Free Markets, Free People

Speaking of Cap-and-Trade, More Inconvenient Truths

From Anthony Watts:

Given the U.S. Senate is about to vote upon the most complex and costly plan to regulate greenhouse gases, while the EPA suppresses earlier versions of the chart shown below from a senior analyst, this should give some pause to those who are rational thinkers. For those that see only dogma, I expect this will be greeted with jeers.

The chart in question is here:

uah_jun09

What it shows is we’ve undergone another drop in temperature this past month (coolest June since 1958). In fact:

This latest drop in global temperatures means despite his dire warnings, the Earth has cooled .74°F since former Vice President Al Gore released “An Inconvenient Truth” in 2006.

It is also the information that the EPA tried to suppress recently despite the Obama administration’s pledge that science would now take precedence over ideology.

The new information adds to an 8 year trend of dropping global temperatures. Here’s another view of the same chart with a few important annotations:AIT-Index-7_09

The earth no more has a fever than Al Gore has a clue. But the science that continues to contest and debunk the nonsense Gore and the warmers have pushed out there is having a tough time overcoming the institutional impetus of a Congress, which is ideologically vested in the old message. And, of course, there’s the massive amounts of money and power (both for the government and certain private sources which have helped foment this panic) to be derived from legislation such as cap-and-trade.

This is a massive attempt by government to take more control of the economy, based in shaky science at best, and as Anthony Watts claims, pure dogma. When warmers such as Paul Krugman are reduced to calling scientific skeptics “traitors to the planet”, you know they’ve essentially lost the argument and now have only emotional and populist rhetoric left to defend the indefensible.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

25 Responses to Speaking of Cap-and-Trade, More Inconvenient Truths

  • The Democrats are desperate to pass Cap & Trade before the ugly truth really catches up with them. And even for the truth to catch up with them, the media has to be reactive to the truth and that has yet to be determined.

    Once Cap & Trade has passed, and the truth gets out, the Democrats can then point proudly to how they were instrumental in Saving Gaia Mother Earth – but the taxes will be out there and we all will continue to pay the price.

  • Assuming it gets past the Senate and into law, the problem with it, from the Democrat’s point of view, will be that the economic harm will be both tangible and traceable to C&T.  I think the administration’s hope is that the economy recovers enough that the impact isn’t felt, and then they can play the game where if temperatures go up, it’s proof that we need C&T now, and if temperatures go down, it proves that C&T is working.
     
    On the other hand, if the economic impact is noticeably negative, then that gets reversed.  If warming resumes, people will complain that their economic pain is for naught.  If cooling continues, people will complain that C&T is solving a problem that nature solved on its own.  And with China, among others, thumbing its nose at attempts to lower CO2 emissions, there will be a growing concern that we’re hurting ourselves for no good reason.
     
    I think that C&T is bound to have a very negative impact on the economy, which means that it would be the agent of its own demise.

  • CRAP AND TRADE is a fraud – a total and complete fraud, just like “climate change” is a fraud. Don’t believe me? How come The Clown™ and His Maladministration is trying to shut up scientists and others who deign to discover what a fraud it is? Why are noted scientists who reach opposite conclusions from the ignorant Left told not to show up to present their findings? How come majorities in the United States and the United Kingdom now believe that “global warming” or “climate change” or whatever Orwellian name the Left gives it is a fraud? Why is the northeast US so cool this summer?

    This is what the Socialist Party, known as the Democrats, are shoving down our throats. But there is a silver lining to this: they have ticked off, and will tick off, enough of the American people with their leftwing overreach that they will lose the House majority next year, and be out of the wilderness for a long, long time. The Senate will take some time, but 10 years from now when Harry Reid and Co. are in the minority there, they can ask, “What happened?”

  • http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8138429.stm

    ‘Time to ditch climate policies’

    An international group of academics is urging world leaders to abandon their current policies on climate change.

    The authors of How to Get Climate Policy Back on Course say the strategy based on overall emissions cuts has failed and will continue to fail.

    The report is published by the London School of Economics’ (LSE) Mackinder Programme and the University of Oxford’s Institute for Science, Innovation & Society.

    LSE Mackinder programme director Gwyn Prins said the current system of attempting to cap carbon emissions then allow trading in emissions permits had led to emissions continuing to rise.

    He said world proposals to expand carbon trading schemes and channel billions of dollars into clean energy technologies would not work.

    “The world has been recarbonising, not decarbonising,” Professor Prins said.

    “The evidence is that the Kyoto Protocol and its underlying approach have had and are having no meaningful effect whatsoever.

  • Back just for a comment: It appears that the people of Ohio having tired of the thug they helped elect to the presidency last year…in May, The Clown™ had a 62% approval; now, in July, it is at 49%. And that is before any more of his ridiculous socialist malarkey can kick in.

    I am going to enjoy watching the Democrats dissemble in 2010 they same way that they did in 1994.

  • You know what part of the problem is here?  The limits of the human mind to cognitively process and comprehend really massive things relative to even more massive things.
    Here in Houston, we’ve been having a nasty heatwave.  With the heat index factored in, we’ve been seeing triple-digit temperatures for weeks.  Today is the first day in months that we’ve had some serious rain, and it’s nowhere nearly enough to seriously escape the drought.
    Of course, a single temporary regional spike in temperatures that will at some point assuredly give way to some serious rain is hardly a reason to get all excited.  At least, that’s the rational conclusion.  But trust me, when you’re watching lawns turn brown and are doing whatever you can to stay cool, it’s difficult to identify with the notion of unseasonably cool weather in New York, or with parts of Canada seeing highs in the low 60s, or with other parts of Texas having torrential downpours–and I’m a global warming skeptic who believes that, at the very most, sea levels will rise about a foot.  Yes, I read the statistics and understand that, overall, global temps are pretty much right in the range we’ve been seeing ever since we started recording them.  When you’re seeing nothing but hot-as-hell weather, either when you look out the window or watch the prepackaged news, it’s very easy to give into the global warming lobby.
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

  • A good friend asked me if I knew where the $’s were going to flow if C&T passes, and I don’t.   His explanation was that all the trading would take place on Wall St, and that the US would continue to dominate the world through services and the financial world.  Anyone have a thought on that?  We both agreed it will not accomplish what they say it is going to accomplish…

  • You don’t honestly think that wildly fluctuating two year period of data is enough to somehow disprove the theory do you?  If so, you clearly do not understand either science or statistics!  The trend is up, regional weather changes (including cooler in some areas) goes along with predictions, and since the weather is multi-causal there will be brief periods of decline in the overall pattern.
    Focus on what climate scientists say — not just cherry picking those who agree with you, but look at the field as a whole.   Don’t let politics guide your views on this.  You can acknowledge reality while still opposing government policies that claim to want to solve the problem.   Denying reality in a way that seems to show an ignorance of science makes you look like those who tried for so long to claim — with similar kinds of data — that cigarettes don’t cause cancer.    And, of course, there is always uncertainty.   But frankly, the stuff Q&O posts claiming to somehow ‘disprove’ global warming is usually pathetic political patch works interpreted to mean something different than it really means.   It proves to me you don’t care about the science or thinking rationally — you have your mind made up and you’re going to use whatever you can to rationalize your position, and then ignore or ridicule anything that calls it into question.
    Meanwhile, I separate the political and scientific arguments, and focus on what the climate scientists in general say, and the most authoritative and comprehensive studies.   They are pretty clear.   Those who try to claim that science on global warming is weak are either ignorant or lying.

    • Wouldn’t 1997-1999 qualify as a “wildly fluctuating two year period of data” that should be disregarded when considering the warming trend (or cooling trend)?  You ask us to consider the ‘field as a whole’ but I do not see this consensus that people have mentioned.  Aside from the fact that so much of the issue is radically politicized on both sides, it seems to me that the few scientists and researchers who aren’t clearly biased basically agree on one point– that we just don’t know enough to say for sure.  Which means that none of the data has convinced them that we have no problem, but it also has not convinced them that we have any problem at all, to say nothing of a problem so critical that we need to deal with it ASAP or risk wiping out life on the planet.
       
      Aside from the anomalous spike in and around 1998, the patterns look pretty normal with only a very mild increase in average temperatures, and if it follows trends that have existed for more than 100 years we are probably looking at a cooling trend that should become evident within a decade, if not less.  And with the very real economic damage that we may do via C&T, as well as attempts at minimizing fossil fuel use before we have alternatives on hand, we could be causing ourselves a great deal of suffering for no reason at all.

    • goes along with predictions

      Wow. Erb really is that stupid. It’s not an act.

    • Scott,  you just get worse and worse.  If you even glanced at the second chart, it is clear that there has been no warming between 1979 and 2009.  Nada, none, same straight line.  Sure, we had an anomaly in 1998, but we had other anomalies in 1985 and 1993.  So, all this shows is there are occasional anomalies.   Now, we know from the Hanson data that was withdrawn and replaced that the 1930′s were warmer than the 1990′s.   Now, clearly there is more CO2 in the air now than there was in the 1930′s.  So, even a little questioning of the global warming theory would bring most of us up short.  Couple that with both medieval  warm period and the little ice age and your point about fluctuating data is on the right track, but 2, 10, or even 100 years is too short a period.  In fact, the longer the period, the more the global warming myth becomes undone.  You are right to argue that politics should not influence our view on global warming, but that applies equally to you.And that is exactly what is happening in the scientific community.
       
      So, even a little questioning of the global warming theory would bring most of us up short.   More and more are questioning this theory.  But, there are always the true believers.  True believers are trouble.
       
      Rick

      • A True Believer equals dogma. And Erb is nothing less than the “Lefty Sloganeering Dogma Keeper of the Faith.” But don’t ever claim that he is guilty of partisanship!

        There is a famous passage in Isaac Asimov’s “Foundation” where a researcher is trying to determine the lessons from a historical event from eons in the past. When asked how he could approach his research without visiting the site, he told the questioner that he was essentially conducting a survey of all those who had written of the event thoughout history and his conculsion would conform to the consensus. The main character of the bood used this episode to explain where this was a symptom of the fall of man, where consensus trumped science.

        Consensus once told us the Earth was the center of the universe and people were burned at the stake who claimed otherwise. Consensus once told us the Earth was flat and people were burned at the stake who claimed otherwise. Webster’s Collegiate says Science is “the study and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena.” Nowhere is consensus part of that definition.

        Consensus on the other hand is defined as “collective opinion.” See any science in that statement? Erb, like Gore seems to think consensus equals science. Consensus equals politics, not science. But I guess to a political scientist, that just about covers it.

  • The science of AGW is weak because it is based on computer models:  digital computer models.  Digital computer models which are governed by a Law so terrible that those who break should be roasted on a spit and served on the first day of kindergarten as a warning to the children.  And that law: Garbage IN, Garbage OUT.
     
    When science discovers a parallel Earth orbiting our very own Sun, with parallel plate tectonics, parallel comet strikes, parallel volcanoes, oceans, mountains, and all manner of geological features, parallel weather patterns, parallel life development EXCEPT no people, then get back with me as we have a realistic baseline upon which meaningless DIGITAL COMPUTER MODELS can be calibrated…

    • Well done!
      Spoken like a programming scientist….meet the political scientist above…he thinks he’s really a scientist too.

  • I know it’s depressing to see the joke of Global Warming becoming de facto science, but at least we know it’s a joke!

    Hope this puts a smile on faces:

    http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/a73adc7c78/eco-commando-episode-5

  • Pingback: Catmman
  • Once again the folks at Q and O have missed the key finding of these charts.
    Since “An Inconvenient Truth” the global temperature has fallen .74 degrees.  This of course means that Al Gore, inventor of the Internets, has now  single-handedly saved us from the menace that is global warming.
    Lets give a round of applause for Mr Gore … Ladies and Gentlemen. Savior of the planet.
    GH
     

  • If so, you clearly do not understand either science or statistics!

    Someone doesn’t and it is you.

    The trend is up, regional weather changes (including cooler in some areas) goes along with predictions, and since the weather is multi-causal there will be brief periods of decline in the overall pattern.

    The trend is not up under any dataset you choose to select.  It is only up in a theorethical computer model.  And that computer model has not tracked or predicted any temperatures past 1998.

    In fact, there is growing evidence that the uptrend for a short while before 1998 was due to impoperly placed survey stations.
    As well, attempts to debunk this evidence have been been quickly dispatched

    Prof Erb, I understand you are not technical and are in the right political frame of mind to accept this AGW bs, but you make yourself look like a frothy tard making these arguments.
    Some of us have been following this for a long time and  are quite technical.  I wrote the control and analysis software for one of the largest Ozone monitoring stations in the far North.  And being the software engineer and not the PhD (or one of his grad students) running the program I did not get paper credit :)  So the theory is well within my knowledge base.
    I used to believe in AGW and came to my skeptical credentials slowly over a period of time.  Much of what is happening amongst AGW scientists can be categorized as noble cause corruption.  In other worlds for the good of the planet and off course the children.

  • I saw something pretty disturbing on NatGeo the other night talking about the reversal of the earth’s magnetic field.  Scientist predict that the earth’s magnetic field is due to reverse in about 1500 years.  Prior to the reversal a weaking will occur which is already happening over part of the atlantic now.  As the field gets weaker planet earth will eventually become bombarded with all the radiation from the sun basically wiping out life as we know it.
    That wasn’t the disturbing part.
    The disturbing piece came at the end when they said if man can adapt they will survive.
    So mankind and all other lifeforms are expected to adapt to massive amounts of solar radiation but a slightly warmer climate is a garaunteed game ender?
    WTH, over?

  • The push for “cap and trade” and other useless remedies is to have in place a justification for politicians to take credit for the cooling that is already taking place.
    Sign “cap and trade” legislation tomorrow and within months there will be reports of how the worst of AGW is behind us.

  • As someone with a PhD in biomedical science and 25 years experience, I just have to chuckle at people who are disciples of the so called consensus in AGW.  I recall all those health recommendations the doctors were so convinced of, like eating eggs results in high cholesterol and spicy foods give you ulcers.  So many “scientific consensus” go on to be tossed to the side of the road with impunity for those who had been their proponents.  I’d like to see a bit more wisdom of experience applied to the AGW field, but alas, it is fraught with politics and money.   A physician takes an oath to first, do no harm.  I wish the advocates of AGW would feel the same obligation.    

  • Erb, if AGW turns out to be false, will you publically shut up forever?  I’d think someone so sure of the evidence would be very comfortable taking that on.