The Contradiction in Climate Change Theory

In the Beginning

I was a math major in college. Mathematicians often look for contradictions to guide them toward truth and away from error. Global cooling, global warming or its current morphology of Climate change policy has never made sense to me. It’s too easy to see the contradiction in climate change policy.

I don’t know much advanced calculus today.  If you don’t use it you forget it, I’ve found. I could get it back with less effort than it took the first time. I probably have some dormant brain cells I could awaken.

I won’t do that because more pressing things have arisen since those placid days of studying partial differential equations, Laplace and Fourier transforms.

I still have fixed one tenet of mathematics. When trying to formulate a proof of some mathematical theory you may reach a contradiction. Something previously tested and proved may undo your endeavor. When that happens you know the theory you’re trying to prove is false. The exception might be if the theory that supplies the contradiction is false. That’s not likely because the sweetest thing about mathematics is that it is not susceptible to political winds. Most false theories have already been found to be so, probably centuries ago.

Scientific Consensus?

A 97% consensus of scientists today say that human beings and their behavior are an important factor in determining earth’s climate. They are laboring against so many contradictions in this, you’d think they’d give it up. They won’t. Money is on the table for the taking if they keep on keeping on. Lucre in the form of government research grants pay their salaries. Most people will not agree to something that will put them out of work. So the climate change scare will carry on.

Predictions of doom have been common throughout history because they give doomsayers power and psychic benefits. Power can translate into moolah, and the psychic rewards are gratifying. Who wouldn’t want to be thought a rainmaker?

The power of money cannot be overstated. To get it the 97% consensus of scientists are willing to dispense with the principles of the scientific method. The SM requires data, hypothesis, testing and observation. Computer modeling is not that. The models are too easily configured to produce the desired results.

Predicting Future Climate Change is a Fool’s Errand

The monkey in the machine is that earth’s climate is too complex for computer modeling to be worthwhile. All of it so far has been wrong. Apparently, computer models are not even very good at producing the results that have been pre-programmed. That has not stopped the flow of government sugar so it will continue.

Why not? Fooling the public is apparently quite easy.

H.L. Mencken nailed it: “Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

To the extent there is any satellite or weather balloon data, it contradicts previous theories of global cooling followed by global warming. Hence the switch to the climate change mantra. Any data at all can  be claimed to prove something and then be called climate change. Even so, data has been manipulated to make it support false claims. Thus, the 97% consensus is not merely mistaken. It is patently and willfully made up to support false notions of climate change.

Some scientists and politicians are so afraid of being exposed they are calling for arrest and prosecution of climate “deniers.” If they ever succeed in this perverse goal they may have to prosecute the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) for revelations contained in a 2018 report titled, Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility. At page 1034 of that report, the IPCC said this:

It is not possible to make deterministic, definitive predictions of how climate will evolve over the next century and beyond as it is with short- term weather forecasts. It is not even possible to make projections of the frequency of occurrence of all possible outcomes in the way that it might be possible with a calibrated probabilistic medium-range weather forecast. Projections of climate change are uncertain, first because they are dependent primarily on scenarios of future anthropogenic and natural forcings that are uncertain, second because of incomplete understanding and imprecise models of the climate system and finally because of the existence of internal climate variability. [bold added]

Someone must have been fired, if not drawn and quartered, for allowing that statement to appear. This is a startling but welcome admission of something so obvious no scientific expertise is even needed. It’s obviously true if one realizes that earth’s climate has been constantly changing for at least 1.5 billion years, if not the entire 4-billion year history of earth’s existence. For most of the three billion years before the Cambrian Period the entire surface of the earth was covered with ice. Geologists refer to it as “snowball earth.”

The Contradiction in Climate Change Policy

Agenda 21 is a non-binding action plan of the United Nations to enforce “sustainable” development through public indoctrination education and training. It is a product of the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. Canadian Maurice Strong  (1929-2015) was a main player in Agenda 21.

The real purpose of Agenda 21 is to abolish capitalism and replace it with socialism. Climate change policy is seen by adherents as the vehicle for this radical change. Alexandria Ocasio-TacoRosado is just the most recent supplicant with her wild notion that the world will end in 12 years if we don’t get control of climate change. Maurice Strong, were he alive would surely be one of Ocasio’s strongest supporters. He once said,

“… in order to save the planet, isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Christiana Figueres is a top UN climate Change official. In 2015 she said this:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”

There you have it folks. Climate change policy is not only not about science, it’s not even about climate change. That’s the contradiction in climate change policy.

More: How Much Does Carbon Dioxide Contribute to Global Warming?

 

 

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Subscribe to Blog via Email

%d bloggers like this: