Free Markets, Free People

Zombie “climate change” returns

It is quotes like this that drive me crazy:

“Climate scientists agree the Earth will be hotter by the end of the century, but their simulations don’t agree on how much. Now a study suggests the gloomier predictions may be closer to the mark. … That means the world could be in for a devastating increase of about eight degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, resulting in drastically higher seas, disappearing coastlines and more severe droughts, floods and other destructive weather.”

First, some “climate scientists agree”, not all.  Some climate scientists actually disagree.  In fact, quite a few.

Second – their simulations have been shown to be factually invalid.   They can’t even recreate the past.  Yet here we have a newsie asserting, by fiat, that they’re valid and the only problem we face is figuring out “how much” is “right” from these hopelessly flawed models.

Finally, a “new study” based on these flawed models predicts even more extreme consequences than most.  Wow … there’s a surprise.

Zombie climate apocalypse continues to stagger on. Why? Because it will be used as a basis to claim we need a carbon tax. Government is not going to miss the opportunity to create a revenue stream out of thin air no matter how questionable the “science” supporting such a power grab remains. It has paid it’s grants, gotten the “science” it paid for and now plans to cash in.


33 Responses to Zombie “climate change” returns

  • Next the government will decide it owns all the oxygen in the United States and we’ll be taxed on April 15th for breathing it.

    • If they can tax CO2, then oxygen will be easy.
      What is ironic is that America started due to a tax on tea, and Americans have always fought against more taxes. But somehow, many Americans today actually WANT a tax on carbon. What has happened to Americas aversion to taxes?
      Just look north to Canada if you want to see what happens when you don’t fight against more taxes. Canadians are taxed to death because they never fight back. In Canada a gallon of gas is $5, a pack of smokes is $10,  a 24 box of beer of $40,  automobiles are 20% more expensive than in the USA, airline fights are 50% more expensive, they have a 15% sales tax on everything you buy, you hit the highest income tax bracket after making only $60,000 a year.  I don’t know how they can live there.
      This is where the USA is going.

    • Oxygen is part of the natural heritage of all mankind. Why shouldn’t you be taxed in order to support the replacement of the oxygen you consume from the common resource?

  • The Czech Republic is looking better and better as a bug-out locale…

  • I await to be vilified for running A/C and to have our grand overlords put a sensor on my A/C to penalize me for abusing their gift of  electricity.  

  • “. . . their simulations have been shown to be factually invalid. They can’t even recreate the past.”
    Climate change is real – just look out the window and watch the changing of the seasons and the variations from year to year. But the crux is the models that predict the end of the worls as we know it. McQ nailed it by questioning the models and their predictions. Give me a single “validated” climate model and then show me the results of its projections and you may have some level of credibility. Simply claiming the sky is falling without having a piece of it in your hands is Ckicken Little Syndrome on steroids.

    • Not a problem, this all comes to an end on December 31st according to Mayan prophecy…. :).
      It’s unclear why the ancient Mayans were using a Gregorian Calendar.   I wonder if they rioted when the government normalized it and took 12 days from their lives.

  • ” just look out the window and watch the changing of the seasons and the variations…”

    I would argue that what you describe is weather. Climate, I think, is a long-term (geological long-term, not election cycle long-term) average. By my standards we do not have enough accurate data over a long enough time period to determine climate to within less than 5 or 10 degrees.

    • You put tens of thousands of days of “weather” together and you get – wait for it – “climate”.  what you call “weather” is a microcosm of the greater “climate”.

    • On the second part of your comment, not having enough data to radically change our complete economy, I would agree. 

  • Keven Trenberth, From the archives:
    Nothing like a track record of being wrong.

  • The fact that we have had over a decade of no warming should put to bed any ideas of cap and trade, etc.

    If AGW was a serious issue, the answer would center on nukes, not wind and solar nonsense. That shows the lack of serious attention the left has given this, their solutions don’t work.

    As it stands, raising taxes will hurt the economy, and even Democrats (in power, not the idiots who vote for them) know this, which is why we still have the Bush tax cuts. Cutting government spending is difficult, however. The easiest bang for the buck Obama could have is dereg of oil, coal, etc., ie going for cheap energy. He could have improved the economy in the run up to the election by adopting a decent energy plan, but didn’t. Instead his EPA is doubling down.

    Deregulation is the easiest path to an improved economy and increased tax revenue. I understand there is no way he’s going to undo Obamacare or Dodd-Frank, but he could have temporarly eased up on oil and coal and politically benifitted, and didn’t. Either immense confidence or else he hates carbon based energy so much he can’t bring himself to do the right thing even temporarly.

    • The fact that we have had over a decade of no warming should put to bed any ideas of cap and trade, etc.

      Sure, IF we were talking science and rational policy.  Of course, we are not.  We are dealing with a witch-doctor religion and POWER.

      • The shameless criteria changers have a solution for this.

        See, now that the hockey stick has gone limp.  We’re suppose to look at 10 year averages.  So 10 years of a flat line is erased because even though its flat, its still flat at a high level(thanks to juiced up values).  So it pulls up the moving average. 

        of course 10 years ago when the year to year non-moving average looked more dramatic without the 10 year moving average.  that was the way to look at it. 

      • C’mon  guys.  Climate “science” is easy peasy.  Up till yesterday, the best 13 models endorsed by the IPCC followed steps of more CO2=more warmth=more evaporation=more water vapor=more IR radiation absorption=more warming yada yada and we’re all gonna die.  BUT the climate system refused to cooperate, and the 3 to 8 degree warming expected by 2100 was in jeopardy given the last 15 year period of no warming. SO…today we look at these same 13 models and focus only on the mid-troposphere and only in the southern tropics and only in their summer season and see which ones best model the humidity compared to observations.  And walla.. the 3 of the 13 that best model the humidity in this minor area of the global atmosphere are (Surprise) those that model the greatest surface warning by 2100.  So now the steps might be more CO2=more tropical dry air=less clouds=more solar radiation= more warming yada yada…and we’re all still gonna die.  And we have always been at war with Eastasia.  I weep for what my quiet science backwater has become.

    “Human emissions of fossil carbon into the atmosphere and the resulting increase in temperatures may be holding off the next ice age, according to research from Sweden’s University of Gothenburg.”
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  Now I HAVE to get a Humvee!

  • Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get.
    Looking at statements invoking more than a few “climate scientists” one could easily conclude that “most climate scientists” agree that their berthern are barking mad, one small step from institutionalization.

  • And are most of the  climate scientists in the world—by a broad majority—a part of this conspiracy?  And are the few—the very few indeed—are really the purveyors of truth.

    • In fact, most of those who are touted to be “climate scientists” that support the AGW theory (and are included in the IPCC’s claim) aren’t scientists at all. They’re activists. And the most prominent “scientists” for AGW have seen their work absolutely destroyed by real climate scientists. Peer review – real peer review – has found their so-called “science” to be severely lacking in both valid facts and scientific method