The
man-made global warming/climate change crowd never went away in spite of
evidence to the contrary – they just got more persistent, more creative with
their scaremongering, and enlisted new and less known long-time die-hard
supporters.
During
the week of August 6-10, 2012, the Washington
Post published four articles on the topic, “Climate change blamed for drought,”
“Climate change is here and worse than we thought,” “In a cold place, warming
is most evident,” and “On Alaskan coast, the ancient ways are melting away.”
Interestingly, all four articles quote each other and the Director of the NASA
Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
James
E. Hansen “painted a grim picture of the consequences of steadily increasing
temperatures driven by mankind’s use of fossil fuels” when he testified before
the Senate in 1988. His evidence is “not a climate model or a prediction but
actual observations of weather events and temperatures that have happened.”
Hansen’s
analysis “shows that for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is
virtually no explanation other than climate change.” I am not a scientist but I
believe that I read somewhere that increased activity of solar flares and
variables such as volcanic activity are possible variables responsible for hot
weather or violent storm occurrences.
Hansen
believes that extreme weather events are not just examples of “what climate
change could bring. They are caused by
climate change. The odds that natural variability created these extremes are
miniscule, vanishingly small.”
The
famous University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, based on readings from
more than 30,000 measuring stations around the globe, confirmed that the rising
trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. (Daily Mail, January 29, 2012)
Professor
Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology believes that factors other
than CO2 are variables in the rising and falling of heat wave incidents, such
as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. “They
have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,” said Judith
Curry.
The
sun has emitted high levels of energy during most of the 20th
century and is now “heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output,
threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of season available
for growing food.”
Solar
output follows 11-year cycles with a higher number of sunspots at a cycle’s
peak. Experts at NASA and the University of Arizona have suggested that cycle
25 will peak in 2022 weakly. Their readings come from magnetic-field
measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface.
Henrik
Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s
National Space Institute, believes that “world temperatures may end up a lot
cooler than now for 50 years or more. It will take
a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It
may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the
need for their help.”
A
paper on extreme weather published in the Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences by James E. Hansen, Makiko Sato of NASA, the Columbia University
Earth Institute, and Reto Ruedy of Trinnovim (provides support for NASA) hypothesized
that extreme weather events would not occur without global warming. They
defined weather anomalies as “three standard deviations from statistical
history” based on 2006-2011data.
John
Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of
Alabama in Huntsville critiqued Hanson’s conclusions - if he had picked a
longer period of time to study anomalies such as Texas heat waves in 1950 and
the Dust Bowl of 1930, he would have found no extreme differences. (Mark
Drajem, the Washington Post, August 7, 2012)
Liberal
environmentalists say that our carbon footprint and greenhouse gases have
changed the world and now we have to suffer. James E. Hansen has the perfect
solution. He proposes in the Washington Post a “gradually rising fee on carbon
collected from fossil-fuel companies, with 100 percent of the money rebated to
all legal residents on a per capita basis. This would stimulate innovations and
create a robust clean-energy economy with millions of new jobs.”
Would
these new jobs be like the green jobs that never materialized in the last four
years? Would the jobs involve the manufacturing and installation of windmills
and solar panels? Would this clean-energy economy include companies like Solyndra
and other 12 renewable energy companies that had gone bankrupt after spending
billions of taxpayer dollars from the generous ongoing Department of Energy
backed loans? Would we have to change our current standard of living to the “simpler
life” of the 19th century, pre-industrial development, walking and
biking, as advocated by the green movement?
A little common sense goes a long way. I learned in Geology class that half of North America was covered by a glacier in our distant past before industry, cars, etc. If you look at the Earth's past, there are all kinds of catastrophes occurring with extreme weather conditions that can only be explained by events unrelated to humanity. This is a fact of life. The push is for global governance and global "warming" or now called "global climate change" is a means to that end even if there is deception or misguided science as evidenced by Filegate. What is real is pollution, possibility of nuclear winter should there be another world war. There is pressure to conform and pretend for the hope that humanity can blend into one unified and peaceful whole.
ReplyDeleteGary, you are right. Liberals do not think logically, they are ruled by feelings. 15,000 years from now there will be another ice age.
ReplyDelete