Commentary #6: Global Warming

[Mark Rippetoe]

Just a sociological observation, but in my local area it seems that people are perceiving that it's hotter than it is both relatively and absolutely. I have heard from several local people that "It's never been this hot this summer!" yet I clearly remember it being just as hot, if not hotter, decades ago.

I actually just checked the local weather on this date 30 years ago, and it is 7 degrees cooler today than it was then.

It's the propaganda. They all wore the mask, too.

[mkm5]

It's the propaganda. They all wore the mask, too.

Yep. And every "sunburn" is due to the global warming climate emergency crisis, and not because people don't remember to get out from the hot sun in the middle of August after 15 or 20 minutes.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Resistance is mounting: Two Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based On A '''Hoax''' | ZeroHedge

“The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule,” Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen stated. “None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule.”

“All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data,” they stated. “The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”

Climate models like the ones that the EPA is using have been consistently wrong for decades in predicting actual outcomes, Mr. Happer told The Epoch Times. He presented the table below to the EPA to illustrate his point.

Pseudoscience.

[Jared Hunt]

At this point, I don’t trust any piece of information I receive that serves the official Narrative (on whatever topic), and I don’t see how any thinking person could.

I’ve soul-searched and been as critical of my own thoughts and biases as I can, and I can’t see that this loss of trust is my fault.

For example, how much of this summer’s breathless coverage of “record heat” has included a disclaimer about the impact that the Hunga Tunga eruption is likely having on temperatures, due to its release of “unprecedented” amounts of water vapor into the air?

[Mark Rippetoe]

You're right, it's all bald-faced self-serving lies. To their credit, our local TV station ran a graphic last night that compared the number of 100-degree days and 110-degree days with the historical record. We're not even close to 2011. This is NORMAL weather for August in North Texas.

[Barry Charles]

Don’t forget. Warm data is usually reported with the heat index. Cold days with the wind chill. Both are arbitrary parameters worth about 10% sensationalism.

[Eric Schexnayder]

They present CO2 and temperature data indicating much higher levels of both CO2 and temperatures than today, with little correlation between the two. They also argue that current CO2 levels are historically at a low point.

There are all sorts of ad hoc hypotheses out there trying to hand-wave this inconvenient lack of correlation away. I think it's worth pointing out that admitting other variables could explain the deviation totally undermines the original hypothesis that carbon dioxide is "the cause".

And nevermind the un-falsifiable nature of the anthropogenic aspects of this theory.

[Gilead]

Just a sociological observation, but in my local area it seems that people are perceiving that it's hotter than it is both relatively and absolutely. I have heard from several local people that "It's never been this hot this summer!" yet I clearly remember it being just as hot, if not hotter, decades ago.

I have been noticing this phenomenon as well. I find more people are open to reality checks when you tell them to snap out of it and bring them some examples of their recent past that overrides their programming.
I find it on average easier to convince people or at least get them to think twice about the "hottest day ever" fallacy, than convincing them of the foolishness of wearing a mask and the deadly virus programming. Probably because climate shit, while hammered into them from many mediums, it's threat does not feel imminent and close, unlike the deadly virus.

[golftdibrad]

Going back to first principles on the theory that more co2 leads to warming is this inconvenient truth:

The natural annual carbon cycle is MASSIVE. The only part of it that we know with certainty is our fossil use, because we track it as a priced commodity. Even then human activity is 1-2% or less of annual. But if the carbon we use is not entering another natural sink, why does the RATE OF CHANGE (ie the first derivative) of the atmospheric increase of co2 in no way whatsoever correlate to increased human use of fossil fuels?

[Mark Rippetoe]

The natural annual carbon cycle is MASSIVE. The only part of it that we know with certainty is our fossil use, because we track it as a priced commodity. Even then human activity is 1-2% or less of annual. But if the carbon we use is not entering another natural sink, why does the RATE OF CHANGE (ie the first derivative) of the atmospheric increase of co2 in no way whatsoever correlate to increased human use of fossil fuels?

Good one.