Never Trust A "Concerned Scientist"

Articles

Never Trust A "Concerned Scientist"

By Brooks A. Mick, M.D.
Feb. 10, 2006

One of the most reliable rules in life is that when you are continually harangued by a “committee of concerned scientists,” you should put in your earplugs and leave the area as fast as possible. Never trust the findings of a “concerned scientist.” By announcing their emotional involvement, they are renouncing their impartiality. Only trust the data you get from unconcerned, cold, unemotional, unbiased scientists.

This is especially evident nowadays with the global warming true believers. Global warming is a faith-based religion, and one could consider it the environmentalist version of intelligent design. The scientists all intelligently, purposefully design their computer models to “prove” that global warming is occurring and that it is due to human activity.

Short bit of advice: Don’t bet all your bankroll on global warming. You will likely lose your shirt just when you will need it to cope with the coming mini Ice Age that is being predicted by other, less “concerned” scientists.

It has long been known that an ice age is overdue. That it has not occurred is now attributed, by many, to a sun cycle of increased output. Now a prediction is made that this sun cycle is burning out and we will enter a cycle of decreased sun energy output resulting in global cooling. Perhaps a mini Ice Age such as we had a few hundred years ago. Hopefully not one major Ice Age such as we had a few thousand years back.

I would tend to bet on global cooling as more likely than warming. It fits with history better, and it doesn’t depend on linear computer models which are flawed, as they are trying to model an inherently chaotic system. It would be much as if one created a mathematical model based on a child counting on his fingers and used it to predict Einstein’s theory of relativity. A simple linear model CANNOT be expected to predict a chaotic reality. When you hear that a “consensus of concerned scientists” agrees that such and such and such and such is true, you can bet that it isn’t true with reasonable certainty. This is true because, in reality, there is no such consensus among the scientists; the consensus exists only in the summaries of data fabricated and fudged by the Marxist political bureaucrats who publish the data. The scientists themselves are often dismayed about the erroneous statements made in their name. Many of them say that there really is no firm data nor reason for any firm consensus about such. What we desperately need is some data Viagra to firm things up.

For example, some info gleaned from CCNET:

(A) News Feature "A sea change" (Nature 439, 256-260; 2006) states that evidence for the huge effects on climate of past thermohaline shutdowns is "near indisputable". You then claim that the best such evidence is the coincidence of thermohaline slowdown with the flooding of the North Atlantic following the collapse of Lake Agassiz, about 12,000 years ago at the beginning of the Younger Dryas cold period. Yet Wallace Broecker, one of the chief proponents of the relationship between thermohaline circulation changes and climate, finds otherwise. In a recent study (T. V. Lowell et al. Eos 86, 365-373; 2005), Broecker and colleagues suggest that the case for the coincidence of these events is quite weak, and might well be wrong. Instead, they say, preliminary findings imply a retreating ice sheet margin approximately 1000 years younger than previously thought, which would have blocked key meltwater corridors at the start of the Younger Dryas". --Eric Steig, University of Washington, Nature, 9 February 2006

Preliminary results indicate that ice recession at both outlet areas is later than supposed, and that large volumes of meltwater were not catastrophically released from Lake Agassiz at the beginning of the Younger Dryas. Thus, if the Lake Agassiz floods did not upset the circulation pattern, the question becomes: What did? Could other pathways of the hydrological cycle alter the thermohaline circulation pattern at the beginning of the Younger Dryas, or alter other climate fluctuations that preceded Lake Agassiz? These investigations indicate that the geological understanding of past abrupt climate changes is only preliminary. This does not bode well for predicting future, abrupt climate changes. (Emphasis mine—Brooks) --T.V. Lowell et al., Eos, 4 October 2005

If the most knowledgeable scientists realize the data is inconclusive, how is it that we trust POLITICAL BUREAUCRATS AND PARTISAN HACKS when they claim they have found the Holy Grail of truth concerning future climate?

The clear answer is that we should not trust these unscientific, prejudiced, severely biased political operatives. They are out to sway us for political purposes.

Indeed, the very fact that so many different computer models all predict the same catastrophe is a good indication that these computer models are flawed, biased, and DESIGNED TO PREDICT CATASTROPHE IN ORDER TO SCARE YOU INTO BELIEVING THAT CERTAIN THINGS MUST BE DONE NOW AND THAT WE DON’T HAVE TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT! Those “certain things” always turn out to be harmful to corporations, harmful to the economy, and involve increasing government meddling in our lives.

Think about it. As for me, I am going to buy a good parka and make sure my furnace is in good repair. Global cooling appears a much more likely prospect than global warming.

http://www.physorg.com/news10595.html

------------

About the author Brooks A. Mick: Physician, still practicing medicine but retired from the US Army. Write just for the fun of it, but working on novel in the vein of Tom Clancy's politico-military genre.

Email: brooks15@cox.net

Comment on this article here!

------------

All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED!