Get PJ Media on your Apple

Failure Deniers: Climate Change and Public-Sector Science

If not taxpayer-funded, the massive failure of warmism advocates would have been addressed long ago.

by
Tom Blumer

Bio

June 28, 2013 - 12:00 am
<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

If climate science was not completely controlled and directed by agenda-driven public funding? If it was instead a competition between private-sector players selling their research to public and private customers without becoming overdependent on any one entity for their well-being and survival?

Well, the idea of human-caused global warming might still have gotten off to a pretty good start. The concern seemed to make some initial sense: the world is indeed warmer than it was 40 or so years ago when the cataclysmic scare du jour, and even the supposed cause of a bad run of tornadoes, was global cooling. The increase in overall temperatures for the next quarter-century or so appeared to be loosely correlated with the spread of the Industrial Revolution to much of the Third World and dramatic worldwide increases in the deployment of fossil fuel-burning autos, trucks, manufacturing equipment, and electrical devices.

But correlation is not the same as causation. In the late 1990s, even as worldwide carbon emissions continued to rise, average global temperatures leveled off. They haven’t gone anywhere for 15 years, something even the New York Times, Reuters, the New Republic, and the Economist have felt compelled to acknowledge.

The sacred models of warmists didn’t predict any of this. The Climategate emails showed that they’re totally baffled by and angry at their forecasting failure.

That was over three years ago. The temps still haven’t moved.

If warmists had to justify their work to clients with business decision-making interest in their results — instead of needing to keep politically vested true believers at the EPA, anti-progress environmental lobbyists at “public-interest groups,” and radical wealth distributionists happy — they wouldn’t be influential anymore.

They would have long ago been forced to objectively reexamine their assumptions and to modify their models to explain the lull, or be fired for incompetence and replaced by those performing more reliable work.

That’s not happening. The more reality continues to mock them, the more recklessly the warmists lash out at, threaten, and litigate against ”deniers,” the more they deliberately manipulate their data to fit their dogma, the more they falsely claim “settled science.”

Along those lines, Obama’s Organizing For America recently sent an email asking members to “Call out climate deniers in Congress,” saying that: “The science on climate change is clear.” One thing is very clear: “the science” isn’t what they say it is.

On Tuesday, the “punk” president himself childishly ridiculed those who disagree with his Chicken Little belief that “climate change” is “the global threat of our time” when he said: “We don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society.” What we really don’t have: the luxury of enduring at least three-and-a-half more years of tyranny carried out in the name of what looks more like a colossal government-enrichment scam than anything resembling legitimate science.

Obama’s “Climate Change Plan” madness must be fought at every turn, including in Speaker John Boehner’s House of Representatives, which must move to defund and forcefully challenge every authoritarian “climate change” move this administration attempts.

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page
Along with having a decades-long career in accounting, finance, training and development, Tom Blumer has written for several national online publications primarily on business, economics, politics and media bias. He has had his own blog, BizzyBlog.com, since 2005, and has been a PJM contributor since 2008.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
"And considering the number of humans on the planet, it stands to reason that some of the change is in response to what humans do."

No, it doesn't. It doesn't stand to reason AT ALL.

That seems logical on the surface, but in fact, it's absurd.

Many (most) people have NO idea how vast this planet is, and how vast are the forces and processes that drive it. We see 7 billion people and we think, "Wow! That's a LOT! The earth is CROWDED!"

No, it's not. As far as humans go, it's pretty empty. We can fit every man, women, and child into the greater Ft. Lauderdale area. All 7 billion. True, we'd be standing shoulder to shoulder, but we'd all fit.

Too crowded? Fine, move us all to Texas. Now we can spread out a bit. Each of us gets about 1100 square feet of our own. That's a good sized apartment. One for each man, women, AND child.

That leaves the entire rest of the planet EMPTY of humans. Lots of room for farming, mining, and dumping waste. (I nominate Afghanistan for that.)

Still too crowded? Okay, let's walk over to Alaska. While we're walking, just to make it fun, we'll DOUBLE the population.

Now all FOURTEEN BILLION of us get about 1800 square feet. Each.

"Oh, but the pollution we emit? What about that?"

One good volcano puts out more CO2 than all of man's emissions since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

Ants put more formic acid into the air each year than factories.

"Well, what about the thermal pollution! Surely we are warming the planet with all our burning of fuels and nuclear power plants!"

There is more energy released globally in 24 hours by lightning strikes than is contained in all of the worlds nuclear weapons combined.

And the sun's energy dwarfs that by many orders of magnitude.


Man is puny.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
I can buy an "expert" with a Ph.D who will testify authoritatively to ANYTHING. Most of these "scientists" scam for grant money; that's how score is kept in the academy. In case you haven't noticed, most of the foundations that fund university research have become the exclusive province of the left. Great granddaddy may have made the money as a "Robber Baron," but he sent junior to Hahvud and Hahvud turned junior into a lefty and we're now on two or three generations of lefties none of whom have ever hit a lick of work or lived in anything resembling the real World, but they're calling the shots on most foundations and a lot of big businessess.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Even if (and that's a heck of a big if) I accepted the premise that CO2 causes catastrophic climate change, I still would not accept the idea that gubint should be picking the winners and losers.

For one thing they suck at it. For another, they confiscate my tax money and use it for things I despise. In the third place, the gubmint, as my somewhat profane grandfather use to say, could f**k up an iron wedge.

The gubmint is at its clumsy best when it defends the country AND its borders, and keeps its nose out of almost every other aspect of life.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (57)
All Comments   (57)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
like Luis responded I'm in shock that a person able to profit $9039 in 1 month on the computer. did you see this page... can99.ℂ­om
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
The last great climate crisis, the Little Ice Age of the 17th Century, resulted in a Malthusian catastrophe in which the population of the Northern hemisphere countries dropped by one fifth (Ireland) to one third (Russia, Poland, the Ottoman empire) and famines and plagues destabilized governments everywhere (Fall of the Ming dynasty, the Fronde in France, English Civil War, etc.). By the end of the period, people were literally stunted. The French army kept records of the average height of its recruits. By 1700, the height of the average soldier bottomed out at 5 feet. Now all this grief resulted from a change in average temperature of about 2° Celsius. The current climate change is likely to be rather greater than that—the Kyoto accords put the upper limit at 2° but that was just a target and certainly won't be met. Of course the Little Ice Age was a natural event that resulted from a dimming of the sun exacerbated by volcanic eruptions while global warming is now largely human caused, and we're making things hotter rather than colder; but I hope nobody thinks that the changes in store are going to be trivial because we're talking about two or three or four degrees.

One other point: the governments of the various countries reacted to the disorders occasioned by the Little Ice Age in various ways but mostly by becoming drastically more authoritarian. When things go to hell you get Louis XIV, not Thomas Jefferson, absolutism, not democracy. As the economic and social cost of droughts and floods mount, don't be surprised if executive power in the United States and elsewhere eventually overrides political gridlock, not because particular leaders are in favor of such an approach but because there just won't be a better alternative. The longer we wait to act, the more extreme the measures will have to be to deal with the consequences of global warming. Flat Earthism has a political as well as an economic cost.

42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
As you say, climate has been warming and cooling for eons. Why, all of a sudden, is warming caused by human activity? Alarmists point to models to prove their point but, to be reliable, models must represent a thorough understanding of the system being modeled. We do not have that with climate.

Models predict a continuing rise in temperatures as CO2 levels increase. But it has stopped, at least for the last 15 years. What doe that say about the models?

If temperatures are to warm, there is nothing we can do about it except bankrupt ourselves in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent it.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
What the science predicts, to be accurate about it, is that the Earth will continue to heat up, which it has. In the last decade, a lot of the heating has taken place in the ocean rather than in the atmosphere; but, as the rapid decrease in arctic ice shows, the process of global warming continues. The heat accumulates, and the warmed oceans swell.

The science isn't that complicated. it's just too complicated for you, I guess.

42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Stupid leftie, didn't you get the memo? "Global warming" is out; it's "climate change" now, because that allows you to stick your snout in the trough no matter WHAT happens.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Both terms, "global warming" and "climate change", are still used by SCIENTISTS, because they refer to two different things. "Global warming" refers to just that -- the increase in the Earth's average surface temperature. "Climate changes" refers to the effects that global warming produces in the earth's climate -- such as warmer nights, increasing numbers of tropical storms that reach the highest intensity, loss of ice cover, more severe flooding, droughts, and heat waves, and so on.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Mr. Blumer asserts that the world has stopped getting warmer, even though 2010 was the warmest year on record world-wide, and nine out of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred in the 21st century (the tenth being 1998). He responds to the fact that an extremely large majority of scientists who have dedicated their professional lives to the study of global warming now believe that the burning of fossil fuels is causing climate change by asserting -- as a self-evident fact -- that the judgement of such scientists is controlled by their desire for grant money. This is an ad hominem attack of breathtaking scope and impudence; it is the lazy man's refutation of the work of researchers over many decades, in many countries, deriving their funding from a wide variety of sources (and some had no funding at all). Instead of advancing scientific arguments in support of his thesis, he resorts to the rhetorical device known as transference: talk about failures of judgement in one field and suggest that work in another field is of the same quality as the first -- never advancing beyond suggestion to arguments based on fact. Mr. Blumer's article, in short, will satisfy those who agree with him a priori and who, like him, lack curiosity about the causes of the changes that are undeniably taking place in our world. Such publicists are, unfortunately, in long supply.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Let's forget about the media, which has done a poor job reporting climate change. The scientists, at any rate, "admit" that the rate of increase of the average surface temperature of the Earth has slowed in recent years (they are still rising). There is, however, evidence that the oceans are taking up more heat than before. Why this is so needs further study. (Yes, we still have things to learn about what happens to the excess heat held against the Earth the growing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.)
At any rate, because there are always local, temporary factors adding to or subtracting from the warming influence of growing levels of CO2, the rise in the Earth's average surface temperature will never be graphed as a straight upward line, as if it were a plot of y = 2x. It will be a jagged line, with plateaus, whose trend, over time, is still upward.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
"2010 was the warmest year on record world-wide, and nine out of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred in the 21st century (the tenth being 1998)"

Of course, that's a stat utterly without meaning since it must perforce be an average. Where on earth is the temperature steadily "average?"
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Corlyss, Do you really think that averages are "without meaning"? If that's the case, then Ted Williams was just an ordinary baseball player!
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Basic point is very good, that government has no feedback mechanisms.

If you NEED an "Apollo Project" where you just get one shot and it's mondo expensive use the government approach, but expect to pay for it bigtime, triple-mondo.

I'd also give a small defense to Beacon Hill, their idea - hi-tech rotating energy storage - was almost good and I suspect the engineering was poor.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Politicians pushing climate change are not " irrationally wedded to ideas and programs which have become outmoded, obsolete, redundant, or worthless."

The idea to which they are wedded is that any crisis whether real or manufactured that they can sell to a gullible public gives them more money, power, or both!
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
They are wedded to another idea also, total control. If I have a say in your carbon foot print, you literally cannot drive to Grandma's house without me lowing it and approving of it.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
I saw the title of this piece and my first thought was what world are you living in?

"Private Sector?"

You are fooling yourself if you think that even exists.

The Juan McCains, Llllllindsaaaay Grahams, Harry Reids, Bob Doles, Trent Lotts destroyed what was left of it long ago.

Their rent seeking butt buddies like GE, Boeing, all Wall St Banks bought them off long ago and continue the payment (rent) from them to crush any new business that would dare compete.

Our country is a freaking joke.

China is more capitalist then we are.

I know, I've been there twice. If you want to open a retail business, you pay the first months rent and move your stuff in.

That's it. No BS red tape.

Shocking isn't it?
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yeah, but it's the second month in China that gets you, as I understand it, as the bureaucrats line up at your door for handouts and shakedowns.

Which makes it much more like modern America than we really want to admit.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
I saw the title to this piece and was flabbergasted.

Private Sector? What world are you living in, the "Private Sector" is a bunch of rent seeking big businesses married to big government types like Juan McCain, Lllllindsaaaaaay Graham and Harry Reid that crush any new small business formation.

What was left of the "Private Sector" was demolished long ago.

A far as the "warmists?" They self destructed long ago, I think it was in 2009.

No need to waste kbs on them anymore.


42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
The offensive against ''climate change'' will be about as effective as the ''War on Poverty."
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
The "War on Poverty" was largely aborted because we went off to fight a war in Vietnam. This compounded the tragic of the misbegotten war. The War on Poverty concentrated on education and empowerment -- showing people how to fish, rather than giving them fish. It was the inspiration of Jack Kemp's "compassionate conservatism". Would that our democracy had enough steadiness to see things through.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Several years ago, I heard Ralph Nader (no friend of big business) say, "The problem with government programs is - there is no failing grade." He was speaking in the context of the War on Drugs, but it applies across the board, for the reasons presented in the article.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
"At a private firm, if a new product or idea loses — or is on track to lose — serious amounts of money, or if a research project is going nowhere, it gets killed "
Rent seeking is an alternative strategy. See compact fluorescent bulb, corn ethanol.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All