Evidence Versus Consequence

Dictionary.com defines evidence as

  1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
  2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
  3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Also, it defines the word consequence as

  1. the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier: The accident was the consequence of reckless driving.
  2. an act or instance of following something as an effect, result, or outcome.
  3. the conclusion reached by a line of reasoning; inference.
  4. importance or significance: a matter of no consequence.
  5. importance in rank or position; distinction: a man of great consequence in art.

A great deal of concern has been created by the media and Global Warming alarmists by the mounting evidence which indicates that the world is warming, and that it is mankind’s fault. However, one need only analyze their supposed evidence to realize that what they are really attempting to do is obfuscate the truth. Peppered into their colorful language is a clear attempt to mislead the people they view as ignorant masses into believing the tale that they have crafted. They do this by purposely confusing evidence and consequence.In a murder trial, good examples of evidence would be: the murder weapon with the defendant’s fingerprints on it, the defendant’s bloody clothing as well as a slew of other possible pieces which together prove guilt. Ancillary facts will also be presented, such as motive. Motive serves as a consequence of the crime; what did the perpetrator have to gain from committing the act?

It is important to understand these distinctions. A prosecutor would have a difficult time proving a case if all they had to show was motive on the part of the defendant. Without direct evidence to link the motive to the crime, it becomes almost impossible to pass reasonable doubt.

In the field of Global Warming, Al Gore, the IPCC and the media will put forth a great deal of proof (evidence) that Global Warming is real and is the fault of humans. Recently, as part of NBC’s “Green is Universal” campaign, members of The Today Show visited sites around the world to prove the reality of Global Warming. The shrinking of Mount Kilimanjaro’s glaciers was to prove the evil of human released Carbon dioxide. Al Gore’s much lauded documentary purported to show that the melting and calving of the artic ice sheet, along with drowning polar bears was incontrovertible proof of the human impact on the environment.

However, such “evidence” only seems to indicate that the Earth’s temperature is increasing. And this is only true if there can be no better explanation for why such melting of ice would occur. These are consequences, which serve to prove nothing beyond a reasonable doubt. As far as being evidence of the human role in Global Warming, it falls far from providing the necessary weight to indict humanity as harbingers of the apcocalypse.

Even the IPCC, which claims to be a rigorous scientific body, fails to properly prove that humans are to blame. This UN sanctioned body was created with the preconceived notion that Anthoropogenic Global Warming is real. The crux of their argument is the much discredited Hockey Stick Graph, which shows temperatures increasing sharply over the last 100 years. This graph was not based on direct measurement, but instead it relied on proxies to determine temperatures from before there was a global temperature record. Even this record, which many alarmists use as evidence, is not foolproof.

Nothing which has been presented by the proponents of AGW can cast light on there being an undeniable human role in planetary temperatures. Einstein’s theory of General Relativity was largely unproven before high speed jets showed that previosly synchorinzed clocks diverge as one enters a different accelerating reference frame.

This was true proof of a scientific theory.

Until Al Gore and the media can provide this kind of smoking gun, they will be forced to rely on imagery and obfuscation to leave the public unaware of their agenda.