Whenever you see or read something about global warming, ask yourself what’s really being said and why they’re trying so hard to convince you. First, notice the number of qualifiers — words like: “if,” “could,” “might” or “suggests.” I have a current science magazine article of four pages that has 53 qualifiers, hardly a sign of certainty.
Do they show carbon dioxide (CO2) rising, followed by several natural disasters (as if disasters never happened before)? The truth about CO2 is that it traps very little heat (called Outgoing Longwave Radiation or OLR) in the upper atmosphere, because CO2’s heat absorption capability is at a different wavelength. Climate alarmists don’t tell you that.
Do they tell you there’s a consensus? But one-half of the members of the American Meteorological Society don’t agree. So alarmists are now trying to decertify or intimidate those meteorologists who won’t “toe the party line.” Studies that purport to show a 97 percent scientific consensus rely on cherry-picking of data.
With a paucity of facts, alarmists have resorted to name-calling. Flat-earther is their latest craze. But then the president of the Flat Earth Society comes out and announces that he’s a global warming believer. Actually, a Pew Research study showed that the more science education one receives, the more skeptical of disastrous warming one becomes.
Since 2003, some 280,000 British have died from the cold, and 10,000 from the heat. Another 25,000 to 30,000 will die this winter. I ask you, which is worse?