RUSH: Earth Day: “Duke Study Finds ‘Natural Variability’ Impacts Global Warming.” (Gasp!) Bad news for the climate change crowd here. “Researchers at Duke…” This is the Duke lacrosse case Duke. This is the Duke where all those faculty signed on believing that the lacrosse team had mistreated the dancer. I mean, Duke is a liberal institution from top to bottom. “Researchers at Duke University say global warming is not progressing as fast as it would under the most severe scenarios outlined by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
In other words, the computer models are not correct.
Global warming isn’t happening anywhere near like the models said that it would be happening by now. “Looking at 1,000 years of temperature records, researchers found that natural variability in surface temperatures over the course of just a decade can account for increases and dips in warming rates.” Now, for those of you in Rio Linda, “natural variability in surface temperatures” means it gets hot now and cold then.
It’s natural. You know, one day it’s 75; the next day it’s 80. A natural difference. The high forecast next week may show 90 degrees for two days, and it may hit there, and the next three may be down in the seventies. Natural variability. In other words: Nature. Researchers found that nature “over the course of just a decade can account for increases and dips in warming rates. Researchers said that variability,” nature, “could be caused by interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, or other natural factors,” like… the weather!
Yeah, the weather could be a factor! (chuckles) The sun (Imagine!) could be a factor. The global warming crowd tells you the sun isn’t, though. No, no. You’re not allowed to talk about solar energy, sunspots, storms on the sun. None of that is relevant to global warming. Even though the only engine of heat is the sun, it is off-limits. Anyway, the researchers at Duke “say trends over just a 10-year period do not show much about long-term warming,” and there’s no evidence whatsoever to suggest that long-term warming over the next 100 years is going to be anything even noticeable, abnormal.
Duke University researchers, i.e., scientists.
There’s a consensus of ’em.
There’s a consensus of these people that there isn’t any warming going on. “‘If that message gets out, then I think there would be less back and forth arguing about these short-term temperature trends because it doesn’t really matter that much scientifically,’ explained Patrick Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment.” Oh, Mr. Brown, I wish I could speak to you.
You’re a doctoral candidate, and what you just said has no relationship to the global warming crowd. We’ve gotten your message out for 25 years, the message that there isn’t any warming, and there isn’t in the specifically past 18 years. There isn’t any, and we’ve gotten that message out, and there hasn’t been any reduction in arguing. In fact, what’s happening is the global warming crowd is not even allowing dissent. They want to shut up people that doesn’t accept the consensus.
Actually, this is encouraging in a way.
Here you have a doctoral candidate, obviously in his mid-twenties, and he thinks he’s got evidence. I love this. This is a young guy and he’s got evidence. He thinks he can take the evidence to the global warming crowd, and they’ll see it, and they’ll believe it, and there will be less arguing. That’s not at all what’s gonna happen, because this isn’t about science. It isn’t about facts. It isn’t even about warming. It isn’t even about the climate, I have long contended.
Our official climatologist here, Dr. Roy Spencer, has not been happy with me over this, but I’ve argued with these climate scientists that don’t buy into this. I said, “You’re falling into the trap when you argue science with them. They don’t have any science. They’ve got computer models. You’re losing them. People can’t keep up with the science. Start studying clouds or whatever aspects of the climate with scientific explanation and you’re gonna lose everybody.”
That’s not what they’re using. This is pure ideology on the march, and it’s gotta be dealt with and refuted in that regard. But the climate scientists who oppose global warming say, “Well, no. They’re presenting it as science and that’s how we’re gonna refute it. We’re presenting it with the scientific data they claim; we’ve gotta refute it.” Which I understand, but it’s all bogus to begin with. Garbage in, garbage out. Analyzing garbage, treating it as real in order to refute it gives it credibility that it does not deserve to begin with.