Self-abnegations, mea culpas - so guilty are we of destroying our planet (collectively, of course - not the proclaimer personally) - that we must all save the environment, the forests, the rivers, all endangered species. How wonderful it feels to make such admissions: Obama's speech at Copenhagen; heavy reparations promised to 3rd world countries for despoiling our common planet; his Cap-and-Trade bill; his EPA restrictions and penalties (someone else paying the penalties of course - the "wealthy, primarily U.S. citizens). Never in the history of civilization has there been such an (almost) unanimous, universal, single-minded belief - by all the most literate, educated and leaders of human-kind: Global Warming, Climate Change, man-made pollution, carbon dioxide emissions - completely believed by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, by the Nobel Prize Committee Awards Panel, and by the editors and followers of all main-stream media and scientific journals!
Swept under the rug and forgotten - completely - are the scientific scandals of yesteryear: the admissions of "cooked" temperature and climate data; of the faked famous "hockey stick" chart with its global warming upslope; the firings and resignations (in disgrace) of UN "scientist" leaders of the UN's climate-change programs. During fall and winter 2009, when the frigid weather made a mockery of "global warming"; when the eruption of an Iceland volcano with it's prolonged spewing of ash into the atmosphere and over Europe cancelled out a continent's commercial flights for weeks - but also cancelled out a decade of mankind's conscience-stricken efforts to "green" the planet - none-to-few were any news media comments on climate. However, with April 2010 having warm temperatures (somewhere on the planet), quickly were found stories about how Al Gore's belief in global warming was being proven.
The question about man-made climate change is legitimate and worth-while, however, the more meaningful question is whether the assessment by the scientific community is fair, honest, "scientific" and trust-worthy? Is humankind, with its unquenchable appetite for fossil-fuel energy (for homes, industry and travel) truly damaging the environment of planet Earth? On the one hand, it is a feasible concern - civilization, with huge amounts of fossil-fuel emissions, does cause obvious pollutants; on the other hand, our planet is huge, nature is both complex and dominant, and the power of the sun is undeniable - plus, not to be overlooked, are also earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. The bottom line is: can one trust the climate scientists when the flow of research grants, monetary awards, financial well-being, professional career enhancement and approbation is so readily available from only the one side of the issue (and supported by the entire civilized and political world) - while the other side offers only negatives, no funded research programs, and black-ballings from peer-revue journals?
With the above unbalanced situation so clearly obvious, how can the public trust the conventional conclusion of man-caused climate change? Raising the issue of "corrupted" science through one-sided assessment and publication, there have been some dissident voices raised, trying to make themselves heard over the roar of the multitude (people and governments). These are calm, quiet voices, explaining that climate-change is not the irrefutable (solidly provable) "science" of Sir Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion - climatology factors are very complex, and "science" is not "true" if the "pro" view gets broad funding and publishing support - and focuses only those items which support its theory while omitting those that do not; while the "anti" view gets neither funding nor publishing availability. These calm voices do not proclaim for an opposing viewpoint (that mankind does "not" pollute) - only that the data and evidence are insufficient for the political conclusion that has been made.
Thus, 31,072 Americans with academic degrees in science, a few years ago signed a petition which flatly denied the proclaimed wisdom that humanity-caused-global-warming was settled scientific fact. Sponsored by eminent scientists, such as Dr. Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, the petition called upon the US to reject such a position. This was at the same time that Al Gore (and the UN's IPCC) was receiving a Nobel Prize for his film on Global Warming - and demeaning his critics as "a tiny, tiny minority - like those who believe the moon landing was staged in a movie lot, and that the world is flat". Other outspoken scientist-challengers to the conventional wisdom are: Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Dr. B. Lomborg, Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center; Dr. Parrick Michaels, at the Cato Institute; Dr. Philip Lloyd, Honorary Research Fellow at the Energy Research Center at the University of Cape Town in South Africa.
The issue here is not just academic and scientific honesty - the financial well-being of the United States and the world is at stake. The restrictions, constrictions and monetary penalties of the contemplated Cap-and-Trade bill (already passed in the Democratically-controlled House of Representatives) and Obama's EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), and the reparations promised by President Obama at Copenhagen (to 3rd world countries) by the U.S. and other 1st world countries can raise havoc upon the financial well-being of the United States as well as the entire civilized world.
Aaron Kolom qualifies as a "rocket scientist" with over 50 years aerospace engineering: Stress Analyst to Chief of Structural Sciences on numerous military aircraft, to Corp. Director Structures and Materials, Asst. Chief Engineer Space Shuttle Program through first three flights (awarded NASA Public Service Medal), Rockwell International Corp.; Program Manager Concorde SST, VP Engineering TRE Corp.; Aerospace Consultant.
No comments:
Post a Comment