Right to Opine

No, not really. But they are being killed by “green” policies.

Telegraph (UK) It’s the cold, not global warming, that we should be worried about

Freezing temps kill a lot more people than heat. Does that matter to global warming alarmists? Not judging by their actions, which are driving up the cost of heating our homes–and literally killing the poor.

Remember Obama’s desire to make energy prices “skyrocket?” His lofty goal is being accomplished elsewhere to deadly effect.

So global warming alarmist scientists are scrambling to figure out why we haven’t had any warming in approximately twenty years.

Hint: your models are wrong, and so, to a large extent, is the theory upon which they are based. Skeptics have been right to be, well…skeptical. The new consensus–as if that’s how real science were conducted–is that there is no consensus.

Oh, and you owe many apologies for arrogantly and repeatedly using denigrating terms like “denier,” “anti-science,” etc. Like that will ever happen.

Hot on the heels of the latest data debunking global warming, National Geographic has an interview with a NASA researcher whose thinking is clearly muddled.

Trying to explain why the ice off Antarctica is at record-high levels, he muses,

That’s the leading explanation for what we’re seeing…

In other words, they don’t know, but it must be really bad.

Further down he tells us growing sea ice has no effect on sea levels, and follows that up with why melting Arctic ice is bad for sea levels. But Arctic ice is sea ice. If growing sea ice has no impact, how does melting sea ice? You can’t have it both ways…unless the interviewer is on your side and/or isn’t bright enough to ask the obvious.

Repeating ad nauseum that, “It’s all consistent,” doesn’t make it so.

First the good news—for Al Gore and the rest of the catastrophic global warming alarmist crowd. Global warming is over. Ceased. Finito. Fertig. In fact, the news gets even better for you! Global warming ended sixteen years ago. That’s right. You’ve been working yourselves into a lather for nothing for almost two decades. Time to relax. Put away the Xanax. Now you can drive your car and heat or cool your home guilt-free. [What’s that, Al? Right. You never stopped and never experienced guilt for your hypocrisy. Have a seat.]

Now the bad news—for the Goracle and the catastrophic global warming researchers he’s helped fund. Your computer models are wrong. All wrong. Not merely flawed and in need of a tweak here or there. Wrong. You’ve been predicting that as CO2 levels increased because of human activity, the average global temperature would increase as well. The problem is that CO2 emissions have done nothing except increase, but temperatures have flatlined. Back to the drawing board with the lot of you. (So many of you should be ever so thankful for tenure. Results like that would get the rest of us fired.)

This is, of course, bad news for President Obama as well, and the timing couldn’t be worse. Just when he’s coming up for reelection we find out his destructive energy policy has been not only extravagantly expensive and economically disastrous, but wholly unnecessary. Ouch. I suppose it’s entirely coincidental—and rather unfortunate for the Windmill-in-Chief—that conservatives have been making exactly those three points throughout his term.

Now for the really bad news—for the rest of us who are forced to pay the price for this mess. None of this matters to two key groups: environmental Leftists, for whom worship of Gaia has replaced traditional religion; and bureaucratic Leftists, for whom the issue was never the environment anyway, but simply greater control wherever they can grab it. Each will continue to work as hard as possible to throttle our economy and limit our individual freedom.

There is a silver lining, however. Both of the last two groups have coalesced—in the U.S., anyway—into one body: the Democratic Party. For those of us who have maintained some semblance of sanity, this makes the task of identifying and eliminating the real source of hot air much simpler.

When you have an agenda, you can never let facts get in the way of your conclusion. NASA’s most visible global warming alarmist, James Hansen, is banging his drum again with the assistance of a compliant media. As reported by Wendy Koch of USA Today,

The Hansen-led study, published in the December issue of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, said the magnitude of the Earth’s energy imbalance is fundamental to climate science. If the imbalance is positive and more energy enters the system than exits, the Earth warms. If the imbalance is negative, the planet cools.

His conclusion?

This provides unequivocal evidence that the sun is not the dominant driver of global warming.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that this is correct—that the energy imbalance described by the report has a greater effect on global temperatures than the sun. The problem is that, while the imbalance predicts warming, we haven’t seen any for the last decade or so, even as CO2 levels have risen.

Ms. Koch tries to refute this fact, but facts are hard to refute:

On the Wall Street Journal’s opinion page, 16 scientists recently said there’s no need for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy. “Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now,” they wrote without providing data.

Not so, according to U.S. government records. In December, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that all 11 years of the 21st century so far (2001–2011) rank among the 13 warmest in the 132-year period of record.

[Note the italics and links are hers.]

She opens with a smear of the scientists who wrote the WSJ piece. While it’s true that they provided no data, they didn’t need to. It’s widely and publicly available. Her insinuation that these scientists’ claims are unsupported by facts is truly a below-the-belt blow. Consider some of their identities, which she conveniently omits:

• Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; Crafoord Prize for geology, Wollaston Medal of the Geological Society of London, Gold Medal of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
• J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting
• William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University; Alexander von Humboldt Award, Herbert P. Broida Prize, Davisson-Germer Prize, Thomas Alva Edison Patent Award
• William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; American Meteorological Society’s Meisinger and Charney Awards, American Geophysical Union’s Macelwane Medal, Wallin Foundation’s Leo Prize
• Rodney Nichols, former President and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences
• Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service
• Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva

Not exactly a bunch of yahoos. Yes, I realize that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, but it’s important for the reader to know that there are some rather eminent scientists in the list. Fortunately, Ms. Koch supplies the necessary data in her next link, simultaneously displaying either an ignorance of what the data show or a willingness to hide it.

First note that while the scientists in the WSJ point out that warming has been absent for more than a decade, Koch replies with a standard global warming talking point about the last 11 years being among the warmest on record. That’s not a rebuttal. It’s a non sequitur. The point made was that global temperatures aren’t increasing. Koch either doesn’t understand the difference—in which case she’s ignorant of logic—or she does but thinks you’re not smart enough to notice her sleight of hand.

Now consider the following sequence of numbers: 0.54, 0.60, 0.61, 0.56, 0.64, 0.59, 0.58, 0.50, 0.58, 0.64, 0.51. Would you characterize the sequence as increasing or decreasing? Well, a least squares analysis tells us the slope of a line approximating those data points is -0.0024, so the numbers are ever so very slightly decreasing.

Why am I boring you with a math exercise? Those numbers are the published deviations (from the NOAA report Koch cites) of the annual global temperatures from 2001-2011 from the average for the 20th century (in degrees C).

Global warming alarmists are insisting we dismantle our economy in order to combat a threat that can quickly be shown to be non-existent using their own data. Global CO2 emissions have increased significantly over the last decade as emerging economies like India and China have ramped their use of “dirty” energy sources, primarily ultra-evil coal. Global temperatures have not increased—they’ve flat-lined.

Do us all a favor and check the agenda at the door.

If you weren’t asleep last week, you were inundated by the mainstream media’s coverage of Professor Richard Muller and the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures (BEST) group. BEST has conducted an in-depth analysis of surface temperature data spanning the last two centuries, and is releasing four papers regarding temperature data for public and peer review. Muller, in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, wrote,

…let me explain why you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer.

and concluded

Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate.

The reaction from the left was swift. The debate is over. Anyone who still disputes anthropogenic global warming is a “denier”—morally likening skeptics to the cretins who deny the truth of the Holocaust. Yada, yada, yada. A rehash of the same tired ad hominem attacks that have been lobbed by the left for years. In one of the most blatant attacks, the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson blasted,

For the clueless or cynical diehards who deny global warming, it’s getting awfully cold out there.

Not so fast, there, spanky. You see, one of BEST’s own members—Judith Curry, chair of the Dept. of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at no less than Georgia Tech—countered Muller directly in the U.K.’s Daily Mail:

“There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,” she said. “To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.”

Curry further discusses the issue in her own blog. She notes that the data set as analyzed by BEST is, well, the best set currently available and acknowledges that the way the data has been presented hides the truth about global temperatures. (She claims that was “teased” out of her, but does not contradict its accuracy.) To wit, even though CO2 emissions have risen drastically over the last decade, temperatures haven’t—a fact which contradicts the computer models being hyped to scare the general public.

Professor Curry again:

“This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,” Prof Curry said. “Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.”

[The graph to which she refers.]

Despite their best efforts to demonize skeptics, warming alarmists still have a lot of convincing to do. When two notable, respected scientists working on the same team with the same data can draw such disparate conclusions, the scientific debate is far from over.

Remember just a couple years ago when the U.N.’s IPCC issued a report claiming the Himalayan glaciers were melting—due to man-made global warming, er, “climate change”—and would disappear within a few decades? Well, we already had good reason to believe that was false because the head of the panel—Dr. Rajendra Pachauri—has acknowledged the claim was made based on unchecked research, although

he maintained that global warming was melting the glaciers at “a rapid rate”, threatening floods throughout north India.

Well, hold onto your hats, because even that isn’t true.

Researchers have discovered that contrary to popular belief half of the ice flows in the Karakoram range of the mountains are actually growing rather than shrinking.

You read that correctly. And the research was done by scientists at the University of California—not exactly a hotbed of right-wing conservative climate change skepticism.

“Anthropomorphic global warming” is nothing more than a tactic to throttle private industry and increase governmental (and U.N.) control over the economy. This becomes clearer with each new revelation.