By Stephen Pidgeon
April 30, 2008
I have come to conclude that if your lock yourself in room long enough, you can lose touch with reality. Pretty soon, your Wilson volleyball becomes a real person (“Wilson! Wilson!). As a result of this latest piece published in the Telegraph.Co.UK – Global warming may ‘stop’, scientists predict – I have become convinced that the proponents of global warming are simply nuts.
Before we call for the institutionalization of these fruitcakes in the cuckoo’s nest, let’s reflect on the fact that some of these people actually call themselves “scientists.” Some of these people have been elevated in status by organizations like the United Nations, the Nobel Prize, and virtually every major media outlet in the US and the UK such that they are now making policy in every nation on earth. Let’s not forget that their policies for bio-fuels have now placed 2 billion people at risk of starvation, and let’s not forget that they have called for a transfer of $18 trillion (in 1990 dollars) to cure the catastrophic problem of “global warming.”
As of today, we have a bit of a retraction. The headline reads “global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, ‘scientists’ have said.” Wait a minute! You can’t say that! CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased over 50% in the last ten years. How is it possible that “natural variations in the climate” could overrule this massive increase in greenhouse gases?
A careful read of the article gives us an indication. Apparently, the IPCC wasn’t using any real weather data, just crappy, incomplete, badly written, obsolete, computer models to reach the “scientific” conclusion that the earth was going into a catastrophic meltdown. One modification in the software (like upgrading to a 486 chip) that considered how the oceans behave, has now completely obliterated the IPCC estimates. Reputable scientists using an upgraded computer (still not using real weather data) now claim that there is no warming until “at least 2015.” Of course, given the credibility of these computer models so far in predicting the weather, I’d rather take advice from random bird droppings.
But let’s review the claims these people made, based on these computer models, shall we? Stephen E. Williams from the James Cook University in Australia made the following claims: ““Most of the species here in the wet tropics would be reduced to . . . 15 percent of their current habitat.” Hmm, 15 percent. That’s pretty accurate. Why not 20 percent? Williams was able to put together some very alarming specifics.
Other “scientists” at the UN gave equally alarming figures. “30 percent of the Earth’s species could disappear if temperatures rise 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit – and up to 70 percent, if they rise 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit, a U.N. network of scientists reported last month.” Wow! 30 percent of all of the Earth’s species could disappear if these guys hadn’t been completely wrong on the weather. I can’t begin to tell you how terrified I was over this prediction. 30 percent! Somehow I knew that if “scientists” had numbers that accurate and that large, it had to be true. No one would tell a story that was that far off, would they?
As nervous as I was about 30 percent of all of Earth’s species disappearing, I became downright apoplectic when I learned that it actually was going to be 70 percent! 70 percent! I almost broke into tears thinking about such a complete destruction of the earth, and when I learned that the cause of the elimination of animals like zebras, giraffes and tigers was my use of incandescent lightbulbs, I became so suicidal, I almost registered as a democrat!
Wendy Foden, a conservation biologist with the World Conservation Union also terrified me with her statement that “the hardest hit will include plants and animals in colder climates or at higher elevations and those with limited ranges or little tolerance for temperature change.” How could it get worse than the elimination of 70 percent of the Earth’s species, but apparently it could!
But wait! We can’t forget David Roberts over at Grist. On September 19, 2006, evidently fed up with climate change deniers, Roberts said that “when we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards—some sort of climate Nuremberg.” Roberts proposed Nuremberg trials for global warming deniers when it has now turned out that the “science” was based on a half-wit computer model.
Now, some other scientists are saying that global warming may stop. “The average temperature of the sea around Europe and North America is expected to cool slightly over the decade while the tropical Pacific remains unchanged,” Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany, said. “This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen,” according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature.
Jump for joy! 70 percent of the Earth’s species have been spared! Low lying coastal areas aren’t going to flood until at least 2015. Manhattan won’t be flooded by 22 feet of water! Most importantly, guys like me won’t be sentenced to death at climate Nuremburg trials!
How could the “scientists” at the IPCC have gotten it wrong? My understanding of the scientific method used in this century is that once somebody important makes a “scientific” conclusion, everyone else has to agree, which then renders a “scientific fact.” All of the scientists in the world agreed that global warming was occurring. Anyone who disagreed was fired, because they were the same people who claimed the earth was flat back in Christopher Columbus’s time. Everyone with a brain and a degree in science agreed that CO2 was causing irreversible global warming. What could have gone wrong?
Well, according to the report from the Leibniz Institute published in the scientific journal Nature, “the IPCC currently does not include in its models actual records of such events as the strength of the Gulf Stream and the El Nino cyclical warming event in the Pacific, which are known to have been behind the warmest year ever recorded in 1998.” Huh? The IPCC doesn’t include the most important climate predictors in the world for their climate models? It makes you wonder what factors they do consider. It also makes you wonder who put together the models. These guys should have some liability for the billions of dollars spent so far trying to combat this non-existent problem.
According to the Telegraph article, the scientists writing in Nature said: “Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic [manmade] warming.” You may ask yourself how long the temporary offset would last. The answer is, until everyone forgets the names of the scientists who jumped on board the Chicken Little express.
Allow me to conclude as follows: Anthropogenic global warming is a high water mark in my lifetime. People who have claimed to be credentialed “scientists” have proved themselves idiots. The United Nations has shown itself to be nothing more than a formalized, international mafia. More importantly, the United Nations has exposed its modus operandi, which is more criminal than scientific.
It is going to take a long time before science has any credibility for purposes of policy making, after this. Here is a tip for you “scientists” who joined this global warming fraud: try using the scientific method, with published results based on controlled experiments, rather than claiming undisputed truth based upon a so-called consensus of scientists. Right now, all of you together are stinking up the place.
One last word from Richard Wood of the Hadley Centre, who in a comment on that study in Nature, said that “if the model could accurately forecast other variables besides temperature, such as rainfall, it would be increasingly useful, but climate predictions for a decade ahead would always be to some extent uncertain,” he added. Completely uncertain is more like it.