Free Markets, Free People


How alarmists have hurt their AGW cause

Science is about discovery, the expansion of knowledge, how things work and what that means.  What it is not, or shouldn’t be, is an accessory to politics.  Politics isn’t about any of those things.  Politics is about the application of power to move things in a particular direction.  So when pure science teams up with politics to become advocacy “science” bad things are most likely to happen.

The IPCC report specifically, and climate science in general, are learning that the hard way.  James Taylor, who seems open to the AGW arguments,  asks the salient questions generated by the last IPCC report and subsequent findings.  Using  Godfather II as an analogy, he sets up the point:

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report was as straightforward as Frank Pentangeli’s earlier confession that he had killed on behalf of Michael Corleone. “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms,” IPCC reported.

That was in 2001. Now, however, with an unprecedented number of major winter snowstorms hitting the northeastern U.S. during the past two winters, the alarmists are clamming up and changing their tune faster than Tom Hagen can fly in Vincenzo Pentangeli from Italy to aid his brother in his time of trouble.

He’s absolutely right – there was no equivocation in the report.  A leads to B.  They said the same thing about hurricanes – warming would lead to many more and much more powerful storms.  Instead they’re at a historically lower level.   Glaciers, snowcaps, all sorts of predictions have been found to be false.

When James confronted the IPCC on this, he got the sort of mushy answer you might expect:

During the question and answer portion of the UCS press conference, I quoted the IPCC Third Assessment Report and asked Masters and Serreze if they were saying IPCC was wrong on the science.

“I would say that we always learn,” replied Serreze. “Have we learned a great deal since the IPCC 2001 report? I would say yes, we have. Climate science, like any other field, is a constantly evolving field and we are always learning.”

Really?  What happened to “the debate is over” and “the science is settled”?

For years, alarmists have claimed “the science is settled” and “the debate is over.” Well, when was the science settled? When global warming would allegedly cause Himalayan glaciers to melt by 2035, or now that it won’t? When global warming would allegedly cause fewer heavy snow events, or now that it will allegedly cause more frequent heavy snow events?

You can’t have it both ways and have it be called “science” can you?

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

16 Responses to How alarmists have hurt their AGW cause

  • “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms,” IPCC reported.

    No, no, NO!  Algore has told us categorically – CATEGORICALLY, comrades – that global warming theory has ALWAYS predicted that Oceania is at war with East Asia global warming causes heavier snowfalls.  Watch the carefully-documented movie, “The Day After Tomorrow” for an explanation of how this works.

    McQScience is about discovery, the expansion of knowledge, how things work and what that means.

    Well, that is so for real scientists.  For the clowns and frauds pushing global warming climate change climate disruption, Dean Yeager’s comments about Professor Peter Venkman are apropos:

    The purpose of science is to serve mankind. You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge… or hustle. Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman!

    “Ghostbusters” (1984; dir. Ivan Reitman)
    spoken by Jordan Charney

    As for the admission by some of the frauds that the evidence isn’t all quite what they claimed:

    “I would say that we always learn,” replied Serreze. “Have we learned a great deal since the IPCC 2001 report? I would say yes, we have. Climate science, like any other field, is a constantly evolving field and we are always learning.”

    But we have ABSOLUTELY not changed our positions that (A) global warming climate change climate disruption the phenomenon is real; (B) it’s the fault of the Americans for driving SUV’s, using incandescent lamps, and too much AC in the summer, and; (C) the only ways to prevent a global catastrophe are for the Americans to give a LOT of money to developing countries AND stop using fossil fuels AND reduce their greedy standard of living to something more sustainable.

    Bah.

  • “I would say that we always learn,” replied Serreze. “Have we learned a great deal since the IPCC 2001 report? I would say yes, we have.”

    And I would say these bureaucrats…because they are not scientists…are merely learning to be more cagey witnesses.  They will not make the errors of the past.  They will continue to espouse the religion of AGW, but they will make sure their predictions (they will still find those useful…necessary for their hoo-doo factor) are much less easily mocked.
    They will follow the current trend of predicting everything.  Something will come true.  They will then have their “Ah-HA!” moment in the sun…or under the clouds…whatever.

    • I don’t know. At this point, they have alrady jumped the shark, they are already a joke.

      • Not to MiniTru, which means not to the millions of people who don’t really pay attention.

        • Correct, but many are aware. AGW has lost huge in the polls. While it hasn’t lost as much as it should have, I believe it is now a political loser.

  • When your goal is a money & power grab for the purposes of societal control, Science is as a convenient blunt instrument as any.

  • Two things seem apparent regarding this titanic rip-off;
    1. Americans and other Western peoples are starting to push back, and
    2. Even the planned economy-level BIG GOVERNMENT needed to cram this crap down our throats is failing.

    Peruse Chevrolet’s February sales release, and you’ll notice one number that’s blatantly missing: the number of Chevy Volts sold. The number – a very modest 281 – is available in the company’s detailed data (PDF), but it certainly isn’t something that GM wants to highlight, apparently. Keeping the number quiet is a bit understandable, since it’s lower than the 321 that Chevy sold in January
    Ouch. The big questions, of course, revolve around one word: “Why?” Is ramping up production and deliveries still a problem? Is demand weak? Are unscrupulous dealers to blame? When will sales start to climb? And what are these numbers doing to plug-in vehicle work at other automakers?
    Nissan has sold 173 Leafs in two months; Megan McArdle notes that, back in November, its CEO was projecting sales of 500,000 per year by 2013.

    The regime has left Americans LESS by way of choice, but they are still selecting AGAINST the Big Brother Brands.

    • Wow.  A car that can travel (in warm weather) almost 70 whole miles before needing only a few hours to recharge?  AND it costs a lot of money?  AND it’s made by union workers in a company with a shaky reputation for quality that also had to be bailed out by the government at the cost of billions of taxpayer dollars?  Why, I can’t imagine why people aren’t absolutely FLOCKING to the dealerships to get them!

      / sarc

      I expect this kind of idiocy from Government Motors, but I thought that Nissan’s management were a little smarter.  “If you build it, they will come” only works in the movies, guys.  Unless and until somebody figures out how to make Tom Swift’s electric runabout (the speediest car on the road), electric cars are going to be a VERY small market in the United States.

  • I thought the icebergs would be all gone, all the polar bears extinct, and the Gulf Coast washed away by a series of “Super-Katrina” level hirrucanes by now thanks to global warming.

  • WASHINGTON (AP) — A rocket carrying an Earth-observation satellite plummeted into the Pacific Ocean after a failed launch attempt Friday, the second-straight blow to NASA’s weakened environmental monitoring program.
    The Taurus XL rocket carrying NASA’s Glory satellite lifted off early Friday morning from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, but fell to the sea several minutes later. The same thing happened to another climate-monitoring satellite two years ago with the same type of rocket.

    Now, I don’t care who you are…the comic irony just DRIPS off that…

    • Unless it would be far more convenient for AGW if the satellite did NOT reach orbit……

      • No, they wanted it to reach orbit.

        They are making the change over to global cooling in a way that gives them a quick exit from AGW.  They have a replacement ‘theory’ for it: 

        In a nutshell barely visible pollutants are reflecting all the sunlight causing the AGW predictions to be wrong and causing global cooling.  Don’t worry, the culprits are the same and the solutions are the same (industry and socialism, respectively). 

        They have been building the backstory for this replacement for a few years now.  This satelitte launch was intended to help build credibility for that  story by giving data they could hang the story around.  They realize they can’t hide the decline forever and have built an exit strategy. 

    • Should we invoke Enstien’s insanity definition here ?

  • “I would say that we always learn,” replied Serreze. “Have we learned a great deal since the IPCC 2001 report? I would say yes, we have. Climate science, like any other field, is a constantly evolving field and we are always learning.”

    … but contrast that to the Obama Administration …

    “Our best scientists in this country have reached a consensus and it is unequivocal that the science is clear that man-made emissions or air pollution and global warming gases,” she [EPA administrator Jackson] said.
    [Congressman] McKinley interrupted saying, “Isn’t global warming an issue that the scientists are still debating and you know it! I know it!”
    Jackson vehemently disagreed. “No I do not agree with that! I absolutely do not agree with that!”

  • It is getting so bad That even Erp won’t embarass himself defending these guys.

  • A related note to anyone interested: I requested a book from the Amazon Vine program called Here on Earth: A Natural History of the Planet. It didn’t take long to realize that what I got was not a natural history book. It was a political tract for environmentalism, particularly the Gaia hypothesis, and collectivism. It basically tried to make the case that both of those political philosophies are supported by scientific principles.

    I wrote the expected review (the Vine program sends free stuff with the expectation of a review). I had to give the book a negative review because it’s not really a natural history book,and I think the title and description of the book are therefore deceptive. The review is here.

    As you might expect, the lefty commenters are not happy with the negative review. The first comment to the review is standard Erbian “science is settled” rhetoric.

    I note this so that no one has any illusions about the controversy. There is still a major contingent of environmentalists that will brook no debate about the question of climate change.

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet