Thursday, July 03, 2008
Twenty years ago, NASA scientist James Hanson warned the United States Congress of the threat of anthropogenic global warming, and he has continued to do so in more strident terms ever since.
Ironically, the global temperature in June 2008 was lower than in June 1988. For what it's worth.
Heh. I suppose I should own up to it -- that is, global cooling. Been tooling around with balancing the sun's energy systems for over a decade now, just because I was getting tired of all the global warming scheiss. Which was also my fault (I live in Canada, and had no idea I could cause so much trouble...).
Now, of course, global-cooling will hit food markets hard, and I bet that the ones hurt the most are the poorest in the poorest nations. What I'm getting at, is I'd like some feedback: should I keep on pulling for global cooling? I mean, is it worth it, considering that the global-warmers are now talking about climate-change, even while they talk about rising sea levels, the dunderheads.
It's enough to make a body want to give up. What's the point in godlike power when the people you're trying to give a lesson to are so corrupted they can't even see it?
After all, causation is implicit to correlation, right?
Don't feel bad. In financial markets, we have the same ilk like Hansen. They're called "technical analysts" and are people that see patterns in random walks. The unfortunate thing for us is unlike the global climate, financial markets can sort of start behaving with some technical analysis patterns when enough idiots get in the market believing the theory is true.
Global warming/changing/volatility/gaia-is-getting-pissed jumped the shark when the loons like Hansen shifted into the "looming catastrophe" high gear. They're no different than the witch doctors declaring the volcano gods would be angered unless great sacrifice (of others, always) was made.
Not withstanding the obvious issues regarding what really are the causes of global warming/cooling/change (whatever) ... I get a real kick out of those who think we can manage the CLIMATE, even while we prove on a daily basis we can't manage social security, medicare, the border, or the budget.
I woke up in Chicago this morning. It was about 54 degrees, dry and cool, like a fall morning. The high today was 72.
I flew back to Ohio. It was 68 and raining. High also of 72.
I remember 4ths of July in the recent past that were a lot warmer.
meanwhile, down here in Texas it's !@#$%^ing hot. almost 100 today, as each day for the past couple of weeks, and more to come.
We're in a circle of high pressure that forces the rain around us, or makes any rainclouds coming toward us dissipate faster than Biden's campaign.
So if you're in Texas, run for your lives, global warming is gonna kill us all!!!! But if you're in Ohio, not so much.
The actual temperature of the Earth, either globally or historically, is irrelevant. The narrative that can be sold to the populace is what's important: "We have endangered the earth" (and by extension, our individual futures), by our all-too-human activities (as if these were not also ordained by nature). Therefore, according to doctrine, we must abase ourselves and sacrifice (which, in extremis, will mean the sacrifice of human lives), in order to create the Perfect Heaven of Earth.
To which I say: bollocks.
Hansen presents a good example of the theory that the sense of catastrophe precedes the data. A lot of folks find the idea of "using more than your share of stuff" bothersome and thus decide it is immoral. They then do research to discover exactly why it is bad for us, so they can lecture other people. They turn their aesthetic preferences into an international emergency.
The colonial Puritans were very concerned with the sins within their own community because they believed that it affected all of them. (Contrary to popular impression, they seldom cared much about the sins of those far away.) Environmentalism springs more from this puritan source than it does from science.
Now that I think of it, the puritans actually had a better argument.
I admit to being agnostic on AGW (it sure looks like "something" is happening but that either may be natural fluctations or "noise") but I do think that those who accuse the proponents of the theory of being frauds is simply not true (with exceptions at the margins).
Whether correctly or not (as I noted), it seems to me that the proponents actually, sincerely believe that human activity is causing the warming of the planet. They're not lying, they're not making the claims up.
They believe it.
And so I think the critics need to take their arguments fairly and at face value.
Once it's shown that their argument are meritless, one can they attack their motives.
Address the facts first; then their motives.
I most certainly will not ignore the motive of those claiming global warming is man-made. When I read about John Dingell proposing a carbon tax to fund social programs, the motive is simply more government control, and a deeper hand in my pocket. I agree, address the facts, but motives must be addressed simultaneously.
grismill.grist.org is a accumulation of all of the rationalizations for global warming hysteria. Read and count how many "could's" and "possibly's" they use in their articles and defenses. If you are familiar with the good skeptics -- the ones who use logic and data -- you find that the site gristmill is just filled with more ad hominem garbage against the skeptics with a lot of climate alarmists assurances that they are right and the skeptics are wrong. Just a bunch of bs. in the guise of being "authoritative" -- Trust the alarmists is its mantra.
" it seems to me that the proponents actually, sincerely believe that human activity is causing the warming of the planet. They're not lying, they're not making the claims up. "
They can certainly be lying even if they sincerely believe what they are saying. The problem is that they are parroting the claims a few liars have made, so they really are spouting lies.
As far a "not making the claims up" , if a few people make something up and others believe it and pass it on, it is still made up nonsense.
This is science, the truth is not determined by a vote, or by sincerity of belief.
And, any time someone tells you that a new (less than 50 years old) idea is "settled science", like the AGW people do, and refuse to debate on the merits, they are not telling the truth.
there's no such thing as "consensus" or "settled" in science. When presented with a conclusion from a data analysis, simply ask - where's the R-squared, what's the standard deviation, which variables are significant, etc. None of that exists with the GW models, hence it's all BS.
Climate change has been happening for billions of years and is widely expected to continue, but this event has only been noticed considerably more recently by those who now have the time to sit around with their thoughts.
Prior activitities of human beings (a relative newcomer to the planet) included having to fight, farm, hunt and generally stay alive – activities which prevented a lot of leisure time spent worrying about things beyond their control.
From another earlier post:
"...it seems to me that the proponents actually, sincerely believe that human activity is causing the warming of the planet. They're not lying, they're not making the claims up ... They believe it."
FIRST, let's concede that global climate change is happening. It is ALWAYS happening. 10,000 years ago, a great mile-thick ice sheet lay across much of the midwest and Canada. Obviously, the global climate has changed since then, and dramatically so -- with ZERO evidence of human intervention, pro or con.
The problem here is that Al Gore and company have INVENTED a cause for global change without evidence. They have a THEORY, but it is (1) completely untested, and (2) contra-indicated by MUCH other evidence.
They propose to significantly shift world resources to eliminate that cause, causing massive financial and social changes everywhere (and, just incidentally, establishing a new, powerful world order to oversee everything.)
Yes, they are TRUE BELIEVERS; they just happen to be flying in the face of records of global climate change going back tens of thousands (and millions) of years -- all done without the "benefit" of mankind.
They propose to control climate change through a massive redirection of the lives of everyone on earth -- yet the same government that would accomplish this miracle in the US cannot control spending, borders, social security, medicare, etc...
...and yet they ask US to allow THEM to control global climate change???
This is the age-old government approach to many issues: READY, FIRE, AIM.
Sincerely believing something WITHOUT doing due diligence FIRST does NOT give someone the high ground. It gives them the dunce hat and a seat in the corner.