While geological records have revealed drastic changes in the earth’s temperatures for billions of years, the notion of “climate change” has been tied to a prevailing political movement that gained momentum by embracing a more finite concept known as, “global warming.” Radical environmentalists suggest these two concepts, though inter-related, are vastly nuanced and therefore very different. And in conjunction with these arguments, the greatest re-branding of a government grant gathering franchise in human scientific research history has been taking place. “Global Warming Research” franchises have been expanded so they can include the concept of “climate change” in the collective efforts to explain the unexplainable divergences in temperature trends.
Of course skeptics, the non-believers to use the religious analogy, see the creeping of the term “climate change” into the dialogue as simply the use of a wider net that can be cast to snare more believers (and voters). This subtle tactical shift has become particularly important to keep the pipeline of research dollars flowing to climate change experts, as fact-loaded data points such as record low temperatures, actually suggest these theories have fatal flaws. For human beings receiving billions of dollars in global warming and climate change grant money, real temperature data points are jeopardizing their grant money gathering industry. Those damned data points clearly need alternative explanations.
 |
| Torquemada - Spanish Inquisition |
Recent climate-gate scandals provide the clearest signs yet that there has been much scientific suppression by the beneficiaries of global warming and climate change grant money. Scientific colleagues noticing the egregious errors in the both the collection, storage, and manipulation of relevant scientific data, have been academically crucified by their franchise protecting “scientific” detractors. There is no intellectual incest like scientific incest with dollar incentives. One of the most impressive rhetorical tactics of the non-scientific background intellectual elites, people who are particularly fond of all the central-planning policies that global warming/climate change seems to require, is to look down their noses at anyone who does not buy into the nuances of the wider intellectual net known as “climate change.” As is always the case, when ulterior motives are at work stubbornness sets in and then debate evades all logic.
The problem is with those of us who think global warming should also involve trends of warmer temperature readings. We are not sufficiently sophisticated. Don’t we realize that all the other changes in climate (and overall planet temperatures) in the geological records are irrelevant? Why can’t we ignorant Neanderthals simply trust government-funded scientists? Can’t we see that trillions of tax dollars can triumph over the cycles of nature? Non-believing “deniers” are a scourge because they are selfish and greedy. And they are also morally inferior, because unlike those on the receiving end of billions in government grants, they are not in favor of science or the greater good. Pity. Guess I'll go outside and take a deep breath. Oops, can't do that, its freezing out there.
Global Warming? Nope, Climate Change
From hotair.com -Two weeks ago, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule that subjects dairy producers to the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure program, which was created in 1970 to prevent oil discharges in navigable waters or near shorelines. Naturally, it usually applies to oil and natural gas outfits. But the EPA has discovered that milk contains “a percentage of animal fat, which is a non-petroleum oil,” as the agency put it in the Federal Register. In other words, the EPA thinks the next blowout may happen in rural Vermont or Wisconsin. Other dangerous pollution risks that somehow haven’t made it onto the EPA docket include leaks from maple sugar taps and the vapors at Badger State breweries. More here
Posts
