Warming hysteria cooling off

Just when global warming hysteria has reached new heights in its “change or die” propoganda:

There’s news that not only may this global drama not be playing out as some “scientists” would hope (via der Spiegel online):

The planet’s temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s. “At present, however, the warming is taking a break,” confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany’s best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. “There can be no argument about that,” he says. “We have to face that fact.”

……

ust a few weeks ago, Britain’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius — in other words, a standstill.

But that there may have been some crass manipulation going on for political gain all along. From the Right-Wing Liberal comes word that an anonymous hacker has uncovered some less than flattering emails by some of global warming’s top thinkers and advocates:

Among the things exposed by the hacker is “Mike’s Nature Trick” – essentially garfting different data sets together in order to “hide the decline” that would have blown a gaping hole in the global-warming theory (Climate Audit, it will take a while for the link, but it’s worth it!).

There are also emails about trying to get skeptical colleagues fired (Air Vent), changing the rules of reviewing papers to suppress different points of view (Air Vent again), and even cheering the death of a skeptic (What’s Up with That).

I’ve held for a while that the true goal of the left in buying into less than perfect evidence of man made global warming is not to actually do anything about climate change but to get citizens to buy into a wholesale change in the way we live. Hence the term watermelon that is popular in European conservative circles: green on the outside, red on the inside.

I think that some degree of climate change on man’s part is undeniable. In my 11th grade environmental science class we spent alot of time discussing systems, how the relate to the environment, and what results can come of the interchange between all the various factors in our globe, which includes the economy. I believe that man has had some level of measurable impact but that the current data is so difficult to make heads and tails of. Indeed not just thirty years ago it was global cooling that was at the tip of wagging tounges everywhere. From George F. Will:

In their new book, “SuperFreakonomics,” Steven D. Levitt, a University of Chicago economist, and Stephen J. Dubner, a journalist, worry about global warming but revive some inconvenient memories of 30 years ago. Then intelligent people agreed (see above) that global cooling threatened human survival. It had, Newsweek reported, “taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.” Some scientists proposed radical measures to cause global warming — for example, covering the arctic ice cap with black soot that would absorb heat and cause melting.

At this juncture in history, the greatest degree of environmental change can be made by voluntary efforts rather than full throated government intervention. Common sense measures will go a long way, and I think that this has already shown in the increased demand for green products and practices. But even then we need to think hard about our direction. From Will again:

Levitt and Dubner also spoil some of the fun of the sort of the “think globally, act locally” gestures that are liturgically important in the church of climate change. For example, they say the “locavore” movement — people eating locally grown foods from small farms — actually increases greenhouse gas emissions. They cite research showing that only 11 percent of such emissions associated with food are in the transportation of it; 80 percent are in the production phase and, regarding emissions, big farms are much more efficient.

I believe that the environment is a very real concern and should be one for conservatives everywhere. However, measures such as cap and trade will only further hamper economic development without granting the free market a chance that is needed if we are to effect the most change for the long term.

Advertisements
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: