WSJ to Kerry: Flat Earthers were the “consensus” position

posted at 9:21 am on February 20, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Last week, John Kerry burned 12 tons of carbon to travel to Indonesia and declare global warming as the biggest WMD of all. In what has become the general model of climate-change alarmism, he told his audience that Jakarta would soon be half-submerged thanks to the rising of the oceans that the election of his boss supposedly stopped. The Chicken Little spectacle was so embarrassing that Newt Gingrich suggested that Kerry should retire out of embarrassment, if not national security. “A delusional secretary of state,” Gingrich tweeted, “is dangerous to our safety.”

In the same speech, Kerry referred to climate skeptics as “Flat Earth Society” holdouts. That caught the attention of the Wall Street Journal and two fellows of the American Meteorological Society, Professors of Atmospheric Science Richard McNider and John Christy. Dr. Christy served at one time on the IPCC, the UN body that pushes anthropogenic climate change as the bogeyman of our time, and shared in its Nobel Prize along with Al Gore. Christy and McNider, however, teach a history lesson to Kerry before addressing his shrieking hysteria on global warming. It was the Flat Earthers who clung to “consensus,” and the skeptics who turned out to be right:

In a Feb. 16 speech in Indonesia, Secretary of State John Kerry assailed climate-change skeptics as members of the “Flat Earth Society” for doubting the reality of catastrophic climate change. He said, “We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists” and “extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts.”

But who are the Flat Earthers, and who is ignoring the scientific facts? In ancient times, the notion of a flat Earth was the scientific consensus, and it was only a minority who dared question this belief. We are among today’s scientists who are skeptical about the so-called consensus on climate change. Does that make us modern-day Flat Earthers, as Mr. Kerry suggests, or are we among those who defy the prevailing wisdom to declare that the world is round?

McNider and Christy agree with AGW hysterics on two core points: carbon is a greenhouse gas, and we’re producing more of it. Other than that, though, they’re sticking with science rather than “consensus,” and the truth of the science is that the AGW hypothesis has long since failed. While the Earth has warmed slightly over the last 35 years, the AGW models predicted a vastly-increasing spike in temperatures that should have started more than a decade ago. Instead, as this chart supplied by the two meteological professors shows, no evidence exists to support those models:

wsj-temps-lg2

We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong. From the beginning of climate modeling in the 1980s, these forecasts have, on average, always overstated the degree to which the Earth is warming compared with what we see in the real climate.

For instance, in 1994 we published an article in the journal Nature showing that the actual global temperature trend was “one-quarter of the magnitude of climate model results.” As the nearby graph shows, the disparity between the predicted temperature increases and real-world evidence has only grown in the past 20 years. …

The climate-change-consensus community points to such indirect evidence of warming as glaciers melting, coral being bleached, more droughts and stronger storms. Yet observations show that the warming of the deep atmosphere (the fundamental sign of carbon-dioxide-caused climate change, which is supposedly behind these natural phenomena) is not occurring at an alarming rate: Instruments aboard NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association satellites put the Mid-Tropospheric warming rate since late 1978 at about 0.7 degrees Celsius, or 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit, per 100 years. For the same period, the models on average give 2.1 degrees Celsius, or 3.8 degrees Fahrenheit, per 100 years (see graph).

The two note that the willful ignorance of actual science has real-world consequences:

“Consensus” science that ignores reality can have tragic consequences if cures are ignored or promising research is abandoned. The climate-change consensus is not endangering lives, but the way it imperils economic growth and warps government policy making has made the future considerably bleaker. The recent Obama administration announcement that it would not provide aid for fossil-fuel energy in developing countries, thereby consigning millions of people to energy poverty, is all too reminiscent of the Sick and Health Board denying fresh fruit to dying British sailors.

Instead, we have an administration which apparently believes that science consists of badgering doubters into silence, and amplifying the shrieking in direct proportion to the failure rate of models such as those above. Perhaps we should pay more attention to the doubters than to politicians blowing twelve tons of carbon for scaremongering developing nations into consigning themselves to poverty.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Didn’t Kerry also say that a recent volcanic eruption was due to global warming or something like that?

We go from the great Founders of this nation to Dog Eater, Killary and JFKerry.

Bishop on February 20, 2014 at 9:27 AM

The climate-change consensus is not endangering lives,

No, it’s taking lives. An obvious example is the hunger and riots caused by the increase in the price of corn, because so much is being diverted into costly, inefficient fuel.

corona79 on February 20, 2014 at 9:27 AM

How does anything that Kerry says gets reported, anyway? The guy is nothing but a shrieking liar and widow chaser.

HiJack on February 20, 2014 at 9:28 AM

Satellite data is anti science.

jhffmn on February 20, 2014 at 9:29 AM

In ancient times, the notion of a flat Earth was the scientific consensus

Actually, no. Since the ancient Greeks, it’s been common knowledge that the Earth was round. Even in Medieval times, those who were learned, though few and far between, did read the ancient Greeks and knew the Earth was round.

My book is at home, but there was only one semi-prominent guy who advocated for a flat Earth.

They may have been wrong about so much else, but Earth has always been round.

rbj on February 20, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Perhaps we should pay more attention to the doubters than to politicians blowing twelve tons of carbon for scaremongering developing nations into consigning themselves to poverty.

His lurchness figures he will be part of the ruling class of the One World Government the left dreams of. There can never be a OWG unless we have a two class system of the rulers in wealth and luxury and the rest in poverty. They believe AGW is their silver bullet to kill any thoughts of climbing out of poverty or to keep from sliding into it.

Lucy43 on February 20, 2014 at 9:30 AM

The last international consensus was that Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs.
That one didn’t work out too well, as I recall.

J_Crater on February 20, 2014 at 9:30 AM

I really don’t know how this myth survives. The Greeks knew the circumference of the Earth within a reasonable margin of error. Any seafaring nation could figure out pretty easily that Earth was round. The belief that the earth was flat was never the consensus position in academia. The reason Columbus was ridiculed was because everyone knew the earth was bigger than he was claiming… and they were right. He’d have died in the middle of the ocean if there hadn’t been extra continents in the way that he didn’t know about.

FlareCorran on February 20, 2014 at 9:30 AM

Politicians expounding on science is a joke. Pols are second only to journalists in their abject scientific ignorance.

Bat Chain Puller on February 20, 2014 at 9:34 AM

I have often observed that those who argue “consensus” are also those who are not interested in debate. They are ignorantly incurious about any explanation other than CO2 as a responsible entity for our climate (which is always changing).

AFDoc on February 20, 2014 at 9:34 AM

Global warming is a WMD all right. A Weapon of Mass Delusion. And it is in the hands of the democrats.

Sterling Holobyte on February 20, 2014 at 9:34 AM

In ancient times, the notion of a flat Earth was the scientific consensus,

Sigh.

Ben Hur on February 20, 2014 at 9:34 AM

Deny if you wish, but we all know that global warming is wreaking death and destruction in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan!!!

SacredFire on February 20, 2014 at 9:36 AM

“Consensus” arguments are for thugs who aren’t capable of thought – dangerous reactionary idiots. You know, progressives.

forest on February 20, 2014 at 9:37 AM

Sigh.

Ben Hur on February 20, 2014 at 9:34 AM

Why? Prior to the Greeks as far as we know most if not all ancient cultures thought it was flat. I guess it could be argued that ancient cultures didn’t have scientific studies but they pretty much had a consensus that the Earth was flat.

Lucy43 on February 20, 2014 at 9:39 AM

The term “settled science” should make any real scientists skin crawl.
Wasn’t Pluto settled science?

jmtham156 on February 20, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Deny if you wish, but we all know that global warming is wreaking death and destruction in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan!!!

SacredFire on February 20, 2014 at 9:36 AM

That explains the arrows I found all over the yard the other day.

Lucy43 on February 20, 2014 at 9:41 AM

I my lifetime, the static crust theory was the consensus. As was dinosaurs were cold blooded. When I started college, it was the dawn of a new ice age.

My best instructors in science classes never preached the consensus.

cozmo on February 20, 2014 at 9:42 AM

The Chicken Little spectacle was so embarrassing that Newt Gingrich suggested that Kerry should retire out of embarrassment, if not national security. “A delusional secretary of state,” Gingrich tweeted, “is dangerous to our safety.”

The same Newt Gingrich that joined Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore in 2006 to fight “global warming”?

sentinelrules on February 20, 2014 at 9:46 AM

In the same speech, Kerry referred to climate skeptics as “Flat Earth Society” holdouts.

Yo Kerry,

F*ck Off Loser!

Sincerely,

John Q. Public

President of Flat Earth Society Climate Realists, American Division

workingclass artist on February 20, 2014 at 9:47 AM

Weren’t there some “deniers” that were burned at the stake for claiming the earth revolved around the sun, as opposed to the consensus view that the sun revolved around the earth?

mbs on February 20, 2014 at 9:51 AM

He told his audience that Jakarta would soon be half-submerged, in fashion reminiscent of ‘Jenghis’ Khan?

Global BS: TIME Mag Cover Story on Climate Change, 1977 vs. 2006

petefrt on February 20, 2014 at 9:51 AM

…come on!…even the trolls have to admit Kerry is bat shit stupid!

KOOLAID2 on February 20, 2014 at 9:52 AM

Weren’t there some “deniers” that were burned at the stake for claiming the earth revolved around the sun, as opposed to the consensus view that the sun revolved around the earth?

mbs on February 20, 2014 at 9:51 AM

You betcha

forest on February 20, 2014 at 9:53 AM

he told his audience that Jakarta would soon be half-submerged

If only that had happened in the late 1960s …

What a shame. Where was global warming when we really needed it??

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 20, 2014 at 9:54 AM

rbj on February 20, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Spot on.

celtic warrior on February 20, 2014 at 9:58 AM

Global warming is a settled scientific issue.

I don’t know why anyone would want to argue with it.

Those who proved the flat earther’s wrong did it with scientific knowledge through observation, testing and confirmation.

Same way if you are going to disprove global warming…you have to have a convincing scientific study on your side which can convince the scientific community that your position is credible.

Majority of scientists believe in GW.

If you are opposed to it that’s fine but if your position does not come with an accepted scientific study which can be deemed credible, you have no case.

liberalrules on February 20, 2014 at 9:58 AM

and declare global warming as the biggest WMD of all.

Close. Global Warming policy is the biggest WMD of all. Even worse than that, it’s the biggest suicide bomber the world has ever seen.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 20, 2014 at 9:59 AM

liberalrules on February 20, 2014 at 9:58 AM

Bless your heart, you willfully ignorant liar.

cozmo on February 20, 2014 at 10:00 AM

In addition to general hysteria, there are also “scientists” tampering with the data. Cooking the books, so to speak.

iurockhead on February 20, 2014 at 10:00 AM

Jakarta, and many other areas in the Pacific will soon be half-submerged thanks to …… Plate Tectonics.

This knowledge is brought to you by a member of the “Flat Earth Society.” I take no responsibility if this information offends anyone in the Flat Head society aka Obama Administration.

stuartm80127 on February 20, 2014 at 10:01 AM

Weren’t there some “deniers” that were burned at the stake for claiming the earth revolved around the sun, as opposed to the consensus view that the sun revolved around the earth?
mbs on February 20, 2014 at 9:51 AM

Burned at the stake? None that I’m aware of.

tommyboy on February 20, 2014 at 10:03 AM

Global warming is a settled scientific issue.

liberalrules on February 20, 2014 at 9:58 AM

Yeah, numbnuts. And in the 1970′s ‘scientific consensus’ was that we were about to enter a new ice age.

More Kool Aid?

GarandFan on February 20, 2014 at 10:04 AM

Kerry has it backwards which is typical of the left. More of the same type of projection of pointing fingers and accusing their opponent and calling names when in fact it is they that are wrong. The “flat-earthers” were proven wrong back in the middle ages and so will the man made global warming zealots.

The Bible in the books of Job and Isaiah both stated that the earth was round. Yet secular so-called scientists using the wisdom of man claimed it was flat. The Bible also says that God created the seasons (our natural climate change)and they will last until the end of time. This too will prove that the man made global warming believers are wrong.

Keep watching as God makes fools out of these people. It’s been happening frequently of late.

I for one would like to see these so-called experts give us an example of how they can have any effect on the climate. Maybe several cases of pin point weather predictions 5 days ahead in a specific location? Or maybe they can control the wind for awhile?

They would be more successful gathering all the “experts” and attempting to all urinate on a raging forest fire in order to control it.

iamsaved on February 20, 2014 at 10:05 AM

he told his audience that Jakarta would soon be half-submerged

Back in the 80s AlGore was saying Florida would be submerged by now.

tommyboy on February 20, 2014 at 10:06 AM

Global warming is a settled scientific issue

I don’t know why anyone would want to argue with it…..

liberalrules on February 20, 2014 at 9:58 AM

A weak argumentum ab auctoritate. Closer to an argumentum ad populum.

Not nearly as convincing as “4 out of 5 dentists agree….

iurockhead on February 20, 2014 at 10:07 AM

BTW: The Earth is not round it is spherical. Round implies that it is a disc and may be flat :-)

Dasher on February 20, 2014 at 10:08 AM

on two core points: carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and we’re producing more of it.

fify

pecan pie on February 20, 2014 at 10:10 AM

more settled science:

1) man can never fly

2)there’s no life in the deep oceans

notwantedin N.Y.

jmtham156 on February 20, 2014 at 10:10 AM

BTW: The Earth is not round it is spherical. Round implies that it is a disc and maybe flat :-)

As in round like a marble? Is there an implication of being a disc and may be flat? Aren’t we splitting hairs here?

iamsaved on February 20, 2014 at 10:12 AM

liberalrules on February 20, 2014 at 9:58 AM

Global warming is a man-made scam. The biggest lie ever perpetrated against humanity. Obamacare, a distant second – as it only screws Americans.

kevinkristy on February 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM

Global warming is a settled scientific issue.
Religion for displaced atheists…
liberalrules on February 20, 2014 at 9:58 AM

fify

workingclass artist on February 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM

Wasn’t Pluto settled science?

jmtham156 on February 20, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Goofy, too!

Del Dolemonte on February 20, 2014 at 10:14 AM

Those who proved the flat earther’s wrong did it with scientific knowledge through observation, testing and confirmation.

liberalrules on February 20, 2014 at 9:58 AM

And AGW was “proven” by manipulated data.

F-

Del Dolemonte on February 20, 2014 at 10:16 AM

It would seem that warming would be better anyway. Less energy consumed to keep warm and more areas where food can be grown for the population explosion which turns out to be another thing they were full of crapola about. Yeah, I ended a sentence in a preposition.

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2014 at 10:17 AM

When is Kerry going to save Guam from tipping over…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7XXVLKWd3Q

workingclass artist on February 20, 2014 at 10:18 AM

Majority of scientists believe in GW.
liberalrules on February 20, 2014 at 9:58 AM

So science is a democracy? Has anything they have predicted come true?

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2014 at 10:20 AM

If you are opposed to it that’s fine but if your position does not come with an accepted scientific study which can be deemed credible, you have no case.

liberalrules on February 20, 2014 at 9:58 AM

Since you seen to be a scientific person, let’s look at discussion from one of the premier theoreticians of our time, Karl Popper.

Popper states in his theory of testable hypothesis that in order for a theory to be testable, it must be described in a way that identifies the theory to be not true. In other words, to test whether something is true, you must also describe conditions where it is not true. Otherwise, you could speculate any observation as being proof of your theory.

So in your scientific observation, under what conditions would AWG and its ultimate destruction not be provable?

Bet you won’t answer. ;-)

itsspideyman on February 20, 2014 at 10:20 AM

Isn’t there going to be a trial about this subject? Haven’t a lot of universities been forced to turn over “research” that is going to be so very very interesting?

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2014 at 10:22 AM

The last international consensus was that Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs.
That one didn’t work out too well, as I recall.

J_Crater on February 20, 2014 at 9:30 AM

Sadam was busy moving them around. When you were looking for WMD’s, did you bother to check to see where Syria got THEIR WMD’s?

oldleprechaun on February 20, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Just like math, science is HARD.

maryo on February 20, 2014 at 10:29 AM

Global warming is a settled scientific issue.

liberalrules on February 20, 2014 at 9:58 AM

Are Einstein’s theories on relativity settled scientific issues? We use them in the Global Positioning System, we to this day, 100 years later, they are still subjects of testing.

rbj on February 20, 2014 at 10:34 AM

in other science news, Obama shocked, shocked i say, to hear he is NOT the center of the universe.

great-unwashed on February 20, 2014 at 10:34 AM

great-unwashed on February 20, 2014 at 10:34 AM

After which, the media went all out to fluff his ego back to its normal state.

cozmo on February 20, 2014 at 10:38 AM

Same way if you are going to disprove global warming…you have to have a convincing scientific study on your side which can convince the scientific community that your position is credible.

liberalrules on February 20, 2014 at 9:58 AM

You have to have a convincing scientific study on your side which can convince the scientific community that global warming is a net negative for life on Earth.

Climate changes constantly, Some species benefit, others don’t.

I see no convincing scientific study that proves warming is bad for all life on Earth.

MichaelGabriel on February 20, 2014 at 10:40 AM

Majority of scientists believe in GW.
liberalrules on February 20, 2014 at 9:58 AM

So science is a democracy? Has anything they have predicted come true?

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2014 at 10:20 AM

Well Polar Bears were supposed to die out by now cause they’d be stranded on singular ice chunks and die while hunting from exhaustion…

I guess Polar Bears didn’t get the memo…

Global population of polar bears has increased by 2,650-5,700 since 2001

http://polarbearscience.com/2013/07/15/global-population-of-polar-bears-has-increased-by-2650-5700-since-2001/

workingclass artist on February 20, 2014 at 10:40 AM

It would seem that warming would be better anyway. Less energy consumed to keep warm and more areas where food can be grown for the population explosion which turns out to be another thing they were full of crapola about. Yeah, I ended a sentence in a preposition.

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2014 at 10:17 AM

C’mon, don’t downplay it you rebel! You ended both sentences with a preposition! :)

questionmark on February 20, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Same way if you are going to disprove global warming…you have to have a convincing scientific study on your side which can convince the scientific community that your position is credible.

A few points. It is not up to anyone to disprove global warming. The burden of proof is up to GW-adherents to prove their theory. But taking on your challenge as stated: what would constitute proof to you? What if, say, the GW models were predicting huge temperature increases and we went 15 years without significant increases in temperature. Would that do it? Do you need 20 years? 30 years?

And what would constitute proof of that GW is an accurate theory? If the polar ice caps melt would that do it? What if they didn’t melt and instead we had a significant freeze? Would that be proof of GW?

Why is that both scenarios have been put forward as proof of global warming theory. Do you know nothing of Karl Popper?

Majority of scientists believe in GW.

And that’s the crux of it. It’s an argument from authority. But the history of science is full of situations in which the majority of scientists believed in one thing and one scientist was opposed to the majority and proved right. Look at history of plate tectonics for instance.

The larger problem though is that politics gets intertwined with science. So much of scientific research depends on government grants, you need to make sure that your theory is both scientifically sound and politically palatable. Right now GW has the backing of political movements which want it to be true for ends that have nothing to do with science (see the Green parties.)

If you are opposed to it that’s fine but if your position does not come with an accepted scientific study which can be deemed credible, you have no case.

My own opinion is that you have two possible situations:

1. Some minor global warming known with a high degree of scientific certainty

2. Major global warming believed with a low level of scientific certainty.

And in so much of these discussion those two positions become morphed into:
3. Major global warming known with a high degree of scientific certainty.

And that, IMHO is supported neither by science nor by the meteorological record.

PackerBronco on February 20, 2014 at 10:52 AM

Instead, we have an administration which apparently believes that science consists of badgering doubters into silence, and amplifying the shrieking in direct proportion to the failure rate of models such as those above.

Those who can’t handle the truth,
try to silence those who speak it.

Red Pill on June 7, 2008 at 2:12 PM

ITguy on February 20, 2014 at 10:55 AM

In ancient times, the notion of a flat Earth was the scientific consensus

Actually, no. Since the ancient Greeks, it’s been common knowledge that the Earth was round. Even in Medieval times, those who were learned, though few and far between, did read the ancient Greeks and knew the Earth was round.

My book is at home, but there was only one semi-prominent guy who advocated for a flat Earth.

They may have been wrong about so much else, but Earth has always been round.

rbj on February 20, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Is it just apocryphal that all those European sailing explorers who wanted to go west (Vespucci, Columbus, etc) had trouble because everyone else thought they would sail off the edge of a flat world?

It certainly seems to have been the prevailing wisdom of the time that the world was flat not just the belief of ‘one semi-prominent guy’. If it were that, we’d never have heard of anyone thinking it was flat, I think.

Midas on February 20, 2014 at 10:57 AM

simply put, if climate alarmism were real, there would be a factual and specific ’cause and effect’ chain one could follow for plausibility. No ‘effect’= failed hypothesis for cause. Psuedoscience of ideology is not a substitute for facts, unless it is more political than scientific, which seems to be the case, and we’ll have to coin a new term ‘scientitians’ to fully explain their compromised profession.

great-unwashed on February 20, 2014 at 10:57 AM

Global warming is a settled scientific issue.

I don’t know why anyone would want to argue with it.

Those who proved the flat earther’s wrong did it with scientific knowledge through observation, testing and confirmation.

Same way if you are going to disprove global warming…you have to have a convincing scientific study on your side which can convince the scientific community that your position is credible.

Majority of scientists believe in GW.

If you are opposed to it that’s fine but if your position does not come with an accepted scientific study which can be deemed credible, you have no case.

liberalrules on February 20, 2014 at 9:58 AM

You don’t seem to understand. It’s not up to skeptics to disporve anything. It’s on you to prove it. One is never asked to prove a negative. In order to establish global warming, the scientific community needs to come up with a theory which is 1.) testable, 2.) predictable, and 3.) repeatable. If it can’t do all three of those, then there is no legitimate theory. So far it has failed tremendously. To paraphrase Socrates, Question Everything!

Goldenavatar on February 20, 2014 at 10:59 AM

questionmark on February 20, 2014 at 10:44 AM

I’m on a tear, I tell ya!!!

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2014 at 10:59 AM

Christy and McNider are making a bizarre point. First of all, Flat Earth was an assumption, not a scientific theory supported by massive amount of evidence. Second, the “ancients” knew the Earth was round at least 2500 years ago and possibly much further back.

Also, their temperature comparison utilizes a tiny fraction of the data and only the data that shows low warming. For goodness sake, if the skeptics are going to fund something like Berkeley Earth, the least they can do is used the data. Oh, except BEST showed warming only slightly lower than the models so I guess we should ignore the most through and rigorously tested data set compiled by one of the biggest global warming skeptics out there.

Hal_10000 on February 20, 2014 at 11:00 AM

Global warming is a settled scientific issue.

I don’t know why anyone would want to argue with it.

Those who proved the flat earther’s wrong did it with scientific knowledge through observation, testing and confirmation.

Same way if you are going to disprove global warming…you have to have a convincing scientific study on your side which can convince the scientific community that your position is credible.

Majority of scientists believe in GW.

If you are opposed to it that’s fine but if your position does not come with an accepted scientific study which can be deemed credible, you have no case.

liberalrules on February 20, 2014 at 9:58 AM

In the Seventies, we were told that we would be facing a new Ice Age due to man-generated CO2 reducing solar heat in the atmosphere. The answer was to “de-industrialize” the world and return to a pre-industrial, agrarian socialist culture.

In the early Eighties, when the cooling trend seemed to pause, the “experts” suddenly decided that the threat was “global warming”. Caused by man-generated CO2 causing a runaway “greenhouse effect”. The solution? “De-industrialize” the world and return to a pre-industrial, agrarian socialist culture.

John Holsdren, the guru og AGW, was calling for the “de-indudtrialization” of the West on purely “philosophical” grounds (i.e., he’s a socialist who hates technological society) in the Sixties. Before either “global cooling” or “global warming” had been thought of as excuses for the policy.

You want science? Here’s a scientific fact;

It is physically impossible for a single set of conditions in the atmosphere to generate two different, in fact diametrically-opposed, results in temperature norms. The Laws of Thermodynamics simply do not allow such a situation to exist.

And here’s a political fact;

When supposed experts demand the same “solution” as a cure for two entirely different supposed “physical” conditions in the environment, you can be certain that the “solution” is the prime desideratum, and the “conditions” are just an excuse to force others to accede to the advocates’ demands.

You can write all the computer programs you like, and gimmick the code so that they always show results that support your demands (as in Mann’s “hockey stick”), but that doesn’t make you right. It just makes you a power-hungry, unscientific liar.

And we have entirely too much experience with the results of giving power to people with that mindset. We don’t need any more.

clear ether

eon

eon on February 20, 2014 at 11:00 AM

“…carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and we’re producing more of it.”

A much bigger greenhouse gas is water vapor. It works as a greenhouse gas and in cloud form helps keeps the temperature lower in the day and higher at night… kind of a temperature stabilizer.

Also much more carbon dioxide is created naturally than by man made sources. So man is a minor contributor the non-problem.

Dasher on February 20, 2014 at 11:02 AM

Midas on February 20, 2014 at 10:57 AM

Flat Earth prevailed among landlubbers.

Sailors already believed the earth was round (masts, curvature of the earth, and all that). They just didn’t know how big. And what was out there to eat them.

cozmo on February 20, 2014 at 11:03 AM

Burned at the stake? None that I’m aware of.

tommyboy on February 20, 2014 at 10:03 AM

You might want to look up Giordano Bruno.

mbs on February 20, 2014 at 11:04 AM

The larger problem though is that politics gets intertwined with science. So much of scientific research depends on government grants, you need to make sure that your theory is both scientifically sound and politically palatable. Right now GW has the backing of political movements which want it to be true for ends that have nothing to do with science…

PackerBronco on February 20, 2014 at 10:52 AM

EXACTLY.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

- President Eisenhower’s farewell address

President Eisenhower gave two warnings in his farewell address.

Many people are familiar with the first warning about the “military-industrial complex”, but they are not familiar with the second warning about the “scientific-technological elite”.

President Eisenhower was right with both warnings.

ITguy on February 20, 2014 at 11:04 AM

President Eisenhower’s farewell address

ITguy on February 20, 2014 at 11:06 AM

Global Warming alarmists may not be Flat Earthers, but Dry Dead Earthers. Global Warming theory might work on a planet without water or life, where the only natural processes are radiant heating and absorption of infra-red radiation in the atmosphere.

But the real Earth is a very wet and living planet. About 95% of the absorption of infrared radiation in the atmosphere is by water vapor, and a planet 71% covered by water will always have water vapor in its atmosphere. The oceans have a tremendous heat capacity, and any additional energy absorbed by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could only raise their temperature by a few thousandths of a degree per century.

Those who believe that heating up the air by a few degrees could melt enough ice to submerge Jakarta or Tuvalu forget that the heat required to raise 1 cubic meter of air by 1 degree C could only melt about 3.5 grams of ice, with a volume of 0.0000035 cubic meters. The absorption of infrared radiation by carbon dioxide is a very tiny effect in the energy balance of planet Earth.

Earth is also a very living planet, and all the green plants on Earth require carbon dioxide from the air to produce their food. If the carbon dioxide concentration increases, plants grow faster and produce higher crop yields (this has been shown experimentally hundreds of times), but also consume more carbon dioxide. A future with more CO2 in the air could lead to a greener, more fertile Earth better able to support a larger human population, while the increased consumption of CO2 would eventually cause the CO2 concentration in the air to level off slightly higher than today’s concentration.

Global-Warming alarmists belong to the Dry Dead Earth Society. We skeptics believe in a Wet Green Earth, because that’s what we observe.

Steve Z on February 20, 2014 at 11:09 AM

Is the Earth warming? The data shows it is increasing slightly, but well below the doomsday predictions of those with a professional interest in climate change being a BIG F-ING DEAL; the ‘hide the decline’ climate modelers.

Is human activity to blame? It is unknown, but the Earth has gone through many cylcles of warmer and colder weather – and the climate modelers don’t have a good answer as to what made the Earth go into or get out of the latest ice age.

Is warming bad? Well the Medieval warm period was good times and good wines all around and it is not yet as warm now as it was then. Let me know when they are growing wine grapes in England again.

Let us not forget that within living memory the climate modelers were insisting with equal fervor that the Earth was cooling, that it was a terrible thing, and that human actiity (specifically capitalism) was to blame – before getting too worked up that they are now insisting that the Earth is warming, that it is a terrible thing, and that human activity (specifically capitalism) is to blame.

Mordaukar on February 20, 2014 at 11:11 AM

fify

pecan pie on February 20, 2014 at 10:10 AM

Nice catch.

dentarthurdent on February 20, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Is it just apocryphal that all those European sailing explorers who wanted to go west (Vespucci, Columbus, etc) had trouble because everyone else thought they would sail off the edge of a flat world?

It certainly seems to have been the prevailing wisdom of the time that the world was flat not just the belief of ‘one semi-prominent guy’. If it were that, we’d never have heard of anyone thinking it was flat, I think.

Midas on February 20, 2014 at 10:57 AM

I don’t know how much the common sailor knew, but they all saw ships or ports disappear over the horizon so I’m fairly sure they did know the world was round. The problems were that the ships were very small (go to Jamestown and see the replica there, I would take it on an ocean going voyage), navigation was crude so you didn’t really know where you were going once you lost sight of the coast and there was superstition and belief in sea monsters (not entirely unjustified.)

Flat Earth survived just as April’s Fool or Friday the Thirteenth have survived. A singular instance that fills in as a good shorthand.

rbj on February 20, 2014 at 11:15 AM

Cure for all the hype: Plant Algore’s and Kerry’s feet at the low tide mark of any Indonesian beach, grab a beer and watch the fun.

vnvet on February 20, 2014 at 11:16 AM

Dasher on February 20, 2014 at 11:02 AM

And algore reversed the charts showing the relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature. In the real, accurate charts, rise in carbon dioxide follows temperature increases by 700 to 1000 years.

dentarthurdent on February 20, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

- President Eisenhower’s farewell address

ITguy on February 20, 2014 at 11:04 AM

In more ways than one…

Excellent Essay at the Federalist yesterday…

excerpt:

“This triumph of technology over the human person will not be merely technological. It will be internal as well as external, ‘spiritual’ as well as material. Huxley understood this with great clarity and C.S. Lewis with even greater clarity, though the gulf between them is otherwise infinite. They saw that the plastic body emptied of its dignity through eugenics had as its necessary counterpart the plastic soul deprived of its human inheritance and emptied of its capacity for truly human thoughts, feeling, and experiences. This process too, which is even harder to see than it is to understand, is already well underway…

And people who have come to understand themselves as artifacts will be unable to think deeply about them because there will be no depths to think about. For they will have already reduced reality to an assemblage of superficial ‘facts’ and truth to an arrangement (or re-arrangement) of the facts. And so they will have already reduced thinking to some technique for assembling or manipulating data and things such as sociology, engineering, or journalism, that light minded empiricism which is the predominant form of rationality in our age…”

http://thefederalist.com/2014/02/19/the-brave-new-world-of-same-sex-marriage/

Eugenics…It’s what’s for Breakfast

workingclass artist on February 20, 2014 at 11:20 AM

Is it just apocryphal that all those European sailing explorers who wanted to go west (Vespucci, Columbus, etc) had trouble because everyone else thought they would sail off the edge of a flat world?

It certainly seems to have been the prevailing wisdom of the time that the world was flat not just the belief of ‘one semi-prominent guy’. If it were that, we’d never have heard of anyone thinking it was flat, I think.

Midas on February 20, 2014 at 10:57 AM

Yes, it is aprocyphal – Washington Irving wrote (incorrectly) about Columbus arguing about a flat -vs- a round Earth; and in his time it might have been easy to believe that people in the 1400′s thought the Earth was flat – but he was ignorant of actual history.

Columbus did argue with the ‘learned heads of Europe’ about the Earth – but not about the SHAPE of the Earth – but the circumference. The learned scholars cited Eratostenes who around 200 B.C. calculated the circumference of the Earth quite accurately. Columbus thought Eratosthenes was WRONG (he wasn’t) because if Eratosthenes was correct (he was) then Columbus wouldn’t have made it to India (and he wouldn’t have).

Mordaukar on February 20, 2014 at 11:21 AM

Global warming is a settled scientific issue
I don’t know why anyone would want to argue with it…..

liberalrules on February 20, 2014 at 9:58 AM

I know lots of people who argue it.
First it’s NOT settled, second the predictions have all been completely wrong for the last 15 years, and third – until scientists, and simple weather forecasters can accurately predict what the high temperature for the day will actually be 2 or 3 days from now, I won’t be trusting their predictions on worldwide temperature 10 years from now.

dentarthurdent on February 20, 2014 at 11:22 AM

Does the Flat Earth Society refer to Climate Change as “Planar Warming”?

Remember that there was a consensus that the sun and planets moved around the earth also….

texasthered on February 20, 2014 at 11:23 AM

You have to stop and wonder why the left is so freakishly freaked out by skepticism to climate alarmism? Methinks it has more to do with challenging their authority, control and profit over the population than about any type of real science or care for anyone/anything but themselves. Follow the money….and you’ll be at al gore’s mansion’s front door.

great-unwashed on February 20, 2014 at 11:25 AM

I think.

Midas on February 20, 2014 at 10:57 AM

Well there is your problem right there. You were told something, you said to yourself, well, that sounds reasonable, and you never bothered to do any research to see with what you had been told was actually a documented fact.


Myth of the Flat Earth

The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical.[1]

During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. From at least the 14th century, belief in a flat Earth among the educated was almost nonexistent, despite fanciful depictions in art, such as the exterior of Hieronymus Bosch’s famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights, in which a disc-shaped Earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere.[2]

According to Stephen Jay Gould, “there never was a period of ‘flat earth darkness’ among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth’s roundness as an established fact of cosmology.”[3] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that “there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference”.[4]

Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat-earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution.[5] Russell claims “with extraordinary [sic] few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat”, and credits histories by John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White, and Washington Irving for popularizing the flat-earth myth.[6]

oscarwilde on February 20, 2014 at 11:27 AM

Is the Earth warming? The data shows it is increasing slightly, but well below the doomsday predictions of those with a professional interest in climate change being a BIG F-ING DEAL; the ‘hide the decline’ climate modelers.
Mordaukar on February 20, 2014 at 11:11 AM

Of course it is. We’re still on the upslope coming out of the last ice age. But that’s not AGW – that’s the natural climate cycle. The earth will eventually reach the top of the curve and then start back down toward another ice age – long after we and multiple generations of our descendents are all dead and gone.

dentarthurdent on February 20, 2014 at 11:27 AM

I think.

Midas on February 20, 2014 at 10:57 AM

Well there is your problem right there. You were told something, you said to yourself, well, that sounds reasonable, and you never bothered to do any research to see with what you had been told was actually a documented fact.


Myth of the Flat Earth

The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical.[1]

During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. From at least the 14th century, belief in a flat Earth among the educated was almost nonexistent, despite fanciful depictions in art, such as the exterior of Hieronymus Bosch’s famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights, in which a disc-shaped Earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere.[2]

According to Stephen Jay Gould, “there never was a period of ‘flat earth darkness’ among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth’s roundness as an established fact of cosmology.”[3] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that “there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference”.[4]

[6]

oscarwilde on February 20, 2014 at 11:31 AM

Marxism is, after all, a “science”.

Viator on February 20, 2014 at 11:38 AM

wow, the libs jump on ‘the flat earth myth’ and miss the point entirely of the allegory the scientists were making (i know, they are just trying to obfuscate). the point being, the skeptics are the people throughout history that have challenged ‘consensus’ science, meaning, to insist that only your ideology is empirical and enlightened is to conclusively prove that it is neither.

great-unwashed on February 20, 2014 at 11:42 AM

Settled science is a non-sequitur. There is no such thing in real science. Every scientific theory is open to being tested and dis-proven at all times in actual science.

They are still testing Einstein’s theories which are far older and more robust than the global warming scam.

Viator on February 20, 2014 at 11:44 AM

Up is down

Schadenfreude on February 20, 2014 at 11:46 AM

Global warming is a anti-capitalist cult. They exhibit every type of behavior associated with cults as as outlined in the classic study “When Prophecy Fails”.

One of these attributes is when a cult’s prophecy fails they don’t admit their mistake, rather they double down on the mistake and become even more fanatical believers.

http://www.amazon.com/When-Prophecy-Fails-Psychological-Destruction/dp/0061311324

Viator on February 20, 2014 at 11:53 AM

Joe Biden writes at least half of the stuff Kerry uses…and vice-versa.

albill on February 20, 2014 at 11:55 AM

Of course it is. We’re still on the upslope coming out of the last ice age. But that’s not AGW – that’s the natural climate cycle. The earth will eventually reach the top of the curve and then start back down toward another ice age – long after we and multiple generations of our descendents are all dead and gone.

dentarthurdent on February 20, 2014 at 11:27 AM

Maybe yes, maybe no – there really isn’t a good understanding of the natural climate cycle.

One of the main points of my comment was that the climate modelers don’t have a good theory to explain why the climate changed BEFORE human activity (the A in AGW).

We may or may not be having absolutely zero effect on the natural cycle of warm periods and ice ages – I am pointing out that it still isn’t as warm as the Medieval warm period (thus little cause for alarm as yet) and that the ‘hide the decline’ climate modelers don’t seem to have any idea what causes NATURAL global warming or cooling.

“When all you have is a hammer – problems look like nails.” They are convinced human activity is the problem – and seek to explain all warming (and previously cooling) as a problem caused by human activity; when they don’t understand how the Earth warms and cools absent human activity.

Mordaukar on February 20, 2014 at 11:56 AM

You have to stop and wonder why the left is so freakishly freaked out by skepticism to climate alarmism? Methinks it has more to do with challenging their authority, control and profit over the population than about any type of real science or care for anyone/anything but themselves. Follow the money….and you’ll be at al gore’s mansion’s front door.

great-unwashed on February 20, 2014 at 11:25 AM

They’ve been trying this scheme for 100 years.

It’s worked well in Europe,Asia & South America…But Damn those Americans and their Constitution.

workingclass artist on February 20, 2014 at 12:00 PM

You betcha

forest on February 20, 2014 at 9:53 AM

Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skillful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc.

steebo77 on February 20, 2014 at 12:01 PM

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

10Commandments on February 20, 2014 at 12:04 PM

Global warming is a settled scientific issue.

I don’t know why anyone would want to argue with it.

Those who proved the flat earther’s wrong did it with scientific knowledge through observation, testing and confirmation.

Same way if you are going to disprove global warming…you have to have a convincing scientific study on your side which can convince the scientific community that your position is credible.

Majority of scientists believe in GW.

If you are opposed to it that’s fine but if your position does not come with an accepted scientific study which can be deemed credible, you have no case.

liberalrules on February 20, 2014 at 9:58 AM

Uh, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

About anything you just wrote.

Most scientists do not “beleive” in GW. Or find it credible because the evidence does not support it. The “97% of AGW scientists support AGW” is a fraudulent estimation.
For one thing all of the models pushed by the AGW proponents have failed to come even close to predicting what actually happened in the last 15 years.
There is actually a panic right now in the AGW proponent community because their predictions and models are now so thoroughly discredited by widely available evidence.

And it’s AGW not GW. You don’t even know the right terms to use.

gwelf on February 20, 2014 at 12:07 PM

Beware, the Warmists are also fiddling with history to ‘improve on’ the ‘evidence’ for their socialist scheme: NCDC Wiping Out America’s Hot Past

slickwillie2001 on February 20, 2014 at 12:08 PM

liberalrules on February 20, 2014 at 9:58 AM

Please explain the warming plateau that even the NY Times admits to:

What to Make of a Warming Plateau
The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.

The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists. True, the basic theory that predicts a warming of the planet in response to human emissions does not suggest that warming should be smooth and continuous. To the contrary, in a climate system still dominated by natural variability, there is every reason to think the warming will proceed in fits and starts.

But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/

DinaRehn on February 20, 2014 at 12:13 PM

If science is settled, than why do we still do research? We would never have found the cures to various diseases. Polio, TB, cholera, etcetera. The very fact that people don’t want to hear dissenting opinions should scare all of us.

BelleStarre on February 20, 2014 at 12:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3