Some time ago, an author exploded when others on the loop dared question the whole climate change ideology. She used an example of believing something in the face of facts with her theory of climate change. What bothered me most was the anger threaded through her verbal assaults on anyone who disagreed with her. This disparaging of and calling names tends to be the established method by those who cannot stand on facts or truth.
I remember when the media (who did quote scientists) told us we were headed to another ice age and if we weren’t careful, we’d all freeze to death. (Today many have backed away from this view, blaming the whole craze on the media. Yet the reporters got their information from some source.)
Time rolled on and findings pointed in another direction. We weren’t going to freeze, we’re going to fry. Humankind have so polluted the planet that unless we’re careful and make changes, our world is going to cook us all. (Please give us grants and other financial motives to conduct studies to prove our theory.)
But the deep fryer theories and models also didn’t work out as planned, though many are still touted as possibilities. If we can’t predict a deep freeze or burn out, why not hedge the bet and simply put everything into the basket and call it “Climate change.” Now no matter what happens, “scientists” can claim accuracy.
Only they forget that our world has cycles, some decades or hundreds of years in the making. How can it be proved changes are not simply the planet in one cycle or another, one that lasts beyond the lifetime of those studying the weather and other patterns? Is climate change created and sustained by human activities or are there other factors involved? Assumptions are made about all sorts of findings, but assumptions are not facts. They are interpretation of facts.
Years and years ago, I read an article that told how studies of a lake proved acid rain was real, using as proof studies of a freshwater lake that became acid. Only further study showed the lake was normally acid and had been altered for fish enthusiasts. In time the lake simply returned to its natural state. The assumptions were wrong.
Most so-called scientific models on climate change are based on assumptions, guesses and a whole lot of imagination. The models often sound scientific, but when looked at more closely, are often little more than interpretation of certain findings.
Let’s not forget the hack of University of East Anglia, the repository for climate change theorizing. The hacks uncovered a world of chicanery–of records, readings and findings manipulated to fit the prevailing climate change position. Some emails seemed to reveal that findings to the contrary were summarily discredited.
Contrary to what we’re told by proponents of climate change there are hundreds of credible scientists who hold contrary points of view. But these scientists are ignored, do not get grants and some have lost positions at colleges and other institutions simply for questioning the lock-step, mindless climate change rhetoric.
As for motivation. What scientist is going to endanger a job/career by going against the prevailing position when it would mean loss of credibility, loss of work and loss of finances? A few will. Others rationalize reasons to stay on the bandwagon.
Remember Columbus. He believed the world was round. Why? Partly because he studied scripture. While many in his day had all sorts of “reasons” to believe the world was flat, he disagreed. Many laughed or put down or tried to destroy those who had different findings of the world, such as Galileo and Columbus. We now know, both Galileo and Columbus proved them all wrong.
No matter what is claimed, too much of the media grabs interest by their fear-mongering with the “sky is falling” mentality. It hasn’t yet. Time we stop believing the hype. Whatever happened to learning and growing from discussion, study and searching for truth–not just following the latest politically correct positions? Maybe it is time for less name calling and a lot more respect, more listening and a whole lot more common sense.
By Carolyn R Scheidies