For anyone who spends any amount of time on these
pages it should be readily apparent that I am not a big supporter of ‘global
warming’, ‘climate change’, ‘climate disruption’ or whatever it is that those
on the left insist upon calling what they view as being the next great
apocalypse to be faced by we here on Earth.
But be that as it may, a recent study led by Duke University of 1,000
years of temperature records has apparently shown that global warming is not
occurring quite as fast as those on the left have alleged. Imagine that!
So I’m assuming here that the researchers at Duke University apparently
remain convinced that ‘climate change’ is occurring, albeit at a slower rate
than what we have all been led to believe.
And it was regarding the analysis of this recent
research that Patrick Brown, who we’re told is a doctoral student in
climatology at Duke University, said, "Based on our analysis, a
middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now." To which he quickly added, most likely out of
fear of being labeled a “flat-earther” or worse, "But this could
change." Look, we’ve known for
decades that the data on which this theory is based has been either fudged or
simply made up altogether, and while Mr. Brown may claim that ‘climate change’ is
taking place slower than what we’ve been told, he apparently still thinks it’s
occurring. So might this all be nothing
more than simply a less ‘alarmist sounding’ version of the very same
propaganda?
The analysis, which, we are told, compared results
with scenarios suggested by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and
relied on observed data, not climate models, determined that high and low
warming rates that occur over a decade are a part of the "natural
variability in surface temperatures."
It also found, apparently, that temperature shifts are the result of
ocean-atmosphere interactions and other natural factors. This natural balance, however, could shift,
these scientists warn, and the "climate wiggles" seen over the years
could change, forcing Earth to warm at a faster speed than expected. So, is it the extent, or duration, of these
“climate wiggles” that is the next thing which we all now need to worry
ourselves about?
And then we heard from Wenhong Li, who is, we’re
told, an assistant professor of climate at Duke, and someone who worked with
Brown on the climate change study. He said, "At any given time, we could
start warming at a faster rate if greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere
increase without any offsetting changes in aerosol concentrations or natural
variability." So what’s he really
saying here? It sounds to me like maybe he’s
either trying to play down what it is that the data is saying or to, at the
very least, have it both ways. Because
on one hand he’s saying ‘climate change’ is not occurring as fast as was
thought, and on the other hand he’s saying that the data is useless because
things could pick up again on a moments notice.
Another study, published in the journal ‘Science’
last year, also said ‘climate change’ was slowing as a part of an ongoing cycle. That study found that "temperatures have
risen more slowly in the past decade than in the previous 50 years, and will
continue to rise at a somewhat slower rate in the next decade." It attributed the change to heat moving
"into deeper oceans," yet after the current cycle is finished,
warming could pick up at a fast rate.
Yet according to a study by the IPCC in 2013, "Each of the last
three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth's surface than any
preceding decade since 1850." It
added, "Trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning
and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends."
Now, let’s take all if that into consideration when
listening to Barry “Almighty” in an interview from earlier this week with
National Geographic (NG), where we were once again treated to the more apocalyptic
version of what will result from ‘climate change’, and therefore the version that
has become the left’s only truly accepted ‘climate change’ scenario. You see, it was in this very interview that Barry
“Almighty” once again stressed the importance of California’s conservation
efforts amid a fourth year of drought, laid out ‘His’ expectations for this
year’s climate conference in Paris, and reiterated America’s commitment to a
“low-carbon future.” In other words his
rather cockeyed view of another fictional crisis.
In honor of Earth Day Barry was sent 10 questions,
touching on issues of ‘climate change’, the Clean Air Act, and the impact of
development on national parks and the environment. On the federal response to the drought, Barry
told NG that the government is “working with the state to speed investments
that respond to California’s long-term water challenges.” He said, “While no single drought event can
be traced to climate change, the fact of the matter is with a arming climate
we’re going to see more frequent and more severe droughts in the West in the future.”
He added, “That’s one of the reasons my
administration has been focused on helping communities prepare for the effects
of climate change.”
Barry also listed a number of ways the federal
government is working with the state to help alleviate the drought, including
providing millions in emergency loans to farmers and food banks. Barry went on to say, “At the same time,
Californians need to do everything they can to save water, and we’re starting
to see some progress on that front.” And
he then added, “Everyone is in this together and we all need to be doing our
part.” Barry also defended against
criticism of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris this year,
writing that the conference will allow for the establishment of “an ambitious,
durable climate regime that applies fairly to all countries, demands
accountability, and deals with some other key issues.”
Barry said, “If we can do that, we’ll have a way to
hold each other accountable for the goals we have set, and a framework for
coming back together to set new goals and raise our ambition on regular
cycles.” And then added, “And I’m hopeful
that we can get there.” Yes, I’m sure
Barry is very hopeful ‘we’ can get there.
But I can’t help but wonder where is it, really, that Barry wants to
get? There is one reason and one reason
only why the left remains focused, so intently on their ‘climate change’
boogieman. And despite the fact that a
growing number of Americans don’t see it as being a major concern. It has
nothing whatsoever to do with the environment, the future of our children, or
making sure the planet remains inhabitable.
Barry did strike a bit of a conciliatory tone when
asked about his administration’s response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
and whether the U.S. would continue to develop its domestic energy resources. Barry said, “Today, we are very much at the
center of Deepwater Horizon restoration activities, and we are committed to
making sure we leave the Gulf Coast stronger than ever.” And he went on to say, “At the same time, the
reality is that we will continue to rely in part on fossil fuels while we
transition to a low-carbon economy… So we’re committed to a low-carbon future,
but we need to have a balanced approach to getting there.” What Barry is truly committed to is his war
on ‘cheaper’ energy from right here at home!
So what, if anything, do we take away from any of this? Is ‘climate change’ speeding up, is it
slowing down, or is it even going on in the first place? And if it is taking place, is it, as Barry
and his comrades on the left love to claim, all the fault of mankind and our
addiction to fossil fuels? Or, is it all
nothing more than a natural occurring event?
As more and more Americans come to realize just what a scam this truly
is, the more desperate those on the left seem to become regarding their claims
of apocalyptic consequences of doing nothing.
And it’s in that regard that I suppose that they cannot be too pleased
with the research from Duke. Even though
those at Duke do not deny it is taking place, it’s just not taking place as fast
as the left claims.
No comments:
Post a Comment