An Intelligent Analysis on Climate Change

How Do You Tell If The Earth's Climate System "Is Warming"?

Francis Menton August 09, 2018

The earth's climate system "is warming."  True or false?  The answer is that there is no definitive answer.  And if someone tells you there is, then that person doesn't know what he or she is talking about.

A more precise answer to the question is that whether the earth's climate system "is warming" or "is cooling" entirely depends on who gets to pick the start date for the analysis.  If you are the one who gets to pick the start date, then you can make it so that the system is either warming or cooling, whichever you would like for your purpose of the moment.  

But of course, there are many people out there today with a lot invested in the proposition that the climate system "is warming."  That proposition is a key tenet of global warming alarmism.  To "prove" the point that the system "is warming," advocates use the simple trick of picking a start point to their liking, making for a presentation that appears to support their position.  Have you been fooled by this simple trick?  The advocates leave it up to you to figure out that if you picked a different start point, you could just as easily make an equally convincing presentation showing that the climate system "is cooling."  A lot of seemingly intelligent people can't figure that out, and get taken in by the scam.

I raise this point today because it appears that, as part of the campaign to suppress disfavored political speech, Google has begun within the past few days adding a legend at the bottom of YouTube videos that express politically incorrect views in the field of climate science.  For example, here is the legend that they have added to a video made for Prager University by eminent MIT atmospheric physicist and climate skeptic Richard Lindzen:

"Multiple lines of scientific evidence show that the climate system is warming."

The quote comes from the first two sentences of this Wikipedia entry with the title "Global warming."   Well, Wikipedia says it, so I guess it must be true!

According to this post at BuzzFeed on August 7, others who have been subject to having the same legend affixed to their work include Tony Heller of the Deplorable Climate Science Blog, Mark Morano of Climate Depot, and the Heartland Institute.  (So far, nothing comparable has happened to the Manhattan Contrarian; but then, I don't make YouTube videos.)

So let's investigate the question of whether the earth's "climate system" is or is not warming.  You could, for example, look at the chart presented by Wikipedia in that entry.  Here it is:

That looks rather dramatic.  On the other hand, the whole vertical scale of the chart is only about 1.5 deg C; and they picked 1880 as their start date.  (The slope here is also greatly accentuated by some very large and questionable "adjustments" that have made earlier years cooler and more recent years warmer.  You can read my eighteen part series "The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time" for much more detail.  But those details are not critical for understanding the current issue.)

Does your skeptical mind possibly think, when they use that phrase "century scale," is that just a bias-free description of the issue at hand, or is it instead a hand-wave to provide a fake justification for picking a preferred start date?  Why do we need to go back 138 years when we are considering a question phrased in the present tense -- whether the climate "is" warming?  Wouldn't the present tense normally be used to cover a much shorter period, like a year or two or three at most?  So you ask, what has the climate system been doing during that time?  For the answer, how about looking for temperature data to the far more accurate UAH satellite-based serieswhich provides monthly data points going back to 1979.  Here is the latest chart from that source:

This time, you get to pick the start date.  To cover the last few years, how about picking early 2016?  After all, these last couple of years should be a much better indicator of whether the climate "is" warming or cooling than the entire last 138 years.  Really, what do temperatures more than 100 years ago, or even 30 or 40 years ago, have to do with the question of whether the earth's climate "is" warming?  So we look at the UAH chart, and we find our answer: since early 2016 temperatures have fallen by more than 0.5 deg C.  Thus, once we get to pick our preferred start time, it is obvious that the climate system "is cooling."  

Or, you can pick a different start date to your liking.  How about 1998?  That will give you an entire 20 year run.  It's hard to say that the verb "is" should cover a period of more than 20 years.  On the UAH series you can see that temperatures have also fallen about 0.4 deg C since early 1998.  Again, even on this substantially longer scale, the earth "is cooling."  (Note, however, that there is a significant difference between the Wikipedia chart and the UAH satellite series as to what has happened since 1998.  On the Wikipedia chart the latest reading (2017?) is up about 0.3 deg C from 1998; while on the UAH series, the latest reading (July 2018) is down about 0.4 deg C from the then-records set in 1998.  That's those "adjustments" in the surface temperature record that I was talking about.  I would say that there is no credible position that the heavily adjusted surface temperature record that Wikipedia relies on should be used for this purpose over the far more accurate and un-tampered UAH satellite record.)

But how about if we decide that there is something to this "century-scale" thing?  Let's agree that we're going to go back many, many decades to determine if the earth "is warming."  But if we're going to do that, where do we stop?  If you want, you can go back a hundred million years; or even a billion.  And if you follow this subject a little, you probably know that the 1700s and 1800s are a very suspect era to start a series like this, because those centuries are a known cold period sometimes referred to as the "Little Ice Age."  Picking a date in the "Little Ice Age" as the start point to prove warming is what's called "cheating."  Let's pick something more fair.  How about going back a nice round millennium?  Was that time warmer or cooler than now?

OK, they didn't have networks of thermometers set up around the globe in the 11th century, let alone the highly accurate satellites that we have today.  But scores of scientists have done hundreds of studies based on many sorts of "proxies" to determine at least whether it was warmer or cooler at that time than today.  It turns out that the evidence is rather overwhelming that it was warmer.  Actually, this is what is known as the "Medieval Warm Period."  But picking a date in that period as your start date for deciding whether the earth "is warming" is no more fair or unfair than picking a date in the "Little Ice Age."  

Here is a compilation of dozens of studies reaching the conclusion that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the present:  "More than 700 scientists from 400 institutions in 40 countries have contributed peer-reviewed papers providing evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was real, global, & warmer than the present."  Examples:

• "Paper finds Medieval Warm Period in Arctic was much warmer than the present."  
• "Medieval Warming Exceeds Modern Warming, Per New Research Using 120 Proxies."   
• "Earth was warmer in Roman and Medieval Times say German researchers." 

There are literally dozens more, if you follow the links.  The conclusion is inescapable: on a centuries-scale basis, the earth's climate system "is cooling."

And by the way, if you want to keep going back farther and farther, you can keep finding time periods that were warmer than the present.  Examples:  the Roman Warm Period, from around 250 BC to 450 AD; and the Holocene Climate Optimum, about 5000 to 3000 BC.

So here's the real answer to the question of whether the earth's ciimate system "is warming":  

• If your start date is June 2018, it "is warming."
• If your start date is January 2016, it "is cooling."
• If your start date is January 1998, it "is cooling."
• If your start date is 1880, it "is warming."
• If your start date is the year 1000, it "is cooling."
• If your start date is the Dark Ages, it "is warming."
• If your start date is Roman times, it "is cooling."

In short, the question is completely meaningless.

It's hard to believe that the supposed geniuses at Google could be taken in by a scam so obvious and so transparent.

But that's the world we live in.

What Was the Cold War?

Having grown up and lived the majority of my life during this period in international history, I can personally attest to the veracity and accuracy of this presenter's account of what the cold war was actually about; something most millennials know very little, to nothing about because our public education system doesn't teach it much anymore.

Some of my prior posts have shared how many of the tactics and strategies used by Stalin, Kruschev, and other communist leaders used to impose tyranny on their people, we are seeing today many similar tactics and strategies being disseminated through our colleges and universities today; promoting propaganda about the virtues of socialism (communism without a gun to one's head) and the degrading lies about how the United States was horrible throughout its history as a capitalist nation. (Just think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who has recently become the new face of the Democrat Party.)

Prager U's latest video provides a brief overview of what occurred. I would recommend viewing this short piece at least two or three times so that one can really grasp the complexity of what's revealed here. It may provide a broader context about what's going on now in international foreign relations.

To Kill An American

You probably missed this in the rush of news, but there was actually a report that someone in Pakistan had published in a newspaper, an offer of a reward to anyone who killed an American; any American. 

So an Australian dentist wrote an editorial the following day to let everyone know what an American is. So they would know when they found one. (Good one, mate!!!!) 

'An American is English, or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish , Polish, Russian or Greek. An American may also be Canadian, Mexican, African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Australian, Iranian, Asian, or Arab, or Pakistani or Afghan. 

An American may also be a Comanche, Cherokee, Osage, Blackfoot, Navaho, Apache, Seminole or one of the many other tribes known as native Americans. 

An American is Christian, or he could be Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim. In fact, there are more Muslims in America than in  Afghanistan. The only difference is that in America they are free to worship as each of them chooses.

An American is also free to believe in no religion...... For that he will answer only to God, not to the government, or to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government and for God.   

An American lives in the most prosperous land in  the history of the world.

The root of that prosperity can be found in the Declaration of Independence , which recognizes the God-given right of each person to the pursuit of happiness. 

An American is generous. Americans have helped out just about every other nation in the world in their time of need, never asking a thing in return........

When Afghanistan was overrun by the Soviet army 20 years ago, Americans came with arms and supplies to enable the people to win back their country!

As of the morning of September 11, Americans had given more than any other nation to the poor in Afghanistan .. 
The national symbol of America , The Statue of Liberty , welcomes your tired and your poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the homeless, tempest tossed. These, in fact, are the people who built America .

Some of them were working in the Twin Towers the morning of September 11 , 2001 earning a better life for their families. It's been told that the World Trade Center victims were from at least 30 different countries, cultures, and first languages, including those that aided and abetted the terrorists.

  
So you can try to kill an American if you must.. Hitler did. So did General Tojo , and Stalin , and Mao Tse-Tung, and other bloodthirsty tyrants in the world. But, in doing so you would just be killing yourself . Because Americans are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American.

Holy War: Franklin Graham Shreds 'Vile' Media

Signs of the times???

If you're a Christian, you'll want to read this.

To this article, I reply, read these:

2 Timothy 3:1 - 9

1 Peter 4:12 - 19

2 Peter 2: 17 - 22

Why the Electoral College is so Critical

I may have posted this before - long ago - but it deserves repeating again...
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

In their infinite wisdom, the United States’ founders created the Electoral College to ensure ALL the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?

The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet. It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.

Do share this. It needs to be widely known and understood.

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.

Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State.

Trump won 46 of them.

Clinton won 16.

Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond).

Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than account for Clinton's "winning the popular vote" of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.

The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles ought to dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country! But that 319 square miles are where the majority of our nation’s problems foment (projects, failed families, failed politics, and failed lives within failed bureaucracies).

1984: Alive & Well In 2018

When Donald Trump shocked the nation's liberals in the fall of 2016 I was doing guard work in a Barnes & Noble bookstore.

This particular store was in a neighborhood of dominantly liberals. It didn't take long before the impact became obvious on the book shelves and magazine racks.

A particular book - George Orwell's novel 1984 - became a hot selling item; not because they wanted to educate themselves about the era of government that was soon to exit, but to inform themselves of what they believed was to come.

I innocently inquired of a few patrons who were standing at the shelf why they were buying the paperback version of this classic. 

They expressed dismay and fear of what had happened and were certain that the only way this tragedy occurred was that Trump had conspired with Putin's Russia to rig the election outcome.

Also, such long time prominent publications as Time, Newsweek, and The Economist were gradually coming out with front cover lead story images of Trump in an extremely negative light.

While the media has every right to express their views, they don't seem to care that they are deliberately and intentionally misleading the public about his plans and intentions. It's no wonder Pres. Trump has been calling them "Fake News".

After nearly two years the mainstream media's drum beat against Pres. Trump has not relented. Yet, all indications, based on what he has done to improve the nation's economy, employment, and national security will be difficult to fight at the ballot box this mid-term election.

In fact, the liberals in the country who still believe in the Russia/Trump collusion fantasy - despite the mountain of evidence indicating that it was the Clinton Campaign and the D.N.C. were behind this made up claim - the intensity and insanity of the likes of  Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, and Nancy Pelosi have ratcheted up their fantastic claims against the President.

Over the first two years since this political earthquake hit the nation, social media companies have gradually begun to exercise their power and control over the nation's dialog online; ignoring any first amendment rights individuals have under our country's Constitution.

While I do not subscribe to the views of the likes of Alex Jones' often extreme claims, I do not agree with the latest move to block or remove his material from the Internet. He has a right to disseminate his views as much as any other American citizen does under his first amendment right.

However, it appears the concepts of Orwell's classic novel are taking root among the liberals who are in control of our social media. And then, there's this...

It seems as though liberals shocked at losing the election were buying the 1984 novel to bone up on how to best implement Orwell's prophetic ideas of how the state effectively clinched control of the situation.

The U.S. Now Has A Two-Tiered Justice System!

Don't believe me?

Get and read Gregg Jarrett's latest book The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme To Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.

If you're not into doing that, then just read this page about former FBI Director James Comey. This revelation is yet another in many acts of breaking federal law by him.

The day following this report, Judicial Watch filed and got an order from a D.C. court to demand the DOJ preserve Comey's emails.

What do you think the odds are that he'll ever see bars from the inside? I'm not holding my breath.

Looking at this whole "witch hunt" from another perspective, listen to this comment by Mark Levin about Obama meddling in Israel's election during his administration.