After my article last week, FUNNY GLOBAL WARMING TIDBIT – PESKY DATA – which I invite you to read if you haven’t already – I received a reply from a reader called Cassandra, who took me to task for what she obviously felt was a typical flat-earth, knee-jerk, right-wing reaction to a story related to global warming.
As I have done on many occasions with other readers, I would like to address Cassandra’s post, point by point.
Even if you haven’t read my piece, or the original article I’m referencing, you’ll still get the gist of it all, I assure you.
Why is science “leftist hysteria”? Isn’t the scientific method intended to remove bias rather than foster it?
It isn’t science. That’s the point. It is instead “leftist hysteria,” quite rightly classified as such because of what has been a long history of unfounded and universally incorrect doomsday scenarios created by agenda-driven, research-money hungry “experts” with leftist worldviews.
For instance, recall that it is with the same fervor and certitude currently fuelling the increasingly ridiculous “global warming” panic that the abundance of stories and studies were published predicting the United States would be overrun with widespread heterosexual AIDS in the 1980s. It was inevitable we were told.
It never happened, of course, despite “consensus” from experts and scientists.
Thirty-five years ago, we were warned that global cooling was going to ravage the Earth when things were “trending” in that direction. Somehow, the world managed to get a bit warmer, after it had gotten cooler, after a warming period, which coincidentally followed a cooling trend.
Let us not forget how we were admonished that humanity would run out of food by 1990. Remember that?
Or how, by 1997, the O-Zone layer would be so damaged due to human activity that the number of cases of ultra-violet-light induced skin cancer would explode to catastrophic levels.
Surely you remember the fear-mongering of how natural resources would be depleted by the year 2000? or how overpopulation was going to be the death knell to humankind?
When agenda trumps truth in the sciences, it is a bad thing, Cassandra.
Why do many people assume that a “trend” needs to be linear? For example, isn’t it evident that we currently have a stock market trending down even though there are many up days?
First, I know of no one was has denied any warming trend. (By most objective standards, temperatures in recent years have leveled off and are starting to “trend” downward).
There have been warming trends throughout the history of Earth. In fact, there have been trends that put the most recent one to shame. Recall the Ice Age, for example. Obviously, things warmed up enough to melt prodigious amounts of ice without the benefit of SUVs and disposable diapers.
The “hysteria” of the current position lies in the adopting the trinity of climactic disbelief – that not only are temperatures rising, but that the rise must be proven to be triggered by human activity, and then at such a level as to cause catastrophe.
But of course, the real question here is … from what starting point are you basing your trend? Compare temperatures today to the 1970s, and it is generally warmer. Compare them today to the 1930s, the late 1990s or the eleventh century and they’re cooler.
Second, why is it that global warming alarmists automatically believe the world should be colder now? On what do they base that conclusion? Should it have been colder when the Vikings were growing grapes in Newfoundland, centuries before the advent of the automobile and airplanes? Was it too cold during the Little Ice Age between 1200 and 1800?
Why was the time frame of the “sensor drift” error left out in the discussion? Isn’t it pertinent that this error started in early January of 2008 and was caught and corrected? How come an error that affected less than two months of real time data (now expunged) refutes decades of other data?
How come you completely miss the point I’m making?
The year 2008 was reported as being the “second lowest” in terms of how much Arctic Ice exists. The year before, 2007, was reported as being the “lowest.” If the criterion for “warming” is based on how much Arctic Ice exists, then, by definition, it cannot be getting warmer, if the amount of ice “grew” from one year to the next.
To dip into my bag-o-logic, if I have less money and assets this year than I did last year, I cannot be getting wealthier.
If I weigh less this week than I did last week, I cannot be getting fatter.
Before the “drifting sensor” problem was realized, there was believed to be less ice than there really was. This only reinforces my point.
Also, I thought it would be helpful so include URLs to the actual NSIDC articles, so here are two primary links to the NSIDC info under discussion:
February 18, 2009
Satellite sensor errors cause data outage: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/021809.html
February 26, 2009
Near-real-time data now available: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
I sincerely appreciate your links to the original articles. I encourage people to read them.
However, none of it – repeat none of it – does anything to further the argument of those who believe that the world is not only getting warmer, but that it is being caused by human beings, and that the result of those man-made temperature rises are catastrophic for the planet.
Seeing as everything that is happening to this planet right now, climactically speaking, has happened before – many, many times, in an endless merry-go-round of climactic cyclical bliss – and the fact that the planet is somehow still here, in one piece, lends nothing to the credibility of these hysterical assertions.
First off, there is no consensus – nor is there evidence – that CO2 causes global warming. There simply isn’t. There is actually more evidence to suggest that CO2 levels increase after warming begins, despite the “facts” peddled in Al Gore’s largely discredited piece of garbage film, An Inconvenient Truth. Besides, the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is so minimal as to be nearly insignificant in terms of temperature. Even doubling the amount of CO2 would have little effect on climate.
Second, I have to assume that “global” warming means only the Northern Hemisphere, seeing as whatever warming has been noted over the past few decades has only occurred north of the equator.
Third, the Medieval Warm period was warmer than it is today. How is that possible without smoke stacks, diesel engines and Al Gore’s mouth?
Fourth, does it occur to anyone on the panicked side of the debate that the loss of a multitude of cold climate weather stations in the collapsing Soviet Union in the late 1980s and 1990s somehow, remarkably, inexplicably coincided with the totality of “global temperatures” rising? The fact is, thousands of measuring stations closed in that part of the world during that “death of the Soviet Union” period. Wouldn’t that fact, at least, warrant some consideration from the supposedly unbiased scientific community? Wouldn’t that seem like a logical point to ponder in a debate that has sadly been declared over by such notables as Barack Obama?
By the way … if the debate is over, why are hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars still needed to study this stuff?
Thank you, Cassandra.
In other news, this damned global warming is burying my car under a foot of snow.