Global Warming Hoax Update

From the Daily Mail:

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years…

Just to re-state my views:

1.  It is not certain that average global temperatures have been rising.  They may be, but we lack sufficient exact data over a long enough period of time to make an absolute assertion one way or the other.

2.  If average global temperatures are rising we do not have sufficient data to know if they are rising towards some historic norm or rising higher than a historic norm.

3.  If average global temperatures are rising above an historic norm then we do not have sufficient data to determine if this will be a net negative or positive for the species inhabiting the planet.

4.  If global temperatures are rising we do not have sufficient data to determine what would be the primary cause of this increase.

5.  It seems to me that the tiny fraction of a fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere which is caused by human activity is unlikely to be the culprit if, indeed, average global temperatures are rising.

6.  Given all we don’t know, any plans to deal with an alleged increase in average global temperatures are not based upon hard science but upon the merest guesswork.

7.  I refuse to massively change the way we live based upon mere guesswork.

The reason I call it a hoax is because it is always Number 7 which is the real bone of contention – with all we don’t know, the global warming alarmists yet insist upon massive tax and regulatory changes to society (all of them tending towards an increasingly undemocratic form of government).  As this works out to a massive power and wealth grab by a self-selected group of global elites, it has in my mind the mark of a hoax – a scam, if you will.  The day I see jet-setting global warming enthusiasts move in to a mud hut after leaving one last warning for me, then I’ll sit up and take notice.

 

Advertisements

45 thoughts on “Global Warming Hoax Update

  1. GMB October 15, 2012 / 12:08 am

    It is not if you have any proof or not. It is the seriousness of the accusation. We accuse!! So therefore it is true.

    There I answered for all the lefties out here. No need for anything further. Move along. Next thread please.

    😛

  2. bozo October 15, 2012 / 1:32 am

    MARK’S RIGHT. The latest graph from HadCRUT 4 proves all us loony lefties are completely wrong.

    My bad.

  3. bozo October 15, 2012 / 1:55 am

    Daily Mail says “the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.” Sounds great. Nice words. Here’s the source of the HadCRUT data they are referring to:

    I can’t believe they got it so wrong before the update. We’re saved!

  4. GMB October 15, 2012 / 7:41 am

    “The day I see jet-setting global warming enthusiasts move in to a mud hut after leaving one last warning for me, then I’ll sit up and take notice.”

    Does a seaside mansion in Malibu qualify as a “mud hut”? Does another mansion in Tennessee that consumes more electricity than nine normal homes qualify? Naw never,
    just ask bozo. He’ll tell ya the truth.

    More Ice in the Antarctic than ever recorded before? Yep, globull warming caused it.

    We are doomed. DOOMMMEDD!!! I tellz ya!

  5. patriotdad1 October 15, 2012 / 7:43 am

    Oh, it’s the Daily Mail. Must be true then.

    What a sloppy post, devoid of any real analysis of the issue.

    A slightly more in-depth look at the reason you don’t pick 1998 as the starting point if you are interested in doing science as opposed to wallowing in blind ignorance:

    http://grist.org/article/global-warming-stopped-in-1998/

  6. tiredoflibbs October 15, 2012 / 8:22 am

    More findings to make the leftist drones like patriotdad, creepy assclown and others squeal and squirm:

    IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk

    The InterAcademy Council (IAC) conducted an independent review of the processes and procedures of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Based on this review, the IAC issued a report with recommended measures and actions to strengthen IPCC’s processes and procedures so as to be better able to respond to future challenges and ensure the ongoing quality of its reports.IAC findings:

    The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give “due consideration … to properly documented alternative views” (p. 20), fail to “provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors” (p. 21), and are not “consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses” (p. 22).

    In plain English: the IPCC reports are NOT PEER-REVIEWED.

    The IAC found that “the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors” and “the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents” (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and “do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications” (p. 18).

    Again in plain English: authors are selected from a “club” of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.

    The rewriting of the Summary for Policy Makers by politicians and environmental activists — a problem called out by global warming realists for many years, but with little apparent notice by the media or policymakers — was plainly admitted, perhaps for the first time by an organization in the “mainstream” of alarmist climate change thinking. “[M]any were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might BE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED,” the IAC auditors wrote. The scientists they interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report “TOO POLITICAL” (p. 25).

    Really? Too political? We were told by everyone — environmentalists, reporters, politicians, even celebrities — that the IPCC reports were science, not politics. Now we are told that even the scientists involved in writing the reports — remember, they are all true believers in man-made global warming themselves — felt the summaries were “too political.”

    Here is how the IAC described how the IPCC arrives at the “consensus of scientists”:

    Plenary sessions to approve a Summary for Policy Makers last for several days and commonly end with an all-night meeting. Thus, the individuals with the most endurance or the countries that have large delegations can end up having the most influence on the report (p. 25).

    How can such a process possibly be said to capture or represent the “true consensus of scientists”?

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html#ixzz20mLGz6ss

    As the GOD_FATHER OF GLOBAL WARMING LOVELOCK HAS ACCURATELY STATED the DOOM AND GLOOM PREDICTIONS WERE “INNACURATE” and the SCIENCE was far from “SETTLED”. It is factual that a true PEER-REVIEW of IPCC’s process found that their process was flawed, politically motivated, forced consensus and its conclusions complete crap.

  7. Retired Spook October 15, 2012 / 9:05 am

    We’re so close now; I propose we just wait 3 more years until we hit Al Gore’s 10-year point of no return. If Gore hasn’t sold his Pacific Coast beach house, and if we aren’t experiencing run-away warming by then, we’re good to go. And if we are, well, everything has to end at some point. I mean, it’s not as though any of us are going to get out of this alive.

    Seriously, all one has to do is read the Green Agenda to realize just how much horse hockey this whole issue really is. But hey, if you want to drive a Prius, use CFL’s, and plaster your roof with solar panels and think that you’re doing your part to save the planet, KNOCK YOURSELF OUT! If you want to force me to change my lifestyle to accommodate your delusions, bring it on.

    • bozo October 15, 2012 / 9:29 am

      CFL’s? That was so ten minutes ago.

      Still bashing solar panels? Glad you aren’t my financial adviser. I invested ten grand with a 6 year payback, after which they make me $150-ish in pure tax-free profit for a guaranteed 19 more years. If you know of any other investment where ten grand generates $1800 a year guaranteed for decades, let me know. That’s what Rich Dad Poor Dad puts in the assets column because it feeds me. Oh, and it has saved almost four tons of carbon from being spewed into the air so far this year alone, but who cares about that.

      Al Gore also says if you hit your thumb with a hammer, it’ll hurt (Ok, he didn’t, I just wanna watch you grab a hammer just to prove him wrong).

      • Retired Spook October 15, 2012 / 9:52 am

        Still bashing solar panels?

        Who’s bashing solar panels? I had solar panels on my roof back in 1981. They heated my water from April to October and gave a boost to my closed loop geothermal system from November to March — the first such installation in northeastern Indiana. My current house is in a dense woods, and solar panels would be a waste of money. But as I said, if you benefit from them, KNOCK YOURSELF OUT! How much has the average global temperature dropped since you installed your solar panels? How many households would have to install solar panels before there would be a statistical drop in average global temperature? Would a 1 degree drop in the average global temperature be a good thing or a bad thing? What if man discovers a way to actually affect the global temperature, and they accidentally drop it too much? What then — oops, I guess we screwed up? It’s not nice to screw with Mother Nature.

        Oh, and it has saved almost four tons of carbon from being spewed into the air so far this year alone, but who cares about that.

        You could save another 724 pounds of CO2 per year “being spewed into the air” by just holding your breath

      • J. R. Babcock October 15, 2012 / 1:10 pm

        Bozo,

        Congratulations, you’re part of the 3%.

      • neocon1 October 15, 2012 / 5:06 pm

        blowzo

        If you know of any other investment where ten grand generates $1800 a year guaranteed for decades, let me know

        see hitlery, she turned $1,000.00 into a 100K in a few weeks…..schweeeet

      • neocon1 October 15, 2012 / 5:14 pm

        blowzo

        $1800.00 a year =
        @ .86 cents an HOUR based on a typical work year….BFD!!

  8. GMB October 15, 2012 / 9:15 am

    Pachuri is laughing his behind off at owl bore and the bozo types. All the way to his local bank.

    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Gimme!!!

    • bozo October 15, 2012 / 9:54 am

      I just don’t get the disconnect about solar. You people are all about mining coal to burn for electricity. Mark here is really big on mining. Why do you belittle mining directly from the sun. It’s the exact same end result.

      Here’s coal: sunlight falls on plants a gazillion years ago, before a particular fungus came along which now eats the organic material before it “coal-ifies”. Plants sucked up sunlight and carbon dioxide, then die and get pressed into coal. TNT and giant bulldozers blast it out of the ground, It gets transported to power plants, burned, spews mercury and sulfur and carbon dioxide into the air generating electricity, which is wired across miles and miles of powerlines, the voltage is dropped by a transformer to 110 volts, travels into my toaster, and toasts my bread. The department of water and power charges me $150 a month for this.

      Here’s solar power: sunlight falls on my panels generating electricity, which travels 30 feet into my toaster and toasts my bread. For free after the six year break even point..

      Why is this bad?

      • Retired Spook October 15, 2012 / 10:08 am

        For free after the six year break even point. Why is this bad?

        I don’t see anyone one claiming it’s “bad”. My payback on my hot water solar panels back in the early 80’s was around 7 years, but that was only because of 45% state and federal tax credits. Otherwise it would have been 13 years.

      • tiredoflibbs October 15, 2012 / 12:20 pm

        Uninformed (ignorant) creepy assclown: “Here’s solar power: sunlight falls on my panels generating electricity, which travels 30 feet into my toaster and toasts my bread. For free after the six year break even point..

        Why is this bad?”

        If only it were that simple. Sure it works as long as your batteries/UPS/inverter are at full charge and it is bright and sunny outside! Remove anyone of those, especially on a cold cloudy day(where your panels become useless), you won’t be making toast for very long. Your system is more likely a supplement and not a replacement for more efficient electrical generation. Fully electrical replacement systems are too big and way too expensive for rodeo clowns to afford.

      • dbschmidt October 15, 2012 / 3:07 pm

        I am sure the answer is going to be “none” but how many tax breaks, credits and/or other subsidies did you get on those panels? When I was in S. Fla and it made sense it wasn’t because of the planet but credits and other tax benefits I received to make up the shortfall of the actual panels. I have been following both power & water for a decade or more because I would enjoy being off of the man’s grid. Still not possible without government help which makes about as much sense as “cap n’ trade”.

      • neocon1 October 15, 2012 / 5:29 pm

        a 2-3 year payback is considered good…..the life cycle of most of these products is 5-8 years with some expected repairs and deterioration during that period….not what I would call a good investment.

      • neocon1 October 15, 2012 / 5:33 pm

        Tired

        couple that with the average battery life is 2-3 years and are disasters enviromentally

      • bozo October 16, 2012 / 12:17 am

        My panels have an industry standard warranty of 25 years. What that means is if a panel fails in less than 25 years, I get a replacement. My Sunny Boy inverter has only a 20 year warranty, but that’s still long into the profit phase, not a big portion of the expense, and efficiencies will likely be improved upon in coming years. I’m net metering, so there are no batteries.

        Neo’s right, it’s only about $.86 an hour at current electric rates. For 25 years. Guaranteed. Whether I work or not. On a ten grand investment. Tax free. Maintenance free. $34,000+ net return on a ten grand investment. More if rates go up, less if they go down.

        Pearls before swine, I guess. Spite your faces. I’ve got spare noses I’ll sell you for cheap.

        :o)

      • tiredoflibbs October 16, 2012 / 6:02 am

        The creepy ignorant assclown: ” I’m net metering, so there are no batteries.”

        “Here’s solar power: sunlight falls on my panels generating electricity, which travels 30 feet into my toaster and toasts my bread.”

        Point is, creepy assclown, in your case with no batteries, the sun gets blocked or night falls you are not “toasting any bread” on solar power.

        You have a supplementing system and not a replacement. This is great for offsetting the cost of commercial power, which is still generated through natural gas, coal, nuclear etc. BUT IT IS NOT A REPLACEMENT SYSTEM.

        There, now that I have spelled it out for you, can you stop being so dense as to the actual point.

      • Ricorun October 17, 2012 / 7:23 pm

        tiredoflibbs: You have a supplementing system and not a replacement. This is great for offsetting the cost of commercial power, which is still generated through natural gas, coal, nuclear etc. BUT IT IS NOT A REPLACEMENT SYSTEM.

        Agreed. But why is a SUPPLEMENTING SYSTEM bad? One of the nice things about solar power is that it’s a “load following” technology, meaning that it is most productive when the load on the grid is peaking. What bozo is replacing is the source of electricity when grid prices are highest, and thus helping to level out the load. So it helps both him and everyone around him. Moreover, solar is a particularly good fit for advanced combined cycle natural gas plants, whose operation can be switched rapidly without significant loss in efficiency. As far as I can tell, a supplementing system is a good thing, especially one that replaces grid power when grid power is most expensive.

        For myself, I have not invested in solar panels. The reason is that I invested in better insulation and shading. I installed insulated windows and doors, more insulation in the attic, more efficient attic fans, a new patio cover and deck on the west side of the house, and more fruit trees. Replacing the patio cover and deck weren’t exactly options: dry rot and termite damage made them necessities. And because we did all the work ourselves, it didn’t cost us all that much, about $6K. We’ll recover all that and more just in increased home value (plus, we got a tax break on the cost of the windows, woohoo!). But in so doing we also dropped our average electric bill by more than half (it now hovers around $40/mo) and our gas bill significantly as well (it now hovers around $20/mo). This place used to feel like a blast furnace on hot summer days, but since we made those upgrades we’ve hardly used our AC — or heat, for that matter. Plus, we get to eat home-grown fruit! We have apples, peaches, pears, apricots, guavas, pomengranates, grapefruit, lemons, limes, mangos, kumquats, loquats, bannanas, and prickly pears (otherwise known as nopales). About the only thing we don’t have at the moment is oranges — which is ironic, considering we live in Orange County. Consequently, it’s not cost effective in my case to install solar PV panels, heat pumps, etc.

        I’m not saying my solution will work for everyone. But I think the bottom line is that we have to stop thinking in terms of “either-or” and start thinking in terms of “effective synergies”.

      • tiredoflibbs October 17, 2012 / 8:31 pm

        Rico: “But why is a SUPPLEMENTING SYSTEM bad?”

        Never said it was, you need to improve your reading comprehension. It seems to be a common theme for you.

        The creepster tried to equate electricity from coal and solar power. If you had read his post, you would have seen this.

      • Ricorun October 17, 2012 / 9:54 pm

        tiredoflibbs: Never said it was, you need to improve your reading comprehension. It seems to be a common theme for you.

        Point taken. Be that as it may, after ingesting all I said, what do you REALLY think? Are you inclined to debate any point I made?

      • tiredoflibbs October 18, 2012 / 5:55 am

        No rico, I don’t want to debate the points you made. Those points were made on your ASSumption that I stated creepy’s system was bad, which I did not.

        Distraction, deflection…… that is all you guys have after man-made global warming has been revealed to be a hoax.

        We have already debated this several times and repeating the same exercise and expecting a different outcome is ridiculous.

  9. Cluster October 15, 2012 / 10:55 am

    I wonder if there is any money involved with the global warming issue. Anyone have any ideas?

    • neocon1 October 15, 2012 / 5:34 pm

      cow farts, recover and sell the methane for heating.

  10. Raging Bull October 15, 2012 / 1:48 pm

    1) amount of heat given off by the sun.
    2) the earth’s orbit around the sun.
    3) the tilt of the earth’s axis.

    unless you can figure out how to legislate these things for a more constant average global temperature, you are going to have rises and falls in said temperature. anything else is…to borrow a phrase…MULARKY!

    • neocon1 October 15, 2012 / 4:08 pm

      blowzo

      T-Rex – US Mid west
      Glaciers – US Mid west
      Temperate – US Midwest

      Wha Hoppon??

      • bozo October 16, 2012 / 12:37 am

        Amazing how the aptly named “raging bull” forgot to mention:

        4) atmospheric composition.

        If there were none, we would be as life-friendly as the moon, which gets about the same sun as earth. More methane, which is a very large and potent greenhouse effect molecule, and we’d be hotter. It would be a hysterical omission except that he/she is not alone in this thinking. Congressional science committee members believe this, too.

        Mularky indeed.

      • GMB October 16, 2012 / 8:23 am

        Nice how you avoid the real issue. You have your mother jones talking points down pat.

        Just what is the average temperature of this planet and how do plan on keeping it there? Just how poor do you want people to be? North Korea? Zimbabwe? Tell us bozo what is your model?

        Talk about Stierschisse.

      • Retired Spook October 16, 2012 / 8:59 am

        Just what is the average temperature of this planet and how do plan on keeping it there?

        GMB, ultimately that really is the question, isn’t it? Everything else is just noise.

      • tiredoflibbs October 16, 2012 / 12:13 pm

        Spook & GMB,

        I have asked that question dozens of times to these mindless drones. What is the normal temperature for the planet?

        Also, are we rising towards it or rising away from it?

        Of course, they do not answer them. All they regurgitate is the “noise”!

      • Ricorun October 17, 2012 / 7:45 pm

        GMB: Just what is the average temperature of this planet and how do plan on keeping it there?

        Spook: ultimately that really is the question, isn’t it? Everything else is just noise.

        Most decidedly, that is NOT the ultimate question. The ultimate question is whether society as we know it can sustain a high velocity change in the average temperature. Said in another way, I’m very sure mankind, in and of itself, can survive a high velocity change in average temperature. I am much less sure that the existing economic and political structures can. THAT, to me, is the ultimate question, and everything else is just noise.

  11. Retired Spook October 16, 2012 / 11:26 am

    Here’s a technology I’d like to see become mainstream.

    • Ricorun October 17, 2012 / 7:56 pm

      Me too, Spook. As far as transportation fuels go, CNG is the obvious choice — assuming there is a widely available supply infrastructure. You seem to balk at stringing wires from one place to another, but you seem to be perfectly fine with the concept of stringing pipes from one place to another or, alternatively, sending convoys of trucks from one place to another. How on earth is either more economical than wires???

  12. Retired Spook October 16, 2012 / 2:24 pm

    I think the thing I dislike the most about Climate alarmists is their sheer hypocrisy.

    Somewhat ironically, the computational power comes at a price in moral standing, if one equates having a small carbon footprint with having a high moral ranking. That’s because supercomputers of this scale slurp up electricity at staggering rates. The climate scientists using them will tell you that the end justifies the means in their case, and they could be right. But there’s no getting away from the fact that these individuals are using more electricity than you could ever dream of doing.

    You and a hundred friends could run around your town or city, let yourselves in unlocked doors every time you found one, and turn on all the lights, all the appliances, all the computers, all the televisions, and all the stereos, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, and you wouldn’t touch, you wouldn’t come close, to emitting what these scientists are now emitting, in the name of fighting climate change.

    And the fact that the electricity is coming from coal fired plants in Wyoming because the electric rate is cheaper makes the hypocrisy even more stunning.

    • Ricorun October 17, 2012 / 9:39 pm

      With all due respect, Spook, it seems that your definition of “hypocrite”, in this context, is “one should not depend on the only source of energy available if one’s intent is to change that source of energy in he future”. That may make perfect sense to you, but to me that’s the perfect description of a luddite. And I believe you’re more than that. In fact, you’ve demonstrated much more than that in the past. On this very post you have demonstrated that you were for renewable energy alternatives before you were against them. What has changed? Is it just the election cycle?

  13. Canuckguy October 16, 2012 / 4:02 pm

    From what I have read, the extent of Arctic sea ice at its summertime low point has dropped 40 percent in the past three decades. Is this not something to be really concerned about? Does it not suggest something screwy is happening to the climate? Don’t let a red herring like a fairly marginal increase in the Antarctaric ice increase over the same time period cloud the issue. Mark my words, you deniers will have to eat your words eventually and it will happen sooner than later.

    • Retired Spook October 16, 2012 / 5:29 pm

      Canuck,

      Arctic sea ice is at its lowest summertime extent since we started satellite measurements in 1979. Records prior to that were not very exact. If we were able to prove that it’s at a record low for, say, 1,000 years or 10,000 years, or, if sea level had increased a measureable amount, there might be cause for concern. In a geological time scale, 33 years isn’t even a grain of sand on the beach.

      • Canuckguy October 17, 2012 / 11:05 am

        @ Spook:
        Satellite measurements are a certainly an accurate, convenient and convenient way to see what’s happening. However surely there would be eyes on the ground and aerial information about the previous 60 years prior to 1980 to provide anecdotal information to back up the claim that the arctic ice has seriously retreated from the levels of the early 20th century when industrialization with the attendant burning of fossil fuels was really taking off. Just because the last 100 years is just a blink of the eye relatively speaking in regard to rocks and dinosaurs, it is not with regards to the human condition on this planet.

      • Retired Spook October 17, 2012 / 12:33 pm

        However surely there would be eyes on the ground and aerial information about the previous 60 years prior to 1980 to provide anecdotal information to back up the claim that the arctic ice has seriously retreated from the levels of the early 20th century when industrialization with the attendant burning of fossil fuels was really taking off.

        There were, and there was.

      • Canuckguy October 17, 2012 / 3:47 pm

        @Spook:
        Verrry interrreeesting. It must have warmed the cockles of your climate warming denial heart. I am too lazy to try to track down plausible rebuttals of that line of reasoning so I guess I will just shut up for now.

      • neocon1 October 17, 2012 / 6:44 pm

        canuckg*y

        of course you will and being lazy has nothing to do with stupidity and ignorance.

      • Ricorun October 17, 2012 / 9:50 pm

        Spook: There were, and there was.

        Is that all you’re going to offer — anecdotal evidence from the popular press at the time? Again it appears you were for something — in this case, the MSM — before you were against it.

Comments are closed.