In honor of the incredibly frigid temperatures hitting the United States this week, I thought I'd dig up an old post on global warming (oops, "climate change") I wrote almost four years ago. It was written around the time the huge leak of emails between climate scientists was released. There's a few other things in it I wish I'd linked, but didn't. The point about the British media has merely intensified in the last couple of years.
Hey, is there anything more ironic than a group of climate scientists on an Antarctic expedition getting stuck in the ice? I said, "ironic," not "funny." I'll laugh when they actually get rescued.
While I'm at it, this post from Powerline tells you everything you really need to know about the now-pretty-seriously-defunct theory of global warming.
(Originally posted on February 17, 2010)
When I last blogged five years ago, I blogged about "global warming" or "climate change" on a pretty regular basis. It generated, not surprisingly, quite a bit of heat (!). To make it clear, I have always been a complete skeptic, and so I am delighted that I have decided to blog again in the year in which global warming died, not least because I will not have to deal with the fiery feedback (yes, I'm on a pun-roll).
One thing I find interesting about the meltdown (!) of the global warming movement over the past year is the now lack of parity in press coverage. Back in the day, the UK media were absolute climate change zealots. The BBC breathlessly reported on every weather event as though it simply demonstrated their "warming" orthodoxy. Seriously, I think it was policy that descriptions of every weather event finally make its way back around to the coming global fireball. When I lived in Scotland, I couldn't help but notice that every week, it seemed, the Guardian newspaper would publish full-fledged, color, pull-out sections on the global catastrophe we faced unless the developed nations cut their carbon emissions.
Well, well, well. Things have certainly changed. The climate change movement is in shambles. Their research is worthless because they've "lost" most or all of their supporting data, most of which, it is now admitted, wasn't very reliable anyway (as far as global surface temps are concerned). They demonstrably fudged data to fit the paradigm. They aggressively kept dissenters out of the peer-reviewed journals. And, oh yes, there is that tiny little insignificant fact that there has been no warming of any significance for the last fifteen years. These are simply facts. And now, if you scour the American media, you will find very little reporting on these monumental facts. But the the British media are having a hey-day, almost relishing the revelations of the great global warming fraud. Why the complete 180? Beats me, but I never thought I'd see the day when the Guardian would turn on the climate change movement.
My theory is that the UK media were always way more aggressive pushing the climate change narrative, and now that the truth is out, they look like the bigger dupes. What we are seeing are the fruits of humiliation and embarrassment: namely, payback. I think it is rather refreshing, really. Good investigative reporting is better late than never.
At any rate, all this was just to say, hey, no need to expect any global warming posts from me in the future. We're in the midst of one of the coldest winters in decades, and my little hometown looks to perhaps set a new record for consecutive days with snow on the ground. Which, frankly, I could do without. Maybe we should pump tons more CO2 into the atmosphere and do something about this. I like that idea. Oops. I forgot. That theory doesn't work anymore. And good riddance.