Industry Market Trends

Five Points About Global Warming

February 10, 2012

The hardcore man-made global warming devotees, the last-ditch warmenistas, bullets whistling around their ears as they huddle in their trench, have staked out far too public and belligerent a position to back down with any grace at all.

They were the redwoods on the landscape when global warming was in its heyday, the Al Gores of the world, the U.N. Global Climate panelists, who were only too happy to jet around the world, hop into SUVs, stay in five-star hotels and lecture us little people on how we needed to cramp our lifestyles.

There's no hope for them coming out of this intact. Nor should they, quite frankly -- a redwood doesn't bend in the wind, it breaks, much to the schadenfreude of those tired of its overbearing superciliousness. The good captain goes down with his ship, as Francesco Schettino demonstrated, having the bad luck, as he said, to trip into a lifeboat.

But their followers, there's hope for them. Those who didn't understand the science but liked to sound as if they did, who went along with the whole global warming thing because, hey, all the smart people believed it, the media told them to believe it and those of us who never bought in, who always thought there was something fishy about the rush to dismantle the Western industrial economy over a few computer-generated graphs and a on-degree temperature rise.

Or maybe we just had to have lived through the Great Ice Age scare in the 1970s to recognize politicized sciency-sounding hokum when we heard it.

We come not to kick AGW in the ribs, but to bury it. 

Right -- if you're still clinging bitterly to anthropogenic global warming (AGW), unless you're Al Gore or someone else who's making a boatload of money off the scam, a  climate scientist really used to the gravy train of global warming research grants sluicing down or someone like poor addled dimwit Ellen Goodman, who called those of us who disputed global warming the moral equivalent of Holocaust deniers, here are five points for you to consider, then ask yourself if it might be time to quietly scrape the bumper sticker off the Prius until you're told what the new one should be:

1. Um, How To Put This: It Isn't Actually, Well, Warming.

New temperature data from Britain's Met Office shows that temperatures haven't actually risen for, oh, the past 15 years or so. For the AGW crowd, this is what's known as "a problem."

"Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997," the Daily Mail reports.

The hardcore warmenistas cling to the explanation that it's a "pause" in warming, and whistle bravely past the graveyard. But some are throwing in the towel. "We're now well into the second decade of the pause," Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, told the Daily Mail. "If we don't see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious."

2. Maybe It's Not The Carbon Dioxide. Maybe It's The Orbital Wobble.

From no less a bastion of trendy liberal intellectual fads than Harvard University comes an article in Nature, from Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences Peter Huybers, which "confirmed that slow changes in both the tilt and orientation of Earth's spin axis combined to help determine when the major deglaciations of the past million years occurred," according to Harvard's own Gazette.

I'm not sure I understand 100% what Professor Huybers is saying, but this sounds like the nut of it: "These periods of deglaciation saw massive climate changes... We ought to understand what caused these massive changes in past climate if we are to predict long-term changes in future climate with any confidence. And at least now we know with greater than 99 percent confidence that the interaction between obliquity and precession are among the factors that contribute to deglaciation."

Yep, understanding what causes climate change before, say, outlawing light bulbs or all coal-fired plants would probably be the prudent way to approach the issue. Why don't we try that? Ms. Goodman? OK by you?

?3. Heard About That Nifty Climate-Controlling Molecule?

Science Daily, hardly the watering hole for the climate change skeptic crowd, ran an article in January reporting that a breakthrough paper published in the journal Science shows that a newly discovered molecule in Earth's atmosphere has the potential to play a significant role in off-setting global warming by cooling the planet.

Science is considered the journal of record for such studies, so it's something to pay attention to, at least. Researchers from the University of Manchester, the University of Bristol and Sandia National Laboratories take a look at the "revolutionary effects" of Criegee biradicals, which "can naturally clean up the atmosphere," the paper says, as well as counter the effects of climate change, without having to buy electric cars or cut down on Al Gore's prodigious energy consumption: "Scientists now believe that, with further research, these species could play a major role in off-setting climate change."

It seems Sandia researchers have finally hit on a way to measure and study these biradicals, and their work has led to the realization, Science Daily says, of the fact that "Criegee biradicals react more rapidly than first thought and will accelerate the formation of sulphate and nitrate in the atmosphere. These compounds will lead to aerosol formation and ultimately to cloud formation with the potential to cool the planet."

All those global warming charts that don't take the effects of Criegee biradicals into account, in other words, are kind of like charts showing how fast your car will go once you step on the gas, and confidently predicting that you'll die in a fiery wreck at 130 miles per hour since they didn't take brakes into account.?

4. Cutting Carbon Emissions Will Lead To An Ice Age. Smart Cambridge University Guys Say So.

You can have your Al Gore, who dropped out of Vanderbilt University law school, when it comes to climate science and we'll pay attention to Cambridge University Ph. D. Luke Skinner, who, according to a recent BBC report, published findings in the professional journal Nature Geoscience to the effect that the increase in carbon emissions is actually holding back an impending Ice Age.

"At current levels of CO2, even if emissions stopped now we'd probably have a long interglacial duration determined by whatever long-term processes could kick in and bring [atmospheric] CO2 down," said Skinner.

His team has reckoned that  "atmospheric concentration of CO2 would have to fall below about 240 parts per million (ppm) before the glaciation could begin," according to the BBC.

So thank you, carbon dioxide, for staving off the Ice Age. We take back all those nasty things we said.

The report then went into orbital wobbles again, but I've already pointed those out. You know, in all frankness, that might be one good thing that's come out of all this global warming scare bushwa, there has been some genuinely useful climate science accomplished. Too bad thinking people will cast such a colder eye on anything coming from "climate scientists" for a good long while now.

5. Remember All That Ice Age Scare Stuff From The 1970s? Time For Recycling.

Implied in #4, that brave CO2 is standing between us and another Ice Age, is the premise that there's another Ice Age coming. In fact, the voices of scientific sanity are concluding that there is in fact another Ice Age coming.

Four years ago, according to Russian news service RIA Novosti, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, the head of a space research lab at the Pulkovo observatory in St. Petersburg, said that "Russian and foreign research data confirm that global temperatures in 2007 were practically similar to those in 2006, and, in general, identical to 1998-2006 temperatures, which, basically, means that the Earth passed the peak of global warming in 1998-2005."

That's probably just his nice way of saying what we noted earlier -- the Earth isn't actually warming, people. Abdusamatov takes the position that the sun is actually responsible for warming and cooling -- revolutionary thought, yes, some things are just too simple for great minds, evidently. His data show that although "the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere has risen more than four percent in the past decade, global warming has practically stopped," whereas "the amount of solar energy reaching the planet has drastically decreased during the same period."

In fact, at the beginning of 2008 he predicted global temperatures would drop, and we can see now that he was right and the chorus of AGW acolytes were wrong.?

Following solar cycles, Abdusamatov predicts that by 2041, solar activity will be the lowest it will be during a 200-year cycle, and "a deep cooling period will hit the Earth approximately in 2055-2060. It will last for about 45-65 years," he said.

So there you are. Still believe AGW?


comments powered by Disqus