Despite the hot weather we’ve seen this month, August has not been good for global warming alarmists. I’ve often wondered how the alarmists would spin it if observed meteorological data didn’t back up their apocalyptic forecasts. I recently got my answer.
A group of British researchers have published an article in “Science” to attempt to explain why natural weather variations have offset the effects of global warming for the past couple of years, and, so they predict, will continue to keep temperatures down through next year.
According to Breitbart.com, which summarizes the paper, “…global warming will begin in earnest in 2009, and a couple of the years between 2009 and 2014 will eclipse 1998, the warmest year on record to date, in the heat stakes, British meteorologists said.”
Furthermore, “Existing global climate computer models tend to underestimate the effects of natural forces on climate change, so for this analysis, Met Office experts tweaked their model to better reflect the impact of weather systems such as La Nina, or fluctuations in ocean heat and circulation.”
Problem #1: 1998 is not the warmest year on record to date. Just as the “Science” article hit mailboxes, it was revealed that NASA had quietly fixed flawed temperature data that showed 1998 to be the warmest year on record. The error was caught not by NASA, but by Steve McIntyre, a Toronto resident, who operates the website climateaudit.org. McIntyre discovered the flaw after investigating the data and the methods NASA used to arrive at their results.
The fix lowered the 1998 temperature by a few hundredths of a degree — enough to push it back to second place. This highlights another flaw with the data used by climatologists, who make their conclusions based on fractions of a degree that far exceed the instrument error of the thermometers that are used to tabulate such data.
In short, the warmest year on record is 1934. Five of the 10 warmest years on record occurred before World War II. So my question is what was causing global warming before WWII?
Problem #2: The British researchers, in trying to prove global warming, unwittingly undo it with the revelation “Global climate computer models tend to underestimate the effects of natural forces on climate change.”
Are these the same computer models that are being used to forecast the weather 1, 5, 10, 50, even 100 years in advance — the same forecasts that are being used to frighten the public into believing the Great Global Warming Hoax — the same forecasts that are being used to suggest policies that literally involve spending trillions of dollars of tax revenue, scale back lifestyles, and punish wealthy nations? If so, said researchers have just illustrated that their global warming models are junk.
Problem #3: “Natural weather variations have offset the effects of global warming for the past couple of years.”
Is it safe to say, then, that nature is more powerful than man? If that is the case, then the global warming alarmists who put this research out just refuted the case for man-made global warming. Up to this point, climatologists have admitted they are perplexed when it comes to trying to separate man-made influences on climate (if they exist) from natural variation. Thus, it is certainly possible that man, despite all of his industrial activity, may be inconsequential when it comes to climate change.
Problem #4: “But global warming will begin in earnest in 2009.”
There isn’t a meteorologist alive who can accurately predict the weather two years in advance. Weather forecasters have a tough enough time accurately forecasting the weather a week out. Yet a global warming alarmist can issue a forecast years ahead of time, and followers will treat that forecast as though it’s infallible, even though hurricane forecasts the last two years, for example, have been a bust.
I am convinced that the global warming issue will sooner or later collapse under the weight of its lack of scientific veracity. With each year, the crackpot theories issued by global warming scientists become more ridiculous. Two recent examples illustrate that point.
Chris Goodall, author of “How to Live a Low-Carbon Life,” suggests that walking to the store is more damaging to the environment than going by car. According to the UK Times, “Food production is now so energy-intensive that more carbon is emitted providing a person with enough calories to walk to the shops than a car would emit over the same distance. The climate could benefit if people avoided exercise, ate less and became couch potatoes. Provided, of course, they remembered to switch off the TV rather than leaving it on standby.”
Of course, this flies in the face of everything we’ve been heretofore told by global warming alarmists regarding the harmful effects of our automobiles. Don’t believe for a second that they have scientific consensus on their side. The theories put out by global warming alarmists are as varied and contradictory as you will ever see.
In a separate story, this from the UK Guardian, we are told that global warming will lead to increased seismic activity. “As sea levels climb higher so a response from the world’s volcanoes becomes ever more likely, and perhaps not just from volcanoes. Loading of the continental margins could activate faults, triggering increased numbers of earthquakes, which in turn could spawn giant submarine landslides.”
That theory, which is devoid of any real science, was put out by Bill McGuire, who authored the book “Surviving Armageddon: Solutions For a Threatened Planet.” So, if we are to believe global warming alarmists, you saps who insist on exercising walking to the store are going to be responsible for more volcanoes, earthquakes, and submarine landslides by your activity. Tsk, tsk.
Global warming is a religion, which explains the previous reference to Armageddon, and why people like Al Gore refer to global warming as a moral and spiritual issue. Since factual analysis actually destroys global warming, it takes religious-like faith to believe the wild stories and predictions of doom put out by global warming alarmists.
On the other hand, every “solution” suggested by the leftists who believe this stuff involves higher taxes, bigger government, and more regulation. In short, the left uses global warming to tell the rest of us how we are supposed to live, and telling the rest of society how to live is a staple of liberalism. Global warming is simply the vehicle that carries them there. We are supposed to make personal and economic sacrifices on behalf of the planet that those who lecture us are unwilling to make themselves (Al Gore, for example).
So, in order to counter the higher taxes, bigger government, and more regulation demanded by global warming alarmists, if we’re going to have separation of church and state, then we also need separation of global warming and state.
