Wednesday, 30 November 2016

GLOBAL WARMING HOAX

Global warming hysteria’s long goodbye
From American Thinker
The twenty-second session of the United Nation’s climate change conference ended a few days ago in Marrakech, Morocco, and the proclamation went forth that the conference “successfully demonstrated to the world that the implementation of the Paris Agreement is underway and the constructive spirit of multilateral cooperation on climate change continues.”
All “well and good,” but with the incoming skeptical Trump train, the trundling of the Marrakech Express is going to become a bit more problematic.
A new era for atmospheric science may be dawning, as the likelihood for voices with a broader perspective on climate forecasting may be encouraged to speak.
The practice of science in general, and climatology in particular, is about the freedom to creatively synthesize scientific knowledge with individual skills and perspective to comprehend and predict the Earth’s complex climate.  In this way, climate science can advance for the benefit of both people and the planet.
Regarding the practice and essence of this specialized field, bestselling author Matt Ridley, in his recent book The Evolution of Everything: How New Ideas Emerge (HarperCollins, 2015), gives ample challenge to the status quo imposed by controllers of supposedly unassailable climate outlooks.
In his book, Ridley frequently gives contemporary climate science as an example of top-down, inapt scientific practice rather than a bottom-up, more effective, emergent-friendly system.
To Ridley, the advancement of science is more from a “procession of fascinating mysteries to be challenged” rather than a collection of facts for students and the populace to accept from those with a received wisdom.  Perhaps it’s no surprise, then, that Ridley includes his extended exposé of pompous anthropogenic climate change assertions in his chapter on the evolution of religion.
Ridley points to several “characteristic features of a mystical and therefore untrustworthy, theory.”  These anti-science characteristics include the fact that the theory is not refutable, appeals to authority, relies heavily on anecdote, makes a virtue of consensus, and takes the moral high ground.  Specifically, much of climate-change science is:
Not refutable.  Predictions of climate doom centuries from now cannot be validated until centuries from now.  Nice work if you can get it.
Appeals to authority.  The fact that dozens of scientific societies have endorsed human-induced climate disaster does not make it so.  In fact, elite officers of such societies who make the endorsements are not always typical of the wide-ranging viewpoints of society membership.  The American Meteorological Society is one case in point, where surveys of the members reveal substantial dissent among the society’s hoi polloi.
Relies heavily on anecdote.  When I was a kid, winters were much snowier than they are today.  So what?  Somewhere else on the globe, someone is recalling that his winters were much less snowy.  The data trends are what matter.  Unfortunately, the data coverage over the years has been relatively sparse and imprecise.  However, what the trends do show is a much smaller increase in global temperatures than anticipated by vaunted climate models.  Furthermore, minuscule fractions-of-a-degree increases in annual estimated global temperature are heralded as the “hottest” year on record.  Exemplary hyperbole.
Makes a virtue of consensus.  It bears repeating that no matter who or how many are absolutely convinced of a particular theory, “science is never settled.”  That truism must be redoubled for reliance on long-range prognostications.
Takes the moral high ground.  Sadly, so many religious people have taken up the cause of saving the planet from the possibility of everyone living in comfort with a mix of affordable energy largely realized via fossil fuels.  Unfortunately, religion and moral superiority seem to have inspired so many to vacuous activism, especially on this complex issue, which practically necessitates faith on the part of the vast majority of angry climate congregants.
So America must proceed with caution.  For now, with all the rough track along the route of climate science, it’s time for the U.S. to hop off the U.N.’s Marrakech express.
Anthony J. Sadar is a certified consulting meteorologist with 40 years of experience in air-pollution meteorology and science education and author of In Global Warming We Trust: Too Big to Fail (Stairway Press, 2016).
The twenty-second session of the United Nation’s climate change conference ended a few days ago in Marrakech, Morocco, and the proclamation went forth that the conference “successfully demonstrated to the world that the implementation of the Paris Agreement is underway and the constructive spirit of multilateral cooperation on climate change continues.”
All “well and good,” but with the incoming skeptical Trump train, the trundling of the Marrakech Express is going to become a bit more problematic.
A new era for atmospheric science may be dawning, as the likelihood for voices with a broader perspective on climate forecasting may be encouraged to speak.
The practice of science in general, and climatology in particular, is about the freedom to creatively synthesize scientific knowledge with individual skills and perspective to comprehend and predict the Earth’s complex climate.  In this way, climate science can advance for the benefit of both people and the planet.
Regarding the practice and essence of this specialized field, bestselling author Matt Ridley, in his recent book The Evolution of Everything: How New Ideas Emerge (HarperCollins, 2015), gives ample challenge to the status quo imposed by controllers of supposedly unassailable climate outlooks.
In his book, Ridley frequently gives contemporary climate science as an example of top-down, inapt scientific practice rather than a bottom-up, more effective, emergent-friendly system.
To Ridley, the advancement of science is more from a “procession of fascinating mysteries to be challenged” rather than a collection of facts for students and the populace to accept from those with a received wisdom.  Perhaps it’s no surprise, then, that Ridley includes his extended exposé of pompous anthropogenic climate change assertions in his chapter on the evolution of religion.
Ridley points to several “characteristic features of a mystical and therefore untrustworthy, theory.”  These anti-science characteristics include the fact that the theory is not refutable, appeals to authority, relies heavily on anecdote, makes a virtue of consensus, and takes the moral high ground.  Specifically, much of climate-change science is:
Not refutable.  Predictions of climate doom centuries from now cannot be validated until centuries from now.  Nice work if you can get it.
Appeals to authority.  The fact that dozens of scientific societies have endorsed human-induced climate disaster does not make it so.  In fact, elite officers of such societies who make the endorsements are not always typical of the wide-ranging viewpoints of society membership.  The American Meteorological Society is one case in point, where surveys of the members reveal substantial dissent among the society’s hoi polloi.
Relies heavily on anecdote.  When I was a kid, winters were much snowier than they are today.  So what?  Somewhere else on the globe, someone is recalling that his winters were much less snowy.  The data trends are what matter.  Unfortunately, the data coverage over the years has been relatively sparse and imprecise.  However, what the trends do show is a much smaller increase in global temperatures than anticipated by vaunted climate models.  Furthermore, minuscule fractions-of-a-degree increases in annual estimated global temperature are heralded as the “hottest” year on record.  Exemplary hyperbole.
Makes a virtue of consensus.  It bears repeating that no matter who or how many are absolutely convinced of a particular theory, “science is never settled.”  That truism must be redoubled for reliance on long-range prognostications.
Takes the moral high ground.  Sadly, so many religious people have taken up the cause of saving the planet from the possibility of everyone living in comfort with a mix of affordable energy largely realized via fossil fuels.  Unfortunately, religion and moral superiority seem to have inspired so many to vacuous activism, especially on this complex issue, which practically necessitates faith on the part of the vast majority of angry climate congregants.
So America must proceed with caution.  For now, with all the rough track along the route of climate science, it’s time for the U.S. to hop off the U.N.’s Marrakech express.
Anthony J. Sadar is a certified consulting meteorologist with 40 years of experience in air-pollution meteorology and science education and author of In Global Warming We Trust: Too Big to Fail (Stairway Press, 2016).
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/global_warming_hysterias_long_goodbye.html#ixzz4RTNVjHKm
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

The world can be a confusing and misleading place in which to live and grow up. As children and young adults we visit the sea once or twice a year and we observe that the shoreline is still in the same place and the tide still rises and falls, as we understand it has always done. But then we heard, if we were born in the 1940s, that the weather patterns were changing and it was all due to atomic bombs. Earlier generations were told that everything from steam engines to flying machines and mining activities were changing the weather. Essential to these myths was the suggestion that the seasons were getting later and that man was the problem.
The myths were always spread by ordinary folks with little understanding of meteorology and even less understanding of climatology, until some researchers fastened onto the opportunity to gain research funding. Add a little political hype and suddenly the whole world population is alarmed at the prospect of the world becoming uninhabitable within a few short decades.

The world that we once knew seems gone. The mountains, oceans, rivers and forests that we thought hadn’t changed in millions of years, are suddenly threatened. We thought we lived in a world that never changed. Each morning when we looked outside everything was the same as the day before, but the climate alarmists have convinced us that the end is nigh unless we change our ways.

The climate alarmists avoid the reality that temperature changes have ranged from no ice anywhere to ice covering almost the entire planet. They won’t tell you that the world is constantly recycling itself and that every piece of dry land was once under the sea, or that every piece of ocean floor was once dry land. Likewise, vegetation has come and gone too, along with deserts, mountain ranges and plains. The world is always changing.

The alarmists tell us about the infinitesimal changes in average temperatures since 1850, although they don’t call them infinitesimal, but they fail to tell us about the millions of years of temperature changes before 1850. Why? They want us to believe that the industrial revolution is to blame. They don’t want us to know that climate has always been changing and sometimes quite dramatically. They tell us that sea levels are rising and unless we change the way we live coastal cities and many small island nations will disappear. They don’t want you to know that sea levels have always changed and people who want to live safely should quite simply not live by the sea. The sea is dangerous.

Average world sea levels have risen 130 metres since the last ice age, but in the last 1,000 years the rate of rise has slowed considerably. Man cannot control the rise and fall of tide and sea any more than he can control the level of the bath water by farting in the bath. Man cannot change the climate, but there is a huge industry where people make money from trying to convince us that we can change the climate.

The alarmists must know now that eventually they will lose their argument and their funding. They have already dropped the term global warming and substituted it with climate change. By doing that they can argue that industrialisation is creating storms that are more frequent and more violent. That is easy bait to swallow. We can all remember vividly the storm of last week, but we don’t remember a similar storm from two or three years ago. But the simple fact is that the world records for high temperature and wind speed were created early in the twentieth century. No new records have been created in the twenty-first century.


Man-made global warming/climate change is a hoax.