Have you ever wondered why Modern American Liberals are still so preoccupied with the faux science of Global Warming/Climate Change?
I mean, how arrogant do you have to be to believe that you can make a change in the very weather itself, which is controlled by Someone way above your pay grade?
Invented by Al Gore, and propagandized in the book and the movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”, “Climate Change” has become both a Secular Liberal Religion and an industry, a failed one, but an industry none the less.
Ranging from washouts like Solyndra to GreenTech Automotive, millions of taxpayer dollars have been sunk into these so-called green projects, since the advent of the Obama administration.
It is so much a part of Congressional Liberals personal mantras, they believe that literally EVERYTHING is secondary to this faux science, including the security of our Sovereign Nation.
CNSNews.com reports that
CIA director nominee Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) said Thursday that he would rather not wade into the climate change debate during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.
“I frankly as a director of CIA would prefer today not to get into the details of climate debate and science. It seems my role is gonna be so different and unique from that. It is gonna be to work alongside warriors keeping Americans safe, and so I stand by the things that I’
Sen. Kamal Harris (D-Calif.) asked Pompeo, “CIA Director Brennan, who spent a 25-year career at the CIA as an analyst, a senior manager, and station chief in the field, has said that when ‘CIA analysts look for deeper causes of rising instability in the world, one of the causes those CIA analysts see is the impact of climate change.’ Do you have any reason to doubt the assessment of these CIA analysts?”
“Senator, I haven’t had a chance to read those materials with respect to climate change. I do know the agency’s role there,” said Pompeo.
“Its role is to collect foreign intelligence, to understand threats to the world. That would certainly include threats from poor governance, regional instability, threats from all sources and deliver that information to policymakers, and to the extent the changes in climactic activity are part of that foreign intelligence collection task, we will deliver that information to you all and to the president,” he added.
Harris asked a follow-up question about whether Pompeo doubted NASA’s findings on the issue of climate change.
“In the past, you have questioned the scientific consensus on climate change. Nevertheless, according to NASA, multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively published climate scientists agree that climate warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities,” she said.
“In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. Do you have any reason to doubt NASA’s findings?” Harris asked.
“Senator, I’ve actually spoken to this in my political life some. My commentary most all has been directed to ensuring that the policies that America has put in place actually achieve the objective of ensuring that we didn’t have catastrophic harm that resulted from change in climate,” Pompeo said. “I continue to hold that view.
“I frankly as a director of CIA would prefer today not to get into the details of climate debate and science. It seems my role is gonna be so different and unique from that. It is gonna be to work alongside warriors keeping Americans safe, and so I stand by the things that I’ve said previously with respect to that issue,” he said.
“So I’m not clear. Do you believe that NASA’s findings are debatable?” Harris asked.
“Senator, actually I haven’t spent enough time to tell you that I’ve looked at NASA’s findings, and just, I can’t give you any judgment about that today,” Pompeo replied.
“Can you guarantee me that you will and we’ll have a follow-up conversation on this?” Harris asked.
“I’m happy to continue to talk about it. Yes, ma’am, of course,” Pompeo responded.
Leonard Weinstein, ScD, published an article on 4/25/2009 titled Disproving The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Problem.
Here are some excerpts:
A hypothesis has been proposed that human activity over about the last 150 years has caused a significant rise in Earth’s average temperature.
…In order to support a hypothesis, specific predictions need to be made that are based on the claims of the hypothesis, and the predictions then need to either happen or be falsified. While the occurrence of the predicted events is not proof positive of a hypothesis, they increase the believability of the claims. However, if the predictions are not observed, this tends to indicate the hypothesis is flawed or even wrong. Some predictions are absolute in nature. Einstein’s prediction of the bending of light by the Sun is such a case. It either would or would not bend, and this was considered a critical test of the validity of his hypothesis of general relativity. It did bend the predicted amount, and helped raise the concept to the status of theory.
Many predictions however are less easily supported. For example, weather forecasting often does a good job in the very short term but over increasing time does a poor job. This is due to the complexity of the numerous nonlinear components. This complexity has been described in chaos theory by what is called the butterfly effect. Any effect that depends on numerous factors, some of which are nonlinear in effect, is nearly impossible to use to make long-range predictions.
However, for some reason, the present predictions of “Climate Change” are considered by the AGW supporters to be more reliable than even short-term weather forecasting. While some overall trends can be reasonably made based on looking at past historical trends, and some computational models can suggest some trends due to specific forcing factors, like any respectable hypothesis, specific predictions need to be made, and then shown to happen, before the AGW models can have any claim to being reasonably valid.
The AGW computational models do make several specific predictions. Since the time scale for checking the result of the predictions is small, and since local weather can vary enough on the short time scale to confuse the longer time scale prediction, allowances for these shorter lasting events have to be made when examining data that is supposed to be supporting the predictions. Nevertheless, if the actual data results do not significantly support the stated predictions, the AGW hypothesis must be reconsidered or even rejected as it stands.
…The final question is what prediction has the AGW hypothesis made that has been demonstrated, and that strongly supports the hypothesis. It appears that there is NO real supporting evidence and much falsifying evidence for the AGW hypothesis as proposed. That is not to say there is no effect from Human activity. Clearly human pollution (not greenhouse gases) is a problem. There is also very likely some contribution to the present temperature variations from the increase in CO2 and CH4, but it is almost certainly a small effect and not a driver of future climate.
Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic AGW hypothesis fails.
So, why are Congressional Democrats still “ate up with the Dumb A@@” (a colorful Southern expression)and still tilting at windmills, fighting their Quixotic Crusade?
Well…Here are some possible reasons…
1. Appeasing the Gullible –Hey “The Facts Are In.” The “science” is true. And, as P.T. Barnum said,
There is a sucker born every minute.
Remember…these “true believers of the Goreacle”, also voted for Obama. They are easily fooled.
2. Money, Money, Money – Too much money invested by Democrat “Power Brokers” and to much of American Taxpayers money spent needlessly to back down now. These Democratic Congresscritters have political promises to keep.
3. Hey, look! Squirrel! – With Obama and his minions about to be kicked out of the Halls of Power, with possible Federal Investigations to follow, the Congressional Democrats are grasping for whatever national distraction they can come up with.
What would make Senator Harris think that the Director of the CIA has anything to do with “Climate Change” in the performance of his job duties?
Perhaps, she was thinking about “The Day After Tomorrow”, the movie starring Dennis Quaid, which bombed spectacularly, in which the ice was chasing everybody.
Until He Comes,