More, Not Less

At various times in 2008, I read stories about how polar bears were endangered because Arctic ice was disappearing. We were even told that entire North Pole could melt entirely. Once again, a funny thing happened on the way to doomsday. The ice came back.

The level of sea ice in the Arctic finished the year at the same level as 1979 when satellite measurements were first taken. Why? Well, according to this DailyTech article, it got really cold and the wind was weaker (wasn’t global warming supposed to cause higher temperatures and more hurricanes?). The writer asks the obvious question:

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Wait. So, experts in their field were incorrect in predicting whether ice would get thinner or thicker? They couldn’t sort out the complex dependencies between insulating snow, ice break-up, and cold temperatures? They weren’t just slightly off-base, but had predicted precisely the opposite of what happened?

I’m comfortable saying this out loud now: Anthropogenic global warming is a hoax based on bad science that has been politicized for the express purpose of imposing wide-ranging controls over the global economy and personal freedoms. It has snowballed to the point that well-meaning scientists and public servants were caught up in fighting for a fraud.

Let 2009 be the year the truth is stated and believed by those who know better.

2 thoughts on “More, Not Less

  1. This article is interesting for the following quotes,

    “By contrast, the third computer model — which hypothesised that melt-off was triggered by changing conditions in the confined area where the glacier meets the sea — fit like a glove, he said.” In other words, the global prediction models do not apply to this glacier.

    “The Helheim Glacier, along with several others in Greenland, started to slow down in 2007.” Which has puzzled the scientist.

    I have been reading articles on global warming this last year. The most compelling arguement I have heard is that we cannot predict weather for our daily lives, what makes us think we can predict it for the next 90 years?

    “Vieli also noted that the data alarming the scientific community only covers a span of a few years. It may be ill-advised, he suggested, to project a trend on the basis of what may turn out to be a short-term phenomenon.” And “Other Greenland glaciers behave differently, and the dynamics of the Antarctic ice sheet are still poorly understood, he noted.” He does conclude though that they are not sure why the melt off is happening and why so quickly.

    Is Global Warming real? I don’t know. What I do know is that it is a hypothesis and scientist need to be able to test and retest and observe the same conclusion for it to be accepted as accepted fact. I still remember my life science class where the teacher said, more people eat ice cream in the summer and more people drown in the summer. This does not mean eating ice cream causes drowning.

  2. You hit the nail on the head, Todd. It’s the old scientific saw that “correlation does not imply causation”. It’s one of the oldest traps of logical thinking. The version I heard was that when the wind blows the leaves on the trees wiggle. Therefore, we can conclude that wiggling leaves causes wind!

    I’ve seen many a story on how these climate models have been applied to the data as we knew it 10 or 20 years ago and it didn’t even predict our current situation correctly.

    I’m with you, though. Form a hypothesis and then show it to be an accurate predictor of behavior. Then we can talk. It seems insanely out of order to try to form public policy based on hypotheses that can’t be shown to be good predictors.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *