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.


    Concerning the “Carbon Tax”:

    Watch out for Obama’s desire for “Fundamental Tax Reform”!

    A “Carbon Tax” would be a utopian totalitarian’s dream come true. The tax would be completely hidden from the ultimate taxpayer, levied on any given item by an unelected panel, and adjusted on the whim of the authorities, either as reward or punishment.

    I started a new job a few months ago so I’m just getting to know my co-workers. My boss made a comment the other day that in passing that he believes in global warming. That in itself was not surprising, but what struck me was the non-qualified admission as though it were a badge of honor or a way of signaling that he is hip to the way things really are.

    Its just frustrating to see this otherwise intelligent individual come to accept the pro-AGW position as true. Now, I know that I can hit him with the facts (got plenty of them), but I know that this will have to be done with care and patience as it will contradict everything he is exposed to in the media.

    It’s just amazing to me to think how the pro-AGW folks have spun this falsehood and permeated as Rush would say, the low information voter mind. There are so many people, organizations, groups from news, to academics, to entertainment involved spinning the same line. Its almost as though there is some sort of orchestrated effort out there…

    Cinderellastory | January 13, 2013 at 12:32 am

    The true measure of a scientist is the admission that the more one studies a subject, the more he realizes how little he understands about the subject. Few Anthropogenic Global Warming scientists (believers) fall into this category.

    “Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know.”

    – Michel De Montaigne-

      snopercod in reply to Cinderellastory. | January 13, 2013 at 7:19 am

      “… the more one studies a subject, the more he realizes how little he understands about the subject.”

      As a former engineer, not a scientist, that’s kind of the story of my entire life right there.

      For top notch information on the global warming hoax, I highly recommend Anthony Watts’ website: Watts Up With That?.

    I, for one, would welcome global warming, at least for the time when my kids are little and we are spending hours and hours outside.

    There is strong scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change. One line of evidence is the warming surface and lower atmosphere, while the upper stratosphere cools, a signature of greenhouse warming.

      CREinstein in reply to Zachriel. | January 13, 2013 at 2:05 pm

      The differing methods used to guage weather have been tainted by attempts to create temperatures where there are no stations or recording equipment.

      Every last “man made” (AGW) argument relies upon this and other ‘forcing’ methods to derive their fictions. is a good site showing not one, but three problems.

      1) Improper Placement
      An astonishing 92% are incorrectly placed and therefore report the temperature to be at least 1 degrees farenheit higher than it actually is.

      2) Biased Coverage
      Notice the gaps on the maps please.

      3) Temperatures
      If you check well placed sites exclusively and their temp. patterns you will see no significant changes.

      This is due to normal variability. I say significant because a degree is not significant. But if you believe it is then so be it… Surface Stations shows beyond a reasonable doubt that we are .4 degrees BELOW the median temperatures since we have been accurately recording temperatures and that this has been so for about 12 years now.

      In fact various scientists have proven AGW to be false including the famous CRU. While the suns direct heat has effects to play it is the magnetic sphere of the sun which affects us far more directly.

      If you seem misguided still Zachriel I shall go into full detail for you.

        CREinstein: is a good site showing not one, but three problems.

        You linked the entire website. To which paper are you referring? Watts et al., An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends? Has it been published? The prepublication paper had some problems.

    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