Political vs. Scientific Perspective on Climate Change

Spread the love

At Bioenergetic Spectrum, we always try to follow good science. Good Science is true science; this means there are no analytic overlays, preconceived notions, or special interests involved. When we practice good science (as opposed to pop. science) we want to remain as objective as possible.

Let’s play a game. We have never discussed climate change here because it is a very controversial subject. It is controversial because there are “differing” scientific opinions surrounding the subject of climate change. When it comes to science, there should NOT be differing scientific opinions.

Do you know why? It’s because the laws of nature do not change. Science is based on the laws of nature. How can there be differing opinions between scientists?

The only way that can happen is if one set of scientists are not being objective; this means they are applying analytic overlay, preconceived notions, or serving a special interest. Hey, they’re only human. When is the last time you bowed in the presense of a scientist or doctor because they are somehow superior to you? They’re not.

Scientists and doctors are subject to the same human frailties and influences as everyone else. For example, an extremely arrogant medical doctor who’s education was subsidized by drug companies feels obligated to big pharma and is partial to their drugs.

By the same token, there are “climatologists” who feel obligated to the politicians who subsidize their research. They’re scientists, but they’re only human.

In this game, can you tell if the following article is written according to true science or political science?

Amid charges of global warming hoax, new warning on climate change

A report Tuesday on the latest climate-change research shows emissions rising quickly and ice caps melting faster than projected. The report comes amid a controversy over hacked scientists’ e-mails that some say point to a global warming hoax.

Global carbon-dioxide emissions are rising fast, global temperatures continue to climb at a pace in line with projections, and polar regions are losing ice faster than climate models have projected.

These are some of the recent research findings highlighted by a group of 26 climate scientists in a report released Tuesday dubbed The Copenhagen Diagnosis.

The purpose of the effort, say researchers from eight countries, including the US, is to update policymakers and the public about the pulse of the planet ahead of the climate-treaty negotiations scheduled to begin in the Danish capital Dec. 7. The assessment comes amid a controversy over hacked e-mails of climate scientists – including a few who contributed to this effort – that global warming skeptics are using to question climate science.

The new report’s bottom line: If the goal is to try to hold global average temperatures to an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels, global greenhouse-gas emissions need top out sometime between 2015 and 2020.

To stabilize the climate around that 2-degree goal, the global economy needs to reduce average carbon-dioxide emissions to less than 1 metric ton per person per year by 2050, the group adds. This is equivalent to cutting per capita emissions by 80 to 95 percent below 2000 levels in developed countries by 2050.

The report highlights results from some 200 recent studies in hopes of influencing upcoming climate negotiations in Copenhagen, the researchers say. The benchmarks it sets out for reaching the 2-degree neighborhood aren’t significantly different from those the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) set out two years ago.

Still, “we felt that we needed to call attention of the delegates to the scientific case for urgent action,” says Richard Somerville, professor emeritus at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, a lead author of the IPCC’s 2007 volume on climate science, and a contributor to this report. “If you want to stabilize the climate at a reasonable amount of global warming, then you cannot delay indefinitely.”

The group’s effort is independent of the UN-sponsored IPCC, which publishes reports on global warming roughly every five years, the last one in 2007. The Copenhagen Diagnosis aims to fill the gap on research since mid-2006 – the deadline for the 2007 IPCC report.

“There’s new science and there’s also three more years of data. In many instance, the observations show that climate change has accelerated,” Dr. Somerville said in a briefing Tuesday on the report.

Controversy over hacked e-mails

The report is being released against the backdrop of the more than 1,000 e-mails pilfered from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK’s University of East Anglia. Many of the e-mails are mundane. Some, however, give the appearance of scientists – including some involved in the Copenhagen Diagnosis – introducing fudge factors in presenting results. Others scoff at their colleagues’ work and at critics outside the climate community who question approaches used by the e-mails’ authors to process or interpret data. And they sometimes reveal a strong undercurrent of angst over what skeptics may make of their results.

The e-mails have generated a outcry among conservative commentators over the credibility of climate science. Many climate researchers say the e-mails do nothing to undercut the science behind global warming, which has been building for more than 100 years.

What the controversy really shows is a desire on all sides to maintain a myth about how science is conducted, says Daniel Sarewitz, co-director of Arizona State University’s Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes.

“Both sides want to maintain this idea that science is this pure thing, this source of clarity, exactness, and truth. Of course, it isn’t,” he says. “It’s a human endeavor, a social endeavor. The people who do it are people full of imperfections.”

None of that undercuts the weight of evidence on global warming, he adds.

Ice caps melting faster

Among the climate-related observations the Copenhagen Diagnosis makes:

• Carbon-dioxide emissions: In 2008, emissions were almost 40 percent above 1990 levels. Even if emissions peaked today, by 2020 temperatures would stand a 25 percent chance of exceeding 2 degrees C – even if emissions fell to zero in 2030.

• Ice caps at both poles are melting faster than models have projected. Moreover, a study published this week and not part of the Copenhagen Diagnosis suggests that the loss of ice is now extending to the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, not just the west Antarctic Ice Sheet, which has long been a focus of concern. In the Arctic, the average melt-back of summer sea ice was 40 percent larger for the 2007 to 2009 period than predicted in 2007’s IPCC reports.

• Rates of sea-level rise from thermal expansion and melting land-based ice – about 3.4 millimeters a year during the last 15 years – are about 80 percent above those projected in IPCC.

I would like to you observe one more time what Daniel Sarewitz says:

“Both sides want to maintain this idea that science is this pure thing, this source of clarity, exactness, and truth. Of course, it isn’t,” he says. “It’s a human endeavor, a social endeavor. The people who do it are people full of imperfections…”

According to Mr. Sarewitz, the laws of nature change from one imperfect person to the next, therefore, science is not a “pure thing.” Yeah, right. Why bother going to school then, Mr. Sarewitz? According to you, we are all making it up as we go along.

OK, there IS climate change including global warming, true. Is human activity the main contributor to climate change? No. The NASA data says there is climate change on ALL the planets in the solar system. Is there human activity on all the planets? No.

But the political solution is to impose new taxes on people who “cause global warming.” These new taxes include everyone who is using or somehow affiliated with internal combustion pollution.

That’s right, the political solution says that average Consumers like you and me, worldwide, must pay for the offenses of public transit, car manufacturers, the transport of durable and non durable goods to stores where you go shopping, the electricity that comes into our houses from dirty power plants, and anything else that involves a polluting technology that should have been replaced decades ago with green technology by manufacturers.

As far as that controversy over hacked emails, let’s take an objective look at that with this article posted by Sterling Allan at Pure Energy Systems:

Hackers post emails proving ‘global warming’ is a fraud
by Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News

This past weekend, a major fraud was uncovered regarding the politicizing of “global warming” for the purpose of promoting increased world government regulation such as the global carbon tax. The email database of some of the chief climatologists was hacked into and the emails posted on the web for anyone to see.

Major news organizations have confirmed that the emails are real.

In the dialogue between some of these “climatologists” are shown blatant disregard for science while employing tactics of manipulation of the media and public perceptions to believe that global warming is man-made and that drastic measures must be taken to stem this warming, when in fact the hard scientific data shows that the planet has actually been cooling in the past four years, and that the warming-cooling cycles are largely a function of the sun. These climatologists knew better and are shown scheming with each other to twist the facts, cook the data, persecute the honest scientists.

The emails expose them as saying things about their detractors like:
– how do we get this guy fired?
– how do we remove their funding?
– how do we get this journal suspended?
– how do we stop this person from being able to submit to scientific journals?

The emails have the climatologists saying things like “hide the decline”.

In other words, the emails expose the key proponents of global warming as running a scam.

Of course this it not to say that man should not be wise stewards of the environment, but it does go to show how governments and their handlers should not be trusted to be impartial when it comes to increasing their hold over the public…

Wasn’t that fun? Let’s Expose more political science for what it really is: Greed.

Here’s a part one from a video segment exposing the politicizing of global warming from former MN Governor, Jesse Ventura’s TV show, Conspiracy Theory:

Where’s that Global Carbon Tax supposed to go? Will that tax subsidize green technologies to help humanity cope with global warming – or is it just a penalty? Are you really going to get something for your money, or will the rich simply get richer in the name of “science?” Please tell me.Healing Thoughts,


addthis_url = location.href;
addthis_title = document.title;
addthis_pub = ‘HealingMindN’;

Verified by MonsterInsights