The debate is over. The predicted global warming is a hoax created by a computer model riddled with subjective assumptions reflecting the biases of those creating the model. It has yet to accurately predict a single data point and its creators and sycophants spend most of their time explaining away its failures rather than noting its successes.
Sufficient time has passed with routine failure that reasonable minds no longer accept the inevitability of global warming. [Before you tie yourself in a knot about my qualifications for making such a statement, let me note that I am at least as qualified as Al Gore who previously declared the “the fact of global warming” undeniable.]
And the proof of the hoax lies in the regularity of climate change — warmer and colder. Absent proof of changes beyond historical norms, there is simply no basis (other than the computer model) for the left’s conclusion that 1) there is global warming, 2) that such warming is virtually all man caused, and 3) only draconian changes that will cripple our economy and reduce our standard of living can reverse “global warming.”
Because the sole proof lies in the computer model and the computer model has failed at every turn, we are left to conclude that the only global warming comes from the hot air generated by these “societal re-designers” and their supporters in the mainstream media. Add to that the assertion by these same “scientists” that even the most extreme changes to repress “greenhouse gases” and other causes of “global warming” will have no effect for at least 140 years. Well after all of these “scientists” are dead and gone — gone beyond responsibility and explanation for their errors. As such, you can pretty much dismiss this whole debacle as being boneheaded. At least as boneheaded as the “scientific” alarmists’ 1970s predictions of an imminent new Ice Age.
It is not surprising that the computer model is riddled with inaccurate subjective assumptions. Man knows less about climatology than about cancer. The climate is effected more by solar flares, massive forest fires and volcanoes — none of which are predictable — than by specific acts of man. Any computer model must be based on some degree of statistical regularity and for the weather there is no such regularity.
Try as we might we cannot predict with accuracy the advent of hurricanes let alone predict their paths once formed. While we can track them, measure their velocity, and record their havoc, predicting their landfall and their velocity upon landfall are simply broad guesses that change with each ripple in the path and speed of the storm. And yet hurricanes are more susceptible to computer models than are solar flares, volcanic eruptions and forest fires none of which can be or are factors within the “global warming computer model.”
Now before the self-righteous few twist themselves into knots, let’s acknowledge a few things — and ask them in turn to acknowledge a few things.
1. There has been evidence of global warming. For the period of time since the advent of satellite technology, the Earth’s average annual temperatures have varied about plus or minus 0.4 degrees, with the exception of a brief period in the mid 90’s where strong El Nino activities raised the variation to between 0.8 and 1.0 degrees. Having noted that, there is a significant clustering of temperatures at the high end of that 0.4 degree variation over a ten year period extending from the 1990’s to the early 2000’s. But, using the same data, one must also acknowledge that there has been no additional warming since that period and that, in fact, the last three winters have been colder, longer and producing more snow and ice than during that ten year period.
[Secondary information as to temperatures is available through a variety of scientific tools including tree rings, ice and earth core drillings, and other geological studies. Based on this secondary data developed by National Climate Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration it similarly appears that over the past ten years the average annual global temperature has risen about 0.4 degrees above the average annual global temperature estimated over the past 200,000 years. The last time that average annual global temperatures were in this range was about 130 years ago.]
2. Polar ice caps and glaciers are receding. Of course. They have been receding since the last Ice Age but the photographic evidence of the retreat of ice caps in the Arctic is undeniable. The global warming enthusiasts and their allies in the mainstream media (including the Oregonian) trumpet daily every instance in which there is an area in which the ice cap or glaciers recede — complete with pictures of endangered polar bears, seals, etc. But while these areas of ice are receding there are other areas where the ice packs are growing — particularly over the last three years. For instance, did anyone read in the Oregonian of the computer error that failed to measure the addition of 193,000 square miles of sea ice to the Arctic region — an area roughly the size of Washington, Oregon and the panhandle of Idaho combined.
3. The domestic glaciers are melting. Yes, they are, particularly in Montana’s Glacier National Park. However, the United State Geographical Service acknowledges that the glaciers grow and shrink routinely based on weather patterns. More importantly, the USGS acknowledges that the glaciers reached an abnormal size during a period from 1860 to 1890 because of cool wet weather and lengthy winters and that a period of drought from 1917 to 1941 produced just as dramatic recession of the glaciers. Both events predate any evidence of global warming.
4. The temperatures in Antarctica are rising. Yes they are — at least over the past decade. The ambient average temperature has increased by one degree. However, the ambient average temperature in the Antarctica remains minus fifty degrees. Yes, there continues to be “calving” of large formations of ice into the ocean but the cause is most certainly not due to any appreciable warming — more likely from fault lines in the formations or seismic activities. Most importantly, there has been no appreciable rise in the sea levels as predicted by the global warming alarmists.
5. The causes of global warming are many, some natural, some man made. Greenhouse gases appear to be a factor but both the amount that greenhouse gases contribute, and the percentage of greenhouse gases that are man-made contribute are in dispute. We do know that the burning of carbon based fuels contribute to greenhouse gases — that includes coal, gas, petroleum products and forest fires. Let’s be sensible, if breathing the fumes from a car’s engine, a gas furnace, a BBQ or burning logs in a closed room will kill you, none of them can be particularly good even in a dispersed atmosphere.
So what do we conclude from this? Nothing. There is anecdotal evidence of global warming and global cooling. There is no evidence, other than a flawed computer model, that the global warming is a sustainable or an increasing phenomenon. And in fact, it appears that for the past decade there has been a return to normal variances with a cooling period over the last three years.
Does that mean we should do nothing? Absolutely not. Why wouldn’t you undertake reasonable measures to try to alleviate that portion of the warming that is anthropogenic (that’s the scientific term for “man-caused”)? But therein lies the rub.
I am encouraged by the new focus on wind and solar energy. But I am equally discouraged by the refusal to consider expansion of nuclear power — particularly with new and safer reactor systems such as the one developed by Oregon State University. I am equally discouraged by the insistence of the hard left, Gov. Kulongoski included, to pursue draconian measures such as carbon credits. In the face of uncertainty prudent measures that do not disrupt the economy are appropriate. The carbon credits proposal of Al Gore and the Far Left will not cure any greenhouse emissions, it will simply impose a greater burden on mainstreet business and light manufacturing — the backbone of Oregon’s economy.
I have mixed feelings about President Obama’s support of the right of individual states to impose such draconian measures when global warming, if it exists, is an international problem, and the carbon credits are a local imposition. In the normal course of business I believe that a state’s political climate ought to serve as a competitive advantage or disadvantage. But in this instance, Oregon is in the tight control of a hard left administration and legislature. There will be no public plebiscite on the value of carbon credits and Oregon’s economy and its population, already burdened by unemployment levels in excess of the nation’s, will suffer the consequences.