...And another and then to a coverup.
Each legislative session many bills are proposed to change human behavior in the hopes that the climate will change to match someone’s idea of a utopian world. Gordon Fulks, PhD. of Corbett, OR is an astrophysicist. For the last decade he has addressed concerns about global warming with a presentation of the subject in terms the layman can understand. To the extent the topic is divisive he is welcomed or shunned. A true scientist, his teaching hasn’t changed because the science behind it hasn’t changed. He does respond to how others spin the message for effect.
The research that Fulks relies on is key to scientific understanding. He relies on sturdy temperature reconstructions from the Greenland ice cores. Those reconstructions cover tens of thousands of years and show relatively recent Minoan, 1000 B.C., Roman at time of Christ, Medieval, 1000 A.D. and today’s Modern warming periods. Each is spaced about one thousand years apart and each experienced higher temperatures ranges than we do currently. They do show that our current warming period is cooler than the three previous ones.
The numbers on the left show temperatures in central Greenland at the time intervals on the base line. The U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change UN/IPCC working with many universities worldwide, created over 100 computer models beginning in the late 1970’s to predict temperature changes in the twenty some years to follow. All of those computer models used the premise that rising CO2 levels would create rising planet temperature GAST. Every model failed spectacularly as shown below. They show that there is no correlation between the rise of CO2 levels and the rise in Earth’s GAST.
With future funding from the United Nations at stake, Penn State, East Anglia and many other universities wouldn’t acknowledge that their theory relating CO2 levels to temperature was incorrect. Choosing to follow their funding versus following the science these IPCC members proceeded to alter temperature readings from around the globe. They were caught in the coverup. That was called Climategate, it occurred in 2009 and resulted in the dismissal of the head of the IPCC. After that the UN/IPCC dropped the reference to global warming and adopted the term climate change.
During that time interval real temperatures rose slightly but well within a range of normal variation. The IPCC accidently proved their premise to be incorrect, that rising CO2 levels will produce rising Earth temperatures, but they persists in this false premise to this day. It is the bedrock argument for eliminating carbon-based energy, a key to globalists tightening controls over human activity. Measured Earth CO2 levels did rise from 280 parts per million to 420 parts per million in those 25 years of computer modeling. The rise did not produce a corresponding rise in temperatures. It did produce a 17% increase in vegetation globally and hunger worldwide was sharply reduced. For perspective, the CO2 levels experienced by crew members on a Navy submarine are near 5000 parts per million.
The temperatures on Earth are most affected by celestial conditions, things astrophysicists study. The major ones being the Earth’s elliptical orbit, exaggerated by gravitational pull from our largest neighbors, Jupiter and Saturn and by forces experienced in the movement of our solar system as it travels through The Milky Way. https://www.theplanetstoday.com/ Constantly changing conditions of activity by our sun with its active and quiet periods correspond most to temperature conditions on Earth. When you make legislation based on a false premise -- humans cause global warming -- that relies on another false premise -- rising CO2 levels cause GAST to rise -- you can only do harm.
There is a third false premise involved here as well. That is that humans can control the level of CO2 on Earth. One volcanic emissions can equal the CO2 created by all humans each year and we have hundreds of volcanic events both above and below the sea each year. Do any of those legislators or those they speak for have the requisite science background to act with authority on proposed climate legislation? Do they presume their scare tactics have worked? Do they presume skeptics are too intimidated to speak up?
|Post Date: 2021-02-23 09:27:25||Last Update: 2021-02-23 14:40:13|