I'm Serial

It seems that with record low temps and near record snow fall, that not nearly as many people are taking Climate Change very seriously any more....even Al Gore is down in the dumps,



But serially, it seems that Climate Change apathy has descended upon the world.  James Delingpole of the UK's Guardian notes. that, 

Bob Ward is sad. Very, very sad. “Why won’t anyone listen to us any more?” he wails at the Guardian’s Komment Macht Frei.


One or two helpful commenters have tried to explain the reason. But unfortunately, as Richard North has noted, at Komment Macht Frei freedom of speech is not encouraged. See how many of their comments have been deleted.

At Watt's Up With That, Ryan Maue comments on NASA GISS' press release on this subject,

Here is NASA’s press release, which apparently wasn’t sufficiently disseminated for certain segments of the climate establishment. According to Hansen, 2010 differed from 2005 by less than 2 hundredths of a degree F (that’s 0.018F). They have to admit an inconvenient truth:

One of the problems with focusing on annual rankings, rather than the longer trend, is that the rankings of individual years often differ in the most closely watched temperature analyses — from GISS, NCDC, and the Met Office — a situation that can generate confusion.

Confusion?

“Certainly, it is interesting that 2010 was so warm despite the presence of a La Niña and a remarkably inactive sun, two factors that have a cooling influence on the planet, but far more important than any particular year’s ranking are the decadal trends,” Hansen said.

Wait a minute, wait a minute: a remarkably inactive sun …

“The three official records vary slightly because of subtle differences in the way we analyze the data, but they agree extraordinarily well,” said Reto Ruedy, one of Hansen’s colleagues at GISS who helps analyze global surface temperatures.

Subtle differences? Extraordinary agreement?

Invariably, a great deal of attention centers on each year’s ranking, but it is critical to focus on the decade-long trends that matter more, the GISS scientists emphasize. On that time scale, the three records are unequivocal: the last decade has been the warmest on record. “It’s not particularly important whether 2010, 2005, or 1998 was the hottest year on record,” said Hansen. “It is the underlying trend that is important.”

Well, then stop issuing press releases which tout the rankings, which are subject to change ex post facto. You never know what year is number 1 due to those “subtle differences”, which apparently aren’t that important anyways.

In my humble opinion, I think that MSM's reporting of "climate change" is basically bullshit.  It's merely another way for the left to gain control of national/global economies in order to "share the wealth".  Socialism/Communism under another guise.  If you look at the reporting of this over the past 120 or so years, MSM (of the time) has been behind the curve by 10-15 years.  100 years ago, it was about the coming Ice Age.

But when one looks back at the history of climate reporting, you find a remarkably consistent and recurring theme. The global temperature has cycled from cold to warm to cold to warm again over the last 120 years. The media cycles of impending climatic doom mirror the climate cycles themselves, but with a roughly ten- to fifteen-year lag. It seems whenever the world warms, the volume of global warming stories increases to match the trend. Conversely, when the climate cools the major media outlets pull on their long johns and warn us of the next ice age. However, it takes many years for the media to catch up to what the climate is actually doing.


On February 24, 1895, the New York Times reported: “Geologists think the world may be frozen up again.” The story wondered “whether recent and long continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period.”

In 1912, shortly after the sinking of the Titanic by an iceberg, the New York Times reported on a professor from a Cornell University: “Professor Schmidt warns us of an encroaching ice age.” On the very same day, the Los Angles Times reported: “Fifth ice age is on the way. … Human race will have to fight for its existence against the cold.”

This, I think, is mainly because "journalists" really have no clue of the science and statistics behind it all.  Most journalists are scientifically illiterate and just haven't a clue on how to collate the data.  For the past 150 million years or so, the planet has undergone long periods of glaciation, interspersed with warm periods.  The Midieval Warm period was so warm, the English were growing wine grapes in central England.  If the era we currently live in now is that warm, why aren't there vinyards all over northern Europe?  It's because it's just not warm enough...I expect in a decade or so...as the planet again cools a bit...as it has been doing since 1998 (at least according to "hide the decline" data) the media will again be trumpeting headlines and stories like this from the 1970's:

On November 15, 1969, Science News quoted meteorologist Dr. J. Murray Mitchell Jr.: “How long the current cooling trend continues is one of the most important problems of our civilizations. … If the cooling continues for another 200 to 300 years the Earth could be plunged into an ice age.” On January 11, 1970, the Washington Post reported: “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age. … Better get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters, the worst may be yet to come.” Fortune reported in February 1974: “It is the root cause of a lot of that unpleasant weather around the world and they warn that it carries the potential for human disasters of unprecedented magnitude.” (Sound familiar?) On June 24, Time wrote: “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.” Newsweek said on April 28, 1975: “The Earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. … [Meteorologists were] Almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.”

While I'm not a scientist, I am reasonably intelligent, and can understand complex concepts, I can read the data that's coming out of NASA and UEA...and see that basically the science is bullshit.  The world, as we know it through recorded history, has undergone periods of warming and cooling...and will continue to do so for as long as the planet exists.