An Open Question to Our Universities on AGW: What if You Are Wrong?
No climate program in the nation that I can find is teaching anything but the “party line” on global warming. Perhaps they are right, though if the forecasts made by computer modeling (as shown below) were graded like any college exam (if you said one thing was the answer and it turned out it was wrong), then I would expect the professor to grade it as being wrong. I assume college courses are still graded based on correct answers.
In my world it comes down to this: The National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) take the global temperatures with the most accurate information available and the finest gridding every 6 hours. The trends can easily be seen — the warming that was shown by all measuring tools through the late ‘90s and the recent downturn or even slight cooling over the past 10 years.
Of particular interest are the past two El Niños that had “spikes” in '07 and '10. But the downturns that followed wound up lower than before the spike. Also of interest is this question: When it comes to model analysis of global temperatures, why would the NCEP come up with a global temperature that does not support the idea that the earth is still currently warming, as a recent NOAA press release implied? Here is why the coming five years are huge: If, as I believe, the coming El Niño spike is followed by a bigger downturn, will the universities, lined up solidly in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) camp, admit there is a problem? The current El Niño excitement is similar to that of the great El Niño of 1997-1998. Many on the AGW side are opining this will lead to a “step up” to a new plateau. And they certainly have a point here, in my opinion. If there is a “readjustment” up — and the chart below shows this nicely — then it will silence me for one.
But I am curious, given the constant drumbeat that comes from government, media, academia and, most recently, papal authority and immense investments: Is there any way out for the other side that will not ruin them completely? I asked this question in my article, “Can an AGW Climatologist Be Truly Objective?”
There is so much behind this movement, I really can’t see any way the people driving it can possibly back away. As for me, it’s simple. This El Niño and the three years that follow with objective global temperature recordings will answer it for me.
In a world spinning out of control, we are asked to believe that global warming is the biggest threat to mankind. I ask people of goodwill who don’t see things my way to ask themselves this question: What would it take for you to at least have doubt (that should be natural in any future event) and to change your position? I even wrote on that: “Is There Anything in the Global Warming Debate That Would Convince Me I’m Wrong?”
Perhaps there is hope. Dr. Ivar Giaever, a real Nobel Peace Prize-winning physicist and former professor at the School of Engineering and School of Science at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (and also a supporter of President Obama), said this: “I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem.” He added, “I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.” You can listen to the speech here.
To know for certain one is right, one has to also know for certain what would prove himself wrong. Only by that kind of open-mindedness can one really search for the truth.
Joe Bastardi is chief forecaster at WeatherBELL Analytics, a meteorological consulting firm.
© Copyright 2015 The Patriot Post