Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Mother Nature and WSJ Mock Climate-Change Bullies

    Mother Nature and WSJ Mock Climate-Change Bullies

    Despite the best efforts of progressives who want to use global warming to control human consumption and the media that supports these efforts, it seems Mother Nature is not following their script.

    Some examples:

    I have long been a skeptic of the science behind “climate change”, and have reported on the distortions and false assumptions that form key elements of the man-made global warming assertions.

    Today, I am delighted to report that even non-scientists are beginning to question the premise that humans are impacting the climate.  Holman W. Jenkins Jr. is a member of the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal and writes editorials and the weekly Business World column.  His latest Wall Street  Journal article touches upon some of the climate science data inanity:

    Our ‘Hottest Year’ and Al Gore’s Epic Failure

    Said the New York Times climate blog, in an assertion that was echoed throughout the media: “The temperature differences between years are usually measured in fractions of a degree, but 2012 blew away the previous record, set in 1998, by a full degree Fahrenheit.”

    Really? If that were true, then hair-on-fire news should have been the fact that 2012 was 2.13 degrees hotter than 2011. That’s a far more dramatic change, and in a single year.

    Nor was it mentioned that 2008, in the contiguous U.S., was two degrees cooler than 2006. Or that 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 were all cooler than 1998 by a larger margin than 2012 was hotter than 1998.

    Are you getting the picture? None of this was mentioned because it makes a mockery of using trends in the Lower 48 as a proxy for global warming, the misguided intent that permeated media coverage of the NOAA revelation.

    He makes a most fascinating comparison to gun control advocacy as well:

    But climate change and gun control have one thing in common. Their advocates are more interested in asserting their moral superiority and denouncing their “enemies” than in making progress, which explains why there has been no progress.

    Then, Jenkins ties it together with the “Carbon Tax” concept promoted by Al Gore to reduce carbon dioxide emissions:

    Their idea, known as the “double dividend,” proposed a carbon tax to change energy-use patterns while the proceeds would be used to reduce taxes on labor and capital and encourage economic growth… Yet advocates of a carbon tax are all but invisible in the debate. Mr. Gore and his allies wore out their welcome with their exaggerations, their self-righteousness, and their perfectly foolish insistence (like the gun controllers) that a plurality of voters could be morally bullied into giving up their self-interest if chastised long and loudly enough by Mr. Gore.

    As more and more people are living the weather and looking at the numbers, fewer and fewer are buying into “climate change” panic that will freeze the economic engines driving our economy, prosperity and liberties.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    1. A few years ago I tried to educate myself about the controversy but suspended my efforts: there is a lot more to it than I’d anticipated. If I resume my efforts, hanging out at Judy Curry’s site will be a good way to start. My gut feeling is that we don’t understand enough to draw a confident conclusion either way, but it’s no more than a gut feeling.

    2. Reality does not care about our political squabbles. Just because many climate alarmists are charlatans does not mean there is not a problem.

    3. That said, I’ll put my priority on economic growth. If humanity is rational in this century (yeah right), growth will take billions of people out of poverty and fund the climate engineering to alleviate a problem if there is one.

    4. It goes without saying that I favor expanded research. What to do about the doctrinaire axe-grinders in the field is an issue beyond my pay grade.

      Juba Doobai! in reply to gs. | January 12, 2013 at 8:30 pm

      Read Bjorn Lomborg.

        gs in reply to Juba Doobai!. | January 12, 2013 at 9:59 pm

        Your choice of words held my attention.

        You might have said Bjorn Lomborg’s work explores these trade-offs or asked Have you read Bjorn Lomborg?, but no.

        There are big reasons why conservatives lose winnable elections, and there are small reasons that accumulate. Just sayin’.

          gad-fly in reply to gs. | January 12, 2013 at 10:25 pm

          It is strange that gs criticizes the correctly constructed sentence, “Read Bjorn Lomborg” then weakly ends that criticism with the incomplete slang phrase, “Just sayin’.”

          Complete communication is certainly important but “just sayin'” means nothing to me. What point is being made?

    snopercod | January 12, 2013 at 7:15 pm

    California’s loss is our gain. Here in Western Carolina, the overnight low temperature was 60F and it hit 70F this afternoon. Time to plant a garden!

    Israel too is having the coldest winter in decades. The Sea of Galilee is filling up at an astonishing rate and the country had its first serious snowstorm in 20 years (which link the good Professor kindly retweeted, for which many thanks.:-) )

    rinardman | January 12, 2013 at 7:38 pm

    Why is it global warming/climate change seems to have only dire consequences, and never any changes that are beneficial?

    It would seem to me that if the climate scientists are not just agenda driven; they would explore, and report on, the possible benefits of global warming/climate change. There’s gotta be some small change that’s good.

    casualobserver | January 12, 2013 at 8:36 pm

    The man-made aspect of the climate change (which is real) is a fallacy fed more by politics than science as everyone claims. Always, and I mean always, be highly doubtful if not cynical of a cabal of scientists who shun eons old scientific practices. Science has forever been fed by skeptics. The fundamental mechanism to overcome that skepticism is debate and defense of results. When you see ‘scientists’ refuse, be certain you are witnessing the actions of politicians masquerading as scientists. And when they hunker down to defend themselves with purely immature name-calling tactics, they prove themselves to be at a point of sheer desperation.

    Sadly, however, our tax dollars are still funding those politicians, treating them as scientists, as well as funding one of their political goals of redistribution. It may not be at the levels they want, but it is still non-trivial and in the billions.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend