Posted on 10/14/2018 7:26:49 AM PDT by Kaslin
There are multiple subjects that currently divide us. If you choose to challenge the conventional wisdom on one of these topics, in any regard, that the Earth is warming (now referred to as “Climate Change”) you are accused of being a heretic. Some of us believe there is no such thing as “settled science” thus we are always open to arguments from both sides as to what has occurred in the evolving knowledge. Recently, I was presented with a completely different argument.
Anytime I have written on this I have always referred to climatologists as my source of information. These are qualified experts who not only have a long history of scholarly study in the area, but have the scientific ability to analyze the models presented that predict future world weather. That is why my recent reading of a column really changed my typical way of looking at the issue.
Receiving email from a vast array of sources with a broad political bent keeps me informed of news that a large segment of the population thinks is important. One of the best collections of columns and articles that hits my email box every day comes from Real Clear Politics (RCP). RCP has an excellent distribution of columns that often have a unique perspective or a topic that is fresh to me. I spotted a column that piqued my interest from a person I had never heard of and a publication that was unfamiliar to me. The title was “How Do You Tell If the Earth’s Climate System is Warming?" by Francis Menton.
The crux of the column is that whether the Earth is warming or cooling is based on the time period you are comparing. The Earth over various different periods warmed or cooled and thus Menton’s thesis is that you could argue, and often people do, warming or cooling using inherently the same facts, but just a different base period. The thesis is something I found fascinating because of two reasons. First, I had never read what Menton was purporting anywhere else and; second, I have seen conflicting arguments as to whether we are currently in a warming or cooling trend.
Finding that the column was different and somewhat even-handed, I ventured into the orbit of sending it to someone who is a gung-ho global warming person to elicit their opinion. The response “A blogger debunking a vast conspiracy of scientists. I'll pass.” I replied, “It is always this guy does not qualify, that guy does not qualify. but is he wrong?” To which I got this “This is just more tribalism. The Republicans will automatically disagree with anything that is being supported by the Democrats. Also the vast majority of energy money is flowing to the Republicans. What Republican would ever be on the other side of an issue that the Koch brothers were lavishing money on. Scientific evidence and facts could not be more irrelevant to this debate. “I answered, “Thank you, but is he wrong? I picked up the column off of a daily summary from Real Clear Politics. They are truly even-handed; I did not know the guy’s background until after I read the column. Why would you assume he is a Republican? He is a NY lawyer.”
I decided to contact Francis Menton. Menton is a semi-retired trial lawyer. He formed his blog, Manhattan Contrarian, six years ago. He told me he not only was a Harvard Law graduate, but his undergraduate degree was from Yale in math. Though he is not a climatologist, this is one smart guy who understands what he reads. He said though he is a little rusty on his math as things have changed since he graduated from Yale, someone with these credentials has the ability to analyze the information into which he delves. This is why he has written about 100 pieces on the environment.
He told me he got interested in the subject because the Climate Change argument was being used by supporters to transform the world economy. He was studying the validity. He found the temperature measurements really only go back to 1880 as noted by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). He also cited that measurements at that time only covered 5% of the Earth and they were only accurate to 1 degree Fahrenheit.
This still gets down to what are the facts. Whether you buy into the argument that the planet is warming, and it is because of man-made conditions or whether you don’t, or you are somewhere in-between, you need to be open to further understanding and additional facts/observations. Just knee-jerk rejection of the arguments on either side because of where they come from or whether they don’t agree with your baseline thinking defies scientific thinking.
My biggest problem with the climate change crowd is their argument that this is “settled science.” Science is never settled and arguing that is about the most unscientific thing ever stated.
[[Almost all authoritative datasets have been manipulated corruptly to “erase the pause,” by “adjusting” older temperatures down.]]
It’s even more deceptive than that- They now claim one of their satellites was ‘out of position’ and so they went ahead and threw out all the readings, and concocted new readings based on what they THINK the temps ‘Should have been’ ‘had it been i nthe right position’- and walla walla bing bang, they have their warming-
I think the actual number was bajillions.
What exactly, specifically, are they going to do to alter the earth's climate so it's cooler and not warmer?
Can they name one thing that will make any difference in the outcome of a dynamic planet's climate?
Tapping our wallets to line the pockets of the elite globalists and destroying the fossil-fueled capitalist economies of the world are not solutions to their so-called climate crisis.
Al Gore's out this past week declaring a "global emergency" to back up the UN's bogus call that we only have 10 more years to survive unless we do something now to stop climate change.
Isn't this the third decade in a row that Al Bore and the UN have declared the exact same warnings of impending doom, and then to have nothing happen.
I don't believe any of them or the liberal BS they spew.
All 196 nations signed the COP21 agreement in Paris in 2015.
Trumps is going thru the process of un-signing COP21 but US fossil fuel interests want him to stay in the agreement so they can have a seat at the table.
The COP24 meeting in Poland is in December and they will be adopting the rules on implementing the COP21 agreement.
NASA and NFS still seem to be very big on global warming...
The whole global warming drives me crazy. They blame Matthew for global warming saying first hurricane in 100 years. So what do we blame the hurricane on from 100 years ago? That is why common sense is needed. Yes the earth is changing. It always has and always will. Can you imagine the New York Times during the melting of ice in Maryland, Pennsylvania and the rest of the northeast. Weirdly, liberals forget a big chunk of the United States was covered in ice once upon a time.
Of course the Planet is Warming, we just came out of an Ice Age from the late 1970’s that Killed All Life on the Planet, I read it in Time Magazine.
Which supposedly only Big Government can avert
We're already too late. I predict that one-tenth (more or less) of the people alive today will be gone in ten years.
Spencer’s site is a fantastic reference source. Thank you.
“Actually, it has, just not recently. We’re currently in a pause, due to lack of sunspots. “
No, it hasn’t. There isn’t a single scientific source that you can reference that proves any warmer whatsoever. None.
The British “scientists” that made the claim of warming temperatures that everyone seems to reference lied and changed the spreadsheet numbers to make the case.
The temperature sensors used by the National Weather Service and NOAA to prove warming were useless since many were located in places like next to air conditioners, on roadways, and other structures that warmed the air around them. The sensors not near such source showed a cooling.
The USAF DMSP spacecraft is the ONLY sensor system that has measured the Earth’s temperature every kilometer 24x7 for over 50 years and it has shown a 0.02 DECREASE in temperature. (I used to work that one.)
We have been moving towards a new ice age for many years. The latest theory shows by 2030 we will be in one.
You might think you’ve gain the knowledge of the Oracles because you read about sunspots, but that isn’t 1% of the total story of weather change. Orbital mechanics plays a greater role.
“Can they name one thing that will make any difference in the outcome of a dynamic planet’s climate? “
Liberal Luddites will say we need to commit genocide and kill at least 5 billion people. Then they’ll say we must never use “fossil fuels”.
Of course, these are the same idiot Luddites that claimed the Ozone Hole was caused by man’s use of CFCs to propel hairspray, and we needed to ban the use of CFCs to close the Ozone Hole. Well, we idiots did ban the use of CFCs and the Ozone Hole is still there bit as ever. The liberals never talk about the ozone hole anymore.
Al Gore made the 10 year predication like a carnival barker in the 1990s. Also said: “We will soon experience the first year without a winter. A winter in the northern states that is so warm it really can’t be called a winter.”
Annoyingly, the Weather Channel types shut their ugly mouths all winter and spring 2017-2018 when we had one after another local weather statement of “about 20 degrees colder than average” “about 12 degrees colder than usual” “a cold one tonight” “baseball opening day the coldest ever for five towns” and so on. Also “unusual frost warnings tonight outside the city”.
I knew what would happen. After record cold for months, they suddenly wake up and proclaim on the first warmer than usual day “The weather climate change effects again show proof in today’s hotter than a average day today.”
Hypocrite spotlight hogs. I hate the Weather Channel people.
That's because they keep moving the target so they can continue their long con to tap the world's populations' wallets and still be able to declare years down the road that we didn't do enough to save the children and the planet.
Baloney.
“What I like to pose to climate change people is: what caused the last ice age and what caused its end?”
Nice. I really mess with their minds. I already assume they were gender studies, French literature or other liberal arts stuff that won’t get you a job when they graduate.
I ask the following: “The scientists did a splendid job of telling us our deaths are imminent from global warming. I only have four questions, What is the solution, how much will it cost and who gets the money?” The final question is a little more complex. “What is the mitigation strategy if those scientists are wrong and their solution throws us into an ice age?”
At this point, I usually get the same response from my liberal friends. “You’re racist!”
“If it wasn’t for global warming, Chicago would still be under a mile of ice.”
As a conservative down stater I don’t have a problem with that.
To study a 4 billion year system you would need over 6000 years of reliable weather data to say anything with any confidence about climate change.
That is scientific.
“...you need to be open to further understanding and additional facts/observations....”
Ugh... no I don’t! You see, I have logic. God given logic.
It is illogical that puny humans are able to affect “global” climate. Humans don’t exist in significant enough numbers to matter. It’s a YUGE planet.
It is illogical to believe that puny humans have the capability to correct any negative effects of global climate change REGARDLESS of the cause.
So, no, I don’t need to listen to the so called “scientists” who think humans are causing climate change or that humans could do anything about it anyway.
These are qualified experts who not only have a long history of scholarly study in the area, but have the scientific ability to analyze the models presented that predict future world weather.
Very, very wrong. Computer models do not predict future weather. When stated this way there is an implied element of certainty that is absolutely missing and misleading.
Computer models do not predict a future state.
Computer models can predict one possible future state. They can also be used to predict a range of possible future states. Our level of certainty in the results is very much open for debate.
There are several serious issues with the way results from computer models are used by certain political groups to advocate for policy decisions:
In short, don't put too much faith in the models, and certainly don't misuse them and their results for trying to peer too far into the future. When people do, they just look silly and ignorant to people actually in the business of computer modeling. They just don't work that way.
I would post something on this, but I have learned to stay out of religious debates.
You cannot discuss anything with a True Believer.
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.