It doesn’t matter if leftist politics and junk science has so overwhelmed and polluted the Nobel Prize that they nominate a ridiculous figure like Al Gore; he is still is totally full of it. His documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth” is total nonsense, a biased and unthinking compendium of politically correct eco-nonsense. You’d think the inventor of the Internet would capable of genuine insight, but his screed on global warming is just as bogus as his claim to contributing anything significant to the Internet’s development.
So, forget about Al Gore and the rest of the Chicken Littles running around flapping their wings and clucking about falling skies and rising temperatures. They don’t know greenhouse gas from a hole in the ozone.
The whole thing is a worldwide conspiracy by hate-filled, racist, homophilic, testosterone-deficient, estrogen poisoned, left wing extremists. Secret plots in hidden places really do control our lives or at least the media component. Or maybe it's just the triumph of the absurd in human affairs.
You'd think you'd get used to it or that the liberal press and leftist politicians would finally hit total bottom. But, no, they keep finding new depths. So, it is still amazing that on the same day, Al Gore gets nominated for a Nobel Prize and the UN panel publishes one of the most preposterous documents to ever masquerade as scientific findings.
Knowing the real facts about global warming makes it almost unbelievable that The United Nations climate panel blames human activities for global warming that is supposed to bring droughts, heat waves and rising seas. What all this really demonstrates is the triumph of junk science over genuine research and responsible analysis. It is a sad day when a sorry mixture of leftist politics
and sublime ignorance combine to besmirch the Nobel Prize with a preposterous nomination and the United Nations by the release of an equally preposterous report.
If you want the whole global warming story in a nutshell, there are four simple things you should understand and take to heart.
First, an honest, objective scrutiny of available scientific evidence shows that in all probability global temperatures are actually rising. Second, they are not rising enough to represent any kind of risk to the planet. Third, human beings and their merry burning of fossil fuels have almost nothing to do with the increase in temperature. Fourth, global warming is almost entirely the result
of a completely natural cycle.
True, you can hardly pick up a newspaper or magazine, listen to public radio, or watch the Discovery channel without hearing that you’re soon going to need sunscreen on your next North Pole excursion or that New York is about to be drowned.
But despite all the junk science in the media, facts are stubborn things. And the fact is that global warming is just the latest end of the earth scenario cooked up by the cozy combination of scientists looking for federal grant money and journalists looking for sensational stories.
In today’s blog, we’re going to share the facts that the media and the scientific leeches don’t tell you. We’ll give you the highlights from two new books that argue convincingly based on hard core scientific evidence that you don’t need to work up a sweat about global warming
Unless you really want to acquire a thorough understand of global warming, you don’t really need to buy these books. A reasonably close reading of this blog will give you all the intellectual ammunition you need to shoot down a frantic member of the Birkenstock community.
Dennis T. Avery and S. Fred Singer give a good clear rundown in easy-to-understand language in their book, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years. The title of this excellent paperback tells the whole story. Global warming is just part of a natural and inevitable cycle.
The scientific facts presented by Avery and Singer are entirely consistent with those documented by Patrick J. Michaels in his book Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming. But Shattered Consensus also explains the how and why of the huge difference between what we read on the topic of global warming and what is really going on in the real world.
This book explains the huge problems with the computer simulations used by world leaders to justify the radical, expensive, wasteful, and useless policies they propose. Read Shattered Consensus and you really will acquire a clear appreciation of the true state of global warming. You’ll see that the climate issue is enormously complex. And you will also acquire serious doubts about the wisdom of the expensive policies that liberal politicians propose -- measure unlikely to have any detectable impact on our planet's future temperature.
While he is one of the best known of skeptics on global warming, Patrick J. Michaels is far from alone. His book comprises ten chapters by ten scientists who examine different factors in global warming: forecasts of temperature and precipitation, weather pattern volatility, the effect of El Nino, the impact of climbing temperature on our health, and the effect of carbon dioxide
concentration on temperature. All of them are as skeptical of the risk of global warning as they are of Gore’s invention of the Internet.
One of the more interesting revelations is the story of how one unethical scientist played games with underlying variables to produce the famous "hockey stick" chart that displays supposedly rapidly climbing temperature levels over the last millennium. While this chart seems to imply we are rapidly racing out of control towards doomsday , this scientist declined to share his data or explain his methodology when other scientists asked.
The data strongly suggests that this scientist purposely a variable to create the hockey stick effect. But the really important lesson to be learned here is that the current model of our scientific peer review process is totally bankrupt. Only a peer review process as out of balance as the picture politically motivated scientists paint of a wildly unstable ecosystem could have allowed the publication of such junk science.
This nearly useless peer review system allowed the publication of a totally false picture of the world’s temperature. It essentially permitted the publication of the work of a scientist who distorted his data to get the effect he wanted: the creation of a fictitious “hockey stick” chart that other headline seeking “scientists” have used as a foundation for the frightening paradigm of runaway global warming that threatens the future of humanity.
It is all balderdash. If this happened in industry instead of science, such manipulation of records
would send a CFO to prison.
The book Shattered Consensus reveals the real truth behind the numbers. It shows that poor record keeping of temperatures during the first half of the century exaggerated the evident increase in temperature during the latter half of the 20th century. Global temperature has increased by 0.7 degree Celsius in the last 100 years. But, almost half of this supposed increase is probably not real, but was exaggerated by significant underestimation of temperatures during the first half of the last century. This error in temperature records was due to shortcomings in thermometer technology. (Essentially, the physical casing of earlier thermometers captured ambient heat in a way that made the thermometer show a lower reading than the actual temperature. The significance of this error is that if you make an allowance for it, the claimed correlation between industrial growth and global warming disappears. In other words, virtually none of global warming has anything to do with human
causes.
One of the facts that the prophets of an overheated earth cannot explain away is the cooling of the stratosphere. This is completely inconsistent with their key hypothesis that greater amounts of CO2 is causing the rise of temperature we are currently experiencing. In fact, there are vast inconsistencies in the supposed relationship between CO2 concentration and the earth’s rise in
temperature.
As other scientists have reported, earth has experienced recent periods with much higher temperatures -- 6 degrees Celsius higher than now -- but the CO2 concentration during those periods of higher temperature was 20% below the current levels. Carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures marched in different directions.
This history was counterbalanced by periods during which we had significant global cooling with rising levels of carbon dioxide -- a similar effect in a different direction. In short, you can tell your liberal friends to relax, that there is at this point no scientific reason to conclude that a reliable relationship exists between temperature and CO2 levels. They can throw some carrots on the grill and light up the charcoal guilt free.
There is little doubt that our climatic system is highly sensitive, so sensitive that it is impossible with current knowledge to model it accurately. For example, if projected precipitation is off only 0.1 of an inch, it would mean that temperature measurement would be off by nearly two degrees – 1.77 degree Fahrenheit.
Yet, the models that scientists exhibit large variation in their predictions of precipitation. Another variable that makes accurate prediction impossible is cloud cover. If there were merely a 4% increase in the formation of stratus clouds, this would offset any effect whatsoever from doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Yet, at this point, scientists are totally unable to
model cloud formation. Such limitations make all global circulation models (GCM) incredibly unreliable, but scientists overheated by their dash for grant dollars use such models as if they really meant something.
But somehow as nuanced and uncertain as things are in the scientific picture, you can’t find anything about this in the media. It is impossible given the current state of the art to make certain predictions. But the press, politicians, and agenda-driven pseudo-scientists give precisely the opposite suggestion. The picture they draw is of a certain and deadly fate is certain and we are all
doomed unless we drastically alter our civilization. This always seems to be where the liberals end up. Regardless of the problem, it’s all the fault of free market capitalism or America or Republicans or patriots or those who believe in the individual more than big government to solve the world’s
problems.
To make sense out of the global warming picture drawn by fear-mongering bogus scientists and posturing politicians, you need to understand not only the science but also the biased anti-capitalism and anti-American politics behind the distorting and obfuscating static from the daily media.
Just remember this rule of thumb: if it seems too bad to be true and it’s a liberal saying it, it’s almost certainly false.
