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.
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!?
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??
The NYT would have us believe that the record low temperatures, record snow fall, and lack of hurricane activity for that matter, is a all due to global warming.
Most climate scientists respond that the ferocious storms are consistent with forecasts that a heating planet will produce more frequent and more intense weather events.
This was exactly the prediction for the previous two year’s hurricane seasons, in that climatologists predicted a record number of hurricanes, and predicted that a record number of them would be of the largest variety. Problem was that didn’t happen in either year. Despite climatologists bests information they were flat wrong. Both seasons were neither above normal, nor did either create an unusual number of intense storms.
I understand well the difference between climate and weather, but the problem is that the climatologists that make these statements can neither accurately predict these conditions, nor explain on a global scale how or why they happen. In layman’s terms they don’t know what they don’t know. And that is what separates true scientists from evangelists. The scientists look for truth and do not start with pre-conceived notions, or at the very least are willing to modify their beliefs based upon the evidence before them. An evangelist is someone that acts on faith. Evidence is not necessarily the foundation of their beliefs. Tell me, is that not what we are seeing from the global warming crowd?
It smacks horribly in the face of fact and history that global warming predictions do not, and in truth can not, account for the known cyclical climate changes that are known to have occurred in the earth’s history. I’m not suggesting that the global warming climatologists are ignorant of the fact the earth has gone through cooling cycles, broken by warming cycles otherwise known as ice ages. I’m suggesting that the simple question is being ignored. Why did the earth have ice ages, and how is climate change now different from previous climate changes?
There are many factors that affect earth’s climate. Sun activity, volcanism, green-house gases to name but a few. The question I have in my mind is how do global warming climatologists know, as they have often stated, that human activity is the driving force behind current climate change. If there is even such a thing occurring now — something that is not even established beyond doubt as climate is something that can only be measured over long periods of time.
If “climate change” is caused today by humanity and humanity’s emittance of carbon dioxide how does that square with the fact that humanity only emits 4% of the total amount of carbon dioxide annually?
Carbon dioxide generated by human activity amounts to only about four percent of yearly atmospheric uptake or loss of carbon dioxide, but the result is that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been growing, on average, by four-tenths of one percent each year for the last 40 years.
Of the total amount of carbon dioxide that is emitted globally annually, only 4% of it comes from human activity. 96% comes from other sources.
While we are able to accurately measure the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, much about the processes that govern its atmospheric concentration remains a mystery. Scientists still do not know precisely where all the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere comes from and where it goes.
Yet according to global warming climatologists human activity is the driving force and to counteract that we need to lower global emissions and redistribute wealth to the less developed nations as “reparations” for the climate damage the more developed nations have heaped upon them. The former is demanded by the scientists, the latter is demanded by the politicians.
What isn’t discussed, or if discussed is dismissed out of hand by the global warming clique are the damning emails (collectively referred to as ClimateGate) released in November 2009 that showed a very unseemly, behind the scenes, wide-spread attempt to strangle climate change critics. These emails show a concerted effort by many of the main global proponents of the global warming theory to allow only accommodating “science” to be peer-reviewed. Which of course has the effect over time, of making people believe the “science is settled”. Something we’ve all heard many times, have we not?
Additionally, damning evidence that the United Nations climate panel (IPCC) last report wasn’t actually even based on science, but rather was based on magazine articles only add to the problem. Taken together it shows that climate science — and I use that term loosely — being conducted today to prove climate change is shoddy, is being conducted by people who are more fervent in their beliefs than true scientists should be, and even if take on face value do not even prove that human activity is causing any “harm” to the climate in the first place.
We already knew those funny climate scientists in England broke their laws, but now it’s official. And they won’t even be subjected to the inconvenience of being charged with a crime for breaking the law. Truly, this makes sense on some planet.