Gosh, It’s Hot!: Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste

Members of the Church of Global Warming are saying the dramatic heat and storm mess we’re experiencing is what global warming will look like. Note how they tack back and forth in their use of language when it suits them: “global warming” yielded to “global climate change,” which gave way to “global climate disruption.” Now that things are actually warm, we’re back to calling it “global warming.”

At least, that’s what the hysterics are calling it. The rest of us can just call it “weather,” which has been known to cycle a bit from cold to hot and back again, with things called “storms” happening sometimes. We used to be able to acknowledge this reality without immediately going into pants-soiling “The end is nigh!” mode, but that’s before religion based on transcendence got replaced by religion based on SCIENCE! (Science is a means, not an end.)

The fun thing about the AP story is that they won’t claim our hot summer (I know: a hot summer! We’ve never had those before!) is caused by global warming climate change climate disruption warming, but that this is what global warming may “look like.” In other words, the Big Brains are saying that if the planet is warming, then it will be just like a warm planet. Remember: the first rule of Tautology Club is the First Rule of Tautology Club.

“This is what global warming looks like at the regional or personal level,” said Jonathan Overpeck, professor of geosciences and atmospheric sciences at the University of Arizona. “The extra heat increases the odds of worse heat waves, droughts, storms and wildfire. This is certainly what I and many other climate scientists have been warning about.”

Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in fire-charred Colorado, said these are the very record-breaking conditions he has said would happen, but many people wouldn’t listen. So it’s I told-you-so time, he said.

If you listen hard enough, you can hear the Nelson laugh at the end of that sentence.

Is the planet warming? Maybe. Or maybe not. The science isn’t “settled,” certainly not when scientists are gaming the data and using junk prediction models.

Are we responsible for global warming? Maybe. Or maybe not. I’m inclined to think the giant ball of burning plasma around which we orbit probably has a bit more to do with it than a bunch of higher primates using hairspray and internal combustion engines.

Is there anything that can be done about it by hysterics urging staggeringly expensive, impractical and freedom-killing non-solutions?

Of course not. Not even a tiny bit. The entire global warming industry is a way to transfer money and power back into the hands of a first-world elite, and to continue to keep the third-world poor and undeveloped. Dramatic global changes to “combat” “climate change” would cost lives, money, and development, and the people urging us to adopt these changes aren’t even certain they would do a thing.

Seriously: when you’ve lost James Lovelock, you’ve lost.

It’s funny: scientists and materials are always urging us to be skeptical about everything … except science and materialism.

YouTube Preview Image

About Thomas L. McDonald

Thomas L. McDonald writes about technology, theology, history, games, and shiny things. Details of his rather uneventful life as a professional writer and magazine editor can be found in the About tab.

  • elGaucho

    Let’s not forget this was preceded by a very cold winter in Europe in which it snowed in Rome and I think even further south than that. But ya, anyone else notice that when scientists aren’t telling us the universe created itself, they are urging for massive increases in state power to avert xyz catastrophe? DDT, overpopulation, global cooling, global warming, global climate change… and so on. Anyways, I am enjoying the heat wave, call me crazy but I love the high temperatures.

  • deiseach

    So the hot weather in America (?) is explained by global warming.

    Cam the learnéd professors explain to me why we here in Ireland have just had three times the usual amount of rain for June (I know: rain in an Irish summer? How unexpected! But this is ‘November to April’ amounts of rain, not the ordinary ‘April to October’ levels of rain) and people are lighting fires in the evenings for heat?

    Or are we not part of the globe as well? Or maybe we’re part of the wrong globe?

  • http://mondayevening.wordpress.com/ Marcel

    “Can the learnéd professors explain…”

    If it’s hot, that’s evidence of global warming. (Duh!) But what if it’s cold? Science tells us the heat must be somewhere, because energy can’t be created or destroyed. Gravity keeps things from leaving the globe, so the missing heat stays here and warms the globe. If it’s dry, that’s because global warming is making the water evaporate. If it’s wet, that’s because global warming is causing more water to vaporise into the atmosphere, from which it falls as rain.

  • deiseach

    Thank you, marcel, I am now enlightened!

    All the missing heat from Ireland turned up in America, making America unusually warm! Now I get it!

  • http://moralmindfield.wordpress.com Brian Green

    I’m just going to chime in as the disagreer. I disagree with you (and Mark Shea and Mike Flynn and John C. Wright – someday I’m going to write something about Catholic bloggers not liking the idea of climate change, which I find puzzling because it should fit our narrative of modern decline, and the Pope is with it too… I think it is US politics backing up into our religion, but I’m not sure) about the reality of anthropogenic global warming. I teach a class on it and the evidence is pretty strong, science journals are stuffed with it. The IPCC fourth report is packed with data too, and in nearly every part of the world the indicators are 90% (or more) in accord with the theory and only 10% not in accord. Basic indicators like the times that ponds melt and flowers bloom in the spring and such. Scandals and alarmism do not un-make the rest of the data, just like the Catholic Church is not un-made by the same things.

    Warming is a very slow and consistent trend, there are lots of graphs for that. This graph shows sea level rise, which I think is more interesting, though not necessarily directly related to *increased* warming (just increased over when the ice was originally deposited): http://dels-old.nas.edu/oceans/images/sea_level_rise.jpg (Sorry wish I had the original EPA source and not just a reference to it). One foot over the last century, slow and steady. “Global warming” should also be thought of as a general increase in the energy of the atmosphere, not just warming. And the risks are so great that even if the data had only a 10% probability of being correct I think it would still be worth attempting to avoid it especially when wastefulness and consumerist materialism (vices) are so much a part of it’s cause. Anyway, like I say, I’ll gun for you more one of these days… :) I hope I’m coming across as being in a friendly disagreement. I really like your blog. I just think that on this subject the evidence is stronger than you think it is. If you think I am missing something please let me know, but I’ve looked over the data for a long time.

    Anyway, I also have a recent post on this stuff and the geoengineering that people are going to be getting into whether everyone else wants it or not. I connect it to original sin and the desire to become like gods – it seems like the right thing to do, until it all goes wrong. http://moralmindfield.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/is-geoengineering-now-inevitable-or-is-the-only-solution-to-a-technological-problem-more-technology/

  • http://www.godandthemachine.com Thomas L. McDonald

    I value your comments and always enjoy your blog, so I’m glad to see you weigh in on this. I’ve always been a bit neutral on the whole thing, deeply distrusting the apocalyptic rhetoric that accompanies so many claims of “settle science,” and unpersuaded by the data I have read claiming 1) that this is some kind of unique moment in our planet’s history, 2) that we caused it, and 3) that it’s a planet-killing catastrophe. It was interesting to see you cite Brian Fagan, who was a big influence on me when I was younger, and who comes at the subject from the same psychological/anthropological perspective that I do, albeit with different results. Your emphasis on geoengineering, however, is exactly the sort of thing that terrifies me. How can we be certain that this is the right course? That we won’t just make things worse? That attempts to seize control of the planet’s climate won’t rebound against us when some new, unforeseen element is revealed? Maybe I just lack that kind of vision, but I honestly cannot imagine such absolute confidence in data that I’d be willing to attempt to change the climate of the entire globe. That’s not to say I don’t support common sense solutions to caring for the environment, but big, expensive, untried solutions with myriad unknowns? I can’t support that at all.

  • http://moralmindfield.wordpress.com Brian Green

    Your blog is great, and I appreciate your skepticism. Skepticism is the immune system of the mind. :) And it’s something Catholics seldom get our proper credit for; atheists claim skepticism as if they invented it and were immune to credulity. Anyway, for apocalypticism, one thing I learned from teaching the course is that sea-level rise (for example) is REALLY slow. The worst projections predict only about 3 feet this century, and more likely only 2. Bad, but not apocalyptic. There is apocalyptic potential, I think, mostly in that we have only the remotest clue about what is actually going on. Climate science is exceedingly complex, but I think general trends are visible. I think the warming aspect is solid science and the anthropogenic CO2 connection quite solid also. But there are so many other factors also in play that when it comes to geoengineering I am with you: this is crazy stuff. It might seem logical, but so was eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Rather than geoengineering, reducing CO2 output is straightforward, and the only thing that will stop ocean acidification too, which is also pretty clear with data over the last 250 years showing a 30% increase in H+ ions. Too much and any sea organism with a carbonate shell will not be happy.

    As for the affect on the poor, I think “green” tech is actually a big benefit to the poor of the world, since it lets them bypass tightly corporate and government controlled fuels. It has very decentralist and distributist potential (and I like that). No-one owns the wind or sun, and really, anyone can build a small wind-turbine it they have the knowledge and materials. Biomass power is also very traditional and carbon neutral (or negative) if done right. SCU has a neat little engineering lab that works on some thing like this, not all with energy: http://www.scu.edu/socialbenefit/innovation/frugal/ which I have learned a lot from. The developing world is a lot smarter than we give them credit for, and given the opportunity they will be able to out think us when it comes to solving their local problems.

    As a last comment, I think we have to trust the specialists on this one. There is too much to know in the world for anyone to be able to get it all. Climate scientists are the specialists here and I don’t think they are making it up, no group would be so competent to perpetuate such a large scientific hoax. The theory is around simply because it is the best theory to explain the data. There could be other stuff going on, other more complete theories that might be better, but for now this is what we’ve got and we should act on the best data available – which includes NOT shooting the atmosphere full of SO2 or other nutty things. Anyway, its the weekend… time to relax. I will let you know when I get around to mentioning you in any posts on this. :) Considering your company with other respected and beloved bloggers as noted above, I’ll see if I can gather the courage!

  • http://moralmindfield.wordpress.com Brian Green

    I’d just add that while extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, extraordinary dangers also require extraordinary precautions. I’m operating on both, but as an ethicist the second of the two is my stronger interest, assuming that the people primarily concerned with the first rule are doing their jobs. I don’t see strong reasons to distrust them, but I am always open to revising my perspective. What I really don’t want is our beautiful planet ruined. I like it here (though I’m open to emigrating to Mars if/when the opportunity arises) and I would hate to see God’s good work wrecked, even if it were only a remote possibility. But global warming looks to be very likely, and very dangerous, so very great caution is warranted. That is some of my underlying reasoning.

  • http://moralmindfield.wordpress.com Brian Green

    I know this is a way late connection, but geoengineering has gone rogue! Seriously!
    http://moralmindfield.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/geoengineering-goes-rogue/
    Some guy with a ship and $2.5 million has dumped iron fertilizer in the ocean to feed plankton and remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Yes, people are that crazy. And I’m sure this will only be the beginning… This could get weird, not to mention dangerous.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X