Global Warming True Believers: Or Not
Bill Quick

During the recent drought, I’ve been listening to the hacks on local TV screaming about our imminent doom, thanks to global warming.  Now, given that we are experiencing floods in the region thanks to the current and continuing storms, they’ll have to wait to start shouting “Wolf!” until the next shift in the weather.

Meanwhile,  Tokyo freezes under its first major snowstorm in 13 years.

I wonder how the polar bears are doing?  Probably starving to death from overpopulation by now, if the AGW predictions about them are as equally and disastrously wrong as the rest seem to be.

Which brings me to my thought for the day:  I’ve been noticing an ever-increasing certitude amont the warmenists, unjustified by their own data:

The End of Snow? – NYTimes.com

The facts are straightforward: The planet is getting hotter.

This appeared yesterday in the bible of the Global Warming true believers.  Except, of course, the facts are anything but straightforward:

Update and confirmation of ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago’ aka ‘the pause’ | Watts Up With That?

The Met Office now confirms on its climate blog that no significant warming has occurred recently: ‘We agree with Mr Rose that there has only been a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century.’

Of course, the True Believers don’t permit such heresies to penetrate their bubble of certainty.  Banish, I tell you!  Banish!

Satellites show no global warming for 17 years 5 months | Watts Up With That?

Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on this dataset (the bright blue horizontal line through the dark blue data), there has now been no global warming – at all – for 17 years 5 months.

clip_image002

Would readers like to make a projection of how many mainstream media outlets will report this surely not uninteresting fact?

The progressives who take the whole AGW scam as an article of faith don’t view these as facts.  Facts have no place in their universe of faith.  The progressives of the AGW congregation (most of them) mock and disdain the True Believers of Christianity, yet that their own beliefs are equally a matter of faith, not facts, escapes them entirely.

At least with Christianity, honest believers will admit that they believe as a matter of faith, not fact, while the AGW fanatics keep insisting they are a reality-based community, even as they gin up ever more ridiculous “facts” – the global warming is scurrying around, hiding in closets and at the bottom of the oceans so we can’t find it right now – to support their tattered beliefs.

As Yeats put it:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
 Are full of passionate intensity.

I suppose I could be said to be full of passionate intensity, but at least I have several thousand years of human history supporting my passionate preference for individual liberty, and opposition to human tyranny.

The AGW congregation has nothing but huckster preachers, faith, fantasy, and the certainty of their own convictions.

And the New York Times, of course.

I’ll give my hero, Mark Steyn, the last word:

Steyn on the ‘anti-science’ labeling of Dr. Judith Curry by Dr. Michael Mann | Watts Up With That?

Of the recent congressional hearings, Dr. Mann tweeted that it was “#Science” — i.e., the guy who agrees with him — vs. “#AntiScience” — i.e., Dr. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. That’s to say, she is by profession a scientist, but because she has the impertinence to dissent from Dr. Mann’s view she is “#AntiScience.” Mann is the climatological equivalent of those bozo imams on al-Arabiya raging about infidel whores: He can’t refute Dr. Curry, he can only label her.

Gotta watch out for those infidel whores.  Especially when they have a better grasp of facts than you do.

This entry was posted in Global Warming, Religion by Bill Quick. Bookmark the permalink.
Bill Quick

About Bill Quick

I am a small-l libertarian. My primary concern is to increase individual liberty as much as possible in the face of statist efforts to restrict it from both the right and the left. If I had to sum up my beliefs as concisely as possible, I would say, "Stay out of my wallet and my bedroom," "your liberty stops at my nose," and "don't tread on me." I will believe that things are taking a turn for the better in America when married gays are able to, and do, maintain large arsenals of automatic weapons, and tax collectors are, and do, not.

Comments

Global Warming True Believers: Or Not — 4 Comments

  1. NPR science programs have become unlistenable because of the Climate Change drumbeat. Instead I’ve been listening to a lot of BBC science podcasts. They still beat the drum, but it’s not as bad. Also, several of the BBC program hosts, most of whom (most of the science presenters, that is) have actual scientific training, pretty clearly don’t buy it but are only talking about climate-change-all-the-penguins-gonna-die because they’re ordered to.

    Meanwhile, I’m reserving judgment. Case by case, I almost always side with the “deniers” because almost all of those pushing the warming/change meme come off as charlatans or fools.

    • Steve, I’m not reserving judgment for one simple reason: Their own models for AGW have failed.

      Every single model they have predicts that temps will rise in response to increasing amounts of greenhouse gases being put into the atmosphere.

      For the past seventeen years, increasing – actually, vastly increasing – amounts of greenhouse gases have been put into the atmosphere.

      And for the past seventeen years, temperatures have not risen at all.

      Their arguments fail right along with their models. I don’t see how you can reserve judgment in the face of that.

      • The warmingists who are pushing their failed models get no respect from me. So far as I know (and I haven’t been paying especially close attention) no publicly discussed model is worth the electricity needed to run it.

        The data and the people who talk about the data may get some respect. As with the models, most of the “data” which has been publicly “disclosed” and discussed over the past five or ten years is garbage. It’s not really data in the scientific sense because for the most part we can’t get at the raw thermometer readings and what-not, only the “normalized” or “processed” “data”, and the processing is not fully and honestly disclosed. Historical “data” is seldom provided and we see only the temperatures which are imputed from tree-ring thickness and such; again, the assumptions and theory and calculations getting from ring thickness to temperature are not readily disclosed.

        That said, some numbers do seem to show rising sea levels. (The lack of rise a couple years ago can be wholly attributed to the deluge in Australia; they got so much rain that it was equivalent to .001 inch worldwide, or whatever the lack of ocean rising was.) Some numbers do seem to show ocean warming, especially below (from memory) 100 meters. Whether this amounts to anything, I don’t know. Whether there is some glitch in the readings or the processing which will negate (or amplify) these findings, I don’t know.

        I think it’s perfectly reasonable to fund enough scientists and techs and instruments to find out for sure what is happening, in air temperature at different heights, in water temperature at different depths, in CO2 dissolved in the ocean, in solar activity. I’ll bet this could be done for less than the cost of installing carbon scrubbers on all of Indiana’s power plants. Don’t bother to fund model development; if any climate “scientists” think it’s worth doing, let them do it on their own time and their own dime. Just watch what’s happening for a decade or two, then start thinking about whether we need to do something. The Earth is pretty big, and generally changes pretty slowly. It’s a good bet we’ve got time to figure out what we need to do. If we need to do anything.

        That won’t happen, of course. Climate change is all about the graft.

        Want to hear my theory about what’s going on with the oceans? This theory is pulled straight from my ass, but I think it differs from other climate change theories only in that I admit that. I think the sun was over-producing for years as part of its normal cycle. Overproducing in the sense that the Earth was taking in more heat that it was radiating. The excess was largely stored in the oceans. Lately the sun has gone into a down phase and is underproducing. It looks to us humans like the oceans are continuing to warm because we have very, very spotty instrumentation and inadequate modeling. Before long we’ll figure out what’s going on. Depending on how long the sun stays “out”, we’ll be glad for the warming effect of the ocean because it will keep the ice away from the coasts for a few years. Totally made-up theory which has a huge advantage over other climate theories in that I’m not asking anyone for money to further develop it.

  2. “…they’ll have to wait to start shouting “Wolf!” until the next shift in the weather.”

    Bill, they will simply blame the wetness on global warming. Hot or cold, dry or wet, stormy or calm, it’s all because of global warming.

    Just another faith based religion.

Return to main page →
At this post →