Posted on 08/15/2013 8:34:33 AM PDT by Kaslin
A reader last night posted an article via Reddit that dug back into the BBC archives from 2007.
It was the journalistic equivalent of a high school yearbook photo of the Global Warming crowd sporting mullets in 1987, complete with high tops and black jeans.
“Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice,” said the BBC article. “Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.”
The article was very dramatic but… it also contained many of the hokum, nostrums and fake ‘ems that we’ve all grown used to with decades-long global warming alarmism.
The article was propped up by many impressive sounding titles and contained acronyms and experts that in subsequent years we have all learned to have little faith in. Their predictions have been less reliable than Republican pollsters handicapping a presidential race.
The researcher in the BBC article, Wieslaw Maslowski , we are told, worked at the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California. His “group includes co-workers at NASA and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS).”
And, of course, what attempt to frighten people over global warming would be complete without a cameo appearance from Al Gore? I guess we all NEVER get tired of Al Gore sounding off on Global Warming.
In what today would pass for a punch line of a good joke rather than serious science, the BBS, er, BBC concluded with this high point: “Former US Vice President Al Gore cited Professor Maslowski's analysis on Monday in his acceptance speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo.”
Ha, ha, ha.
Because those projections of an ice-free Arctic Sea, with dachas lining sugar-sand beaches in Northern Canada, all reposing in a warm, tropical breezes, made audible only by the sound of palm trees rustling…well, that prediction was just a tad premature.
The ice, it turns out, is still there!!??
I know what you’re thinking: It’s shocking to all of us.
Especially shocking to guys like Al Gore who will have to put off their timeshare scheme developed for an island in the Arctic Circle called Umingmak Nuna. Umingmak Nuna is apparently the Inuit phrase for “land of the Muskox.”
I’ve never seen a real muskox before; only pictures.
Kind of looks like it’s half man, half bear, half pig.
Kind of a pig-bear-man.
There was a time I suppose when each of us were inclined to believe experts who told us that the rainforest would be gone by the year 2000, the extinction of whales would trigger an alien arms race to kill our planet in revenge and the artic sea ice would disappear by the summer of 2013.
And more than being shown to be fanciful predictions that have been born mostly out of fiction rather than science, such prophesies have served to reinforce skeptics’ claims that the whole “science” of global warming is based on faulty assumptions.
The absolute inability of warming science to have any predictive value ought to cause us to reexamine the whole debate.
Normal science works that way.
But instead of accepting the obvious answer-- that there is something wrong with their models—warmists blame others for questioning the basic assumptions underlying their premise.
Any fair-minded, objective persons would now have to admit that at this point, most projections of doom and gloom predicated on the false science of global warming have not materialized despite a mighty attempt to tie EVERY WEATHER EVENT to global warming.
But of course global warmists are not fair-minded, objective persons.
Instead, they are high-priests of expertism, technocrats with the power to legislate the cosmos; nerds with power.
A poll done conducted by the Washington Post in 2012 on global warming found that only 26% of respondents trusted scientists “completely” while 35% trusted them “not at all.” For the skeptic crowd that’s an 11 point swing from 2007 when only 24% of respondents trusted scientists “not at all.”
That lack of trust sits right now like a mullet on the head of the scientific community.
Even Michael Bolton eventually bowed to the inevitable and got a haircut.
If scientists can’t get the haircut, they should at least be required to wear hairnets or big floppy hats.
True, that wouldn’t change anything, but at least we wouldn’t take them so seriously.
PS:
Here's a list from the Senate Conservatives regarding the attempt to defund Obamacare. It has your Senators' name and position regarding defunding Obamacare. Call them, write them. Make yourself heard.
I'm super serial.
A HA! You’re the reason my thread text was so tiny! :)
They’re gonna drown!!!!!!
The economic problem is called the tragedy of the commons. Crabs not caught are the commons. Everyone has incentive to convert as many common crabs as they can to their private benefit. And they kill all the crabs, and the resource is gone forever...
Wildlife practices try to reduce the take when the wildlife population goes down. Rather like what happened to the oysters, perhaps.
One thing to do is to convert the commons to private rights. That way how ever many crabs are permitted in a given year, each ‘grandfathered’ crabber would have an equal share, and each would have little incentive to take more, but could ‘sell’ their rights. The most efficient crabber could buy rights and pay a higher price than the less efficient, perhaps compensating some crabbers enough so they would be glad to stop crabbing.
Reality: In any given year there are a certain number of crabs that can be taken without damage to the fishery.
The reality is that each year there are less crabs.
The records show that they are not replenishing themselves
It isn’t that we are taking too many it is that there are less to take.
And then there is the human produced methane pollution tax, or ‘the fart tax.’
One of the things to ask is “Why?”.
Is there another predator or disease that is killing the crab?
Usually the fisheries have an idea of how many can be taken based on the previous years take.
The experts claim that there is an overabundance of Drum coming into the Chesapeake Bay this year and the Drum are eating the small crabs.
The crabbers I have spoken to say there are no small crabs this year, which is bad news for next year.
The DNR claimed at the first of the season that there were small crabs everywhere, but they have disappeared, perhaps it is the Drum, also snakeheads are everywhere in my area. Maybe the snakeheads are eating tem. Whatever the reason it is looking. In August when crabs are usually selling for $40 dollars a bushel none can be found at $150 a bushel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
