7 Basic Science Principles
Written by Ernst Hartmut Laemmert
December 16, 2009
As a man of science I find the ongoing dispute of climate crisis highly suspect by those who profess concerns and fears as a “belief”, equating it to a quasi-religious tenet. I would therefore want to logically pose several fundamental and basic principles that should not be objectively and factually arguable, regardless of his/her position on the subject.
1. Any scientific debate, or philosophical argument, must at its outset have a basic agreement by the parties (Example: are we all relying on the same raw “unprocessed data). Without such an initial common starting point no scientific debate can be undertaken, because the parties do not agree to dispute each other in the same framework of reference. This will only produce two monologues without any exchange of fact-based reasoned thought.
2. The “consensus“ argument pointing to a majority (?) of scientists concurring on the issue of GW is a major fallacy in thought. True scientific research and discovery has never been a matter of populist consensus. By its very nature scientific discovery has always been a solitary and minority product. If it were otherwise man could have never evolved to its present form. Therefore the argument that many scientists believe in GW, has no scientific standing whatsoever. The basis of the issue at hand must be incontrovertible scientific analysis without any bias from political, social or economic expedience or, democratic consensus.
3. Any scientific finding can and must be replicable by anyone with the education and intellectual competence in that field. This is obviously not what has taken place. The overlays of adjustments, modifications and redactions from basic climate data make it virtually impossible to conduct a solid and scientifically accurate peer review of the conclusions drawn by the GW proponents, who are now further shying away from scrutiny under the guise of proprietary data. If the world is on the brink of disaster as it is being claimed, not sharing every iota of that knowledge, and the complete process to arriving at that conclusion would not only be an ethical transgression of major proportion but a criminal act of colossal magnitude. If anyone, let alone hundreds of scientific dissenters can make a cold, logical and scientifically unbiased analysis of the actual raw observed data, and come to a very different conclusion, that would by its very nature necessitate an open, unlimited scientific debate without regards to a predetermined conclusion. Only then would the world come to know what the real facts really are and what, if anything, they imply for us.
4. There is now a widely held school of thought that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and thus inimical to the existence of man (the EPA has just defined it as such by executive fiat). This school of thought is based on the belief that there is a correlation – no causality – between the Co2 content of the atmosphere and a geometric progression into catastrophic GW, without consideration of the fact that there are many intricately interdependent factors influencing global climate, some of which are counterbalancing the effects of others. Global Co2 during the 50 million years of the dinosaur age was reportedly many times (!) that of what it is today, without the earth and its climate collapsing (and no, the dinosaurs did not expire from excessive Co2). And they were around a lot longer than mankind has been. With the current politically driven climate hysteria it is totally overlooked that Co2 is not only a necessary, normal and integral part of our atmospheric and physical dynamic but that it is also just a small part of it (0.038%), of which the manmade addition amounts to another small fraction of a percent. That puts the anthropogenic Co2 addition to the atmosphere in a worst case scenario in the magnitude of 0.01% or less of the earth’s atmosphere. It is a (little known) fact that volcanic activity is a far greater contributor of Co2 to the atmosphere than all man-related activity combined. And the global climate has neither collapsed nor “flipped” in the millions of years of such ongoing geological activity.
5. GW proponents generally argue from the basis of a fait accompli of a doomsday scenario, and do not bother to explain their hyperbole conclusions in terms of dry scientific fact based on actual transparent “unprocessed” and “unadjusted” data. If they did, it would become eminently clear that earth climate is not significantly affected by, let alone brought to a catastrophic collapse by anthropogenic Co2 addition, regardless whether mankind completely closes down shop or pursues a responsible course of global economic development.
6. The cost/benefit ratio is hardly ever brought home by GW proponents, because they have enamored themselves with frequently peer-cloned computer model theories of imminent global cataclysm to such a degree that the relative cost AND benefit aspects appear too insignificant a consideration to be given any serious thought. Any genuine scientific thought always has been, always should be, subject to critical analysis. The GW proponents commit the ultimate scientific sin by denying its critics an open and equal forum with the reasoning that “the science (on the issue) is conclusive”, the “case is closed” and that anyone not in concurrence is a “scientific heretic” and not deserving to be heard. That train of thought is anathema to any scientific endeavor that by its very nature always questions the common beliefs of the time by independent and analytical thought, and is reminiscent of the “Emperor’s New Clothes”.
7. The reality is that A.C.G.W. is a debated and contested theory, but with greater certainty will be more likely A. G. E. C. or Anthropogenic Global Economic Collapse, a manmade worldwide disaster to the detriment of virtually the entire world population and its economies, and to the enormous benefit of an oligarchic few, not unlike a Ponzi scheme. Our global climate is well within the range of the oscillations that have existed for hundreds of millions of years. Unaltered and unfiltered observations verify that fact. If anything, global climate has been cooling for nearly a decade now, a phenomenon totally unexplained by the GW proponents. But then, the expedient move to the “Climate Change” moniker can now conveniently make ANY possible event under the sun responsible for it. The sun, which incidentally by its relative phases of activity and inactivity has produced the only reliably observable and verifiable principal causal factor affecting our global climate.