Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

Given that Halloween is nearly upon us, allow me to take this opportunity to scare you out of your wits…

July 19, 2012: “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math” (Rolling Stone – Bill McKibben) – Apparently, Bill thinks that the wildfires in Colorado this past summer and the size of your “AC bill” this summer are proof positive that the end is near. I guess Bill is trying to conflate two terms into one by using the abbreviation for the scientific term “Alternating Current” for electricity and the term “Air Conditioning,” thereby killing two birds with one stone when he uses the unclear reference “AC.” Really, you could do better, Bill.

Oct. 20, 2012: “Global Warming & Climate Change” (The New York Times – Science) – (My guess, based on the hyperlink, is that you might have to look this up by date.) It appears that the warnings from the scientific community are becoming more cacophonous daily and are nearing a fever pitch. So, what we are studying here is the percentage of the Arctic Ocean that is still filled with ice at the end of summer (Sept. 16 seems to be the day of reckoning in this case). In 2007, it was 29 percent and, horror of horrors, this year the previous record was “demolished” when only 24 percent of the area was ice-covered

Allow me to make a point; the landmass, or island, known as Greenland is adjacent to this ice mass in question in the Arctic Ocean. Do these scientists who are measuring this ice know why that island is referred to as Greenland? That’s rhetorical; of course they do…one would hope. Apparently the Norse population of Greenland did somewhat of a disappearing act in the intervening years of 1480 to 1500. Why is that, one might ask? And why did Erik the Red name the island Greenland back about 982, having come from Iceland, as it were? One source reports: “Interpretation of ice core and clam shell data suggests that between 800 and 1300 AD, the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a relatively mild climate several degrees celsius higher than usual in the North Atlantic, with trees and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being farmed. Barley was grown as a crop up to the 70th parallel. What is verifiable is that the ice cores indicate Greenland has experienced dramatic temperature shifts many times over the past 100,000 years.” So, what we do know is that something referred to as the Little Ice Age occurred in the mid-1500s and most likely did these people in. The point is, it gets warm…it gets cold…and then, thank heavens, it gets warm again.

NASA (recently told to forget about space exploration and concentrate on feeding the fire of global warming hysteria) has a website with a handy-dandy Climate Time Machine tool that allows you, for one, to look at Sea Ice in the Arctic region. Unfortunately, it only goes back to 1979. OK, I get it, the seventies were cold; sheesh, if you remember, some of the same people who are telling us we’re going to fry to death now were telling us we were going to freeze to death then—that is if we didn’t starve in the accompanying famine that would kill us all before the turn of the century. It’s true, go back and look at some of our periodicals that were forecasting the utter ruin and extermination of the human race before the year 2000.

Now, if you really like to be horrified all the time you could just subscribe to the Science Daily Global Warming News section and get all the news that’s "fit to print"—or is that whatever they can print to fit on one page? Oh, well…suffice it to say you can get scared out of your wits daily by all the horrifying news on global warming here.

OK, I could get really long winded about this but I’ll spare you. Besides, a computer and a little familiarity with Google, or the search engine of your choice, could give you all the “scary” you could handle by conducting a simple search on global warming. Fast forward to some new news…oh boy, that’s somewhat redundant.

For a while now I have been reading that the current global warming cycle stopped some 16 years ago but Al Gore (or, as I refer to him, globAL GOREming), and his band of merry mad scientists with their hands out for global warming study funding forgot to tell us. Here are some of the more interesting facts:

• Figures reveal that from early 1997 until now there has been no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
• So, the “pause” in global warming has balanced the rise in temperature that occurred from 1980 to 1996. (Sounds more like somebody hit the “Stop” button as opposed to the “Pause” button.)

What’s it all mean? Somebody hit the brakes on the global warming trend 16 years ago and we came to a complete stop. BTW, prior to the previous warming trend from 1980 to 1996, the earth’s fever had been stable or declining for 40 years. Remember, that’s when all the mad scientists were telling us we were going to freeze to death. Can these guys (and gals—thought you had me there, huh?) ever practice a little restraint? I mean, come on. Two consecutive days with the temperature in the 70s during July does not mean the summer is over; even the meteorologic news clowns know that.

And here’s more damning evidence of how unscientific our (quote) global warming scientific community (unquote) is: The data, compiled from over 3,000 measuring points on both land and sea, was whispered over the Internet—that’s right, no headlines, no media feeding frenzy…just silence. It’s a wonder the news got out at all.

So, 2010 was a very warm year; OK, we get it, stuff happens. Apparently 2011 and 2012 have been significantly cooler. But, watch it now, here comes the wet blanket. Some “climate scientists” think that 16 years does not a reliable forecasting model make. Yes, it’s long enough to forecast a warming trend but just not long enough to forecast a cooling trend. You see, that would mean global warming doesn’t exist and that’s something that is just not fathomable to these idiot savants posing as scientists. Actually, they give science a bad name.

Is global warming real? Yes, as real as global cooling. It’s cyclical, an idea that apparently never occurred to these people who have their hands out for money to study global warming. Why? Because the money is more important than the facts that might contradict one’s field of study.

Here’s what I’m talking about - Seth Borenstein (whoever the heck he is, I don’t know) publishes the following on his MyWay blog (or whatever it is) on July 3, 2012: This US summer is ‘what global warming looks like’. What kind of moron begins to pass off this kind of stuff as any type of responsible writing? If you can take this kind of stuff seriously, I have a Senate seat in Illinois you might be interested in.