Cosmic Rays and Climate Politics
6:48 PM 10/24/2016
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been the backbone of a skeleton that the Democrats drag out like a cheap Halloween decoration to scare Americans. Yet the IPCC has repeatedly predicted global temperatures incorrectly. Their reports have shown a larger projected global temperature change in relation to the increase of the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in our atmosphere than has been observed. The historical data suggests that the amount of CO2 has little to no effect on global temperature, yet the IPCC still insists that the earth’s temperature is highly sensitivity to changes in CO2. The IPCC misleads the public to believe that the global temperature reacts dramatically to small changes in CO2 by publishing fake historical temperature records that erase the Medieval Warm Period and joining datasets from different measurement techniques to create false trends.
If Hillary Clinton wins and the Democrats get there way, the federal government will continue to spend $22.5 billion a year on a public trough of cash for never-ending climate impact studies. By comparison, the National Institutes of Health spends only $32.3 billion per year on medical research.
One beneficiary of taxpayer money is Jagadish Shukla, professor of climate dynamics at George Mason University who was found to be colluding with other climate scientists in an effort to criminalize debate on climate science that he disagreed with, all while personally pocketing nearly $6 million taxpayer dollars.
The EPA’s own leadership has enriched themselves with taxpayer money. According to the Congressional Research Service, about 60 percent of the EPA’s own chartered Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee members have received roughly $140 million in EPA grants for themselves.
But how can conservatives fight back on the science front? Consider the revolutionary and relatively new cosmic ray theory, also known as Cosmoclimatology. The theory suggests our climate is primarily driven by cosmic rays and solar winds. The Earth experiences ice-ages whenever we pass through an arm of the Milky-way galaxy. The arms produce lots of cosmic rays that create more clouds, reflect our sun’s light, and reduce global temperature. The theory also explains how our sun’s solar wind modulates cosmic ray exposure, reducing cloud cover and allowing more sunlight through the atmosphere thus heating it up. These forces account for a very significant portion of global temperature fluctuations and have been ignored by the IPCC. The theory has been championed by Professor Nir Shaviv at the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Professor Jan Veizer from the University of Ottowa, and Professor Henrik Svensmark from the Danish National Space Institute.
The mainstream media narrative is that Democrats are on the side of science in the climate debate, and that Republicans are the anti-science pawns of industrial polluters. Sadly, Republicans have done little to fight this reputation and are caught between a vacuous denial of Democrat scientific claims or offering compromise policies, IE “environmentalism light.” It’s time for Republican leadership to directly confront Democrats on their broken, disproven and corrupt notions of “science.”
Republicans can begin to fund and extol the work of Profs. Shaviv, Veizer, and Svensmark, and warn the American people that we have been taken for a ride by climate change alarmists. The current IPCC-led climate debate has wasted human capital that could have been spent on discovering new cures or developing new medical procedures to help improve or prolong the lives of people that we care about, and now is the time for the Republicans to go on offense in the climate science debate.
We should revisit occasionally what the proper role of government is. As the constitution was a good sense of direction, we need a core set of principles to add in order to deal with the future.
So many want to engineer society, remove risk, assist certain groups, rather than let individuals thrive and raise communities. Why?
Is Democracy where we all "get it good and hard" or is it the best means to a free society?
Should we roll with the special interests, or make the government achieve its proper role, what is that role, and how to do this?
When do deficits and governments become too large?
Government is becoming more elitist while trying to sell corrections to problems it created, what makes this possible?
This is a list of pages with related content.
