Free Markets, Free People

“Global Warming” shadenfreude

When irony won’t do:

It’s not easy being green these days, especially if you’re a die-hard doomsayer of the global warming persuasion. In perhaps the cruelest blow of all, the believers learned just this week — in a study released by the National Opinion Research Center at Barack Obama’s University of Chicago no less — that the skeptics haven’t been marginalized as science-denying ignoramuses all these years. To the contrary, unbeknownst to the doomsayers, they themselves have been on the margins of society in their belief that the global warming threat to the planet is the most consequential issue of our times, if not all times.

Those that have attempted to foist this travesty are indeed on the margins. Mainstream thought discounts heavily any of the myriad of doomsday scenarios that the alarmists have been trying to ram down our throats for years:

As documented in painful detail in Public Attitudes towards Climate Change & Other Environmental Issues across Time and Countries, 1993-2010, a 17-year study of attitudes conducted by the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) in 33 countries, most people in all countries rank global warming way down their list of concerns. In Norway, just 4% considered global warming to be the country’s most important issue — and Norwegians were the most concerned of all of the citizens studied. In Canada, also high up the list, the figure was just 3%; in Great Britain less than 1% and in the U.S. the concern and was less than one half of 1%.

Not surprisingly, in most countries few people even consider global warming — whether or not caused by man — to rise to the level of being extremely dangerous: In Norway, a mere 11.8% of the population fear it, in Great Britain 16.3%, in the U.S. 19.6%. Even in relatively alarmist Canada the great majority take global warming in stride — only 27.8% see it as doom-worthy.

Ice cover in Antarctica is up since 1979 when we first began measuring it by satellite. Disasters are down, with the US “suffering” a drought of land strikes by Cat 3 hurricanes and above. And temperature? Well despite their dire predictions based only on modeling, even the most die-hard alarmists have had to admit we’ve haven’t warmed much at all:

The Holy Grail of proof to most doomsayers, of course, is the temperature, which global warming models insisted would rise in lock-step with increases in carbon dioxide. When the temperatures started to plateau in the late 1990s, doomsayers scoffed at the skeptics who noted that the models failed, taking comfort from the global warming leadership who explained every which way that the skeptics were torturing the statistics to falsely show warming had stopped. Now the leadership itself — the U.K.’s Met Office, NASA’s Jim Hansen, and the IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri — all admit to temperatures having reached a standstill for the better part of two decades. The lowly global warming believer is left with little but the promises from their leaders that, sooner or later, those temperatures will rise again.

In fact, we found out, it wasn’t skeptics who were “torturing statistics” but the “hide the decline” alarmists.

What we were given, by Al Gore and his like wasn’t science, it was alarmism dressed up as science. It was unproven theory presented as fact. And when science finally had had enough of this claim that consensus proved the alarmist right, they simply dismantled the theory with actual, factual data.

One of the more wonderful bits of fallout? The demise of a once strident voice of the alarmists:

The New York Times is discontinuing the Green blog, which was created to track environmental and energy news and to foster lively discussion of developments in both areas. This change will allow us to direct production resources to other online projects.



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

35 Responses to “Global Warming” shadenfreude

  • shadenfreude

    A rich dessert, served drenched with the tears of a million enviro-fascists.
    But be assured—there is WAY too much potential in this hoax for Collectivists to give up on it.  And they are self-deluded true believers.

    • Sadly, once climatology, which was a nice quiet backwater amongst the sciences in the 1950s to 70s, got in bed with the climate hucksters and the billions of grant and government dollars provided to “prove” CO2 will have dire effects on the global temperature, its reputation has suffered in the overall science community.  The latest ex post facto discoveries by the alarmists are that, by golly, now that we looked at the models more closely, (1) a 15 year hiatus in warming is not unexpected, and (though we lamented as late as 2007 that our grandchildren will have to look at videos to see what snow is) now a closer examination of the models shows that (2) heavier snowstorms/blizzards are a consequence of the warming…..see 1 above.

      • So….don’t listen to what we said yesterday and accountable for it, wait for what we have to say about it tomorrow.

      • That’s the problem with complex, opaque “models”. There are so many moving parts and semi-arbitrary fudge factors that a “closer look” can make the model do whatever you want after the fact with a “small adjustment”.

        They are just a more sophisticated version of the Erbian strategy of throwing out such a mass of blather on every issue that, no matter what actually happened, he could look back cross-eyed at his “analysis” and crow that it was right.

        These enviro-hysterics are never going to conclude that their models were nonsense on toast from the start. They can’t, else they would be in deep trouble. If you can’t defend the indefensible, you have no role to play on the left. If they admitted their models were as bad as the facts eventually showed, that lovely grant money would dry right up. Heck, they might have to go out and get a real job in the real world. Can’t have that.

      • “Predictive hindsight”.  Well, that is aptly Orwellian, it must be said.

  • Lively discussion….. like wanting to see ‘denier’s’ burn up, or explode, or die some other horrible death.  Lively discussion.
    Besides we no longer need THAT excuse to redistribute wealth.  We have Obama now.

  • I knew this gig was over when Japan, home of Kyoto, indicated that they would not be staying with their carbon reduction commitments, due to increased oil usage to generated electricity since many nuclear facilities were still down.
    But it doesn’t stop the insanity …

    My first question when I read this headline was:
    With Passover Approaching, a Plague of Locusts Descends Upon Egypt
    how long before somebody tries to blame this on global warming, today’s universal one-size-fits-all bogeyman?
    The answer is: 30 seconds, as it is already in the article itself.

    • I knew it was over when they said they were using computer models to prove it was so.

  • Global warming joins Keynesian economics as revealed wisdom in the church of scientology sciency stuff. Have faith in the good stuff, my brethren and sistren, not the  evil ravings of the wingnuts. What can you expect from Poly. Sci. or film school alumni?

    • Along with the doctrine of gun-control as an article of faith.  It is pure superstition.

      • Apparently WUWT is posting that Juliet Eilperin has be reassigned to the WaPo “online strike force”, with a smaller (or non-existent) role on the environmental desk.
        Some blame a puff piece about Center for American Progress chair John Podesta’s choice for Energy secretary, considering that her husband (Andrew Light) is a senior fellow on climate/energy issues at the Center for American Progress.
        That means that both the Times and the Post see Climate Change fading.

  • The very public failure of energy company Solyndra has focused a lot of attention on the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee programs. Beyond Solyndra’s failure, it’s interesting to take a closer look at these programs. The economic justification for any government-sponsored lending or loan guarantee program must rest on a well established failure of the private sector to allocate loans efficiently, meaning that deserving recipients could not have obtained capital on their own. Absent such a private sector deficiency, the Department of Energy’s activities would simply be a wasteful at best, politically motivated at worst, subsidy to this sector of the economy.

    “Failure of the private sector to allocate loans efficiently” ?? LOL
    This is like saying that the mob kills people because the didn’t act “efficiently”
    … and they talk about Republicans using “code words”.  This definition of “efficiently” doesn’t appear in my codebook.

    • Efficiently in this case means things “I” like and agree with.   Efficiently here means lending money to a company that manufactures a Gaia friendly fuel source that can sustain 10 whole houses and denying one to a company that is less Gaia friendly but more practical that will sustain 10,000.  Or lending money to a company that has the right mix of races, sexes and sexual preferences (tnot a bunch of white guy engineering types….) even if what they are marketing would have been considered primitive by the Visigoths.   And Obama efficiency usually involves paying back for favors done even if there isn’t even a damned product that can be sold.
      THAT is the efficiency they’re talking about.

    • you over looked the part about the “deserving recipient”.  What pray tell made them “deserve” a loan?  Their want?  Their need?  It certainly wasn’t their business model.

      • Deserving = anyone ‘repressed’ by white European males over the last millennium.  Deserving is also anyone who’s kicked in bundles of cash as campaign contributions (but that’s a standard for any group in power).

    • The private sector only allocates loans “efficiently’ in the sense that they stand to lose their own money, so they might be more careful. In fact, they might still invest in stupid ideas, but its not based on taxpayer money or possible corruption, so its okay, and they usually go in with their eyes a little more open.

  • Don’t worry it will all come back, either that, or some new scare hoax. These things generally follow the economy. When times are tough they lay low, but when the economy is doing well they come out of the woodwork. There have been regular scare hoaxes going back for  many decades. Maybe even centuries.
    The Acid rain thing was proven to be caused by natural actions, but that didn’t stop them, and before that it was the ozone hole. There will be something else. Mark my words.

    • I’m still waiting for my Mayan Apocalypse (I know the Mayans didn’t think there would be one…what do they know anyway…) I still have my “Welcome Apocalypse!” flags and coffee cups.  I guess they’re going to have to go into storage next to my Y2K stuff now.
      The Mayan problem was they weren’t clever enough to remain vague and imprecise with regards to the date.

      • Word is that there are teams of top Mayans…top men…”looking more closely at the models” even as we speak.  Write.
        I expect an adjustment in the apocalypse any time.

        • Really, you’d think with the new stone carving techniques available, they’d be able to literally roll one out in short order!   Maybe there’s been a delay while the Greens get them to carve in some mention of global climate change, specifically.   That’s probably it, Gore can’t decide what mystic name he wants them to refer to him by in the new mysterious glyphs, perhaps “The mighty Chakra” would work.

  • Our shark leap half-way to the moon when Anthropological Global Warming morphed into the nebulous ‘Climate Change’.

  • I have a friend who kept challenging me on GW, so I researched it a bit. It may be happening or have happened, but the effect may not have been anywhere large enough to warrant action, and it may not really be actionable at this point in time anyways. (The key CO2 is that which was emitted a long time ago and that cat is out of the bag.)  I would actually agree to additional research on the topic if it was kept at sane levels and not hyped by the media and politicians. Also, we may be having a cooling trend due to the sun’s cycles which is overpowering any heating from GW, and thus revealing that the climate is really complicated and changing all the time, so maybe its best not to plot trend lines out 200 years.

    • When they tell me what they’re going to do, rather than ‘panic’ then we can talk about it.  But doing ‘something’ when they aren’t sure if they can actually have ANY effect is just foolish.  And all the plans seem somehow to involve cash flowing from the ‘rich’ 1st world to the ‘poor’,   Perhaps this exchange will stabilize the global temperature by moving hot/cold items of wealth to balance things?
      In any event I know what my ‘agenda’ is, I essentially have none, I want to be left alone, and plan to leave others alone.   Too many of them have suspect agendas – too many Nannyberg types with nothing better to do with their time and their righteousness than to tell the rest of us how to live.

      • The person I know who is most worried about GW also flies to Borneo for bike riding vacations. Nuff said.

        • It mystifies me why anyone would want to vacation in a place where they would never consider living. I don’t believe that old saw “It’s a nice place to visit but I wouldn’t want to live there”. Well, maybe once, just to see what I am missing. In fact, I think everyone should spend some time in a third world country just to be able to compare and realize how lucky they are. Once. Repeated voluntary trips to third world places are a symptom of an underlying disorder, not a vacation.

    • I’d say I’m within shouting distance of that position. I was always skeptical once the climate change people became alarmist – I remember Paul Erlich, et. al. with previous catastrophe predictions that turned out not just wrong, but 180 degrees wrong.

      The real turning point for me was analyzing the FORTRAN code leaked from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit. Seriously, anyone putting any kind of reliance on that hopeless mess is not to be trusted. That program would have received a D at best in any reputable introductory FORTRAN class.

      What I’d like to see is for the climate researchers to recruit some modelers from the video game industry, and then make the model with its various configurable inputs available to the public (on XBOX or PS3/4). That hardware is ideal for modeling software with numerous variables. And video game people have a couple of decades of experience in how to do simulation/modeling software – in particularly programming feedback effects with numerical solutions to differential equations. That’s some difficult stuff, and it’s no wonder an environmental science degree holder can’t do it. You need someone with some serious math and serious programming skills put together.  

      It would take years to create even decent climate modeling software, and several iterations would need to be released, but at least we could then all manipulate the inputs and see how the model does. No more having to rely on fudged summaries from bureaucrats and climate change alarmists.

      • It meets the ancient requirements for GIGO,  probably with a substantial amount of G IN the routines.

      • Prof Edward Wegman who holds a Ph.D in mathematical statistics, and analyzed the statistical techniques behind the infamous Hockey Stick stated that a degree in Climatology does not automatically provide the knowledge to properly apply complex statistical techniques to environmental data.  He suggested that those doing so (Mann et al) should always have a statistician looking over their shoulder. Of course, the warmists then will not be able to hide behind statistical jargon to obscure their erroneous conclusions.

        • Exactly. Its a dirty secret that many scientists don’t actually know how to do the stats so they have hire someone or cludge something together themselves.
          Also, there is so much measurement error and new research coming out that any definitive answer is really nothing of the sort. And some of the data is only decades old, but climate is supposed to be measured in units of 30 years or so. Thus, if you grant even 150 years of good data, you have exactly 5 data points. Now, if you are a Bayesian maybe that’s enough. And I might agree if we were not talking about 1 trillion dollar decisions. Besides which, mankind has endured many climate changes, or simply preferences in climate, and because they happen slowly nothing bad happens. People moved from the Rust Belt to the Sun Belt. Was that tremendously disruptive? So why would people slowly moving northward be a big deal over 100 years? And the islands that would sink are often already experiencing emmigration by the young.

      • “It would take years to create even decent climate modeling software,”
        If they could do it, we wouldn’t be hearing things like “…a twenty percent chance of rain in the Greater Metropolitan Area…”, or “…winter storm warning in effect until…”