Here is a paper out of the PRCthat raises some awkward questions about the intellectual climate surrounding global warming. Apparently with all the blackballing, peer-review control, publication manipulation, and funding and career threats, the Chinese suspect there might be some manipulation of information at work. Read more
11 Replies to “Global Warming and Information Manipulation”
From the linked article:
And this is the problem with establishment science today (or at least one of them). It’s like the academic debate sparked by the recent COSMOS series over whether it should be considered acceptable to mislead and even lie to the public about the current state of the scientific evidence on big issues (Evolution, Climate Change, History of Science, etc.) in order to further political goals that are deemed desirable by secularists. According to some, perhaps many, the answer is, “Yeah, it just might be.”
Why are the trying to manipulate the material by manipulating the immaterial?
I have not really followed the science behind global warming but my understanding is that global warming has been fairly clearly demonstrated. It is climate change, the consequences of global warming, that is being debated by the scientists.
But I do find it interesting that the countries who can benefit most by oil are the biggest opponents to the research.
I don’t think that any hands are clean on this.
There are HUGE amounts of money at stake. Billions, trillions of dollars to be transferred from “developed” countries to countries on the list of “endangered by global warming”.
There is also a HUGE international super-agency at stake. An international committee funded by carbon taxes that answers to no one and issue edicts about how everyone on Earthy MUST live. Or die. The working groups have already begun talking about regulated REDUCTION of human populations.
This is the DREAM of every Central Planner who ever lived. He who controls Carbon Emissions controls the world.
Who would have guessed that the last ice age was actually caused by highly intelligent Neanderthal scientists who were worried about global warming and reduced atmospheric CO2 by ingenious methods involving the ocean?
Lucky for us that the current “consensus” of scientists has been more motivated in acquiring grant money than experimenting with the earth’s atmosphere! 😉
If you haven’t followed the science, whence came your “understanding”?
Aargh, Cantor . . . the searing light of logic . . . my brain, my brain. 😉
The earlier name of the phenomenon was greenhouse effect, scientifically formulated and established nearly two hundred years ago. Nearly half a century ago, ozone depletion was discovered and related to big-scale industrial pollution.
Greenhouse effect does not mean mere warming when energy is added to the system. It’s more like a water in a pot on a fire. The water warms up to the boiling point. From then on, water cannot get any warmer, but becomes turbulent, i.e. keeps boiling.
The same in the atmosphere. As so-called greenhouse gases are added, the result is not just a uniformly more dense or more warm atmosphere, but an overloaded turbulent atmosphere. It’s not a steady warming, but an added unsteadiness with more pronounced extremes in the climate phenomena.
Ozone depletion was scientifically mapped and the relevant policy recommendations applied without any controversy, and they work (read Wikipedia references on this to get started). The controversy began when the broader application of the policies was debated and the issue was falsely renamed.
Global warming is the wrong name for all this. The irrational renaming of the phenomonenon and the politicization of the science have made the issue controversial. Even though the renaming only applies to the English-speaking world, it’s still unfortunate because this has a direct impact on the entire Western world. The science by itself is completely uncontroversial.
Yet greenhouses don’t work like the greenhouse effect does. Also we are talking about parts per million wrt CO2. At issue is the fact that while CO2 is continually increasing the global temperature is not. And we have not seen any pronounced extremes in the climate.
Good point. On top of that, we have had natural fluctuations of temperature in the past that had nothing to do with mankind so trying to pin it on man is at best controversial. How can you really show that experimentally?
Our world is so huge and CO2 only a fraction of the greenhouse gases it seems very difficult to be able to say that “We can save the earth” by limiting our CO2 production. Plants produce much more CO2 than we do. Animals produce a lot as do volcanoes. I’m sure there are other sources as well.
I’m not against studying the issue. Research is a good thing, but I’m afraid money does influence both sides and the “science” of it all is a bit questionable. There are also many possible reasons for why the temperature is rising. CO2 is not the only possible answer for that issue.
Here is an excerpt from an article on creation.com concerning this issue:
Nicely summarized, tjguy.
I decided to take a break from the three stooges and look through some older posts. Yours is a breath of fresh air! 🙂
Regarding Myth 5, the Arctic icecap should be excluded since it’s floating in water. The density of ice is slightly less than that of water, so the volume it displaces is slightly greater. Thus, if the Arctic icecap and all the icebergs in the world melted at once, the ocean level of the world wouldn’t change measurably.