NASA Data Demolishes Global Warming Hoax
10 or 15 years ago, it seemed like the science was pretty one sided. The Earth was warming, and man was the cause for most of that increase. Dire predictions flooded the airwaves.
Some of the more spectacular alarmists claimed that Manhattan would be underwater within the next ten years due to rising sea levels. John Stokes, over at The Canadian, predicted 4.5 billion deaths...by 2012.
Along with these terrifying predictions made by seemingly respectable scientists came massive calls for the government to avert this catastrophe.
Al Gore became a champion of the anthropogenic global warming cause. He received a Nobel Peace Prize for his "documentary" An Inconvenient Truth. The UN drafted, and passed a variety of measure to restrict carbon dioxide output.
The Kyoto Protocol, adopted in 1997, was the high water mark for government action. Based upon the alleged scientific consensus described by the UN IPCC 191 countries (notably not including the United States) have agreed to reduce their collective greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% from the 1990 level. Supposedly, this would save us all from a grim future.
However, the evidence just keeps piling up that Global Warming is a hypothesis that just isn't supported by all the evidence. The Kyoto Protocol was dependent upon computer models that predicted temperatures would not only continue climbing, but that they would actually increase their pace. The reality was that temperatures dropped for the next decade.
The Climate Change Alarmists knew that, and were quite upset about it. Part of the email exchange revealed by climategate was between Kevin Trenberth, and hockey stick model creator Michael Mann. Trenberth told Mann, "“The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.”
That wasn't the first sign of trouble for Climate Change alarmists, but it was certainly one of the biggest. Today, scientists using NASA data have released another bombshell. To make matters worse, this release was in the peer reviewed scientific journal Remote Sensing. The Alarmists have claimed that the "deniers" lacked credibility because relatively few peer reviewed journals were willing to oppose global warming.
"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show. There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans." Translating from polite cautious academic speak to plain English, he is saying the NASA data shows the Global Warming computer models are bunk.
After a body blow like that, the Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmists need to start over from square one to build a case. Well, assuming they are honest and willing to be persuaded by facts. Ignoring this paper will essentially by a declaration, by the alarmists, that they have no interest in science or the scientific process.
They are certainly interested in tenured professorial positions, government grants, and authoritarian government solutions. Have you ever noticed that any global warming problem can only be fixed by an ever larger more authoritarian government? Have you ever noticed that the only fixes to c02 emissions are government control over the economy?
Ever wondered why it is claimed only a socialist government can solve pollution problems? It certainly isn't based on history. History shows us that communist countries like Soviet Russia, it's satellite states, and Mao's China are polluted wastelands. Compare that to the far free-er United States. We have drastically lower pollution levels. We have an incomparably better environment for man to live in. And yet, environmental activists would turn the US towards a centrally planned managed economy despite all the evidence that this is exactly the wrong way to accomplish their claimed objectives.
These questions, and reports like this one, are why I have severe doubts about the Global Warming alarmist dedication to science. Perhaps I am wrong, if so, we are going to see a lot of scientists abandoning the cause. If we don't, the implication should be clear to us all.
Rational Public Radio is an Objectivist podcast and blog, a.k.a., the rallying center for reasoned warriors in the fight to gain and keep individual freedom.
Comments
Here's my question: Supposing there actually is global warming, why should anyone be particularly concerned about whether it's anthropogenic or not? Sure, it's an interesting human trivia question, but why would it matter? The more relevant question would be whether we can do anything to prevent it (pretty surely not, in any case). So why the endless fuss over it being human-caused? Scientifically, it doesn't really make much difference what caused it (and it is far more difficult to establish causation than to identify the trend itself).
My theory is that this is relevant to Global-Warming-As-Religious-Belief: the human race must repent its sins by willingly suffering (in whatever way our Governments tell us is necessary) to counter GW. We need to be convinced of our collective guilt, in order to willingly undergo the suffering of atonement. Kind of like some other religions I can think of.
then do the observable facts seem to indicate this premise to be true,If they do then you can entertain causes and effects but not until then. The hard part for you will be filtering out lies and half truths, because you will find many studies are funded to provide proof for a concept and not so much to determine validity, further more there is a bias that people will have towards a theory they have chosen to believe which complicates things but good luck on your search for truth.
New evidence shows GW caused by the sun, not humans.
OK. To me, this doesn't change anything. If there is GW, there is. If we'd better do something about it, then we'd better. If we CAN stop it, we probably should. If we can't, we can't. There's a fallacy that if humans caused it, then we can fix it. If we didn't, we can't. Not true!
RSS feed for comments to this post