JFK, MLK, RFK and the Continuing Unspeakable with Regard to Global Warming Denial

[Greg Burnham]

You can't pump billions of tons of CO2 into a closed system without having a scientific effect. Those who say this is just another warm period are in denial of the unprecedented CO2 spike along with its accompanying rise in temperature.

Every generation will have its troglodites telling them to stay true to their gods and temple priests...

Only problem is that in each instance of temperature increase, including the most recent, temperatures began rising PRIOR to CO2 levels. This is DOCUMENTED and those scientists who originally had it backwards have recanted. Perhaps increased temperature is caused by natural cycles (solar and oceanic), which in turn CAUSES an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere--not the other way around. The pattern of increased heat followed by increased atmospheric CO2 is not speculation, but fact. It is easily researched and it, among other things, demonstrates the perfidy of Michael Mann, et al, from Penn State University whose "Hockey Stick" graph was disingenuously exploited by Al "Nobel Prize" Gore, but has now been abandoned even by those scientists who once embraced it because it is patently FALSE. Those who continue to peddle the mantra that states: "increased CO2 causes an increase in global temperature" have either not done their homework or are failing to believe the very scientists who first made the claim but have themselves now abandoned it!

And Dawn, let's not mix apples with oranges--or with dog shit here. Just because I recognize the Climate Change disinformation campaign for the hoax it is does not mean I am PRO-Pollution or that I am not militantly anti-pollution. It simply means that I draw conclusions based on more than fear mongering. I recognize that many, indeed most, of those who believe man is responsible for global warming are not disinformation agents. They are merely disinformed themselves and are willing to remain uneducated as to the very serious problems that are inherent in the studies that allegedly support funding for global warming research.

I am not debating pollution. I am resisting the Big Lie.

I am not a scientist. So I sent an email to my Phd friend who has worked at NOAH nearly 20 years. Just got his reply.

Dawn -

Not a hoax. Definitely human-induced.

Very difficult to separate human-induced change from natural variability, but 99.9% of scientists involved in the work feel that the evidence for human impact is very strong.

Like many others, I am utterly mystified by the right wing insistence that this is a conspiracy by world scientists to ... to do what? Destroy business? I don't even get the motivation. It strikes me more as an ostrich effect, in which people don't want to hear bad news, so they ignore it or claim it is invalid. Sorta the same reasoning that continues to drive people to buy a bucket of greasy chicken at PopEye's and claim it won't give them heart disease, or smoke cigarettes and claim that there is no evidence that it will give them cancer. (OK, the latter battle was finally won ....)

Bear in mind that climate change threatens the energy infrastructure of the world, in particular use of oil. coal, gas ... all of which grow exponentially more valuable as they are depleted. We're talking trillions and trillions of dollars. Big enough bucks to fuel wars. Most of the "disinformation" is sponsored by those groups ....

Gotta run.

Cheers,
Joel.

His name is Dr Joel Levy in case someone wants to check out his creds.

I will have nothing further to say on this matter as I am not the expert, but I have known Joel for over 35 years and respect his work and opinions.

Dawn
Glad you are healed and back ...will be interested in your POV re the Boston Marathon.

As for the "right wing" I am not a member of any wing. I am not claiming any conspiracy exists beyond that required to insure continued FUNDING (by taxpayers) to those involved in so-called climate research.
As my dear friend, Jack White (RIP), was fond of saying: "CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is plant food and it is what humans exhale when they breath."

Dawn, since you brought in an expert who disagrees with me, perhaps you could ask him a question: "How can CO2 be the driving force behind global warming when the warming has always PRECEDED the increase in CO2, both currently and historically?"

And:

"Since climate is a complex / dynamical (non-linear) system is it not true that the accuracy of any prediction will be hyper-sensitive to the accuracy of the initial conditions input into any model attempting to predict future climatic behavior?"

If so, (and it is) does it not seem reasonable for us to heed the lessons learned by Edward Lorenz, et al? Ever heard of the Butterfly Effect? Although that is a trite euphemism, the central idea is inescapably apropos. If the numbers are not DEAD ON PRECISE when input as the initial conditions pertaining to a complex / dynamical system, the resultant outcome can and will easily yield values that are completely wrong. Even if the initial condition values are only "slightly" askew, the accuracy of the resultant values will be UNPREDICTABLY off.

From Wiki:

Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. This was summarised by Edward Lorenz as follows:

Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

Chaotic behavior can be observed in many natural systems, such as weather....
====

My beef with those selling this "science" is that they do not explain how they get around Chaos Theory... It would appear that they have not gotten around it at all. They pretend as though it doesn't exist. But it does. Chaos Theory is not easily explained away--no matter how many super computers one has working on predicting the future behavior of a complex / dynamical system. If the initial values entered are even a little bit off the outcome will be unrecognizably random.

I am not claiming that human activity cannot possibly effect climate. I am claiming that none of us can PREDICT what effect our CO2 activity will have on climate. I am further arguing that scientists cannot measure the EXACT amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and therefore, any "predictions" they make about its impact on the future behavior of a Chaotic System are severely, indeed terminally, doomed to be wrong because the initial conditions can never be accurately represented (exact level of CO2, for instance). Without such precision the equations CANNOT be relied upon. Ever.

---

It's good to be back.