Climatic Schizochronia or The Tense Temporal Troubles of Global Warming

Schizochronia (skĭt’sə-krŏnē-ə): from the Ancient Greek schizein (σχίζειν, “to split”) and chronos (χρόνος, “time”)

n.

  1. Any of a group of scientific communication disorders usually characterized by confounding the reality of what happens in the present day with the possibility of what may happen decades in the future. Schizochronia is associated with catastrophist thinking and may have an underlying political cause.
  2. A “heavenly and profound” blog from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

——————————————

Is Anthropogenic Global Warming or Climate Change happening? The answer to that, many people believe it to be yes. There’s even a scientific consensus stating the same.

Has Anthropogenic Global Warming or Climate Change already happened? The answer to that, many people believe it to be yes. Trouble is, there’s no scientific consensus stating the same. In truth, according to the scientific consensus around AGW and CC, they cannot have happened as yet.

Usually, AGW and CC are coined in future tense. They must, for the sake of honesty and scientific truthfulness: think of “climate model projections” indicating temperature rises yes, but for later decades in the twenty-first century; and of the overwhelming majority of effects, expected rather than already observed.

What we have witnessed in the past few years instead, has been a rush to “discover” evidence for AGW and CC in today’s world. Lots of “smoking guns” and plenty of “wake-up calls”, appropriately trite expressions to accompany for evidence that quite simply cannot be there…unless the scientific consensus on AGW is very, very wrong.

Invariably, smoking guns have been revealed empty, and wake-up calls mute. There is nothing to show for AGW and CC, as I find myself repeating. Cue this blog, Watt’s, Climate Audit and countless others. Cue the amount of skepticism in practical circles such as among engineers and meteorologists.

Now, why is the simple point not more forcefully explained by leading AGW proponents: that the science refers to what might happen later this century, and that the search for current signs of impending future catastrophes is to the edge of pointless?

One may be forgiven to think that the issue is being polluted by advocacy, as the revelation of absence of evidence could pretty much kill all present political efforts in matters of climate. But if this schizochronia between claims about the present and science about the future has been useful so far, obviously it has to be continuously fed, and the more so as the years go by, like a biding of time until something truly tangible finally surfaces.

You see, we already have people openly hoping for major climate tragedies to happen in front of TV cameras, the sooner the better.

Expect lots, and I mean lots of additional “climate change has already ruined the planet” claims in 2009.