World Nonplused by Scary Warming Pause
We should all be confident in understanding that Michael Mann and the CRUgaters, the UN and the IPCCers, the climatists of government-subsidized Western science, the Eurocommies, have been all to eager to put politics before methodology when looking at the world around us. It’s hard to have confidence in the science of scientists who are more interested in being useful to Leftist politicians than in a serious search for knowledge.
Like the surprising storms next week that weathermen without an agenda – other than perhaps being skeptical of global warming alarmism – have been forecasting for over a month. For example, some are now saying bombogenesis instead of polar vortex because… it sounds cooler? How about, Kool-Aidogenesis? Or, is it more like the cuckoo climatist, Michio Kaku, trying to look relevant, backing out of the polar vortex and rippling through the gears for a switch to a new way to explain why disastrous global warming is being masked by year after year of a disruptive global cooling trend –e.g.,
Ocean acidification is another one of those non-problems invented by alarmists like, polar bears stranded on dwindling chunks of ice floating in an ice-free Arctic, winters without snow, rising seas taking out coastal cities and millions of people without a Tesla. For the climatists of global warming, it can no longer be a continuing rise in average global temperatures that is alarming, nor even the the speed of the rise, given the hiatus from global warming over the last 16 to 26 years depending on how it’s measured. No rise means no problem which means never mind, right?
The record indicates that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4000 years, including century-long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the present decade (2001–2010). Therefore, we conclude that the current decadal mean temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability over the past 4000 years. ~Kobashi, T., et al.
What is left to be alarmed about, a climate that changes? A climate that don’t change is like a dog that don’t itch, a worm that don’t squirm. How can we not be skeptical of a climate that never changes when the sun changes? “The sun has been acting strangely of late,” reports Pete Spotts (CS Monitor), “prompting some solar physicists to suggest that once current sunspot activity peaked, which appeared to happen last fall, it could tank and remain that way for several decades.” Doesn’t that change everything? “Science, after all,” says the notorious magician and skeptic, the amazing Randi, “is simply a logical, rational and careful examination of the facts that nature presents to us.”
What about increased cloudiness over time. Won’t that change the climate. A 13% increase in cloudiness is associated with a 10°C drop in temperature. If we want to talk about global warming in the short term and by extension, climate change over the long term we should be talking about CLOUD COVER CHANGE. What about changes in winds and atmospheric pressures? In addition to changing ocean temperatures, “new research indicates that similar changes in regional pressure and winds,” according to NOAA (Changing Winds Explain Most Pacific Coast Warming), “can also drive trends in sea surface and coastal air temperatures that extend over a century or more.”
Contrary to AGW theory that now blames humanity for causing current global warming – and, the cooling trend that masks it – for millions of years humanity had nothing to do with climate swings. We humans only benefited from warming swings, we didn’t cause them: the historical evidence shows that increases in atmospheric CO2 levels followed rises in global temperatures by 700 or more years. There obviously are factors other than humanity that cause the climate to change. Humanity has never been able to do more than look-on and abide not abet such changes. Western academia’s computer models don’t know what these other factors are that cause global warming; and yet, they cannot bring themselves to say, “I don’t know.” Even so, we don’t have to be confused about what is NOT the cause. The scientific method informs us that the null hypothesis of AGW has NEVER been rejected – that warming and cooling all can be explained by natural factors.
“Stumbling through all our cognitive clutter just to recognize a true “I don’t know” may not constitute failure as much as it does an enviable success, a crucial signpost that shows us we are traveling in the right direction toward the truth. ~David Dunning