Posts Tagged ‘AGW’
The December 14 broadcast of PBS’s On Point with Tom Ashbrook is titled “Showdown in Copenhagen,” which would lead one to believe that opposing parties there are facing off against one another over the role humans have in affecting the global climate.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
In order to fully appreciate this particular broadcast, the listener must already believe
- The science on climate change is “settled,” the planet is warming, and humans are to blame.
- The undeveloped “poorer” nations of the world have been shafted by the developed “richer” nations and deserve “climate justice.”
- The chief villians are the United States and China, but (wink-wink, nudge-nudge) – it’s really just the United States.
- Catastrophe can be ameoliorated, but not averted, only if draconian cuts in carbon emissions are enacted by developed nations (i.e., the United States) immediately.
Most of the broadcast was unremarkable because it started with the shared but unspoken proposition that AGW is actually happening and is the result of our pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Once that leap has been made, discussion naturally turns to matters involving how to lower carbon emissions as rapidly as possible, which nations are most at fault, and how much the carbon-pulluting developed nations owe the poor, undeveloped nations. Ashbrook channeled the frustration felt by all leftists when he asked one of his guests
When you look at these negotiations, there is no King of the Hill here, there is no single nation that can lay down the law and say ‘This is how it’s going to be,’ is there?
Every so often, leftists let slip their affinity for authoritarianism. If only Mussolini were here, he could play King of Copenhagen and dictate “This is how it’s going to be” to the world. Wouldn’t that be great?
Throughout most of the program, Ashbrook completely ignored Climategate and its impact on the Copenhagen conference. Finally, about 40 minutes into a 46 minute broadcast, a caller from Davenport, Iowa, asks
Could you guys talk a little bit about how some of the science that mankind is causing global warming, climate change . . . that there are some scientists saying that isn’t true, and for every scientist or climatologist that says that it’s man and his SUV causing this “change,” there’s another scientist saying that’s not necessarily true. The world is constantly changing, and now that we have this Climategate thing, we have scientists covering up the science that says there is no global warming.
Ashbrook immediately dismissed the idea that for every global warming scientist alarmist there is a skeptic. There are actually many more alarmists than skeptics, which somehow “proves” AGW.
Wow, science is easy! All that is needed to make the fantastic real is consensus. So, if we can get a plurality of scientists to proclaim “The earth is flat,” then – by George! – the earth is flat. Similarly, if we wanted to travel in faster-than-light spaceships, all that is required is a group of scientists to beeeeee-LEEEEEEEEVE in faster-than-light spaceships and – KA-ZAMM! – just like that, it just happens.
Ashbrook’s guest stammered in response that there will always be dissenters but the bulk of the evidence points towards very damaging effects, which avoids the central question – why, in light of the Climategate revelations, should we believe ANY of the so-called “evidence” peddled by the Elmer Gantrys of climate science?
Is it any wonder more Democrats than Republicans believe in ghosts and fortune tellers?
(From the Washington Times)
Can this marriage be saved? The union of junk scientists, on the prowl for government handouts to pay for their computer games, and eager politicians sniffing an enormous new source of tax revenue was a match made in a dark alley. The always gullible mainstream media was the guest at the wedding, and everybody won. Only the public was duped.
(From America Thinker)
By Thomas Lifson
The 62 megabytes of compressed data from one of the world’s premier climate research organizations continue to be mined for further evidence of fraud, and conspiracy to violate freedom of information laws in the UK and USA. A keyword search engine now exists for the emails. James Delingpole reviews the MSM coverage of the biggest scientific scandal in history finds is meager, and focused on skeptics as the only people who really care, more or less.This strategy will not be adequate. The established media no longer have the ability to quarantine embarrassing stories, particularly when they undermine the logic of a trillion dollar green scam. Sooner or later Republicans will find the guts to demand a congressional investigation, as the magnitude of the crimes sinks in. Federal funds were spent by the Hadley Gang.
Clarice Feldman writes: Doug Ross publishes some incriminating CRU emails neither he nor I have seen published elsewhere.
NOTE: Go to http://www.climatedepot.com for breaking news on Climategate.
On October 14th 2009, Lord Christopher Monckton, a noted climate change expert, gave a presentation at Bethel College in St. Paul, MN in which he issued a dire warning regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty, which is scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009.
(From wattsupwiththat.com)
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
About.com describes an “urban legend” as an apocryphal (of questionable authenticity), secondhand story, told as true and just plausible enough to be believed, about some horrific…series of events….it’s likely to be framed as a cautionary tale. Whether factual or not, an urban legend is meant to be believed. In lieu of evidence, however, the teller of an urban legend is apt to rely on skillful storytelling and reference to putatively trustworthy sources.
I contend that the belief in human-caused global warming as a dangerous event, either now or in the future, has most of the characteristics of an urban legend. Like other urban legends, it is based upon an element of truth. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose concentration in the atmosphere is increasing, and since greenhouse gases warm the lower atmosphere, more CO2 can be expected, at least theoretically, to result in some level of warming.
But skillful storytelling has elevated the danger from a theoretical one to one of near-certainty. The actual scientific basis for the plausible hypothesis that humans could be responsible for most recent warming is contained in the cautious scientific language of many scientific papers. Unfortunately, most of the uncertainties and caveats are then minimized with artfully designed prose contained in the Summary for Policymakers (SP) portion of the report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This Summary was clearly meant to instill maximum alarm from a minimum amount of direct evidence.
(From RedState)
Posted by Vladimir (Profile)
Saturday, August 29th at 7:00AM EDT
Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania is co-author of a paper which was presented to the International Symposium on Forecasting in June. The conclusion: “The paper explained the need for simple methods and conservative forecasts in the face of uncertainty and complexity and pointed out that simple no-change benchmark forecasts are sufficiently accurate for policy decisions. In contrast, simple causal models with CO2 as the policy variable are not credible.”
