The strange temperature trends in the tropical upper troposphere do not fit well with any climate models. And for all the hemming and hawing we see about melting glaciers and rising temperatures, the recent decade of temperature stabilization and the recent “record” (note to the faithful, ask why I put “record” in quotes) thickness of the Antarctic ice sheet are either glossed over or argued that these, too, are consistent with the warming the climate models predict.

I like that last point – anything and everything that we observed can be reconciled with human activity wrecking the planet. A theory of everything is a theory of nothing. And the increased non-secularization of this issue drives otherwise thoughtful peoeple away from thinking about these issues.

Couple that attitude with the massive commitment required to “undo” the warming that is going to happen and it should be no surprise that those in the Congregation react in such a hostile fashion when folks point out things they are worried about in the science. In other words, if you think Americans are going to happily pay $12 per gallon of gas and spend $8000 per winter to heat their homes (and still have no guarantee that it will do anything to prevent the warming) all the while being whacked by the smug members of the Congregation, well, you have another thing coming.

Here is the latest:

Antarctic Ice Melt at Lowest Levels in Satellite Era

Filed under: Antarctic, Climate Changes, Glaciers/Sea Ice, Polar —

Where are the headlines? Where are the press releases? Where is all the attention?

The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history.

Such was the finding reported last week by Marco Tedesco and Andrew Monaghan in the journal Geophysical Research Letters:

A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season.

Figure 1. Standardized values of the Antarctic snow melt index (October-January) from 1980-2009 (adapted from Tedesco and Monaghan, 2009).

The silence surrounding this publication was deafening.

It would seem that with oft-stoked fears of a disastrous sea level rise coming this century any news that perhaps some signs may not be pointing to its imminent arrival would be greeted by a huge sigh of relief from all inhabitants of earth (not only the low-lying ones, but also the high-living ones, respectively under threat from rising seas or rising energy costs).

My emphasis added. I ask students regularly, why are we concerned about climate change? Isn’t it because of the expected negative impacts on humans and animal life? If warming does not seem to be impacting those things, then what is the concern? And if there is concern, does it make sense to remake the entire world economy? Sadly, the more I think about this issue, the more I lean toward believing that some in the climate change community simply WANT it to happen because that is their next death sentence against a free-enterprise society. And believe me, when climate change doesn’t pan out, or if we are somehow able to mitigate the damages efficiently, some other crisis will come along that requires unprecedented global action, and a rethinking of how we live our lives.

But ideas and merit no longer matter. “Consensus” does … and all consensus means is that many people who do not have the slightest clue about how the world works, agree with each other that their superstitions are correct. That is why there is a consensus that the minimum wage helps the poor. That is why there is a consensus that labor regulations protect workers. That is why there is a consensus that when I respond to higher taxes by working less, there is really no loss to society. All bunk.

If I had a genie, I would not ask for wealth or fame or any of that. One of my wishes would be to have access to an unbiased and temperate source of scientific truth. I don’t believe we human beings are generally capable of producing it, or recognizing it if it were there.

So rather than advocate energy taxes, the pontificating buffoons in Washington try to dupe people into thinking that a cap and trade system would mean something else – because no one is really willing to admit what the real costs of doing something about the climate will be. To that end, I laughed when I read this story a few days ago:

Costs for homeowner insurance along the East and Gulf coasts have risen 20% to 100% since 2004, says the Insurance Information Institute, a trade group … But regulators and other critics contend that the latest cat models — which include assumptions about various climate changes — are triggering higher insurance rates.

So what is it gonna be folks? If climate change is real, and the damages are going to be anywhere near what Al Gore says that are going to be, then how can you expect insurance companies to continue underwriting policies that do not account for it? Now that evil corporate America is starting to take steps to realize probably climate change scenarios into their business models, you decry that behavior? Are insurance companies supposed to function like charities, and subsidize the people that wish to live in low lying coastal areas at the expense of the rest of us who do not wish to take on such risks? Are profits such a horrible, dirty thing that no firm, nowhere is permitted to pursue them?

It’s time to wake up. If regulators and other critics are unhappy that insurance companies might appear to be banking higher profits due to higher premiums (their expected losses are higher, so where are funds supposed to come from when the next huge storm hits otherwise?), then how can they look their constituents in the face about the favored “cap and charade” programs? These programs stand to enrich some companies to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. After all, when BP, Duke Power, etc. get behind such a proposal, it can’t be because they are suddenly more socially conscious, is it? And a more basic point is, absent the ability of companies to pursue profits, where the heck do all the climate alarmists think that viable solutions to our energy problems are going to come from? Will they magically appear out of the sky? Will they appear on demand when our enlightened political class simply demands that these new technologies appear?

So once again, you can’t have it both ways. Either climate change is real and individuals and companies should rationally do something about it, or climate change is not real and companies and individuals should rationally do nothing about it. But you simply can’t argue that climate change is real and a serious threat, and then go batty when companies adjust their policies to reflect these possibilities – particularly if they are to make higher profits doing it. If this was such a knock it out of the park idea, then why aren’t more companies taking advantage of these higher profits right now?