Thursday, September 22, 2016

What's Going to Happen Next Chicken Little?

This is comedic genius!  Every punch line sounds like the subtext to Chicken Little.

The new numbers are startling. Only four years ago, I wrote an essay called “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math.” In the piece, I drew on research from a London-based think tank, the Carbon Tracker Initiative. The research showed that the untapped reserves of coal, oil, and gas identified by the world’s fossil fuel industry contained five times more carbon than we can burn if we want to keep from raising the planet’s temperature by more than two degrees Celsius. That is, if energy companies eventually dug up and burned everything they’d laid claim to, the planet would cook five times over. That math kicked off a widespread campaign of divestment from fossil fuel stocks by universities, churches, and foundations. And it’s since become the conventional wisdom: Many central bankers and world leaders now agree that we need to keep the bulk of fossil fuel reserves underground.

But the new new math is even more explosive. It draws on a report by Oil Change International, a Washington-based think tank, using data from the Norwegian energy consultants Rystad. For a fee—$54,000 in this case—Rystad will sell anyone its numbers on the world’s existing fossil fuel sources. Most of the customers are oil companies, investment banks, and government agencies. But OCI wanted the numbers for a different reason: to figure out how close to the edge of catastrophe we’ve already come.

Why so funny? Because it is all based on at best scientific conjecture.  No one has anyone come close to proving that these numbers mean anything at all.  Every attempt to prove the numbers just ends in another failed climate model - and no one's arguing that the models are failing.  There's been a lot of conjecting, investigating, hypothesizing and fear mongering but nothing even close to proof.  The temperatures are not rising significantly - less than the margin of error in the measuring system.

It's just a bad comedy.  I hope I live long enough to laugh with a friend about when they finally pivot as they have with things like saturated fat and cholesterol and start to claim they knew it was wrong all along.  The idea that these goof balls want to wreck the engine of human well being to prevent this faux catastrophe is lovely testimony to the enigma of the human experience, in which we find Forest Gump, based on what he does, is smarter than the climate alarmists. Sadly FG is perhaps not smarter than the industries that profit from climate change do-gooder naivete or the political class which is always excited to legislate away your liberty and mine.

Another retort to these AGW goofs:
So the authors of this Report, operating without government or industry funding, compiled the best available atmospheric temperature time series from 13 independent sources (satellites, balloons, buoys, and surface records), and then backed out only ENSO (i.e., El Nino/La Nina) effects.  And with that data and that sole adjustment they found: no evidence of the so-called Tropical Hot Spot that is the key to EPA's claimed "basic physical understanding" of the claimed atmospheric greenhouse warming model, plus no statistically significant atmospheric warming at all to be explained.

For those interested in all the gory technical details, here is a link to the full Executive Summary, and here is a link to the full 68 page Report, complete with zillions of charts and access to all the archived underlying data.  Note that, in great distinction to the tradition of climate "science," where hiding data from adversaries is the norm, here the authors have made all data and methods fully available.  Try to prove them wrong!

Well, back to you EPA!  Do you mean that you're trying to impose hundreds of billions of dollars of costs on the American economy and citizens and the so-called "scientific" basis for your project never existed? You'd better come up with something pretty good and quick!

Meanwhile, Hillary is saying that she supports Obama's climate agenda because she "believes in science."  Does she even know that science is a process of testing hypotheses against data, and not a set of enforced orthodox beliefs?  Don't count on it.

No comments:

Post a Comment