Because I think people must be made to understand that this is such a non-issue, I’ve decided to remain on the topic that recent posts here have also stressed. That issue is, of course, ‘climate change, ‘climate disruption’, ‘global warming’ or whatever nomenclature it is that you may choose to use to identify it. Facts, as they say, are very pesky things, and while there are those who insist that we are now faced with that they describe as being the next great apocalypse, and one actually caused by we humans, it’s those pesky little facts that tell a far different story.
One of those rather ‘inconvenient’ little truths that you’re unlikely to hear about from the many advocates of ‘climate change’, was recently pointed out by Mr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science. And it has to do with datasets used last year that actually show that this coming October 1st will mark the 18th year of "no significant warming trend in surface average temperature." And yet we still have the ‘Henny Penny’s’ among us running around loudly warning us about how we must change our evil ways, or die.
And Mr. Michaels, who by the way has a Ph.D. in ecological climatology and has spent three decades as a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, said that even if the current 18-year trend were to suddenly come to an end, it would still take nearly 25 years for average global temperature figures to reflect the change. So who are we supposed to believe here, this obvious expert on the subject, or buffoons like Barry "Almighty", John Kerry-Heinz and Al Gore who are far more motivated by politics than they are by any scientific fact?
And in speaking of the likes of these three lying sacks of shit, it’s Mr. Michaels who states that it will be sooner rather than later that even these clowns, along with numerous faux scientists, leftist academics and corrupt politicians who actually agree with them that the "Earth has a fever", will have to admit that their climate models predicting catastrophic ‘global warming’ were off, and off by a long shot. Mr. Michaels, by the way, also happens to be a contributing editor to the United Nations’ second Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
Mr. Michaels said, "It has to be admitted eventually that too much warming was forecast too fast. That just has to happen. You can’t go on and on and on." And he went on to say, "If the surface temperature resumed the warming rate that we observed from, say 1977 through 1998, we would still go close to a quarter of a century without significant net warming because there’s such a long flat period built into the record now. " And he also makes the point that there’s no indication that after 18 years, global warming will resume anytime soon. Imagine that!
And it’s in making that claim that Mr. Michaels points to what is a record amount of Antarctic ice, which "is at its highest extent measured by the current microwave satellite sounding system" since 1978, according to data from the University of Illinois’ Polar Ice Research Center. And he added, "And if you take a close look at the Arctic data, it appears the decline stopped somewhere around 2005/2006, which means we’ve almost had ten years without any net loss in Arctic ice." And yet we’re told that we must continue to worry about all of those poor polar bears.
Nor does it look likely that the next El Nino will have much of an effect on global temperatures. He pointed out, "The much vaunted and predicted El Nino, which would [ordinarily] spike global temperature, is not going according to plan." In an El Nino, trade winds suppress the upwelling of cold water. He said, "So what happens after an El Nino suppresses the cold upwelling, all that cold water that was sitting down there, which normally would have been dispersed into the tropical Pacific, comes up and so the temperature drops pretty substantially after a major El Nino."
He said, "In fact, you can see that in 1999. We had a very large El Nino in 1998, maybe the biggest one in the 20th century, it’s not completely clear, but it was really, really big. And the next year, the temperatures were way down." He went on to say, "And so what an El Nino will do is it will give you a one-year or perhaps two-year spike [in temperature]. But the net change is not very much. Now it turns out the lack of warming has gone on for so long that even throwing in a one or two-year spike into it is not going to induce a significant warming trend in that data."
Pointing to a Pew survey earlier this year in which Americans listed global warming 19th out of a list of 20 issues they considered as top priorities, unless of course you happen to be a Democrat, Michaels responded to Secretary of State John Kerry-Heinz’s recent statement that climate change is "the biggest challenge of all that we face right now." He said, "I would say that his order of needs is a little bit out of whack." That’s being far too generous as far as I’m concerned. Kerry-Heinz said that ‘climate change’ is a bigger threat to us than Islamic terrorism.
Mr. Michaels went on to say, "Given that a cogent political analysis indicates that the loss of control of the House of Representatives by the Democratic Party was the result of their passing the unpopular cap-and-trade bill in 2009 - in the 2010 election they lost 64 seats- you would think that this is kind of a political hot potato." He said, "And in fact, our friends in Europe, who are certainly leftier and greenier than we tend to be as a country, are trying to back away from this issue." And he noted that China, India, Australia, Canada and Germany have all declined to join Barry at the United Nations’ Climate Summit held in New York this week.
And even with the mountain of available evidence that very clearly refutes virtually every single insane claim made regarding ‘climate change’ and it’s effects on the planet, that are supposedly taking place, it remains those of us who take issue with these wild claims who are the ones accused of being the ‘flat-earthers’. But it’s those who continue to support this insanity that are the ones of whom it can be said are on the side of politics, not science. Because their claims are not supported by science, they are instead driven by what is their rabid leftwing ideology.
No comments:
Post a Comment