Winston Armani, Deseret News
The legalist political faction has bafflingly adopted global warming as its shibboleth of shibboleths. It offensively brackets those who question the magnitude of man’s influence on climate with Holocaust deniers, as Mary Barker June 13.
There has been no global warming for 13 years 4 months, notwithstanding record increases in CO2 concentration. That figure is not “cherry-picked” — another favorite phrase of the climate communists. It is the mean of the three surface thermometer datasets. It is also the mean of the two satellite datasets.
If I wanted to cherry-pick, I’d have selected the RSS satellite dataset, which shows no global warming at all for 17 years 9 months, and none statistically distinguishable from zero for 26 years, more than a quarter of a century.
By an intriguing coincidence, it was a quarter of a century ago, in 1990, that the U.N.’s climate panel, the voice of what Ms. Barker tells us is a consensus among the “scientific establishment” about the climate, published the first of five leaden, multi-thousand-page climate assessments.
Science does not advance by consensus, or no one would ever have listened to Galileo. And there is no consensus anyway. A survey of 11,944 climate papers published since 1991 showed just 64 — or 0.5 percent of the sample — as saying they agreed with the panel’s contention that recent global warming was mostly manmade. Not exactly the “97 percent consensus” we hear so much about.
The rate of global warming since 1990 has been exactly half what the panel then predicted with self-evidently misplaced “substantial confidence.”
Last year, the “consensus” panel, in its fifth climate assessment, conceded for the first time that the vast and costly computer models of climate, which run on machines so energy-inefficient that the power to drive just one of them could supply a small town, are wrong. In the modellers’ jargon, they are “running hot.”
The panel, substituting what it calls its “expert judgment” for the models’ output, has all but halved its near-term predictions of global warming compared with its busted 1990 forecast.
Since global warming has not occurred as ordered, what of its predicted effects? Sea level, the big bugaboo, has risen gently for a century, but it may not at present be rising at all. Gravitational-anomaly satellites reported it as having fallen in the first decade of this millennium.
The Envisat laser-altimetry satellite showed sea level as rising from 2004-2012 — but only at a rate equivalent to an inch and a quarter per century. Other laser-altimetry satellites are so poorly inter-calibrated that the differences between their readings exceed the total sea-level rise they claim to have measured. Their data are routinely tampered with to show more sea-level rise than has occurred.
Hurricane activity is just about at its least in the satellite era. Global sea ice extent has not changed much in 35 years. Arctic ice has declined, but Antarctic ice has increased. Floods are no more frequent and no heavier than formerly. The land area under drought has if anything declined a little.
What of Hurricane Sandy? Or Haiyan? Or wildfires in Russia and California? One thing we know for sure is recent extreme-weather events cannot have been caused by recent global warming. There has not been any recent global warming.
Or polar bears? There are seven times more of them than there were in the 1940s. Hunting, not “global warming,” was the real threat to the bears. Now it is controlled, and their numbers are exploding.
Ms. Barker cites a tendentious lecturer here in Edinburgh who says “deniers” from genuine skeptics “are already committed to a position that they seek to confirm.” But that is a description that applies with far more justification to Ms. Barker herself.
Remarkably, she offers not a single item of scientific evidence that global warming has been occurring recently, or that it has done harm, or that the rate of warming since 1990 has been serious, or that even if global warming were eventually to occur at the predicted rate it would be cheaper to prevent it today than to adapt to its consequences the day after tomorrow.
The Obama/EPA war on coal will inflict maximum damage on the U.S. economy but will make no measurable difference to the climate, as the EPA itself admits. This is not science: it is anti-capitalism.
A study I conducted in the Annual Proceedings of the World Federation of Scientists shows it is 10-100 times costlier to prevent global warming today than to let it happen and adapt. Humans are good at adapting. That is why we are here.
Ms. Barker enthuses about Germany’s “renewable” energy. Yet, according to the environmental economist Bjorn Lomborg, Germany’s $110 billion program to install solar panels throughout the land will delay global warming in 2100 by exactly 37 minutes. Is that a sensible deployment of scarce resources?
Lord Christopher Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, is the author of several peer-reviewed papers on climate science and economics.
- Doug Robinson: Violence against women is...
- In our opinion: The Affordable Care Act needs...
- Can a news channel 'solve problems'?
- My view: Balancing personal conviction and...
- Join the discussion: Is feminism misunderstood?
- The relationship between religiosity and...
- My view: A global warming solution to grow...
- Lawrence and Windsor won't trump Utah...
- Lawrence and Windsor won't trump Utah... 114
- In our opinion: The Affordable Care Act... 69
- Stuart Reid: Translations of religious... 63
- My view: Balancing personal conviction... 53
- In our opinion: The long-term outlook... 51
- Letter: Policy disagreement 45
- Can a news channel 'solve problems'? 38
- In our opinion: Use market forces and... 35