True Believers of the global warming are looking pretty silly riding their pink donkey to the capitalism-free Utopian dreamland of the Left. But, something is wrong when to get there the Left just can’t stop the lying.
Ever since the Climategate e-mail scandal exposed how Mr. Mann’s graph used ‘a trick’ to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperatures, public support also has declined for the fable that cosmic irritation at mankind’s exhalations has made things hotter by an imperceptible one-third of one degree over the course of a decade. In 2000, media-driven climate hysteria peaked with 72 percent of those surveyed by Gallup indicating they were worried about global warming. That according to, Washington Times’ Andrew Thomas who noted that those numbers have since fallen with many more agreeing that the alarm about global warming was exaggerated and that, pursuing policies that sacrifice jobs and economic prosperity on the pagan altar of warmism, amounts to cash-for-clunkers socio-economics.
Climatists have been, “locked into a simple-minded identification of climate with greenhouse-gas level. … That climate should be the function of a single parameter (like CO2) has always seemed implausible. Yet an obsessive focus on such an obvious oversimplification has likely set back progress by decades,” (Richard Lindzen, July 2012)
Facts are facts: the surface temperatures of the Earth constantly fluctuate. A supposed rise of temperatures of 0.8 °C in 150 years is just too small to worry about. A new study was released just this week that analyzes the surface record as reported by the NOAA and it, shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial. In addition to recording temperatures at poorly-sited stations located at airports and in urbanized areas that will of course show increases in temperature trends, Well sited rural, non-airport stations show a warming nearly three times greater after NOAA adjustment is applied. (see, Watts, A., et al., An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends.)
It is inescapably demonstrated that stations with poor microsite (Class 3, 4, 5) have significantly higher warming trends than well sited stations (Class 1, 2): This is true for, in all nine geographical areas of all five data samples. The odds of this result having occurred randomly are vanishingly minuscule. (Ibid.)
So, in addition to all of the lying, added to all of the uncertainty about anything that involves the divining of our future, we have institutional incompetence at the highest and most basic level. As Lindzen says, it’s not that we expect disaster, it’s that the uncertainty is said to offer the possibility of disaster: implausible, but high consequence…