Monday, February 24, 2014

Thoughts on Climate Change

Our ever-prescient president has predicted [1] more extreme droughts, floods, wildfires, and hurricanes, and this isn’t bad for a constitutional scholar who knows less about the constitution than he does the dreams of his father, who he never met. Unfortunately, the president’s predictions are not supported by science unless you happen to be Chair of the Al Gore Department of Weather Phenomena at Matchbook University.

The fact is that climate change is a complicated science —far too complex for most people to understand, including 99.9% of all politicians who make their living by passing along rumors, half-truth, and innuendo. One must also remember that the average person’s understanding of climate change comes from pulling back the drapes and looking out a window. This does not include those on the left, however, who have no drape pulling competencies or certifications. One will find that the primary source of knowledge on the left are the junk-science talking points distributed from the desk of Dr. Homer Simpson [2] at Climate Progress —himself a graduate of MU.

Most Americans, and others from around the world, tend to conclude that because they are experiencing scorching heat waves, droughts, floods, and other extreme weather, that the cause of all these maladies is climate change. According to a team of British scientists, it just isn’t so.

Their findings, in the summer of 2013, is that extreme fluctuations in weather may be regional phenomena [3], and when carefully analyzed, one finds that global temperature variability has been nearly constant for the last 50 years. The lead author of this study, Dr. Chris Huntingford, said, “The general view of the scientific community is that there will be parts of the world where variability does go down, so to colleagues this is not necessarily a complete surprise.” It is also no surprise that people tend to ignore global variability because of their personal experiences where they live.

There are two possible indicators to this analysis. First, since most people lack scientific training, they should refuse to involve themselves in matters beyond their intellectual capacity. We deserve no less than this as a basic human consideration. Unless an individual holds a post-honorary degree in weather science, they should withhold from us their opinions about climate change. This would include those who instead hold a PhD in Astrology, for example, for they too lack bona fides in the appropriate field of study. I mention this because the individuals and organizations that propagate the global warming myth actually do recruit people with PhDs in a wide range of fields that have nothing whatever to do with earth science, and in exchange for their endorsements, pay them a goodly sum of money. This is simply dishonest.

I have to say that I agree with Charles Krauthammer, who recently opined as follows: “ … I’m not a global warming believer. I’m not a global warming denier. I've long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.”

Meanwhile, the Propagandist in Chief has declared that this debate is settled. He is lying, once again. He may wish for us to go quietly into the night, but I see no indication of that happening any time soon. But now the second possible indicator to the above analysis: intense levels of hot air emanating from inside the Washington Metropolitan area could adversely affect weather variability within the Eastern region of the United States. Fear not; it is an easily solvable problem. Vote conservative in November.


[1] The White House, 29 June 2013
[2] Author of "The Last Little Polar Bear Who Drowned"
[3] No Increase in Global Temperature Variability, Nature International Weekly Journal of Science, 9 Jan 2013


DaBlade said...

Good piece. Nothing to disagree with here. I don't mean to brag, but I am as ever-prescient as our president when predicting the balance of his second term. There will be * more extreme droughts of savvy foreign policy, floods of more taxes and regulations, wildfires of more and more out-of-control illegal surveillance, and hurricane after hurricane fundamentally transforming the landscape and shredding our Constitution.

WomanHonorThyself said...

Good mornin my friend:)and yet all the masses follow this myth as if it were gospel!

Always On Watch said...

Wisdom -- and I'm not being sarcastic: the average person’s understanding of climate change comes from pulling back the drapes and looking out a window. This does not include those on the left, however, who have no drape pulling competencies or certifications.

Back when I was in college (1968-1972), statements about climate change involved Chicken Little statements: "The sky is falling! The sky is falling! There's a new Ice Age upon us!" And, yes, carbon emissions and all forms of human pollution were blamed then, too.

Therefore, I conclude that climate change assertions are another way of imposing more restrictions on our freedoms.

Duckys here said...

One will find that the primary source of knowledge on the left are the junk-science talking points ...
This after the refreshing admission that the average person is not qualified to judge the science.

Maybe mustang got his meteorology degree at MIT?

Shaw Keewee said...

According the first principle of the Libertarian Party 2010 platform, "No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government." This is extended to personal property in the second principle, "Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights."
But these closed minded people will never understand reality.
Frankly, I’m a bit surprised to find libertarians on the wrong side of the Global climate change debate.
The same argument can be made to Libertarians on the need to ban smoking in public places. But you don't hear them acknowledging it. Because Libertarianism is a psychotic, anti-social ideology based on greed. Because it is psychotic, it can only appeal to people through bribing them, and because it is anti-social the bribe it offers is based on selfishness. Sorry bout that RN.

Thersites said...

Maybe mustang got his meteorology degree at MIT

Eppur si muove, duckman!

Thersites said...

I propose that the global warmists take a course in regression to means, solar cycles and the concept of precession.

Thersites said...

Sitting here contemplating
the second precession
of the perihelion
I am aware only of
the smell of the orange
my lover is peeling
which fills the room,
and for the moment
becomes the whole world,the creature
whose colour
is itself.
Then the world becomes
the sound of bubbles
in the corner aquarium,
of hungry fish leaping
for supper, for what
they do not perceive
as our attention.
And then I am under oceans
sitting, suckling live volcanoes
with giant clam children,
red-blooded, full,
and I am eating
an orange
and blowing
bubbles and I wonder
if this is maybe the beginning
of the third perihelial precession
when the Earth is tilted happily
and nearest her sun, and so warm
all over.

-Alla Renee Bozarth, "The Book of Bliss"

Thersites said...


Thersites said...

Climate change is real. Anthropogenic causes, thankfully, are not.

Thersites said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
skudrunner said...


Didn't MIT offered a degree in meteorology.

Global warming is just like the new ice age years ago. Politicians promote it even though they have no idea what it is.

Glenn Beck's #1 Fan said...

Deniers should be shot!

Craig said...

I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.”

Funny you would cite this study since it directly refutes Krauthammer's assertion. No reputable climate scientist pretends to know exactly what climate change/ global warming will cause. What each of the authors of the study are certain of is the Earth is warming, climate is changing and the cause of higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic.

Huntingford is a climate modeller. Another author is Phil Jones, remember him from the phoney "Climategate"? Now you cite him as somehow refuting climate change. Oy. Nothing in the study refutes climate change. It does show there is a robust inquiry into temp. variation, climate sensitivity, Arctic sea ice bifurcation, deforestation and a ton of other effects of climate change.

I would suggest you and Dr. (psychiatry) Krauthammer heed your own advice,

First, since most people lack scientific training, they should refuse to involve themselves in matters beyond their intellectual capacity.

It's obvious, neither of you has a clue.

Craig said...

Here's another quote from Dr. Huntingford,

Yet the uncertainty bounds on climate sensitivity, the amount of
warming for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, remains
stubbornly large (IPCC
). Although it is totally correct to disclose in full this
uncertainty in current knowledge, unfortunately it has the side-effect of forcing a
polarization in the debate. Some green pressure groups may select the upper
predictions of change, and give a potentially overly pessimistic and thus alarmist Environ. Res. Lett.
(2014) 011001
assessment of the evolution of the human–climate system. Other pressure groups
do the opposite, and equate uncertainty as meaning the science is simply wrong.
The latter attempt to debunk everything to do with climate change, including
attributes we do know with more certainty, such as an almost certain human
fingerprint on the general warming record to date
et al
). This
polarization, preventing informed and inclusive debate, in itself constitutes a real
threat. It makes it more difficult for society to assess and discuss the risks of
global warming and prepare for any related impacts.

-FJ said...

the cause of higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic.

Yes CO2 increases ARE anthropogenic and have increased recently on Mauna Loa to 397 ppm (parts per MILLION).

CO2 also only represents .0397% of the total composition of our atmosphere.

And CO2 has always been a LAGGING (not leading) indicator of temperature change (by about 800 years). Warmer temperatures are "stangely" more conducive to promoting plant growth and their subsequent contribution to planetary CO2 levels.

They are not "causative source" of the global temperature variations observed.

-FJ said... other words, "correlation is NOT causation."

Always On Watch said...

in other words, "correlation is NOT causation."

Drum roll, please!

Always On Watch said...

Possibly of interest: Western Hero's post today.

Craig said...

And CO2 has always been a LAGGING (not leading) indicator of temperature change

Not quite

Bloviating Zeppelin said...

What a load of HOGWASH that "anthropomorphic global warming" is responsible for the weather.

The weather is variable. Period. It changes in and of itself. And Leftists have rung the "Global Warming Doom" bell too many times. Now they want everyone to believe that when it's HOT, it's Global Warming, when it's COLD, it's Global Warming, when it's WINDY it's Global Warming, when it's DRY it's Global Warming and when it's WET it's Global Warming.

Global Warming is LeftSpeak for fleecing YOU, the American Taxpayer.


Sam Huntington said...

No one questions climate change. Climate change is what the history of Planet Earth is all about. What we question is the notion that it is caused by human activity. What this is, quite frankly, is Bull Sh*t. There is NO evidence that human activity has any impact whatsoever on 4.5 billion years worth of climate change.

No, what is at work here is the Agenda 21 Sustainability ploy and none of that has anything whatever to do with the health of the planet. But to be perfectly honest, if we cared about Planet Earth, we would rid ourselves of leftists.

-FJ said...

If you're worried about global warming, Craig... perhaps you need to dig a little deeper into the subject.

-FJ said...

ps - And even though I don't agree with his conclusions (vis a vis - Forcing), real climate scientists DO get one thing right.

-FJ said...

...that they "don't know" what rising CO2 levels actually mean.

-FJ said...

The AGW advocates like Peter Hildebrand claim that the reason we aren't seeing any effects of global warming at present is that the excess heat is being absorbed moving into the "Deep Ocean"...

He may be right.

But then again, underneath the Deep Ocean lies an even more massive heat source/ generator, that create the magnetic fields (Van Allen belts) that protect the earth from incoming radiation. Just how that and other Earth "energy" gets radiated into the solar wind is a subject of much scientific interest... plasmoids and magnetic reconnection effects notwithstanding.

Robert Sinclair said...

Climate scientist refers to Global Warming Alarmists as Nazis.

Duckys here said...

skudrunner, I'm surprised you aren't familiar with Richard Lindzen.

Craig said...

FJ, This might interest you. NASA Study Goes to Earth's Core for Climate Insights

Here's the upshot,

Regardless of the eventual connections to be established between the solid Earth and climate, Dickey said the solid Earth's impacts on climate are still dwarfed by the much larger effects of human-produced greenhouse gases. "The solid Earth plays a role, but the ultimate solution to addressing climate change remains in our hands," she concluded.

This study only looked at the movement of the earth's core and it's effect on the length of days. If you are suggesting heat from the core is the cause of warming, what explains the day night cycle or changes in climate at different latitudes. Solid rock is a good insulator. The earth is releasing less than one-tenth of one Watt/m2. Scientists have shown a radiative forcing of 2.43 Wm-2. Unless the energy flow from the earth has jumped over 200 times, better look elsewhere.

Duckys here said...

Odd that mustang only mentions liberal statements and ignores mouth breathers like Inhofe and others.

Fair and balanced.

Jack Whyte said...

“Ask a Climate Scientist” is a bit misleading. I am not at all suggesting that Dr. Peter Hildebrand has no contribution to make on the issue of CO2 levels. What I am saying is that Dr. Hildebrand received his PhD in Agricultural Economics. This is not “climate science.” And so while he may have an opinion, it may not be the defining opinion within the meteorological science field. More to the point, we do not know whether CO2 levels preceded rises in temperature during periods of time before man. I credit him with saying that we do not know the implications of this noted tend, but let us not pretend as if we know what happened before written records. The evaluation of archeological data continues, which means that it is premature to say the debate is over or that the science is settled.

-FJ said...

Dickey said the solid Earth's impacts on climate are still dwarfed by the much larger effects of human-produced greenhouse gases. " mean those "effects" that the warming models predict but aren't showing up in any of the actual data?



skudrunner said...

Thanks Duck, now I know.

Climate change/global warming is a political rather than a scientific event. Is there climate change, absolutely and there has been for thousands of year and will be thousands of years from now.

Algore has made a fortune on it.

-FJ said...

Oooops! :)

-FJ said...

Question for Craig...

What do they call it in Science when the predictive theory and the actual data results don't match?

The evidence, therefore, indicates that the current generation of climate models (when run as a group, with the CMIP5 prescribed forcings) do not reproduce the observed global warming over the past 20 years, or the slowdown in global warming over the past fifteen years. This interpretation is supported by statistical tests of the null hypothesis that the observed and model mean trends are equal, assuming that either: (1) the models are exchangeable with each other (that is, the ‘truth plus error’ view); or (2) the models are exchangeable with each other and with the observations (see Supplementary Information). Differences between observed and simulated 20-year trends have p values (Supplementary Information) that drop to close to zero by 1993–2012 under assumption (1) and to 0.04 under assumption (2) (Fig. 2c). Here we note that the smaller the p value is, the stronger the evidence against the null hypothesis.

On this basis, the rarity of the 1993–2012 trend difference under assumption (1) is obvious. Under assumption (2), this implies that such an inconsistency is only expected to occur by chance once in 500 years, if variation might combine differently in observations than in models.

Is this a 500 Year climate modelling error event?

JonBerg said...

Well, it seems to me that TAXING our way [out] of "Climate Change" (a naturally occurring event) is about as absurd as TAXING our way [into] "Prosperity"!

TS/WS said...

Al Gore said that Climate Change was responsible for the 1st Dust Bowl and will happen again, his speech in Kansas the other day.
Did Industrial Co2, and Millions of SUV's, and the 6 Billion people in the 1930's cause the 1st Dust Bowl.
Where did those 6 Billion people go from the 1930's, and what happened to those Co2 emitting Industries, Where Did They Go, and is that why they stop making the Millions of SUV's of the 1930's?
Just asking - I did not know that the population explosion of the 1930's has been excavated by the anthropologist. 6 Billion people way back then WOW we were not taught that in School.

Kid said...

Greenhouse Gas at Record High in 2012

Yet, the Earth has been cooling the last 15 years. This is simple.

When the predicted result does not come to pass, it means that the Theory of man made global climate change is BS.

Apparently, there are many millions of mostly libtards that never learned about the Scientific Method, like I did in grade school.

This scam was perpetrated to make certain individuals rich, and for the parasite countries to feed off of the production of the USA.

Kid said...

Jonberg, according to nana pelousy, every dollar we give to a loser, returns 2.50 in ROI.

Maybe we need to go back to school. obama high in S. Chicago I'm guessing would probably set us straight.

Liberalmann said...

It's not THAT hard to understand. 99% of climate scientists believe it. The 1% who don't were found to be paid for by the oil companies (or Fox News).

Write a letter to your future generation of your family and put it n a safe place. I'm betting you'll be thought of as the family fool by your descendents. Wanna take that chance?

JonBerg said...


"Write a letter to your future generation..... Wanna take that chance?"

Yes I do. When they are paying 100% of their pathetic income in tax, while still enduring "Climate Change"; they will look upon me as a PROPHET!

Kid said...

JonBerg, libtards Love being wrong about everything and embarrassing themselves online. They need it.

It satisfies their submissive obsession combined with the fact that they can't find anyone to walk them down the street with a dog collar on anymore.

Impertinent said...

@Robert Sinclair:

In a nutshell...

"Our climate 'is' changing, always has been, just witness the ice age; but the progs will endeavor to capitalize on catastrophe because that is the ticket to capture the heart and the 'votes' of those in the electorate who should still be walking on all fours."

And those who'd rather bring our economy to its knees and have our standard of living revert us to cave dwellers again. But then the EPA would ban / regulate wood burning too.

Sam Huntington said...

@ Liberalman

If I were you, I wouldn't wait for the next available operator at the Suicide Prevention Hotline. I urge you to be a man, take the plunge.

Kid said...

@Sam, now that you mention it, wouldn't it be fun to work on the suicide hotline?

Someone calls.
We ask - did you vote for obama? twice?
do you believe in man made global warming?

Yes and yes, and we give them as much encouragement to satisfy the mandates of evolution as we can.

Ed Bonderenka said...

Just suppose, just for a moment, that carbon emissions (and are we talking CO2 plant atmosphere or carbon particulates?) are influencing the eco-sphere.
When India and China (and the rest of the world) decide to cut their emissions to U.S. levels, maybe then we should talk about cutting U.S. levels back.
I'm all for that.
Ain't gonna happen.

Impertinent said...


Maybe if we just declare that we're an "emerging third world power" too...we'll get a pass.

Ed Bonderenka said...

Imp: Under Obama, we're a "sub-merging third world power".

Ed Bonderenka said...

@Imp (again):
"But then the EPA would ban / regulate wood burning too."

Impertinent said...

Maybe it's time to revisit ...:

The Fourth Branch of government; Executive, Judicial, Legislative and Electronic Townhall.

The idea is to perfect every section of the various laws and policies that do effect each and every one of us every single day.

As the data is collected, a reasonable person would expect that the responsible government officials would modify the laws, policies, and programs and make them congruent with the will of the people they are supposed to be representing.

The harnessed experience and the combined intelligence of hundreds of thousands or even millions of citizens focused like a laser light on the real issues, will, as surely as night follows the day, perfect every law in our country and eventually it will right every wrong.

THE ELECTRONIC TOWNHALL is the only way to do it.

Impertinent said...


Want to see the next revolution begin damn near immediately?

Tell those who have lost power during the next polar vortex that they can't use a wood burning stove or a fireplace to warm their homes for 3, 4 days or two weeks while the power is being restored. Or have food to cook or even warm up.

I guaran-damn-tee you that the doors of the WH will be torn down and set fire again as it was in the 1812.

Maybe thats what we need....a damn cold and rude awakening to how we're being corralled, penned up and loaded into Fema camps or boxcars. Laughing?

So did those Jews in Poland not that long ago who thought they were going on a picnic.

Bob said...

Craig is spreading non-sense, again when he says, "First, since most people lack scientific training, they should refuse to involve themselves in matters beyond their intellectual capacity."

Craig, that is silly. You don't have to be a scientist to understand science. I have a degree in engineering, which makes me a scientist, and people understand the science when I explain it to them.

Visit my blog, where I have posted the actual date from NOAA on hurricanes, tornadoes, and wild fires. If an average person, like you, looks at the data you will see that there are no current trends in extreme weather, much less any links with global warming.

I will leave you with an old Southern saying. "You don't have to be a farmer to know when you have a rotten egg".

This is true in climate science. We skeptics accept the basic science, but also easily show that the extreme weather stuff is Zombie Science, i.e., brain dead.

Bob said...

-FJ said, "... the reason we aren't seeing any effects of global warming at present is that the excess heat is being absorbed moving into the "Deep Ocean"..."

-FJ: First of all, temperature measurements in the "deep ocean" don't show any increase in heat content. Some claim that heat is descending into the great depths without offering any data or mechanism how this would happen. The mainstream idea is that if heat did go from the surface to the depths of more than 2000 meters, we would have seen temperature gradients on the way down. The heat is just not there.

A "famous" scientist, Kevin Trenberth, has been using his models to claim that some missing heat is in the deep oceans, but he has no real data to validate his claims. In science if you don't have actual measurements, all you have is a hypothesis. In short there is no missing heat if measurements show otherwise.

Most people think that the heat under the earth's crust that gets transmitted to the oceans is negligible.

Bob said...

Craig, you made an interesting comment of on the uncertainty of climate science. "Yet the uncertainty bounds on climate sensitivity, the amount of warming for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, remains
stubbornly large (IPCC

The following quote dates back to 2006 and that was a long time ago, and is out of sync with current science.

To summarize the uncertainty being discussed, they are referencing the temperature sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2. The IPCC has historically referenced this to be 2.5 deg C to 4.5 deg C.

This sensitivity has no basis in the empiricle world. It was derived from model assumptions. There has been no validation of this sensitivity.

The basic (sans feedback) CO2 sensitivity is about 1 to 1.5 deg C per doubling. Everybody agrees with this, but the IPCC insists on the feedbacks forcing it up.

In the last few years many studies have been published showing closer to a 1 to 1.5 degree CO2 sensitivity. This is probably why the IPCC changed its uncertainty brackets to a band from 1.5 deg C to 4.5 deg C.

In other words the IPCC has increased their estimate of uncertainty.

This is like we have learned nothing about our climate in the last twenty years! It is shameful.

So, you see climate science is converging to the idea that 1) the IPCC is over estimating the effects of carbon dioxide, and 2) the models in use do not reflect the real world.

Bob said...

Liberalmann said, "It's not THAT hard to understand. 99% of climate scientists believe it."

No, Libmann. 99% of any group does not agree on anything. Where did you get your numbers? Once again, I must instruct you in commenting on blogs. Never put a number out there you cannot back up. Just because some idiot says it does not make it so. There have been many efforts in the last few years to show what you said is true, but all those studies are just miserable efforts by people who cannot even articulate whatever the scientific consensus is on climate change. Try it.

Bob said...

Sam Huntington:

I think you need to be a little more tolerant of Liberalmann. Down here in the south, we take better care of our idiots. We let them out, and make sure they are loved in spite of their strange utterings. Sometimes, we have to really work at keeping the drool off their faces.

However, I do appreciate your sentiment, and have often wondered if retroactive birth control might not be useful.

Bob said...

Ed said:

Imp: Under Obama, we're a "sub-merging third world power".

You guys crack me up.

It is really cool to write comments at 1 AM when there is no one to challenge me!

TS/WS said...

"consensus" in the scientific community is a bait term to find out who the imposters are.
No such thing as 99% of scientist in agreement of anything - especially using some other jerks data.
I can wear a white coat and hold a clipboard and pose for a TV ad, it is to easy, Hey look at me I am a scientist---today.

Ed Bonderenka said...

Bob: Good comments all!
Just so you know someone sees them.
After 1 am.

Anonymous said...

Imp: Pitchforks and torches!

TemplarKormac said...

Liberalmann is a arrogant ass.

Kid said...

Hey man, lib is not smart enough to be an arrogant ass !

@IMP, considering all that it takes just to keep fresh gasoline at the pumps and milk on the shelves, it would not be hard at all for some yahoos (democrat politicians) to toss a wrench into the crankcase and make that happen.