Home » Global Warming, Off Topic » Why Global Warming Pundits Are So Shrill…

Why Global Warming Pundits Are So Shrill…

Their hypothesis featuring the boogeyman Carbon Dioxide is falling apart before their eyes. Hurricane activity set record lows the past two years right after the alarmists shamelessly tried capitalizing on the 2005 killers Katrina and Rita by saying it’ll only get worse from here. There hasn’t been any net global warming in the past 9 years even while CO2 concentration continued to build during that time. And now 2007 is going down in the record books as one of devastating cold. Don’t say I didn’t tell you that this was a big blown out of proportion hoax for attaining polictical goals disguised as “settled” science. Expect the alarmists to become even more shrill. They’re running out of time and they know it. If they don’t get treaties inked and inked soon the house of cards they built will collapse. Mother nature is showing us in no uncertain terms who was right and it isn’t the alarmists. I hope there’s enough egg to cover all the deserving faces. I know there isn’t enough crow in the world for them to eat but hopefully there’s enough so they can all choke on at least a few feathers.

Year of Global Cooling

By David Deming
December 19, 2007
Washington Times

Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.

Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn’t increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.

South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.

Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.

Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze. Thousands of agricultural employees were thrown out of work. At the supermarket, citrus prices soared. In the wake of the freeze, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked President Bush to issue a disaster declaration for affected counties. A few months earlier, Mr. Schwarzenegger had enthusiastically signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a law designed to cool the climate. California Sen. Barbara Boxer continues to push for similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.

In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina’s peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina’s apple harvest. At Charlotte, N.C., a record low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit on April 8 was the coldest ever recorded for April, breaking a record set in 1923. On June 8, Denver recorded a new low of 31 degrees Fahrenheit. Denver’s temperature records extend back to 1872.

Recent weeks have seen the return of unusually cold conditions to the Northern Hemisphere. On Dec. 7, St. Cloud, Minn., set a new record low of minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit. On the same date, record low temperatures were also recorded in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years.

Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri are just emerging from a destructive ice storm that left at least 36 people dead and a million without electric power. People worldwide are being reminded of what used to be common sense: Cold temperatures are inimical to human welfare and warm weather is beneficial. Left in the dark and cold, Oklahomans rushed out to buy electric generators powered by gasoline, not solar cells. No one seemed particularly concerned about the welfare of polar bears, penguins or walruses. Fossil fuels don’t seem so awful when you’re in the cold and dark.

If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you’re hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can’t make this stuff up.

Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

14 Responses to Why Global Warming Pundits Are So Shrill…

  1. “Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze . . . A few months earlier, Mr. Schwarzenegger had enthusiastically signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a law designed to cool the climate.”

    Well obviously the law worked! ;-)

  2. “In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can’t make this stuff up.”

    Indeed, the global warming propagandists are already preparing the public to accept the fact that “global warming makes things colder.”

    Here’s a link to the 2004 movie “The Day After Tomorrow”

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0319262/

    Note especially the blurb for the movie:
    “A climatologist tries to figure out a way to save the world from abrupt global WARMING. He must get to his young son in New York, which is being taken over by a new ICE AGE.”

    I think that some people are relieved to see temps level off and cooling reassert itself. The seem to assume that this will cause the global warming types to stop and say “hey, maybe we are wrong and we should stop pushing for economy crushing, third world destroying legislation.” Nonsense; the global warming crowd’s case was never based on facts to begin with. What makes you think facts will stop them now.

  3. Yes, it appears the law did indeed work! So did voluntary, conscience inspired individual efforts to reduce their “carbon footprint”. Even the most optimistic of them didn’t expect to overcome global warming so quickly. Now they get to reap what they sowed. Did I mention that the U.N. is in emergency mode because the food supply is near exhaustion? I’m pretty sure I mentioned before that global warming amelioration efforts would reduce agricultural output, increase the price of everything, bog down economic growth, and that diverting grain to biofuel production would cause mass starvation. Normally I feel good about being right but in this case I wish I’d been wrong. Just be glad George W. Bush is in the White House and through his bullheadedness has kept the United States from entering into any misguided and ultimately catastrophic treaties aimed at reducing CO2 emissions. Hopefully the big chill came soon enough so that the treaty efforts collapse before he leaves office.

  4. “…global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming.

    Does this kind of reasoning sound familiar? What other theory can you think of that explains everything? What other theory comes to mind, for which all phenomena supply supporting evidence?

  5. Gil asks: “Does this kind of reasoning sound familiar? What other theory can you think of that explains everything? What other theory comes to mind, for which all phenomena supply supporting evidence?”

    I can think of three:
    Marxism
    Darwinism
    Freudian psychology

  6. I can think of three:
    Marxism
    Darwinism
    Freudian psychology

    Hmmm. Might this represent the (un)holy trinity of 19th-century materialism? Two down, one to go.

  7. The plus side of global cooling:
    1) the satisfaction of saying “I told you so” to those who said all those mean things to skeptics
    2) blowback onto the Darwinian/ID debate regarding scientific consensus
    3) the ability to make more Al Gore jokes

    The downside:
    1) crop failures, rising food and beer prices (I’m a beer snob, it matters)
    2) humanity thrives when it is warmer

  8. It certainly looks like global warming has jumped the shark.

  9. Unlike his claims about the internet, Al Gore could truthfully claim to have invented GW.

  10. I can think of three:
    Marxism
    Darwinism
    Freudian psychology

    Ahh…(almost) straight from Popper.

  11. i’ll preempt with the usual canned responses:

    1.)the scientist who wrote that editorial is in the pockets of big oil, so of course he’s shilling for them.

    2.)of course it’s going to cool down, that’s exactly what the models predicted. what, it’s getting warmer again? we have models that predicted that too….

  12. There is one that could be added to the unholy trinity that even Popper did not dare to question.

  13. The global warming alarmists have been telling us for some time that “the debate is over,” but observed fact is now undermining this optimistic conclusion. The debate is not over if global warming has in fact stopped.

    We live an age of unbounded optimism about the debate being “over.” We thought the debate over Freud was over until we realized that psychoanalysis does not cure mental illness. We thought the debate about Marx was over until we realized that capitalism does not lead to a hardening of class lines.

    The global warming drama replays the age-old conflict between theory and experience. Theorists from Plato to Marx are free to dream up utopian ideals through the resistance of theory to observable fact. Hence a hallmark of theory is crusaderism, or the belief that one is on a mission to save the world.

    Crusaderism forces us to claim that “the debate is over.” If the debate is not over, then the possibility exists that the crusade is not valid. The same force of resistance that makes save-the-world theories seem appealing is also a totalizing power. It must annihilate all opposition in order to justify itself.

    “The debate is over” when theory casts a spell over the minds of the true believers. This spell is broken when facts deprive theory of its totalizing power. The modern age was a totalitarian age, marked by the belief that “the debate is over” and thought-oppression. Freedom is restored as sensible men insist on holding theories accountable to fact.

  14. I’ve still never heard an adequate explanation or mechanism for how global warming causes colder winters. Hot summers are one thing, but watching them try to explain an obvious contradiction should be interesting. I could believe in climate shift (i.e. one area gets warmer while another gets colder), but this global warming bunk just makes no sense.

Leave a Reply