To President Obama: Let’s just assume for a moment we have a climate crisis

hurricane_landfall_daysbtCat3plus2014As we start hurricane season today, we note the unprecedented 3142 day drought of major hurricane landfalls, shattering a record that goes back to the year 1900.

Guest essay by Paul Driessen

Despite clear evidence to the contrary, president Obama is now warning us that “storms like Hurricane Sandy will become more frequent as climate change intensifies.” It’s merely the latest in the administration’s seemingly endless stream of headline-grabbing scare stories, designed to justify the job-killing, economy-strangling, family-bashing rules for vehicles, power plants, cement kilns, refineries, factories, farms, shopping malls and countless other facilities that are or soon will be regulated by Environmental Protection Agency fiat. We need to keep one vitally important fact in mind.

Every one of these “looming calamities” is based on assumptions, assertions and computer models that represent the real world about as well as the special-effects T-rexes and raptors do in Jurassic Park.  The data on hurricanes says otherwise:

hurricane_landfall_daysbtCat3plus2014

hurricane_us_landfalls_1900to2013

 

Climate modelers and disaster proponents remind me of the four guys who were marooned on an island, after their plane went down. The engineer began drawing plans for a boat; the lumberjack cut trees to build it; the pilot plotted a course to the nearest known civilization. But the economist just sat there. The exasperated workers asked him why he wasn’t helping.

“I don’t see the problem,” he replied. “Why can’t we just assume we have a boat, get on it and leave?”

In the case of climate change, those making the assumptions demand that we act immediately to avert planetary crises based solely on their computer model predictions. It’s like demanding that governments enact laws to safeguard us from velociraptors, after Jurassic Park scientists found that dinosaur DNA could be extracted from fossilized mosquitoes … and brought the carnivores back to special-effects life.

Climate models help improve our conceptual understandings of climate systems and the forces that drive climate change. However, they are terrible at predicting Earth’s temperature and other components of its climate. They should never be used to set or justify policies, laws and regulations – such as what the Environmental Protection Agency is about to impose on CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Even our best climate scientists still have only a limited grasp of Earth’s highly complex and chaotic climate systems, and the many interrelated solar, cosmic, oceanic, atmospheric, terrestrial and other forces that control climate and weather. Even the best models are only as good as that understanding.

Worse, the models and the science behind them have been horribly politicized. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was ostensibly organized in 1988 to examine possible human influences on Earth’s climate. In reality, Swedish meteorologist Bert Bolin and environmental activist groups wanted to use global warming to drive an anti-hydrocarbon, limited-growth agenda. That meant they somehow had to find a human influence on the climate – even if the best they could come up with was “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” [emphasis added]

“Discernible” (ie, detectable) soon metamorphosed into “dominant,” which quickly morphed into the absurd notion that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have now replaced natural forces and become the only factors influencing climate change. They are certainly the only factors that climate activists and alarmists want to talk about, while they attempt to silence debate, criticism and skepticism. They use the models to generate scary “scenarios” that are presented as actual predictions of future calamities.

They predict, project or forecast that heat waves will intensify, droughts and floods will be stronger and more frequent, hurricanes will be more frequent and violent, sea levels will rise four feet by 2100 [versus eight inches since 1880], forest fires will worsen, and countless animal species will disappear. Unlikely.

Natural forces obviously caused the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and the Pleistocene Ice Ages. (A slab of limestone that I dug up has numerous striations – scratches – left by the last mile-thick glacier that covered what is now my home town in Wisconsin.) After long denying it, the IPCC finally acknowledged that the LIA did occur, and that it was a worldwide agricultural and human disaster.

However, the models and computer algorithms the IPCC and EPA rely on still do not include the proper magnitude of solar cycles and other powerful natural forces that influence climate changes. They assume “positive feedbacks” from GHGs that trap heat, but understate the reflective and thus cooling effects of clouds. They display a global warming bias throughout – bolstered by temperature data contaminated by “urban heat island” effects, due to measuring stations being located too close to human heat sources. They assume Earth’s climate is now controlled almost entirely by rising human CO2/GHG emissions.

It’s no wonder the models, modelers and alarmists totally failed to predict the nearly-18-year absence of global warming – or that the modeled predictions diverge further from actual temperature measurements with every passing year. It’s no wonder modelers cannot tell us which aspects of global warming, global cooling, climate change and “climate disruption” are due to humans, and which are the result of natural forces. It’s hardly surprising that they cannot replicate (“hindcast”) the global temperature record from 1950 to 1995, without “fudging” their data and computer codes– or that they are wrong almost every time.

In 2000, Britain’s Met Office said cold winters would be a thing of the past, and “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” The 2010 and 2012 winters were the coldest and snowiest in centuries. In 2013, Met Office scholars said the coming winter would be extremely dry; the forecast left towns, families and government agencies totally unprepared for the immense rains and floods that followed.

In 2007, Australia’s climate commissioner predicted Brisbane and other cities would never again have sufficient rain to fill their reservoirs. The forecast ignored previous drought and flood cycles, and was demolished by record rains in 2011, 2013 and 2014. Forecasts of Arctic and Antarctic meltdowns have ignored the long history of warmer and colder cycles, and ice buildups and breakups.

The Bonneville Power Administration said manmade warming will cause Columbia River Basin snowpack to melt faster, future precipitation to fall as rain, reservoirs to be overwhelmed – and yet water levels will be well below normal year round. President Obama insists that global temperatures will soar, wildfires will be more frequent and devastating, floods and droughts will be more frequent and disastrous, rising seas will inundate coastal cities as Arctic and Antarctic ice shelves melt and disintegrate, and 97% of scientists agree. Every claim is based on models or bald-faced assertions unsupported by evidence.

And still the IPCC says it has “very high confidence” (the highest level it assigns) to the supposed agreement between computer model forecasts and actual observations. The greater the divergence from reality, the higher its “confidence” climbs. Meanwhile, climate researchers and modelers from Nebraska, Penn State, Great Britain and other “learned institutions” continue to focus on alleged human influences on Earth’s climate. They know they will likely lose their government, foundation and other funding – and will certainly be harassed and vilified by EPA, environmentalists, politicians, and their ideological and pedagogical peers – if they examine natural forces too closely.

Thus they input erroneous data, simplistic assumptions, personal biases, and political and financial calculations, letting models spew out specious scenarios and phony forecasts: garbage in, garbage out.

The modelers owe it to humanity to get it right – so that we can predict, prepare for, mitigate and adapt to whatever future climate conditions nature (or humans) might throw at us. They cannot possibly do that without first understanding, inputting and modeling natural factors along with human influences.

Above all, these supposed modeling experts and climate scientists need to terminate their biases and their evangelism of political agendas that seek to slash fossil fuel use, “transform” our energy and economic systems, redistribute wealth, reduce our standards of living, and “permit” African and other impoverished nations to enter the modern era only in a “sustainable manner,” as defined by callous elitists.

The climate catastrophe camp’s focus on CO2 is based on the fact that it is a byproduct of detested hydrocarbon use. But this trace gas (a mere 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere) makes life on our planet possible. More carbon dioxide means crops, forests and grasslands grow faster and better. CO2’s role in climate change is speculative – and contradicted by real-world measurements, observations and history.

Computer models, scenarios and predictions of planetary Armageddon are little more than faulty, corrupt, even fraudulent pseudo-science. They have consistently forecast what has not happened on Planet Earth, and failed to forecast what did happen.

They must no longer be allowed to justify EPA’s job-killing, economy-strangling, family-bashing rules for vehicles, power plants, cement kilns, refineries, factories, farms, shopping malls and countless other facilities that are or soon will be regulated by agency fiat.


 

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

About these ads

40 thoughts on “To President Obama: Let’s just assume for a moment we have a climate crisis

  1. Thus they input erroneous data,

    That is perhaps the greatest flaw. And it all their doing. In order to manufacture the hysteria, they arbitrarily cool the past and warm the present. But that is tampering with the data that is used for input into the models. The old expression of GIGO serves them well. When you only have garbage, that is all you will spew.

  2. *In 1935 he (Yeshov) wrote a paper on Stalinism in which he argued that since political unorthodoxy was impossible in a perfect Communist state (such as the USSR), any form of political opposition to Stalinist policies was actually evidence of conspiracy by “disloyal elements” to overthrow the Soviet state, thus requiring violence and state terrorism to “root out” these “enemies of the People”*

    One gets the feeling that Obama would approve.

  3. Over here in England we had high hopes for your President. But I’m afraid he has turned out to be, well, thick (as we say here). His handing back of the Churchill bust didn’t help (yes we don’t know the truth of that, only what diplomatic sources say, which isn’t helpful toward ANY truth!), and his handling of Syria was comically-poor. His attitude toward the Falklands Islands hasn’t been intelligent either. Hope you get a good one real soon!

  4. “The modelers owe it to humanity to get it right.”

    Why do I get the impression that statements like this should have an impact on the climate science community to start being more objective. But it just doesn’t. It should cause them to reexamine what they are doing but it never does.

  5. I live in the UK, and recently sent my Members of Parliament and the European Parliament data relating to the lack of warming despite CO2 increases, citing my sources (the Central England Temperature record and GISS) and questioning why the European Union is seeking to spend 186 billion Euros on ‘climate’ up to the year 2020.
    Their replies were bland, citing no figures of their own or commenting on the ones that I’d sent, and indeed one had the cheek to suggest that my descendants would be ashamed of my views. One of these politicians is a graduate in Mathematics and Physics.
    All is not lost – UKIP’s Roger Helmer for example has done his research, and is personable and approachable.
    It’s going to be long haul before all the CO2 related nonsense fades into history I think.

  6. Unfortunately, with the exception of the sales story, the governmental goal isn’t related to solving an emission problem.

  7. I just love all the greenie rhetoric about saving the planet and whether we should call it ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’….and the tantrums and moral outrage when they are questioned. Sure, the public has moved on, but the public is captive. This bilge-water is coming to a power bill near you, and there’s nothing you can do until Obummer is out of office….and maybe not even then. Once again, I’m glad I’m old. Biut I will be working until I physically am unable, because the insult of a Canada Pension I am going to receive won’t keep the lights on. Funny I talk about Obama like this is all happening in Canada….well it is, as the garishly-grimacing essentially un-elected premier of Ontario guts that provinces economy with Gore-endorsed programs. It’s freakish.

  8. “They must no longer be allowed to justify EPA’s job-killing, economy-strangling, family-bashing rules for vehicles, power plants, cement kilns, refineries, factories, farms, shopping malls and countless other facilities that are or soon will be regulated by agency fiat.”

    And WHY is the EPA doing this? If you don’t understand the real reasons this is happening, then you can never develop an action plan to stop it. It is happening for one reason, and one only – as with all federal agencies, the EPA is now totally politicized, and is dedicated to only one thing – a desperate hope to continue Democrat party power past 2016. They could not care less about “the environment”, that is just the excuse they hope to ride to continued power, and they need to cater to billionaires like Steyner if they want to keep the campaign donations are going on. There’s another angle, too – this is a party now that is totally fixed on moral preening, while simultaneously demonizing anyone who would deny them continued power. Foreign policy has failed, tax policy has failed, the health care gambit has failed (politically, at least) “growing the economy” has failed… The only thing the democrats have left is “OUR ENEMIES WANT TO DESTROY THE WORLD!!!”, but to run a campaign on that, they have to show some “actions”, so that they can portray everyone who opposes them as EVIL!!!

    And that is ALL that is behind the EPA’s actions – it is a desperate bid for power by a dying ideological movement, and nothing else. But unless they are stopped, they can do a HECK of a lot of damage to all of us, and they will.

    And for anyone who thinks there is even a SHRED of “science” left in this fight – give it up. This is all political, all the time, from now on. That’s the only battle that counts anymore, but of course it is the most important one. Just as they say about war, you may not care about Politics, but Politics cares about YOU. And it will come get you if you do nothing.

  9. It’s hardly surprising that they cannot replicate (“hindcast”) the global temperature record from 1950 to 1995, without “fudging” their data and computer codes…
    ======
    Even if they invented the perfect climate model….it’s impossible for it to ever be right

    The past temp history has been so fudged and adjusted there’s no truth in it

  10. A$$ out of you and me.

    Assume lies, assume fraud, assume crime, assume theft, assume class warfare, assume redistribution of wealth, assume it will get much worse, assume it may be to late.

    They lust for power over us all.
    They want your life converted to taxes.
    They will spend the taxes to obtain more power over us all.
    They will not stop until we do more that just quibble over this graph or some computer code use.
    Lies kill.
    Truth is life.

  11. “Sources briefed on the proposal were told that an economic impact study by the EPA concluded that the health and environmental benefits of the plan outweighed costs anywhere from $8 to $1 to $12 to $1 by 2030.”

    In the above quote from a Reuters article “the plan” is a 30% reduction of CO2 emissions from US power plants by 2030 from 2005 levels.

    Raise your hand if you believe the EPA economic impact study is robust…

  12. The ONLY thing that will stop this… is NOT re-electing he democrats, just like Labor in Australia, kick them out! Rubio should be given access to all the genuine climate data urgently so he does not fall into the same trap if elected. The only consolation is that this will not come into force by June 2015, and then by June 2016, the Democrats should be out. Also by then it should be obvious that there is no global warming but probably more cooling going by current trends..Another factor is that the IPCC may actually be a driver of the skeptical agenda by then as many will not like to lose face career-wise into the future (more and more major IPCC climate scientists are joining the skeptics).

  13. Granted, it’s a minor difference but Obama actually said:

    “storms like Sandy could end up being more common and more devastating”

    We should try to be more precise than the alarmists.

  14. Or, as I keep observing, Our military probably has a larger carbon footprint than coal burning.

  15. A change in the climate (the usual weather patterns and ranges in some region during some season) cannot be CAUSED by climate change. They constitute it. The distance of the top of my head from the ground is not caused by my height.
    It could be the case, it is a legitimate hypothesis at least, that global change in one thing (atmospheric concentrations of CO2) cause a rise in average global temperatures (a change in some different thing). And if someone thinks so he should be bold enough to say so.

  16. The CBC in Canada in its report on Obama’s EPA regulations shows Obama wiping the sweat off his brow while giving a speech on climate change at George town university June 25 2013. They also show a picture of the so called smoke at a powerplant.

    This is what we get for news from this taxpayer funded source of misinformation.

  17. It is all lies to achieve the transparent goals of population reduction and deindustrialization. A political party change will make no difference. What politician would ever give up such power?

  18. the relationship of CO2 to temperature is logarithmic. This means that the marginal effectiveness of CO2 is a greenhouse gas decreases at higher concentrations.

    To put this in stark perspective, if an increase from 30 to 60 means an increase of one degree, an increase from 330 to 360 means an increase of 0.13 degrees. This means that in the 330 range, CO2 is only 13% as potent as it was at a concentration of 30.

    Tipping points do not result from logarithmic relationships.

  19. As I keep telling my local politicians and bedwetters.
    If you want to reduce manmade emissions, shut down government.
    It is that easy.
    Here is Canada the fuel costs to heat government occupied buildings is a huge cost to taxpayers.And one presumes also a huge source of emissions.
    Never mind the fleets of vehicles the minions keep for their pleasure.
    By shutting down so much senseless activity the governments own goals will be met.
    Therefor the EPA has clearly made the case for shutting itself, a redundant & useless bureaucracy, down, they are the source of these”evil” emissions.
    The Obama goals can clearly be met by shutting all non constitutional aspects of the federal government.
    Especially all those non elected “czars” in the White House.

  20. I think
    Climate models help improve our conceptual understandings of climate systems

    should read

    Climate models can help improve our conceptual understandings of climate systems

    Good scientists learn from running models and adjust their thinking.

    Not much sign of that in the climate industry.

  21. Luck rendering the US coasts defenseless. US needs a Sandy at 900 hPa.

    REPLY: You despicable ant-humanist. You’d really wish death and destruction on people of the United States just to prove your belief systems.

    Get off my website. Don’t come back. All further comments from you will go straight to the bit bucket. – Anthony

  22. Thanks, Paul. Excellent article.
    I’m not scared of warm, but of cold. But most of all I’m afraid of idiot politicians with no knowledge of the physical world trying to “save the planet”.

  23. Every one of these “looming calamities” is based on assumptions, assertions and computer models that represent the real world about as well as the special-effects……….
    =============

    Sunday, June 1, 2014
    Pentagon wrestles with bogus climate warnings as funds shifted to green agenda

    Ten years ago, the Pentagon paid for a climate study that put forth many scary scenarios.

    Consultants told the military that, by now, California would be flooded by inland seas, The Hague would be unlivable, polar ice would be mostly gone in summer, and global temperatures would rise at an accelerated rate as high as 0.5 degrees a year.

    None of that has happened.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/1/pentagon-wrestles-with-false-climate-predictions-a/

  24. Thanks, Paul.

    You mention: “The Bonneville Power Administration said manmade warming will cause Columbia River Basin snowpack to melt faster, future precipitation to fall as rain, …”

    This year we have:

    http://www.komonews.com/weather/blogs/scott/Current-snowpack-at-Paradise-Ranger-Station-among-best-in-last-31-years-261448311.html

    This is from KOMO new’s Scott Sistek reporting findings by University of Washington research meteorologist Mark Albright.
    [Mt. Rainier water does not go via the Columbia River.] I drove through Stevens Pass on June 1; yesterday. The approach from the east shows much snow as does the summit. Have a look:

    http://www.stevenspass.com/site/mountain/cams/resort-cams

    This melt reaches the Columbia River at Wenatchee.

  25. “Thus they input erroneous data, simplistic assumptions, personal biases, and political and financial calculations, letting models spew out specious scenarios and phony forecasts: garbage in, garbage out.”

    In other words, they lie.

    Obama is your very own Liar in Chief.

    Over here in the UK we’ve also got more than our share of bare-faced climate liars. The whole thing is a farce and has gone way past ‘misunderstanding’ and is now comfortably into the territory marked ‘fraud’. They deserve jail.

  26. The modelers owe it to humanity to get it right.

    No. That is beyond their capability to “get it right.”
    The modelers owe it to humanity to tell it right.
    Tell the truth.
    Tell the truth about uncertainty; about complexity, about chaos.
    Tell the truth about what can be successfully predicted and what cannot.
    Tell the truth about how wrong are the models so far.

    The modelers are paid by tax dollars.
    They OWE us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

  27. Obama is worse than a mere idiot; he is telling
    Americans to be afraid of ghosts, he is telling
    American kids that thinking for themselves is
    dangerous and that the only opinions that have any
    value are those that look like herds of sheep.
    I believe Ronald Reagan is the only president in the
    last many years who would never speak such miserable
    nonsense.

  28. They are selling plain lies to enable their plan of Global Madness and achieve the power to eradicate YOU.

    If you let this happen now you’re screwed.

    The time for discussion and dialogue is over.

    Now is the time to act.

  29. Kind of has the “ring” of truth to it:

    “One Ring to rule them all;
    One Ring to find them;
    One Ring to rule them all,
    And in the darkness bind them.”

    Apologies to J. R. R.

  30. michael hart says:
    June 2, 2014 at 4:44 am
    Presidents like Obama will become more frequent as New York intensifies.
    ———–
    Michael, NY may be a symptom, but this plague came to us via Chicago and its “successful” liberal political beliefs and biases.

  31. The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
    June 2, 2014 at 4:44 am

    “Over here in England we had high hopes for your President….”

    Not me. During his first election campaign I was put off by all the hot air. To me he was Tony Blair with an American accent. Now it’s becoming clear that Obama is a far greater disaster for the world than Tony Blair could ever have been.

    Years ago I strongly disliked Obama. Now my opinion of Obama, after all the lies and failures, is completely unprintable.
    Chris

  32. I am certainly disappointed in Obama and his administration. However, wisdom comes with age and I’ve learned that: “when do you know a politician is lying? as soon as he opens his mouth to speak.” and “it doesn’t matter if you are bitten by a cat or a dog, both hurt…” So try to feel peace in the fact that the next administration will not be much better…

    In days like these I also feel ashamed of having a Ph.D. in environmental sciences. I feel ashamed to be categorized under a field of science that has totally corrupted and ridiculed itself. I now say to people I studied Earth Sciences. I do not, in anyway, want to be associated with politically and financially motivated “researchers”. Sad times.

  33. David dohbro – you’re just the man!
    You have a Ph.D. in environmental sciences – so speak out!
    In polite company, tell people about the scary nonsense and your ‘take’ on it all. On no account be ashamed of your achievement. Because you have a postgraduate research degree in environmental sciences, your view counts for a lot in the current (dare I say it? – alright, I will!) climate.

Comments are closed.