Poor grasp of science.

by bt
(New York)

There are several criticism I have of this article. First of all, I believe it lacks a thesis statement that would frame the arguments made later in the article.

While the title implies the article is about Global Warming, the most of the article has nothing to do with the subject. What there is on Global Warming lacks the kind of focus or clear narrative that would help the reader learn about the subject.

Simply Wrong

More importantly, much of the science cited in the article is poorly presented or simply wrong. The article about the Big Bang states that there were multiple ones and they are still occurring. This is simply incorrect. The Big Bang model applies to the creation of our entire universe.

I would recommend focusing more of the subject (the Big Bang is not really relevant to Global Warming) and explaining more about why the author believes it is unstoppable and unavoidable.

Barry's Response - It is long and somewhat rambling, I know. But, bt, it also shows that there is a great opportunity for the educational systems of the world (this author is from The Philippines) to get together and give our students what they need. Knowledge and critical thinking skills.

He has continued his research and shown me his later works, but I have not had the chance to evaluate it yet. Here's hoping he creates work more concise, original, factual and focussed in the future.

Climate alarmism

Climate discourse is dominated by catastrophic predictions: rising sea levels, extreme weather, and an apocalyptic future. What if these dire warnings aren't true? Are natural factors driving climate change more than human activity?

Global warming is often attributed to anthropogenic (human-caused) CO2 emissions, but there's growing evidence that natural variability plays a major, if not dominant, role.

The flaws in climate prediction models

Climate models are only as good as their assumptions. Models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consistently overestimate warming. How come?
- The climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide is overestimated in many models, resulting in worst-case scenarios.
- It's easy to underestimate the Sun's role in climate. The 11-year solar cycle, cosmic ray interactions, and Milankovitch cycles can make climate shifts look like human activity.
We don't know a lot about water vapor, clouds, and ocean heat uptake.

The 1,500-Year Climate Cycle

Earth has experienced many warming and cooling cycles before industrialization. During the Medieval Warm Period (900-1300 AD), temperatures were as warm as today. Little Ice Age (1300-1850 AD) brought cold winters and crop failures.

In Fred Singer's Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1500 Years, the cycle correlates with solar activity. Ice core samples from Greenland and Antarctica support this. Earth's natural cycle might be driving the current warming trend.

Sun and cosmic forces

The sun drives the climate. Solar radiation, sunspots, and magnetic activity influence global temperatures. A low solar activity means more cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, increasing cloud cover and cooling the planet. Cosmic rays are fewer when the Sun is more active.

This hypothesis is ignored by mainstream climate science. Why? Considering natural causes weakens the argument for radical CO2 reductions.

Corruption in climate science research

It's about open inquiry, not politics. The government and institutions that fund climate research have a vested interest in promoting certain conclusions. During the infamous "Climategate" email leak, prominent climate scientists manipulated data, silenced dissent, and prevented alternative perspectives from being published.

Is it possible to trust scientific consensus when funding is based on politics and economics?

Freedom of thought in climate science

Science comes from skepticism, debate, and testing hypotheses, not denial. Exaggerated climate fears lead to economic disaster, energy poverty, and freedom loss. Costs and benefits should be weighed, right?

It's even in the Bible where humanity is given dominion over the Earth in Genesis 1:26. Carbon footprints need to be managed responsibly, not self-flagellated. Protect the planet, but not at the expense of the poor. It doesn't mean ignoring environmental concerns, but it does mean rejecting a doomsday mindset.

It's time to reboot climate science

Instead of blindly accepting apocalyptic predictions, let's take a more balanced approach:
- Climate change has natural causes.
- Let's make science better. It should be free and unpoliticized.
- Make sure you balance environmental responsibility with human prosperity.
- Climate change is changing, but so is intellectual censorship. It's not rising temperatures that's a crisis, it's suppressing debate.

While staying grounded in science, this approach offers an alternative to alarmist narratives. Without fear of being called heretics, think critically, seek out multiple perspectives, and make informed decisions.

Search this site for more information now.