James Murphy
In his new e-book, An
Inconvenient Deception: How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy,
climatologist Roy Spencer dismantles and debunks climate alarmist and former
Vice President Al Gore’s new movie, An Inconvenient Sequel, the
follow-up to Gore’s hugely successful 2006 propaganda film, An
Inconvenient Truth. Spencer’s book is currently outselling Gore’s companion
book to his new film by a wide margin. As of Monday, the Amazon Seller’s rank
for Spencer’s book was 244th, which included a number-one ranking in the
science and math category. The rank for Gore’s offering was 9,775th.
Spencer, a climatologist at
the University of Alabama in Huntsville, is not the typical “global-warming
denier.” He has a B.S. in atmospheric science from the University of Michigan
and a Ph. D. in meteorology from the University of Wisconsin. He has worked
with NASA as a senior scientist for climate studies and has published several
peer-reviewed papers on the topic of climate science. Despite his scientific
credentials, Spencer explains the complex issues of climate science in an
engaging way that the layman can appreciate and understand.
While Spencer doesn’t deny
that humans may have some role in the observed warming of the Earth, he
believes that propogandists such as Gore vastly exaggerate mankind’s effect on
the vast and complex global climate system, which is not yet entirely
understood. “There is no ‘fingerprint’ of human causation versus natural
causation,” Spencer states. “The evidence supporting human causation is largely
circumstantial.”
Spencer, who once testified
for Gore on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, theorizes that
Gore, and others like him in the climate-change business, have developed an
almost cult-like devotion to the theory of anthropogenic global warming, as
witnessed by Gore’s 1992 tome Earth in the Balance. “In my reading
of the book at the time, I felt it had a rather heavy nature-worship feel to
it,” Spencer wrote. “Gore views nature as being inherently fragile, which is
not a scientific concept.”
Spencer calls Gore’s
description of climate change and his fanatical adherence to the belief that
man is the cause of all of nature’s woes a “mish-mash of untruths, half-truths
and misrepresentations.” Further, even if Gore were completely correct about
the so-called crisis, the solutions proposed by the former vice president to
deal with it are not necessarily the wisest course of action. “Even if Gore
were 100 percent correct, how we then should proceed is not at all obvious,” Spencer
asserts.
While revisiting An
Inconvenient Truth, one thing Spencer explained was a little-known tenet of
the global-warming theory. Though climate scientists know with certainty that
certain thermostatic control mechanisms (i.e., clouds and precipitation)
respond to natural rises in CO2 levels, such as from volcanoes
or forest fires — hence limiting changes in the Earth's temperature — most
climate scientists assume that this is not the case with man-made CO2 emissions.
Yet, how would nature know the difference between sources of CO2?
Spencer also catalogs several of the unfulfilled prophecies of Gore's first
film on global warming, among them the complete meltdown of the glacier on Mt.
Kilimanjaro (didn’t happen) and the disappearance of summer sea ice in the
Arctic Ocean by 2014 (not even close).
In his take-down of Gore’s
latest global-warming film, Spencer decries the use of deceptive imagery, such
as images of massive chunks of ice falling into the ocean. The implication in
this footage is that global warming is the cause of it. What Gore fails to
mention is that this is a natural, yearly occurrence. Every summer, even in
atypically cool ones such as 2017, there is a certain amount of melting, thus
some ice loss. This is how we get icebergs.
Additionally, Spencer points
out that receding glaciers in Alaska and Canada have been revealing ancient
tree stumps in abundance. This proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the
world was much warmer roughly a thousand years ago, during Medieval Warm Period.
These ancient stumps are strong evidence that the world goes through natural
warming and cooling cycles that man is not responsible for.
An Inconvenient
Deception goes on to describe Gore’s deceptive use of graphs,
statistics, and naturally occurring phenomena as “proof” of anthropogenic
global warming. He also rightly points out the former vice president’s stunning
hypocrisy on the issue, wanting everyone else in the world to reduce their own
standard of living while he flies around in private jets and maintains
multiple, energy-hogging mansions.
Spencer also takes to task
some of the celebrity scientists who have weighed in on the climate-change
issue, most notably Neil de Grasse-Tyson and Bill Nye. “Our current crop of
pop-science icons should be largely ignored for information outside their
specific areas of expertise,” Spencer wrote.
An Inconvenient Deception contains
sound scientific thinking, written by an actual climate scientist, in language
that is comprehensible to non-scientific minds. It is a worthy read for anyone
who might question the panicked voices we hear each day on the mainstream
media.
James Murphy, The New American, September 11, 2017
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário
Não publicamos comentários de anônimos/desconhecidos.
Por favor, se optar por "Anônimo", escreva o seu nome no final do comentário.
Não use CAIXA ALTA, (Não grite!), isto é, não escreva tudo em maiúsculas, escreva normalmente. Obrigado pela sua participação!
Volte sempre!
Abraços./-