The Religion of Climate Change

Let progressives and coastal cities pay the carbon tax

I've claimed that climate models don't hold salt because so often models don't know how to extrapolate the future, and that many times the past data being used is incomplete.

I've been told that even though computer models can not predict far into the future, because we don't have data that we are positive won't change over time, and that there is no way we can rely on such a thing, that we have to 'go with what information and models we now have' and that 'the current data says the planet is warming faster than a prairie fire'. I've been told that 'waiting around for a model that can forecast consistent or changing patterns will take forever'. I've been told that we 'can always say the computer doesn't know what unforeseen event will happen next and that all predictions are therefore flawed'. And 'that I would be right', with all this supposition.

I've been told that to delay is to 'play chicken to the bitter end' and that we will all 'lose everything'. I've been told that it is 'better to be prepared than sorry'. I've been told that 'the coastal cities will be buried under water before we get our perfect computer' model.

So to this I immediately wonder: when the 'progressives' take power, and institute the huge carbon taxes that will be necessary to curb carbon emissions....

Why not make the 'coastal cities' pay the majority of those taxes. They will benefit the most. We should also tax the 'progressives' or anyone who votes for a 'progressive' because they will benefit most.

Why should the rest of us pay for their benefit?

poster

Obama's real mentor

I've been told by a liberal friend: "Obama loves democracy"

Only if your definition of democracy is:

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

And with the full power of the federal government to make this accommodation.

The Audacity of Audacity

Obama's book: "The Audacity of Hope," that title was taken from one of his Pastor's speeches. He sat in that church for 20 years. Obama is part of the Blame America First crowd.

The God Damn America Sermon(s) have everything to do with Obama. It is part and parcel of what he is, of who he is, it is a large part of his character.

Half of Obama hates capitalism. This is plain as day. He is a socialist.

At this point I think Hillary may win. The Democrats should hope Hillary wins, because there is no way that a plain-as-day socialist like Obama who hates America can beat the war hero McCain.

5 will get you 10 on that bet!

global warming science far from settled

Again, Mr. Punky Kitten states clearly, and with conviction: The science on so-called climate change is far from settled!

Climate panel on the hot seat

By H. Sterling Burnett
March 14, 2008

More than 20 years ago, climate scientists began to raise alarms over the possibility global temperatures were rising due to human activities, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels.

To better understand this potential threat, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to provide a "comprehensive, objective, scientific, technical and socioeconomic assessment of human-caused climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."

IPCC reports have predicted average world temperatures will increase dramatically, leading to the spread of tropical diseases, severe drought, the rapid melting of the world's glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels. However, several assessments of the IPCC's work have shown the techniques and methods used to derive its climate predictions are fundamentally flawed.

In a 2001 report, the IPCC published an image commonly referred to as the "hockey stick." This graph showed relatively stable temperatures from A.D. 1000 to 1900, with temperatures rising steeply from 1900 to 2000. The IPCC and public figures, such as former Vice President Al Gore, have used the hockey stick to support the conclusion that human energy use over the last 100 years has caused unprecedented rise global warming.

However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process. For example, the researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and dramatic. This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were never consulted.

Furthermore, the community of specialists in ancient climates from which the peer reviewers were drawn was small and many of them had ties to the original authors — 43 paleoclimatologists had previously coauthored papers with the lead researcher who constructed the hockey stick.

These problems led Mr. Wegman's team to conclude that the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming "cannot be supported."

The IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 predicting global warming will lead to widespread catastrophe if not mitigated, yet failed to provide the most basic requirement for effective climate policy: accurate temperature statistics. A number of weaknesses in the measurements include the fact temperatures aren't recorded from large areas of the Earth's surface and many weather stations once in undeveloped areas are now surrounded by buildings, parking lots and other heat-trapping structures resulting in an urban-heat-island effect.

Even using accurate temperature data, sound forecasting methods are required to predict climate change. Over time, forecasting researchers have compiled 140 principles that can be applied to a broad range of disciplines, including science, sociology, economics and politics.

In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs. Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions.

A good example of a principle clearly violated is "Make sure forecasts are independent of politics." Politics shapes the IPCC from beginning to end. Legislators, policymakers and/or diplomatic appointees select (or approve) the scientists — at least the lead scientists — who make up the IPCC. In addition, the summary and the final draft of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report was written in collaboration with political appointees and subject to their approval.

Sadly, Mr. Green and Mr. Armstrong found no evidence the IPCC was even aware of the vast literature on scientific forecasting methods, much less applied the principles.

The IPCC and its defenders often argue that critics who are not climate scientists are unqualified to judge the validity of their work. However, climate predictions rely on methods, data and evidence from other fields of expertise, including statistical analysis and forecasting. Thus, the work of the IPCC is open to analysis and criticism from other disciplines.

The IPCC's policy recommendations are based on flawed statistical analyses and procedures that violate general forecasting principles. Policymakers should take this into account before enacting laws to counter global warming — which economists point out would have severe economic consequences.

H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute in Dallas.

Use both hands

Mr. Punky's favorite message of the day:

Miserabilism

Liberalism isn't enough to describe these two panderers. We need a new word: Miserabilism: The attempt to drag down the economy by describing the economy as already being some sort of train wreck, a self fulfilling prophecy.



But we won't let them wreck this energized train, the best economy in the history of the world.