As winter storms and record cold temps bare down on much of the northern hemisphere, UN approved climate scientists and their allies in the media give us their one-size-fits-all explanation: global warming.
As Doug Ross notes, “some junior cub propagandist at The New York Times named Judah Cohen is in full Blizzard Explanation Mode.
The esteemed New York Times, preferred public relations newsletter of the Democrat Party, is literally lying its ass off to cover for the United Nations’ disastrous global warming scam.
What is supposed to pass for science at the “newspaper of record” are quotes like: “We’re freezing not in spite of climate change but because of it.”
And IBD describes The Abiding Faith Of Warm-mongers:
No matter what happens, it always confirms their basic premise that the world is getting hotter. The weather turns cold and wet? It’s global warming, they say. Weather turns hot? Global warming. No change? Global warming. More hurricanes? Global warming. No hurricanes? You guessed it.
***
Why do we continue to listen to warmists when they’re so wrong? Maybe it’s because their real agenda has nothing to do with climate change at all. Earlier this month, attendees of a global warming summit in Cancun, Mexico, concluded, with virtually no economic or real scientific support, that by 2020 rich nations need to transfer $100 billion a year to poor nations to help them “mitigate” the adverse impacts of warming.
This is what global warming is really about — wealth redistribution by people whose beliefs are basically socialist. It has little or nothing to do with climate. If it did, we might pay more attention to Piers Corbyn, a little-known British meteorologist and astrophysicist who has a knack for correctly predicting weather changes. Indeed, as London’s Mayor Boris Johnson recently noted, “He seems to get it right about 85% of the time.”
How does he do it? Unlike the U.N. and government forecasters, Corbyn pays close attention to solar cycles that, as it turns out, correlate very closely to changes in climate. Not only are we not headed for global warming, Corbyn says, we may be entering a “mini ice age” similar to the one that took place from 1450 A.D. to 1850 A.D.
For more on Piers Corbyn, see The American Thinker: The Winner of This Year’s ‘Best Climate Predictor’ Award (Clue: It Wasn’t Al Gore!)
Back in November, when the Met Office was still doing its “mild winter” schtick, Corbyn said it would be the coldest for 100 years. Indeed, it was back in May that he first predicted a snowy December, and he put his own money on a white Christmas about a month before the Met Office made any such forecast. He said that the Met Office would be wrong about last year’s mythical “barbecue summer”, and he was vindicated. He was closer to the truth about last winter, too.
He seems to get it right about 85 per cent of the time and serious business people – notably in farming – are starting to invest in his forecasts. In the eyes of many punters, he puts the taxpayer-funded Met Office to shame. How on earth does he do it? He studies the Sun.
Here’s a fatalistic Lord Monckton, sounding the alarm on the agreement that came out of the Global Warming Summit in Cancun:
After Cancun, world government is a fact. It is here. It is real. It is costly. It is unelected. It is powerful. It will grow. It will be resented. It will be hated. But it will not easily be dislodged.
It is easy to establish a bureaucracy, provided that one has – as the Secretariat has – near-unlimited amounts of other people’s money to pay for it. But it is all but impossible to kill a bureaucracy once it has become established, except by revolution.
How will the world government develop? The EU, whose officials were present at Cancun in unbecomingly large numbers, is the role-model. Once a sufficient critical mass of taxpayers’ cash and governments’ consent has been won – and, at Cancun, the Secretariat won all that it had so long planned for, and more – the momentum of the panjandrum becomes unstoppable, like a snowball rolling down an endless slope, growing ever larger as it crushes everything in its wake.
Just like the FCC internet power grab, which took place right before Christmas, changes will not be noticed at first. This is how the left operates…
Congress will still be elected, but it will increasingly be subject to and answerable to the new world power. Few will notice at first: the media will not – will not – tell them.
This is what he had been warning us about since the Fall of 2009, and apparently it came to pass in Cancun.
Two more articles worth reading at Watts up With That?
Things we don’t know – about climate by Paul Murphy:
So what do we know? We know that many of the people warning us of the horrible consequences of human caused global warming haven’t been the disinterested scientists they’ve pretended to be – basically from Hansen and Jones to Gore and Waxman most of the more deeply committed have shown themselves deeply corrupted. That’s sad, but even sadder is the hidden reality: that knowing Mann and Bradley made up the hockey stick to defend a lie doesn’t tell us anything about global climate change – it just tells us things we didn’t want to know about them.
Most people, of course, know the numbers don’t work but rationalize accepting alarmist conclusions anyway because they think that “greenhouse science” – the belief that increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will cause traumatic global warming – is settled; and so see the lack of response to increasing atmospheric CO2 in weather data as a reflection on the quality of the data, not the theory.
Basically these people assume the wolf to justify the alarm: picturing Gore et al as yelling “Wolf!” because “greenhouse science” proves the wolf – and then excusing the business of rather obviously drawing improbable conclusions from inadequate data as laudable and necessary moral sacrifice by experts committed to rousing the rest of us to action.
Unfortunately the science on greenhouse gas effects is not only not settled, the claims made for it seem rather more likely to be wrong than right.
Climate Change and the Corruption of Science: Where did it all go wrong?
Bernie Lewin examines why climate science was able to become so corrupted. One reason:
Noble Cause or ‘Virtuous’ Corruption
The legitimation of activist-science helps to promote what is called ‘noble cause corruption’. This is the term used in the context of criminal investigations, where, for example, evidence might be planted in order to convict a criminal of a crime that the investigator has no doubt he committed. (Such corruption is portrayed famously by Orson Welles in A Touch of Evil.) As this sort of corruption manifests in the sciences, Aynsley Kellow has labelled it ‘virtuous corruption.’ This is where we would have scientists genuinely believing in the truth of AGW quite prepared to manipulate, distort and misrepresent their research in order to promote this truth in the face of formidable opposition from powerful vested interests (read: ‘Big Oil’ etc) attempting to obscure the truth with their own distortions, misrepresentations and lies.
Some choice snarkage from Doug Ross: This Just In: President Obama To Receive Nobel Prize In Physics For His Achievement In Containing Global Warming
On June 3, 2008, then-candidate Obama predicted these dramatic, curative changes: “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
It’s time to reward the President for his prescience and leadership in helping defeat the scourge of global warming. Only the Nobel Prize of Physics is a prestigious enough award for his work.
Nice Deb 