Global warming- I mean ‘climate change’- mongers are unfazed by record cold temperatures. They are astute at explaining how record cold temperatures do in fact prove man made global warming and carbon dioxide emissions actually support their warming hypothesis, but only after the fact. True understanding is of value in the power to predict.
In the American Thinker Howard Richman and Raymond Richman examine who really did understand the climate issues in The Winner of This Year’s ‘Best Climate Predictor’ Award (Clue It Wasn’t Al Gore!). The press seems to give the most coverage to those who understand the issue the least. The worst predictor, Al Gore himself, received a Noble Prize for the subject he clearly understands very poorly.
Gore’s prediction is clearly the worst of these three, yet he was awarded a million-dollar Nobel Peace Prize for bringing this issue to the attention of the world. Schwarzenegger’s prediction comes in second-worst, yet he is angling for a global warming spokesman job in the Obama administration. The IPCC’s prediction is third-worst, yet it just won a huge expansion of the U.N. bureaucracy at the Cancun Climate Conference.
Corbyn, like many other astrophysicists, has figured out that climate change is mainly due to extraterrestrial forces, including solar activity and cosmic rays, not carbon dioxide. If you still believe in the theory that carbon dioxide causes climate change, click here to watch an excellent lecture by Jasper Kirkby at the Cern, one of Europe’s most highly respected centers for scientific research. Astrophysicists have discovered that changes in the rate of cosmic ray inflow cause climate change and that solar activity shields the earth from cosmic rays.
I do not pretend to know enough about the science of climatology to know which side of this debate is correct, but it is reckless and foolish to pretend that the debate does not exist. Predictions of catastrophe from a population bomb (Thomas Malthus), massive toxin exposure (Silent Spring), running out of oil (Club of Rome), or now a disastrous outcome of man induced climate change have not ended as predicted even from noted scientists of their day. How can we be certain that global warming does in fact exist, that it is necessarily a bad thing if it does (more people die from excessive cold that excessive heat and warming could lengthen growing seasons and increase food production), that it is man made and finally, that any of the policies promising to correct it would be effective.
It is hard to imagine any field of science with more known and unknown variables than global climate prediction. When the tone of the language resembles religious fanaticism rather than an objective reality I can not help but remain skeptical whether scenarios of disaster serve the desires of political power rather than constructive scientific inquiry.