There is a word for when self-righteous proponents are supremely confident about the inevitability of a certain outcome despite all manner of gaps in human understanding, a history of chicanery and mountains of compelling evidence to the contrary: foolish. “How should I put it… I think that you don’t want to use the word incontrovertible unless you know what you are talking about.” ~Richard Lindzen
Global warming or climate change has become a value-driven problem. Even among those who see global warming as a problem, who is taking to the streets saying a global warming disaster is right around the corner? And, what if humanity is only responsible for half of it? How about less than half of it? A third? What if only a fraction of global warming is caused by humanity’s CO2? What if from Earth’s historical record, rather than a tiny change measured in parts per million of a single greenhouse gas, natural variability is solely responsible for our climate?
Who would be blameless in a future determined by an estimate of our guilt arrived at by the expert judgment of nervous little people using computer models? Who else among us can look at the forces that effect Earth’s climate–forces that include the sun, the moon and planets and all the stars–and see only the fingerprint of humanity?
Expert opinion has become a weapon that changes with each expert. It begins with multiple lines of evidence from which emerges an echo of truth. Experts analyze this reflection of reality and look around us for a cause. Even if our techniques are not adequate to make any sense out of what we see, experts will look for what appears to be a plausible explanation. And, shall we all invest our life’s energy in that expert assessment?
Going on 18 years there has been no global warming; and, for the last 20 years the months of December and January have shown a cooling trend in North America. But, Western academia’s GCMs (Global Circulation Models) give us a different picture of the world: a world that is warming due to humanity’s release of CO2 into the atmosphere. So, where’s the beef?
So again, I don’t want the community to come away with the fact that there is this — model is resting on a large amount on mystery meat. They are not. There is mystery meat for sure. But there is a very large amount of process modeling and process observations and backstop data that we can’t incorporate simply because of computational limitations. ~Dr. Bill Collins (APS Climate Change… Workshop)
The models of the global warming alarmist are like Magic 8 balls that only give answers the modelers want to see. Reality doesn’t matter. “Matthew England,” says Ben Pile, “accused them [skeptics of global warming alarmism] of lying about the hiatus [lack of any warming since 1998] as recently as 2012. In the space of less than a year, England changed his mind about the stall in global warming, made it the object of a study, and found a way to explain it. It seems that climate scientists like England lack the cool, rational, and value-free approach necessary to investigate the material world.” (Ben Pile, Spiked, The global warming pause: the dangers of politicising science)
When you politicize science and reality interferes with your propaganda, you must find a new message, PDQ. For global warming alarmists that means coming up with new theories to explain the absence of global warming for over 17 years despite increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, as follows:
The most popular of these theories [about where the ‘missing’ heat is hiding out] is that, somehow, the heat that should be appearing at the planet’s surface has instead found its way to the deep ocean. But this hypothesis suffers from three main problems. First, there is very little data – the ocean is vast, and unlike the land and sea surface which can be viewed from space, its depths are especially difficult to monitor. Second, the effect, even if it is real, is so small it may not be practicably measurable at all. Third, there is no clearly understood mechanism by which energy may have been transported through the atmosphere and upper layers of the ocean, undetected, to heat the water beneath. (See, Ben Pile, supra)
I think we know where the heat is hiding: it’s hangin’ out in some sleazy motel off the strip just waitin’ for a packed house of Democrats — like we see in California — and, then global warming authoritarianism will raise its ugly red head, like before. “I have read,” says Dr. Roy Spencer (explaining society’s authoritarianism problem with an over-educated elite of Western tenured academics circling overhead like a colony of gulls pooping on the foolish people who feed them), “that Nazi Germany had more PhDs per capita than any other country… So, as long as they continue to call people like me deniers, I will call them global warming Nazis… Considering the fact that these people are supporting policies that will kill far more people than the Nazis ever did — all in the name of what they consider to be a righteous cause — I think it is very appropriate.”
Its time to increase the integrity of climate research… and truly promoting academic freedom so that scientists are free to pursue research without fear of recriminations from the gatekeepers and consensus police. ~Dr. Judith Curry