Image Image

  Nostalgia ain't what it used to be

Wednesday, 17 January, 2018

Much Ado About Nothing

Date: 01 August, 2006

By: Chief

Imagehe sky is falling, the sky is falling. So cryeth the Chicken Littles of the world. Actually they are cackling 'the sky is warming, the sky is warming'. And, believe it or not, there is a large group of sheeple who believe in this nonsense.

Global warming

That is the popular name or should I say scary (boo) name for climate change. And every political type of creature on the face of the Earth has something to say about this current issue. On the one hand you have people such as Robert Kennedy Jr. who fully believe that we, as a species, have brought this purported change upon ourselves because of our failure to regulate the amount of carbon-dioxide (CO2) which is released into the atmosphere. According to Kennedy:

"Now we are all learning what it's like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged. Our destructive addiction has given us a catastrophic war in the Middle East and--now--Katrina is giving our nation a glimpse of the climate chaos we are bequeathing our children."

Ah, nothing like mentioning Hurricane Katrina to really prove Kennedy's point this thing called global warming actually exists and that Katrina is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

But was Katrina caused by this thing called global warming? According to reporter Kenneth Chang that is not the case.

"Because hurricanes form over warm ocean water, it is easy to assume that the recent rise in their number and ferocity is because of global warming.

"But that is not the case, scientists say. Instead, the severity of hurricane seasons changes with cycles of temperatures of several decades in the Atlantic Ocean. The recent onslaught 'is very much natural', said William M. Gray, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University who issues forecasts for the hurricane season."

Not to be outdone the environmental wackos, ably led by their knight in rusty armor, Al Gore, have decided to make this thing called global warming a crusade. Gore even made a movie of the crusade called "An Inconvenient Truth." And, as usual, anybody who gets in the way of Gore and company shall be mowed down.

Gore stated:

"Katrina is the first sip, the first taste, of a bitter cup that will be proffered to us over and over again. It is up to us [to tackle climate change], and it does involve accepting that there is a legitimate role for government" (quoting the Financial Times).

Sir John Lawton, chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (UK), had to stick his sixpence in as well (quotes from the BBC):

"The increased intensity of these kinds of extreme storms is very likely to be due to global warming."

Along with this tidbit:

"Increasingly it looks like a smoking gun. It's a fair conclusion to draw that global warming, caused to a substantial extent by people, is driving increased sea surface temperatures and increasing the violence of hurricanes."

Well obviously such notables as Kennedy Jr., Gore, Sir John and all the environmental nut case groups scattered throughout the world could not be wrong. Or could they?

Well German scientists have recently figured out that plants, living or dead, produce the second highest amount of 'greenhouse gases'. The gas produced is methane. Plants produce approximately 10 to 30 percent of the annual amount found in the atmosphere. Quoting Reuters:

" 'Significant methane emissions from both intact plants and detached leaves were observed ... in the laboratory and in the field', Dr Frank Keppler and his team said in a report in the journal Nature."

Funny, how big Al and the boys fail to make any mention of that little fact.

Hmmm if you are like me I am beginning to wonder if this thing called global warming is actually a real thing or some sort of hoax. Well dig this (quoting the UK Telegraph):

"For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

"Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere."

Pretty entertaining isn't it? Amazing what a bit of Googling can do.

Then, from the same story is this gem:

"In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say 'how silly to judge climate change over such a short period'. Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate."

It therefore would appear to us non-believers in this latest game of fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) also known as global warming is just exactly that. FUD. No more, no less.

One must understand that this Chicken Little syndrome is not at all new. Back around 1975 or thereabouts the big fear was a possible ice age.

" 'Climatologists', reads the piece, 'are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality' " (quote from the Denver Post).

So in basically 31 years our numerous Chicken Littles have changed their tune. From an ice age to broiled. All in a space of 31 years. If ya can't persuade 'em one way — try another. That must be their motto.

Being that nothing, it seems, will, or is able to, stop Gore and company from advancing their agenda that we, got that(?), we have created this monstrous thing called global warming and, as such, must do something to bring it under control.

Well, first off, since this thing called global warming does not exist, a few things need to be mentioned about Gore and company and especially Gore's new movie. For example:

"Gore refer[s] to his role negotiating the Kyoto global warming pact in 1997. He does not mention that 95 senators, including John Kerry, had voted for a resolution that announced the Senate would reject any treaty that exempted developing nations — but Gore agreed to exempt them anyway. So Clinton never dared to ask the Senate to ratify it" (quoting writer Debra J. Saunders).

Here is another example (quoting writer Debra J. Saunders):

"Here's another propaganda element. Average automobile fuel-efficiency hit a 19-year low under Clinton/Gore — it was worse than under Ronald Reagan. President Bush has raised fuel standards more than Clinton/Gore. But Gore wants to lampoon the man who defeated him in 2000. So he shows his audience one of his trademark charts, this one comparing U.S. automobile fuel efficiency with other countries. The chart begins in the year 2002 — it has to, because Bush performed better than Clinton/Gore."

Bill Clinton even joined in the foray to support Gore and company and any Democrat or Republican who is a believer:

" 'It is now generally recognized that while Al Gore and I were ridiculed, we were right about global warming,' Clinton said at a fundraiser for the Florida Democratic Party. 'It's a serious problem. It's going to lead to more hurricanes' " (quote from AP).

What is interesting, or should I say entertaining, is that most of the purported scientific experts that Gore and company attempt to use to strengthen their argument and make something real out of whole cloth are not even in the field of climatology.

Rebutting Bore, er, Gore

So what do climate experts think? Here are a few examples:

"Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, 'There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years'. Patterson asked the committee, 'On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming'?

"Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia [stated] 'Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention'.

"Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. 'The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier', says Winterhalter. 'In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form'.

"Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. 'It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records', he says. 'The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual'.

"[Professor Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT states] A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended--at least not in terms of the actual science.

"[Professor Bob] Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, 'The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science' " (quoting reporter Tom Harris).

So there you have it. One side of the coin is Gore and company's doom and gloom FUD. Which is exactly what it is and on the other side of the coin you have respected climatologists stating, on the record no less, that Gore and company are full of crap.

Global warming is not in anyway what one could call science. But it sure as shootin' makes for great political science.

(Return to the top)