If you ever doubted that much of what drives the extreme green movement was fundamentally anti-human, the nice people at the 10:10 campaign will make that reality absolutely clear. They tried to be cute and humourous while addressing this issue, but let their knickers peek through in advocating violent retribution against any who don’t play along.
Don’t you get it … ?? You don’t think it’s funny to murder those who disagree with you? You don’t think its amusing to spray the blood, brains, and entrails of the “climate deniers” all over the room?? Well then, perhaps the 10:10 campaign people and their ilk will have to develop a similar program for you.
You better get your hand up and agree with everyone else in the group. Be a good little soldier, shut off your mind, and get in the cue.
The greens are watching their “scientific” case for climate change fall apart with the East Anglia CRU (climategate) scandal, the NOAA database errors, the errors in the satellite monitoring being discovered, etc.
They see that they cannot win the scientific debate anymore, but they have trillions invested, entire branches of government involved, and their careers all based on the idea that we have to address climate change immediately. They have to protect their incomes and political influence, so they’re moving to the next natural step – fear and pressure. “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!” & “Either you do what we say, or else!”
This sort of thing was a constant theme in environmental ethics courses throughout my university experience. Green groups came up with arbitrary maximum world human population numbers that they felt were “truly sustainable” and then they advocated carefully crafted and nuanced policies that essentially boiled down to an argument that we needed to cull several billion humans from the face of the Earth. When they had finished with their culls, only then would we have achieved their concept of sustainability.
This is just one group who either had the courage to openly admit what they believe, or who missed the memo that this kind of open admission is supposed to be keep away from the eyes of the general public.
This post is more proof that the faux concern over climate change is far more about glutting the ruling elite’s whims and controlling the behavior of the little people than it is about doing anything for the environment.
Clean, Green Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rolled up to the Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas, Nevada last week. . . in a fleet of giant SUVs.
The Heartland Institute reports that while the Senate Majority Hypocrite “and other high-profile environmental activists blasted carbon-based fuels at the Reid-sponsored summit, Reid and other bigwigs were caught on film driving to and from the summit in several SUVs.”
If Harry Reid was actually concerned about global warming, he would have taken a few extra seconds to walk across a parking lot, rather than warming up a fleet of SUVs and bringing them around to shuttle him and his entourage a few hundred yards.
More and more we are seeing the real face of the extreme green movement. As the “scientific” case for climate change continues to suffer losses with more and more seeing it for what it always was – a political movement first and foremost – the extremes are growing shrill and combative.
They are now openly advocating that those with whom they disagree be silenced, forcefully stopped, jailed, or killed. In this recent Green Hell Blog post, Steven Milloy quotes two ‘respected’ left wing journalists/bloggers/environmentalists who are suggesting that climate change skeptics kill themselves.
Amid a rant on his Examiner.com blog about skeptics “carpet-bomb[ing] newspaper editorial pages with climate change disinformation…], Steven Alexander, who writes for Daily Kos under the nom-de-plume “Darksyde,” wrote that,
… if only Milloy and his buddies could check into one of the [Soylent Corporation's] lovely medical suites for a short nature movie and a glass of wine…
The reference is to the assisted suicide scene in the 1973 movie Soylent Green, starring Charlton Heston. …
Former Washington Post reporter David Weigel was recently fired from the paper for privately writing on the Journolist listserv that Matt Drudge should “… set himself on fire.”
It’s like I’ve always said, the hardcore left and extreme green movements are all over the notion of “thinking outside the box,” or being non-judgmental and open-minded so long as your outside the box thinking is the same as their outside the box thinking. Once you come up with an idea that disagrees or questions their solutions, they reveal their new age puritanism and, pretty much to a person, demand that you be silenced, stopped, or (as this example indicates) killed.
The amusing thing about their tendencies to immediately resort to censorship or violence is that they will rarely employ their ‘logic’ in their own lives or activities. Remembering back to my undergrad environmental ethics courses, we used to discuss concepts like a “truly sustainable human population” of 500 million. Using groups like the Deep Ecologists, the eco-feminist movement, and ethicists like Peter Singer as foundations for their arguments, the more radical members of the discussion actually touched on the notion of culling portions of the human population (brain dead orphans for example), or using forced abortions, and euthanasia as a means of reducing the human population.
When others in the classes protested (me among them) that their ideas would require massive infringements on basic human rights and then we pushed them to look further into the logical outcomes of their theories, they were forced to admit that they believed the long-term survival of the planet would entail the loss of many basic rights and freedoms and that some lives would need to be sacrificed to ensure the “health” of the planet.
One notable class room discussion had a class member suggest they those in the extreme camp start us off on the right foot, or “show us the way,” by committing a principled suicide. That suggestion was immediately rejected by this group of greens. They were convinced that they were the only members of society who could capably handle the intense social and political disruptions that would result from moving toward their conception of a more sustainable lifestyle. They believed that someone else would need to go first because the world couldn’t survive without their leadership and wisdom.
Our discussions regularly seemed almost like something out of a bad movie. No one in their right mind could hold those views. Even fewer still would hold those opinions AND actually state them out loud. But there they were, making the arguments and trying to defend them as good public policy.
Sadly, we see the same sort of logic employed by the Darksyde’s and David Weigel’s of the world. They just know better than you or I, and if someone has the nerve to disagree with them, that person will need to be silenced … for the good of the planet/the children/the greater good.
The Telegraph has an amusing editorial on the how “the high priest of the AGW cult,” George Monbiot, “is feeling frustrated and depressed.”
In a Guardian editorial Monbiot is laments the discovery of a massive academic and scientific fraud perpetrated by several of the world’s eminent climate scientists. Of course he refers to this revelation as an “attack on climate scientists.” He continues by claiming that this horrid “attack” is “now widening to an all-out war on science.”
Laughable of course, and that hilarity is quickly pointed out by the editorial author, Gerald Warner who states that Monbiot shouldn’t get too far ahead of himself as the “war” is only being waged against “bogus science.”
But as Monbiot attempts to argue, no one but he and his similarly endowed high priests have a prayer of understanding their advanced thoughts and theories on climate. Furthermore, the merciless “monopolies” led by publishers and editors of scientific journals make it impossible for the public to access the ‘science’ that he and his cohorts are producing (would those be the same journals in which Phil Jones, Mike Mann, and the other CRU & IPCC-linked “scientists” conspired to control the content, or to shut out when they found they couldn’t? Just asking …) Even worse, he then goes on to detail how popular culture makes all scientists into “sinister schemers.”
So, after reading Monbiot, you begin to understand that its the public’s stupidity, the greed of publishing companies, and that eevilll Hollywood (except when they’re awarding Al Gore his Oscar or Academy Award) that makes it impossible for poor, misunderstood, and under-appreciated climate scientists to get their clear vision of truth, justice, and climate purity out to the masses.
It has nothing to do with the East Anglia fraud, Climategate, Glaciergate, the misreported NASA data, or any of the other frauds perpetrated in the name of climate change. It’s just that we’re too dumb and to easily controlled by publishers and the media.
Monbiot’s hand-wringing and whinging might be easier to endure if he weren’t so completely arrogant about his massive intelligence as compared to the public’s stupidity and malleability. It might be easier still to endure if the fact that none of his stated concerns mattered in the least when the true-believer’s ideas were doing the influencing.
Looks like it will be the coldest winter since 1985.
Nearly the entire eastern half of the United States is enduring bitterly cold temperatures not experienced since 1985. Even Florida, which has been hovering around freezing levels overnight recently, is also feeling the almost-nationwide chill.
Add that to the facts that we have not seen warming in most of the last decade, the open and flagrant fraud perpetrated by those associated with the East Anglia CRU, lessening intensities of hurricanes, and dropping sea levels in key spots around the world and I’m thinking it sure was a good thing they got everything all settled in Copenhagen last month.
Why am I not surprised to read that the U.N.s top climate change guru is,
1) Not trained in climate science (normally I wouldn’t bring this up as sufficient reason to discredit someone, but isn’t the “he’s not a climatologist” epithet the first thing true believers spit out a reason for skeptics being denied the opportunity to comment? Interesting that their top guy is guilty of the same sin.)
2) Making bucketloads of money from his involvement in setting world wide climate policy
From the Telegraph,
No one in the world exercised more influence on the events leading up to the Copenhagen conference on global warming than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its latest report in 2007.
Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist”), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.
What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.
These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in ‘carbon trading’ and ‘sustainable technologies’, which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year.
Today, in addition to his role as chairman of the IPCC, Dr Pachauri occupies more than a score of such posts, acting as director or adviser to many of the bodies which play a leading role in what has become known as the international ‘climate industry’.
With this sort of thing going on in more than one place (can you say Al Gore) and the East Anglia CRU fraud, it’s no wonder that reasonable people are starting to get angry at the growing level of control these people have over our lives.
It would be interesting to see some attempt to estimate the total direct cost to the world’s taxpayers of all the scare-mongering since Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring first started appearing in The New Yorker magazine in June 1962.
Each scare, in turn, is packaged and marketed with more skill than the previous; each enjoys its run in the world’s headlines, and the frenetic political attention we have been watching in Copenhagen in its most advanced form. Each in turn is gradually forgotten as more facts come to light, as the apocalyptic predictions fail, as the storyline bores through repetition. And then a new scare needs to be invented.
This is perhaps one of the best descriptions of the costs of this type of over-the-top environmental hysteria and fraud I have read in a few years. Would that more people would pay close attention to the suggestions this author makes on dealing with these so-called leading lights.
For this reason, I think we need, after thorough public inquiries, to bring criminal prosecutions against some of the major scientific players exposed by the recent release of e-mails and papers at the centre of the “global warming” scam. The more any percipient reader pours through those “hacked” documents, the clearer he will see the criminal intent behind the massaging of the numbers; for the masseurs in question stood to benefit directly and personally from getting “the right results.” This is, by its nature, an issue for the criminal courts.
My reasoning here is that “environmentalism” at large has — like all other “progressive” movements — exploited public gullibility about motivations.
The leading lights have accumulated wealth and power, while presenting themselves as men of goodwill. They have projected themselves through sympathetic media as unselfish and pure and have demonized their opponents as selfish and impure while themselves being on the take.
Even before examining, objectively, details of the claims environmentalists are making, the public needs to be put on its guard. A successful representative democracy requires an electorate armed against politicians of any stripe or kind (elected or otherwise) who make claims to personal sanctity, for this is an infallible mark of grave hypocrisy. Genuinely good people do not advertise their goodness; genuinely humble people do not advertise their humility; genuinely truthful people do not claim to be messengers of “settled science” when there is no such thing.
My personal “climate greeting” to the world leaders living the stretch limos, champagne wishes and caviar dreams life at COP15 in Copenhagen.
The foundations of your climate policies have been undermined by the fraud at East Anglia CRU. Please, do no more harm to our economies. Go home now.
Head on over and add your own comments, encouraging the world’s “leaders” to pull their collective heads our of their rear and their hands out of our wallets.
H/T – Watts Up With That
Kind of hard not to mock what this group has done to the supposedly “settled science” of climate change.
Not like we haven’t been hearing this for a loooong time from the good people at Cato and NCPPR (among many others). CAFE standards typically tend to force the production and use of smaller cars. People riding in those smaller cars tend to suffer far worse injuries during vehicle accidents than passengers of larger cars, SUVs, and trucks. (It’s not rocket science really. When you’re wrapped in a few thousand pounds of extra steel, you’re more likely to walk away from an accident.)
Micro cars can give motorists top-notch fuel efficiency at a competitive price, but the insurance industry says they do not fare well in collisions with larger vehicles.
In crash tests released Tuesday, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that drivers of 2009 versions of the Smart “fortwo,” Honda Fit and Toyota Yaris could face significant leg and head injuries in severe front-end crashes with larger, mid-size vehicles.
“There are good reasons people buy mini cars. They’re more affordable, and they use less gas. But the safety trade-offs are clear from our new tests,” said Adrian Lund, the institute’s president. …
The tests involved head-on crashes between the fortwo and a 2009 Mercedes C Class, the Fit and a 2009 Honda Accord and the Yaris and the 2009 Toyota Camry. The tests were conducted at 40 miles per hour (17 kilometers per liter), representing a severe crash.
In the fortwo collision, the institute said the Smart, which weighs 1,808 lbs, went airborne and turned around 450 degrees after striking the C Class, which weighs nearly twice as much. There was extensive damage to the fortwo’s interior and the Smart driver could have faced extensive injuries to the head and legs. There was little damage to the front seat area of the C Class.
Although the article describes the crash test as simulating a “rare and extreme” crash scenario, the reality is that those crashes do happen. I personally see and hear about them regularly on the highways surrounding Phoenix.
Perhaps its time to start talking about more than just the costs of global climate change. Maybe it’s also time to work in the costs of increased morbidity and mortality, increased insurance rates, long-term health and palliative care, and lost productivity (to say nothing of the grief and suffering) associated with small and micro car-related accidents.
Here’s a great debate on the science and politics of global climate change. Marc Morano, the executive editor and chief correspondent of ClimateDepot.com debates Joe Romm of ClimateProgress.org.
As we have typically seen with this debate. Morano is pretty calm and provides ample backing information for his premises. Romm, on the other hand, starts off with ad hominem attacks — calling Morano “fringe” and claiming that Morano just “makes stuff up.” He then degrades into hysteria — that the world is going to warm by 15 degrees F by the end of the century and that sea levels will rise by 5 or more feet. One of the most telling points is where Morano correctly points out that Romm is suggesting the political process used to develop the IPCCs SPMs counts as “science.”
Morano easily dissects and defeats Romm’s personal attacks and his repeated use of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
The debate starts at the 3:45 min mark in this video
The second part of the debate starts immediately in this portion of the video.
Lastly, what does the Swift Boat issue have to do with climate change? If that’s where Romm needs to try and take the argument, you can guess how strong his climate-related arguments might be.
Update: April 8: You might have thought that the debate was over when Morano calmly cleaned Romm’s clock on the Roll Call debate, but you would have been wrong. After getting his “Marc Morano just makes stuff up” and “Swift Boat … Swift Boat … Swift Boat” arguments handed back to him, Romm has stooped to taking his ball and going home.
Check out his recent post on Climate “Progress” blog where Romm calls Morano names and then bans him. No joke people, because Morano demolished him in the debate, Romm is refusing to post anything from Morano or to link to anything that Morano might write.
Swift boat smearer Marc Morano, former denier-in-chief (DIC) for Sen. James Inhofe (R-OIL), is emailing around his bio and his new website to whatever members of the media are aching to tarnish their professional reputations. You can read that full bio in the Wonk Room post “Climate Depot Alert! Global Warming Denier Marc Morano Sets Up Shop! Now With Crazier Formatting!” — I can’t bring myself to inflict it on you.
You just did “inflict it” on us. And speaking of tarnishing one’s professional reputation … this is the best that Romm can come up with. A man with a PhD who is held up as someone to listen to and someone to watch in the discussion on climate change. He seriously called Morano a “dick” and then continued on with his “Swift Boat … Swift Boat … Swift Boat” silliness. (sorry folks, I can’t bring myself to inflict it on you, so I’ll move on to even better stuff)
I will be taking a different tack. Morano is simply not part of the legitimate discussion about climate science and policy. Marc Morano is unquotable and uncitable.
Besides his penchant for smear, he just makes stuff up and misrepresents scientists’ work
Of course we’re meant to ignore the fact that standard AGW supporter means of dealing with dissent flies in the face of scientific inquiry. “You don’t agree with everything I say. Therefore I declare that you are not part of the ‘legitimate discussion.’ Therefore, I summarily dismiss you from the conversation.”
Moving on, did the man who referred to Morano as “fringe” and who called Morano a “DIC” just say that Morano has a “penchant for smear”? But wait, it gets better,
For a journalist, quoting or citing him as a source is the Swiftist way to smear your own reputation. For anyone other than a rightwing anti-scientific blogger, even linking to his new site ClimateDepot to debunk him gives him the attention and credibility he does not deserve.
I will not be linking to his website nor will I allow any links to his website to appear on this blog. It is conceivable that circumstances might arise where I refer to something Swift boat smearer Marc Morano has written, but I can’t imagine them right now.
Did you catch the Swift Boat reference in that quote. It was pretty well hidden and flowed so smoothly that one could be forgiven for not picking up on it. To help you out, it was in the first sentence where Romm says that for a journalist to quote Morano is the Swiftist way to smear your reputation. Get it? It’s kind of a funny play on words … Swift – as in Swift Boat … swift – as in quick or speedy … Get it? Man that Romm is good at this rhetoric thing.
This is too rich. Romm is reinforcing the stereotype of the classic, coddled, and protected ivory tower “academic.” He and his ilk can’t stand to face debate. In their blinkered world, they are just understood to be correct every time they open their mouths. In their world, everyone immediately recognizes their brilliance (or should be made to). So when they are forced into a debate — and lose badly — they make excuses.
Yes, I did debate Swift Boat smearer Morano recently – but I was filling in at the last minute as a favor. As readers know, I believe such debates are pointless if not counterproductive, since we have known for 25 centuries that debates are not won on the facts but by who is a better debater, which is to say, who understands the principles of rhetoric (see “Why scientists aren’t more persuasive, Part 2: Why deniers out-debate “smart talkers” and “Voodoo Economists 4: The idiocy of crowds or, rather, the idiocy of (crowded) debates“). In particular, it is very hard to win a debate against someone who just repeatedly makes stuff up.
Fortunately, Swift Boat smearer Morano isn’t a terribly good debater and really screwed up in the second half. While I am seriously out of practice, I’d say I did about as well as one can do. I am not going to post the links here, since I don’t view watching the debate as a productive use of your time — and ClimateProgress is all about saving you time by separating the wheat from the chaff — but you can find them on the not-so-Accuweather Blog here:
“Honest… I ran out of gas. I, I had a flat tire. I didn’t have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn’t come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts. IT WASN’T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD.”
The world of research and academia is rife with Prima Donna’s like Romm. I’ll just inflict one other example from my past on you because its so similar in tone and attitude.
I used to work in the forest industry in British Columbia and we did a lot of research on the regeneration of crop trees. One time there was a group of foresters reviewing the research trials of a provincial research scientist. One of the foresters questioned the the methodology employed in one of his research projects. Essentially, he argued that the research trial used conditions that could never be recreated in the real word, so he wondered if it had any application to the work we were doing. The research scientist didn’t like the tone of the question, pitched a fit, and then (literally) stomped back out of the block and sat in the cab of his pickup. There was a few moments of awkward silence and then the rest of the group carried on the discussion without him. Not surprisingly, we heard later that that research scientist waited until he returned to his protective office environment to begin recreating the discussion in his mind so he came off looking good and then started throwing out snitty, disparaging remarks about the forester who dared to question his work.
Since Romm is so good at rhetoric, analogy, and the like, I don’t need to tell him that he’s welcome to stomp out of the cutblock and sit in the cab of his truck all he likes. The discussion will carry on whether he chooses to be part of it or not.
Newsbusters also has some good comments on Romm taking his ball and running home.
This latest ‘research‘ demonstrates convincingly that no matter what the issue/challenge/problem/imaginary hobgoblin that we face, it will always be the fault of the west. If you can’t blame America first, then it’s fine to tag the Brits, Canadians, Aussies, or Kiwis as the second main source of the world’s problems.
The full extent of the west’s responsibility for Chinese emissions of greenhouse gases has been revealed by a new study. The report shows that half of the recent rise in China’s carbon dioxide pollution is caused by the manufacturing of goods for other countries – particularly developed nations such as the UK.
Last year, China officially overtook the US as the world’s biggest CO2 emitter. But the new research shows that about a third of all Chinese carbon emissions are the result of producing goods for export.
Can’t hold the Chinese responsible for their own GHG emissions. It has to be the UKs or the Americans fault. It doesn’t matter if the Chinese choose to use inefficient production methods; it doesn’t matter if they don’t use emissions reductions technologies; it doesn’t matter that Chinese production largely goes to supply their own population (which just happens to outnumber every other nation on the planet). It doesn’t matter what the Chinese do. They’re still technically a “developing” nation, so whatever they do, it’s our fault.
Seriously, the only way you can come up with something this foolish is if you dedicate your existence to out asinine-ing the last “blame the West first” theory.
The new take on a glacier’s response to climate change takes on a “defiant” tone.
LOS GLACIARES NATIONAL PARK – Climate change appears to be helping Argentina’s mighty Perito Moreno glacier, which is thriving in defiance of the global warming that is shrinking its peers.
While most of the world’s glaciers are melting away because of warmer temperatures, scientists say the Perito Moreno ice field, known as “The White Giant”, is gaining as much as 3 meters (10 feet) a day in some parts, pushed forward by heavy snowfalls in the Patagonia region.
So now the glaciers that are growing are said by the alarmists to be “defying” humanity’s attempts to destroy them. Thank you Gaia Mother Earth for showing us the error of our ways through your humble servant the White Giant.
Classic bit of insight into the notion that the “science” of climate change is settled.
It’s absolutely 100% rock-solid SETTLED … in stone … cemented … locked up … pwned … comprehended … understood … nothing more to discuss … only the absolute outermost fringe thinks there’s anything left to be learned … until you suggest that the billions in funding being shoveled out to these climate scientists be used for something else. Then you hear the indignant shrieks of how much more there is still to learn.
Chris Horner at NRO elaborates,
The science of AGW is settled . . . unless, that is, you suggest that the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies for climate-related research might be used in more productive ways (say, by letting taxpayers keep it). Then the story becomes: no…no, we desperately need billions more to look into the grave uncertainties.
Climate models that predict environmental catastrophe decades hence are supposedly so accurate that we must start starving ourselves of energy on their say-so — as in theClimate Change Science Program’s “Unified Synthesis Project” on which I commented yesterday. But now we learn that the state of computer modeling is so in its infancy that billions more are necessary to make them suitable for the purposes to which they are already being put.
Whose the bigger fools in this issue. The climate modelers who snidely look down their noses at the so-called fringe skeptics, informing the world that they KNOW the answers, or taxpayers and elected officials who continue to hemorrhage tax dollars into their increasingly complex and arcane models (that seem unusually well suited to predict the opposite of the models prepared by the guy in the next lab).
We’ve all read the hysterical headlines and the apocalyptic predictions of death, mayhem, and hell on earth that global climate change will cause as it increases the number, intensity, and severity of hurricanes around the globe.
National Geographic writers eagerly parroted warnings that,
More heat could “generate more storms and more intense hurricanes” (and) … a new study in the journal Nature found that hurricanes and typhoons have become stronger and longer-lasting over the past 30 years. These upswings correlate with a rise in sea surface temperatures.
The duration and strength of hurricanes have increased by about 50 percent over the last three decades, according to study author Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.
From the RealClimate blog — which bills itself as a source of “climate science from climate scientists” — we are instructed that in the real world there is “no way to prove” that climate change will impact on either the frequency or severity of hurricanes. We are also told that,
due to the semi-random nature of weather, it is wrong to blame any one event such as Katrina specifically on global warming
All that aside, the climate scientists then move on to show how it is possible to employ arcane and confusing statistical analyses and complex computer modeling to move beyond the real world and actual research findings. Using those statistics and climate models, scientists can input data that helps suggest that climate change will strengthen already forming hurricanes.
Yet this is not the right way to frame the question. As we have also pointed out in previous posts, we can indeed draw some important conclusions about the links between hurricane activity and global warming in a statistical sense. The situation is analogous to rolling loaded dice: one could, if one was so inclined, construct a set of dice where sixes occur twice as often as normal. But if you were to roll a six using these dice, you could not blame it specifically on the fact that the dice had been loaded. Half of the sixes would have occurred anyway, even with normal dice. Loading the dice simply doubled the odds. In the same manner, while we cannot draw firm conclusions about one single hurricane, we can draw some conclusions about hurricanes more generally. In particular, the available scientific evidence indicates that it is likely that global warming will make – and possibly already is making – those hurricanes that form more destructive than they otherwise would have been. …
Hurricane forecast models (the same ones that were used to predict Katrina’s path) indicate a tendency for more intense (but not overall more frequent) hurricanes when they are run for climate change scenarios (Fig. 1).
In the particular simulation shown above, the frequency of the strongest (category 5) hurricanes roughly triples in the anthropogenic climate change scenario relative to the control. This suggests that hurricanes may indeed become more destructive (1) as tropical SSTs warm due to anthropogenic impacts.
Moving forward, we can also find the hard-working journalists at Time magazine working to build fear of the next big hurricane that will inevitably strike the Gulf Coast. They instruct us that the people of New Orleans are,
mostly thinking about the savage rains and 140 mph winds that have driven them from their homes. But it’s that meteorological arcana that’s made such a mess of the bayou, and to hear a lot of people tell it, we have only ourselves—and our global-warming ways—to blame. …
So is global warming making the problem worse? Superficially, the numbers say yes—or at least they seem to if you live in the U.S. From 1995 to 1999, a record 33 hurricanes struck the Atlantic basin, and that doesn’t include 1992’s horrific Hurricane Andrew, which clawed its way across south Florida in 1992, causing $27 billion dollars worth of damage. More-frequent hurricanes are part of most global warming models, and as mean temperatures rise worldwide, it’s hard not to make a connection between the two. …
One especially sobering study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that hurricane wind speeds have increased about 50% in the past 50 years. And since warm oceans are such a critical ingredient in hurricane formation, anything that gets the water warming more could get the storms growing worse. Global warming, in theory at least, would be more than sufficient to do that. While the people of New Orleans may not see another hurricane for years, the next one they do see could make even Katrina look mild.
Spooky, isn’t it? But that’s not all. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change continues by invoking the name and research findings of the all-knowing, all-seeing IPCC
Intensity: According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC-AR4), it is “more likely than not” (better than even odds) that there is a human contribution to the observed trend of hurricane intensification since the 1970s. In the future, “it is likely [better than 2 to 1 odds] that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical [sea surface temperatures].”
Frequency: According to the IPCC-AR4, on a global scale, “[t]here is no clear trend in the annual numbers [i.e. frequency] of tropical cyclones.” As discussed above, however, the frequency of tropical storms has increased dramatically in the North Atlantic. Reasons for this increase are currently subject to intense debate among climate scientists. At least two recent peer-reviewed scientific studies indicate a significant statistical link between the increased frequency and global warming, but research to identify a mechanism explaining this link is ongoing.
Clearly, the links are there. Too strong to deny and too numerous to question. Right? You’re continued use of the internal combustion engine, your “addiction” to oil, your new Blackberry, and your general western, imperialist brand of capitalist over-consumption ARE causing more and stronger tropical storms and hurricanes. Admit it and be frightened, very very frightened.
Or not. You see, all those reports and links and statistical games and pretend worlds that we build in our climate models might just be wrong. Or so says new research that has been published in Nature magazine.
A new method for modelling hurricanes suggests that a warmer climate might not increase storm intensity as much as was previously believed.
The results came as a surprise to lead author Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, who had previously argued that global warming was behind an estimated 75% increase in category 4 and 5 hurricanes since 1970. …
He suggests one of two explanations: either the recent increase is not due primarily to global warming, or the current generation of global climate models is not effectively capturing the effects of global warming in the future. Others say that it could be a combination of the two.
“Those are two interpretations, and they could both be true to a certain degree,” says Gabriel Vecchi, an oceanographer with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, New Jersey. “I think their paper really highlights the subtlety of the question: depending on which models they use, depending on which metrics they use, they can get different answers.”
Did you read that? Read it again
“I think their paper really highlights the subtlety of the question: depending on which models they use, depending on which metrics they use, they can get different answers.”
That’s the climate scientist’s way to say the well-known computer and modeling phrase, “garbage in … garbage out.” In other words, they can tweak their modeling findings to suit their world view. If they happen to believe in anthropogenic global climate change (or need to support that theory as a means of ensuring a continued stream of research dollars), they can fiddle around in the guts of their models (subtly of course) and — SHAZAM!!!! — the models show that anthropogenic global climate change is happening and is changing the frequency and severity of tropical storms. If, however, they need to try and come up with a reason for why their dire predictions of massively destructive hurricanes throughout the 2006 and 2007 hurricane season never appeared, they just
spontaneously ‘seeds’ storms within global climate models, rather than initiating small storms in certain areas on the basis of historical observations.
Then they press < Enter > on the big ol’ computer model and … chugga chugga chugga … ding! Out pops the answer.
This method was able to reproduce the increase in major storms seen in recent decades fairly well. Projecting forwards by almost two centuries, to the period 2181–2200, the model suggests that, overall, global storm frequency decreases. Storm intensity increases modestly in certain regions, including the northern Atlantic Ocean.
So now some in the scientific fraternity appear to have moved beyond the notion that,
“more likely than not” (better than even odds) that there is a human contribution to the observed trend of hurricane intensification since the 1970s.
to admitting that,
In particular, climate models systematically fail to reproduce the kinds of major storm observed in the tropics owing to the way they handle heat convection, he says. “Climate models have certain inherent flaws that may prejudice the results somewhat, and my suggestion is that they may prejudice them in the direction of fewer major storms.”
In the mean-time, you should keep your heartbeat and stress levels elevated and continue to reassure yourself that there is a large, potentially devastating (something) that is waiting out there, ready to pounce and inflict grievous damage on you, your family, your belongings, and everything you hold near and dear. You should also remember that whatever that great and terrible something is, it’s your fault and most likely due to the fact that you bought your kid the XBOX 360 for Christmas last year.
No heating since 1998 – but when you admit that, the true believers jump on you with both feet and demand that you cease all debate. If you don’t snap to attention and do their bidding, they’ll threaten you with a ruined career and much more. You will accept their views and you will do as they say, or else.
Thank you to Steven Milloy for taking the time to set straight the media’s deceptive smear campaign against an eminent and respected scientist – Dr. S. Fred Singer. Although Dr. Singer has recently been targeted by the mainstream media for his work in the area of climate science, Milloy’s article reveals that Singer and his work have been well known for several decades.
Rather than employing cowardly, anonymous attacks from “climate scientists from NASA, from Stanford University and from Princeton” and inflammatory quotes from NGO activists as ABC News reporter Dan Harris did in his unimaginative hit piece on Dr. Singer, Milloy actually took a few minutes to look into Dr. Singer’s career.
Armed with a doctorate from Princeton University, Dr. Singer played a key role in the U.S. Navy’s development of countermeasures for mine warfare during World War II. From there, Dr. Singer went on to achieve fame in space science.
Some of his major accomplishments include: using rockets to make the first measurements of cosmic radiation in space along with James A. Van Allen (1947-50); design of the first instrument for measuring stratospheric ozone (1956); developing the capture theory for the origin of the Moon and Martian satellites (1966); calculating the increase in methane emissions due to population growth which is not key to global warming and ozone depletion theories (1971); and discovering orbital debris clouds with satellite instruments (1990).
Dr. Singer is exceedingly modest about his career. Although I have personally known him for more than decade, I only inadvertently learned of his earlier achievements last year while reading “Sputnik: The Shock of the Century” (Walker & Company, 2007) which chronicles the development of the U.S. Space Program.
The book described Dr. Singer, along with Van Allen, as a “pioneer of space science.” The author also wrote, “America’s journey into space can arguably be traced to a gathering at James Van Allen’s house in Silver Spring, Maryland on April 5, 1950. The guest of honor was the eminent British geophysicist Sydney Chapman… The other guests were S. Fred Singer…”
Among his many prominent positions, Dr. Singer was the first director of the National Weather Satellite Center and the first dean of the University of Miami’s School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences. He’s also held many senior administrative positions at federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Transportation and Department of Interior.
Despite all of this work, the best attributed information that Harris’ journalistic training appears able to uncover is a Greenpeace employee, trying to pass themselves off as a “global warming specialist,” thinks Dr. Singer is “kind of a career skeptic.” The rest of Harris’ work is anonymous attacks and editorialized rhetoric – real top drawer stuff.
And journalists wonder why the vast majority of the public no longer trusts their work.
All that stuff you heard about sea levels rising … forget it. They were apparently wrong, or just a blip on a larger trend.
Sea levels are set to fall over millions of years, making the current rise blamed on climate change a brief interruption of an ancient geological trend, scientists said on Thursday.
They said oceans were getting deeper and sea levels had fallen by about 170 metres since the Cretaceous period 80 million years ago when dinosaurs lived. Previously, the little-understood fall had been estimated at 40 to 250 metres.
“The ocean floor has got on average older and gone down and so the sea level has also fallen,” said Bernhard Steinberger at the Geological Survey of Norway.