C02 Is Not Pollution

The recent Climate-Gate scandal has not totally discredited science, but it does show that science and political expediency do not mix. One of my favorite definitions of science, is “the ongoing attempt to disprove a theory”; the science of Man Made Climate Change departed this from this almost from the beginning. Forget for a moment that the data for Made Made Climate Change has been corrupted to the point that the CRU says it will take 3 years to re-calculate it's findings. Lets look at Man Made Climate Change purely from a prospective of what would actually would be done by the United Nations and Al Gore if the world signed on to a carbon reduction, cap and trade treaty. The Kyoto and Copenhagen conferences presented a plan that the industrial developed world, primarily the United States and China would accept an arbitrary cap on their carbon emissions and would need to buy carbon credits for any carbon admissions over that amount. In other words, as long as the carbon credits cost less than their profit margins, these industrialized countries will simply pay to increase their carbon footprint; this is why it has been referred as “pay to pollute”. These carbon credits will come from non- industrialized countries, where the industrialized countries will trade carbon credits (much they way stocks are traded). In the Kyoto accords, the countries rich in carbon credits would have sold them directly to the countries in need of the credits. However, in Copenhagen, the UN inserted a middleman, the IMF (International Monetary Fund) to control the credits. When the carbon credit rich countries were informed of this, they revolted and the Copenhagen Accord collapsed.

So what does all this mean? First, it means that the science of Man Made Climate Change is being used purely for a re-distribution of wealth between the developed and non-developed industrial countries of the world. The made up value of the world wide carbon credits has been estimated at 23 trillion dollars. Those prone to make the most money are the investment bankers that will broker the carbon credits. Al Gore has invested heavily in these banks and it has been projected that he will become the first billionaire as the result of world wide carbon trading. If science eventually shows that atmospheric levels of C02 does not trap heat, and/or that man's contribution to the C02 levels does not cause Global Warming, then the United Nations and many countries in the world would lose their share of the $23 trillion pot. Since it is science that is being used to justify this re-distribution, there is a huge conflict of interest for scientist are only being given grants to prove the existence of Man Made Climate Change and, according to the CRU hacked emails, any scientists that are questioning Man Made Climate Change are being blocked form peer review and there has been such far reaching attempts to discredit them, that CRU scientists have discussed pressuring colleges to invalidate their credentials.

I am an optimistic person. History tells me that in the long run, science will win out. As I said in a past letter, “When science is used for political purposes, it can only be as corrupted as politicians”; it is the poison of government. It would seem that science is best when it is in conflict with the status quo. But take science out of it's element and it can be used to justify tyranny and fascism. F.A. Haytek described this process in his 1944 book, The Road to Serfdom. Once science has to serve, not the truth, but the interests of a class, a community, or a state, the sole task of the argument and discussion is to vindicate and to spread still further the beliefs by which the whole life of the community is directed. When science becomes political the result is Geocentric(s), Eugenics, and now Man Made Climate Change. Science is a process and at it's best is man's only real attempt at being objective. As long as scientist admit there is no scientific fact, and that all scientific theories will eventually be dis-proven, science will continue to search for understanding, regardless of where it leads.

Climate Gate and Man Made Climate Change

In 1836 Charles Darwin was a 27 year old scientist of growing esteem. One of the burning geological question of the day involved a group of valleys in Scotland called Glen Roy. The location has a three shelves at different levels and the only theory at the time was they were roads built by giants. It was suspected they where actually beaches at three different levels, but the location was open at one end, so it did not lend itself to a theory that the location had contained a lake. Darwin theorized that the location was once under the ocean and was raised by three separate “crustal uplifts”. A short time later another scientist theorized the valleys had been damned by glaciers, which has been the accepted theory since. However, Darwin refused to admit his flawed theory and carried the foolishness to his grave.

The original concept of the planetary “Greenhouse Effect” was been accepted climate theory for over 50 years. However, that is quite different than the theory, once called Global Cooling, then Global Warming and now Man Made Climate Change. The Greenhouse Effect, simply put, is the atmosphere catches heat, reflected from the earth's surface and recycles it, giving earth relatively mild temperatures. The atmosphere also filters out much of the radiation emitted from the sun, that otherwise would make life on earth impossible. In the 70's, there was mounting scientific theory that we were heading toward another ice age and “Global Cooling” was termed; the result of this global cooling was to be extreme weather on the planet, leading to crop failures and millions of deaths from sickness and starvation. Then came the 80's, where there was mounting scientific theory that man was releasing atmosphere (or ozone) destroying gases (chlorofluorocarbons) into the air, which would soon deplete the atmosphere's ability to screen radiation. The evidence for this were termed “holes” in the ozone, which were later determined to be seasonal. Then in the 1990's we started hearing about Man Made Climate Change (MMCC). The mounting scientific theory was that man's presents on the planet was causing increases in the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and the rising levels was resulting in rising temperatures, that would lead to extreme weather on the planet, crop failures and millions of deaths from sickness and starvation.

First, you need to understand what MMCC is not. MMCC is not about curbing pollution or cleaning up the environment. MMCC is not about rationing the earths resources for future generations. MMCC has nothing to to do creating new “clean” jobs or investing in new green technology. What MMCC is, is a sudo-science that has been driven by a political agenda. The science of MMCC has a very narrow focus and has three legs. The first leg is that rising carbon dioxide levels in the earth's atmosphere has resulted in raising global temperatures. The second is these resulting rising temperatures are melting the polar ice caps and causing increasingly violent weather that lead to mass deaths and destruction worldwide. The third leg is that the rising carbon dioxide levels are man made. Now one would think that if this were true, that there would be a plan to lower mankind's production of carbon dioxide. This however is not the case; the political side has instead called for a system of “Carbon Credits”. Under the Carbon Credit system, referred to in the US as “Cap and Trade”, a world governing body will determine an arbitrary level of carbon dioxide production. Each country will monitor the carbon dioxide production of it's citizens and penalize them if they exceed their “cap”. Countries that produce low levels of carbon dioxide will be awarded credits that they can sell on the world market to citizens of other countries who have exceeded their cap limits; hence Cap and Trade. So, as you can see, MMCC is designed as a world tax and a mechanism for the redistribution of wealth. The likes of Al Gore has already invested heavily in the institution of a World bank, that would profit as a middle man for buying and selling of Carbon Credits.

As I said before, the first leg of the MMCC theory, is that rising carbon dioxide causes temperatures to go up (it should be noted that carbon dioxide is released any time energy is produced). What is known, is the opposite, that rising temperatures result in higher carbon dioxide levels from the oceans evaporating. In the 1990's the MMCC theory took off with the stewardship of Al Gore, who almost immediately announced that MMCC was no longer a theory, but a scientific fact, and that anyone who purported to question the theory, was a hack and no doubt in the pocket of the oil industry. This was partly due to his continually mis-stating known science (that CO2 levels rise with higher temps) with his Global Warming theory (that temps rise with increased C02). During the 90's the weather cooperated with the MMCC theory, as temperature raised about .5 deg. The result was Al Gore and the United Nations starting to build the framework of the world currency of Carbon Credits designed to balance out the production of carbon dioxide (i.e. carbon footprint). However, the new millennium was not so kind to the MCCC theory. Temperatures leveled out and in some cases actually went down; this is were the MCCC science really started breaking down.

We now know, from emails hacked from Climatic Research Unit in England, that the world's top scientist in the field of MMCC, have been “helping the science” by fudging the data and sabotaging the peer review system. The later can not be emphasized enough. The way scientific theory is scrutinized and legitimized is through peer review. A scientist will write papers to explain his reasoning and views of theories and these papers are published. Other scientists will read the papers and comment on it's strengths and weakness. The emails captured from the CRU, show a cabal by the leading Climate Change scientists, to block the publication of any dissenting view of MMCC, a refusal to respond to any of dissenting papers if they were published, and finally to “change the definition of peer review" if necessary. You must remember here, that one of the most often cited issues with dissenting views of MMCC, is a lack of peer review! Now we know why. Even worse for the scientist, attempting to question the data and results (that we now know were fraudulent), resulted in these CRU connected scientist personally attacking the dissenting scientist, even to the point of pressuring academia to strip the scientist of their tenure and revoke their credentials.

As the realization that MMCC science is reluctantly accepted, there will be attempts by the powers that be to mitigate the level of fraud that was perpetrated on the citizens of the world, and try and save themselves from the fallout. They will no doubt fall back on all they were trying to do is save the world and the basic precept, that we need to take care of our planet and clean up the environment. But remember as I said before, that has never been the objective of the MMCC agenda. As a matter of fact, much of the money originally slated toward true clean technology, has been diverted to pay for Carbon Credits. There is also little doubt that these scientists didn't start out planning to destroy their careers for a few dollars or some fudged numbers. But, modern society has falsely looked upon science as the last bastion of incorruptibility. However, the history of science is rift with examples of egotistical scientists who refuse to admit fatal flaws when they surface in their theories. In the end, they were simply trying to cover up junk science and to try and save themselves from humiliation and loss of reputation and esteem. One can only hope that the scientific community will react to this crisis with transparency; unless your making an atomic bomb, science should not be a secretive process behind closed doors. Science is a process that is supposed to be democratic in nature, where the only objective is contextual knowledge. But, as Benjamin Franklin once wrote, “Democracy is two lions and goat talking about what's for dinner.” So, just as democracy needs a value system to survive, so does science; and when that value system breaks down you end up with a half eaten goat and a lot finger pointing.