The Future of Weather – Uncommon Sense
Posted by Jeff Id on February 2, 2014
USA today published yet another climate rant on the state of global warming. This time they tied it to the polar vortex that is still freezing our ___ (insert anatomy here) off. The article is filled with the ‘local is not global’ and ‘weather is not climate’ (until they say it is) mantra that has been so common in recent years. The problem that AGW scientists and left-wing mouthpieces have is identical, while things have warmed a tiny bit, the stupid thermometers are falling well behind the not-so-clairvoyant, modeled projections of planet-wide doom.
What to do
…what to do.
Well the general media seems to have congealed on a temporary strategy at least. The collection of like-minded opinion is not a conspiracy between writers, but rather an obvious shelter during the cold. Strategically, it is basically a placeholder until something happens that looks politically better for global warming activists. The formula is to keep repeating that cold is still consistent with models, ignore the fact that a decade ago they were claiming we wouldn’t have nearly as much snow today, and tell people that warm is still coming tomorrow, and scare them that in the future we won’t have snow. They could almost run the same articles from years ago and just insert new pro-AGW weather events between claims of weather is not climate.
How many weathers does equal a climate?
I’m sure that all of us agree that a single weather event does not define climate, but even the ever-left USA Today needs to recognize that eventually the summation of weather events does equal climate. I’m sure the progressives™ would be hard to pin down on this particular question but when the summation of weathers doesn’t exhibit the predictions of climate, a little reality check is in order.
The no “good” data quicksand.
This particular pro-global warming article, which was born during cold weather, seemed to take a defensive tone. With little helpful weather to work from this winter, they refer to the summary for policy makers of the IPCC AR5 with a
“fairly loose” “somewhat speculative” prevaricatory caricature of the IPCC, in lieu of an actual quotation (my bold):
But climate scientists are 95% to 100% sure that human activity — emission of greenhouse gases — is the dominant cause of dramatic warming.
It makes me giggle. What can I say.
The dramatic warming of Earth to date is minimally detectable 0.85C since the beginning of the 1900’s (IPCC AR5), it shows no sign of accelerating and falls under half the rate which the average climate model predicted. The models require not only more warming, but an accelerated rate of warming for the IPCC doom scenarios to become remotely plausible. Many of us science minded observers, reasonably question the validity of any of the “doom” scenarios themselves, as they are based on what can only gifted generously with the term – speculation. What’s more is that the speculation, is being published as though it were science. Science traditionally requires data, so our hapless author teams are oft pressured into statistical falsification of results, aka”scientific speculation”. See warming attribution sections of various butterfly, sheep, glacier or fish shrinking studies for endless examples. This tendency to fabricate the supporting data of a study is to be expected when the speculation in question supports and improves the funding which in turn supports the studies.
It seems to me that the USA Today article found themselves in the same boat as our palm-reading climate scientists. Since the AR5 summary which USA Today linked to is full of big words that don’t say what USA editors wanted, a little caricature of reality was required to support their progressive™ intent. I wonder how many of the thousands of readers will check the AR5 link for accuracy?
Exxon – send checks ASAP!
USA ends their prayer to the climate model gods (which are apparently different gods from the climate gods) to bring change to the evil right-wing legislators.
The damage will only be compounded if it becomes an excuse for yet another year of denial and delay in addressing climate dangers.
It seems that USA Today is in denial again. As it stands, the EPA and Obama have been proceeding full speed ahead on their insane concept of building windmills, bankrupting coal power, generally limiting combustion energy wherever possible (even beach fires) and increasing usage costs through regulation and governance at a truly unprecedented rate. It is so bad that despite massive energy cost increases, brownouts are becoming something we are dealing with more often in the US now. The authoritarian leftists couldn’t move forward with limitation policy any faster if they tried, but for USA Today it still isn’t fast enough. Meanwhile, the truly dim-witted liberal politician’s attempts to take the lead from global progressive™ reporters, and change global weather by adding costs to combustion energy for only one country on the globe, have scientifically zero chance of success.
The nothing-new-news is that these writers are very, very, ignorant people with strong opinions and big pens. We are inundated today with so many anti-progress media voices across the planet hollering the same message, that society unwittingly bends to their will. Eventually, because CO2 emission won’t actually be stopped or slowed appreciably by government, the data will prove out that warming isn’t actually a bad thing at all. Unfortunately for us, the law and policy, which are likely the true damage of global warming, are being implemented and tightened today. Equally unfortunate for us citizens, government policy worldwide has proven much more intractable than the CO2 in our atmosphere could ever be.
I have a blog!
There is little we the oppressed can do to fight the global ignorance epidemic, so I blog. Whether it changes opinions or not, it at least puts a little rebuttal to the near-omnipotent global media in public view.
Since, according to climate scientists, there has been literally zero detected increases in hurricanes, tornadoes, rain, snow, earthquakes, locusts, drought, flood, etc.. and since the polar ice cap didn’t choose to melt …. again….. it seems that we need a more pragmatic and more scientific list of global warming effects than can be produced in aggregate by warming-centric government funded scientists.
To that end, I have compiled a new list of weather trend predictions for the future. My list is statistically and scientifically falsifiable and even more appropriately, is one that the common person can really get their heads around. Think of it as common sense. This list is unabridged and contains every weather event that will statistically change in frequency and strength, and has an asterisk by those that you will experience or scientists will measure that will be attributable to man made temperature change in the next 40 years.