By Onar Åm
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, leftists all over the West were in disarray. They had lost their lodestar and were looking for a new source of meaning. Fortunately for them, a new fad that perfectly matched their core beliefs was on the horizon: global warming. Rather than segment the world into the oppressed working class and the oppressor capitalist class, they could now segment the world into the oppressed climate and the oppressor human capitalism. Polar bears became the new proletariat in this green communism.
Initially, the geophysics departments were populated by disinterested scientists, and they were able to protect against the onslaught of the neo-Marxists throughout the 1990s, but by the early 2000s, the scientists had lost. Climate science had become deeply ideologized.
How could this happen? Politicians throughout the West were handing out billions of dollars to anyone who was willing to say that the world was going to hell. This led to a two-fold process. On the one hand, climate alarmism attracted lefties into the fields of climate science, and so the new generation of scientists was no longer on a disinterested quest for truth but out to save the world.
On the other hand, many existing scientists were prostituting themselves. The chance of getting funding for research on the migratory pattern of the blue spotted owl increased exponentially if the scientists were just willing to say that climate change could threaten its survival.
Preposterous you say? It’s only a few years ago that the esteemed Scientific American claimed that the Syrian civil war was “hastened by climate change.” The list of things blamed on global warming is growing to outlandish proportions.
Most people still trust climate science, and public policy is firmly based on it. Any claim today that there is something wrong with it is frowned upon and dismissed as “denialism.” However, there is another part of the academic world which has been even more infected by Marxist ideas, and that is the humanities.
DENY TRUTH AND LOGIC
The esteemed professor of clinical psychology Dr. Jordan B. Peterson claims that the humanities have been completely corrupted by post-modernism, which rejects truth and logic as patriarchal oppression. He has stated that “I truly believe there is no hope for the humanities (and perhaps the university) in their current form.”
Multiplication of corrupt disciplines, overcrowded classrooms, insane tuition, crippling student loan debt, top-heavy administration, restrictive ethics committees, degenerating accreditation, misuse of adjunct faculty… just one of those errors might well be fatal… https://t.co/RrkfTruVkV
— Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) December 24, 2017
Whatever problems exist in climate science pale in comparison to the fatal collapse of integrity in the humanities field. The latest expression of its departure from reality is the claim that gender is a social construct. Boys and girls don’t exist, they claim, and to say otherwise is racist, misogynist, transphobic, and hateful.
The major difference between climate science and the humanities is that the latter has become so corrupt that you don’t have to be an expert to see it. Everyone knows that boys and girls are biologically different, and you must be ideologically possessed to believe otherwise.
If such blatant degradation of science and reason could occur in the humanities, is it possible that a similar albeit less pronounced corruption has taken place in climate science?
Consider the similarities: social justice warriors call everyone who disagrees with them racists, sexists and bigots. If you are skeptical of climate alarmism, you are quickly labeled a “denier.” In both cases, open exchange and rational debate are strongly discouraged, which are hallmark traits of totalitarian radicalism.
But consider some common-sense facts that every non-expert can appreciate. Thirty years have passed since climate alarmist Dr. James Hansen held his famous speech before Congress in 1988, warning them of impending doom within a century. In one-third of a century, you would expect a third of the predicted climate disaster to have occurred if the alarmist were right, yet nothing noticeable has occurred.
Think about it: would you even know that there has been any climate change if the media hadn’t constantly informed you about it? Could it be that the claims of approaching climate disaster have as much scientific basis to them as the claim that biological sex is a social construct?
Man-Made Climate Change: Settled Science Or Dogma?
Written by Wayne McLaughlin
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is settled science, proclaim the predictors of weather doomsday. Settled Science?
Science evolves continuously and can never be settled, unless, of course, the ‘settled’ subject is dogma, not science. Is it just a ‘my way or the highway’ attempt by vested interests to close discussion on their terms?
Consider the term “peer reviewed.” Science evolves through the contribution of new ideas which are published so that their peers (other scientists) can review, validate, contribute, or argue with them.
If we had accepted Niels Bohr’s version of the atom as settled science, there would have been no subatomic particles discovered and nuclear fission might not have ever been attempted, which would be perfectly okay with the modern day flat-earthers.
In 1990, we find the United Nations’ formation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chartered to remedy carbon dioxide-induced global warming without ever pausing to examine the plausibility of the theory.
A key feature of this plan is a carbon tax to be levied on developed economies with proceeds going to less developed countries (read members of the UN general assembly).
The goal is to provide incentives to restrict fossil fuel development and invest (read sink money) in wind farms and solar panels with much higher costs per energy unit produced.
It also incentivizes participating governments to create grant funds for environmental lobby groups who make political contributions to the politicians responsible for creating those funds.
Combustion of fossil fuels, oil, gas, and coal contributes to a buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is defined as ‘greenhouse’ gas meaning that it traps heat in the atmosphere leading to an increase in ambient air temperature.
A temperature increase for the planet will cause melting polar ice caps with flooding of coastal areas, polar bear extinction, increased severe weather and drought.
Solutions include solar panels and wind farms, the so-called renewable energies.
The Real Science
Earth temperatures have been fluctuating, up and down, in response to sun activity forever. Polar ice cap fluctuations have been observed to coincide with Earth, Mars and other planets in our solar system.
A striking example of the effect of solar activity is illustrated by the Maunder Minimum, a 200-year pause in solar activity which coincided with the Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period.
In 1990, the IPCC said this is the likely historic temperature history of the planet for the last 1000 years:
A comparison with sunspot activity discloses the real driver behind temperature variations.
The Little Ice Age was deemed to have ended in 1849 and sunspot activity, until recently, has generally risen since then, accounting for gradually rising temperatures.
Graphical representation of a 2,500-molecule air sample.
A 2500-molecule air sample will contain 1952 molecules of nitrogen, 524 molecules of oxygen, 23 molecules of argon and one molecule of carbon dioxide (in red).
This is the mathematical equivalent of 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide which MMCC advocates say approaches the level of irreversible change, killing polar bears and inundating our coastal areas.
Since carbon dioxide has a specific heat only about twice the other air constituents, it is difficult to see how it could impart a measurable temperature increase to the other 2,499 air molecules.
That would be like powering the lights of a major sports stadium through a single household extension cord.
The pie-shaped red area in the figure above represents the 11 percent portion of the infrared wavelength which can react with CO2.
AGW fanatics have relied on four key deceptions to keep their story alive:
- Ice core samples reveal higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 during warm periods in the planet’s history.
- Hockey Stick Curve
- Sea Levels Rising
- It is settled science.
Ice Core Samples
Closer inspection of the ice core samples disclosed that higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 occurred at the end of the warm cycles.
Oceans are a huge sink for carbon dioxide and, like the open root beer loses its fizz when left sitting out at room temperature, they can hold less gas when the climate warms.
When solar activity heats up the oceans, CO2 is given up to the atmosphere. It is an effect of global warming, not a cause.
Hockey Stick Curve
When the IPCC’s declaration that the 20th century was the hottest in history didn’t square with the Medieval warm period, it was necessary to make it disappear.
Michael Mann, two years removed from his Ph.D. in physics, fabricated a temperature curve that supported their assertions with a relatively flat shape until it made an abrupt upturn at the 20th century, hence the term ‘hockey stick’ was applied to it.
It was used to justify the warmists’ theory of everything. Referring to the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (TAR), author Christopher Booker in his book The Real Global Warming Disaster quotes an unnamed observer, “without it, the TAR would have been a very different document, it would not have been able to conclude what it did, nor could the IPCC have convinced world leaders to take the actions they subsequently took.”
“Hockey Stick” Global Temperature Curve
The unusual hockey stick shape intrigued some people who were not associated with climate science, but experts in graphical representations.
Stephen McIntyre, a financial consultant and statistical analyst, joined by Guelph University economics professor Ross McKitrick, analyzed the hockey stick.
They were familiar with hockey stick algorithms used by people to sell a business prospect. In short, they showed the curve to be without merit based upon dubious assumptions.
Glaciers Melting, Sea Levels Rising
There is a wide disagreement on the question of sea level elevation. Who can forget the scene in Al Gore’s movie, an “Inconvenient Truth” when he rides a scissor-lift up 17 feet to dramatize the global warming effect on sea levels?
Whenever AGW is questioned, the answer is always, “it’s settled science.” They go on to say that 97% or even 99% of scientists agree.
They ignore the caliber of those who disagree, who include Freeman Dyson (who supported Obama), Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Dr. Ivar Giaever, and Green guru James Lovelock, who said, ‘I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy.’
According to Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”
Read more at American Thinker