Imagine you are observing a television display filled with static noise. There are only two colors; black and white. Imagine there are 1000 pixels on the picture and you can observe the screen for a full year at 27 frames per second. After that year of studying the image, you are provided the opportunity to predict the exact image that will appear 25 frames ahead. You would either say that it is impossible or you would be a liar.

Now imagine that the screen was six square miles in size. There are half a billion pixels and each pixel can be one of ten million different colors. Also there are now 150 frames displayed on the screen every second. To top if off, you may only observe the display for 30 seconds, while the screen has been displaying the multi-colored static for 295 years. So, watch for those 30 seconds and predict the image 781 frames in the future.

It would be the mark of a fool to try and the mark of a madman to claim success. But perhaps that madman shaved his beard and stopped screaming about George W. Bush to ultra-radical left wing groups. Maybe if that madman puts on a suit and is calm and rational-sounding, he can just convince you that such a feat is possible. This is the nature of the modern environmentalist movement; slick packaging to cover for truly insane statements.

Anyone who follows the news is sure to encounter innumerable accounts of how man has affected climate and in what way but I am reminded of the scientific method. Essentially, if it cannot be repeatedly demonstrated then the hypothesized effect is not observable. If it is not observable, one cannot measure it and if one cannot measure it then the ‘evidence’ is not empirical. Such ‘evidence’ is not evidence at all if it does not live up to that standard.

Comprehending climate is a matter of understanding all of the minutiae of local ecology systems on the entire planet. John Christy, renowned for his breakthroughs in climate science, says that if one variable in our understanding is wrong then the entire climate model we have is worthless and shows nothing about what humanity has done to the ecosystem.

So in order for the theories of man-made global warming to be true, scientists must know all there is to know about our planet. No scientist in the world is fool enough to make that implication and if any scientist ever does, he should be committed.

But then there is the madman, who is no scientist at all. He will tell you that man’s affect on the climate cannot possibly be good. Why look at all these evil cars and jets and houses and trains and skyscrapers and ocean liners and snowmobiles and rockets! They certainly cannot be helpful! Yet if such baseless assumptions were true, there would be no Central Park, save a total re-creation of wildlife in plastic molds. Such nature simply could not survive around the plague of humanity.

Maybe I have touched on a few unique observations. Perhaps I have not. My conclusions are the same as many others. The whole thing is about money and power using frantic emotion to obtain both. The solutions proposed primarily are global in scale and enforced in courts against freedom (ref. calling for Nuremberg style trials of ‘deniers’). Perhaps the most common ‘solution’ is the constant call for tax increases proposed on behalf of the ecosystem. Though, I have never seen a tree spend a dime on anything.

What is truly odd is all these solutions align perfectly with socialism and total governmental control. Maybe this all never had anything to do with the environment. Maybe nonscientific people are using science as a vehicle to political ends. Just maybe.