A Frigid Winter and Militant Global Warmists

Anyone who his living through this winter knows that it has been one of the coldest winters in memory.  Across the United States and Canada it is has been frigidly cold and a considerable amount of snow (although where I live in southern PA the snow has been minimal, but it has been cold).   It seems apparent to me that such a winter is contrary to the claims of activists dedicated to the cause of global warming, haven’t they been saying that global warming will first cause the globe to warm?  So where has the warming been? 

In the National Post there is a fascinating article titled, “Forget Global Warming, Welcome to the New Ice Age.”  The author, Lorne Gunter, makes some great and relevant observations, both about the science of climatology and the culture of global warming activists.

To start, let’s look at this past winter.  Gunter points out that the January 2008 temperature average was .3 degrees colder than the average of the last century (1901-2000).   He adds that China is suffering its “most brutal” winter in memory and Toronto broke it’s February snowfall record, set back in the ’50s, in the first two weeks of February.  Additionally, a friend who lives in Salt Lake said that the Utah was at 120% of the snowfall average for the entire winter season, and that was in the first week of February (I should note that I have not validated that claim). 

So, so what?  One season does not a trend make! Amen to that.  But it is indicative that things are not as bad or dire as some may want us to believe, but let’s move on to other points made in this article.  One of the favorite fearmongering threats we here is that the polar ice caps are melting and are likely never to come to back.  I will not argue that the caps have been melting and that glaciers are in serious decline, but this winter has cured much of that.

And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its “lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.

The ice is back.

Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.

But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter’s weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.

Two points here, the obvious is that the polar ice is in nowhere near as much trouble as we thought, the second is that though this is anecdotal evidence, that is essentially all global warmists use.  I love the last paragraph from the quote above.

The science mentioned in the article is very fascinating, but I will omit that information here as my post is getting too long and people don’t like to read that stuff much anyway (unfortunately) and I will address that info in future posts.  But there are some other points to be made about the environmentalists who have been ratcheting up the fear mongering and how their actions automatically caused me to question the validity of their claims. 

The first action that made me question global warming derives from the last paragraph of the quote above, that is that they use anything and everything, no matter how minute to try to install fear into us that we are all doomed because of global warming. 

The other action is the activists actions and attitudes towards anyone who either questions them or suggests that we look at all the science or theories out there.  People who suggest this are immediately and unequivocably cast aside as crazies and industry lackies.  Despite the fact that many of the global warming doubters are MIT, Harvard, and other respected researchers and scientists.  The Wall Street Journal had a must read article about this topic titled, “Chilling Effect: Global Warmists Try to Stifle Debate.” 

All three serious contenders for the Presidency acknowledge that more needs to be done to slow global warming and take care of the environment (I agree with the latter). So, as the article states:

You’d think this would be a rich time for debate on the issue of climate change. But it’s precisely as sweeping change on climate policy is becoming likely that many people have decided the time for debate is over. One writer puts climate change skeptics “in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial,” another envisions “war crimes trials” for the deniers. And during the tour for his film “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore himself belittled “global warming deniers” as unworthy of any attention.

I have noticed that type of response for a while now and it should give everyone pause.  If global warmists were so confident with their science why do they so vehemently stifle debate and criticize anyone who remotely questions them?  It makes no sense. 

Take for example, from the article, Bjorn Lomborg an author and left leaning believer of global warming.  In his recent book, “Cool It”, he simply calls for a reasoned debate on the appropriate responses to stem global warming.  This alone infuriated activists, many of whom considered him a traitor. 

Additionally, there is finally a major conference coming up to discuss the realities of climate change, basically an anti-global warming conference.  Undoubtedly the science presented will be as biased as the science presented at the pro-global warming conferences, but that is not the point.  The point is that the environmental activists are already demeaning the presenters as corporate apologists and that, ” ‘no real scientists’ (will be) present despite an impressive array of speakers such as Patrick Michaels, a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.” 

I am convinced that global warming as a whole is a sham.  Especially man-made global warming.  I am also convinced that the militant-like global warming activists are only using the issue to push a socialist and communist agenda.  Call me a conspiracy theorist or whatever, but I am just calling it as I see it.  I can come up with no other explanation for the irrational claims, actions, and attitudes of the activist global warming movement.   

Advertisements

8 Comments

Filed under Climate, Earth, Election 2008, Environment, Liberal, Liberalism, Media, Politics, Progress, Progressive, Science

8 responses to “A Frigid Winter and Militant Global Warmists

  1. Dan

    Are you an ostrich? The temperature of one place in one year is just weather, and says nothing about climate, much less climate change, much less again Global Climate Change. Get your head out of the sand.

  2. Dan

    Not to mention, if you think this has been one of the coldest years on record, you must have a very short memory. I’m not in the US at the moment, but I’ve been reading and the area I was at previously in the Northeast (Ithaca, NY) has had little snow this year so far, and not gotten colder than zero degrees(F). Not too bad for Ithaca.

    Or, if you’d prefer, you could come visit where I’m at now, in the Eastern Mediterranean. The locals here at least have been telling me that they’re psyched that they actually had cold weather and significant snowfall – the first time that’s happened in ~15 years, while it was a regular thing before that.

  3. rationalzen

    Dan, it would appear swint is as rational as you might be on the subject.

    Yes one year is just weather, yes it’s a small sample set. Guess what, in the scheme of billions of years, 26 years of data is as significant as one.

    For those that claimed that the arctic ice would never recover to be able to make that claim unscathed is ludicrous. Which I think is sort of the point, cognitive dissonance in effect.

    Where most man-made global warming doomsdayers err is the fact that they are debunked by their own arguments (as you were in your first post). Not to say that you’re a doomsdayer, although by your rhetoric I would bet you are closer to that line than not, but you have killed your own argument by bringing the sample size.

    We don’t have reliable climate data, it’s a recent development, scientifically speaking. Currently, in my opinion, people are making judgements based on observations of experiments that are not yet complete. That is why there is so much variance in the result and conclusions that people draw, which is why there are so many people that don’t buy into any of the arguments.

    People say the auto manufacturers manipulate statistics regarding emissions etc because they have a financial interest in the matter. Well, guess what? Don’t you think that Tesla, or some of the major solar panel manufacturers have an equal rooting interest in the public perception of the combustible engine financially speaking? Don’t you think that if Al Gore was that worried he’d invest more of his hundreds of millions in being carbon negative rather than carbon neutral (which is a farce in it’s own right)?

    Get your head out of the sand and look at things objectively. There isn’t scientific conclusion on either side of the global warming argument. Anyone who tells you otherwise is driven by something than science be it money, emotions, or other.

  4. climate vs weather … important to make the distinction; also, it is an important point that the article’s author failed to make the distinction … which is typical of the rightie global-denier platform.

    While it is true that some of the climatological data sets are short (26 years of sea ice data is better than 1, but not a whole lot better . There are probably qualitative data that go back several hundred years … no doubt some eager grad student is compiling those, in some dinky dark office somewhere). FYI there are other, longer proxie data sets that can be used to assess global warming and long term climate patterns … glacial ice, tree ring data … the sunspot data set is also large. Some of these data sets exceed 10K years or more in length …

    I’m still on the fence, scientifically, but lean to the warmers. Some of the statistical studies are more convincing than not … what bothers me most is how the debate has been politicized here in the US. The warming deniers are always far right wingers (so much hot air must certainly contribute to the problem, yes?) … proponents of global warming make up a far larger group (in spite of the deniers claims) … the ones I know are modelers and statisticians. IMO it is inappropriate for ANYONE to embrace an opinion on whether or not some physical phenomenon is occuring, based on their politics. You see that a lot more from the right than the left. Hint: you can deny and spin, but if it is happening, denial and spin won’t reverse it.

  5. The focus of global warming is about rapidly changing climates. One of the possible (but less popular) ideas is that a higher energy state will result in more extremes of weather. That is hotter summers, colder winters, and that such rapid fluctuations with make liveable areas that much harder to smaller.

    Certainly it is stupid to say that Greenhouse gasses have never been so high. In periods where volcanic activity was rife there were massive amounts of carbon in the air, but then humans didn’t have to eek out an existence then.

    Best case scenario, nothing comes of the global warming scare, we go on burning fossil fuels till they run out, then modern transportation systems and communications (all of which rely on oil based products) collapse. Society gets a restart, and maybe the next generations will make a better job of it.

    Worst-case scenario the species falls from its niche as the dominant species, or becomes totally extinct. The world keeps on turning until the sun goes out, no harm, and no foul.

  6. rationalzen

    Wow, italics from anne, my comments in between:

    While it is true that some of the climatological data sets are short (26 years of sea ice data is better than 1, but not a whole lot better .
    Sorry, you are blatantly wrong here. Twenty-six and one are equally insignificant when you’re talking about a data set that is multiple billions in size.

    FYI there are other, longer proxie data sets that can be used to assess global warming and long term climate patterns … glacial ice, tree ring data … the sunspot data set is also large. Some of these data sets exceed 10K years or more in length …
    This is actually an argument for the “rightie global denier” group, which I find funny. If you’ve got a data set of 10K years or more, that shows that our Earth regardless of human being’s industrial emissions has been heating and cooling at variable rates, it makes it much more difficult to prove that human beings are actually accelerating a variable rate warming or cooling trend.

    The problem with your train of thought, is that people (like swint) that are arguing against global warming aren’t in fact denying that the Earth’s climate is warming, or cooling. They posit that mankind (or any animal species for that matter) is not accelerating the process, that what is happening is indeed natural for our planet.

    IMO it is inappropriate for ANYONE to embrace an opinion on whether or not some physical phenomenon is occuring, based on their politics. You see that a lot more from the right than the left.
    See above. Is it possible that you are guilty of the same? IMO, you’ve made an emotionally based decision to “lean towards the warmers”, you’ve allowed yourself to have a little cognitive dissonance when evaluating this subject. There is zero evidence that man is accelerating the warming process (or cooling for that matter). There is conjecture and hypothesis that man kind is killing our planet, but scientifically the burden of proof has not been met. That’s how science works, you formulate a hypothesis, test it, observe your results, make a conclusion.

    You said above you are on the fence on the topic, that’s a good spot to be, IMO that’s the right spot to be. The burden of proof has not been met by anyone in the man-made global warming hypothesis, ergo a scientific conclusion cannot be drawn.

    It’s not coincidental that a person pigeon holing people as “rightie global deniers” or “far right wingers”ends up agreeing with the left leaning group on a subject. In other words, pot meet kettle.

  7. That global average temperatures are rising is not a scientifically contested fact. The trend from the data is clear.

    What is scientifically contested is the anthropogenic influence on those rising temperatures. In other words, how much of it is mankind’s fault? And, given mankind’s current behaviour, will it get any worse due to this behaviour?

    How does the scientific community assess that?
    They use modelling, based on the principles of physics and known physical phenomenon.
    Climate modelling is hellishly complicated. The modellers need to take into account a plethora of variables from atmospheric conditions, to solar irradiance, to dust particles, and cloud cover, to ocean currents.

    To put together the model, they need to make numerous assumptions about how the real world behaves in relation to how they want to model it. Each choice has the potential to change the outcome of the simulation.

    I find it particular illuminating to read about the “Principle Model Deficiencies” in a published paper for one of the models.
    I feel there is a lot of uncertainty in the model, leaving me undecided as to whether or not anthropogenic climate change really exists.
    Here one of the co-authors summaries the paper’s findings, ultimately stating that “canonical estimates of climate forcing are all consistent within the uncertainties” — whatever that means.

  8. papertiger

    Seems to me if you are talking about “rapidly changing” climate – by the alarmists own definition, that’s weather.
    You know as opposed to climate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s