So, how is it that the warming from about 1700 to 1950 was natural, but the warming after 1950 is not?
Discovery
of the “whys” for previous warming cycles, like what occurred during
the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods are unlikely to qualify for
government funded research, so the easier route to funding is to enhance
the seriousness of the need to prevent the ‘current’ warming cycle and
its potential threat to humanity, the same humanity that endured
previous warming cycles.
Almost all climate-change research is funded by government.
That means you the taxpayer.
Government has been on the global warming bandwagon from the beginning.
If
young climate researchers today want to build their careers, their
chances of getting government funding for their proposals is directly
proportional to how seriously they portray the threat of global warming.
If their research project themes are skeptical of human-caused climate change, their chance of getting funded are great reduced.
...
Unfortunately, very little of research funding goes toward
understanding natural causes of climate change, like what occurred in
the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, and the warming from about 1700 to
1950 ...
... Interestingly, that warming was natural during those periods, but warming since 1950 is not?
Why don’t more papers tackle the thorny issue of determining how much warming is natural versus anthropogenic?
In
contrast to the CO2-based theory natural climate change is largely not
understood, unpredictable, and so researchers do not look there for
causes of warming which may be the driving force for government funds to
research solution for the doomsday forecasting.
Global Warming is the ultimate cash cow for climate researchers.
The bigger the perceived problem, the more money agencies like NASA, NOAA, DOE, EPA, and NSF can get.
The modern-day blaming of weather events on human-caused climate change in the news reports, at a minimum, intellectually lazy, and is probably more aptly described as journalistic malpractice and fear mongering.
... some in the science community have enabled this feeding frenzy.
The Press will not report on DATA or FACTS that counter the emotions as they are deemed as deniers of that emotion driving the public.
The news media are only interested in covering predictions of doom, which further amplifies the emotional bias.
How could thinking people NOT be skeptical when it comes to the outlandish claims, we receive from the news media?
Why then, does it seem to so many like our weather is getting worse?
It is partly because alarmism pervades the news on an almost daily basis.
Poverty kills and forcing people to use more expensive energy will worsen poverty.
Poverty, not global warming, remains biggest challenge.
... regarding energy literacy on renewables and fossil fuels, it is not that we are stupid, we are too emotional.
One of the principles of branding is that people do not buy WHAT you do, they buy WHY you do it.
We make most of our decisions based on feelings and emotions, NOT data and facts.
The WHY in this equation is simple, as it equates to getting off fossil fuels to reduce emissions at any cost.
Emotions takes it from there, and any data or facts to the contrary are categorized as deniers to the emotional decisions in play.
Elected and appointed officials, and special interest groups, feed off the WHY for government funding, to reduce emissions at any cost, for votes and money."
