As the science crumbles, the statists shut down debate

Antarctic ice build-up confounds computer models.

The levels of Antarctic sea-ice last week hit an all-time high – confounding climate change computer models which say it should be in decline.

America’s National Snow And Ice Data Center, which is funded by Nasa, revealed that ice around the southern continent covers about 16million sq km, more than 2.1 million more than is usual for the time of year.

It is by far the highest level since satellite observations on which the figures depend began in 1979. In statistical terms, the extent of the ice cover is hugely significant.

So how are the global warmists responding to the crumbling of their scientific paradigm? The same as always: cut off debate.

BBC to cut air time for climate warming skeptics

]Institute for Policy cancels professor’s fellowship after he questions global warming

Vatican silences scientist for challenging “settled science”. 

Okay, the last incident occurred in 1610, when Galileo refused to accept church teachings on how the universe was ordered, but the pattern is the same: the more an authority is vested in a core belief, the more strenuously it silences dissent. Eventually, that no longer works.

UPDATE: NASA admits: US temperature has cooled over past decade.

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor citing issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a networkof 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.

 

30 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

30 responses to “As the science crumbles, the statists shut down debate

  1. Inagua

    I have been totally wrong about this for several years now. I thought that once experience showed the error of the theory that the leaders of Climate Alarmism would fade away as the advocates for Peak Oil, Running Out of Resources, Limits of Growth or Inability to Feed the World did.

    I now think that unlike those earlier Alarmist Scares, there are so many people earning their living spreading this False Fear that they have become an Interest Group primarily devoted to protecting their livelihoods. Al Gore, Michael Mann, James Hansen, Rajendra Pachauri, etc. can perhaps be best understood as people fighting to keep their jobs. I can think of no other explanation for their continued denial of reality.

    Does any one have a better explanation?

    • You’re right but it still doesn’t explain how the ideology that most banks on its members educational qualifications tolerates as it’s lead spokesman a serial grad school dropout.

    • The explanation is that shouting “global warming is a crisis” provides a pseudo-scientific justification for government control of the economy. Various socialists, communists, liberals, Marxists and utopians have desired this goal forever. The Al Gore crowd simply presents the newest version of this stale and old, but dangerous ambition.

      This crowd recognizes that controlling the energy portion of the economy is nearly the same as controlling the whole economy.

      Unfortunately for you and me, controlling the economy is the same as eliminating our freedom.

  2. Anthony Fountain

    It took nearly 400 years but the Vatican did finally admit it was wrong about Galileo. The lefties won’t do so about global warming until hell freezes over–and maybe not even then.

    • Walt

      So what are you going to do about it? Dude boy brother boy. Galileo was a pussy. He sucked eggs. Yes, he had some good ideas. Like the ham and egg omelet. And pizza. But after that, he shit the bed. Looking at planets and figuring out the universe. THAT IS SUPPOSED TO IMPRESS ME? Get a job, you frigging jerk. Galileo, not you, brother of Dude.

      You rest your laurels on the Vatican? PLEASE! What do they know? A bunch of corrupted Wops. Altar boy sex, knugns who scare us, NUNS WITH GUNS!! And a history of abuse. AND I AM A CATHOLIC!! A BIC!! Although I admit I am consumed by Jewish guilt. I don’t know why. But I like pastrami. So 400 years for the Catholic church is NOTHING!! So stop your racist remarks, Negro.

      Anyhows, what were we talking about? YOU RACIST!!

  3. Anthony Fountain

    Walt, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

  4. Walt

    Just fucking with you dude junior. You are cool.

  5. observer

    why do you and others who doubt that climate change is a product of industrial activity seem so strident and completely close minded about the subject? what if you’re wrong?

    • ? The exact opposite is true. It’s the “Believers” who have faked data, suppressed scientific reports of a model failures and banned discussion inthe media, all of which raises the question, what are they afraid of?

      • observer

        ok i can see we’re not going to get anywhere on this…

        • Probably not, so long as hurricanes, wild fires and even earthquakes are blamed on global warming – again: why are they telling such lies if they have science on their side? And what kind of science is it when a hypothesis is presented and accepted without proof? “Trust us on this” or “the science is settled” have been the hallmarks of error for thousands of years, and when politics is substituted for science, bad things happen.

        • Mavis Davis

          >>observer

          you illustrate CF’s point exactly, you prefer to be invincibly ignorant when challenged.

        • Observer: US coal consumption is 1 billion tons on its way to 900 million, and Chinese coal consumption is 6 billion tons, and is growing strongly. (It was 4 billion tons only 12 years ago.) Even if theoretically the US never burned another ton, global coal use would grow. The Obama war on US coal will not prevent global coal use from growing, but it will punish the US economy, particularly the poor and lower income people for whom energy is a significant expense.

          Please tell us: why are you in favor of impoverishing these US citizens, to no effect on carbon emissions?

        • Cos Cobber

          High cost energy hurts the poor the most. The cost of consumer products will increase (basic materials/transport), the cost of shelter will increase (heating and cooling) and energy intensive jobs – which tend to be the best paying jobs for the high school and vocational grad (steel making, industrial assembling, glass manufacturing, plastics manufacturing, chemical manufacturing) are pushed overseas where environmental compliance, energy and labor are all cheaper.

        • Fred2

          Probably not because after 15 years+ of having global warming “things” debunked one after another we’re basically waiting for ONE actual data point that says the human influenced global warming, is :

          A. Real, ( and not a natural variation of the climate)
          B. Measurable.
          C. Able to be reversed without every human being on earth committing suicide in shame, tomorrow!
          D If the preceding Is true, that any of the other “solutions” make any sense at all.

          o/4 so far.

          Because so far all we get the huge & well funded government heating-industrial leviathan spewing propaganda and lies, that get debunked by skeptics going , uhm “that king isn;t wearing any clothes either…” 5th one this week alone.

        • Inagua

          “ok i can see we’re not going to get anywhere on this…”

          Observer – Don’t give up so easily. Go ahead and make the case for catastrophic man made global warming. If there is in fact a serious threat, all reasonable people will want to know about it. Please explain in your own words what you believe is happening, and why.

  6. Libertarian Advocate

    Nor do you care to challenge CF’s assertion of faked data. Why? I submit that you KNOW his accusation is true, emotionally if not intellectually. Mann’s willful data fraud vitiates the entire premise of AGW.

  7. Anonymous

    MaDa. Oh my gosh I better just sit in my corner and be quiet then. Dork.

  8. Anonymous

    Balzac. Control what you can control. Influence those you can’t.

    • 1. What you call “control” is really punishing the poor, for no effect on carbon emissions. Please remember that the coal burn is only 30% of US carbon emissions, so Obama’s policy to reduce the coal burn 30% by 2026 would really be a 9% reduction in CO2 in the US.
      2. There is NO evidence that our self-punishment will influence the Chinese and Indians to punish themselves. In fact, they have expressly said the opposite. As poor countries, they WILL NOT agree to Kyoto, or any other policy to reduce carbon use and slow their ascent from poverty to a modern economy.

      The climate-crisis position relies on falsified and selective statistics, and predictive models that have not been proven valid, to impose massive government control on the economy (the science says THAT never works). All the while imposing huge costs on the American economy as Cos Cobber says above. The science is that there is a warming of 1 degree Celsius over a century, but none over the last 15 years. It isn’t proven that man is the cause, and it isn’t proven that man can reverse the small warming. And the climatistas never cite the benefits of warming: a warmer wetter planet grows more food, and freezes fewer people to death. So are you surprised that responsible people recommend that we pause and reflect before turning our economy up-side down over slight warming whose causes are not proven and predictive models that don’t conform to the scientific observations?

  9. Peg

    Observer wants to know why SKEPTICS have closed minds?!?

    Roughly 15 years ago I heard one of these climatologists speak in Mpls. So many aspects of this issue are not even raised, as the True Believers are busy with their ginned up charts, shutting down speech from those who are skeptics and ad hominem attacks. Chris is correct.

    But – even beyond the hard facts of whether the planet is warming, there are a host of other issues True Believers rarely discuss. IF we’re warming – is it due to man or something utterly beyond our control? If it’s man – then what could we do to stop or alter the trajectory, and equally important, what are the costs and the rewards? One climatologist said even if we give them this, it may be that we are spending vastly more than we could ever get for our efforts; only a slight alteration at best. The planet and humans would be better off working on problems like potable water or malaria reduction/extinction rather than a half degree alteration in temperature.

    Bring on the honest discussions – and of all the relevant topics – and I’m in!

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266

  10. Publius

    Most people would view science as a more exacting discipline that say the arts. What most people do not grasp is that in the field of science there is just as much self-dealing, half truths and other assorted hooliganism (ie. fudged/fabricated data, unwilling to share/peer review). The basic reason is that scientists are human just like the artist and to that end are subject to the same inherent DNA flaws. Researchers often toil away for years pursuing a line of research, only to find it turns into a dead end. Unwilling to admit that they were wrong and wasted years of their career, they turn to “marketing” their ideas to the great unwashed whose idea of due diligence is Wikipedia.

    Think about that “97% of all scientists” talking point for a moment. 97% is a very precise number, not a range (85%-95%) and not accompanied by any margin of error range. Most people know that if they got a 97% on an exam or scored in the 97th percentile on a standard exam, that is a bankable stat. If you go back and look at the origin of the 97% “Fact” you will find it is a canard.In fact the author of the study John Cook (http://www.gci.uq.edu.au/researchers/john-cook1) won’t allow anyone to review his work. If you understand the basis of the 97% you would not want to release your information either. BTW Cook according to the link above, spent a decade “working in graphic design and web programming”. I speculate only that he helped Michael Mann design the “Hockey stick” graph.

    Climate changers, sellers of face creams to reverse aging, pushers of vitamin supplements and weight loss diets are all the same; simple hucksters. No more, no less. If PT Barnum were alive today, he would be a climate change prophet because that is where the suckers are and where the easy money lies.

  11. Sound Beacher

    O/T: New Parking Czarina she doesnt’ want us to drive for 2 blocks looking for a parking space. Has she been to Greenwich Avenue, ever?
    http://www.greenwich-post.com/27633/new-parking-sheriff-to-focus-on-customer-service/

    • anon2

      Bless her little heart that she wants to find alternative parking for bikes and motorcycles! Doesn’t she know Escalades EAT bikes for lunch and Range Rovers just mow them over? She has a lot to learn.

      • housecat

        Downtown GW (especially G Ave) would be the LAST place I’d want to ride a bike. Unless I really wanted to visit the ER.

        • Fred2

          It’s not bad, I’ve done it. The drivers were uniformly well behaved.

          The trick is to act like a car, do not be a shrinking violet. Middle of the lane. Signal standard signals with hands and arms.

          Route 1 though… yikers. That’s seriously ER- bait.