cience used to be a discipline where people with mathematical talents would try to prove what is real, and scientists usually did shy away from politics. But since globalist political agendas have become tyrannical, many in the science realm have knowingly or unknowingly become affected by it as well over the past decades. One discipline where this is evident is in the research area for climate change.
We have been told since the mid 1990s that the earth's climate is undergoing dramatic change. Mainly, such claims are based on two numbers, calculated each year anew: the average global temperature and the sea level rise for the entire planet. We are told that both numbers go up constantly, the global sea level by around 20 cm since 1900 and the earth's temperature by various degrees over the past decades alone. Both digits are used to push political global climate change agendas. In 2016 in Paris, almost all nations agreed to sign an agreement with far reaching implications for national governments, the Paris Accord and others are based heavily on the calculation and projection of the global average temperature and the sea level rise.
The most important organisation to promote climate change research is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
. Founded in 1988, the Geneva based United Nations organisation gathers climate scientists findings from all over the globe and selects those to be promoted and included in various IPCC Assessment Reports. When looking more detailed into how climate change protagonists come up with their many data to be fed into various projection models, the climate forecasts presented to us must be seen in a very different light, however.
There are two ways to measure
the earth's temperature. One is via satellites measuring the temperatures of atmospheric layers at around 50,000 feet, the other is via ground thermometers. The more precise way is to measure the ground temperatures. In doing so, a vast number of thermometers are needed to produce data which in turn is used to calculate the planet's average temperature. However, coming up with one single digit for the average temperature for the entire planet is literally impossible, the average number we are presented with each year - by the IPCC among other - is the result of very rough deviations.
The overwhelming vast majority of thermometers are located in the USA, in Europe and in parts of Asia. When - at the beginning only few - ocean thermometers were included in the 1990s, the average temperature began to grow more rapidly. Only a few hundred thermometers are located in Antarctica, a continent the size of Europe and which had reported some of the coldest temperatures
in the past decades. Many thermometers in Africa are located at airports and report much higher, invalid temperature data for their respective surrounding region. Thermometer locations had also been changed deliberately in the past in order to favour a rapidly warming scenario, as reported in the following video for example:
The calculation for the sea level rise is equally flawed. Scientists use simple rulers, buoys or so-called tide gauges
, water tubes that claim to eliminate wave effects, to measure the sea levels. Tectonic or seismic shifts which may affect some stations are neglected in these measurements and just like with thermometers, measuring stations report a more or less accurate sea level for only a very specific costal region, further rough deviations create the illusion that a single digit for such a thing like a 'global sea level rise' does exist at all.
Even more, the oftentimes inaccurate data collected at the measuring stations are fed into imperfect mathematical models to calculate predictions for the future. Each model - only if processed on powerful supercomputers - is able to generate futuristic results by making another happy round of more or less rough deviations on partly inaccurate and/or already deviated data.
Not all scientific work is useless, but utilising the rather unpredictably deviated climate digits for far reaching socio-political decisions must remain highly questionable, considering the many issues with the data collection process and forecasting models as outlined above.
Needless to say, there is evidence that the climate is undergoing change and many still do not understand that we need to treat our surrounding nature with respect and utmost care, and we need to make sure that our ecosystems are able to flourish.
Among all of the unpredictable, one thing is certain however: deviations are dangerous.
Leave a comment: