Feed on

Is there any data or evidence that could potentially be shown to you that might make you reconsider your faith in the topic? I’ll make it simpler, is there any data or evidence that at least will make you reconsider how useful the climate models are?

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.

3 Responses to “Question to the Climate Change Congregation”

  1. Harry says:

    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)

    This hits the nail on the head.

    Many have abandoned the debate over whether the world is getting warmer by a half a degree or so because of the torrent of opinion from people who shout loudly. Ten or fifteen years ago Exxon had a piece in their internal magazine The Lamp that conceded this point weakly — that there were indications that in the last century the earth had warmed about half a degree. When they wrote that, I wondered how anyone knows, putting aside anecdotes of old-timers, and the longstanding ou sont le neige d’antans. I wondered about how you measure. Where were all of those thermometers that measured temperatures to half a degree?

    Let’s stipulate we all suspect that world temperatures have risen because Dickens and Shakespeare have told us it was colder in England than it is today and not bother with the rest of planetary comparisons, except to say that it is a matter of speculation, not science.

    The real questions are 1) whether carbon dioxide, which composes roughly .037 PERCENT of the atmosphere (measured at sea level or 40,000 feet? I do not know) has any significant effect on the weather, and 2) whether we can do anything about that level that will be meaningful to improve NET our well-being.

    So far those questions have been unanswered, wherever I read, and they are little discussed anywhere. Maybe someone more learned can explain what measurable effect a .001% reduction in carbon dioxide will have, should we be able to achieve it.

    The argument is loony, or, to be charitable, counter-intuitive. Carbon dioxide is a trace gas. In the desert where there are no clouds, the temperature drops thirty degrees, and heat radiates into space. Where there are clouds, the temperature drops much less, because the radiation does not escape. Just fly across the Atlantic and you will see plenty of clouds, and plenty of sunshine above, and you cannot make out any Chevy Suburbans belching carbon dioxide.

    The real motivation behind the CO2 argument, and the carbon argument, is that it is the trump card. Animals exhale it, and anything that is burned, even efficiently, produces it. Fire warms us, and powers civilization, and the CO2 produced nourishes plants that feed us. Give someone the power to control, and, most importantly, tax CO2, and you have real power over other people’s lives and fortunes.

    With so much at stake, it’s not surprising the folks in the congregation react in a hostile fashion if you ask them about their science, which hangs by a thin thread. It reminds me of the days of the Spanish Inquisition.

    Note that the implementation of all of these proposals are scheduled for full implementation when the assorted politicians, lawyers, UN diplomats, and Scandinavian progressives will have retired or be room temperature, but the bill for our money will come sooner.

  2. wintercow20 says:

    “But the bill will come sooner”
    Sadly Harry is correct. But this is business as usual for the folks in DC. Just look at the Baucus Bill. The bill starts coming to taxpayers THREE YEARS before the reforms are put into place. And only then is the plan anywhere near “revenue neutral.” As an aside, that revenue neutrality relies on heroic claims about the efficiency of government and their ability to reduce Medicare spending.

  3. Harry says:

    Thanks, Wintercow. One should add that the CBO and other agencies use static rather than dynamic analysis to arrive at their figures, which intentionally ignore the positive effect of supply-side tax cuts and the negative effect of tax increases. If they were playing with their own money, I bet they would change their religion to Voodoo Economics. Works for me.

Leave a Reply