Global Warming Scheme
I am a scientist and I can’t stand by quietly observing how the citizens are being constantly taken advantage of by the group of individuals – academics and politicians – doing so simply to keep global warming machine gaining speed.
Here is how the global warming scheme works. The “international scientific community” declares the unanimous consensus on the global warming as an outcome of the industrialized society. Let’s set aside for a moment the fact that this “scientific community” is financed by the enormous amount of taxpayer money poured into their research through uncountable grants from all kinds of governmental institutions. Let’s just concentrate on the global warming issue itself. The effect of the global warming has been “observed” on the data aggressively accumulated just within the last decade. Before that the data has been recorded sporadically. The further back in time we can look for the data records, the less data we can see have been systematically recorded. And before a few decades ago when some kind of information collection began we don’t see anything which could be considered scientifically significant data for that matter.
My expertise lies in the area of extended unstable systems, allowing me being a bit more specific on the issue. Have you ever enjoyed sitting on a shore of a small suburban lake? Have you ever happened to swim in different parts of the lake in the same day? If you have, did you noticed the variations of temperature between different parts of the lake? Well, these variations do exist. There is a whole plurality of the variations causes involved: the particular month, the weather in the day, the extent of the shore curliness, the shadow of trees on various parts of the shore, un-flatness of the bottom landscape, different amounts of mud in different locations on the bottom, you name it. Now imagine, every morning a car arrives at the beach and spends there the entire day. Is it going to change temperature over the whole mile-radius lake? It sure isn’t. And it’s just a lake. How about Earth? How much information do you think scientists can collect over the entire surface of the globe in different individual locations? What is the depth of sand dunes in Sahara, how many crocodiles cross Amazon River every day, what is the typical building’s height in the central area of Bangladesh, and whatnot.
These people will tell you: “well, the average temperature on the Earth surface have been growing in coherence with the industrialization process”. Is that right? How can one measure the “industrialization”? In number of robber tiers or medical needles manufactured during the year? “No”, they’ll tell you: ”in tones of emitted CO2”. And how can they measure that? And even if they can – by estimating the number of factories all over the world (which I would say is as far from being adequate to the actual intensity of CO2 emission as one can think of) – have they been doing so for tens, let alone, hundreds of years? Such data had never existed before. And even if it had existed, how they would have been able to conclude that it’s the only factor to effect the temperature for centuries? By averaging the temperature over the whole globe all the way from Alaska to the South Pole and over all times of the year? How about other factors followed with scrutiny by other scientists not less respectful but, unlike their self-proclaimed prophet colleagues, not engaged in promoting their ideas by spreading fraudulent information and suppressing publications of the opposite opinion in scientific journals. Global warmings and coolings have been happening since the Earth formation. Is there one coming now? Maybe, maybe not. The unbiased scientists study and present multiple theories and observations relating the global warming: constantly changing solar radiation, cosmic beams, seismic activity, drifting magnetic poles of the Earth, amount of plankton (one of the main consumers of CO2), growing forests (which emit Methane – another green house gas) each year? One thing where you can be certain: the question of what is a real reason of the global warming (if it is happening in the first place) cannot be easily answered based on the information accumulated during 1-2 decades. Those “scientific prophets”, keep talking about melting Arctic ice. How about growing Antarctic ice? It is an “inconvenient truth” for them, so you’ll never hear it from their scientific community.
Even if global warming is occurring, how one can even speculate that the single measured parameter – the human-produced CO2 emission – out of billions unmeasured ones, represent its primary cause? Imagine you drop a small stone into a lake. Will it result in a small ripple? Sure. Will it produce tsunami? You see my point.