Climate Change Scientists Are Unqualified for Their Positions

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In an effort to dupe more peo­ple into believ­ing the cli­mate change lie, the White House recent­ly sent out invi­ta­tions to peo­ple, encour­ag­ing them to con­tact the President’s sci­ence advis­er John Hol­dren with ques­tions about cli­mate change. What came as no sur­prise to me is the fact that Hol­dren has absolute­ly no back­ground in weath­er or cli­mate but is instead a staunch envi­ron­men­tal­ist whose pri­ma­ry con­cern since the 1970’s has been curb­ing the world’s pop­u­la­tion to pro­tect the envi­ron­ment.

Like his cli­mate change com­rades at the UN, Hol­dren sim­ply is not qual­i­fied to answer anyone’s ques­tions regard­ing weath­er and cli­mate.

Chris­tiana Figueres, who pre­sides over all cli­mate change orga­ni­za­tions at the UN, is total­ly unqual­i­fied for this posi­tion, as well. Figueres has absolute­ly no back­ground in weath­er, cli­mate, or any form of atmos­pher­ic physics edu­ca­tion. Instead, she holds a degree in eco­nom­ics.

The same goes for the Inter­gov­ern­men­tal Pan­el on Cli­mate Change (IPCC), which is staffed with high­ly edu­cat­ed indi­vid­u­als whose back­grounds have noth­ing to do with weath­er or cli­mate and all to do with envi­ron­men­tal­ism. The IPCC chair­man, Rajen­dra K. Pachau­ri, has a PhD in engi­neer­ing and eco­nom­ics, noth­ing hav­ing to do with weath­er and cli­mate.

The World Mete­o­ro­log­i­cal Orga­ni­za­tion who you would think would be made up entire­ly of mete­o­rol­o­gists is also com­plete­ly staffed with indi­vid­u­als hav­ing no back­ground in mete­o­rol­o­gy. The WMO pres­i­dent David Grimes who on the sur­face appears to be a mete­o­rol­o­gist real­ly isn’t at all, hav­ing only an hon­orary degree in mete­o­rol­o­gy from the Uni­ver­si­ty of East Anglia, UK, which is basi­cal­ly an envi­ron­men­tal orga­ni­za­tion.

With this in mind, we have a Pres­i­dent adding to his very impres­sive resume of lies in using some­one total­ly unqual­i­fied in mete­o­rol­o­gy while try­ing to per­suade the pub­lic that the polit­i­cal agen­da of cli­mate change is real.

A few weeks ago, a memo from the White House dis­cussed the sit­u­a­tion with those pesky cli­mate change deniers, which brings to mind the very label of a cli­mate change denier, which, in real­i­ty, is cli­mate change fac­tu­al­ist. This is because most of us who do not fall for the manip­u­lat­ed data, dis­tort­ed com­put­er mod­els designed to show a spe­cif­ic out­come, and tam­pered satel­lite ani­ma­tion show­ing melt­ing polar ice caps and glac­i­ers where there real­ly isn’t any melt­ing going on at all…Are peo­ple con­cerned with facts, only exam­in­ing real mete­o­ro­log­i­cal and geo­phys­i­cal data and gen­uine cli­mate records.

Accord­ing to the UN cli­mate orga­ni­za­tions, every year since 2000 has been the hottest year on record. Of course, this assess­ment is arrived at through adding the entire earth’s tem­per­a­tures annu­al­ly and pre­sent­ing an over­all esti­mate, then delib­er­ate­ly bumped up a bit. Not arrived at through actu­al tem­per­a­tures record­ed through­out a spe­cif­ic year.

In using real record­ed tem­per­a­tures from actu­al mete­o­ro­log­i­cal sites from around the world since we became sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly capa­ble, we find the hottest year remains 1934. The hottest decades remain in the 1930’s and the 1940’s.

What the UN cli­mate change orga­ni­za­tions neglect to tell us is the 1950’s had less ice at each pole than in any decade before or since.

The hard fact is cli­mate change doesn’t exist in the man­ner those pseu­do cli­mate sci­en­tists want us to believe. In real­i­ty, cli­mates are con­stant­ly chang­ing over many years. It is a nat­ur­al occur­rence on a liv­ing plan­et. Oth­er­wise, if absolute­ly no changes ever hap­pened, earth would be a dead plan­et. Sim­i­lar to all liv­ing things, changes are a part of the life cycle.

The cli­mate change poster boy him­self, Al Gore, actu­al­ly showed us how much of a farce glob­al warm­ing is by his pur­chase, fair­ly recent­ly, of a mul­ti-mil­lion dol­lar beach home in South­ern Cal­i­for­nia. Not the actions of a per­son who fears ris­ing sea lev­els.

In his quest to imple­ment eco­nom­ic degrad­ing cli­mate change pol­i­cy in Amer­i­ca, Pres­i­dent Oba­ma has been try­ing to con­vince us of just how impor­tant it is to act by using exam­ples that are total lies. Both State of the Union address­es, in 2014 and 2015 Oba­ma stat­ed that we are expe­ri­enc­ing coastal flood­ing here in the US from ris­ing sea lev­els. This is a bla­tant lie that any­one should see since absolute­ly no flood­ing at any coastal area in the entire coun­try has tak­en place. Any flood­ing that has hap­pened was the result of storm surges or tsunamis, not an over­all rise in ocean lev­els.

The claim that CO2 lev­els must be reduced due to green­house effect is also a lie. The fact is CO2 lev­els in the whole atmos­phere of the plan­et only amount to 1% of 1% of the total vol­ume, and CH4 lev­els are even more minute than that.

The idea of renew­able ener­gy sources such as wind and solar pow­er as sources of replac­ing fos­sil fuel grid ener­gy is noth­ing more than a fairy tale. The dead give­away that wind and solar elec­tric­i­ty sources are sim­ply exper­i­men­tal projects that actu­al­ly pro­duce hard­ly any elec­tric­i­ty is the fact that both sources need gov­ern­ment sub­si­dies to be able to oper­ate.

In real­i­ty, the fact is wind and solar pow­er sources have no prod­uct to sell, thus they make no mon­ey.

The whole idea of glob­al warming/climate change has all to do with pol­i­tics and the finan­cial gain of those who have invest­ed in the scheme, and noth­ing to do with ver­i­fi­able cli­mate and weath­er facts from real experts in the field.