Hot Hype and Hyperbole Are Killing the ‘Good’ Name of Science
In the world of science and global warming, hype and hyperbole are the norms. Most scientists lack a good source of cash flow and are constantly scrounging for money to stay in “business.” Yes, “business” is the wordÃ¢Â?Â¦every bit as much as what goes on in those cooperate towers downtown. And it’s become big business tooÃ¢Â?Â¦so much so that people are willing to sacrifice the so-called ‘good’ name of science in pursuit of the almighty dollar. Gone are the days of the of the poor but righteous scientistÃ¢Â?Â¦the lone beacon in the quest for fact or truthÃ¢Â?Â¦the last go to guy when you really needed to know what the hell was going on! Unfortunately, as happens most frequently nowadays, people have figured out a way to “cash in” on nearly any ideaÃ¢Â?Â¦or in this case – hypothesis. It also seems that more and more people are in search of their fifteen minutes of fameÃ¢Â?Â¦or trying to stretch those fifteen minutes into an hour or more.
Right nowÃ¢Â?Â¦this very minuteÃ¢Â?Â¦the all knowing and all powerful state of California is “going it alone” and is trying to push legislation through the state congress to cut CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, put into the air by local industry, by 25% through the year 2020. The wording that accompanies this proposed bill from the current Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger , is as follows: “Ã¢Â?Â¦an example for other states and nations to follow as the fight against climate change continues.” (As of this writing, this bill passed 43 to 30 in the Assembly and is on its way to the Senate.)
, the do-gooders that they are, are trying to lead by example. Well, bless there hearts! California is the ‘s most populous state and supposedly the world’s 12th largest emitter of greenhouse gases and could suffer dire consequences if global temperatures increase only a few degrees, don’t you know. So in the
mindset, global warming is a done dealÃ¢Â?Â¦it’s realÃ¢Â?Â¦it’s hereÃ¢Â?Â¦and it’s happening. And, of course, there can only be bad things to come of it. Funny how no one ever talks about the up side of global warming, but that’s not marketable. You can’t scare the money out of people fast enough if everything is (or would be) coming up roses. And, just so you know, even if global warming were happening, or were to happen later, (natural, man made, whatever) all the supposed ominous consequences are completely and utterly made upÃ¢Â?Â¦as in fictional! But good stuff for the media to feast on and great stuff for the movies (or the Discovery Channel)! This is also why the global warmers of the world are slowly trying to change the name of their cause from global warming to “global change” or “global climate change.” You’ve probably noticed this already. This way, regardless of what climatic or weather related natural disaster occursÃ¢Â?Â¦they can take credit for it (i.e. Hurricane Katrina, heat wave in the western USA, record cold winter in South Africa, Europe and Asia, etc)! The song always remains the same however, with any extreme form of climate or weather only coming from one sourceÃ¢Â?Â¦increased greenhouse gases!…duh!
There is a saying in business that applies quite well to the global warming movement; “Before companies have something to sell, news flow drives valuations.” This saying then becomes, “That before scientists have something to sell, news flow drives the worth of the work.” Therefore headlines (hypothesis or proposed theories) , even if the claims prove groundless, fruitless, or lies, can push up the “stock price” of the global warming community or individual scientist long enough – or nudge deals forward – to keep some scientists on life support that would normally be finished, or give those more established a career full of money and work! Katrina was one such “news flow” (that has flowed on now for a year) and has been appropriately milked, bilked, and abused by the global warmers to such an extent that even among the global warmers, no one knows what to believeÃ¢Â?Â¦except what is good for their own “reality.”
Katrina was also a turning point as far as the way the marketing of global warming was done. Before Katrina, the message was largely, “If global warming turns out to be true, then a hundred years from nowÃ¢Â?Â¦” fill in the blank. After Katrina, the message became, “Because of current on-going global warming we now face more Katrinas and other climate disastersÃ¢Â?Â¦and it will only get worse!” It’s all about timing and the way that things are perceived. Since global warmers don’t have any directly logical verifiable data that supports their cause (they can’t artificially manufacture a hurricane based on their assumptions – except in their models), they lie in wait for just such an opportunity – i.e. Katrina. So far in 2006, northern Atlantic hurricane activity has been quite slowÃ¢Â?Â¦both in numbers and intensity (look at the wimpy Ernesto for example) from those forecast late last year into early summer of this year. If the season turns out to be a bust, I’m predicting that the global warmers will come out with a new hypothesis that global warming caused this lull in the actionÃ¢Â?Â¦or at the very least will try to draw attention away from the lack of hurricane activity in the
and its relationship to global warming.
Ever wonder why the
North Atlantic Ocean
is targeted most often when it comes to statistics concerning hurricane activity and global warming? The three primary reasons are: Some actual increased annual tropical cyclone activity over the last thirty or so years, money, and politics (which ultimately means MONEY!). This scenario plays out, of course, due to the (unfortunate) geographic location of the money and politics lying adjacent to that of the increased hurricane activity. Of course we are talking about the . Who else on this globe has more money or politics to throw (away) at a given cause than the
. And, on the other side of the coin, who can the rest of the world point fingers at and blame for the majority of global warming (just because they are a relatively “wealthy” nation and can afford lots of those things that put CO2 into the air – namely cars and power companies) in order to get something from them? Again, the good ‘ol
. Just in the last year, ten states and two large cities (I’ll bet you can guess who they are) in addition to the environmental watchdog groups Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Sierra Club, brought a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (federal government) for not regulating CO2 emissions (pollution) close enough and directly causing global warming. A similar lawsuit was filed back in 2003 (supposedly settled in 2005 – in favor of the EPA) in response to a 2002 ruling stating that the EPA doesn’t have the authority to control greenhouse gas emissions under the clean air act. The Sierra Club, which supported both of the lawsuits (and probably more), somehow came to the absolute conclusion that CO2 emissions have caused the world to ‘warm up,’ leading to unstable weather patterns, floods, droughts, and outbreaks of tropical diseases and that extreme weather events cost Americans nearly $20 billion in 2002 (alluding to global warming being at fault here through the transitive property – a property previously used mainly for mathematics), a cost that would only increase if the U.S. does nothing to curb global warming. They had no definitive verifiable proof then (2002 – 2005), and have none now except that there is a renewed interest with the help of a certain hurricane that came on shore in August 2005. Can you see ANY other country in the world being held hostage with ludicrous lawsuits except for the ? And, like most things, the only group or individuals to really get rich from all of this finger pointing are the lawyers which will conveniently come to the aid of any bunch of anybody if there’s fame or fortune to be had.
Now, even if a form of global warming was occurring and affecting some aspects of the climate or weather patterns, that is not good enough for the global warmers. The global warmers primary objective is not only to show that the climate has been warming globally, but instead to say that it IS MAN INDUCED global warmingÃ¢Â?Â¦climate changeÃ¢Â?Â¦or greenhouse warming that is responsible for the increase in global temperatures (and of course there are many variations on this theme). These kind of statements are preposterous and are out and out hype and hyperbole. They are based largely, as I said earlier, on a non-verifiable set of data. When you are talking about world geography and climatology you are looking hundreds of years (or even thousands depending upon the subject and the size of the data grid) of verifiable data in order to be statistically significant. While 30 to 50 years may work for local or regional statistics, the same is not true when you apply it to a global system. And, you cannot simply extrapolate or interpolate the results from smaller sets (local/regional) of data to get what you want. You need time and coverageÃ¢Â?Â¦two things that the global warmers of the world do not have at the momentÃ¢Â?Â¦at least not if they want funding now!
Let’s look at a few quick statistics just for fun. These statistics will deal with tropical cyclones (hurricanes, typhoons, tropical storms) since they often seem to be used as one of the “indicators” for global warming (by proxy)Ã¢Â?Â¦and because they are big, nasty, at times destructive, but always headline worthy. For this quick look at the relationship between tropical cyclone activity and the world, the Earth was broken “globally” into five different geographic regions of tropical cyclone (TC) production; the Atlantic, the Eastern Pacific, the Central Pacific, the Western Pacific, and Southern Hemisphere. The most recent 35 year period between 1970 and 2004 was selected due to the fact that much has been made of the “extreme” and/or “unusual” weather and climate (Since about 1970 – when we started our last micro-warming period) that is now apparently a direct result of global warming. The table below shows the average annual number of tropical cyclones (tropical storm intensity or greater – i.e. sustained winds greater than or equal to 39 mph) for each decade as well as the 35 year average.
Average Annual TCs by decade 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2004 35yr. Annual Average
9.5 9.3 11.0 14.6 10.6
Northeastern Pacific 15.0 18.6 14.7 14.4 15.6
North Central Pacific 3.0 3.8 3.1 2.6 3.2
Northwestern Pacific 25.9 26.0 28.3 25.8 26.6
Southern Hemisphere 32.9 27.8 29.1 25.0 29.2
Notice the last five years between 2000 and 2004. This is suppose to be a time of maximum warming over the last 30 to 40 years, yet with the exception of the Atlantic basin, all the rest of the regions are well below the 35 year annual average. So, the global warmers cherry pick what they want you to see (or, at the very least, don’t voluntarily divulge the rest of the story). This “trick” is particularly easy to do when dealing with a relatively complicated issue (or at least one that is presented as being complicated). This way, it’s not really lying, but it’s the next best thing. The global warmers count on thisÃ¢Â?Â¦confusing the topic enough to induce ignorance or ambivalence. Interestingly, if you keep the same relationship but look only at the southern hemisphere (instead of the
), you could conclude that there must be global cooling going on since there has been somewhat of a downward trend in tropical cyclone production over the last 35 years. As a matter of fact, you can draw more conclusions from this data that doesn’t support global warming from the full data set, than you can supporting it! And, at the very least (or most, depending on your outlook on this matter), no matter how you manipulate the data, you cannot (nobody can) definitively conclude that global warming, anthropogenic or natural, is necessarily occurring according to the data. In other words, there is NO direct, statistically significant, correlation between this set of numbers and global warming of any kind! So, obviously, your cannot interpolate , extrapolate, or find through regression analysis any sort of relationship, past or present, to global warmingÃ¢Â?Â¦much less anthropogenic global warming.
One of the worst things to come to light out of all this “hot” propaganda has to do with what research is available driven by what the scientific journals will publish. Lately, you’d think that some of the so-called peer reviewed science journals were vying for ratings and advertising dollars as they have begun to publish virtual opinion piece editorials under the guise of refereed article. The journal (hesitate to call it this) slash magazine “Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society” (BAMS) has actually gone so far as to literally declare its allegiance to the pro-global warming issue (fall/winter issues 2005)! And this is from an organization (The American Meteorological Society) that is suppose to uphold the scientific process and remain as close being totally objective as possible. I guess that it’s really not possible anymore as BAMS just published a paper entitled, ” Mixing Politics and Science in Testing the Hypothesis That Greenhouse Warming Is Causing a Global Increase in Hurricane Intensity” which is more of and editorial opinion piece than any sound piece of peer reviewed science. The truth is, headlines drive (money for) research, and the research must support the headlines in order to keep getting the money. So the marketing (or lobbying, if you prefer) of global warming has accomplished its task. Anymore, if you are on the anti-global warming side of this argument, there is virtually no way to obtain research moneyÃ¢Â?Â¦because there are so many economical and political reasons to keep you out of “their” pie. So the issue (lie) becomes widely lopsided and starts being sold as fact, by virtue of the “other” side just fading away. If you don’t hear that much about the opposite side of global warming, then global warming (climate change) can only be trueÃ¢Â?Â¦right?
Finally, there’s the issue of the name of “science.” If you really want to control CO2 emissions because (and all other types of pollution) because you are compelled to do soÃ¢Â?Â¦or just because it’s the right and thoughtful thing to doÃ¢Â?Â¦then have at and do it! Do it for you own political reasons if you must (because you just can’t get enough government). And, if you have moral and/or religious reasons to lower the amount of carbon dioxide that gets into the airÃ¢Â?Â¦then by all means, give it hell! (Although, there’s probably more CO2 breathed out during a good long sermon than there is for a commute to work.) Do it for all these reasons, but please don’t continue to drag down the name of science by using or buying into falsehood and deception just to get what you or what somebody else wants! And, if you are on the fence over the issue of global warming then adopt this credo and do not take anything – and I mean ANYTHING – related to global warming (for or against) at face value. Dig deeper and the issues real worth or what exactly it’s worth to those with alternate agendas. Be a skeptic first, then do your homework, then make your decision. The issue of global warming and its cost not only affects the people of the world politically and economically, but also directly attacks the “good” name of science and undermines everything science has tried to build and live up to in the past.