The pseudo-science that is the religion of man-made Global Climate Change has been dealt yet another severe blow, this time by one of its major proponents-Phil Jones, former director of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. Among his most damning statements-*There has been no significant warming over the last fifteen years.
Actually, if you take everything he says at face value, there has been absolutely no warming over the last fifteen years. He goes on to state that-
*There were two other recent periods of warming. One of these occurred from 1910 until 1940. The other was from 1975 until 1998.
That is an overlap of three years. What it amounts to is, the "no significant warming over the last fifteen years", what did occur, actually lasted only from three years, from 1995 until 1998. It stands to reason, therefore, that there has actually been no warming for the last twelve years, and in point of fact, there may have been some slight cooling.
But that's far from all of it. He goes on to state that there may have been a period of warming that occurred during Medieval times, from roughly 800 until 1300 AD. This is astonishing, as Jones with this statement has actually broke ranks with the stated position of Global Climate Change proponents, who state that this period of warming was confined to the northernmost countries, such as Scandinavia. According to Jones, this is in fact far from settled, and there is some evidence to suggest that it might have indeed been a global phenomenon.
Why is this significant? Because of the now notorious hockey stick graphs which have been used to measure the rate of alleged climate change over the centuries. Following is how this has been represented.
Following is how the trend actually looks when the totality of warming patterns is taken into account, including the Medieval period.
(Thanks for the graphs goes to Bluegrass Pundit.)
Note how the graph at the bottom stays relatively flat near the right end in comparison with the snake oil piece at the top the Climate Change proponents have been trying to sell us. In fact, it shows evidence of a cooling trend.
Ann Althouse perhaps says it best. This movement is not a science, it is a religion, one in which there is no room or tolerance for such heresies as skepticism and-well, science.
Amazingly, Jones, now feeling the heat, has veered from declaring that he never had any intention of sharing his research with skeptics in compliance with Freedom of Information requests, to excusing his laxity in this matter due to shoddy record keeping.
Meanwhile, the United Nations IPCC is now under the gun, again, this time for exaggerating the rate of the rise of ocean level in the Netherlands, including in their estimates areas that are in fact not under sea level, but instead are merely prone to flooding.
Since all this has come out, other, more independent minded scientists are speaking out, no longer evidently in such grave fear that their funding will be cut off due to political pressure from the Left, among other worries. Some have noted that many of the stations constructed to measure temperatures in pursuit of this fiasco seem to have purposely been built in places best suited to elicit the highest temperature readings possible. Such as, for example, next to airports, which are subject to the influence of jet heat exhaust. In at least one case, a station was constructed next to a waste incinerator.
This be, ironically, the tip of the iceberg. This might well turn out to be one of the greatest hoaxes, one of the greatest scams, ever perpetrated on the public at large by political elites mainly of the Left. If that does turn out to be the case, heads should roll.
Literally.
15 comments:
Of course Commies using the Green Subterfuge do not want the truth to come out.
Well, and also Beak, I've had people actually tell me it would be worth it even if they did exaggerate both the immediate and long-term benefits. I had one woman from Bulgaria actually tell me the risk was too great to be wasting time on debate, and if exaggerating or lying moved things along, they would be justified if that was the only way they could gain the support to accomplish their goals.
Of course, admittedly, this was not any kind of official person, it was just a mere private citizen who had bought into all the hubbub. But that still just goes to show you how devious some of these people are, and what's worse, how accepting of this type of behavior many of their supporters are.
If I coincidentally ran into just one person by happenstance who felt that way, when I basically don't really even move in those circles, you can assume its a pretty safe bet that she speaks for a sizable percentage of them.
You can't force unwanted change on people without a crisis. Naomi Klenin's "Shock Doctrine" was an interesting read for me.
Yeah FJ, that's true. Nobody wants to buy the snake oil these people are selling, so they invent a crisis. Now that this one is about to have a stake rammed through its heart, it won't be real long before they come up with another hobgoblin.
I don't know, maybe Global Wind Phenomenon, or something else equally stupid. If I had to bet though, it won't be long before we'll be hearing about how there's even less oil than they've been telling us. Wait and see.
Of course, nuclear energy will still be way down the list of acceptable options to these fraudsters.
Keeping us all under OPECs thumb must be pretty high on their priority list, or we'd be drilling, mining and nuking our way to economic prosperity.
That, plus the hunt for the all-mighty, all-pervasive government subsidies, for ethanol, for wind, for solar, for everything some of these people think they can cash in on, including a way to trap cow farts.
Actually, if you take everything he says at face value, there has been absolutely no warming over the last fifteen years.
What? Including, "I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity"?
Did you read the actual interview, or just the Daily Mail hack up about it?
Rufus-
So what is this evidence, and why has he gone so far out of his way to keep anybody from seeing it that might find flaws? Are we just supposed to take his word? If the research and the findings were legitimate, or were not flawed in some way, why would he worry about releasing them?
The Mail, by the way, never claimed that this proved there was no Global Climate Change. Only that it proves that this is far from "settled science", which I really didn't need them to tell me that to begin with.
Did he or did he not say that there has been no significant warming for fifteen years? Are you saying the Mail is outright lying about that?
This whole thing smells to high heaven. It always has, but I've somewhat restrained myself from making too strong a pronouncement on it. But when I hear how temperature measurements are taken in areas that are guaranteed to elicit the highest possible temperatures, what other conclusion can you draw?
Why does the IPCC lie about areas of the Netherlands being underwater that aren't. They purposely included areas that are naturally flood prone, and always have been. Naturally, this skewed the results. Why would they do that?
What about the Himalayan Glaciers supposedly due to melt by 2035 being based not on science, but on interviews with mountain climbers in magazine articles.
I don't know anything about the Mail, maybe the article was a hit piece, but on the other hand, its easy for people to make that excuse when somebody digs up something they don't want you to know about. There's just been too much. If it had only been one or two minor things, I could say okay maybe this is explainable, but its just one thing after another.
Patrick, chill out, okay? You link to a Daily Fail article that claims that the dude says X in a recent BBC interview. If you actually read the interview, you'd find that he doesn't actually say what the Daily Mail writer claims he says. Maybe the writer's an idiot, or maybe he's lying. But, you didn't read the interview, because the Daily Mail told you what you wanted to hear and you saw no reason to be remotely skeptical about it. And you're supposed to be the "skeptic".
And here's the thing: you "don't know anything about the Daily Mail" article, but you pointed to it as concrete evidence of a massive, worldwide conspiracy!
Similarly, you don't have a great deal of training in climatology, do you? And yet, you repeat these blogosphere taking points in this really accusatory way. You know, play the prosecuting attorney. "How do you explain Norway not being underwater?" And here, you clearly haven't read the IPCC report either. Because these points of yours? The overwhelming evidence? It's not that solid either. Not that you'd know that if you only read sources that agree with what you want to believe. And I'm willing to bet that, if we went through and debunked every talking point that is going around the right wing blogosphere this week, it would still never lead you to believe that there's anything fishy about those people, just like telling you that the Daily Mail article is pretty inaccurate doesn't make any difference whatsoever in what you believe.
Look, the argument that the science is far from settled is fine. Most people with an open mind accept that to some degree. But your argument- that thousands of scientists in several different fields, working around the world, have published tens of thousands of papers in numerous scientific journals- all in an effort to take part in the greatest fraud in human history; and the only people who have been able to uncover this fraud are right wing bloggers who haven't got the slightest fucking clue about the science they're talking about, but have been keyed in to "the truth" by oil company propaganda... That's something I'm supposed to take seriously? That's not remotely... I don't know, cultish? Close-minded? Completely unskeptical?
LOL! We have one hell of a better science background than most of the B.A. journalism majors writing for the Left wing, I can GUARANTEE you that.
Rufus-
I'm glad you accept that it's reasonable to say Global Climate Change is not settled science. That's all I'm saying, and that's the only conclusion I drew from the Mail article, which I did read.
Now try telling that to Al Gore, and all the others I have heard insist that it IS settled science, thus we shouldn't "waste time" on any further debate. I didn't read this on the Drudge Report, I heard it from Gore's own mouth, and I've heard it repeated innumerable times by others aligned with his point of view.
I do read left wing blogs too, you know. Admittedly, not as much as the right-wing, nor not as much as I used to, and I very rarely comment on them, but I do keep up. Take it from me, this issue is just as politicized by them as it is from the right.
The controversy over the IPCC report about the Netherlands (not Norway), had nothing to do with being underwater, it was about what part of the country was under sea level, which is quite different from literally underwater. In their study, they included large sections that are and have always been flood prone, but which actually are NOT below sea-level. The inclusions of these areas in the study skewed the report.
Finally, the idea that this is oil company propaganda doesn't wash. It would be more palatable if you said it was OPEC propaganda, maybe, but the right wing viewpoint does not benefit the oil companies.
Sure, they press for the right to explore and drill, but that's just feathering their nests. If they win that right in any given area, it doesn't mean they will do so, just that they have that option available at their convenience. More to the point, any potential company stands to lock a competitor out of a potential area.
The current drive to less exploration and drilling is actually beneficial to the oil companies. Less drilling means higher profits for their oil and gas under the law of supply and demand, at less expense to their bottom line, and for a longer period of time. A savvy investor understands this and will invest in oil company stock under this scenario.
That's why they don't invest a lot in infrastructure. You have refineries in need of maintenance, you have large sections of Alaskan pipeline in such bad shape it is rusting in some places, causing leaks.
They don't care, maintenance is an expense and takes away from their bottom line. The same with drilling. The same with refining. The less of it, from their standpoint, the better. The less employees, the less insurance, the less production and maintenance expense, plus the greater the profit in increased prices on top of that.
Oh, and of course, the more tax revenue as a result of those higher prices. Can't discount that as a factor.
No, that's not what you said. The idea that "the science is not settled" is, again, a reasonable position. What you said, however, was that the global warming theory is a religion that allows no dissent as well as the greatest scam ever perpetuated on humankind and something about cutting off the heads of those responsible.
My point is that you've offered no proof substantive enough to uncover this massive worldwide scam. You've certainly linked to some articles suggesting errors and mistakes and, again, giving credence to the idea that the science is not settled. Good. People make mistakes.
But positing this giant conspiracy of lefists and scientists means that any time you see a study that agrees with the theory, you can write it off as part of the conspiracy; and any time someone says that they find the theory plausible, you can write them off as "true believers" in the "religion of global warming". And you never have to educate yourself at all- just wait for Ann Althouse to give you the latest scoop.
As for those leftists who are immune to criticisms of the theory, I fail to see how that's any different than your position. That's the point- you're doing exactly the same thing you criticize others for doing. What I'm saying is that you don't get to call yourself a "skeptic" when your mind is made up and you simply write off any evidence to the contrary. Especially since you have about as much training in climatology as Leonardo Dicaprio. I'd say both of you are talking out your ass on this one.
As for the oil companies, a 2005 inquest by the Royal Society in the UK found that Exxon Mobil was funding 39 "independent" groups that make their living denying the science behind the global warming theory. According to a 2008 report, they've since cut back to about 24 organizations that promote the anti-global warming position. But I really don't understand why you would think that oil companies would support the idea that their product is causing environmental devastation. And the idea that companies hate investment that will bring them profits is just weird.
As for reading left-wing blogs, I'm actually suggesting you read books on the subject by both people you agree with and those you disagree with. Especially since your criticism here is of other people's supposed blind faith. I don't care what you believe, but your criticisms people who disagree with you are arrogant given that you have as much background in this area as they do.
Rufus-
What I said, or at least what I meant to say, is that the whole Global Climate Change movement is like a religion. That is basically because of the whole idea of the "settled science" business, as much as it is the science they are promoting. If they promoted it for what it is, a theory-to the effect that global temperatures are rising due to man-made causes, that would be sufficient for study and concern, but when they insist the matter is settled, we don't have time for debate, time is of the essence, the end is nigh, and all of that crap, they've veered off away from the realm of scientific theory and into the no-man's land of fable. When they then exercise political clout on politicians to force the issue, they've descended into the area of a theocracy, with their own retinue of cult-like followers among the environmentalist community.
This is more than people making a few human mistakes and errors in judgments and a few miscalculations. This is highly placed officials, among the IPCC for example, who should know better, who are purposely skewing some data.
And of course, in a perfect world from the oil company perspective, they would prefer to see their product not deemed a hazard to the environment, so of course they are going to support anything that will portray them in the best possible light.
But make no mistake, these people aren't going to go broke, regardless of what policies are or are not implemented.
Nothing is preventing them from performing routine maintenance on the Alaskan pipeline for instance in order to prevent corrosion and leaks. Nothing, that is, except them. Nothing is preventing them from modernizing their refineries to where they are safely functional. Nothing, again, except themselves.
Yeah, they would dearly love to win a contract to drill in ANWR, or to be the next major company to win the rights to resume importation from Iraq. Or Iran. But they aren't going to lose regardless. If tomorrow the government passes some law that halves energy production, all it means from their perspective is the price of oil and gas doubles and allowing for a slight decrease in consumption they still make a shitload of money, and they get to lay off half their employees which will make them even more.
The oil companies are fighting a losing battle anyway because the Japanese are going to eventually build a car that doesn't run on petrol, is as good as a gas-powered car, and is a hell of a lot cheaper to fuel and that's going to be the end of the story. In the end, it's not going to be the environmentalists who make the difference but the person who figures out that, if you perfect the electric car or the nuclear power plant, you're going to be a multimillionaire.
That's true, but there will still always be a need for oil or some other petroleum product. There will just be more of it to use for other things, like plastics, or something else. Plus, even a one hundred percent electric powered car needs to be lubricated and oiled. So will machinery at a factory, or in a nuclear energy facility.
Also, it's going to be several lifetimes, if ever, before somebody invents a jet that flies on something besides jet fuel. Then there's trucks, like eighteen wheelers. It would take a hell of a battery to power one of them things. It can't be done. It could, but hell, the battery, or batteries, would have to take up half the space of the truck.
The oil companies have enough money to adapt to anything. If they can't use their product in any way its currently being used, they'll find another use.
Post a Comment