Skip to content

Global Cooling

2012/01/29

UPDATE: “The Debate Is Over. Global Warming Is Man-Made. (The Issue is Man-Made. The Data Is Man-Made. The Crisis Is Man-Made…)

Mann oh-Mann!  Mikey gets a “hockey stick” – er, (cough) never mind.

(Heh. -Ed.)

. . .

In the Wall Street Journal, no less…

No Need to Panic About Global Warming: There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

Image courtesy NASA.gov

Please read the whole thing.”

The Journal piles-on with a video, Opinion: The Global Warming Hoax, featuring Princeton physics professor William Happer.

Hoax, you say? Science run amok, another Piltdown Man?

This would never have come about without the internet. As Ken Layne said some years back, [pardon the language] “We can fact-check your ass!” The web provided access to another feature of the human condition: intellectual competition; the marketplace of ideas.

For decades, the lay community seemed alone in it’s incredulity. Then in 2005 Anthropogenic Global Warming officially became Climate Change. Not a few of us “amateurs” sensed trouble with the science: Why fiddle with the message of heating if heating is measurably occurring? Then in 2009, “change we can believe in” became ‘Global Climate Disruption.’ It’s New! It’s Improved! It’s… Scienterrific!

Stubborn things, facts.  They’d show-up at odd times.  Notes here and there about thermometer placement being selectively corrupted.  Satellite thermal image cameras needing calibration. Hurricanes that refused to show-up. Scientists complaining about data taken out of context. Tree-ring evidence fudged. Multi-billion dollar “carbon exchanges” established by companies heavily invested in “green energy” products and infrastructure. Long-established cyclicality of polar bear populations being ignored. Greenland’s “shrinking” ice sheets that are still there. Astrophysicists complaining that solar output data was totally ignored. Gigabytes of hacked e-mails exposing outright fabrications, “tricks” with statistics, ad-hominem attacks targeting peers…

Stubborn thing, Science. This mess will be cleaned-up from the inside, if Science wishes to recover it’s reputation.

Academia has other internal problems to face; The collapse of the Global Warming hoax parallels a measurable global cooling of the Public’s trust in statism and it’s attendant intellectual laziness, atheism, moral relativism and central planning. Showing up at an “Occupy” protest with complaints that one’s master’s degree in puppetry doesn’t pay the bills has more than a sick ironic twist to it, yeh?

Advertisements
8 Comments leave one →
  1. 2012/01/29 03:14

    The problem is getting the media to report that their ass has been fact checked and found to be a lying one. Interesting Ran. Thanks.

    • 2012/01/29 03:45

      Hey Maggie,
      Sure. This pair of timely WSJ articles does something to recover WSJ’s credibility. They’re admitting that it’s a hoax. What a change in the weather!

      I think too that it derails about half of the Occupier in Chief’s proposed agenda for a second term and it adds weight to any candidate who has smelled the scam from the beginning.

      As it is, Santorum looks pretty good. He could fire away with his record of skepticism and make Mitt and Noot look like fools on the issue.

  2. 2012/01/29 11:03

    Very happily forwarded the WSJ article to several of my European colleagues with whom I had an AGW debate recently. They insisted that the scientific community was united in its belief in AGW.

    They also said there was no logical reason to make this stuff up. I pointed out the grant money for research, the subsidies for “green” industries, etc. The article did a great job of reinforcing my points.

    Great timing.

  3. 2012/01/29 13:13

    Thanks Steven.
    I studied geophysics as my major in undergrad.

    The whole CO2 thing struck me as fraudulent from the start. Off the top, CO2’s concentration is trace… about 38% of 1/10th of 1% of the total (molar) concentration. That varies slightly – seasonally, regionally and diurnally. All of human contribution to CO2 is no more than about one sixth of that total. Thus, if the atmosphere were 100,000 dollar bills tall, CO2 would give you $38 and change… of which humans contribute less than seven bucks.

    As thermal reflectivity goes, CO2 is a piker compared to the largest human activity by-product: dihydrogen oxide gas, which hogs a full 2% or so by molar concentration. It too, varies, but far more so than CO2. This colorless, tasteless gas condenses at STP into a clear liquid that will freeze at near 0°C. The stuff is everywhere. I’m told it’s getting into the fish and wildlife.

    The problem is that H2O’s thermal behavior swamps CO2’s by at least four orders of magnitude. Yet the direct measurable error of H2O’s effects are more than three orders greater that the theoretical effect of CO2’s. The result is that there is no reliable direct scientific measure for the thermal effects of CO2. It’s effect can only be detected via statistical analysis… and as we know, there are three forms of lies.

    That was the “pants on fire” at East Anglia, Virginia and Penn State. The IPCC and Davos had staked billions if not trillions of dollars on the sanctity of AGW’s science.

    With two-thirds of the Earth’s surface covered in water, it becomes obvious that whatever control’s water temperatures controls water’s evaporation rates. The Sun plays the dominant role. Moreover, the Sun’s output is variable. This… the UN via the IPCC can’t control nor tax. And that simple fact is the undoing of the world’s smartest people.

  4. 2012/01/29 17:15

    Another big problem for the AGWers was their choice of spokesman. The humorless nagging serial grad school dropout of a randy poodle who inherited daddy’s senate seat by virtue of having the stellar great luck that his pop popped-off just before he was asked to leave law-school.

    They’d have probably done better with Alec Baldwin.

  5. 2012/01/29 17:45

    Sure. And Alec would have had less time to ruin movies, too. Hmmm…

    Then again, I have a shortgrowing list of actors who I avoid at nearly all cost:
    Alec Baldwin,
    Meryl Streep,
    James Spader,
    Susan “I don’t want to be upstaged by my breasts!” Sarandon
    Jeff Goldblum,
    Demi Moore,
    Tom Kroooze,
    Helena Bonham Carter,
    Tim Robins,
    Robin Williams,
    Matt Damon,
    Vanessa Redgrave,
    George Clooless,
    Barbarella,
    Sean Penn…

  6. 2012/02/02 15:29

    Ah, the “Avoid” list.

    I always wondered what people meant when they talked about “A-list” movie stars. Now I know.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s