Thursday, November 26, 2009

Anthropogenic Global Warming Lacks Scientic Backing

Having spent the bulk of my professional career in the field of marketing and sales, I have learned a few things about what works and what does not. I have also learned that what is acceptable in one industry is not necessarily acceptable in another.

For example, in the consumer products world, if you build a new widget or better mouse trap, you can tell the world that is 'new and improved' or the best at doing this and that. Little verification is required; it is just an unsubstantiated claim. In the technology space, for the most part, the same thing. There are groups or individuals that actually do detailed analysis of the claims, but in general, we buy it because we think we like it, or it is fashionable, etc.

In the medical or scientific world, things are clearer -- more absolute. Scientific progress depends on accurate and complete data and on replication. A manufacturer cannot make claims without some scientific backing. Research and testing are required. If a medication is designed to lower blood pressure it a) should lower blood pressure in almost every case and b) should have limited side effects, and the ones it does have should be clear for the MD and patient to make an risk assessment. Just because a company wants a product to work or does as it was designed, if the science shows it does not, then the manufacture cannot market it as if if does.

The anthropogenic global warming (man-made global warming) consortia have confused scientific evidence with political will. For people belonging to the church of the global warming, scientific evidence supporting their claims is not quite where they want it to be. As such, they have done their best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. Only active 'church of the global warming' member need to participate. If you fail to hold the line, it will ostracize you.

A week ago, a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit. He released a series of email damaging to the anthropogenic global warming crowds' legitimacy (as if it had any). Are stolen email and documents legitimate? One can argue either way. However, there is growing evidence to suggest that this is more of a political political argument than a scientific one.

If it were a scientific one, I really am not sure why a body of people want to turn the world's economy on its head through stringent government regulations. Prudence and reason should reign. Being good stewards of the earth is something all inhabitants should practice. However, teaching people that man is bad and the earth will be destroyed if the "enlightened ones" don't do something it, is pure rubbish.

It is clear that the anthropogenic global warming crowd (researchers) have gone out of their way to conceal information that counters their bias. At least one U.S. Senator is interested in following up with an investigation into "Climategate." Obama is pro-anthropogenic global warming, a key to his campaign. He could care less if it is based on any scientific evidence. He knows it is in his best political interest personally (not the nation's) because most of his supporters believe in this 'man-bad, earth good' diatribe.

The earth is going to be here long after we are gone. We all should make it a better place to live. But U.S.-based legislation or some global accord is not the way to accomplish this.

I will never get why these people think that if everyone in America drove electric cars, lived in solar and/or wind powered houses and recycled our own bath water, the world would some how cool down. The Asians, Latin Americans, eastern Europeans, Africans are not going to do anything about it.

And finally, why do anthropogenic global warmers believe that average temperatures of the earth over the pass 200 years are normal. Last time I looked, people like warmer temperatures.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

buy valium online canada valium vs xanax bluelight - usage of valium