Living on the coast I pay a lot of attention to hurricanes. And every year since Hurricane Katrina, the forecasters predict a bad year with many large storms. Except that the exact opposite is what has been happening since Katrina.
This year the Climate Prediction Center, an agency of the U.S. government gave this as their winter temperature forecast:
On the forecasters own scale from 100 (very right) to -50 ("monkeys throwing darts would have done better") the score for this prediction is -22.
In this same area of discussion, a graph from the Washington Post showing snow totals for various cities:
Of course a colder winter with more snow is "just weather" and not related to global warming. Except for the fact that those who advanced global warming arguments during milder winters said just the opposite.
Global Warmers the Real Flat Earth Deniers
As I pointed out earlier this week Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have ramping up the global warming noise machine. Both insist that the "science is settled." Kerry went so far as to toss insults at anyone who disagreed saying those who disagreed were part of the "Flat Earth Society." He went on to say "we should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists" and "extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts." But if you look at the facts objectively it's Kerry and Obama who are relying on shoddy science and behaving like extreme ideologues.
A great op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Richard McNider and John Christy is one of the best refutations of globaloney to come out in a while. McNider and Christy are professors of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Alabama. Christy was part of the United Nations Panel on Climate Change. If you read only one article on this subject, read this one.
It includes the following chart comparing temperature forecasts which are based on CO2 increases to the actual temperature observations for the past 35 years. Plenty of time to determine whether the models based on global warming theory are correct:
Here's an excerpt:
What is not a known fact is by how much the Earth's atmosphere will warm in response to this added carbon dioxide. The warming numbers most commonly advanced are created by climate computer models built almost entirely by scientists who believe in catastrophic global warming. The rate of warming forecast by these models depends on many assumptions and engineering to replicate a complex world in tractable terms, such as how water vapor and clouds will react to the direct heat added by carbon dioxide or the rate of heat uptake, or absorption, by the oceans.Meanwhile, there is a forecast of another big freeze on the way. Sadly, they may have gotten this forecast right!
We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong. From the beginning of climate modeling in the 1980s, these forecasts have, on average, always overstated the degree to which the Earth is warming compared with what we see in the real climate.
The modelers insist that they are unlucky because natural temperature variability is masking the real warming. They might be right, but when a batter goes 0 for 10, he's better off questioning his swing than blaming the umpire.
"Consensus" science that ignores reality can have tragic consequences if cures are ignored or promising research is abandoned. The climate-change consensus is not endangering lives, but the way it imperils economic growth and warps government policy making has made the future considerably bleaker. The recent Obama administration announcement that it would not provide aid for fossil-fuel energy in developing countries, thereby consigning millions of people to energy poverty, is all too reminiscent of the Sick and Health Board denying fresh fruit to dying British sailors.
We should not have a climate-science research program that searches only for ways to confirm prevailing theories, and we should not honor government leaders, such as Secretary Kerry, who attack others for their inconvenient, fact-based views.
UPDATE: Prominent Scientist Describes the Corruption of Science by Warming Activists
I came across this little gem. It's written by Prof. Fred Singer. Who's he?
S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere.The article makes a great companion piece with the one above. If you were to read only TWO articles on this topic, Singer's would be on the list! Singer describes how the process of science has become corrupted by the politics of global warming activists. Taking on the problem of global warming models he suggests that activists believe "95% of climate models agree; therefore the observations must be wrong!" Singer concludes:
In the words of physicist Prof Howard "Cork" Hayden:
"If the science were as certain as climate activists pretend, then there would be precisely one climate model, and it would be in agreement with measured data. As it happens, climate modelers have constructed literally dozens of climate models. What they all have in common is a failure to represent reality, and a failure to agree with the other models. As the models have increasingly diverged from the data, the climate clique have nevertheless grown increasingly confident -- from cocky in 2001 (66% certainty in IPCC's Third Assessment Report) to downright arrogant in 2013 (95% certainty in the Fifth Assessment Report)." Climate activists seem to embrace faith and ideology -- and are no longer interested in facts.