Soon, the moment will come when the crowd will say “I always knew it was fake”.
Here are three signs we are at the beginning of The End.
1. Op-Ed writers will be pointing out how governments are unwinding policies: Dominic Lawson: Britain Has Finally Rejected The Bogus Economics Of Climate Change. Germany (home of half the worlds solar energy production) is winding up its pursuit of renewables, and eight Eastern European nations said “No Thanks” (legally) to the EU’s authoritarian dictat on carbon emissions, and hardly anyone complained…
And which energy source is ecologically correct Germany now developing faster than any other? Lignite, otherwise known as brown coal, the most carbon- intensive fuel known to modern man.
This makes the countries on the European Union’s eastern borders (notably Poland, for which indigenous coal is a dominant energy source) even more reluctant to accept the national emissions targets promoted by Brussels. Eight of these nations launched a legal challenge and last week they won a ruling by the European Court of Justice that Brussels had exceeded its powers in imposing such limits. The court brushed aside the European commission’s complaint that it would not otherwise be able to “protect the integrity of the EU-wide market of [carbon] allowances”.
The most telling point is that this verdict gained almost no coverage. As Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, observes: “In the past, Poland’s intractable hostility to green unilateralism was greeted by protestation in capitals around Europe. Today it is hardly noticed by the media, while green campaigners have become limp . . . Other and more pressing concerns are taking precedence and are completely overriding the green agenda.”
2. Yet another solar company will go ffhtt: German Solar Giant Goes Belly Up.
3. And writers will tell us how skeptics are winning:
We visited with him during his recent visit to Chapman University. It was a happy occasion. After years of criticizing the allegedly “settled science,” Singer’s side of the debate is enjoying new and widespread credibility. This is thanks to many convergent developments.
First, there’s that inconvenient problem for warmists that the scant atmospheric heating they pointed to as evidence of looming doom pretty much stopped about 15 years ago. It’s awkward to keep screaming that the sky is falling when everyone can see it isn’t.
Then there are the discoveries of how alleged climate experts for years bullied dissenters, plotted to keep opposing views out of peer-reviewed publications and doctored data to conveniently arrive at the necessary conclusions to keep “the cause” alive. “The cause” is how insiders referred to what they wanted you to believe is impartial science. But it always has been a cause, almost religiously so. We know these things now thanks to two massive leaks of emails revealing accounts of the insiders’ candid hand-wringing and scheming.
Also in recent years has been an awakening among respectable scientists, heretofore content to go along with the supposed “consensus” about manmade global warming’s threat. One of them, David M.W. Evans, formerly of the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change), became skeptical when he discovered the main global warming argument collapsing from 1998-2006.
Evans’ epiphany exemplified another of the convergent developments that have aided Fred Singer’s side. Evans and others simply compared warmists’ gloomy predictions with what really came to pass. The theory collapsed. Facts are stubborn. Contrived hypotheses, not so much.
In 1988, for instance, James Hansen, the “father of global warming,” predicted that global temperatures by 2000 would soar even if CO2 levels didn’t increase. But the temperature didn’t rise as he said it would, even though CO2 soared during those years. If warmists’ were correct, there should have been a corresponding rise in temperature.
Warmists recently celebrated when they thought they had offset what we call the Singer Effect. Physics professor Richard Mueller, previously a climate skeptic*, conducted the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature review and nearly duplicated the IPCC’s claim about temperature increases. Even though he found surface measuring stations “quality is largely awful,” and even though he discovered there are only about a third as many stations in the U.S. as there were 40 years ago, he nevertheless concluded, based on “more than 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world,” that “global warming is real.”
But let’s be blunt. So what?
Climates warm and cool, and always have. The Earth has been coming out of the Little Ice Age for a little more than a century. Of course, it’s warmer than it was. Global warming enthusiasts read too much into Mueller’s findings. He used essentially the same flawed raw data the warmists before him used. Is it surprising he came up with about the same amount of warming?
We don’t need Mueller’s best or even satellite, ocean, balloon or proxy measurements to prove that. The warmists’ favorite sources in Great Britain for alarmism, East Anglia’s Climate Research Center and the Meteorological Office, now grudgingly concede there has been no meaningful warming since 1997. The Earth may even be cooling, the Met says.
In the race to explain climate, it looks as if skeptics are pulling into the lead.
Read the whole article at the Orange County Register. Savour the moment. (I’m sure Fred Singer is, after all the flack that has been thrown at him over the last 20 years.)
The poor desperate fans of a dying religion will scoff that it’s only the O C Register. Sure, we say. Sure! It’s only a quarter of a million readers…
* OK. So this is the only line that was wrong in the otherwise exemplary story. Mueller was never a skeptic.
H/t for the top links from GWPF and Benny Peiser