Now I’ve heard just about everything. If I didn’t think it was so silly, I would have continued to read. But the piece was so far out on the global-warming-is-caused-by everything-we-humans-do axis, I just added it to my list of unread junk science.
I refer readers to the piece reported in news section of Nature, that once respected journal now confined to politically correct findings of a dubious, ahem, nature. (Read it for yourself here. Like I said, I couldn’t finish.) If anything under the sun is new as a new contributor of global temperature rise, this one is the one that takes the cake!
Research results in press
Some scientists are predicting that commercial flights into space will increase global warming, rapidly and catastrophically, of course. The complete report-more junk science, if you will-is in press in Geophysical Research Letters.
Here are four ways that qualify this piece of work as a candidate for the trash.
It fits the definition to a tee
Definition, JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge.
Based on models replete with assumptions
Just because a runway at Las Cruces Spaceport America opened last week doesn’t mean the assumed two commercial flights a day will come anytime soon, in fact, in what century.
Other assumptions feed into the models that spew forth predictions from simulations. That’s just it, they simulate reality because reality isn’t here yet, nevermind the reality described in the assumptions. Moreover, they must be the same models that predict global warming catastrophe. Same models, different data, same predictions of doom?
Scientists of repute and of left-wing leanings
The recently enacted NASA Authorization Act allowed Congress to bestow $1.6 billion to private industries to develop ways to get people and cargo into space. The authors at NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research) in Boulder, Colorado, are from the same gang who misinformed us all along. And if you can’t tell their politics from the research location, then you won’t be able to foretell what their research is likely to show.
What global warming?
Maybe the authors are so busy predicting catastrophe that they haven’t noticed just how much global warming has been debunked. For one thing, Mother Nature seems to have given it a goodbye for the last ten or fifteen years.
While we get both sides of that story, the ones pushing alarmism are the ones with the most to lose. Fat funding contracts and reputations are at stake. Both disappear the instant global warming is understood by the government funders to be the scam that it is.
I wonder why the authors want to tarnish their good names in science by reporting the Spaceport as contributing to a hoax. That’s a report I don’t have to see. I’ve reserved a spot for it on a shelf I call junk science.
Sources: embedded in the text