Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Global Warming Consensus Watch, Vol. IV
Global Warming Consensus Watch, Vol. IV
Apr 3, 2025 10:14 PM

It’s time again for another action-packed edition of Global Warming Consensus Watch, wherein we highlight the unshakable, unbreakable scientific consensus that Global Warming is a dire threat to our existence and humans are entirely to blame. Long Live the Consensus! In this roundup: WE DON’T NEED NO STINKIN’ PROOF!; AL GORE DON’T NEED NO STINKIN’ MEDIA COVERAGE; just how accurate are those predictions, anyway?; a whole bunch more scientists off the reservation; Kyoto – not all it’s cracked up to be; and Live Earth vs. the British Power Grid.

“The fallacy of proof”: This is a bit old (dating from April 29), but it’s still worth reading. Orson Scott Card takes issue with Columnist and UNC Greensboro Researcher Andrew Brod:

Insurance is designed to pay you money after a loss. It does not prevent a loss. The parison is to protection money: es to you and demands you pay money “or you might have a fire.” You pay the money so that they won’t burn you out of business.

That’s what the global-warming protection racket is about: Hey, we can’t prove anything is actually happening, but look how many people we’ve got to agree with us! You’d better make a whole bunch of sacrifices which, by coincidence, exactly coincide with the political agenda of the anti-Western anti-industrial religion of ecodeism — or global warming will get you!

Brod actually admits precisely what he’s doing, when he says: “Fortunately, people finally seem to understand the fallacy of requiring proof.”

Think about that. He calls it a fallacy to require proof.

Science is worthless without good, solid, reliable evidence. It isn’t even science…

…I wonder if Brod, in his job as director of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro’s Office of Business and Economic Research, he has that same attitude toward proof — that it’s a fallacy to require it.

If so, what value does his “business and economic research” have? Why would anyone who thinks that requiring proof is a fallacy be hired to do his job? Of course he can’t say with certainty what will happen, but my bet is that he makes darn sure he provides plenty of proof that his projections of the future are based on solid evidence about the past.

That is precisely what is missing in the claims about global warming.

If you can find a link to Brod’s original article, please drop it in ments. I’ve searched but haven’t turned it up, and I’d like to see it.

So important that the media can’t cover it: Does anyone have a good explanation for this?

On the request of Gore’s media handlers, Saturday’s event was closed to the media. Because of the importance of the issue and Gore’s status, the San Antonio Express-News chose to cover it anyway.

Hat Tip: The New Editor

The State of the Science: Jim Manzi give a very solid overview of the state of climate science and the accuracy of the predictive models that are often cited in climate change debates. An excerpt:

When evaluating model reliability, the second test—can it predict accurately?—is the acid test. We can debate all day about whether a model plete enough, but if it has correctly predicted major climate changes over and over again, that is pretty good evidence that its predictions should be taken seriously. There are plenty of studies that show what is called “hindcasting,” in which a model is built on the data for, say, 1900-1950, and is then used to “predict” the climate for 1950-1980. Unfortunately, it is mon for simulation models in many fields to fit such holdout samples in historical data well, but then fail to predict the future accurately. So the crucial test is actual prediction, in which a model is run today to forecast the climate for some future time-period, and then is subsequently validated or falsified. No global climate model has ever demonstrated that it can reliably predict the climate over multiple years or decades—never.

Jim’s piece is well worth a read in full for a more balanced view of what is and is not happening than you’ll get from typical coverage of the issue.

More scientists off the reservation than you can shake a stick at: Lawrence Solomon has put together a series of columns that changed his mind about the issue of climate change:

My series set out to profile the dissenters — those who deny that the science is settled on climate change — and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world’s premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop — the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.

Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists — the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects — and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the munity may run in the opposite direction.

The 23 profiles in the series (so far) are illuminating, to say the least. Give them a read.

Kyoto – not doing much of anything: The Guardian takes a look at what the Kyoto Treaty has plished since 1997, and finds very little good:

The CDM is one of two global markets which have been set up in the wake of the Kyoto climate summit in 1997. Both finally started work in January 2005. Although both were launched with the claim that they would reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, evidence collected by the Guardian suggests that thus far, both markets have earned fortunes for speculators and for some of panies which produce most greenhouse gases and yet, through bination of teething troubles and multiple forms of malpractice and possibly fraud, they have delivered little or no benefit for the environment.

What did we expect, really? After all, what’s a UN operation without wholesale corruption while plishing virtually nothing?

Saving Britian from the ravages of Live Earth: Symbolic of the whole climate change alarmist movement? You be the judge:

IT WAS intended to be the symbolic gesture at a global series of rock concerts next month to alert people to climate change. Al Gore, the former US presidential candidate turned climate doomsayer, had wanted a massive switch-off of lights by television audiences, but the National Grid has vetoed the idea….

…The switch-off was conceived as an emblematic act in the same way that Will Smith, the actor, coordinated people across the world to click their fingers every three seconds during the Live 8 concerts to convey that in Africa another child had died.

It was meant to create a moment that would resonate round the world and provide a counterpoint to the old fad for holding carbon-emitting cigarette lighters aloft at concerts.

It would also have given Britain its biggest blackout since the blitz and the miners’ strikes of the 1970s – and encapsulated the message of the urgency to save energy.

However, it has had to be shelved after the keepers of Britain’s power supply said no. “We are in favour of sustained energy efficiency as opposed to people just doing it very suddenly as a stunt,” said a spokesman for the National Grid.

“The organisers of Live Earth planned to do this very symbolic act but we had concerns because it was impossible for us to forecast what would happen.”

John Gaydon, producer of the British concert at the new Wembley stadium, said: “The National Grid warned us that it would put too much pressure on the power supply and would be potentially dangerous for hospitals.”

I’d say that this sums up the overall situation nicely – a proposed solution to a non-problem that hasn’t been thought out very well and is likely to actually cause greater problems than the one it is supposedly intended to address.

Old, but still worthwhile: Get your carbon debits here!

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Why Are So Many Americans Still on Food Stamps?
When the economy takes a downturn and unemployment rises, more people rely on the social safety net and programs like the recently renamed food stamp program called SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). As the economy improves and employment increases, people need to rely less on government provided support. At least that’s what used to happen. But something has changed. From 1969 until 2003, SNAP has been very responsive to changes in the unemployment rate. But from 2003 to 2007, the...
Why Not Just Hand Over the Sermons?
After hearing the news that the city of Houston had ordered several pastors to submit their sermons for legal review, many people had the same reaction as Brian Lee: “My response? So what? Sermons are public proclamation, aren’t they?” Sermons are indeed proclamations intended for the public, and most pastors would be eager for anyone — including public officials — to hear them. So what is the reason for the current objection? Mollie Hemingway explains that the true “governing authorities”...
Movies That Define America
Don’t you love lists? Intercollegiate Press does too, and they’ve put together “12 Movies That Defined America.” Feel free to argue, debate, add on, cross off as you wish. Here are just a couple of Intercollegiate Press’ choices: The Birth of a Nation – 1915, silent. The first blockbuster, D. W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation was both celebrated as a great artistic achievement and denounced as racist for its vicious depiction of African Americans and homage to the KKK....
Socialists Love Everything About $20 Minimum Wages (Except Paying Such Wages Themselves)
There’s something almost charming about people in American who champion socialism. Yes, their economic views are naive and destructive. And yes most people (though especially the poor) would be much worse off if their vision for “progress” was actually implemented. But it’s hard to be too concerned when they are, at heart, really just capitalists who like to play political dress up. Consider one of their favorite causes, a $20 minimum wage. In their most recent party platform, the Freedom...
Freedom, Security, and the iPhone
Writing on September 22 in the Wall Street Journal, Devlin Barret and Danny Yadron reported, Last week, Apple announced that its new operating system for phones would prevent law enforcement from retrieving data stored on a locked phone, such as photos, videos and contacts. A day later, Google reiterated that the next version of its Android mobile-operating system this fall would make it similarly difficult for police or Google to extract such data from suspects’ phones. It’s not just a...
Rev. Sirico on the Vatican Synod
In today’s Wall Street Journal, Rev. Robert A. Sirico clears away the media hype surrounding the Vatican Synod on the Family and offers an analysis of its early work. He observes that nothing about the synod “challenges the dogma of the church related to the indissolubility of sacramental marriage, the use of artificial contraception, cohabitation and homosexual acts. What it did was soften the tone of these teachings.” But things got interesting. An early report led critics to say that...
Reflections on the Passing of Leonard P. Liggio
LiggioAlmost 20 years ago I was invited to speak at the celebratory banquet for the Atlas Economic Research Foundation (now Atlas Network) and the Institute for Humane Studies, then celebrating their 15th and 35th anniversaries respectively. I was an alumnus of both and six years into the launch of the Acton Institute (founded in 1990). Both organizations considered me “successful enough” to reflect at the banquet on how each had influenced my life. It was an undeserved honor, of course,...
Ladies: Give Us Your Most Productive Years, We’ll Hold Your Eggs For You
This story has so many things wrong with it, I hardly know where to start. Apple and Facebook have both announced that will now offer egg-freezing – for non-medical purposes – for their employees (which runs at least $10,000, plus a $500 to $800 annual storage fee.) For panies, it means two things. One, there is a demand from their employees for such an offer. Second, panies themselves see some benefit to this. What it sounds like is this: “It’s...
Why American slavery wasn’t capitalist
In his new book, The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism, Edward E. Baptist “offers a radical new interpretation of American history,” through which slavery laid the foundation for and “drove the evolution and modernization of the United States.” In a review of the book for the Wall Street Journal, Fergus M. Bordewich concurs with this central point, noting that “Mississippi…does not have to look like Manchester, England, or Lowell, Mass., to make it...
Is Money Just a Necessary Evil?
If money didn’t exist, would God have ordained that we invent it? Theologian Wayne Grudem says he would since money is simply a tool for our use that makes voluntary exchanges possible: Money makes voluntary exchanges more fair, less wasteful, and far more extensive. We need money in the world in order for us to be good stewards of the earth and to glorify God through using it wisely. If money were evil in itself, then God would not have...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved