Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Alarmists Continue to Use Weather as Proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming

As this month wraps up, February 2015 will go down as one of the coldest months for several U.S. cities.  Indianapolis average February temperature currently is 20.9 degrees which would make it the sixth coldest February since official recordings of temperature began being kept 140 years or so ago.

Raise this as proof that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not taking place and alarmists everywhere will scream that skeptics simply don't understand the difference between climate and weather.  They might even provide a video link to astrophysicist and host of Cosmos Neil deGrasse Tyson explaining the difference.

Of course, weather and climate are not the same thing.  Given man's limited life-spans, our 80 years or so lifespans on Earth simply isn't long enough to personally witness changes in the climate that takes place over thousands of years.

NBC Weatherman Al Roker
Using weather as proof of climate is wrong.  Alarmists are exactly right about that. The problem is they are the worst kind of hypocrites when it comes to using weather to prove AGW.  The Summer of 2012 was terribly hot.  James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was quick to argue that the summer's weather which featured scorching hot weather and droughts proved man is causing global warming.  A year or so later when we were experiencing record cold weather, Hansen.  The weather didn't fit his AGW agenda.

Worse though are the alarmists who use even weather that doesn't fit the AGW agenda as proof of the theory.  This strategy has been aided by AGW enthusiasts have pushed hard to relabel man-made global warming as "climate change."   Since the climate always changes, any weather event will prove the theory.  Hot weather?  Climate change.  Cold weather?   Climate change.  Too much rain?  Climate change.  Drought?  Climate change.  Heck, even if the temperatures for a year didn't vary from historical averages, that too would be climate change as the weather always varies.

The next alarmist hypocrite stepping up is NBC weather anchor Al Roker. who in a recent interview, said this year's cold, snowy weather for parts of the country is proof of global warming climate change.   Bill Nye "The Science Guy" also chimed in saying this winter weather proves climate change.

The fact that someone like Nye is not interested in presenting science honestly but is instead using his position to promote a is evidenced by a statement he made during an MSNBC interview:
We need people on both sides.   But if the conservative side are going to continue to deny what 97 percent of the scientists in the world are saying, we’re not going to reach a consensus. We are not going to make progress.”
Nye knows damn well that there is no poll showing "97 percent of the scientists in the world" agree with anthropogenic global warming.  The often touted 97% figure is actually based on a 2009 survey results of only 79 climate scientists who were asked about global warming.  I explained it all in a story I wrote in 2013:
The alarmists insist that 97% of climate scientists agree that man has caused dangerous global warming.  But surprisingly few people who cite that number actually know where that 97% figure comes from.  It came from the results of an on-line survey published in
"Scientist" Bill Nye
2009 by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the University of Illinois.  The survey was sent to 10,257 scientists with 3,146 responding.  The 97% figure is based on the responses of 79 of those scientists.  More on that later.

The first survey question was:  "When compared to pre-1800 levels, do you think mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant."

That is an, I would say, intentionally, loaded question. Of course temperatures have risen since the 1700s, the depths of the Little Ice Age. 100% of the scientists should have said "yes," but only 90% did.

The second survey question was: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

The question fails in a couple respects. First, it doesn't identify what "human activity" is being talked about.  Urban sprawl contributes to higher temperatures, just like a paved lot is going to produce warmer surface temperatures than the grass field it replaced.  The question does not mention anything about the burning of fossil fuels.  Second, the question does not identify what is meant by "significant."  One scientist might think a 5% impact by mankind is significant, while another might think 25% is significant.

Of the 3,146 responses, 82% said "yes" to this question. This combined with the 90%, produces an 86% figure.  How do they get to 97% then?  The 97% figure from the survey comes from a whittling down of the accepted number of responses from 3,146 to 79. The 79 scientists are those who said they have recently published 50% of their papers in the area of climate change. Of these, 76 of 79 answered “risen” to questions one (96.2%).   As to question two 75 of 77 answered “yes” (97.4%).
And that, folks, is how they got that 97% figure.  Does Nye know this?  You can bet he does.  Is Bill Nye the Science Guy?  No, he is Bill Nye the Lying Guy.


RhondaLeeBaby69 said...

You're right. There are several polls/surveys/studies that show the number is actually a little higher than 97%:

Anonymous said...

Rhonda, nice try. But when it comes to Republicans and global warming, facts and logic don't matter. What they care about is opinion. You see, if enough people think the world isn't getting warmer, it won't happen! Makes perfect sense, right?

Indy Rob said...

More rain than normal, less rain than normal, colder than normal, warmer than normal, all of these conditions are cited as proof of climate change.

Lets try something different for a change. Perhaps predict if average rainfall in the next 5 years will be average, above average or below average. Get 97% of these climate experts to come to a consensus on what the next 5 years brings, document this climate predictions (based on those climate models) and wait five years. But predict the future climate.

Jon said...

Liars, damn liars and statisticians. ..

Anonymous said...

Future climate = predicted.