Global warming a hoax from start to finish?

I think we’re all agreed that global warming alarmists have used fraud, blackmail, and blackballing to advance their global warming agenda.  The liberal media, if it acknowledges these tactics, is saying that they were simply over aggressive, but that the underlying facts remain true.  AJ Strata, however, begs to differ.  In a heavily scientific post (i.e., facts, not just specious conclusions), he argues that there is no global warming at all, easily explaining the need for fraud, blackmail and blackballing.  See what you think, here.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    Narcissists are running the program, Book. They have created a world wide network of alliances and favor tradings.
     
    Once before, parochialism mandated that narcissistic tendencies be only local traits for the tyrant or village leader. Now we have a global network of narcissists all working together to screw their marks.
     
    The wonders of technological progress.

  2. says

    Guns evened the playing field between the power holders and those at the bottom. With a gun, even the most common peasant could kill the noblest warrior trained from birth for battle and rule.
     
    Now, of course, the status quo can actually be enlightened or semi-enlightened rule. Regimes like the Shah, Diem’s South Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq are primordial but there is potential there for great improvement. That’s why the Left, utilizing revolutionary cadres and guns, will destroy it. Technology has evened the playing field between the despot at the top and the peasant serf at the bottom. But it has also evened the playing field between the enlightened ruler at the top and the stupid arse narcissist at the bottom that wants the loot of what he didn’t earn.
     
    Their weapons will kill our system as dead as dead. But here’s the secret. So will ours do to them the same.

  3. SADIE says

    Short of having a degree in volcanology, solar output, plate tectonics I cannot comment on the content. However, I do have common sense and realize that numbers and graphs can be manipulated to serve an author or agenda. If you can’t follow the science, then follow the money or who wants to control it.

  4. says

    The whole idea of science is that **you can always go and see for yourself**. If you don’t want to believe what Galileo is telling you about the motion of the heavenly bodies, get your own telescope and look for yourself. If you don’t believe what Newton tells you about acceleration of gravity, roll some balls down an inclined plane and time them. In recent years, this concept seems increasingly to be replaced by science as *authority*…as in “the scientists say.” This is a reversion to the medieval approach in which scientific questions were resolved by appeal to authoritative writings, usually Aristotle. (Although many of the medieval Scholastics did attempt to use *logic* rigorously, which separates them from their modern-day counterparts.) Since you can’t directly observe the future, and you can’t build your own copy of the world to conduct experiments with, climate projections are dependent on mathematical models. These are often useful, even vital…as in the models that determine whether a building will stand up or an airplane will fly…but in some cases they can be problematic. Boeing, for example, is having more problems with their 787 Dreamliner: specifically, with the performance of the composite material used and especially its behavior where it is bolted to other materials. From a WSJ article: ** Boeing has only computer models to predict how (these composite materials)) will react to the stresses of flight, especially with long-term use under the varied conditions and temperatures airplanes routinely encounter.
    “Delamination is a very, very challenging problem to model analytically,” says Andy Hansen, professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Wyoming and an expert in composite analysis. “If you’re talking about building an airplane you want to fly for 30 years, it’s an issue.” ** If it’s that difficult to model the performance of these materials over 30 years…when the people doing the modeling have every incentive to get it right and also have the ability to conduct actual *experiments* on the materials in question…how much more difficult must it be to model the behavior of the earth’s climate, with its multiplicity of causal factors and feedback loops, over the extended future? Even if the people doing the work were acting in total good faith, which is increasingly open to question.

  5. colorless.blue.ideas says

    Adding to what David Foster wrote:   finding an adequately accurate mathematical model is only the first step.  The second involves implementing an adequately stable numerical model to be used by the computer to achieve results.  The model also requires a set of data (to establish history and determine parameters) with error estimates (to establish a range of possible outcomes).  The source of the data must also be made available, including “outliers” which were chosen to be ignored for one reason or another.  (There are valid, invalid, as well as debatable reasons.)
    Finally, for this to be science, the mathematical model, the numerical implementation of the model, and the data (with error estimates) must be made available to others examine the underlying concepts and to ensure the results can be duplicated.
    For the most part, the climate models and data used by anthropogenic global warming advocates are usually lacking in several of these areas.

  6. Danny Lemieux says

    Book, do you happen to remember the pretentious academicturkey who, a number of years back,  pontificated on the subject of global warming in your salon, on the strength of his scientific credentials? I recall how we all pounced on him with facts, facts, facts until he finally disappeared. Time seems to have borne out our contentions.

    What the hacked emails reveal is a subset of the scientific community, supported by public funding, that deliberately defrauded their financial backers (the taxpayer). In a just world, these people  would be stripped of their scientific credentials and of the right to ever again work in their fields, followed by prison time. The high priest of the Gaia warmism cult, Al Gore,  should be prosecuted for fraudulent securities manipulation with the same diligence as a Bernie Madoff. But then, let’s not stop there: let’s use this opportunity to promote a massive defunding of  public universities (a propos your Berkeley post) until such time as they opt to clean-out the rent seakers and fraudsters and return these institutions to their primary mission of true education and scholarship.
    Incidentally, I seem to recall DQ professing to be honestly agnostic on the subject of man-made global warming (proclaiming his lack of technical credentials, I recall). Have any of the more recent revelations changed his outlook on the subject?
    As far as models are concerned…no model can be better than the quality of its assumptions and the inputted data. A model, is by definition, a simplification of reality. The problem with climate change models is/was that they contain far too many assumptions that could not be supported.  Assumptions included: constant solar output and simplifications to explain the enormously complex behavior of water vapor (the number-one greenhouse gas by far) under different conditions. These were red flags that should have peaked the attention of any serious scientist. Then there are common sense tests that should have been applied. For example:
    1) How likely is it that human activity can affect global climate by manipulation of a gas the comprises only 2.5% of the atmosphere and for which human activity is only responsible for 2.5% of the content (at most) and which is only a minor greenhouse gas to begin with?
    2) Using Occam’s Razor, how much more likely is it that global climate temperatures are affected primarily by solar activity?
    3) How much more likely is it that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the result of climate warming (rather than the cause) by extending growing seasons and expanding the global “life zone” of the planet?
    These are simple, stupid questions to which no Gaia acolyte has ever been able to provide a satisfactory answer.
     
     

  7. Lulu11 says

    What I find fascinating is the way this came to light- by hackers. Acorn’s corruption came to light by 2 college kids going undercover in a sting operation  and now Breitbart is releasing more Acorn scandal from a private investigator who riffed through their garbage bins. Private citizens are doing the job that journalists refuse to. The Left must be getting nervous that more people on the Right are not just sitting back passively anymore. There is too much at stake.

  8. says

    I recall how we all pounced on him with facts, facts, facts until he finally disappeared.
     
    I think that was the guy before Miss Ozzie. And I do remember him. But not his name, curiously enough.
     
    <B>Assumptions included: constant solar output and simplifications to explain the enormously complex behavior of water vapor (the number-one greenhouse gas by far) under different conditions.
     
    They also assumed they would get rich off this and with perpetual funding.
     
     
    1) How likely is it that human activity can affect global climate by manipulation of a gas the comprises only 2.5% of the atmosphere and for which human activity is only responsible for 2.5% of the content (at most) and which is only a minor greenhouse gas to begin with?
     
     
    If global terraforming was this easy, to make temperatures hot enough to melt ice, we’d do it to Mars and gain another habitable planet. But the money’s here on planet earth, not mars, and for good reason. THus the reactionaries aren’t going to get off their butts and do what they should, if their assumptions are true. THey know they can’t do the same thing on Mars so they don’t even speculate on it.
     
    <B>Private citizens are doing the job that journalists refuse to.</b>
     
     
    Justice doesn’t come from begging journalists and lawyers and the police to clean up the trash. You’ll have to do it with your own two hands. The days of the posse existed for a good reason.
    The Left will manufacture sheep by addicting people to dependence on others.

  9. colorless.blue.ideas says

    A small correction to Danny Lemieux’ thoughtful post.  The percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is around 0.04%, or about 400 ppm (parts per million), not 2.5% (25,000 ppm).  This makes it even less likely to be a significant anthropogenic contributor to the climate.  The human contribution to that is thus in the vicinity of 10 ppm.
     
    If you really want an eye opener — and are willing to take fifteen minutes to research — do a web search for a graph of atmospheric transmission in the infrared.  This is where the “greenhouse effect” occurs.  (Good explanation:  http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/index.html).   The lower the transmission, the more heat is retained on the planet.  Look closely at the graph, and estimate how much is due to water vapor, and how much is due to CO2, and how much is due to methane, etc.   You will find that CO2 is a relatively small contributor.
     
    My own conclusion:  the effects of CO2 on global temperature are minimal, and much smaller than those of water vapor or solar variability.

  10. says

    Sadie, I gave Steel achance, but he’s just another Casey and Jones. Wannabes. Not fighters, not warriors, not true believers. Just somebody that goes along to get along, receiving a boost to their careers by kissing up.

  11. SADIE says

    Ymarsakar
    You are too kind.
    A portion of a reader comment from the link sums it up:
    When I was younger, I thought the Democrats wanted to take all my money and the Republicans wanted to take all my rights. Now, I can’t tell the difference.
     
     
     

  12. colorless.blue.ideas says

    Danny Lemieux: you are most welcome.  I also encourage you to correct me when I make a typo — which I likely do more than you do.
    God bless!
    CBI
     

  13. Mike Devx says

    Sadie #13 said,
    > Short, but not sweet. The RNC has nothing to say, but plenty to be read from the comment section.

    It warms  my heart to see so many commenters agree with me that they have had it with the RNC and the GOP establishment.  I was feeling quite alone these last few months as I became more and more disillusioned with their lack of fight.  And their lack of fight is caused by their lack of principles.  They don’t know what their supposed conservatism is based on, because they haven’t thought about their principles.  They can’t explain their principles.  They can’t give a speech that fires you up because their belief in their own principles is so shallow.  They’re adrift and helpless.

    You can only get so far muttering “lower taxes” over and over and over.  You have to know what your principles are, and you have to be able to explain them, before you can fight for them.   As Sadie closed her post:  We’re on our own.

    I’ll repeat Sadie’s link, too, in case you want to go read those refreshing comments:
    http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/1/486414.html

    They don’t read the bills, they don’t fight against bad legislation.  They can’t give a speech if they’re lives depended on it.  All they want to do is raise more money for their own re-election.  In fact, it seems that that’s all they CAN do.  They’re ineffective at best, most likely they’re just plain stupid and incompetent, and at worst they’re mired in the entire DC swamp of complete corruption.  Yes, Virginia… all of D.C., including 95% of our GOP, CAN in fact be nothing more than completely corrupt.

    Are the scales falling from our eyes, finally, as we perceive a basic truth?  Not only may Obama be exposing the hard left to all Americans to clearly see… he may be exposing the entire GOP, too, as a false, corrupt organization.   I urge all of you, as we head towards the 2010 elections, to put the GOP on trial in your heads.  If they don’t fight, and fight effectively, we should abandon them.  Because the principles of the fight have never been clearer.  The necessity of the fight has never been clearer.  If they can’t fight effectively NOW, given everything that is going on these days, they will never be able to.

  14. colorless.blue.ideas says

    I’m a bit less disillusioned than you are, Mike Devx. For example, almost every single Republican in Congress has voted against the various Obamacare bills. There are a few whose overcoats may be inside out and buttoned in back, but the overwhelming majority have held the line. I do think that some of the Republicans in Congress are more partisan than principled in this, but human beings are really rather complex and tend to be that way.
    What I’m currently doing:

    Not supporting the RNC for now (and letting them know why),
    Checking out our local Republican party (my plan for the next few weeks), and
    Becoming a bit more active in the Tea Party movement.

    I think we need to be very much on guard against trash-talking and broad-brushing Republicans; rather, we should be encouraging where encouragement is needed, and working for better senators and representatives whenever possible.

  15. Mike Devx says

    colorless.blue.ideas #21:
     
    > I’m a bit less disillusioned than you are
    > For example, almost every single Republican in Congress has voted against the various Obamacare bills. There are a few whose overcoats may be inside out and buttoned in back, but the overwhelming majority have held the line.

    I hope you’re right and I’m wrong, because that would be better for us all.  But I believe they voted against it near-unanimously because their voters are so dramatically against it.  Not out of any principled stand that *they could explain*, but solely based on polls.  The health care bills are one of a very few situations where the voters are speaking en masse in one direction only – at least in their districts.  This one’s a no-brainer for the congress critters.

    If you asked them to explain their voting pattern – what principles led you to vote X on this bill, and Y on that bill… you’ll find that they practically *cannot* explain themselves.  A pattern of explanation will emerge that will make you see that most of them are as shallow as Obama.  They are about one thing and one thing only – getting reelected.  Getting reelected is fine, if they stood up for this country and fought for the principles we hold dear, but they don’t fight.  THEY DON’T FIGHT.

    I’ve never been an advocate of term limits for the higher positions in our national government, but I’m beginning to change my mind.  If term limits are good enough for the President, then they’re good enough for the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, too.  Either apply them across the board, or repeal the limits on the President.  Let’s be consistent.  (Of course there’s a risk here – since Congress is the national government branch that actually controls the flow of money, term limits run the risk of the rascals actually becoming MORE corrupt as they would have only twelve years (or so) to set themselves up for life, as opposed to what we have now, where they can take their time about the graft and corruption, because once elected, all they have to do is ensure their re-election.

    On the plus side for term limits, these people hob nob with each other at all the same parties in the fever-swamp that is Washington D.C., and they come to be immersed in that culture and lose touch with much of the conservative sanity that they might have had when they first arrived. (Speaking broadly here, for there are exceptions of course.)

    I ask myself over and over: Why did it seem to me that forty years ago and before then, both Democrats and Republicans seemed to be interested in improving the daily lives of most of all Americans?  They used to be in the game “for America”.   I have seen less and less of that as the years go by.   I genuinely believe we are living in the age of Cronyism.  Crony Socialism for the Democrats, and Crony Capitalism for the Republicans (again, painting with a broad brush.)  It’s corruption, pure and simple, and they don’t give a damn about any of us.

    You could say that the choice, every two years, between the Dems and the Repubs is like the choice between a child molester and a thief, and so you’d better vote for the thief – the lesser of two evils.  But what if the choice is between a child molester and a serial rapist?  What’s the difference in the lesser of two evils when they’re both so bad, you really have no business voting for either?

    So yes I agree, analyze each candidate for what they are worth, and how principled they are, and support them as you can… but as for me, when it comes to the national organizations of the GOP, including the RNC, I am at the point where I believe they are beyond redemption, and hopelessly corrupted.  I no longer can trust someone simply because of the “R” next to their name.  I cannot trust it AT ALL.  If I don’t know what they stand for; if they haven’t consistently set forth conservative principles;  if they play along and go along to get along in the corridors of Washington D.C., only to suddenly turn conservative in their ad campaigns as election season kicks off… I will in fact vote against them in the primaries, and probably not vote either way in the general election, in their case.

    There have been repeated travesties such as the Scozzafava election where she. the anointed GOP candidate, withdrew and endorsed the Democrat over her more-conservative rival.  Over and over we find secret liberals running under the GOP banner.  Why?  And why do we keep allowing it?  To what extent does our own acceptance of this fuel the problem?

  16. says

    “And why do we keep allowing it?”
     
     
    People don’t like extreme measures. They like to get along to go along. Social revolutionaries have exploited this need of the 68 percentile of greater humanity often times.
     
     
     

  17. Mike Devx says

    An example of what I’m talking about.  From Victor Davis Hanson’s latest column, one of his obvious conclusions:
    (begin quote)
    A global recession has led to low oil prices. Yet in this window of opportunity, America has not decreased its foreign-oil dependence. We are not encouraging domestic exploration. And we are still ambivalent on nuclear power.

    But as the world economy recovers, oil will probably surge back over $100 a barrel, increasing our oil-import tab by 25 percent or more. The Obama administration, though, mostly is obsessed with subsidizing relatively small amounts of wind and solar power. It likely won’t be long before angry motorists at the pump are demanding to know why we have not pushed for more development at home of still-plentiful natural-gas and oil fields.
    (end quote)

    I think his conclusion is clear.  Angry public reaction to higher gas and oil prices is inevitable.  Prudent conservatism demands long-term planning.  Remember the days, long ago, when “long term planning” was even possible, and meant you were wise?

    So where are our conservatives, in Congress, demanding of Democrats that they invest in our oil infrastructure?  Over and over – they SHOULD be demanding this of the Democrats.  Setting them up for the inevitable future backlash.  Get all the demands on video NOW. Show foresight.  Show prudent planning.  Show wisdom.

    But no.  All I ever see, all I ever hear from them, is crickets chirping.  Then eventually an issue rises to the surface, and the citizenry erupt, and THEN, and ONLY THEN, can our great GOP representatives be found talking about it.  Just for a short time.  Then the furor dies down… and the “intense GOP concern” disappears, too.

    Of what use is any of this?  No wonder we gain nothing.  We’re playing by the Democrat rules, we’re playing the Democrat game.  We have no prudence, we have no wisdom, we have no plan.  We have no courage, especially not the courage of our convictions.  How can you have the courage of your convictions, when you have no convictions.

    That is why I’m abandoning the national GOP and the national RNC.  The pattern of utter worthlessness is too consistent.

  18. SADIE says

    Global religious warming has become the opiate of the people, Mike.
    The masses are easily placated as long as they have not taken a direct hit. One day oil will hit $100 and $200 and upwards along with the ‘smart meter’ from electric and gas companies (current litigation  S.F. now and they are active in Delware and slated for Pa. sometime within a couple of years) under the guise of conserving energy.
    I agree with you, there must be a voice of reasoning heard loud and clear now and most importantly consistently. The cry of ‘drill baby drill’ lacked political push for legislation with a clear outline of an eye to the future. The conservatives and libs drink from the same trough.  The lack of terms limits is the great inhibitor. Both houses are like a roach motel, you go in but you don’t come out (until death in most cases). It’s a warm, cozy, rich and supportive environment and (for most) their purpose is to get elected not serve.
    The $64,000 question: Why do we make it so easy for them?
    What is needed is 50+ organizors to address the issue state by state.

  19. Mike Devx says

    Sadie #26:
    Horowitz’ article is brilliant.  As a dedicated and influential 60’s and 70’s leftist, he knows the playbook.  Now that he’s become a conservative activist, he sees both sides clearly.  Read his advice, take it to heart!  Every word he wrote rings true to me.
     

Leave a Reply