Thursday, July 23, 2009

Record Cool Weather and Global Warming; The Politicization of Science

Today's Indianapolis Star contains a story discussing record cool weather we have experienced this summer, including the fourth coolest July on record. The average temperature in July has been 70.5, nearly five degrees below average. Indianapolis has yet to experience a 90 degree day this summer.

I can hear the discussion now. Those who deride global warming claims will cite it as proof that the fuss is about nothing. Those who promote the global warming agenda will deride the current weather as a mere aberration that can't be taken seriously. Of course, if we were experiencing record heat, global warming alarmists would gladly use the higher than normal temps as evidence in support of their theory. Those folks are very selective in the evidence they use.

Both sides are actually wrong. You can't use one year's data as evidence either way. But neither can you use 160 years, about the length of time weather records have been formally recorded - as proof of long term climate change. 130 years in the lifetime of the 4.5 billion planet is nothing more than a grain of sand on a beach. Short term weather patterns last for thousands of years. Long term weather patterns last for hundreds of thousands of years.

What the man is causing global warming alarmists are doing is intellectually dishonest. They are taking the 130 year weather history and feeding the information into their computers, along with information on things like carbon dioxide levels, to create scary scenarios about the long-term weather patterns on this planet. Of course, carbon dioxide is actually a trailing indicator of temperature increases. In other words, when temperatures increase, carbon dioxide levels increase. The cause and effect is not there.

But I digress. What the global warming alarmists are doing is to selectively use data. There is no reason to completely ignore climate data from 4,499,998,400 of the 4,500,000,000 years the planet has been in existence, and only rely on the last 130 years when the data has been formally recorded. Scientists have long use other methods to very accurately measure temperatures throughout the history of the planet. But global warming alarmists aren't interested in this long-term data though they are attempting to show long-term weather trends using computer models. And we won't even get into the unquestioned assumption underlying it all that today's climate is the ideal and that is must be preserved at all costs. History has long proved that the fortunes of man flourishes in warmer climates, including climates warmer than today.

What should be incredibly disturbing to all is the almost complete politicization of science on college campuses and in foundations throughout the world. Contrary to the claims of global warming alarmists, the people who fund researchers on both sides of the issue have results they want to see. Don't think that does not affects the results. These researchers want to see the grant money continue and it won't continue if the results don't support what the funders want.

In the old days, the objective scientific method was the Holy Bible of those involved in science. You collected and objectively entered all the data, conducted your tests, and then conducted the tests again to see if you got the same result. The results were what they were and you faithfully reported them not as an advocate but as an objective, dispassionate presenter of the truth. Today, researchers collect their grants, then conduct their studies selectively entering data that produce results that support the conclusion the funders of the research want and hopefully result in more grants.

I can't preach long or loud enough the problem with the politicization of science. If we allow science to become politicized, we all suffer as a result.


Shorebreak said...

Don't forget - the first three computer models that were built by the UN to "prove" global warning were all failures. They didn't support the theories. It was the fourth attempt that finally had software correctly written to "prove" that man made global warming is real.

FYI - if you dig deep enough on the internet, you'll find the meeting minutes for the global warming planning meeting at Pocantico (David Rockefellers Westchester estate) that were documented by the PEW Research Center. Attendees included government officials from China, the UK, Europe, and other nations, and some of the leadership from the largest fortune 100 companies and global finance.

The outcome of the meeting was a list of "strawman" (their words) arguments to use in public to promote the theory that global warming is man-made.

"The Climate Dialogue at Pocantico was convened by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change with the generous support of The Pew Charitable Trusts, the United Nations Foundation, the Wallace Global Fund, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund."

Shorebreak said...

The Great Global Warming Swindle:

Downtown Indy said...

The 'average temperature' alone is meaningless for reaching any statistically-valid conclusion anyway.

We live on a planet where the climatic zones vary from 10's of degrees below zero to above 100.

A fraction of a degree difference in the average temperature is about as significant to the environment's health as the local convenience mart's 'take a penny' dish is to your retirement fund.

Paul K. Ogden said...


I agree...I don't like the average temperature figure. Temp swings in a day so much that the average between those swings doesn't mean that much.

Downtown Indy said...

Look at any photograph from the late 1800's or early 1900's - one that shows an urban area or a factory. Note the sky. There used to be smokestacks belching smoke 24/7 all over the country. Every grocery store used to have an incinerator. Schools were heated by coal and all had furnaces dumping huge quantities of diry smoke into the air.

We have none of that anymore, or very little anyway.

Now China, among other countries, is doing this and getting worse every day.

The US is NOT the bad guy in this anymore so why do WE have to bear the burden of governmental penalties?

Shorebreak said...

DI - we have to bear the burden because our economy can't be made equal with other's unless our manufacturing base is decimated.

Paul K. Ogden said...

DI, I know growing up that air pollution was much, much worse inthe 60s and 70s than today. Smog was a much bigger problem then than now.

Actually though more pollution contributes to global oooling because particles block the sunlight. CO2 is not a pollutant. So the lesson is we need to pollute more to bring down the temp. Joking, but it would reduce the temperatures.

Michael said...

It's not called "global warming" anymore, Paul.

It's "climate change"!!!

That explains the cold weather, see?

Get with the times, man.

Michael said...

BTW, a few weeks ago I was approached by a fresh faced college activist on the Circle with a clipboard who asked me if I would like to help stop global warming. I told her I already do by turning up the A/C and opening my windows. That should help cool things off.

Paul K. Ogden said...

Michael, touche.

"Climate change" covers everything. In the 4.5 billion years of the planet, we've never had a time when the climate did not change.

Anonymous said...

I know... It is just absurd that all these scientists, polititians and moronic hippies believe that billions of people using manufactured chemicals, materials and devices has an effect on the planet... dummies. The earth is fine-- nothing bad has ever happened to somebody who ingested Clorox, eaten plastic or inhaled carbon monoxide... right?

Paul K. Ogden said...

Anon 4:52: I don't think anyone worth his salt would tell you that human activity does not cause some warming. Take a grassy field, pave it over with asphalt and the temperature increases. Man definitely causes some warming.

The question though is how much warming is attributable to man and how much is part of a a natural cycle. And if it's warming, is that something that is necessarily a bad thing. They simply fail to answer these questions. They just want to leap to conclusions without connecting the dots. And they want you to assume without question, that today's temperature is the ideal and that any increase would be catostrophe for mankind. History says otherwise though.

If those promoting the global warming agenda were confident in their conclusions, they would be willing to feed into their computers all the climate data, not just a tiny snippet of temperature readings from the last 150 years. They don't do that because if they took a bigger picture it would be shown that the warming trend is simply part of a natural long-term warming pattern that started long before industrialization.

Anonymous said...

I think we commonly use "global warming" and "climate change" as blanket terms to draw attention to the impact that people are having on the planet. The lifespan of the planet is long and we are all on this planet for but a hiccup in time in the grand scheme of it all. We cannot disregard our impact on the planet just because somebody can point to the lack of scalding temperatures and like a child say, "See, it isn't getting hot, you're wrong." The focus needs to be redirected to changing our behavior to preserve the Earth, its resources and ability to sustain life for as long as we can. No, the planet will not sustain life indefinitely, but that doesn't mean we have the right to destroy it right now. Some of what is happening occurs naturally, but a lot of the negative trends in pollution, water and air quality, wildlife survival rates and habitat destruction, etc. are attributable to the way that we conduct ourselves.