THE GRAND DECEPTION
PCC continues in denialHarry BinswangerThe Grand Deception continues. The NY Times page-one headline blares: “Panel's Warning on Climate Risk: Worst is Yet to Come”
The worst is yet to come. Pause on that. Is that news? We've been told for 25 years that it(warming, change, whatever) is going to get worse and worse, but now the headline is “Worst is Yet to Come”? To whom is this addressed? Certainly not the followers of the climate religion. Can you imagine one of them thinking:
“Whew, glad we've seen the worst of climate change. Things are stabilizing now. Wait—what's this headline?! The worst is yet to come? Just when I and my fellow environmentalists thought things were getting better.”
The headline is clearly not addressed to warm-mongers. Rather, it's addressed to us, the “deniers.” Its message is:“Even though you think we have been crying 'Wolf,' even though you haven't seen any noticeable warming/change in the 25 years that we've been beating this drum, just you wait!”
In fact, we don't have to wait, disaster is already “sweeping,”in the fevered language of the NYT:
| | Climate change is already having sweeping effects on every continent and throughout the world's oceans, scientists reported on Monday,
| |
Okay, let's analyze that. It's change is on “every continent and throughout the world's oceans”? Oh, did someone think it only covered Mexico? Everyone already understands that global means every continent and every ocean. So why is that in there? Like the word “sweeping,” it's the attempt to intensify what would otherwise read as this:
Climate change is having effects, scientists reported on Monday.
Here's a parallel to the Times' hype:
| | HBL has a following that sweeps the world, reaching into big countries and small, rural areas and industrial areas, spanning every continent and every time zone. Photons reflected from HBL screens have even reached interplanetary space, a scientist [me] reported Monday.
| |
The truth is that, though the climate has always changed and will always change, that change over the last 100 years has been negligible. That's right negligible. NEGLIGIBLE. Summer in NYC in 1913 vs. 2013—no noticeable difference. Winters—no noticeable difference. Winter in Oslo 1913 vs. 2013—no noticeable difference. Sydney, Johannesburg, Vladivostok, all the same. Can you name any place on earth where, over the last 100 years, the climate has changed enough to affect anyone's life? I mean, for instance, a change like Buffalo becoming like Baltimore. Or Paris becoming like Athens. Or even if San Francisco had become like L.A. (not a huge change, but noticeable).
Is there any place on this planet where people used to have to wear heavy coats in winter, but now can get by with windbreakers? Or the reverse? Anyplace where spring starts a month earlier than it did in 1913? Or a month later? Just a month—I'm not asking for much in a 100-year period.
Is there any desert that started having considerable rainfall? Is there any place turned into a desert? I don't mean a movement of the verge of an existing desert—I mean, does it now rain a lot in Phoenix? Or is Paris now as dry as L.A.?
Is there any actual submergence of a “coastal community” by rising sea levels over the past 100 years? What are the names of the towns or cities that have disappeared beneath the waves?
The Times article stands an implicit admission that climate change is so teensy, that if scientists didn't tell us about it, we wouldn't know about it.
You wouldn't find an article announcing: “Panel Warns:Hostility and Fighting Are Sweeping the Middle East,” or“Panel Finds: Internet Usage is Increasing: and the Most Use is Yet to Come”
Picking up after my interruption of the Times:
| | and they warned that the problem was likely to grow substantially worse unless greenhouse emissions are brought under control.
| |
It's “likely” to grow “substantially worse”—worse than what? Substantially worse than the barely noticeable milding we've seen over the last 60 years?
Compare: I need a haircut—and the problem is growing substantially worse! The worst is yet to come!
And this idea of affecting the climate by bringing emissions“under control”—it's totally nuts, and such scientists as may be left in the IPCC must know that.
Think about it: they believe that the emissions due to industrialization and economic growth has caused the whole earth to warm in a non-negligible way over the course of the last 60 or 70 years. Okay, assume that. Now, this gigantic, historical shift in human history and in the atmosphere is going to be halted by “brining emissions under control”? By more Priuses? By cleaner coal? By recycling your newspaper? Inconceivable. In their view, this is a juggernaut. Okay, then stop advocating throwing straws at it.
It's almost like they are saying: the sea levels are rising, so we should stop letting tap water go down the drain—it only goes to the sea. If sea levels are rising (and they still are, very gradually, as they have been for centuries), it's due to some massive forces that are not counterable by such pitiful acts.
If they really thought man's actions were changing the climate in some dangerous ways, they would be advocating development of accommodating technology.
Sea levels rising? Invest in dike building technology. Tropics becoming warmer? Let's work on cheaper air conditioning.
In all these 25 years, I have seen zero interest in developing such technology—at least zero interest from the warmmongers. The whole mindset is: we have to roll back industrialization, because it's poisoning and boiling us.
Continuing with the NYT:
| | The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that periodically summarizes climate science, concluded that ice caps are melting, sea ice in the Arctic is collapsing, water supplies are coming under stress, heat waves and heavy rains are intensifying, coral reefs are dying, and fish and many other creatures are migrating toward the poles or in some cases going extinct.
| |
So the hell what? For this collection of half-truths, we have to commit suicide?! Because suicide is, in principle, what an“under control” life means.
| | The oceans are rising at a pace that threatens coastal communities and are becoming more acidic as they absorb some of the carbon dioxide given off by cars and power plants, which is killing some creatures or stunting their growth, the report found.
| |
Really? At a pace that threatens? What is that pace? National Geographic says that sea level rise has been .14 inches a year since the early 1990s. So, in a lifetime of 72 years, sea level would rise 10 inches. Seventy-two years, the year 2086. Ten inches. A similar deconstruction can be applied to everything in the Times story (I haven't seen the IPCC report itself).
The IPCC has a record, and it's a record of failed warnings, failed predictions, failed models, and a corrupt, grossly politicized process. But even aside from that, the “threatening coastal communities” says it all: we all have to submit to government or UN “control,” we have to stop using 100 watt incandescent light bulbs, we have to start re-using supermarket bags, we have to slow down growth, limit technology—why? so people in “coastal communities” don't have to move? Doesn't that seem a tad disproportionate?
I have been following the Grand Deception for decades. I know all the suppressed arguments of the truth-tellers (“climate-change deniers”). I know that, for instance, it's normal for the two poles to alternate in coldness, so that when one pole is warming, the other is cooling. I have seen photos and charts showing that Antarctic ice is now expanding. But I don't keep lists of all these rebuttals.
(Incidentally, on sea level, I remember about 6 or 7 years ago seeing a warm-mongering documentary on TV about a little island somewhere in the Pacific or Indian Ocean that was on the brink of extinction, due to rising sea levels. Although I doubt that island has disappeared, all references to it have.)
I leave you with this astounding point from Peter Ferrara's Forbes column of last month:
| | The Period Of No Global Warming Will Soon Be Longer Than the Period of Actual Global Warming
If you look at the record of global temperature data, you will find that the late 20th Century period of global warming actually lasted about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Before that, the globe was dominated by about 30 years of global cooling, giving rise in the 1970s to media discussions of the return of the Little Ice Age (circa 1450 to 1850), or worse.
But the record of satellite measurements of global atmospheric temperatures now shows no warming for at least 17 years and 5 months, from September, 1996 to January, 2014, as shown on the accompanying graphic. That is surely 17 years and 6 months now, accounting for February.
When the period of no global warming began, the alarmist global warming establishment responded that even several years of temperature data does not establish a climate trend. That takes much longer. But when the period of no global warming gets longer than the period of actual global warming, what is the climate trend then?
|
|
