Climate forecasts by
people who have an axe to grind
There have been many periods during the existence of the Earth when the globe was much
warmer than it is now, and there were many other periods during which the climate was much
colder. However, the claim by climate alarmists that global warming is becoming
catastrophic is a hoax promoted by propagandistic publicists who make a living from
promoting such hoaxes; a good living at that. It is not so much a hoax with respect
to the warming itself, there may be some of that and maybe not, but at worst it will be
far short from what social activists such as David Suzuki claim. The promoters of
the hoax claim that global warming is primarily due to industrialization and that, if
industrialization carries on, the warming will become catastrophic, but that claim appears
to be quite wrong.
In the trial-by-media that people like David Suzuki and
Stephen Schneider (another climate
alarmist who during the seventies waxed just as alarmist about global cooling) love to
fuel, the decision that the much overstated global-warming trend is real and a man-made
(anthropogenic) calamity was made before the fuel was poured on the fire. Then all
possible attempts were made to find evidence that supports the claim that
industrialization is causing the end of humanity and perhaps of the globe itself, while
evidence disagreeing with the claim was discarded or ignored.
Objective and reputable scientists worth their salt have a name for that sort
of approach to doing "scientific" research. They call it advocacy
research, although David Suzuki doesn't really do any research. He is just a
geneticist who propagandizes climate research by others but only research that fits his
agenda. And Stephen Schneider (no relative of mine, although I have a son of the
same name) is said to have once joked that since Greenhouse had hit the public arena, he
had become more of a politician than a scientist.
In the world of the absolute truth, the jury is still out, and, based on the
evidence that has so far been examined, quite a different picture emerged than what the
promoters of the global-warming scare present.
There is quite a bit of that evidence, an ever-increasing amount of it.
Some of it has been available since long before the promoters of the global-warming
scare got into the picture and began to make a good living from promoting their agenda.
All along, that objective evidence was discussed with the promoters of the
global-warming scare, but the prophets of gloom and doom won't listen. They scoff at
any and all indicators identifying that they are wrong, although they did on a number of
occasions already revise their estimated dates for the end of the world, putting it off
more and more. They had to, so as not to appear ludicrous, because their previous
forecasts of rising sea levels and other indicators they had made predictions for were not
supported by the facts. However, they still promote a scenario of gloom and doom.
And why not, it is a profitable business they are in. Why would they want to
kill their way of making a good living?
The calculations done by General Circulation Models (GCMs) are
the main source of the information that fuels the global warming hysteria.
Nevertheless, not one of them comes acceptably close to accurately calculating
what the climate presently is at any location, let alone of the whole Earth.
Not only that, but all of the GCMs differ widely from one another as to what the
climate was in the past, and as to what it is supposed to be in the future.
Therein lies the problem. No one in his right mind will base any decisions
about the future on tools that cannot determine with acceptable accuracy what
the present is and the past was.