The Shotgun Blog
Monday, December 24, 2007
Is it getting warmer?
I'm not a global warming skeptic. I'm not a global warming believer, either. I have no particular opinion on the subject of whether or not our temperatures are climbing or declining, or whether we are in the middle of the most frightening climate calamity ever.
I'm not certain either way because I don't have a degree in any of the relevant fields that would give me the expertise to judge this, and I'm convinced that global temperature trends and facts about the climate are a little too complicated for easy summation and digestion.
I am of the opinion that the global warming alarmists are all a little too firm about their convictions. They lack the basic intellectual humility to admit that this thing is complicated. That understanding weather patterns and global trends in the climate are chock-full of assumptions and guesses and other troubling bits of data that don't square with one another too easily. The Weather Network can't even tell me what the day is going to be like tomorrow with anything resembling certainty, never mind a hundred years from now. The alarmists don't have it in them to admit that they might be wrong.
But the religious fervour of the new eschatologists--signs in hand that replace "God's wrath" with the wrath of Gaia--makes finding uncomfortable facts a little, well, heart-warming. Call it schadenfreude.
And so it is with this discovery. Apparently and statistically speaking, 2007 was no warmer than 2006. And 2006 was no warmer than 2005. And 2005... well, you get the idea. All the way to 2001. 2007 is no warmer than 2001. But I thought that greenhouse gases were supposed to accelerate a warming trend, and that increases in those gases--which we have seen since 2001--were supposed to be followed by increases in temperatures at least within, say, a year or two. But six years without any statistically-significant increase in temperature?
This news doesn't prove that global warming is a hoax or a myth. But it should raise a skeptical eyebrow. It should introduce a little bit of doubt into Al Gore, if he manages to read the article either in that mansion of his that uses as much electricity in one day as 20 average American homes do in a year, or while he's flying to some new $100,000-per-global-catastrophe-speech-engagement on his private jet.
I'm sorry, you're right. This is just ad hominem designed to avert your gaze from what is really at issue here. He could be right, after all. And in spite of the apparent hypocrisy, he might just be suffering from akrasia. Like Augustine before him, who pleaded with God to grant him chastity (but not just yet). But, damnit, if it's such a huge problem, and Gore is so ahead of the curve on this as to somehow deserve a Nobel Peace Prize, shouldn't he be the first to stop all this mass consumption of carbon-based fuels and maybe opt for a solar panel on his home here or there?
Take note, dear reader. Once upon a time, at some Institute for Humane Studies get-together, I heard the following tid-bit that I thought was prescient enough to take note of myself. Consider what some doomsayer or politician or religious figure or philosopher says. Suppose they tell you that giving away half of your money is the right and moral thing to do. Suppose you discover that they don't do it themselves (Peter Singer, anyone?). This doesn't give us sufficient reason to determine that the ethicist doesn't really believe it himself. What it does is give us an efficient way of sorting through the mountain of ethical considerations by placing less weight on his pronouncements. It might, of course, be true that we do have this ethical obligation, but if someone who insists it is true fails to live up to his own claims, then we have a tiny reason not to believe him.
And so it is with Gore and with the rest of the jet-setting enviro-movement types. They might be right. We might be on a path to global calamity. But until they give up their private jets and trips to Bali, you'll forgive me if I don't scamper up the stairs to shut off the light I left on in the bathroom. I'll get around to it. Eventually.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is it getting warmer?:
There is nothing unusual about our climate. It is responding to solar activity and the various elements on globe as it always has. Many of us now know that this is a political movement to take down the Capitalist West and empower the socialist world. The elites want more power and a global feudal state.
I have posted some interesting information in the form of video clips and one audio clip (top right)
Check it out if you have a few minutes and want to see what real experts have to say on the topic.
Posted by: John West | 2007-12-24 3:46:16 PM
There are no shortages of skeptics:
"Plenty of scientific doubt about climate catastrophe"
I am a denier, a pejorative term applied to those of us who reject the now discredited report that 99 percent of climatologists agree that we are in a period of accelerated global warming, and that the debate is over.
I am in good company. The deniers include those scientists who are directly involved in actual measurements of global temperatures, or those who base their positions on solid science, as opposed to those who base their opinion on computer modeling.
A classic example of the latter is Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute, whose presentation to Congress ignited the global warming frenzy and predicted double-digit warming and catastrophic consequences, based on a flawed computer model.
The deniers include Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who is often referred to as the world’s leading climatologist. He said it best. “The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world temperature-wise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman’s forecast for next week which use the same computer models.”
Another denier is Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, who, along with Dr. Roy Spencer of NASA, translates the radio signals from NASA satellites into temperature measurements. He is on record as saying that man’s activities may play a role if the temperature rises. He also points out that the insignificant rise of 0.6 degrees C over 100 years is at the very limit of measurement, and that measuring man’s contribution is impossible and may be zero.
GLOBULL WARMING CONTINUES to be the greatest fraud and hoax perpetrated on Mankind - bar none!
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-24 4:46:19 PM
Is it a coincidence that almost the entire burden of the cost of Kyoto was designed to be shouldered by "Christian" countries?
And why do we stand for it? Is it always better to give than to receive? We're being drowned in our own charity.
Posted by: dp | 2007-12-24 7:04:27 PM
According to Al Gore, we've got 10 years to "do something about it". And then, since it will then be "too late", hopefully the global-warming-alarmist-ringing-in-my-ears will finally end.
10 years from now, when it's "too late", Al Gore's travelling slideshow won't be worth a dollar. We'll all sit back and wait for it to happen. Kind of makes me want to go and watch On The Beach.
Posted by: Richard Ball | 2007-12-25 8:36:51 AM
As if any further evidence was needed to expose the hoax and fraud of Globull Warming, there's this:
"The Global Warming Fraud: More Inconvenient Truths"
In Al Gore's environmental tome and movie 'An Inconvenient Truth', he claims that anthropogenic (human-caused) activity will cause irreversible damage to the planet. The basis of this claim is that by using carbon based fuels (oil, gas, coal, wood) to produce energy, we will increase the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere and cause global warming. According to Gore, this global warming will cause glaciers to melt, causing the oceans to rise thereby flooding all the coastal communities.
Of course, the poor, minorities, women and children will die first.
Gore erroneously assumes that current conditions on earth are the natural state. Even a cursory study of the earth would reveal that nothing related to the earth is constant. Continents move, the oceans rise and fall, glaciers advance and retreat, the magnetic poles have moved and reversed, the composition of the atmosphere has varied and the earth's temperature has warmed and cooled. All of these events occurred without any human influence.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-25 9:27:49 AM
If we can just stall off the warming zealots long enough all their false evidence will vaporize (no pun intended) and they will look just like the King who had no clothes.
I can't wait to see Fat Albert naked.
Posted by: John West | 2007-12-25 1:42:11 PM
"I can't wait to see Fat Albert naked"
Some of us just ate!
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-25 2:45:24 PM
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that global warming is definitely real, and there was a true consensus on the science. In that case, we should be looking at every possible option to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, not just yelling "Kyoto!!" at the top of your lungs (or naming your dog after it) and expecting everyone to follow suit when the treaty has done nothing over its lifespan to decrease emissions.
Bjorn Lomborg has the right idea for greenhouse gas emission reduction if a government is going to adopt it as a policy goal - invest heavily in R&D to make emission reduction economically viable instead of the unsustainable money pit that it is now.
Posted by: Janet | 2007-12-25 5:18:45 PM
Right on Janet
Posted by: John West | 2007-12-26 1:06:36 AM
i'm with janet. if global warming is real, how does taxing me and sending my money to another country (through al gore's company?) do anything.
if their going to make me pay because i drive a car or fly on a plane, then at least use that tax money to reduce greenhouse gas, not just offset some somewhere else.
Posted by: Russ Graham | 2007-12-26 5:56:24 AM
Shhhhh ~ Not so loud!
Emperor Gore is NAKED and you will embarrass him by pointing that out.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-26 6:15:34 AM
Global warming believers are a cult and the Goracle is their messiah. This guy's ego knows no bounds. In Bali, he presented himself as some sort of spokesman for human kind -- the conscience of the Globe, if you will.
What Gore is in reality is huckster extraordinaire. He jets around delivering his slide show at $100,000 a pop spewing carbon in his wake. But that's OK. He buys carbon credits to offset his travels. Guess who he buys them from? Why himself. That's right, the Goracle runs a carbon trading company. This guy makes it coming and going. What a phony!
Posted by: JMD | 2007-12-27 6:26:34 AM
BREAKING NEWS ! ! !
IT HAS JUST been revealed that the Sun's powerful rays are extending their effect on the planet. This could kill every living thing on Earth if we do not act immediately!
Ever since Dec. 21st of this year, it was noted (by mr, no less!) that darkness is slowly shrinking and the sun's light is increasing.
In order to stay alive, please send me a percentage of your income and I will be sure that this problem is solved before we all burn up.
In fact, if you send me enough cash, I promise that the situation will be remedied by June 21st.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-27 7:10:33 AM
Or, more succinctly, "I'll start worrying about global warming when the people who say we should worry about global warming start acting like they're worried about global warming". Unfortunately, those folks all seem to think that buying indulgences is enough to coat them with a patina of environmental rectitude - it's us peons who will have to make all the actual sacrifices...
Posted by: Jonathan Westphal | 2007-12-27 11:00:43 AM
The truth is oozing out - slowly:
"Gore Milks Cash Cow"
Dec. 28 (Bloomberg) - Climate-change skeptics are taking a beating these days even in France, where people long resisted the green creed.
Paris bookstores brim with guidebooks - including one shaped like a toilet seat - that tell readers how to help save our planet. Yet the dissidents refuse to shut up, even now that Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize and the U.S. government has agreed to negotiate a new global-warming treaty by 2009.
The most conspicuous doubter in France is Claude Allegre, a former education minister and a physicist by profession. His new book, "Ma Verite Sur la Planete" ("My Truth About the Planet"), doesn't mince words.
He calls Gore a "crook" presiding over an eco-business that pumps out cash. As for Gore's French followers, the author likens them to religious zealots who, far from saving humanity, are endangering it. Driven by a Judeo-Christian guilt complex, he says, French greens paint worst-case scenarios and attribute little-understood cycles to human misbehavior.
Allegre doesn't deny that the climate has changed or that extreme weather has become more common. He instead emphasizes the local character of these phenomena.
While the icecap of the North Pole is shrinking, the one covering Antarctica - or 92 percent of the Earth's ice - is not, he says. Nor have Scandinavian glaciers receded, he says. To play down these differences by basing forecasts on a global average makes no sense to Allegre.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-28 7:48:50 AM
And now a word for sanity:
"Global warming gets cold shoulder"
"We seem to be almost entirely focused on one way to deal with the problems of the world," Bjorn Lomborg says. "No matter what the problem is, people will say we need to cut carbon emissions." The Danish academic has spent the past decade trying to reduce our growing obsession with climate change, in the process becoming the most famous global warming sceptic in the world.
THE WHOLE process has nothing to do with climate change. They all want a new tax, and carbon is what they have latched on to.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-28 8:45:11 AM
And this is what happens when godless "scientists" let loose:
"Antarctic base staff evacuated after Christmas brawl"
Two men, one with a suspected broken jaw, have been airlifted from the Antarctic's most remote research facility after an incident described as a "drunken Christmas punch-up". The brawl happened at the US-operated Amundsen-Scott South Pole station, located at the heart of the frozen continent.
REMEMBER THE Biosphere experiment in Arizona, where they called it quits after a few short months instead of the full 2 years planned because the participants couldn't get along with each other? :)
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-28 8:50:29 AM
But China is exempt:
"Beijing air pollution 'as bad as it can get,' official says"
Foul Beijing Air May Delay Some Olympic Events
Beijingers were warned to stay indoors on Thursday as pollution levels across the capital hit the top of the scale, despite repeated assurances by the government that air quality was improving.
"This is as bad as it can get," a spokeswoman for the Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau told AFP.
"Level five is the worst level of air pollution. This is as bad as it has been all year."
According to the bureau's website, 15 out of the 16 pollution monitoring stations in urban Beijing registered a "five" for air quality rating.
The main pollutant was suspended particulate matter, which is usually attributed to coal burning and automotive exhaust.
DON'T EXPECT ANY records to be broken at the Olympics.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-28 6:22:20 PM
A good column by Lorrie Goldstein this morning in The Toronto Sun that is relevant to this string;
Posted by: Hoser | 2007-12-31 6:59:22 AM
"the wish to know exactly what is going on is independent of politics and scientists must never bend their desire for knowledge to any political cause"
. . . unless there's money to be made and power to be wrested and youthful minds to be propagandized, of course. :)
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-31 7:15:09 AM
Isn't it wonderful how common sense defeated global warming, not partisan politics?
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-12-31 8:39:59 AM
It isn't quite dead yet (there is still money to be made) - but in the throes of death, nevertheless.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-31 8:46:19 AM
Could Kyoto have succeeded if Ontario's auto industry not received an exemption? That's what killed it for me - how good could the plan be if the rich backers of the Lieberal/NDP/Green Party bailed on it as soon as they read it? Worse they were going to dump the costs on to Alberta! Face it: Kyoto never had a chance because people were willing to stand up for their basic human rights.
I love it when these global warming enthusiasts ask what Canada would look like in 2050 if Kyoto was not implemented. I'd say it would be prosperous and free. If it was implemented, then Canada would look like it did in 1950 - rich Ontario, poor everyone else, with the exception of Alberta which would have seceded.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-12-31 8:53:19 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.