Global Warming Political Agenda
a Never-Ending Story?
Climate change silly-science entered a new phase. Since there has been no global warming for more than 17 years –and, this is based on the land-based record that roundly exaggerated warming over the past half century – we now see scholarly papers discussing why an unpredicted pause in global warming going on 2 decades doesn’t matter.
There has been no global warming for more than 26 years based on the more accurate satellite data measuring change in the lower atmosphere. More scholarly papers will be needed to tell us it’s not important. How many more papers on the insignificance of the pause are possible if the pause lasts until 2080 or so? Will it take a few volcanic eruptions and quakes along the way, during the course of a natural cooling trend, to trigger a poignant departure away from global warming to a new mass mania about an endless summerless future?
Of many paradigm shifts affecting our view of climate science since the 80s now there has been yet another. From the time George W. Bush pulled the plug on America’s participation in the Kyoto Protocol – essentially turning his back on the collective wisdom of the UN-IPCC and a consensus of opinion coming out of the National Academy of Science – to a more nuanced Bush who talked about the use of switch grass to manufacture ethanol, the public slowly began to believe that concerns about global warming were legitimate. But, trust in climate science began to wane in 2009. The naked hypocrisy of Al Gore’s climate religion and the corruption of climate politics in Copenhagen were exposed; and, with the foi2009.pdf-CRUgate disclosures came a slow unraveling of the phony hockey stick statistics the UN-IPCC used in its campaign of fraud, deception and propaganda.
Human society, like the climate system, has many degrees of freedom. The previous cases lasted from 20 to 30 years. The global warming issue is approaching 30 years since its American rollout in 1988 (though the issue did begin earlier). Perhaps such issues have a natural lifetime, and come to an end with whatever degrees of freedom society affords. This is not to diminish the importance of the efforts of some scientists to point out the internal inconsistencies. However, this is a polarized world where people are permitted to believe whatever they wish to believe. The mechanisms whereby such belief structures are altered are not well understood, but the evidence from previous cases offers hope that such peculiar belief structures do collapse. ~Lindzen
With this final paradigm shift, while people still have open minds when it comes to new ideas about new forms of energy and energy use, more people now feel they have been lied to for years by careerists in the climate change industry about the imminent dangers of global warming.
For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and political reasons, progress in climate science and the actual solution of scientific problems in this field have moved at a much slower rate than would normally be possible… By cultural factors, I primarily refer to the change in the scientific paradigm from a dialectic opposition between theory and observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs… The institutional factor has many components. One is the inordinate growth of administration in universities and the consequent increase in importance of grant overhead. This leads to an emphasis on large programs that never end. Another is the hierarchical nature of formal scientific organizations whereby a small executive council can speak on behalf of thousands of scientists as well as govern the distribution of ‘carrots and sticks’ whereby reputations are made and broken. The above factors are all amplified by the need for government funding. When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research… [and] political bodies act to control scientific institutions… [and] scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of. ~Richard Lindzen, ‘Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?’ ( Rev. 9/’12)
The UN-IPCC is a political not scientific body. Did the departing head of the IPCC, railroad engineer Rajendra Pachauri (who shared the Nobel with Al Gore) respond to a matchbook ad on how to succeed as a professional climate change, global warming alarmist? Like Al Gore, he certainly had no scientific credentials. Western academia has not been bashful about throwing the robe of respectability over the shoulders of anyone who is passionate about preaching the Left’s climate science narrative about global warming to the great unwashed masses.
Why is Rep. Grijalva lending the weight of his office to careerists in the $1 billion-a-day global-warming industry – those who have broken every rule of scientific inquiry to escape the scrutiny of legitimate skepticism – when we know that the current pause in global warming is inexplicable by all in the climate science business except by admitting the roles that natural causes play in climate change? We’ve learned that the higher layers of the upper atmosphere over the tropics have not significantly warmed since the 90s. Doesn’t Grijalva love science? Does Grijalva love his country?
Jouzel, et al. (2007) reconstructed the temperature record of eight ice ages and eight interglacials. The four previous interglacials were all warmer than the present by up to 2.5 K… [The] atmosphere – a tenuous fluid medium – is sandwiched between two near-infinite heat-sinks, the ocean below and outer space above. No doubt there might be significant changes in the temperature of the atmosphere if there were significant changes in the input temperature from the Sun above or from the Earth’s molten core below; but, taking these inputs as broadly constant, such little heat as we are able to generate in the atmosphere will either be radiated harmlessly off to space or taken up into the ocean, which appears to have warmed during the ARGO decade at a rate equivalent to just 0.05 K decade(-1) – well within the very large measurement and coverage uncertainties (each ARGO buoy has to try to monitor 200,000 km³ of ocean). ~MoB
If going from a -50°C to a -40°C at small spots in the coldest and most inhospitable regions on Earth — such as in the dry air of the Arctic or Siberia — and extrapolating that across tens of thousands of miles can be branded as global warming, then perhaps there has been global warming in the US; otherwise, adjusting for that kind of pseudoscience, and adjusting for introducing a systemic warming bias into the climate record by locating official thermometers at busy airports where the tarmac is continually swept clean of winter snow, and for putting weather stations where people live, knowing the UHI effect corrupts the data – “Only 1000 stations have records of 100 years,” notes Dr. Tim Ball, “and almost all of them are in heavily populated areas of northeastern US or Western Europe and subject to urban heat island effect” – there hasn’t been any significant global warming since the 1940s.
NASA says the average temperature of Earth is about 15°C; but, that is a made-up number. To scientists that understand intensive variables the idea of an average temperature of the total atmosphere is as meaningless as an average of all the telephone numbers in NYC. When it comes to record hot and cold, that is something real; but, you really had to be there to understand the degrees of freedom that exit on Earth. According to wiki, the hottest temperature ever recorded was 56.7 °C (134 °F) in Death Valley, California on 10 July 1913; and the lowest ever was −89.2 °C (−128.6 °F) at the Vostok Station, Antarctica on 21 July 1983.
Given all models are wrong, what we really hope is that any new model is more useful than its predecessors and that the value added exceeds the total development costs. ~Edward H. Field
Unfortunately, us folks who are picking up the tab for the development costs of these models don’t seem to have much say in whether we feel their value is worth what climate science is costing us. That’s what liberal fascism is all about: if it feels good and someone else is paying for it, it’s a great idea.
“The myth of scientific consensus is also perpetuated in the web’s Wikipedia where climate articles are vetted by William Connolley, who regularly runs for office in England as a Green Party candidate. No deviation from the politically correct line is permitted. ~Richard S. Lindzen