When I was a student at Columbia University in New York, one day a professor invited me to go see James Hanson up at a place in New York called NASA Goddard. Deflected away from him (who wants to speak with a lowly student), I met an interesting woman scientist instead who showed me her calculations of what sea level rise would be. This was 1991 and it was the first time that I encountered “global warming.”
In her tracts, she showed places like Louisiana being inundated and barrier islands in New Jersey going “bloop, bloop, bloop” into the sea. I’m not sure why, but I readily accepted this theme and dutifully chirped these ideas whenever the topic came up.
My first hint that this pristine subject was not all it seemed was Michael Cricton’s book, State of Fear. My reaction to the book was “wow,” he’s really “anti-environment.”I became more suspicious of the topic and of Mr. Cricton. In other words, I smelled a rat but I was not sure where the rodent was.
I heard someone close to me use the phrase “climate change” and I thought it sounded very polite for something so apparently dangerous. When the apparent science weakened, “global warming” softened into “climate change,” like an ice cream sandwich in July.
One of the aspects of the topic that concerned me as a trained science writer appeared when I looked at the science. A lot of climate prediction is based upon a light load of real data. It was the same problem that I encountered in economics. Theories without data become curve-fitting exercises with a low probability of saying anything. Of particular concern was the fact that surface weather stations are placed on the outskirts of town and as the towns build up around them, they become enmeshed within what’s called a “heat island.” The data that was used to promote the meme of climate change emerging might actually be supporting only the conclusion that “suburbia makes cities hotter.” Extraordinary statements require extraordinary proof. The data that do exist might not be saying anything disastrous about the climate.
One of the ways that this theme appears is in response to agricultural trends. There’s been a slow but steady flow of articles about how climate change will affect the coffee crop and hence the prices and availability of the beans that we like to purchase and roast for our customers.
So here at last is a blog entry I found in a delightful little website called The Daily Bell. They reported a study by a key climate scientist in Alabama. This Professor Christy must have concluded that the aforementioned “heat island” problem destroyed the value of the surface temperature data as a method of predicting or demonstrating climactic effects. So he painstakingly looked at the satellite weather data from the last 60 years. The great thing about satellite data is that it’s immune from the effects of shopping malls and parking lots, not to mention also being immune from the machinations of scientists and their collaborators.
The data as reported by Professor John Christy bring into the clearest possible focus that the climate debate is a hoax. Which means, if you love coffee, that you don’t have to stockpile or purchase futures in order to enjoy the beverage that you love.
Global warming, aka climate change, has been shown to be a hoax. Michael Cricton was right.