climate_graph.jpg

Global Climate Status Quo

First it was termed Global Warming–signifying runaway heating of the earth’s atmosphere brought on by an excess of capitalism and freedom producing too much carbon dioxide–then, in light of inconvenient temperature moves to the downside, Global Climate Change, caused by the same thing.  Now the data show only oscillations around a mean–call it Global Status Quo:  no doubt cataclysmically harmful, somehow.  Just wait a week or so for an explanation to be expelled from the bowels of the UN …

  1. nonobadpony

    As long as there is more faith in scientific socialism than there is in science, no amount of data will deter the green movement.  This information could, however, make it safe for us deniers to come out. 

  2. raycon and lindacon

    But, but, but…

  3. David Nordmark

    Ever wonder why so many more conservative types doubted the science behind climate change as opposed to lefty types? I suspect it’s because conservatives actually appreciate just how complex the world is. In the same way that we don’t like messing with institutions that have stood the test of time, we tend to cast a skeptical eye towards “scientists” who arrogantly assert that they could model something as complex as the Earth’s climate with computers. I’m not surprised by this at all. Can’t wait to hear James Delingpole’s take.

  4. Keith Rice

    Environmentalists respond:

    Regardless of that, it’s of the utmost importance to bring to bear as much political power as possible to halt the growth of industrialized nations (of the West) and to provide a significant transfer of funds to (essentially Marxist) developing nations.

    The 16 year warming gap is not going to fool anyone, the warmer weather became trapped in a heat sink and is, as we speak, coming to a boil at which point it will kill all life on the planet as we know it.

    We ask the co-operation of all conservatives especially to help reduce carbon emissions by following these simple steps:

    1) Turn off the electricity in your home and business but shutting off the main power at the breaker. If you need help finding this, call your local power company.

    2) Return to your home via safe transportation, you can walk, ride a bike, or be pulled in a non-motorized cart.

    3) When at home, find a comfortable space and proceed to cease all CO2 emissions from your body.

    In this way can you most benefit the world’s future.

    Thank you for your cooperation.

  5. Valiuth

    David: It is not, I think, a matter of the climate being too complex necessarily. We model complex things all the time with a certain degree of accuracy  The question is are the assumptions behind the models right. It does not matter how simple the system if the assumptions one makes about it are erroneous ones models will give out garbage. This is why models should be verified first before being held up as the reason to undergo vast economic changes. 

  6. David Nordmark

    That’s part of my point. I’ve never heard of any of these computer models being verified. It would seem to me that if you want to test a computer model you test it against the real world overtime. Once it has proven itself over a 10 or 20 year period, it would have some credibility. Did any of the computer models from 16 years ago predict these temperatures? If so I didn’t hear about them.

    Valiuth: David: It is not, I think, a matter of the climate being too complex necessarily. We model complex things all the time with a certain degree of accuracy  The question is are the assumptions behind the models right. It does not matter how simple the system if the assumptions one makes about it are erroneous ones models will give out garbage. This is why models should be verified first before being held up as the reason to undergo vast economic changes.  · 5 minutes ago

  7. Lavaux

    Darn! I’m a big fan of AGW because I live in a very cold climate (Skandinavia), and I don’t care much for cold. Can’t a guy catch a break?

  8. Fake John Galt

    This can’t be so.  We were told that the science was settled And any new facts or facts that deviate from the stated should be ignored.

  9. James Gawron

    George,

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say as many times as needed. 

    Millions of jobs and Trillions of dollars of GNP destroyed by a tale told by an idiot!

    When will these Green @%+%#s  ever apologize to the human race?

    Probably, when Man Made Global Warming or Hell freezes over which ever comes first.

    Regards,

    Jim

  10. Crow

    George, clearly you don’t understand. If it hadn’t been for the retroactive success of the green jobs program, Steven Chu’s brilliance, ‘forward-looking’ (read: economy impoverishing) measures taken to mitigate climate change, and the energy revolution from wind turbines in Denmark and bicycle usage in The Netherlands, we never would have seen this leveling off…

    And, plus, everyone knows conservatives are anti-science. So there.

  11. Larry3435
    David Nordmark: Ever wonder why so many more conservative types doubted the science behind climate change as opposed to lefty types?

    In my case, its because I actually read the so-called science.   Lefties tend to think that everything they believe is an objective “Truth,”  so most of them have never bothered to read the IPCC Report, and see no reason why they should.  Better to declare a “consensus” and be done with it.  

    And when they have extracted whatever political gain they can from it, they will forget that they ever believed in catastrophic global warming, just as they have forgotten that they ever believed in the great threats posed by global cooling, ozone depletion, acid rain, DDT, etc., not to mention that many of them are still terrified of irradiated or genetically modified foods, vaccines (they cause autism, don’t you know?), and that someone lighting a cigarette on the other side of Central Park will cause them to keel over in a matter of minutes.  Because its OUR side that is “anti-science.”  Jeez.

  12. Ross C

    You are not totally wrong here, but what you are doing is cherry picking data to make your point.

    1998 was an abnormally warm el Nino year (not an agw phenomenon),so to start the graph at 1997 is misleading.

    I don’t think there is much doubt that the world and certainly the northern hemisphere is warming and has been for a long time.  This is not disputed by prominent skeptics like Richard Linden or Anthony Watts.  The amount of warming is disputed by Watts and amount attributable to CO2 and other feedbacks by others.  

    My point is to say that I suspect the temperature will continue to rise after this decadal pause.  It is likely within geological norms and it remains to be seen if we need to do anything but grow our economies in order to deal with it.

  13. ConservativeWanderer

    It was never about Saving The Planet™.

    It was always about power. Sheer, unadulterated power.

    That’s all you need to know about Climate Change.

  14. Grendel
    David Nordmark: …It would seem to me that if you want to test a computer model you test it against the real world overtime.  . .  Did any of the computer models from 16 years ago predict these temperatures? If so I didn’t hear about them. 

    Climate models are tested by seeing how well they can predict the past.  The ones that have done best are also the ones predicting the lowest amount of “global warming”.

    The AGW hysteria was started, as the late-20th-century warming phase began, by affluent ZPG activists, led by Tim Wirth, who wanted to quash economic growth in the Third World, and thus quash population growth. 

    In the Senate, [Wirth] focused on environmental issues, particularly global climate change and population stabilization. In 1988, he organized the historic Hansen hearings on climate change. Wirth in an interview to PBS, admitted to staging the hearing by intentionally scheduling it on the historically hottest day of the summer and opening the windows to the hearing room the night before so the air conditioning would not be working.

    They don’t care about models’ accuracy, what they care about is killing people.

  15. Mickerbob

    As long as the answer to every question posed to the “scientists,” is “Socialist Land Grab.”  There is no point bothering…

  16. Misthiocracy

    As posted in another thread…

    <devil’s advocate mode = on>

    From the articles I’ve read today, for the past 16 years the global temperature didn’t rise, but it didn’t fall either.  Therefore, according to these particular statistics, the long-term trend is still a warming trend.

    <devil’s advocate mode = off>

    Not that it really means that much since, also according to the articles I’ve read today, in this case “long term” only means “since 1980″.

    Still, if the cycle is truly 16 years of warming followed by a 16 years of plateau, as claimed by today’s articles, it’s not really that much for skeptics to cheer about. We’d need 16 years of cooling to get a stable “long-term” trend, no?

  17. Misthiocracy
    Lavaux: Darn! I’m a big fan of AGW because I live in a very cold climate (Skandinavia), and I don’t care much for cold. Can’t a guy catch a break? 

    I like warm beaches. But I also like snowboarding.  It’s a dilemma, alright.

    ;-)

  18. raycon and lindacon
    Misthiocracy: … Still, if the cycle is truly 16 years of warming followed by a 16 years of plateau, as claimed by today’s articles, it’s not really that much for skeptics to cheer about. We’d need 16 years of cooling to get a stable “long-term” trend, no? · 1 minute ago

    If you consider 48 years to be a reliable predictor of a climate that has been in operation for millions of years, or even a reliable sample of a climate that has been observed and commented on for over a thousand years, and measured statistically for over 150 years.  All of which show no evidence of such long term trends. 

    Unless, that is, you accept models whose statistical input is itself undisclosed or at the very least doubtful. 

  19. Schrodinger

    “Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.””

    - Mark Twain’s Own Autobiography: The Chapters from the North American Review

  20. Garrett Petersen

    Even if man-made global warming were happening, the proposed solution is insane.  Why should we give up all of our freedom and most of our money to stop the temperature from rising a few lousy degrees per century?  It seems that the costs outweigh the benefits.

Want to comment on stories like these? Become a member today!

You'll have access to:

  • All Ricochet articles, posts and podcasts.
  • The conversation amongst our members.
  • The opportunity share your Ricochet experiences.

Join Today!

Already a Member? Sign In