The Three Rules of Modern Politics

Mark Steyn provides the following links and a few dry words:

News from Santa’s Grotto:

Global warming hysterics at the BBC warned us in 2007 that by summer 2013, the Arctic would be ice-free. As with so many other doomsday predictions by warmists, the results turn out to be quite the opposite.

Meanwhile, down the other end at Santa’s summer vacation condo:

Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record large extent for a second straight year, baffling scientists seeking to understand why this ice is expanding rather than shrinking in a warming world.

Antarctic ice is now at a 35-year high. But scientists are “baffled” by the planet’s stubborn refusal to submit to their climate models. Maybe the problem with Nobel fantasist Michael Mann’s increasingly discredited hockey stick is that he’s holding it upside down.

Nonetheless, the famously settled science seems to be re-settling:

Scientists Increasingly Moving To Global Cooling Consensus

Global warming will kill us. Global cooling will kill us. And if it’s 54 and partly cloudy, you should probably flee for your life right now. Maybe scientists might usefully consider moving to being less hung up on “consensus” – a most unscientific and, in this context, profoundly corrupting concept.

Read ’em and laugh. And recall Wright’s Three Rules of modern politics: (1) The Left never apologizes (2) The Left never wakes up (3) The Left never blushes.


  1. Comment by Stephen J.:

    Unless he’s got a sister who’s also gone in for wryly witty punditry (not an unpleasant possibility by any means), shouldn’t that “Mary” up top be “Mark”?

  2. Comment by Rigel Kent:

    And #4, The Left is never Right! Yes that is a horrible pun and yes I should be ostracized from polite society after being tarred and feathered, but I just couldn’t help myself.

  3. Comment by DGDDavidson:

    Reading through additional links in the articles provided, I’m not convinced. The Arctic ice is up from last year, but still seems to be in keeping with an overall downward trend.

    The Antarctic ice, however, is apparently more perplexing.

    • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

      I think the burden of proof for those pushing the theory of “Anthropomorphic Global Warming” should be higher. Really, the size of the Arctic ice is irrelevant, as is most of the “evidence” they have claimed. We know, from Geology, that there have been many, many global warming/cooling cycles, to the point we have a term, Interglacial. For it to actually be a problem for us to solve, they have to show, first, that it is caused by Humanity. Second, that whatever caused the cycle all the other times would not act this time. They have no evidence for either.

      • Comment by BuhLScaT:

        Well said. The burden of proof has to lie with those that propose the change from normal. Normal, in this case, happens to include the cycles of the earth. Our understanding of these cycles is far too inadequate to produce this proof no matter what the current “consensus” may be.

      • Comment by DGDDavidson:

        Sure. Fine. But the case isn’t helped by articles like the first couple of links, which trumpet that there’s more ice than last year, even though this spike in ice fits neatly with an overall three-decade reduction in ice, during which there have been many spikes, many much larger than this one.

        I would also agree that three decades probably don’t provide enough data for us to say that we know what will be happening to ice levels in three more decades, or ten more.

        But the spike in ice this year over last year does not destroy the claim that ice has been decreasing.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      Not convinced of what? That the warnings given in 2007 that the Antarctic would be clear of ice were false?

      This article is not meant to be a knockout blow to devotees of the theory of manmade global warming. It identifies one argument and gives evidence that the claims were hoopla. Only after a careful examination of all the claims should an honest man come to a firm conclusion.

      Myself, I was convinced by the evidence of global warming on Pluto and Mars that the warming trend on Earth was not manmade; nor have I ever been convinced, due the utterly reprehensible tactics of the Warmist, that the warming trend was permanent, or accelerating, or dangerous. (I never understood why a longer growing season would be bad for mankind generally.) But these are matters where reasonable people can differ.

      Once Warmism became one of the pet causes of the Political Correctoids, who ordered their slaves to believe a scientific conclusion on pain of public shaming, at that point I decided to oppose it publicly and frequently, since to allow them any victory in any arena was too costly considering their overall goals. I knew from their track record that they would not support this cause, or any cause, unless it were both false and something that could be used as a weapon against the civilized West. It takes a certain diabolical genius always to be diametrically wrong about every topic, but the Political Correctoids have that genius. This, again, is a matter where reasonable people can differ, because mine was a decision about tactics, and a judgment of whom to believe.

      But that the prediction of iceless Antarctica turned out to be not only false, but the opposite of true, that is not a matter where reasonable people can differ. None but a True Believer would defend those predictions now. They were false. The question is why. The next question is, if this prediction is false, what other predictions may be false?

      • Comment by thomowen20:

        Not to be a bee in in your bonnet Mr. Wright (I am a superfan of your soaring written works) but the 2013 prediction was made by ONE team of researchers out of many and I suspect was chosen for a certain sensationalism inherent with citing an outlier finding from one team, in the context of a major multi-team effort. I also, in fairness, note your statement that your post was not meant to be the ‘knock-out’ blow for AGW. From the BBC article,

        “Professor Maslowski’s group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modelled dates that are in advance of other teams.
        These other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100.”


        “”My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of.”
        And later, to the BBC, Dr Serreze added: “I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections…,”

        Even though the ice has has grown from a low, we should allow more time to elapse for a greater context. It may be unwise to cite a team of modelers who make an outlier prediction, published for greater effect to stand for the whole of the consensus model. Computer modeling is, at this time, in it’s relative infancy and there is no gold standard approach. Many approaches are used by many different teams studying the climate. The bulk of this work does support; however, AGW hypothesis. When looking at cycles and fluctuations one should always be engaging in rigorous statistical analysis. It is true there are ‘natural’ cycles that occur. What we need to look for is evidence of the WEIGHTING of those cycles and you must look at the entire planet. In my own study of this, I see evidence of increased variability, volatility with a warming trend out of character even when comparing with other time periods, in intra -time periods and studying different lengths in time windows since the Industrial Revolution. There is also increasing evidence that the sun has a significant influence over climate and even weather patterns, but more research needs to be done on that aspect.

        As it is I have two overarching gripes with the consensus scientific conclusions proposed by the AGW. One is that focusing on mere warming is an oversimplification of a man catalyzed (or influenced) process that effects many variables. The second is that the politicization of science is not usually amenable to actual problem solving or sensible adjustment per its indications.

        As I stated in opening, I don’t mean to come off as an ass or disrespectful. You have my respect as one of the (if not the) greatest hard sci-fi writers out there whose mastercraft has been very much akin to the ‘noetic lightning’ of DMT fame. My hopes for a robust discussion on this.

        • Comment by John C Wright:

          You do understand my main objection is turning a scientific theory into a religious dogma? A scientific theory welcomes questions and challenges on the basis of new evidence or new interpretations. A religious dogma deters questions as disloyal to the authority speaking on behalf of a deity, and dangerous because of the potential to lead the unwary astray, into chaos, or into hell.
          No one was ever called “A Steady State Denier” for believing the Big Bang Theory, for example. That was a scientific debate. Global Warming or Cooling or Whatever is not.

    • Comment by John Hutchins:

      Western Antarctica’s ice is actually unstable based on the most current modeling. Given constant climate conditions otherwise the Antarctic ice would still fluctuate wildly. The model actually suggests that Western Antarctica’s ice sheet could potentially collapse catastrophically just from calving under constant climate conditions.

      Greenland on the other hand is very stable and its glaciers create their own weather patterns that keeps it more stable even when the glaciers would not form given the climate otherwise.

  4. Comment by TheConductor:

    Or, another possibility: the Left will take credit. Once the evidence gets to the point of irrefutability, we will certainly hear: “WE did this! It was our insistence on riding bicycles in the pouring rain here in Portland that thwarted Big Oil and its evil global-warming unconcern! We must continue!”

  5. Comment by Sylvie D. Rousseau:

    All this always reminds me of a title on a newspaper in the 70’s saying something like that: “The angry sun will cause warming and violent meteoric phenomena until 2010.” I remember because someone showed me the paper and read it aloud; and we were country people, always interested in meteorology and forecasts.

    I read in one of the links that the same cycles of warming/cooling happen on Mars. Then it seems pretty obvious that the solar activity is the culprit and the human influence has no more bearing on the climate than the fraction of the planet we occupy, which is in all probability very small.

  6. Comment by TheConductor:

    Update to my previous comment: The weatherman this morning reported record overnight lows throughout much of western Oregon last night. Nevertheless, they were all out there on their bikes this morning, and I found myself dodging them on my way into the office as usual. I have little doubt that they are patting themselves on the back as being responsible for the record low temperatures.

    Leave a Reply