All of this blather concerning “Global Warming” now morphed into “Climate Change” so as to protect Al Gore’s ignorant yet globally debated economic theory is a pain in the acetabulum. The adherents to this idiocy all have a tendency to base their theories and their cumulative findings on studies involving the fluid dynamics atmosphere and oceans while refusing to include the effect of biology in the forms of vegetation, topsoil and hydrology.
For example: while Gore will tell you the dangerous introduction of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is the culprit when man continually destroys the ozone layer by burning fossil fuels. To them this is incontrovertible. There is NO other possibility for CO2 entry into the atmosphere.
We must then absolve Mother Nature of any complicity in self-destruction; unless you consider volcanic eruptions occurring on a daily basis somewhere on the planet, pyrogenic-deforestation initiated by lightning strikes occurring every minute of every day on the planet, disruption of arable lands through drought and a failure to thrive in areas because of tsunami activity (depositing salt onto arable land after tidal disturbance) and other problems man has NO control over. But, old Al and his omniscient, self-serving theorists seeking better and greater return on their carbon credit investments know all. They must be accepted as right and just in their prognostications and projections concerning the dismal fate they describe for man’s future.
All hail the mighty Gore; no matter how dumb the dude is. He’s got economics and marketing down pat. We’ll always need horse s#!+ to fertilize whacko ideas and faux scientific soothsaying. He spreads it expertly.
I ask simple questions and require simple answers. What effect has liberal policy had by assuring expanding consumption without working to increase the security of production? Obama flamboyantly trekked to drought-stricken California. He blamed climate change for the drought. This was in spite of the fact most recent computer projections suggest world warming should cause California to gain more rainfall and NOT becoming drier in winter. Remember: these computer models or projections are the foundation of Beaurat and Gore’s House of Cards. (Sounds like a casino doesn’t it?)
I’m a believer in the Butterfly Effect popularized by Meteorologist/ Mathematician Edward Norton Lorenz as he tried applying Chaos Theory to meteorological modeling. He worked out a computation while trying to predict weather patterns (repetition and duration following statistical data and S.L.T over time, with S.L.T. meaning “stuff like that”). In 1961 he fed a series of numbers into an archaic computer and arrived at the point where he entered a fraction (0.506) instead of the more exact and specific decimal (0.506127) . The differences between the mathematical findings because of the second, more exact numerical parameter presented two totally different models and projections. To recognize the possibility of extreme variation of results, based on going deeper into known possibilities of influence offering trillions of potential variables, injected into the base parameters of an event is monumental. The simple addition of 127 millionths of an effective influence can be productive of grossly skewed results in opposition to facts predicted by people heavily invested in the acceptance of their theory over those opposing it. (That was for the nerds.)
(Simply stated this is the phenomenon whereby a small change at one place in a complex system can have largely differing effects elsewhere such as upsetting Gore’s highly profitable little apple cart.)
This particular California Drought is being noted as a long one. It’s being billed as the state’s driest recorded rainfall historically. But scientists studying long-term climate patterns say California’s desiccated for longer stretches in the past. Researchers documented multiple California droughts lasting as much as 20 years in a row during the past millennium — compared to the recent three-year duration dry spell. These scientists produce knowledge of two severe mega-droughts. Using studies developed from studying tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers expressed knowledge of a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 A.D. and, 50 years after that drought concluded, another drought commenced and lasted at least 180 years.
Were those mega-droughts the result of man-made deforestation in the Amazon or over-production of greenhouse gases formed by overwhelming, uncontrolled burning of coal-fired electric power-plants world-wide? What effect has a natural drought had on the production of disturbances in world-wide meteorology? If we irrigated the Sahara to an arable state as it once was millennia ago, how would that affect that same world-wide arability? Could oceanic desalinization and subsequently productive irrigation in California reverse this drought over time? Why hasn’t this been sought after as a possible “cure” for the problem? If “Global Warming “ or as it’s more comically know to date “Climate Change” (some of us call it seasonal change) is so devastatingly important to the salvation of the human race, why is it only important we buy Carbon Credits from hucksters, shysters and Elmer Gantrys like Al Gore and his Chicken Little Corps?
Lorenz tracked his theories through the use of graphs and saw an outline representative of a Butterfly after inputting ever progressing data found to be in alignment with progressive 3D modeling (enter number: .1, .2, .3, .4 etc.) The resultant graph structure shows when more and more variables are added differing and divergent findings result. Thus we have the question: “Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?”
The declaration to be made after this question above is not so much a ready answer as “YOU can’t prove it doesn’t.”
Gore needs to shut his greedy mouth and you need to open your mind.
Thanks for listening.