Why The Public has trouble accepting CAGW

In the news (MSM) we see reports about glacier drainage that relate "Fast-flowing and narrow glaciers have the potential to trigger massive changes in the Antarctic ice sheet and contribute to rapid ice-sheet decay and sea-level rise, a new study has found."

But climate realists are also aware of studies that  indicate that conclusions about the Antarctic ice sheet melt are all wet. Antarctica is gaining ice mass according to GRACE.

So how is it possible to conclude that the science is settled when there are conflicting reports about the state of the Antarctic ice sheet? Excuse us our skepticism but conflicting reports about the same phenomenon is evidence of disagreement among scientists. The science is not settled. It is in flux as people try to sort out what is really going on.

We see a similar Armageddon approach to the record low ice melt in the Arctic in the summer of 2012. Proof positive that global warming via human CO2 emissions is happening. Predictions of an ice-free Arctic by summer 2015 and ice free year round by 2030 have followed.

Where have we heard these kind of predictions before? Similar concerns about Arctic warming were on the minds of people back in the 1920s, 30s and 40s. We are still waiting for the arrival of an ice free Arctic.

"We are in a planetary emergency," said Hansen, decrying "the gap between what is understood by scientific community and what is known by the public."

And yet others say 'Don't Panic' and present evidence that Arctic ice melt is nothing to get excited about because it has happened before and is due to natural causes.

What is a layperson to do? Who to believe?

And to make it worse some people claim the reduced Arctic ice will cause Northern Hemisphere winters to become worse while others decry the loss of the world's 'air-conditioner' and fear it is a harbinger of even greater global warming. Yet another study says N. Hemisphere winters may not get worse. Warmer winters; colder winters. Which is it? How about snowy winters?

Meanwhile at the south end of the planet Antarctic sea ice is at a maximum in direct contradiction to the direction predicted by astute climate models. That heat trapping gas, CO2, seems to act preferentially in the Northern Hemisphere. Maybe it is too cold for it in the South. And it is getting colder in Antarctica.

Warm in the Arctic; cold in the Antarctic.
Hot here; cold there.
Heat distribution not so rare.

Could it be that the atmosphere adjusts to warming in one area by inducing cold elsewhere?

And what are we to make of a Snow and Ice expert like Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, who can't keep his story straight on what is going on in the Arctic.Click the link for an overview of his confusion.

There were 11 snowfall records set in the US state of Nevada on Sept 17, 2012 and yet we are told by global warming alarmists that snow is a thing of the past.

Then we get reports that say the sea ice volume in the Arctic is decreasing both slower and faster than the sea ice extent.

There is this bit of 'settled science' about American Crows reported at Tom Nelson's blog. Someone reports that crows are a threatened species and someone else can't stand the stench of their deposits as thousands of them converge on the town.

So what are people to think about what the experts 'know' when we are given such conflicting opinions? The state of climate science is reminiscent of the caffeine is good/bad for you studies and the latest man-made chemical that can cause cancer. People soon tune out and conclude that the 'experts' don't know what they are talking about. Conflicting media reports spawn skepticism and this is bad for science. Scientists need to come to the media and the public with their stories straight if they expect us to take them seriously. Otherwise, they enter the category of entertainment rather than providing the good guidance we would like to receive from our scientists.

But scientists have a vested interest in manufacturing and exaggerating scares because it keeps the funding coming. Conflicting results mean more studies are required. The MSM loves a good scare as it is good for advertising revenues. More viewers mean better ratings. And politicians rush to get on the bandwagon of the latest scare so they are seen to be taking the moral high road. This is good for their re-election prospects.

Meanwhile the truth gets lost until scientists finally sort it out. And since we are still here all previous 'end times' scares have turned out to be bogus or politicians claim that the actions they took were successful whether those actions were necessary or not.

To an interested public climate science is hopelessly confused.

Here is another example of muddled thinking on climate change. Some excerpts below, emphasis added.

"Heat waves. Drought. Flooding. Cold spells. Wildfires. The climate system is changing before our very eyes, and there is no more glaring proof than the record-shattering loss of Arctic sea ice this summer.
...It now appears, however, that a gradual warming may not be the primary concern, as the gases may also fuel extreme weather around the world.
...
The weather we experience at mid-latitudes is largely dictated by these waves in the jet stream. The slower the waves move, the longer the weather associated with them will persist. Essentially, “hot,” “dry,” “cold,” and “rainy” are all terms to describe very normal weather conditions. It’s only when those conditions persist in one area for too long that they are dubbed with the names of their extreme alter egos: heat waves, drought, cold spells, and floods. And these kinds of extreme events are precisely what we’ve seen more of in recent years.

Global warming now has a face and a fingerprint that directly touch each of our lives. Rather than just a gradual increase in temperature, we can recognize its influence in a shift toward more extreme weather events. A warmer atmosphere also means a moister atmosphere, so any given storm will have more moisture and energy to work with, increasing the chances of flooding or heavy snows."

Jennifer admits to a gradual warming that is responsible for both heat waves and cold spells. The warming may not be the most important result of GHG gases as they lead to more extreme weather. The warming atmosphere may also be responsible for heavy snows. So warm produces cold? It must be cold to be cold but somehow that nasty heat trapping CO2 manages to generate heavy snow and cold spells? It would be interesting to know the mechanism by which that takes place. Do the CO2 molecules congregate in the warm areas thus reducing CO2 in cold places? Is that why they are cold? How do CO2 molecules decide where  to hold their convention of warmth? Did they pick the US Midwest in the summer of 2012 and leave Britain and Sweden without sufficient protection so they had cold summers? Jennifer might like to re-check her info on the prevalence of extreme weather in our recent history. It has been on the decrease.Can we conclude that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere leads to less severe weather?

The pundits are parroting the conventional wisdom uncritically because it fits with their view of the world. It is getting warmer and humans are at fault. Pogo science. Those who know have a responsibility to educate and for their efforts they are called deniers which adds credence to the view that the issue of climate change is all about a political agenda and has nothing to do with the truth. The Club of Rome has said as much.

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."


One invented for the purpose.... kind of says it all. And misanthropic Pogo science drives it.

In a warming world

In a warming world winters are supposed to get warmer so that the ice and snow will become a thing of the past at 30-60 latitude and snow and ice will melt in the 60-90 thus raising sea levels.

How is that progressing this year (winter 2011-2012).

Arctic death spiral.

Terrifying loss of Arctic ice.

Ice extent nearing mean.

Flowers in Greenland in March.

Polar Bears can't find any ice around Greenland. Here is the latest on the Churchill Polar Bears.

Spring has sprung in Greenland. Ice rapidly melting.

Arctic ice extent makes new record.

Spring into Spring in Alaska.

Spring arrives in Siberia. Pity the permafrost.

Here's my global warming, dude!

Update on the Arctic

From Watts Up with That? Measuring Arctic Sea Ice extent and determining a trend from 30 years worth of data.

And then there is this: ...melting ice in the Arctic regions and widespread cold outbreaks in the Northern Hemisphere.

Arctic sea ice extent about to beat NORSEX maximum.

Arctic sea ice extent for 2011-2012 almost back to one standard deviation of 30 year average.

From ICECAP: Winter Cold and Arctic Ice

Having more fun with consensus - Arctic Sea Ice

The sea ice is still there in the summer but that hasn't detracted from the propensity of scientists to weigh in with their august opinions on when we will see an ice free Arctic. Could be any year now....

Maybe even this summer - 2012...

We are glad to see that the science is settled until the next prognostication... can you say Harold Camping?

Google "Arctic to be ice free by" and wade through the 750,000,000 hits (as of Feb 24, 2012) to see if there is a consensus among Ice Free Arctic predictors. Take your time. We'll wait. The first few pages of hits ought to convince you that there is no consensus and that some predictive years have already passed without an ice free Arctic materializing. So, who knows? Well, apparently nobody. Note the 'mays' and 'coulds' included in most of the predictions. The science is not settled and the predictions of the learned might as well be based on a crystal ball at this point in history.

Here is news on the Arctic meltdown throughout the 20th century. We are still waiting for sea levels to rise and flood coastal cities  from all the warming that was going on during the last century.

Scientists do themselves and the public a disservice when they delude themselves into believing they know more than they do. Someday the Arctic may be ice free as it has in the past. We survived. Acuna matata.

How about Summit Camp on Greenland

David Suzuki is running a campaign to use the global warming scare to gather donations for his foundation to fight climate change. The campaign is called Where Will Santa Live and is predicated on the belief that CO2 added to the atmosphere by humans is causing the sea ice to melt in the Arctic and since Santa lives at the North Pole which is in the middle of the Arctic Ocean his abode and toy manufacturing facility are no longer a safe habitat.
This is a problem that Santa has had to address in the past. The North Pole has been ice free many times in the past. People have worried about Arctic melt before. But hysteria will keep the money coming, eh David?

So perhaps Santa should wisen up and make a permanent home in a more stable Northern environment such as the Summit Camp on Greenland where the temperature yesterday was a balmy -50C. Santa should be safe from human induced global warming in that location for many centuries to come.
Scientists understand the climate so well that the Arctic has been predicted to be ice free many times in the past. We are still waiting. Repeated failure has not impressed the current crop of climate scientists as predictions continue to be reported in the MSM. David, you might be interested in some history recorded below. Warming at the North Pole is not unprecedented and has happened at much lower levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is not just a modern phenomenon.
How does an ice age start David?  What accounts for the recurring ice age-interglacial cycles? Surely it was not coal fired generating plants or SUVs. Can we prevent the next ice age?

Norrth Pole ice free in 2000

Arctic To Be Ice Free By 2008

Arctic To Be Ice Free By 2010 or 2015

Arctic to be Ice Free by end of summer 2012

The next one was from NASA who also said:

NASA : Climate Models Can’t Forecast Arctic Ice

1853 : 40 Degree Water And An Open Sea At The Pole

 It is interesting to speculate how Santa provides light and power to his toy shop and home at the North Pole when the elves are busy at work. Solar might work in the land of the midnight sun but isn't much good during the winter when there is no sun. But then the ice melts during the summer and the expanse of ice needed for the solar panels might melt and sink them. Wind might work but how tall would the wind turbines have to be at the North Pole. Could they even be installed or would they even work in the cold? Hydro is out at the North Pole as is geothermal and nuclear so it seems we are left with some sort of electric power provided by fossil fuels. Perhaps gas or diesel to run the generators. Ships would have to bring the winter's supply of fuel before the ice refreezes in the Arctic winter or a situation like that at Nome, Alaska could ensue. So Santa will have to burn fossil fuel to make toys which will put CO2 into the atmosphere and this will only hasten the heating of the Arctic which will melt more ice and make it imperative that Santa keep moving his operation. The Greenland Summit Camp is looking more and more like the solution for Santa.

David Suzuki is enlisting one myth to support another. The myth of human induced global warming/climate change/climate disruption/weather 'wierding'/weather myth of the day/ is bolstered by the imagination of those who will wonder where Santa will live when all the ice at the North Pole is gone. Truth is, we don't have to worry about Santa or the Arctic sea ice. As can be seen from the above references the experts on the disappearance of the sea ice haven't been correct yet!

We can have fun with the Santa myth but when people mistakenly take the CAGW myth seriously they do stupid things to each other via legislation. Subsidies to green energy solutions direct resources away from cheaper sources of energy into more expensive and less reliable sources of energy. This poses an economic burden to those who can least afford it. Scientists have NOT been able to show a definitive causal connection between human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere and any negative climatic results. The belief that there is will lead to an unnecessary reordering of our economic life to the detriment of future generations and our own standard of living. In fact, many benefits have been attributed to the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere since per-industrial times. CO2 is green and isn't that good??

The Climategate emails have unmasked the corruption with the IPCC process and among IPCC lead authors and their supporters. These abuses are being documented at various sites around the internet.

Mr. Suzuki needs to return to working with scientific data rather than indulging in mythology.  

CO2 as driver of bad weather is dead. RIP.

Now, turn on the A/C in summer and drive those SUVs without guilt.