Climate change: A cooling consensus. “…climate scientists were previously very confident that the planet would be warmer than it is by now, and no one knows for sure why it isn’t. …it is a crisis for climate-policy advocates who based their arguments on the authority of scientific consensus.” The science is unsettled and there’s no reason at this time to make the drastic changes they’ve demanded.
View Comments (13)
I guess I missed when scientist started being aproved as fortune tellers. Now Obama has made a bunch of globa warming oreventative crap his main agenda (his top priortiy of the hour.) Our energy costs will skiyrocket while a bunch of people are going to get our tax dollars as "green" industries, just before they g bankrupt.
climate scientists were previously very confident that the planet would be warmer than it is by now, and no one knows for sure why it isn’t
Blame this guy in Japan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AT3a3-gLH8
Simple. They guessed wrong and all the peer-reviewed read self -congratulatory bs they put out can not and does not change that simple reality.
Since the AGW crowd got caught cooking the books with the data, and their projections have been proved to be the complete garbage they are, we now get to suffer with the likes of Al Bore and Prez Quagmire whipping the proverbial dead horse for all it's worth.
All you have to do is follow the money folks.
Hundreds of billions were transfe....stolen from the west's citizens and given to communists and fascists.
I'm an engineer specializing in designing equipment using IR, UV, X-RAY, convective, and conductive energy transfer. Engineers are scientists that have to produce real world results. We are pragmatic and realists.
1. It is the unshielded thermonuclear reactor that is a trillion time larger than earth 8 light minutes away that is the 98% driver of climate on earth.
2. CO2 has very little energy capacity. This is the ability to store energy.
3. One volcano will put out more CO2 than all of human kind has.
4. Better the world heating up ever so slightly than it cooling down and cheaper.
5. Tens of billions have been funneled to 'scientists' to get the right result to clamp down on humanity's freedom.
6. The left has fully politicized science to a point that it can no longer be trusted.
7. There are some very good and cost effective uses of solar power. Radiant heating of floors and hydro power are two. Photo voltaic is a scam that does not pay back at current electric rates.
8. Adapting to warmer temperatures costs 2% of making the futile effort to stop warming.
9. AGW $cience has never correctly predicted any future events nor has it been able to repressively match past events. This is what real scientific theories do in order to be real scientific theories.
10. A real scientific theory cannot state two opposite results. AGW $cience says that a warming of the earth produces both higher temperatures and colder temperatures.
11. The 97% consensus of scientists was done by throwing out over 98% of scientists responses. If you throw out all the dissenting votes you can get any consensus that you want.
I could go on and on but it the biggest con ever perpetrated on humanity and has made many, many cunning leftists rich and powerful. AGW $cience has also made more of humanity poor and and powerless.
You're right on all of them, but specifically re: #2 -
CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas. I.e., its ability to hold in heat is in fact poor. No one disputes this on either side of the "debate". Nor does anyone dispute that although weak, it IS in fact a greenhouse gas, and its increase will cause an increase in temperatures.
This is in direct conflict with one of the main claims made by the warmists - that the "other side" denies science. That is a flat-out lie. No one denies science. Well, actually someone does, but it's not who the warmists say it is.
Where the divergence in opinions occurs is in the "domino effect". The warmists tell us that a small increase in temps will then cause other things to happen that will cause the increase to spiral upwards. That is why a 1 deg C increase directly due to the CO2 becomes a 5-10 degree increase, and Richmond VA is under water.
Well let's look at that. They tell us that computer models show that that is the "most likely scenario". But "most likely" in science is not the same as "most likely" in predicting the NBA finals, or a number on the roulette wheel. It must come out of a rigorous statistical analysis. And where do the stats come from? Data.
The odds of a guy scoring when he's on 1s and no one out, compared to second base and one out can be determined quite scientifically. There is a huge database of exactly those events that can be examined.
What is the database for increasing CO2 levesl? There isn't one. There are some theories based on fossils, or ice core samples, or some such. But those are only theories, not hard data.
Therefore, by mahtematical definition, we do not have a basis for making any predictions and calling them science. It is all pure speculation. No matter how many learned people agree, it does not change that fact any more than any agreements can change the law of gravity.
Not to mention about the famous graph of temperatures and CO2 levels over the past centuries that Algore shoves into our faces. Anyone with a basic background in math and science will immediately know at least one of two things:
1. that it shows correlation, which is not causation, and
2. there is a 700 (or so) year lag, with the CO2 levels lagging AFTER the temp levels.
The more sensible prima facie theory to be drawn from that graph is that somehow the increase in temps causes the CO2 rise. And we are now about 700-800 years after the Medieval Optimum, a very warm period in the 13th century.
Note also that it was called the "Medieval Optimum" for the longest time, not "The Medieval Global Warming Disaster", but has now been changed by the warmists to the Medieval Warm Period. It's tough to call a warm era an "optimum" and simultaneously tell us that rising temps will spell utter disaster.
BTW, the other famous graph, the "hockey stick" graph (another of the warmists' PR tools), completely omitted the Medieval Optimum, along with the Little Ice Age of the second half of the 19th century.
And they call that science.
Just stole this and posted it with attribution elsewhere. I thought this was a terrific post.
Sidekick:
http://www.coyoteblog.com/
That is where I got most of that info. He's a screamng libertarian (like me), & posts on a lot of subjects, including some local Phoenix stuff. But his climate analyses are very good.
You might start with a link on the right side of the home page "A Critique of Man-made Global Warming Theory" link under "Past Favorites". Somewhere he posted a really good vid on the subect. It's a half or whole hour, but worth the time.
Thank you.
And our plant life requires CO2 to function. What are the vegans going to eat if they get rid of all the CO2? Plus we could likely keep a reasonable balance if everyone would quit developing and covering every inch of green with concrete.
Vegans can eat beef like a normal person does. (teehee)
Except with noplant life,we would all bein trouble, the egans AND the carnivores! No food, no beef!
Great post that covers the scam and motivations. God I hate the lying scum that perpetrated this fraud on al of us.