Posted on 09/16/2011 10:00:59 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
I found Dr. Andrew Dessler's comments regarding Governor Perry's position on climate change rather impressive. Not for the brilliance of his overall argument unfortunately, but for the speed with which he contradicted himself within a short op-ed. He begins by suggesting that Governor Perry's remarks were particularly "disturbing" because they were delivered in the middle of a Texas heat wave/drought. Incredibly, a short time later in the same piece, he acknowledges that climate change does not cause specific weather events. If that's the case (and it is), Governor Perry's remarks should have been no more disturbing to Dessler than if they were delivered during a rather calm, unremarkable period of weather.
In Dessler's defense, he does go on to state — as possible justification for his criticism of Perry's position — that the Texas heat wave/drought was made "more extreme" because of global warming than it otherwise would have been. But how much warming has been observed? Most supporters of AGW (anthropogenic (man-made) global warming) theory believe the Earth's temperature has risen approximately .74 degrees Celsius (1.3 degrees Fahrenheit) because of a group of pesky, irresponsible, easily expendable, surface dwelling bipods collectively known as the human race. I don't know about other Texas residents, but every time my car thermometer hits 105, I say to myself "I sure wish it were only 103.7 degrees."
Dessler alarmingly exclaimed "July was the single hottest month in the observational record, and the 12 months that ended in July were drier than any corresponding period in the record." In order to verify this, I contacted meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo who was the first Director of Meteorology at the Weather Channel and currently publishes the ICECAP website. D'Aleo was adamant that "the long term temperature trends for summer in Texas show no global warming or increased drought, no matter how many professors at how many universities in Texas opine otherwise." To prove his point, D'Aleo posted NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) precipitation and temperature graphs dating back to 1895 on his ICECAP website. A review of both graphs would seem to indicate that precipitation and temperature have been rather flat for Texas since NOAA began keeping records.
D'Aleo emphasized that "Texas has seen serious droughts before, most notably in the 1950s." Also according to D'Aleo, who along with Pamela G. Grube co-authored The Oryx Resource Guide to El Nino and La Nina, the recent Texas drought and heat is due to an oceanic-atmospheric phenomenon known as La Nina, that was the strongest by atmospheric measures since 1954-1956 and 1917/18, which were also major drought years in Texas. The simplest, most obvious explanation is often the best, but there is apparently no room for Occam's Razor in a green necessities kit.
Dessler reminded readers that scientists at Texas A&M and other nearby universities agree with him on man-made global warming as if that is somehow important. For the record, there is nothing about the scientific method that would suggest debates are settled by a show of hands. One could have once easily secured a consensus that the Earth is flat or that the Sun revolves around the Earth. A review of articles that have appeared in the New York Times over the last one hundred and fifty years indicates that the scientific community has flip- flopped on the cooling versus warming debate about a dozen times over the last century and a half. A great way to stop global warming might be to simply wait until scientists change their minds again.
Dessler is quick to imply that those who disagree with AGW theory are conspiracy theorists. Perhaps Dessler was too busy teaching class or writing his next paper to notice Climategate. For anyone who has been living under a rock, Climategate is the name given to the scientific scandal in which climate scientists who support AGW theory were caught "conspiring" to fudge data, bully fellow scientists and blackball scientific journals that dared to print a single opposing viewpoint. The same scientists also "conspired" to avoid complying with FOIA (freedom of information act) requests. Of course, the House of Commons in Great Britain proclaimed the CRU (Climate Research Unit) at East Anglia University to be innocent of any wrongdoing and Penn State University ruled that Michael Mann did nothing wrong. Both exonerations are about as significant and credible as O.J. Simpson's mother giving Judge Ito a note stating that O.J. hadn't killed anybody. I'm still waiting for Dr. Dessler or any other warmist for that matter to provide a context within which using "Mike's (Michael Mann's) nature trick ... to 'hide' the decline (in temperatures)" would amount to anything less than felonious, scientific fraud.
Dessler speculates that scientists could increase climate research funding by claiming they didn't know what was causing climate change. It's hard to imagine the government wasting even more of our hard-earned tax dollars on resolving this non-issue. According to a paper written by Jo Nova in Australia, the United States Government has spent 79 Billion on climate change research since 1989. So large is this boondoggle, we now see social scientists and military think tanks trying to get in on the action. As a result, we have to endure ridiculous claims about the impact of global warming on the divorce rate, the number of prostitutes, and national defense. Researchers figured out long ago that they can procure a lot more grant money by screaming the sky is falling than by suggesting a perceived problem might not be a problem at all. Write a grant proposal for a study on the reproductive rate of a particular frog and your odds of obtaining funding might not be so good. Change the study to a study on whether the same frog will soon face extinction due to global warming and the next sound you hear will be cha-ching.
The fact that economists have concluded "the costs of reducing emissions are less than the costs of unchecked climate change" is of absolutely no significance because the economists are relying solely on global warming proponents for predictions of what the long terms consequences of global warming will be. If they relied on AGW skeptics for this information, spending even a penny would be too much as skeptics do not believe there will be any long term consequences. To suggest that the economic models prove we should do something about climate change now is an example of a conclusion based on highly predictable, GIGO (garbage in garbage out) modeling. The same can be said of computer climate models that can't even predict the past let alone the future of Earth's climate. If economists want to provide something of value to the climate debate, they should devote their time to explaining the connection between the ill-advised pursuit of bio fuels and the tortilla riots that took place in Mexico. If you've never heard of the tortilla riots or the food riots that took place in numerous other poor countries, don't blame yourself. The mainstream media ignored these stories as they have all stories that had the potential to derail any part of the climate change movement. When they have covered negative stories, it has been from the angle of defending those involved. Examples of this bias can also be seen in the media's handling of a U.K. court's ruling that Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth contained numerous factual errors and in the way Climategate was covered.
The biggest insult of all came at the end of Dessler's piece when he accused Governor Perry of employing a "shoot the messenger" tactic. This is particularly offensive given how often AGW supporters employ this strategy themselves. Consider the following outrageous statements aimed at AGW skeptics. In his June 23, 2008 testimony before the United States Congress, James Hansen of NASA called for the punishment of climate change skeptics for "crimes against humanity." Then there was Avatar director James Cameron who stated climate skeptics were "swine" and said " I want to call all those deniers out into the streets at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads." Sydney Morning Herald columnist Richard Glover suggested in a recent column that “Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies." A gentleman in Tennessee who dared to publish Al Gore's monthly electric bill received six death threats for exposing Gore's hypocrisy. Al Gore himself has on more than one occasion compared climate change deniers to racists. These are much better examples of a "shoot the messenger" mentality than anything Governor Perry has ever said. One can only wonder if Dr. Dessler approves of this type of rhetoric and if he's ever called out his own side for their "shoot the messenger" tactics?
Mark Gillar is the host of the TeaPartyPowerHour.com radio program, the former host of Global Cooling Radio, and the founder of the climategatecountryclub.com skeptics' networking website. You may email him at mark@teapartypowerhour.com.
[excerpt] ...."That’s a lesson that Governor — potentially, President — Perry could apply to the science of global warming, as well. If we take the science seriously, we have a chance of avoiding the worst consequences. If we fail at that, at least we’ll have some idea of what to expect — heavier storms, hotter summers, higher sea levels, more flooding, more droughts, geopolitical and economic instability — and be able to get a head start on preparing for it.
But if we ignore the science, the results will not be good for cheapskates or anyone else. A powerful hurricane is a problem if you’ve prepared for it. It’s a catastrophe if you haven’t. A rise in global temperature of 2 to 3 degrees Celsius is something we could probably adapt to. The nightmare scenarios in which temperatures rise by as much as 6 or 7 degrees Celsius could trigger atmospheric and environmental responses far beyond anything we can readily absorb.
Perry’s invocation of Galileo speaks to the point. Galileo was relaying accurate empirical data that would have required an entrenched, faith-based political system to radically change its ideas, policies and plans. It was easier simply to arrest Galileo. Similarly, climate scientists today are relaying accurate empirical data that would require a sclerotic political system to radically change its ideas, policies and plans. Shouting down the scientists might be easier, but in the long run it will prove much more expensive. If Perry needs convincing of that, he can just ask Carney and the eggheads whose data-driven labors helped put Perry in position to run for president. [end excerpt]
Similarly, the liberal group Americans United for Change put out a report arguing “Romney, Perry = Same Reckless Goals for Social Security.” Does the group really believe President Romney would be just as harmful to Social Security as President Perry? “Absolutely,” the group’s communications director, Jeremy Funk, told me.
I disagree. There may not be a whole lot of difference in their stated policies in this campaign, but Romney has a well-known history of more liberal positions on health care, climate change, gay rights and abortion. And while Romney is calculating to a fault, Perry’s bluster gives you the sense he’d resolve a trade dispute with Canada by nuking Ottawa.
Encouraging Perry’s candidacy is too dangerous a game for Democrats.....[end excerpt]
Droughts, floods, tornados, snow, ice....it happens and we recover. The global warming folks are getting squeekier aren't they?
IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
“State of Fear” is a great book.
It's all about control.
We have only been measuring temperature and rainfall accurately in Texas since the late 1800’s. How do we know what the temperature was in 1735? Or 1556? Was it a wet summer in 1323? Just like in sports, records are to be made and ulimately broken. Although I doubt that this year’s record will ever be broken. It is hard to get less than zero rainfall.
I see no contradiction. Just review the concept of doublethink.
“The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink.”
Goldstein knows.
Governor Almost Wasn't--After years on ranch, Perry saw climate was right for politics
"........... For eight months they fought - most fiercely over how to run the cattle operation, but everything was a struggle.
"It was hard," he said. "There was more than one time I'd come home in the evening and apologized to him about what I'd probably called him or what I'd said. He was a pretty forgiving soul."
Eventually, the test of wills gave way to exhaustion, then acceptance. Father and son finally took a new measure of each other.
"My dad became my best friend," he said. " After a year, he asked me if I would be his partner. It wasn't a surprise, but it was a nice compliment."
They formed JR Perry Farms in early 1978. And then it stopped raining.
The green stalks wilted, and the ground began to crack. The Perrys watched their cotton crop fade, and then the wheat wouldn't come up. The younger Mr. Perry had no money, and with no clouds on the horizon, he wondered if he ever would.
"I'm in the right place. I'm teaching Sunday school at the church. Life is good. I'm happy. But I'm broke," he said.
Mr. Perry earned his Airline Transport Pilot rating and then won a hard-to-get interview with Southwest Airlines.
He went to his father in July to tell him of his new plan. "So I told my dad, 'Listen, no offense, but I've got to go figure out some way to make a living. This farming thing ain't working.' I said, 'I'm not sure it's ever going to rain again.'"
His father understood. "Dad said, 'You need to go do what you need to do. But it'll rain. It always does.'"
A few weeks later, in the first few days of August, the remnants of Tropical Storm Amelia rumbled across the plains and JR Perry Farms, bringing - finally, emphatically - rain. More than 30 inches in 24 hours.
"And I'm figuring, 'OK, I get it. You don't want me to go fly airplanes. You want me to stay here and farm,'" Mr. Perry recalled. He skipped the interview.
"If it hadn't rained, I'd be a millionaire pilot with Southwest," he said.
The next bit of weather that changed Rick Perry's life arrived in December 1983................."
You might have stubled upon a point that the trolls won’t attack Perry on. MIGHT have. It would be mighty hards to slam Perry for backing Al GOres’ campaign 25 years ago and then take algores’ side vis a vis “global warming.”
Thanks Cincinatus’ Wife.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
