In a murder mystery, there’s always at least one dupe that is convinced that the killer just can’t be the killer. One person who wants to believe so badly, that the facts are just “inconvenient”; he just refuses to see the truth!
These are the kinds of people that the “Climate Change” snake oil merchants seek out and fund to the tune of billions of dollars. No matter what the facts are, no matter what the climate does, some Kool-Aid drinker will always “find” proof that it is caused by man, usually by running a computer simulation.
The latest proof of global warming, or Climate Change, or whatever, are the North and South Poles. One is losing sea ice, one is gaining sea ice; one is melting from the bottom up, the other growing.
See, the thing about the poles is that they are constantly shifting. The South Pole, Antarctica, is growing, while the North Pole, the Arctic, is said to be shrinking. In other words, the local “climates” are constantly changing. They never stay the same, from year-to-year.
There have always been and, as long as we’ve had the two pole landmasses, there will always be ebbs and flows, shrinkage and growth in the ice. It’s not dirt or rock – it’s frozen water – a little more susceptible to warming and cooling.
So as the Antarctic grows and the Arctic shrinks (and I’m not sure it is), our hyper-controlling government only has to find Kool-Aid drinking “men of science” looking for a government grant, like NASA scientist Walt Meier, simply state that growing Antarctic sea ice is less significant a measure than is declining Arctic sea ice, because … you see … um … it’s harder to explain growing ice due to global warming, you know … so we’ll just claim it to be insignificant.
Okay. Thanks for that. I guess the debate is over. We can all go home now.
It all makes sense if you’re ignorant or blinded enough to take Mr. Meier at his word, and without question, and we’re never allowed to question “men of climate science,” or their simulations.
These same “scientists” tell us because of the melting of West Antarctic glaciers (just forget about the growth on the opposite side) we are locked in an “irreversible” thaw that, in a few hundred years, could add 4 to 12 feet to sea levels. Of course, this irreversible trend was discovered through a computer simulation.
Wait … I thought the Arctic was melting? Maybe that was last week.
So this is awesome, and the oldest trick in the book. Actually, to these “scientists,” it’s not a trick. They really do trust their computer simulations more than actual facts, more than actual measurements.
There is ice natural thawing and freezing all the time, because that’s what water does. Combine that natural occurrence with true believers, who are the same people inputting the “data” for their “simulations” and you have a recipe for ever changing man-caused climate disaster scenarios.
And as the climate naturally changes, the snake oil peddlers must only find a “scientist” who can blame man for the change and just disregard any “inconvenient” truth, like Antarctic ice had gone through eight distinct melting periods between 20,000 and 9000 years ago, some apparently adding more than 6 feet to sea levels.
Yet these “scientists” in their controlled environments, are never asked to explain why this present melting, if it’s actually occurring, is any different from the past, and if it’s irreversible, as these Kool-Aid drinkers say, why must we do anything? Last time I checked, irreversible means it can’t be reversed. And how did the climate “reverse” itself 8 times before, but can’t this time? Easy … because the computer simulation says it can’t.
It’s like a guy finding out he has an incurable disease. He goes to his doctor:
Doctor: “You’re dying and your condition is irreversible, but here’s a prescription for medication. I’m sorry, but it’s $5000 per pill.”
Patient: “How much? Will it stop the disease?
Patient: “Than why am I going to spend that kind of money on something that won’t stop it?” Doctor: “Well, we must do something.”
Patient: “Will it at least help with the pain?”
Doctor: “Nope, but we can’t sit idly by while you just die.”
Patient: “Is there a drug being worked on that shows encouraging signs?”
Patient: “So you’re asking me to spend all my family’s money, all our savings, all my children’s inheritance, on a drug that won’t cure me, or help in any way?”
And that’s the logic of the modern-day simulation-only climate change community.