By Isaac MacMillen
“[W]e must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong.”—Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, “Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered.”
The American people are finally beginning to come to terms with the idea that anthropogenic global warming—in other words, warming primarily caused by humans—may be far more shadow than substance.
As a Rasmussen poll revealed earlier this week, 44 percent of Americans now believe that global warming is caused by “long-term planetary trends.” That’s up 10 percent from nearly eight months ago, when only 34 percent thought so. Likewise, the number of Americans who believe in man-made global warming dropped from 47 percent to 41 percent.
In so doing, the American people are joining thousands of prominent scientists in strongly questioning the assumptions behind one of the Hard Left’s favorite policy schemes—using phony claims about climate change to stage a socialist coup. In light of this opinion shift, it is appropriate to once again draw attention to the bogus science behind so-called anthropogenic global warming.
The issue was raised anew with the latest reports of Britain’s Met Office and its carbon-spewing supercomputer revealing “terrifying” details of how the world will look in the year 2100. According to the Met, the temperature could rise as high as 7 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels. And, if accurate, those are startling claims. But are they really accurate?
The fact is, the accuracy of many temperature-modeling computers has been called into question as of late. Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, a British statesman and environmental activist, notes in his article for the American Physical Society that the United Nation’s computer systems have failed to accurately predict modern climate phenomena on multiple occasions.
He points out that the computer models failed to predict the fall in sea-surface absolute temperature between 1940-1975, the 50 years of cooling in Antarctica, the the absence of global warming since 2003, the Madden-Julian intraseasonal oscillation, the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation in the tropical stratosphere, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
Equally as dubious are the 22 computer models discovered by the Heartland Institute to have inaccurately predicted the temperature over the past three decades. “Computer models that form the basis for future global warming predictions have projected significantly more warming in recent years than has actually occurred ,” they state. The question is begged: If their observable predictions are false, then why should we rely so heavily upon their fanciful projections to guide our future policies?
Yet when evaluating claims made by global warming apologists, many people (especially in the Halls of Congress and the Mainstream Media) fail to note that the “science” of global warming is not based upon accurate observations at all, but upon computer projections. Projections that have repeatedly demonstrated across-the-board inaccuracy.
Perhaps it is time for scientists at the UN and Met Office to return to the roots of science—observation-based theory—and reject the projections of gloom and doom, which, after all, are appearing to be less and less likely as time elapses. If they continue to chase after the likes of Al Gore and his inconvenient theories, they will increasingly be left behind, and those remaining scientists, who focus on objective facts, will take the forefront. And in this ever-changing world, with starving populations and diminished food supplies (with no thanks to global warming-inspired Ethanol), one would think that there are too many other serious issues that demand their immediate attention.
Reports are indicating that the global warming frenzy has peaked. Increasing numbers of scientists are jumping off the hot earth-hysteria bandwagon, and Americans are beginning to join them en masse. It is time for the rest of the scientific community to follow. And they can leave their carbon-spewing supercomputer (and its 14,400 metric tons of annual debris) back at the Met Office of Dubious Discoveries.
Isaac MacMillen is a contributing editor of ALG News Bureau.
