Hilarious attempt to spin Global Not-Warming Data

[OCinBuffalo]

http://www.economist...e-gas-emissions

 

The article starts with "OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar.", and then proceeds to attempt to rationalize that fact for the rest of this hilarity, I mean, article.

 

For the window-lickers: This data blows away any notion that Global Warming is "settled science". It may even debunk the entire theory in a few years, if the computer model's predictions begin to fail, as they are on course to do as of right now. We'll see. As of today: anthropogenic Global Warming, and especially the catastrophic predictions associated, is now merely a tenuously supported theory, and therefore, CAN NOT be used as a reliable input on public policy.

 

This article is a hilariously transparent, PR move that hopes to "get ahead of the story so as to minimize the damage to us". Why the Economist? Because they have been pushing the Chicken Little version of Global Warming, as it meshes nicely into the rest of their left wing economic agenda, for a decade.

 

How can that conclusion be proved? Easy, attend to the language of article: "The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now." Why the "just now"? If this has been true for 15 years...what exactly is "now" about it? Answer: by adding those 2 words, the hope is to distract you away from the Economist's, or the left in general's, history with this issue.

 

Just in case you doubt that, the next sentence is: "It does not mean global warming is a delusion." This removes all doubt.

 

Apparently, there is a "puzzle"..."just now". That's a hell of a leap for a group of people who have demanded that we accept ALL of this, the science, the public risk, and the policies to mitigate that risk, as "settled". And, who have gone further, and attempted to brand all their detractors as = Holocaust deniers.

 

But really? Here is the delusion: the Economist, and the left in general, thought that a political agenda = fact-based, logical deduction.

 

It's no surprise that a delusion like this would be created by the left, and believed by so many on the left, as they have so little experience with applying logic. They are great with emotion, and clearly "image is everything", but logic is their great weakness.

 

My favorite part, and the best example of the left's struggle with logical deduction, is also contained in the language: emissions aren't causing warming "for some unexplained reason". Those of us who are familiar with deduction can see the obvious one: "there is no link, or only a minor one, between emissions and warming". It's not all that mystifying...it's just logic.

 

But, rather than look at all possible deductions, the Economist, and many on the left, simply cannot entertain this as it would mean admitting their intellectual weakness. Once again, the only thing I deny: the left's ability to reason properly, since so often they have declared reason itself as the enemy.

[B-Man]

Climate Change Endgame In Sight?

 

by Steven Hayward

 

In my Weekly Standard cover story about the fallout from the “Climategate” email scandal three years ago, I offered the following question by way of prediction:

Eventually the climate modeling community is going to have to reconsider the central question: Have the models the IPCC uses for its predictions of catastrophic warming overestimated the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases?

 

The article then went on to survey emerging research (U.S. government funded!) casting doubt on high estimates of climate sensitivity, along with alternative explanations on some climate factors, such as “black carbon.” The question in my mind at the time was how long this would take to begin to break out into the “mainstream” scientific and media world.

 

That day appears to have arrived. The new issue of The Economist has a long feature on the declining confidence in the high estimates of climate sensitivity. That this appears in The Economist is significant, because this august British news organ has been fully on board with climate alarmism for years now. A Washington-based Economist correspondent admitted to me privately several years ago that the senior editors in London had mandated consistent and regular alarmist climate coverage in its pages.

 

The problem for the climateers is increasingly dire. As The Economist shows in its first chart, the recent temperature record is now falling distinctly to the very low end of its predicted range and may soon fall out of it, which means the models are wrong, or, at the very least, that there’s something going on that supposedly “settled” science hasn’t been able to settle. Equally problematic for the theory, one place where the warmth might be hiding—the oceans—is not cooperating with the story line.

 

So The Economist story, though hedged with every reservation to Keep Hope Alive, is nonetheless a clear sign that it’s about over for the climate campaign.

 

While climateers continue to beat the drum that each year is among the hottest since Satan opened his first furnace at Hades Hostel for Hapless Heathens, there has been an embarrassed silence, if not outright denial (heh), that temperatures have flattened out over the last 15 years. Now even the leading climateers can’t maintain a straight face over this any more, as The Economist notes in its lede (see OC's post)

 

{snip}

 

Even The Economist’s accompanying “leader” on the issue sends out a subtle surrender signal:

Bad climate policies, such as backing renewable energy with no thought for the cost, or insisting on biofuels despite the damage they do, are bad whatever the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases. Good policies—strategies for adapting to higher sea levels and changing weather patterns, investment in agricultural resilience, research into fossil-fuel-free ways of generating and storing energy—are wise precautions even in a world where sensitivity is low. So is putting a price on carbon and ensuring that, slowly but surely, it gets ratcheted up for decades to come.

 

Except for the “carbon price” bit at the end, this represents a huge retreat from the Kyoto-cheerleading of The Economist in years gone by.

 

It’s enough to drive a Mann crazy.

 

http://www.powerline...me-in-sight.php

 

 

.

Edited April 3, 2013 by B-Man

[DC Tom]

And I'll say it again: models provide insight, they should not be used to predict, because they are approximations of reality. If they weren't approximations of reality, they wouldn't be called "models," they'd be called "reality."

 

I'm saying it again because...whaddaya know, looks like I've known what I'm talking about all along.

[Nanker]

Sure, easy for you to say. But you're no Bill Nye.

[Azalin]

I've always wondered why so many people would believe in computer models as if they were gospel when our daily weather forecasts are so often inaccurate.

[meazza]

I've always wondered why so many people would believe in computer models as if they were gospel when our daily weather forecasts are so often inaccurate.

 

It's easy to believe that pollution is bad for the planet therefore it's just as conceivable that this can be merged into "science" with regards to the climate.

 

Personally I have no issue with taking better care of the Earth but it has to be managed carefully.

[Azalin]

It's easy to believe that pollution is bad for the planet therefore it's just as conceivable that this can be merged into "science" with regards to the climate.

oh, I understand that well enough....it just strikes me as odd that so many will accept the methodology used in reaching such ominous predictions when they can see nearly every day that it's difficult to predict tomorrow's weather accurately.

[B-Man]

It's easy to believe that pollution is bad for the planet therefore it's just as conceivable that this can be merged into "science" with regards to the climate.

 

Personally I have no issue with taking better care of the Earth but it has to be managed carefully.

 

So...................................legislating the industrial nations (at least the Capitalistic ones) to pay out trillions of dollars in the mythical 'carbon credits',

 

 

WON'T heal the planet ? ?

 

 

 

.

Edited April 3, 2013 by B-Man

[Gary M]

A little icing on the cake.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/climate-paradox-longer-antarctic-melt-season-may-mean-210400973.html;_ylt=AuLFgb99k9mJB9zQtK5lQ4MlM.t_;_ylu=X3oDMTVxbGNyNW43BGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDEwMDBwb29sd2lraXVwcmVzdARtaXQDQXJ0aWNsZSBNaXhlZCBMaXN0IE5ld3MgZm9yIFlvdSB3aXRoIE1vcmUgTGluawRwa2cDYTdjYmEzOGMtNDhiMC0zMmNlLWIyMzktYzUyYTNhMDAzYWQzBHBvcwM0BHNlYwNuZXdzX2Zvcl95b3UEdmVyAzQ4MTRlNTcxLTljNzItMTFlMi05ZmZmLTg1NDAyZDNlMGNjZA--;_ylg=X3oDMTM1bDFndTQ1BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDNjc5NDc1MTAtYzY1Mi0zZjhjLTg5NjgtNzc0ODY0ZDlhNTA2BHBzdGNhdANibG9nc3xwb3dlcnBsYXllcnMEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdl;_ylv=3

[DC Tom]

oh, I understand that well enough....it just strikes me as odd that so many will accept the methodology used in reaching such ominous predictions when they can see nearly every day that it's difficult to predict tomorrow's weather accurately.

 

In the case of weather, it's arguably easier to predict the long-term trends than it is the short term fluctuations, just because the time scale is longer, the inputs are different (SO2 aerosols don't mean **** to daily weather...over a multi-year time span they have an impact), and the randomness of weather gets "averaged out" over the longer time scale of "climate".

 

As I think through it more, it's probably easier to design a climate model than it is a weather model - there's probably fewer variables to worry about.

[Magox]

So...................................legislating the industrial nations (at least the Capitalistic ones) to pay out trillions of dollars in the mythical 'carbon credits',

 

 

WON'T heal the planet ? ?

 

 

 

.

 

I've been saying this for quite some time; if leftist policy makers would of simply not included taxes in their possible solutions to taking care of the earth, we would of never have seen such a backlash towards "Climate change".

[OCinBuffalo]

I've been saying this for quite some time; if leftist policy makers would of simply not included taxes in their possible solutions to taking care of the earth, we would of never have seen such a backlash towards "Climate change".

But, Magox....

 

I believe you have things reversed. See...the problem for the left has been "how do we increase taxes in general, and how can we accomplish redistribution world-wide". Global warming was the vehicle. Your confusion: You thought Global Warming was the problem, and the taxes/redistribution was the vehicle.

 

Actually, its not funny at all, when one considers the time and $ wasted on this buffoonery. I wonder what the next vehicle will be?

 

Edit: Just think of how much "free mental health services"(the new demand from the left) we could have provided with those resources. It's a crime that those greedy fat cat climate scientists refused to pay their fair share, and move some of their money to the mental health people.

 

Ever since the Berlin wall came down, the left has been desperately looking for anything, anything at all, that will serve as proof that their ideas are sound, and aren't just a function of believing in one idiot from the 1800s. It used to be: Sweden, until we said "you love it so much, go live there". Then it was welfare: until Ludicrous(right?) proceeded to cash a welfare check on MTV.

 

Then, they really had something in Global Warming: "Do what we say, or you will DIE!". It was perfect. But it was just as superficial, and so it failed too.

 

Krugman just tried to use: Latvia.

 

I wouldn't be surprised to wake up tomorrow and find out that somehow Kim Kardashian is the new vehicle for why socialism must be implemented.

Edited April 4, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[DC Tom]

I've been saying this for quite some time; if leftist policy makers would of simply not included taxes in their possible solutions to taking care of the earth, we would of never have seen such a backlash towards "Climate change".

 

Yeah, generally people are okay with anything as long as they don't have to pay for it.

 

That's the Democratic Party's entire campaign strategy. You could probably get away with killing puppies and kittens on live TV and feeding them to the homeless, as long as you said it was "for the children" and it didn't cost any money.

[....lybob]

Yeah, generally people are okay with anything as long as they don't have to pay for it.

 

That's the Democratic Party's entire campaign strategy. You could probably get away with killing puppies and kittens on live TV and feeding them to the homeless, as long as you said it was "for the children" and it didn't cost any money.

Unlike the Republicans who'd find a way to make a profit using the homeless in pet food.

[3rdnlng]

Unlike the Republicans who'd find a way to make a profit using the homeless in pet food.

 

Keep these posts coming and you are unlikely to lose your position for the first pick in the draft.

[Azalin]

 

 

In the case of weather, it's arguably easier to predict the long-term trends than it is the short term fluctuations, just because the time scale is longer, the inputs are different (SO2 aerosols don't mean **** to daily weather...over a multi-year time span they have an impact), and the randomness of weather gets "averaged out" over the longer time scale of "climate".

 

As I think through it more, it's probably easier to design a climate model than it is a weather model - there's probably fewer variables to worry about.

although I'm expressing my opinion in toungue-in-cheek fashion, I think you're probably right. that being said, I'll probably always have a distrust of computer models.

[DC Tom]

although I'm expressing my opinion in toungue-in-cheek fashion, I think you're probably right. that being said, I'll probably always have a distrust of computer models.

 

I've written a few computer models. I distrust all of them. And mine were models of boundary value problems that were much better defined and constrained than "climate" (and micro effects being much more chaotic, the boundary value problem of "weather" is about an order-of-magnitude more complicated than that.)

 

The most damning thing about climate science right now is the horrible propensity for data to be rejected "because it doesn't fit the model." While data collection is rarely completely unambiguous, if real world doesn't fit the model, it's not the real world that's wrong. And anyone who claims otherwise is either an idiot or an overzealous mendacious little shitbird (again, James Hansen, I'm looking at you.)

[boyst]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/world/americas/1600-years-of-ice-in-perus-andes-melted-in-25-years-scientists-say.html?_r=0

Good thing we have the NY Times to remind us this is a real thing.

[IDBillzFan]

I've been saying this for quite some time; if leftist policy makers would of simply not included taxes in their possible solutions to taking care of the earth, we would of never have seen such a backlash towards "Climate change".

 

I say this with with all honesty...as message boards go, I don't remember the last time I read the writings of someone so willing to get so deep into the weeds on any topic you have confidence in, who simultaneously trips over "would of" for "would have" like Dick Van Dyke tripping over an ottoman. The difference being that, after a while, Van Dyke would stop in front of the ottoman, do a piano shift to the left, and avoid something he tripped over for three seasons.

[Magox]

 

 

I say this with with all honesty...as message boards go, I don't remember the last time I read the writings of someone so willing to get so deep into the weeds on any topic you have confidence in, who simultaneously trips over "would of" for "would have" like Dick Van Dyke tripping over an ottoman. The difference being that, after a while, Van Dyke would stop in front of the ottoman, do a piano shift to the left, and avoid something he tripped over for three seasons.

 

And I say this with all honesty

 

 

Really?