Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Cult of Global Warming is Grasping at Straws
Townhall.com ^ | January 10, 2014 | Michael Schaus

Posted on 01/10/2014 1:25:00 PM PST by Kaslin

The Climate Change alarmists are clamoring to blame the recent cold snap on anthropogenic global warming. And, really, what choice do they have? When record cold temperatures are freezing Niagara Falls, and plunging the American Midwest into an ice age, jokes about Al-Gore sycophants are hard to avoid. In righteous defiance to reality based observations regarding the environment, the far left has unveiled a theory that America’s recent brush with winter weather is actually an experience of anthropogenic global warming.

Or, as Ezra Klein put it:

Well… I guess to an extent, the Washington Post’s in-house manbearpig alarmist is kinda right. One worldwide cold spell does not unequivocally disprove the existence of man-made global warming. But it certainly does call into question the credibility of the experts who suggested such cold was a fading thing of the past.

No. The “polar vortex” does not disprove climate change. (Of course, it doesn’t need to. Global warming theories have mostly disproven themselves.) But it does prove how wrong the “experts” have been on global warming science. Despite the alarmists’ waxing poetic about climatological Armageddon, almost 98 percent of their predictions have proven to be false.

Remember when alarmists were predicting the end of winter as we know it? There was even talk about global cooling in the 1970’s. In the late 1990’s, Al Gore predicted we had roughly ten years left before global temperatures melted ice caps, and submerged major coastal communities. The UN even predicted in 2005 that there would be over 50 million “refugees” from communities deemed “uninhabitable” by global climate change. Back in 2012 the New York Times predicted the demise of the ski industry as global warming eradicated the sport from the face of the (increasingly hot) planet. And in 2013 a global warming research crew found themselves stuck in the Antarctic ice they set out to prove had been melting.

And now, according to the very same UN that predicted doom by the year 2010, we have been in a 15 year “holding pattern” that has seen no significant increase in global temperatures. (Despite the fact that “greenhouse gases” have continued to increase.)

But, when global warming becomes difficult to sell (because the average person sees a snow-plow clearing the streets on a below-zero evening) the leftists do what they do best… They begin to spin.

“This weather is unprecedented!” they scream. Of course a little bit of research, again, puts a muzzle on their alarmism. While left-wing bloggers might be prepared to showcase a frozen Niagara Falls as proof of “extreme” weather patterns, similar photos from the 1890’s, 1910’s and 1930’s dull their argument of extremism.

In the end, the largest problem Al Gore cheerleaders have is their devotion to politics over science. The science that has perpetuated the global warming myth is little more than a “junk” science. And that’s not an editorial on the content, theories, hypothesis, or politically corrupt culture of the grant-gobbling academic hacks who call themselves scientists. (Although, it could be.) That statement is an unbiased and scientific view of Global-warming-science methodology.

Remember those science books in the 9th grade that taught students about the scientific model? Remember the process: Form a hypothesis. Test the hypothesis. Draft a conclusion.

Global-warming-science is working backward. They wrote up a hypothesis, which was immediately proven wrong… (In the 1970’s they predicted an ice age. In the 1980’s they predicted clean air shortages, and “peak oil”. In the 1990’s they hitched their politically driven wagons to the theory of global warming.) So rather than alter their hypothesis (which is what scientists are supposed to do when their theories are proven wrong through fact gathering) they decided to begin working in reverse.

The conclusion, that anthropogenic global warming exists and is causing imminent climatological doom, has been drafted. And all facts, experiences, and studies are therefore proof of an unprovable declarative theory. Anyone who disagrees with them is a “denier.” Belief in anthropogenic global warming is, apparently, more of a religion than a science.

And like a Mayan Priest that claims the sudden drought is the wrath of a god, climate alarmists claim the sudden cold is the result of your non-hybrid SUV. Sacrifice a few trillion dollars (rather than a virgin) and the angry climate gods will soon return normalcy to your seasonal weather schedule…

The fact is, skeptics of global warming are not “deniers”. At least, I’m not. I’m a thinker. And I tend to think someone has no idea what they’re talking about when they sail their ship into an ice-locked portion of the arctic while looking for signs that the polar icecaps are melting… Such moves just don’t scream out for confidence.

Oh, and I have my doubts about manbearpig as well.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: algore; climatechange; co2; demagogicparty; ezraklein; ezrakleinisanidiot; globalwarming; polaricecaps

1 posted on 01/10/2014 1:25:00 PM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Ray Stevens - “The Global Warming Song” - Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORyzsMZPPUg&list=RDxBOMjZU-aCE


2 posted on 01/10/2014 1:29:42 PM PST by stars & stripes forever (Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Or ‘rejecting snow flakes’.


3 posted on 01/10/2014 1:31:10 PM PST by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Democrats lied about;

Free Trade with Mexico: caused their farm economy to collapse and saw the rise of the drug cartels and push towards illegal immigration into the US

Free Trade with China: sold out US manufacturers for an opportunity to cash in on what they thought was a one way deal to stick China with US imports and it never worked destroying the US economic sector

Housing Market run by the Govt: lost out on people buying homes they couldn’t afford

Healthcare Scam: has devastated private and competitive health insurance plans, thus, screwing the middle class out of more money they need to survive

Welfare: no more than paid slavery

...and this list is small with the goof-ups by Wash DC and their obsessive need to keep getting elected into office only to turn around and lie to us all and destroy the very laws that give them the privilege to run for office in the first place.

...and Hillary Clinton is suppose to be the next big ticket...she’s a DRUNK - LIAR - ACCOMPLICE TO MURDER - and underhanded bitch that should never hold a public office again...

People, we need to do a better job of vetting these politicians - making it known what we find out - and not counting on the PRESS or GOVT for answers!


4 posted on 01/10/2014 1:44:33 PM PST by BCW (Salva reipublicae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The real problem with science now is the scientists. Too much group-think, and it is not just in the AGW/Climate-Change crowd. From the book description of The Trouble with Physics:
In this illuminating book, the renowned theoretical physicist Lee Smolin argues that fundamental physics -- the search for the laws of nature -- losing its way. Ambitious ideas about extra dimensions, exotic particles, multiple universes, and strings have captured the public’s imagination -- and the imagination of experts. But these ideas have not been tested experimentally, and some, like string theory, seem to offer no possibility of being tested. Yet these speculations dominate the field, attracting the best talent and much of the funding and creating a climate in which emerging physicists are often penalized for pursuing other avenues. As Smolin points out, the situation threatens to impede the very progress of science. With clarity, passion, and authority, Smolin offers an unblinking assessment of the troubles that face modern physics -- and an encouraging view of where the search for the next big idea may lead.

5 posted on 01/10/2014 1:46:22 PM PST by kosciusko51 (Enough of "Who is John Galt?" Who is Patrick Henry?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCW

Wow - that was excellent. We also need term limits.


6 posted on 01/10/2014 2:00:07 PM PST by stonehouse01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

yep.

The science of today is an attempt to use the scientific method to prove “uncertainty”. Nevermind their need for logic/certainty in their efforts.


7 posted on 01/10/2014 2:12:29 PM PST by Zeneta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Somewhere I still have a copy of The Limits to Growth. We were all supposed to be dead by now. Long dead, in fact.
8 posted on 01/10/2014 2:19:01 PM PST by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The day will come when no-one will admit to ever being a part of the global warming movement. Alas it will have morphed into some other type of environmental consequential movement, that has nothing to do with global warming…

Global greenishness or some such thing instead.


9 posted on 01/10/2014 2:21:29 PM PST by shineon (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

So what would disprove global warming?


10 posted on 01/10/2014 2:22:33 PM PST by Brett66 (Where government advances, and it advances relentlessly , freedom is imperiled -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Everything moves in cycles, which involves TIME.

TIME is beyond the comprehension of most humans.

To tell someone that a cycle may last for a couple hundred years causes them to yawn and move on.

For example, the Sun has a 22 year sunspot cycle, the North Atlantic Ocean Basin has a 30 year heating cycle, and the Northern Pacific Ocean Basin has a heating Cycle that is longer and more complex than the Atlantic.

Combining all these cycles, and unknown variables produces uncertainty for a long TIME prediction, and an educated guess for a short TIME prediction.

Each of these cycles are based on a set of assumptions that are tested against observations, the assumptions are revised, re-tested, etc, etc.

When tree rings, glacial moraines, sediments in lakes and Oceans are sampled and age dated we can begin to piece together the past.

The problem is that the impatience of an over eager non-scientist to jump to a conclusion without rigorous testing and re-testing produces a junk science which can achieve a cult status, such as we have today with “Global Warming.”

Back in the “Red Earth People” day the North Atlantic was so warm that they routinely traveled by water inside the Arctic Circle across waterways that are now coved by permanent Sea Ice.

After the last Ice Age, at 5,000 years ago was as warm as it got, and gradually, in small cycles, the Earth’s Atmosphere has been getting colder.

The good news is that there has never been a successful experiment that demonstrates a cause and effect relationship between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature change of the atmosphere.

Hence, my FRiends, drink all the carbonated juvenile adult beverages that you want, and free yourselves of any guilt that the Libs might throw your way!

BTW, water vapor is our most abundant Green House Gas at 25, 000 parts per Million.

CO2 is only 400 +/- parts per Million.


11 posted on 01/10/2014 2:28:28 PM PST by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Not that long ago, Global Cooling was all the rage. Caused by,of course, man. They listed the same causes and the same solutions as global warming.


12 posted on 01/10/2014 2:31:19 PM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

13 posted on 01/10/2014 2:40:46 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

When some global warming type chimes up, before they can even speak, insist that, without using circular logic, they describe what is seen if we are *not* experiencing global warming.

Not only won’t they do that, they can’t.

Right now they are trying to claim that *everything*, “from kittens to cucumbers”, proves global warming.

That is as mindless as saying if you add any two numbers of any kind, the result is always 3.


14 posted on 01/10/2014 2:40:53 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (There Is Still A Very Hot War On Terror, Just Not On The MSM. Rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Obama and the warmists should be taking credit for cooling the planet in the winter and blaming republicans for heating the planet in the summer. Of coarse it doesn’t help that people like to vacation where it’s warm like Hawaii. Q

Why wouldn’t I want the planet warmer? I hate the cold.


15 posted on 01/10/2014 3:09:15 PM PST by Rad_J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf
For example, the Sun has a 22 year sunspot cycle, the North Atlantic Ocean Basin has a 30 year heating cycle, and the Northern Pacific Ocean Basin has a heating Cycle that is longer and more complex than the Atlantic.

Combining all these cycles, and unknown variables produces uncertainty for a long TIME prediction, and an educated guess for a short TIME prediction.

Reminds me of that Robert Heinlein story, THE YEAR OF THE JACKPOT, when all the cycles peaked at once.

16 posted on 01/10/2014 3:42:41 PM PST by JoeFromSidney (itYe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar

A theory isn’t true because of contradictory evidence

is the same as

The functioning of the cycle of day and night and the reality of the sun.


17 posted on 01/10/2014 5:28:16 PM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Brett66
So what would disprove global warming?

In the view of the warm-mongers, nothing can possibly disprove it (and absolutely everything proves it unequivocally.)

18 posted on 01/10/2014 5:39:41 PM PST by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Sorry Al, but I get my long-term weather forecast from an organization/publisher that's been correct 80% of the time since 1792. They were 94% correct last year. It's the Old Farmers Almanac.
19 posted on 01/10/2014 5:57:25 PM PST by Traveler59 ( Truth is a journey, not a destination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brett66
So what would disprove global warming?

First the phrase has to be defined: the rise in average temperature of the planet in response to manmade CO2

Disproving is hard when faced with a theory that morphs to fit the data. For example the climate modelers predicted that El Nino would become more common as the world heated rapidly. That prediction happened conveniently after the El Ninos of the 80's and 90's and relatively rapid warming.

More recently the modelers are predicting the opposite: more La Nina. Conveniently there has been more La Nina. They are of course careful to use phrases like "La Nina-like conditions". They use that to pretend that the "missing" heat is in the deep ocean, but in fact it is still missing.

The short answer is "global warming" is not a theory worthy of the name so there is no need to disprove it. "Climate change" is so loosely defined it cannot possibly be called a theory.

I'll add two more theories: "the rise in CO2 is manmade" and "CO2 absorbs IR". To disprove manmade CO2 one would have show net ocean outgassing of CO2, but most evidence points towards the opposite such as pH and isotope ratios. To disprove that CO2 causes warming, one would have to invalidate some basic physics about molecular structure and photon interaction. Since those are not visible one must use indirect evidence such as empirical measurements that show absorption of particular wavelengths when CO2 is in a tube and IR is sent through the tube (versus other gases in the tube). In short, there is almost no chance that either "manmade CO2" or "CO2 absorbs IR" will be disproven.

It should be kept in mind that CO2 absorbing certain IR frequencies efficiently in no way proves that "global warming" is real. But the underlying mechanics of manmade CO2 and CO2 absorption of IR are not easily disproven. So the easiest thing to do is show that CO2 warming is negligible. One really easy way is that temperatures have risen a negligible amount for 17 years (since 1996 which was actually a coolish year).

20 posted on 01/10/2014 6:07:16 PM PST by palmer (Obama = Carter + affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BCW
People, we need to do a better job of vetting hanging these politicians - making it known what we find out - and not counting on the PRESS or GOVT for answers!

FIXED!

21 posted on 01/10/2014 8:20:19 PM PST by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal the 16th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

“...theoretical physicist Lee Smolin argues that fundamental physics — the search for the laws of nature — losing its way. Ambitious ideas about extra dimensions, exotic particles, multiple universes,...”

I talked with him for about 30 minutes several years ago about his idea that there were multiple universes that evolved and that this would explain a universe seemingly designed for humans. Basically, the idea was that black holes are the birth place of new universes and that they pass their fundamental constants on to the baby universe. However, the constants can be slightly modified during the transition. Since stars make black holes, he argued that the “multiverse” (my word not his) selects for universes that produce a lot of stars because they will have a lot of baby universes. To have a lot of stars requires fundamental constants as in our universe. QED.

Of course it’s like life. You have to get to the first self-replicating molecule for evolution to start working. In universes, you’d have to get to the universe that has the first star.

It sounds like his thinking has evolved since then.


22 posted on 01/10/2014 9:46:45 PM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Climatology is to meteorology what astrology is to astronomy.


23 posted on 01/11/2014 1:05:48 AM PST by Avogadros Number
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Avogadros Number
"This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow,and our planet began to heal.

Welcome King Barack "Canute" Obama the Great.....

...Obama issues an Executive Order to the Sun...

....to increase it's magnetic field....

and make a good crop of sunspots before elections in 2016....

(PhysOrg.com) -- Sunspot formation is triggered by a magnetic field, which scientists say is steadily declining. They predict that by 2016 there may be no remaining sunspots, and the sun may stay spotless for several decades.

The last time the sunspots disappeared altogether was in the 17th and 18th century, and coincided with a lengthy cool period on the planet known as the Little Ice Age....and lasted 400 years.

Good luck surviving with no electricity and GE modified seeds.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news203746768.html#jCp

24 posted on 01/11/2014 6:58:45 AM PST by spokeshave (OMG.......Schadenfreude overload is not covered under Obamacare :-()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker
That's very cool that you had a chance to talk with him. I'm sure it was an interesting experience.

The book is more a critique on theoretical physics community with regard to string theory, and less about his own work.

After reading the book, my first big takeaway is that string theory is really not one theory, but an overarching set of theories, some contradictory to each other and to the background independent space-time models. Also, none of these theories can be falsified, since there are so many variables that can be "tuned" to meet the outcomes of any test.

The second is that string theory is such a predominate force in the theoretical physics community that it shuts out funding for other competing theories, such as his loop quantum gravity theory.

I do remember him discussing the evolving multiverse stuff in his book, but that is only a short section of the total. I would highly recommend the book, and if you read it, I would be interested in what you think about it.

Regards,
K51

25 posted on 01/11/2014 11:31:34 AM PST by kosciusko51 (Enough of "Who is John Galt?" Who is Patrick Henry?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson