Timothy Birdnow

The Democrats and the media have failed to fundamentally sway voters on their pet doomsday scenario. Global Warming aka Climate Change aka global climate flatulence has only moved a scant five percentage points since the George H.W. Bush era, according to the Democrat and CNN pollster Harry Enten.

In 1989 35% of publi worried about global warming, then by 2000 it was 39% and this year it is just at 40%.

So the decades of endless reinforcement and propaganda have failed to sway a sizable portion of the population.

The sad thing is they actually have 40% or the public buying into this stupidity.

In a sane world the leaked Climategate e-mails would have been the final nail in the coffin. Not only has nature failed to verify the models (two major "pauses" in climate warming, No net increase in atmospheric water vapor levels, no major increase in planetary albedo, No actal ice lost around the planet - just in localized spots - etc.) and the models never made sense scientifically anyway (they did things like assume there is no upper limit to the atmosphere, or ignored the logorithmic nature of carbon dioxide to absorbing energy and they failed to take negative feedbacks into account, assuming a high atmospheric sensitivity, etc.) but people notice things like the fact the wealthy aren't selling beachfront property but buying. STILL 40% could be pursuaded by the endless drumbeat - especially coming from what were once actual scientific organizations and agencies. Those of course were proven to be biased with the Climategate e-mails which showed top level researchers, people providing the data being used, conspiring to manipulate not only the data but the science journals and other methods of disseminating information. Of course the media ignored it except when they had to address it, then they found ways to trash it (like claiming these were just a few mumblings taken out of context). And the schools were completely on-board, teaching this as science on a par with Copernicanism or genetics.

Soa sizaable number of people believe in this. Of course a sizable number believe in Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness monster, or aliens who travel hundreds, thousands of light years to probe the anuses of drunken hillbilly hunters in the woods.

In a 2022 study 13% of the public believed in Bigfoot. This despite no actual campaign to make them so believe. Nessie is even worse, with 29% buying it despite deccades of research (it's not that big a lake). And a whopping 34% of Americans think UFO's are space aliens who happen to enjoy people's rectums, probably more so than San Franciscans. (That people who believe alien intelligences would go to the great trouble and expense to cross the immense chasm of space to study the lower digestive tract of a primitive species, and without just using imaging technology but rather with invasive probing, is beyond me.) Suffice it to say you can get at least 10% of people to believe just about anything. P.T. Barnum understood that perfectly.

But, but, but...what of the empiracal evidence, like increased extreme weather events? First, I would point out that the theory says the atmosphere should be warmer and WETTER due to increased water evaporation.I(And we know it's not that as drowning are down worldwide from just a decade ago.) So that knocks out all the droughts, fires, and everything tying in with dryness. Oh, you may see changes to drought patterns some from that, but primarily there will be more rain and other precipitation. So that's half the "evidence" gone right there. Then the rest can be explained through normal things - we have never been able to study the planet or it's heat patterns like now and all this "historical" evidence goes back to the satellite days, starting in 1979. And in fact satellite imaging now is at odds with the surface station data, which runs much waremer. Go to www.surfacestations.org to see how antiquated and ridiculous the surface station data has become; whole cities have grown around the data stations, with air conditioner units, or blacktops, or water treatment plants right next to them. Satellite data shows very, very little warming (for that matter so do the surface stations, but less so). What of extreme weather events? They are no different now than at any time in the past, except that we are building in places now we didn't used to build (like flood plains) and so naturally are experiencing worse from an economic perspective. People are buying beachfront property. We are not seeing any appreciable sea-level rise (no more than we've been seeing for the last ten thousand years). We are only more AWARE of disasters thanks to a 24 hour news cycle and instantaneous communications and rapid travel. It's not more just better covered.

Antarctica has gained ice in recent years. Greenland just did too recently.

So why do many scientists believe in global warming? Because they can't explain why the Earth is 1* warmerthan a century ago.

Well, there are a number of possible reasons. Dr. Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama Huntsville satellitedata program, wrote a paper showing that ALL of the heating is from the Uban Heat Island Effect. Land use changes and artificial heat sources explain the whole enchilada. But this isn't a dramatic doomsday scenario nor does it advance government power and control and money. So the media won't report on this but continues to beat the drum for "climate change", an exploded theory.

That 40% of Americans are still falling for this decades long War of the Worlds scam is behond me. It's always been about money and power and control. Science was subverted to promote it.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:01 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 962 words, total size 6 kb.