Belief in the science of anthropogenic climate change is so embedded into Western culture that to deny it directly is pointless, even though there is a conspicuous lack of evidence that there is dangerous warming or that there is major anthropogenic input. After decades of careless or biased reporting of dubious science, with dissenting voices silenced by mockery or even legal means, the minds of the public and the mainstream media are made up. To resist the narrative is counter-productive.
In a desperate bid to rescue something from the disastrous years of her premiership Mrs May, the deposed Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, has committed the UK to spend well over £1,000,000,000,000 on stopping the world burning up from global warming. Like every cause she has espoused this waste of taxpayers’ money will change nothing and leave her reputation as tarnished as ever.
A true catastrophe is shaping up: the appalling mountain of money which political leaders around the world are throwing at a problem which may become urgent but is not yet a matter of urgency. I say ‘may become urgent’ because I am yet to be convinced by the science. However, since more intelligent students than I are prepared to risk their reputations on advocating drastic measures to cut anthropogenic CO2 emissions, there may be cause for concern. Others, equally eminent, equally qualified, take the opposite view, pointing to the failure of any of the many predictions of dire consequences if we don’t decarbonise our civilisation back to medieval levels. At the moment those who panic are in the ascendant, but it would take a bold prophet to claim that is always going to be the case.
Money that could be used to clean up our rivers, the world oceans and the exhaust-polluted streets of our cities is being thrown away in a foolish reaction to poorly-monitored science (and, most astonishing of all, the wagging forefinger of a sixteen-year-old girl). Maybe our complacent bureaucracy is letting the world slip towards a tipping point catastrophe by ignoring the science. Or our ignorant politicians are risking a major die-off of the poor, the old and the sick by accepting politicised science without close scrutiny. Choose one. Or, if you want a political solution, choose both.
What is the political way of dealing with this dilemma? While blogs like Watts Up With That do their best to present the dire state of climate change advocacy science, science where the conclusion comes before the data, it has not altered the minds of those who believe with a religious fervour that the end is nigh. Tackling their fervent beliefs head-on is counterproductive. We wish to prevent the crisis of inadequate energy to keep our civilisation rich and productive. We also want to avoid the end of the world. Let’s be political. Let’s sit on the fence.
First, acknowledge the ‘crisis’ as it is seen by those who panic.
Here’s the science. The world is warming – the latest figures show that it has warmed about 0.4 deg C since 1979 when the satellites began to monitor temperatures, so that bit of the science is true. Well, half true, the world is warming at half the expected rate.
The computer models predict anomalous warming in the troposphere, a hotspot caused by water vapour feedback. It’s not there. The tropospheric hotspot does not exist. Let’s be perfectly clear about this. According to climate models the global temperature is only going to increase at a dangerous rate if the CO2-induced warming triggers water vapour feedback. Water vapour feedback should induce a tropospheric hotspot. Balloons and satellites have looked for the hotspot. It is not there. Without the water vapour feedback, the computer models show a warming rate that is half the accepted crisis/catastrophe value. So do the thermometers. The most accurate computer model is INMCM4, which projects an un-alarming 1.4C warming to the end of the century.
Climate crisis advocates can justly point out that it really is warming. From there they fly off into projections which are impossible to counter – they always find reasons why the models are wrong, why the theory is wrong, or why the science is wrong when it produces result counter to their need to believe in catastrophe: the world is warming and it might become dangerous. We might be swallowed by a giant mutant star goat for that matter, it’s impossible to prove a negative, but let’s address their concerns in a rational, adult manner. No, not the goat. We’re not yet ready to build space arks.
Clarify the science so we can tackle the problem whatever it turns out to be. It may be CO2; it may be other things.
First, fund research into why the water vapour feedback is not performing as the computer simulations predict. It could be (almost certainly is), that the simulations are wrong. If so, there are warming/cooling water vapour factors that are not being considered. Find out what those factors are before costing the taxpayer trillions of pounds and closing down our civilisation.
Then I’d suggest looking at a slew of possible warming/cooling factors other than CO2.
The case against man-made global warming can be made on at least two levels; first, with reference to the dishonesty of the UN and the IPCC as revealed in the Climategate emails showing the Hockey Stick graph is faked, omitting the Roman and Mediaeval Warm Periods and the Little Ice Age. Secondly the so-called “science” bypasses the Scientific Method, ie:
No null (Ockham’s Razor) hypothesis (ie natural causes) is considered.
No criterion for falsification given,
No supporting experiment,
No record of accurate prediction.
The “evidence” is gathered by counting so-called “extreme weather events”, ie verification by induction, by means of which it was once famously believed that all swans are white; whereas the Method requires proof by deduction, ie the establishment of causal links and serious attempts to falsify hypotheses rather than peer-review by rubber stamp.
The warming effect can only be demonstrated in a computer climate model, but their predictions of future temperature are always too high. The problem is that the mathematics of the models are derived from calculations on a flat piece of paper, as if the earth and the layers of the atmosphere are flat. But the earth is a globe and rotating, and so experiences day and night. The models emulate a globe and so their “flat earth” calculations of the greenhouse effect use a greatly overestimated value of climate sensitivity. The earth meanwhile warms and cools as a result of natural causes, principally the interaction between cosmic rays, solar magnetic output and the earth’s magnetic field.
The IPCC was set up in 1988 to investigate the (then) correlation between warming and the increasing concentration of atmospheric CO2. The following extract is from Morano, Marc: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change:
“The IPCC had every incentive to declare a ‘crisis’ because the UN was also going to be in charge of coming up with a ‘solution.’ If the UN failed to find CO2 was a problem, it would also deny itself the opportunity to be in charge of regulating the world’s economies and planning the energy mixes for the next hundred years and beyond.”
Thank you for posting that. Another point is that historic records cover far too short a time period to be representative and may be of doubtful accuracy. But who considers reality when producing propaganda and the desired result is known in advance?
Once we restore control to our own, hopefully sensible, government all funding of such bodies as the UN needs to be withdrawn.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary (funding, position, power, influence, agenda) depends upon his not understanding it!” Upton Sinclair
The world stopped warming in 1998, over 20 years ago and yet climate change advocates are still banging on about it!
What about the hole in the Ozone layer ? it keeps getting smaller , so it must be an anomaly. Or is it because my van was on SORN ?
Great!! This cannot be talked about enough for me.
Now, is this a periphery subject not associated with Brexit, political correctness, gender confusion or ‘the Russians’?
No, no and no! It is to my mind very much a part of the whole terrible sickness that is ruining every ones lives. It is producing fear, stealing from us, feeding the crazy UN’s ambitions, creating a control element and messing with our freedom of speech.
But I think AGW is the soft underbelly of Globalisation. Difficult to counter yes but nevertheless science should deal with facts and data therein lies our greatest weapon in all its splendour. Truth, or at least the search for it.
I like your approach a psychological Judo. Good idea.
Well said Kim.
If what the Conservatives and Libdems, amongst others, have been telling us is true the Earth would have caught fire in the past because it was warmer then than now.
There are graves of Vikings who used to farm in Greenland (the clue is in the name GREENland!) that are now buried in permafrost. You can’t dig graves in permafrost with hand tools!
So, if it was warmer then than it is now why didn’t the Earth catch fire?
Simple, the Earth has air conditioning. When tropical oceans reach about 28 deg C thunderstorms begin to form. They remove heat from the water and transport it to the top of the atmosphere where it is lost to space. The more heat, the more thunderstorms. That might also explain why the Earth didn’t catch fire millions of years ago when there was something like 400 TIMES as much CO2 in the atmosphere as now.
(Although that probably has more to do with CO2 having little or no effect on Earth’s global temperature.)
BUT, BUT, BUT! What if it WAS true I hear you say?
Well, then the first thing we should be clamouring for to make a REAL difference is a world-wide ban on coal exports to Communist China. Their CO2 production is rocketing upwards at such a rate that any reduction we make, for example, like blowing up East Tilbury power station, (Teresa May’s government was a gift that still keeps on giving with increasing electricity prices and reduced reliability) makes no MEASURABLE difference to the Earth’s temperature.
(Which appears to be going down anyway due to the Solar Minimum we’re in right now.)
China! CO2! manufacturing colossus! Coal consumption mountainous – and climbing! China – Over 1 miiion employed in the coal industry! Result? World’s greatest industrial power! UK ? 1480 Employed in coal industry……….. local industries and people- skint!
Can’t offload Chinese crap quick enough……………..British Asians? Selling monumental amounts of imported Chinese crap and growing.
Baby girl crying about climate…………the world (except China!) weeps with her. Does she mention China? Don’t make me laugh!
Xi? Can’t stop laughing – let’s the whole world engage in wars against Islamic Terror – meanwhile………. he builds the New Silk Road, increases home production and imports of coal, imprisons Islamic terrorists AND? YES! keeps on laughing.
Cor Blimey Mate!!!!!!! Mugs!
“about 0.4 deg C since 1979”! An insignificant period in the history of our planet. As ever, if one wants to identify a scam then just follow the money.