Global Warming: Political Cause
The only consensus with the Global Warming debate is that the science seems to have left the house. This issue is now a matter of politics as opposed to a forum for scientific debate. Recently, I came across an article that verified my suspicions about this subject.
James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, is a long time proponent of man-made global warming. He was one of the first scientists to appear before Congress, doing so in 1988. At that time, he alerted them of the dire nature of the impending warming. He was basing his conclusions on the 10 year swing from the late 70s towards a warming. Remember, we experienced a cooling trend from the mid 1940's through up until that time. His analysis was certainly heard by a sitting Senator, Al Gore.
Hansen's credentials would make you believe he is someone to listen to. He has a high powered position (warning sign #1) with the government that allows his access to all the latest data collection devices known to man. However, we find that his conclusions are marred by his associations. In the past I wrote that it is not in the American Cancer Institute's best interest to cure cancer. Well, it is not in Hansen's interest to correctly analyze the data. This article sums up what many have long believed.
I find the easiest way to get to the truth is to follow the money. This usually reveals which "side someone's bread is buttered on". For Hansen, it is a liberal agenda that is pushing his results. How is that so? Because they are the ones lining his pockets with millions of dollars. To me, this proves a lack of neutrality in this matter.
Notice who his supporters are: George Soros who provided him with $720,000 for legal and marketing advice; Teresa Heinz Kerry, with of noted liberal John Kerry, who's foundation awarded Hansen $250,00 and let him split a $1 million prize. Right there is a cool (not warm) $1.5 million to this one individual. Do you think he is going to give up this gravy train by asserting that the data now says something different? Obviously not.
One of the major arguments that man-made global warming advocates levy against those who claim proof dispelling this idea is that their conclusions are biased based upon funding. We often hear how the oil companies are paying for these "scientific" studies the same way the tobacco industry paid for studies concluding that smoking was not hazardous to one's health.
This seems like a valid argument. However, further research reveals that ExxonMobil paid $18 million in climate change studies over a period covering 1997-2996. That averages out to under $2 million spent per year to all those doing research. Yet, Hansen received almost that same amount from 3 sources. Obviously, if the research is flawed by those who are funded by the oil companies, then Hansen's conclusions are fabrications also since he is paid by liberal organizations seeking to promote their agenda. This is just one more instance where the American people are being misled by individuals in the government.
Therefore, the next time you hear someone spewing their nonsense about the consensus on man-made global warming, remember the flaw in their argument. And, bet the ranch that they will point to some data put out by GISS. We can now say this facet of the government is an arm for the George Soros political machine.
Posts
