Doubling Down on Global Warming (Updated)
[Guest post by DRJ]
Is Global warming a big bust?
“For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
So what on Earth is going on?
Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man’s influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.
They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is.”
On top of that, the Hockey Stick has been questioned and Greenpeace admitted exaggerating claims that Arctic ice would melt by 2030. Now that science is back in its rightful place in policy-making, will the Obama Administration stop pursuing Cap-and-Trade to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050?
Probably not.
Obama says the federal government should set an example when it comes to global warming and warned about the growing threat of “climate change” in his Nobel Peace Prize remarks. In addition, the UN climate chief doubled down, saying Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize should encourage Obama to commit to an international treaty on global warming.
— DRJ
UPDATE: Via Newsbusters and GatewayPundit, ABC News reports global warming is helping al Qaeda and the Taliban.
I saw that article on setting the example, too. Part of the reasoning for setting the example is that the federal government is one of the biggest users of carbon-based energy sources in America. Consider some of the reasons why, though. It could be a useless gesture, or it could undermine national defense.
SomeOtherSteve (238ed0) — 10/10/2009 @ 2:35 pmI still can’t get over how silly the whole ohnoes the carbon dioxide molecules are going to kill us all theory of global warming is. Natural phenomena don’t adhere to nice little dirty socialist principles what give Al Gore a chubby even if he can’t see it. No. That’s not science. Never has been. Never will be.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 10/10/2009 @ 2:54 pmHow can normally intelligent people look at the global warming farce and not think damn it’s awful convenient that what you’re telling me is we have a problem what requires tempering capitalism and adopting a dirty socialist world view for the good of the children?
I don’t get it, but as a marketer person I suppose I should be grateful people are so weak-headed.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 10/10/2009 @ 3:06 pmQuick, someone get that fraudulent hack scientist Robert Hansen (at NASA) to query his great thoughts on the matter. He basically gave legitimacy to this entire charade, then had to admit that his findings were wrong, wrong, wrong – and that his entire thesis was BS.
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/10/2009 @ 3:18 pmThe ‘hockey stick’ was already getting cracks in it some years ago when it was announced NASA hadn’t processed the data correctly for measuring temps. Gotta love that sort of thing.
Also back in 2007 the whole ocean level rising bit got hit hard when it was announced that many of the devices were put on land that was subsiding and no one bothered to correct for the subsidence. The whole ‘ocean levels rising’ bit has disappeared since then, and it is rarely mentioned by the AGW crowd.
Then NOAA announced upper levels of the sea were cooling, not warming which was a real head scratcher to AGW fans, this concept of having data contrary to their religion. The ARGOS buoy system has done this for the layer below 20m, too, which has seen a steady decline in temps over the last decade.
Wattsupwiththat had a great piece on how many weather stations, once out in farm land, had seen encroachment by suburban and urban environments, which started the ‘find the stations and take pictures of them’ deal, showing some weather monitoring stations next to such things as HVAC exhausts, or in expanded airports with lots of lovely tarmac that hadn’t been there 40 years ago, or next to buildings that had been put up… thus skewing temperature readings over time.
Once all the errors, inaccuracies and such have been refactored you get some interesting results with 1934 at or just missing the top spot of hottest year in the 20th century and the 1930’s looking overall warmer than the 1980’s.
The data has been fishy for years on the AGW side, and every comb through the data has yielded more errors, more presumptions and some outright misrepresentation of data sets. Once you correct for equipment, other geophysical effects, factor in changing urban environment and just look at the data you get an answer that isn’t AGW. Plus we are now in a low sunspot cycle which hasn’t happened for a few centuries. Got a might bit chilly last time we had one of those.
ajacksonian (87eccd) — 10/10/2009 @ 3:29 pmI updated the post with links regarding ABC’s report that global warming is helping al Qaeda and the Taliban.
DRJ (7fbae6) — 10/10/2009 @ 3:32 pmThe ultimate question is, how much of our economy do we destroy just to be “safe”?
My answer, none.
Patricia (c95a48) — 10/10/2009 @ 3:50 pmAny takers that Punxsatawney Phil winters in Florida this year?
AD - RtR/OS! (877de6) — 10/10/2009 @ 3:58 pmThe world is upside down part two, this is. I know college professors who bought the global warming hype and are just tired of the bickering and won’t bother to look at the data anymore. Telling a lie often enough does have its effects.
Anybody who knows how to think twice should have realized that when people raised the fear of another ice age in the 1970’s and then 20 years later the same people were talking about global warming threatening the planet, that they really are stretching things and don’t enough to make any reliable prediction about anything.
What do they teach in these schools nowadays???
MD in Philly (d4f9fa) — 10/10/2009 @ 4:14 pmPhillies game postponed in Denver due to snow today and record lows elsewhere. Global warming in the “opposite” world we now live in. All the historical raw data has been conveniently erased so we have to take their word that it really indicated what they say it did.
jenny (a7a9b9) — 10/10/2009 @ 4:34 pmGet with the program and change the title to this post. It is not global warming anymore.
IT IS CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!!!
The Goreaholics realized that the warming data was going to fizzle out so the new fear is climate change. No one knows if it will be warmer or cooler in the future but whichever it is the U.N. will save us from it.
Someone tell Al Gore New York City was once under a mile of ice. That was until the globe warmed.
MU789 (3f9d29) — 10/10/2009 @ 4:45 pmI think the real conclusion is that we don’t understand all the factors which are involved in affecting global climate yet, well enough to guide governmental policy.
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 10/10/2009 @ 5:06 pmWe have no idea what may happen in the future, we have no idea what may cause the potentially uncertain outcome, yet we must take immediate and drastic action to avert the looming unknowable crisis.
JD (15293c) — 10/10/2009 @ 5:12 pmThe guys at PowerLine complained about the low temps in MN today (snow today)…
AD - RtR/OS! (877de6) — 10/10/2009 @ 5:40 pmspeculating that the Year Without Summer they are enduring could turn into the Year Without Autumn also.
Comment by Steven Den Beste — 10/10/2009 @ 5:06 pm
Hell, we don’t know all of the elements that effect the economic climate,
AD - RtR/OS! (877de6) — 10/10/2009 @ 5:42 pmbut that hasn’t stopped us from spending forty-gazillion bucks trying to change it.
All the global-warming alarmists really do need to go out on a clear day, around 2:00 pm, and stare straight into the sun without the use of any filters for their eyes. Although the damage to their retinas will be unpleasant, that might knock some sense into their brains. It would be a bold reminder to them that on any given day, there is a huge, powerful, unrelenting source of energy — far above and beyond the force of manmade carbon — at the center of our solar system affecting puny planet Earth.
Then those same global-warming alarmists, including the guy now in the White House, might consider helping the righteous, holy cause of reducing emissions of carbon dixoide. They should all hold their breath and never exhale again. Of course, they would all keel over permanently, but by their departure a bit of common sense would be restored to modern society.
Mark (411533) — 10/10/2009 @ 6:06 pmHell, we don’t know all of the elements that effect the economic climate…
I know that’s just to make a point. But there’s not much complicated about what makes economies work or not work. That’s what makes all these current conditions even more exasperating. Banking is simple, credit is simple, commerce is simple. It is the interfering coming from government tax codes, regulations, and social agendas that is making everything twisted, insanely complex, and incomprehensible. Reprehensible is a better adjective.
political agnostic (ebb9bd) — 10/10/2009 @ 6:42 pmWe have no idea what may happen in the future, we have no idea what may cause the potentially uncertain outcome, yet we must take immediate and drastic action to avert the looming unknowable crisis.
Sounds exactly like the same reasoning behind the push for health care reform – these guys are brilliant, I tell you.
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/10/2009 @ 7:44 pmCosmic rays are also implicated in climate.
“A link between the Sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale,” the report concludes. This research, to which Torsten Bondo and Jacob Svensmark contributed, validates 13 years of discoveries that point to a key role for cosmic rays in climate change.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 10/10/2009 @ 9:18 pmI’ve written this several times, but the most complicated things on the planet are: the human brain, general ecology…and climate.
If high levels of CO2 are responsible for global temperatures, then it should be possible to have a nice modeling equation that relates the two. They should be “back predictable” with historical, known concentrations of CO2.
But those models don’t work.
I’m not saying that CO2 levels aren’t rising; they are. I won’t even say that the climate isn’t warming some (despite the early snowfalls this year).
What I am saying is the the predictions we are seeing are politically motivated, and used to justify near autocratic control over economic drivers. Power, in other words.
And that should scare everyone.
There is an old SF novel by Isaac Asimov, called “The Martian Way.” In the story, a Mars colony needs water shipped from Earth. The politicians on Earth create a whole story how the water being shipped from Earth would “use up” the water on Earth (which was mathematically impossible). It was a pure power grab. An embargo was formed. In the story, the Martian colonists divert comets, wtih gigatons of ice, to Mars—so they don’t need Earth’s water anymore.
Asimov, who was just about as Left as it was possible to be, said that this SF story was a retelling of the McCarthy Period.
But I think it is very relevant to how many of the politicians talk about the global warming (excuse me, “global climate change”).
I was reading Craig Ferguson’s autobiography recently, and he spends some time bashing GWB. One thing that he wanted to argue with GWB about was the Kyoto Agreement.
And I thought: what are the chance that Ferguson knows literally anything about that issue? Slim to nil.
He just knows GW Bush….baaaad. Leftist talking points….gooood.
And that thinking has contaminated this entire climate debate, top to bottom.
Eric Blair (8484db) — 10/10/2009 @ 9:26 pmWe all know that gobel norming is a farce because we are smart.
It’s the stupid people we need to reach.
Serendipity hits via the NL baseball playoffs.
How wonderful it would be if the Colorado Rockies make it to the big show.
I know. Ya;ll are mostly from Los Angeles and the Rockies if they get there have to run over the Dodgers.
Put that asside and think long term. For the greater good we must be Rockies fans this year.
The Dodgers have been there before. Small price to pay for a secure sane energy future without AB32, cap-n-trade, carbon tax and the kleptocrats who rode these ponies into office.
papertiger (b28aae) — 10/10/2009 @ 10:32 pmHave any of you heard of the obvious quick fix.
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 10/11/2009 @ 10:15 amThe scientific controversy over the solar/cosmic ray hypothesis is quite revealing. Some of the scientists who oppose the hypothesis seem to be acting out of rather unscientific motives — they fear it will take away momentum from fighting global warming. But that’s the very issue being studied!
I have thought there was firm evidence behind AGW, but the increasingly political tone of its defenders has made the issue less certain for me. I don’t like science being turned into a vehicle of propaganda, and that goes for both sides of the AGW issue. For example, I’ve read reports that some AGW-believing scientists have discouraged discussion about geoengineering because they don’t like it and prefer the full Al Gore. But that’s a political matter, and scientists who try to limit inquiry for political reasons call their own credibility into question. What else don’t they want us to know?
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 10/11/2009 @ 10:35 ameven if
happyfeet (71f55e) — 10/11/2009 @ 11:05 amIf this is true, goodbye energy crisis!
America is not going to bleed its wealth importing fuel. Russia’s grip on Europe’s gas will weaken. Improvident Britain may avoid paralysing blackouts by mid-decade after all.
The World Gas Conference in Buenos Aires last week was one of those events that shatter assumptions. Advances in technology for extracting gas from shale and methane beds have quickened dramatically, altering the global balance of energy faster than almost anybody expected.
Tony Hayward, BP’s chief executive, said proven natural gas reserves around the world have risen to 1.2 trillion barrels per day of oil equivalent, enough for 60 years’ supply – and rising fast.
(My requisite warning: This is from a British newspaper, and I’d like to see confirmation from more reputable sources. Also, the number in the third graf looks off — Brit numbering?)
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 10/11/2009 @ 11:11 amSome of the scientists who oppose the hypothesis seem to be acting out of rather unscientific motives
Some of the scientists who are so very passionate and frightened about global warming are as much into political liberalism, if not flat-out leftism, as they are into science. They’re not too different from the self-appointed leaders of black America who are motivated by “lefty,” pro-Democrat-Party emotions as much as, or actually more than, they are by anything pertaining to legitimate aspects of civil rights and racial diversity.
So for the scientists and others (Hi, Al Gore!) who pray at the altar of Green Mother Earth, I wonder if their theology — even more so since it’s supposedly predicated on hard science — even takes into consideration the fact that the heat of summer and the chill of winter (or, depending on the hemisphere in which one resides, visa versa) is due to the tilt of the planet and the corresponding amount of energy falling upon it from the sun?
Mark (411533) — 10/11/2009 @ 11:20 amYeah, just spend some time looking up Paul Ehrlich’s antics. Or President Obama’s science advisor, Ehrlich’s old buddy John Holdren.
Blech.
Eric Blair (8484db) — 10/11/2009 @ 11:44 amRe #25-
I’m afraid the tremendous resource of oil shale in the US and Canada has long been written off by those who want “energy independence” to come from non-dependence on fossil fuels.
What I would like to ask President Obama is whether he thinks a world without nuclear weapons will come before or after we no longer rely on fossil fuels.
MD in Philly (d4f9fa) — 10/11/2009 @ 11:50 amEric Blair- may I ask what your field of study is?
MD in Philly (d4f9fa) — 10/11/2009 @ 11:52 amMD in Philly,
I’m afraid the tremendous resource of oil shale in the US and Canada has long been written off by those who want “energy independence” to come from non-dependence on fossil fuels.
True, but let’s see what happens when the public gets hit with drastically rising fuel prices, because cheap fossil fuels are placed off limits. Some are openly happy at the prospect of $20 a gallon gasoline. Most people won’t be so gleeful at having their standard of living deliberately ruined to salve the conscience of a few elite.
Here’s a message when that happens: Obama and his cronies want you to suffer for Gaia, because they think prosperity is immoral, except for themselves.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 10/11/2009 @ 12:09 pmDear MD in Philly: I am trained as a geneticist, and had classes with Dr. Ehrlich a number of years ago while I was in graduate school. I once asked him how he justified owning a private plane, since he had just published a book about the awful consumption of Americans.
He told me that what he did didn’t matter.
Hence the “…that’s different™…” mantra I repeat too often.
And Bradley hits the nail on the head: these people want other people to give up things, not themselves.
Eric Blair (8484db) — 10/11/2009 @ 12:17 pmEric,
I admit to being inspired by Ayn Rand, to whom Rush Limbaugh devoted much time earlier this year. This quote of Rand via Limbaugh is one of my favorites:
“The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.”
Rush applying Rand’s words to Obama:
President Obama says, “We all need to sacrifice,” for this reason or that reason. What it means is we all need to pay more; we need to have less affluent lives; we need to dial down our prosperity, and we need to give the money to him, not a charity. He’s going to eliminate, for all intents and purposes, the tax deductibility, it’s going to be 28 cents for every dollar, charitable donations. He wants to be the distributor of the charitable donations. He wants to be the distributor of the goods because he wants the glory.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 10/11/2009 @ 12:31 pmI would feel differently if they led by example. I remember once, long ago, being at a college that was experiencing great financial stress. The President of that college and I were friendly.
He told me that he was going to have to make some tough decisions, and didn’t know how to get people on board.
Simple, I told him. Recommend that everyone take a 2% salary cut, but take a 12% cut yourself. It will show that you lead by example.
You can imagine the response.
Eric Blair (8484db) — 10/11/2009 @ 12:59 pm$20/gl gasoline?
AD - RtR/OS! (6e8409) — 10/11/2009 @ 1:56 pmWill they let me pay in 147 & 230 grain increments?
Have you read about the Venus Syndrome?
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 10/11/2009 @ 2:41 pmThanks, Eric. I know some folk in the Chem dept at Madison. I had some contact with Professor Crow as an undergrad in the late 70’s.
Sentiments like those of Dr. Ehrlich, VP Gore, and President Obama remind me of C. S. Lewis’ essay “The Abolition of Man”. Those who speak most about needing to control society for the good of all are always assuming they will be the ones who determine what everyone else needs to do, and since they are the ones who run the show, they are important and indispensable, hence worthy of special treatment. In claiming to be above the base instincts of the “regular people”, they can only end up being a law unto themselves and degenerate into something even lower and less than human, be it the intelligentsia of the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution and those who followed, and the Chinese Revolution and Mao.
MD in Philly (d4f9fa) — 10/11/2009 @ 3:10 pm