A letter to the editor which appeared in the Norman, OK Transcript on Tuesday, February 17th, reprinted here with permission of the author, Dr. David Deming:
I write in rebuttal to the Feb. 12 letter by Nancy Smart advising us to “listen” to climate scientists. According to Ms. Smart, climate science is “settled.” Instead of thinking for ourselves, she recommends we obsequiously follow the dictates of “our most respected and highest level scientific agencies.”
Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Science is not a dogmatic body of doctrine. It is an open system of knowledge that establishes probable truths that are subject to continual revision. The entire history of science is one of established theories being overthrown. Astronomers once believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. Naturalists maintained that species were immutable. Geologists thought continental drift was physically impossible. Physicians attempted to cure people by blood-letting. Are we to suppose that the process of history has stopped?
Ms. Smart claims that 2014 was the warmest year on record. But there is no such thing as a measured temperature for the entire Earth. Estimates of climate change are not data, but interpretations produced by manipulating data of dubious quality. Anthony Watts’ survey of meteorological stations in the US has shown that more than 90 percent of temperature sensors may have systematic errors larger than 1 degree Celsius. Watts and his colleagues have found thermometers sitting in asphalt parking lots next to air conditioner vents blowing out hot air. To verify their claim of the “hottest year on record,” climate researchers must reconstruct the temperature record of the entire planet since the year 1880. Pray tell. If our current system of temperature measurement in the United States is unreliable, how can you expect us to believe that you can accurately estimate what the temperature of the South Pacific Ocean was in the year 1890?
We are told that there is an increase in the “number and frequency” of “extreme weather events.” Ms. Smart is long on vague generalities but short on specifics. If the weather is deteriorating so badly, its strange that she can’t list even one of these alleged weather events. In fact, weather is not climate and the climate is not changing. Global hurricane and cyclone activity is near a forty-three-year low. There has been no increase in tornadoes in the US. Neither droughts nor wildfires have increased. The poles are not melting. There has been no significant change in the global extent of sea ice since satellite monitoring began in 1979.
Scientific hypotheses are not proved; they are corroborated or falsified. But global warming is the hypothesis that can never be falsified. Several years ago, we were told that global warming meant the end of snow in winter. Then the east coast of the US suffered devastating blizzards in 2010 (“Snowmageddon“). A few days later the party line was retroactively modified with the preposterous claim that global warming would produce less snow but more blizzards. Hot weather, cold weather, it makes no difference. Every weather event is portrayed as being consistent with global warming. That’s because global warming is not a scientific hypothesis, but a dogmatic ideology. It resembles nothing so much as Bible-based creation science.
Ms. Smart proposes a “solution” to global warming entailing something she describes as a “carbon fee and dividend program.” She claims this is a “market-based approach” that will “help the economy and create jobs.” Nonsense. If it were “market-based” it would not have to be imposed coercively through government. Spending, labeled “investment,” in failed “green energy” programs and companies over the last few years has been an utter debacle. Over $500. million was lost on Solyndra alone. The reason these programs don’t work is that you can’t change the laws of physics and chemistry through wishful thinking and political action. Reality imposes constraints even on people who are detached from it.
Neither is the “solution” a solution. You don’t have to be a climate scientist to understand arithmetic. The per capita annual carbon generated in the US from using fossil fuels is about 4.4 tons. Norman’s population is 120,000. So if carbon emissions for the entire city went to zero, we would prevent 528,000 tons of carbon from entering the atmosphere each year. That sounds like an impressive number, but its only 0.000528 gigatons (GT). The Earth’s atmosphere contains 720 GT of carbon. The oceans contain 38,400 GT. Every year, the atmosphere and oceans exchange about 90 GT of carbon. Nothing the city of Norman does is going to measurably change the composition of Earth’s atmosphere, and any claim to the contrary is utterly irrational.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and the Earth’s climate is not changing. So please, give it a rest. We’re tired of the array of tendentious claims and the endless litany of hysterical doom-mongering.
David Deming
Norman, Oklahoma
email: ddeming@ou.edu
Dr. Deming’s Senate testimony.
The alarmist crowd were desperate to get rid of the MWP because it showed that their MMGW scare was ridiculous.
“Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science.”
“Scientific hypotheses are not proved; they are corroborated or falsified.”
“The reason these programs don’t work is that you can’t change the laws of physics and chemistry..”
I’m no scientist but there does seem to be some disconnection between the third statement and the other two.
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
No disconnect at all.
The third statement refers to the laws of nature. Period.
The other two refer to Man’s study and understanding of how those laws of nature work together.
Mods.
My post just disappeared. It did not say that it went to moderation. It just disappeared. When I tried it again I was told I had already said that. Odd.
It must have slipped into a temporary loop in the space /time continuum ,are you sure you did,nt put it in your pocket?
Agenda 21 is the goal, and Climate Change is the key. Nothing makes sense until you put the two together. This is a concerted effort to attain Global Governance pure and simple. They will not give up the key lightly.
Very well said!
The West’s political Left, or simply, the Totalitarians, will focus on a topical area and become like wind and water — slowly, constantly, eroding any opposition until they win. Even if it takes decades, even lifetimes, to accomplish. Their dedication is equal to, perhaps even greater than, missionaries, jihadists and other proselytizing religions.
The Totalitarianists simply wear you down. If you’re populuar, they will wash you away with smears. If smearing and deceit fails, they’ll simply outlive you.
All your is feeling is the eternal campaign of Totalitarianists. For those that like quoting Thomas Jefferson, try this one:
“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”
And it’s a high price indeed.
Don’t be discouraged.
Doom mongering has got to really worrying proportions here in the UK
I’ve taken to dipping into a few MOOCs – massive online something courses being held/dispensed by various UK universities, if nothing else to get a glimpse into these people’s heads and understand what is propelling this whole thing.
Among mountains of worthless rock, a few particular gob-smacking and lumpen boulders were truly outstanding.
I’ve been informed that:
Carbon dioxide can explain ALL of Earth’s climate history, every last ice-age, warm period, extinction, un-extinction, just everything. The Lot. Well, as far back as 4,000 million years anyway.
Also and from a different course, that the future world economy will need many more bank managers, financial advisers and advertising agencies as these sorts of jobs ‘create wealth’
Also it seems, that because (their own figures) one person out of 8,000 (in the UK) gets one meal per year from a Food Bank charity, the ENTIRE UK food system is in crisis and MUST be reformed. it went on to say that the global food system is in even worse shape and needs huge regulatory action to save it. and us.
From my own field (pun intended), I was informed (dreadfully seriously via a woman with a hugely worried face on the point of tears) informed that because a few (highly valuable pedigree) livestock routinely give birth via Caesarian Section, the entire European livestock industry is a corrupt and exploitative money grubbing enterprise that force-feeds the population with low grade and barely edible rubbish. And needs reform which they will be happy to advise upon.
The problem I’m seeing is that this junk is actually coming out of our universities where our hapless kids are not only being indoctrinated with it, but are being forced to pay (£9,000 per year in UK) to be be brain-washed.
The rot is deep and getting ever deeper
To get people to the point where they are unable to distinguish right from left or up from down, you make them irrationally scared. Once irrationally scared, institutions can get people to support anything the institution desires. It’s like magic.
Ms Smart will never give up the benefits of fossil fuels. gas, nuclear etc.. That’s what other people must do.
Meanwhile I think the climate stopped being perfect when disco was invented.
Dr Dave at 10:02
“I have yet to hear of a single credible case of one species evolving into another. Have you?”
Which is the simplest explanation?
# Multiple species of turtle were created on day 5 (I think without looking at Genesis)
# A single organism evolved with a shell and then due to local conditions gradually split into several species
# Several species evolved by chance independently each with shells and similar appearance
The first obviously I would be mischievous to suggest that. Of the other 2 I would go for a single organism that evolved into separate species after separation. DNA studies tend to suggest common ancestors for similar phenotypes, which for me is overwhelming evidence for the second.
I recall attending a seminar by Craig Venter (sequencing the human genome) who said: “evolution is no longer a theory it’s a look-up table”.
His devout Christian colleague or competitor, Human Genome Project director Francis Collins would agree.
Relationships among species can now be studied in detail genetically.
How did that “look-up table” come to be? Obviously, some would say God compiled it. Maybe he/she/it did, maybe not.
I have no idea. There are too many things to pursue in life to spend one’s time naval gazing.
Honestly, all the debates about Evolution tend to miss the forest for the trees.
Most religious folk I know have no problem with the idea that God created Evolution to produce his species.
I am not religious. I simply refuse the conceit that I can make definitive conclusions about things nobody can know for certain. I am purely agnostic about the unknown, which is the only truly rational way to be. This does not mean that one cannot form working hypotheses and see where they lead, especially if they appear to be producing beneficial applications. But, one should maintain awareness that this is provisional knowledge, which may at some point require modification in the face of contradictory evidence.
I have no doubt that rapid reproduction rates, and the law of large numbers, establish Evolution as the primary life dynamic in populations of microscopic organisms.
I have no doubt that organisms adapt, and that sometimes adaptations go so far as to produce offspring which can no longer mate with their predecessors in populations of complex organisms which reproduce sexually.
I believe it is possible that, e.g., bears could be the result of a long line of adaptations over eons from simple, single celled animalcula. I do not say I am sure because nobody can be genuinely sure of this without additional premises, e.g., supernatural occurrences cannot happen. I’ve never seen one, but I’ve never seen a duck-billed platypus, either, so I cannot rule it out from that.
Here’s the rub: Why?
Even if Evolution is well established, why is it even possible? How does DNA actually even exist? Those miraculous molecules which, as Douglas Adams phrased it,
And, why should it be stable? Why does the balance of predator and prey balance just so, such that the former do not quickly out-evolve the latter, leading to a total population collapse? I mean, sure, one can make observations, and come up with an equation that demonstrates stability, but that is begging the question. Of course, what we see is stable. That is mere tautology. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be here to confirm it.
There are so many unanswered questions. Richard Dawkins once wrote of his joy that Evolution finally made atheism intellectually fulfilling. Well, only if your intellectual pool is rather shallow, IMHO.
DNA exists because of chemistry. You can, & some do, claim that our universe was designed by a Designer with the physical laws & elemental chemistry with which we are familiar & which make life not only possible but arguably inevitable here, because it´s too improbable otherwise.
But others say that ours is but one universe in a multiverse, so it´s no surprise that ours has the laws & relations it does.
RNA has the ability both to carry genetic information & to synthesize proteins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis
For the specific chemistry giving rise to RNA through self-assembly, please see:
From self-assembled peptides:
http://www.fasebj.org/content/19/9/1051.full
In ice:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v1/n6/abs/ncomms1076.html
In water:
http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/02/self-assembling-molecules-offer-new-clues-lifes-possible-origin
Aided by PHA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAH_world_hypothesis
Evolution of DNA from RNA:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/
Using (human) designer RNA & DNA to assemble nanotechechnological structures:
http://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/12/1/4
And, why should it be stable? Why does the balance of predator and prey balance just so, such that the former do not quickly out-evolve the latter, leading to a total population collapse?
It doesn’t balance, frequently one gets oscillations where the predator causes a rapid drop in the prey population, followed by a drop in its own population due to starvation, leading to a rise in the prey population (see Lotka-Volterra) an so on…… Evolution frequently leads to less effective predators because of the negative feedback. Often observed with viruses, for example after rabbits were introduced into Australia they rapidly became a plague due to lack of predators. A viral disease, myxomatosis, was introduced which was extremely virulent and rapidly decimated the population, however some survived due to an innate resistance, also the virus became less virulent, because as the ‘host’ population becomes more scarce it takes longer to transfer between hosts and it’s disadvantageous to kill your host off too quickly. HIV evolved from SIV but monkeys don’t suffer as a result of a SIV infection (probably because of this type of co-evolution). It’s possible that HIV will evolve into a less virulent strain by the same means. Ebola didn’t use to spread very far as it killed off its hosts so rapidly, it’s been suggested that the recent outbreak is a result of a less virulent strain which can spread more effectively.
Imperfect replication of the genome is the mechanism by which evolution is possible.
No science is settled no matter how long ago the consensus was formed.
“Science” gets into trouble when it doesn’t like the conclusions.
Man conducts science.
What could be greater than Man?
milodonharlani @ur momisugly February 20, 2015 at 1:42 pm
“DNA exists because of chemistry.”
It’s chemistry all the way down, I tells ya’ 😉
Phil. @ur momisugly February 20, 2015 at 1:51 pm
A commendable start, but this, as I described above, is begging the question.Of course, we observe the parameters of the Lotka-Volterra equation to be such as to confer stability. The question is, why are they so?
Gunga Din @ur momisugly February 20, 2015 at 3:21 pm
At best, science can only ever answer how? It does not address questions of why?
Bart February 20, 2015 at 3:53 pm
Phil. @ur momisugly February 20, 2015 at 1:51 pm
A commendable start, but this, as I described above, is begging the question.Of course, we observe the parameters of the Lotka-Volterra equation to be such as to confer stability. The question is, why are they so?
Actually you said they ‘balance’ which is what I addressed above, they don’t.
They don’t even confer stability either, the simple version of the L-V equations describe a center and not a limit cycle, frequently fluctuations can lead to extinction although you’ll typically only see this if you use discrete rather than continuous variables (known as the atto-fox problem). Obviously if the prey is the one that goes extinct then the predator also goes. Extinction has frequently been observed particularly locally. In fact if you do a spatial model using L-V you can get local extinction, so a mutation could become extinct if it became too efficient a predator without spreading to the whole prey population. The local extinction of prey could be replaced over time by those from other domains. Isolated populations such as islands frequently lead to extinctions, an ongoing study at Isle Royale shows some interesting changes.
http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/data/data/home.html
I do not know why you do not see that you are begging the question, but you don’t. Hey ho.
Bart February 23, 2015 at 9:56 am
I do not know why you do not see that you are begging the question, but you don’t. Hey ho.
The usual content-free post that we have come to expect from Bart. Equally clear that he hasn’t read the cited reference, no surprise there either.
Doom-mongering is very effective at establishing and sustaining religions.
Didn’t realize it could also be effective at establishing and sustaining a branch of science.
Another contribution of climate science to the social sciences in studying social disorders.
I would also like for them to stop lying to me. Minnesota bridge collapse, honey bee colony collapse just 2 famous examples. Global warming was the first thing blamed, and later completely disproven once any data was collected.
The warmist should sell their cars, use no energy and life like the Amish. Air pollution is a big problem, but … no one seems to care about ocean pollution.
I sometimes wonder what future generations will make of the current CAGW obsession, especially the levels of investment of limited public funds being made to counter a non-problem when there are so many real problems that a fraction of that spending could fix. Will it be a ‘warning from history’ for them? Will one of its legacies be a distrust of science? Will future generations look at it as the tulip mania or South Sea Bubble of our days? Will they wonder that so many apparently intelligent and well educated people could be taken in by (I’m being kind here) half-truths and propaganda? The only thing I can say with any confidence is that there will be future generations, or at least that if there aren’t, it won’t be because CAGW has wiped us out.
The majority of future generations will still believe humans are ruining the climate, no matter what the evidence.
I’m sorry to say that future generations show no prospect of being smarter, wiser, or more objective than the current one. Quite the contrary.
Alx wrote:
“Doom-mongering is very effective at establishing and sustaining religions.
Didn’t realize it could also be effective at establishing and sustaining a branch of science.”
Alx, be careful because you are falling into the same trap as Nancy Smart and most warmists by saying that the purveyors of warming hysteria are involved in “science”.
As an example, consider the CRU and the “scientists” who were actively involved in the destruction of emails as detailed by the “Climategate” affair.. People who treat their data and methodologies as trade secrets so as to sell the product of their data and methodologies ARE NOT ACTING AS SCIENTISTS. A scientist makes public his data and methods and challenges the world to prove them wrong. At best, one might say that the email destroyers and data hiders acted as entrepreneurs, not scientists. Some might conclude that these “”scientists” are little more than crass opportunists. In either case, given their actions we are entitled to exercise skepticism and caution toward them and their products, just as we would toward any salesman who purveys an elixir without disclosing its ingredients.
And then there are the outright Alinsky-ites who will simply follow his 12 rules for radicals, with special emphasis on rule #5 “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon”. Sadly, most warmists do not even realize that they have been indoctrinated in these 12 tools. They simply believe that this is how “civilized” people act, and that their end justifies any means. When they reach their 5th or 6th decade, many will realize how destructive these 12 rules are. After all, Alinsky saw them as a means of deconstruction, not construction.
Someone above was looking for Suzuki’s wisdom on the greenhouse effect – here it is. Priceless!
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/pastedgraphic-1.pdf
Political Junkie wrote, “Someone above was looking for Suzuki’s wisdom on the greenhouse effect – here it is. Priceless! http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/pastedgraphic-1.pdf “
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Political Junkie, for that!!!
– David Suzuki, May 12, 1990
daveburton, glad you enjoyed the demonstration of Suzuki’s scientific competence,
Here are other examples:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/24/climate-campaigner-david-suzuki-doesnt-know-what-the-climate-temperature-data-sets-are/
But what really makes you puke is this:
http://www.readersdigest.ca/magazine/2013-trust-poll/most-trusted-canadians-2011-trust-poll-results/#rUhpjJpGqOASRzUm.97
I never heard that quote before. If the carbon in the glass was replaced with silicon my car’s interior would be ambient temperature?
People listen to this guy!?!
Having studied this very interesting thread, I have concluded there are too many Toms on here.
With all due respect, no there aren’t.
Good letter but I’m not sure I can agree with the author’s statement, “…and the climate is not changing.”
I believe, and with good reason, that the climate is indeed changing, just as it always has since the beginning of earth time and most likely, always will.
As for mankind being able to do very much about it, short of a thermo-nuclear war, I’m not sure we are quite up to that task.
Have I missed something here?
The one flaw with this letter is “the climate is not changing.” Wrong. The climate is always changing, and has been since the climate system was born.
Actually, the statement that “the climate is changing” makes no sense, and is unscientific. All we can really say is that it has always changed. In order to say that the climate is changing you have to be able to say in what way, and that is a question that science can’t answer. Although, of course that doesn’t stop the Climate Liars from doing so, and pretending that it’s science.
Science tells us the changes that have happened up to the present, measurement error notwithstanding. It is certainly not a static system and similar to the case of plate tectonics, we can reasonably assume changes will continue. It is also reasonable to assume the current interglacial will eventually end.
Agreed James but are we going to be around to see it, that is the question to be asked. If we do what the Lord says to do (receive the Holy Ghost, use the same to work signs, wonders and miracles, read the word to know more about the experience and finally be Faithful), we will be around forever to see what happens. Obviously I am a Christian and to see what is in “forever” is far more interesting than living this life only, being judged by the :Lord at the end of it and then dying (eternal seperation from the Lord). It is a, as they say, no-brainer. My name is Craig Abernethie, I live in Ashfield, Western Australia and to find out more google Revival Fellowship. Enjoy and be not deceived.
Great letter, very well put in every regard. Global warming is unfortunately the perfect theory in so many ways.
1. The enemy is big oil companies, who most of us dislike because they have billionaire executives who make money creating pollution. We’d love shoot down their cloud but we are powerless to do so, global warming gives us the ammunition to claim governments must get involved to stop big oil.
2, The science can be made to sound simple, greenhouse gases raise temperature, so those who want to believe can feel they have an understanding of the issue. Those who question global warming can be labeled as denialists because there is no denying that if everything remains the same in a lab experiment, greenhouse gases will raise cause a greenhouse effect and raise temperatures. So they can say “The science is settled”.
3. Climate scientists, who should have the most complete understanding of the issue, benefit hugely if global warming is man made and must be acted upon by man. More grant money will need to be spent on climate science studies, the IPCC will be more important and need larger budgets, and climate scientists are raised in stature because they can “save the planet” and save us all, with their studies and recommendations of what to do. Global warming raises the once nerdy climate scientists of the world to rock star status. So with any uncertainty about global warming climate scientists will be motivated to assume it is man made, and we can and should take action against it.
4. Anyone who disputes man made global warming can easily be thrown under the bus by claiming they are paid by big oil. No one can prove they aren’t paid by big oil beyond any uncertainty that would satisfy those who don’t want to believe you.
5. Even weather events associated with cold can be claimed to be caused by global warming, so there is nothing anyone can observe that can be sited as proof there is no global warming.
6. The media loves global warming so there is free propoganda for it everywhere. Its a subject that tells us we can save our planet by killing big oil profits, it makes us feel empowered and all warm and fuzzy inside. So they will cover more of the record highs, and less of the record lows to feed the hype without anyone having to pay them a dime.
7. Any measured trend that suggests there is no global warming can be shot down by saying the period is too short of a time to make any conclusions. Whatever the time length is, its too short.
8. The fox is in charge of the hen house. The climate science community has convinced us that the global temperature data bases that we rely on to determine the global temperature trend need to be adjusted, and they are in control of the adjustments. The importance of climate scientists depends on whether global warming is a problem, whether global warming is a problem depends on the temperature data, and the climate scientists are in charge of adjusting the temperature data.
The skeptic crowd needs to stop trying to excuse away “warmest year on record” arguments, and embrace them. The earth has been on a warming trend since the end of the last ice age. That each year may be warmer than the previous is just part of that trend. Instead, we need to emphasize that fact and the fact that any recent increase to that trend is not outside natural variability.
That would be OK advice had 2014 actually been warmer than 1998, but it wasn´t in reality, just in the cooked books of GISS & CRU.
The less tampered with satellites found it to be the seventh warmest since 1979.
The “signal” that characterizes the ebb and flow of glacials and interglacials does seem to resemble a wave form. And prior to each glacial there is a bit of a saw tooth, with some ringing on a shorter scale. When temperatures seem to be at or near a maximum versus paleoclimate, it is a good time to start thinking about the pending glacial.
The main issue with CO2 is about it’s impact on our oceans. There it has produced cataclysmic collapse in ocean productivity. By restoring ocean pastures to the condition of health and abundance they and we enjoyed a century ago billions of tonnes of CO2 will be repurposed from becoming certain ocean acidifying death into ocean life itself. In the bargain this Good Shepherding work will bring back the fish.
In my demonstration project in 2012 in the NE Pacific I replenished and restored a large and vital ocean salmon pasture with just half a boat load of mineral rich dust, 100 tons. The ocean pasture bloomed and was restored. The proof was revealed in nearby Alaska the very next year. Where Alaskan fishemen were expected to catch 50 million Pink salmon instead they caught 226 million pasture fed salmon. The largest catch in all of history!
The endless argument about global warming is about the cost that we are all being told to manage societies 10 billion tons of CO2 that we emit each year. That cost, at $100 per ton, is said to demand $1 trillion dollar per year and that gigantic pork barrel has attracted all manner of hogs and vultures in the climate industrial complex.
The good news is taht replenished and restored ocean pastures will turn billions of tonnes of deadly CO2 into ocean life for a cost of less than a penny per ton! We can begin by restoring 100 ocean pastures around the world for mere millions not trillions! In the bargain we will put billions of additional fish on the plates of hungry people around the world.
This ain’t rocket science it is just plain pasture management good sense. Read more http://russgeorge.net/2015/02/19/another-roadside-attraction/
[And we were thinking that the 2012 “live ocean” iron dust experiments were declared illegal and unwanted and unwarranted. .mod]
Utter nonsense. If “repurposing” life-giving CO2 is commercially viable, then great. No need for any “carbon” tax.
True. If there were an ounce of legitimacy in this, fishermen would gladly pay for it without the need of taxes. Not only would it save their careers, it would increase their profits 450%.
So why aren’t they, Russ?
That’s only because nobody had proposed an “iron tax” yet. Give them time.
The statement in the last paragraph — “the Earth’s climate is not changing” — is so wrong that it is impossible to trust anything else Mr. Deming writes.
The primary strategy to defend against leftist scaremongering (climate change is just the latest in a 55-year ongoing series of environmental boogeymen, starting with DDT, as far back as I can remember) is to teach people what I’ve used to name my climate blog: “So What? Earth’s climate is ALWAYS changing !
.
Mr. Deming gets an “F” in ‘Climate 101″ by contradicting the most basic fact about the climate of our planet that EVERYONE should know … although the smarmy leftists want everyone to (falsely) believe climate change is a recent thing … and a catastrophe, of course.
We skeptics have been blessed by Mother Nature, or whoever controls these things, with a pause in global warming, and a few cold winters.
.
NOW IS A GREAT TIME TO RIDICULE LEFTIST GLOBAL WARMING COMPUTER GAME CLIMATE ASTROLOGY.
.
Next month, or next year, the warming trend may return — these trends, if climate proxy studies are correct, seem to last for many hundreds of years, so the 1950 Modern Warming is relatively young.
A majority of the general population is now doubting global warming predictions, or are undecided — I assume the past two cold winters helped increase their doubt.
Lets not forget that the general public believes in Santa Clause, tooth fairies, Oswald didn’t act alone, Obama is a Muslim, heaven, hell, and lots of other things based on faith rather than science and facts — if the general public does not realize Earth is ALWAYS warming or cooling (because we didn’t teach them), then it won’t take long after a warming trend resumes before a large majority believe in the global warming boogeyman … again.
The leftists have done a good job of hiding the pause, and NASA doesn’t even mention their own weather satellites in the “hottest year on record press release” … not to mention reporting Earth’s average temperature in hundredths of a degrees in a desperate attempt to make 2014 a new record (I’m sure they “cooked the books” with infilling in 2014.
For 2015 PLEASE tell everyone you know “So What? Earth’s Climate is ALWAYS Changing … If you don’t like global warming, then the only other ‘choice’ is global cooling — would you prefer global cooling ! … If not, then be happy with global warming !” I know I am VERY disappointed personally that warming has stopped and winters have been cold.
Deming’s letter to the editor is much too complicated for the general public to learn from, and his “the Earth’s climate is not changing” conclusion is wrong, counterproductive for teaching the general public about Earth’s climate, and marks Deming as a careless writer, or poor teacher, or perhaps just IQ challenged (leftist term for the class dunce).
If we skeptics are going to get letters published in newspapers, then they ought to make a few key points using very simple language, starting with: EARTH’s CLIMATE IS ALWAYS CHANGING.
My climate rantings and ravings, poor jokes, and the first ever climate skeptics Page 3 girl, are at this link:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
OT But Mars and Venus are almost occluded (I think I used the right term.) within a thumb width of the Moon at the moment. (6:45 EST)
(Sorry for the sidetrack.)
The doom mongering is going to intensify as the months tick by and the December 2015 Paris Climate Conference draws nearer. The UN is seriously desperate to get an international global agreement on controlling fossil fuel energy use. The UN has been trying to achieve this for two decades and has resorted to engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct in order to achieve its goal. The Paris conference must not succeed if we are to value freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity.
Bottom line, you don’t get grants for results that say everything is fine. If there is not a problem there is no need to spend money on it. But, a crisis demands action and more study (money). Scientist have families to feed, mortgages to pay.
There are no climate change deniers. We all agree on the facts, CO2 is increasing, greenhouse gases are increasing, temperature changes, weather changes, and that’s it. Beyond that it’s models, theories, and guesses. We just don’t agree with the models, theories, and guesses. Particularly when projecting out 100 years. A single volcanic (massive) eruption can disrupt the climate (temporally at least) so unless volcanic eruptions can be predicted 100 years in advance, the models will yield incorrect results.