BRATTLEBORO — Increased carbon dioxide plus increased solar energy equals global warming. Right? Wrong!
There is something quite surreal about the current claims being tossed about by warmists - those true believers who shriek that we are in the final throes of cataclysmic, species-ending, man-made global warming.
And they persist in shrieking their alarmist predictions of doom despite the fact that they are no longer hamstrung by having to rely solely on the lies disseminated by the despicable and roundly discredited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for their “evidence.”
The IPCC is, of course, the Rockefeller-created, United Nations–established, carbon-credit-exchange-centered, banking- and financial-industry lobbying organization that has, for decades, set and tightly controlled the cynical international “man-made global warming” narrative.
Thankfully, the IPCC has, via its own idiocy and arrogance, now lost its monopoly on climate information, and warmists currently have available to them a wealth of other, uncensored and more accurate, climate science, much of which dispels - or at least balances - the IPCC's man-made global warming fiction.
* * *
For instance, we now know that the Himalayan glaciers are not melting apace, that anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) isn't causing severe weather patterns, and that the Amazon isn't precipitously dying off as a result.
We also now have the Climategate e-mails to consider, along with the general acknowledgement - among warmists - that the equipment used to measure temperature globally is technically faulty and poorly located.
We also now know that some Nobel-winning, alleged accelerated-glacier-melting “evidence” was based on anecdotal reports from a non-scientist on vacation, as cited in a student's college paper, which was reprinted by a magazine.
And we now know that the agreement among climate scientists that AGW is real - alleged at 97 percent - represents nothing more than about 70 to 80 self-described, anonymous “climate scientists” responders out of 1,000 blindly spammed with an Internet poll, to which, incidentally, barely 5 percent of recipients - almost all in the U.S. - responded. (That's hardly a “global scientific consensus.”)
And, while some warmists, to their credit, are listening to newly freed, more measured scientific voices and are adjusting - possibly throttling back - their absurd apocalyptic warmist bleating, others, like the apocryphal Japanese soldier who emerges from the jungle 40 years after the war is over, surprised to find it over, remain lost, wandering around aimlessly, dizzy and still high on the heady fumes emitted by the IPCC's rotting piles of BS.
Sadly, it seems that no amount of scientific evidence is sufficient to convince some warmists that it is time for them to emerge from their jungle of IPCC lies.
The only climate theory these obstinate warmists know is the one that the IPCC spoon-fed them over the years. They need to take a fresh look at alleged global warming in light of the growing body of new evidence - even warmist-generated evidence - that debunks it.
* * *
For instance, a recent segment on warmist-booster NPR's All Things Considered, “Examining a Climate Conundrum,” offers the following propositions, garnered from warmist-friendly scientists:
1. There is a marked increase in carbon dioxide in the air.
2. There has been an increase in the amount of solar energy getting through to the Earth's surface.
3. Despite these two facts, the globe - i.e. the land, the air, and the oceans - is not warming, and it hasn't been warming for a while.
Indeed, according to Phil Jones, the Climategate scientist at the University of East Anglia upon whose data much of the global warming delusion is built (data that, conveniently, he says he discarded) the globe hasn't warmed since 1995.
So any rational warmist should surely say: “Oh. So that means that the previous claims that an increase in CO2 content in the air results in global warming should now be reconsidered.”
Occam's Razor, right?
And such a statement would make sense, since, in just the past 100 years, according to climate change “experts,” the world has reeled from escaping a certain and cataclysmic ice age in the late 1800s, to certain death by warming around the 1920s, back to dodging the bullet of a threatened, deadly ice age in the 1970s, to the present period of allegedly apocalyptic warming.
All of this in just a 100 years! Isn't climate - as opposed to weather - supposed to be measured over thousands of years, at least?
* * *
However, the NPR-esque, global-warming true believers simply aren't able to make the logical association between increased carbon dioxide levels and lack of warming due to increased carbon dioxide levels, possibly because they have now invested their identities too deeply into the IPCC's manufactured and baseless false certitude of man-made global warming.
Instead, some warmists now have to absurdly twist the reality of lack of actual global warming into a “conundrum,” which causes them to marvel, open-mouthed, at the eerie way in which no actual global warming is occurring during a time of “certain” man-made global warming.
Of course, for any rational person, there is no conundrum at all.
Specifically, the admitted lack of actual global warming (under the exact conditions that warmists claim causes man-made global warming) is unarguably a damning indictment of the theory of carbon-dioxide-caused, man-made global warming, per se.
This being the case, why is it, then, that warmists so glibly label people “deniers” on the grounds that “deniers” willfully refuse to acknowledge alleged scientific “proof” of man-made global warming - at the same time warmists are not merely denying, but actively rejecting, the conclusions of their own science?
The fact that warmists are now spinning their own adverse science to salvage and accommodate the IPCC's fracturing bogus, predetermined “certainty” of cataclysmic, man-made global warming is truly surreal. It embarrasses them, it sickens others, and it aids the tiny international banking community in their efforts to profit from a carbon-credit derivatives exchange, a Ponzi scheme on steroids that turns pollution into a valuable commodity rather than get rid of it.
Warmists have finally reached beyond the legitimacy of empirical science and into the fog of blind faith.
And to their shame, they are doing so with a straight face.