by P. Gosselin, and NTZ reader Jimbo
“The Earth has a fever,” we were told. “The science is settled and the debate is over. Scientists are unanimous – 97% of them agree: climate change is real, and is happening now, and we’ve got to act quickly.”
Over more than two decades we were told again and again that everywhere was warming faster than everywhere else – especially winters were warming up quickly. Snow was becoming a thing of the past and children soon weren’t going to know what it is. “The warm winters that we are seeing are just a harbinger of what’s to come,” the media declared just a couple of years ago. The scientists were cock-sure.
Today we are finding that precisely the exact opposite is happening. Winters in Europe have turned colder and more severe. Central Europe has seen its 5th consecutive colder than normal winter in a row – a record since measurements began in the 19th century.
Read the list of failed predictions at: NoTricksZone
You know how warmists are saying that all this snow is because of warming now? Well…….
“37. The rise in temperature associated with climate change leads to a general reduction in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow, and a consequent reduction in many areas in the duration of snow cover.”
Global Environmental Change, Nigel W. Arnell, Geographer, 1 Oct 1999”
And….
“41. “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point.”
IPCC Climate Change, 2001”
There are more like this. Read the list!
We’ve built up stories around green technologies and we make comparisons that are bound to satisfy those preconceptions. As a result, we have an environmental movement that is asking the wrong questions about growth, economy, equity and global risks.
Take, for instance, the practice by mainstream environmental groups of vilifying petroleum cars in order to promote electric cars. No doubt, gas cars are expensive and dirty. They kill tens of thousands of people annually. But using them as a benchmark to judge a technology as green is a remarkably low bar. Even if researchers at the National Academies are wrong – even if electric cars someday pass over that low bar – there’s another problem. How will electric cars stack up against the broader array of transportation options at hand such as transit, cycling and walking?
Subsidies for electric cars are ultimately a subsidy to car culture and the infrastructure that goes with it. Car culture is not sustainable within the limits we face to growth. The more durable transportation options are cycling and walking. But the United States Congress has nearly eliminated bike lane and pedestrian funding – even while it pays out thousands of dollars to every wealthy electric car buyer. And Congress staged this tragic national embarrassment with the full support of the nation’s leading environmental organizations.
-Steve Horn
And this has what to do with the topic? Did Steve Horn say anything about failed climate predictions? Ummmm, let’s see…… Nope.
Oh, here are some failed predictions. (Not from Steve Horn).
http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2010/12/sky-still-isnt-falling-top-ten-failed.html
“The Silly Stuff- Those Global Warming Moonbats figure out ways to blame the dumbest things on global warming. I call it the official crazy list of things Moonbats say global warming causes. The list contains, Incredible shrinking sheep, Invasion of jellyfish in the Mediterranean, Surge in fatal shark attack, Boy Scout tornado deaths, Severe acne, Global conflict, Beer tasting different, Suicide of farmers in Australia, Bigger tuna fish,Longer days, Shorter days, Collapse of gingerbread houses in Sweden, Cow infertility, UFO sightings in the UK, Rise in insurance premiums, and Heroin addiction and a rise in bear attacks in Japan and Frigid Cold Winters in Great Britain, and Cancer, Death from heart disease, diabetes, stroke, respiratory disease and even accidents, homicide, suicide,water -borne disease outbreaks,heavier, wetter snowstorms treacherous for travel and ambulation, Lyme disease, swarms of allergy-inducing, stinging insects, along with mosquitoes and devastating pine bark beetle infestations and the spread of forest and crop pests just to name a few.”
Oh, and let’s not forget more asteroids falling to Earth because of global warming expanding the atmosphere farther out into space!
Learn climate science before you begin calling it a scam. Read about the Gulf Stream, the North Atlantic Deep Water Current, and the implications the Arctic meltwater has on the Ocean Conveyor Belt. The 97% of scientists who have said that global warming is real are correct. Your example of Europe becoming colder is exactly what those scientists predicted.
Read exactly what I told you to read about and you will see what I mean. Stop the ignorance. Global warming doesn’t mean the entire globe is warming. Mother Earth is an extremely complex system and you need to learn about it before you actually just start blabbering about how it’s all a hoax.
Except, 97% of scientists DON’T say global warming is “real” and/or man-made. In fact, the opposite is true. http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2008/05/31000-scientists-reject-global-warming-agenda/
So Billy, are you a climate scientist? I am just wondering if you know climate science. I am not a scientist. I am a heating and air conditioning technician, so I do have some scientific training. What, exactly, is your field of training?
You said:
“Read about the Gulf Stream, the North Atlantic Deep Water Current, and the implications the Arctic meltwater has on the Ocean Conveyor Belt.”
I actually don’t need to read about it because I have knowledge of it already. I also know that the predicted melting of Arctic sea ice has not occurred. What you are saying is that you believe a SCENARIO, it is not an actual fact. What you are describing is an effect predicted by GCM’s. Those are Global Circulation Models. Otherwise known as computer modeling. You need to get something straight, my friend, and that is that a computer model is not a fact. It is a prediction of possible events that are generated by the input of certain parameters BY THE PROGRAMMER. The problem that exists, and has always existed, with computer models is that depending on what information is fed into the model, the model will only predict events that can possibly occur based solely upon the input information. Which means, in laymen terms, garbage in, garbage out.
If you tell a computer model that there is a technologically advanced race of aliens living on Mars, that has plans to conquer Earth, the computer model will tell you that an invasion is imminent! If you tell a computer model that pee turns dirt to gold, it will say that there is a rich vein of gold three trees to the right of the nearest outhouse!
And that 97% of scientists crap, that is just crap. Do you know where that comes from? Have you read this?:
http://blog.heartland.org/2012/10/im-here-to-chew-bubble-gum-and-debunk-the-97-global-warming-myth-and-im-all-out-of-bubble-gum/
“One of the most commonly cited studies of the “97 percent” was conducted by a University of Illinois professor and a graduate student who asked the following questions to 10,257 Earth scientists working for universities and government research agencies:
Q1. When compared with pre?1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
They received responses from 3,146 people, of which only 5 percent self?identified as climate scientists. To get to the magic 97 percent in the affirmative to both questions — in the answers to questions even many skeptics would answer “yes” — the study’s authors had to whittle down the survey to a paltry 79 “climate scientists,” defined as those who also have “published more than 50 percent of their recent peer?reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” The National Academy of Sciences survey is similarly skewed.”
So yeah, 97% of 79 scientists who “published more than 50 percent of their recent peer?reviewed papers on the subject of climate change”, answered yes on this non-scientific SURVEY. It is not 97% of scientists, not even close.
Who the heck are you to come here and scold us on not knowing climate science, when all you believe in are exaggerations, and flawed climate models? Have you even looked at the most recent Artic sea ice analysis from the NSIDC? http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png Where is this massive melt off?
As far as:
“Your example of Europe becoming colder is exactly what those scientists predicted.”
Is it? That’s exactly what they predicted? Really? You want to go there? Ok. From the list in the story I posted above:
“In the northern part of the continent there likely will be some benefits in the form of reduced cold periods and higher agricultural yields. But the continued increase in temperatures will cancel off these benefits. In some regions up to 60 percent of the species could die off by 2080.”
“Based on the rising temperature, less snow will be expected regionally. While currently 1/3 of the precipitation in the Alps falls as snow, the snow-share of precipitation by the end of the century could end up being just one sixth.”
“The ski areas that reliably have snow will shift from 1200 meters to 1500 meters elevation by the year 2050; because of the climate prognoses warmer winters have to be anticipated.”
“Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.”
“Good bye winter… In the northern hemisphere the deviations are much greater according to NOAA calculations, in some areas up to 5°C. That has consequences says DWD meteorologist Müller-Westermeier: When the snowline rises over large areas, the bare ground is warmed up even more by sunlight. This amplifies global warming. A process that is uncontrollable – and for this reason understandably arouses old childhood fears: First the snow disappears, and then winter.”
I submit that you are ignorant, and you have no idea of what you are talking about. Furthermore, you speak only of predictions of snowier winters that were claimed only after winters became snowier, not before. So before you go and proclaim our ignorance I submit to you that you should first look at your own.
Unfortunately, the global warming/climate change crowd is not interested in facts. They prefer instead to change the definition of the word “fact” to mean “consensus” among a very small number of self proclaimed climate scientists. I’m sure there is no bias among the climate scientists who responded. Considering the fact that their professional and economic existence depends upon global warming (or the more neutral sounding climate change), I’m sure they are totally objective in their research and conclusions. It has been quite frustrating to sit and watch nothing more than a theory become a movement and now an industry.
Don’t people know marketing when they see it? Name another scientific fact that has undergone a name change for marketing purposes? Global warming seemed fairly committed to one direction in temperature and one outcome. When the data failed to cooperate, the marketing team swung into action to re-brand the whole movement as “climate change”. Has there ever been a more amorphous term than “climate change”? They went from predicting warmer temperatures (temps being a part of climate) to stating that the overall climate (the general or average weather conditions of a certain region, including temperature, rainfall and wind) is changing or will change at some point in time. In other words, they went from predicting that something is happening to anything could happen.
I propose that we refuse to use or acknowledge the new name. Stick with global warming and make them eat it!
I don’t know tncbg, I’m kinda’ partial to “Global Climate Disruption”! It just sounds so ominous. Really, I get chills! But I think you are right on the money. Well said.
I was just looking at the website linked to “tncbg” above. And realized, you are an EVIL OIL COMPANY!!!! Oh my! Just kidding. I think oil and gas are great. It’s just that I get so often accused of being in the pocket of evil oil companies, I was just wondering if you might, you know, send a little somethin’ somethin’ my way? I mean come on, just because I resent being accused of being in the pocket of big oil, doesn’t mean that I would resent actually being in the pocket of big oil!
Ok, I’m kidding. Seriously, my reward for all of my work here is a simple one. I get immense pleasure from just being right!
Oh, here is something for you to read Billy. Just something else to show that what you think is all wrong.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Snow_Extent.pdf
Uhg! There is a story I’d like to post here but it is copyrighted, and says at the end:
(TM and © Copyright 2013 CBS Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries. CBS RADIO and EYE Logo TM and Copyright 2013 CBS Broadcasting Inc. Used under license. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.)
So, I can’t post it. But I can give you a link. http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/04/12/study-reveals-global-warming-not-to-blame-for-last-years-crippling-drought/
I don’t think they’d have a problem with me directing people to their site. Would they?
Hey Billy! Here is an example of climate models vs. real world observations.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png