May 21, 2022

Environmental Mis-conceptions

I came across a press statement release by the Hudson Institute http://www.hudson.org
that I found interesting, relating to one of the pet peeve’s I have towards the whacko liberal left. Among other elements, the statement says:

A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun’s irradiance.

And quoting a fellow at the Hudson Institute, Dennis Avery:

Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. “Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics,” said Avery, “but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.”

What I find interesting, and for that matter, irritating, is the fact that the statement shows that there are a large amount of scientists out there that basically are not being heard, or worse, simply ignored, in order to support what I believe to be a pre-conceived idea to support a political position.

Further, co-author of a book with Dennis Avery (Unstoppable Global Warming) Fred Singer, states in the same statement:

“We’ve had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events,” said co-author Singer. “On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted.”

Why are these ideas being ignored? Why can’t the opposing side be presented without the presenters being ridiculed as merely puppets for big oil? What are so many willing to undergo huge and expensive measures to correct a problem that is not shown to exist by the scientific method – remember, over and over again, we’re being told that we have consensus among the scientific community, but I have yet to see anything that relates to the hypothesis, experiment, observe, study, results process that the scientific method demands.

And yet, more and more people subscribe to this idea. I think it’s a result of being inundated by a media complex driven by a liberal mindset that won’t present the opposing view simply because it differs from their own agenda.

But, do I blame the media for this? Not really. I blame those who accept this drivel, too lazy to do anything else but accept a spoon fed pack of mis-information. There’s a saying: “repeat a lie enough times and it becomes fact.”

It appears to me that the lie is becoming fact right before our very eyes.

dan-o

Dan is an IT Manager who has been working in the technology sector for 20 years. A graduate of University of Houston, Dan's passions lie first and foremost with his responsibilities as a father to two great sons, and a husband to a wonderful woman. In his free time, hobbies include computer gaming, model railroading, R/C aircraft. Whatever time is left over is devoted to sleep, good sci/fi and the only true sport there is - football!

View all posts by dan-o →