Michael Mann’s infamous hockey stick graph that has been used for over ten years is a fraud. Mann scared the world into believing that world temperatures are warmer than any time during the past 1,000 years. When some skeptics asked to see the data from his model, Mann refused to release the data. The alarmist groupthink is so prevalent on this issue that Mann was under no pressure to prove his findings, even after it was proven to be a fraud.
What good is a “peer-review” process if no one is actually reviewing anything? Fortunately, Climategate has proven once and for all that Mann is a fraud. Jo Nova produces a graph that makes it clear just how brazen the fraud of the Hockey Stick is.
During the middle ages the Earth was significantly warmer than it is now. Also, the graph shows a steady increase in temperatures that suggests a natural and normal cycle. So what is the settled science? The Earth has warmed steadily over the last half century. The last ten years the world has cooled marginally. There is no alarming climate change. The only alarming thing are humans who are so consumed with worry that they want to punish Americans with pointless, excessive taxation.
Al Gore won an Oscar and a Nobel Peace prize for pushing this fraud. This is the scandal of the century. Even the level-headed Economist can’t recognize this modern day Wizard of Oz. This week’s cover boldly declares “Stopping Climate Change.” Does anyone realize how stupid that statement is? The climate always changes. Yesterday it was sunny and 80 degrees here in Florida and today it’s 56 and raining. The Economist isn’t completely moronic. They give themselves some wiggle room on this issue.
This newspaper believes that global warming is a serious threat, and that the world needs to take steps to try to avert it. That is the job of the politicians. But we do not believe that climate change is a certainty. There are no certainties in science.
I’m pretty certain about gravity, that the Earth is round, and that the Sun will come up tomorrow.
I deeply respect what Paul Krugman accomplished as an economist. His work in new trade theory earned a Nobel Prize in economics. However, he has become so partisan in his editorials that he is quickly diminishing his reputation. He was on This Week with George Snuffleupagus… I mean Stephanopoulos… and he claimed that in the climate change debate “there is tremendously more money in being a skeptic than there is in being a supporter.” This ridiculous statement earned Krugman the Watts Up With That? quote of the week. I guess we can give Krugman a break since it appears climate change is not his area of expertise.
I wish that was the only problem with Krugman. Last week he wrote an article about the Tobin tax that was odd. It’s odd because for someone who is supposedly an intellectual giant in economics, he’s completely naïve when it comes to tax evasion. Greg Mankiw was left scratching his head after reading Krugman’s claim that financial transactions will not be moved if there’s a Tobin tax.
This is the danger of extreme partisanship, especially in regard to economics. Krugman is basically just endorsing whatever stupid new plan the Democrats come up with. From an economics perspective the Democrats don’t have many bright ideas right now. For Krugman I guess he’s decided to sheath the sword and just deal with the fallout. As long as the Democrats keep dreaming up new ways to tax productive people investors are going to quit investing. Until investors have confidence again the economy is going to stall. It seems like Krugman would understand this simple concept, but it appears he can’t see through his political blinders.
There are plenty of things to be thankful for this year. One of my favorites is the climategate scandal. I’ve been writing about this topic for years. The theory of climate change is a religion to some people. How else can one justify the behavior of these scientists? Make no mistake; this scandal damages the theory. Michael Mann isn’t some fringe scientist (not be confused with the brilliant movie director who can make even 18th Century America seem like Miami in 1984). This particular Michael Mann invented the infamous hockey stick graph that turned out to be garbage. However, the initial findings were huge news, but once it was proven to be a fraud the press ignored it. The New York Times, which is partly wrapped up in this mess, wants to ignore it. How about a congressional investigation? The American taxpayer is giving money to these clowns. The press may want to ignore this but the truth is out. There is no alarming warming. There’s no alarming climate change.
Here’s a video from Plane Stupid. I’m not sure if they understand the irony of their name.
For those scoring at home the number of Polar Bears has been increasing for some time now (25% the past decade in Canada). Also, the amount of ice in the Arctic is within the average standard deviation. However, the people behind Plane Stupid are still concerned.
We have a problem. We’re flying too much, and it’s changing the earth’s climate. Aviation is the fastest growing cause of climate change. But instead of doing anything about it, the Government is planning more flights and larger airports.
Who decides who gets to fly and who has to stay home? These alarmists view themselves as a highly evolved species and look down at everyone else. I’m sorry, but I think I love the miracle of aviation.
The Climatic Research Unit is a part of the University of East Anglia and is one of the leading institutions concerned with the study of anthropogenic climate change. Well, they’ve been hacked and someone stole emails from the researchers. It’s a boondoggle. Climate Change skeptics’ worst fears have been confirmed. These holier than thou scientists have been cooking the books.
Watts Up With That has full coverage of the mess, but this is a huge deal. The emails show a systematic effort to manipulate evidence, private doubts about whether the world really is heating up, and a suppression of evidence. The best defense the researchers from the CRU have come up with is that the emails are “out of context.”
Global Warming skeptics must be making progress when the BBC runs a story entitled “What happened to global warming?” This is huge. For the past couple of years the press has largely ignored skepticism of “climate change.” There is an established pattern in coverage. If there’s a drought, wildfire, hurricane, or deadly tornado it’s always linked to global warming. How is that possible if the Earth has been cooling the past ten years?
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.
So what on Earth is going on?
Climate change skeptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man’s influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.
Two years ago there was a ton written about the receding ice in the Arctic. Almost nothing has be written that the ice extent has increased the past two years. Every year there’s a story about the “collapsing Antarctic ice shelf.” Meanwhile the Antarctic has the most ice ever recorded by satellites. For every story about a melting glacier there’s a story about how normal weather variations are to blame.
Maybe the skeptics’ arguments are finally gaining ground. Or maybe the fact that climate models are wrong is starting to wake people up. If a meteorologist can’t tell you what the weather is going to be like in two weeks why should we be surprised that a climate model predict the future?
If you’re just an average American you probably don’t know that since 1998 worldwide temperatures have been getting cooler. It’s probably because the billion-dollar global warming industry has been spending so much of its time convincing anyone who will listen that we’re on the edge of catastrophe. Al Gore promised that the “entire north polar ice cap will be completely gone in five years” just last December. No one told him that last year’s Arctic ice extent was normal (this year as well).
So what is an alarmist to do? The world isn’t warming, the ice isn’t melting, and Al Gore is going around making a fool of himself. The time has come to move the goalposts. Watts Up With That? has all the details. Watts points out the absurdity of the alarmist blog Real Climate and its take on the Global Climate Change forum.
We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal. If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020.
There you have it! No need to worry about warming until around 2020. Shouldn’t we be more concerned that there’s no possible way Barack Obama can be president in 2020? Perhaps we should be making arrangements to change the Constitution so that Obama can rule us forever and save the planet!
But I digress… global warming isn’t happening. There’s no evidence to suggest anything abnormal has occurred in our climate over the last 100 years. Al Gore and the rest of the alarmists should be embarrassed, but since most people don’t know or don’t care Gore and co. will continue to make ignorant speeches and get paid for it.
Following the horrendous vote in the House of Representatives favoring the Cap and Trade bill, eight Republicans who voted for it have been identified (HT to Michelle Malkin). For those of you who see in this bill the erosion of our freedoms and the stifling of our economy in favor of a suffocating federal government, I suggest you call the following members of Congress who voted for it and let them know how you feel:
Mack, CA, 202-225-5330
Castle, DE, 202-225-4165
Kirk, IL, 202-225-4385
Lance, NJ, 202-225-5361
LoBiondo, NJ, 202-225-6572
McHugh, NY, 202-225-4611
Reichert, WA, 877-920-9208
Smith, NJ, 202-225-3765
Why pick on these particular eight representatives? As mentioned, they’re all Republicans, and the only Republicans who voted in favor of the Cap and Trade legislation. So-called “moderate” Republicans who vote on the side of bigger and more intrusive centralized government need to be put on notice that this is not acceptable.
Cap and Trade is an indicator of which side someone stands on. Either you stand with the Constitution and the decentralization of power to the states and the people, or you stand with those who believe in the power and supremacy of the state, and particularly the centralized federal state. The latter are typically called Democrats, and if you’re a Republican who votes for more federal control, please switch parties.
Cap and Trade is a watershed event in our nation’s history that defines the ever widening divide between conservative and progressive. The progressive believes there is nothing government can’t do (control the climate and save the planet!), whilst the conservative generally believes the government should be restricted to the duties enumerated in the Constitution.
Progressives are fascist, according to the classical definition of the term, and are unconcerned about personal freedom, unless the “freedom” in question has something to do with moral depravity, but that’s another topic for another time.
The point is that the Cap and Trade legislation that passed the House and is on its way to the Senate reveals the fascist agenda of the progressive movement in America. It is an agenda which seeks to control each individual’s behavior and restrict their consumption and mobility, all in the name of what is increasingly being proved as a myth of epic proportions.
The myth – climate change, global warming, global cooling, or whatever the hell is the most convenient term based on the current weather – is simply the mechanism or excuse whereby the fascist is able to exert control over his fellow citizens.
As mentioned in a previous post, the progressive fascist is typically insulated from the consequences of his pet policies. They’re either very wealthy, dependent on the government, work for the government or a union subsidized by government, or hipster dufuses (dufusi?) who follow the latest “cool” trend and blindly follow the pack (more on this voting bloc later).
So I understand why a Democrat would vote for the Cap and Trade bill. They have a defined constituency: the very wealthy, hipster dufusi (dufuses?), government dependents, government employees and union employees.
Republicans, on the other hand, are charged with representing the individual, and to put the individual’s freedom and liberty above the demands of the state and its special-interest constituents. Therefore, I have called all eight of those House Republicans who voted for Cap and Trade and left the following message:
Hi…
Just wanted to let you know that though I am a Republican and live in Colorado, I am going to do everything I can to ensure your defeat in the next election, including financial contributions to your opponents.
Your vote in favor of Cap and Trade displays scientific ignorance and a complete disregard for the liberty and freedom of average American citizens who will suffer under the further expansion of the federal government’s power.
I suggest you do two things before you vote on any more so-called climate change bills: re-read the Constitution and look up in the sky at the big burning orb that constitutes about 99 percent of the total mass of the solar system.
Thank you,
Club Soda
Recent Comments