Climate is supposed to change
Flawed science and the broader agenda behind the sound bite
On the international stage, the prevailing narrative is disseminated by the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, two bodies staffed by unelected officials who are shifting the global landscape, shutting down industries, and ruining the lives of the ordinary people. In 2019, a formal agreement between these entities solidified, linking the UN's 2030 goals to the WEF's vision for addressing climate change. This shared agenda aims to reduce CO2 emissions, phase out fossil fuels, and limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Several concerns arise from this approach. Firstly, the assumption that humanity can actually control the planet's climate is an act of sheer arrogance. The impact of a single volcanic eruption could easily overshadow the CO2 reduction efforts made by smaller developing nations. Moreover, the repercussions of the Nord Stream incident were conspicuously underreported, revealing a degree of hypocrisy that is both alarming and ironic.
The United Nations relies on climate projections generated by computer models, incorporating variables such as pressure, humidity, ocean temperature, rainfall, etc. However, as evidenced by the significant disparities between their projections and real-time data from weather balloons, satellites, and other sources, the models are flawed.
Professor John R. Christy's testimony to the US House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in 2017 highlighted the discrepancies. Here is one of the charts he presented:
The red line averages the different computer model projections. As you can see, it trends upwards. The bottom lines are plots of real time data taken from weather balloons, satellites and other data sets. The predictions are way high, and way hot. This is only one example. Here is another with a simplified average. Oh dear.
Once upon a time, as a young engineer I used to build computer models to facilitate manufacturing projections, investment choices, or downsizing decisions. If well built, computer models are a handy tool for complex decision making when there are many variables at play. Back then the quality and responsibility of such decisions always rested upon the experience of the big bosses who by virtue of their extensive careers and empirical life lessons used my projections as confirmations not as the impetus for their direction. I’d like to think that back then, some real adults were in charge.
The climate models of today are vastly more complex and require much more computational power than anything I ever programmed. There are whole university departments dedicated to this science. That being said, the same principle applies: a good model proves itself when it predicts reality once the input is actual data. Since 2017, it is well known they are deeply flawed so one might conclude the data has been cherry picked to support a particular narrative. Are the policy makers, politicians, and bureaucrats unable to comprehend the situation at hand, or are they knowingly part of the WEF agenda? Conversely, the silence within the scientific community is resounding. Perhaps since tenure, funding, research grants, etc. are on the balance for those who are building and feeding these climate models there is little incentive to speak up and much to loose.
Yet based on this flawed information, populations are being asked to reshape consumption habits, alter lifestyles, dismantle industries, destroy economies, and developing nations are being denied a pathway to prosperity ... why so? I submit climate change measures serve a broader agenda focused on control and profits.
Fossil fuels have played a pivotal role in advancing the Western world with a measure of progress unseen in previous generations. If there were any seriousness about replacing them, the past 70 years provided many alternatives that were ignored or squelched.
Untold aspects of our daily lives are fossil fuels dependent with no replacement in certain critical areas. For example life saving products such as IV bags, feeding tubes, and catheters utilize PVC is an integral component because it is biocompatible and can withstand sterilization methods. Most industries are highly dependent on electricity and there is no fall back if they should fail. Has anyone with production, manufacturing, or engineering experience thought through these global agendas? May the attorneys, English majors and economists forgive me but sometimes you need real down to earth, cause and effect, dirt under your nails knowledge to actually get things right on the ground and not in the clouds.
While there are damages associated with climate change, the potential harms resulting from misguided climate policies, especially based on faulty data, are far worse and consequential. The dependence on fossil fuels in various aspects of daily life underscores the complexity of finding viable alternatives, and the significant impact of abandoning them on industries, economies, and global well-being is a consideration that should not be taken lightly. Climate, by definition, is supposed to change. As part of the upcoming election conversations, let us not be influenced by a sound bite crafted for those with a short attention span.
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.
Stephen Hawking
Father in Heaven,
We pray for divine guidance for
policy makers so they may recognize shadow agendas and flawed information. We ask for courage to rectify distorted legacies and inaccuracies woven through the fabric of laws, policies, and rules.
Lord, foster a commitment to truth and accuracy in the choices that shape our collective future. Let the light of knowledge dispel the darkness of misinformation so we may enjoy a future founded on clarity, integrity, and informed decisions.
In Jesus name we pray.
Amen
Here are some useful information sources:
Bjorn Lomborg - Hillsdale College Volume 52 April/May 2023
Before he was even on the radar, I was following the late Dr. Zelenko, a man of great courage and integrity. Although this hero has already passed away, the company he created lives on. I highly recommend his supplements, click on this link to get at 15% discount and support my work:
The silence of scientists on climate change is, as you rightly speculate, due to career-termination concerns. Emeritus professors in the field do speak out. Anyone who gets to publish has to say the politically correct thing in the introduction and conclusion even if their data in the middle contradicts that. My late cousin Olavi Karner, an atmospheric physicist, experienced this. The experience of covid policy critics is a replay.
The climate change computer models bring us back around to the old adage, "GIGO": Garbage in, garbage out." Between intentionally manipulated, falsified data and misinterpretation of the relevance of much of the actual data collected, the models have proven to be wrong, and their conclusions don't even match the massaged data, let alone indicate any climate "emergency". There simply is no way that these "scientists" and Leftist politicians truly believe there is any problem with CO2, the flatulence of livestock, or any other driver of so-called "global warming".
Unfortunately, the last hundred years of having replaced education with indoctrination leave so many people unable to discern that they are being lied to, let alone what the truth might be.