Global Warming: Has Anyone Noticed that it’s Over?
The end of civilization as we know it, is not at hand. Dire warnings on climate change issued by Al Gore, based on an extreme set of computer predictions, are a dead issue. So is the credibility of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); the UN committee that tried to bring credibility to the predictions with claims that its views represent a consensus among scientists on global warming.
The problem with the alleged scientific consensus is that it has always been a half-truth; or less than half, depending on how you calculate. We are in a natural warm period. That’s true, but Gore, and other activists – including the IPCC – stepped over the boundary when giving the impression that scientific consensus supported a list of scary predictions intended to promote political action, as well as the claim that the primary cause of global warming is human pollution, especially in the form of carbon dioxide – CO2. Ice has been melting; but since a warm period is pretty much opposite an ice-age, that is what one would expect. Polar bears are still killing and eating seals, happily I suppose.
In the scientific debate, the straw that broke the camel’s back was the last decade of real temperature data. Reality just hasn’t held with the IPCC predictions. Not only has it not gotten hotter at an increasing rate, as Al Gore’s presentations with absolute certainty predicted, it just hasn’t gotten hotter. CO2 has been increasing but there’s nothing to suggest that it’s a dangerous substance. The evidence actually contradicts the idea that it is a major contributor to warming. There’s more CO2 but it’s not getting hotter. You don’t have cause and effect if you don’t get the predicted effect. The so-called “global warming skeptics” have won. Al Gore and the IPCC are wrong.
Data over the past decade is not in fact, the first to be out of sync with the IPCC models. Scientists have been pointing to cooling periods as well as data inaccuracies, poor analysis, and misrepresentations for years. These scientists simply weren’t counted in Al Gore’s idea of scientific consensus. It’s been understood for decades; in order to matter in the politics of global warming, you had to get on-board. That of course, created a conspiracy rather than getting to the truth.
The IPCC’s credibility has been shattered. The debate can no longer be thought of as involving two groups of well-intentioned scientists with different data, theories, and predictions. If that were so, the IPCC would be admitting the significance of new data and assuring the public that they have no real evidence that the climate future will be as scary as they had previously claimed. That is exactly what scientists have asked them to do (see related article) The IPCC instead claims their predictions have not been proven wrong; they have just not yet been proven right. Nature’s expected behavior has been delayed, according to the IPCC. Why it has been delayed is another scientific mystery awaiting billions more in funding to solve. They’ve given reality another ten years to catch up with their predictions. If we have a very hot summer or two during the next decade – the sort of thing not unknown to human history – one might expect they’ll claim vindication.
And what of Al Gore – self-appointed soothsayer and modern leader of the environmental movement, winner of a Nobel Peace Prize, an Emmy, and other awards for frightening school children with tales of doom? Publicly, he struggles to explain why there are so many determined detractors in discussions of his far-reaching and expensive vision for political action. But, reportedly making millions from his environmental activism, he should be able to contemplate this and other questions in luxury after this swan song of his political career has finally ended.
| More from Roger F. Gay
Stumble It!
May 24th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Well, I think that one of the greatest innovations on the internet right now is the site http://www.treehoo.com that plants trees for most of its profit. Such great and easy way to help the environment for free! Can any other webportal beat that?
May 24th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
What a great business concept. Those people will certainly retire as millionaires. They give the impression that they’re a twisted left-wing website; but I guess that’s how they attract a particular market segment. I didn’t see where their money comes from – nor a break-down of costs before the 70% “net income” that they spend on land and trees. No info on actual probably impact on the environment either, other than there will apparently be some land with some trees. You are apparently wrong about land and trees being free – it’s just that somebody besides the people running the business are paying. But that’s how all business work.
May 24th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
“With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.â€
Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
I invite you to go to Wiki and change this heading (which can be done) if you have the evidence.
May 24th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Fleecing rich guilty liberals out of their money?……sounds like a solid business plan to me.
May 25th, 2008 at 4:06 am
ordway: I am familiar with the Wikipedia nonsense on Global Warming. The GW information is heavily controlled by political propagandists who do not allow deviation from the party line. For evidence, see:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/12/wikipedia-s-zealots-solomon.aspx
My article covers this idea of consensus quite clearly. GW zealots simply do not count those who disagree with them in their assessment of what the scientific community thinks. There are plenty of scientists who disagree wholeheartedly with the IPCC on many things, and would simply scoff at the propaganda on Wikipedia. GW is political now – and certainly government administrators have made statements in keeping with politics. But don’t be fooled – even a good many of those statements are very much NOT what the Wikipedia propagandists want you to believe.
BTW: There are many MND readers who are quite familiar with Wikipedia bias on political issues that involve a lot of money. Readers and writers at MND have battled Wikipedia activists on such subjects as child support and the fathers’ rights movement.
May 25th, 2008 at 6:23 am
Wikipedia is a total joke. I myself have played around with changing a word or two, to show the absurdity of it. If anyone can change to words, and the meanings can change from day to day, it’s useless.
May 25th, 2008 at 6:24 am
“If anyone can change the words”….
sigh
May 25th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Wikipedia is a source that’s only useful if you already have expertise in the subject you are looking up. You first have to be able to judge whether the information is credible – then take from it what you can judge yourself to be useful. If you’re trying to learn, you must start somewhere else. Otherwise, you won’t know whether what you’re reading at Wikipedia is true, or total propaganda; or just plain nonsense.
One of the weird things is the over-representation of artistic types who serve as Wikipedia editors. You get full coverage of movies, books, biographies of rock stars and actors (although I find comments on amazon.com more informative when shopping). They infest scientific and policy issues as well – but obviously don’t have the knowledge and skills to be objective.
May 25th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Jupiter’s got measles…another red spot (the third for those of you who are counting) has broken out on Jupiter…two additions to the century old spot which has graced Jupiter’s surface these many years.
Those spots are monster storms…kind of like super-hurricanes…and are an indication of…wait for it…Global Warming.
I guess those citizens of Jupiter better give up their SUV’s and start driving Priuses.
Also for those of you who are counting that makes evidence of global warming which has been detected on five planetary bodies orbiting our sun, besides our own.
The Sun…gee I wonder if the Sun could have anything to do with global warming.
I guess once again the “Brilliant” minds who gave Albert Gore, Jr. his Nobel prize would be feeling really stupid if they weren’t Liberals and living in denial.
Anthropogenic Global Warming, what a brilliant scam. Al Gore has made $tens of million off of it. Just think of all the “Einsteins” on the Left who have actually bought this drek.
May 25th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Discussions of global warming and carbon footprints were a helpful strategic frame to get Americans talking about the real issue of unsustainable pollution, and overall environmental footprints, considering factors like the means of production, conditions of production, effects of consumption, and so on. In my documentary, The Greener Gender (coming soon) Sweden’s Gerd Johnsson-Latham uses a global warming strategic frame, along with a victim-feminist one, blaming it all on men -the upshot, right-wing men’s rights activists, who would not usually touch environmental issues with a barge pole, arguing they are definitely not as bad as women for the environment, examining their carcinogenic small particulate generating behaviors in relation to women’s, and so on. We have known car exhausts are bad for us for decades, and yet the American people just don’t want to know, so the anthropogenic global warming conceit was sadly required, to further motivate Americans, and that conceit has been exposed, and you still need to get rid of your tail-pipes. Don’t go slapping yourselves on the back just yet.
May 26th, 2008 at 6:21 am
Tom. I’m looking forward to seeing your documentary. If you remember, please let me know when and where. Is it made for SVT? I’m aware that someone in the Swedish gov. (Gerd apparently) has been blaming men. It should be interesting to see what the response is. Anyway – most of the readers here are American – so they wouldn’tt get very far with America bashing in this crowd – (apparently, you know that) – besides, we know that some people in Sweden only complain about America when a Republican is president.
May 26th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Oh, wait a sec. I think I’ve heard of The Greener Gender. A UK documentary (rather than Swedish, even though a Swedish gov. official started the whole mess) … and wasn’t Glenn Sacks interviewed for this one?
May 27th, 2008 at 6:31 am
Thanks for asking Rodger. Yes, it’s Glenn v Gerd, hosted by me. Youtube’s Arguseyes has contributed, and so too, AFC Adam (The UK’s top MALE pick up artist). Chris smith, the founder of http://www.eco-tube.com lends us his thoughts, and so too, a load of unsuspecting passers-by.
It’s going to be an internet release, although where, I haven’t yet thought. Any suggestions anyone? It would be nice to get some Swedes watching, and some female gender people, and some antifeminists, and the normal bridge and tunnel 9 to 5 types, who hate gender, and hate environmentalism for instance, so any suggestions, sincerely appreciated.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:38 am
This might be quite interesting to a Swedish audience, since their politics is so deeply engrained in the issue. It might be interesting to contact SVT and ask if they want to show it first – or merely have a debate program around it once it’s released. They even have space for documentaries.
http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=81959&lid=Adresser&from=menu
May 27th, 2008 at 8:59 am
I’m having trouble posting … sometimes an extra posts forces the other to appear … here goes.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Well, don’t know what happened to my last post. Here goes again.
Tom … (should have noticed “of covent garden” earlier) …
I think it might be interesting if you check with SVT
http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=81959&lid=Adresser&from=menu
They have a number of debate programs and might find your documentary an interesting place to start – since it involves their political current events and issues. They also have space for documentaries. The debate programs might be able to use the documentary even if it’s already available on the internet.
I haven’t done an internet release of a documentary myself, but you could probably talk MND into posting it if you’re just looking for a place. MND would hope that it pulled visitors to the site.
Do you have a marketing program / budget for release?
May 27th, 2008 at 9:05 am
May 31st, 2008 at 2:54 pm
[...] The end of civilization as we know it, is not at hand. Dire warnings on climate change issued by Al Gore, based on an extreme set of computer predictions, are a dead issue. So is the credibility of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN committee that tried to bring credibility to the predictions with claims that its views represent a consensus among scientists on global warming….(Full Story) [...]
July 10th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
[...] To read the full article, click here. [...]
July 14th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
[...] Roger F. Gay Global Warming: Has Anyone Noticed that it’s Over? [...]
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:15 am
[...] Related article clarifying the debate: Global Warming: Has Anyone Noticed that it’s Over? [...]
March 13th, 2009 at 4:32 am
The scientific community has been rocked once again by global warming news from leading political alarmists. Oxygen has been identified as a key chemical ingredient in fire. “We have too much of it,” NASA’s James Hansen told an excited audience at a “Kill All Humans” environmental rally in New Hampshire.
Hansen said that there is currently enough oxygen in the atmosphere to allow fires to start “anywhere at any time.” “Make no mistake about it,” he continued. “This is absolute certain science.”
Al Gore followed with a dire warning of what this means to the planet. “Imagine if you will, fires ignite simultaneously around the globe, burning up the earth’s atmosphere completely, destroying the earth as we know it.”
Building on Hansen’s scientific certainty, Gore went on to say that “We know for with absolute certainty that this will happen within the next two decades unless we act immediately.” He went on to describe a broad international plan for controlling oxygen in the atmosphere, based primarily on his company’s willingness to sell expensive oxygen use tokens to everything that breaths.
As he left the podium, a reporter quickly asked Mr. Gore about the historical role of oxygen in sustaining life on the planet, to which Mr. Gore responded, “The debate is over.”
July 6th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Most of the funding for global warming research comes from the government. If you want more money, you come back with results which favor their point of view. I am a chemist and see the bias everyday. I never trust government statistics, due to their manipulation of the truth. Statistics never lie, and liars always use statistics!
October 21st, 2009 at 5:19 am
Jim,
There’s no better way to destroy modern civilization than to politicize science. Of course it can be argued that there’s always “politics” in science anyway – but I think you know what I mean. The great global warming swindle is politisized science on the level of Lysenko in the Soviet Union and Mao’s total dictatorship in China. It leads quickly to economic tragedy and mass starvation.