• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • RSS
53°
Tuesday September 16, 2014
View complete forecast
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Local Business Search
Stock Summary
Dow17131.97100.83
Nasdaq4552.7633.86
S&P 5001998.9814.85
AEP53.630.94
Comcast57.230.21
GE26.210.29
ITT Exelis18.450.18
LNC54.680.51
Navistar38.27-0.22
Raytheon101.710.2
SDI23.940.27
Verizon48.960.4

Letter to the editor: What does data say about global warming?

Friday, August 15, 2014 - 12:01 am

At the beginning of June, the EPA released new regulations limiting the emission of carbon by power plants. According to the Chamber of Commerce’s energy institute, this will cost us over 200,000 jobs and $50 billion of GDP (3 percent) lost per year. One would think that the EPA has solid scientific justification to inflict this much damage on the U.S. economy.

According to the National Center for Atmospheric Science, there has been zero statistical change in global temperature since 1998. During this period, according to the European Environment Agency, atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by more than 9 percent. According to the global warming theory, the CO2 increase is supposed to be warming the planet; the temperature data shows that the planet is not warming.

According to meteorologist Hans von Storch, this is a puzzle. Storch concedes that for the last 15 years, global temperature models have failed to predict the measured reality. He contends that if they fail for five more years, then they must be re-examined. In fact, these models are scrap now, and we don’t have to wait five years. But the models are an instrument of the global warming believers’ ideology, and no matter how inaccurate, the models are sacred, and the measured data — i.e. reality — does not matter.

A recent example of the forecasting of the models comes from August of 2013, when NOAA said the hurricane season “is shaping up to be above normal with the possibility that it could be very active.” Less than two months later, an article in Bloomberg entitled “Atlantic season with no major storm humbling forecasters” summarized what had actually happened. “The season looks to be a huge bust,” climate scientist Phil Klotzbach said. “That’s one of the fun things about being in the weather business. It definitely keeps you humble.”

Humility, however, has nothing to do with the GWBs attitude toward those who question them. With little experimental evidence for their position, how

is the supposed massive consensus among the scientific community achieved?

Lennart Bengtsson, former director of Germany’s Max Plank Institute for Meteorology, found out. After joining the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a group skeptical of the claims of GWBs, Bengstsson described his treatment by former colleagues as being “reminiscent of the persecution of suspected communists in the U.S. during the McCarthy era.”

GWBs are just another group of ideologues who cannot win the debate based on facts and data. Instead, they resort to terrorizing the public with predictions of doom based on slop science. Note the similarity to the neocon ideologues in the Bush II administration. The neocons had no facts to back their claim of a nuclear threat from Sadaam Hussein, so they told us of the mushroom clouds over New York City. Unfortunately for the public debate, ideologues such as these believe it is their prerogative to lie because of the holiness of their cause. In fact, we have as much global warming in 2014 as we had weapons of mass destruction in 2003: zero.

To advocate their views, global warming believers rely on scrap models, pictures of distraught polar bears, and mob intimidation techniques. The coming punishing of the US economy by the new EPA regulations is the latest example of what happens when such ideologues get into power.

Hank Achor