How to irritate a liberal

Whenever we engage a liberal on the subject of climate change it’s critical to stick with facts.  But even then, the reactions we’re likely to see are those of irritation combined with exasperated and condescending “how can you be so stupid?” expressions.  Next, you’ll likely hear the quasi-accusatory, “Are you telling me you don’t believe…” (insert anyone of the liberal talking points on the matter, i.e., that sea levels are rising, that forest fires are increasing, hurricanes and droughts are worsening, birds are losing their feathers, etc. etc.)

Then it’s wise to remain silent until they’re finished and come down from their soapbox.  But by this time, their adrenalin is really flowing so calmly ask if they will answer two questions.  The first, and if you read my blog, you’ve read these before but regardless, they remain the two most valid questions you can ask an apocalyptist, “Can you tell me what the ideal temperature of planet earth is, and during what geologic period did it occur?”  Just keep in mind the question will be greeted by any number of facial contortions and stiffening body language.  And then ask, “If every nation on earth were to meet its Paris Climate Accord commitment by year’s end, how much would the earth’s temperature change and over what time-period?”  At this point, any pretense of candid discussion stops and what you’ll hear are talking points; but what you will never hear is an answer to either question.

~ Do as I say, not as I do ~ 

Barack Obama personifies the far-left hypocrisy in this matter because if he really believed the nonsense about global warming being an existential threat to society with rising sea levels, he would do something very unusual among liberal politicians, i.e., he would actually lead by example.  C’mon, do you really believe the smartest man on the planet would purchase two waterfront properties, one on Martha’s Vineyard and one on Oahu if he really thought they’d be underwater?

~ The Reality the Left Refuses to Accept ~

While humans exert a growing but physically small, warming influence on climate, the deficiencies in climate data challenge our ability to untangle the response to human influences from poorly understood natural changes.  For example, weather forecasters know that some models work better than others in specific situations, and they tend to rely on the versions that work best, depending upon the forecast problem.  When the issue is a potential big snow along the eastern seaboard, forecasters usually lean upon the model from the European Center for Medium‐​Range Weather Forecasting (the “Euro” model). When diagnosing shifts in jet stream patterns a week or 10 days ahead, they may place more weight on the American Global Forecast System mode.  And therein lies just one of the problems in predictions regarding global warming or climate change.

Meanwhile, NOA’s and NASA’s climate models illustrate a different problem with climate models, i.e., in most cases the key findings and predictions of climate models contradict each other.  So, to solve this problem, when disagreement occurs between or among climate models, (which is frequent) “expert” judgement is applied to adjust model results.  A problem arises because expert judgments are not defined because those “judgements” are really just someone’s opinion.  And if they weren’t opinions those “judgements” would be supported by hard evidence, which they’re not.

From the unthinking to the naïve, activists love to cite the UN and the IPCC on the matter even though UN press releases do not reflect the actual reports that have been reviewed, rather, what these people are actually referring to are UN & IPCC summaries, in other words, opinions of someone else’s opinions.

Perhaps they don’t realize (or don’t want to realize) that unless the summary has been peer reviewed it cannot be taken at face value, a situation that holds true across all scientific endeavors from medicine to astrophysics.  I can do little more than shake my head when I hear people cite “rising sea levels” or other such calamities as existential threats to society.  (By the way, the next time you hear the rising sea level ruse, suggest that they look at photos of Liberty Island and Statue of Liberty when it was first dedicated over 100 years ago and compare them to modern day photos.)

At present, climate science is insufficient to make useful projections about how the climate will change over the coming decades, much less what effect our actions will have on it.  So, here’s another ‘hack’ you might keep in mind when discussing climate – if you’re not dealing with a peer reviewed study, then you’re dealing with someone’s opinion; unfortunately, opinions in todays’ world are usually an extension of the individual’s politics.  So, while we must respect science, ideology masquerading as science does a great disservice to us all.  And intentionally misinforming the public does little to enhance man’s understanding of climate or our ability to credibly respond to its ever-changing nature.

And if you’re still not convinced of the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the green movement, I’ll close this post with quotes from two of the UN’s decision makers on the matter.  And while you’ve likely read these before, these quotes cannot be repeated enough.

“We (the UN-IPCC) redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”– Dr. Ottmar Endenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC working group on Mitigation of Climate Change

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model (i.e., capitalism) that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,”– Christiana Figueres, Executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change and a 2016 nominee for Secretary General of the United Nations.

Quote of the day:  “The most powerful governments on earth can’t stop a virus from spreading… but they say they can change the earth’s temperature if you pay more taxes.”