ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, May 18, 2013

The scam collapses

It is becoming gradually clear, even to the True Believers in the Scientific Consensus, that the Global Warming Fairy isn't arriving after all:
The Economist, which (despite a recent decline) remains probably the best news magazine in the English language, now admits that (a) global average temperature has been flat for 15 years even as CO2 levels have been rising rapidly, (b) surface temperatures are at the lowest edge of the range predicted by IPCC climate models, (c) on current trends, they will soon fall clean outside and below the model predictions, (c) estimates of climate sensitivity need revising downwards, and (d) something, probably multiple things, is badly wrong with AGW climate models.
Something is badly wrong with AGW climate models?  You don't say.  It won't be long before they'll be similarly admitting that there is something badly wrong with the TENS models... or at least, they would if such models even existed.

Talk of "global warming" and even "climate change" has become so sparse these days that I actually had to dust off the post label.

Labels:

57 Comments:

Blogger Astrosmith May 18, 2013 9:05 AM  

I recently visited the national ice core lab with our homeschool group, and asked the guy a LOT of questions about this. I basically said, CO2 is rising, but so what? His response was that even if it is a very small part of the atmosphere, the concern was that the relative concentration of CO2 to everything else was changing do rapidly.

Ok, fine, but that still doesn't mean that it's causing global warming, when there are so many more heavily weighted variables involved.

Anonymous Mr Peabody May 18, 2013 9:12 AM  

You really fleeced those climate change disciples of yours.

Damn good gig while it lasted eh, Mr. Gore?

Anonymous educated professor May 18, 2013 9:13 AM  

Climate change is still real, no matter how much you deny it (fishing for Koch Bros $$$ are ya Theo?)

Anonymous Susan May 18, 2013 9:16 AM  

Since I am old enough to have lived through the early 1970's(high school), I can remember that we were told back then it was going to be a period of global COOLING that we should expect. That appears to me to be what has been happening for the past couple of years or so. Doesn't surprise me that the GW scam is collapsing under its own weight. What surprised me about this is how many sheeple believed Al Gorezeera about this subject.

I believe God had some fun with this because every time it was announced that manbearpig was speaking somewhere on GW, the worst weather in recorded history would hit that area. Has been very amusing.

Blogger A May 18, 2013 9:19 AM  

Not saying CO2 did it, but how did the northwest passage open up so quickly with arctic summer ice melt?

Anonymous Roundtine May 18, 2013 9:19 AM  

Hilarious. I saw this headline this morning and thought climate change must be in real trouble: Climate Change Consensus Tracked
A 2012 poll found that 43 percent of Americans believe scientists disagree on whether climate change is caused by human activities. A new study emphasizes just how wrong they were. Not only is there scientific consensus on the causes of greenhouse warming, there’s near-unanimity.
Absolutely zero science, only an appeal to authority.

Anonymous Mr Peabody May 18, 2013 9:26 AM  

It's starting to get good.

The global warmists will get even more shrill, angry, and desperate.

More entertaining to watch then a Three Stooges marathon.

Anonymous Van May 18, 2013 9:29 AM  

I had a colleague who could study information, and recall the gist of the text, but was incapable of correctly applying it to a real world scenario, demonstrating zero actual understanding of the information. Wrong nearly every time she voiced i
An opinion, yet so supremely confident. Even after a week long training session, in which she spoke up three or four times a day, only to be corrected by the instructor. Each time she would simply cock her head to the side with a perplexed look on her face, like a dog who doesn't understand a new command from his master.

Each incident was taken as isolated, and in her mind, an aberration. The pattern went unrecogized. She was, of course, very liberal, and the same lack of pattern recognition exists for them politically. Wrong over and over, but each time is assumed to be an isolated aberration.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard May 18, 2013 9:31 AM  

To Roundtine:

"I cannot fathom how Reagan won the election. Nobody I know voted for him!"

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni May 18, 2013 9:33 AM  

As to the Northwest Passage, has it really opened up? Wouldn't there be dozens of Scalzis tweeting from ships going through it and sending pictures to prove how little ice there was left, just to irritate anti-AGW-ers?

Anonymous Van May 18, 2013 9:35 AM  

"Climate change is real"...even if the data says it's not happening.

How very scientific, professor.

Blogger GF Dad May 18, 2013 9:36 AM  

Climate change is indeed real. Anthropogenic climate change is a crock. Three things to consider:

We have no way of knowing what percentage of the increase in CO2 levels is caused by humanity.

The relationship between CO2 and warming hasn't been established on a clear cause and effect.basis. We don't know if the "climate records" show CO2 leads or lags warning.

Finally, I do not believe the test methodology is such that we can even believe the accuracy of the "data". The measurements they're claiming to have made are at the very limits of the lab instruments they're using. When you factor in the inconsistencies in sampling methods, these so called climate scientists are looking at noise and pulling out their conclusions - think Rorschach test as an interpretive method.

Blogger GF Dad May 18, 2013 9:39 AM  

And when I say "climate change is real", I mean that climate has changed and is changing. Whether we can predict that is another matter, though I think lack of sunspot activity is a decent leading indicator of cooling.

Anonymous Van May 18, 2013 9:43 AM  

Of course climate change is real, but clearly the Professor Goldenrod was referring to anthropogenic cc, and tbhe specific predictions thereof.

Blogger tz May 18, 2013 9:45 AM  

But the libosphere is still touting, we had earth day, and Mr. Hockey Stick Mann is the second entry touting the 400ppm (y2k like we are all gonna die!) measurement - which was revised downward, so we aren't even there yet.

I'm quite sure Thomas Malthus was not the first with a "we're all gonna die in a few years from progress" (IIRC, Aristotle worried about smoke from fires filling the crystal dome of the heavens). But we look back on "the dark ages" and wondered at their credulity over various panics (though the Black Death was real). It may be apocryphal, but there is a story about a young monk when asked how many teeth a horse has suggested (instead of thinking philosophically) they just find a horse and count. And was derided for it.

when with our increased ability to actually determine what nature actually does, instead of doing so, they will listen to the priests of panic in their lab-coats.

There are real dangers, and real problems we can solve, but it is easier to worry about something silly and stupid. If we are descendants of the B ark, we have devolved.

Blogger tz May 18, 2013 9:46 AM  

@GF Dad - and methane is a worse greenhouse gas, so we need to kill all the ruminants. And force everyone to use Beano.

Blogger redlegben May 18, 2013 9:53 AM  

CERN's research on the global cosmic rays explains why the climatologists are wrong. CO2 isn't the cloud seeder they thought it was. Also as the sun decreases in output (cyclically) more GCRs come through the solar wind. Those GCRs seed the clouds creating a warming blanket for the Earth when solar output decreases temporarily.

It's almost like someone or some thing designed it to work that way.

Blogger Astrosmith May 18, 2013 10:00 AM  

Scientists say that Venus is so hot because its atmosphere is 96% CO2, and that it has a "runaway greenhouse effect". Yet that is not because its atmosphere is CO2, but that it is so much denser at the surface.

A better comparison would be to look at Venus' atmosphere where it has the same pressure as Earth's. this is at 55km altitude and up. And guess what? In that part of Venus' atmosphere, the temperature is only 17% higher than Earth's. why would that be? Venus is closer to the sun, and gets about 17% more radiated energy!

So we only have to worry about CO2 causing significant warming if it becomes a lot more than 400 ppm of our atmosphere. We would need enough that it would actually increase atmospheric pressure!

Anonymous Athol Kay: Married Man Sex Life May 18, 2013 10:01 AM  

Like Susan I remember being taught back in the day the earth was going into global cooling too.

I think "Don't pour crap into the air and water like douchebags" is a reasonable expectation though.

Blogger stareatgoatsies May 18, 2013 10:04 AM  

I'm unconvinced either way (systemic pro-AGW bias yes, AGW actually occurring etc I just don't know), but what is the skeptics' response to the argument that since most of the heat is stored in the oceans, and the deep ocean temperatures have been rising, that "overall" global warming is accelerating?

Anonymous Van May 18, 2013 10:05 AM  

A Kay-

Opponents of the left should adopt the language of the left and propose "commonsense" solutions to "realworld" environmental problems. Mainly just to piss them off.

Blogger Nate May 18, 2013 10:06 AM  

"I think "Don't pour crap into the air and water like douchebags" is a reasonable expectation though."

provided we have a reasonable definition of "crap".

Blogger GF Dad May 18, 2013 10:06 AM  

Not the ruminants!!!

Though, my daughter has a dairy goat that we could contribute to the cause.

Actually, on an episode of Seaquest, they hinted that they had killed all the cows to prevent global warming.

Anonymous JP May 18, 2013 10:10 AM  

Of course, the Establishment will soon enough come up with a new high-sounding reason to impose total control over the economy, politics, and society.

Or, they'll just quit pretending that they need a "scientific" rationale for their greed and power-lust.

All your stuff are belong to us... because we can!


Anonymous kawaika May 18, 2013 10:24 AM  

Time for a national discussion on what will happen to those who shrieked about climate criminals.

OpenID simplytimothy May 18, 2013 10:37 AM  

Never forget what they advocated doing to us

Anonymous zen0 May 18, 2013 10:38 AM  

This should prove interesting. A local university professor here who was part of a group that got a nobel prize for climate change research just got elected to the provincial legislature.

Now that he is a politician, his B.S. is fair game for criticism.

Anonymous Hyperphrenius May 18, 2013 11:45 AM  

Talk of "global warming" and even "climate change" has become so sparse these days that I actually had to dust off the post label.

The pushing of the idea that catastrophic AGW is real has been largely funded by a cabal of international corporatists who wished to create a new international regulatory body that they could then manipulate to their own economic advantage. More crony capitalism on a global scale was what they desired.

But said cabal seem to have given up on their efforts. Perhaps they did not feel they were getting a big enough return on all the money they were investing. Maybe their opposition was too strong. Perhaps the depression has harmed their financial stability, made them less likely to toss around their money.

Ultimately, we've been hearing less about "global warming" because it was only ever a ruse to get people to go along with whatever new scheme a bunch of corporatists were trying to foist on humanity. Just like most every panic or big, important issue in the news these days. For whatever reason the alarmist-corporatists have eased up on pushing that ruse. Well, at least for now. "International regulatory body" is a progressive ideal. So any corporatists who attempt to create such a body will always have an eager base. Whether it comes with the excuse of "fighting climate change" or not, the progressives will support it, as trustingly and irrationally as they supported the last attempt.

Anonymous Mr Peabody May 18, 2013 11:49 AM  

Let's say you have a young daughter and she develops a painful lump on her neck. The horrific thought of cancer sends chills down your spine. You take her to the doctor and after a time of desperate prayer and waiting the tests come back. The smiling doctor says that the lump is benign and there is nothing to worry about. You thank and praise God. You take your daughter out for ice cream. Life is wonderful.

Contrast that to the way climate change alarmist would react to the incontrovertible evidence and good news that their precious planet is doing fine and that there is no cause for worry.

NOOOOOOOOO!

Ironically the worst news that they could possible have thrust upon them is that their agenda for "green" tyranny is collapsing.

Anonymous rycamor May 18, 2013 11:54 AM  

From ESR's discussion thread:

Winter on Tuesday, April 2 2013 at 9:05 am said:

@Michael
“So, in conclusion, I’m trusting that there isn’t a global conspiracy”

The basic problem for Libertarians is that if AGW exists, it cannot be solved by a free market, but would require government intervention.


Sigh...

Anyone even remotely involved with government programs for the environment knows it always works out to just the opposite. Want to know who the biggest polluters are? Government-owned parks and the Department of Transportation.

Forced to separate out your recyclables and refuse? Great, now you have two sets of trucks driving through your neighborhood to pick up trash. And you pay more for that privilege.

One of the greatest things for the environment would be for every household to have a garden. Just try turning your front yard into a garden and watch local government come down on you like a ton of bricks.

Just like population control, these things in fact do sort themselves much more smoothly if we keep government hand-outs out of the picture, and let people act as free agents, held responsible for their own actions.

Of course there is a way to deal with polluters and it is through property rights law, not enviro-citizen law. If you dump something upstream that fouls someone else's fishing spot, of course you should be held responsible. Simple, common sense, so of course, leftists find it completely unsexy.

Anonymous Clay May 18, 2013 12:13 PM  

You people.


I have a polar bear in my backchard, right now. And I live in Mississippi. Poor critters.

Wait a sec! I think that's a Furry.

Lemme get my rifle.

Blogger WATYF May 18, 2013 12:14 PM  

"I think "Don't pour crap into the air and water like douchebags" is a reasonable expectation though."

provided we have a reasonable definition of "crap".


...and "pour".


WATYF

Anonymous rycamor May 18, 2013 12:23 PM  

Nate May 18, 2013 10:06 AM

"I think "Don't pour crap into the air and water like douchebags" is a reasonable expectation though."

provided we have a reasonable definition of "crap".


Well, real crap can be quite good for the environment.

Blogger IM2L844 May 18, 2013 12:24 PM  

these things in fact do sort themselves much more smoothly if we keep government hand-outs out of the picture, and let people act as free agents, held responsible for their own actions.

Absolutely! I would submit that I am far more energy and environmentally conscious than the average screaming moonbat, but for completely different reasons. It's strategically benficial for my personal plans to maintain a relatively safe and comfortable lifestyle on the cheap while Rome burns well into my golden years.

Anonymous Anonagain May 18, 2013 12:38 PM  

Truth always escapes from the torture chamber in which Leftists are ever endeavoring to keep it locked up. The length of time it takes for truth to bust out determines the damage they can do. With the single lie of AGW, Leftists eventually would have controlled every aspect of everyone's lives.

How they must resent having lost their hostage once again. Truth is their arch enemy, ever foiling Leftists' evil plots.

Anonymous rycamor May 18, 2013 12:43 PM  

O.T./Semi-related... Liberal Christians clueless on both the Bible and simple economics

Anonymous bw May 18, 2013 1:37 PM  


AGENDA 21








Anonymous JI May 18, 2013 2:38 PM  

I hate periods of time like this because I don't know what I'm supposed to worry about! I need the Scientists to tell me what is the current Scientific Consensus so I can go back to worrying. I need Consensus!

Anonymous tiarosa May 18, 2013 3:01 PM  

To rycamor-

How are the government-owned parks the biggest polluters?

Blogger Doom May 18, 2013 3:36 PM  

The only actual reason the theory is dying is that the economy can no longer afford the silliness of it, and the price tag. If the economy was still booming, people would still be clambering for the hope that the world were dying and they could be a party to saving it. Actually, the theory, or more the practices that came from it, are a large part of what is killing support for the theory. That type of stupid is usually suicidal though, so it makes perfect sense.

All that wasted money, crushed industry, lost wealth(destroyed really) to created fuel costs which dumped wealth into areas that shouldn't have had it... People should be executed for the harm they have done to everything from the shortening and ending of people's lives to the economic destruction. Won't happen. Modern Stalinism if through bureaucracy, and no one, as usual, will pay any price.

Anonymous Anonymous May 18, 2013 3:46 PM  

yes, consider the source... NPR had a "4 out of 5 scientists agree (that global warming is a reality)" segment on yesterday (Friday, May 17).

The stunning thing about the commentary is that the "scientist" being interviewed made a comment that "the reason people don't believe in global warming is due to human nature and minority opinions getting undue weighting by our minds on divisive topics".

Wow. so... let's try Gay Marriage, Gay Agenda (in general), ProChoice, Immigration, Evolution, Atheism against this wunder-theorem ... ???


Here's the quote:

HARRIS: Ed Maybach heads the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. He wasn't involved in the study, but one of his students was. Volunteers combed through 12,000 studies from around the world. In about a third of the cases, the authors took a position about climate change. In that group, only two percent of those papers rejected the idea that human activities cause climate change. This is published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

And although this consensus isn't news to anybody who studies the climate, Maybach's opinion surveys show the public isn't aware of it.

MAYBACH: Less than half of the public understands that there's widespread scientific agreement about climate change. About 40 percent believe that there's a lot of disagreement among the scientists.

HARRIS: And it's easy to see why that might be the case if you looked at the blogosphere, where skeptics abound. But it's not true in scientific publications, which are vetted by peer view. Maybach says part of this is human nature. People naturally tend to give undue weight to minority opinions.

http://bit.ly/109cIdz

Anonymous Jonathan May 18, 2013 4:04 PM  

@ educated professor

What I think is happening is that the respondents to that survey interpret the question the following way:

Do all scientists agree that they have definitively demonstrated that current levels of human activity will catastrophically alter human life?

Anonymous rycamor May 18, 2013 4:18 PM  

tiarosa May 18, 2013 3:01 PM

To rycamor-

How are the government-owned parks the biggest polluters?


I meant to say "some of" the biggest polluters. There's no straightforward way to measure who the biggest polluter is. Be that as it may, they can get away with things that would have them OSHA'd out of existence if they were privately-owned. Talk to any park ranger or internal parks employee and you will hear all kinds of wonderful stories of burning trash out in the open, dumping barrels of toxins, etc...

Anonymous Jonathan May 18, 2013 4:23 PM  

@ educated professor

Consider the following two propositions:

A) Science has definitively demonstrated that increases in testosterone bring about male puberty
B) Science has definitely demonstrated that current levels of human activity will catastrophically alter human life.

Do both of these propositions have equal truth value?

Anonymous HardReturn May 18, 2013 5:57 PM  

What if the spasms of secular eschatology are just fashionable (with some lag time) during periods of relative prosperity? When prosperity dries up, so does the induced anxiety about theoretical problems. It's just replaced with actual anxiety of more tangible problems.

Anonymous Anonymous May 18, 2013 6:07 PM  

@Hardy - indeed, the Great Depression seemed to be hard ... on the Gay 20s... roll forward ~80 years and we ask ourselves, will the next GD nuke the Gay 00s - http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/17/not-ready-for-primetime-player

Blogger Jamie-R May 19, 2013 9:02 AM  

$15 a tonne in carbon we paid the last 2 years, electricity prices have skyrocketed, I had to delay my summertime bill in order to pay it, South Australia has the most expensive electricity prices in the world, 28 cents a kilowatt here, 12 cents I hear in the USA. The Carbon 'price' in Europe has collapsed to under $4 because it's a tax and business can't function without passing it onto the consumer. It chokes economies, and that fucking psychopath Al Gore sits there and thinks all is right with the world, some people need to go to Mental Hospitals and stay there, I'd commit him.

Blogger Jamie-R May 19, 2013 9:09 AM  

Australia is a coal-producing nation when it comes to how we generate electricity. Always has been. These faggots on the left want renewables, but can't come up with ideas to make them low cost, so they just want to force people to pay more, and then they talk about spending more on the education system to produce more intelligent kids! Huh?

Blogger Jamie-R May 19, 2013 9:12 AM  

The lefties should stick to nations like Brazil. Largest hydro-power project almost done, still subjected to nature's rainfall to some degree. Electricity requires consistency. You can't rely on nature, unless you're prepared to accept that, and no economy relies on what-ifs.

Blogger ashepherd May 19, 2013 12:41 PM  

I wonder what this scam's half-life is going to be. Since few outside the "science" community had the ability to critique the data and theory and thereby believed it without engaging with logic, neither will they disbelieve it because of facts or logic.

Interesting behavior for people who have the pretense of shunning "superstitions". But not unexpected.

Anonymous The Master Cylinder! May 19, 2013 1:44 PM  

Well there's an enormous number of useless unskilled blacks in the world relying on handouts and foreign aid, if only there were a way to somehow make them useful as a source of clean, renewable power. If only history had an example of how to do this, hmm. Nah, I can't think of one.

Anonymous Anonymous May 19, 2013 2:19 PM  

"Well there's an enormous number of useless unskilled blacks in the world relying on handouts and foreign aid, if only there were a way to somehow make them useful as a source of clean, renewable power. If only history had an example of how to do this, hmm. Nah, I can't think of one."

All dem slabes be yours, Massuh. Seriously, they should all be shipped back to Africa. PS, if your comment wasn't about slavery, sorry. Negroes aren't high output BTU units.

- Portage

Blogger James Dixon May 19, 2013 9:48 PM  

> Since few outside the "science" community had the ability to critique the data and theory

Nonsense. All you had to know was that they claimed the medieval warm period never happened to dismiss their theory entirely. The medieval warm period is one of the most well documented climatic events out there.

Blogger Phoenician May 20, 2013 1:13 AM  

The Economist, which (despite a recent decline) remains probably the best news magazine in the English language, now admits that (a) global average temperature has been flat for 15 years even as CO2 levels have been rising rapidly,

BZZZZZZTTTTT - lying again, dipshit.

What the Economist actually said:

"OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar."

What the science says - http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

"There's also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on air temperatures when there are other, more useful, indicators that can perhaps give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance -- due to their immense size and heat storing capability (called 'thermal mass') -- tend to give a much more 'steady' indication of the warming that is happening. Here records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there's no signs of it slowing any time soon."

So, dipshit, what does your "Christianity" say about lying?

Blogger James Dixon May 20, 2013 6:30 AM  

> lying again, dipshit.

Thanks for the advance warning, but it really isn't necessary.

> Here records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there's no signs of it slowing any time soon."

Except for the minor facts that even if that's true, the theory says the warming should be happening at an increasing rate, not a steady rate. And it does nothing to explain why surface temperatures (you know, the ones that actually affect people) aren't being affected.

Anonymous Darth Toolpodicus May 20, 2013 1:32 PM  

"HARRIS: And it's easy to see why that might be the case if you looked at the blogosphere, where skeptics abound. But it's not true in scientific publications, which are vetted by peer view. "

yeah...and of course there's absolutely no bias selection pressure in the Publish-Or-Perish world where there is a ton more research money to be had for those on the Pro-AGW side of the fence on top of out-and-out blackballing anti-AGW work out there.

Usually, when I hear someone appeal to authority in the form of "peer review" I can be fairly certain of one thing: They are not professional scientists or engineers that have ever used the process.

Anonymous Peter Garstig May 21, 2013 10:08 AM  

The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).

From a study.

See, even in this study, 2/3rd of the analysed works on global warming had no opinion about the 'A' in AGW, still, they conclude that 'scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity'.

That's typical rabbit behavior: silence means consent.

Gotta like those meta studies. Did they do those back in the days of the flat earth?

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts