Search Box

Thursday, December 26, 2013

Climate change

You hear fewer people talking about "global warming" these days and more using the term "climate change." This is a neat tactical segue: a cold spell (such as 2013, one of the coldest years on record) can no longer be used as evidence against global warming, but is now in fact "evidence" of climate change.

This allows liberals (and this is an issue on which thought generally falls along the political divide) to shake their heads and mutter ominously whenever it's colder or warmer than usual for that time of year. (Liberals are never wrong.)

I know one such liberal who used to grumble whenever it was warmer than usual for that time of year. Now she can shake her head about our climatical Armageddon whenever there's any sort of weather pattern.

The fact is, we've always had weather that varies from the norm; otherwise we would never have needed weather forecasts. (And boring conversationalists like myself would never have anything to talk about.)

I'm agnostic myself on whether man is causing any sort of large scale change. It's certainly possible that all this burning of fossil fuels could be having an effect on the environment. But there are an almost infinite number of factors involved, I don't know nearly enough to have an informed opinion, and neither do most of the people who believe in climate change with almost religious certitude.

The best measure of their religiosity is how angry they get when you tell them you're agnostic on the issue. The above-mentioned liberal once screamed at me and told me to get my head out of my ass when I took that position.

I might as well have told a Muslim that Allah does not exist.


Anonymous said...

John--Your'e one of the few people who openly acknowledges he's agnostic on this point, rather than take a position that's impossible to know. So, now there's at least 2 people who think this way:) The rest are committed to being "right". After all, what's wrong with saying that you just don't know. Brian

John Craig said...

Brian --
Thank you and glad to know you're in the same camp. I'm always amazed at the certitude with which people view such an incredibly complex subject.

Glen Filthie said...

To me it is so obviously a crock - and I base that strictly on the science.

- consider all the politics and money in this

- consider all the contradictory data

- consider all the 'supportive data' that is not repeatable and conflicts with other 'supportive data'.

- consider the lack of predictability: these idiots can't predict the weather next week - never mind centuries from now.

- consider the recommended remedy: playing in the garbage (er, recycling it), high taxes and massive unemployment. At no point have these morons advocated having less kids.

- consider the environmental "experts": a motely collection of homosexuals, elderly hippies, militant atheists and feminists - of which very few have any applicable training or credentials. And - they all live in cities. None of them actually live in the environments they claim to be experts on.

There are two types of idiots in this world, John. Those that don't know any better - and those that willfully choose to be ignorant and believe in 'false gods'.

John Craig said...

Glen --
Everything you say is true about the contradictory data, the nature of leftist thinking, etc, but for me, being sure that mankind does NOT have any effect with all the fossil fuels we're burning is equally silly. Consider the following factors, all of which affect the climate:

-the amount of methane which emanates from cattle (evidently, quite a lot) and peat bogs and the seabed
-Minor differences in the rotation of the earth's axis (which impossibly why there is now more ice in Antarctica while there is less ice in the Arctic.
-How the decreased ozone layer affects climate
-the effect of volcanoes on the atmosphere (Krakatoa resulted in a "nuclear winter" for several years
-How all the carbon dioxide we release into the air affects not only trees but animals as well
-How current patterns in the ocean affect the weather
-what the natural cooling and heating cycles are (these have been going on for a long, long --geological -- time)
-minor disturbances in the sun

And there are a lot of other things I can't think of at the moment. In any case, I don't think any of us know the answers to all these things.

In summary: just because the leftists are full of crap doesn't mean we're not having any effect on the climate.

Anonymous said...

I think people who live in cities do not realize just how large the U.S. is. Not to mention the world. They see alot of people around them and think "oh we're so overcrowded" Heh. Take a drive thru Texas or any western state. To think we are affecting the climate is pretty lame.

Anonymous said...

I'll count myself as a human induced climate change skeptic. While I could also loosely include myself in the agnostic "humans have to have *some* affect on climate" group. But where the rubber hits the road on the subject is this: Should we be making large investments to reduce carbon emissions?

So consider the following:
- in previous heating / cooling cycles CO2 is a trailing indicator, i.e. the world starts warming, then CO2 levels rise, and vice versa. This is the opposite of a cause and effect relationship, and appears to be quite damning. I haven't seen the rebuttal to this, which doesn't mean that there isn't one.
- In the '70's they told use we were headed for an ice age due to particulate matter in the atmosphere. The world was cooling at the time.
- In the '90's when the world was warming they told us that human carbon emissions were to blame. Climate alarmists had many in a panic over threats of dramatically rising sea levels, purported deadlier storms, and other horrible things.
- Then - ooops - there has been a 15 to 20 year hiatus in warming.
- And they tell us that this pause, which was not predicted by the models - the same models which we are supposed to be using as the basis to massive investments in reducing carbon emissions - might be because they failed to account for one or more of the following:
* volcanoes
* changes in sun intensity
* particulate matter ( yes that again!!)
* underestimated ocean's ability to absorb heat
- The models have failed to predict any long term trends correctly: they did not see the cooling in the 70's coming, they blamed human particulate matter afterward. When the world started warming, their models predicted continued warming - and were wrong.
- Further, does anyone see the irony in the possible reasons presented that the models failed to see the hiatus in warming? For the model to have any credibility it must have all the variables correctly accounted for. But they list four big variables that they don't understand. And, why would we believe they have of the other multitude of variables exactly correct either?
- A recent article stated that in 2013 the world spent a billion dollars a day to combat global warming. That money reduces prosperity and hampers the economy. It INCREASES HUMAN SUFFERING. And on what basis? On the basis of models that are clearly incorrect, have never been correct, and have never correctly predicted a long term trend.

Couple all this clear media agenda pumping 'climate change' hysteria and the documented dishonesty in science and the subject becomes more repulsive. (Examples - those who disagree with human caused climate change are called deniers - invoking Holocaust deniers - those truly ignorant and evil; the deleting of the original temperature data set the hysterical predictions were based on; the 'hockey stick' fraud, etc.)

- Ed

John Craig said...

Ed --
Thank you, that's a perfect summation of why predicting weather patterns is pretty much impossible. Anyone who claims to have a handle on this is as full of it as someone who thinks he can tell you precisely what the daily high and low temperatures will be in New York City a year from today.

Anonymous said...

This could be funny in a "Stupid News" sort of way:

First a group of 74 headed by ship to Antarctica to study melting ice caps gets lodged in ice and needs to be rescued by helicopter:

story here

Then the rescue ship also gets stuck in ice:

story here

But the media didn't see any humor in it, ignoring the global warming mission:

story here

Another story unlikely to see much media coverage, regarding Antarctic ice shelf melt:

story here

All links thanks to the Drudge Report.

- Ed

John Craig said...

Ed --
Thank you for that. Yes, for the past several years, while all the media attention has focused on the melting ice in the Arctic, the ice shelf in Antarctica has actually been growing. The fact that they wouldn't report on that is indicative (as if we needed any more indication) of how biased they are.

Then there were all those Nobel Prize winners who signed that petition stating that the way the media reported on global warming was misleading at best. Funny, that petition got almost no publicity as well.