Greeting to all and welcome new friends to the EastWing.
Seems I offended the climate change folks in my remarks last week. Well I was told in no uncertain words that people a lot smarter than I and knew a lot more than I do about climate change, all agreed that climate change was occurring and there was nothing we could do about it, except what the scientists tell us is best for the planet.
Not looking to engage in verbal wars on the matter of climate change, BUT !
As stated last week, there is no know clean scientific research to support the position of climate change. The only global warming support is in computer models. Now make sure you hear what I said there. The only global warming support is in computer models. The data used in the computer models has been skewed to support the outcome desired.
One example of such being, if you calculate the average temperature for a given month that has we’ll say has 30 days and record each daily temperature then throw out the lowest recording and add the remaining 29, then divide by 30, you get one answer. Leave in the lowest recording and still divide by 30, you get lower temperature answer.
It’s important to keep in mind that climate change has now grown into its own industry. Yes, climate change has now become an industry onto its self. Worldwide this industry spends $1,000,000,000,000. And what do we get for spending a Trillion Dollars? More scientific data indicating that we need to continue to do research on climate change.
But hey, like the friend who told me about the scientists who know a lot more than I do about such matters. I’m assuming we all agree that those folks whose livelihood depends on computer research on climate change make every effort to ensure that their work is completely unbiased and they are working solely for the truth, and will not predetermine any outcomes. Surely the scientific community would be 100% honesty in their search for the truth.
The scientific community is a reflection of life. And life, time and time again, has demonstrated that those who foot the bill can and will impact the outcome. What drives this new industry onto its self to keep going? Job security, plain and simple. The underlying support data is never discussed when we’re informed the planet it getting hotter. But we don’t hear about getting hotter anymore. Cause the planet is not getting hotter.
The last report I read on global warming stated that the reason the world is not getting warmer, all the extra heat is going into the ocean. So the oceans are getting warmer and we don’t know it. Old tried and tired alarmist tactics used to further fund climate change. A new industry has been created that does not manufacture, does not sale a service, only creates work for those in the industry. That work, making sure we all pour more money into research into climate change.
Climate change exists in predictions based on computer modeling alone. There is no data, there is no evidence. It used to be global cooling. Then it was global warming. Now it’s “climate change” so that any apparently abnormal weather event can be attributed to climate change. Be it a tornado, be it a two-inch rainstorm, even a hailstorm that damages a jetliner can be blamed on climate change. Yes!
So how it works — and they’ve done that with these climate change-prediction models and a “consensus of scientists” — consensus of scientists, but not all. Because there are many scientists who do not believe what the so-called consensus says. We never are told what this consensus of scientists study. Maybe it’s weather maybe it something completely unrelated to weather. Maybe their guess is as good as yours when it comes to weather.
Just in case you don’t believe the science community can be bought, may I remind you that Coca-Cola, the world’s largest maker of pop with sugar, is backing a new ‘science-based’ solution to the obesity crisis: To maintain a healthy weight, get more exercise and worry less about cutting calories.” All of a sudden scientists aren’t so good, because the New York Times has found a bunch of scientists that Coca-Cola apparently is paying to say that drinks like Coke have nothing to do with obesity. But wait!
If Coca-Cola can find scientists and get an opinion that they want from by paying them, do you think the same thing could happen to climate change scientists and a “consensus” of them? Do you think somebody could come along and offer those scientists enough money? I mean, if anybody’s paying attention, they’re is writing their own obituary in this stuff. They’re undermining the whole notion of a scientific consensus. Now it can be bought and paid for by Coca-Cola.
As I read the story of the Coke funded research, one could only conclude that the New York Times admits that scientists can be bought. The New York Times inadvertently tells us that scientists can be corrupt. Yeah. When Coca-Cola wants scientists to say that their drinks do not contribute to people being fat, there are scientists that’ll take the money and say it. Well, could there be scientists who would take the money and say what say ever Al Gore wants them to say? After all, for the man who invented the internet, controlling the weather should be a piece of cake, or maybe that should be a piece of ice.
Now not wanting to pick on ole Al Gore, but I’m sure you all have heard of the old saying “A snowball’s chance in hell”. Well based on his latest research, Al Gore, last week, gave that snowball’s chance as 50 – 50.
From The EastWing, The Email Jumping On Me, Me Jumping On Climate Change, Coke & Climate Change
I Wish You Well,
BobbyRay From The EastWing