While the earth seemed to be getting really, really warm, and while the Arctic ice seemed to be getting really, really thin, the major media outlets were all over themselves and us, trumpeting the need for global governance for what seemed surely like a global problem. Where are they now that the indicators have significantly reversed themselves and a flock of crows stands at the ready to be eaten?I can tell when someone cares about honesty based on whether they care to report about both sides of an issue. Based on that factor, man-made global warming enthusiasts are largely snake-oil salesmen.
I haven't written about Global Warming much lately, because I've been so busy shoveling several tons of the stuff out of my driveway all winter. The previously snowiest winter her in northern Utah was 1993, and I'm pretty sure we just beat that in '08.
The winter of 2007-08 has not been very friendly to those who are sure that man is causing the earth to turn into a fireball. All kinds of evidence is cropping up that nature is perfectly capable of thwarting man's attempt to vaporize himself and his globe.
Average temperatures as of late have been much colder than normal. Arctic sea ice is increasing.
Canadian scientists are also noticing growing ice coverage in most areas of the Arctic, including the southern Davis Strait and the Beaufort Sea.That does not comport well with the theory that man is causing much warming. Even if we are having an effect, it appears that nature is more than up to the task of obliterating our futile
"The ice is about 10 to 20 centimetres thicker than last year, so that's a significant increase," he said.
Temperatures have stayed well in the -30s C and -40s C range since late January throughout the North, with the mercury dipping past -50 C in some areas.
Satellite images are showing that the cold spell is helping the sea ice expand in coverage by about 2 million square kilometres, compared to the average winter coverage in the previous three years.
The winter of 2007-08 has not been very friendly to those who are sure that man is causing the earth to turn into a fireball.
attempts to raise the average temperature.On the other end of the globe, Antarctica's ice is increasing as well.
Additionally, according to the US National Climatic Data Center, temperatures for January were lower than the average for the past 100 years. As National Post puts it:
...many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average."China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.
In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.
. . .
Does man have an effect on global warming? Sure. But do we have a significant effect on it? It certainly doesn't seem so.
So far, the great global warming swindle has been perpetrated on the citizens of earth by those who think it is their right to rule over us. If man really is causing the warming of the globe, then naturally, they think, someone must be anointed to correct the problem--by reducing the comforts of life for everyone but themselves. There is no other reason that someone would be so "sure" about something that is in reality so uncertain and unproven.
The problem is, there is no proof that man is causing significant warming. So next time you are tempted to think that global warming is significantly man-caused, ask yourself this question: who has the most to gain from the draconian laws that would have to be set up to even hope to begin to control average global temperature?
The answer to that question: not you.
The problem with your premise is that global warming doesn't just make the world warmer, it actually increases the severity of both hot and cold weather.
ReplyDeleteSo the whole thing that colder weather this year means that global warming is false, actually means that global warming is true.
For more, check out the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and this page on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Attributed_and_expected_effects
especially the second and third paragraphs in that section.
-Chris, a BYU Biology Student.
I was hoping someone would quote the Al Gore mantra. Thanks! That is a very comfortable position for someone to be in--hotter?--it's global warming's fault. Colder?--it's also global warming's fault. More precipitation--global warming of course! Less precip--we get the fuzzy picture.
ReplyDeleteWow! I wish I could come up with a fail-safe theory like that and have so many people gullible enough to believe it. But you can't have it both ways.
Wikipedia claims that IPCC claims that global warming will effect "the intensity of extreme weather events and to change the amount and pattern of precipitation." Besides the fact that extreme weather is down in frequency, there is nothing unusual about the cold and wet weather this winter when you compare it to the natural fluctuations throughout the centuries.
So, Chris, you decide. Are you gullible, or do you appreciate liberty?
Funny we wrote about the same subject. I will refer your story on mine. I think we are finally seeing the unraveling of Global Warming. This has been a record cold year all over the world and it is expected to cool down in years to come, and we didn't even have to abandon our cars to do so. Great story.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCHris
ReplyDeleteI don't think being a biology student makes you an expert on climate. I am a computer science major and I don't claim that makes me an expert on computer models.
Have you noticed how the global warming proponents are distancing themselves from the term "Global Warming" they are trying to repackage it as "Climate Change". Now they can claim any fluctuation in climate is caused by human activities. How convenient.
Frank:
ReplyDeleteYou make it sound like those of us who find global warming a most likely occurence to be routing for our theory to be correct. This isn't some basketball game between the Utes and the Cougars, with one winner rejoicing and the other going home down.
If global warming as a theory is incorrect, that would be a good thing. However, that doesn't jive with the observations of virtually every climatologist who isn't on the payroll of the energy industry or their thinktanks.
Both those who accept and reject the theory of man-caused global warming often make the mistake of not distinguishing between climate and weather. Climatic oscillation from year to year is significant. It is the overall trends over the decades that man-caused emissions have been significant that climatologists focus on.
Do I believe in global warming? To me it isn't about belief. I don't hope that global warming is occuring in order to further some environmental agenda. I base my opinion on the best available evidence and upon looking at other periods in geologic history when green-house gases rose significantly. Based upon that, the laws of probability tell me that humans are in fact a statistically significant cause of global warming.
Yes, it is a belief. No one can tell you, and most admit it, what is going to happen in 50 years as a result of greenhouse gases.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to change your last sentence to something that I think is true:
"Based upon that, the laws of probability tell me that humans are in fact a statistically significant [source of greenhouse gases]."
Besides that, there is no consensus--not even close.
I agree with you about observations over the decades being important. That is why it seems relatively obvious to me that man is not having nearly the effect that those on the payroll of the United Nations claim they have--because we have history to compare to.
Frank, didn't you watch "The Day After Tomorrow"? That movie showed that Global Warming didn't turn Earth into a fireball, but rather caused the northern hemisphere to freeze, forcing us all to immigrate (illegally) to Mexico. So while you're shoveling all those tons of snow, you ought to tune your ipod to some sort of Spanish language instruction.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, here's an interesting article on global climate change not just over the last few decades, but over the last 10,000 years or so.
But...but the article you link to says that Petr Chylek is a "Professor of Physics and Atmopsheric Science at Dalhousie University in Halifax", Nova Scotia. He has absolutely no experience working for the UN's IPCC. So how could he be an expert on climate?
ReplyDeleteBesides, if you do a google search for "Petr Chylek Exxon" you probably come up with a million hits or something!!!
;-)
But seriously, Chylek's article is a great example of how there is "uberhaupt keine" (absolutely no) consensus on this issue.
Some say the world will end in fire;
ReplyDeleteSome say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
(Fire and Ice by Robert Frost)
I think I know enough of science's long history of spectacular bungles -- partucularly when forecasting the future or divining the past -- and of man's avarice, that for squelching of liberty, global warmism is great.
Even if humans are a significant factor in climate change, turning the problem over to the ultimate resource -- FREE PEOPLE -- will produce by far superior results over removing people's freedoms.
Frank, among my family and friends it seems to be the case that those who support conceal carry, voted for Mitt, supported vouchers, support the war on terror in Iraq, are anti immigrant (generally speaking), dismiss the antrhopogenic roots of climate change/global warming.
ReplyDeleteDon't you think it is true there is a political agenda where there are a number of issues that all seem to be on one's menu? The menu is either R or Dem and you sort of buy into everything on it.
WP,
ReplyDeleteThere could be. With me, there is not (but then I have my blind spots, so I could be wrong). Here's how I break down with regard to your list:
1. I support conceal carry,
2. I did not vote for Mitt, thinking that there were two Republican candidates better than him
3. I supported vouchers, but then I heard from the democrats about all the shenanigans in the legislature, so I don't know if I made the right choice in the specific instance of Referendum 1 4. I think the war on terror is very overblown and that we should have never gone to Iraq
5. I support immigration and keeping immigrants here in the US, particularly where it involves families. I support resident tuition for student who completed 3 years of high school.
That being said, I think the latest global warming claims by Al Gore, the IPCC, etc. are pretty much a crock. We need to protect the environment, but we can do it without everyone claiming that the "sky is [burning]" in order to (1) keep their government funding coming, and (2) gain power over the mind and liberty of man on a ruse.
Frank,
ReplyDeleteFor those who cite the "all those climatologists against Global Warming are Exxon employees," let's take a look at those supporting and see who is benefitting and lobbying for enivornmentally friendly policies and what they have gotten us so far.
2 Examples:
Ethanol: the corn growers and associated investers and large firms have made billions using the governments enviro push. Consuquence: higher wheat and corn prices which have led to higher prices for meat, fruit, bread, etc.(that's really nice for the poor and needy, which I thought the left was supposed to help), huge amounts of water polluted to create the oil, and finally we know now that ethanol is actually more harmful to the environment than just plain gas. I am sure glad we got on that enviro-friendly bandwagon.
Second example: GE and other fluorescent bulb makers worked the DC lobby circuit hard and got their wish. By 2012, we will not have the freedom to choose which light bulb we want, but will have to "upgrade" to enviro-friendly mercury fluorescent bulbs. Now the EPA and other health advocates have released a study talking about how children could be in danger if they are exposed to a broken fluorescent bulb. In addition the poorest among us will have to start paying 2.00 for light instead of .50. Once again the people paying the most for these wrong-headed experiments are the poorest among us.
Perhaps the most disturbing byproduct of the Environmentalism Push is that environmentalism is showing itself to be the worst poverty policy we have ever seen for it is punishing those who have the least.
Excellent point, Lyall.
ReplyDeleteThis is what irks me so bad about the global warming swindle. So many of those who believe it so fervently know that they cannot afford to admit all of the kinds of conflicts of interest and other mistakes that they have on their side.
Thank you for your excellent examples of such duplicity.
Much of the human race is going to be wiped out...but probably North America will do better than most places. Most of us will survive no doubt. That's the real reason that our government isn't stopping climate change--they hope we'll come out on top. That's stupid thinking though, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of people being wiped out--Pol Pot did a pretty good job, Hitler was better, Stalin and Lenin were even better than that, and the grand murdering champion was Mao Tse Tung.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you intended to, but you have struck upon the precise point of my article. The IPCC and the man-made global warming swindle is a near-perfect ploy for MUCH bigger government. If we allow government to take over because of this scam we can definitely expect much of the human race to be wiped out.
Frank, you are a capital 'M' moderate Republican. Maybe after a few more Buttars and Donnelsons you will complete your journey to the Dark Side and become a Dem. Feel the power Frank!
ReplyDeleteIn a more serious note thanks for your comment. Glad you are a thinking R!
WP,
ReplyDeleteAmong my acquaintances it is apparent that there are some who are for gun control, are anti-voucher, voted for HillBama, voted for the war in Iraq before they voted against it, are pro-abortion, are pro illegal immigration, and pro outlawing just about everything from plastic bags to light bulbs in an effort to control markets.
So George, what's on your plate? Do you buy into anything that has a "D" next to it?
My family believe I am somewhere between a John Kerry hunting Democrat and a Karl Marx Socialist. I love Latinos and am learning Espanol and assist a Latino Scout Troop in West Bountiful.
ReplyDeleteBTW my John Kerry vs. Mitt Romney hunting experiences are centered around a large caliber long distance sniper rifle. I care nothing for trophies but like elk steak on the grill along with fresh tomatoes and corn from my garden. Assault rifles and high magazine types along with 17 round Glocks should be sold to law enforcement only. I am in favor of stricter gun controls.
I am a card carrying member of Utah Pride and support the same equal rights for the GLTG community that I enjoy being married to my wife of 37 years.
Vouchers were/are a scam to educate the kids of the wealthy, such as the Walton (wall mart) spawn and many of the R's in this state.
I have voted for every Dem presidential candidate since Michael Dukakis. In college I worked in vain for Frank Moss against Orrin the carpetbagger Hatch from Pittsburgh, PA. I actually met him there in 1968.
I am certain there are a few more D causes I support Cameron.
I, too, believe that Orrin Hatch is a carpetbagger. When I first read his biography, I thought it odd that he came to Utah to save us. He is, perhaps, in this way the inspiration for "long-time" New Yorker, Hillary Clinton.
ReplyDeleteIt's been a long time since I voted for Hatch. It's been a long time since I voted for Chris Cannon. I liked Bill Orton when he was around. I guess I generally identify with the Constitution party, although I still am a registered republican. I have had Democrats, however, asked me to run for state legislature under their banner.
Think about it again Frank, you would be a fine legislator!
ReplyDeleteIf I had been on top of things I would have let you know that the dean of the graduate school at U of U came down to UVU last week to give presentation on Global Warming. Thought provoking I thought. It would have been nice to have you there to ask questions. As for me, I'm not sure yet jsut where I stand on Global warming. I have sat though various lectures for both side and heard good arguments for either.
ReplyDeleteThat would have been an interesting discussion to go to. I agree that there are valid arguments on both sides. What I disagree with is the claim that there is consensus (there is not) and that government can solve the problem (they cannot, and in cases of Communist countries, they caused the problem).
ReplyDeleteUVU has a couple earth sience seminars each month, usually around noon. They're pretty good, I must admit that they are pretty good, but I am an avid earth science nerd and what I find to be interesting is probably boring to most.
ReplyDeleteSounds like you and me are pretty similar!!
ReplyDeleteGlobal warming alarmism has become an industry unto itself. There are many people making lots of money peddling this "science". People want to accuse anyone who hasn't drunk the global warming Kool-Aid of being in the back pocket of Big Oil. On the flip side, too many of the loudest voices screaming global warming are in the back pocket of Big Government. The burden of proof rests with the global warming proponents, but they simply have not done that. They're too busy telling us we are all going to be cannibals and that giant snakes are going to take over North America.
ReplyDeleteI agree. It's almost comical at how panicked Ted Turner and other "man-made global warming experts" get when they realize that few of us are taking the Utopian bait.
ReplyDelete