Posts
It wasn’t too long ago that environmentalists were insisting
that Hurricane Sandy had proven, definitively, that global warming was real,
that the ice caps were melting and that the next time the sea would rise up to
eat the American East.
Sandy, you see, was a prelude to the fast-approaching environmental
apocalypse. If only we would stop exhaling all of that carbon dioxide, all
would be well.
In the hubbub and the furor over Sandy, we have missed the
Russian winter, which, inconveniently, is the worst it’s ever been. The bad winter weather has enveloped large regions of Central Europe and Asia.
Walter Russell Mead reports:
Cold
weather in the past few days has sadly gone from severe to deadly. While
unusually high snowfall has disrupted the travel plans of millions of
Americans, freezing temperatures have taken the lives of hundreds of people
from Central Europe to South Asia. The BBC reports that in
Poland, 49 people have died; in Ukraine, 83; in Russia, 88; and in India, at
least 93. The majority of those dead are the elderly and the homeless.
Besides
being an obvious tragedy for many across the world, this is a reminder that
“weather” is not “climate,” unless it suits the needs of environmental hotheads
to claim that it is. When there’s a hot spell or a dry spell or a wet spell
that can somehow be connected with the climate change narrative, the media
resounds with panicky warnings. But when people die of frostbite in Punjab and
temperatures hit -58F in Russia, the silence of the alarmists is deafening.
Does this prove that a new Ice Age is fast approaching? Can
we now go back to exhaling? Should we try to save the planet by burning more
fossil fuels?
‘Tis a puzzlement….
13 comments:
There is always a fast approaching apocalypse--that never seems to arrive.
To quote one of Rachel Maddow's riveting appearances on Letterman: "I think global warming probably means extreme weather of all kinds." Yes, indeed, my dear... We are all doomed. It's the classic "Heads I win, tails you lose" argument/position. But one thing is certain: cooling means death.
These neo-Malthusians fixate on Greenland ice cap reports with a level of childlike devotion usually reserved for tales of elves, pixies, fairies and hobbits. I have watched normally sentient human beings rise into frothing furies with great gnashing of teeth about "Climate change." Their certainty and animation make for compelling theatre, but this is no act. They mean it. Like, really. These are folks who cannot otherwise be bothered to read (much less understand) much about science, and understand nothing about the complexity of climate. No, no, no... They'll say we must "DO SOMETHING!!!" (emphasis added to reflect the sheer horror in their eyes and voices). Then, you calmly ask what should be done. Stunned silence. Once they realize what's behind you question, you have now sunk to an entirely new low. You are a climate change skeptic. An evildoer. You hate the Earth. You are a mindless minion of Big Oil. Any time you request with your nieces, nephews and other young people must now be supervised because.... who knows what else you might tell them? You are a dangerous threat to the Nature Goddess. You probably want to keep Christ in Christmas.
Tip
Actually it doesn't refute global warming at all.
Global warming tracks climate, as opposed to weather, changes. Climate, as in observed facts over at least a 30 year period vs. transient weather patterns year to year.
The most important facts about global warming--i.e. the temperature of the oceans over time, the measured amount of certain gases in the atmosphere over time, are what matter.
If you want to refute the long term statistics and argument, go ahead, but that's not what you're doing here.
It is as wrong to point to a bad winter to refute climate change as it is to support it on the basis of one or two hurricanes. Each are equally ignorant of the science involved.
Actually it doesn't refute global warming at all.
Global warming tracks climate, as opposed to weather, changes. Climate, as in observed facts over at least a 30 year period vs. transient weather patterns year to year.
The most important facts about global warming--i.e. the temperature of the oceans over time, the measured amount of certain gases in the atmosphere over time, are what matter.
If you want to refute the long term statistics and argument, go ahead, but that's not what you're doing here.
It is as wrong to point to a bad winter to refute climate change as it is to support it on the basis of one or two hurricanes. Each are equally ignorant of the science involved.
Anonymous the later: One of the problems with Global Warming or Climate Change is that it is being pushed by many who do not live their lives as if they believed what they are saying, and are also saying that "We" must do expensive things to "prevent" whatever it is.
We know: Climate changes. It must be warming since the US is no longer glaciated except for some mountains. But it has been warmer than now, and colder than now, and there are cycles within cycles. The Romans grew grapes in Britain. No real factories, population much less, and no SUVs. Blaming these now for something that happened without it before--I'm being lied to. I can recall The Coming Ice Age (We're All Gonna DIEeeeeeee!) of the '70s. Now it's The Coming Heat Tsunami (WAGD!!!!), unless we Do Something Now that's Very Expensive.
Pardon my cynicism.
I see freeze warnings up for Central Florida again.
I keep saying we should be taking to the streets (if we can find enough coats) to protest the global warming because......IT'S NOT WORKING!
Anonymous I & II: What's your point? As far as I see, it's still "Heads I win, tails you lose." How're your 30-year social climate models doing with predicting our cultural demise/collapse?
How does one disprove scientific assertions about "climate change?" Whether it's 2, 6, 14, 19, 23, 26, 32, 41, or 49 years, it makes no difference. People won't point to climate science, because it's all fluid, just like Earth (Gaea) itself. This isn't Jar-El predicting the certainty of the demise of Planet Krypton. Please be serious. Please.
Sam L.: Climate changes, indeed. Watch out for those glaciers. When you see them return, rejoice! You'll never plant a garden again. Death. Again, I say, REJOICE!!! 'Tis just as the Malthusians would ave it.... Homo Sapiens' comeuppance!
Tip
Pardon me, I meant "Jor-El" in my earlier post. My apologies on this most important point. After all, he did accurately predict Krypton's doom, and I do not want that to be forgotten. And please keep in mind that he longevity of the Fortress of Solitude (as well as Santa's North Pole Workshop) depend on sustainable Arctic glaciation.
Top
My point is simple: transient weather taken day by day or year to year is no indication of global climate change, as this blogger wants to assert by jumping on a single bad winter to refute it.
It's more complicated than that. Like I said, if he wants to take on the larger debate of climate change, go for it. But that's not what he's doing.
A snide blog like this, while it may be fun to read, is simply ignorant of the facts.
Oh, Heavens... I was making an ironic commentary about the people who keep saying that Hurricane Sandy provided the definitive proof of the truth about global warming....
Time to brush up on your irony....
Stuart, irony is lost on the humorless. That's why we all know that Hurricane Sandy IS the definitive proof we've all been looking for. Climate change is proven, as if the climate change believers ever required proof in the first place.
Good heavens, indeed! Now perhaps this s the moment when the oceans began to recede and the planet began to heal. And humor was allowed to creep back into our national discourse...
Tip
Anon @ 9:22, I'm waiting for Global Warming, at least where I am. Too chilly for me--rarely gets warm enough for me to wear shorts. Like once a year, maybe, if I'm lucky. Others find it warm enough for them to wear shorts.
The global warming metric is meaningless and when exploited to manipulate people is a commission of fraud on, ironically, a global scale. The only anthropogenic effects worth noting, and capable of being substantiated, are local and regional effects. To claim otherwise is to dispute the incomplete characterization and unwieldiness of the system.
The worst part of this fraudulent scheme is people acting as "scientists" who defer judgment to models in lieu of comprehensive physical evidence. Their speculation requires neither testing nor reproduction. Their effort is arguably better classified as philosophy or religion.
A single cyclone in a geographically constrained area does not establish a global, physical aberration, and neither does a single season in a geographically constrained area. However, exploiting the first exceptional event for a political cause, does establish standing to exploit a similar exceptional event. The best response to a joke is with a joke. When the prosecutor acts in bad faith, then there is no reason to respond in good faith.
Post a Comment