Coldest December 8th in 29 years on Monterey Bay according to the National Weather Service. What does it all mean in terms of global warming? Absolutely nothing. To have a trend, you need many points. That’s true irrespective of what you believe to be true. That’s true irrespective of your ideological preference. There is more. Let’s pretend there is a long series of points showing rising temperatures worldwide. (There isn’t.)
If you want to argue that the cause of a trend is some other phenomenon or phenomena, you need another set of points. That’s for a beginning. Global warming advocates tell us that the increased use of coal and petroleum, carbons, is the cause of a global warming trend. That’s what the Copenhagen conference is all about.
If there were such a trend, that second set of points would have to correspond with the first set, the global warming trend set of points. In this case, the first set would have to conform to the second with a lag that makes sense. The lag idea is that what happens tomorrow cannot cause what happens today. In his case, the upward trend in carbon burning must precede the alleged trend in rising world temperatures. This would work if, for example, increasing use of carbon, in the 19th and 20th century, was followed by rising temperatures. I am not picky; I would take almost any interpretation of “following” seriously.
In fact, we know for a fact that temperatures in Greenland were much higher in the 11th and 12th centuries than they are today, year after year, after year. They were higher than at any time in the past three hundred years. So, the trend in rising temperatures precedes the beginning of serious reliance on carbons, instead of following it. It does so by several centuries. How do I know about medieval temperatures in Greenland? The Scandinavian settlers there ate beef. This means that it was warm enough there to grow hay, which you could not do today. I get this info from Jared Diamond, a committed environmentalist. (Several other postings on this matter on this blog.)
I don’t need to explain why the two trends don’t coincide to show that any other statement of a positive relationship between carbon burning and rising temperatures is wrong, not true to fact. Let me recapitulate: There is no evidence of a recent trend in global warming. If there were, the idea that there is global warming due to man’s use of carbons would be wrong.
I can’t resist pointing out that if there were evidence of rising temperatures and if the two trends coincided better (see above) that would still not demonstrate that increased human reliance on carbon causes rising temperatures. The reason for this is simple: There is no scientist who would go on the record affirming that coincidence in time – even with a lag that makes sense – is good evidence that one thing causes the other. Such a coincidence is only enough to get one interested in the possibility of a causal relationship.
In the meantime, polar bears, both in the Arctic and in Antarctica, are running out of their normal food because of global warming. Adult male bears are reduced to eating their offspring. Just like the lions on the Serengeti plain eat lion cubs. Just like Democrats eat their young (and mine). So what if there were never any bears in Antarctica? My mind is made up. Don’t confuse me with facts. Pleeeease!
There is a, easy-to-read and calm article on the intricacies of the “Climategate” conspiracy to commit fraud in the current issue of the Weekly Standard. ( “Scientists behaving badly,” by Steven F. Hayward, Weekly Standard, Dec. 14th 2009.)
PS Pres. Obama is a disaster both to his remaining supporters and to his growing legions of opponents. He is going to crash. I just wonder how. Any idea?
