Posted by
Catmman on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 3:09:21 PM
What does an alarmist do when faced with the fact that the globe isn't warming as advertised or predicted for the past 20 years?
Change the rules of the game
doing another study contradicting everything they've previously said on the subject. Well, not so much contradicting is as
redefining the previous parameters of your alarmism.
Nuance at its finest!
Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
So what do you do if you’re a climate alarmist and the world isn’t warming up as much as you said it would? Why, you redefine “climate sensitivity.” You claim that agriculture, health, weather, etc. are more “sensitive” to increases in global temperature than scientists once believed. You say that less warming than the IPCC warned us about will lead to worse impacts than the IPCC warned us about. That’s the gist of a recent IPCC-sponsored study, as summarized here by AP/MSNBC.com.
Well, I’m skeptical! First, the IPCC study claims that a 21st century temperature increase of only 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit and 3.6 degrees could significantly increase the severity of extreme weather. But Knutson et al. (2008), a leading modeling study of global warming and Atlantic tropical cyclones, projects that the same amount of warming will increase the average intensity of Atlantic hurricanes by only 1.7% but decrease hurricane frequency by 18%, producing a cumulative 25% decrease in Atlantic hurricane power. That’s a significant net climate benefit!
The IPCC study reportedly warns that even a wee bit of warming will produce deadly heat waves, suggesting (but not bluntly saying) that the 2003 killer heat wave in Europe was due to the atmospheric buildup of greenhouse gases. Yet, as Pat Michaels and Robert Balling document in their new book, Climate of Extremes, the European heat wave of 2003 was an atmospheric circulation anomaly–a bubble of hot air trapped in Europe during a summer that was slightly cooler than average worldwide.
This is jsut another thing which tears me up. How many times does the game need to be "redefined" or the terminology changed before the average person realizes they are being sold a bill of goods by the climate alarmists? President Obama is going to cause huge increases in energy cost and production with his cap and trade scam, not to mention encouraging the EPA to regulate CO2 as an actual pollutant. The alamists are resetting the goal posts and calling for a "do-over", and they are getting away with it! I thought the science was settled? If the damn sceince is settled, then why are the alarmists still making hay out of the science?!
From
Ace:
Isn't it odd that with the panic among alarmists due to the earth not really warming at all over ten years, we now find out, whoops, gee willickers, it hardly has to warm at all to plunge us into disaster and ruin?
Wake up people!