Saturday, September 21, 2013

Requiem For A Theory

"The science is was settled."
Global Warming, c. 1985-2013

This year will be remembered as the one in which the wheels finally came off AGW. Not scientifically--as you all know, that happened a long time ago--but in terms of the public propping-up it's been relying on. Even its allies are starting to abandon it. Feel free to celebrate.

Again, this collapse has been in the making for a couple of years now. It's been pretty much an open secret for a while that the global temperature rise, whatever consensus it might have had, has been stalled for a decade or more, and an increasing number of scientists have begun to publicly speculate on why reality got the models wrong. Solar activity, fluctuating weather patterns, imperfect predictions--confident as the proponents continued to sound officially, you could tell they were getting worried.

But more recently, the news has gotten even worse. Last week, a leaked report from those high priests of Saving The World (tm), the IPCC, flatly admitted that their forecasts of temperature increase were, to put it politely, flat busted. Not only that, they also conceded that much of the current evidence--such as an increase in Antarctic sea ice--would lead one in the opposite direction. They even acknowledged, for the first time, the so-called Medieval Warm Period, which had high global temperatures without the burning of fossil fuels. Now mind you, they wouldn't come right out and admit they were full of crap. In fact, they claimed they were more certain than ever that global warming was real, that it was man-made, and that it would continue to get worse.

Thing is, a lot of scientists are now coming flat out and saying they don't buy it. One high-ranking climatologist called the report's conclusions "incomprehensible" while another described it as a lesson in how not to use the scientific method. And these weren't even the long-term skeptics. The proponents, displaying their usual penchant for classy and above-board debate, replied to these comments by saying the critics should be murdered by their children to defend the future generation, or something.

Meanwhile, contrary evidence from other sources continues to pile up. Astronomers have noted, after observing sunspots and the like, that solar activity is at a 100-year low, provoking concerns from a few quarters that we might actually be heading into another "Little Ice Age." Incidentally, computer models couldn't even get this right--they had been predicting that 2013 would be a peak year for such activity.

Now, none of this is particularly new or surprising, at least here. But as with the scientists mentioned above, it's worth noting how many of AGW's defenders are now beginning to, if not bail outright, then at least dial back their support for it. Governments in particular are hopping off the bandwagon: the Czech Republic is cutting all stimulus funds for renewable energy from this year's budget, while Germany, despite its continuing to pay official lip service to green power and the like, is quietly closing down a number of its solar and wind plants. Australia, having welcomed a new Conservative government, has gone even further and abolished one of its climate agencies.

I think we're about at the point where we can declare victory in the climate-change battle. It'll be a few years before the IPCC and other green activists realize their defeat (and of course they'll never admit it), but there's really no way they can come back from this, in the sense that they won't be able to advocate further controls on the economy in the name of AGW. It's all but over. So give yourself a high-five.

Just remember, they'll probably come up with something else to push. But until then.

14 comments:

K said...

Hey, I wrote a letter to Clinton during his administration outlining why basing policy on computer models was a bad idea - but to no effect.

Now they shall PAY for not listening to me!!

Patriot said...

T-Rav......I'm sure we'll see quiet settlements of these lawsuits where "deniers" sued the AGW scientists for faulty data (Michael Mann(sp?)). The old "hockey stick" effect proven bogus once the complete data set is used.

As part of the settlement, both sides will be required to never reveal their data, and, never speak of the bogus results ever again. Win Win!! (Damn lawyers - sorry Andrew)

We need to be able to look at all the data dispassionately and have multiple peer reviewed results either validated or invalidated. Plus, someone who can explain in simple english what these "models" used by these scientists are. There are probably very few lay people out there who understand a "computer model" and how it is constructed, and how easy it is to mis-analyze the data and come to the wrong conclusions.

K....Can you imagine Clinton understanding computer models? As long as the "model" supported what he was trying to sell, he would buy it. If not, it would be tossed as inaccurate.

Tennessee Jed said...

the media will continue to try and spin, but ......

Kit said...

Jed, It seems the media is acknowledging the problems they are having. The National Geographic seems to be in full spin mode.

tryanmax said...

Pat, can't happen that way. Lawyers aside, the so-called deniers have always been up-front and open with their data, methods, etc. You can't undisclose what has been disclosed.

tryanmax said...

Here's how bad the science of the AGW proponents has gotten. Publication of THIS chart in the journal Climate, along with it's supporting data, led one of the journal's staff to resign in protest.

The chart shows that the current pause in warming can be attributed to a naturally occurring oscillation in the upward trend. Not only does the fact that we have not broken away from this oscillation discredit the IPCC prediction, it also strengthens the case that contributions from man-made CO2 are negligible. It is the last point that the journal staffer resigned over.

T-Rav said...

K, Clinton probably was using a lot of computer models in his day, but not....not for that. (wink)

T-Rav said...

tryanmax, thanks for that chart. That's very revealing.

Seriously, these guys are a slap in the face to real science. The bad thing is, they might end up discrediting science altogether if they're not careful, at least in the public's eyes.

K said...

....not for that. (wink)

Not surprising. My calculus professor always insisted that math was essentially erotic in nature.
The firm round parabolas,the titillating oblate spheroids. The homeomorphic mappings of set to set.

T-Rav said...

K, I didn't know Clinton taught calculus? :P

Seriously though, if he really said that, there's at least a 75% chance some of your female classmates were bumping their grades up through--er--"extracurricular activity."

BevfromNYC said...

But the point has never been about "Global warming". It is about finding a clean, renewable, and inexpensive source of energy. It has been dressed up in the cloak of "man-made global warming caused by fossil fuels", but we MUST develop this. Fossil fuel sources are finite even if it may be 100's of years away. We cannot forget that...

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Two thoughts...

Politically speaking, forget it. The left is using climate change as a pretext to push leftist ideas that the public has rebuffed. They talk about things like sustainability, but they don't care. Their goal is power. On the other hand, "the right" has responded by childishly reveling in pollution and waste. So politically, expect little to change as we keep drifting left, but with no worthwhile policies.

Point 2, there are lots of companies out there in the free market who grasp the appeal sustainability has with the public, and they are doing lots of things in that regard that are moving the needle... conservation, pollution reduction, recycling, alternative energies, etc. Over time, those are the people who will save the world.

K said...

It is about finding a clean, renewable, and inexpensive source of energy.

I agree to a point, but if you explore what the most prominent AGW hysterics and UN IPCC have written and said, the point is to transfer wealth from the first world to the third. In the US, it's about using schemes based on AGW mitigation to raise taxes to pay for socialist programs. And finally, it's about campaign contributions and tax money laundering to left wing pols from "green energy" companies who expect to get kick backs from the government.

Which is why I don't expect AGW to go away even if the temperature starts dropping. Too many people are getting money if it's stays around.

K said...

I didn't know Clinton taught calculus?

Yes, the calculus professor was widely known to be "on the make".

Post a Comment