I've been saving some global warming news for a while, hoping to comment on the topic again but not quite taking the time for it. But while I waited, something happened. The world started getting colder.
Now what are we supposed to believe?
First let's look at the warming alarms.
Reuters reported November 6, 2007, on the consequences of global warming. Titled, "Climate change seen threatening national security," the report opens this way:
Climate change could end globalization by 2040 as nations look inward to conserve scarce resources and conflicts flare when refugees flee rising seas and drought, national security experts warned on Monday.
Not to be outdone, the UN had something to say as well. The Times Online (UK) reported December 12, 2007, on the UN statement.
Humanity faces oblivion if it fails to reach agreement on global warming, Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary General, said yesterday as the US and the European Union continued to scuffle over a successor to the ten-year-old Kyoto treaty on climate change.
“The world’s scientists have spoken with one voice: the situation is grim and urgent action is needed,” Mr Ban said at a gathering of 190 countries on the Indonesian island of Bali. “The situation is so desperately serious that any delay could push us past the tipping point, beyond which the ecological, financial and human costs would increase dramatically. We are at a crossroads: one path leads to a comprehensive climate change agreement, the other one to oblivion.”
That sounds terrible! Except, we know "the world's scientists" have definitely NOT spoken with one voice. There's dissent out there in the scientific community.
WorldNetDaily reported September 12, 2007, on reports that hundreds of scientists have refuted the global-warming-scare dogma.
The newest analysis was released by Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery, who said of the 500 scientists who have refuted at least one element of the global warming scare, more than 300 have found evidence that a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to the current circumstances since the last Ice Age and that such warmings are linked to variations in the sun's irradiance.
"Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people. It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease," he said.
That's right. Why else do people retire to Florida, when they could be spending their leisure retirement years shoveling snow in Upstate New York?
But the kicker was this report in the Telegraph (UK) on January 13, 3008.
A survey of travel habits has revealed that the most environmentally conscious people are also the biggest polluters.
"Green" consumers have some of the biggest carbon footprints because they are still hooked on flying abroad or driving their cars while their adherence to the green cause is mostly limited to small gestures.
Hypocrisy, thy color is Green.
In the end, though, that hypocrisy isn't going to amount to much, since carbon footprints aren't going to have any more effect on climate than a real footprint has on soil erosion.
WorldNetDaily reported December 21, 2007, on a US Senate report on the subject.
A new U.S. Senate report documents hundreds of prominent scientists – experts in dozens of fields of study worldwide – who say global warming and cooling is a cycle of nature and cannot legitimately be connected to man's activities.
"Of course I believe in global warming, and in global cooling – all part of the natural climate changes that the Earth has experienced for billions of years, caused primarily by the cyclical variations in solar output," said research physicist John W. Brosnahan, who develops remote-sensing instruments for atmospheric science for clients including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.
However, he said, "I have not seen any sort of definitive, scientific link to man-made carbon dioxide as the root cause of the current global warming, only incomplete computer models that suggest that this might be the case."
Naturally, Al Gore says those scientists were bought off. And he would understand the concept of being bought off...
An article in American Thinker on March 10, 2008, looks at the contortions "True Believers" in global warming go through when the facts turn against them.
"Human-caused global warming" has now officially been re-named "climate change" to explain the inconvenient truth that the winter of 2007-8 was the coldest in a century, in spite of all those tons of "greenhouse gas" being spewed into the air from all the new factories in China and India. Worldwide temps dropped 0.6 of a degree C in one year. That may not sound like a lot, but it's more than all the ballyhooed warming in the preceding century.
How good are the assumptions in [the climate computer] models? Well consider the fate of Ferenc M. Miskolczi (pronounced Ferens MISkolshee), a first-rate Hungarian mathematician, who has published a proof that "greenhouse warming" may be mathematically impossible. His proof involves long equations, but the bottom line is that the warming models assume that the atmosphere is infinitely thick. Why? Because it simplifies the math. If on the other hand, you assume the atmosphere is about 100 km thick (about 65 miles) -- which has the big advantage of being true -- the greenhouse effect disappears! No more global warming.
Miskolczi once worked for NASA, but resigned in disgust when they would not allow him to publish his work. (It appeared in the peer-reviewed Hungarian journal Weather, and looks legit). (emphasis in original)
So the real news lately is that global warming is over. It's getting cold, and it's expected to get colder.
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review published a column March 2, 2008, on "Cool News about Global Warming."
But how cold is it, Johnny?
Well, NASA says recent satellite images show that the allegedly endangered polar ice cap -- which will melt completely one of these summers and kill off all the polar bears if we don't slash our greedy carbon footprints and revert to the lifestyles of medieval peasants -- has recovered to near normal coverage levels.
The Spectator (UK) reported yesterday on global temperature sensors. (Note: As of today, that article is gone from the Specator's website. Good thing I captured it, but the link doesn't work as of blogging time. I'll keep it there, in case the article reappears.)
There is now unequivocal evidence that the temperature of the planet is dropping like a stone. As the DailyTech site reports:
All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASAGISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. A compiled list of all the sources can be seen...The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years.
Here’s some other data you may not have seen. The troposphere hasn’t warmed for the past five years. And the oceans haven’t warmed for five years either, which has got this poor NPR reporter scratching his head, poor chap:
I won't get into what the poor chap at NPR said.
Another scientist, as reported in WorldNetDaily on April 3, 2008, told environmentalists that the world needs more carbon dioxide to offset the cooling. Here's the science behind that statement:
The Past and Future of Climate, by David Archibald. Page 16 has a killer chart that will make you want to buy up stock in fur-lined parka companies, if you plan on living past about 2013.
Archibald wrote the paper in June of 2007, and much of what he predicts depends on Solar Cycle 24 starting by March, 2008. Since I get NASA's SpaceWeather updates by email, I checked back and found that Solar Cycle 24 began January 4, 2008, so Archibald's predictions are right on schedule.
I guess the polar bears won't have to worry, after all.