What can business leaders and Republicans do now after helping leftists wreck the U.S. economy and our standard of living, as hard-left partisan activists claim special status as scientists dealing with the “climate crisis”?
Climate-minded Europeans are seriously going to die this winter without Russian oil, unless they restart coal and nuclear power plants. When the children wanted to tear apart civilization, the adults figured, “It’s just a phase they’re going through. They’ll get over it.” So they pandered.
How did this happen? Business leaders, Republicans and the media have been afraid for decades to push back with things like facts and logic because they don’t own a lab coat.
Now it’s time to ask hard questions. Prominent people should emulate Detective Colombo. Colombo brought the hardest criminal to tears by his relentless, seemingly innocent questions. Loudly and persistently demand that the Climate Cult answer questions. Don’t make claims. Ask questions (that the left cannot answer):
- Can people claim to be scientists if they reject the Scientific Method? That is, a hypothesis capable of being tested, carefully designed experiments, repeating the experiment in different places under different conditions, over and over?
- The Associated Press published a warning in 1989 from the United Nations climate science team that mankind had only 10 years, from 1989 to 1999, to stop irreversible global warming. So, is it already too late?
- Are you saying that A happened, then B happened, therefore A caused B? Is that science? You argue that CO2 increased in the atmosphere. Then you say that temperature increased. One thing happened, then another thing.
- One study found that the Earth’s temperature has increased as the number of pirates has decreased. Is global warming caused by not enough pirates? Or is it scientifically invalid to merely say two things happened without experiments proving that one caused the other?
- Isn’t one of the purposes of scientific experiments to eliminate the possibility that something else is going on that we didn’t think of?
- Are scientific papers without an experiment just opinion columns (op-eds)?
- The hypothesis of climate change involves a worldwide – not local – increase in the planetary temperature caused by an increase in the atmosphere’s content of CO2. Is a planet-wide experiment required, capable of testing that hypothesis? Wasn’t the only experiment on CO2 in a container inside a laboratory?
- The Earth’s surface is 196.9 million square miles. Is that right? So have we ever measured the temperature of 196.9 million square miles of Earth’s surface area?
- To measure the temperature of the entire planet Earth would require statistically random sampling, correct? Have we ever taken a truly randomized sample of the Earth’s 196.9 million square miles of surface area?
- Because local temperatures change throughout the seasons, would measuring the temperature of planet Earth, mean taking all measurements on the same day of the year?
- Would we need to take all measurements at the same local time of day?
- A statistical random sample requires that the sample be randomized every single time, right? In statistics, can you re-use the same random sample more than once?
- Do you agree that statistics requires that the size of a random sample depends upon the margin of error you require?
- The claim is that the Earth warmed by 1.5 degrees over the last 125 years. If it was faster near the end, let’s be generous and say we are trying to detect annual changes of 0.025 degrees C, year over year. Right?
- To detect annual changes of 0.025 degrees C would require randomized samples of 80,000 to 400,000 locations out of the Earth’s 196.9 million square miles of surface area, correct? The change expected must be larger than the margin of error.
- Does the Earth’s climate exhibit cycles over time? Why is El Nino a repeating cycle, of unpredictable length?
- How do you know if we are just measuring an up-swing or a down-swing around a naturally recurring climate cycle? Do we have to observe temperature over tens or hundreds of thousands of years to capture oscillations, maybe some we don’t know about yet? Was the ice age scare of the 1970s a downswing of the same oscillation that is now cycling back upward?
- Is it true that we have no systematic temperature measurements of even one city earlier than 1850? That is, high-quality thermometers calibrated to a worldwide standard of consistency with reliable manufacturing requirements used to keep meticulous notes every single day, at the same regular local time of day.
- Is there any value to temperature readings from different cities that are not comparable to each other, taken in the same way to the same standards of reliability?
- Is it true that the Fahrenheit temperature scale was only invented in 1724 and the Celsius scale in 1742? Not in common use, just invented. How do you correlate proxy temperature readings from before the temperature scales were even invented with current data? How are proxies comparable to modern data?
- Climate alarmists claim that they can read the temperature from the different sizes of annual tree rings. Isn’t tree growth responsive mainly to rainfall and sunlight (possibly shadows of competing trees) – not so much temperature?
- The width of annual tree rings do not show daily temperature readings, do they?
- Don’t trees decay to dust within a few dozen or hundred years?
- Is it true that although machines to detect CO2 in the air (mainly from patients’ breath) were being worked on throughout the 1800s, that they only produced usable, reliable results starting from around 1900 to 1930?
- Climate alarmists claim that they can measure air pockets trapped in deep layers of glacial ice to garner information about Earth’s past. When has this technique ever been validated? For example, a true, accurate measurement of the Earth’s atmosphere from 1 million years ago would need to be compared with an air pocket trapped in ice all that time.
- Was professor Zbigniew Jaworowski’s testimony on March 19, 2004, correct before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation that the drilling process itself and the drill-machinery fluids contaminate the air pocket and change its composition during extraction? Was Jaworwski correct that under the intense pressures under layers of glacial ice, “More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusions in polar ice. One of these processes is formation of gas hydrates or clathrates”? Jaworowski (now deceased) argued that when the sample is returned to surface pressure, the gas hydrates or clathrates unravel, changing the air sample even further.
- Is it true that a survey of automated weather stations found that they violate requirements, such as weather stations at airports in the exhaust blast of jet airplanes taking off, next to industrial air conditioning units blasting out heat on commercial rooftops, next to brick buildings, in one case next to a barbecue pit of a fire department?
- Before we tear our economy and society apart, should we commission an independent, unbiased audit of all the temperature stations being used (though not random) to claim there is climate change?
- Should we actually measure the Earth’s temperature properly, using a random sample of at least 80,000 randomly-chosen locations, one day a year? Presumably mass-production, simplification and minimization of automated temperature gauges reporting back by satellite “phone” could produce low-cost units that would be financially possible to air drop, activate on the same day, retrieve the stored data over time, and then maybe recover during the following year.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
This article was originally published by the WND News Center.