08.06.2013 21

Global Warming consensus obliterated—by facts

Al Gore Saving the world from global warmingBy Rick Manning

What if everything you think you know about something turns out to be wrong?

Does it force you to evaluate everything else, or do you just shrug your shoulders figuring that it is impossible to know everything, so you have to pick your experts and take your chances?

When it comes to following baseball teams, if the Angels General Manager (GM) Jerry DiPoto or Yankees GM Brian Cashman spend hundreds of millions of someone else’s money and end up with a subpar product, it may hurt your heart as a fan of those respective teams, but it doesn’t impact your life.

However, when the government either gets duped or more insidiously, is a co-conspirator in what could be a big lie, suddenly it is taxpayer money being spent and that should get people’s attention.

A new, peer reviewed study published in “Energy & Environment” comes to the stunning conclusion that global temperatures have actually been dropping since 1986.  This conclusion, at best, obliterates the claims that there is a global warming consensus.

The  “Meteosat Derived Planetary Temperature Trend  –  1982-2006” study took satellite derived temperature data from 1986-2006 that was collected using a European satellite system which measures thermal infrared radiation (similar to those red to blue heat maps that weather.com uses.)

Incredibly, here are the key excerpts from the study’s conclusion which reveals the scientist’s bias going into doing the research:

The amazing finding of the present study is that we do not observe global warming in the period 1982-2006, but significant cooling. What could be the cause?”

After recapping methodology and some key findings that support the conclusion, the study ends by bluntly stating what they believe was the cause of the cooling trend:

“[C]loudiness changes could be the mechanism behind the observed global cooling since 1982: an increase in cloudiness would decrease global radiation and increase rainfall and evapotranspiration.  Both effects tend to decrease the surface temperature.”

After all these years, will the global warming disciples have their collectives legs cut out from under them because it was more cloudy than usual during the very years they claimed it was supposed to be getting warmer?

We already know that even the staunchest global warmists concede that warming hasn’t occurred in the past fifteen years, but this study forces us to re-think everything we have been told.

The study is particularly troubling when combined with Russian weather scientists who contend we are heading for a new cooling period, the startling fact that this year Antarctic (South Pole) ice is increasing at record levels, and that the North Pole has hit freezing temperatures about a month earlier than the norm.

To sum it up, after hearing about global warming ad nauseum for a decade, and having various government agencies around the world spend billions of dollars promoting alternative, non-carbon producing energy alternatives as a solution, the global warming consensus no longer exists, and global warming itself may have been nothing more than an error in data collection.

In short, everything we have been told, may just be nothing more than hot air.

It may just be that Newsweek inadvertently stumbled onto a closer version of the truth when they printed their apocalyptic 1975 cover story, “The Coming Ice Age,” which concluded with these very familiar sounding words:

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects.

“They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”

But even these worldwide renewed doubts cannot stop the intrepid United States’ Environmental Protection Agency, which continues to plunge headlong into attacking a global warming carbon problem that may not even exist.  People’s lives destroyed, the economy shackled, and billions of tax dollars wasted on the altar of a global warming god who doesn’t even have the decency to make the climate warmer.

It certainly is enough to make one wonder if they are really concerned about global warming, or if this climate fad is nothing more than an excuse to grab power.

And it should be enough to force thinking Americans to question everything they have been told.  Of course, few of us are climate scientists so we have to pick our sources and take our chances.

But with the breakdown of the “climate consensus” so obvious around the world, and with the globe fooling the warmist computer models so completely by refusing to warm, it is time to step away from the EPA’s regulatory machine gun that threatens not only our nation, but the world’s economy, until someone figures out what really is going on.

Rick Manning (@rmanning957) is the Vice President of Public Policy and Communications for Americans for Limited Government.

  • jwatersphd

    Rick, your proclivity to demagoguery is unparalleled. You really belong on this tin-foil-hat site of paranoid conspiracies. There is no change in the “consensus” that global warming is a problem, though with a huge worldwide scientific community looking at it, obviously summarizing its views is difficult, as the matter is complex. Take a look at the antarctic ice versus arctic ice issue, and you’ll see it’s complicated, but doesn’t really argue against the prevalent model. It’s just amazing that you think all these people who are working on the problem and largely agree it’s happening and threatens our world are doing this for ulterior motives. Climate-gate has long ago been shown to be a myth. Why don’t you get on some other issue that continues to grab the attention of the right wing, like Obama’s birth certificate?

  • LittleMoose

    “The amazing finding of the present study is that we do not observe global
    warming in the period 1982-2006, but significant cooling. What could be the
    cause?” Why the answer is obvious; the cooling is being caused by global warming.

  • watershed

    Did your Google alert go off – to bring you to this ‘tin-foil-hat site’?

    The point of this article was to present the findings of a peer reviewed study – that clearly disagrees with your worldview and the narrative you’ve bought into.

    But hopefully you feel better now? You’ve done your part for the cause. Troll along now, troll.

  • jwatersphd

    one peer reviewed study does not un-make a consensus, especially since it is hardly definitive. The point of my post was, first, that this is a more complicated matter than he makes out, and, second, his paranoid conspiracy theory is nonsense. I don’t feel any better or worse, so you can cut the patronizing condescending dismissive crap, and I’ll visit wherever i like whether you like it or not. if you are able to respond to the more general point rather than simply to reiterate what the author – Manning – had to say, it might be of interest, otherwise not. Take your smug attitude and put it wherever you think it’ll do the most good.

  • Denise Warner

    A “consensus” does not make science.

  • jwatersphd

    Yes, we all presumably know that. However, if you are trying to get a sense of what those who actively research an area think, a consensus may give you some information. We also know that a “peer reviewed” article can easily be wrong . . . I know, because I’m a peer reviewer and follow the literature in several fields. Findings often have to be re-interpreted or discarded. Without being an expert in the area, one is hardly able to arrive at an independent opinion without a lot of investment of time. Likewise, ad hominem approaches are no guarantee of truth either, but, again, if there isn’t a reason to doubt the motives, these may also give you information. When I find agreement amongst those who do the research, in diverse settings with diverse funding, reaching the upper 90 percent, and what they are saying makes sense from the investigation I can do on my own, I retain some skepticism but find that “good enough” for my purposes. Then when I find disagreement limited to those with tangentially-related credentials, funded by the fossil fuels industry, and mainly accepted by those who are prone to a paranoid suspiciousness regarding science and other sources usually seen as authoritative, I check it out and if it doesn’t make sense I relegate it to a lower level of confidence. That’s the case here. I’ve looked at a number of these “skeptic” arguments in some detail, e.g., antarctic ice growth, and find them specious. I see the scientific community largely taking a cautious approach – they think they know what is happening but aren’t certain and don’t have all the details ironed out. Why not trust them, given all this? This is very much like the debates over evolution. Very few serious biologists doubt the general merit of the theory, despite quibbles about specific points. Then you get skeptics of the intelligent design variety making arguments that are easily seen as illogical . . . is it really a good idea to think that evolution is “only a theory”? Or is it theory that has substantial support? What’s you position on climate change, and why?

  • That the supposed “97%” consensus remains resolutely impervious to new data shows it to be an ideological fabrication .

  • jwatersphd

    Nonsense. They already had plenty of data – there are many aspects to this – and, if it’s true that the consensus did stay exactly the same, which we do not know – it might just be that the “new” data are not especially significant in terms of the whole. We don’t have any studies that i’m aware of that quantify the percentage. Scientists are not particularly interested in “voting” – let alone how it might be changing. Do you know it’s “resolutely impervious”? The interpretation of “data” and the effect of that interpretation is also complex – e.g., the expansion of the antarctic ice versus the loss of the arctic ice do not “mean” the same thing. They do not offset each other in a 1-to-1 fashion. In short, once one arrives at notions that are built on a lot of data, one does not necessarily easily give them up – one wants to see more evidence. This is a lot different from “an ideological fabrication.” The earth is roughly round, but if you look at the horizon, it doesn’t look round. That doesn’t mean the notion that the world is round is an ideological fabrication and you are pig-headed (or a liberal, socialist, etc) because you don’t change it when you see a flat horizon. It means you don’t abandon ideas that have a lot of support just because some findings are contrary. If more data come in that are of major significance, you don’t really think the scientists are going to ignore it, do you? I don’t. Maybe politicians would, but that’s another matter.

  • Nonsense yourself .
    You want me to believe the change from about 3 molecules of CO2 per 10,000 of air to 4 ( ~ 33% ) is the total driver of a change in our spectrum on the order of 1.2% required to explain the perhaps 0.3% change in our temperature we’ve seen since the invention of the steam engine , then you will begin to convince me that this is not a uniquely ( politically ) retarded branch of applied physics .

    You then still have the task of explaining why there should be some massive non-linearity at this particular temperature when the earth has been back and forth thru these temperatures many times before .

  • jwatersphd

    This is not even the point I was making.

  • arnold schwertman
  • Avenger

    Point is, you really have no point. You just keep spouting the pseudo-science with which you were indoctrinated. “The amazing finding of the present study is that we do not observe global warming in the period 1982-2006, but significant cooling. What could be the cause?” ‘Progressives’ are such arrogant simpletons.

  • jwatersphd

    Well, you know little about science, it’s evident. I’m talking about method, not about any particular finding. If you can’t grasp that, you have no business criticizing me.

  • Avenger

    Like I said, ‘progressives’ are arrogant simpletons … when someone disagrees with your indoctrination, well, THEY must be stupid. I hold an MS in microbiology with a double minor – chemistry / math.

  • jwatersphd

    look dr science: you are not disagreeing with what i said. you don’t even understand it. i’m not talking about global warming, but about consensus and how scientific knowledge progresses. i don’t care about the study or the point it supposedly makes. forget it. we’re not even having a dialog. relax; you’re probably competent in your specific field, and i never said you’re stupid. leave it alone.

  • Dean

    Oh no they just change the battle cry to “Climate Change”! They think we’re all just a bunch of mushrooms!

  • WhiteFalcon

    It is curious that something that is such an obvious fraud as global warming is embraced by many governments around the world. I expect that some 90% of people in this country are aware of the fact that it is a fraud but this stupid and totally incompetent Government still embraces it. It can only mean this fraudlent show is about control, or enslavement, of the people around the world. With the lunitics around the world running their individual governments the way they are, it wouldn’t surprise me if all the major governments of the world collapsed at approximately the same time, which would be the beginning of the next dark age.

Back to top

Copyright © 2008-2016 Americans for Limited Government