Posted on 10/13/2014 5:33:27 PM PDT by Daniel Clark
Reprieve Of Destruction: Global warming can’t just “pause”
by Daniel Clark
A funny thing happened on the way to global annihilation. The destruction of the earth by manmade carbon dioxide emissions has taken a “hiatus,” as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change calls it, in spite of the fact that global CO2 emissions continue to rise. Depending on the source, “the pause” has gone on for the past 16 years or longer.
Since last year’s IPCC report came out, defenders of the global warming faith have been groping for explanations for the pause, while also maintaining that it’s not really happening. They argue that the pause is a misnomer, because the earth’s temperature is still rising, albeit at a far slower rate than predicted. Data suggesting that the earth is actually cooling are being cherry-picked, they say, and are only anomalies within a broader warming trend.
Let’s concede those points, for the sake of argument. The conclusions are still incompatible with their original theory. It’s not plausible that the severity of global warming is being mitigated to any significant degree, if what “science” told us in the first place was accurate.
According to the theory, increases in CO2 emissions cause the earth’s temperature to rise by trapping more of the sun’s heat in the atmosphere through the greenhouse effect. As the earth gets hotter, the oceans absorb less CO2, resulting in an even greater amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. If this were happening, it would be a vicious cycle that constantly accelerates itself, resulting in warming that gets progressively severe over time.
This is precisely what “science” had led us to expect. We had supposedly arrived at the precipice of doom. The destruction of the earth was imminent, therefore we had to change every single detail of our lives – usually to our own detriment – in a last-ditch effort to “save the planet.” There was even a body of allegedly scientific thought that said we had already passed the point of no return, and the great inferno had become inevitable.
After all these years of denying that changes in the earth’s temperature could be caused by anything but human activity, global warming alarmists are now discovering other factors to explain why their doomsday scenario is not materializing. Until recently, “The Consensus” was that only a simpleton would think fluctuations in solar activity were responsible for increased global temperatures. Now, one of the most popular explanations for the pause is that it was caused by fluctuations in solar activity. When they say it, it’s science. When you say it, it’s science-hatred.
A real scientist would reconsider his theory once he saw that his conclusions weren’t panning out. Instead, their only concern is how to force the new data to fit the old theory. Their simplistic causal connection has broken down, so a new variable is needed. Enter sun, stage left. That’s not science, it’s political spin, which is just what one should expect from a political movement that masquerades as a scientific consensus.
The global warming movement abandoned any pretense of scientific integrity when it started prescribing solutions that could have been torn from a blueprint for a liberal utopia. Among the things we’re told are necessary to save the world from manmade global warming are: consolidated central authority, anti-industrialism, global wealth redistribution, nullification of property rights, population control, and even the promotion of vegetarianism. The voices of “science” haven’t yet figured out how gun confiscation might prevent the earth’s destruction, but rest assured they’ve got somebody working on it.
The Cold War demonstrated that the Leftist ideology cannot withstand an open competition. The global warming movement thinks it has solved that problem by declaring that there is no competition, but that conformity to the liberal utopian position is now mandatory. All free individuals must subordinate themselves to the global collective they call “science,” or else be branded “deniers,” and accused of crimes against humanity.
Because these left-wing political initiatives were the true impetus for the movement, the question of whether the earth’s recent warming cycle has slowed down, stopped or reversed itself is important only from a public relations standpoint. The response is not “how has this happened?” but “how do we explain this away?”
If the disobedient earth has deviated from the script, all that is needed is to come up with a new plot twist, and the show will go on. Hence, global warming has gone on hiatus, but soon it will return with a vengeance. We’ll call it Global Warming II: The Wrath of the Con.
-- Daniel Clark is a writer from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He is the author and editor of a web publication called The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press, where he also publishes a seasonal sports digest as The College Football Czar.
0bama saved the world?
In a cyclic warming-cooling pattern, you might expect a relative pause at the peak temperatures before they start falling.
I”m a truck driver, local. I had a delivery once to a customer that had a forklift but no dock. It was below 0 that day, well below with the wind chill. We had to unload outside. I made a comment about Gore-Bull Warming. Instantly she seemed to go into cult mode (like someone explaining why the Rev Moon was sent from God). She said that (in a very odd tone) “Oh, global warming is real. In fact my daughter just graduated as an Environmental Biologist and unfortunately global warming means that it will get colder in the midwest.”
Yes, I remember her exact words; she was spooky! I wanted to tell her a couple things but given that she was a customer I could not. I wanted to tell her:
1) What part of “Global” and “Warming” don’t you understand? And
2) Your daughter is an idiot and you’ve been ripped off.
This isn’t a pause or hiatus, but proof that the theory that rising CO2 levels cause global warming is totally false. CO2 levels have risen, but there has been NO increase in global temperatures. In true science if the data doesn’t fit the theory, the theory is false and should be discarded.
That's how we know 'ecologists' are real scientists. It's become a political major... do they even have math requirements?
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.