Another View on Climate

My Own View of Global Warming

The Death of Global Warming???

Posted by greg2213 on February 2, 2010

The SPPI blog has a guest post titled, “The Death of Global Warming.” It’s an interesting post, worth reading, even though it’s from a true believer.  I’m going to add a few comments here.

First off, though, “Global Warming” died years back when the term was changed to the meaningless Climate Change. This was a simple acknowledgment that there is no there, there, despite what the alarmists try to push. Note that no one on the believer side is worried about global cooling. Fact is, the climate does change and has been for billions of years. And yes, I know that Climate Change is short for Catastrophic Man Made Climate Change. My remark still stands.

Also note that the small amount of warming that we might have actually seen (and which we haven’t seen for a few years) is an entirely separate thing from the hysterical alarmism that created the Copenhagen conference.

The global warming movement as we have known it is dead.  Its health had been in steady decline during the last year as the once robust hopes for a strong and legally binding treaty to be agreed upon at the Copenhagen Summit faded away…

The movement died from two causes: bad science and bad politics.

After years in which global warming activists had lectured everyone about the overwhelming nature of the scientific evidence, it turned out that the most prestigious agencies in the global warming movement were breaking laws, hiding data, and making inflated, bogus claims resting on, in some cases, no scientific basis at all…

With this in mind, ‘climategate’ — the scandal over hacked emails by prominent climate scientists — looks sinister rather than just unsavory…

That the Global Warming Movement is dead is a very good thing and it’s very hard to build a case on bad science. By the way, the emails were leaked by an insider, not hacked.

Ok, now lets get to what I want to comment on…

The global warmists were trapped into the necessity of hyping the threat by their realization that the actual evidence they had — which, let me emphasize, all hype aside, is serious, troubling and establishes in my mind the need for intensive additional research and investigation, as well as some prudential steps that would reduce CO2 emissions by enhancing fuel use efficiency and promoting alternative energy sources…

Serious and troubling, based on what? There is zero evidence that warmer temperatures, if, in fact, those are actually in the pipeline, are a bad thing. Cooler temps certainly are a bad thing, as can be seen by the death stats. Greatly cooling temps would be disasterous, unless you like the idea of living under a permanent glacier.

CO2 is also a good thing and the evidence that it is a pollutant is nill. Regardless of what effect it may have on climate. See this post for more about CO2.

Now it has failed.  Not everything that has come out of the IPCC and the East Anglia Climate Unit is false, but enough of their product is sufficiently tainted that these institutions can best serve the cause of fighting climate change by stepping out of the picture…

Absolutely. The issue, of course, is whether the media leaves its staunchly alarmist position and whether those in power become more skeptical. If these things don’t happen then the 2013 IPCC report will likely be more of the same and it will be left to the bloggers to do the media’s (and Gov’s) job for them. Any new UN climate group might not be named “IPCC,” but we can be pretty sure their goals will remain the same. They might do a better job of covering up iffy science, but I don’t believe they will actually disown the hype in favor of reality. Unless they hop onto a cooling bandwagon, like we saw in the 70s.

The global warming campaigners got into this mess because they had a deeply flawed political strategy.  They were never able to develop a pragmatic approach that could reach its goals in the context of the existing international system.

They were never able to substantiate their extreme claims in any way, that’s why they’re in this mess. Their proposed programs are intended and designed to shackle western civilization and centralize a lot of power and money with government, not help people with any of the claimed problems of warming.

If a large asteroid was on a course to slam into the Earth I think you’d see some serious cooperation. You’d have a few skeptics and a few who would want that asteroid to hit (wipe out the horrors of civilization,) but most people and Gov’s would be right on board.

Without a commitment from the United States to pay its share of the $100 billion plus per year that poor countries wanted as their price for compliance, and without US participation in other aspects of the proposed global approach, the intricate global deals fall apart.

Does anyone believe that any of that $100 billion would go to anything that would have any effect on the climate? All it would do is increase the number of Government palaces and increase the number of exotic cars and toys among the ruling classes of those countries (remember that people like Castro, Chavez, and the late S. Hussein are/were very rich from siphoning off cash flows to their accounts.)  The people would still be screwed, but western countries would have their leg irons, which is, after all, the whole idea.

Countries would cheat, either because they chose to do so or because their domestic systems are so weak, so corrupt or so both that they simply wouldn’t be able to comply…

This is the best argument for adaptation as opposed to economy crushing mitigation, even if warming was real and was dangerous.

The death of global warming (the movement, not the phenomenon) has some important political and cultural consequences in the United States that I’ll be blogging on down the road.  Basically, Sarah Palin 1, Al Gore zip.  The global warming meltdown confirms all the populist suspicions out there about an arrogantly clueless establishment invoking faked ’science’ to impose cockamamie social mandates on the long-suffering American people, backed by a mainstream media that is totally in the tank. Don’t think this won’t have consequences…

Yes, the phenomenon is dead, because if it isn’t dangerous then there is no reason to crush our economies to prevent it. The proponents have failed miserably to build the case that warming is dangerous, much less catastrophic. Lots of hype, zero science (science showing warming is not science showing that warming is dangerous.)

  1. Sarah Palin 1, Al Gore zip – Given Ms. Palin’s leanings I’d say the score in her favor is much higher. Objectively, her view on warming is far closer to reality than Gore’s (or Obama’s)
  2. an arrogantly clueless establishment – The Western world has shed a lot of blood to get rid of arrogantly clueless leaders over the last few hundred years. There’s no reason to go back under the thumb of people who want to rule us for their own good. We’ve been there. The next job is to get the rest of the world out from under the boots of these people.
  3. invoking faked ’science’ – Hide the decline, IPCC using WWF as a trusted source, climate theories ripped to pieces by engineers and other scientists, huge majorities of scientists saying AGW is crap, and so on.
  4. cockamamie social mandates – That sums it up nicely. The mandates are about power and money, not about helping anyone (except maybe carbon traders.)
  5. mainstream media that is totally in the tank – Which has been proven repeatedly.
  6. Don’t think this won’t have consequences – Is that a threat? Those consequences aren’t climate related so does this mean that the watermelon crowd will will get even more shrill over the non-existent threat?

6 Responses to “The Death of Global Warming???”

  1. comdenom said

    They are going to keep pelting us with alarmisms until they get their control…or until we wise up and vote them out. If we really want to clean this place up we should also either dismantle or pull out of the UN as we are already bowing to their guidelines.

    Billions of our taxes have funded their incredulous charades for the last four administrations, including an enormous amount of spreading the wealth after the governments created or exasperated need on a global scale.

    • greg2213 said

      I look at it this way – How much worse/crazier would the UN be is we weren’t part of it? In it, we can veto anti-US ideas (assuming an appropriate administration,) but if we’re not a part then they could get up to all sorts of mischief.

  2. comdenom said

    You have a very good point, I then favor dismantle. I’m currently writing an article specifically concerning the UN, in the meantime here’s evidence that the global warming debacle is not dead and that population control is on the agenda; don’t forget to view the short video.

    Love your quotes section!

    • greg2213 said

      Dismantle? Hmmm… I’m not sure I’m on board with that or not…

      The UN has its uses, though they are sometimes hard to see. I agree that population control is on an agenda, but I don’t think the UN is anywhere near having the power to implement that. Not directly, anyway. Hence, the climate issue.

      Besides, massively increasing the available technology to the third world will have a population controlling effect. As incomes go up and life conditions improve the incentive to have large families goes way down and population is controlled. But that increases freedom and doesn’t give governments (or the UN) more power. Interesting how all the climate control items and other “world Gov” items have the effect of keeping people under the Gov’s boot. Can’t let the poor, stupid masses run their own lives now, can we.

  3. comdenom said

    My first red flag was the UN’s special immunities and privileges, that’s scary power. They operate the same way government does gaining power, wealth, control and growth as every year passes.

    The government consistently meddles in events that have a natural cause and effect way of balancing out, they profit while claiming they’ve saved us thus reinforcing “can’t let the poor stupid masses…” Hey it’s a great game with a win/win solution – one real win and one percieved win.

    • greg2213 said

      Well, diplomats have always had special privileges (and have frequently abused them.) As for special powers, heh, I guess that’s why it’s a good thing that the security council has five powers with divergent interests, each with veto power. That goes for to insure that nothing major gets done.

      I lean libertarian so I have to say that I agree with your second remark. Most major envioronmental regulation (esp. having to do with “climate change”) seems to have “Increased Gov Power” as a primary goal and any beneficial effects are secondary. Kyoto, for example, has no beneficial effects other than to increase Gov power. And Governments are the prime movers in environmental degradation in the first place.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: