Political Science, 101

Posted in Weekly Newsletter on by .

If you follow the “global warming” issue, chances are you’re aware of a sharp partisan divide. Gallup polling consistently finds Democrats far likelier than Republicans to fear a man-made climate crisis.

We expect the divide to widen as our Beloved Leader rolls out endless streams of demonstrable lies to advance the climate regulation plan he announced yesterday. To prepare yourself, know this about current climate science:

  • There is no trend of increasing tornado numbers or severity.
  • There is no trend of increased hurricane numbers or strength; each day sets a new record for the longest period without a major U.S.-landfalling hurricane. The welcome hiatus could end anytime, but it’s now necessary to look back to the 19th century to find as long a period without a Category 3 or stronger hurricane striking the U.S.
  • Sea levels have risen gradually since the last ice age ended, but have slowed in recent years.
  • Human-induced carbon dioxide emissions climb steadily, yet global temperature averages have stayed flat for about 16 years.

Alarmist predictions of catastrophic human-induced warming are all based on computer modeling. In other words, they depend on computers spitting out results derived from suppositions fed into them by climate scientists who live off government grants that depend on “detecting” worrisome trends. For nine of the past 13 years, actual observed temperature averages have been lower than the lowest boundaries of the temperature range predicted by the models.

All of this might lead an objective observer to suspect the whole 25-year fracas has been more about politics than science. Remember those sanctimonious 1970s bumper stickers admonishing you to “Be nifty, drive 50?” Human-induced climate disaster is the same tiresome thing, from the same tiresome people, on a grand scale.

2 thoughts on “Political Science, 101

  1. Ray Kondrasuk

    “Alarmist predictions of catastrophic human-induced warming are all based on computer modeling.”

    True, an alarmist computer-based prediction of catastrophe was made back in 2004 when Lisa Sloan, professor of Earth sciences at UC Santa Cruz used powerful computers running a global climate model developed by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) to simulate the effects of reduced Arctic sea ice. And er most striking finding was a significant reduction in rain and snowfall in the American West.

    Somber reading for the families of the 19 Hotshot firefighters in Colorado this week.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>