A major gathering of world leaders is taking place in Paris just weeks after jihadists attacked the same city. Despite the heinous carnage, France went forward with one of the most publicly anticipated global climate change summits in history.
The rhetoric is obviously alarming, despite the fact that unbiased satellite readings demonstrate a period of eighteen years and nine months with no warming whatsoever. The Parisian summit also comes on the heels of the cinematic release of a major skeptical documentary entitled Climate Hustle.
The theory of global warming – now called climate change because the catastrophic predictions of imminent, rapid warming simply have not happened – has been promoted most vigorously by politicians in recent years. Many top scientists who signed on initially are recanting as the data continue to undermine climate models.
While largely forgotten in the shuffle of everyday life, the East Anglia Scandal was a serious problem to those invested in climate change. Emails between politicians and scientists who were compiling surface temperatures were leaked. The public learned that politicians were asking scientists to fudge the numbers. And they did. Scientists described methods for manipulating the numbers higher to “hide the decline.”
The upcoming documentary will examine the effects that the revelations had on the scientific community. The general public quickly forgot. But scientists started looking at primary sources. Raw data, like buoy readings, and the oft-overlooked balloon readings. They are finding that the numbers that are entered into global temperature averages are inaccurate remarkably often, but only in one direction.
Scientists already knew that satellite and balloon readings showed stable temperatures, which are a serious, ongoing threat to the models. According to all – yes literally all – of the anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming models, the warming should occur faster in the troposphere; the fastest warming of all should happen roughly ten kilometers above Earth’s surface. The scientific community realized these models were in peril because of the satellite and balloon data, but until proof of manipulated numbers emerged, the surface temperatures kept the theory alive.
In 2013, The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, often referred to as the IPCC, admitted that their 2007 report, the pinnacle of anthropogenic global warming proof, exaggerated the warming trend. The astonishingly underreported 2013 assessment said the global temperature warmed 0.05 degrees centigrade in the warming period from 1990-2005, which was 25% of the rise described in the 2007 report. The 2013 report also stated that the pause in warming was real. The report could not explain the pause or the unprecedented expansion of Antarctic sea ice.
Tens of thousands of scientists have signed a public agreement that catastrophic manmade warming is not an imminent threat, urging policymakers to study the issue further before announcing the “action” demanded by Pope Francis, President Obama, and the myriad politicians who ran with the banner of global warming – now climate change – and staked their legacies on the theory.
Meanwhile, policymakers are racing forward. They are cutting deals. Making arrangements. There will probably be action in the form of carbon exchanges that are controlled by international banks. Energy companies will be taxed on their carbon emissions all over the world; that cost will be passed to consumers. Early investors who have pushed this action include Al Gore, who has his fortune and entire persona invested in carbon taxation governed by international law.
When the laws go into place, ordinary citizens of the world will have higher bills, but major corporations will continue to earn billions of dollars while the additional revenue is diverted into the pockets of the richest people on Earth. Gore himself has publicly bragged about his investment, predicting that “as soon as carbon has a price, you’re going to see a wave in it… there will be unchained investment.”
In fairness, environmental treaties have not been effective lately. If anthropogenic warming results in major sea-level rise and devastation to the biosphere, the best chance for salvation may actually be global enforcement of carbon taxes.
There is no such thing as a universal consensus. Nonetheless, almost everyone can agree that humans should try to protect and preserve the environment. Scientists should seek new methods for producing energy. Companies should invest in geothermal and fusion research.
There should be a collection of the brightest minds seeking a positive change, a move forward, a progressive policy. Instead, there is a collection of oligarchs with law degrees seeking consolidation of power, grasping for new ways to keep their old grip on the common man.