Competition is good. It is good in the economy. It is good in politics. It is good in philosophy. And it is good in global warming science because it brings a fuller and more complete picture of what may or may not be going on.
Global Warming Hysterics tried—and still flail away—to stifle competition in order to promote a political agenda that would bring international technocrats (i.e. them) to international power with authority to control economies and the way we live our lives, while fulfilling leftists’ dreams of wealth redistribution. But the halcyon days of being able to cause panic have thankfully passed. The debate, which they declared “over,” isn’t. The “consensus” is shattering. The credibility has collapsed. The GWH movement is fracturing. One became so freaked out over the debacle he has materially harmed his career through unethical behavior.
When 16 scientists wrote a heterodox piece in the WSJ, it generated quite a push-back claiming, for example, that they lacked the expertise to question. They have now published a very strong rejoinder. First, they show how the IPCC computer models—based upon which we were supposed to dismantle our economies—have proved wrong. From “Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming:”
From the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth’s temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.
The Trenberth letter tells us that “computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean.” The ARGO system of diving buoys is providing increasingly reliable data on the temperature of the upper layers of the ocean, where much of any heat from global warming must reside. But much like the surface temperature shown in the graph, the heat content of the upper layers of the world’s oceans is not increasing nearly as fast as IPCC models predict, perhaps not increasing at all. Why should we now believe exaggerating IPCC models that tell us of “missing heat” hiding in the one place where it cannot yet be reliably measuredthe deep ocean?
I know, just evil oil company propaganda!
This is devastating:
Trenberth et al. tell us that the managements of major national academies of science have said that “the science is clear, the world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible.” Apparently every generation of humanity needs to relearn that Mother Nature tells us what the science is, not authoritarian academy bureaucrats or computer models.
Exactly. The movement went wrong when it morphed from a scientific inquiry into an ideology—and often an anti human one at that, which is what really piqued my interest.
The question of whether and to what extent human beings are impacting the climate is certainly a legitimate and worthwhile area for scientific inquiry. In other words, I reject the charge it is all a hoax. But GWH is not science. Like we have also seen in other areas, political activists have corrupted the proper role and process of science. But I think the jig may finally be up.