There is a deep, dark secret about global warming that very few people talk about, yet every credible scientist knows:
Our climate data doesn’t go back far enough to draw any conclusions about today’s global weather patterns.
Humans have only been collecting meteorological records for some hundreds of years. In geological time (the earth’s lifespan, measured in billions of years), that is next to nothing.
If anything, scientists point out that the geological record suggests that the earth is overdue for a “mini ice age.” These periodic events are preceded by both very hot summers and very cold winters. Sound familiar?
Yet, previous US administrations fell in line with the UN agenda to promote a new “war” – the War on Climate. It’s a wonder they don’t just come out and say it.
Billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent creating a brand new industry, one built to test a scientific hypothesis (theory or “guess“) that could never be resolved in any case, given the insufficient amount of meteorological data in existence.
Opposition to global warming as a “scientific fact” comes from one surprising source: your local TV weather forecaster. An increasing number of these specialists are forming their own conclusions – despite the severe weather events of this century.
How is this difference of opinion possible? Most people do not understand that, since the 1950s, climatologists have performed their research using computer programs which “model” various “What if?” scenarios. These “scientific” tools – the computer is indeed a scientific instrument, but the human who loaded its machine instructions, and is now operating it, may not be – use past, historical data to generate predictions about what will happen next, based on probabilities. The results are displayed in graphs, like the one below:
It seems that the climate “experts” who have concluded that Global Warming is True use different data from their “unscientific” journalistic colleagues. Katherine Bagley of Inside Climate Newsquoted Keith Dixon, a research meteorologist at NOAA, who focuses on climate variability:
“While the models TV meteorologists use to forecast weather use the same ‘physics’ as those scientists use to predict long-term climate trends (for instance, the same calculations for how the atmosphere and biosphere interact), the data they plug into them is quite different. Just using different data produces scenarios with vastly different accuracies.”
Did you catch that last bit? “Using different input produces different output.” Computers operate under the fundamental principle of “Purgamentum init, exit purgumentum” – Latin for “Garbage in, garbage out.” When you enter bad data, you will get rubbish in return.
And that, Dear Readers, is what We the People have been fed, by the UN-controlled pseudo-scientists who are making very good wages coming up with “inaccurate” projections.
But local weather television personalities aren’t the only ones who don’t buy the NWO’s climate change mandate.
Scientific American found an expert, who also happens to be a nay-sayer, at the International Conference on Climate Change, ‘way back in March 2009:
“Keynote speaker and Massachusetts Institute of Technology meteorologist Richard Lindzen told the gathering that “’there is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and chlorofluorocarbons.’”
Since there isn’t enough data, to reach a real, scientific conclusion about climate change, why not just use our common sense, for once? Doesn’t it just make sense that polluting our precious home’s lands, seas, and skies is…ummm…stupid?
Yet, we continue to allow Big Energy, Big Industry, and all those other Big Players to buy up alternative fuel patents so they can keep their revenues flowing like the crude oil they pump.
Kudos to President Trump for crying “Shenanigans!” on the Paris Climate Accord and UN initiative to fleece the world’s economies and keep people busy (distracted, that is) arguing about a non-issue.
Less than 24 hours ago from this writing, the Independent ran this headline:
“Donald Trump to drop climate change from list of national security threats”
This sounds like another first for our nation’s leader. When is the last time you heard of anything being removed from the seemingly ever-growing and unending list of “threats to national security?”
Perhaps President Trump is as sick as the rest of us who frequent Conspiracy Street with the evil deeds that have been, and continue to be, under the false pretense that the American people are beneficiaries of the globalists, rather than their dupes?
Let’s quit squabbling about rising vs. falling temperatures, since we can’t prove it one way or the other with our limited weather data, and use that excess energy to clean up our planet. Sometime before the next Ice Age would be nice.
Brrrrrr…did it just get chilly in here?