Alarm over climate change based on ignorance of what is normal - Newsweek

[Naturalized-Texan]

Alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/)
By Richard S. Lindzen

Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.

A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate.

[Rhino]

Looks like more and more of the MSM is jumping off the Big Al Bandwagon. Bout damn time.

I love this line, cuz it mirrors what I always say.
The current alarm rests on the false assumption .... that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.

[noncom]

Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it?

The key phrase here is "at some level." Granted, there's only been a few hundred billion dollars spent researching Global Warming, so the results are still preliminary. But what do we have so far?

The same guestimate we had from day one: "sometime between 20 and 200 years from now, Something Really Bad might happen." By a complete coincidence this happens to be the exact same timeframe that most pseudo-prophetic prognostications take -- close enough to seem like a threat to you or your grandchildren, but far enough so that you have plenty of time to completely change, or even reverse, all of your predictions before the seers can be held to account for being "wrong."

But let's forget about all that too for the sake of this discussion. Let's pretend this is a completely unemotional, abstract scientific debate for a moment. Sure, there might be a confirmation of something in twenty years, and we might all be melted and/or drowned within 200 years; anything's possible. But it's EQUALLY as possible that it will take 2000 years, or 20,000 years, or longer. There exists not one whit of evidence to prove otherwise.

To say "We know that CO2 might contribute to the greenhouse effect over time" is simply to restate the (literally) sophomoric physics factoid that we all knew the day this Global Warming scare began. So after hundreds of billions of dollars of government spending, what have we ADDED to this knowledge? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

It's as if Truman were taken out to the desert after an effort equivalent to 100 Manhattan Projects, and said "OK, let's see what you've got." And instead of seeing a bomb go off, he watches as the scientist drags a blackboard off the truck, and types with a flourish: "E=MC2"! Truman pauses, and then says, "OK, now, check me if I'm wrong here, but didn't we already know that BEFORE WE STARTED THIS WHOLE DAMNED THING?"

Seriously though. As tempting as it would be to ascribe all of this incredibly massive waste of human resources to government boondoggle, there's more to it than that. There's something called the "scientific process." And a completely indispensable part of that is the step of TESTING the theory. That is the step that is always missing in pseudo-science. Literally unlimited amounts of money are spent confirming (i.e., rationalizing) the theory; but no test is ever even proposed, let alone conducted, to TEST the theory. That has never happened for global warming; it's never been done in the case of searching for an "HIV cure;" and it never happened in the Ozone Scare.

Of course in the case of Global Warming, testing doesn't mean pumping a billion trillion tons of extra CO2 out and seeing whether the world catches fire. What it means is to clearly state a hypothetical prediction based on unknown or uncollected data, and then state that the outcome will either prove OR DISPROVE the theory. That never happens with junk science like Global Warming.

All we get are after-the-fact rationalizations. There were more hurricanes this year that last? Fine, give me 5 million dollars and I'll write up a report proving that was caused by Global Warming. There were fewer tornadoes last year? Well, that's fine too; give me another 5 million and I'll explain why that might have been caused by Global Warming as well.

Given enough money, I can rationalize anything after the fact. Give me a government grant and all the data gathered to date, and let me pick my own timeframes, and I'll prove to you that there is a chicken-shaped zone of depletion in the Ozone Layer above North Platte Nebraska. And what's more, I'll give you charts and graphs showing that it's becoming ominously MORE chicken-like with each passing year.

My endless charts and graphs might seem impressive to small-minded people. But that's not scientific proof of anything. Because the one thing I CAN'T do is clearly state a prediction and then base the survival of a bogus theory on its outcome; on future events; or on newly collected data I haven't had a chance to look at yet. 'Cause, guess what? The day I do that, the gravy train stops.

[Rhino]

Given enough money, I can rationalize anything after the fact. Give me a government grant and all the data gathered to date, and let me pick my own timeframes, and I'll prove to you that there is a chicken-shaped zone of depletion in the Ozone Layer above North Platte Nebraska. And what's more, I'll give you charts and graphs showing that it's becoming ominously MORE chicken-like with each passing year.:rotflmbo: :rotflmbo: :rotflmbo:

I nominate noncom to head the EPA!!!! LOL!

[Naturalized-Texan]

We should always remember that increased CO2 has always followed increased temperatures by about 800 years according to ice core samples taken by many scientists at many locations. In other words, higher temperatures cause increased CO2, not the other way around as AlGore and the UN-controlled trash scientists claim.

[DoctorDoom]

Good science teaches that. However, politically-driven junk science points to the CO2 following the last warming cycle and blames it for the next warming cycle.

[DesertFox]

F*ck it, luss get drunk. -- Steven Allen Davies, circa 1964..

[Lubbock]

Dear Al:

Please send some of that Global Warming our way. We're about to freeze plumb slam to death down here in the "sun belt."

Al, we had 4" of snow on Saturday, and below freezing temperatures on Easter Sunday. It's danged hard to hide Easter Eggs in snow. Those little colored suckers just stick out like a sore thumb, no matter where you put 'em [I know where I'd like to put 'em].

Far be it for anyone from West Texas to complain about too much rain, but please, Al, we've had enough. Especially this freezing rain. People out here in this part of the world just don't know how to drive on slick roads. That's a fact.

Al, you keep telling us that this Global Warming is going to hurt farming, ruin farming, as a matter of fact. That might be, but it's a sure fact that all this ice and snow is hurting farming right now. Can't nobody get a tractor in a field. Looks like it could be June before the ice melts off and the fields dry up. It's not just our cotton and row crops that'r hurting either. You ought to see the messes in the Feedyards. Cattle standing in icy mud up to their bellies.

Right now, Al, all of our car dealers out here are really pushing those SUVs. Offering huge discounts. We're hoping that if we can get enough of those eeeeeeeevil suckers on the road, they might produce enough pollutants to cause some of that Global Warming, and we'll thaw out by the time the Buddy Holly Celebration takes place in September.

Now, Al . . . can we talk about those baby seals . . .

Yours very truly,

A Concerned [and freezing to death] Citizen in Lubbock

[Rhino]

Those little colored suckers just stick out like a sore thumb, no matter where you put 'em [I know where I'd like to put 'em]Do tell! LOL!

[Lazarus]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264969,00.html

A meteorology professor at the Massachusetts institute of Technology (javascript:siteSearch('Massachusetts institute of Technology');) says there is no compelling evidence that global warming will lead to a catastrophe — and in fact might be beneficial.

Richard Lindzen (javascript:siteSearch('Richard Lindzen');) writes in Newsweek (javascript:siteSearch('Newsweek');): "Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal weather and climate. There is no evidence that extreme weather events are increasing…Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing."

Well, that's just great! Now we have to decide which one we believe - A professor of Meteorology from MIT or Algore... Like we dont have enough tough decisions to make in the course of a day... :rolleyes: :D

Here that "bang bang bang" sound, Algore? That's the sound of another nail in your coffin...

[Naturalized-Texan]

A link to the actual Newsweek article has already been posted here (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=46330).

Maybe the two threads should be merged in the Global Climate Forum..

[DoctorDoom]

Done.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Thanks.

[Lazarus]

Thanks Doc... I didnt know where to put this post... This is probably the best place...

I find it fascinating that anytime Algore burps the MSM runs up with a microphone to get his opinions... But an actual scientist - from MIT no less - says his theories are BS, and the MSM buries it from the light of day...

[noncom]

I find it fascinating that anytime Algore burps the MSM runs up with a microphone to get his opinions... But an actual scientist - from MIT no less - says his theories are BS, and the MSM buries it from the light of day...
The liberal media believe that the opinions of all "Global Warming deniers" are politically motivated, and that Al Gore's are not. And they think that the compassionate geniuses who subscribe to the Global Warming scare somehow, honest-to-God, CARE more about the environment than all of we evil fools who dare to question it.

I know the above sounds facetious, but it's not. That is REALLY what they believe.

[Naturalized-Texan]

The liberal media believe that the opinions of all "Global Warming deniers" are politically motivated, and that Al Gore's are not. And they think that the compassionate geniuses who subscribe to the Global Warming scare somehow, honest-to-God, CARE more about the environment than all of we evil fools who dare to question it.

I know the above sounds facetious, but it's not. That is REALLY what they believe.
I'm not so sure that the liberal media actually believe AlGore's nonsense, but they still report it as fact because it advances their liberal agenda of imposing ever-increasing controls over our lives and over the economy. The global warming hysteria completely political and has nothing to do with science. AlGore and his sycophants are actually science deniers.

[noncom]

I'm not so sure that the liberal media actually believe AlGore's nonsense, but they still report it as fact because it advances their liberal agenda of imposing ever-increasing controls over our lives and over the economy.
Don't give the "media" too much credit. I've known reporters, and they are they are the biggest suckers for their own propaganda. By far the vast majority of them are just as touchy-feely as the average liberal off the street. Sure, reporters may bathe more often, and spend WAAAAY more time on haircare than the homeless protesters they make into celebrities. But they're no more capable of having a coherent "agenda" than the average moonbat is.

Besides, WE are the ones with the "Vast Conspiracy," remember? :smirky:

Seriously though, there are very few people who actually wake up in the morning and think to themselves, "Today I will be evil and control others to their detriment!" The vast majority of people - on the right and the left - believe, and will believe until the day they die, that they are doing Good Things, or at least doing things for a Good Reason.

The only real difference is that liberals have nothing else BESIDES their belief in their own inherent goodness and its power to save the world. Their thought process stops and ends there.

It's not that liberals love power and hate science and Christianity; it's just that they see all of those concepts as merely means or impediments to an end: conveying their world-saving compassion to the rest of us ungrateful jerks.

[Naturalized-Texan]

noncom: With all due respect, you are giving those in the liberal media waaaayyyyy too much credit. They know very well that they are lying to advance their agenda but they will never admit it. I take that back - partially. Bernard Goldberg did admit it when he wrote Bias in 2002, but he is an extremely rare exception.

[DoctorDoom]

Bernard Goldberg did admit it when he wrote Bias in 2002, but he is an extremely rare exception.And of course they loathe his guts for doing it.

[DesertFox]

Liberals don't believe in principles, but they do believe in rules. That is the sum and substance of the difference between them and us.