You’d kind of have to be an idiot not to realize that the biggest determinant of the temperature on our planet would be the sun. That is not only the primary source of warmth on our planet. . . it’s the only source. Moreover, we know that the sun does not put out a constant heat. This means that any model that fails to address the effects of the sun on our temperatures is worthless. Yet, the global warming models used by the enthusiasts all ignore the effect of the sun.
This point has been brought home by a leaked report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the lead propagandists for the Enthusiasts' ideology. This report admits (buried in Chapter 11) that the sun is more important than previously acknowledged:
“Results do suggest the possibility of a much larger impact of solar variations on the stratosphere than previously thought, and some studies have suggested that this may lead to significant regional impacts on climate.”Translation: “yeah, the sun could be causing a lot more warming that we thought it was. Curse you sun!!”
But here’s the kicker. Despite this admission, the models upon with the IPCC report relies in concluding that warming is a a man-made problem do not take the sun into account. How in the world can you legitimately exclude something from your analysis which you admit could be a much larger cause of your problem than you realize? This is nonsense. This is theology, not science.
And don’t forget, this isn’t the first bit of evidence that they are fudging the science and ignoring evidence that blows apart their theories. The biggest example was of course Climategate (and Climategate 2) where they were caught manipulating data and using political pressure to smear opponents. But there’s more. Consider these things we’ve seen from Warming Enthusiasts:
● Climategate exposed the manipulation of data to generate a warming trend where none existed. Specifically, they excluded a warming period in the Middle Ages and they only used certain data to make sure that the present period showed abnormal warming.So let me sum this up...... there was supposed to be warming, but there wasn’t... the seas were supposed to rise, but they didn’t... the sun is an “unknown factor” in warming that is much more significant that the models expect but we don’t want to know how much... trees absorb carbon in much greater amounts than we expected. And all of this is based on data that either doesn’t exist or which has been manipulated to exclude contrary data or which is the result of bad collection techniques or which is the result of the fraudulent use of statistics. Nice work, boys.
● The famous “hockey stick” which shows the supposed warming (the one highlighted by High Priest al Gore) was debunked. It uses a fake formula which will take any sequence of numbers and spit out a hockey stick type result.
● The IPCC relied upon data from flawed weather stations which wrongly created warming.
● The IPCC wrongly used summer data for winter months to generate warming.
● The IPCC claim that global warming will hurt biodiversity was shown to have no basis -- not to mention that the world’s species are at least one million years old and thus have all been through hundreds of climate cycles.
● The IPCC had to retract a completely unsupported statement that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035.
● The IPCC had to retract unsubstantiated statements about threats to the Amazon rainforests.
● In January 2011, IPCC scientist Osvaldo Canziani was listed as an advisor on a report that overstated warming by 1000%, and which was published unfixed even after this error was pointed out to the study’s authors.
● In January 2010, the IPCC had to retract the part of its report which claimed that Global Warming would cause sea level rises equal to 2.3 meters per century, with 2.7 feet happening this century. This report was retracted because of “mistakes in time intervals and inaccurately applied statistics.” It also turns out this report was based on data collected in a part of Hong Kong that is sinking.
Incidentally, in May of that year, a paleogeophysics/geodynamics professor from Stockholm University in Sweden issued a report that observations from around the world showed NO rising sea levels in the last 40 years. How did Enthusiasts respond? A year later, the University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group simply added 0.3 millimeters a year to their sea level figures to create rising sea levels where none exist.
● In June 2011, experts from Finland and the United States were shocked. . . shocked to learn that rising carbon dioxide levels caused forest density to increase: “Global warming, blamed by the U.N. panel of climate experts mainly on human use of fossil fuels, might itself be improving growth conditions for trees in some regions.” That’s right, trees are getting fatter. And the consequence of this is. . . well. . . um. . . it’s “offsetting climate change.” In other words, it’s keeping global warming from happening.
Now there’s undeniable evidence that the warming ain’t happening. In a truly embarrassing admission, the British agency responsible for pimping Global Warming, the Met Office, admitted on Christmas Eve (to try to bury the story) that there has been no warming for 17 years now, even though all the models predicted significant warming for that period – they attribute this to solar activity, natural variability, and the movement of the oceans.... all things any competent model needs to account for. Anyway, what makes this a particularly humiliating admission is that during this same period, Enthusiasts were claiming that warming was actually accelerating.
Moreover, in 2008-2010, global temperatures dropped sharply enough to cancel out the entire supposed net rise in the 20th century. This is important because global warming theory relies on cumulative increases. Thus, their whole theory has fallen apart. . . again. Enthusiasts tried to blame this on the "unexpected" solar cycle -- an eleven year pattern that has repeated itself consistently throughout history and seems to coincide with scaremongering about new global ice ages or new global warming. Enthusiasts also complained that the oceans reacted in an "unexpected" manner by doing what they've always done rather than changing as the climate models suggested. And then the dirty trees have done the "unexpected" by doing what they've always done and refusing to conform to the models. Are you seeing a pattern? It seems that every time the Earth does what it's always done, it's "unexpected."
The jig seems to be up for the Enthusiasts. When cap and trade failed in the US, that signaled the death of their movement. Obama lost interest and the Democrats haven’t picked it up. Obama then went to Copenhagen with the idea of securing a fake agreement to agree which would get the environmentalists of his back and even that blew up in his face when China, Brazil, India, and South Africa met behind his back and agreed to do nothing to change anything. At this point, there are some stragglers. The UK, for example, remains brainwashed, though I’m reading lots of reports about the huge cost and consequence of trying to reduce their carbon emissions which may make them think twice. Australia’s Labor Government seems intent on imposing a carbon tax. But that’s about it. Everyone else seems to be ready to move on.
It’s never wise to predict the death of a religion, but I think the Cult of Warming’s days are numbered.
46 comments:
Great data, Andrew. Now the proponents have tried to call it "climate change" and continue the old saw "the majority of "credible scientists" have been on "our side" or even more hilarious "it's a done deal, the debate is over."
That said, on a subjective level, I felt like we have had a run of warmer than usual weather for a while in the U.S.A., but always felt it had more to do with unusually high solar flare activity
Thanks Jed. I think the reasons to dismiss this theory are becoming overwhelming. You can only accept so many mistakes and so much shoddy work before you begin to doubt. Add in lies and deception and the whole thing becomes untenable.
On the anecdotal weather, it's hard to say. We've had some very mild summers lately, but then also mild winters. And I keep seeing record cold all over the northern part of the country. In the end, I think the danger is falling for the exact mistake the enthusiasts are falling for -- looking at too little data taken over too short a period.
Honestly, the idea that we can tell anything about the earth by just looking at a few decades is ludicrous. I'm not saying don't gather evidence, but seriously, don't make projections until you have enough evidence to be able to actually make predictions.
If you put your hands on the television while Al Gore speaks, you'll feel the warmth of his sincerity radiating out.
"Progressives" no longer trumpet the tired and rigged global warming scam. Now they assert that climate change is killing the planet. Since the climate changes every single day, they boast huge victories. That the emperor has no clothes means nothing to them.
LL, That's true about the television sets! :P
Yeah, they've switched to Climate Change now that they got burned with Global Warming, but I think the problem is that they exposed themselves with Global Warming and people aren't going to buy anything they come up with anymore. I don't see any will to keep playing the game.
They've become like a doomsday cult on the day after the world didn't end. Some will believe that they just had the date wrong, but everyone else is slowly walking away.
These truly are the people with their heads up their butts.
It's funny once communism was proved to be a colossal failure, all the fools who supported it ran into the environmental movement.
Only this time Global warming didn't last as long as the Soviet Onion(LOL).
What sucks is Oglumbo is still pushing the EPA to do the nonsensical GL standards. Which only shows this has nothing to do with the environment. But everything to do with control.
When it comes to predicting the weather, that is nearly impossible to predict what's going to happen next week. Much less in a century. These people all act like things never change. The weather is constantly changing at one time the Sahara was a green lush land. We sure had nothing to do with that change. It shows a real lack of critical thinking, or questioning. But offer up some money(grants)look how quick opinions change.
Always follow the money trail.
As a long time reader of the indispensable Watts Up With That? website, I don't believe AGW is dead yet, not by a long shot.
1. Too many people depend on the money from it.
2. Too many politicians depend on the enviro left for political support.
3. There's been too much groundwork in academia and the media to stop the momentum.
How many other 2+2=5 programs are still being funded and hotly defended by the left? Affirmative action. Head Start. Gun control. Women's equality in pay with men. etc etc etc.
No warming over the last 17 years isn't good enough to kill AGW. There will have to be a substantial downturn and so far we're not seeing it happen. So don't celebrate too soon.
Andrew.....I always looked at AGW as a movie title: "Rise of the Weathermen!"
Imagine the lead:
After being laughed at for years for their shoddy, inaccurate predictions of local weather, and relegated humiliatingly to after the sports sections even on nightly news, the Weathermen developed their 'Doomsday' weapon and attempted to take over the world. Their enemies, the "Conservatives," waged battle with them for decades using their own weapons honed by years of battle..."Science."
So, since we had an unusual drop in "warming" for 2008-10, then...I hate to point this out, buuuuut...it appears that Obama DID cause the waters to recede and the planet to begin to heal.
But on a more serious note, THIS is a perfect example of where conservatives can make inroads IF we can change the debate from "See, there is no global warming" a real turnoff to the way more helpful and positive platform and what this whole issue is really all about:
To find/develop a clean, renewable source(s) of energy that is/are easy and inexpensive to produce with the least impact on the our natural environment.
This is the Thomas Edison/Cornelius Vanderbilt/Henry Ford/All Rockefellers/Bill Gates et al. question for the 21st Century and the one that will make someone the first trillion-aire.
Max, All true. I think what happened is that after international socialism failed, they needed a new way to get power. And this time, they were determined to pick "supporters" who couldn't speak back and tell the world they hated it -- so they picked the environment.
Unfortunately for them, the environment can speak back. And it's been refuting their theories ever since.
Unfortunately for us, as you say, this is about power and so a great deal is being done not because it makes any sense, but because it promotes the things they want.
K, It's certainly not dead yet, but I see signs that its power is failing. I think the public has lost interest and that means the politicians are losing interesting. There's certainly an industry that will continue and they'll keep talking about it for decades. But I'm getting the sense that its ability to sway the public on anything that will affect their lifestyles is over.
Patriot, LOL! That would actually make an hilarious parody! :)
Bev, Excellent point. One of the problems I think conservatives have in this area is overreaction. Just because global warming is bunk doesn't make it smart to waste energy needlessly. We tend to go to the other extreme, as you say, "ha ha, it's not true so let's all go be wasteful." We really need to recognize that people do want a clean environment and the better we are at promoting our own (sane) version of policies that will keep the environment clean, the better able we will be to fight the bad theories.
I've said before that the "stewards of the earth" version of "environmentalism" could be a strong conservative talking point - if only we'd let it. Rick Warren and a couple other "evangelical" pastors tried to get this started about 5-7 years ago, but the conservative movement was so entrenched in the anti-AGW that they didn't get much groundswell support even from SoCons...
But I'm with K, the AGW Cult isn't going anywhere for a while, but having info on their failures helps combat its spread!
I wrote something up in '09 about the environmental movement's shift in language from "global warming" to "climate change" and even then the observation seemed stale. Unfortunately for them--but fortunately for the rest of us--they were too successful in selling the public on "global warming" and now the term hangs like an albatross from their necks. At this point, the public won't let them change the term.
When they started making the rhetorical shift, I worried that they would get away with it b/c at that time, even though the evidence for warming was starting to crack and enthusiasm to do something about was dwindling, the evidence of fraud had not yet been exposed. I wrote in October, Climategate broke in November. The timing was perfect. Americans were already shifting focus toward the economy and away from the environment and Climategate gave them the perfect excuse to ignore the environment entirely.
That said, the movement certainly hasn't died. The envirowackos are wetting themselves that Obama devoted a dozen sentences to environmental issues in his inauguration speech. They take this as a sign that Obama is about to "do something!!!" Apparently they haven't considered that this could be it.
Bev and Andrew.......I think that is an excellent policy for conservs to adopt. "We will support a clean, renewable source of energy that will replace our current dependence on polluting fossil fuels. Like fission and fusion! We will not support crony capitalists who start up "green" companies in order to fleece the American taxpayers."
Wind and solar are wonderful for small use. Why dont we support small nuclear reactors to power small to midsize towns and areas? We can say..."We have had almost 50 years of testing wi small nuclear reactors in the US military, and know what safety protocols a required to make this a cheap, safe source of energy. We support nuclear energy to draw down our use of coal and fossil fuels for energy use."
And until we can invent a small fusion mahine (Back to the Future) we must continue using gasoline to fuel our vehicles.
We need to make this one of our central policies and push it at every opportuity.
We support cheap, renewable, plentiful energy!
rlaWTX, I think the "stewards of the earth" idea was a nice attempt to get conservatives to realize that being anti-environment was a bad idea. Not only did it lose voters, but it makes no sense. Just because your neighbor is an idiot doesn't mean you should be an idiot in the other direction just to show him that you don't agree with him.
I think the problem was that they bought into too much of the left's theories and they seemed to basically be saying "we can do that too" rather than charting a conservative version of environmentalism.
As for the AGW Cult, I think they'll be with us forever, but I think they've peaked in terms of their power.
And also, the NOAA (at least I think it was the NOAA) got caught "adjusting" the temperatures of areas reporting no warming trend to match those that did.
How they could be surprised by the increased forest density thing is beyond me, though. I mean, who here did not learn in elementary school that plants thrive on CO2? Seriously???
tryanmax, I agree. I think the problem for them is that the left has a history of trying to hide policies behind words, such as no longer calling for "taxing and spending," but instead calling for "revenues and investment." So people have learned to look past their nomenclature and to instead look at the underlying issue.
In that regard, they sold this idea that "the world is getting hotter and you will die." Then they made all kinds of horrible predictions to scare people. None of those came true. And to now try to shift the theory to "well, the temperatures could go up or down and you will still die" just doesn't sell. People still see this as the original pitch gone wrong. In effect, they are a doomsday cult whose date for the end passed and they have no credibility to now choose a new date or a new method.
I also agree that the movement won't go away. They'll keep right on pushing their theories in earnest and some portion of the population will buy into it. It's inevitable. But I think the real danger has passed because the world has lots the desire to implement their ideas in any way which will hurt their economies.
You're right about Obama too. I get the feeling that most of what he said was just meant to placate his base and to create an image, but I don't think he will actually follow up with most of it.
Patriot, Agreed. There is no reason for conservatives to oppose any form of energy, just so long as it isn't "crony." And we certainly shouldn't be supporting phony "green" companies.
One of the biggest things that could transform this country are all of the natural gas discoveries throughout the west. We really should start pushing that. Not only is it cleaner, but it also means energy independence.
T-Rav, I don't know if they're genuinely surprised by any of it. It seems pretty obvious to me actually. My guess is that they simply created static models that assumed nature would not react to changed conditions except in ways they wanted to see it react.
Haven't paid much attention to the science but environmentalism is a rich Jan's game and right now our economy is in the tank.
Anthony, That's true. And part of what could be fueling the indifference is the bad economy. People to tend to allow more stupidity when times are good.
But I think that in this case, the problem is more one of futility. People in the West are realizing that if China and Russia and Brazil and India won't do anything about this problem, there is nothing they can do. So it doesn't make sense to them to grow poor with no chance of fixing the problem.
If it becomes overwhelmingly evident that AGW is not an issue, then I would expect the Left to drop it fairly quickly and move on to the next "world crisis."
On the other hand, I think this also goes to show the different realities people live in. It's self-evident to us that this whole thing is a bust, and that maybe our opponents are starting to just drop it; on the other hand, for the left-wing media (but I repeat myself), "the consensus is growing every day that climate change is here and affecting our planet in untold ways." That's basically what Brian Williams says every other night, anyway. It's just as clear to many of them that AGW is beyond debate, and moving on from the subject is unthinkable. Funny how things work.
T-Rav, I think that's true. The left doesn't hang around long once an issue is played out. The problem is that they may not have anywhere left to go.
In order... They tried middle class, that failed. They tried the poor. They tried nationalism, then internationalism, then third world-ism. They tried religion. They tried minorities. They tried world hunger. Now they're doing climate. Each time, they wore out their welcome and the people they claimed to speak for rejected them or their causes vanished in smoke. They're kind of running out of causes to co-opt.
As for the media, they are perfectly capable of being 100% pro-something one day and turning on a dime and being 100% anti the next day.
"Like fission and fusion!"
Why limit the search at all? See, I have this vision like the scene from "Apollo 13". Remember when they gathered all of the engineers, mathmeticians, and scientists at NASA and pour out all of the available stuff that was available on the space ship? And said, "Okay, now figure out how to build an air filter in 24 hours or less because that is all the air they have available...and....GO!"
This is what "they" in the 17th Century to find the best way to calculate location at sea. This got us the practical concept of longitude from a clock maker no less. Saved millions of sailors.
Most recently, Richard Branson (Virgin) challenged the entire engineering community to come up with a viable practical suborbital space ship for commercial use. He put prize money on it. A few years later..they had the first practical suborbital space flight.
Why not energy? Not government money to fund companies, but private money to fund engineers and inventors. A clock maker came up with longitude, why can't a home engineer find a solution to our energy problem? They LOVE a challenge for the sheer sport of it all. Let the engineers loose to do their stuff! And the winner or winners get prize money/fame and the heartfelt thanks from a grateful world!
Bev, Agreed. The best approach is to simply ask people to meet a goal, offer an incentive, and then see what people can come up with.
In an effort to keep the public on board, I would suggest conservatives advocate having the government set the goal and offer the incentive (e.g. the prize)... but at the same time, keep the government from precluding the private sector from doing the same or going a different path. That eliminates the problems associated with picking winners and losers -- something the government is notoriously bad at.
Then the government gets out of the way and lets industry handle the rest. Or in some cases, it might make sense to go open source with it and allow anyone to use it.
"Like fission and fusion!"
This is where the conversation is likely headed next. I say that b/c, w/o my pursuing it, I've encountered a number of stories discussing the "dangers" of small reactors lately. I didn't even know there were such things until maybe a week ago. The threat they pose, however, is not what you might think. It seems they pose a national security threat.
So, to tie that into what Andrew was saying about the left running out of causes célèbre to exploit, I would not be shocked to find Homeland Security topping their list in the near future. Ironic? Only if you never expected it.
BTW, put "Open Source Solutions" into the rhetorical grab bag that Republicans need to start pulling from. Maybe we should start a list?
tryanmax, That would be a good rhetorical phrase to add because people are starting to understand what it means because of the internet. I think the whole idea of the government becoming a clearing house of information which sometimes guides the direction of research but not the process is an appealing one. It lets people feel like the government is supervising things and is technically in control, when the reality is it's really just asking the private sector to solve the problems it identifies.
What is the threat from small reactors? I haven't heard much about this.
Andrew, that's the funny thing. What I've encountered is mostly op-ed stuff. I don't think there are any specifics, just the general "the terrorists could get their hands on them!" stuff.
tryanmax, Are they talking about smaller nuclear reactors generally or are they talking about private reactors of some sort?
I'm not sure what you mean by "private" reactors. From what I understand, they are talking about the same type of nuclear reactors currently used on subs and ships.
Speaking of rhetoric, I've been watching Netflix's new political drama House of Cards which I'd say is The West Wing meets Breaking Bad. It's interesting how many scenes on that show revolve around the crafting of catchy phrases. I realize the show is fiction, but can it be all that different from reality?
Oh, ok, so it's just an anti-nuclear thing again. I got it. I thought you meant something different.
Apparently, there's no law stopping people from making "small" reactors, and there's been a lot of talk about people wanting to build what are basically mini-nuclear reactors for whatever purpose. I'm not even sure if that's possible or if it's just the same pie in the sky talk that always comes up when people claim they built a fusion reactor in their garage. I thought maybe there was some new issue I hadn't heard about.
tryanmax, Politics is 99% rhetoric, and the rhetoric that sells best is the catchy phrase.
It may be on life-support but the movement isn't dead. It is too ingrained in the schools; I know because I have to re-educate my daughter every so often.
Environmentalism is a religion. It has its prophets (Carson, Gore, Hanson), its holy books (Silent Spring, Inconvenient Truth), it uses questionable tactics to "prove" its beliefs are true, it has scary gods with weak egos (Gaia), and it demands converts.
The movement has already moved on from Global Warming and Climate Change to Anti-fracking. Different name; same idiots.
Koshcat, That's true. And I don't think the movement is dead or that it will die, but I think that the global warming crowd's power to get policy put in place is fading fast.
Honestly, as I think about it, the way the enviros reacted to the president throwing them a bone in his speech is typical of a group in the margins. It's like like when a rock star says the name of the city he's in. "Hey! He said the name of where we are! He totally knows us, man!"
tryanmax, It was the same way they reacted after Copenhagen. A few smart ones said, "we've been betrayed!" But the rest so wildly overreacted about the world now being saved by an agreement to eventually agree upon something, that it calls into question if they really understood what was happening. In hindsight, it strikes me as a desperate group who was happy just to get his attention.
Yep, and the way Koshcat describes them as a religion is how more and more ordinary people see them, as well. How many times on a cold day do you hear people joking "Thank goodness for global warming!"?
They've gotten to the point where they blame every weather event on man-made causes--all except the good weather, that is. It strains common, ordinary reason to think that every cruddy day comes out of the tailpipe of a car.
Oh, and something I wanted to say earlier:
University of Colorado has a Sea Level Research Group? Isn't that a bit like Jamaica having a bobsled team?
It has definitely taken on the trappings of a religion, and that hurts their cause even more.
Yep. Seems strange. But the U of Colorado has a lot of scientific stuff, particularly related to weather for some reason.
I think it is because NOAA is located in Boulder.
Koshcat, That's true. Which makes me think somebody pulled some strings in Washington at one point.
I saw a movie, not the Al Gore one but another that alarmed us to Global Warming in 2003/2004 I believe. I remember writing to the director because his website was shown in the movie and you could. I remember expressing skeptiscism at the way the claims was generated and mentioned in a line that they were like the Pope dictating what science was allowed. I got a response explaining I was wrong and expressing being stuned at the Pope line that told me to do the research myself.
I did so. There is another Hockey Stick graph and this one is not temperature but Carbon content in the atmosphere. It states that in fifty years the parts per million ppm went from 280 to 360. The movie relied on a study done with Antartic Ice Cores. The research suggested two other studies did not agree. One of pores in leaves which was seen as too seasonal and another coring Greenland which was due to Calcium Carbonate from Volcanism.
The one fact that was left out was that Antartica is the only place on planet earth that gets so cold that CO2 condenses to a solid in the atmosphere. Condensation point (freezing point for gas to solid) is -78 celcius. Coldest temp in South pole -88 C and average is -5 to -81C.
To date I have yet to read anything that tells me that this fact was worked into the model they used to develop the 280 to 360 ppm in fifty years or what the effect is. Given that CO2 is much heavier than water and ice floats you think it would. The funny thing is I get called names when I bring this up by the other side but I am really interested in the scientific answer whatever it is. I am just curious.
Indi, I think the religious analogy is a good one because the responses are like those of true-believers rather than scientists. Not only do they shoot down you criticism (when they should be investigating and should be able to explain it away) but they hate you personally for mentioning it. It really is a matter of faith to them and those who don't have faith are heretics.
Post a Comment