In 2006 a former Vice President by the name of Al Gore walked onto the stage in the movie "An Inconvenient Truth". This was the movie that kick started the "Global Warming" movement and introduced concepts such as Carbon Tax.
For decades there had been a growing Green movement focusing on dealing with pollution, recycling, and better care for the Earth in terms of making people more aware of things like deforestation, strip mining, garbage disposal, plastics not being biodegradable and causing environmental problems. People in general seemed to be in favor of such discussions and awareness.
Things changed in 2006. The entire inconvenient truth message was designed to have impact. It was designed to smack people in the face and wake them up. It used some classic techniques, and it was highly effective.
With one major problem. It wasn't based upon science.
It was an authority figure who was known as an authority figure as he almost became President and by some accounts he should have. He was a politician and had a nice delivery of words, speeches, and charisma.
Science is the product of our usage of the tool known as The Scientific Method. This methodology is designed to eliminate bias and opinion from our search for the "truth". It is not something we "believe" in as it can either be measured or it cannot. It is simply our best explanations for the observable facts (data) that we have at the time. It is not THE TRUTH. It is our attempts to get closer to the truth. Science does not produce anything that is inviolate and cannot be challenged. If there is any flaw it is expected there will be challenge. Answering and resolving the challenges is how we get closer to the truth. It has happened many times. Newton's Laws of Gravitation fail to handle the three body problem. Yet along came a guy named Albert Einstein and produced General Relativity which resolved the issue. Even General Relativity has its problems.
This is why physicists, chemists, biologists, and other people who SHOULD be using the scientific method continually push forward. Yet it is important to note that NOTHING they do is set in stone and inviolate. Challenging anything with reason is never heresy, blasphemy, absurd, conspiracy theorist, etc. when it comes to the scientific method.
The Inconvenient Truth did not spring from the scientific method. It is not science.
The scientific method is simple, elegant, and effective. It is a tool to aid us in getting closer to truths without our own bias and opinions tainting the outcome.
It begins with observation. We notice something.
It proceeds to hypothesis. This is essentially us trying to come up with an explanation that makes sense for how what we noticed could occur. The more details in our hypothesis the easier it is to prove or disprove.
The next step is experimentation, and testing. We come up with ways to test the validity of our hypothesis. We document this testing thoroughly. The testing can be approached in many different ways depending upon what it is we are testing and how feasible it is for us to do some tests. We document our data collection process, the data collected, and the methodology we used to complete the test.
If the test shows a flaw in our hypothesis we make notes of our observations during the testing and we return to the hypothesis stage and go back to trying to determine what is causing the observable phenomena/data.
If the test was a success then the next step is replication. We send our hypothesis to other people. They initially can go over our data, methodology, etc. If they don't find flaws there then they should collect the data themselves, and apply the same methods and see if the results are the same. If at any point there is a flaw or it cannot be replicated then that means there is a flaw in the hypothesis and it returns to that stage.
If it has passed replication from all that attempt it at some point it becomes accepted. This would be the closest thing to the word "consensus" that is frequently used to shut down discussions of this topic.
At that point it becomes a Theory. It should be noted that a scientific theory is not the same as the word theory when applied to things like "conspiracy theory". That version of a theory actually would be better described as a hypothesis when comparing it to science. It should also be noted that in some cases people publish their theory without having someone else verify it by replication and they just throw it out there to be challenged.
Theories are not irrefutable. They are simply the best explanation we have available at the time. It is not uncommon for flaws to be found in theories, yet we will keep using them. Why? Well we keep using them because they are the best model we have at the time to explain things and while not perfect they do allow us to produce technology and predictions. Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity are good examples. They work perfectly for calculating movement on our planet, or even when dealing with two objects such as a planet and a sun. As you add more celestial bodies into that equation though they begin to not match what we observe. So even though it is flawed, it is still useful and we do many things based upon it.
That doesn't mean we ignore the flaw and still consider the theory as some "absolute truth". Scientists will keep discussing and hypothesizing and trying to come up with a new model that can not only resolve the flaw(s), but can also explain everything the existing model explains. It does us no good to replace a model with a model that can deal with the flaw, but introduces other flaws that the previous model did not have. This is challenging, and it is exciting to scientists. They do not generally do things because it is EASY.
Now that the Scientific Method is explained. That is what science is based around.
It is NOT what was done with regards to "The Inconvenient Truth" and it is not what has been used with regard to the morphing topic that switched from Global Warming to what we now call Climate Change. Emphasis on that change is important, for it does help make what this actually is as opposed to science clearer.
The Inconvenient Truth had Al Gore making a lot of predictions. Predictions that failed to manifest. If his predictions were accurate then our beaches should look very different today. They don't.
Let's talk about those predictions and what they were based upon. Some of the leading "scientists" (who violated the scientific method) have been caught from their own emails for how they would do mathematical tricks to try to make the points in the data that didn't fit their desired outcome go away. This scandal is what was known as Climate Gate and it was/is a big deal. If you are interested their emails are readily available online and you can read them yourself.
The important thing is that this was a complete disregard of the scientific method. It produced the infamous "hockey stick" graph that was used in The Inconvenient Truth and it is this graph which the dire cataclysmic predictions were based upon.
The creative math was used to make the "Medieval Warm Period" disappear, as well as the Little Ice Age. Those things being IRONED out with math were "inconvenient truths" to the so-called "Inconvenient Truth".
As these things were not manifesting what occurred? We saw them shift from the term Global Warming to instead using the term Climate Change. If anyone knows simple mathematics and set theory this should have been another huge red flag.
In set theory you look at things as different containers much like a Russian Nesting Doll. Here is an example: Animal is a set. Mammals and Amphibians are Sub Sets of Animal. Human and Canine are Sub Sets of Mammal. That is essentially set theory.
Is an Ice age a climate? Yes. Is Global Warming part of climate? Yes. Is Global Cooling part of climate? Yes.
Switching to Climate Change is rigging the outcome. The Climate is always changing to some degree, always has changed, and will continue to change. So now they can say "See Climate Change!" and never be wrong. Yet the premise upon which they based it initially is wrong.
Here is one more example to illustrate this point: Imagine a door. Two men are staring at that door and one says "Warrel Dane is going to come through that door, be prepared." Then it turns out Warrel Dane died this year on December 13th. The man starts saying "I said someone is going to come through that door!" Well, yes that is what doors are for. People go through them. This is exactly how ridiculous relabeling "global warming" in the context of the movement to "climate change" is. Climate change is all of the people. Global Warming is a specific person.
Now it is purely a political or religious game of semantic retargeting and adding weights to the dice. No science here. Though they do want to sell you a bridge, and collect a tithe from you.
If there was anything that best described the climate change movement then it is likely RELIGION. Some people have used the term cult, but let's face it the only difference between a cult and a religion is that one is mainstream accepted and the other is not. They all start as a cult.
To back this up let us consider more of the climate change narrative.
What happens when anyone challenges climate change? Ridicule. Lost jobs. Pretty much the same as being shouted down with words like Heretic, Blasphemer, and Infidel. This is certainly not part of the scientific method. It is a common trait of religion though.
What is a common phrase people use?
"I believe in Climate Change"
The word "believe" is important to religion. What we believe is irrelevant when it comes to science.
Though it is funny when one considers that we are now talking about the super set "climate change" instead of the sub set "global warming".
So a person saying "I believe in Global Warming" is saying something far more specific than "Climate Change". The climate has always changed, and it will continue to change whether humans are present or not. So stating you believe in climate change ultimately isn't saying anything. Climate Change exists. It happens when there is an ice age. It happens when the Earth warms. Can you see how by switching the name they rigged the outcome? Now they can say "see I was right" when in fact the entire premise and movement began with the concept of "Global Warming".
So why change it? Why change it yet keep pursuing steps to combat "global warming"? Could it be that they realized people were so indoctrinated into believing what they were told that they wouldn't question this change, or think it through? They'd had some success calling scientists who spoke up heretics. They could continue to apply that same technique here for anyone that questioned why they were suddenly using a super set that ALWAYS exists as justification for their machinations.
Now there are still more religious trappings on this entire movement that they came ready to implement. Their High Priest or Figurehead Al Gore trotted it out on the platter he built in the Inconvenient Truth.
Carbon Taxes.
They would tax people for carbon. People that needed to produce carbon for their business could either make carbon offsets such as planting trees to compensate or they could PAY a fee to be able to continue producing carbon. Every person would also be taxed for breathing. For while they ALSO play the rigged game of using Carbon (which describes a vast many things) they focused most heavily on CO2, also known as carbon dioxide.
For those of you unaware. This is what non-plant based life exhales. You breathe in Oxygen (and technically some other gases as well) and you exhale CO2. Plants are the inverse of that. It is a symbiotic relationship of sorts. Non-Plants inhale Oxygen and exhale CO2. Plants inhale (absorb) CO2 and exhale (release) Oxygen.
In otherwords they put a big red bullseye on an important component to life. It is also something you can't help but produce short of dying. Even after death your decomposing body would release some carbon based products and gases.
So they used NOT SCIENCE to convince you that the end of the world was coming, and they proposed a way to force you to tithe for breathing as a proposed solution.
That sounds like religion. Now you likely understand the title of this article:
This sermon has changed our world. It is very politicized and it is used as a tool to persecute others. It is not scientifically proven, as the data is not readily available, and people have replaced replication with whether some "peer reviewed" journals endorse it.
Peer Reviewed. Read the paper. Check the math against the supplied data. Looks good. Must be true.
RED BUZZER
Wrong. Thank you for playing. Please return to your seat. Will a real scientist please step up?
They will indeed do those steps, but at that point they'll think "there may be something here" so they will then proceed to collecting data themselves (could have been flaws in initial data so this is important), they will follow the methodology and they will attempt to replicate the findings.
This later step is often not done in "peer review" in the modern age. This is why we have so many FALSE articles and so much bad science ending up in what was respectable scientific journals in the past.
Today it is "Publish or Perish". Thus, people do whatever they can to publish POSITIVE RESULTS. How often do people get grants and future funding for failures? How often do people get published in a journal for failure?
Answer: Virtually never.
Yet, failure itself is a very important part of the scientific method. We can learn a tremendous amount from failure, and at the very least we can save other scientists a lot of wasted time.
Think about this for awhile. Hopefully you will find that we should be approaching these things using the scientific method and we should not be treating anyone like heretics for offering challenge. That is unless you happen to be fine with this being a religion that can be forced upon all of us.
I am not.
