushed on us, and stupid policies forced on us. (for example, a power plant that could seriously improve the output of the plant just by replacing a minor part with a more improved design (and yes, it would fit without refabricating the entire turbine it's a direct replacement, just more efficient) but they're NOT ALLOWED to change that part from the one they are already using since it's not a direct replacement unless they upgrade the WHOLE PLANT at once... so spending few dollars on a better part and improving our conservation of energy by producing it more efficiently at the source is RULED OUT because upgrading the whole plant is way too costly. WTF? So what... is that to keep the manufacturer of the original part in business? or is it designed to keep the energy producer as a whipping boy we can point at and say "Look how wasteful! They haven't upgraded anything in the plant in 25 years!" hmm....
no subject
no subject
That said, if the studies on human-caused climate change are fraudulent, then they should be demonstrated as such and their makers punished, and the environmental and economic policies of the various nations adjusted accordingly. There are, after all, genuine environmental problems to be dealt with.
no subject
no subject
People are that way about the AMA too. if the AMA says it then it must be right. Never mind that the AMA is actually representative of the minority of doctors today, and that it because it has become a political machine, and not a foundation seeking the true best interest of patients.
no subject