De facto President Barack Obama keeps peddling the Global Warming narrative. Of course he would. Global Warming appeals to every “dream from his father” he ever had. If the globe is warming, he has the perfect excuse to do everything his father (whoever he was) dreamed of: taking America down a peg, and de-industrializing the world. So we should examine whether global warming is real – and why its proponents act like scam artists, with no idea what they’re talking about.

Latest evidence against global warming

Last week, Christopher Booker made this blistering report in The Daily Telegraph (London, England, U.K.). He cited Steven Goddard, at Real Science, to say the global warming data set is flawed, or even manipulated. Goddard, says Booker, came to an inescapable conclusion. The United States had its hottest weather in recent history, not in the last decade, but in the 1930s, the era of the Great Depression. And the United States has been cooling ever since. So much, by the way, for Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick. Maybe now we know the “decline” that Phil Jones, at the Climatic Research Unit in Norwich (the British equivalent of NASA), had to “hide”:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to the data series for the last twenty years, i.e., from 1981 onwards, and to the 1961 series for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Remember: Mike is Michael Mann, and Keith is Keith Briffa, a third inveterate global warming alarmist. And remember Dr. Kevin Trenberth, who despaired of being able to show anything:

We cannot show a warming trend, and it is a travesty that we can’t.

That’s not all. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman) issues AR after AR (“Assessment Report”) flogging the global warming narrative. And with every AR, more scientists seem to dissent from it. A year ago, several scientists were holding the latest AR up to ridicule. Why ridicule? Because the IPCC chose to bury any good news on global warming, i.e., news that maybe it wasn’t happening after all. Why else would a former official at the Organisation Européenne de la Recherche Nucléaire (CERN) actually say one of the IPCC’s AR’s was unscientific? Maybe for the same reason some members of the IPCC tried in 2010 to get Rajendra Pachauri to resign. This happened after he famously “blew” a projection of glacier melt.

But global warming isn’t a science. It’s a religion. The object of worship is the earth itself. This is yet another example of worshiping the creation and not the Creator. In any case, global warming has a cadre of true believers. They will accept no “good news.” Instead they allege that “the fossil fuel companies” are fudging the data and wrongfully accusing “decent and honest climate scientists” of scientific chicane. That the words of those same scientists (which I quoted above) are hard to defend, doesn’t faze them.

A twist on Pascal’s Wager

Those who push global warming today, try to show the earth has warmed only recently. In fact, the earth was warmer during the Middle Ages than it is today. The Little Ice Age, that coincided with the Renaissance, cooled it down – but not to Ice Age levels. But of course the global warming alarmists either won’t admit that, or maybe don’t see it, because they’re not looking.

So they admit privately to one another that

We cannot show a warming trend, and it is a travesty that we can’t.

But they need something to tell the public. They apply what they call the Precautionary Principle: men must change their behavior if they have a chance of being culpable for climate change, and especially if they have a chance to stop it. The Precautionary Principle is really a twist on Pascal’s Wager. The argument runs thus: if we adjust our lifestyle – de-industrialize, let fossil fuels stay in the ground, move out of single-family houses and into pack’em, stack’em dingbat dorms, reserve cars for cops and VIPs, the whole nine meters – and the globe wasn’t warming (or at least not so fast), we gain more than we lose, because we’ll be living a more “communitarian” lifestyle anyway, and how bad can that be? But if we keep living profligately, scar the earth for coal, poison the ocean with oil spills, and insist on living alone and driving in circles (which is how they see our lifestyle) and the globe is warming, and we could have stopped it, but didn’t, we will lose everything. The ice will all melt and we’ll all drown, or we’ll die of thirst in a dust bowl. And Rajendra Pachauri and Al Gore can carve on our tombstone,

They died for their childish and selfish insistence on their profligate lifestyle.

That sounds reasonable, at least to them. But they have two problems.

Bait and switch

First, the price they ask us to pay is too great. Global warming alarmists often say “the fossil fuel companies” make arguments similar to those of the tobacco companies in America. The tobacco companies did fight hard, and often dirty, to stop the airlines, for instance, from declaring no smoking on their flights, from nose to tail. (R. J. Reynolds once yanked their account from Saatchi and Saatchi after they produced the famous “Hip Hip Hooray!” ad for Northwest Airlines, the first of the no-smoking-from-nose-to-tail carriers.) But to quit smoking is easy enough. One needs no substitute for smoking. Some good, wholesome emotional balance is all a smoker really needs in his life. In fact, his habit is a poor substitute for that very thing. And by quitting smoking, the ex-smoker saves money, immediately on the cigarettes he won’t buy anymore, and longer-term in the surgeries he won’t need for the lung cancer he won’t get, or the heart attack he won’t have.

Now contrast that with what the global warming alarmist demands: give up your home, move into an apartment in a mixed-use dwelling/commercial building (the “dingbat dorm”), and give your car to the government who will either paint it police blue (or black-and-white) and mount sirens and lights on it, or scrap it. And by the way: it also includes reverting ninety percent of the now-civilized area of the earth to the wild. The government will fence this off, “Hunger Games” style, to keep you under control and where they can find you and round you up.

How could they sell this? Easy. They cannot replace the energy the world uses from “renewable energy” alone. Some global warming alarmists do themselves the credit of proposing new technologies, including nuclear energy and a massive space program to build geostationary solar-collecting satellites to concentrate the sun’s energy and beam it to earth. That would cost plenty up front, but maybe society could get that back with energy made cheaper than ever and without a “conflict context.” But most global warming alarmists are the same people who, in the 1970s and 1980s, bellowed or shrieked,

NO NUKES! NO NUKES!

And did so whenever anyone chose to discuss new sources of energy. And they still do it today. And when anyone points out that a growing economy needs energy, they ask,

Why grow? I don’t think a hand-held hair dryer is necessary.

I have news for them: neither the fellow Yale student who said that to me, nor any other person, has the right to decide what is necessary for anybody else.

And don’t think that was in the 1980s, and this is today. Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), co-author, with Representative Edward Markey (D-Mass.) of the 2009 cap-and-trade bill in the House, has been an anti-nuclear activist throughout his career. He never changed his mind. Not even when James Hansen of NASA called for building more nuke plants.

Their other problem is bigger. They don’t live as if they believe it.

Global warming hypocrisy

Cyclists in Copenhagen, where 38 percent of residents commute by bicycle to work or school. Photo: User:Heb on Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License.

Part of it is: they won’t admit that Rajendra Pachauri, who likes to tell hoteliers to put in water and electric meters in all guest and meeting rooms, still has ties to a closely-held corporate group, the Tata Group, that stands to benefit directly from “carbon credits.” Had he gotten his cap-and-trade scheme at COP-15 (the Fifteenth Conference of Parties, held in Copenhagen, Denmark in December of 2009), he would have profited handsomely from credit sales and similar schemes.

But that’s not all. One can forgive a conflict-of-interest, if one having no such conflict will corroborate the warning. One cannot and should not forgive hypocrisy. How did Rajendra Pachauri get to COP-15 that year? How did all the delegates get to that conference?

I covered the Climate-gate scandal in the fall and winter of 2009-2010. I published the first article with a link to the Climate-gate Archive. During that time, COP-15 was in full swing.

Maybe Copenhagen was a good spotlight or showcase for someone’s idea of sustainable living. It is the city that means “bicycles to work.” Yet the delegates got there in a fleet of 140 business jets. And they rented out every chauffeured limousine on the entire continent of Europe, 1200 in all.

Now if this were, say, Ed Begley, Junior’s conference, and he ran it the way he ran his Living With Ed television show on HGTV at the time, I would imagine he would not repeat not run it that way. But I can’t speak for him. So I’ll tell you how I would run it. If, that is, I would even have a conference you travel to. I might instead use Skype or Jitsi, the open-source Internet call and teleconference system, to let people confer in place. But let’s assume I would have a conference. Here is how it would run:

First, I would order every delegate to make his way to a small number of designated “wayports.” They could reach them on foot or by bicycle or on horseback or on other “sustainable” transport mode, including train or bus or mini-bus or maybe commercial airliner, but not repeat not private automobile or chauffeured limousine. To these “wayports” I would send a small number of Boeing 777 (or today, 787) jetliners that I would hope to fill to capacity. These I would then order to fly in to the venue city. Such a small number of “heavies” would not risk overwhelming the approach-control system. And once landed, they would get around as the locals do: by rail or bus or bicycle.

Second, to save travel distance, I would hold the conference in Tel Aviv. Its David Ben Gurion Airport is the world centroid of commercial aviation. Tot up the flight distances from TLV to every other airport in the world, and you get a sum less than a comparable sum from any other airport. And in Tel Aviv you can see first-hand the best experiment in sustainable living: solar panels and solar water heaters on every rooftop, one each for each apartment in any multi-family dwelling. You can also see techniques in sustainable agriculture that I know, for another absolute fact, that the Israelis stand ready to share with the world, for no remuneration. (The Republic of Israel neither grants nor recognizes any patents in agriculture.)

But let’s suppose Copenhagen would be a good showcase for sustainable living. (And it might be.) Let’s agree that conferring in Copenhagen would add educational or even propaganda value. Well, the city fathers of Copenhagen offered to lay on special trains for the COP-15 delegates. I would take them up on that offer, instead of turning them down as the COP-15 organizers did. I would, furthermore, rent up, or buy, bicycles for all delegates and their staffs, and organize bicycle sightseeing tours of Copenhagen. Let them see what it would be like, and show the world we are serious about living as we say the rest of the world must live “to save the planet.”

Why didn’t the conference organizers run their conference this way? Why, instead, did they treat the world to the worst display of hypocrisy? Why, while piously letting the spokespeople for Tuvalu talk about being about to drown, did they refuse to live the way they say we all have to live to stop those islands from slipping beneath the surface of the Pacific Ocean?

Have they any science on their side?

From IPCC AR5, working group one, chapter 3: observations of the ocean. December 12, 2013.

Answer: maybe, but not the way they think. And not even the kind of science they would appreciate.

AR5 (Fifth Assessment Report) has this graph (at right) in it. It purports to show rapid warming of the upper or shallow ocean, and the deep ocean. The alleged warming here is far greater than that on land or in the atmosphere. If true, why might that be? Walter T. Brown, of the Center for Scientific Creation, has mentioned to this correspondent many times one possible source. And it is not the sun, or any heat-trapped energy from it. It is the core of the earth. He offers this detailed treatment. One must remember a few points:

1. CO₂ in the atmosphere would naturally rise with the warming of the oceans. That would be in keeping with the chart from the AR5.
2. After the Global Flood came the Ice Age. The earth has warmed ever since.
3. The earth’s core warms the oceans, because the oceans, especially the Pacific, are closer to the core. The core got hot, by the way, from gravitational settling of the seven continental plates during the recovery from the Flood. (That settling also shortened the day. It is the real reason a year on earth is 365.24 days, not 360 as the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians tried to insist it was for centuries until they had to face a calendar that galloped ahead of the seasons.)

To sum up

Is global warming even real? Most of the “scientists” who say it is, turn out to have fudged the numbers. Worse than that, the politicians who push the global warming narrative have an agenda for total control of the population, and don’t even believe their own narrative.

That’s a shame. Global warming could be real. But its cause could have nothing to do with human activity, and be part of a process that started 5,356 years ago. And it could even be manageable, and far easier to manage than turning the world’s economy upside down. But when people want to turn the world’s economy upside down, and don’t care if they shut it down completely, they don’t care about facts, or about real causes.

That’s what makes global warming a scam today. Even though it doesn’t have to be.

[subscribe2]