Global Warming: Fake Science Again Serves Far-Left Political Agenda
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Global Warming: A new White House report, issued just last Friday, makes alarming projections about future global warming. Not only will it cost billions and billions in lost economic output, that report says, but thousands of lives as well. Time for mass panic? Nope. Just more fake science.
The new National Climate Assessment (NCA) report, the fourth since 2000, seems to suggest a coming climate disaster, to paraphrase the film comedy "Ghost Busters," of "epic, even biblical proportions." But its forecasts and models border on the absurd. At some point, the scientific malpractice in these global warming scare reports has to end.
Some of the projections sound like something kicked around in a Hollywood brainstorming session for a science fiction thriller, and not like the results of sober scientific reasoning and balanced statistical modeling techniques. We shouldn't be surprised, however. The three reports that preceded this one were equally bad.
By the way, that's not us speaking, but actual climate scientists. They say the latest government climate change report does a disservice to Americans by once again politicizing science and ignoring both real data and history.
The report's conclusions are so extreme as to be laughable. For one, it predicts that use of coal and other fossil fuels will destroy 10% of U.S. GDP by the end of the century. Those are nice projections, since none of those who made them will be alive to see them proven totally false.
The Virtue Of Fossil Fuels
The fact is, access to fossil fuels has been the key driver of global economic success since the industrial age began.Cheap, plentiful fossil fuels during the last 175 years led to the greatest economic surge in human history. Carbon-based fuels moved literally billions of people around the world out of lives of grinding poverty and hard physical labor and into unparalleled wealth and comfort.
Equally bad, the report suggests, is that due to the greenhouse gas effect, U.S. temperatures will be 3 to 12 degrees hotter, leading to more wildfires and hurricanes, among other climate-related disasters. Such extreme numbers have never been found before in a major peer-reviewed study.
Nor do they factor in the effects of the fracking revolution, which the reports authors pretend hasn't happened. Yet, by getting utilities and others to switch to natural gas and away from dirtier fossil fuels, the natural gas boom has led to a record decline in U.S. CO2 emissions.
"By presenting cherrypicked science ... the authors ... have given a big fat gift to anyone who wants to dismiss climate science and policy," tweeted University of Colorado Prof. Roger Pielke Jr., right after the White House released the report. "Embarrassing."
For the record, Pielke believes global warming is a problem. But he also believes that lying about the science behind it and exaggerating future impacts are even bigger problems.
'Climate Busters'
The entire global warming "reporting" process is so heavily politicized, it doesn't qualify as science. The group responsible for the report, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, is largely a creation of the Obama administration. Global warming true believers are its backbone. Indeed, parts of the report just released were written during the Obama years.
The point is, there are no real skeptics on board for this report and the three dating back to 2000 that preceded it. Just true believers. And the worst, least believable part of the White House report is based on research by organizations funded in part by global warming extremists and billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg.
In the case of the just released report, it was "written largely by the same team that wrote the 2014 Assessment, which NOAA advertised, at its release, was 'a key deliverable of President Obama's Climate Action Plan.' "
That pretty much reveals the fact that this is a political document, not a scientific one. It is riddled with ridiculous assumptions, bad models and extreme errors that could only be intentional. But, hey, if you're intent is propaganda and not science, who really cares?
'No Hard Evidence'
"The Fourth National Climate Assessment offers no hard evidence, just vague assertions and claims that past climate change is no evidence about future climate change," wrote Dr. Ken Haapala, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. "It earns the distinction that it does not meet the standards of the Information Quality Act, and each page should be stamped: 'Based on speculation, not hard evidence.' "
As we said, at some point the scientific malpractice of these government exercises in global warming propaganda has to end. This isn't fake news. It's fake science, which is just as dangerous.
The last report, in 2014, served as the pretext for President Obama to create both the Clean Power Plan and to sign on to the Paris Accords on global warming. President Trump dumped the Clean Power Plan and removed the U.S. from the Paris deal.
But this report is one area where President Trump didn't move fast enough to get his own people in place. The media touted that the "White House " produced the report. Sure, the Obama White House. And now, instead of having reliable, honest science about global warming, we get a bogus propaganda document. The authors mean to frighten Americans, not inform them.
Global Warming: Democrats' Agenda
Don't worry. The incoming House Democrats have a whole new agendabuilt around global warming. It's nothing new. Back in 2016, the Democrats built into their platform a call to investigate — and presumably prosecute — businesses that didn't buy into their extremist global warming beliefs. This is scary, Stalinist stuff.
In the name of global warming, Americans may soon find their liberties to make a living and provide for their families curbed. It will come in the form of burdensome carbon taxes, tough restrictions on home building, and strict limits on car size and fuels.
In short, it's not the climate that the warmists wish to control. It's you.
So don't let these phony predictions of imminent climate doom made by government bureaucrats frighten you. Be angry instead.
Tags
Who is online
104 visitors
IBD, a bastion of scientific publishing.
Aren't they owned by Marvel Comics?
If so, their science reporting is sub-par to the comics.
Are you referring to this?
I really doubt that they give a shit what you think.
Considering they allow a prolific right wing cut & paste'r as yourself to flood this site with garbage right wing bull shit every day, I doubt it'll be considered "left leaning". They don't count the up votes on comments to make that determination. If they did, it would of course confirm the majority of members here either lean left, have more than half their brains functioning and decent reading comprehension, or most likely, both.
That's fine. I just wondered what your MBFC stands for and didn't really find much. I'm sure it is some acronym I should be aware of, but I'm not.
[Deleted]
Then why bother posting seeds on here, if you don't care what we think? Or, for that matter why answer any posts on your seeds?
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
I don't know....
My Backside Farts Constantly?
I guess that means they are generally correct. Thanks for the recommendation.
So... I guess anybody who doesn't believe that "Evolution is pure pseudoscience quackery. " really sucks then am I correct?
Actually, I was just reading on MBFC. I like it. I'm going to subscribe. Thanks for the tip MBFC really sucks.
Figure it out.
Global Warming. Climate Change.
Isn't it simpler to just trust in the Trump's 'gut and brain?'
Some of the projections sound like something kicked around in a Hollywood brainstorming session for a science fiction thriller,
I dont doubt it.
When I think of global warming I think of when I've used black plastic in my backyard to raise the temperature of things. It seems to me that if you put stuff into the air and make the atmosphere darker it's also is going to heat us up.
I've seen what putting stuff under black plastic in sunlight does to stuff,,, and rather quickly.... I don't doubt the predictions look like something out of a nightmare.
If one has to keep "Changing the Name" of something, to try and make something relevant, I find that to be …….. Questionable on all the "Scary" put forth by ……………. "Scientists".
I always wondered what that 5th "Scientist" thought.
Ya know the one...……….4 out of 5 agree !
Why didn't the 5th one "Agree".
You do realize that anthropogenic global warming causes climate change don't you? Scientists didn't change the name.
The 1 out of 100 scientists who disagrees cashes heartland institute checks soaked in oil.
Gosh....and what made it "Change" before the "anthropogenic" stuff we are "Fed".