"Global Warming": Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics (the Liars at the despicable AP)

"When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Now it is a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid.
Since Clinton's inauguration, summer Arctic sea ice has lost the equivalent of Alaska, California and Texas। The 10 hottest years on record have occurred since Clinton's second inauguration. Global warming is accelerating. Time is close to running out, and Obama knows it."

The above are the first two paragraphs of an AP ("Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press", to use the complete, official name) propaganda story on "global warming" that appeared today or yesterday। It as featured today on Drudge under a rather cut headline to the effect that "The AP Panics...." It is not so much, of curse, that the AP is panicking (stupid as they are)। It is that they want the rest of us to panic into cruicifying our economy on a cross of "global warming" The above two paragraphs contain so many outright lies, and implied lies, that I cannot hope to enumerate them all । I will have to be content with enumerating as many as I can. Let me be clear, however. I am calling the AP liars. I am stating this not as a matter of opinion, but as a matter of demonstrable fact.

For example, it is an outright lie that "global warming" is "accelerating"। In case you have not read this blog regularly, I need to tell you that I have a B.S. in physics from New Mexico State University. I am fully aware of the mathematical meaning (not that different from the dictionary meaning) of "accelearating." Contrary to the lie in the above paragraphs, "accelrating" does not mean (in any sense of the word) that the world is continuing to be "warm", or even that it is getting warmer. "Accelerating" means that the rate of change is increasing. In other words (again not a matter of opinion, but absolute fact), "global warming" is only "accelerating" if the "warming" is increasing year by year. That is, if the world "warmed" 2 degrees (arbtrary, false number) last year, then for "global warming" to be "accelerating" it has to warm 3 degrees this year.

The AP story would be a iie, if the rate the Earth is "warming" was merely staying the same (which would mean warmer years each and every year)। The lie is worse than that. Because the overall objective evidence is that the Earth has stopped warming. Yes, the warmest temperature of the Earth (admittedly a mythical figure, as the Earth has no one "temperature") was 1998. Since then, the world has cooled (slightly).

This blog has noted numerous recent stories that confirm that "warming" (from whatever cause) has stopped। There were those NASA figures from some 3000 machines in the oceans of the world that the oceans have not warmed for five years. There was the prediction this year, by the U.N., that the world was going to cool this year because of ocean currents and other factors. There were those European scientists who suggsted that ocean currents would cool major areas of the world, at least until 2013. These sceientists almost did not publish their findings, for fear of being understood to be challenging to religious orthodoxy (AP style) of "global warming". Last year was not a warmer year for the world This year will not be a warmer year for the world (especially in terms of the warmest years in the last decade). This is the opposite of "accelerating" It is "decelerating". As stated, a preponderance of the evidence suggests that "global warming" has not only "decelerated", it has stopped.

What about the AP assertion that ten of the warmest years in history have occurred since Bill Clinton first took office? That assertion, even if correct (see below as to why it amounts to an outright lie), is irrelevant। Why is that? It is because there is no dispute that the Earth "warmed" from about 1970 (reversing a 30 year cooling trend) to about 1998. There was a sloping trend line that showed a virtual constant warming of the world (not the U.S.) over that period/ In other words, world termperatures were increasing every single year, at almost a constant rate, with normal statistical variations from year to year. See the charts in the late Michael Crichton's "State of Fear". As stated, no such trend line exists for U.S. temperatures, where the warmest year was 1936 (statistical tie with 2006), and temperatures have gone up and down without a trend line (see "State of Fear" again, and note that U.S. temperatures have gone down (from 2006 and 1936), indicating that the U.S. has cooled since 1936. Oh, there have been more warmer than "average" years for the U.S. in recent decades, but with no consistent upward trend. Just as there is now no consistent upward trend (since 1998) in world temperatures.

Let me give an example। Say temperatures in Syria averaged 100 in 1970 and 130 in 2000, because of a steady increase of 1 degree per year (fictional numbers for illustration purposes). What would you expect for 2008? Right. You would expect temperatures to average 108. You would expect every year, subject to perhaps an exception or two for individual years, to increase in temperature from the year before. That is exactly what has not happened with worldwide temperatures. That is what the AP has deliberately concealed in the lying way they have phrased statistics in the above paragraphs.

If "global warming" theory is correct, every year should be warmer than the year before (and not just "warm" in comparison with years before 1990)। In actual fact, over the past 10 years, there is little evidence of continue "global warming". The temperatures have pretty much leveled off (at a warm level, to be sure, but it is hardly a "crisis" for the world to remain at approximately its present temperatures, plus no proposed "plan" to address "global warming" would actually reduce worldwide CO2, meaning that even if "global warming" theory were correct, we could continue to have "warm" temperatures).

What about the arctic? That is perhaps the biggest fraud of all. Note that the above paragraphs talk about "summer melting of arctic sea ice. The ice REFREEZES in winter, and the summer melting is a weather and current phenomenon. It snowed in New Orleans last week for the "first time" in recorded weather history. Does that mean we are "cooling"? That one event does not, just like weather in the arctic does not indicate much of anything for worldwide temperatures. NASA (blog entry again--see archives) put out a bulletin about a year ago that arctic melting was not attributable to "global warming", but to ocean current cycles. Later, of course, another part of NASA put out stuff that did seem to try to connect arctic melting and "global warming".
As stated, arctic summer melting is not even of much significance to the Earth (especially things like sea levels) । Not only does it REFREEZE every winter, but ice in the arctic floats. That means melting arctic ice does not appreciably raise sea levels (Archimedes: objects that float on water displace their own weight, meaning that floating ice that melts does not add to sea levels the way antarctic ice does--not to mention that there is much more antarctic ice).

Why have "global warming" people started pointing to the insignificant arctic summer melting, when they used to try to argue about the antarctic (more significant, and the only significant area for sea levels)? It is because the evidence of "global warming" in the anarctic is sparse, at best, while arctic summer melting shows up on satellite pictures। So this relatively insignificant summer sea ice melting, where it would not matter that much if it all melted one summer, is referenced solely so the AP can lie with images. The image of Texas melting is deliberately meant to be a Big Lie--to obscure that arctic summer melting has little to do with the overall "temperature of the Earth" (no more than snow in New Orleans last week did). It was big mainstream media "news" by the way that this last summer was the second biggest summer ice melt in the arctic. Note again that if "global warming" were ACCELERATING, this last summer would have been the largest ice melt. The arctic has been warmer, in summer in recent years--no doubt about it. But that has nothing to do with whether the Earth is still warming. The evidence that the Earth is no longer warming is much more substantial and widespread. That includes evidence from an area much bigger than Texas: the U.S.A. Yes, the last two years have been no warmer than about AVERAGE for the entire U.S. (larger than Texas, big as Texas is, since Texas is included). There remains that embarrassing fact (see Crichton) that the U.S. has not, in fact, warmed (overall) since the 1930's (warm then; warm in 2006; and cooling now). Another weather event is that big winter storm now battering the high plains in the U.S. Viewed properly, summer ice melt in the arctic is nothing more than a weather event, unless you can tie the temperatures there directly to the worldwide temperatures (which you cannot, as the fact that worldwide temperatures have not been "warming" shows).

Have "ten" of the world's warmest years occurred since Bill Clinton took office? Of course not. That is an outright lie, made possible only because of the limited geologic scope of modern civilization
Dinosaurs once roamed the Earth। It was very hot (much hotter than those "ten warmest years" since Clinton took office) Woolly mammoths once roamed the Earth (last Ice Age--I think). It was very cold. Luckily for civilization, global warming occurred (despite Ice Age politician Al Gorice trying to save the "Ice Age way of life" by banning fire, as chronicled in the exclusive archaeological finds revealed in this blog).

It is an absolute fact that the Earth has been much warmer before, without man, and has been much colder (making the most recent global warming from the last Ice Age a very good thing)। Further, the sun has such an effect on the temperature of the Earth, that there is no way we can be sure that we will not suddenly head for a new Ice Age (CO2 or no CO2). Some scientists studying sunsposts have indicated that conditions on the sun are not much different from the last cooling phase. Will we need "global warmng" to counter a possible Ice Age. We don't now enough to know.

The lies just never end. The above AP paragraphs indicate that Obama knows that he must do something about "global warming". I think that is a lie. I don't think Obama believes that time is "running out". That is an AP/CNN/ABC/mainstream media Big Lie, and I think Obama knows it. But Obama's state of mind might be regarded as a matter of opinion.
What is an outright lie by the despicable AP is the (implied, although virtually stated) assertion that we can stop "global warming" by policy in the U।S. That is objectively a lie. The U.N. (spouting the "establishment" "global warming" party line) has stated that "global warming" will increase, despite all proposed actions to slow it down, by 2100, no matter what we do (realistically).

In other words, if the AP is right (rather than spouting lies), we are doomed। Because if time is running out, there is not hope. We are not going to be able to stop the increase in greenhouse gases--short of catastrophe in the world economies.

Why is that? It is because China, India, and the rest of the developing world are not going to condemn themselves to perpetual poverty। Now environmentalists, as with bio-fuels, are perfectly willing to have blood on their hands by crucifying the people of the world no that cross of "global warming". But the people, and other countries, are not going to buy it. China is already the prime contributor to increases in greenhouse gases, and the situation will only get worse. Even if we reduce our own economy to the Amish level (I really hope Obama tires), it will not matter. The world is not going to give up activities that produce greenhouse gases. IT is a lie to suggest otherwise. What we do in the U.S. can only have a minimal effect on greenhouse gases. Sure, we can set an "exampler", except that following our example would reduce much of the rest of the world to poverty for essentially eternity China has essentially said exactly that, and that China is not going to ruin its economy over "global warming".

If "time is really running out", is there anything we could do? Sure there is. We could (as his blog has previously stated and scientists have said) put mirrored surfaces on a lot of the Earth's surface, or intercept sunlight in space. We could inject particles into the Earth's atmosphere (simulating a volcano)(. The fact is that the liars at the AP (and on the left) do not really believe that "global warming" is a "crisis" requiring that we reverse it at all costs. They are simply using the propaganda to gain their political ends. The evidence is that "global warming", if it even exists as a significant man-made phenomenon, is, in fact, the "slow moving" process that the AP tries to reject (in favor of "panic"). A volcano, or a change in the sun, could totally change the entire temperature of the Earth more than all of the green house gases we are producing.
I could go on, using just the above two paragraphs। But you get the point. "Global warming' propagandists use isolated "facts", taken out of context, to "prove" things they do not prove. It is an outright lie that "global waarmming" is accelearating (not a matter of opinion). As the title states, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Statistics can be made to lie, unless they are put in the proper perspective and context. The AP is so distorting recent statistics, which show COOLING rather than increasing warming of the Earth, as to prove that you can rely on nothing that the AP ever reports.

The AP, CNN, and the rest are liars--plus being so dumb that sometimes I think they do not even realize they are lying (which I guess might mean they are not, but means they are so stupid that the effect is the same).