Sunday, September 27, 2009

Alarmist Ramp-up to Copenhagen

In the ramp up for the Alarmist confab at Copenhagen, AKA the UN Climate Conference, the media is firing out almost daily propaganda in their attempt to sway flagging public opinion. The alarmist claptrap is reaching hysterical proportions. “We’re all gonna die!” This is getting a bit old. Here’s some of the latest nonsense, primarily from the AP, which has totally bought into the AGW fraud.

Starting with this 17 September article: “Arctic Woes: Dead Walruses, Low Sea Ice” the drumbeat continues. Problem was it was the only picture they could produce of “hundreds” of walruses and the ones they pictured looked a tad shot. This story sorta dropped off the radar screen waiting for the US Fish and Wildlife Services guys to get on the scene to evaluate the situation. There was additional speculation that poachers were to blame, but without an “on the ground” look everything, including the AGW Alarmist interpretation is pure speculation. The USGS walrus expert credited with the picture never returned emails seeking additional information. Even Joe Romm pulled this story and picture from Climate Progress after a couple days.

The very next day the oceans were boiling: “World’s Oceans Warmest on Record” except that the NOAA deliberately omitted all data sources that contradicted the Alarmist “script.” Let’s also ignore the fact that “on record” means less than 50 years in this case and what we have involves lots of data in-filling.

Three days later we get the very good news that states can sue utility companies for providing electricity to their citizens under the guise of “punishing” them for causing global warming: “Court: States May Sue Utilities over Warming”. Somehow the loonies in California, Wisconsin, Vermont, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey and New York City think they can get more revenue this way and that it won’t in any way affect electricity rates. What do all these states have in common? Loony Lefties in charge.

On the same day we get the sad news that: “Polar Bear Hunters See Culture Melt Away”. Ok, now let’s get this straight. Environmentalists are now sad that evil polar bear hunters can’t kill more polar bears because they’re all drowning out there on the melting ice. Say what? Let’s overlook the five-fold increase in polar bears in the last 50 years. Let’s over look the fact that the reason the polar bear numbers recovered was a world-wide ban on hunting them. Oh and that’s why the polar bear hunters can’t hunt the bears, hunting is severely limited by law.

On 23 September we find out that Greenland is melting…again! “Warming Seas, Greenland Melt Studied”. Of course they can’t actually prove this. There aren’t really any consistent measurements, but the models say so. We also need to conveniently forget that the Vikings grew wheat and flax in Greenland a thousand years ago when it was much warmer and there was less ice. We still can’t grow wheat or flax in Greenland because current soil temperatures are so low that they don’t allow for germination. Tell me again why a warmer Greenland is bad?

Finally, on 24 September the all wise and powerful UN tells us we’re all gonna die…again: “UN: Expect Big Jump in Temperatures”. They never seem to tire of their broken computer models, do they? Despite all actual evidence to the contrary, the models say it’s getting hot. Therefore the UN political wonks tell us we’re all gonna die and nothing we can do will stop it. If that’s the case, why are we planning on wasting, time and money? Why are we trying to destroy in industrialized world and hold back countries trying improve the lot of their people if we can’t stop climate change anyway?

These are just a handful of the increasingly shrill Alarmist stories in the last few weeks with many more coming as those deepest involved in the “Climate Change” fraud fight for economy-destroying CO2 agreements at Copenhagen in December.

4 comments:

gus burlinmah said...

OK. So let's set aside the political motivations of the stakeholders for a second.

You acknowledge that the planet is warming up. There is obvious evidence that polar ice and glaciers are melting. It doesn't take a genius to see that that water must flow some where. So what is your advice? Should we just ignore it? Should we try to reverse it? Should we attempt to lessen it's impact. What is the moral imperitive here?

I see all this furious effort to find science to dispute the causes of climate change. To me the cause is a subset of the bigger issue. Some people are now or will be adversely effected. Do you feel a responsibility to help them in some way?

People in the Arctic are already experiencing disruption. But there aren't very many of them. I suppose we can afford to ignore them or buy them a plane ticket somewhere else.

People in the Maldives ,however, are expecting their islands to lose considerable territory with rising seas. Still, not that many people so they could all be relocated.

But what about an example closer to home. The droughts in the American west? People have moved into a very water-challenged part of the US. They have built large cities like Las Vegas or Phoenix. People have planted crops, lawns and other water intensive activities. What the answer here. Should we just abandon these areas? Is there a sort of Darwinistic/Market approach here that just allows them to fail? Is that cost effective?

If you remove the the pissing contest about whether human activity is causing the problem you still have the problem. What do think we should do?

J. L. Krueger said...

OK. So let's set aside the political motivations of the stakeholders for a second.
And then you proceed to argue primarily from a political/emotional perspective.

You acknowledge that the planet is warming up.
Did I? It depends upon your point of reference or starting point. Even if true, so what? It’s warmed before and cooled before and man had nothing to do with it.
There is obvious evidence that polar ice and glaciers are melting. It doesn't take a genius to see that that water must flow some where.
What evidence is that? Sea ice around Antarctica is growing, not receding. This past southern hemisphere winter the sea ice had the greatest extent since records have been kept. Not that alarmist media bothered to tell you that. Arctic sea ice hit an observed low extent in 2007 not from higher temperatures, but from wind and ocean currents which flushed much of the ice out into the Atlantic. This is a perfectly normal mechanism and has happened before…usually on a sixty year cycle.
Melting sea ice will have minimal to no effect on sea level rise. The ice, floating in water, has already displaced all the water it will displace with the possible exception of minor thermal expansion.
The fact that you can find sheared tree stumps and other flora in the path of retreating glaciers tells you that at another point in history the glacier was not there. Retreating, not melting, glaciers are nothing new.
So what is your advice? Should we just ignore it? Should we try to reverse it? Should we attempt to lessen it's impact. What is the moral imperitive here?
We adapt, as we have at earlier times in our history, as other species have always had to do as climate changes. The imperative is not to destroy the Industrialized world in pursuit of world socialism masked in AGW fraud. NOTHING in the Copenhagen Treaty will have measurable impact on the climate.

I see all this furious effort to find science to dispute the causes of climate change.
Not exactly sure what you’re saying here Gus. Climate has always changed. It was changing before homo became erectus. It will change until the sun runs out of fuel and expands and consumes earth.
To me the cause is a subset of the bigger issue. Some people are now or will be adversely effected.
You are assuming that:
1. Change is necessarily bad and any resulting adversity outweighs benefits.
2. That any currently observed adversity is attributable to climate change.

Do you feel a responsibility to help them in some way?
At the expense of my well-being, that of my family, or my country? Not at all when nothing being proposed will have any affect whatsoever on the climate. It’s all about redistributing the wealth of the West to the developing world. It’s communist ideology, pure and simple. Read the draft Copenhagen Treaty.

People in the Arctic are already experiencing disruption. But there aren't very many of them. I suppose we can afford to ignore them or buy them a plane ticket somewhere else.
But you feel no responsibility for our predecessors who didn’t like these peoples’ nomadic lifestyle and so locked them into fixed communities more vulnerable to change? In earlier eras these people migrated with changing conditions and I’m talking less than a hundred years ago. People who long ago adapted to living in extreme environments are mobile for a reason. Things change and fast in those environments. “Civilizing” them and forcing them into fixed communities did them no favors.
To be continued...

J. L. Krueger said...

Reply to Gus continued...
People in the Maldives ,however, are expecting their islands to lose considerable territory with rising seas. Still, not that many people so they could all be relocated.
You’ve fallen for the Gore hype. The Maldives issue is entirely political and not science-based at all. Start reading here and here. BTW the population of the Maldives is over 400,000 so in that regard, it’s a lot of people.

INQUA (International Association of Quaternary Research) Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, with a sub-commission devoted to the Indian Ocean stated: “A research program carried out in the Maldives with local and international researchers gave some spectacular finds, showing that absolutely no sea level rise has taken place in Maldives during recent years and at the same time they showed that the sea level in Maldives has shifted considerably over time – during the 14th Century A.D. it was for example one meter higher than today without causing any catastrophe.”

But what about an example closer to home. The droughts in the American west? People have moved into a very water-challenged part of the US. They have built large cities like Las Vegas or Phoenix. People have planted crops, lawns and other water intensive activities. What the answer here. Should we just abandon these areas? Is there a sort of Darwinistic/Market approach here that just allows them to fail? Is that cost effective?

As your own words attest, that has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. The Copenhagen Treaty offers nothing to mitigate our own bad planning and poorly thought out land use.

If you remove the the pissing contest about whether human activity is causing the problem you still have the problem. What do think we should do?

Adapt. Make wiser use of land. Build desalinization plants (like in Saudi Arabia). DON’T sign the Copenhagen Treaty which will bleed resources from the West and which will not solve the alleged problem. Alleged because you’ve offered nothing to show that there is indeed a “problem.”

Funny you don’t seem at all concerned that the “problem” could go the other way, as it will eventually. A cold world would be far worse than a warm one. Whereas a 6°C rise in temperature can be readily adapted to, a 2°C drop would be catastrophic.

J. L. Krueger said...

Oops!

Hasty clicking from my list of links. The is the correct official Draft Copenhagen Treaty.

The earlier link was a "Greenpeace" alternative. However, both demonsrtate the political thought processes in play.