Settled Science

At the risk of being called a denier, and/or other names by the AGW mafia, I have to think that their fear driven, money grabbing, power based claims of the “world coming to an end”, might be just a bit premature, if not outright unfounded. As late as 2007, the chief AGW alarmist, Al Gore, predicted that the Arctic Sea would be ice free by 2014. Well considering this recent report, it seems as though he missed the mark:

……seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.

That’s the problem with settled science based on consensus – it’s fact free, and based only on opinion and data. Two measures of which are easily manipulated and influenced by long sought after goals of centralized power and wealth distribution. Take for example, these “science based” conclusions:

– Dr Hawkins added that the decline seen in recent years was not caused only by global warming. It was, he said, intensified by ‘natural variability’ – shifts in factors such as the temperature of the oceans. This, he said, has happened before, such as in the 1920s and 1930s, when ‘there was likely some sea ice retreat’.

– Dr Hawkins said: ‘There is undoubtedly some natural variability on top of the long-term downwards trend caused by the overall warming. This variability has probably contributed somewhat to the post-2000 steep declining trend, although the human-caused component still dominates.’

– Dr Hawkins said these natural processes may be cyclical. If and when they go into reverse, they will cool, not warm, the Arctic, in which case, he said, ‘a decade with no declining trend’ in ice cover would be ‘entirely plausible’.

– Peer-reviewed research suggests that at least until 2005, natural variability was responsible for half the ice decline. But exactly how big its influence is remains an open question – and as both Dr Hawkins and Prof Curry agreed, establishing this is critical to making predictions about the Arctic’s future.

– ‘Ice-free in 2050 is a possible scenario, but I don’t think it is a likely scenario,’ she concluded.

In light of these inconvenient worldly occurrences and shifting scientific opinions, which are resulting in rational people questioning the heretic and apoplectic predictions of AGW alarmists, the UN and our President are now choosing to bypass the rational based crowd and forge agreements on their own to resolve this manufactured crisis. Perhaps they see their window of opportunity to distribute and hijack huge amounts of wealth closing. And of course, championing this effort by our radical President to hurt America’s economy are the legions of leftists who believe that if America would just give up our jobs and wealth first, other nations will follow:

President Obama “is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement” but “without ratification from Congress,….the U.N. framework gives poor countries a voice, and hence a means for extracting aid in return for their consent to a climate treaty. As I’ve explained, you can have either climate justice (meaning compensation for poor countries hardest hit by climate change) or a climate treaty—not both……………By citing an international agreement, by contrast, government lawyers may be able to convince courts that our regulations will in fact accomplish something, by inspiring reciprocal action by foreign governments.

The left driven agenda of “climate change” has never been about rational, fact based concerns of staving off “the end of times”. It has always been a purely political driven agenda with goals of centralizing power and control over national economies and redistributing wealth into the hands the noble worldly elite. To date, these goals have been not as transparent, but considering that the world’s climate just isn’t cooperating with the “consensus models”, I think millions of people are starting to wake up and disagree with this agenda and see it for what it is. What millions of people will agree with I think, are sensible plans to carefully extract our vast reserves of natural gas and crude oil and lessen our dependence on unstable, violent countries, while at the same time incentivizing entrepreneurs and the private markets to find a sustainable, cleaner and viable greener energy platform, and that is a winning strategy the GOP should pounce on.

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “Settled Science

  1. Amazona August 31, 2014 / 11:27 am

    CLIMATE JUSTICE !! ????? You’ve got to be kidding me!

    And you’ve got to love the effort to weasel out of the undeniable fact that “There is undoubtedly some natural variability…” by tacking on the inevitable “….although the human-caused component still dominates…” Of course no one has actually IDENTIFIED this “human-caused component” with any degree of certainty, aside from the ideological certainty that comes from the need to see what others do not and therefore establish cred as being not only smarter but more moral.

    And this is what the American Left, the unexamined Liberals who vote Liberal without the slightest understanding that the issues that attract them are really a stalking horse for a brutal and despotic political system, is really all about. They begin with a vague sense of being, somehow, smarter and better than other people, but without any way to substantiate this conviction they turn to issues which let them claim the Higher Moral Ground (and Higher
    Intellectual Ground) without doing anything more strenuous than BELIEVING. When we challenge what they have decided to believe, we are really challenging not the belief itself but the accompanying sense of moral and intellectual superiority, which is why these beliefs are so strenuously defended, to the point of frantic hysteria.

    And their minders, from above, pulling the strings and feeding the delusions, snicker at their gullibility and (as in the case of Gore) rake in the big bucks, while racking up political power.

  2. Cluster August 31, 2014 / 1:46 pm

    Furthermore, from a recent Pew poll – 68 percent of Democrats believe that global climate change is a major threat to the United States, compared to just 25 percent of Republicans. In contrast, 65 percent of Democrats believe that ISIS is a major threat, three points less than climate change.

    I have an idea. Let’s tell Democratic voters that ISIS is denying women access to healthcare and contraception. That will fire them up.

    http://www.people-press.org/2014/08/28/as-new-dangers-loom-more-think-the-u-s-does-too-little-to-solve-world-problems/

    • Amazona August 31, 2014 / 3:40 pm

      “Let’s tell Democratic voters that ISIS is denying women access to healthcare and contraception. That will fire them up. ”

      You mean like they have been so “fired up” about female genital mutilation, and/or the stoning to death of any woman accused of infidelity or of being raped, or of “honor killings” of Muslim girls by their families for crimes such as wearing Western clothes, listening to Western music, or being outside the home without being escorted by a male relative?

      No, their outrage is reserved for those who expect them to pay for their own contraception even if it means passing up a couple of venti lattes a month.

      Sorry, Cluster, but there is no limit to Leftist hypocrisy, even in the sacred area of “women’s issues“, as I first learned when so-called feminists referred to one of Bill Clinton’s many accusers as “too ugly to rape”.

      I know you know this, and were just being sarcastic, but I couldn’t pass it up……………

    • Amazona August 31, 2014 / 3:49 pm

      I think it is possible to be concerned about “global climate change” without thinking it is man-made or that we can/should try to do anything about it.

      If I were to believe that the temperature of the globe is going up, yes, I would be concerned, because I know that this could contribute to droughts, leading to famine and possibly even starvation in some parts of the world if the increase were to be more than the change that would simply result in greater food production and less spent on energy to keep warm. Yeah, I could see that as a possible problem. If the question were to be limited to that, I might answer yes. But that would not mean I think the change is anything but a natural fluctuation in climate, as we have seen over eons in the earth’s history, or that it is caused by man, or that we could do a thing about it, or that any impact we might have would be worth the cost.

      And keep in mind, “global climate CHANGE” can just as easily mean entering a new Little Ice Age, which I would definitely see as a potential threat and problem. Still not focusing on why it would be happening, though, aside from moving farther away from a giant ball of fire in the sky, or there might be anything we could do about it.

      • Cluster September 1, 2014 / 9:19 am

        The genius behind the “climate change” issue is that the climate is always changing. And It’s real easy to manipulate the LIV’s into thinking that natural weather events are catastrophic, unprecedented and a result of climate change which is obviously negatively impacted by our hedonistic life styles. The truth of the matter is however that CO2 levels continue to rise while temperatures stabilize, ice shelfs grow and the frequency of hurricanes decline. It’s sometimes hard to believe that we continue to have this conversation with an ideology that has gotten everything else wrong too.

      • Amazona September 1, 2014 / 9:58 pm

        I realized this whole thing was bogus when none of the acolytes would admit to there being any positive aspect of the world warming up a degree or two. The benefits are obvious—–more food, less energy used to survive, , to name just a couple—but they were steadfastly ignored or denied. It seemed clear to me than any honest discussion would start with this and then, if there is proof of a downside to this minor increase, move on to the negatives. When there was no admission of any benefit to a minor increase, I realized the goal was not to examine the phenomenon of a slight increase in temperature but to stir up panic.

      • Retired Spook September 2, 2014 / 10:36 am

        I realized this whole thing was bogus when none of the acolytes would admit to there being any positive aspect of the world warming up a degree or two.

        That and the alarmists can’t say what’s normal. If you don’t know whether we’re still warming up to normal or we’re above normal, then the whole catastrophic warming/climate change argument falls apart.

  3. tiredoflibbs September 2, 2014 / 12:12 pm

    “That and the alarmists can’t say what’s normal. If you don’t know whether we’re still warming up to normal or we’re above normal, then the whole catastrophic warming/climate change argument falls apart.”

    I have asked that very question several times here and at the other “blog”. The response I get is either “crickets”, “That is a stupid question!” (obviously over their little heads) or “That is irrelevant. The climate is changing….. (or the earth is warming, whatever their argument du jour is)”.

    They can’t answer the question (or logically they don’t want to). As you said, their whole argument falls apart. It is amazing how indoctrination makes the progressives so ill informed (“stupid” would be a better description, but we know how they whine).

    • Retired Spook September 2, 2014 / 12:31 pm

      And since the effect of CO2 on the temperature isn’t anywhere near what the models initially showed, they also can’t argue that reducing CO2 will have X effect on temperature/climate. When I got off active duty from the navy back in the early 70’s, our first house was next to a small farm. I got to know the farmer, and I recall him saying that his corn yield was around 50 bushels an acre. Average yields this summer are touted as being in the 200 bushel range, and a local farmer who was interviewed on the news last week estimated that it may be closer to 250 bushels per acre. Record soybean crops are also forecast. Now a lot of that increase is due to improved planting techniques, better fertilizer and hybrid corn varieties, but a not insignificant part of it is due to higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. There’s a reason why greenhouses artificially increase their CO2 from the atmospheric level of around 380 or 390 PPM to 1,100 to 1,200 PPM. It’s freakin’ plant food. If Liberals are so concerned about the level of CO2, they could all collectively hold their breath, and the effect would be substantially greater than driving a Prius, switching to CFL’s, and installing solar panels on their roofs.

  4. J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) September 2, 2014 / 4:47 pm

    If Liberals are so concerned about the level of CO2, they could all collectively hold their breath

    Or collectively stop exhaling. That would solve an imaginary problem as well as a real problem (getting rid of lots of Liberals.)

  5. Retired Spook September 3, 2014 / 10:26 am

    I was catching up on our morning paper from being gone to Las Vegas over the holiday weekend. The letters to the editor on Sunday contained one of the funniest GW/CC alarmist letters I’ve ever read. Of course it repeatedly used the “denier” word for skeptics, or those like me who believe the whole thing is a fraud and a scam. It likened us to the leaders of Europe leading up to WW1 with our heads in the sand and exhibiting the same “stupidity, arrogance and egotism, which may (yes, he did concede the word, ‘may’) result in pain to hundreds of millions of people and seriously disrupt the existing economic and political orders of the day. These effects could reverberate for many millennia.” And then he finishes up with this brain-dead gem:

    “Like it or not, it is only governmental initiatives and regulation in the U.S.A. that can have a significant effect in reducing greenhouse gases Unfortunately, the U.S. leads the world in the per capita causation of climate change. It would be amoral for anyone in the Fort Wayne area not to support judicious, practical and scientific-based changes needed to reduce climate change.” I was literally laughing out loud by the time I finished his screed.

    When an el Nino brought us a particularly hot year in 1998 (or was it 1997?), climate scientists had to manipulate the numbers to show that it was hotter than 1934, but it was still a hot year, and probably the only time in this debate when I might have labeled myself a skeptic rather than an outright denier. It certainly looked like the alarmists might actually be onto something if the trend continued. But then the temperature began to level off, as if this glorious planet had some sort of unknown, built-in safety mechanism. Still the alarmists continued unabated. Al Gore made his famous pronouncement in January, 2006, that we only had a 10-year window to avoid catastrophe. (will the media even report it when 2016 is cooler than 2006? I wouldn’t bet on it) The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere maintained its linear rise, but the temperature didn’t. Didn’t matter to the alarmists. Since the temperature had plateaued at the level of the late 90’s, many of the years since have been in the top-10 hottest years ever — well, ever since whenever it was this hot the last time it was this hot. For many, if not most Liberals, history began when they were born, and anything prior to that is subject to revision. Actually, I think a great number of Liberals just “adjust” history on the fly to suit their narrative. Anyway, I ramble. It’ll be interesting to see how they react if the lull in the temperature rise and the lull in tornadic activity continues. At some point, they’ll have to find a new fake crisis to use as a wealth re-distribution scheme.

  6. Cluster September 4, 2014 / 8:31 am

    It needs to be pointed out that all of us have been called deniers and liars by one of our well known heretic true believers, and he cites a blog from Slate to prove us all wrong.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/09/01/global_warming_denial_claims_of_arctic_ice_recovering_are_exaggerated.html

    The funny thing is though is that the Slate author concedes that the article is fact:

    It’s technically true, but also really wrong

    It’s wrong because we are all too stupid to draw the proper conclusion and that is that the ice mass deviance is still well below ….. wait for it …… NORMAL. There’s that word. What is normal in an ever changing climate??? The Slate author also ignores the prediction years ago by the sages of the climate change movement that the Arctic ice would essentially be gone by now. That the frequency of “Katrina” like storms would increase, and that coastal towns would be in peril. I pointed this out to him once before that when you get so many things wrong, your credibility suffers greatly and that’s the problem with the climate change movement – that have gotten so much wrong that they just have no credibility left.

    • Retired Spook September 4, 2014 / 10:17 am

      and he cites a blog from Slate to prove us all wrong.

      Cluster,

      You may recall a while back I posted a three part series entitled “Discussion with a Liberal”. The guy with whom I had the discussion was the husband of an old girl friend. He and I had the same discussion via email about GW/CC. He threw all the traditional leftist arguments at me, and I countered with all the facts, including the most damning of all, the leaders of the climate change hysteria having their emails hacked, not once but twice, in which they lament that the temperature has stopped rising, and admit to having perverted the peer-review process and to having manipulated and falsified data to create models that supported their theory. But I told him — bottom line — that there just isn’t any empirical proof of what they claim to be true. He responded with, “OK, how about this?” and he sent me a link to a (are you sitting down?) a “Rolling Stone” article. I am not making that up. I responded with some snide comment about that respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal, “Rolling Stone”. I discovered that Liberals don’t like being ridiculed and made fun of, and he ended the conversation abruptly. I haven’t heard from him since. Liberals are just wired differently — they don’t have a ground wire, and their polarity is reversed.

  7. Retired Spook September 4, 2014 / 10:21 am

    That the frequency of “Katrina” like storms would increase

    And the fact that it hasn’t hasn’t stopped the Left from claiming that it HAS, in spite of ample published empirical evidence that it hasn’t. I’m not sure how you deal with such people other than to ignore them. They are all talk and no walk, and their numbers are dwindling to the point where, in a few years, they’ll be an historical footnote.

  8. Retired Spook September 5, 2014 / 12:04 pm

    Waiting at O’Hare Airport Monday afternoon for our plane from Chicago to Fort Wayne, I observed a a large display on the wall across from our gate. (United has installed 4 commuter gates in the area where the free-standing glass case is in one of the photos). The gist of much of the display is the alarming disappearance of glaciers, as if large ice flows are somehow essential to human life. What alarmists never seem to be able to admit or comprehend is that glaciers come and go.

    • tiredoflibbs September 6, 2014 / 8:55 am

      Just a few short weeks ago, the left had their panties in a bunch and jumping up and down screeching “See! It is from climate change!”, when a large sheet of ice separated from the mainland in Antarctica. They had their moment! They were thrilled to be given a new reason to spew their propaganda of man made climate change…. until……

      … it was revealed the separation was due to volcanic activity rather than their pet propaganda topic and drive to “fundamentally transform this country”.

      I notice the trolls are attempting to sneak back in. Apparently, they have lost all interest in the other blog with such deep thinking topics as “tweet of the day”, “Sarah Palin is…..” and “Why B4V sucks….”. They have been citing far left special interest blogs as their sources and proof of “empirical evidence” though they post none of it and try to defend it. What losers!

      • Retired Spook September 6, 2014 / 9:10 am

        with such deep thinking topics as “tweet of the day”, “Sarah Palin is…..” and “Why B4V sucks….”.

        Yeah, that’s what happens when you have no guiding principles, and you don’t really believe in anything of substance. Sooner or later you run out of things to talk about, and rolling around in the mud just gets old. When was the last time you heard a Liberal actually express an original idea — about anything? The thing I’ve always wondered is why they’re so invested in climate change. I know a number of people who buy into man-made GW/CC at some level, but I don’t know a single person who is actually changing anything in their personal lives — doing their part, as it were, to help solve what they perceive to be a catastrophic problem.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) September 6, 2014 / 7:01 pm

        The thing I’ve always wondered is why they’re so invested in climate change.

        As opposed, for example, to a couple generations with $1.2 trillion in collective student loan debt, a $17 trillion national debt that can’t result in anything but crushingly higher taxes and a lower standard of living for generations to come, and the threat of global Islamic extremism.

      • Retired Spook September 7, 2014 / 9:21 am

        That’s always puzzled me as well, J.R.; there are so many more important challenges to mankind that can be addressed in the here and now — clean air, clean water, communicable diseases, higher standards of living through economic growth, in addition to the three you mentioned. In most polls, GW/CC falls at or near the bottom in the list of global priorities. The only rational explanation is to FOLLOW THE MONEY and THE GREEN AGENDA. The Greens are spending tens of billions of dollars to promote the idea of man-made climate change, and the more they spend, the fewer people believe the nonsense. It really is insidious, if you stop to think about it. The Left claims to care about the less fortunate, and yet their goal is to eventually rid the planet of such people. And the last thing they want to give the poor and down-trodden is a pathway to prosperity. It’s exactly the same thing they’ve done to blacks — pretend to care while simultaneously destroying the black family unit.

      • Cluster September 7, 2014 / 1:07 pm

        In most polls, GW/CC falls at or near the bottom in the list of global priorities.

        It’s the same thing with immigration in polls of domestic priorities but that doesn’t stop the President, Harry Reid or other Democrats from thinking otherwise and demagoguing the issue. I also love this:

        http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2014/09/06/maddow-mopes-about-all-poor-president-obama-has-his-plate-arent

        The apologists for Obama are blaming his incompetence and failures on just an overwhelming set of unfortunate circumstances.

Comments are closed.