Global Cooling, Part 1 of 3

I dislike the whole topic of ‘global warming’ (a/k/a ‘climate change’). I believe it has corrupted the science I love and is influencing decisions in a manner that are hurting people and economies.

Why do I write about it? Out of a sense of obligation.  There are so many tens of billions of dollars being spent, treaties negotiated, and changes to our economic system proposed, it is important to have another source of information than the mainstream media (MSM). For reasons I have never been able to understand, the MSM’s reporting on this issue has been more biased than on any other topic I can recall.

With the U.S. and Europe suffering from cold and snow and Australia reporting snow (in summer!) one would think that global warming promoters would take a moment for self-reflection. After all, things meteorological are hardly working out as predicted. Instead, we have been treated to numerous cooling = global warming stories the past week, one of which has the science so wrong one wonders who is really writing them.

Just a few of the recent headlines equating cooling to global warming. 

Belief in global warming, in spite of overwhelming evidence that the climate is more complex and more difficult to understand than many believed even a decade ago, has evolved into a classic “closed system:”

A closed system has three peculiarities. Firstly, it claims to represent a truth of universal validity, capable of explaining all phenomena, and to have a cure for all that ails man. In the second place, it is a system which cannot be refuted by evidence, because all potentially damaging data are automatically processed and reinterpreted to make them fit the expected pattern. The processing is done by sophisticated methods of causistry, centered on axioms of great emotive power, and indifferent to the rules of common logic; it is a kind of Wonderland croquet, played with mobile hoops. In the third place, it is a system which invalidates criticism by shifting the argument to the subjective motivation of the critic,...  [emphasis mine]

Examples?

1988, Dr. James Hansen of NASA predicts that, 20 years, NYC’s West Side Highway would be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds.

Kim and I spent four days in NYC for the book tour in May, 21 years after Dr. Hansen made his prediction. We can assure you that NYC is not flooded nor is there tape across the windows of any buildings we saw.

2001: [In Great Britain] “Snow has become a thing of the past.”

Two record winters in a row choking transportation and causing energy rationing.

2005:  Hurricanes will get worse due to global warming.  

Hurricane activity is near historic lows.

2007: The IPCC predicted, with 95% confidence, that world temperatures would be at least 1.0° above normal by now. 

Right now, the global temperature is 0.4° above normal and, for the past year, about 0.5° above normal (HADCrut data). Temperatures have been falling the last few months and are likely to continue doing so.

Of course, these inconvenient truths are reinterpreted to support global warming as in the headlines above.

Einstein once said that, in science, make everything as "simple as possible." What if the explanation of the colder weather is the simple one: A cooling climate? And, what might the implications of a colder climate be?

Of course, some people are hoping for just an outcome.  Good idea?

We’ll examine whether global cooling is a possibility and its implications of global cooling in Parts II and III tomorrow and Friday.