Climate Science

I have a selection below from a scientist written in the Oregonian newspaper, about the never ending Global Warming/Climate Change propaganda we get so often today. The problem for those of us who don't accept the global warming postulates because there is no real evidence present beyond speculations and "must be's", is that we are inundated with Global Warming scare tactics on a daily basis. We are told continuously that the "debate is over", and that this is the warmest decade on record. This of course should be nonsense. But the power of the mediums to shape opinion today is great, even when it is done with opinion rather than fact.

In the piece below, Fulks updates the string of climate lies that get perpetuated continuously throughout the year and are getting more absurd and irrational by the day, and speculates (as global warmers do) as to the truth about what is driving this rush to judgment scam. The latest inanity I read was from Judah Cohen who is promoting the idea that warmer temperatures produce more cold and snow. His New York Times laden fantasy was printed there recently.

History is full of examples where junk science has been accepted as correct even after it has been proven such. In my view global warming is an example because it is not based on verifiable evidence The Scientific Method gets a new treatment every time global warmers present their facts. As a non scientist who does not have any more measure of truth than facts as a basis for belief, until I see evidence to the contrary, I will not accept the speculations, often wild and based on lies and manipulation of data. In my view being trendy (we how deny the global warming religion as said to be out of touch) isn't as important as waiting for evidence before accepting dogma.

Fact is there has been no proof ever offered to date that any recent warming was caused by human carbon emissions or carbon dioxide. That conclusion is the great leap of faith people in Global warming must make, the must be, has to be explanation basis). Co2 is not even the controlling greenhouse gas of the earth. It is radiatively inferior to water vapor and clouds. The global warmers claim that humans are causing a warming of the earth is like saying my spitting in the ocean is polluting it.

The selection below won't change your mind about your belief in global warming, but perhaps seeing SOMETHING besides the continued nonsense the mediums print and the public apes agreement to will at least let you know that there may be a hole, not in the ozone, but in the theories of the global warming advocates.

by, Gordon J. Fulks

From near record high to near record low temperatures, this November in the Pacific Northwest, from relatively warm ocean conditions and "dead zones" to relatively cold ocean conditions and fabulous salmon runs off our Pacific Coast, from an unusually cold winter to an unusually hot summer in Russia, from near record low Arctic sea ice to near record high Antarctic sea ice, our climate displays wide variability.But an army of psychologists, journalists, and even scientists make sure that the warm swings they deem alarming get the greatest attention.These propagandists know that the selling of global warming is all about perception, not reality.


If the data will not support their story line for another United Nations climate conference in Cancun, an army of data manipulators stand ready. They re-work averages to show continued warming during the last decade when honest assessments show flat or slightly declining temperatures.Some can be relied upon to say that 2010 was the warmest year "ever," when honest scientists say that the El Nino this year was very similar to 1998. Also, the recent warm period was not as warm as the previous Medieval Warm Period, something climate alarmists deny ever existed. The simple truth is that there is nothing unusual going on today, let alone anything related to human carbon dioxide emissions.


Climate variations are expected on a planet with vast oceans and atmosphere that are never in complete equilibrium. Climate variations are expected with a sun that varies slightly in total solar irradiance, varies more in X-ray and ultraviolet output, and varies substantially in magnetic irregularities which modulate galactic cosmic rays.Climate variations are also expected in a solar system with large planets like Jupiter that alter the earth's orbit and produce the huge climate changes called Ice Ages. But how is someone who never studied science going to figure out who is telling the truth?Science is not what I say, just because I have a good education and long experience. It is all about honesty, logic, and evidence.

The simplest solution is to look out the window. The British Met Office, the United Kingdom's national weather service, used its new $50 million super computer to predict a mild winter in Britain, 3.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than last year. So far, the reality is record breaking cold, heavy snow and paralyzing ice.But what if the New York Times, President Obama, the National Academy of Sciences, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Yale University say to be very worried? Perhaps you should question their expertise.


President Obama relies on scientists whom he funds to give him the answers he wants. The National Academy of Sciences is run to support government programs by an electrical engineer. He discovered that global warming is far more lucrative than electrical engineering.The UNIPCC is run by a railroad engineer who writes romance novels. Yale University promoters are really psychologists who want you to believe that they are climate experts when their real expertise is propaganda. News mediums rely on all the above.

The interlocking relationships are highly incestuous, with vast conflicts of interest and/or little scientific expertise. Among scientists, belief in global warming comes down to cold cash. Those who benefit most from government largesse -- an estimated $100 billion to date -- are typically true believers, while independent scientists easily spot the scam.

This creates a split based on age and experience. Young scientists like Juliane Fry of Reed College, are eager for fame, funding and tenure, all of which are more likely if they support global warming.Older scientists like Richard Lindzen of MIT, perhaps the greatest meteorologist alive today, oppose climate hysteria. They built their fame on an approach now considered quaint: the scientific method.

Among global warming advocates there is occasional candor about their real goals. Christiana Figueres, the new executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, said of the U.N. climate efforts: "This is the greatest societal and economic transformation that the world has ever seen."Global warming is about politics, not legitimate science. Figueres calls herself a "global climate change analyst." Her formal education in climate science consists of Al Gore's training program to promote "An Inconvenient Truth."


That should worry everyone.

*Gordon J. Fulks, PhD can be reached at gordonfulks@hotmail.com. He holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago, Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research.