The New Face of Climate Change: It’s been a tough time for the most ardent climate change alarmist. Last year Climategate cast doubt on the integrity of climate science. Plus, on the list of Real Problems an unproven theory pushed by an army of overzealous alarmists isn’t really that frightening in a world full of war and in a nation with a bad economy. Have no fear (or be full of fear), there’s a new voice for alarmists.
‘Everyone’s God and if we don’t wake up to that there’s going to be no weather because our polar caps are melting because we’re doing bad things to the atmosphere.
‘If we don’t change that as rapidly as I’m speaking to you now, if we don’t put the green back on the planet and put the trees back that we’ve butchered, if we don’t go to war against the problem…’
Who is this you ask? Al Gore? Matt Damon? Some random Hipster Dufus? It’s none other than Charles Manson. Not only is he a psychotic serial killer (Tom Harkin), he’s also a climate change alarmist. That sounds just about right.
Economics 101: It looks like Jesse Jackson Jr. has solved the problem behind the nation’s unemployment issues. It’s technological progress. More specifically, Apple’s iPad is probably responsible for the loss of thousands of American jobs. Unfortunately, Jackson hasn’t lost his job since the iPad debuted last year.
Hypocrisy Thy Name is Obama: There’s not much doubt that it’s been three years of amateurism from the White House. The President lacks the leadership and experience to be President of the United States. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney says Obama never said he was opposed to signing statements in all cases. Of course this is a fabrication. Just add it to the list of things the left doesn’t care about anymore.
Here at The Daily Plunge we’ve been diligent in posting about the horrendous coverage of climate change in the United States. There’s no other issue today where people are so hideously uninformed and where press bias is so prevalent. Take this article about the climate change bill in in the Senate by Richard Cowan at Reuters.
Despite vocal climate change skeptics in the United States, leading scientific groups have been hoping the United States, the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases after China, would take action.The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported on Thursday the world’s combined land and ocean surface temperatures in March were the hottest on record.
Who defines “leading scientific groups?” Are they the ones who manipulate data or hide the decline? Richard Cowan has written a lot of articles about climate change and not one article about Climategate. What about the increasing ice in the Arctic? The cold winter in the northern hemisphere? Am I supposed to be concerned that March is supposedly the warmest on record? What about the medieval warming period? How does cap and trade reduce temperatures? Do we want to reduce temperatures? What is the optimal temperature? Are people stupid? I think we know the answer to that question.
The Little Ice Age was great for skiing, but not so great if you were a European farmer.
While the concept of the event is admirable, which is basically to raise awareness about conserving and protecting our natural resources, some of the event’s supporting organizations hold extreme views that bear scrutiny.
The main beneficiary of the event, the High Country Conservation Center, claims that climate change debate is irrelevant. In other words, if you disagree with the so-called scientific “consensus” shut up! This philosophy flies in the face of the scientific method, essentially stifling scientific inquiry.
While the High Country Conservation Center may claim consensus, there is none, unless you call consensus “everyone who agrees with us.” For more on this attitude among climate-change/global warming true believers and how the numbers are skewed to cause a false alarm about warming, go to the Watts Up With That? blog’s section on Climategate.
Yesterday, the University of California at Santa Barbara released the global climate change findings of one of its geologists: “[UCSB geologist Lorraine Lisiecki] concludes that the pattern of climate change over the past million years likely involves complicated interactions between different parts of the climate system, as well as three different orbital systems. The first two orbital systems are the orbit’s eccentricity, and tilt. The third is ‘precession,’ or a change in the orientation of the rotation axis.”
So there is consensus that the earth’s climate changes; it has been for billions of years. The disparity in opinion is about its cause and relative severity. Some believe it’s a complicated interaction of events directly related to the earth’s orbit and the changing intensity of the sun. The sun, by the way, is a medium sized star which accounts for 99.86 percent of the solar system’s entire mass.
However, according to those who hold the human-caused view of climate change/global warming/global cooling or whatever it is based on current weather patterns, the sun is really a non-factor despite its ubiquitous presence here and its impact on the surrounding planets.
On the Climate Change page at its website, the High Country Conservation Center further states: “Even if you disagree with the consensus of the scientific community, there is something called the Precautionary Principle that dictates that action even without 100% certainty is prudent.”
One wonders if the High Country Conservation Center applies the Precautionary Principle equally to all matters of science, including climate change. The Precautionary Principle cuts both ways, and should not be used as an argument unless the person or organization making it is prepared to be 100 percent consistent in applying it.
Another participating group, called Protect Our Winters, goes a step further. It claims that climate change can be reversed! If climate change were reversed wouldn’t that also be climate change? If we had the power to set the earth’s thermostat, so to speak, who gets to decide what the ideal climate is? The ski areas? The beach resorts? Icelanders? At what point in history do we hit the reset button? 1980? 1985? 1654? 5 million B.C.?
The fact is that if one were able to create the ideal climate in North America (whatever that is), it would affect the climate negatively somewhere else. The system itself is far too complicated to simply “reverse” it and revel in the successful reversal without having to apologize to someone in Asia or Europe about the extra cold weather they can now expect. Thanks for nothing, those who know what’s best for everyone else in the world!
Protect Our Winters also advocates on behalf of the climate policy bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives, but was stalled in the Senate. Most Americans are opposed to the bill, also known as Cap and Trade or Cap and Tax to its more vocal opponents, because it regulates individual consumption and will force energy costs through the roof in favor of inefficient and unproven alternative energy sources.
Most fair-minded people are in favor of conservation and want to protect the environment as much as possible. What irks them is the intervention of a massive centralized and uncaring bureaucracy that is increasingly infringing on their individual liberties while funneling a greater portion of their income into pointless programs and governmental agencies.
Ironically, while the ski resorts support such groups, the policies pursued by those groups will ensure that fewer people have the discretionary income available to ski as they pay more for energy and the ski resorts jack up prices to pay for their increased costs. But that’s how it works in socialist societies; the gap between the haves and have-nots increases until all that’s left is a rich and powerful minority.
For more information, please peruse a history book. I also recommend Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, Friedrich von Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom or any of the writings by America’s founders, including The Constitution of the United States of America and The Federalist Papers.
Slate has a recent interview with alarmist Al Gore where he lies again. Gore is a buffoon, but he’s also a national treasure. Here’s the relevant part of the interview:
Q: How damaging to your argument was the disclosure of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University?
A: To paraphrase Shakespeare, it’s sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old.
Sorry Gore, the most recent email was from November, 2009. Maybe Al Gore is from the future? What is the moral to this story? Al Gore thinks that lying and manipulating data is okay as long as you’re not caught or if it took place ten years ago. I think Gore meant to use this quote from Shakespeare: “For there is nothing either good or bad, thinking makes it so.”
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.
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.
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.”
Recent Comments