2013: The Year To Strike a Blow Against Climate Alarmism
For too long, scientists who promote the hypothesis that man’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are causing dangerous global warming have been given a free ride by politicians and the press. Their pronouncements, no matter how fantastic, are accepted without question and repeated ad nauseam by compliant governments and reporters alike. When scientists do what all scientists are supposed to do — question and probe — they are treated as enemies of the people and condemned by opinion leaders.
With the upcoming release of the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, 2013 can be the year governments and media grow up on climate change.
Treat catastrophists who push for climate and energy policies that would bankrupt us just as we do other end-of-the-world cultists: demand they prove their beliefs before providing them the time of day, let alone our tax dollars. Insist that climate catastrophists cease with their speculations and instead employ the scientific method.
This involves creating hypotheses based on predefined assumptions. Other scientists, in their proper roles as skeptics, challenge the hypothesis by testing the assumptions. They try to disprove — or as philosopher Karl Popper explained, falsify — the assumptions. Popper’s doctrine of falsifiability: “Our belief in any particular natural law cannot have a safer basis than our unsuccessful critical attempts to refute it.”
This part of the scientific method has not been applied to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis, and it is costing us plenty: literally hundreds of billions of dollars per year, the loss of thousands of jobs, and the rapid destruction of our most reliable and least expensive power source — coal-fired electricity.
The problems started when proponents of the AGW hypothesis, mainly the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), abandoned the scientific method and set out to prove the hypothesis because of a political agenda. They ignored or rejected contradictory evidence, no matter how convincing, and attacked those who tried to disprove the hypothesis. They produced false, imaginary, or concocted ideas and data instead of considering limitations and errors in their work.
This is well illustrated by their failure to properly consider the null hypothesis that global temperatures will not rise appreciably because of CO2 emissions from industrial activity.
Environmental fundamentalists knew that weakening the developed world by cutting off the fuel supply would be met with howls of protest, so politicians have not dared try this, at least not overtly. But an engine may also be stopped by choking off the exhaust, and so extremists worked hard to demonize CO2, the principle byproduct of civilization.
They ignored the benefits of the gas, such as its role in sustaining life. Instead, they labeled CO2 a pollutant and a harmful substance because of its supposed impact on climate.
Activists then succeeded in convincing governments to add the benign gas to lists of toxic substances to be controlled through regulations. This has allowed both the American and Canadian governments to bypass our elected representatives and, through the Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada, impose expensive but useless regulations on CO2.
The most effective strategy for fighting climatism — the label given to the climate scare by author Steve Goreham of the American Climate Science Coalition — is public education. Once enough citizens understand that the science, the foundation of the alarm, is hopelessly flawed, support for expensive and futile government action to “stop climate change” will quickly wither.
Here is what the public needs to learn quickly if we are to avoid further damage to our societies.
CO2 is one of three major so-called greenhouse gases (GHG); the others are water vapor (H2O) and methane (CH4). The problem initially faced by extremists bent on tainting CO2 is that the gas is less than 4% of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Water vapor is typically 95% of the total. Their solution was to argue that CO2 is a far more effective GHG.
Trouble is, we don’t know how much more effective, so activists created a phony term — “climate sensitivity” — and spoke about it as if it were high at today’s CO2 levels, now approaching 0.04% of the atmosphere.
In reality, the impact of increasing CO2 is analogous to putting coats of black paint on a window. The first coat of paint blocks most of the light from passing through the window. A second coat reduces light only fractionally more, and further coats accomplish even less.
From the University of Chicago MODTRAN facility. The degree to which increasing CO2 levels affect temperature drops rapidly as CO2 concentration rises. In other words, climate sensitivity decreases with increasing concentration, until, at today’s level of nearly 400 parts per million, climate sensitivity approaches zero. Note that the first 20 ppm of CO2 has a greater temperature effect than the next 400 ppm combined.
The same is true of the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere. Research shows that the temperature’s sensitivity to increasing CO2 is now close to zero. In other words, from a temperature perspective the atmosphere is nearly saturated with CO2.
Instead of withdrawing the AGW hypothesis — since the assumptions on which it is based have failed — the IPCC cites a positive feedback to enhance the CO2 effect. As temperatures rise, even marginally, they say, more water evaporates, which acts to raise temperatures further, causing more water to evaporate and so on, bringing catastrophe upon us. But underplayed by alarmists is the cooling influence of increasing cloud cover that would occur as the atmosphere’s water vapor content rises.
Recent evidence suggests that cloud-induced cooling more than offsets water vapor-induced warming.
The AGW hypothesis is not supported by empirical evidence, either. Measurements taken from Antarctic ice cores show CO2 rise tends to occur centuries after temperature rise, not before it, so it could not possibly have caused the onset of warming.
The hypothesis also fails between 1940 and 1980, when human-produced CO2 rose quickly after World War II yet global temperatures declined; fears of a coming glacial period dominated. Catastrophists blame the increase in sulphates from industry for reducing sunlight, therefore causing cooling. But they ignore the fact that temperatures rose after 1980 with no decrease in sulphate levels.
Today, during a period of rapid CO2 rise from the industrialization of India and China, we have had 16 years with no overall planetary warming.
None of this bothers catastrophists, of course. Ignoring real-world observations, they simply make up science to fit their worldview, programming their computer models to show warming when CO2 rises. To magnify make-believe AGW trends, they even lowered early temperature data to steepen the slope. And so, not surprisingly, even their least sensational climate models forecast more warming than actually occurs.
The IPCC is now putting the finishing touches on their Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the most important part of which — the Working Group I report, “The Physical Science Basis” — will be released in mid-September. We know it will be yet more climate catastrophism, because on December 14, 2012, the second order draft was leaked. It included the assertion that CO2’s “relative contribution has further increased since the 1980s and by far outweighs the contributions from natural drivers.”
This is only true because they do not properly consider “natural drivers” far more significant than CO2, such as changes in ocean currents and the output of the sun.
Priming the public to continue to uncritically accept the AGW hypothesis is essential if AR5 is to help keep the global warming scare alive. Consequently, we can expect media and government climate propaganda to intensify over the coming months.
Citizens who care about the future of their countries must stop pampering climate catastrophists in 2013. We must take every opportunity to contest alarmism and to help end the most expensive scandal in the history of science.
I give these alarmists great credit for their persistence of personal agenda. I only wish they would be so greatly persistent in their alarm to immediately demand our attention to what actually deserves our attention.
Where there is no debate about the exponential direction up of the hockey stick, the finality of its destructive forces, the absolute danger to our well being, the extermination of global future generations, the cause solely man made and preventable lapping at our feet like the rising sea that our Dear Leader Obama promised to addressed, now four years lapsed like a Dimocratic Senate Budget.
Say like $16,400,000,000,000 in U.S. national debt and still rising?
“Where there is no debate about the exponential direction up of the hockey stick…”
As was revealed at the time of exposure of the Climategate emails, “climate scientists” were intent on hiding the decline in global temperatures. The hockey stick was something of a contrivance.
To have world temperatures falling while CO2 was rising blew the AGW agenda out of the water.
Hide the Decline
Meanwhile, the UN continues pushing the climate agenda just as though it were gospel truth.
This UN-based “sustainable development” agenda has stealthily been eroding our property rights at the local level.
By that standard, Bernie Madoff engaged in ‘contrivances’.
The hockey stick was a flat out lie.
The decline mentioned was even worse than the obvious interpretation.
You see, historic temperatures are based on tree ring data. If the current interpretation is applied to recent tree ring data, the thermometer temperature should have been declining pre 1998, that is before the current, measured decline. It was not, proving tree ring data is an unreliable record of temperatures, throwing most of their claims right out the window.
I said this before: if these people really believed in AGW they would not be defending the removal of hydro-electric dams.
In fact, they would be marching in the street to replace coal plants with nuclear ones.
They are not, hence AGW is not a crisis.
Exactly. When they start proposing serious solutions, then maybe I’ll take them seriously. How about Thorium based electricity with synthetic liquid hydrocarbon fuels produced from the coal and gas we currently burn to produce power? That would make the US energy independent for the next several centuries at the very least. Instead they want to punish us all for the sin of affluence and force us to live like 3rd worlders while giving away colossal sums to the 3rd world. They’re watermelons, green on the outside, red on the inside, hell bent on doing what global socialism failed to do in the 20th century and redistribute the world’s wealth. Until the environmental movement stops being dominated by redistributionists and authoritarians I’ll take the threat of global warming over the threat of the reds any day.
> Where there is no debate about the exponential direction up of the hockey stick,
you are not serious, are you ? politics aside, Mann has been thoroughly discredited. the hockey stick is a fake, and a fairly rough one at that. see this here, for instance: http://www.dsf.unica.it/~fiore/Climate_L.pdf .
that aside, most conservatives agree that fiscal insanity is a real problem – it’s liberals who don’t, and those are the AGW-toting types.
of course my link above is dated and short, there is best and more thorough evidence around.
Tex was talking about the hockey stick of the US national debt …
Thank you for correcting the record. {snicker}. There’s a group of party poopers here, not many but a few, where lame attempts at yuck yucks and rotten analogies escapes them and they go off like a Chinese bottle rocket in all directions.
Frank Fleming catches the same grief all the time and I sit in amazement that there are people that actually didn’t catch the attempted humor.
Uh, guys. I kinda think the “hockey stick” that Tex was talking about, the one that reflected something “truly man-made” that we, “actually can do something about”, refers to the national debt’s graph.
Global warming is regarded by the sheeple as true, by those who can think for themselves as false, and by the power mad and the money grubbers as … … … useful.
Global warming is regarded by the sheeple as true, by those who can think for themselves as false, and by the power mad and the money grubbers as … … … useful.
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sheeple
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9797315/A-forecast-the-Met-Office-hoped-you-wouldnt-see.html
The fact that you are all still referring to it as Global Warming shows your ignorance about the actual science involved. It’s Climate Change. Stop reading shitty blogs on the internet and read some peer-reviewed scientific journals. I can’t wait to see your faces in 100 years
Climate changes on it’s own. The AGW crowd had a 50% chance of being right in calling “warming”. They were wrong.
Claiming that all climate change is the result of human interference leaves unanswered the question as to what caused climate changes before humans evolved.
Or, are you one of those who believe that humans were created some 7000 years ago?
considering the main “sources” of the “greenhouse gases”touted ad nauseam have only existed since the beginning of the Indistrial Age, say, about 1850 or so, there ARE indeed a number of events left wanting some sort of explanation: the Mideaval Warming Periods, the Glacial periods (those that shaped Puget’s Sound in Washington, for example), places like “Greenland” (so called in the beginning because it was, indeed, GREEN, as in, not covered with multiple feet of solid ice;, and “Vinland”, what is now Labrador and Nova Scotia, so called because of its extensive vinyards. These “events” occured with no “help” from man whatever. Further, the “change” from the “global cooling and coming ice age” of the late 1960′s and onward for more than a decade to the recent, now passé, shrill cry of the coming ice melt and catastrophic warming, and into the present “waffling” period where the shrill cry diminishes not, in spite of the obvious fact (IF one’s data remain unmanipulated) that temperatures have now gradually diminished over the past decade…. is somewhere between amusing and the basis ofone of the most universal terror plots ever to be attempted on mankind. “Terror” you say? Yes indeed… it fits perfectly the current definition of terror: the use of threats of any sort to advance a agenda. Popular sentiment does not favour a global government system, false “science” is being employed to cow the people into submitting to it despite their better judgement. If that is not fear being used to advance an agenda, nor was the flying of airplanes into large buildings cuah an act. The main difference is in the former, the “results” and desired agenda are the more subtle, thus the more elusive of being found out. HOW LONG will WE THE PEOPLE allow ourselves to be duped and manipulated by these lies?
While reading the comments, I was seeking out just one scientific moron, and lo and behold, I found YOU! Climates change all the time, due to the tilt of earth, vulcanism, and changes in currents in the oceans. Human beings couldn’t change anything and CO2 is necessary for photosynthesis which produces O2 which is vital for life. Climate change was substituted for Global Warming because that wouldn’t fly with the public anymore due to the science bull that was put out by England, the UN and that idiot in Vermont with his hockey stick. This was the biggest fraud ever perpatrated on the public, even bigger than the Piltdown man. Maybe you should do some credible reseach by real scientists and not those who have lost their crediblity to Mamon!
Of course the climate has and will change regardless of human action, as it has done for billions of years. No one is disputing that. Yes there were periods of warming and of cooling of varying scales throughout the Earth’s history, and they shall continue to be. I do not necessarily agree with the various predictions churned out, but I have the sense to know that they are PREDICTIONS. They are being created using hugely complex climate models and the margins of error are astronomical. We have no idea what (if any – I’ll give you that) effects humans will have on the climate. But if you combine the trillions of tons of emissions that are pumped out by industry every year, with the deforestation, destruction of water catchment areas, conversion of natural land to agriculture, pesticides, over fishing, desertification etc etc and NOT expect any of it to have any impact on the Earth’s regulatory systems you are living in a dream world. At the micro scale, ecosystems around the world are ceasing to function correctly. If ecosystems cease to function, eco-regions cease to function. If eco-regions cease to function, biomes cease to function. When biomes cease to function, then the highly sensitive and highly complex systems that control things like weather, atmospheric and oceanic currents, ocean acidity etc will change. This isn’t just an argument about CO2. Get over CO2. That is one small aspect of the wider argument regarding the impacts humans are having on the planet. If you don’t believe humans are having an impact on the world, get off your sofa and go and visit some other parts of the world. There are plenty of people who would disagree with you, because their natural resources and therefore their livelihoods are in jeopardy.
Shimoni, your complex climate models are the biggest laugh in this discusion. Those aren’t made available to anyone to test except true believers. This happened because the first great climate model touted as proof of AGW was leaked. When tested it was found that any data, any data in any range, produced exactly the same result. I suspect the current models would do exactly the same thing.
The climate change debate is embedded within a larger context than the “sheeple” who swallow propaganda. The Green movement was infiltrated long ago by persons interested in a redistributionist internationalist polity. See http://clarespark.com/2012/12/08/hobsbawm-obama-israel/. Or if not neo-Communist in origin, there are counter-culture types such as Kirkpatrick Sale who are primitivists masochistically submitting to Nature, imagined as benevolent and self-correcting.
“Infiltrated”?
I’m not aware that there’s ever been any significant percentage of them that holds any other view.
AGW was bad science. Some politicians realized the potential, and moved to insulate and protect the crackpots from reality. No infiltration.
They’re what people are starting to call “watermelons” green on the outside, red on the inside. Why do the UN climate change agendas always involve trillions worth of payments from the first world to the 3rd? Simple, the goal hasn’t changed, just that a couple decades ago they rallied under the banner of world socialism, now they rally under the banner of climate change, but make no mistake, it’s the same crowd with the same long term goal.
Here in Seattle they are planning for a sea level rise.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020120911_climatechange13m.html
Funny how the progressives are still driving around in cars and flying
on jets.
Ah yes, the nutjobs up the road. YOU are the lot which fell for former mayor Chump Change Nickels’ attempt to ban firearms from public parks, in direct contradiction to Washington State Law, which pre-empts such local ones. He squandered large sums of Seattle Taxpayer’s money to “defend” his unpopular position. Further, the home of his successor (the futile attempt to promote his illegal ban through the courts, and his utter failure to deal with a local minor catastrophe resulting from a major snowfall, kept the city shut down for most of a week because HE deemed it ill advised to deploy the equipment and manpower to take care of it)… now, his current successor has continued to press that gun ban, placed bicycle accomodations ahead of many other civic issues, and a few other nonsensical schemes…. also, home of Adam Kline, a radical leftist socialist nutjob antigun senator, refugee from Eastern Washington where he could not be reelected after one term (they realised whom they had elected, and said NO MORE.. so off to Seattle he went)… and the city which purchased and renovated a three story apartment building to provide a place, rent free, for some of the town drunks to inhabit, wiht no requirement they make any attempt to get off the bottle…… yes, Seattle. Seems they’ve been injected with some strange toxin by that needle they’ve got…. nothing would surprise me from that place…..
I made the mistake of going there for 4 years of college, never have I been so miserable living somewhere, or so glad to leave. I could go on a pages long rant about Seattle, but suffice to say the politics are that insane there because many of the people are. Not all, I met some good people while I was up there don’t get me wrong, but there were a lot of nuts. Being a guy who doesn’t wear tight jeans, eyeliner, or scarfs, or give a f*ck about whatever liberal cause, I was somewhat unwelcome there. If you want to know what it’s like, google the term “Seattle freeze”. I made the most of it by driving my SUV into school every day instead of the bus and wearing a camouflage hunting jacket instead of the normal hipster apparel. Whatever I could do to piss off the really annoying enviro-hipster types, for some reason it just feels really good knowing when those people hate you.
Back in 2008, at the moment the election was called for Obama you could hear one giant cheer rising up from campus, and a few minutes later a zombie-mob of several hundred people poured out of the dorms and flooded into the streets chanting various Obama slogans. From my balcony I saw them all marching off to nowhere with a police helicopter overhead to try and make sure they didn’t trash anything. Apparently the crowd just all followed the herd for several miles before coming out of their trance and realizing they hadn’t actually been going anywhere and were now 4 miles south of campus with no way to get back. I took a more philosophical approach, seeing their great march to nowhere as being an elegant metaphor for most of the causes they championed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4XhhTF7vRM
And the climate modelling functions in much the same way as the old Soviet Five Year Plans. These are the adaptation and mitigation steps you must take says the permanent bureaucracy and rent seekers questing for grants. It turns into a backdoor means of administering the economy for the benefit of political cronies and currently connected Big Business. The mother of all collaboration schemes and spelled out clear as a bell as necessary to supposedly avert catastrophe.
The USGCRP 2012-2021 report makes it quite clear that the social sciences and education are to be used to squelch any climate skepticism. Last week’s new Common Core science standards are following through on the theme of hyping impending catastrophe as the only “science” concepts anyone actually needs to know. Anything else can be looked up.
Largely unnoticed is that all these hyping documents are centering on the need to create new human mindsets that will perceive reality through the filter of this supposed pending disaster. New ways of thinking are being pushed as essential parts of Obama’s and global education reforms pushed by UNESCO that are grounded in emotion or an “intuitive” hands-on understanding that may well have us believing the sun rotates around the earth again. Because that’s what it looks like and having the voting masses with false beliefs is politically useful.
http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/real-change-will-require-new-values-and-new-ways-of-thinking-or-social-engineering-is-hard/ lays out not only the aspirations for new thinking but also the sales job of the “triple bottom line” of profit nirvana being sold to Big Business. The title quote is from a Scientific American essay from last May calling on psychology and sociology and political science to be the weapons now to gain a “species wide alteration in basic human behavior.”
Which makes education Weapon No 1. Which Paul Ehrlich and the National Climate Assessment draft confirmed again last week is the still planned intention.
All that federal and foundation money going to cultivate future voters being a sheeple.
“March 2012 article in Scientific American explaining that the future science initiatives needed to be in “psychology, sociology, economics and political science” in order to get “species-wide alteration in basic human behavior.”
Social engineering, made me think of Eric Holder’s recommendation that Americans need to be “brainwashed” about guns, i.e., trained and conditioned to think that guns are not cool.
In light of the un-coolness of guns, I highly recommend that politicians everywhere give up their armed guards.
Rather than become scientific I prefer to focus on how this global warming scare affects me personally . Right now a few miles north of the great city the temp is 53F and the global warming scientist see today as a great opportunity to brainwash new converts .
Thus I have been planning for the coming of the BORG demons and global warming scare is great opportunity to quickly assimilate the earth masses.This is why in my enchanted forest I do not use open fires but build stone wood stoves with long pipe so the high temp means the burning wood does not produce smoke to burn away Borg demons without the light planes that fly over report back to the Borg demons
I see the day coming when wood stoves will be banned just like the portable kerosine heater in the great city and just the slight smell of kerosine the neighbors call the fire department. I really like Solar heat . The animals in the forest have been using solar heat for a long time and they teach me the miracle of solar heat locations
In the future if you run out of heat the Borg will be there to warm you up but I prefer my faith increase in the True God rather than the coming Borg demons
Political agenda?
Anthropogenic global warming was first predicted by the great chemist, Svante Arrhenius, way back in 1896. Doing computations by hand (no computer models back then), he came up with an estimate of about 2.4 degrees Celsius–which remarkably is in line with today’s more sophisticated estimates. The equations he developed are still used today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
When I was a kid in the 1960s, I read an article about global warming written by Isaac Asimov. That was 50 years ago.
So anthropogenic global warming is not a new idea cooked up by some modern leftists. It’s been a theory that has circulated among the scientific community for over a century. The only thing that has changed is that now the data we have on rising sea levels and the opening of the Northwest Passage to conventional shipping (no icebreakers needed anymore) is now impossible to ignore.
The earth has been both hotter and colder than now. And that in just last 2000 years. Anthropogenic is not a proven cause of any of these substantial changes. It is , however a political cause of the left.
Were it real science they would not have to commit so much fraud in their data. Nor would they pillory those who use the Scientific method to debunk their non-sense.
Critical thinking, and scientific use of skepticism. Not intimidation and fraud. The global warmist nutters are no different than any other flat earth Luddites. If you are not a member of there faith you are subjected to the Galileo treatment.
Yep.
Correlation does not equal causation. Science 101, sinz.
Very minor fluxations in the giant nuclear inferno that we orbit are much more likely as the cause, combined with Milankovitch cycles.
Global Warming Deniers are akin to Infidels and Heretics, to be excommunicated from society and the institutions via ostracization and persecution. The apocalyptic myth is used to drive fear and thus used as a motivator of desired behavior.
Al Gore is the new Jim Baker.
Sinz laps it up though. Maybe if we just didnt have these extremist ideologues that deny Leftwing dogma, then we could have the Left vs the Far Left as the political center-dynamic, like Europe, and all would be well.
But haven’t we been told 2012 was the warmest on record in the U.S.? Maybe true if you leave out Alaska, as the compilers of that data did. By the way, it was cold as hell in Alaska, more so than usual. That would have spoiled their story.
I agree with what Christopher Monckton said last spring:
…on the difficulty of even judging if we’re making progress or not: “…[T]here can be no legitimate consensus about the answer to the central scientific question in the climate debate: How much warming will occur by 2100 as a result of our sins of emission?…All of the key parameters in the fundamental equation of climate sensitivity are unknown and unknowable.”
But lets not look at how the earth warms and cools naturally as it has from the beginning. But I really think I have the answer to prove or disprove the CO2 theory.. Let all of the idiots who by into this global warming bull crap stop breathing and producing more of this “Toxic Gas” and then we will see if the old girl cools down any.
If you think Isaac Azimov (my once-favorite sci-fi author) didn’t have a political agenda, you don’t know much about Isaac Azimov.
As for the predition of “2.4 degrees Celsius–which remarkably is in line with today’s more sophisticated estimates”, piffle. Data trump estimates, and the un-cooked data shows no warming for more than a decade.
Ye’ and the Mayans predicted the world would end in 2012 but it hasn’t. During the 1950s there were prediction of robots and flying cars in every household, as well as colonies on Mars. The UN IPCC predicted massive sea level rise that hasn’t occurred. Mann’s “hockey stick” graph predicted large temperature increases. Your claim that Arrhenius predictions of 2.4 deg. C (approx. 10 deg. F)are in line with today’s predictions except for the fact that warming has stalled for the past 16 years while CO2 continues to rise. They are not predicting. They are spinning the wheel of fortune.
We had to eliminate Gaddafi as he stood in the way of the furth plundering of Africa. Bill Gates is deeply involved. Whole tribes are being massacred and their lands taken over for the production of GMO’s which in turn, bank carbon credits for multi-national corporations.
The true ‘Green Revolution’ is the only revolution and that is the Green Resistance w3ithin the Jamahiriya of Libya. The entire global warming hoax is a smokescreen to deflect from the Green Book which outlines the problem with democracy and provides a brilliant solution in a short read of 32 pages. If you do not believe this explain how I am mistaken…..
http://www.greencharter.com/files/gb.htm
The Global Warmists claim humans are at fault for the “coming disaster”. If true, aren’t they making a case for a reduction in the number of humans? Maybe we can start with them. We will accept their suicides as their contribution for the solution.
Yes – I think they only want around 5 million planetwide.
They will be the caretakers and we (those that are left) will be the slaves.
I’m so confused! Of course I very much want to concur with what is written here, being an AGW skeptic myself, but just yesterday I read a report claiming that “climate scientists” are forecasting a 10 degree increase due to CO2, in a very prominent and respected source. Even the most fervent skepticism begins to flag under such withering, unrelenting assaults. Help my unbelief!
Ask why they aren’t trying to save hydro-electric dams and build nuke plants.
Ask where is the push for telecommuting.
Ask why does Al Gore has energy hogging mansions.
An oldie but goodie from Snopes
Global warming stopped 16 years ago
Here is an issue that any prominent politician could tackle. Call for the lifting of the ban on the responsible use of DDT to control mosquitoes and thus the widespread malaria infection of hundreds of thousands of innocent children who ultimately die of the disease. Why don’t they do something as noble as that? Because there is no money in it. Instead we get a vulgar pig like Al Gore and the like who find that they can get filthy rich working the AGW scam. Years ago I met a Democrat operative who had moved to DC to work in “the so-called war on poverty because “there’s money in it”, as he enthused. At least the sonofabitch was honest about the depth of his altruism. I since have learned that when you join the “there’s money in it” crowd with pea-brained liberals who think that espousing that which they know nothing about makes them sound intellectual you have a potential massively destructive movement (the “withering assault”) at hand. Morons and opportunists who can’t make the grade productively elsewhere now have a home.
“Morons and opportunists who can’t make the grade productively elsewhere now have a home.”
So profoundly sad what America has devolved into.
It’s not really what we’ve desecended into tans, we’ve always been there and have never left, save for a few moments in history when good sense prevailed. Humans have always deferred to (who they think) their “betters” are. And other humans have resisted, either appropriately or otherwise. It is in man’s nature to be contrary.
In today’s modern times, though, the ability to obscure and deceive is far from easy, so I submit that even with the mountains of evidence, it must be that humans are also inherently intellectually lazy.
TEN degrees? That surely isn’t right, no one in their right mind thinks the global temp will raise 10 degrees.
Why did Al Gore buy a mansion that, according to him, should shortly be underwater?
Global Warming would cause enormous social turmoil, creating many opportunities for the Left to grab power and wealth. If it had a chance of being real, the left would be fighting to suppress all info on it so they could have a shot at grabbing control.
So would global cooling.
Bias and the IPCC report: 2010
“The left uses science like a drunk uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination.”
http://www.greencharter.com/files/gb.htm
“International Climate Court of Justice” would force western nations to pay “climate debt”
The UN/IPCC agenda is the redistribution of wealth and natural resources.
Any new report should be seen in that light.
That is right. The issue is never the issue.* The real issue is power and Leftwing political agenda moving.
*David Horowitz
SO lets say the global warm-onger nutters are correct. Lets also project a snow seal produces 1/10th the carbon I do each year. How many snow seals need I club to death to offset my carbon footprint?
10…and a nice coat in the bargain.
“The IPCC warnings of the African crop projections have a more demonstrably corrupt basis, as the report deliberately ignored actual science that showed little risk of crop yields — science funded by the British government at a cost of over £2.5 million. Who compiled the IPCC Synthesis that ignored peer-reviewed science for the speculation of one Moroccan activist, whose report didn’t even agree with its cited sources? Rajendra Pachauri’s own business — and he got over £400,000 for the work… Pachauri played a key role in disseminating erroneous claims, at the very least. He not only included a false claim on the affect of AGW on crop yields — a key argument that Pachauri himself continues to use — but he ignored peer-reviewed science in favor of these hysterical claims.”
(quotation from a Feb. 2010 article by Ed Morrissey)
Dr Rajendra Pachauri still heads up the IPCC
I agree that the hockey stick of our deficits is more dangerous, but last year was the warmest ever, since they started recording temperatures in Massachusetts and yesterday’s high temperature on the summit of Mount Washington in NH was also the warmest ever recorded in January.
But until the greens start pushing nuclear, who can take it too seriously?
I am sure you are referring to an actual article written by somebody. I know I saw something like that in the local paper. I live in True Believerland, but they get their numbers by cooking the books.
The global is warming, we are coming off of an ice age. But the pace is slow enough to be hard to notice during several human lifetimes. That’s why the report came out that “global warming stopped 16 years ago.” As for the “warmest year on record” stuff, If you check, you will surely find one for every year in about the last ten years. Then the data gets revised a few months later. Oops, yet again.
The fundamental problem here is that the “scientists” pushing the AGW theory are at best descriptive scientists and not experimental scientists. They’ve been trying to find deep meaning in what amounts to experimental noise. The entire AGW theory suffers from scale problems. The earth’s temperature, and that of mars, for example, is largely controlled by the sun, not the percentage of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere. The greenhouse effect is largely determined by the major greenhouse gas — water — not that little bit of carbon dioxide.
The earth is not a thoroughly mixed system. That means there are hot and cool spots all over it, so any given temperature reading is erroneous. They teach high school students about this, when they let them try to find out what the boiling point of water with salt is, without using boiling chips or stirrers. It’s amazing how much easier it is to run an experiment when you control your readings by getting good mixing.
And if people really believed in global warming, they’d revive the timber industry by requiring the use of paper bags in grocery stores, because trees sequester carbon. Using our landfills to store carbon would bear a striking resemblance to what actually has happened naturally.
The IPCC has no credibility among people who actually do experiments.
The shift here in the states is away from Global temps to local temps. Few in Europe or Central Asia believe that there is warming. NOAA is debating over tenths or even hundreths of a Degree C when they declare that such and such a period is the warmest period since Atillia roamed Sibera.
Hadley had to radically revise down their 5 year projections concerning global temps. But, they warn us with upmost confidence that Global Warming will return with a vengence sometime late in this decade.
“Few in Europe or Central Asia believe that there is warming”? Try talking with those living in the Alps, who have seen a tremendous retreat of the glaciers over the past 50 years. Whole valleys have become free of ice, and that only happens when it warms and melting increases. I’ve heard than snow pack in the north western US has decreased too, and people are worrying about that.
For that matter, winemakers — lots of them in Europe — will tell you it’s getting warmer too. Areas that used to have to struggle to get ripe grapes now have to manage the vineyards to avoid overripening, which is caused by higher temperatures and longer summers.
Climatic zones are also shifting. A friend who studies insects tells me that he now finds insects in the Philadelphia area that didn’t live further north than mid-Virginia when he was a child.
Climate change — call it warming, or what you will, is happening. There’s lots of evidence, if you look.
Climate Alarmism is a multinational, multibillion dollar industry. There are few scientists who dare refute or critique it lest not only their reputations suffer, but also their livliehoods. Most, I imagine steer clear of the issue. AR5, when all is said and one, will be a facsimilie of AR4 with some up to date window dressing thrown in(.ie. 2012 was the hottest year since Nethandrathals walked the planet).
What is ironic is that the world, from a purely statistical point of view stopped warming in 1996. The warming since then is statistically meaningless. And 2012, from a global point of view, was no different. Warming in North America was more than offset by oceanic cooling in the Pacific, as well as cooling in East Asia and large portions of the Southern Hemisphere. There is very little talk about Global Warming or the Hockey Stick, anymore. It is all about Extreme Weather (whatever that is), and the ridiculous notion of rising sea levels. At some point in time, the Alarmists will have completd their circle and declare that the cooling plantet is the victim of CO2.
Do not confuse Global Warming Alarmists with facts, it tends to make them incoherent and subject to outbursts of verbal attacks on anyone that dares to disagree with them (“Global warming skeptics are fools and want to see the world destroyed” – paraphrased but to the point).
I think Anthony Watts (http://wattsupwiththat.com/) has the leaked draft of the new IPCC report, btw.
The biggest problem with AGW is that it distracts from the real problem caused by excess CO2, ocean acidification, which has real impacts on our economy and food sources for millions of people. If we are going to solve any problem caused by CO2, it should be the acidification problem.
The term “ocean acidification” is itself alarmist. Present ocean pH is around 8.2 (basic), well above being acidic. The pH also changes between localities, some being more basic than others.
So using the word “cooling” would be alarmist unless the temperature measured was already below 0 degrees centigrade?
To call you “stupid” is probably redundant. Nevertheless…
A more scientifically true expression would be “ocean neutralization”. Example: a man 6′-0″ tall weighing 170 lbs. adds 3 lbs. to his weight. He is not getting fatter, which would be alarmist. He has only gained weight.
Your name calling is typical of a weak argument.
AGW is a blatant lie, unsupported by science and spread by politicians seeking power and money for promoting the hoax.
How very strange that climate change has become a political issue. The science is very clearly on the side of those who promote the climate change proposition yet so many disbelieve it. I can certainly understand that people who work for energy companies or who have interests in fossil fuels might support the anti-climate change science, but anyone else? For all the clamoring about the fiscal debt we are leaving to our children and grandchildren, I’d think there would be more concern about the world we are leaving to our children and grandchildren. But I guess “science” is now political for the conspiratorially minded. What a shame.
What a shame that so many are also uninformed, scientific illiterates. I’m beginning to suspect that the reason the U.S. has such a poor record on educating our children in science and engineering is to intentionally keep them scientifically stupid in order to be able to control them more easily. AGW as a theory is questionable because earth temperatures have been stable for the past 16 years while CO2 has been rising. The relationship between CO2 and warming is shown to be broken, therefore the theory is false. In addition, none of the AGW vaunted models were able to predict the temperature stability of the past 16 years. So, why should I trust any of their future catastrophic predictions?
Brutus
“But I guess “science” is now political for the conspiratorially minded.”
For the conspiratorially minded?
“The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”
- David Brower,
founder of Friends of the Earth
“If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism. I don’t think it is possible under capitalism”
- Judi Bari,
principal organiser of Earth First!
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
- Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
- Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
- Al Gore,
Climate Change activist
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
- Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace
“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis…”
- David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
- Professor Maurice King
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
- Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
- emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
“Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well
suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”
- Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution
“The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences.
Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government.”
- Mikhail Gorbachev,
State of the World Forum
“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US.
We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
- Michael Oppenheimer,
Environmental Defense Fund
“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
- David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!
“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species,
returning throughout the world.”
-Dave Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!
And there is a lot more where that came from.
Read Agenda 21 for starters.
This is brilliant! I hope you don’t mind that I saved it for future reference in debating leftist trash.
Excellent proof that “environmentalism” is an element of marxism.
I haven’t researched the accuracy of your quotes, but to create them out of thin air would require pure genius. Excellent job of research.
The Final Draft is not out; however, the Report has been “leaked”. One of the reviewers decided to out it; he listed is reasons for doing so.
The easiest site to portal for skeptics is WUTW.
The IPCC,is a political wing of the UN. The UN and its predecessor, the League of Nations were largely formed on the instigation of the Fabian Society. The IPCC, as the UN itself are heavily infiltrated by the green movement and Fabian influences. The UN is basically the political embodiment of the Fabians. For those who are not aware of what they believe in, you had better look them up. They had sympathy for the Nazis as a lot of their goals were the same.Did you know that the Nazis were uber green? They loved nature and animals, but hated humans and were prepared to fight to the very last human. The Fabians, Bilderburg group “sustainable development” and Club of Rome all call for reduced world population. The common number bandied around is 500 million. This means 93% of us are to be culled. I do not like my chances. Just who will be the high and mighty who shall determine who shall live and who shall die? Do note, the UN through Agenda 21 calls for one world government with UNELECTED leaders.
To those who still believe in global warming, climate change or whatever the flavour of the month is these days, why do we never hear a full uncensored debate? Since when does just saying “the debate is over” or “the science is settled” mean that it is true? You must be very gullible or way too trusting. Go back in history, regimes that stifle free speech are ALWAYS repressive. Here you are, patting yourself on the back because you think you are being a good global citizen, but in reality you are playing in to the hands of those who have quite the OPPOSITE goal. The full ramifications of the measures that the ultra Greens have in mind WILL spell an end to ALL that is great with our current society. With an end to manufactured goods, we will be turning back the clock on human technology to pre-Neolithic times. Just think- no more iphones, Internet, modern medicine, life saving medical procedures, motorised transport, freedom from repression, easy access to food and water(the ultra greens regard agriculture and dams as unsustainable)etc. Think for yourself. Do not let others think for you because you are too lazy or too trusting. Generally speaking, those who request your trust are NOT trustworthy.
Hopefully 2013 will be the year the Grand Fabian Deception is revealed before it can become reality. Yes, it will be VERY painful when the People discover their politicians from both conservative and “progressive” camps have been DELIBERATELY sneaking in society destroying legislation and have the long term goal of eliminating MOST of us.
If warmists were sincere, they would embrace nuclear energy. That is the litmus test. They oppose nuclear, which means that it’s energy they don’t like, not CO2.
Able to guzzle more energy than dozens of normal men! Producing more hot air than a locomotive!! Able to pile up carbon credits higher than a tall building in a single bound!!! Look UP in the sky! It’s ChickenLittle! It’s FlyingSnakeOilSalesman! It’s the Sultan of Hanging Chads! It’s the Ayatollah of Heat! It’s the High Priest of the Inquisition! It’s the Doctor of Doom! No, it’s CarbonMan in a private jet painted green! And now following in the tradition of other great men such as Jimmy Carter and Yasir Arafat, he is the proud recipient of a Nobel Prize!!! CarbonMan, strange visitor from an alternate reality who came to Earth with claims and scary predictions far beyond those of any sane and honest man, disguised as Fat Albert, and now joined by other members of the Royal GreenLeague such as BioFuelHummerMan and EcoCleaningWoman, they all fight a never ending battle for science-fiction, hypocrisy, power grabbing, money grubbing and the Hollywood way!
“What’s this?” thought Barack Obama. “I can feel nothing warmer at all! That is terrible. Am I stupid? Am I a flat-earther? Am I a denier? Am I not fit to be President? That would be the most dreadful thing that could happen to me. “Oh, it is very hot!” Obama said aloud. “It has my highest approbation.” And Obama nodded in a contented way, and gazed outside, for he would not say that he felt no Global Warming. The whole entourage that he had with him tried and tried but felt no warming, any more than the rest; but, like Barack Obama they said, “It is so hot!” and Rahm Emanuel counseled him to always say that he felt hot when he was out in public. “It is warm, hot even!” went from mouth to mouth. On all sides there seemed to be general warming, and Barack Obama gave Al Gore the title of Imperial Master of Global Warming Science.
So Barack Obama went in procession, and every one in the streets said, “How incomparable hot it is! What a hot day it is!” No one would let it be perceived that he could not feel warming, for that would have shown that he was not fit for his office, or was very stupid or a flat-earther or a denier. No day of Barack Obama’s had ever been as hot as this one.
“But I’m freezing my ass off out here!!!” a little child cried out at last. “Just hear what that innocent says!” said the father: and one whispered to another what the child had said. “But it is cold out here!” said the whole people at length. That touched Barack Obama, for it seemed to him that they were right; but the thought within himself was, “I must go through with feeling all the Global Warming. I do not dare to do otherwise” And so he held himself a little higher, which was very difficult for him to do with all the bowing to dictators that he has been doing, and his aides held on tighter than ever, and proclaimed the Global Warming which did not exist at all.
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker. CO2 emissions will be on top of the agenda at the Copenhagen summit in December Photo: Getty By Christopher Booker 28 Nov 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
According to my reading and understanding of the material, real greenhouses stay warmer inside than BREEZES from outside. The theory that differential absorption of long-wave length radiation (i.e., “heat”) versus shorter wavelength radiation (“light”) is important has been debunked by several published studies of real, physical greenhouses. In fact, data show that a greenhouse made of IR-transparent material gets just as hot as one made of conventional glass. Thus, the “greenhouse effect” is produced by BLOCKING AIR CURRENTS, not by any blocking of radiation.
Now, can you imagine a gas such as CO2 blocking air currents ? Especially given that CO2 is heavier that air and thus rests on the ground, not (as always shown in the AGW diagrams) up in the sky.
I vote everyone make little greenhouses of IR-transparent material, verify that they work just fine, and demonstrate to every child and adult he can find that the “Greenhouse effect” is about blocking air currents only !!!
The first sentence of the above should say, “According to my reading and understanding of the material, real reenhouses stay warmer inside than the surrounding air becasue the glass traps within the warm AIR and blocks the cooler BREEZES from outside.
Actually no, it’s because the glass in the greenhouse allows shortwave radiation (sunlight) in and doesn’t let longwave radiation (infrared, heat) out. Oh, you were being sarcastic. Never mind.
Yes indeed, 2013 may well be the best year ever to refute the bogus “global warming” nonsense. A couple more years of Hurricane Sandy’s, droughts in the Midwest, record heat waves in Australia, record temperature record worldwide (undoubtedly bogus), and other fantastic fantasies cooked up by a self-hating elitist cabal in the Main Stream Media, it will be TOO LATE!!
BTW, The folks at PJMedia must be really sad; their demographic is getting older, and soon will be dying out and disappearing.