The Politics and Economics of Climate Change
Climate Change, its about money.
Man made global warming is being used to alter living conditions, legislation and industry, it's about money, not science. The science provided by a contingent of those adhering to the "man made global warming" angle is being used for "cap and trade" taxes and the complete undoing of many industries. Just this past week the President of the United States used carbon emissions as a reason to ignore a request for a pipeline the would create over 100,000 jobs and huge amounts of revenue. But there are scientist who disagree and they are being ignored by the government. Meanwhile the "in crowd" of global warming will do anything to support their view, one that is more a religion than science.
I base this on the fact a major "man made global warming" contingency of scientist doctored their data to fit their stance after they realized the actual data said otherwise. This was a highly documented case where the emails between members of this group proved they skewed the data to benefit their stance. The first batch of hacked emails was released in 2009.
According to James Taylor of Forbes.com The three themes gathered from a batch of 5000 emails released anonymously in 2011 are;
1) prominent scientist central to the debate are taking measures to conceal data and discussions
2) they view global warming as a political issue rather than a scientific inquiry
3) many of these scientist franky admit to each other much of the science is weak and dependent on manipulation
Among these scientist is another issue, those that dissent are ostracized and ridiculed. Howard Dean says "run em over", The Obama administration calls them crazy and academics at San Jose State in the meteorology Department
hold book burnings to get rid of any opposing view.
Another aspect ignored by those in the "main stream" is any evidence that disproves their beliefs. In March of this year research was conducted by scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center where they tracked infrared emissions in the earths upper atmosphere during and following a solar storm. They found that most of the energy released from the sun was reflected back into space rather than deposited in earth's lower atmosphere. The results of the study show carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), both abundant in the upper atmosphere
reflect heating energy instead of absorbing it. The full report referenced can be seen here;
Another report issued in 2012 conducted by a group of international scientist from Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) published a reconstruction of the climate in northern Europe over the last 2,000 years. The report shows a cooling trend over the last two millenia and says the planet was hotter during Roman times.
The article is here;
One of the biggest myths is the rise of CO2 preceding warming. In Al Gore's an inconvenient truth. The graphs and diagrams he used have baseline and centerline manipulation used to support his point. Just as in statistics you can get the data to say what you want it to if your willing to manipulate instead of letting it stand on its own merits.
I contend it is about money, both for academics and politicians. Those in academia collect grants and funding for these studies and that would stop. Once you go out on a limb and receive money to support the theory aren't you obligated? What happens to funding once you get false results. I also contend among academics it is part collectivism, dissenters are ridiculed and ostracized while followers get awards and get published.
As far as politics it is very simple. Support man made global warming and you have an all new tax and industry. CO2 and other greenhouse gases are invisible gases, imagine being able to tax air. The sky is the limit and you can tax any industry or person without limitation. Take the global warming crusader Al Gore as an example, while he uses more energy than 100 people he stands to be the first cap and trade billionaire ever. Once cap and trade take effect Gore could become an instant trillion-air. It's about power and money, nothing else.
By no means have I covered all of the scientific data and reasons. My opinions
are based on years of study and an objective look at global warming and climate
change. There is tons of evidence and hundreds of articles to be looked at and for the purposes of this HUB I did not touch the tip of the iceberg. One needs to study solar cycles and read about prominent scientist who became dissenters. For instance, one such scientist focused his career on finding super concentrations of greenhouse gases in pockets in the atmosphere. After 10 years and no results his stance changed and he is now ostracized and treated as a leper. But this HUB is about starting a journey. I leave it up to you, the reader, to take an objective look and do your own studying.