Intelligent Design

You’ve Been Dead Wrong For Nearly Two Decades.  Why Should We Radically Change Our Economies Now Based on What You Say?

Spread the love

Satellite instruments began uniformly measuring temperatures throughout the Earth’s lower atmosphere in 1979.  Climate scientists overseeing these NASA satellite instruments produced the chart below showing the following temperature trends:

*  a plateau of temperatures, with absolutely no warming, from 1979 through 1997

*  a large temperature spike in 1998

*  a return to the 1979-1997 mean in 1999-2000

*  a modest escalation of temperatures in 2001

*  an elevated plateau of essentially flat temperatures from 2002-2014**

 

Here is the chart:

UAH-July-2014

One thing had been established beyond the slightest doubt.  The global warming alarmists’ computer models have been exploded.  They were wrong wrong wrong.  There is no other word for it.

Now, those same alarmists say, “pay no attention to nearly two decades of false computer model predictions about run-away anthropic global warming.  Believe our computer models now and radically change your way of life based on what those models predict.”

I took a case to trial a couple of years ago.  The judge caught one of the witnesses in a bald-faced lie.  When she was rendering her opinion the judge turned to that witness and said, I caught you in a lie.  You are not a credible witness, and that is a shame, because some or perhaps even most of what you say may be true.  But how can I base my decision on the word of a known liar.”

I am not saying the alarmists have intentionally lied.  (Though the “hide the decline” email leaks from a few years ago leave little doubt that at least some of them have slanted the data.)  I am saying they have been consistently wrong for nearly two decades now.  Maybe now they are finally right, and perhaps the best course would be to heed their warnings.  Unfortunately, they have cried wolf too often to be credible witnesses about wolf matters now, and that is truly said if there is indeed a wolf out there.

 

 

**See here and here.

 

 

 

9 Replies to “You’ve Been Dead Wrong For Nearly Two Decades.  Why Should We Radically Change Our Economies Now Based on What You Say?

  1. 1
    Vishnu says:

    Because A) they are stupid and are sheep following some leader, B) they are the communist/marxist who wants to further injure the United State. Both are easily demonstrable.

    Easily.

  2. 2
    Querius says:

    Vishnu,

    I think there are two primary dynamics:

    (a) people hate to admit they were wrong about anything and will grasp at any argument to protect their ego and political power, and

    (b) people can have a hidden agenda for which they hijack a cause, science, or group to promote at any cost.

    Their faith is undeterred by any amount of evidence to the contrary. Thus, historically, the greatest number of human deaths have been the result of people pursuing utopian ideals, the noblest of causes, and the grandest of schemes!

    If the mandate to “save our planet” from AGW results in an ice age causing widespread crop failures and mass starvation, these self-appointed, misguided leaders will tell those of us that are left alive—with tears welling up in their eyes—“If only we’d started sooner.”

    And then they’d exacerbate the problem until they’re dragged, kicking and screaming, from their offices.

    -Q

  3. 3
    the bystander says:

    When faced with such a dilemma, the question one should ask is – what harm will be done if we follow the path? and What is the cost of following the path ? It is clear that reducing pollutant level , controlling industrial activity and reducing green house gas consumption is beneficial to society- even if there is no global warming. The cost of such a change is also not too high when you consider the potential benefit of cleaner environment.

  4. 4
    Querius says:

    the bystander,

    Yes, I agree.

    I would also weigh the potential risks of any action–what could go wrong. Actions always seem to have unintended consequences as can be amply supported from the history of ecological interventions.

    A measured scientific response will have superior results than multiple, dramatic changes. The Kaibab Plateau experiment with Kaibab protecting deer comes to mind. Another example is the ill-advised killing of elephants in Africa to prevent overgrazing.

    -Q

  5. 5
    velikovskys says:

    Barry,
    You are not a credible witness, and that is a shame, because some or perhaps even most of what you say may be true. But how can I base my decision on the word of a known liar.”

    So if one could show that the plot of the data on the graph was manipulated in order to minimize the actual satelite temperature gain in order to deceive the reader, we should discount everything the person who created the graph contends?

  6. 6
    Barry Arrington says:

    Vel @ 5. If you can show me that the computer models from the 90’s or early 2000’s were accurate please do so. If not, you are missing the point of the post.

  7. 7
    Limbo says:

    Bystander,

    Reducing CO2 emissions, even a little bit, comes at a huge cost. Since we have finite resources, it makes no sense to waste them on policies that are utterly unproductive. Take for example the proposed changes by the EPA to limit greenhouse gas emissions from the generation of electricity. This will increase the cost of electricity significantly while reducing the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 by so little as to have zero effect on our climate. In fact, the poor will be the ones hurt the most by such policies.
    It should be obvious that basing policy on false beliefs is a bad idea, and I’m not sure why anyone would defend that. We need to focus our resources on real problems.

  8. 8
    steveh says:

    a plateau of temperatures, with absolutely no warming, from 1979 through 1997

    an elevated plateau of essentially flat temperatures from 2002-2014

    Global warming? Don’t make me laugh. The only thing happening here is that, over time, the plateaus are getting more elevated.

  9. 9
    franklin says:

    steveh

    The only thing happening here is that, over time, the plateaus are getting more elevated.

    yup…hotter over time!

    Wonder what the data would like with simple linear regression applied to the data set Barry linked to? Flat, negative slope, positive slope? Any thoughts?

Leave a Reply