Flawed Models Threaten World Economy
For the Warmists, i.e., the True Believers, there has been approximately a three-month flap – a tempest in a teaparty, no doubt – over the validity of climate-change science and the integrity of its creators. The British university the IPCC counts on for its AGW claims was caught manipulating the data and the professional journals that report it. In America, similar problems have cropped up at NASA and NOAA.
Here’s the question, the point of this post, really: Do you need to know anything at all about climatology to understand that, if the key players in the data gathering and forecasting that underpins the theory say the data is no good, the case for AGW collapses? With that collapse goes most of the rationale for eliminating fossil fuels. Energy independence, global warming and scarcity have been the three arguments for change. Energy independence and scarcity (peak oil) are matters of political will – at any time in the last thirty years. That leaves AGW, which is fading in the stretch.
Of course, regardless of what might surface as proof that the science simply is not there and never has been, many True Believers will go to their graves believing we’ve lost our last good chance to save Mother Earth from the foul polluters. What they will be ignoring in their immediate environment, however, will be the reality of most people continuing to buy and drive SUV’s for a very long time as they enjoy the benefit of the cheap oil that becomes possible to drill as soon as the AGW crisis has vanished.
It’s a fragile intellectual structure that quickly devolves into a quasi-Marxist consequence that blames everyone for the destruction of the planet. A lot of guilt; a little faux science and…voila! American mindless materialism elicits the greedy consumption of the majority of the planet’s resources which then get converted into gases and chemicals that the planet can’t handle and – if the evolved, sensitive beings of the planet don’t step in – Armaggedon is nigh. And we don’t want any technological solution to this problem, by the way; that would be more of the same. Whew!
People across the political spectrum generally acknowledge that this has alway been a political issue. The problem is that the progressives assume it’s only 20% political (80% science), while the exact opposite is true. (Personally, I’ve long thought there’s only enough science to make a plausible argument to populations who are reluctant to admit that they are not only bone ignorant in that regard, but really don’t give a sh*t. They just want the virtue and friendship that comes with saving Gaia.)
Stay tuned – if the data keeps rolling in and corporations and countries keep backpedaling from their environmental commitments, the sustainable movement may lose its sustainability, despite the millions the administration has lavished on grants and enticements to industry to keep this hoax alive.
Which bring us to:
FREQUENTLY UNASKED QUESTIONS
- Do we really believe that our exhalations are toxic, and not plant food?
- Do we really believe that the sun is irrelevant to climate?
- If you need a victim you can rescue people from, what better than the planet?
- Is your BS detector broken, damaged or genetically missing?
- What is the societal cost of your easily-acquired virtue?
