Shortly after I posted Part One of this article series, I received an upbeat email from Jerry Modisette, a scientist who’s contributed a number of thoughtful letters to the Daily Post over the past couple of years. Mr. Modisette remarked on my comment that, while skeptics of human-caused global warming theories have been assigned the derogatory name, “Climate Deniers”… we don’t have a correspondingly denigrating name for people who believe the “Global Warming” theories.
Apparently, the appropriate name is “Warmists.”
From Mr. Modisette:
Environmental activists will protest outside a Washington, D.C. hearing Monday on the Obama administration’s latest offshore drilling 5-year plan. One activist is even dressing up as Frostpaw the dancing polar bear to highlight how global warming is shrinking the Arctic.
Environmentalists are particularly angry with the Obama administration’s proposal to have one offshore drilling lease sale in the Mid-Atlantic along with three off the coast of Alaska. This is the first time President Obama has proposed opening the Atlantic to drilling since before the BP Gulf Coast oil spill in 2010.
Activists are angry with the administration for potentially holding lease sales in the Atlantic, though many eco-activists were happy to see huge areas of the Arctic made off-limits to drilling.
When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.
Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.
“When reporters forfeit their credibility by making up stories, sources, or quotes, we are right to mock them. When their violations are significant or repeated, they should be fired,” says Charles Lipson, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago. “Demanding honest reporting has nothing to do with the reporter’s politics, personality, or personal life. It is about professional standards and our reasonable expectations.”
Writing at Real Clear Politics.com, Prof. Lipson concluded by saying, “It’s essential for our news organizations, and it matters for our democracy.”
Are we seeing a trend here? Dan Rather at CBS and now Brian Williams at NBC? Well, two news anchors are not a trend, but biased and bad reporting is. It’s not new, but it does seem to be gathering momentum and nowhere has it been more apparent than the millions of words written and spoken about “global warming” and now “climate change.”
“Social responsibility” activists want universities and pension funds to eliminate fossil fuel companies from their investment portfolios. They plan to spotlight their demands on “Global Divestment Day,” February 13-14. Their agenda is misguided, immoral, lethal … even racist.
A mere 200 years ago, the vast majority of humans were poor, sick and malnourished. Life expectancy in 1810 was less than 40 years, and even royal families lived under sanitation, disease and housing standards inferior to what poor American families enjoy today. Then a veritable revolution occurred.
The world began to enjoy a bonanza in wealth, technology, living standards and life spans. In just two centuries, average world incomes rose eleven-fold, disease rates plummeted, and life expectancy more than doubled. Unfortunately, not everyone benefitted equally, and even today billions of people still live under conditions little better than what prevailed in 1810. Bringing them from squalor, disease and early death to modernity may be our most important economic, technological and moral challenge.
When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified. --Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph, 8 February 2015
Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time. --Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph, 8 February 2015
Every now and then I am tempted to look at Warmist websites in order to learn what they mean. So I had a look at ‘about.com’ In case you don’t know it is not the Globe that is warming – oh no! – it is the Atmosphere - quite literally, I am assured. (I like this use of the word literally. The atmosphere is ‘literally warming up’ according to this Warmist website. Where did they place the thermometer?)
What Is Global Warming?
Global warming is, quite literally, when temperatures of the world's atmosphere rises. Between 1956-2005, the average earth's temperature rose .13°C per decade. This might not seem like much, but it was double the rate for the 100 years from 1906 to 2005. Temperatures in colder areas, like the Arctic, rose twice as fast as the average.
When faced with obvious conundrums that do not support the global warming consensus theory, science experts often retreat to the safety of “force-fitting” contradictory data.
Global warming advocates are in the midst of doing this very thing. Significant amounts of data, observations, and climate trends are just not fitting into their theory. For instance; polar ice mass is not decreasing, sea level is not rising at predicted rates, alpine glaciers are not melting at predicted rates, hurricanes are not increasing in intensity or frequency, and the granddaddy of all global warming contradictions…”Earth’s Ocean’s are Warming / Earth’s Atmosphere is NOT Warming”.
A recent paper in Nature has received worldwide media attention because of its claim to have shown that the recent hiatus in surface temperature rises was the result of natural variability. The lead author, Jochem Marotzke of the Max Planck Institute, also claimed that his work dealt a fatal blow to suggestions that computer simulations have systematically overestimated the global warming caused by rising carbon dioxide concentrations.
However, Nic Lewis, an expert in this area of climate science, today pubished an article demonstrating that there are serious errors in the paper, and that its conclusions cannot be sustained. Lewis said:
“As well as having some basic statistical errors, Marotzke’s study can be shown to utilise circular logic. This means that its conclusions are unsound. Moreover, the stability of estimates for at least one of the two key structural model properties used is so poor that even were he able to rework his paper without the circularity - which appears impracticable – it would very likely be impossible to draw meaningful conclusions. I think the authors have no scientifically-defensible choice but to withdraw the paper.”
“In short, climate change is not worse than we thought,” wrote Bjorn Lomborg in a recent issue of The Wall Street Journal. He is best known as the author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and his skepticism is welcome, but insufficient.
First of all, climate change is a very long-term process and always has been. The climate takes decades and centuries to change, largely based on well-known warming and cooling cycles. During the course of these cycles, both related to comparable cycles on the Sun, all manner of climate-related events occur, from hurricanes to blizzards. Nothing new here.
The problem with Lomborg’s commentary is that he confuses climate change with global warming, the hoax concocted in the late 1980s by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in order to have an international tax imposed on “greenhouse gas emissions”, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), that the IPCC guaranteed was going to heat up the Earth in a few decades unless greatly reduced. Lomborg even cites the IPCC which has grown notorious for its lies.
So are the people who claim that global warming has paused truly living in "an alternate reality that is detached from real word observations?" It seems only reasonable that we see what the global warming scientists have to say on the matter. After all, they are the experts in climate research and climate modeling, and they would never fabricate a story and "continue to demonstrate their willful ignorance by repeating the same false story."
Those in climate academia have championed and awarded these folks, and the media have willingly spread the gospel: climate change is real, the science is settled, catastrophe awaits, and global warming hasn’t stopped, except it has, regardless of what the satellite data is showing (which is likely the most accurate way to measure land-based and tropospheric temperatures).
Are the skeptics really living in an alternate reality? A reality “not only of sight and sound, but of mind? A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination.” That’s not the intro to the new and improved Cosmos, but rather The Twilight Zone, whereby the former borrowed heavily from the latter, especially in the episode on climate change. But that’s a whole other article.
“ELDERLY person dies (of cold) every SEVEN minutes due to fuel poverty ‘scandal’ ”
“2014 was the warmest year on record”
Two recent headlines: one is truthful, the other not — and, while seemingly incongruous, they are connected.
It is a fact, according to British charity Age UK, 3.5 million elderly Britons are at risk from winter cold. It is estimated 25,000 “excess winter deaths” across Britain will result from the inability of the poor to afford power because renewable energy policies have driven it beyond reach. One-third of those polled by Age UK worried how they would heat their homes.
Tragically, that first headline is true and the deaths continue.