Pirate's Cove

That’s the question that Powerline’s John Hinderaker asks, regarding the new report that NASA’s own data blows a gaping hole in global warming alarmism, a story I never got around to Thursday, due to time constraints from Real Life. John boils the whole thing down

This could be the last nail in the coffin of the global warming alarmists: NASA data show that the amount of heat that the Earth has been losing into space, from 2000 to the present, is far greater than the alarmist models predicted.

James Delingpole breaks the story down further, along with the investigation into Polar Beargate. But, does this actually sound the death knell for climate alarmism? Not a chance in hell. The issue stopped being one of actual science decades ago, and became one of mysticism and prognostication, all in order to create more governmental controls on people, companies, and economies. And the alarmists will never give up their pet cult, because it supplies them with so many great ways to wring cash out of the government. But, it’s mostly about politics. Consider this story from Space.com

New research suggesting that cloud cover, not carbon dioxide, causes global warming is getting buzz in climate skeptic circles. But mainstream climate scientists dismissed the research as unrealistic and politically motivated.

Obviously, providing scientific research that highlights the reality of what has been happening on Earth and actually affects the climate for over 4 billions years is silly and political. But, thinking we should all be forced to change our lives by government decree because something might happen 100 years from now is sound science and not political. Got that?

“It is not newsworthy,” Daniel Murphy, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cloud researcher, wrote in an email to LiveScience.

The study, published July 26 in the open-access online journal Remote Sensing, got public attention when a writer for The Heartland Institute, a libertarian think-tank that promotes climate change skepticism, wrote for Forbes magazine that the study disproved the global warming worries of climate change “alarmists.” However, mainstream climate scientists say that the argument advanced in the paper is neither new nor correct. The paper’s author, University of Alabama, Huntsville researcher Roy Spencer, is a climate change skeptic and controversial figure within the climate research community.

So, we are back to attacking the messenger, not the message. Figures.

Dessler, the A&M climatologist said that he doubted the research would shift the political debate around global warming.

“It makes the skeptics feel good, it irritates the mainstream climate science community, but by this point, the debate over climate policy has nothing to do with science,” Dessler said. “It’s essentially a debate over the role of government,” surrounding issues of freedom versus regulation.

He’s completely correct on that: it is strictly a political debate. No amount of science will ever change the minds of the Warmists. Ever. Like cultists, they are stuck in rigid dogma, and think that Someone Else should be forced to change their lives. Then they jump in their big SUV after the globull warming rally to go pick the kids up and run some errands before hosting a cocktail party.