The Abuse of Science

by EditorT

Solar cycle prediction graph. (David Hathaway/NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center ( [Public domain] via Wikimedia Commons)

By James Dale Davidson


“In ordinary logic, almost all effort is concentrated on the syllogism. The logicians seem scarcely to have thought about induction. They pass it by with barely a mention and hurry on their formulas for disputation. But we reject proof by syllogism because it operates in confusion and lets nature slip out of our hands…” — Sir Francis Bacon, London, 1620

Where is Sir Francis Bacon when we really need him?

As a pioneer of the scientific method, Bacon recognized that reliance on syllogisms led medieval thinkers astray. That same deficient approach to understanding nature is embedded in the “global warming” hysteria.

You are told that “science” only endorses one theory on “global warming” caused by human emissions of CO2. But how good it the science? The case developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is no more than a computer-powered syllogism. Thomas Aquinas would have been comfortable with its conclusions. It takes us right back to medieval thinking.

One of the more annoying themes of the sourpusses in today’s establishment is that ignorant bozos like you and I have deserted the principles of “science,” threatening to let the COVID-19 pandemic run wild—as well as “destroy the planet.”

If you don’t believe me, ask Greta Thunberg; you remember her. She is the Swedish school girl acclaimed as an authority on climate and invited to address the United Nations after holding a sign saying” School Strike for Climate” outside the Swedish parliament at the age of 15.

As a thinking citizen, you should be cautious when the mainstream news media anoints someone as a moral authority on science whose only credential seems to be a strangely precocious and humorless fanaticism.

Greta Thunberg’s devotion to “saving the planet” would be forgivable as a harmless adolescent fantasy—if it were not incorporated as a headline-selling point in the multi-trillion hustle.

As you consider the catalog of the awful consequences attributed to “climate change,” it is well to consider my late father’s dictum: “Never ask the barber whether you need a haircut.”

In the case of “climate change,” we have not one barber licking his chops over our shaggy heads but a whole industry dedicated to confusing Swedish school girls about the perils of life on Earth while piling on the gravy train.

Peter J. Taylor shrewdly noted in “The Way the Modern World Works: World Hegemony to World Impasse” that the invention of “ecocatastrophe” can be understood as a way for the rich to maintain their dominant status in society. He described the selfish interest of those wishing to reserve the good life for themselves as requiring a justification that would be seen as a logical, sensible reaction to a world in crisis.

Hence, the invention of the global warming hoax. It may be bad science, riddled with evident shortcomings. Still, it offered a path forward for those among the rich and powerful who want to “conserve their acquired capital while denying capital accumulation to others.”

The far-fetched proposition that driving your automobile threatens to destroy the planet provides a rationalization for retracting the promise of American-style middle-class prosperity for billions of people in emerging economies.

There are still “huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” but not only has the Statue of Liberty’s welcome mat been retracted; the climate bullies now say the huddled masses can’t be allowed to drive. Anywhere. All their billions of little cars would get in the way of the limousine traffic and pump up CO2 levels.

What is more, global warming alarmism threatens to retract the promise of American middle-class prosperity for most of the American middle class. By mandating the use of costly low-density alternative energy sources, the global warming vigilantes could achieve a no-growth economy through the back door, pricing the bottom 90 percent of the American income distribution out of access to the good life.

This amounts to what Taylor describes as “ecofascism.” It is a policy that augurs ill for independent capital accumulation, but it perfectly suits Al Gore’s world of crony capitalism. It also seems set to trigger a big reduction in consumption, possibly even famine, on a large scale.

Don’t make the mistake of supposing that the global warming hoax is an innocent misunderstanding, merely a matter of misprogrammed computer models or a failed excursion into thin air of theoretical physics. It is really a matter of life and death.

While we have been living longer, adding an average of three months to life expectancy every year in Western countries, the agenda of ecofascism is not survival for all. On the contrary, it means death to the many with the promise of comfortable survival for the few—Al Gore and his privileged pals.

Taylor foresees the ecofascist world system as involving two zones: a rich zone, in which capital accumulation will essentially cease, conserving the good life for the powers that be, and a poor zone in which capital accumulation will be prevented through coercion. Add the end of an interstate system to this lack of capital accumulation, and capitalism will be replaced by a “postmodern global apartheid” or “neo-fascist world system” ostensibly dedicated to saving the Earth.

The Earth really doesn’t need saving, especially from CO2. Past increases in CO2 emissions due to volcanic eruptions dwarf those now attributable to human activity. Contrary to the IPCC’s claims that high atmospheric CO2 persists, carbon dioxide is naturally recycled by the Earth. In fact, concentrations of atmospheric CO2 have decreased dramatically over the past 545 million years as the Earth has efficiently sequestered CO2, mainly by growing forests.

Remember that there is compelling evidence that CO2 is not a pollutant but an essential life-giving atmospheric element, crucial to growing food, as any greenhouse operator can confirm. CO2 is an important contributor to the organic capture of solar energy through photosynthesis. That is why an efficient greenhouse operation will triple ambient CO2 of about 400 ppm to 1,300 ppm during the day by pumping in extra CO2. They would not do that if CO2 were really a pollutant.

Indisputable Natural Solar Cycles

As a matter of logic, there is a glaring deficiency to the theory of anthropogenic global warming: it disregards a well-documented historical record showing that climate on Earth repeatedly warmed and cooled for millennia before humans built industrial factories or drove automobiles. For example, anthropogenic global warming could not have caused the Roman Warm Period.

For more details on climate history, review the Blytt-Sernander sequence, a series of climate phases identified from the study of peat bogs in Northern Europe. These divisions, determined by radiocarbon dating, show that the warmest phase of the current Holocene interglacial period, the Atlantic, happened long ago, occurring between 5,000 and 8,000 years after the end of the last ice age.

If the warmest period in history was thousands of years ago, long before the Industrial Revolution, in that case, that ancient episode of global warming must have been driven by something other than human emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2.

Planetary Alignments and Climate Variability

Solar-planetary theorist Ken McCracken claims that the paleoclimatic record over the last 9,400 years reveals 26 Grand Minima similar to the Maunder Minimum. He shows that the Grand Minima in the Holocene, including the Maunder Minimum, all occurred during disordered phases of the Sun’s motions.

Barycenter Anomalies and Solar Inertial Motion

Notably, solar physicists have correlated proxy climate records (dendrochronology: Carbon-14 and Beryllium-10 solar activity proxies from the Arctic and Antarctic) with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s tabulation of the barycenter coordinates of the Sun, the eight major planets, and Pluto.

These records show that the Solar System is indeed a “system” that involves complex planetary synchronization. The plot of planetary alignments coincides with repeating, sometimes almost identical, patterns of climate change as reflected in the solar activity proxies. It has little or nothing to do with atmospheric CO2.

Data from the Little Ice Age (LIA) that followed the Medieval Warm Period offer a powerful “tell,” if you wish, to understand climate. The LIA—one of the colder Grand Minima of the Holocene climate epoch that began 11,700 years ago—had a “twin.” Proxy records, centered around 3,500 BC, show almost identical solar radiation patterns. When the two series are overlaid, the difference in the curves is practically imperceptible.

As the planets move in their counterclockwise orbits around the Sun, the barycenter oscillates in a range of repeating trefoil patterns. It seems evident that specific planetary alignments coincide with barycentric anomalies that disrupt normal solar radiation.

Astronomer Geoff Sharp has identified a planetary configuration with Jupiter, Neptune, and Uranus within fifteen degrees of alignment on one side of the Sun, and Saturn opposite associated with solar cycle slow down or shutdown that occurs in every case.

Obviously, no one was correlating climate with the planetary alignments of Neptune and Uranus 4,267.25 years ago. Neptune was only discovered 175 years ago. Further to that, due to orbital drift, the return of the four outer planets to the same position every 4,267.25 years is not identical.

$100 Billion for Climate Change Propaganda

The ongoing quest to understand the natural causes of solar cycles exposes the dubious nature of the $100 billion or more invested by the world’s governments, purportedly for IPCC-approved climate research but actually for propaganda to justify establishing an ecofascist world system—implemented through climate accords such as the recently concluded Glasgow Climate Summit.

If governments were interested in cultivating a better understanding of the drivers of climate, an allocation of even 20 percent of the resources squandered on global warming propaganda could have gone a long way toward illuminating the natural basis of solar cycles. But the IPCC explicitly limits its inquiries to consideration of only human-caused global warming—incredible intellectual dishonesty.

It would kill the whole bogus enterprise of controlling anthropogenic global warming by clarifying that climate change is determined by the rhythms of nature, not by your commute.

“For well, you know that it’s a fool,
Who plays it cool,
By making his world a little colder.” — Hey Jude, The Beatles, 1968


By James Dale Davidson


You may also like