Tag Archives: climate change

Happy Christmas (Global Warming is over)

For a while I had almost forgotten about the whole issue of global warming. It seems that it has really died down in the press over the last year. Public skepticism has been growing and the climategate emails have made at least some kind of dent in the orthodoxy. At least it has seemed to be a little safer to express skepticism about the issue over the last year. Or maybe I was just paying less attention. In any case, I was reminded of it today when saw this howler of an article in the official propaganda organ of the US Government. It would seem that the purpose of this  article is an attempt to remind people that despite bitter cold and a huge blizzard today in the eastern US, not to mention colder than average winters in the US and Europe for the last 5 out of 7 years, Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is still real and it is still out there.

The author of the article, a man named Judah Cohen, claims, and this is hardly an original argument, that cooling is caused by warming. According to him:

The not-so-obvious short answer is that the overall warming of the atmosphere is actually creating cold-weather extremes.

Cohen goes on to explain this seeming contradiction by claiming that melting ice caps caused by global warming create more snow. More snow means more of the sun’s rays reflected back into space which in turn means colder temperatures. This actually makes sense. Whether or not it is true, I don’t know. I am not an expert, although I think I have a good layman’s understanding of the issues and controversies surrounding global warming.

This kind of explanation is not unusual for proponents of AGW theory, and it is actually totally plausible. However, one need not be a global warming scientist to see the problem here for environmental zealots. One need only apply some basic logic. If this is true, then global warming is not actually a problem. Warming leads to effects that in turn lead to cooling. The cycle of nature balances itself out. Problem solved. No need to destroy civilization after all! Whew! That was a close one! Just don’t expect the various beneficiaries of the AGW-state-industrial complex that has metastasized around this issue for the last 30 years or so to let a simple logical problem deter them.

This is not the only logical problem with the man-made global warming hypothesis. In fact, one need not know any science at all to explode the entire theory. It can be taken apart simply by applying some basic logic.

The first problem is that the theory is totally unfalsifiable. If warming proves warming and cooling proves warming, then warming does not actually mean anything. Any weather phenomenon can be used to show that the AGW theory is valid. When winter is cold and snowy: global warming. When winter is warm and rainy: global warming. When weather events seem to confirm the AGW theory, these weather events are trotted out as evidence in arguments claiming that AGW is a huge problem. When weather events seem to show the opposite, two arguments are typically made by proponents of the theory. One is the above argument that warming leads to cooling, which means there is actually no problem. The other is the claim that weather is different than climate, and you cannot use temporary weather effects to make judgments about the course of the entire climate. If this is the case, then AGW proponents can’t do it either. So weather events that seem to confirm the AGW hypothesis cannot be used to argue for it. Not only that, but the claim that weather cannot be used to judge climate means that AGW is meaningless. If the change to the climate is not connected to changes in the actual weather, then what is the point? Why should anyone care about it? The AGW argument falls apart at every angle.

Mr. Thomas L. Friedman, leading statist intellectual, warmonger, liar, apologist for mass murder, author of books with really stupid names and a generally all around disgusting and putrid waste of flesh and DNA has actually sort of acknowledged the above problems, and instead tried to create his own environmental crisis: Global Weirding. This really takes the cake for a theory that is an unscientific joke. If you want to deal with sloppy, unfalsifiable theories, this is the gold standard.

Another problem is that the AGW theory is untestable because global warming is impossible to control for. If man-made CO2 is in fact responsible for the claimed warming of the atmosphere, how could you ever know it? How can you control for the entire planet earth? How can you ever know what conditions would be if things were another way? How could anyone ever know what effects more or less CO2 would really have? And even if you could have a counter earth with less CO2, how could you ever possibly know that you had controlled for every factor? Given this problem, what AGW scientists do is create computer models to make their “observations” and provide for a control. But these models are crap. Judah Cohen in the above article openly acknowledges that the models completely failed to predict the cold and snows of recent winters. Not only that, but AGW proponents have said in previous predictions that snowy winters are a thing of the past. So what good are models that fail to predict anything and often times get things exactly backwards? Not much. And of course these models are programmed by humans that already have a predisposition towards the AGW theory, and whose careers, reputations and livelihoods are bound up with it. As we saw with the climategate scandal, many of these so-called “scientists” are not above messing with their computer code to get the results they want.

These are far from the only problems with the AGW theory. There are many more. There are serious issues with the methods of observing, collecting, storing and interpreting temperature data. There is the inherent problem that trees are not actually thermometers. On top of that is the problem that the leading climate scientists in the world will throw out the data provided by these trees when it does not match with what they want. The most serious issues have to do with integrity. If anyone is familiar with the climategate emails, you can see a serious lack of scientific integrity coming through in almost every one. This is a much bigger and more detailed issue though, and it is best discussed by Anthony Watt and John P. Costella in their various analyses. I have restricted my comments here to the logical problems with the theory.

But of course, as we could probably guess, the real motivation for proponents of AGW theory is neither scientific truth nor concern for the future of mankind.¬† It is a global feeding frenzy to get other people’s wealth without earning it and without having to provide any value to anyone. So many interest groups have a stake in the AGW-state-industrial complex that it is unlikely that a few logical and scientific problems will deter them.

Governments love the issue because it provides a good excuse for more taxes, regulation and bureaucracy. Scientists love it because it provides grant money and subsidies, as well as fancy trips to exotic locales on someone else’s dime. Government bureaucrats love it for that too (actually, everyone involved loves it for that). Socialists love it because it shows the evils of capitalism. Environmentalists love it because it shows the evils of civilization. Religious leaders love it because it shows the evils of humanity. Statists love it because it seems to be a problem that can only be solved with a bigger state. Corporations love it because they can get government subsidies to pretend to invent “green” products that people can pretend will solve the non-existent problem. Guilt-ridden middle class liberals love it because it helps them to feel alive for a few brief moments before the emptiness returns. Celebrities love it because it gives them a feel good issue to advocate for in order to assuage their guilt over their own extreme wealth and lavish lifestyles. Pretty much every member of the political and intellectual class has a stake in this issue surviving, and so it probably will. Judah Cohen himself is in on the scam and has managed to mix in a bit of the military-industrial-complex for flavor.

The end of the world from climate change or global warming is probably not going to happen. They probably won’t even cause any inconvenience. If you are going to worry, worry about what the global bureaucrats and other AGW interest groups are planning to do to you.