Global Cooling Is Here!

Going all the way back to the begining of the environmental movement, many of us on the right have regarded it as nothing but a proxy to impose all the controls the Left wants to impose anyway on industry and western nations in general. A perfect metaphore for the "greens" is the watermelon. Green on the outside, red on the inside.

I checked your links, I agree completely. Looking at this graph of average global temperatures:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's hard to get excited about the climate change. And, as one of your link notes, even if the world is getting warmer, it makes more sence to simply adapt to the changes than to waste billions trying to change something we really can't change.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And that initial ridiculous delusion has never been subjected to correction via factual reality.

Which is why the actual environmental policies of authoritarian left governments - China, Russia - do not cause a re-evaluation of the premises. Environmentalism is a cause of the authoritarian left because it is, and nobody needs to do any more thinking.

Which is an example of how reality got to have a "liberal bias" in the US; magazines like Scientific American found themselves at odds with "conservative" political agendas, and Federal agencies dealing with scientific or factual matters kept getting into fights with politicians - Surgeon Generals were fired, NASA reports rewritten by PR agents, data and research agencies assigned political liaisons to monitor their policies, grants and funding put under careful political review.

The Wall Street Journal scores very "Right" on its editorial page, but moderate to "Left" in its inner-page news articles. Noam Chomsky has mentioned its value as a mainstream source of radical left info. Why? Because businessmen need, and value, accuracy. And these businessmen are quietly betting considerable sums of money that the lower atmosphere is going to keep on getting warmer for a while - while simultaneously promoting whatever pays off the best in the short run, of course, regardless of the effects on that warming.

So again, the entire discussion of the effects of the anthro CO2 buildup is made a political football. And the right is once again arguing about factual reality in political terms - attempting to slow the CO2 buildup involves regulation and expense, therefore the buildup has not had and is not going to have much effect.

And this involves considerable dishonesty - getting reality to line up with a political agenda is always difficult, and never more so than when the reality involved is of a large and unmanipulable kind, like climate. So we have "science" from Fox News such as the link above (Is It A Crisis), in which we are treated to shameless repetition of long-discredited junk, and no one is disbarred or the equivalent - there is no professional licensing or ethical oversight of science journalism.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please, it's anything but a ridiculous delusion.

What the policies of China and the former Soviet Union do is make clear that the Left really doesn't give a shit about the environment. Which is to say, it reinforces the idea that environmentalism is nothing but a false front for the Left.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's a ridiculous delusion. Why hasn't the Right adopted the reality based environmentalist agenda ? Surely the market distortion caused by allowing the distribution of costs to non-beneficiaries and non-market entities should raise alarms all through the Right ?

So why then would the Right reject it ?

If it is not genuine Left cause, it is just that much more of interest to the Right, no ?

Or are you claiming there are no true environmentalists ?

 

The environmental problems is not only global warming, there are air,water, land pollution, and some other influences of human activities, and population leap.

These comprehensive influences of human activities may threaten the earth environment, and the damaged environment will threaten human back.

Anyway, evaluating human activities will be important work to the exist of human on the planet.

 

Of course there are. There are the "true believers", otherwise known as useful idiots who are the hard core environmentalists, the real nut jobs. Then there's the majority, the normal people who simply don't want to see rivers catching on fire.

But the movers and shakers are simply Leftists who see the opportunity to move things in the direction they want under the cover of protecting the earth.

The desire to serve or "save the earth", is usually nothing but a cover for a desire to rule.

 

And nowhere in there does any actual consideration of factual or realistic accuracy show up - it's all political positioning, without regard to, for example, the environment - in the rightist's eyes.

Interesting.

It's almost as though there were a Left, in US politics.

So that explains why the Right doesn't back the useful idiots, decreasing their support of the Left and increasing the wealth of the community at the same time. It's because they've already chosen up sides, to play a game for power - reality has nothing to do with it.

But how is it that the leftists conceal their agenda from the nutjobs - because of course the authoritarian leftist agenda (as exemplified by the Soviets, etc) is not what the environmentalists want, support from the true believers is the only thing that makes their idiocy useful, right ?, and sooner or later an actual policy or law or something must be put forward, and at that time the environmentalists are bound to see they've been betrayed.

 

Cajun cooling! AAAhYEEE!

 

The forecast is for more global cooling, followed by more global warming, possibly followed by a bit more global cooling...

 

Global Warming evaporates more water from the oceans, and can lead to more precipitation than usual, including snow. However, it may be snowing at 30 degrees instead of 28.

 

Put a snow globe out on the lawn, and you can have global cooling right in your front yard in Louisiana !

 

Its been a fairly cold summer here in Aus...I remember when I was small most summers were 27+ celcius...and this summer we've had max degrees of 19 in the middle of summer. Even the Australian Open tennis was easier in terms of temperature...global warming is missing here...

 

One of the predictions of some of the CO2 modelings is less total difference between the average yearly highs and lows in some places - cooler summer days, warmer winter nights, with the warmer winter nights a higher percentage difference (even an equal absolute change is a higher percentage change from a smaller number, and theory predicts a greater absolute difference in the winter night temps) - adding up to a higher yearly average temperature and more heat energy available.

That is exactly what has been playing out on the north central prairie and steppe of North America - the very hot, clear summer days of a generation ago have become more rare, but so have the bitter cold, clear nights of midwinter - and the winter change is greater overall.

Another prediction is more water vapor in the air on average, but less frequent rain in most places, and less rain overall for places without mountains or other forcing conditions.

 

Lemme see...
They've predicted hotter or colder. Wetter or drier. Many all, maybe some areas experiencing some or little or maybe a lot. Regional may not be the same as global. Seems they have it all covered.

I dunno if I would sign on the dotted line of a contract like that.

Added Link:

http://www.farmersalmanac.com/

 

Exactly. They've covered all the bases to the point that the theory is nonfalsifiable. That is to say, it's no longer in the relm of science and has moved into religion.

 

Usually I try to stay out of these conversations, but I saw an article in Phyiscs Today (which is the publication of the American Physical Society) questioning the tree-ring data that people typically quote. I haven't read it thouroughly, but it seems to indicate that most of the data in the past is a bit off, and the carbon record is much less dramatic than previously suspected.

I am not a climate scientist, I am a physicst. I don't claim to undderstand climate science research, but I also don't understand the carte blanche that this research seems to get from other scientists. For example, I know many grad students (in physics) who are great skeptics when it comes to physics, but are absolutely non-critical of everything they read on Al Gore's website.

I'll try to find the article in pdf to link here.

 

Just because you haven't followed the actual arguments and sets of predictions made by people honestly and carefully setting up and calibrating reasonable models,

doesn't mean those people are stupid purveyors of muddled nonsense trying to sell a political viewpoint you don't like.

It means you haven't been paying attention.

Complete bullshit. "Their" (the climate modelers that have been including forcing effects from the CO2 buildup in their modelling) theories are easily falsifiable, and the predictions from their models are easily checked against incoming data.

So far, for a decade now, the various models that predict a rapid net overall serious warming from the CO2 buildup have been coming up cherries on their subsidiary or "reality check" predictions - Brazilian hurricanes, Australian droughts, January rain in western Minnesota, glacial melting at low altitudes in Greenland and glacial buildup at high altitudes with a net melt, more violent and patchier rainstorms in the monsoon belts, less cooling from the recent Ninya and sunspot minimum coincidence than in the past, less difference between day and night temps at moderate and high latitudes, severe ice coverage deficits in the high Arctic as an early event (later on that may change), etc etc etc.

Try to find predictions from anyone else, btw. It's easy to find people bringing up concerns and doubts, pointing to difficulties here or errors there (and right about them, too) but in general no one has been making comparable counter-predictions, finding other models that produce contrary predictions about the effects of the CO2 buildup and putting them on the line to see how the data break.

Or on the other hand, if you read the lists of scientists who have signed essays or petitions publically disputing the climate modelers and accusing them of political motives, again you find loads of people not in the field. Both the carte blanche and the convinced political sceptic are likely to be from out of the field.

That's true of any politically controversial area of science. Read the lists of "scientific" Creationist proponents and you'll find physicists, economists, chemists, etc.

When people don't know what they are talking about, they are more apt to jump to conclusions - and scientists are just regular people, outside their fields.