Cooling off the global warming hype
May 5th, 2008, 10:24 am · 3 Comments · posted by Mark Landsbaum
Let’s recap. It’s not only not gotten hotter in the past decade, it’s probably cooled off. Now we hear it will get even cooler in the next decade.
So, we’ll have about 20 years of slight cooling, which happens to follow about 20 years of slight warming, which incidentally followed 20 years of cooling. Hm.
In fact last year cooled off so much, it more than offset the overall slight cooling of the past century. So…
We’re cooler than we were a century ago, a decade ago, a year ago. Pick your time frame. These are actual temperatures, not some contrived projections by computer models. But if you like computer models, the latest ones out of Germany say we’re going to be cooler yet a decade from now.
Based on that we’re supposed to be scared to death of global warming?
How realistic is that? What’s really going on here? May we suggest someone will gain from the global warming hysteria. Follow the money. Follow the newly imposed lines of command and control.
Here’s a hint: you’re probably not among those who stand to gain monetarily or administratively. But you probably are among those who will be penalized for using energy, taxed for emitting any CO2 and controlled in what and how you live.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:33 am
There’s a double standard apparent here to those of us who follow Mr. Landsbaum’s near cnstant stream of blogs on this subject
. ONE preliminary study has noted that other natural phenomena MAY temporarily offset warming for a decade - a study its own authors, and the article, characterize as “not ready for prime time.” Yet suddenly it’s elevated by Mr. Landsbaum in this post to the status of Gospel truth fior the purposes of his precictable attack on th climate change theory.
This is the same Mr. Landsbaum, however, who regularly assails any and all studies, preliinary of otherwise, that mght support that same climate change theory, on the grounds that they’re (among other things) too uncertain to serve as a sufficient basis for any action to prevent increased CO2 emissions from possibly threatening climate stability.
Science can’t be cherry picked - or at least it shouldn’t be, in the interest of honesty and clear thinking. But that;s par for Mr. Landsbaum’s course, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. The egregiousness of this one, however, is pretty breathtaking. In fact, as Iv’e pointed out, the stufy he deifies here undermines his central contention that a present temporary decline in global temperatures (asuming that to be true, and given his history and his failure to respond to another blogger’s note on the unreliability of the source hes cited, one wonder - but let’s take it as true for our purposes here) proves that the “global warming” theory is false (and, to him of course, utterly venal). That study, however, shows (preliminatily, of course) that a decadal decline in temperatures could easily be accounted for, and fit into, a larger scale pattern of increasing global temperatures caused by human interference with natural processes. This concept reduces this main talking point of his to a grandiose “so what?”. I’ve pjnted this out, and his rersponse was, to paraphrase roughly, “Warming scwarming, it’s all a bunch of hooey.” Real intelligent argument, that . . . (If you think I’m being too harsh or nasty, look at my comment to his original post on this study from late last week, and his response. Judge for yourself if my paraphrase is a fair one.)
The most troubling thing here is the re-emergence of the notion that those arguing for the present scientifcally accepted climate change model are somehow not just wrong but inherently evil, would-be tyrants and one-worlders out to destroy American prosperity and sovereignity. The paranoia of such a stance is I hope self evident to the fair minded. I’ve also commente on this before, but it appears to be too deeply entrenched in Mr. Landsbaum’s argument structure here for anthing ever to weed it out. What a sad, cramped life to lead, seeing evil under every rock, and everyone you disagree with as a merchant of creeping (if not galloping) totalitarianism.
May 5th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Indeed, science can’t be cherry picked. Which should undermine the entire computer-model prediction fallacy of global warming. See the next post in this list and learn that even the deeply flawed computer models now predict another decade of cooling to follow the decade of cooling we’ve just experienced.
Yet the alarmists insist this is just delaying the inevitable warming that their cherry-picked data fed into computer models predicts. The fact is, after another 10 years of cooling, we will have a net REDUCTION in temperatures for the preceding 110 years.
But the alarmist cherry pickers won’t fess up to that. They’ll spin it as a prelude to devastating warming.
Cherry picking indeed.
At your service in Christ . . .
Mark Landsbaum
May 6th, 2008 at 6:44 am
[…] Mark Landsbaum wrote an interesting post today on Cooling off the global warming hypeHere’s a quick excerptBased on that we’re supposed to be scared to death of global warming? How realistic is that? What’s really going on here? May we suggest someone will gain from the global warming hysteria. Follow the money. Follow the newly imposed … […]