Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Published on June 11, 2013 By Draginol In Politics

As discussed here, the climate models that predicted a rapidly warming earth continue to be way way off.

 

image

The measured results and the projected results are way off.

I’ve received a lot of grief over the years from friends, family and colleagues because I’m a global warming “skeptic” (particularly about AGW). 

Now mind you, I drive an electric car powered by a solar array and live in a house heated and cooled through Geothermal and had a gold rating from the NAHB.  I personally fall into the “the less impact I can have on the environment, the better” line. But there’s a big difference between what I voluntarily do and what the government tries to coerce me and other people to do and when it comes to AGW, I don’t think the evidence is compelling enough to justify a world wide economic depression.

6 years ago, I wrote an article called “What happens if the Earth starts cooling?” which speculated on what would environmentalists say if their predictions turned out to be wrong. 6 years later, the measured temperatures for 2012 are less than those of 2006 which in turn were less than 2005 which where less than 2003 which were less than 1998.  I’m not arguing a trend down but now that global temperatures have gotten highly politicized, the measured temperatures are now much more scrutinized than they used to be (which is why I take the precision of temperatures in say 1950 with a grain of salt).

What should be reasonably irrefutable at this stage is that the climate models are wrong. By a lot.  According to the models, the mean atmospheric temperatures should be well over almost 0.50 degrees higher than they were in 2000.  Instead, it’s within the margin of error of being the same. 

None of this should mean that we shouldn’t try to reduce our impact on the environment. But hopefully people will start to decouple their political beliefs from their scientific beliefs. Skepticism isn’t a bad thing.

 

IMG_00100

I’d like to think I’m doing my part but I did this voluntarily.


Comments (Page 2)
on Aug 13, 2013

But hopefully people will start to decouple their political beliefs from their scientific beliefs.

You should practice what you preach.

I don’t think the evidence is compelling enough to justify a world wide economic depression

About the only thing that people should be skeptical about is what the best course of action should be. There's no golden pill to cure this one and most of the "solutions" proposed in DC are not really solutions but mostly just the products of "K" street.  Mostly one sided proposals that help protect or promote certain industries over others.

It amazes me how many college graduates still refuse to grasp the principles of the greenhouse effect. I believe this is something initially taught in grade school. If you still cannot grasp such basic principles then maybe you are the one incapable of decoupling your political desires from not only scientific belief, but perhaps reality.

on Aug 13, 2013

Smoothseas
best course of action should be.

Don't you think that you should determine what the problem is before you start prescribing remedies?  The best way to kill a patient is to prescribe medication that does nothing for the disease.

Smoothseas
principles of the greenhouse effect.

Except the earth's climate is much more complicated with both positive and negative reinforcing factors that have yet to be identified much less quantified.

Smoothseas
decoupling your political desires from not only scientific belief

Perhaps you should learn about the null hypothesis and the first step in any scientific postulate.

on Aug 13, 2013

Dr Guy
Don't you think that you should determine what the problem is before you start prescribing remedies?

The thing is I haven't prescribed any remedies. Personally I think the problem is too vast and complicated to solve and that maybe what we should be spending our time on is finding ways to deal with the changes that are IMHO inevitable.

But this doesn't make me deny what i see happening all around me.

My political opinions on such things as energy policy have nothing to do with climate change. They are based on the constant state of conflict in an environment of ever diminishing resources, and the need to ensure safe drinking water supplies for the general population.

on Aug 13, 2013

Smoothseas
But this doesn't make me deny what i see happening all around me.

You mean like this? http://policlimate.com/tropical/

or this? http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/tornadoes-close-to-record-low-level/

Or this? http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/torngraph-big.png

Or maybe this? http://www.weatherstreet.com/hurricane/2013/Hurricane-Atlantic-2013.htm

 

Or perhaps the fact that only 3 hurricanes  have hit the US in the past 5 years (but 26 hit during the term of one Grover Cleveland, 125 years ago).

I see a lot of changes too.  But I like some of the changes I see.

 

on Aug 14, 2013

Dr Guy
Or perhaps the fact that only 3 hurricanes  have hit the US in the past 5 years

You can "selectively" use whatever data you wish in an attempt to backup your ignorance. Doesn't really matter to me.

 

on Aug 14, 2013

Since appeal to authority is order of the day, I suppose these guys are all just ignorant rubes.

on Aug 14, 2013

Smoothseas
You can "selectively" use whatever data you wish in an attempt to backup your ignorance. Doesn't really matter to me.

None of it is selective. ACE is global.  Tornadoes are all over as well.

I am more concerned with ending poverty than fattening the pockets of clowns like gore and mann.

on Aug 15, 2013

Dr Guy
None of it is selective

Everything you pointed out is selective. You're selecting single or specific years in most of your cases and noting specific weather events as opposed to climate. Once you realize that certain cyclical factors like solar activity and el nino are in play maybe you will realize where your thinking process is failing you.

Dr Guy
I am more concerned with ending poverty than fattening the pockets of clowns like gore and mann.

So what exactly are you saying? That your disagreement with carbon taxation leads you to have doubts that 7 billion (and counting) humans could possibly effect changes in climate? The last estimate I saw for co2 emissions from the use of carbon based fossil fuels worldwide was approximately 2.5 million pounds per second.

And if you are truly concerned about ending poverty maybe you should look up the word "drought".

   

on Aug 15, 2013

Smoothseas
Everything you pointed out is selective. You're selecting single or specific years in most of your cases and noting specific weather events as opposed to climate.

No, I am showing you current events.  In relation to recorded history (pre-recorded will have to wait for Mr. Sherman's wayback machine).  I am not selective anything.  This is TODAY.  NOW.  As in the worst period in the history of the earth time.

How long is the sun cycle?  Does it last longer than 60 years? (I heard it is 11 years, but then all those Solar Scientists could be wrong).

Sorry, if I was showing you say 1998, or 2005, that would be cherry picking.  I picked nothing.  I showed you today.

Smoothseas
That your disagreement with carbon taxation leads you to have doubts that 7 billion (and counting) humans could possibly effect changes in climate?

Go back and read all my comments.  You will see that I fully acknowledge Man has an impact.  I never claimed otherwise.  What I said was I have no urge to support a bunch of charlatans when my money goes a lot farther, and does a lot more good to help those less fortunate than me.  Many of which are more susceptible to freezing to death than to dying from heat.

regardless of what we wish for, the simple fact remains.  Limited resources.  You can waste it all making the charlatans rich, or you can use it to better the lives of George Obama and people like him.

And if you truly want to know about "drought", I would suggest you check out the precipitation records over the last 60 years.  And then show me your rain making machine.

 

What you can do versus what you wish for.  I go for what can be done, not a hand full of wishes.

on Aug 15, 2013

Dr Guy
No, I am showing you current events.

You pointed out US hurricane landfalls for one specific high point and another low. Thats quite specific. Now I could be very specific on the other side of the argument if I wanted too. How about last years midwest drought? What about this years drought in Brazil? Maybe Ill add more specifics like the increased incidents of severe flooding in Venice. Pick today all you want. How many glaciers are melting slower today than 60 years ago? 

You were as narrow-minded as an ant. You looked exclusively at "weather" events as opposed to climate.

Dr Guy
And if you truly want to know about "drought", I would suggest you check out the precipitation records over the last 60 years.

Chances are worldwide they have increased. That is generally the trend with higher temps. But then again we all know that climate change mean more droughts for some and more floods for others. Probably even means fewer extremes for other locations. In my locale for example we now increasingly have more precipitation in summer and less in the winter. Substantial differences compared to 40 years ago. The changes are quite noticable. 

Dr Guy
What I said was I have no urge to support a bunch of charlatans when my money goes

It really doesn't matter which side of the fence you live on. We are all subsidizing both sides. And BTW US co2 emissions are currently declining.....Amazing that a "do-nothing" congress can actually get some things done. 

 

on Aug 15, 2013

I also showed you ACE - which is total cyclonic energy in the world, Tornadoes of all stripes.

And I can show you the dust bowl of the 1930s (before CO2).  Indeed, over all precipitation in the midwest has shown an increase over the last 60 years (which does not include the dust bowl years).

No, I TOLD you about 2 instances.  Obama and Cleveland Hurricane landfalls.  I SHOWED graphs for today of extreme weather.  All of them showing abnormal low.  And if that is what Global Warming (now Carbon Pollution) is causing, then what is the alarm?

Again, you are free to enrich Mann and Gore if you want.  Frankly I think both have more than enough money.  But the crises is not with global warming.  The crises is what it has always been.  Poverty.

My money goes for poverty, not rich fat cats.  YMMV

 

 

on Aug 15, 2013

Dr Guy
And I can show you the dust bowl of the 1930s (before CO2)

And your point is? Any good documentary will tell you what caused the dustbowl and what was done to correct the problems that caused it. Why even mention something that wasn't caused by climate change? I'm certainly glad that science allows us to do what was once considered "overfarming".

Dr Guy
And if that is what Global Warming (now Carbon Pollution) is causing, then what is the alarm?

Maybe you should look past your own backyard? And use a crystal ball if you have grand children you care about.

Dr Guy
My money goes for poverty, not rich fat cats

You sure about that? About the only thing I trust in these days are things that I can actively do locally. There is usually some fat cat dishonest gov't official, religious hypocrite, or shady lawyer behind every feel-good scheme people throw their money at these days.

 

 

on Aug 15, 2013

Smoothseas
There is usually some fat cat dishonest gov't official, religious hypocrite, or shady lawyer behind every feel-good scheme people throw their money at these days.

Finally, something we can agree on.