Since President Obama is sticking with his narrative that climate change is effecting more Americans than terrorism is, it's time to take a hard look at the “settled science” he's hanging this idea on in the first place. First, let's address the claims that human beings are doing irreparable harm to our environment, and adversely affecting our climate through our failure to cut back enough on carbon emissions.
About a year ago, Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, testified before the Senate on this issue. The inconvenient truth for climatologists is that Moore totally disagrees with them, and will not lay the blame for any changes in our climate on man. This man left Greenpeace in 1986 because the organization made a radical left turn, and became more concerned with the politics of environmentalism as opposed to the science. Given the massive amounts of money that just the U.S. government has spent on this political issue, that's easy to understand. As for Moore, the biggest bombshell he dropped was carried in two simple sentences.
“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” Mr. Moore said. “Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.”
Then there is the developing story that is being reported by blogger Paul Homewood about the statistics that the climatologists are using to prove their contentions that the planet is actually getting warmer. Unfortunately, their models are apparently made by changing the actual reported temperatures at weather stations around the world. This statistical manipulation goes back decades, or at least current scientists are playing with numbers that are decades old, to make the temperatures match their theories. It didn't occur to them that anyone would check, or that their manipulations would cause significant weather events in the past to literally disappear. Iceland suffered severely economically in the 1970's due to a severely cold season, and radical increase in sea ice. The new models created by doctoring numbers made that event disappear, since now it appears that Iceland really wasn't that cold during that time period. Perhaps that means that climate change is so bad, it's actually changing historical weather events.
Iceland is making news in climatology circles now, because the latest claim is that climate change causes volcanic eruptions. Hold on tight for this theory, but the climatologists are saying that the volcanic activity in Iceland is due to glaciers melting, and reducing the weight over unstable land. They're also reporting that the nation is rising by about an inch a year. Also, they've anticipated the obvious arguments against their claims by stating that they definitely know that geothermal energy from the volcano only accounts for about 5 percent of the glacier melt. Exactly how they know this isn't mentioned, of course. There also isn't any mention of them bothering to verify that any other causes of volcanoes becoming active aren't in play. Apparently that isn't important in the world of climatology, where science isn't necessarily objective.
As the scientific bases of liberal environmental policies continue to be debunked, there are also indications that there is political favoritism involved in deciding which “green” technologies are worthy of funding, and which are not. At one time, Obama talked about the possibility of using algae to create bio-fuel, but now that hasn't been mentioned in some time. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the technology involved in growing that algae could help coal-fueled power plants. Culture Fuels came up with an algae float system that could create bio-fuel, and all it needs is carbon emissions and some standing water to work. Based on the timeline that they offered in late 2013, theoretically this company could be doing dual-duty in the green-tech world – creating bio-fuel and reducing carbon emissions. But, that doesn't fit the Obama agenda, since it could save the coal industry, and remove the necessity to shut down existing power plants that are now being demonized for destroying our planet.
The bottom line is that science is not necessarily scientific today, particularly where climatology and other environmental sciences are concerned. They have been poisoned by government dollars, which leads to sloppy scientific work, and it appears, outright fraud. The earth existed for billions of years before man, and will undoubtedly survive for billions more after man is gone, presuming that our sun does not explode, destroying all the planets in this solar system. Human beings have been adapting and changing to fit our environment for millions of years, and will continue to do so. If anything, we are much better off than our ancient ancestors, thanks to our advancements in technology. While it is foolhardy to intentionally harm the resources we need for life, it is equally wrong to use scare tactics about causing the end of this planet in order to cause people to change the way they live. Change will always happen, and it shouldn't be up to governments and politicians to decide the pace. And most importantly, human beings pose a far greater threat to each other than they pose to our environment.