For starters, let’s recognize no “settled science” indicates human activities are dangerously overheating the planet; no remotely credible surveys indicate a consensus among scientists that we are; and no sensible people who challenge such false representations therefore deny either that climate changes or that recent warming — and cooling — has occurred. Such agenda-driven claims are antithetical to fundamental principles of scientific inquiry and honest discourse.
Earth’s mean temperatures have been warming since the last in a series of approximately 90,000-year-long Ice Ages ended about 12 to 15 thousand years ago; was at least just as warm as now 2,000 years ago and again 1,000 years ago; and has been warming in fits-and-starts since the end of the “Little Ice Age” during the mid-1800s. That warming began soon after Gen. George Washington’s troops suffered a bitter 1777 winter at Valley Forge, and Napoleon’s undertook a frigid retreat from Moscow in 1812.
Conditions warmed up considerably during the early 1900s through the mid-1940s, with temperatures much like now. That was followed by three decades of cooling which prompted leading scientific organizations to forecast a headline-grabbing imminent arrival of the next big Ice Age caused by fossil-fueled smokestacks.
A decade later, those same smokestacks were blamed for an opposite crisis . . . the world was suddenly at a calamitous overheating “tipping point.” The only hope for salvation was for developed nations to join a carbon-capping Kyoto Protocol, to buy carbon offsets from Al Gore’s hedge fund, and to give lots of money to the U.N. for redistribution in penance for unfair capitalistic prosperity.
Yes — much like the current Paris Climate Accord.
Immediately pinning the blame for this climatological catastrophe upon plant-fertilizing CO2 emissions (now re-branded as “climate pollution”) an International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was convened to sanctify, sermonize — and sell this theory. In doing so, their dismissals of natural changes and influences, persistent defenses of provably failed computer model projections, politically-edited alarmist summary reports, and media-hyped activist anti-fossil climate confabs have succeeded brilliantly.
Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”
Or, as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres pointedly remarked, the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
That Paris conference agenda got a useful boost from U.S. government agency scientists at NASA and NOAA who conveniently provided “warmest years ever” claims. Both have histories of stirring overheated global warming stew pots with alarming and statistically indefensible claims of recent “record high” temperatures.
GISS subsequently proclaimed 2016 as a new warmest year “since modern recordkeeping began,” whereas the difference versus 2015 was within one-quarter of the statistical margin of error.
A whistleblower who formerly directed NOAA’s climate data section has recently charged that the agency hurriedly prepared and released unverified and flawed global temperature information in order to push policy agendas favored by the U.N. and Obama administration at the U.N.’s 2015 Paris climate conference. The goal was to influence advanced nations to commit to sweeping reductions in their uses of fossil fuel and huge expenditures for climate-related aid projects.
NOAA’s politically sensationalized 2015 Thomas R. Karl study retroactively altered historical climate change data to eliminate a well-known “climate change hiatus” . . . a temperature period between 1998 and 2013 during which global temperatures remained flat despite much ballyhooed record atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Instead, the report claimed that the “pause” or “slowdown” in global warming never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising even faster than expected.
Although satellite measurements since 1979 show virtually none outside underreported margins of error, the altered record data now makes 2010 appear just enough warmer to suggest a media headline-prompting upward trend. Moreover, balloon recordings of the Earth’s atmosphere show no overall warming since the late 1950s, while U.S. surface records obtained from the most reliable thermometer stations — those not corrupted by local “heat island” influences such as instrument relocations, urban developments or other man-made changes — show no significant warming over the past 80 years. In fact, there have been more all-time U.S. cold records than heat records since the 1940s.
Get used to natural climate changes, there’s no sane basis for denying them. Meanwhile, let’s demand political climate changes as well.
True. All the AGW crowd has going for it is lies and hyperbole. Sad.
“Moreover, balloon recordings of the Earth’s atmosphere show no overall warming since the late 1950s”
Cmon Larry. Jeez. Can ya not discuss
things without lyin your arse off?
Larry you are correct. The AGW people can only show warming after 1958 by hiding the decline from 58-78. They are the ones who lie.
Show your data.
Cmon.
You can do it.
Go on. Do it for Larry.
Find it yourself. I am not responding to you any more. You are just a troll here.
Li(e)D is a good name for you.
If you have reliable data, when not direct those of us who are just not as intelligent as yourself to the raw sources?
The proponents of any theory are obligated to provide evidence if they want anybody to take them seriously. It’s laughable when a believer instead asks the skeptics for evidence.
40 years ago, I worked on developing climate models for an international university research project (part of the team was in Germany and the other in the USA). The models were unreliable then not very useful for prediction. The change to constrained carbon cycle models have not improved anything.
In case it is not evident, astrophysics has dominated earth’s climate change – carbon gasses have been and continue to be but an extremely negligible contribution. Large volcanic eruptions have been more significant (in the short term).
The difference between computer projected temperatures and the (subsequent) actual temperatures continues to widen, and this is after various “tweaks” to the models based on earlier discrepancies. Simulating a nonlinear system with both known and unknown chaotic influences may be an interesting academic exercise, but that’s why it’s referred to as “projections” rather than “predictions”.
Would you agree with me that prediction is preferred to projection? I have little faith in the carbon gas cycle models. I also don’t believe that climate change is affected much by human beings – in case I was unclear.
Preferable for the alarmists, and certainly for IPCC.
Is it? Well sorry, if challengers to a null cant provide rather compelling evidence ( or any at all ) the null stands.
So Larry has challenged the evidence about radiosondes just by saying so. But providing zip.
Old mate immortal backs Larry, again with zip.
So what have they got?
Zip.
I want Larry to back up his jounalism with data if requested.
And any supporters.
Maybe im not some AGW loon believer. Maybe I think we should trash the planet and scientists are
crooked scamming bastards who dont want me too.
What i think dosnt matter and dosnt absolve proponents of an idea , thats Larry and immortal, to provide evidence.
The fact is, deniers have zero chance of challenging the null because the consilience is overwhelming.