FROM “IN DEFENSE OF RURAL AMERICA”
by Ron Ewart, ©2014, President and Founder, NARLO
Back in the early 60’s when scientists started “dreaming” of how they could determine if there was life elsewhere in the universe, a radio astronomer by the name of Frank Drake came up with an equation (the infamous Drake Equation) to estimate the possibility of intelligent life on other extra solar planets in the Milky Way galaxy. He came up with the equation to help stimulate scientific dialogue at the upcoming, first-ever Search For Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) conference in Green Bank, West Virginia.
To develop the equation he had to make some estimates on some variables that were part of the elements of the equation in order to solve for “N”, the number of possible intelligent life planets in the galaxy. First, he had to estimate the rate of star formation in the galaxy (R). Then he had to estimate the fraction of those stars that might have planets (fp). Then he had to determine an average of the number of those planets per star that would potentially support life (ne) and so on. In the end the elements of the equation were described as follows:
R = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy.
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets.
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets.
fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point.
fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations).
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space.
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space.
There were several other variables Frank could have included in the equation but he was trying to keep it as simple as possible so that the scientific dialogue wouldn’t get bogged down in the elements, or the variables to those elements. Since there was no clear science on these elements, Frank had to make guesses at each value based on the best available information he had at the time. Unfortunately, with no clear evidence, those guesses could vary widely and as they varied, so did the solution to the equation. A solution that varies widely is no solution at all. It is, at best, a wild-as…..d-guess.
The moral of this exercise is to point out that the greater the number of variables in an equation and a wide difference within those variables, the less likely any answer or solution will be accurate.
So let’s look at the number of variables to predict any long-range change in climate that climate scientists plug into their super computers. There are a whole host of variables to predict long-range future climate conditions and those variables can vary widely, as they do in the Drake equation, because of a lack of accurate data. Bear in mind that a weather report, using computer weather modeling, is only good for about two hours. The reason for this is, the weather is a non-linear dynamic system and small changes in initial conditions can produce large changes in localized weather. True scientists, if there are any left, call this phenomenon the butterfly effect.
Wikipedia describes the climate modeling process called the “General Circulation Model” (GCM) as follows: “… GCM is a type of climate model and is a mathematical model of the general circulation of a planetary atmosphere or ocean and based on the Navier–Stokes equations on a rotating sphere with thermodynamic terms for various energy sources (radiation, latent heat).
Wow! What a mouthful. But in order to pull this off, they have to enter a wide range of variables into their super computers, along with a laundry list of equations for other variables. Those variables include the temperature and pressure at any height in the atmosphere. They also include, ocean currents, cloud cover, precipitation, water vapor, ice sheet cover, vegetation, soil types, variations in Solar radiation, trace atmospheric elements like CO2, ozone, methane, carbon monoxide and more. The climate scientists might even put in a prognostication for major volcanic eruptions, but like the Drake equation, these would be guesses at best. Just imagine what a major volcanic eruption would do to any climate model, like Krakatoa in the late 1800’s, or another major volcanic eruption that occurred in 1815 that created a year without a summer in 1816. You can dismiss any climate model in this scenario.
As this debate between the climate scientists (and government) and well-credentialed climate change deniers heats up, more and more evidence appears that the climate scientists are dummying-up variables to obtain a desired result because they just flat don’t know how wide the variable is or can be. So they guess. In science circles this is called made-as-instructed science.
In an attempt to explain away the last 17 years of flat temperature rise that wasn’t predicted by the supercomputer-driven climate models, the climate scientists are now saying, “we believe that we didn’t get the long-range variables of historical ocean currents right.” What? Ocean currents play a huge role in the variations of climate and the scientists have the audacity to say that, “we believe we got ocean currents wrong.” “We believe” is hardly a scientific term. Where is the evidence? Where are the observations and experiments to back up a statement based on “we believe?”
And before this “ocean current” fiasco, the climate scientists had another explanation for the 17-year hiatus of temperature rise. In another article they said that, “we believe” that the rise in temperature was blunted by the absorption of heat by the oceans during this period. Really! Where is the evidence? Where are the observations and experiments that support yet another statement of “we believe?” And these people call themselves scientists? They give science a bad name.
Then another argument has surfaced about methane emanating from the bowels of domestic animals grown for protein. Their argument is that there are way too many domestic animals on the planet that are “flatulating” huge volumes of methane into the atmosphere, driving global warming. Since domestic animals are grown for protein to feed humans, then it follows that humans are responsible for the large amount of methane being emitted in the atmosphere. But it gets better. It turns out that methane is a greater driver of global warming than carbon dioxide (CO2), by almost twenty times. Wait a minute! Didn’t climate scientists tell us that CO2 was the main driver of global warming and humans are responsible? Now we are to believe that there is another culprit and once again, humans are responsible and they had better feel guilty ….. and pay up!
For a second time we must point out that the greater the number of variables in an equation and a wide difference in those variables, the less likely any answer, solution, or prediction will be accurate. That is why their computer models didn’t predict the 17-year flat rise in planet temperature. That is why their computer models didn’t predict a massive rise in Antarctica sea ice. Those same computer models are also in direct conflict with actual collected data over the last 17 years. How is that possible?
As credible evidence mounts against man-caused global warming, why do the environmentalists, government and climate scientists still cling to the folly of their computer models containing too many variables with wide discrepancies in values, just like the Drake equation?
The answer is quite simple really. There is collusion going on between radical environmentalists, western governments, climate scientists and maybe even world central bankers. The collusion is driven by an agenda. The agenda is the unproven argument that human beings are a stain on the earth and must be drastically limited in their behavior (controlled) ….. by government. Further, government must spend billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars to curtail man’s emissions of CO2 and domestic animal flatulent into the atmosphere that in the end will have zero affect on planet temperature rise. Instead, what happens is, government borrows the billions to pay for the controls and the central bankers laugh gleefully while sitting in their cushy bank chairs counting their profits.
To control human behavior, the governments and the environmentalists had to come up with a straw man to rationalize their man-is-guilty agenda and that straw man is “man-caused global warming.” They have been promoting this straw man by propaganda, hype, distortion and lies for years. They exploit the masses by making the masses feel guilty because the masses are responsible for the degradation of the planet and they have to pay for their transgressions. Even though this made-as-instructed science has been exposed as a fraud, they continue to feed the public lie after lie, attempting to cover up their criminal duplicity. They even changed the name to “Climate Change” from man-caused global warming because Climate Change is much less controversial, nor is it definitive of their bogus accusations.
As we stated in a previous article, yes, humans are affecting the planet. But we went on to say that, “We (humans) are an integral part of the environmental processes of earth but we will have little or no effect on any final outcome. We will but only tickle the grander elements such as the Sun, the Moon and the Earth itself, none of which is predictable, much less measurable to the degree necessary for accurate long-range predictions.”
Government and powerful special interest groups are forever trying to hoodwink and deceive the masses for hidden agendas and they have been doing so since man came out of the jungles or deserts and set up shop in cities. The deception didn’t stop when some wise men wrote a blueprint for freedom in 1791. The masses are so stupid that they fall for it every time, to their detriment and eventual enslavement. Man-caused global warming is just one more tool in the elite’s toolbox to manipulate the masses for hidden and not-so-hidden agendas. One of those agendas is absolute power over the masses. The second is money to be used against the masses. One might ask, which of these groups is the smarter of the two? It will probably take the blood of patriots to set it right ….. again!
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
An Off-Subject Observation: It is disgusting from this author’s perspective to watch an unruly, undisciplined segment of the black population turn into wild, savage animals every time a black man is shot or beat up by a white policeman, or shot by a white or half-white man. The police shoot white men and women every day but you don’t see white mobs rioting, looting stores and burning buildings. It is even more disgusting to watch the President, Barack Obama and chief law enforcement officer, Eric Holder, feign great outrage at the event and demand justice, fueling the fires of more American racism and driving more blacks and minorities to the Democrat party, as if that were possible. But these race-baiters are suspiciously silent on black-on-black rape and murder in dysfunctional black communities, or black-on-white rape and murder anywhere. They are the true racists because racism (white against black) suits their political agenda to gain more votes from the stupid and uninformed. Hypocrisy doesn’t even begin to describe their duplicity. But the final straw is to watch the news media and the general public play right into the hands of these true racists and whip a single event into a mob-driven, white-hating, feeding frenzy.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
NOTE: The foregoing article represents the opinion of the author and is not necessarily shared by the owners, employees, representatives, or agents of the publisher.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues and author of this weekly column, “In Defense of Rural America,” is the president of the National Association of Rural Landowners (NARLO) (http://www.narlo.org), a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State, an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners. He can be reached for comment at firstname.lastname@example.org.