Global Warming in the Economist


The Economist “A sensitive matter

I would suggest, that any reasonable person looking at the heating rate would say something like. “Perhaps we should wait ten years to see how this temperature excursion is going before making any huge changes.” It is clear that the trends do not favor the models. Note that the models look a lot better than they are. The actual “prediction” stage begins after 2005-ish. All the “good fit” areas are from Post-diction, predicting the future when you already know it. The honest truth is, after the models were started, the warming trends ended. Between 1975 and 2005 the Earth appears to have net warmed about 0.5 degrees Celsius. I don’t know why this occurred, but I suspect that CO2 may have contributed. The predicted feedbacks did not occur.

People have gone to a lot of effort to convince me/others that the science of warming was good, but frankly CO2 was only good for a limited amount of warming. A nigh-infinite amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere only adds about 0.1 to 0.2 degrees of heating. Some of the warming is due to “bad math.” Which is increasing the effective area represented by some measurements while reducing the area of others. Given the huge areas represented by only a handful of thermometer, especially in the arctic regions, this can bias results significantly. Between bad math and bad siting of temperature measurement devices, almost half of the heating might be dismissed. Some heating must also be attributed to the sun. The extremely active sun from the late 80’s through 2001 might have had some warming effect. I’m not certain the extent, but 0.1 to 0.2 degrees is very reasonable.

So, where are we? Why would anyone want to fake global warming?

Governments need money. That is the raw measurement of power. Power to improve people’s lives, but the power to control them. Good or bad, this is true about all governments. All of history is about the government’s efforts to find more ways of taking money away from people, partly so that they can be the heroes and give a percentage of that money back. Taxes on Carbon, Taxes on fuel, regulations – a double tax, the government must hire people to oversee each regulation as well as receiving a fee for forms/license/etc. There is always a reason for more taxes, more regulations, more government employees to protect us.

The university professors back these government agendas because there are millions of dollars spent at their universities on these kinds of studies. Columbia (just as an example) is a huge government studies aggregate. They are making millions studying global warming. Of course, they are making a lot of money studying all kinds of things, but Global warming is “Hot” right now. In the past it was DDT, Ozone Holes, Global Cooling, whatever. Just another business I wish the government would get out of.

Just remember, it is an emergency right now to “fix” global warming for ONE reason. In ten years, they are just as sure as I am that there won’t be a recognizable problem. They will take your money now and in ten years they won’t be giving it back. They’ll just hem and haw and find a new distraction to run you after. “Look, bison are 20% less fertile, this probably means the end of civilization in just 50 years!”



(Yes, i stole that from Fermilabs April Fools Page.) Look, the government is going to be the government. You can’t expect them to grow a moral code that requires them to actually do their jobs and stop trying to steal your money. Governments have been behaving that way since Sumerian times, sooner or later there will be a revolt and we’ll just have to start over. Till then, just don’t get stampeded like a herd of bison. Use your heads. If it sounds like a ready-made case for government intervention… then expect that it is a scam. It usually is.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.