Government scientists have been found guilty of scientific correctness. “Along with water and oxygen,” says veteran realist Johnny Ball, “carbon dioxide is one of the three basic requirements for sustainable life. And yet this natural gas — only 4 per cent of which is produced by man — has been branded as the greatest threat to the future of this planet. Well, forgive me, but I think that’s nonsense.” Even if you don’t want to hear what Ball has to say, that’s not a good reason to let, global warming fascists, destroy his career, for daring to question green orthodoxy.
The most depressing thing is that the school teachers of CAGW (catastrophic human-caused global warming) worry about what will unfold over a millennia as the quality of public-funded education plummets during our lifetime. Is this a complaint we should simply dismiss on the grounds of being too shortsighted?
With the past, I have nothing to do; nor with the future. I live now. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
What can we do to prevent public-funded academics from dragging society down their hypocritical global warming rabbit hole like a stone and standing on the neck of individual liberty and creativity as emerging capitalism in Brazil, Russia, India and China eats the future of the our young?
The real story nowadays involves all of the behind-the-scenes machinations to keep the global warming hoax alive and to continue the victimization of those who would tell the truth. “It is a situation,” Lennart Bengtsson says, “that reminds me about the time of McCarthy.” An astonishing example is the continuing saga of the Left’s use of the image-grabbing picture of a lone polar bear to fabricate a story out of whole cloth about these poor creatures being destroyed by human CO2. (See—e.g., battles about the polar bear’s conservation status and, Climate bullying echoes the expulsion of Mitch Taylor from Polar Bear Specialist Group)
Rather than global warming being any actual threat to their future, polar bears are not even in danger of being over-hunted to the point of extinction due to a lack of regulation (70’s era protection measures must have worked). Polar bear populations are very healthy. Instead of being enthusiastic about their plentiful numbers and happy to hear that polar bears are neither endangered nor even vulnerable, conservationists always hope for the worst and turn everything into a metaphor for the evil of Americanism and capitalism. Nevertheless, none of the criteria for an objective finding of endangerment are met —i.e., not a declining population, not a small distribution size nor a small or very small or restricted population. In the real world we should be happy to see a population of 21,00o polar bears spread out over a vast area of 20,000 square kilometers.
But advocates of global warming with their dire warnings about the evils of CO2 emissions have got too firm a hold, their thinking become too widely accepted, for anything that sensible to be an option. Instead, they’re changing the sums, and manipulating the maths.
The result is a growing burden of green taxes, renewable energy subsidies and unseen charges that will cost us — and particularly our children — billions and billions of pounds.
Already, these additional costs are adding 50 per cent to all our energy bills, and 50 per cent to air-fares. At a time of severe economic hardship, when thousands of jobs are being lost and households struggle to make ends meet, this is a potentially ruinous burden. ~Johnny Ball
Climate McCarthyism is preventing some from saying anything against global warming alarmism without the risk of losing employment. Some on the Left believe the simple act of electing Obama really did stop the seas from rising. “Evidently the right to practice and discuss climate science should be subject to a faith test,” says Bengtsson. “It is an extraordinarily revealing development. Fears about unbelievers’ polluting the discourse, as some academics put it, illustrate the weakness of climate science: The evidence for harmful anthropogenic global warming is not strong enough to stand up for itself.”
Does the secular, socialist state envisaged by the Left believe it is possible to ban weather or do they believe they can forbid a change in the weather? Or, do they merely wish to ban anything that interferes with the illusion that government can control everything?
Cloud characteristics are largely ‘parameterised’ in GCMs – calculated using semi-heuristic approximations rather than derived directly from basic physics. Key aspects of cloud feedback vary greatly between different models. GCMs have difficulty simulating clouds, let alone predicting how they will change in a warmer world, with different cloud types having diverse influences on the climate. ~Nic Lewis
Lewis understands that global warming alarmists’ treatment of clouds, for example, is wholly inaccurate. What Lewis essentially says above is that it’s mathematically impossible to quantify the actual effect of clouds. To fit them into the scheme of things GCMs only consider ghosts of clouds as they edge in and peep over artificial thresholds before hitting imaginary ceilings and dissolve on the outskirts of invented mathematical grids.
The TSD purports to rely on IPCC work as a basis for a supposed “sensitivity” of climate to increasing atmospheric C02, but fails to mention that the most recent IPCC report completely undermines any basis for determining climate sensitivity with the following statement: “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” This means that the IPCC admits that it does not have a credible mean, mode or median value of the equilibrium climate sensitivity parameter. In the mathematics of Decision Theory, this situation is called Complete Ignorance Uncertainty. (See, A letter to the EPA)
Global warming alarmists talk about a ‘consensus’ when what they really mean is a majority of… Democrat party voters. We’ve seen the polls and we know how believers and skeptics sort out along the political divide. Essentially, we have a majority of Democrat voters who are comfortable with their level of ignorance and are willing to confer superior knowledge on global warming experts who do not mind looking incompetent to non-Democrat voters as they do whatever they can to bring down those who refuse to go along.
That leaves the population comprised of non-Democrat voters — most of whom are rightfully skeptical — who are forced to walk the party-line if they want to be employed. And, that leaves the rest of us folks who are forced to pay the extravagant salaries of those that comprise what has become the special interest group comprised of government-public employees and the politicians that count on their votes and support, despite the fact these academics and school teachers of global warming alarmism are betraying science and committing treason against reason and their country.
Western academia’s bizarre science of global warming has made the all too easy journey from superstition and ignorance to waging a war on reason and on reasonableness. In the modern era everything has speeded up. For instance, with global warming alarmism the hoax was debunked in a matter of years instead of the 50 years it took to debunk the Piltdown Man hoax (and another 50 years to uncover all of the participants in the hoax). In the past when civilizations may have endured for a thousand years or more, in a wink, we are witnessing the fall of Western civilization in our lifetimes.
…those who have been worshipping so ardently at the altar of reduced carbon emissions — and how quickly they adopted the messianic zeal and intolerance of a religion — may find that they have been deifying not just a false god but a ruinously expensive one, too. ~Johnny Ball
Scientists outside Western academia liken global warming to the ancient science of astrology. For financial and political reasons Leftists obviously hope we will take seriously the consensus of opinion among their numerologists. “There is a high degree of hypocrisy here,” says Judith Curry, “whereby employees of green advocacy groups can participate as authors of the IPCC reports (without apparent criticism), but a non-advocate scientist [like Lennart Bengtsson] cannot participate in a (non-green) think tank without censure from scientist colleagues… Honest brokers are to be preferred over advocates; but the real problem arises when advocates seek to stifle scientific and policy debates.”
To the Left the ends justify the means which is why the fascism of Western academia signals that Mao’s army of red shirts are coming to sort out the believers. Dr. Bentgsson, the thought police are at the door and say they won’t leave before they’ve given you some tough love.
It’s statistics like these that give rise to the sort of absurd pronouncement we saw at the Copenhagen climate change conference late in 2009, where it was grandly announced that at a cost of $100 billion a year we might just be able to limit the increase in global temperatures to 1.5C by the end of the 21st century… an almost unimaginable amount of money effectively being poured down the drain, taking the futures of millions of young people with it. And that makes even a mild-mannered chap like me very angry. ~Johnny Ball
Is it possible that the scientific method is no longer up to the task of helping humanity learn the truth about the world around us? Must we return to putting our faith in witchdoctors? Is it possible that some global warming alarmists like for instance Michael Mann are in possession of an outer-worldly intelligence that our limited brains are incapable of comprehending? Does his possession of a scientifically unverifiable outer-worldly knowledge about climate change mean we must at least consider the possibility that Michael Mann was visited by aliens and now he knows things about the weather and ultimately our future climate that we will never comprehend by observing nature?
Adopt the pace of nature. Her secret
is patience. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson