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.
Rate this post:
(25 votes, average: 4.08 out of 5)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
Johnny said,
May 24, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Roger F. Gay said,
May 24, 2008 at 3:41 pm
ordway said,
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 24, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Virtue said,
May 24, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Roger F. Gay said,
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 25, 2008 at 4:06 am
Squiggy said,
May 25, 2008 at 6:23 am
Squiggy said,
sigh
May 25, 2008 at 6:24 am
Roger F. Gay said,
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 25, 2008 at 7:09 am
Will Malven said,
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 25, 2008 at 6:40 pm
tom of covent garden said,
May 25, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Roger F. Gay said,
May 26, 2008 at 6:21 am
Roger F. Gay said,
May 26, 2008 at 3:24 pm
tom of covent garden said,
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 27, 2008 at 6:31 am
Roger F. Gay said,
http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=81959&lid=Adresser&from=menu
May 27, 2008 at 7:38 am
Roger F. Gay said,
May 27, 2008 at 8:59 am
Roger F. Gay said,
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 27, 2008 at 9:03 am
Roger F. Gay said,
May 27, 2008 at 9:05 am
dads & things » Blog Archive » Global-warming, Ice Ages and a greater Crisis yet said,
May 31, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Other voices on climate change » Global warming: has anyone noticed that it’s over? said,
July 10, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Junk Science - Page 4 said,
July 14, 2008 at 8:33 pm