News & Analysis
End of the Global Warming Debate as We Know It?
Christy is a data maven. He spends "tedious" weeks and months examining surface observations as well as weather balloon and satellite measurements to build "datasets from scratch to advance our understanding of what the climate is doing and why." He uses the datasets "to test hypotheses of climate variability and change." Yes, it's called the scientific method ... Christy found that there were several years with more than 6,000 record-setting highs before 1940 but none with record highs above 5,000 after 1954. "The clear evidence is that extreme high temperatures are not increasing in frequency, but actually appear to be decreasing." – Globalwarming.org
Dominant Social Theme: The sky is falling.
Free-Market Analysis: John Christy may just have ended the climate change/global warming argument as we know it.
Christy recently provided devastating testimony (see article excerpt above) to a Senate Environment & Public Works Committee hearing entitled "Update on the Latest Climate Change Science and Adaptation."
Who is Christy? According to Wikipedia, he's a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) "whose chief interests are satellite remote sensing of global climate and global climate change."
He is best known, jointly with Roy Spencer, for the first successful development of a satellite temperature record, Wikipedia tells us. And what he's done is compile a list of US temperatures going back decades. He's listed the highest recorded highs and lowest lows and then plotted these as data points to establish a trend.
This is a very simple way to establish whether temperatures are on their way up generally or on their way down. It is much simpler and more direct than trying to monitor ocean currents, sun spots or even whether certain glaciers are melting on the North or South Poles.
It is such a simple idea we wonder why it hasn't been thought of before. Of course, actually, we think we know. Global warming is a most questionable occurrence, but the powers-that-be have actively promoted it whenever possible. They have no interest in debunking it.
Global warming is a classical dominant social theme of the power elite, it seems to us. The idea is to frighten Western middle classes via scarcity-based promotions into giving up power and wealth to specially prepared globalist institutions.
Global warming is a core meme because it offers the elites justification for numerous kinds of command-and-control activities. If the power elite is going to take over the world, formally anyway, it will need to exercise an enormous amount of control over the world's six billion inhabitants.
By putting forth the apparent fiction that the world is warming due to human actions, the elites can install numerous types of political, economic and social constraints. People's consumption of energy can be monitored, their actions restricted, their opportunities to travel and congregate can be withheld due to various "global warming" or "climate change" programs.
All this is very useful to a power elite that obviously believes it will have to generate significant justifications for overseeing humanity in the most detailed way within the context of global government.
The Internet itself – a miscalculation of the power elite – has done much to undermine elite promotions generally and global warming in particular.
In desperation, the elites have realigned the nomenclature of their non-existent climatic disturbance. It is now known as "climate change" but it is nonetheless de-bunkable. And it seems Christy has definitively debunked it. Here's more from the article:
Much of what passes for climate science today is, in Christy's words, "opinion, arguments from authority, dramatic press releases, and fuzzy notions of consensus generated by a preselected group."
... Such assertions, Christy shows, are not based on real data. One way to measure trends in extreme weather is to compare the number of state record high and low temperatures by decade. Many more state high temperature records were set in the 1930s than in recent decades. Even more surprising, "since 1960, there have been more all-time cold records set than hot records in each decade."
There is no discernible greenhouse "fingerprint" in these data.
One might object that state temperature records are not informative, because the number of data points — 50 — is so small. So Christy also investigated "the year-by-year numbers of daily all-time record high temperatures from a set of 970 weather stations with at least 80 years of record." He explains: "There are 365 opportunities in each year (366 in leap years) for each of the 970 stations to set a record high ...
Christy emphasizes that he is not using these data to prove that U.S. weather is becoming less extreme or colder. Rather, his point is that "extreme events are poor metrics to use for detecting climate change."
... Christy has devoted much of his career to developing a satellite record of global temperatures. Satellite datasets "are not affected by these surface problems and more directly represent the heat content of the atmosphere." Satellite data indicate that IPCC climate models are too sensitive and project too much warming.
The IPCC models, of course, are models generated and disseminated by the United Nations. IPCC stand for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and it is UN affiliated.
The IPCC is behind much of the propaganda disseminated about global warming and climate change. IPCC bureaucrats cited popular articles as established scientific fact in various presentations but were later forced to retract such statements.
The UN generally and the IPCC specifically have been used as vehicles to promote global warming and "carbon pollution." But now it would seem that there is solid data provided by Christy that can rebut global warming once and for all.
Conclusion: We're not surprised that Christy's bombshell research has not received the widespread coverage it evidently deserves. Please spread the word ..