CFACT flew a banner over Manhattan today reminding climate campaigners and real people alike that the Earth has experienced no global warming since the nineties.
Just as the radical “People’s Climate Mobilization” was gathering at Battery Park this morning to “Flood Wall Street” as part of this week’s “People’s Climate March” activities, CFACT greeted N
ew Yorkers with an aerial banner flying around the Statue of Liberty and up and down the Hudson River reminding them there’s been no warming for  17 years, and inviting them to check out the facts at CFACT.org.
Hard facts and science have been sadly missing from this week’s New York global warming extravaganza.
CFACT flew a needed reminder over New York that attributing natural weather events to climate change is pure propaganda. Temperature data assembled by NASA, NOAA, the Met Office and others shows no meaningful warming since the nineties and very little before that.
Global warming is m
ainly a construct of climate computer models and those models consistently call for warming which has not occurred.
ainly a construct of climate computer models and those models consistently call for warming which has not occurred.Take a look at this comparison between the temperatures computer models project, and real world temperature data. As Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville who works with NASA’s temperature satellite program, wrote, climate campaigners, “miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.”
CFACT illustrated the point dramatically on a billboard on the w
ay into Washington, D.C.
ay into Washington, D.C.This essential point must be made over and over again until it sinks in. Global warming is all about the computer models and so far their track record is terrible.
At first warming campaigners denied that the temperature had failed to rise as projected. The scientific data was so overwhelming that they couldn’t keep that u
p.Now they’ve conceded the data, but are up to 52 different explanations for the “pause.”The world had best start warming soon, or we’ll end up with more years in the 21st century without warming than the few that warmed a bit in the 20th.Are the marchers in New York aware that that despite what they’ve been told, today’s children have never lived in a world that was warming?Do the heads of state jetting into New York for the UN climate summit know? Does President Obama?
_____________________________
I’ve always referred to Algore’s book as a convenient untruth. To any totalitarians reading this, please answer at least a few of these questions: 1) Are the climactic fluctuations on some of our neighboring planets caused by mankind? 2) Should we stop sweating, since water vapor is also a “greenhouse” gas? 3) Are you anti-plant, or do you not realize that tripling the CO2 concentration–which no one is predicting– accelerates vegetation growth to amazing rates? 4a) Are you proposing a static climate? 4b) Does anyone know whether a two-degree increase in Earth’s average temperature would result in more harm than benefit? 5) Might colder temps be more detrimental than warmer ones, overall? 6) Can you regulate your home or office within +/- 1 degree? 7) Which is more important, spending trillions of dollars to possibly, partially abate a potential problem that may not even be occurring, and is probably about 5% attributable to mankind’s activities/ productivity?… Or firing 200+ anti-Constitution congress(wo)men; and downsizing/ phasing out several unnecessary &/or counterproductive federal departments, bureaus, and agencies?
Thank You ! You are correct.
8) What is the global mean temperature SUPPOSED to be? 8a) Who decides this?
Great question. I believe the answer is God.
9) Have previous climactic swings, some of which were dramatic, caused by mankind (who probably wasn’t here yet, and almost certainly didn’t drive SUV’s)? 10) How do we keep wind turbines from slicing birds–acres of chicken wire, perhaps? This one’s actually not sarcastic, just a question/ idea.
(also not sarcastic) Were deaths before the invention of guns caused by guns? No. But guns can still kill people. Did human induced greenhouse gas warming cause all previous climate change? No. But there are several causes of climate change. The thing is, we’ve investigated these and they all say we should be cooling. The human factor strongly indicates warming. We’ve been warming over the last half century. If all natural factors push for cooling, but the human factor indicates warming, and we observe warming, it is logical that humans are dominating the system. I was hoping none of these questions were sarcastic and we can discuss rationally. I also hope that we can use the God comment below to look into the book of Genesis where we are asked to be stewards of this world. We have a group of people studying this world to “know the mind of God” and they say they see a hard future for us facing climate change. Another group who worships Mamon by always following the bottom line, the fossil fuel industry and its funded minions, are telling us that we can burn as much fossil fuels as we want and we don’t have to worry about any consequences. Which of those sounds like the wise counsel of the Garden, and which sounds like the Serpent whispering in your ear?
Thank you for your well thought out (and apparently research-backed) responses. One cause of my skepticism has been allegations that IPCC, et al omitted many readings taken at high latitudes and altitudes. Another stems from ice core samples that seem to indicate rising temperatures preceding, rather than following, CO2 increases. Have you seen evidence refuting those claims? Yet another reason I question the validity of the warming alarmists’ claims is: how many thermometers were available say, 100 years ago, and how precise/ accurate were they? And do we compare records from the same locations/ same dates & time of day/ same water depth for oceanic measurements? And, then there’s the fact that Gore, Kerry, Obama and other sociopathic liars obviously don’t lend any credibility to the dubious cause. If we truly are facing imminent peril from warming, it will certainly help to use honest spokesmen to win over more supporters.
It certainly makes sense that rising temperatures would cause increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Decomposition occurs more rapidly at higher temperatures and more melting would occur at high latitudes when the climate has warmed which also would lead to more decomposition.
8) The issue is not the end point temperature of stability, it’s the changes that occur when transitioning from one stability point to another. By definition, the transition is instability. 8a) I think if aliens gave us a box with which we could set average global temperature, nations would fight wars over it. The best setting for one is not the best for another. That is why it is believed that climate change will result in winners and losers, but with coastal flooding, it’s hard to see how the winners will outnumber the losers. But the main point is what I first wrote here.
I’m a fiscal conservative who feels democracy the best form of government, but I guess I’ll step in for the missing totalitarians, whoever they are:
1) We don’t have thermometers across the surfaces of any other planet to make the statement you just made. We do know dust storms alter thermal forcing on Mars to a degree, but we sure can’t pin down any long term trends in climate there or on any other solar system body except Earth.
2) Water vapor is tied to ocean temperature because of the large flux rate at the ocean’s surface. Water vapor is of the biggest greenhouse gasses, but being tied to the oceans, it can’t drive climate change, so sweat away and it will have no effect on the climate system.
3) Definitely not anti-plant, but I’m especially pro-agriculture. Unfortunately leaf fossils after the PETM show massive bug damage to plants. Also studies show that increased CO2 does not always cause plants in an area to take up more CO2. A study in Canada showed that the temperature increase of the soil caused microbes to increase their respiration and put out more CO2 than was consumed. Another study in Germany showed that invasive weedy plants do better than our more valued native perennial plants with increase CO2, and finally a recent study in the U.S. showed a decrease in food nutritional value with increase CO2.
4a) I propose not forcing the climate into rapid change.
4b) Yes, harm. We have paleoclimate records of the last time the planet was 2C warmer and we see that a warmer world is a wetter world, both in rising seas and increased precipitation events. After the PETM, deposits in Utah show increased flash flooding punctuated by droughts. Our agricultural system will suffer in that scenario. Sea level was meters higher than present at those times, and the cost of loss to infrastructure is enough to possibly destabilize world economy. Think of the Florida housing bubble, but the values of several order of magnitude more structures going to zero in the 2C case.
5) If the rate of change toward colder was as rapid as today, it could be about as destabilizing, but in other ways. Colder worlds are dryer dustier worlds, warmer worlds are wetter.
6) With the best state of the art equipment, yes. But this has nothing to do with global climate, especially the measurement of trends in data.
7) You forgot to mention that all the agencies you mentioned were examined by several independent international commissions including the NAS and the NRC and found innocent of any scientific fraud. I think you need to look into this issue more carefully. Specifically, go find the quotes from the scientists you find prove wrongdoing, then find that statement in its full context and see if it still seems foul to you. It didn’t to the NRC and NAS.
8) With the new studies showing that acting on climate change will probably be an economic benefit, and the costs of inaction are truly unbearable (again, think of the housing bubble on steroids). Since we simply can’t explain the climate changes observed over the past few decades without human influence factors, it is more proper to say that the human influence is well over 50% (dominating) and our best attribution studies say it is over 95% change do to human activity. I wish it wasn’t true too, but we don’t just get to say it isn’t so, and we surely shouldn’t expect secondary sources of information to give us the best info. I didn’t have time to cite everything here, but it was all gathered from primary peer reviewed sources.
I, too am fiscally, as well as socially and politically conservative. And our representative Republic as strictly defined in the Divinely inspired Constitution is a remarkable system of self-governance–probably the best formula for prosperity and happiness ever devised and implemented. You are definitely right that we should be grateful, wise, responsible stewards of this wonderful creation–for numerous reasons. We also have a sacred trust to zealously safeguard the precious blessings of Liberty that has been entrusted to us. If the most vocal proponents for maintaining 300-to-400 ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide weren’t tyrants, it would be much easier to enthusiastically get behind the movement. I am open to more information, and could possibly be persuaded to align myself with the cause, just as some liberals oppose Common Core, for example.
Hello Karl,
Definitely a pleasure to talk to you. I’m not often given such well thought out responses when I venture into the Lions’ Den. I understand your concerns with how some people, like Al G, have portrayed this issue. I won’t be presumptuous, but maybe can help with that. My background is in paleoclimatology using cave formations. I and most of my colleagues don’t consider 300-400 ppm to be a necessary limit. The real issue as we see it is the rate of change. When any stable endpoint is reached, it will be a more predictable world again. But as we transition from one stable endpoint to another, things get a bit less reliable. The harder and faster you push from one endpoint to another, the more chaotic things become. If God gave us this world and said “THIS is good”, why would we fight so hard to justify an easy life (and how often do easy vs hard lives see the gates of Heaven) that changes the world as we know it so drastically? I know why petroleum industries would say this, Mammon. Don’t follow that voice just because it feels good. The news we climate scientists are bringing is of change with varying levels from certainty to uncertainty. We are certain that larger molecules have slower vibrational rates and thus absorb longer wavelengths to start with. This may be a useless plea, but I hope you can see an honest broker. I’m not here to fool anyone or trick them. I want to share what I’ve been learning the past two decades.
Gore and Obama have the biggest carbon footprints of anybody you can name except for Donald Trump. They do not practice what they preach because they absolutely KNOW what they are preaching is untrue! It’s not about saving the planet. It’s about getting their piece of the government pie regardless of how much it costs the rest of us.
Bingo, amen, and right on!
We who are searching for truth in all things know this. We are know that the masses espousing these messages are only follows of a New World Order / communist / Democrat / leftist agenda to deceive the population in to fear. God did not give us a spirit of fear, but truth, power and discernment. If you have been sucked in to the lie, please consider the facts that show they are wrong.And history shows up and downs that have had little to no difference because of mankind. Even if there is a change we could not do much any way. Check out the at HARP in Alaska and see if government people are trying to play God with their experiments. HARP push’s up the earths air system covering the earth as much as 200 hunred miles and maybe causing hurricane and other types of weather related issues. Bottom line is they are lying to make you live in fear. Don’t be fooled, they are lying.