25 Feb 14
CK stole my thunder with a piece in the Washington Post. I had just read about the
disappearance of a lake in Iran and have been trying since to find time to sit
and address one point made by the author. But I learned in the meantime
that Charles Krauthammer (almost always the smartest guy in the room) was
already firmly under the skin of those open-minded people who are so tolerant
that they insist on silencing ANYONE who disagrees with them. And I
wanted to be that guy! People who think we need to dump our national
treasure on redistribution scams based on chicken little-ing "changes"
in our climate have been lobbying news papers to not print Krauthammer's
article. So much for the free exchange of ideas.
But what am I saying? This is settled
science! There is no questioning it. If you do, you're a hater.
A DENIER! Case in point: Everybody knows the earth s flat.
It's settled science. The earth is flat and the stars are little
lights floating just above it. This Galileo jackass is simply a hater.
He hates the Pope. he hates Catholics, and he's flat wrong…No wait.
Uh…
No, I have a better one; this whole flying thing.
A bunch of rich eccentrics and socially stunted people hook wings to
their backs and to bicycles and think they'll fly like birds. IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE. You'll never find the propulsion to overcome gravity and…What?
They did? When? Shit!
Well, there is no way they'll ever convince anyone
that global warming isn't settled science. Hah! We got them there.
So, okay, the guy who invented the idea made some dodgy assumptions, and
he won't show ALL his processes for closer review, and he even admitted that he
increased the numbers to create a dramatic increase in the out years because
the people need to be shocked into paying attention. But this is hard and
fast science! It must be. Because from that day to this, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been using that data to
flim-flam, er uh, educate the world on the subject; that very same data.
When the IPCC own in-house scientists don't come up with models that are shocking
enough or address the right terrible conditions in the right locations, they
are sent back to rewrite their findings until they do. That's why so many
real scientists have left the IPCC.
Okay, here endeth the sarcasm. I do it
because it's fun. I use it to drive my GW friends crazy. I don't
know why they put up with me. Maybe it's my collection of Axe fragrances
- for men! But they love me and I…allow them to.
But here's something that is disturbingly not
sarcastic, from none other than our chief "diplomat". In this
little vignette, Kerry starts by saying it is time for a frank discussion.
He then goes on a bit of a tear starting at 20:19. At the end of
this rant, before going on with how we all need to work together and contribute
(read - take from you and give to them) he then refers to anyone who disagrees
with the concept of global warming - even as a matter of degree, or points out
it's clear inconsistencies - as the flat earth society. Why is it not at
all surprising that he sounds just like Maduro who, just today said he wants
dialogue with his opponents in Venezuela and then goes on to call them
fascists? The flat-earth comment carries all the intellectual heft and
social maturity of a middle school debate considering the question: "Is
Bobby Biffmeyer the cutest guy in homeroom, or what?!"
Like many people, like Krauthammer, I neither deny
climate change, that's what it does constantly, or the possibility of global
warming. I just don't think it is as certain and demonstrable as gravity or
water freezing as our SOSUS says. And I am very happy with the amazing
progress North America has made to clean up the air and waterways over the last
forty years. But there is much to debate on this issue, not the least of
which being the self-destruction of circular claims that GW/CC causes rain,
draught, storms, heat, cold, longer growing seasons, famine all at the same
time. The only things that can be said with confidence is that there is
more carbon in the air now than at SOME other times, and that time will tell if we are actually in a constant
warming trend. We've been stalled for well over a decade now. It must reasonably be allowed for that the late
80s/early 90s may have just been a warm time. There will always be a warmest
month, year, decade, century in a world which might, at any given time, be
generally warming or generally cooling. Think millennially. (Is that a
real word? I'm not sure, but auto-correct didn't bust me on it.)
But I get real nervous when the political class
tells us, "Act now, don't think, just do what we say!"
A bit more on what is unsettled science; those
pesky ice-sheets. While we are told the ice is melting, we have reached
the end of many of the last winters with a larger ice mass than the year
before. This year, Lake Superior froze. That hasn't happened in a
while. (For the psycho freak who dropped F-bombs on me for having a
simple discussion without qualified citation last week…here you go. Read
ANY news story about Lake Superior two weeks ago. IT FROZE!) Update: As of 4 March, all but Lake Ontario are frozen and LO is slushy.
Also, if the ice sheet has been melting at such an
alarming rate over the last half of the century - an alarming rate - why
haven't the oceans risen at an alarming rate? There are two reasons sure
to offend the GW/CC dogmatists. It really isn't melting at an alarming
rate. It comes, it goes. And, when water-born ice melts, it
contributes amazing little, if at all, to the volume of water supporting it.
I am blowing raspberries at the ice-sheet melting proponents right now.
Damn, now I have little drops of spit on my screen.
Anyway, to my thunder that bloody Krauthammer
stole.
In this bit of lazy journalistic advocacy Live Science staff writer and
political advocate for the IPCC, Denise Chow writes about the disappearance of
Lake Oroumieh, a large, shallow body of salt water. In it, she lists the
causes for the lakes impending demise; indiscriminate damning and irrigation
from tributaries and underground sources to the lake. To this she adds
the now obligatory "and the effects of climate change".
Of course when water flow is blocked and source
water is drained away from a lake, these are facts that can be observed and
verified with simple observation. BUT! How much did "climate
change" contribute to the reduction of water in that basin? Seven
square miles? Seven gallons? Seven tablespoons? The question
cannot be answered. There is no algorithm, no formula, not a single shred
of evidence hard or deduced to indicate that the wide-ranging conditions in our
climate contributed uniquely to this or any other anomaly presently occurring on the
planet. NONE.
The simple fact in play here is that the GW/CC
movement is now the engine being used to convince developed countries that they
must give control over more of their treasure to people who will redistribute
it (well most of it) to the less fortunate countries. Those countries
will then use it to build green energy infrastructures. In much the same
way the American government used the outlandish fines levied on the cigarette
companies for smoking prevention programs for kids. A little spoiler:
they didn't. It was all syphoned off for other uses. This
after the federal and state governments colluded and continue to collude in the
distribution of tobacco products. And so it shall be with GW/CC funds.
It doesn't take a PhD to see what tinpot
"leaders" of many of these countries will do with the wealth they
receive after the GW/CC do-gooders take their cut. There will be the
usual disbursements to political loyalists and the construction of lavish
governmental facilities and even some real projects that help people. But
there will be little, if any, green energy anything undertaken.
It is too far down the list of priorities for people who have enough to
do just to survive; survive in the existing climate.
Still, it is the thumb in the eye to the West and
the feel-good utopianism of "sharing" with the developing world that
people like Ms Chow and/or her editors cannot resist. So, whenever there
is a storm, a draught, a flood, a sudden sweep in temperature, it is followed
by occasionally accurate analysis along with a plug for an ever-more
discredited concept being used to create a more perfect world. All of this
brought to you by people who have declared themselves much smarter than you.
My point is this. We need better, more testable, transparent
information before we go off now, now, NOW, throwing money at climate issues.
I have yet to hear anyone, including the scientists in magazines and
other media (yeah, I'm a nerd, I watch and read this stuff) offer more than
anecdotal or finite time-frame evidence on the subject. If there really
is such a thing as catastrophic climate change looming, and I hope there isn't,
we need more than "we have CO2, some recorded temperatures have been
warmer than others, therefore we are going to all die in the next 200
years". Insert whatever claim you wish as the result, there just
isn't enough information available to hang your hat on. We have only
had accurate measuring devices, i.e. thermometers that can consistently measure
to a tenth of a degree in the last half century. And we know of warmer
times that have come and gone since the last ice age. We need more facts.
The impatience of proponents is not a reason to do anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment