The War on Science
by Gordon McDonald, Ph.D.
A Global Climate Change: Part II
In 1979, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher championed the issue of “Global Warming” as a means to focus attention away from negative labor issues and instead toward fighting “the good fight” for the environment.1 This was the beginning of the modern War on Global Climate Change.
To the scientific community this was a godsend. No longer did researchers have to stress over communicating highly complex scientific problems and possible solutions to non-scientific foundation managers. They simply had to formulate their focus of research in terms of the climate debate. To their delight, the grant monies flowed generously. It was common knowledge among the scientific community that without this manipulation, their pet projects would not be funded.2 But with this inclusion, regardless of their area of study, they were fat with resources.
The temptation was too great. In a self-induced slavery, they gave up the purity of rational science and found themselves manipulated by the desire for more and more funding. Perhaps they thought the consequences of their sinful actions were manageable.
In the back rooms of those in the highest reaches of socioeconomic control, this was the issue they had been looking for. All the previous cultural “wars” were swept away by this all-encompassing “Global Threat to our Existence as a Species.” The previous “wars” had only threatened certain groups. This made it difficult to get a self-absorbed majority concerned. This new threat was to every living thing on Earth. They saw their opportunity and took it.
The Religion of Science
It has been observed that the proponents of Science have shown an alarming similarity to those of Religion. Rather than being purely rational, the history of Science is replete with incidences of intellectual blindness brought on by a resistance to change.
After Nicolaus Copernicus formulated his mathematical evidence of heliocentrism (a sun-centered universe, rather than Earth-centered), it was over 100 years before this fact was accepted. He suffered greatly, both personally and professionally, for the sake of his adherence to the fundamentals of the scientific method. In fact, in a direct irony, he was accused of heresy by the Dominicans.3 We may assign these reactions to a “less enlightened” era. But consider this...
By 1975 the majority of the scientific community, having been swayed by a severe drop in the average surface temperature of the Earth, publicly suspected that an Ice Age was imminent.4 A few scientists argued that, based on their research findings, this couldn’t be true. But it was too late. Members of the scientific community had already put their professional reputations on the line by publishing their views in scholarly journals. The major media outlets had already begun to sound the alarm.5 Politicians had already gravitated toward a “target of opportunity” that would gain them public exposure.
Those professing the contrary view suffered, both personally and professionally, for the sake of the scientific method. By 1980 it was apparent that average temperatures had begun to rise once again. Then came Global Warming.
In the last 100 years there have been four predictions of catastrophic environmental Earth-changes by the scientific community.6 Whether cooling or warming, the dire predictions were the same and so was the public and political reaction. Senator James Inhofe, Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has stated:
Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930s the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920s until the 1960s they warned of global warming. From the 1950s until the 1970s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.
In the last 25 years, we have progressively been “informed” by our scientific elite of our impending demise from Global Warming as a result of human activity. All the usual suspects have been involved. But this time there has been a gradual “falling away” by scientists armed with fundamental research that presents a diametrically opposed conclusion.
The reaction of the scientific community has been defensively “religious.” Refusing to discuss the contrary scientific evidence, they have now changed terminologies—“Global Warming” has now morphed into “Climate Change.” Everyone knows what Global Warming means. Climate Change is a bit muddier. It is actually a fallback to a less-accountable title.
If Not Us, Who or What Is Causing It?
Since there is now an increasing number of climate scientists becoming critical of the “man-made” explanation for our current warming trend, what are the alternatives? There seems to be no clear consensus as to one single factor. Most would agree that the greater probability lies with multiple contributing variables.
What happens between our upper ionosphere and solid ground below is still a mystery. Even today, understanding the interactions and reactions within this highly complex interdependent system is elusive. The more scientists learn, the more they realize how much more there is to learn. The one truism that all would agree to is that we live within a very active environmental system.
Like pebbles on the beach, which the ocean’s constant activity affects at will, the celestial bodies in the universe are subject to the waves of forces exerted upon them. The Earth is but one of these pebbles, albeit a very special one. Within this sea of forces we are being acted upon constantly, but not in a steady fashion.
Our barreled-spiral galaxy, the Milky Way, is extremely active. Our sun, and thus the Earth, is located on the inner rim of one of the “arms” of this spiral. Within these “arms,” great amounts of energy are expelled.
Because of the spaces between the “arms” and our position relative to them, this energy (in the form of several types of cosmic radiation) contacts our planet irregularly. The magnetic sphere that our sun produces “deflects” most of this cosmic radiation, but since our sun has its own cycle of activity, this protection fluctuates.
In 1997 two climate scientists, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, suggested a link between galactic cosmic rays and global warming. They found a direct correlation between the levels of cosmic radiation contacting our planet and low-altitude cloud formation. Low-altitude clouds contribute greatly to what is known as the “greenhouse effect.”
When they presented their theory and its data to the U.N. environmental agencies, they were “religiously” rebuffed and ostracized within the academic community.7 Only when they demonstrated their conclusions through experimentation did they gain any credibility. Now many climate scientists are paying attention to this new research.
In periods of low solar activity, the defensive ability of the sun diminishes and allows cosmic radiation to increase. When this radiation contacts our atmosphere, charged electrons cause water molecules and sulfuric acid to “bond” together and condense. This condensation is the building blocks of clouds.
Since the Earth goes through cycles of cosmic/solar radiation, the resultant warming of the atmosphere through this process would account for the cycle of warming and cooling we have seen historically. The rises we are presently experiencing fit all the necessary parameters of this climatological process. Although still somewhat controversial, this theory is quickly gathering professional support and converting some “industrial-warming” proponents.
Also, recent data has confirmed that we are not alone in our warming trends. Other planets in our system are exhibiting symptoms of climate change as well! In 2005, data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide “ice caps” near Mars’s South Pole had been shrinking for the last three summers. This is yet more evidence that these warming trends are natural and not man induced.
Fire Down Below
Activity from land-based volcanoes is one of the greatest contributors to atmospheric CO2. Yet, the heat they produce causes an even greater effect on our environment. And, over two thirds of the volcanoes on Earth lie beneath our oceans. Because they are predominately “out of sight, out of mind,” their activity and effects go largely unseen. Only recently have we become aware of their magnitude—not only their numbers but also their contribution to our ecosystem.
Since the melting of polar ice can only raise sea levels minimally, any dramatic rise would have to be explained through other processes. These underwater volcanoes superheat the surrounding water to upwards of 500 degrees C.8 To heat the earth’s oceans in their entirety would take some time. Some have postulated that the historical lag of CO2 levels behind atmospheric temperatures would be consistent with volcanic activity first heating the water and then CO2 being released from a warmer ocean.
The magnitude of this effect cannot be accurately determined, since new underwater volcanoes are being discovered at an ever-increasing pace. Recently, “an open wound (underwater) on the surface of the earth,” exposing the magma beneath, was discovered.9 What is obvious, though, is that we are going through a period of increasing volcanic activity. This activity could have a future effect on sea levels and atmospheric temperatures. All without man’s help.
Next month, we’ll deal with the agenda of those who would want to use this opportunity for a motivation toward globalism.
5. “The Cooling Earth,” Newsweek, 1975.
7. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=fee9a01f-3627-4b01-9222- bf60aa332f1f&k=0.
**RELATED ARTICLES FROM KOINONIA HOUSE**
Global Government: The War on Sovereignty
A Global Climate Change: Part I - Gordon McDonald, Ph.D
**RELATED WEEKLY eNEWS ARTICLES FROM KOINONIA HOUSE**
Global Warming: Here We Go Again! - February 20, 2001
Global Warming Questioned - January 16, 2001
Global Warming Conference At The Hague - November 14, 2000