Friday, July 11, 2014
Global Warming Theology is Not Science. Pray To The Earth Goddess.
Global Warming Theology is Not Science As Anticipated Evidence of Data Tampering is Being Exposed in the Research Papers of Climate Scientists Who Are Political Proponents of Greenhouse Gas Warming Theory Lex Loeb Contributor Network . Al Gore won a Nobel peace prize for his work to save the earth from global warming. Funny, no climate scientist responsible for the basic research establishing the hysterical fear of man made global warming shares a Nobel prize in Science with Al. There is good reason for this and the public has started to learn why when recently computer hackers published the internal emails of a major global warming science center that clearly shows that data is being manipulated for political purposes. The expose' also shows that the center was working to prevent scientific papers from being published that contradicted the man made climate change thesis. For scientists to be engaged in doing this sort of thing is criminal because of what it does to science itself. Over many years a lot of scientists have discounted the sciences based on empirical observation and sciences of representative analogy to favor only the science that can be shown on a statistician's graph or chart as if there is no other way to document scientific proof. The climate sciences have split into several camps now. The one camp with it's apriori assumption that increasingly appears to be more of a new theology than science where data has to be modified to stay on the graphs and charts where it is intended to be though not necessarily observed by empirical means in nature and the scientists who know that their job is to doubt who have been labeled as "Global Warming Deniers." That is language right out of the good old inquisition of the Catholic Church and not science. There is still a sort of inquisition of sorts going on in climate science centers where the Global Warming Deniers are being cast out and not getting tenure. It even happened in the State of Oregon where the state chief meteorologist lost his job for being a denier. Scientists were traditionally trained to doubt all theories as a means to restructure theory to try to fit any new contradictory data and not to turn science into theology. The politics of global warming theology are becoming too obvious. It seems that the purpose of the theory now is to decommission industrial society as we know it because of underlying beliefs that mining coal and drilling for oil are destructive to the goddess mother earth and her natural integrity. Greenhouse gas atmospheric warming theory began as an analogy to a greenhouse more than the effect was that of an actual greenhouse. The popularization of the theory has changed the semantic analogy into a factual state of being that still has not been certified. Exposed to sunlight heavy gases like Carbon Dioxide do retain more radiant energy than do lighter more simple atmospheric gases but things are a lot more complicated than that in the huge diurnal earth atmosphere where the entire atmosphere can expand and contract as it has no lid on it and energized gases can express their warming effect as kinetic motion which includes diffusion and expansions. There is more likelihood the higher a gas is in the atmosphere to radiate away from earth than to hit the earth just because of basic geometry, the inverse square law and lower density of gas at higher altitudes. The evidence for global warming being man made and caused by carbon gasses in the atmosphere is by no means determined by any scientific proof. Instead it is modeled by a combination of assumptions and conditions then by extrapolations from those assumptions and conditions. These models glaringly leave out a number of variables and experimental control models that might contradict the prevailing thesis. A few years ago NASA declared that we experienced the warmest year in the historic record and later it is discovered that a different year going back to the 1930 is the last century was actually warmer. The historic discrepancies go on because we also know there have been warming periods on a 1000 year basis and cooling trends that lead to warming trends there after that have been recorded and cannot be due to burning coal or petroleum for modern industry. We have recorded warming trends about 1000 years ago and 2000 years ago and significant cooling trends in between. We also have records of resulting devastation especially with crop failures from the cooling trends. One of these was cooling trends was in the last millennium and it had nothing to do with the lack of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. With Al Gore jumping up and down telling us we have to do something now or much worse things will happen in the future does not make much sense to listen to because the cause of past warming and cooling trends of greater significance than what we may now be experiencing as of yet has no known cause. The prophetic doom that Al Gore says we will necessarily experience is not based on science but is old fashioned theology at least until the experts can iron out the causes of past trends in the historic record and somehow relate those to the so called greenhouse gases. So why all the hysteria about global warming and the need to do something about it when there is little evidence supporting it? Al Gore and friends tell us that we need to worry just in case they are right about their theory but they don't tell us if there will be any unexpected consequences if they prove to be wrong. Going back and looking at the greenhouse gas global warming thesis it first proposed that we try doing something about it just in case the theory proved to be correct because there always was a lot of doubt about the theory but that all changed when Al got the Nobel Peace prize. The cost and benefits of being right or being wrong are not allowed to be analyzed because we are supposed to make the assumption that the models are correct and therefore we should become hysterical. That is pure anti-science. A warming trend does not prove that the cause is necessarily carbon gases and recent data support this where the carbon gases are increasing in the atmosphere and the earth has been seen cooling and not warming. Something else is severely defective in the science and that is how global temperature is actually measured. If you have ever used a thermometer you know that warm agitated gases in the atmosphere come into contact with these devices and cause them to indicate that the air is warm. Measuring earth's temperature from a NASA satellite measures radiation escaping from earth and it's atmosphere that can be detected from space. Once an object sheds radiation actually means that it was hot and should be less hot having shed the radiation. Then the space climatologists discovered that they actually had to measure the surface temperature and not the atmospheric temperature which means that some of the reported data is not about gas warming at all. Measuring earth surface and atmospheric temperature gets more complicated when you realize that surface ocean temperatures lead to conditions that we have names for like "El Nino" and no one knows the absolute cause of this effect. The oceans are far more efficient at retaining radiant energy than any gas including carbon dioxide and even water vapor. The global warming science theory is so defective that to the big push to change our civilization to accommodate the science is completely absurd. Now that email leaks from the global warming proponent science centers has emerged that they are fudging data to conceal all contractions to the theory we have a serious criminal problem. Yes criminal because of the expected effects on our society and civilization and very high unsustainable costs associated with this possible pseudo problem solving. Why should we solve non existent problems at very significant cost especially if the theory it is all based on is scientific fraud? The email expose' is evidence of a major criminal act against science itself. Now there should necessarily be an investigation of all global warming science proponents works to see if they have been tampering with data too. This is very serious criminal activity that should lead to people responsible looking their tenure and position and there is a need to bring criminal charges if they are publishing papers as science that are not. There is nothing wrong with environmental kooks having their own theology but there is something wrong when they say their theology is backed up with the proof of science when it is not. Clearly Al Gore is just one of the poll reading successful politicians who wants to put himself in the right spot and can't possibly be responsible for the underlying bad science. Bad science like with the criminal intent to fudge tamper with and fabricate evidence has to be severely punished or we might as well just opt for 14th and 15th century inquisitions run by these scum bags. That is where we are headed and what already is happening in our science centers. It needs to be stopped before the wrong heads roll. Imagine how you would feel if you just got treatment for cancer that almost caused you to die and you find out that that treatment was based on pseudo science that was backed up by major scientific fraud. You would not be happy having had the unnecessary dangerous and harmful treatment. You did receive the treatment and suffered damage to your body. The same thing happens once we let it happen with climate science that is fabricated and baked that is supposed to transform our successful civilization and make it an unnecessary disaster. Contrary to what the Reverend Al Gorge tells us in his global warming sermons we should definately wait and be sure that we are experiencing greenhouse gas warming caused climate change and not something else before joining his hysteria. If I want theology maybe I should go and find and established religion and join it for theology and not go with some new theology based on fabricated baked pseudo science baked data? There are plenty of established religions with theology that one can turn to instead. .