Thomas Lifson, editor of American Thinker on the latest Warmer political, public relations strategy.
January 15, 2014
Warmists’ desperation is showing
Thomas Lifson
The spectacle of a ship of warmist fools trapped in the very Antarctic ice that they posited was melting away has so seriously damaged the cause the cause that signs of panic are setting in. The problem the warmists face is that they have no new tactics. The earth’s average temperatures are on a 16 year streak of stubbornly failing to rise, invalidating the models which form the basis for the doom-mongering, so using actual evidence is out of the question. All that’s left is propaganda. And that has been going full bore for a couple of decades, anyway, because there are a lot of people in big science and big media who favor giving the all-powerful state the ability to tax and control any activity that uses energy.
Like a quack who has prescribed an ineffective remedy, all they can do is increase the dose. Ben Geman of the National Journal writes:
Senate Democrats pledging to get more aggressive on climate change will soon pressure the major TV networks to give the topic far greater attention on the Sunday talking-head shows.
Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, are gathering colleagues’ signatures on a letter to the networks asserting that they’re ignoring global warming.
“It is beyond my comprehension that you have ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, that their Sunday shows have discussed climate change in 2012, collectively, for all of eight minutes,” Sanders said, citing analysis by the liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America.
Actually, given the nature of the data, silence on the subject is the warmists’ best friend. And bullying the media has a good chance of generating resentment that could cause the nets to present both sides of the debate.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/01/warmists_desperation_is_showing.html at January 15, 2014 – 12:23:03 PM CST
As there is no “TIPS” section, I thought I might drop this here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/01/ship_of_warmist_fools_to_get_bill_for_rescue.html
We’re doing moderation of comments now? Interesting.
Ok, you guys, let me start by saying I’m disappointed. I truly expected a number of folks to beat me to this punch. Shaaaaaame on you. 🙂 (I’m mostly joshing you folks, but seriously: NOBODY?)
Anyways, after several hours of slicing and dicing and paring and whittling, I finally realized that there was no way I was going to fit what I had into a single reply, even in list form — yup, this is me, the writer of novels — so I’m taking the meta-option: a list of lists.
#1: http://athens.patch.com/groups/dave-ballards-blog/p/bp–man-made-global-warming-settled-science-00bcd6ce
Done by some shmoe on the net (no offense to shmoes) questioning the AGW/”settled science” meme but with decent documentation, a nice chart and the requisite hysterical commenters at the end. Weird accident that I found this link at all, but good for a first glance at the overall subject.
#2: http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php
Scientists non-plussed with the AGW meme present their case(s). Slightly dated, it’s still a great for a review of the (almost) current literature and for the citations at the end.
#3: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
I think this is where the author of #1 found most of his works: the ones I spot-checked came from here. This site features links to 1,100+ papers, as well as links for those who would question the questioner. A first, exhaustive source for literature on the issue
#4: http://www.co2science.org
Like Richard Sherman, this site is not too shy to speak its mind while providing extensive coverage — in this case, coverage of a host of CO2/climate/biosphere-related issues. It is easily searched alphabetically by subject and provides documentation for every citation, though sadly it usually does NOT link to the studies directly. For an in-depth exploration of the minutiae of CO2-forced warming, as well as possible consequences of such, try this site for sources.
I hope this helps.
Darn it! This is why I shouldn’t write books: no matter how much I proofread there’s still an extra letter in there SOMEWHERE. ^_^ Good catch, my friend.
I’ll see what I can find as far as a representative set of such studies (titles & authors, links if I have them), and post back here in a few days. I have no doubt others here will do the same.
I like your argument. I’ll think about it and perhaps change my position. My problem is that I don’t have the facts that you present here (I mean I don’t have the documentation of said facts). So in order to change my position (really, my strategy), I’d have to learn a lot of new stuff which I haven’t run across to the level of detail you seem to have.
Perhaps there’s a source of documentation of your claims you could point out to me. That would be helpful (if it exists).
It’s the stuff immediately following your “to whit” line (it should be “to wit” BTW).
Thanks.
Logical plausibilities must fall in the face of actual observation.
To whit: the current temperature rise predates the rise of CO2 attributable to the Industrial Revolution by half a century, give or take, as do current sea level rise and glacier recession trends; neither a spike nor an increase in the rates of temperature rise, sea level rise or glacier recession can be correlated to the increase of CO2 production associated with the Industrial Revolution and activities since then; several recent studies have instead shown a) that CO2 level changes tend to precede like temperature changes on all short timescales (hourly through millenial), and b) that on longer timescales there is no good correlation between global temperatures and CO2 at all; Holocene atmospheric CO2 levels are miniscule — nearly at record lows compared to other epochs of the geologic record; our current climate is near the geologic mean despite such low CO2 levels; the Earth has experienced both ice ages and dinosaurs during atmospheric CO2 levels in excess of 2000ppm (5+ times higher than current levels); geologically, the Earth has been several full degrees C hotter and colder than it is now (up to +/-12C) since life began upon it; current temperature trends are measured in tenths of a degree C and the total 150-year rise amounts to around 1 degree C; there is no obvious scientific reason as to why the cause(s) of earlier large-scale changes in climate may not also be responsible for the minor variations observed today; differentiating any man-made influence on the climate from the influence of such powerful forces becomes problematic, at best; CO2 is neither the most effective, nor the most plentiful GHG in the Earth’s atmosphere; water vapor absorbs more IR, absorbs much more energy in other electromagnetic bands, and is roughly 300% more plentiful in the troposphere (I speak of the invisible gas, not droplets, clouds or precipitation which may momentarily be suspended).
These are just a few of the numerous observations which trump what we might otherwise logically expect to see from the increased anthropogenic emissions of a known GHG. It tends to indicate that CO2 was never “the full story,” nor even a significant portion of it. Therefore, while it is entirely reasonable to state that “global warming” over the last ~150 years is an observed fact, “anthropogenic global warming” cannot be said to exist scientifically in any statistically significant, currently observable amount.
Therefore, as you say, David, it should certainly go without saying that CAGW due to CO2 emission is currently the stuff of science fantasy (e.g. terraforming, planetary migration, Dyson spheres, etc.) rather than reality. Nevertheless avoidance of CAGW seems to be the primary excuse for most public environmental policies up for consideration recently, and mainstream supporters of those policies nearly always start from the premise that “Hey, AGW might be possible…”
No. It really isn’t. Not yet, anyway.
Of course it is possible, but I chose to fight this battle the easy way. It’s too implausible that human activity hasn’t contributed to the slight warming of the past century or 2. We know CO2 and Ch4 are GHGs and we know we’ve been pouring massive and increased amounts of these into the atmosphere.
Now we also know that human emissions are tiny compared with the totality of the carbon cycle. Still it’s the human emissions that are the only source of the increase, so I say “Ok. Let’s stipulate AGW.” It doesn’t matter unless you can show CAGW and that’s what the science fails to do.
It is also plausible that there is no AGW. One cannot keep spending huge amounts of money on plausible theories when there are only limited funds. The argument that what happens if we don’t correct a possible problem is sophistry, defies Aristotelian logic, and can be used by any interest group as a reason to get their hand into the public till. Plausibility is not probability.
I respectfully disagree. We must not confuse GW (or even AGW) with CAGW. It is non-controversial that there’s been some slight global warming over the industrial age (say last 150-200 years). No one denies this that I’m aware, although there are big problems with the historical temperature record.
No one denies that CO2 is a GHG and that the industrial age has resulted in increased emissions of it and other GHGs. So it seems at least PLAUSIBLE that said [modest] warming as we’ve had is ‘somewhat/mostly/all’ of anthropogenic factors (as well as land changes impacting albedo). So AGW is at least plausible.
What has been challenged by the recent flat temperatures is some combination of: a) CO2 emissions are the full story; and b) the prospect of CAGW, which should be the only thing any of us outside of academe care about.
Excuse me but I would correct a mischaracterization of conservatives as Luddites or regressives.
I would object to the characterization of conservatives and what conservatives are or do or think–we accept progress, but we demand that traditions that respect the sanctity of liberty and the value of an individual be preserved. We have no interest in returning to horse and buggy days, we know those days involve hardship now a matter of dim memory.
We conservatives aren’t luddites and if there is regressive ideology it certainly is what has called itself scientific socialism, that would return us to a medieval structure suffused with mediocrity and regimentation.
Modernism brought us the rise of a middle class and great progress–more than anything, conservatism respects the importance of the middle class and meritocracy and success of the middle class as a liberating and salutary force and influence.
John Dale Dunn MD JD Consultant Emergency Services/Peer Review Civilian Faculty, Emergency Medicine Residency Carl R. Darnall Army Med Center Fort Hood, Texas Medical Officer, Sheriff Bobby Grubbs Brown County, Texas 325 784 6697 (h) 642 5073 (c)
Smokey has it exactly right. They are ignoring the “pause” and shifting the argument to climate “change” so that any weather event counts, up, down, wet, dry. When numbers come back that they can cite, with alarm, of course, they will be all over the airwaves. Something like this happened when the Keeling-Mauna Loa data string on CO2 pushed past 400 ppm, the press treated it as a big deal. Yet it was highly predicable since the Keeling data had been on the same (non-alarming) upward slope for 60 years. Nobody bothers to measure atmospheric CO2 anywhere else or by any other method. These people have to be understood as a religious cult, one prophesying that the end is near. Those of you who believe in God have the same problem. Whatever happens, good or bad, it is God,s will. A belief in Him is not falsifiable, but there are plenty of happy events happening to people all over the world all the time that “prove” He is there.
Just don’t count the bad things that are also happening.
However, don’t be so smug as to assume this is just a left wing thing. It happens that the greens are now aligned with the liberals but there is nothing liberal about their ideas. They think everything was just great in the good old days just like right wing conservatives do. Sooner or later the let and right Luddites will join together in a powerful union opposing all forms of social and material progress.
Sure would be nice if someone finally DID realize that it’s all about politics (not science), and actually did stand up to them in this fashion.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record/skipping CD/gif from ytmnd.com, no one in power or seeking power on that side of the argument actually cares about the data, except insofar as it provides them with talking points.
Given that, my recent concern has been that A) the “pause” will end and the warmers will redouble their cries with actual rising temps on their side, or (scarier still), B) the “pause” will become a full-blown cooling period of extended duration, one which this salf-same crowd will use in exactly the same way — Mankind caused it, Mankind is the “Scourge of Gaia(TM),” Mankind must be shackled, for its own good and — more importantly — “For the Good of Mother Earth.”
Either outcome will make them more believable than they are currently, not less, beacuse they will once again start showing real numbers and real data in their defense. Also, they will convince people of their dedication to Truth and Fact and Justice by admitting “Oh, well, you know how science is when you don’t have all the data, I mean obviously we KNEW all this ‘pollution’ would have an effect, we just didn’t realize how big it would be and in what direction…” Since no “pause” in climate can possibly last indefinitely, all they need to do is wait to see which way the needle finally tips.
Like your energy and anger, probably wouldn’t have caused a big stir but I used some ellipses that left the fire still there, Rich. I went to school with Rich Matarese, love you Italians.
Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and therefore “man-made climate change” is bullshit.
Plain language. Bullshit.
So why aren’t the Republican Party politicians and other talking heads using that plain language? Prefacing every response to these “climate change” charlatans as follows:
No more politeness, not even in pretense. Don’t p. . on ’em. Kick ’em in the a . . .
A usual big splash in support of Obama’s agenda to control the climate. It is likely to go nowhere in the Senate or House until after November 2014. I hope the Republicans don’t do their usual trick of going all wobbly when the enviro’s say boo.
The Big Lie continues to be pushed by the fascists on the Left. I wonder if they would care so much if they weren’t getting blackmail money from the corporations, and government grants, subsidies, and tax breaks in the name of being socially responsible?