Climate Change Science, aka Religion, is Corrupted by Censorship of Critical Scientists
I hope you will take the time to listen to this Youtube video in which Dr. Willie Soon gives evidence of scientific censorship. He has been the target of intimidation, censorship and vicious lies because he uses real scientific data to refute alarmist claims by Climate Change Advocates in academia and scientific publishing. Even if you choose not to view the video, please read his conclusions below.
Conclusion #1: The dark cloud of censorship and intimidation is sweeping across [the] climate science arena in full display now. Climate science, as we know it, is dangerously invaded and corrupted by scientism. The big bad bullies of censorship, those scientists, scientific institutions and funding agencies, continue to be calling [the] shots and making decisions in just about any matter that is important to science, and that has to be stopped.
Conclusion #2: Nearly all institutions are essentially populated and controlled by activists and alarmists, rather than curious scientists, that are firmly convinced of the great harms of CO2 without any need nor interest for scientific evidence.
The so-called “Deniers” are not the real science deniers. It is the “Warmists” among scientists, turned advocates, who refuse to look at any data/ information that does not agree with their fore-gone conclusions and with models that do not track reality. For example, they firmly refuse to consider any contribution from the Sun or Water Vapor and Clouds.
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” (emphasis added)
On June 23 1988, NASA’s James Hansen testified before Congress and made very specific predictions about global warming. In this video I show how he got them exactly backwards, and how scientists and journalists continue to spread baseless misinformation.
Solar and wind power, by their very nature, are intermittent and unpredictable. The sun is not always visible and the wind is not always blowing at ideal speeds.
You can’t run a hospital or a manufacturing plant on unpredictable intermittent and fluctuating power.
Fluctuating power can damage computers and electric motors in appliances like refrigerators, heat pumps, etc.
As primary power sources, solar and wind power require back up power from other more consistent sources. Their unpredictable nature makes it difficult to supply consistent power as needed through back up sources like fossil fuel and hydroelectric power plants, which cannot change their output quickly, and must run at less than peak efficiency to be ready when needed.
More realistically, wind and solar can only provide a small amount of supplementary power to other more reliable sources like fossil fuel or hydroelectric plants.
Solar and wind require covering large areas with turbines or solar arrays to supply power, which necessarily disrupts ecosystems.
Solar panels and wind generators require exotic “rare earth” minerals, whose extraction is very polluting due to the naturally dispersed nature of rare earths (thus the name).
Solar panels are very inefficient and short lived, e.g. typically less than 30% efficiency for 15 to 20 years with declining efficiency over time. Efficiency varies with the time of day/angle of the sun, latitude, prevalence of clouds and dust accumulation. Disposal of wastes are also problematic.
Solar plants using mirrors aimed at a steam generator are low tech but their high heat kills birds.
Wind turbines kill birds and bats and produce infra-sound that may be harmful to animals and humans.
10. Why do environmentalists hate hydroelectric power, which is the cleanest and most reliable power source
Environmentalists oppose hydroelectric power for two reasons.
The first and real reason is that their socialistic goal is to cripple economies and reduce populations that these sources would support.
(“Giving society cheap abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” – Paul Ehrlich or paraphrased: “Like giving a loaded gun to a child”)
They dream of a return to idealized more primitive times, which were, in reality, brutal and polluting.
In reality, the best way to protect the environment and stabilize family sizes is to raise poor people in developing countries out of their disease ridden squalor. They’re not lazy, just sick. Poverty, not population size, is the cause of environmental damage.
Africa, for example, has largely untapped hydroelectric capacity beyond their energy needs for the foreseeable future, but that would support a larger population, which the environmentalists fight against.
The second “reason,” aka excuse, is disruption of the environment.
They don’t seem to mind the environmental disruption by wind and solar farms.
Hydroelectric power using large to small waterfalls provides reliable power with minimal impact.
Hydroelectric dams require reservoirs that fill slowly to cover formerly dry land, (so the downstream river is not starved in the process), which temporarily disrupts ecosystems that historically have quickly adapted.
They prevent periodic downstream flooding that causes misery and death.
They provide water for homes, industry and agriculture, and jobs from fishing and tourism.
If there is a shortage of fresh water in the world, as claimed by environmentalists, it is because reservoirs are needed.
Environmental groups have prevented the construction of over 200 hydroelectric dams in Africa alone.
In Perverted Truth Exposed, Kay Kiser exposes areas of science that have been corrupted by progressive and atheist philosophies disguised as science, including the theories of evolution, origin of life, cosmology, and quantum physics.
The climate change debate presents a modern example of how the perversion of science is politically imposed to support an anti-God, anti-human progress agenda of Marxist control and power while silencing opposition through intimidation. Kiser also answers:
Did Darwin really steal his theory of evolution from Alfred Wallace?
Why did Wallace later abandon the theory as not having sufficient evidence?
If Hubble discovered the expanding universe leading to the Big Bang Theory, why did he continually try to convince others that their conclusion was wrong?
Is man-made carbon dioxide causing global warming or is it a trailing indicator of climate change in a system dominated by solar cycles, cloud cover, and ocean currents?
Claim 10: World governments must take drastic action now to prevent further warming and catastrophic consequences.
Truth: The jury is still out as to whether warming is a good thing or a bad thing. More people die from cold weather-related events than from heat. Warming periods in the past such as the Medieval Warm Period were times of increased prosperity and peace. There is no indication that any sort of a tipping point is approaching that would cause the predicted catastrophic consequences. There has been no warming since 1998 and a possible cooling since 2005.
It is not even certain that government action could have any effect on warming. If carbon dioxide is not the main cause of warming, then regulating it might be a fool’s errand. (See Claim 2.) Developed nations might curtail use of fossil fuels, but treaties proposed like Kyoto and Rio exempt developing countries. This includes China, India, and Mexico, among the largest and most industrialized developing countries in the world. Their output of carbon dioxide and pollutants from power plants and industry more than overpowers any gains from developed countries’ gains in efficiency or a change to “renewable” and “sustainable” solar and wind energy.
Additionally, the money collected by the UN through these treaties is designated only for such unreliable energy development, not for improving the lives of impoverished peoples. Improving the lives of these people would go much farther to protect the environment than any of these things. (Meanwhile, the development of over 200 hydroelectric dams in Africa have been prevented by activists within and outside the UN.) People who have to worry about eating and feeding their families have no incentive to care for the environment. Higher standards of living lead to more caring for the environment.