2013 Hottest Year On Record? We Need To Cool Down

From Judith Curry’s blog: “Senate EPW Hearing on the President’s Climate Action Plan,” which presents a transcript (or notes) of her testimony.

The premise of the President’s Climate Action Plan is that there is an overwhelming judgment of science that anthropogenic global warming is already producing devastating impacts. Anthropogenic greenhouse warming is a theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. Multiple lines of evidence presented in the recent IPCC 5th assessment report suggest that the case for anthropogenic warming is now weaker than in 2007, when the 4th assessment report was published.

Headlines today are trumpeting 2013 as among the warmest years on record. Yet here’s a leading climatologist and IPCC contributor who just testified before Congress that warming reports are overblown and/or not accurate:

  • For the past 16 years, there has been no significant increase in surface temperature. There is a growing discrepancy between observations and climate model projections. Observations since 2011 have fallen below the 90% envelope of climate model projections
  • The IPCC does not have a convincing or confident explanation for this hiatus in warming.
  • There is growing evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations
  • Based on expert judgment in light of this evidence, the IPCC 5th assessment report lowered its surface temperature projection relative to the model projections for the period 2016-2036.

So, if scientists can’t agree, why should I blindly trust one side or the other? Why should I support any acts of governmental coercion and plunder, based on something that is in great dispute?

Even if overall warming is verified, that still does not prove human causation. This, of course, means any policies would be shooting in the dark, perhaps causing grave and unnecessary harm to people everywhere, while enriching and empowering the most dangerous humans on earth, like Al Gore and his ilk.

Apparently something (the lure of power and/or money) is clouding the judgment of at least one side—further evidence we have lost our collective integrity, which breeds nothing but mistrust.

In times past, kings would purchase the influence of Church leaders in black robes to bless their aspirations. Now, tyrants have learned to buy the tongues of our modern priests—scientists in white coats.

Sorry, I’m still not buying it.

I personally know several high-profile “skeptics”, men whose integrity is of the highest quality. When I put their word up against scientists who have been exposed as fudging data, and proven political liars, it leaves me firmly of the opinion that man-caused global warming is a bunch of hooey.

It’s also clear that suggested policies to fight the alleged warming would do immense harm to many of the poorest in the world, while increased damage from leaving things alone is highly questionable, at best.

Do we choose the real and indisputable harm of global warming policies or the highly-debatable potential harm of waiting for scientists to give us clearer answers? It’s an easy choice for me.