Chicago Just Had Its Coldest Winter In History. Here’s Proof… of global warming! Alas, it is getting easier to see what Western academia’s global warming alarmists are up to but, what does it teach the children, that guessing is okay?
“Take this climate matter everybody is thinking about. They all talk, they pass laws, they do things, as if they knew what was happening. I don’t think anybody really knows what’s happening. They just guess. And a whole group of them meet together and encourage each other’s guesses. ~James Lovelock
It seems to me a lot of time was devoted in the past to drawing a big distinction between ‘weather’ and ‘climate’ (i.e., decades of weather). It is that difference that climatologists claim excuses the lack of forecasting capability of GCMs –e.g., these models are climate forecasts not weather forecasts (maybe not in just 20 or 30 years but our GCMs will be proved right in 50 or 100 years, just trust us, trust the government, we’re scientists and we’re here to save the world).
But, that was the old message. Now, it’s the ‘weather’ that we should worry about because today’s worrisome ‘weather’ will be reflected in tomorrow’s global warming. We no longer need to wait for 50 years to see if government scientists’ predictions of calamitous climate change are correct: we only need to look at current weather conditions –i.e., bad weather means dire warnings of government climatists are spot on proof of global warming.
It’s a con job. You know Western academia doesn’t care: keeping the argument going long enough as if the fate of the Earth hangs in the balance — just keep the funding rolling until we retire on our fat pensions — that’s all they really care about.
“… accounts of brainwashing by activists masquerading as teachers in our primary and secondary schools are legion. ~Tony Thomas
That Western academia was so successful in pulling off a hoax with scare tactics is amazing but also revealing and scary. To realize just how far they are willing to go for self-serving and ideological purposes, to perpetuate a belief in their climate forecasting skills and the worldly horrors of every description that lie ahead if they are ignored — using unverifiable models that see generations into the future — has been like a cold knife in the hot back of society.
“But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue… So the concept of uncontrollable atmospheric warming from the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels became the cornerstone issue of the environmental movement. ~John Coleman, The Amazing Story…
Imagine how sensitive — how discriminating — a climate-forecaster’s model must be to correlate an increase in atmospheric CO2 around the globe — measured in ppm — with an increase in the frequency of intense Atlantic Hurricanes today and a fallen world tomorrow. I can imagine it. But, who could believe it. The global warming, disastrous climate change believers are the same people who said, you can keep your doctor, and who claimed last Tuesday that, 7.1 million people have enrolled in federal or state exchanges for health care coverage.
People in most fields outside of it [economics] do not have problems eliminating extreme values from their sample, when the difference in payoff between outcomes is not significant, which is generally the case in education and medicine…
A casual weather forecaster does the same with extreme temperatures — an unusual occurrence might be deemed to skew the overall result (though we will see that this may turn out to be a mistake when it comes to forecasting future properties of the ice cap). So people in finance borrow the technique and, ignore infrequent events, not noticing that the effect of a rare event can bankrupt a company.
Many scientists in the physical world are also subject to such foolishness, misreading statistics. One flagrant example is in the global-warming debate. Many scientists failed to notice it in its early stages as they removed from their sample the spikes in temperature, under the belief that these were not likely to recur. It may be a good idea to take out the extremes when computing the average temperatures for vacation scheduling. But it does not work when we study the physical properties of the weather — particularly when one cares about a cumulative effect. These scientists initially ignored the fact that these spikes, although rare, had the effect of adding disproportionately to the cumulative melting of the ice cap. Just as in finance, an event, although rare, that brings large consequences cannot just be ignored. ~Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Fooled by Randomness (2004)
Initially we were asked to support the findings of a failed government-education complex to save the world from global warming caused by Americans and all who engage in the business of living by participating in the evil free enterprise economy. Claims of looming catastrophe where everywhere. But as the loony science of climate forecasting matured the actual threat to us all has been refined: now we’re being asked to continue funding the UN-IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and climate-forecasting in Western universities to prevent worser weather.
Why does the Left hamstring homegrown productivity and self-sufficiency at every turn and purposefully expose the economy to the artificial shortages and vagaries in the prices of conflict minerals? The answer is pretty simple: they are Marxists and want to see Americanism destroyed. The Left and the right can never have a reasoned discussion about AGW theory because the Left’s infatuation with global warming has nothing to do with science; for the Left it’s all about its value as a tool for social change. Economist Richard Tol went so far as to have his name removed from a chapter (of which he was lead author) from the latest IPCC report. “In the SPM [Summary for Policymakers], and much more largely in the media, we see all these scare stories,” Tol says. “We’re all going to die, the four horsemen of the apocalypse.”
“Since the start of the crisis in the eurozone, the income of the average Greek has fallen more than 20 percent. Climate change is not, then, the biggest problem facing humankind. It is not even its biggest environmental problem… Many more people die in unusually cold winters than in unusually hot summers. ~Richard Tol (Bogus prophecies of doom will not fix the climate, Financial Times)
It is not the weather or future climate that is worrisome. It is the widespread impact today of a dysfunctional government-education system that is consequential. Leftist pandering is marching society off of the European Union’s (EU’s) bridge to nowhere. Question: IF THE EU WERE A PART of the United States of America, would it belong to the richest or the poorest group of states? That simple question was asked and answered by EU economists years ago: Luxembourg aside (which is as rich as Washington DC where Leftist and liberal Utopian politicians and government bureaucrats pay themselves with your money to decide how you will live), the EU would fall among the bottom five states.
If you want to know if your child is getting a proper education, ask the teachers in the local school if the coldest winter in Chicago history is proof of global warming. Where do you move when they say, Yes! Their ‘yes’ vote means that educators in your school believe in the subjective element over the objective — that the role of instinct trumps scientific practice. Their ‘yes’ vote means science is dead because, as Dr. Roger A. Pielke, Sr., reminds us, Science needs to advance by following the scientific method. This needs to be independent of culture or any other external influence.
“Alas, the global warming alarmists have already used up all of the crazy ideas,” as Dr. Roy Spencer reminds us. “As far as they are concerned, global warming causes everything.” Alas, atmospheric physics is not just a matter of opinion arrived at by government scientists and Leftist politicians. Nature has a say and a lack of warming is not proof of warming no matter how much it serves the interests of Western academia and liberal media to believe otherwise.
“The best we can do– the best science can do– is make sure that at least, we get to choose among competing biases. ~Dr Peter Watts