After the AR4 fiasco you’d think the UN’s IPCC would have learned their lesson. But you’d be wrong. Honestly, how can we expect Climate Activists (aka Scientists) to be anything than they actually are. AR5 is again full of citations from activist groups like Green Peace, Sierra Group, and others that are not objective. Yet AR5 is one thing, a wake up call. AR5 proves that the UN and Climate Activists around the world do not understand the complexity of climate change (Global Warming) and their climate fear monger can not be trusted. Subject to a myriad of factors, global climate has always, and will always change. That is truly settled, but beyond that the so called “settled science” that climate activists are parroting is nothing more than marketing. Climate alarmism is more religion than science.
The IPCC, and the networks of climate research institutions that support it, have for years been stating global temperatures would rise a certain amount due to human produced pollution and yet the recorded data indicates a global increase of only half as much. An error of 50% from prediction would be enough to send any scientist or group packing, but such is not the case with a world wide network of climate activists. To them It simply means we’re missing “the bigger picture“. But even the IPCC can’t ignore the truth forever. Buried within AR5 is the surprise admission that solar activity’s impact on climate has been significantly under represented.
For years, I disseminated the hypotheses of the IPCC, and I feel duped. Renewable energy is near and dear to me, and I’ve been fighting for its expansion for more than 30 years. My concern is that if citizens discover that the people who warn of a climate disaster are only telling half the truth, they will no longer be prepared to pay higher electricity costs for wind and solar (energy). Then the conversion of our energy supply will lack the necessary acceptance.
Not apparent from the quote I chose to highlight above, but readily apparent if you take the time to read the interview; Mr. Vahrenholt is a newly sceptic true believer that is willing to shuck the politics of the Climate Science movement and speak to the truth. He’s come to understand the fundamental dishonesty of the Climate Change/Global Warming herd and has learned what so many of the rest of us have known for some time. It’s always invigorating to witness the emergence of a mind no longer obscured by the clouds.
Anyone who grew up in the 1970’s or 1980’s should be familiar with the Doomsday Clock. But for those who are younger, the Doomsday Clock was (and remains) a figurative representation of humanities closeness to annihilation. It was a means for Nuclear scientists to discuss their fears with the world and it became a political tool with which to goad the worlds Super Powers and allies to step back from the brink. With the demise of the Soviet Union in the early 1990’s the Doomsday clock’s significance had been largely marginalized, and society today has all but forgotten what it was to live under the threat of nuclear winter. It’s amazing what a few short years can do to the psyche of a culture, but in all honesty, the world is just as threatened by the likes of North Korea, Pakistan, and quite possibly Iran in the near term possessing nuclear weapons.
In any event, at some point in recent past the organization responsible for the Atomic Clock decided marginalization was for the dogs and they climbed aboard the “Climate Change” bandwagon. The Atomic Clock was always a bit of a political stunt, yet it wasn’t tied to a specific mindset or political ideology. That simply isn’t the case with “Climate Change”, and so whatever relevance remained for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is now completely gone with the political theater unleashed upon the world yesterday. Not one single study or model has to this day been able to accurately predict climate. In fact even the most ardent supporters of “Climate Change” hysteria begrudgingly admit they can’t explain why the dire consequences they’ve trumpeted for years have not been realized. And now the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, founded on the threat of Nuclear annihilation, is alerting us that humanity’s destruction is now closer because we simpletons will not accept the word of our betters.
Some people just don’t realize when their time in the sun has passed.
Don’t you love sanctimonious eco-zealots who know they’re wrong but can’t say it out loud because they’re hemmed in by the very politicking they sought to use on the rest of us? There is no such thing as “Global Warming” (ignore the fact we also don’t have Global Cooling that was all the rage in the 70’s and 80’s) because we can’t very well have “warming” if we’re actually growing cooler. Instead, what we really had was “Climate Change”. Except that doesn’t quite evoke the image we want to relate as climate change is a natural phenomenon and has been going on for eons and will be going on long after we humans are gone. Instead we have “Global Climate Disruption“! Changing the name enables us to create a science that can’t be tested but must be accepted. Don’t you trust us!? Not even a little!?
That hooky hocky stick model was dealt yet another slap yesterday, not that it really needed it. It’s already been shown to be highly inaccurate. However, I did want to take issue with one assessment that states there is a clear warming trend as it doesn’t define that statement in any way which allows the reader to continue to think it’s man-caused. The medieval warm period is a pesky thing, and shows that the world climate was as warm or warmer then as it is now, with a period of cooler global period between then and now. Something even Phil Jones, the Climate Research Unit scientist, has had to retract previous statements on the matter and finally agree on.
No one disputes that global climate changes over time. The issue is why. And that reflects directly on the MWP. If it was warmer a thousand years ago, or more, why. And why did the global climate cool between then and now. Obviously the global climate the lead to the MWP wasn’t man-made so what needs to be answered specifically by climate scientists now is why the global climate is warming now. And they need to account for why global temperatures have actually declined in the past 11 years.
Until those answers are specifically answered nothing regarding this “discussion” will be anything but wishful thinking.
You want to see a clear cut example of that “main stream media bias” that has been mentioned so often in conservative circles? Read the following from theHill:
In my opinion Matt Drudge is the most important and influential single figure in American media. In terms of daily and ongoing influence he is more influential than The New York Times, the television networks, cable news or anyone else. Let me suggest here that Drudge’s power may turn out to be more of a curse than a blessing for Republicans and conservatives because in my view, it fosters delusions that can lead to defeat. Recently a Gallup poll, of course highlighted on Drudge, found that Obama’s numbers had (then) turned more unfavorable than favorable.
His point is that Drudge is misleading people, but selectively deciding what to cover. And that over time that selectiveness leads to false impressions.
Oh really? So the years in which the main stream media selectively covered anti-war protests during the Bush administration but then hasn’t covered them during the Obama administration hasn’t lead to a false impression? The selective coverage by the main stream media about liberal protestors, generally giving them positive or at the very worst, neutral coverage versus the virtually complete negative coverage of the “tea party movement” hasn’t lead to false impressions? The selective coverage by the main stream media about the “settled science” of “Climate Change” (i.e. Global Warming) but virtually ignoring the troves of emails and other information released in the past five months showing the lengths those climate scientists have gone to to rig the science haven’t lead to a false impression?
You mean those periods of time in our history when we had warm periods inbetween the ice ages, those were caused by “climate change”? I wonder how those happened, as you know, humans didn’t cause those….. or did they??