AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
![]() Even the once-respected Scientific American magazine has gotten into the act and openly advocates such policies.Īll of these Establishment groups, it seems, have a keen eye open for government funding-not only for research but also for actions that go with such policies. The Royal Society and US National Academy of Sciences have published a joint major report, containing no new science but advocating a “‘need for action.” The AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science), the largest scientific organization in the United States, is promoting the same policy, but without a shred of science in their slick pamphlet. The big guns of international science are actively promoting climate scares. ![]() We can already see the pressure building up for such a treaty. They may succeed – unless the current paradigm changes. Next year, in Paris, the UN will try to reconstitute the basic features of the (1997-2012) Kyoto Protocol - an international treaty of participating nations to limit their emissions of CO 2. This disparity, of course, throws great doubt about any future warming derived from these same models, and indeed also about policies that are being advocated – principally, the mitigation and control of Carbon Dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. Climate models have not come up with any accepted explanation. For one, there has been no warming now for more than 15 years - in spite of rising levels of greenhouse (GH) gases. Nevertheless, I believe the time is right for a paradigm shift on climate. For example, the conversion into ethanol fuel of a substantial portion of the US corn crop raised the price of tortillas in Mexico and caused food riots. But climate is a different animal: The financial stakes are huge-in the trillions of dollars, and affect energy policy, and indeed the economic wellbeing of every inhabitant of the developed and developing world. These shifts were possible because there were no commercial or financial interests - and they did not involve the public and politicians. After being denounced by the Science Establishment, the hypothesis of Alfred Wegener, initially based on approximate relations between South America and Africa, was dramatically confirmed by the discovery of “sea-floor spreading.” The other major shift occurred in Continental Drift. One was in Cosmology, where the “Steady State” theory of the Universe was replaced by the “Big Bang.” This shift was confirmed by the discovery of the ‘microwave background radiation,’ which has already garnered Nobel prizes, and will likely gain more. I have personally witnessed two paradigm shifts where world scientific opinion changed rapidly-almost overnight. Such tipping points occur quite frequently in science. It makes an enormous difference in climate policy: Do we try to mitigate, at huge cost, or do we merely adapt to natural changes – as our ancestors did for many millennia? I’m talking about a tipping point in our views of what controls the climate-whether it’s mainly humans or whether it’s mainly natural. No, I’m not talking about a tipping point in the sense that the Earth will be covered with ice or become hellishly hot. Watch for it: We may be on the threshold of a tipping point in climate history. All the evidence suggests that Nature rules the climate – not Man. The just-published NIPCC reports may lead to a paradigm shift about what or who causes current climate changes.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |