In their effort to create enough climate change hysteria to rally the public in support of scientifically dubious and possibly futile—but expensive!— regulations, some media outlets have resorted to censoring commentary that is hostile to current global warming cant, even though few if any of the editors involved comprehend the data, research, or models. I propose that they would do more to bolster the push to accept man-made climate change if they stopped publishing blatant and misleading hype, and they could begin by not quoting Al Gore.
Stipulated: both sides of the climate change debate are guilty of misrepresentation, lies, exaggeration and nonsense. The difference is that most of the news media adopts and legitimizes the pro-climate change misrepresentation, lies, exaggeration and nonsense, with this year’s model being the claim that climate change is already increasing “extreme weather events.” Even President Obama has engaged in this…well, why did I say “even”? Once I really believed that he was dedicated to telling the truth, at least as he perceived it—admittedly a material qualification—but the past 18 months proved me to be gullible and naive on that issue. The champion, however, is Al Gore. I once respected Gore, too….especially after his honorable and statesmanlike concession speech in 2000. Sadly…ah, must all my heroes disillusion me? —Al has revealed himself as just a venal huckster since then, with global warming hype being his milieu.
For example, here is Al bloviating again last week:
“The most powerful voice is that of Mother Nature, the increasing storms, floods, droughts and other extreme events. We’re paying the cost of carbon every day and we should put a price on carbon in markets and put a price on denial in the political system.”
Right. Here is some data on the sudden proliferation of “storms, floods, droughts and other extreme events”:
Year # of Tornadoes
2013 771
2012 1119
2011 1894
2010 1543
2009 1305
2008 1685
2007 1102
2006 1117
2005 1262
2004 1820
2003 1374
2002 938
2001 1219
2000 1072
Wildfires in the US so far this year:
2013 Fires: 40,306 Acres: 4,152,390
2012 Fires: 67,774 Acres: 9,326,238
2011 Fires: 74,126 Acres: 8,711,367
2010 Fires: 62,471 Acres: 3,233,461
2009 Fires: 78,792 Acres: 5,921,786
2008 Fires: 80,094 Acres: 5,254,109
2007 Fires: 85,822 Acres: 9,321,326
2006 Fires: 96,358 Acres: 9,871,939
2005 Fires: 66,552 Acres: 8,686,753
2004 Fires: 63,608 Acres: 8,097,880
*2013 data through 10/16
Extreme heat. The number of 100 degree days across the country in 2013 is not only down, but could be the lowest in a century of records (Chart Source: NOAA, USHCN reporting stations; through August. It’s small…I apologize, but I think you can see that the last bar, 2013, is the smallest, not one of the largest, as Al would have us believe):
Meanwhile, Al and the gang have been telling us since Katrina that more and bigger hurricanes awaited us, and that this would confirm the necessity of climate change panic. But the dire predictions have been inconveniently and embarrassingly wrong…especially so for a position that relies on the accuracy of predictions. There have been but two hurricanes so far this season in the Atlantic Basin (Humberto and Ingrid), and they were weak category 1 storms….in other words, not “extreme.” The first hurricane this year occurred at the second latest date going back to the mid 1940s. The eastern Pacific Ocean also has had no major hurricanes this hurricane season, meaning there have been no major hurricanes in either the Atlantic or eastern Pacific. This occurred only once before in recorded history – 1968. The inconvenient truth is that the US is in the middle of longest period since the Civil War without a major hurricane–a Category 3-5. The last major hurricane to strike the US was Hurricane Wilma during late October of 2005.
And contrary to popular belief, there has yet to be a confirmed sharknado in the U.S.
Now, the unusual absence of major weather disasters could also be fairly cited as “extreme,’ and might even be proof of climate change—hell, I don’t know—but pointing to fewer storms as proof wouldn’t create public alarm or sufficient hysteria, so the climate change lobbiers feel they have to juts lie, usually pointing to a well-publicized storm like Sandy as evidence, even though it is nothing of the sort.
As long as the pro-climate change scientists, advocates, activists, media and elected officials—and the hucksters, of course; mustn’t neglect Al—keep hyping, hiding the facts when their models and predictions fail, and generally prove themselves deceitful and untrustworthy, everyone should be a skeptic.
_____________________________
Sources: Climate Depot, Brietbart, This is Weather,Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work or property was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
When the climate change hysteria started getting traction, a friend was in post grad for geology and I got many earfuls when this started. In the many layers, the forensics for much warmer and colder eras are less a matter of hype. Since then I’ve read about the little ice ages over decades or even a single winter when the Thames froze in the 1800s or events like Krakatoa happened.
Warming and cooling is part of the natural cycles, and it’s rank hubris to think we can stop it. Interglacial periods get warmer than now. All we can do is adapt and maybe save what we think is important, so all this hype is pointless. Unless someone does come up with weather control like in SF, we’re spitting in the ocean.
This actually fits the model of warming driven primarily by increased greenhouse gas emissions.
When more heat is trapped in the atmosphere, it tends to reduce temperature gradients, similar to how placing a thermal insulator to block the compression cylinder of a Stirling engine would reduce the temperature gradient. In particular, the warming would be concentrated at night, during the winter, and at the polar regions. Weather is driven by gradients in temperature and pressure, and a reduction in these gradients would reduce storms.
As a matter of fact, some scientists claimed that the smallpox plague that wiped off over 90% of the North American population. So many trees grew back that it sucked out the greenhouse gases. This would be equivalent to placing a block of dry ice at the compression cylinder of a Stirling engine, and would have caused more extreme weather events.
http://www.cracked.com/article_19864_6-ridiculous-lies-you-believe-about-founding-america.html
This is not to write that fewer storms have no detrimental side effects. While storms can cause damage, they also have the function of providing precipitation for plant life and recharging groundwater aquifers. But I guess a news report about water prices rising due to reduced water in underground aquifers does not sound exciting as a news report about roofs being blown off due to storms.
Cracked? There has got to be a better reference for that.
So what you’re saying, is no matter what data is gathered, no matter what observations are made, all the events point to global warming anyway? More storms as Al Gore claims points to global warming; fewer storms as you claim points to global warming.
Convenient set up y’all got there.
Truth: Climate is changing.
Why? Because nature changes.
Can we do anything about it? Prepare.
Yeah, but can we reverse the changes? Doubtful.
Global warming driven by increased greenhouse gases would have different effects than if it were driven by an increase in solar radiation.
Huckstering about climate change to idiots who lack the intellectual sophistication to understand weather patterns has made Al Gore quite rich indeed.
Look at how much money his stupid movie made alone. @@
The champion, however, is Al Gore. I once respected Gore, too….especially after his honorable and statesmanlike concession speech in 2000. Sadly…ah, must all my heroes disillusion me? —Al has revealed himself as just a venal huckster since then, with global warming hype being his milieu.
************
I never respected Gore.
I still remember when he and his half-wit wife were trying to censor Rock music lyrics back in the 80s.
Yes, he’s a real American Patriot and supporter of The Constitution. @@
Great article from Freakonomics
Best bit:
“With just a 1% real annual rate of growth, global per capita income rises from about $12,000 today to $77,000 by 2200. Even if climate change damages shrink the economy by 13% by 2200, as some have suggested, our distant descendants will be five times richer on average than we are. Are we to sacrifice(in reference to the cost of the dubious-at-best climate fixes we’d pay for today) our relatively modest wealth so they might be six-times richer that us?”
Oh course,we’re told by the climate change crowd that the fluctuations in weather mean nothing which prompts me to ask how do they go about substantiating their claims ?
I’ve hated both sides of the climate change debate since the beginning and truthfully have done little to delve into the “real” truth because it doesn’t matter in my book. We need to take reasonable steps to protect our air, water, and earth because it sucks to die from cancer. Pollution has done devastating things to entire communities and to our environment. (In my former life, I worked on insurance coverage for Super Fund sites.) If we take care of the pollution AND it improves the weather, that’s just an added bonus. But the weather is the least of my concerns.
If I might suggest, read Michael Crichton”s book, “State Of Fear”. Aside from being a great action/adventure yarn about Global Warming (to call it what it is) but has an excellent bibliography and he expresses his conclusion…that we simply DO NOT KNOW if global warming is occurring or, if it is, what the cause is. Certainly, we do not know enough to take precipitous action, the consequences of which we may be unprepared to face (the Law Of Unintended Consequences). Remember back in the ’70’s, when we were urged by many of these same “scientists” to spread carbon black over the Antarctic ice to prevent another ice age?
How I miss Dr. Crichton, who died far too young. A brilliant, creative, constructive man who used entertaining novels to enlighten.
“How I miss Dr. Crichton, who died far too young. A brilliant, creative, constructive man who used entertaining novels to enlighten.”
Me too,Jack.
All I know is the predictions of warming have been wrong. The connection between greenhouse gasses and warming has been wrong. The predictions of severe weather have been wrong.
Further, the fact that the global warming crowd’s arguments have always consisted of ‘All evidence proves us right, no matter what the evidence is’ and ‘ignore all cases of evidence that actually suggest that we’re wrong – it actually proves us right.’ and then topped off with ‘You need to change, and fork over the cash if this crisis is to be averted… but you can’t possibly expect us to do the same’ has me highly skeptacal of ANY claims made by them.
Of course they were wrong about the severe weather, as I explained in the above comment.
I’m still waiting for that Sharknado to happen. They should have given Al Gore a bit part in the movie with a chain saw. He’d have been as happy as a bug in a rug.