Curse of the Climatologists

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) advocates have taken waterline hits lately-- what's a good Grant Recipient to do? Consider:

-- On April 21st, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (a slave to realism, due to satellite launch protocols) "confirmed that an impending (natural) phase-shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO, PDS)" will likely result in significantly cooler global temperatures from 2010 to 2029 (two decades).

-- On May 1st, Germany's Leibnitz Institute of Marine Sciences (LIMS) reported that Gulf Stream circulation in the North Atlantic ("Meridional Overturning Circulation", MOC) has entered an unambiguous down-phase, a cyclical decline "associated with cooler North Atlantic temperatures for up to eighty years" (through 2080 - 2090). This pattern, says the LIMS, explicitly resembles an earlier 40-year MOC prevailing from 1940 - 1979.

To arms! AGW's true believers rally their pseudo-scenarios in two ways. First, as Britain's Hadley Center (for climate studies) states, "(we expect) that man-made [anthropogenic] global warming will superimpose itself on natural (climatic) variations"-- i.e. that .009% CO2 emissions (one part per 100,000) will swamp atmospheric/oceanic factors determining planetary temperatures over 8 - 10+ decades. Ya think?

Second, AGW types increasingly rely on fudging temperature statistics dating from the 1950s and before: By claiming that original records somehow understated temperature readings during the last cooling phase (1940 - '79), Warmists lower their statistical base so that today's numbers appear relatively higher (warmer) in cyclical context. Comments Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, who fingered this ploy in debunking Mann's notorious "hockey stick" graph in 2002, "Not only is there no natural or statistical evidence requiring such (downward) adjustment, but resort to shameless historical re-writes has characterized non-objective, politicized climate advocacy for many years."

Indeed, Warmists' phony Consensus continues to unravel. Critics increasingly dispute AGW propaganda in detail, expose the ludicrous presuppositions underlying their aggregate scenarios. To wit:

As of May 2, 2008, the U.K Telegraph relates that "IPCC models [the UN's risible Kyoto warmsters] admittedly do not factor in any actual events (!), such as strength of the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic or cyclical El Nino warming in the Pacific" (!!). That said, it follows that AGW scenarios do not (cannot?) address standard solar-radiation factors (sunspots, Maunder Minimums, etc.), geophysical or plate-tectonic climate elements-- outside their taxaholic bureaucratic enclaves, anything at all. What's that you say?-- your grant's away!

Reviewing a Nature Journal article by Hadley Center Warm-worts, the eminent Dr. Roger Pelke baldly noted: "If global cooling over the next few decades is consistent with (current warming) predictions, then so too is everything." Yet in the NYT, one Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, asserts that "Too many think that Global Warming means monotonic, relentlessly escalating temperatures worldwide." But if "warming" is not global, shows no consistent upside patterns... then as Pelke says, neither will anything, including a major cooling shift. (Pelke means, an end of the Interglacial Holocene going back 10,000 years.) Whatever his purported credentials, NCAR's Trenberth might benefit from a remedial course in freshman logic.

We write at length, not expecting any audience but because cyberspace has the great virtue of preserving everything. Years from now, when AGW extremism has gone the way of Ehrlich's "Population Bomb" (1969), these Blacksmith comments will cheerfully remain. We post at one remove, of course... unlike Steve McIntyre et al. we claim neither expertise nor much originality. But independent private citizens assessing facts in place of "mere opinion", citing Nature's reality in opposition to cultists' drivel, is surely no bad thing.

Arbitrary, agenda-driven "climate models" promote circular-reasoned academic computer programs. Absent all "actual facts," designed to validate flawed suppositions in advance, these elaborate fantasy-exercises are entitled to no respect whatever. Such foolish fads cannot persist indefinitely