| The Global Warming Folly |
Despite billions of dollars and millions of propaganda headlines, the global warming prophesied by the climate modelling industry is not scientifically real
The amount spent on climate studies worldwide has now reached the astonishingly high level of about $5 billion per year.1 In the United States alone, more than $2 billion is spent annually for climate studies, not including the costs of satellites, ships, and laboratory construction. 2 Climatologists have obtained this immense amount of funding by creating the vision of a man-made planetary climate catastrophe.
In the 1970s and the 1980s, computer models of climate prophesied a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) content in the atmosphere during the next 6O years. The greenhouse effect of this CO2 increase, together with that of other greenhouse gases released by human beings into the atmosphere – CH4, N2O, CFC-11 (freon), and CFC-12 – was supposed to increase the average global surface air temperature by 5°C. In polar regions, the increase was projected to be 10°C. Later, in the 1990s, climatologists truncated the computer model estimates of the man-made increase of global temperature by the year 2100, first to 3,3°C3,5 and then to 2°C.7
Climate warming caused by man-made greenhouse gases, is usually presented as a gloomy catastrophe that will induce the mass extinction of animals and plants, epidemics of contagious and parasitic diseases, droughts and floods, and even invasions of mutated insects resistent to insecticides. Melting glaciers are predicted to raise sea level by 3.67 meters, flooding islands, densely inhabited coastal areas, and great metropolises. 6, 8 There will be mass migrations and a host of other social and environmental effects – always detrimental, never beneficial.
According to one American climatologist, the "scare-them-to-death" approach seems to be the best way to get money for climate studies. Dr. Stephen Schneider, a leading prophet of man-made climate warming, stated this bluntly:
"To capture the public imagination... we have to... make simplified dramatic statements, and little mention of any doubts one might have.... Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest". 9
The IPCC reports, which have become bibles for bureaucrats and environmentalist fanatics, ac-cuse modern civilization of being responsible for global warming, and repeatedly state that they reflect a true "consensus" of the scientific community. This statement about consensus is totally false: The assessments, conclusions, and even the working method of the IPCC are criticized by numerous scientists today. A more accurate description of the current situation would not be consensus, but rather controversy. Science does not progress via a process of consensus, or voting. There was no "consensus" for Copernicus's idea, in his time, that the Earth orbited the Sun. Consensus is not needed in science; it is for politicians.
Continued > http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Ingles/Warm.html