Why Global Warming Had To Get Rebranded
It's getting colder instead.
-
Tools:
Al Gore's monumental global warming scam seems to have reached critical mass. For some while now, the majority of developed nations have been pushing for action to reduce carbon emissions by international treaty, most notably Kyoto.
The United States thus far has been a bulwark of resistance to these efforts, rightly understanding that it will destroy our modern economy; so much so that even some Europeans have had their eyes opened to the lies and scaremongering behind the scam. The upcoming presidential election seems to be foretelling an end to this resistance; naturally, the Democrats have long been on board with plans to submit our economy to global regulation and scrutiny, but for the first time the Republican nominee, John McCain, agrees with them on this point. No matter who is elected, it would seem that we are fated to succumb to the rising tide - not of sea levels, but of stupidity.
There is yet remaining one source of light: the shining glow of reality demanding our attention. If carbon dioxide levels are increasing, and carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and increasing the greenhouse effect causes global warming, one would expect the globe to be, well, warming. But it is not.
Alert readers may recall last summer's amusing hottest-year controversy, when NASA announced to great fanfare that 2006 had been the hottest year on record just as Al Gore had foretold. But when a simple blogger analyzed the pages of statistics published to support this claim, he discovered that they'd punched the numbers into their calculators wrong. The correct hottest year on record was during the Great Depression - 1934 (not exactly a boon of growth and energy consumption).
This year, we find that not only aren't we getting warmer, we are in fact getting colder. The proof for this requires no calculator; a simple look out your window will suffice. According to the U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), the amount of snow cover over the northern hemisphere this year is the greatest seen since 1966. In fact, the average global temperature this January was most of an entire degree cooler than the average for the entire 20th century.
Evidence of such magnitude abounds on the nightly news. We've all seen the icy disaster in China, where hundreds of thousands of stranded passengers shivered in the street in front of snowbound railway stations. In fact, the chaos was of such monumental dimensions that, in what's probably a historic first, the prime minister of Communist China made a public appearance to apologize to the nation! How often do we see this happen in Communist countries? It hardly ever happens in democratic ones.
What's going on here? We've previously reported that comparative studies of the other planets show increases in the Earth's heat, if any, to be matched by increases on Mars. Since the only climactic common point between the Earth and Mars is that they both share the Sun, it seems logical to examine the Sun and see if it has increased its heat output. Apparently, it had.
But now it isn't. In fact, the sun seems to have gone to the opposite extreme. The presence of magnetic solar activity is directly related to its heat output, and according to the director of Canada's National Research Council, the magnetic readings are the lowest he's ever seen. The last time this happened, the result was the Little Ice Age.
Are we, in fact, now heading into an ice age? It's very difficult to say. Which is exactly the point.
The science of climate modeling is far, far, far from developed enough to make accurate predictions. We have enough trouble knowing whether it will rain next week, much less how much it will snow ten years from now. It's insane to make rules that would destroy modern economies based on science that is - let's be generous here - somewhat on the spotty side.
Have you noticed that you hear very little about "global warming" anymore? Now, the phrase du jour is "climate change." That way, by definition, the alarmists and control freaks can't possibly be wrong unless the weather stayed exactly the same all over the earth for a long time. And they couldn't be that wrong...
-
Tools:
What does Chinese history have to teach America that Joe Biden doesn't know?
Global warming a.k.a climate change is a scam because the promoters are making a lot of money. Al Gore is reputed to collect more than $100,000 for giving his lecture based on his so-called "documentary." Bureaucrats want us to perceive a crisis so they can get a bigger budget and more rules to enforce. Scientists want research grants regardless of whether what they research has any validity or not. Read through the series starting with
http://www.scragged.com/articles/the-hot-air-of-climate-change-part-1.aspx
Do you seriously mean to suggest that virtually the entire scientific community are either wrong, or part of some vast conspiracy? That the 1032 names appended to the recent IPACC report are out-weighed by the 20 or so industry shrills bought and paid for by the oil industry and paraded by Republican party?
Wake up people, the world *is* warming up, on average. Climate *change* means some places will get colder, or wetter... but the globe *over-all* is getting warmer. We have measured the rises in sea temperatures from the ISS and via satellite.
Hiding your head in the sand isn't going to make it go away. You can spin the news all you like, but nature doesn't care. It's adapt or die.
[and I bet this comment doesn't get posted]
Spend a little time at http://www.climateaudit.org. Seriously. You'll see that, for starters:
1) The temperature data is severely flawed. It's impossible get meaningful trends out of the "dog's breakfast" of data.
2) The infamous "hockey stick" graph used by everyone to sell anthropogenic global warming has been broken. a) The math used to crunch the numbers is bogus and b) the data used is bogus (they rely on a very small subset of trees from the western US that have been shown not to be sensitive to temperature).
3) The computer models used to predict scenarios cannot reproduce past climate with known inputs and therefore cannot be used to predict future climate with any accuracy. The models are filled with assumptions, tweaks and "adjustments". Finally, nobody has seen the code to check it for robustness.
4) The world of "climate scientists" is very small and somewhat incestuous. They peer review each others papers. The share unarchived, unchecked data with each other. They are the foxes guarding the hen house.
Many of the IPCC scientists didn't know what the report was going to say. The summary for policy makers was different than the actual reports.
Yes, the climate is changing, but it has ALWAYS changed and always will change regardless of what we do to it. We just don't know nearly enough to know what it's doing now or what it's going to do. It requires more faith to believe in humans are causing climate change than the sun, or natural cycles. I think it actually takes looking at the sun and saying it's not there.
I'd recommend you read the series here on Scragged entitled the Confusion Cycle to see why something like this can happen: http://www.scragged.com/articles/cynicism-and-teh-confucian-cycle.aspx.
As for human caused global warming = anthropogenic global warming = AGW, I've been following it in a bit of detail for quite a while and my verdict is: JUNK. It's pure politics, socialism's last stand as a friend once said. The give-away is that any report put out by an "intergovernmental panel" is by definition political. And consensus is not a word with scientific meaning, you're right or you're wrong, votes don't matter. But you know that as well as anyone I know.
One very important point that gets left out of the Gorical's movie is the relation between temperature and CO2 that is found in the ice core data. He shows a dramatic plot of CO2 and temperature going up and down together over a period of several hundred thousand years. What the Gorical doesn't tell you is the CO2 rises and falls 800 years after the temperature does. It's just a teeny problem with cause and effect here that he glosses over. "It's complicated."
Spend some time at climateaudit.org, icecap.us, and surfacestations.org. Compare and contrast the comment section at climateaudit with the one at realclimate.org, the home of the true believers. AGW is a religion, not science. I love Reid Bryson's statement (he's the founder of modern climatology. You can find info about him at http://www.icecap.us/), you could go outside and spit and have more effect on temperature than doubling CO2.
Just to give you a taste of how bad the science is, look at the surface stations used to measure the temperature at http://www.surfacestations.org/. 90% of them are a joke. They're located in asphalt parking lots, next to incinerators and barbecues, at waste treatment plants, next to air conditioners, on the roofs of concrete buildings, and on and on. Yet Hansen and company claim to be able to extract a rise of 0.6C global temperature over the 20th century from this mess. Then go over to Climateaudit.org and follow the discussion of the "corrections" to the temperature record. The raw data gets massaged around until your head whirls and a flat or negative trend gets turned into a positive trend. Naturally the climate models produced by the AGW geniuses do a great job of matching the historical trend. What you're not told is: they do a very bad job of getting actual regional temperatures right; they predict a warming at the top of the troposphere (that's where airplanes fly) that's 2.5x larger than actually measured; the global temperature hasn't gone up in a decade according to the satellite measurements despite the CO2 steadily increasing. But it's climate science and they know what they're doing and it's all due to CO2 emitted by evil modern industrial civilization. After all, the model says so, so it must be true. Bleh.
Sorry for the rant, but this kind of @#$%@#$%@# nonsense, with the intent to tax us all to death for the greater good based on #^#&^&%^ science really gets me angry.
It's like choosing candidates. We know that Republican and Democrat Senators and representatives both steal from us. We know that Democrats generally raise taxes while Republicans generally cut taxes. Which pack of thieves do we want, the ones that tax us more or the ones hat tax us less?
Global warming is similar. Gore's guys want to the government to take URGENT action, to subsidize all kinds of uneconomical energy sources, to tax the socks of us whenever we use energy, and so on. The other guys want to leave things to the market. Given a choice, I'd NEVER put ethanol in my car and neither would anybody else - the car runs poorly and burning corn makes my food prices go up.
That's really the choice - all money spent subsidizing ethanol is money NOT spent researching something else that would actually work. Every time the government messes in the markets, things get worse and a few well-connected people get rich.
Simply walk into the Geology department of of a major university and talk to ACTUAL CLIMATOLOGISTS/GEOLOGISTS. See what REAL scientists actually think.
Here's a hint; theres a very strong consensus supported by overwhelming evidence. Real evidence that is; not links to one's own articles.
The most revealing of the writer's ignorance are references to specific disasters. It's just as stupid as saying Katrina is evidence of climate change, and for the same reasons.
"you could go outside and spit and have more effect on temperature than doubling CO2."
...Such ignorance boggles the mind.
The problem with listening solely to scientists in universities and government jobs is extensively discussed here:
http://www.scragged.com/articles/the-hot-air-of-climate-change-part-8.aspx
Among other things, you might be interested in the writings of one of the world's leading meteorologists, whose job is studying the changes of weather and climate. His observations are most enlightening.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/
has a LOT of articles about what's wrong with the "consensus" behind global warming. The media have jumped on it because journalists like the story, but the consensus is not nearly as complete as the MSM would like us to believe.
Either way, all this cliamte chagne politics is killing economies of Eurioe:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/business/energy-environment/18iht-green18.html?_r=0
LONDON — The signs are everywhere. Britain has been unable to reach a deal for its first new nuclear power station since the 1990s. Spain, once a clean-energy enthusiast, has slashed its backing for wind and solar power.
Even the European Union’s flagship environmental achievement of recent years, its Emissions Trading System for carbon dioxide, is beset by existential doubts. On Tuesday, the European Parliament batted away an effort to bolster anemic carbon prices on the E.T.S.
Prices for permits to emit greenhouse gases, which have fallen as low as €3 per metric ton, are just a fraction of what they were a few years ago, meaning that they are no longer doing their intended job of inducing utilities and manufacturers to invest in new technology and switch to cleaner fuels.
Evidently, members of the European Parliament were more concerned about any further raising of energy costs that some European companies already say are putting them at a competitive disadvantage.
Europe is lurching through an energy crisis that in many respects parallels its seemingly unending economic crisis. Across Europe, consumer groups, governments and manufacturers are asking how their future energy needs can be met affordably and responsibly.
It is a question that is far more acute than in the United States, where the shale gas revolution has done wonders to ease energy angst. “Europeans are getting increasingly concerned about energy,” said Corin Taylor, an analyst at the Institute of Directors, a British business group. “Manufacturers are looking at U.S. energy prices with envy, and if they can, they are making investments in North America.”
European countries have yet to demonstrate that they can or in some cases even want to exploit their own potential shale gas troves. At the same time, most of Europe’s indigenous sources of oil and natural gas are in decline, making increased dependence on imports almost inevitable.
In some ways, Europe is a victim of its own success. It has made remarkable progress in switching to a future beyond oil and natural gas. For instance, last year, a hefty 23 percent of European power demand was met by electricity generated by renewable sources like wind and solar, compared with just 13 percent in 2002. This shift was “driven primarily by generous support policies for renewables,” said Susanne Hounsell, an analyst at the energy research firm IHS CERA in Paris.
But achievements like that have also brought problems. Most green electricity sources cannot compete with coal and natural gas on their own and require subsidies that are passed on to industry and consumers. The more power they generate, the higher those costs. Direct charges for renewables add about 18 percent to German household electric bills, with indirect costs putting on more.
In Britain, climate charges add 19 percent to the electricity prices that large manufacturers pay, according to Jeremy Nicholson, director of the Energy Intensive Users Group, which represents heavy industry. That helps make industrial processes that are heavy users of electricity, like aluminum smelting or steel making, endangered species in Britain.
Ms. Robinson argues that instead of rushing huge investments into largely unproven and enormously expensive technologies like offshore wind, a phased approach would be preferable and would leave time for scientific advances that might produce cheaper and more effective solutions. Britain, where the average annual household energy bill has doubled to about £1,335, or $2,040, since 2006, is approaching a “tipping point” where large numbers of people decide to “switch off heat permanently,” she said.
People are beginning to freeze in the dark!