Prediction: Global Warming Will Cause Everything
Prediction: Global Warming Will Cause Everything
By Daren Jonescu
The following news headline appeared on the internet last week: "Scientists warn global warming will fuel spread of ticks that carry Lyme disease."
The corresponding article begins this way:
Another effect of climate change may be crawling up your leg this summer as you frolic in the woods.
Scientists say our warming world is speeding the spread of ticks that carry potentially debilitating Lyme disease.
Okay, given that many in the climate change fraternity -- including, famously, Phil Jones of East Anglia University -- have been forced to concede that global warming has been on "pause" since 1995, how exactly is it "speeding the spread" of disease-carrying ticks?
Don't read this news article for an answer. In fact, from the third paragraph on, the article is a straightforward discussion of the slow spread of the tick population into various southern regions of Canada, and the new risk of Lyme disease that this brings. There is no further mention of global warming, and no attempt is made to establish a significant relationship -- or even a coincidental one -- between the movements of the ticks and changes in mean annual temperatures in the relevant regions.
So why mention global warming in this context at all? Because the first rule of all modern discourse related to weather, disease, happiness, poverty, famine, wildlife, or almost anything else is that tribute must be paid to the god Climate Change Theory. One cannot discuss the spread of disease without mentioning climate change. So the article mentions it. No further reason is required. It is simply a matter of faith, of public policy, and of good breeding to acknowledge climate change as a preface to any observation about anything.
(If you think this seems overstated, I recommend this 2007 American Thinker blog post, listing over six hundred nasty effects that have been attributed to global warming. One suspects that if you mentioned that number to one of our sustainability experts these days, he'd earnestly tell you that the list is far too conservative.)
One senses that journalists, scientists, and laymen are afraid to talk about any subject that might be explained by climate change without mentioning climate change, lest they be seen as climate infidels -- i.e., as people who do not accept the centrality of climate change to all modern events. This leaves the rest of us reticent to utter casual niceties such as, "Boy, it's hot this week," for fear of getting some stupid response about global warming.
A few years ago, I was teaching a book of science readings to a very advanced group of Korean middle school students. One chapter of the book, regrettably, was on global warming. (This book was published before evidence of non-warming necessitated the "climate change" makeover.) I began the discussion by asking the students whether they had noticed any significant warming during their lifetimes. Dutifully regurgitating their public-school propaganda, they all promptly acknowledged that the summers were much hotter, and the winters shorter, than when they were young. (The oldest student in the room was fifteen.)
Once I had confirmed everyone's agreement on this, I proceeded to explain that according to the advocates of global warming theory, the global mean temperature has risen by approximately three-quarters of one degree Celsius over the past century. Then I asked them again whether they could feel the difference. They grinned bemusedly, and looked sheepishly at their desks.
And this utter falsification of one's own perception and memory, drilled into the heads of our children as the new catechism, is equally pervasive among adults. Who hasn't had to listen to someone drone on about how much hotter it is these days, or how much more violent the weather is these days, or how much less/more snow we're having in recent years, etc.? The advocates of global warming in the scientific, political, and educational communities have gone to great lengths to foster these data-defying assumptions of extreme change, and they do nothing to counter the absurdity of the resulting statements. And yet if the warming advocates' own numbers are correct, these statements, and the assumptions underlying them, are completely ridiculous.
Can you think of another scientific theory whose defenders promulgate urban myth folly and irrationality as a way of persuading the general population of the theory's truth? Ought not science to be in the business of divesting the public of urban myths and other silly ideas, rather than fostering them as a means to its own end? After all, what is the end of science, if not to discourage irrational beliefs?
The Lyme disease/global warming non-story with which I began is just one of many such speculative studies cloaked in the science fiction of climate change. And this example is nothing compared to a related 2008 article, "The Deadly Dozen: 12 Diseases Global Warming Incubates." Lyme disease is merely one of the serious illnesses discussed there, in what is a perfect example of both the deliberate manipulations of climate change theory and the sense of neo-religious allegiance to global warming demonstrated by scientists themselves.
Read this opening sentence carefully: "The Wildlife Conservation Society has identified the 'Deadly Dozen' -- 12 diseases that are likely to spread due to global warming."
Notice that no claim is being made that these diseases have been spread by global warming. The "study" is identifying diseases that may spread due to global warming.
The article's litany of fear-mongering is replete with observations such as the following (all emphases added):
Current data indicate that the movement of H5N1 from region to region is largely driven by the trade in poultry, but changes in climate such as severe winter storms and droughts can disrupt normal movements of wild birds and can bring both wild and domestic bird populations into greater contact at remaining water sources[.]
Diseases that have previously been thought to have limited impact, such as babesiosis, must be watched closely in a changing climate to assess how environmental conditions may tip the scale[.]
Rising global temperatures due to climate change are expected to increase incidence of [cholera.]
As climate change disrupts and exaggerates seasonal patterns, we may expect to see outbreaks of [ebola] occurring in new locations and with more frequency.
As one commenter on The Daily Green website responds, "This is scary." And so it is meant to be.
Notice, however, that in none of these cases are the researchers claiming that climate change has had any effect on anything. In each case, they are predicting what will happen in the future -- assuming there is global warming. Climate change theory has replaced metaphysics as the primary science. It provides the grounding for all other inquiries.
This comports with the endless models forecasting drowned cities, polar tropical islands, and all the rest. If one simply assumes that warming will resume, and increase at exponential rates, one can predict any effects one wants. That assumption, however, is precisely what the warmists have lost the right to make. Or, to be precise, they have lost the right to make the assumption their political masters and grant committees really want, which is that this predicted future warming is man-made. The collapse of the theory's core element, the CO2/temperature causal relationship, denies them this.
The climate fear-mongers, seeing that the jig is up for their theory -- the CO2 is there, the necessary effects aren't -- are stealthily skulking along to the next stage of the project -- namely, cross your fingers that the propaganda has taken hold so that most people will not ask you to prove anything, and then carry on making dire predictions, carefully framing them to appear to the casual reader as descriptions of events that are already happening.
Thus, from various "reputable sources," we get this:
Peter Mertens, a UK scientist, warns that African Horse disease, a virus that's closely related to bluetongue, has a strong chance of making it to Europe due to warmer temperatures.
And this:
If the climate becomes permanently warmer and wetter, as some predict, Rift Valley fever epidemics will become frequent.
And this warning from Cornell entomologist Laura Harrington regarding an impending outbreak of mosquito-borne chikungunya in New York:
This is right now, and we know temperatures are just going to increase, and we know the population of Asian tiger mosquitoes is going to increase, so it will only get wider and wider.
"Some predict" that there is "a strong chance" that "we know temperatures are just going to increase." And if this predicted chance knowledge comes to pass, all of your worst fears will be realized. Mosquitoes do not breed without global warming. Ticks carried by animals to new breeding grounds do not travel without global warming. No disease ever developed and spread before man-made climate change. Global warming will cause everything.
Some may wonder why this fraud-cum-occult science is even worth debunking anymore. To answer this, one must remember the second great oddity about global warming theory. Not only is it the only scientific theory promoted by means of deliberate urban-myth absurdity, such as that we can feel the mean temperature changes. It is also perhaps the only scientific theory vigorously endorsed, funded, and defended by the governments and policy-makers of the world -- the only one treated as a top priority agenda item by both the United Nations and the Obama administration.
Now that's scary.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Create your own visitor map
()()()()()()()()(()())()()()()()()()()()
Interesting Pics 2012
########
The religion of Climate Science
Rio: killing the earth since 1992
#######
Jer's Photo of the Day
Photos and Photo Art by Sebastianjer
()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()
NOT EXACTLY FRONT PAGE NEWS
***
CONSTITUTION 101
History in Pictures
###
TODAY'S QUOTE
Reader Comments
Page: 1 — Blog Index
...and you can't even get that 1/2 degree without 'adjusting' the past temperatures down, 'adjusting' the present temperatures up....
...and by math
Science, 25th June 2012 07:19 GMT
Antarctic ice shelves not melting at all, new field data show
Twenty-year-old models which have suggested serious ice loss in the eastern Antarctic have been compared with reality for the first time - and found to be wrong, so much so that it now appears that no ice is being lost at all.
According to a statement from the American Geophysical Union, announcing the new research:
It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception, Hattermann said, that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass.
The team’s results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted ...
Link
This blog post is such drivel. The article you used as your prime example is actually a very short article, and the first HALF of it is about the link between Lyne disease and global warming. Your other examples are mostly references to secondary sources on climate change, not "studies." The style of writing in the press is quite different than the style of writing found in scientific articles, is this evidence of a conspiracy? So some lay-people are convinced that they "feel" global temperature change? Since when has scientific ignorance been evidence of scientific truth or falsehood?
There has been no refutation of the basic tenets of global warming, The term "climate change" has been around at least since the formation of the IPCC in the early 1990s, and is considered a more comprehensive term than "global warming"; its use doesn't represent contradiction to global warming, which continues apace. Even Phil Jones (why do you consider him an authority when he says something you agree with, but an idiot when he does not?) has said that warming is now significant. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-137 19510).
Your post cites NO scientific studies. That's because it is increasingly difficult to argue against anthropogenic global warming on the basis of facts, instead, you must rely on lies, innuendo, and conspiracy theories, it is your denialist position which is increasingly untenable. And, mark my words. In 10 years you won't be denying it, but instead wondering why you were duped by the skeptics.
Citing a Register headline while retuning to talk about a scientific article is a bit disingenuous, don't you think?
From the same announcement by the AGU about the new study: "The team is the first to provide direct, observational evidence that the Fimbul Ice Shelf is melting from underneath by three, equally important processes. Their results confirm a 20-year-old theory about how ice shelves melt that, until now, was too complex to be further investigated with models that had no direct observations for comparison. These processes likely apply to other areas of Antarctica, primarily the eastern half because of its similar water and wind circulation patterns, Hattermann said."
So the shelf IS melting from beneath, just not as fast as some models have predicted.
The "steady state mass balance" you wrote of is due to replacement of mass from snow. No climate scientists deny that some replacement happens in the Eastern Antarctic. But "It turns out that since 2006, East Antarctica has no longer been in mass balance but is in fact, losing ice mass" (http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gainin g-ice-intermediate.htm)
Why don't you post under your normal handle instead of the one you fabricated today and then changing back to + youself?
Mr. Youdemonia you smell of fraud and your normally smarmy self.
Nice try though.
I stopped reading there. If you can go grab the numbers (anomalies from 1995-2011) from any of the various publicly available data sets, run a regression line through them and show no warming, I promise to read the rest of your post.
"The remarkable heat wave that affected Colorado on Saturday and Sunday has tied the all-time heat record for the state. According to wunderground’s weather historian Christopher C. Burt, Saturday’s 114° reading in Las Animas tied for the hottest temperature ever measured in the state of Colorado. Two other 114° readings have occurred in Colorado history: in Las Animas on July 1, 1933, and in Sedgwick on July 11, 1954."
...uh no
NOAA's records says it was 118 F on July 11, 1888 in Bennett, Colorado....
None
Don't want anyone to think I switched sides here! LOL
Yes, new handle just for today.. fraud all over it.
Uh, no. I noticed that your table comes from stevengoddard.com, not NOAA. If you actually had the initiative to check the original source - NOAA - you'd find this:
TMAX: A 118 °F temperature that had persisted in the record books at Bennett, CO on July 11, 1888 was found to be a typographical transcription error. Area temperatures were at least 15-20 degrees cooler that date (the highest being a 105 °F observation at Glenwood Springs).
All-Time Climate Extremes for CO
TIA
Jer
David Blumberg here - Waunakee, Wisconsin. For the record, I think that it's really cute the way you guys try to change the subject when reality stares you in the face.
BTW - Seems like most folks posting here do so anonymously - I assume that you only object to those who don't share your ideology. Correct?
But I do have a question for you, since you choose to post on my blog.
How much of an increase in temperatures should we expect for a doubling of CO2 from pre industrial levels?
and if you would be so kind please identify what pre-industrial levels were so we have a base.
Thanks
Btw, Phil Jones said no significant trend, not "no warming." Since 1995, the increase has been roughly +.25C (GISS), +.22C (Had4), +.14C (RSS), and +.25C (UAH). Lower strat has been cooling at a -.303K decadal clip.
Of course, this is all just surface temp wrangling. Oceans are taking the lion's share of the energy, and global ice mass loss is taking another chunk.
Sebastian, pre-industrial CO2 was stable around 270ppm (+/-10ppm) for roughly 10k years. Sensitivity of 3C per doubling is the best estimate of ECS. When taking into account transient climate response, ala Gillett et al. (2012) (and others), the trend in global temp is pretty much where it should be. Gillett's TCR is 1.3-1.8C.
How do they arrive at a transient climate response if we have not yet reached a doubling of CO2?
and
without this transient climate response what temperature would a doubling of CO2 achieve?
oh, and how long after the doubling of CO2 can we expect before this transient climate response "kicks in"?
oh and one more thingy
is your last comment "the trend in global temp is pretty much where it should be. Gillett's TCR is 1.3-1.8C." what the current science says is how much temperature has increased since pre industrial levels were "stable"?
If our temperature has increased by a minimum of 1.3C since pre industrial CO2 levels, approximately when did we reach this temperature increase?
TIA for your knowledge on the subject
Gillett et al. Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
Actually that was not my intention at all. My question was simple and straight forward
How do they arrive at a transient climate response if we have not yet reached a doubling of CO2?
The answer is that they use climate models
Viewing: 1 - 24
Page: 1 — Blog Index