There's a style of AGW propaganda that I call the 'Little Lie, Big Truth' format. This is when some tiny lie of the AGW campaign is soundly debunked, making the author look 'clinical, scientific and impartial', then, almost as a 'P.S.', it's noted that, by the way, man-made global warming is here, real, and must be dealt with now. One little lie debunked, but one grand truth revealed.
Allahpundit (aka 'God's Critic') over on Hot Air has linked to a number of these articles over the years in their 'Headlines'. Whether he's just skimming over the article and failing to spot the Big Truth paragraph at the end, or actually believes in AGW and is posting these links to appear clinical, scientific and impartial, is anybody's guess.
He's in good company, though. Matt Drudge does the same thing:
Tornado spike in 2011 attributed to climate change. So what to make of this year’s tornado drought?
Damn good question, right?
And he gets right on it:
Unfortunately that hasn’t stopped the more zealous environmental media from jumping on most every extreme weather event and screaming climate change. Today let’s look back a few years ago at U.S. tornado activity, when a record was set for most EF1 and stronger tornadoes in a 12-month period, from June 2010 to May 2011.
He then goes on to quote a couple of eco-nuts who claimed the 2011 batch of tornadoes were a direct result of you-know-what. And then the capper:
In a NOAA blog post tornado expert Harold Brooks notes that during the 12-month period from May 2012-April 2013 there were just 197 tornadoes rated EF1 or stronger. This is, Brooks says, apparently a record low for U.S. tornadoes in a 12-month period.
He even has a graph (1954-to-present) to back it up, displaying how the flurry of 2011 tornadoes was only equaled by a particularly bad year back in the early 70's. It was a spike, in other words, not a result.
So, our kinda guy, eh? We're thinking how nice it is to see someone in a major newspaper like the Houston Chronicle totally dismantle this 'AGW produces violent weather' bullshit.
Except that this is the uber-liberal Houston Chronicle.
And, here it comes:
Is the world warming? Yes. Is the warming largely due to human activity? Most likely, most scientists say. Will this warming have consequences for the planet and its residents? Without question. But we still have much work to do to fully understand those consequences. A big problem, of course, is that by the time we fully understand the consequences, it may be too late to act meaningfully.
Since this wouldn't be an official Dr. Mercury AGW post if I didn't do a little dismantling of my own, allow me to render the above paragraph to the meaningless pixels from whence it came.
Is the world warming? Yes.
Uh-yup, no question about it. There are graphs like this all over the place.
Nope, nothin' new there.
Is the warming largely due to human activity? Most likely, most scientists say.
In other words, majority rules when it comes to science?
Hold on, this just in:
Throk-anon: So, Khar-tchak, as the leading scientist here in the year 528, what do you think of this 'round earth' theory currently making the news?
Khar-tchak: Bah! Don't these morons have any brains? You can just look out the window and see for yourself that the earth is as flat as flat can be. What further proof do you need? We're talkin' science here, good man, not the ravings of some kooky cultists, and every one of my colleagues will back me up on this issue.
So remember, good friends here in the year 528, the earth is flat. The
Science of Majority Rules has declared it so.
Will this warming have consequences for the planet and its residents? Without question.
Imagine, if you dare, a scenario where God flips a switch and the room you're sitting in is instantly 1.7 degrees warmer. The question is, is the word consequences the word you'd choose for this moment?
"It suddenly feels a bit stuffy in here, doesn't it? Would you mind opening the window?"
(window is opened)
"Thanks. There could have been some real consequences there."
And the wrap-up:
A big problem, of course, is that by the time we fully understand the consequences, it may be too late to act meaningfully.
I love the "fully" part of that. If we could even remotely understand global climatology and the 'consequences' — if any — from mankind's pitiful contribution, we'd be a lot further along than we are today.
The comments were also terrific, slicing and dicing his last couple of Grand Truth paragraphs every which way, even noting how beneficial a slightly warmer world would be in regards to human safety (deaths via freezing far outnumber deaths from heat every year) and food production.
Mentioning food production reminds me of this:
"Beside me is David Chambers, president of the Save Our Natural World Society, one of the many groups represented in this area. David, what are you doing here?"
"I'm here to ask all of you viewers at home one simple little question. Why do the deniers of natural global warming want millions of innocent people to die from starvation in the future? Here we are, going into our thousand year warming cycle, which will expand the food belt and let countries like Canada and areas of northern Europe grow such staples as corn and wheat, and the deniers of natural global warming want to stop it? Here we'll finally have the means to grow vast amounts of food and end world hunger for the first time in human history, and organizations like Greenpeace are against it? How cruel and insane can they be?"
Maybe I should have titled this post "AGW: The damned good questions edition".
How cruel and insane, indeed.
That's from The Giving of Tomorrows, my plans to start a new environmental movement. If you've got $50 mil lying around, let's do lunch.
My 7,000-word general debunking of AGW is here.
I also have another AGW post cookin', so prepare yourself for more warmth and merriment laced with joy and wonder in the near future.
It's just that kinda site.
