Says it all, doesn’t it?
Says it all, doesn’t it?
I guess we have hit earth day 2017. There area Faux Science marches (aka Marchs for Politics) in multiple cities. So far, it’s the usual far left, profane signs and references to Dr. Who and Krypton on signs and on the web. I suppose that’s appropriate given the fantasy nature of global warming.
It would have been great had there actually been a March for Science, where the evidence was presented on both sides of the issue and talks were given on the uncertainty of the prediction/projections of say the IPCC. However, that’s not really allowed since discussing the science would be (a) boring too many people with very short attention spans who only believe what they read on Twitter and (b) might expose flaws in the theory, thus enraging the anti-capitalists and the Left in general. So instead, it looks like a gathering of poorly dressed, virtually illiterate people having a party in 57 degree light rain in Washington DC. As others have observed, the Gore effect is in full bloom there.
The one good thing about all these marches it is showing that the Left has only marching to show for its ideology—March for Gays, March for Science, March for Lawbreaking, March for Suppressing Speech Not Liked, March for Women, etc, etc. Soon people will just stop watching, or watch and never remember what the march was for. I suspect that’s already happening.
As for earth day, the earth is fine. The earth does not care if anyone marches, does not care if you’re capitalist, socialist or communist. The earth does not care if you burn coal, erect spinning towers of death to make electricity part-time, or if you even live. The earth does not care. Why we gave it a day, I don’t know. This is really “How Humans want Earth to Be” day. It’s about us, not the earth. Honesty would go a long way here. It’s not about the earth, so why call it earth day? Call it “Human Day”.
The New York Times ran a piece a little over a year ago about short answers to hard questions about climate science. I am presenting my answers to these questions (questions in red), based on extensive research of climate articles, science and research papers.
1. How much is the planet heating up?
First, we have to decide which temperature set to use. There are several. Do we want raw or adjusted numbers?
Second, we have to decide what to do when values are missing. What method do we use to interpolate the values? What is the uncertainly in those measurement?
Third, we must decide how the average is to be calculated. Do we grid the data? Do we use anomalies from a base period? If so, which base period?
After all these decisions are made, we can give an answer. There will be many different answers, depending on what values are used and methodology is used. Which is correct? All of them and none of them. That is the wonder of statistics. All will most likely be increasing in value or remaining more or less level.
Most of the warming since 1950 is due to humans, according to the article. Why 1950? It has been warming since the 1880s or before at rates similar to after 1950. Suddenly, in 1950 humans jumped in and start to raise the temperature? Mostly, as far as is ascertainable, 1950 is used because it fits the theory. The year 1950 fits the theory and the theory shows 1950 is when warming by humans began. That is called “circular reasoning”–using your conclusion to prove your theory. It’s logically invalid. It proves nothing.
2. How much trouble are we in?
None or apocalyptic. It depends entirely on how much faith one puts in the calculations, models and the theory itself. Al Gore made a comment about 4 Hiroshima bombs per second added energy. This would be 2 billion Hiroshima bombs since 1998 if we stop at 2014. One calculation found on the website NoTricksZone shows this amount of energy would raise the temperature of the ocean .024° 1
While Al Gore makes things sound very, very scary, physics says there’s not a reason to panic.
What will the increase mean? No one can say. There’s a lot of “may” “could” “might”. However, when pressed, climate science says it cannot predict local changes. Local changes are what affects people. If those changes are unknown, then we know nothing useful about the future of climate. People live locally, not globally.
We have the ability to move goods everywhere on the planet, so local droughts and floods should not have the devastating effect they had in the past. People can more inland or elsewhere if oceans rise.
Will things change? Of course, whether or not CO2 continues to rise. There is no way to hold the climate level.
3. Is there anything I can do?
A tiny bit, maybe. You can drive a fuel-efficient car, replace your appliances with energy-efficient ones (ONLY when your current one stops working. Otherwise, you’re filling landfills for no reason and requiring more manufacturing of replacement appliances), you have no choice but to use CFL and LED light bulbs (LED’s are BRIGHT! My lamp now points at the ceiling to avoid the extreme brightness.), use water wisely (growing a water-intensive lawn in a drought area is just foolish. Forget the “save the earth” factor). The New York Times says take fewer airline trips. Maybe people should try writing Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio and let them know they are NOT helping. Forget carbon offsets. They are pretend accounting that does nothing except serve to advertise how virtuous you think you are. Climate is not affected by displays of virtue.
4. What’s the optimistic scenario?
We as humans do what we do best–adapt. We resist the “end-of-the-world” wailing and figure out how to deal with a changing climate, as we always have. We don’t kill every eagle, condor and bat trying to make electricity like they did decades ago. We do not panic and start doing “something”. Doing “something” with no clue as to the outcome or based on fear is no better than doing nothing. There is little chance humans control the climate. There’s virtually no chance of getting everyone to agree on solutions to a global climate change. Adapting is the best option, done locally.
5. Will reducing meat in my diet help?
No. It will, however, mostly make many people very cranky and increase interpersonal conflicts. The idea behind reducing meat does not hold up to scrutiny.
6. What is the worst case scenario?
In an effort to circumvent the reality that humans are not likely to be the major driver of climate, a world-wide dictatorship is established and millions or billions die due to lack of affordable energy.
7. Will a tech breakthrough help us?
No one knows.
8. How much will the seas rise?
No one knows. People can and will move away from the coast. Whether they do it matter-of-factly or wailing and moaning depends on how people are taught to deal with change.
9. Are the predictions reliable?
No one knows. Predictions 100 years in the future are science fiction. Probably even at 50 years.
What do we call “reliable”? It warms up? That’s possible with or without human input. It warms faster? Define “faster”. If it warms 2° based on whatever method we chose back in #1, by 2100, is the prediction is reliable? The effects of that increase are unknowable, of course, and verification of accuracy is decades out. It’s a useless prediction/projection.
10. Why do people question climate change?
Because that’s what is involved in science–questioning, testing and learning. To not question is to not be scientific. The methodology and data manipulation found in climate science seems to fit the definition of “bad science” and needs to be called out.
Then there’s the favorites:
a. Oil companies pay people to question the science. No, oil companies love global warming. All that money they make on useless turbines and solar panels via subsidies and tax breaks can be used to build the required natural gas backup for these plants at a much lower cost to the company. There is also zero evidence that oil companies have paid off anyone. If it is true, oil companies have better public relations people than the government, universities and Hollywood. These people would have to be super geniuses and majorly talented to exceed the combined efforts of those big hitters.
b. Politics is blamed. Conservatives and libertarians tend to question the theory. The same is true of progressives as far as blindly accepting the theory If conservatives don’t believe in global warming because it’s in line with their political beliefs, it holds that progressives believe in global warming for exactly the same reason. Translation: This idea clearly indicates climate change belief is NOT about science at all, but is indeed a political battle. It’s about political ideology. It cannot be settled by science since none is involved.
11. Is crazy weather tied to climate change?
No one knows.
12. Will anyone benefit from climate change?
It stands to reason some will some won’t, just as is true with most everything else in life. It was a pointless question.
13. Is there any reason for hope?
More and more countries are realizing how politically motivated so-called solutions to all of the alleged manmade climate change is. Countries and individuals are more willing to refuse to join in the “solutions” that cause damage, costs trillions and have little or no hope of success. Rational discussions of the topic are slower coming.
14. How does agriculture affect climate change?
No one knows. If we drop our agricultural practices and return to hunter/gather lifestyles, millions will perish. The best we can do is work at making food growing as efficient as possible and avoid practices like deforestation whenever practicable.
It should also be asked how wind turbines and solar panels destroy the landscape and may affect climate. We know turbines increase the surface temperature below the turbines by mixing air, much like the fans in citrus groves that are used to fight against frost.
How do skyscrapers affect climate? How do primitive villages affect climate? How does the migration of humans from one area to another affect climate?
One can go on all day with these hypotheticals. No one knows. It is generally believed that most actions in some way affect climate, but to what degree is not known and may never be known. Climate is a very complex chaotic system.
15. Will the seas rise evenly?
Unlikely. Geography and tectonics and gravity indicate it will probably be uneven. We can’t predict the pattern, so we adapt as the rise occurs.
16. Is it really about “carbon”?
NO, it’s about CO2. “Carbon” is shorter, so media people and others have taken to using that term. It is extremely unscientific, however. Carbon is an element, CO2 is a compound. Carbon is found in many, many things on Earth. This “shortcut” is another indication of the lack of science in the discussions of climate change/global warming. It’s intellectual laziness. It does make a great marking catch-phrase. It’s truly sad “science’ has sunk this low.
What if Einstein and Heisenberg behaved as climate scientists do?
Einstein: Heisenberg, I see some possible flaws in your uncertainty principle.
Heisenberg: Excuse me. There are no flaws. 97% of physicists agree with my analysis.
E: But God does not throw dice.
H: There’s no god and those dice exist only because we observe them.
E: That seems a catch 22. How do we know the dice weren’t there if when we observe them, they magically appear?
H: You’ve been palling around with that idiot Schroedinger and his cat thing, haven’t you?
E: I think he may have a point.
H: No-he’s an idiot. Everyone knows that. He’s just being mean and obnoxious because he’s too stupid to understand my theory.
E: But he’s a physicist. So am I.
H: You don’t work in the field. You don’t publish. You’re all theory and no publishing.
E: What does that mean?
H: It means you are not an expert and you should learn to respect experts.
H: Yes, seriously. My calculations show specifically and certainly that particles do not exist until they are observed.
E: That makes no sense. Your calculations must be off.
H: Science denier! My calculations are absolutely accurate.
E: Can I see them?
H: NO! You’re a science denier. You’re just trying to ruin my theory because it explains more than yours.
E: I just want to check.
H: NEVER! My calculations have been checked by my peers and they agree with my conclusions.
E: Science is about verification.
H: You said my theory was a catch 22—not verifiable. You lose. I win. Now, nor more denier talk about God or dice. GOT IT?
Wattsupwiththat.com had a discussion on an article in SOCIETY FOR PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY. Matthew Hornsey (University of Queensland) described behaviour of skeptics as “thinking like a lawyer,” in that people cherry-pick which pieces of information to pay attention to “in order to reach conclusions that they want to be true.” Right after he says skeptics are just as smart or smarter than warmists. Interesting that he completely ignores that reality and dives into “you’re wrong, we’re right and you must be defective if you disagree”.
Of all the areas of science, global warming has devolved the quickest into pulp fiction psychology. Unable to present a cogent, scientific argument, but allowing no possibility the theory might be wrong, only that people “don’t understand” or they would agree, believers have dived into “it’s your politics or your religion or your mood today”. Anything but that the theory is just not proven.
Since skeptics are at least as smart as global warming believers, this argument is not going to change the mind of any skeptic. They will immediately see projection or desperation, anything but a real reason to not believe the theory, say like lack of open discussion, all data “adjusted” or “lost” in many cases, all the normal things science has a basis. Believers go so far as to say they won’t release data because skeptics will only try to prove them wrong. Neon sign “WE MIGHT BE WRONG AND WE AREN’T GOING TO LET YOU FIND OUT”. Come on, we’re smart people. We see the desperation.
Some commenters will refer to “cognitive dissonance” (on both sides) but cognitive dissonance is a very specific psychological term. It applies to people who pretend to believe or not believe based on those around them. If the entire family believes except one, the one will often go along, which can create cognitive dissonance if the person feels guilt for lying about what they believe. Often, the person will end up changing sides to stop the guilty feelings. It’s a response to bullying and group-think in some cases.
Then there’s double-think, which is holding two contradictory ideas both to be true. There is NO dissonance. The person simply believes both. An example is climate skeptics are “deniers of science” but anti-vaxxers are enlightened people. In one case, the science is followed, in the other, denied. Based on who knows what? The ideas are contradictory because one says science is always right and the other says science is wrong.
Another example is something I ran into on Facebook: You teach a child not to be violent, not to harm animals and small children, by beating the hell out of him for throwing a kitten against the wall. That level of double-think boarders on psychotic.
Pulp psychology techniques have become the trademark of global warming. The science FAILED and failed miserably. So intimidation, bullying, psyching people out are all that’s left. Honestly, it’s like the last remnant of the Flat Earth Society trying to pass laws and/or bribe people into saying the earth is flat lest they be proven wrong. After all, global warming CANNOT be wrong. EVER.
If only the warning had been worded to match the politics, religion and so forth of the driver, he would not have ignored the sign. Or maybe the driver is just oblivious to reality?
I’m starting with pictures of Wyoming wind and its damage and force that I have taken over the years. Casper made the national news yesterday Monday with 60 mph winds causing travel problems. Winds gusted as high as 88 mph on one of the streets on the edge of Casper, near the mountain. These are photos I have collected over the years of what Wyoming wind can do. (I would have reported on whether or not the wind turbines had reached cutout speed—a likely case—but there was so much blowing snow, I could not see the turbines.)
We went from 40 to 50 mph wind down to less than 10 mph today.
My point is Wyoming has “extreme weather” all the time and yet people manage to live here. The town of Clark, Wyoming, has had 100+ mph winds repeatedly. People survive and adapt. It’s not inhabitable. All the hysterics over “extreme weather” are just that—hysterics.
Next, temperature ranges:
This forecast was quite accurate.
As was this one.
(Temperatures are in Fahrenheit)
Earth experiences rapid temperature changes on a regular basis. In places with “extreme” changes, people have adapted. One of the major causes of belief in global warming is people have very, very poor memories. “It’s never been this cold”, “I can’t remember a windier year”, “Everything is so much more extreme now”. All of these statements are very often wrong. People just don’t remember. I have been a photographer for about 40 years, sometimes professional, sometimes amateur. I have thousands of photos all with the date and place written on the back for film prints, digital time codes for the digital photos. I can look back and see that yes, it was this cold or there was this much snow or there was this much variation. I don’t have to go by memory or take the word of the weather person who barely looks old enough to be out of junior high (claiming “I’ve never seen it this bad”—which is true, since the time period involved is miniscule). If we could get people to really look at the records from the past, much of the global warming theory would go right out the window.
Noticed Factcheck.org was spreading the LIE of 97% agreement with global warming. I have to wonder if they are so incompetent and incapable of understanding statistics, how is it I am supposed to trust their “facts”. Every study claiming 97% has been shown to be bogus—manipulated to the desired end, retracted for not “protecting identities” (couldn’t admit that the study was lie), etc. With “fact checking” like this, we probably should consult a Ouija board for future “fact checks”. At least in that case, everyone knows the answers are from someone pushing the pointer in a desired direction. It’s not about the truth and has no pretentious name for itself. Skip the “fact checkers” and go Ouija.
Henceforth, I have decided to refer to CAGW believers as hysterical chicken littles. This is not a derogatory term, much as I have been told repeatedly that “denier” is not a derogatory term. It is merely descriptive, as is “denier”. Since using the term “denier” is actually not supposed to discourage discussion, I am sure the term “hysterical chicken little” will not either. I have always been fascinated by the CAGW believers claim that “denier” is not derogatory and they are not being “mean”, merely descriptive. In honor of their need to be descriptive, “hysterical chicken littles” will be used to describe these people. I am sure to receive accolades for my use of accurate terminology and as such will encourage much discussion, which CAGW believers are always saying they welcome.
The REAL science deniers
One tactic often used by global warming advocates is calling anyone who questions global warming science a “science denier” and state that said individual probably does not “believe in evolution” either. Let’s look at who really does not believe in evolution: global warming believers.
What, you say! Explain. Okay, my understanding of evolution is that species come and go and survive based on natural selection and adaptability. Global warming believers now are saying NOTHING can go extinct or it’s our fault and it’s a crisis. Wait a minute. Doesn’t that directly contradict evolution? It states everything must remain static—there can be no more extinctions. None. Zip. I do not recall Darwin or any one else saying evolution will by the year 2000 will have reach stasis and should remain forever in that state. I’m pretty sure I would have remembered that. The insistence that no more extinctions occur is clearly denying evolution.
Remember this when the global warming faithful (those following the playbook, in other words) try to claim if you don’t believe in global warming, you’re the “science denier”.
Global warming believers:
“Mind nailed shut, siliconed and has a moat around it”—the best description of so-called global warming believers. They have no interest in science, truth or anything other than being right and making sure everyone agrees they are right. I have tried engaging said individuals on the net, but it always ends the same way—insults of my questioning, demands that I conform or else (I feel like a victim of the Borg—resistence is futile), then on to name calling and worse. If I had a dollar for every believer who claimed to “want a discussion”, I’d retire and never have to listen to the claims of open-mindedness from those who are the definition of completely closed-minded. There is no science possible with a mind nailed shut, siliconed, with a moat around it.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. - J Robert Oppenheimer.