What a difference a few years can make.
Phil Jones, the man who more than anyone else (besides Al Gore) was responsible for perpetuating the Man-Made Global Warming hysteria, has now conceded that, ahem, there's a tiny problem with his data. Namely, it doesn't exist.
Now mind you, Phil Jones isn't saying that it never existed. It did, really, at one time, honest, believe him. It's just that, like that missing earring your wife misplaced, or the proof of purchase receipt you swear you have as the cops nab you for shoplifting that brand new watch in your pocket, you can't, er, find it. So, you're just gonna have to take Dr. Jones' word for it that his famous "hockey stick graph" is 100% real, no question about it. It's just that he can't actually prove it because, well, his "organizational skills" are a tad bit deficient.
But it gets even better. For the data that hasn't been misplaced, erased, shredded, or eaten by the family dog, it shows that for the past 15 years there has been no "statistically significant" global warming — which is a nice sounding way of saying "actual reality shows the exact opposite of what our politically-motivated theories predicted." And to cap off the dismantling of the Climate Change Hat Trick, recent news accounts have noted that, "Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now — suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon."
Now I realize that some Climate Change Advocates are still knee deep in their "investigation phase" of looking really, really, hard at all the evidence of malfeasance and deception that's come to light since the Climategate scandal first broke. Far be it from me to continue to point out the same things that I and other Anthropogenic Global Warming Deniers have consistently pointed out for years, if not decades — namely, that this is all a croc — but in the interest of moving this discussion along, I thought it might be interesting to take a slightly different approach to this subject.
Rather than focus on the things we know today, thanks to the Climategate scandal, let's have a look back at the positions taken by AGW supporters over the last few years. How exactly did they react to the questions we raised about the whole notion of Man-Made Global Warming? What exactly was the "settled" part of the "settled science" they used to produce their "scientific consensus" that the world was getting hotter, and that man was responsible for it?
Fortunately, the comment section to The Intellectual Conservative contains the musings, protestations, and analyses of a number of folks who drank the Global Warming/Climate Change Kool-Aid. Neither they, nor we, are climate scientists. But we all have a brain, and it's interesting to see how each of us used it to address one of the most important issues of our time; an issue with far-reaching social, economic and political implications.
So here it goes. I'll begin with a restatement of my main thesis, as stated in my 2006 essay "An Even More Inconvenient Truth: The Myth of Man-Made Global Warming," which launched my own foray into this debate.
1. We can't actually measure the temperature of the Earth precisely enough to measure a .5-1 degree "change" in world temperatures over the last 100 years, let alone use this as a basis to project future climate changes of 2-6 degrees over the next 100 years.
2. 100 years, even 200-300 years, is hardly enough time to discern a "trend," even if such data was to exist.
3. Even if we had the precise data, and had it over a long enough time frame, science still has not shown us how to actually separate man's supposed influence on climate from natural factors influencing climate. Only his hubris allows man to think that his actions are determinate in shaping the natural process of the planet – with the Earth itself, and the sun that heats it, only incidental factors in this explanation.
4. Legitimate scientific inquiry always begins with a simple question that few people today – even rational thinkers – bother to ask when presented with a statement of "fact": "How do you know that?" The people who propose a theory have the burden of proof to demonstrate its validity. It's not my responsibility to prove your theory wrong. It's your responsibility to prove it right.
And what, you may ask, was the response of the Warmers to my heresy of issues raised? We'll begin with a gentleman by the name of Bill Provost, who had a number of problems with the points above as he discussed at length in 2006. According to Mr. Provost:
- Research from NASA related to the rapid global warming seen over the past three decades [1980s-2000s] shows that this "warming today is primarily driven by man-made greenhouse gases, not solar changes . . . Rather than assume that hundreds of professional climate scientists around the globe had NEVER even THOUGHT to ask about solar irradiance changes, you should have done a little more research."
Note: Just for giggles, Google "NASA Global Warming Errors," "James Hansen fraud," etc., to get a 2010 update on the quality of this, ahem, unbiased "research."
Why did Mr. Provost believe so strongly that man, not nature, was the cause of Global Warming? (Again, note that this discussion took place before "Global Warming" trans-mutated into Global "Climate Change.")
- "Global warming isn't a question of agreeing or disagreeing. This isn't a philosophy debate. In science, there are right answers and wrong answers, there are things that can be supported by evidence and things that cannot." Any "weaknesses" pointed out by critics of the Man-Made Global Warming hypothesis "are more often 'weaknesses' of conservative understanding than 'weaknesses' of the science."
One commentator, reacting to Mr. Provost, mentioned that, "The author [Jackson] does make a good point about the suspect quality of temperature measurements in terms of accuracy, consistency, and location," to which Mr. Provost replied:
- "Not really. All of these issues have been hashed out in the literature and appropriate error bars assigned . . . Global warming deniers are behaving like religious fundamentalists. No matter how compelling the evidence, they will never admit that man-made global warming is real. They engage in all kinds of shameless sophistry and sloppy thinking to avoid the undeniable conclusion. Confronting reality and embracing empiricism would mean risking government regulation and, even worse, admitting that those environmentalists they despise so much are right and they are wrong. As time goes on and the evidence builds, this just makes them look ever more ridiculous-like the creationists." In case you didn't get the point, Mr. Provost went on to state, "this article . . . only extends and confirms the position that conservatives fundamentally don't understand the science."
As for the caliber of scientific inquiry demonstrating Man-Made Global Warming, Mr. Provost had a few additional thoughts on the subject. Once again, please note that this is from the pre-Climategate scandal days when little things like statistical "tricks" and "artificial adjustments" had not yet come to light.
- "Why do you assume . . . that [downplaying the role of natural forces contributing to CO2 emissions] is evidence of 'alarmists' pushing 'an outside, hidden agenda?' Basically, you present me with two options: 1) Climate scientists are incompetent hacks; or 2) You need to hit the books a little harder. Of the two, the latter seems more likely."
Alas, this was the last we heard of Mr. Provost, who having smited the ignorant conservative fundamentalist creationists who dared to ask "how do we know that?", went on to spread his wisdom in other forums.
A later article on "How to Increase Your Carbon Footprint" brought out a few more comments on the need to put our full faith and trust in the scientific community to tackle the most important issues of our time. Someone by the name of "Dave Patriot" put it tactfully, and succinctly:
- "Why do you brainless [deleted by moderator] recognize that the science is there but your ego won't let the information in. But I'm sure you same idiots go telling everyone that evolution is a myth. Fill that empty space between your ears and get out and see the world for yourself, not from that rotting trailer."
If that wasn't convincing enough to accept the Truth About Man-Made Global Warming, Mr. Patriot had even more cogent arguments to offer. Those who disputed Anthropogenic Global Warming were just listening to scientists "on the payroll of Exxon-Mobil or Shell or BP." The "fact" was that "greenhouse gasses and mean global temp have a positive relationship, they go up together."
Note: This, again, was written before the recent "corrections" from the scientific community that showed while industrial output and human-generated CO2 emissions have steadily increased, global temperatures have, er, not. But even had this been known in 2007, it wouldn't have been enough to dissuade Dave the Patriot, who insisted that "computer models postulate many scenarios, NONE of which can be dealt with in a 'wait and see' attitude. We can disagree on opinions of results of global warming, but there aren't many intelligent folks who truly deny the existence of a warming planet aided by human activity."
And just in case you didn't get it the first time, if you questioned any of the things back then which today have been shown to be worthy of questioning, your arguments would make you "sound like the tobacco companies lies about the harmfulness of cigarettes. Just keep it real man, we live on the same planet and must preserve it the best we can."
Another individual by the name of gnarlyerik tried a different tact to convince us ignorant skeptics. Notice the string of "conservative" assumptions that went into his final piece of logic:
- Since 'scientists' per se are characteristically a conservative lot, and since 95% of scientific opinion is that Global Warming is a seriously dangerous issue, and that mankind is a strong contributing factor – why is it that dogmatics such as are found on this [conservative] site so insistent that it's a myth? The real myth is the one they serve up themselves that there's nothing to it. Wake up! Open the windows! Look outside!"
Note: I woke up, looked outside, and saw record snowfalls in Dallas, Texas this year (both in the number of snowfalls, and depth of accumulation). Live by the anecdote, die by the anecdote.
Gnarlyerik conceded that, like most of us, he was not a scientist. But as a man of reason he knew that scientists had only the purest of motives and the most objective research available upon which to base their conclusions. So, if "scientific opinion" said it was so, well "the only rational choice for any layman like me is to go with the VAST MAJORITY of prevailing scientific opinions. To do otherwise is to stick one's head in the sand."
And why is this so? "'Majority' opinions have many times been wrong in the past – but that does not make any particular minority theory correct today. In fact, statistically the odds are heavily against that being the case. For a minority to go around insisting they are right is downright silly."
I put this passage in here not so much to add to the arguments presented by the Man-Made Global Warming Hysterics, but in the hope that someone, some day, might be able to tell me what this thought process actually means.
Fast forward now to 2009. In an essay entitled "The Day Science Died," I railed against the kind of "consensus science" which gave us non-existent Man-Made Global Warming by saying "'consensus science' and 'settled science' . . . is shorthand for ‘would you shut up and stop asking these kinds of embarrassing questions because we already have the conclusions we want.' It's the day real science was replaced with the notion that the consensus of non-scientists and scientists, who gather together in quasi-political organizations, was all that was needed to shut down debate. It is, in effect, the day science died."
Well, just when you thought it was okay to go to church, Raymond Ingles followed the well-trodden tradition of condemning legitimate inquiries into agenda-driven science with a familiar broad brush: "That sounds so much like the language young-Earth creationists use that it triggers automatic suspicion with me. The spheroid Earth is 'settled science' too, but that doesn't make the Flat Earther's questions ‘embarrassing,' merely annoying. Thankfully, the political clout of the flat-Earthers has ebbed. I can only hope the young-Earth types don't take centuries to fade to that level."
Fear not, though. Despite the obvious religious overtones to any and all objections to the theory of Anthropogenic Global warming, Mr. Ingles wanted to hedge his bets a bit, unlike those in whose anti-creationist path he had followed. To this end, he assured us that:
- "I'm still looking into global warming, but I haven't seen the distortions and unethical behavior the scientists are accused of, certainly not on a widespread level. That things are getting warmer over at least the past century and a half is pretty clear. Things like how much humans have contributed this is less clear in my mind – but again, I'm not finding debased motives among those proposing it and mustering their evidence. They may be wrong, but I don't see them as any more evil and deceptive than any other humans. And I certainly do see troubling signs – like the rhetoric I noted above – in their debate opponents."
This investigation continues into 2010, but still nothing has risen to the level of concern for Mr. Ingles. The earth is still getting warmer, even if it isn't actually getting warmer these last 15 years. Consensus-driven Global Warming/Climate Change scientists are still operating with the highest level of ethics, even as they hide, destroy, or just "can't find" the data to support their agenda-driven conclusions. And if one day they are shown to be venal self-serving shills, well, they're not so much different from you or me, so what's the real harm?
This is science, as seen from a man who views himself as a kindred spirit (I would have said "soul", but that opens up an entirely different subject with Mr. Ingles). Meanwhile, my knuckles are getting raw from dragging through the snow as I head for church to worship at the altar of Creationism because I dare to ask "how do we know that?" instead of blindly accepting universal truths which, it has come to light, aren't nearly all that universal, nor true.
Which leads to the last great defender of AGW to grace the comment section of The Intellectual Conservative: Chasm. Commenting on an article about "The Lies About Green Jobs" when all else fails in a debate on Man-Made Global Warming, Chasm knew enough to invoke the IPCC, NISDC, NASA, and other governmental bodies to show that temperatures are rising, and the ice caps are melting, and that man is responsible for it. This would certainly be enough to convince any sane, rational, objective person — which definitely isn't me and other AGW-Deniers, because even if the evidence was presented, according to Chasm "you wouldn't listen and you'd figure out another reason they [the scientists] could be wrong. Just like the anti-science creationists."
Note: Are we noticing a consistent theme among the learned folks who endorse the scientific consensus of Anthropogenic Global Warming?
Anyway, let me just offer a couple of things to close out this discussion of the so-called scientific consensus of Man-Made Global Warming. Keep in mind the arguments of those who insisted that there was nothing to debate, nothing to dispute, and nothing to challenge the motives or credibility of anyone disagreeing with "settled, scientific consensus."
The Poles are not Melting
Associated Press 2002: "New measurements show the ice in West Antarctica is thickening, reversing some earlier estimates that the sheet was melting."
"Nature" May 2005: "Increased snowfall over a large area of Antarctica is thickening the ice sheet and slowing the rise in sea level caused by melting ice"
"Science" 2005: "Oslo – Greenland's ice-cap has thickened slightly in recent years despite wide predictions of a thaw triggered by global warming"
Journal of Glaciology, July 2008: "Devon Ice Cap, Nunavut, Canada, has been losing mass since at least 1960. Laser-altimetry surveys, however, suggest that the high-elevation region (>1200 m) of the ice cap thickened between 1995 and 2000"
International Arctic Research Center (IARC/JAXA): "During October and November 2008 the extent of Arctic ice was 28.7 percent greater than during the same period in 2007."
The Himalayan Ice Caps are not Melting
"A warning that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
"Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
"In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.
"It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
"Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was'"speculation' and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece
NASA has an agenda
"James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, whose records were also cited as evidence, second only to the CRU data, of incontrovertible man-made global warming. McIntyre also caught Hansen engaging in the same sort of statistical manipulation in which past temperatures were lowered and recent ones ‘adjusted' to convey the false impression that the nonexistent warming trend was accelerating. After trying to block McIntyre's IP address, NASA was forced to back down from its claim that 1998 was the hottest year in U.S. history." http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Who_s-who-on-climate-frad-8625428-78462462.html
The IPCC has an agenda
"IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud. Among the IPCC elite embarrassingly, if not criminally, compromised is Phillip D. Jones …" http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2377-ipcc-researchers-admit-global-warming-fraud
The NSIDC has an agenda
In 2007, Mark Serreze, of the NSIDC said North Pole ice could be gone in the summer of 2008." http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=4728737&page=1
Er. It's still there. And getting thicker.
And doncha know, I'm just a "creationist" for raising these issues … along a bunch of scientists who still have some professional integrity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment
Creationists of the world unite!
Today’s latest news has UN Climate Chief and hero of Copenhagen deBoer resigning his position. Hmmm what is that all about?
Seems to me that an environment where the developer of a scientific theory is not called to defend the basis for the theory cannot be called science. I still have a copy of my mother’s high school chemistry textbook which states clearly that the atom is the smallest particle and it cannot be split. So much for settled science.
I still have my tropical plants in my garage waiting for global warming and I did not put a pool in because I expected to be ocean front. Global Warming please come.
In the meantime do I need to upgrade the insulation in my house to protect against the cold?
I even have an issue with calling evolution settled science since it cannot answer the simple question of where did the first particle come from? Like it or not some things cannot be proven. NOTE if evolution were really settled science we would be seeing more changes like new cro-magnons cropping or texters with four thumbs. But I guess that the liberal is the only truly evolved human for which there is no evolution.
I notice you didn’t link to a source for your ‘revelations’ about Jones. It sure is easy to maintain a fiction when you only source biased reporters (The New American is not a mainstream news source, it’s the freakin John Birch Society).
Anyway, for those who don’t need their science interpreted for them by a Constitutional Scholar, here’s the actual interview with Professor Jones:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Let’s see what he has to say.
Q: D – Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.
A: (Jones) This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.
So, the natural sun energy loss and two volcanic eruptions meant that the temps should have been going down, but they’re still going up. Got it.
That sounds pretty unequivocal. Professor Jones also addresses the Medieval Warming Period which Dr. Jackson alluded to, which I won’t quote here because it’s too long and we don’t live in the 14th Century, so I don’t really care.
Rather than try and refute Dr. “Constitution” Jackson point-by-point, I’m just going to give you some links so you all can become Jr. Climate Scientists on your own.
First is the “NASA admits an error” article that Dr. J loves to tout:
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0817-nasa_snafu.html
1998 got bumped to 2nd all time hottest year on record. Big deal, doesn’t change anything statistically.
Here is the Select Committee report into the “Climategate” email scandals.
http://globalwarming.house.gov/mediacenter/pressreleases_2008?id=0179#main_content
You can learn all about the “trick” of “hiding the decline” of tree-ring anomalies against the actual measured temperature, which, ya know, kept going up.
Here is NOAA’a brand new Climate Services Portal:
http://www.climate.gov/
Right on the front page are five date-adjustable graphs showing Temp, CO2, Sunlight, Sea Level and Arctic Ice Level that you can play with. All the data from 1880 is there, and you can zoom in and stuff. Neat!
And here is the British equivalent, The Met Office, mentioned By Professor Jones in that BBC interview I linked to earlier:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/
Careful when comparing graphs with the NOAA site though – the sometimes use a different baseline dataset to determine anomalies.
So there ya go. Everyone who reads this can now go look at graphs and read the real opinions of real scientists and then make up their own minds. Novel concept, I know.
Finally, I’d like to close with this article from just two days ago:
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2241
This has nothing to do with warming. It’s about how dumping all this CO2 into the atmosphere is lowering the pH level of the oceans, making it more acidic. What is worrying scientists is that this happened once before 55 million years ago, tho not nearly as fast as it’s happening today.
And what happened after the ph dropped 55 million years ago? Only mass extinction of all the shelled animals in the ocean, which would kinda suck if it happened again.
Chasm: Appreciate the quotes from you and links for my next update on Global Warming Lunatics, circa 2012.
Meanwhile …
Instapundit 2/15/10
A HISTORICAL OBSERVATION ON CLIMATEGATE: As this scandal runs on, it’s beginning to remind me of the Michael Bellesiles scandal.
Bellesiles, for those who don’t remember, was a historian at Emory who wrote a book making some, er, counterintuitive claims about guns in early America — in short, that they were much rarer than generally thought, and frequently owned and controlled by the government. Constitutional law scholars who expressed doubts about this were told to shut up by historians, who cited the importance of “peer review” as a guarantor of accuracy, and who wrapped themselves in claims of professional expertise.
Unfortunately, it turned out that Bellesiles had made it up. His work was based on probate records, and when people tried to find them, it turned out that many didn’t exist (one data set he claimed to have used turned out, on review, to have been destroyed in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake). It also turned out that Bellesiles hadn’t even visited some of the archives he claimed to have researched. When challenged to produce his data, he was unable to do so, and offered unpersuasive stories regarding why.
Bellesiles eventually lost his job at Emory (and his Bancroft Prize) over the fraud, but not until his critics had been called political hacks, McCarthyites, and worse. But what’s amazing, especially in retrospect, is how slow his defenders — and the media — were to engage the critics, or to look at the flaws in the data. Instead, they wrapped themselves in claims of authority, and attacked the critics as anti-intellectual hacks interested only in politics. Are we seeing something similar with regard to ClimateGate? It sure looks that way to me.
PS: If you run your cursor over the text of the article, the citations are illustrated. The new format at IC doesn’t highlight them. Of course, it’s always easier to just assume that we “Creationists” make our stuff up, unlike the IPCC …
Phil
This really takes me down memory lane. I had forgotten all about gnarlyerik, who was my first encounter with a raving IC lunatic. Now we have Chasm. Welcome Chasm. I would have to say that one of the main problems with the IPCC report is that there is so much “grey” or “soft” science in there and it is fiendishly difficult to track the sources. Take the mishap about the Himalayan glaciers. This came from a World Wildlife Fund paper. This is just the tip of the iceberg and could/shoud have been vetted, but it wasn’t.
Phil, I know I’m being picky, but when you mention this year’s cold snap and snow, that’s just this year and the argument is the long term trend. However, I know that you’re trying to provoke people and I thank you for that!
This may surprise many of you, but the full IPCC report can be quite frank about it’s uncertainty in places. Take the hotly contested temperature trend for example. They openly admit about the sparseness of the historical data, especially in non-European locales and how this may lead to errors in the final value. It’s really only in the past twenty years that satellite data has allowed us to have a truly global coverage. But 20 years does not a long term trend make.
Paul: Always good to have someone join the conversation who actually knows something about the subject.
Just for the sake of it, let’s look at your very first comment on this subject back in 2007 and see how much you’ve had to eat your words:
I am a meteorologist for Environment Canada of able mind and liberal body (sorry to say), however I have to say that I agree with Phil on GW. What Phil has to say about models is right on point. If numerical models can’t predict accurately when the fog is going to clear out of an airport I am forecasting for today, how accurately would you expect it to predict a minute temperature change over 10 years or so? Everybody who has been bashing Phil on here ask yourself that question. I won’t bore you with the complexities of numerical modeling. Safe to say it is a very complex process. Also, how do you verify these climate models. For a short range weather model, I:
a). Make a forecast.
b). Wait 24 hours for the weather to play itself out.
c). Compare my model-based forecast with what actually happened and note the differences, statistically, or simply, I (with the help of the model) forecast 1 inch of rain and there really was 3 inches of rain. Bad model aided forecast. Bottom line, the model verified poorly.
This is not possible in a climate model. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Personally, do I think that GW is happening? Probably. Does anybody know how much man is contributing to GW. Sure. God knows.
I say your comments have held up pretty well, which is what you’d expect from an honest evaluation of a subject. In my original article I even conceded that Global Warming might in fact be happening based on the most recent data, but there was no way to assign it to man’s actions. Since then I’ve maintained my AGW-Denier status, but I’ve also come to believe that global warming itself may not be an issue. I think now we’re going through a series of natural heating and cooling cycles, just like the Earth has been for millions of years without man’s influence.
Speaking of the data, I was struck by your comment:
Here’s what I said back in 2006 on the same subject:
So my question to you today, Paul, as a self-identified tree-hugging liberal meteorologist … when did you become a Creationist? :)
The science is scuttled.
Settled-science-by-consensus is really discredited science or lies? Nevermind
Have you. Sirs, at long last, no shame
MacScience (apologies to MacBeth)
Is this a hockey stick which I see before me,
The handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee!
I have thee not, and yet I see thee still.
Art thou not, fatal vision, sensible
To feeling as to sight? or art thou but
A hockey stick of the mind, a false creation
Proceeding from the heat-oppressèd brain?
I see thee yet, in form as palpable
As this which now I draw.
Thou marshall’st me the way that I was going,
And such an instrument I was to use.
Mine eyes are made the fools o’ th’ other senses,
Or else worth all the rest. I see thee still,
And on thy end and dudgeon gouts of heat,
Which was not so before. There’s no such thing.
It is the heated business which informs
Thus to mine eyes.
Translation from MacScience:
OK, the process was poor. And yeah, the data is hasty-pudding, the adjustments are ad hoc, the models don’t quite work in a scientific sense, & it was basically humbug by credentialed fakers justifying their grants & bribes from industry, but other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, we’re still 100% sure of the results.
Hey, many of us skeptics were really p***ed when we were dismissed as “deniers” or (worse?) “fundamentalists” by our friends who wrapped themselves in the mantle of Phil Jones & his “corpse” of cranks with their “splendid samples of sham science with spurious specificity”, a/k/a, “settled science”.
As someone has noted: Now “it’s the non-skeptics who look bad. It’s not science to be a true believer who wants to ignore new evidence. It’s not science to support a man who has the job of being a scientist but doesn’t adhere to the methods of science.”
I’ve taken issue with the fact that many on the Left took the AGW theory to mean that there was an urgent need to repeal the Industrial Revolution & that anyone who objected should be marginalized.
One commenter hastened to admonish me by pointing out that he was only saying that our lifestyles would have to be diminished somewhat. Or something like that.
Nut jobs like Birthers & Truthers have nothing to apologize for to these similar “earthers”, AGW-back to the stone age nut jobs.
I would also note that diminished lifestyles in reality would not apply to the commenter or to John Edwards with his house the size of the North Forty or Tom Friedman with his 11 acre house. It will apply to those who are strivers at the moment.
No one I know who preaches conservation has downsized anything he /she usually supersizes, unless he/she has gone to assisted living.
And it’s easy to recycle one’s garbage or to buy FLC light bulbs or to take public transit in one of the few cities which have an adequate system.
But turning down the thermostat & wearing sweaters around the house in the winter & turning the lights & TV off when one leaves the room, is, you know, like hard, & besides no one else does it.
Something like failing to understand the principle of proportionality.
And I would say that it’s simpler than that. I just shy away from an absolutist approach to the principle of precaution. That is, I don’t believe that any potential risks, no matter how slight or how improbable, must be given equal or, for that matter, infinitely more, weight than any potential benefit no matter how great or how easily attainable. Something good that might kill a mouse if force fed to him, in a short time frame, in an amount 10 thousand times its weight, should not be banned for humans (Google “Delaney Amendment”.)
Phil said
“So my question to you today, Paul, as a self-identified tree-hugging liberal meteorologist … when did you become a Creationist? :)”
Paul says
“I never became a Creationist. I’m a Darwin loving God-hater who’s gonna burn burn burn!”
Inwood; Great comments! It allows me to plug another article I wrote on the subject back in December 2009 “The Man-Made Global Warming Hoax: Phase 4” http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/12/07/the-man-made-global-warming-hoax-phase-4/
Leaving aside the recent converts to the cause who will come to recognize the Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change (GCWCC) fraud for what it is, what happens to the momentum that was building for “world wide action” to stem this growing crisis?
Well, nothing. It will continue to build, just be repackaged slightly. Instead of Climate Change in all its iterations, a new mantra will emerge: we need to address the impending Global Environmental Health Crisis!
Any effort to fundamentally transform a society must involve the entire planet, so calling the crisis “Global” is a given. The real interesting sleight of hand will be the next word in this phrase, “Environmental.”
The foundation for this has already been laid. When the earth actually started to cool these last 10 years or so — and the dire predictions of global climate catastrophe didn’t appear even though the essential fixes to correct the problems were not put into practice — the GCWCC Hysterics began to subtly mix their metaphors. We began to hear about “pollution” in association with climate change. Cap and Trade would help clean up the planet. Driving smaller cars not only meant less harmful exhaust polluting the atmosphere, but you needed to be smaller to fit into these new vehicles comfortably. Regulating transfats, taxing soft drinks, and promoting a healthier lifestyle were all part of the magic to save the planet.
So what if reducing our dependence on fossil fuels doesn’t really impact the climate the way we originally thought? It makes the air cleaner. And besides, going green is the more responsible way to act anyway. Is a Western lifestyle with its reliance on big houses, big cars, fast food, and red meat good for us anyway? Wouldn’t we all be better off if we changed our ways? Okay, sure, maybe the sun and the natural cycles of the Earth have more to do with the planet’s climate than SUVs and factories, but being overweight can kill you. You need to change for the sake of the planet, and your own good.
Which brings us to “Health.” As the Obamatrons have already pointed the way, your slovenly, unhealthful ways are impacting the public good. We wouldn’t need to euthanize grandma if you were a size 32 waist instead of a 42, and you would be too if you adopted a vegan lifestyle instead of killing helpless little animals to eat. You’d exercise more if gas cost $10.00 a gallon and you couldn’t afford a SUV, so banning these monstrosities is still a good idea. And we’ve got to do all of this now, before it’s too late, because there’s only so much abuse Mother Earth can take before she drops another hurricane on New Orleans when the Republicans get back in power.
All of which leads to the final word: “Crisis.” Don’t stop and think — act! Do it now, right away, or bad things will happen someday and it will be your fault. Besides, if the bad things happening still happen, doing something now means it will be less-bad than if we did nothing at all, which would make the same event more bad than it otherwise would have been. It’s the logic of economic stimulus, which has worked so well in keeping 8% maximum unemployment just over 10% instead of at a higher level, which it would have been if we didn’t act immediately.
I’m not sure that the Global Environmental Health Crisis will be the next great calamity to befall our planet unless we heed the unbiased, non-agenda-driven warnings of the same folks who’ve brought us every other crisis that never materialized (how’s that swine flu pandemic progressing?). But, it does hit all 4 hot buttons that are important to a willing press and ignorant public who can be easily led by an agenda-driven political class that funds its agenda-driven scientific supporters to give its private agenda the illusion of public respectability.
Besides, there’s just too much invested in keeping the Global Cooling/Warming/Climate Change scam going to let reality get in the way.
Your latest troll notes that all the fraud, “lost” data, hiding the decline, trying to put a hockey stick up our a**es, & punishment of dissenters doesn’t prove that there’s no AGW, OOPS Climate Change. Well, as I said, it does make a thinking person skeptical, but in any event, those who advance a theory have the burden of proof, not the skeptics there’s global warming. Hey, put me down as using less toilet paper & turning off my lights when I leave a room.
And how about drill, baby drill offshore like everyone else is doing or forgetting Three Mile island & The China Syndrome & going nuclear.
How ’bout this, for instance:
I have a weird concept. How about letting the market do it?
For example, overhaul Price-Anderson to deindemnify the nuclear industry to make them more responsible for plant safety, in exchange for removing many of the design restrictions imposed by an anti-innovative Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Eliminate the bans on drilling, both on and off shore, to reduce energy costs in the near term (and cut the income of those making war on us and the West in general) and provide wealth to invest in the technologies that will eventually replace fossil fuels. Stop trying to pick technological winners (something government is notoriously bad at) and distorting the market with tax credits. Put some federal money into R&D, but eliminate government mandates (such as ethanol) whose purpose is more for political payoffs than environmentalism, and let the market sort out what makes sense.
This should be one of the planks of any new Contract With America — let the energy market work.
http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=24851
;
Warning All Trolls:
UN Climocrat Deserts the Sinking UNFCCC
http://pajamasmedia.com/claudiarosett/un-climocrat-deserts-the-sinking-unfccc/
Paul: One of the great things about this website is that we don’t delve into or even discuss people’s private beliefs — unless they try to impose them on others, or like the brain dead AGW Kool-aid drinkers continue to bring the subject up about what religious ideas we supposedly do or don’t hold. We’ve got atheists, agnostics, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Creationists, and everyone in between participating in these conversations. The only thing we really care about is honesty when it comes to presenting or defending a point of view.
To prove my point, this comes from a guy who wrote a Catholic novel with one of the Church’s principal lay theologians, but who hasn’t been to church in 30 years (except for weddings and funerals), and doesn’t even believe a lot of Church dogma. And like you, I believe in evolution — but let’s keep that whole discussion to another forum, such as my previous essays on “The Politics of Science and Religion”.
Take care, Phil
I have a running battle with some of the lunch bunch who are enamored with Tom Friedman.
I said that he couldn’t write an English sentence as well as MoDo & that he was as silly as she with his comparisons.
How they sneered.
I got them when Tom said that if it makes sense to stop digging when one is in a hole it makes less sense to do so when one is in three holes. Huh?
And as some wag said “I’ll believe in GWT/AGW when those who say that they do begin to live their personal lives as if there was GWT/AGW.”
So Tom Friedman the know-it-all columnist, a hypocrite who married into a shopping-center developer family (you know the developers the environmentalists say are defoliating & despoiling our planet)lives on an 11 acre spread with a 10,000+ sq ft home with beaucoup rooms & beaucoup energy usage. (Big Carbon Footprint). He yearns for some benevolent dictator to save us from ourselves, but not from himself, & preaches that we all have to march on Washington to get something done about GWT/AGW, OOPS Climate Change.
Do as I say….
Now his latest column is on whatever is happening to the climate as all 50 states see some snowfall.
Tom says:
Here are the points I like to stress: 1) Avoid the term ‘global warming.’ I prefer the term ‘global weirding,’ because that is what actually happens as global temperatures rise and the climate changes.
See Breitbart
http://bigjournalism.com/chorner/2010/02/17/tom-i-me-mine-friedman-responds-to-the-global-warming-deniers-hilarity-ensues/
Tom I, me, mine Friedman responds to The Global Warming Deniers Deniers, Hilarity Ensues
This is worth a glance since it’s complete with a picture of Tom’s style of living.
Finally, as noted by Michael Barone:
Gore and his followers seem to assume that the ideal climate was the one they got used to when they were growing up. When temperatures dropped in the 1970s, there were warnings of an impending ice age. When they rose in the 1990s, there were predictions of disastrous global warming. This is just another example of the solipsism of the baby-boom generation, the pampered and much-praised age cohort that believes the world revolves around them and that all past history has become irrelevant.
We’re told in effect that the climate of the late 1950s and early 1960s was, of all those that have ever existed, the best of all possible climates. Not by science. But as a matter of faith.
P
You note, alas,
Besides, there’s just too much invested in keeping the Global Cooling/Warming/Climate Change scam going to let reality get in the way.
I, fearlessly, predict, based on my computer models on the scientific study of human nature & my writings on the meaning of meaning, that Al Gore, Tom Friedman, & assorted AGW hypocritical fakers will now go on Dancing With The Stars. And that some folks will crash planes into the More Stately Mansions of these worthies.
And, you can’t disprove me. So there.
As Chasm says So there ya go. Everyone who reads this can now go look at graphs and read the real opinions of real scientists and then make up their own minds..
So you’ll say, where is my proof & where are my computer models? Well, the dog ate them, but I’ll get back to you. Really.
This climate change sceptic has lived as if the simulated crises were true. Our current home is set never to go above 67 F and drops to 64 F at night during the heating season. Yes, we wear sweaters in the winter (albeit mild in NC). In summer the cycle is different 78 F in the daytime then droppint to 74 overnight to take advantage of the lower overnight temperatures (wish we had time of day electric rates I would save a bundle) and use my heavy insulation to keep the house cool in the hot, humid day.
By the way my semi-dormant alternate energy business still does some heat reclamation business using heat pump and air conditioner excess heat and solar collectors to pre-heat water and reduce environmental effect and costs. We have been doing this and other alternate energy projects since 1969. At one point we were building and distributing methane from manure units based on a design from Mother Earth magazine.
The summary is that trying to be independent can cause much lower use of scarce commodities than listening the alarmist big government shills!
MM
Don’t you understand? You’re not acting as the prole you are. At least in the minds of zee Liberal, Leftist, Progressive (whatever they want to call themselves) “virtuecrats”, who know more than the rest of us mere mortals & would love to be able to control our lives & dictate solutions.
You want to do environmental things on your own & what do you know about it?
These people know that not enough guys like you will make the right decisions on their own & so They Who Know must control everything & will control this. And anyway, you may slip & leave the light on after you leave the room or flush the toilet when there’s no solid waste in it.
So listen up to the Earthers because they, not you, are still on the side of Gaia.
Sorry
Meant to address Mickey G in my 10:24 AM
Inwood, I guess you made a veiled mention of the old saw “if it is yellow let it mellow, if it is brown flush it down”.
Also liked the Gaia reference see how many readers know where the name came from.
Mickey G
I wrote this, original, poem on some blog:
Scientists of every rank,
For shame, all in the tank.
Their claim of manmade CO2, then
Was really manmade C9H9N.
P
I don’t know why you reject the RC Church on Sundays (2/18 @2:58)
It’s only trying to help the environment, “to care for creation and aid the poor… and to be more mindful of patterns of consumption. Hey, it even has a new twist on Lent.’”
See
Rush:
Stack of Stuff Quick Hits Page
February 17, 2010
Story #4: Holy Carp! “Carbon Fast” is a New Twist on Lent
RUSH: From the California Catholic Daily: …
‘As the Lenten season arrives, the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change has provided …more tools and resources for its annual Catholic Climate Covenant.’
‘The Coalition was formed … to help implement the …Bishops’ 2001 initiative ‘Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence and the Common Good.’ … the Covenant revolves around the St. Francis Pledge, which correlates five key actions — pray, learn, assess, act and advocate — to the issues of the environment and poverty.’”
I mean holy carp, folks. Is nothing sacred? They have infiltrated the Catholic Church? Or maybe the Catholic Church has allowed itself to be infiltrated.
“According to the newsletter, ‘the Archdiocese of Washington’s Environmental Outreach Committee has created a particularly useful new tool” …
“[A] calendar that lists 40 carbon-fasting measures individuals can take to reduce their carbon footprint.’ … The calendar contains suggestion for each of the 40 days of Lent, beginning … with ‘Remove one light bulb from your home and live without the light for the next 40 days.’”
What a cheap cop-out.
“Other suggestions include,
‘Turn down your thermostat by at least one degree;’
‘Check windows and doors for a draft…’” This is for Lent!
“‘Making travel plans? Consider getting there without flying;’” is part of this calendar.
“‘Check the tire pressure of your car today…’” In other words, you can observe lent according to these guys if you check the tire pressure of your car one day during the 40 days of Lent.
“‘Learn about mountaintop removal mining;’
‘Show reverence for life and for the Earth today by obeying the speed limit…’”
“The bishops’ newsletter cited Daniel Misleh, executive director of the Catholic Climate Covenant, as saying the calendar is ‘another way to care for creation and aid the poor…’
How does this aid the poor?
“‘[I]t’s challenging, asks for sacrifices and to be more mindful of patterns of consumption. It’s a new twist on Lent.’”
Oh, man. As I said: Holy carp.
P
I get it.
You want a first rate Theological sermon rather than a second rate paean to environmentalism, which of late has fallen prey to the Devil of false science & to deceitful witnesses that uttereth lies (Proverbs, 14, 5).
P
Or maybe you’re a closet environmentalist who won’t go to an RC Church because of the carbon footprints of the burnt offerings.
T
Don’t forget that during the Medieval Climate Optimum when the Vikings were growing crops in Greenland, it didn’t kill the polar bears or any of the other arctic (or for that matter antarctic) wildlife. I guess that all these climate gurus who have their knickers in a not don’t know how to think any more.
And, does anyone consider the amounts of money to be made from propagating panic? Algore has made millions.
Inwood: I take my offerings medium rare …
Steven
Please.
Don’t you realize that the Vikings, like all other pre-sensitized men, people who raped the land (as well as the women) & that they used the pre-Modern version of the hockey stick to slaughter animals wantonly?
For God’s, OOPS, Gaia’s sake, read Bambi again & realize your error.
BTW, the first translator of Bambi into English was, of all people, Whittaker Chambers.
OOPS make that the Vikings… “were people who”
Both the NYT & WaPo have a “the dog is on the roof” story about AGW & how chicken-little actions are no longer, um, heating up.
Ya think?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/science/earth/19climate.html?hpw
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/18/AR2010021801490.html?hpid=moreheadlines
All well said, Phil.
“…Only his hubris allows man to think that his actions are determinate in shaping the natural process of the planet…”
George Carlin addressed this best, I believe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOOc5yiIWkg
I just read this in the NYT & saw it on CNN!
Oh, wait, it’s from the UK, The MSM is still lost in “Global Weirding”.
Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels
Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report’s author now says true estimate is still unknown.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall
H/T Althouse
Inwood: The ice caps aren’t melting, the temperature isn’t rising, and now sea levels are unchanged.
What’s this world coming to?
P
The ice caps aren’t melting, the temperature isn’t rising, and now sea levels are unchanged.
What’s this world coming to?
It’s all because The Anointed Ώne was elected President!
I really think this will all be over soon.
Aren’t the AGW types just about out of reports they have to ‘walk back’, qualify, apologize for, or significantly re-write? And is there one scientist left among them whose scientific integrity is still intact?
The daily hits keep coming:
The scientist who has been put in charge of the Commerce Department’s new climate change office is coming under attack from both sides of the global warming debate over his handling of what they say is contradictory scientific data related to the subject.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/22/tom-karl-tried-to-suppress-data-critics-charge/
[...] Global Warming Lunatics By carboneutralnow Far be it from me to continue to point out the same things that I and other Anthropogenic Global Warming Deniers have consistently pointed out for years, … See all stories on this topic [...]