Alarmists admit ‘cool year’ but coach you on conclusions to draw

Forget that 2008 will be the ‘coolest’ year of this decade, according to ‘experts.’ 2007 was also quite cold (as you can review by looking over some of our past posts on the empirical evidence of weather phenomenon), and alarmist scientists were coaching us then to disregard the record cold for several reasons.

Remember the prediction about 2008 too! 2008 was going to be among 'the hottest on record' compared against the 'long term average' (a period which laughably amounts to only 30 years out of the Earth's estimated 4.5 billion year age).

They stated, among other things, that the sudden cooling was just a brief anomaly, it was being caused by warming (LOL!), and they have used climate revisionism (La Nina) to explain away the sudden antithetical appearance of cold weather (that is ‘masking’ warming – LOL!). These record cold spells and record winter storms (see China’s misery last winter), in essence, disrupt their entire fearmongering theory (upon which they’ve hung their collective professional reputations).

The question is, why are alarmists ALARMED over these recent cooling trends and our attitudes about it? Because they realize the obvious conundrum that even the stupidest among us can discern—CO2 has continued going up while temperatures have continued to drop (and dropped since 1998, if you believe their baseline). Lately, temperatures have dropped DRAMATICALLY, and CO2 has certainly NOT!

Remember why they NEED this pseudo-religion to be REAL! Scientific reputations are on the line. Federal climate research grants are on the line. Political power is on the line. The ‘Greed Fad’ and associated climate industries are all on the line, and there’s an increasingly skeptical public (at least in the U.S. and U.K.), who are bound and gagged by political correctness from declaring, “I DON’T BELIEVE IN THIS RETARDED STUPIDITY!” The world, however, faces a global economic crisis, and with falling temperatures, the little manmade climate change fart cloud is rapidly dissipating; people don’t want you telling them to buy the expensive ‘green’ light bulbs when they’ve just been laid off. The alarmists' NEED grows daily, or more of their ilk are going to suffer (like the climate team at the Weather Channel).

Forget the junk science in this article. Let’s go over some facts they’ve omitted. Global mean temperatures have only DECLINED since 1998, which Dr. Hansen, alarmo-scientist extraordinaire, declared (and later retracted) as the ‘hottest year ever.’ We’ve also seen his most recent mistake (where he declared October 2008 the hottest ever); he later had to retract this silly assertion when some of my intelligent, skeptical brethren and sistren bloggers pointed out the stupid errors in his skewed data (he used September temperatures instead of October temperatures).

2008 will be coolest year of the decade:

Global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, but cooler temperature is not evidence that global warming is slowing, say climate scientists

***

The relatively chilly temperatures compared with recent years are not evidence that global warming is slowing however, say climate scientists at the Met Office. "Absolutely not," said Dr Peter Stott, the manager of understanding and attributing climate change at the Met Office's Hadley Centre. "If we are going to understand climate change we need to look at long-term trends."

Prof Myles Allen at Oxford University who runs the climateprediction.net website, said he feared climate sceptics would overinterpret the figure. "You can bet your life there will be a lot of fuss about what a cold year it is. Actually no, its not been that cold a year, but the human memory is not very long, we are used to warm years," he said, "Even in the 80s [this year] would have felt like a warm year."

***

The Met Office predicted at the beginning of the year that 2008 would be cooler than recent years because of a La Niña event - characterised by unusually cold ocean temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. It is the mirror image of the El Niño climate cycle. The Met Office had forecast an annual global average of 14.37C.

***

In March, a team of climate scientists at Kiel University predicted that natural variation would mask the 0.3C warming predicted by the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change over the next decade. They said that global temperatures would remain constant until 2015 but would then begin to accelerate.

Eco-therapy for fruitcakes

This is a perfect illustration of the media-induced psychosis that disaster-laded predictions of manmade global warming are perpetrating on the weak-minded. The science, clearly viewed, studied, and digested logically—without sentiment, shows that human-caused global warming or climate change is a non-event, yet we’ve discussed ad infinitum on this blog why the myth of global warming is still being propped up. Money and reputations are at stake; think of all the rich and powerful—the elites and the scientific professionals—who will suffer if the scam is exposed. What will happen to them? What will happen to the climate research grants? Follow the money!

I believe the source of manmade climate change theory started off innocently enough. But somewhere along the way, idiots (meaning mostly politicians and politically connected scientists) grabbed the newborn theories of some climatologists and ran like the Gipper toward the end zone; the snowball effect was in full force, and it has now gained a life of its own. It has become biblical and practically heretical to question.

Remember the “8 glasses of water a day” myth? That was recently exposed as garbage too, but how many of you had your doctor or “someone smart” tell you to drink that much for your health?

How many of you right now are declaring what I say on manmade climate change, AGW, or global warming to be sacrilege? Forget about me and examine yourself internally. On what basis do you dismiss me as denier, cynic, flat-earther, etc.? (Call me realist.) Is it your own determination, or have you decided what you’ve been told by the “consensus” via the media is correct? Do you have the sense that I should be silenced? Drawn-and-quartered? Branded with the Scarlet Letter (i.e., "D" for denier)? Is the time for debate really over? If so, why has it been shut down and by whose authority?

Real science never stops debating (look at all the continual debates in other scientific endeavors—from dinosaur extinctions to sources of life), and yet we’ve been told by “really smart people” that the consensus has deemed scientific debate over; therefore, we’re no longer allowed to dissent, debate, and discuss this shaky issue that seems to beckon for “immediate, critical action.” The very basis of science has been kicked to the curb by politicians, who have found a unique opportunity and will protect the idea (whether it’s real or imagined) vigorously.

All of you with global warming anxiety will just have to deal with it; the elites who are shoving this down your throat need you anxious so that you’ll demand unnecessary governmental action, which gives them (politicians and politically-connected) a toehold to expand the programs (both governmental and scientific) needed to “fight” something that isn’t even real. The scientist needs the grant money to continue earning a buck through research. The politician needs to manage governmental programs, whether the need is real or imagined for those programs, because governmental programs provide a basis for power (and ultimately wealth).

If the collective human consciousness thinks global warming is real then it will be real enough for “the smartest among us” to be granted by us the authority to save the planet using our resources (i.e., taxes). Use your brain! Think! Study it for yourself. Don’t just believe what you’re told—by me or anyone else!

Don’t be like this poor, tree-hugging plastic surgery victim in the news story. Aliens aren’t invading. Bigfoot won’t stomp on you. Y2K did not cause worldwide panic. Bird Flu is not ravaging the countryside. Saccharin is not making tumors inside us. Eight glasses of water per day are unnecessary; please drink when you’re thirsty. Light bulbs won’t save the planet. SUVs aren’t evil. The Earth’s temperature is not out of control. The apocalypse is not at hand.

FOXNews.com - Is Going Green Making You Crazy? It's Time for Eco-Therapy - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News:

Now, she says: "We only drive to the grocery store every three weeks. We have our own source of water. We compost and no longer heat every room on the first floor."

Edwards suffers from eco-anxiety, the growing angst experienced by those who can't handle the thought that they — or anyone — are in some way contributing to global warming, species extinction and dwindling natural resources.

She recently launched a blog called "Eco-Anxiety" because she believes environmental dangers should be taken seriously. "This is severely disturbing," she says.

Carbon profiteering, scientific intimidation, and U.S. history

Why is a flawed theory (that has been so thoroughly debunked that it's not funny) still so widely accepted and espoused by media and politicians alike? Follow the dollars, my friend. Dollars for research grants and dollars for carbon credits (including credits from Gore's own company--that he buys from himself) and other emerging climate technologies (such as biofuels) spell big money for everyone except you common sheep out there.
2007 EU carbon data due out April 1| Environment | Reuters:

Under the EU's carbon market, energy-intensive industry has to submit an emissions permit called an EU Allowance (EUA) for every ton of carbon dioxide emissions.

Emissions data is therefore closely watched because it shows the level of demand for such permits and so the appropriate carbon price.

Check out Dr. Richard Lindzen's (an atmospheric scientist at MIT and a DENIER) excellent piece on the subject. He's another one of those "outlier" scientists as labeled by Al Gore. Do you believe this MIT climate scientist knows more about the climate science than Al Gore? I hope so...

The Wall Street Journal Online - Extra | Climate of Fear - Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence:

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

More on profiteering below with respect to climate change and Guyana. It's easy to see why it's not going to go away easily, even with all the mounting scientific evidence and the opinions of scientists (some who were once on the IPCC); there's too much money at stake--research money for scientists and profit for politicians. When ethical scientists speak up, they're essentially shoved down by the all-powerful "consensus" because the ethical scientists are "taking food off the table."

Remember, our Founding Fathers did this sort of thing, too; they went to war to "free the colonists from evil British oppression," but they were, in reality, protecting their own personal and business interests. Profiteering under noble guises is not a new thing to America; it's almost part of America! History does repeat itself. The Boston "Massacre" and resulting outrage from the inflamed, biased media coverage in the form of Paul Revere's engraving was the major impetus behind stirring popular dissent and starting the Revolutionary War! Don't think the media doesn't still do these things! Don't think our leaders, regardless of party, are no longer elites and out for their own best interests! Your interests only become their interests when popular opinion threatens their hold on power (and thus wealth).

Investor buys Guyana forest's rain and carbon | Environment | Reuters:

LONDON (Reuters) - The British-based investment firm Canopy Capital said on Thursday it had bought a share in the rain-making potential of a chunk of Guyanan rainforest bigger than the Mediterranean island of Mallorca.

The move is a novel twist in an investor frenzy to make money from the prospect of climate change that has also seen businesses snap up permits to emit greenhouse gases and invest in low carbon-emitting technologies.

Need more proof? Here's where two countries are trying to find cheaper "wiggle room" with regard to carbon credits, but you can bet Al Gore and company aren't going to stand by and let that happen. Carbon credits that are cheap would cut into their profits!

Spain, Ireland join cheap carbon credit chase | Environment | Reuters:

That cheaper, alternative route has drawn criticism not only from environmentalists but also from carbon traders who want to make money from selling carbon offsets to countries struggling to meet their Kyoto caps.

Don't be fooled by the article below. Oil firms already wanted to explore these regions and have the technology to do so; they have been prevented by the environmentalist lobby from carrying through, however. The media wants you to fear both the "melting ice" and those evil oil companies who would "compound" the problem.

Ice shrink in Arctic sea may attract oil firms | Environment | Reuters:

Oil and gas companies are pushing north into the Barents Sea, seeking new reserves. Scientists say climate change may make the region less inhospitable and prices around $100 a barrel can justify exploration despite high costs.

"Warming research" continues unabated

Fossil Hunt Finds Warning for Warming Earth | LiveScience:

Insect damage is visible on well-preserved fossil leaves. For example, after an insect chews a hole in the leaf, the tissue around the damage toughens, essentially forming a scab around the damaged area. This is visible on fossils as a darkened rim around the hole. By collecting fossils from times that have different temperatures, I can look at how climate changes affect insect herbivores feeding in natural ecosystems.

The fossils I study range in age from 60 to 52 million years old. During this time, several significant temperature fluctuations occurred. One event that is particularly relevant to modern global warming is the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), a rapid warming of 5-10 degrees C that was caused by the release of at least 4,000 gigatons of carbon into the earth’s atmosphere over less than 10,000 years.

And the "Editor's Note"...

Editor's Note: This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the federal agency charged with funding basic research and education across all fields of science and engineering.

It's way too lucrative for climate scientists to abandon this hyperbole that is AGW.