Last week Rick Perry questioned the prevailing orthodoxy on global warming. There was, as is easy to imagine, no shortage of warmists waiting to pounce. Remarkably, one of the first questions later put to Governor Perry was whether he accepted the correctness of evolution — as if the science behind global warming was supported by even a tenth as much evidence as we have for evolution. What is troubling, however, is that some of the other candidates for the Republican nomination still accept the theory of man-made warming. Worse, they are apparently prepared to act on their beliefs if elected president.
Advertisement
First, allow me to be clear about one thing. The planet is warming. Well, it was until 1998, when the warming trend abruptly ceased. In truth, it has been warming since 1850, when the last mini–Ice Age ended. In the 161 years since then, the earth’s temperature has increased . . . wait for it . . . 0.7 degrees. But we can’t even be sure of that, as all the major temperature records have been altered to the point of uselessness.
The scientists at Great Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) admit to using statistical sleights of hand to change the temperature record, so as to show more warming. And then, in a total flouting of the scientific method, they tossed out all the original raw data so that no other scientist could check their work. Remarkably, a panel — including a number of persons who stood to gain financially from a global-warming panic or who were personal friends of the accused — found nothing wrong with what the CRU scientists did. Move along; nothing to see here.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which is responsible for feeding data into the United States’ Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) temperature record has been caught in a number of “unintentional” mistakes. One of my favorites is replicating Russia’s September temperatures as October’s, thereby significantly increasing the global average. In this regard, I have often wondered how it is that every “mistake” the high priests of global warming make is in the direction of increased warming. Why don’t they ever make a mistake that shows any cooling? My presumption is that after altering the laws of physics, altering the law of averages was child’s play.
Still, tampering with the data in such a way is a relatively minor fraud compared to the data manipulation the GISS gets away with every day. You see, although the GISS receives temperature readings from thousands of global stations, it uses only a fraction of them. Unbelievably, the GISS still fills out the thousands of spreadsheet cells, using figures from other sources. So what does the GISS put in a cell that used to have actual data readings? Well, it is using a smoothing technique that allows it to use any temperature reading taken within 750 miles of the location the empty cell represents. For instance, rather than use a temperature reading from a mountaintop in Bolivia, the GISS can substitute a reading from the coast of Peru or from a steamy Brazilian jungle. Does no one in government see how a warming bias might, therefore, be baked into the global record?
The graph below shows how damaging this smoothing is to the data record. Note the warming in the Arctic region. It seems like reason for concern, until one realizes that almost no actual data were used to create those dangerous-looking red zones. Instead, readings from almost 1,000 miles south of the polar regions were substituted for the missing data. How does such a substitution make sense unless one can convince oneself that it gets colder the closer one gets to the equator?
I prefer that we not immediately insult people who believe that the human contribution to global warming is worrisome. Whether the term "warmists" or "warmers," the intent seems to be to find a derisive term similar to 9/11 "Truthers" to suggest that the belief being ridiculed can only be held in bad faith or utter stupidity. Not only is that uncharitable, it fails to persuade a single person.
Sorry, it is cult in a true meaning of the word, a pagan cult. We should never concede this point.
It does not mean that all the people reading newspapers and believing all this nonsense are "warmists", people one would try to "persuade". Nobody is trying to persuade cultists.
I think one of the main reasons I don't buy it is that every solution for global warming aligns itself with the mantra the left or liberals have been trying to push off on everyone for decades. It is just a little too convenient for their agenda. I wonder if the "Warmers" would be so zealous in their beliefs if the solution opposed everything they supported.
Would they believe me if I told them that a visitor from Mars had landed in my backyard and told me that unless everyone on earth converted to my beliefs he, it, would return and destroy the planet in say, 10,20, or even 50 years?
I could even throw in some scratchy recordings of the extraterrestrial warnings and perhaps a few grainy black and white photos as evidence. If I had the political power I could steer grant money towards scientists who would back up my claims of a visit. Then if it caught on I could convince the U.N. there were bucco bucks in store for them if they jumped on the band wagon.
I like the Warmer name, I am a student of David Kahane.
The "9/11 was an inside job" folks call themselves 'Truthers' and they call their network of organizations and individuals promoting that conspiracy theory the 'Truth Movement'.
Acceptable derisive terms for Truthers would be 'Twoofers' or 'conspiratard'.
Acceptable derisive terms used by Truthers would be 'shill', 'sheeple', 'coincidence theorist' or 'TV-zombie'.
I should know since I made the mistake of engaging Truthers in "debate" in an internet forum for a period of about one year. I did come away from the ordeal with a better understanding of the core motivation of conspiracy theorists.
They are in the subculture for the purpose of self-validation. This is done by showing either how much smarter they are than everyone else or by playing the role of the brave dissident in the dystopian society.
BTW, are we in agreement that the term "denialist" used for those whom are skeptical of catastrophic climate change being caused by AGW is at best used as a derisive term and at worse is an attempt to associate the skeptics with holocaust deniers?
Died in the wool Warmist don't really care about climate change at all. They just use it as a weapon to fight against what really bothers them, capitalisim.
If you ask them Jim Lacey's question: what do we do about all the people "thrown out of work?" They just give a Scrooge-like answer, let them die then and decrease the surplus population.
It really bothers them that capitalism has allowed us to share this Earth with billions of our fellow creatures, thus despoiling it in their minds. If only they could destroy capitalism with global warming (since Communism failed) then the Earth could return to its Garden of Eden like state with a total population of a few hundred million max.
If you find a Warmist that truely cares about global warming, they're typically a dolt, or a child in the public school system.
There is a theoretical disjuncture between the biological sciences and the hard sciences, and the global warming crew is inclusive of the soft sciences (although not alien to the biological sciences) which may account for the lack of unity. The unfortunate ascendency of politically driven analyses has done much to destroy what I see as the credibility of Science as a whole. Very regrettable and not soon remedied.
Romney would agree with the essay, which basically tracks with what he said: The best evidence we have is that the earth is probably a bit warmer than it was before intense fossil fuel burning, and, as a matter of basic physics, more CO2 in an atmosphere raises its radiative equilibrium temperature.
That does *not* translate into "and therefore we need carbon taxes." Show me where Romney has ever given the time of day to warmer alarmism.
Great math problem to pose. Similar to noting 0 deaths from malaria in US where DDT helped eradicate it and asking how many of the global millions of deaths might be avoided by permitting DDT. All of a sudden, math becomes an ancient and immoral practice.
If we in the US are willing to allow multiple tens of millions to die to prevent the use of DDT, what's 50+% unemployment when you can print welfare money compared to an even bigger unscientific imagination?
Sorry for the skepticism, but that new EPA set of rules has already taken the day and the decade away from us.
If you get a chance, look up Aliens Cause Global Warming by Michael Crichton. It's a lecture he gave to students at CalTech (I think) and he was SERIOUS.
The lecture dealt with politicization of science and is a must-read.
The disconnect between rational thinking and policy on this subject is alarming and does nothing to strengthen the credibility of the democratic experiment. I really miss my "light bulbs"!!!!
Very simple experiment for people who think carbon energy hasn't made us better off. Turn off your lights, light a candle and try to operate. Not very friendly, is it? Can't be very productive, especially at night, can you? Don't feel very safe, don't you?
That simple experiment should let everyone know how much our current economy is due to the fact that we can use carbon energy. The correlation between wealth and energy use is beyond doubt. And those who want to curtail energy use are invariably helping to curtail wealth.
Man made global warming is a religion, not a science. Most of its acolytes can't even articulate the theory and no one can square it with the first law of thermodynamics. Simply put, photons absorbed in the atmosphere, where heat is more readily dispersed than from the surface, cannot be absorbed by the ground. The so called "feedback" mechanism doesn't account for this simple fact. It simply states that the carbon in the atmosphere absorbs the IR emitted from the ground. Well, yes it does that but it also prevents IR from reaching the ground where it warms the surface and heats the atmosphere through convection.
What is amazing is the fact that even after the fake data and contrived models were exposed as frauds, liberals still cling to the theory. This makes their belief an act of faith, not science. Therefore, they are religious zealots. Where's the separation of (liberal) church and state when you need it?
soooo...Carbon in the atmosphere absorbs photons(energy), preventing it from reaching the ground. This prevents the ground from sending energy into the atmosphere through convection. And this is a scientific argument against global warming? The heating of the atmosphere prevents the atmosphere from being heated? repeat that aloud and think about what you said.
