Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society

The Global Warming Hysteria

13 Comments

…is dissipating:

1. Global warming has gone AWOL over last 10 years, per the satellite record

2. Cumulating [sic] CO2 emissions in the atmosphere have had a minor impact on global temperatures over the last 20 years

3. The mainstream press, as represented by The Economist, and other proponents of convential [sic] climate orthodoxy are moving closer to the AGW skeptics’ (lukewarmers’) position

4. The publics [sic] (per Pew) belief in catastrophic AGW predictions is plummeting

As it should. As Robert Tracinski says:

So here’s the state of play of climate science a third of a century into the global warming hysteria. They don’t have a reliable baseline of global temperature measurements that would allow them to say what is normal and natural and what isn’t. Their projections about future warming are demonstrably failing to predict the actual data. And now they have been caught, yet again, fudging the numbers and manipulating the graphs to show a rapid 20th-century warming that they want to be true but which they can’t back up with actual evidence.

A theory with this many holes in it would be have been thrown out long ago, if not for the fact that it conveniently serves the political function of indicting fossil fuels as a planet-destroying evil and allowing radical environmentalists to put a modern, scientific face on their primitivist crusade to shut down industrial civilization.

I think that history will record that 2009 was the height of the hysteria, just before the release of the CRU data and emails, which broke the fever, and was a partial cause of the Copenhagen fiasco. And “FOIA,” whoever he or she is, will be viewed as a hero of humanity.

[Mid-morning update]

The new climate deniers.

[Later-morning update]

Why Freeman Dyson is a skeptic about climate “science”: “I believe any good scientist ought to be a skeptic.”

Amen.

Here‘s the full story.

13 thoughts on “The Global Warming Hysteria”

    1. Here’s a prediction in which I have full confidence: the Believers will continue to Believe, because this isn’t science — it’s a religion.

      1. At this point the “Believers” include 34 national science academies, the US National Academy of Science among them. That’s quite a religion.

        2. With all those distinguished believers you think they’d have enough eclesiastical weight to make the temperature rise, but sadly, the planet has ignored their pleas for almost 20 years now.

        3. And, those who believed the Sun revolved around the Earth included such august bodies as the Roman Catholic Church.

          You think it’s different, but it isn’t. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.

  2. One more point:
    – With the global economy in trouble, people are less tolerant of BS solutions that wreck the economy.

  3. I just wish they’d stop calling a couple thousand thermometers spread out on the land masses an “instrumental measurement” of the Global Mean Surface Temperature.

    1. More so when most of those thermometers were put in place for a “close enough” measure of the local weather for people navigating in the area, not as a high precision instrument to detect fraction of a degree shifts over decades.

  4. I hope no one expects an apology from the people who wanted to push the red button figuratively and literally on the people who were not sufficiently alarmist.

  5. And right on cue, Phil Plait:

    The Earth is warming up, just as inevitably as there are ideologues who will deny it. They never rest, but neither will reality.

    I’ll add I’m in the middle of reading climate scientist Michael Mann’s book, “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars”. It’s a fascinating read, and very, very upsetting. These global-warming-denying jokers are fiddling while the world burns.

    Phil Plait is upset. News at 11.

    1. It never ceases to amaze me that guys like Plaitt still haven’t figured out that their over blown rhetoric is one of the reasons why their side has lost the battle. They come off as shrill and dogmatic, which doesn’t exactly instill one with confidence about this being a matter of scientific objectivity. Add in their complete inability to see why people might object to the freedom killing solutions being proposed by opportunistic politicians, and you get a public very skeptical of the “settled” science. Treating your opponents like they are aliens is never a good debate strategy.

Comments are closed.