Ironclad Logic: Big Freeze Caused By Global Warming

caseybrownmyers.blogspot.com

According to the Times, arctic freeze and snow are wreaking havoc across the planet (January 5; emphasis mine):

Arctic air and record snow falls gripped the Northern Hemisphere yesterday, inflicting hardship and havoc from China, across Russia to Western Europe and over the U.S. plains.

There were few precedents for the global sweep of extreme cold and ice that killed dozens in India, paralyzed life in Beijing and threatened the Florida orange crop. Chicagoans sheltered from a potentially killer freeze, Paris endured sunny Siberian cold, Italy dug itself out of snowdrifts and Poland counted at least 13 deaths in record low temperatures of about minus 25°C (-13°F).

The heaviest snow yesterday hit northeastern Asia, which is suffering its worst winter weather for 60 years. More than 25 centimeters (10 inches) of snow covered Seoul, the South Korean capital—the heaviest fall since records began in 1937.

In China, Beijing and the nearby port city of Tianjin had the deepest snow since 1951, with falls of up to 8 inches and temperatures of minus 10°C. In the far north of China, the temperature fell to minus 32°C. …

Science Is Dying

Editors Comment: The following article from the December 4th Wall Street Jounal encapsulates a runaway train of doubt in science, as the accounts of the East Anglia emails become mainstream. Science is at a crisis point, and as th article points out, it has become just another faction – politicized and messy.

———————————————————————————–

Science Is Dying, Wall Street Journal, December 4, 2009

http://www.funnybones.com.au

Surely there must have been serious men and women in the hard sciences who at some point worried that their colleagues in the global warming movement were putting at risk the credibility of everyone in science. The nature of that risk has been twofold: First, that the claims of the climate scientists might buckle beneath the weight of their breathtaking complexity. Second, that the crudeness of modern politics, once in motion, would trample the traditions and culture of science to achieve its own policy goals. With the scandal at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, both have happened at once.

I don’t think most scientists appreciate what has hit them. This isn’t only about the credibility of global warming. For years, global warming and its advocates have been the public face of hard science. Most people could not name three other subjects they would associate with the work of serious scientists. This was it. The public was told repeatedly that something called “the scientific community” had affirmed the science beneath this inquiry.

Global warming enlisted the collective reputation of science. Because “science” said so, all the world was about to undertake a vast reordering of human behavior at almost unimaginable financial cost. Not every day does the work of scientists lead to galactic events simply called Kyoto or Copenhagen. At least not since the Manhattan Project.

What is happening at East Anglia is an epochal event. As the hard sciences—physics, biology, chemistry, electrical engineering—came to dominate intellectual life in the last century, some academics in the humanities devised the theory of postmodernism, which liberated them from their colleagues in the sciences. Postmodernism, a self-consciously “unprovable” theory, replaced formal structures with subjectivity. With the revelations of East Anglia, this slippery and variable intellectual world has crossed into the hard sciences.

The Climate Emails

This has harsh implications for the credibility of science generally. Hard science, alongside medicine, was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons. But the average person reading accounts of the East Anglia emails will conclude that hard science has become just another faction, as politicized and “messy” as, say, gender studies. The New England Journal of Medicine has turned into a weird weekly amalgam of straight medical-research and propaganda for the Obama redesign of U.S. medicine.

The East Anglians’ mistreatment of scientists who challenged global warming’s claims—plotting to shut them up and shut down their ability to publish—evokes the attempt to silence Galileo. The exchanges between Penn State’s Michael Mann and East Anglia CRU director Phil Jones sound like Father Firenzuola, the Commissary-General of the Inquisition.

For three centuries Galileo has symbolized dissent in science. In our time, most scientists outside this circle have kept silent as their climatologist fellows, helped by the cardinals of the press, mocked and ostracized scientists who questioned this grand theory of global doom. Even a doubter as eminent as Princeton’s Freeman Dyson was dismissed as an aging crank.

Beneath this dispute is a relatively new, very postmodern environmental idea known as “the precautionary principle.” As defined by one official version: “When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.” The global-warming establishment says we know “enough” to impose new rules on the world’s use of carbon fuels. The dissenters say this demotes science’s traditional standards of evidence.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s dramatic Endangerment Finding in April that greenhouse gas emissions qualify as an air pollutant—with implications for a vast new regulatory regime—used what the agency called a precautionary approach. The EPA admitted “varying degrees of uncertainty across many of these scientific issues.” Again, this puts hard science in the new position of saying, close enough is good enough. One hopes civil engineers never build bridges under this theory.

The Obama administration’s new head of policy at EPA, Lisa Heinzerling, is an advocate of turning precaution into standard policy. In a law-review article titled “Law and Economics for a Warming World,” Ms. Heinzerling wrote, “Policy formation based on prediction and calculation of expected harm is no longer relevant; the only coherent response to a situation of chaotically worsening outcomes is a precautionary policy. . . .”

If the new ethos is that “close-enough” science is now sufficient to achieve political goals, serious scientists should be under no illusion that politicians will press-gang them into service for future agendas. Everyone working in science, no matter their politics, has an stake in cleaning up the mess revealed by the East Anglia emails. Science is on the credibility bubble. If it pops, centuries of what we understand to be the role of science go with it.

Global Warming Hooey

patsdailyrant.blogspot.com

I recently read in the Toronto Sun that every left-of-centre journalist in the country has managed to become an instant expert on the arcane subjects of global warming and the science of climate change.

Folks, global warming (or climate change nutism) is becoming a religion in its own right. And isn’t that the way it always is with subjective speculation requiring little scientific proof? The more sympathy we can exhibit for Al Gore’s polar bear or David Suzuki’s whining, the more trendy and acceptable we become.

There are, however, an increasing number of peer-reviewed and intensely credible scientific minds who believe conventional thinking on global warming is nonsense, even going so far as to call environmental activists such as Al Gore (prime promoter of the global warmist nut factor) “bedwetters.”

There are more than 700 major scientists who steadfastly refute the notion that the climate is changing to any worrying degree, that global warming is a reality and that the planet is in danger.

Yes, climate does change but it’s minor and it has little if anything to do with man’s intervention. It’s more about money and control of the so-called green economy. None of the bad science promoted by the green crowd makes sense, and policies to deal with it will cause terrible problems. But people keep being indoctrinated and critics are intimidated into silence.

Read the full article here.

Now For Some Truth In News: The Earth Is Cooling!

http://www.angryconservative.com

“What happened to global warming?,” the BBC News headline asks. The lack of scientific evidence to support man-made global warming has been reported on for several years, but now more and more mainstream news outlets and scientists are admitting that global warming is just not happening. The BBC News goes on to report:

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. …

What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth’s great heat stores.

According to research conducted by Prof. Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.

The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (pdo).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.

But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years. …

Professor Easterbrook says: “The pdo cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling.”

Committed advocates of the man-made global warming theory, however, adamantly insist that their science is solid. Last month, Mojib Latif, a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ipcc)—which claimed that man’s responsibility for global warming is not even in question—says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10 to 20 years. But, reports bbc News, Professor Latif “makes it clear that he has not become a skeptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.”

The reality is, the politics of the global-warming debate have long overshadowed the science of the debate.

Furthermore, political decisions are being made based on shoddy science that could potentially have a far-reaching economic impact. The American Thinker reported last month, for example, that prior to the passage of “cap and trade” legislation by the House of Representatives, Henry Waxman, House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman and co-sponsor of the bill, said at a May 22 hearing:

I certainly don’t claim that I know everything that’s in this bill. I know we left it to … we relied very heavily on the scientists on the ipcc and others and the consensus they have that there is a problem with global warming, it’s having an impact, and that we need to reduce it by the amounts they think we need to achieve in order to avoid some of the consequences. That’s what I know, but I don’t know the details. I rely on the scientists.

So, costly legislation is being passed based on a “consensus” in the scientific community, when no such consensus exists. American Thinker points out some of the economic costs (September 27):

Since then, the House of Representatives has passed and sent to the Senate a major piece of legislation which both Republicans and Democrats agree will heavily tax certain industries, significantly raise prices on energy consumption, and increase the cost of almost all produced goods.

America’s climate-change legislation is based upon the ipcc’s findings—findings that don’t hold up under scrutiny: “It turns out that work done on several fronts over recent years casts serious doubt upon the IPCC work and, in fact, may make a case for claiming scientific fraud” (ibid.). The American Thinker goes on to detail the evidence that

What is becoming clearer is that the concept of “man-made global warming” may be one of the greatest hoaxes in world history. How soon this will become generally known will depend on how forcefully the political effort seeking both national and international control of industry and wealth redistribution can keep the hoax hidden by intimidation and forcefully amplified rhetoric while systematically jeopardizing the economies of America and other developed nations.

Souce: this website

For more on what is behind the global-warming debate, read their articles “The Politics of Global Warming,” “A Really Inconvenient Truth” and “Global Cooling Is Coming!”

Scientists Pull an About-Face On Global Warming

“Imagine if Pope Benedict gave a speech saying the Catholic Church has had it wrong all these centuries; there is no reason priests shouldn’t marry. That might generate the odd headline, no? … When a leading proponent for one point of view suddenly starts batting for the other side, it’s usually newsworthy.

So why was a speech last week by Prof. Mojib Latif of Germany’s Leibniz Institute not given more prominence? Latif is one of the leading climate modelers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ipcc). He has contributed significantly to the ipcc’s last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.

Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN’s World Climate Conference—an annual gathering of the so-called “scientific consensus” on man-made climate change—Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering “one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.” …

“How much?” he wondered before the assembled delegates. “The jury is still out.” But it is increasingly clear that global warming is on hiatus for the time being. And that is not what the UN, the alarmist scientists or environmentalists predicted. For the past dozen years, since the Kyoto accords were signed in 1997, it has been beaten into our heads with the force and repetition of the rowing drum on a slave galley that the Earth is warming and will continue to warm rapidly through this century until we reach deadly temperatures around 2100.While they deny it now, the facts to the contrary are staring them in the face: None of the alarmist drummers ever predicted anything like a 30-year pause in their apocalyptic scenario.

Latif says he expects warming to resume in 2020 or 2030. …”

Who knew?

Source: Calgary Herald, September 19, 2009

From The Liberal Mindset: Methane Madness

From: Trumpet.com

March 2, 2009, by Ron Fraser

http://www.freefoto.com/preview/01-16-5?ffid=01-16-5

Unbelievable! Where will the liberal set lead us next?

First it was methane-producing cows that were endangering the planet through their gaseous contributions to “global warming.” Now, believe it or not, it’s belching lambs! What next—burping bandicoots?

Reporting from Palmerston North in New Zealand, Patrick Barta wrote in a Wall Street Journal front-page report, “On a typical day, researchers in this college town coax hungry sheep into metal carts. They wheel the fluffy beasts into sealed chambers and feed them grass, then wait for them to burp.

“The exercise is part of a global effort to keep sheep, deer, cows and other livestock from belching methane when they eat and regurgitate grass” (February 26).

And the reason for this marvel of scientific experimentation? “Methane is among the most potent greenhouse gases, and researchers now believe livestock industries are a major contributor to climate change, responsible for more greenhouse-gas emissions than cars are, according to the United Nations.”

Can you really believe this? Or do you think according to the common sense of many a farmer, as the Journal muses, that “the problem of sheep burps is so much hot air”?

Believe it or not, the greenies are pushing for a “burp tax” on all bovines, and “some activists are urging consumers to stop buying meat and thus slow climate change” (ibid.).

If this does not reveal a streak of madness prevalent in the liberal mind, then I’m a monkey’s uncle. Unbelievably, these folk, who on the one hand wave placards touting “animal rights,” ostensibly despairing of the slaughter of animals for human consumption, on the other try to stop the normal functioning of a live animal via experiments where “they have even tried feeding the animals chloroform, which can stymie the production of gas if it doesn’t kill the animal” (ibid.).

What reveals the mentally aberrant liberal agenda behind all this is the UN’s attachment to the hilarious claim that livestock bear a responsibility for the warming of the planet.

Come on!

Any decent researcher worth his salt knows that the UN handed its collective mind over to liberal madness decades ago. What’s really behind the UN anti-animal farming agenda is the liberal push to eliminate animal husbandry from the planet and convert us all into a feminist, politically correct, multicultural, neuter-gender conglomerate of godless, evolutionist herb-eating vegetarians!

The global warming push has even bred a new profession, “livestock emissions research,” which one scientist admits would be but a fringe science if it was not for “all the interest in climate change” (ibid.). In other words, it will quickly fade away if the fashion changes back to “global cooling” as it did some 30 years ago!

The whole thing is utterly ridiculous and defies logic, at least the logic of a two-feet-planted-squarely-on-the-ground realist!

What makes this all the more ludicrous is that, increasingly, the global warmists are finding themselves out on a limb as more and more scientists declare their hand as viewing climate change being founded on plain bad science! One of the latest reports comes from a U.S. Environment and Public Works full committee hearing last Wednesday. Marc Morano reports that during the hearing, titled “Update on the Latest Global Warming Science,” “Award-winning Princeton University physicist Dr. Will Happer declared man-made global warming fears ‘mistaken’ and noted that the Earth was currently in a ‘CO2 famine now.’ Happer … has published over 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers …. Happer was reportedly fired by former Vice President Al Gore in 1993 for failing to adhere to Gore’s scientific views” (U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, February 25).

Veteran psychiatrist Dr. Lyle Rossiter opines that the mindset behind much of liberal thinking is very like a kind of psychological disorder. “A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity—as liberals do.” Of the few remaining political realists, he states, “[A] legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation’s citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state—as liberals do” (The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness).

Yet such a crazy approach is behind the global-warmist-anti-bovine-burping element within society that has been given carte blanche by our liberal mass media to brainwash us into caving in to such mad rules as those designed to limit our “carbon footprint,” or be taxed if we don’t.

Dr. Rossiter declares that “When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.”

Well, what more could we expect than that which we got in the U.S., the UK, Australia and New Zealand as the political pendulum swung left? Truly it is all so pathetic, but in reality it is all so PROPHETIC! After all, the Eternal God declared millennia ago that if His people rebelled against Him, as their civilization teetered on the brink, it would be in a time when those who ruled over us would have the mentality of feminized babes, which would ultimately lead many to just plain madness (Isaiah 3:4; Deuteronomy 28:28).