Climate Change, Consensus and Settled Science

Bill Maher blames liberals and Democrats because they "wrongly ever labeled global warming. It should have been called climate change." Maher and his discussion panel went on to argue the issue is "settled science" and "consensus." It is most certainly not!

Recall after Katrina we were told by AlGore and the rest that killer hurricanes would be a regular event in the US. The more serious argued this was because of too much carbon dioxide heating the atmosphere, thus the tropical waters get too hot and storms brew up and go straight for the US mainland. The impassioned political argument uses the above and often adds "It's because the US is a resource hog and is getting what we deserve" or some such laborious argument based on anger, frustration and God only knows what else. Seems some think nature has it out for evil America and directs itself to punish us.

The science is not settled at all. The facts are climate data and the collection thereof are not uniformly measured. Of the thousands of official weather collection points worldwide it is found a huge percentage of them are not built as called for in order to correctly measure and record climate data. Temperature is supposed to be officially measured in the shade, five feet off the ground and away from sources of industrial heat generation or retention.

For example, it was found one official weather station was in a parking lot of a small town police station. The thermometer and other recording equipment were against the brick wall of the building at the head of the Chief of Police's parking space. Any chance a hot engine cooling on warm, or even cold day could elevate the ambient temperature? Any chance the hot black asphalt could cause the official thermometer to measure very high heat as solar radiation is absorbed by the blacktop and radiates back into the atmosphere?

The foregoing is one of dozens and dozens and dozens of weather stations not placed in the proper place per NOAA direction. Do this experiment yourself. Go buy 2 of those kitchen oven or refrigerator thermometers...they're really cheap. Place one on your deck in the Sun and the other hang from a low tree branch in the shade, 5 feet off the ground as per NOAA guidelines. Now go out during the day with at least some Sun peeking through and read both thermometers. The one in the shade will read "X" and the one on your deck in direct sunlight will read "Y." Only the one placed 5 feet off the ground in the shade will be close to accurate. The one in the sunlight might read 20 degrees higher.

What of the effects of La Nina, El Nino, Sun cycles and Sun spots, Pacific Decadal Oscillation? Why are Sun cycles never addressed in Earth's temperature considerations? They are in real life and real climate science. La Nina and El Nino have tremendous effect on continental climate over the short term. And the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has a huge effect on US continental weather patterns. Sometimes the Pacific holds more warmth in its currents; sometimes less and each condition effects our temperature, thus our climate over longer periods of time.

One of Bill Maher's dismissive denigrations is that people don't know the difference between weather and climate. He uses the "See, massive cold and snow so no global warming" talking point to defame the "deniers," claiming that observers do not know the difference between weather in the short term and long term climate. For the record Mr. Maher, I do know the difference. Weather is what is happening today, tomorrow, last week and last year. Climate is the all the data added up over decades. And the last decade's data shows NO warming.

Let's recall as well that as recently as 1979 it was global cooling. It was only 2 decades from 1980 until 2000 when global warming began to be forwarded. So if progressives can go from global cooling in 1980 to global warming in 2000, that is a mere 20 years, right? Therefore if we "deniers" choose to look at the data since 1998 that shows definite cooling, what leg does Maher and progressives have to stand upon? None if truth be told.

It's obvious global warming has become a political issue because oddly enough nearly EVERY fix for the alleged global warming very neatly dovetails with progressive political and social wishes. Wealth redistribution plays into this as well because interestingly, poor nations do not pollute on the scale of we evil and hoggish Americans. What better way to send our resources to those without?

Increased taxation, especially carbon taxing, plays into the "we need more money for social programs" mantra of progressives too. This is all tied in a neat little package for the left, but when it comes to real science and climate data, there is no there their! Yet progressives will play politics with trumped up data to try and influence politics through social action and then defame "deniers" for not accepting their social wishes veiled as science.

Lastly, for the record, be wary of progressive science or more precisely, science argued by progressives that support their political and social imaginations. Recall it was early 20th Century progressives who claimed science was their impetus for eugenics. Does sterilizing and/or euthanizing the lame, mentally challenged or infirm seem all that "touchy-feely" to anyone with a brain? No? Well then just remember it was progressives who used science to argue for their social and political desires. The current global warming debate is identical to the eugenics debate in that progressives claimed science supported their desires. Science did not in fact support the progressive desires then...or now for that matter.

SOURCES: hyperlinks