Comment Of The Day: “Facebook User Ethics : Don’t Spread Panic, And Don’t Make Your Friends As Ignorant As You Are”

The post on Facebook hysteria over the U.S.’s decision to withdraw from the largely symbolic Paris climate change accords has drawn perplexing commentary. The post did not assert a position on climate change, nor did it defend the reasons given for the withdrawal.  The post simply stated that it was irresponsible and dishonest to claim dire consequences of the decision when the accord itself is almost entirely symbolic, requires nothing, in the sense that there are no enforcement mechanisms, and can’t possibly carry the existential weight that social media, politicians, pundits and activists are claiming. It is all appeal to emotion and ignorance.

And it is. Especially since most of the social media hysterics haven’t read the accord and are illiterate regarding climate science.

And they are.

I guess I knew that both climate change flacks and those suspicious of them would shift gears into the messy issue itself and its controversial research and models. The dreaded (and misleading) “97% of all scientists” stat even made its appearance, although, again, it was irrelevant to the post.

Finally, Zoltar Speaks!, Popeye-like, declared that “I ain’t gonna take it, ’cause I can’t take no more!” after a side debate over whether the infamous hacked e-mails among climate-change researchers “proved” that there was a conspiracy to distort the science on climate change (no,  they prove that the scholarly research community members are not as objective and independent as they are professionally obligated to be, and that this makes their conclusions inherently untrustworthy). He produced an epic essay in response, so long and detailed that he posted it on a satellite blog. With his permission, I am posting it in it’s entirety here.

Here is the Zoltar Speaks! Comment of the Day on the post, “Facebook User Ethics : Don’t Spread Panic, And Don’t Make Your Friends As Ignorant As You Are” …

I am a Conservative that is all for cleaning up our environment particularly cleaning up the air we breathe. I’ve consciously been reducing my carbon footprint on the planet since the early 80’s and I’ve estimated that I’ve been reasonably effective at a roughly 40%-50% reduction from my previous imprint and I don’t plan to stop my efforts.

I was a climate change true believer; however, there were some red flags that came up that made me and a very intelligent friend look at each other across the table on morning in a coffee shop and literally say “What The Fuck”?  After that, we did what all intelligent people should do, dive in and do your own climate change research.  🙂  We read research papers, climate change papers (paper after paper after paper), looked at hundreds of historical graphs, obtained spreadsheets of tabulated data, read more papers, spent a bunch of time looking into the geological aspects of determining historical temperature trends, we intentionally took opposing positions pro and con and argued the points, read more papers studies thesis’s, and we argued some more – this went on for months.  What we found based on the data we studied is that the arguments that the climate change alarmists are presenting is most likely agenda driven (a clean environment is a good cause) and in our opinion they are intentionally misleading the public in that there are lies by intentional omission.  If you like you can call me a proud science denier; however, I’m one of those deplorable science deniers that actually use science and knowledge to determine that they are not telling you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I refuse to use my environmental consciousness as justification to blindly present bad science as propaganda to manipulate the population. I’m all for cleaning up the air we breathe but they need to stop using lies as their major tactic to accomplishing it.

Now we’re off to the climate change races…

There are three things that are at the core of the climate change settled science alarmists arguments;

1. The climate is warming.

2. Human activity IS the cause of the warming.

3. The climate apocalypse is right around the corner.

#1 is not debatable, it is reasonable fact!  The average temperature has been slowly increasing for roughly the last 100 years, I consider this part to be real settled science – it’s verifiable fact.  What differs from opinion to opinion is the amount of the average increase which seems to be based on the data you choose to use to represent your argument.  It is reasonably clear that there is a general trend showing a slow increase in average global temperature.  This increase shows somewhere between 1.5°F – 2.3°F increase over roughly the last 100 years, that averages out to be between 0.015°F – 0.023°F per year. Using those rates of change per 100 years, it will take somewhere between 43 and 67 years for the temperature to increase another 1°F and that is only if the rate of increase remains relatively consistent.  Yes, there will be some lows or the appearance of comparatively no relative change between some cherry picked years and people will use those to argue that it contradicts the overall argument that the Earth is warming, but in reality the larger picture shows the trend regardless of a few anomalies here and there. Accept that the Earth is warming very slowly, this part as reasonable fact.

#2 is definitely NOT settled science, not by any stretch of the imagination, and this is the part where the climate alarmists arguments are blinded by their tunnel visioned science and it makes their arguments vulnerable.  They are presenting the information about CO2 concentrations and temperature change as if it is a direct correlation equals causation argument when they actually cannot definitively prove, using science, that CO2 is the root cause of the temperature increase as opposed to increasing levels of CO2 being the byproduct result of the temperature increase.  They simply cannot prove their theory, they can only imply that they are correct, and attack anyone that argues against their so-called settled science!  They are trying  desperately to explain, not prove, that an observed correlation that happens in nature a correlation that may or may not be a direct cause and effect relationship is in fact a fact; there is a big difference between explaining something and proving it using science.  The science, as presented, is somewhere between really unclear at its best and intentionally misrepresented (a lie) at its worst.  The point is, do not accept this presented settled science as reasonable fact, it is not.  Could their theories be true, sure, but scientist don’t present theories as fact; well at least reputable scientists that are not driven by an agenda.

#3 is the climate alarmists are routinely predicting a future climate catastrophe or apocalypse (whatever you want to call it) that always seems to be right around the corner.  They have made some pretty absurd predictions.   What’s so absurd about these future climate apocalypse predictions is that they are based on tunnel visioned, unsettled, and questionable correlation equals causation science that’s narrowly focused on CO2 concentration levels in the atmosphere and then they’re extrapolating their correlation equals causation temperatures to the theoretical absurd. This part is not even science, it’s closer to predictions made with a Magic 8 Ball, and puts the entire scientific community in a vulnerable position of being attacked and ridiculed for the continued nonsense predictions and eventually the public will just tune out scientists and ignore them; this is very bad!  Even if they were predicting this as being just around the corner in a geological sense of time, you know a thousand years or so, even then there is historical cyclical evidence that contradicts their predictions.  By now everyone knows that even in the early days of the 21st century prominent climate change activists were standing up in front of large crowds and predicting that coastal lands of the United States would be under 5-7 meters of water, that’s 16-22 feet of water!   Wait a minute folks, where’s all this water you all predicted based on settled science?!  How’s that foot in your mouth taste?  There were people that called these flooding coastline predictions absurd back then and the settled science alarmists crowd started their smear campaigns of calling opposition to their science, science deniers and they still use that phrase today even though the skeptics were proven correct.  The fact is that the predictions of the so-called settled science alarmists were flat wrong, and now these same climate change alarmists are saying the equivalent to “it’s just around the corner” or some just won’t talk about their failed predictions at all, they ignore it and keep on down their path of predicting a climate apocalypse.  Their prediction track record about temperature and sea levels gets a great big fat zero.  Be very, Very, VERY wary when scientists are making apocalyptic style predictions about the future based on what they are calling settled science.

When you combine #1-Fact, #2-Bad Science, and #3-Absurd Predictions, and present it to the public as everything is fact and settled science, the result is that it looks like an intentional hoax to anyone that is paying close attention.  What’s more likely is it’s just pushing bad science for good intentions.  Why?  Because the sciences in general, and very specifically in regard to climate change, have literally been dumbed-down and there has been a shift to rewarding the agenda driven versions of science especially where it relates to climate change.

Now why would I say all those terrible things?

Let’s start with this little known factoid that’s being suppressed; here’s what the global warming alarmist won’t openly discuss and it appears that they really don’t want the public to know:  global warming would be taking place right now regardless of human existence on the planet.  The rise in temperature and the rise in CO2 concentrations would be happening even if man did not exist on the planet, it’s been happening for hundreds of thousands of years!   Let that FACT really sink in!  That is an actual fact based on hundreds of thousands of years of historical data that clearly shows a naturally occurring cyclical warming and cooling trend.  Anytime this is mentioned it is quickly put down with direct attacks on the person presenting the argument and it’s explained away using rationalizations.  Sure they use lots of technical jargon that’ll roll your eyes back in your head, but in the end their arguments are nothing but deflection fluff because it simply doesn’t explain away the proven cyclical nature of climate change.

The fact is that the planet goes through these naturally occurring warming and cooling cycles and those cycles are “reasonably predictable” based on short-term and long-term historical data.  We are currently in a naturally occurring global warming cycle.  When the warming trend turns around no one can accurately say because there are short-term and long-term cyclical changes.  We appear to be on the higher phases of what I would call a spike in a temperature increase period which is then followed by a much slower decline, when no one knows; the graphs below show these spikes and slow declines nicely.  Remember we are only talking about a few degrees, we are not talking about major earth climate changing catastrophes.  These cycles have been happening since the dawn of time and global warming alarmist are using tunnel vision to focus on roughly the last 150 years and ignoring verifiable historical facts related to this cyclical trend and portraying their tunnel visioned view of climate change as being completely caused by human activity and leveling dire predictions which are truly only based on extrapolating data from the last roughly 150 years.  If you don’t really understand what extrapolate mean, look it up and learn, it’s an important tool but you must understand why it’s likely an unreliable concept to use in something like climate change with limited detailed knowledge.  There is literally hundreds of thousands of years of reasonably historically accurate geological data and they are literally IGNORING it!  Once in a while you’ll run into an argument that the temperature is rising faster than it has ever risen in the past; well genius, when you cherry pick natural occurring temperature increases that jive with your argument and completely ignore the thousands and thousands more that completely disprove your theory, you’re presenting bad science!

What the Global warming alarmist want the public to do is to throw out thousands and thousands of years of historical climate change facts about warming and cooling periods and believe this narrative of theirs that the main reason that the earth is warming is due to human activity that’s increasing CO2 concentrations and the weather apocalypse is right around the corner.  Scaring the public shitless is their tool to control public activity.  Think about it, there’s literally a bunch of modern day scientists that have presented their extremely narrowed view of weather trends and are predicting a weather apocalypse future based on human activity that they cannot prove is causing a warming environment in an effort to control your activity and make the environment better.  This is BAD SCIENCE propaganda being used for a good cause, thus demeaning the value of the cause with by intentional lies of omission.  What we have seen over the last nearly 20 years of pounding this so-called settled science into the minds of the public is that they really are no longer talking much about the science, they are talking about the people arguing against the flawed science, so the dominating narrative now is that anyone that disagrees with the climate change settled science alarmist is some kind of science denier. This really is bad science and it’s intentionally trying to gin up the fear in the public and literally scare them shitless!  The goal of cleaning up the environment is a great goal, but this nonsense of ginning up fear with bad science must stop.

Let’s move on to some historical information.

Let me start with the graph on the website that [commenter Chrissy-Boy inked to]…


I’m not going to go into the scientific problems with using the words “Temperature Anomaly” to describe the graph, except to say that an anomaly is something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected and a temperature anomaly can never EVER be defined as a zero point on a graph that is an unchanging flat line, temperature is always changing.   What you must think about is to ignore the values as an accurate representation of an anomaly and just pay attention to the differences in the values a baseline of zero can be placed anywhere on the scale as long as you’re focused on the differences in change.

To confirm my argument about anomaly, here is a similar graph to the one above, notice the shift in the zero flat line using the same basic data, the temperature differences are the same.

I chose to use the graph from the link provided by Chrissy-Boy because it represents exactly how narrow visioned the climate change alarmists arguments are focusing; this is the period of time that they base their tunnel visioned arguments on thus ignoring the bigger picture.  Notice that the years covered in the graph are between 1880 and 2020; that is not by accident.  There is a point in time where they began actually recording temperatures with accurate thermometers, that represents the left side of the graph at around 1880’s; temperature measurements for time periods prior to that are derived using other types of thermometers and other methods; those other methods have proven over time to be accurate at showing temperature trends even though the exact temperatures are not exactly known.

Now I’m going to start shifting to graphs that expand the years depicted in the graphs to start showing the trends of climate change over a broader time frame.  Here is a great source for lots of related graphs.

Now lets start pulling away the tunnel vision filter.


Source of Graphs:

So, in the graph immediately above, now we have shifted from 150 years to 2000 years. As you pull back that tunnel vision filter you can start to see that there are small climate change trends within larger climate change trends.  This trend is shown in virtually all graphs depicting this time period.

Now just for reference, lets shift out to a graph of around 150,000 years…

Below are some more graphs depicting CO2 concentration trends and temperature trends.  Notice the correlation between the two graphs but you must remember that this correlation does not imply direct causation in that one is causing the other.  (careful these are inverted left to right, look at the bottom year scale for your reference to years.)  What you should pay attention to is that this is over a 400,000 years and the pattern of major cyclical climate change every 100,000 years or so is very obvious, what’s also noticeable is that there are smaller climate shifts between the larger climate changes the pattern is actually quite obvious!

Graph Source:

Now lets look at more graphs in the 400,000 year range for comparison.  So your perspective doesn’t get screwed up, remember these are now flipped back left-to-right.

Look at the bottom year scale for your reference as to which way the graph is pointing left-to-right, toward the future or towards the past.

Graph Source:

Now compare those previous narrower viewed graphs to this one showing 800,000 years.  Are you beginning to comprehend the cyclical nature of climate change throughout history.

Now here is a graph for the last 800,000 years of Antarctica history that shows the relative correlations between CO2 and temperature (notice that the temperature on the left are negative values)…

Now here is a really interesting graph for the last 300,000 years of Antarctica history that shows the relative correlations between CO2 and temperature (notice that the temperature on the left are negative values – Antarctica is freaking COLD!

Notice the unmistakable major natural temperature warming and cooling cycles and how relatively similar they are, also notice the smaller climate change trends within the larger trends, these same trends can be found all over the globe.  Now really look at the CO2 part of the graph above, the CO2 concentration (blue line) spiked in 2007 to 383 ppm (it’s gone up to over 400 since then) and there has NOT been a corresponding temperature spike, instead the average temperatures have remained relatively stable which is a clear indication that CO2 is NOT the major driving factor of climate change as it is being portrayed in the scientific propaganda.  The correlation equals causation arguments that are being presented by the climate alarmists are false and demonstratively so.

If you want more graphs that show the same kinds of climate changing trends over many years or narrow the graph focus, there are literally hundreds of them.  Here is a link to a google search of climate change graphs.

The point in showing all these graphs; there is a common trend in all the graphs that current day climate alarmists are leaving out of their propaganda arguments, mother nature’s natural temperature warming and cooling cycles and we are in a natural warming cycle.  When you start pulling back the tunnel vision blinders that the alarmist are looking through (primarily at the last 100-150 years) there is a clear undeniable pattern of cyclical warming and cooling trends that emerge.  Now re-look at the graphs above and answer this question; why would reputable scientists essentially never talk about this obvious trend and focus only on the last 150 years when the natural climate change trends show the terrible flaws in their arguments.  The answer is agenda driven science.   Scientists have learned well from politicians, they are lying by omission and it’s definitely intentional!

Climate alarmists call their arguments settled science and some that disagree call their arguments a hoax, I call it bad science, however using the word hoax is not so unreasonable based on all the science they are presenting and the definition of the word hoax: “to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous”.  The only thing that is generally settled science is that in general the earth is slowly warming, the actual amount of warming and the the cause of that warming is nowhere near settled science nor what could reasonably be called a scientific consensus, that is if you want to use real scientific principles that don’t ignore that which proves your arguments false.  The fact that these settled science people continuously leave out the facts surrounding the verifiable evidence of a cyclical trend that is 100% natural and the fact that whether human activity might be accelerating that warming is actually unknown and to claim otherwise is BAD SCIENCE, and then to top it off, to imply that those that disagree are some kind of heretic or science deniers is unethical and morally bankrupt.

There is an agenda driving the climate change alarmists and that agenda is to clean up the environment, which happens to be a really good cause, but lying about the reasons why we need to do it to hype up hysteria in the public is morally bankrupt and just bull shit.  If you want to clean up air pollution then dammit, do it, it will be good for everyone, but don’t spew bad science to try and convince the masses, it makes the whole science argument in favor of cleaning up the environment look like a complete sham.

Now my friends, don’t let this stop you from using Progressive Magical Thinking and providing more opinions that might “seem” to contradict my opinion; in fact I actually encourage every one of you to really dive into this with an open mind like I did.  Stop being duped by the climate change alarmists.

Hopefully after another 400,000 years of collecting extremely detailed climate change data we can make better and more accurate predictions, but it’s certainly not going to happen for many generations to come, it’s all wild theoretical guesses for a long while.

That’s my opinion on the climate change settled science alarmist’s arguments.  I fully expect to be attacked for this opinion, the race is still on, so let’er rip.

74 thoughts on “Comment Of The Day: “Facebook User Ethics : Don’t Spread Panic, And Don’t Make Your Friends As Ignorant As You Are”

  1. I’m not sure why, except fatigue, but I conflated YOUR promise of a 3000 word treatise with Paul. I thought I had posts coming from both of you. Recommendation for the book still stands, and appreciation for this post still stands.

        • Agreed. Well done. The extreme positions on this topic are annoying. The alarmist says the sky is falling and we need to do everything we can to fix; the anti-alarmist says that the sky is not falling so stop worrying and carry on. The middle position says that the sky may or may nor be falling but we shouldn’t be dumping toxic sludge into the waterways. The middle, though, gets bludgeoned by the alarmists and non-alarmists alike.


  2. I can only add that my path from true believer to skeptic is like yours in many ways, except that I did not build my own tables of historical data. Thank you for putting it into words.

  3. I don’t worry about the climate change arguments. I worry about our air, land and water. The pollution will kill us long before we will need to worry about climate change.

  4. Bravo.

    I reminded, though of a conversation my wife had with a friend when we were back in college. I can’t remember what the topic was, but they were amicably discussing topic from the standard conservative vs liberal viewpoints. My wife, the conservative, put forward all the details she knew to argue her point, and our friend replied, “Conservatives are often right, because they have all the facts, but that doesn’t make it right.” It was something close to that, anyway, but the meaning was that to her, facts were less important than the vision. She also said, “If you don’t have unrealistic dreams, nothing will happen.” The unfortunate thing is, in general that seems to be the case with a lot of people. Facts aren’t important. You can quote facts until you’re blue in the face, but that won’t change their minds. After all, we can let any good crisis go to waste…

  5. Very good comment.
    It confirms so many of my biases.
    It also proves that Zoltar Speaks! owns a coal mine.

  6. One other thought I wanted to share. I certainly have not done anywhere near the research you have, Zoltar, but I have done some and have found the facts wanting in support of anthropogenic global warming. But my reservations about the validity of endeavors to reduce human impact on the environment stem from the proposed solutions, not the science. For example, in 2013, the UK, in its efforts to combat global climate change, converted one of its coal powered plants to a new fuel. Wood chips. So, not only is that plant still spewing CO2, but it is deforesting the UK and the US (since there aren’t enough trees in all of England to burn). How does that make any sense? Apparently there is a heavy carbon tax on CO2-producing fuels, but wood chips are technically classified as a renewable resource, and thus subject to subsidies, not taxes! When solutions like these are proposed and lauded as world-saving measures, I grow skeptical.

    I know it is a logical fallacy to conclude the science is wrong, or at least heavily biased, because of the policy decisions that have come down the pipe. But I can’t help but think that the climate alarmists are wrong because surely if they actually believed they were correct, we’d see more honest solutions.

    • I’m willing to accept the human activity theory, but the logic is and has always seemed to be, “What else could be causing it?” That isn’t exactlty scientific certainty though.

      • Jack Marshall wrote, “I’m willing to accept the human activity theory, but the logic is and has always seemed to be, “What else could be causing it?” That isn’t exactly scientific certainty though.”

        There is no scientific basis for the human activity theory, there is only theory.

        • More later, as there are certain longer points to be made, but human activity theory (AGW) makes sense in this sense: there is so much energy stored in fossil fuels in the earth. It is only recently that we have been able to use it on a large scale. The by-product is CO2. With such large amounts of CO2 being released into the atmosphere, it is not unreasonable to think there would be an effect from that. Of course, whether that effect is a warming effect is the issue; the causation/correlation fallacy looms. But, even with the cycles described here, the effect of additional CO2 could be there.

          In other words: it us reasonable to expect an effect from increased CO2 levels. So, is an increase in temperature partly an effect.


          • JutGory wrote, “More later, as there are certain longer points to be made…”

            I took that statement that you had more information that you were going to present; maybe you forgot but I’ve waited long enough.

            JutGory wrote, “…human activity theory (AGW) makes sense…”

            No one is denying that scientific theories can make sense but making sense is simply not good enough in science, you must prove that your theory is correct otherwise it remains theory and nothing more. Reputable scientists do not make apocalyptic predictions based on extrapolations from unproven correlation equals causation theories unless they have an it’s for a good cause agenda that is being driven by the ends justifies the means – it’s intentionally dishonest to present such unproven theories as fact.

            Personally I think humans are sorta like a potential scourge on the earth, eventually we’ll probably screw it all up, there is nothing other than theory that human activity is the cause of global warming. To imply that humans have unknowingly outwitted mother nature and are now controlling climate with the by products of our activities and that is somehow outweighing all the massive undeniable forces of mother nature that control climate, I personally think the implications are simply ridiculous and certainly not scientific.

      • … any volcano dumps many times the CO2 than man has caused in the last 200 years. They go off regularly and always have. How does that square with the ‘human causation’ theory?

        Mars is warmer than it used to be. Do Martians have SUVs?

        it was warm before the little ice age of Dickens times. It got warmer after. Did man make it warmer, then cooler, then warmer again? Note that this was a greater variation in temperature than we have to date.

        Points to ponder.

        • You’re DENYING the possibility that the MWP (incuriously airbrushed from Mann’s laughably discredited Hockey Schtick Theory) was caused by the unregulated, out-of-control smelting of chainmail armor…?

          • The last ice age (glacial) was ended by Mammoth farts, causing the current inter-glacial. Man then killed off the Mammoths. The little ice age of Dicken’s time was ended by Finland reindeer domestication, which increased wild artic plant survival and thus less oxygen and more CO2.

            Man DID cause change the ice!


      • My wife, who received her degree in chemical engineering, and who worked for three years as a process engineer at our refinery before retiring to take care of our children, took a course as a senior that covered human impact on the environment. There is certainly plenty of evidence, but it comes in terms of deforestation, agriculture, dams, and other such developments. Greenhouse gas emissions are really the the area where there needs to be more evidence before we settle on a good policies. This is especially true when we consider atmospheric make-up. Over 99% of the atmosphere is made of nitrogen, oxygen, and argon. Of the remaining less than 1%, only a fraction of that is greenhouse gases, of which about 90% is water vapor. In terms of effectiveness at trapping heat, CO2 is roughly equivalent to H2O. Good ol’ methane, though, is about a hundred times more effective than carbon dioxide, and we emit enough methane through our activities that the warming impact of methane is 20 times higher than CO2. So the fact that CO2 is made out to be the demon in all the climate discussion is somewhat disingenuous.

          • Most information I can find says that humans emit about 29 billion tons of CO2 a year, whereas all volcanoes worldwide (through normal degassing or eruptions) emit slightly less than a billion tons of CO2 a year.

            The most convincing argument I’ve seen regarding CO2 as such a terrible culprit points to notions that whereas with H2O, which has a great balancing feature (too much in the atmosphere causes clouds and more rain, thus cooling the atmosphere and decreasing water vapor in the atmosphere), CO2 doesn’t have any balancing mechanisms that regulate its presence in the atmosphere, at least not at the levels we are currently emitting it. Plants do absorb CO2, but it seems the jury is still out on how much CO2 worldwide vegetation can pull from the atmosphere.

            Which is why it doesn’t make sense to chop down trees to burn their wood in what used to be a coal-fired power plant…

            • Ryan:

              Ever wonder why tropical islands are so green? All that leaching CO2 combined with minerals in the soil…


              The new poster-child of planetary degassing is diffuse CO2 — invisible emanations which can occur across vast areas surrounding the main vents of a volcano, rising through the bulk of the mountains. This transparent haze is only just beginning to receive proper attention, and as such we have very little idea of how much it might contribute to the global output.

              Even more incredibly, it even seems that some volcanoes which are considered inactive, in terms of their potential to ooze new land, can still make some serious additions to the atmosphere through diffuse CO2 release. Residual magma beneath dormant craters, though it might never reach the surface, can still ‘erupt’ gases from a distance. Amazingly, from what little scientists have measured, it looks like this process might give off as much as half the CO2 put out by fully active volcanoes.

              If these additional ‘carbon-active’ volcanoes are included, the number of degassing peaks skyrockets to more than 500. Of which we’ve measured a grand total of nine percent. You can probably fill it in by now — we need to climb more mountains.

              Historically (and I forget where I got this, and am too lazy today to research, so take it as you will) greater amounts of CO2 combined with warmer climates stimulated greater plant growth, which in turn balanced out eventually. If I remember right, this has happened before, where large numbers of plants blossomed out on newly unfrozen land to absorb the plant food.

              Not a rebuke, just more discussion points 🙂

              • No rebuke taken. I am pretty firmly on the skeptical side of the anthropogenic global warming debate, just so everyone is clear. No, it doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that I work at a refinery, and my paycheck depends on selling gasoline and diesel. No, it is not because Wyoming’s economy is deeply entrenched in fossil fuels. It is all based on my interpretation of the evidence, coupled with the fact that we could beggar ourselves in the United States and make almost no difference on the climate because of other developing nations like India and China.

                As for green plants and CO2, I am reminded of another study my wife learned about in her class. A group of people took a greenhouse and inject CO2. First they put it at levels that alarmists are warning we will reach in a few decades, if we do nothing now. The researchers discovered that the plants grew better in a richer CO2 atmosphere. They decided to push the limits and see if there was a turning point. They kept injecting more and more CO2, and the plants grew better and better. They finally reached 5% CO2 and ran into mechanical limitations of getting an atmosphere any richer in CO2, and still the plants grew like crazy. More CO2 in the atmosphere means plants grow better.

                It is actually likely that all the CO2 we’re putting in the atmosphere is helping us, because the earth is getting greener because of it.

                • Ryan Harkins wrote, “As for green plants and CO2, I am reminded of another study my wife learned about in her class. A group of people took a greenhouse and inject CO2. First they put it at levels that alarmists are warning we will reach in a few decades, if we do nothing now. The researchers discovered that the plants grew better in a richer CO2 atmosphere. They decided to push the limits and see if there was a turning point. They kept injecting more and more CO2, and the plants grew better and better. They finally reached 5% CO2 and ran into mechanical limitations of getting an atmosphere any richer in CO2, and still the plants grew like crazy. More CO2 in the atmosphere means plants grow better.”

                  A similar thing was discussed in the lecture video from Professor Bob Carter that Paul Compton posted below. Did you get a chance to watch the whole thing yet?

                  • Zoltar, I have finally watched it, and it was great.

                    My wife did want me to issue a correction. The 5% CO2 was not the cap; the researchers apparently hit the limitation at 30% CO2 before they could not feasibly increase the CO2 concentration. The 5% mark was notable because we would die rather quickly in an atmosphere that rich in CO2. But the plants loved every moment of it.

      • …but the logic is and has always seemed to be, “What else could be causing it?”

        My answer is and has always been: “The same thing that caused the various Ice Ages to end tens-of-thousands of years before humans built the first automobile (…or insert-man-made-activity-HERE).”


  7. Very well done, Zoltar. These are all things I have been aware of for a while, but it’s nice to see it all combined this way into something coherent.

    The climate alarmists have become indistinguishable from a cult — they no longer require facts to line up with observed reality, they just know it is what they say it is.

    I have no clue at this point how much, if any, human activity affects the climate. I know from history that the earth has dealt with climate swings much greater than what we are seeing now, and somehow made it through. I also know that none of the models the climate alarmists have put forward have reflected anything remotely like reality.

    So in the end, I think we just don’t know enough about it yet. We need to keep studying the problem, if in fact a problem exists. But we need to get away from faux science, which is what we see mostly today from the alarmists.

    One way to get there would be to return to the scientific method of formulating hypotheses and rejecting them when data doesn’t bear them out, rather than clinging to them to secure funding and trying to make the data fit the hypotheses.

  8. Congrats, Z!

    I am copying my response from your site, as I am running out of words today…

    “Well documented and rationally thought through. Good job.

    You are far too kind as to the motivations of the bad science propagandists. Money is behind this: money through grants (that pay the scientist’s salary;) money through legislation, picking winners and losers in the free market with malice aforethought; and money by starting hoax businesses to grant dispensation (check out Al Gore’s fortune selling carbon credits, and see how HE lives) or to bilk the public with government contracts, like Solyndra.

    The other motive is power. The elite need to control the masses, and climate change is a method to limit freedom. Free people are likely to make decisions for themselves, and that just cannot be allowed.”

  9. Thanks Zoltar. I have followed a similar path to you, although from your description I haven’t expended the same number of hours!

    I’m someone who believes we should always try, realistically, to keep our impact on the planet as low as possible – and I hate wind farms. Love the turbines, hate the farms! You can’t tell me that we can suck thousands of Gigawatts (the ultimate goal) of energy out of our weather system without having an environmental impact.

    I’m an enthusiastic conservationist who hunts (ferals) and can’t stand tree huggers who have no understanding of the environment but want to stop every project, everywhere.

    There’s to many warm and fuzzy feelings and not enough following the science out there.

    Here is a link to a real live scientist, well actually he has subsequently died unfortunately, speaking on the topics Zoltar has presented.

    • I’m 38 minutes into this video and it is INTERESTING!!!

      Watch it!

      John Billingsley & dragin_dragon,
      You two have got to watch this! Pay really close attention after the 30 minute mark.

      • Thanks again, Z. You’re right, very interesting. I particularly liked “We have 23 wrong models, so we average them and we get the one that’s right?”

        • dragin_dragon wrote, “Thanks again, Z. You’re right, very interesting. I particularly liked “We have 23 wrong models, so we average them and we get the one that’s right?” “

          You’re welcome.

          That was particularly interesting to me too because I used to use that kind of thing a lot when I tutored classrooms full of Calculus, Physics and Statistics college students.

          I also thought you would find the software for children particularly interesting.

          • The exploding pig, complete with “blood, guts, gore, hair, teeth and eyeballs all over the landscape” did draw my attention, yes.

    • I really like how Professor Bob Carter talks about what I call tunnel vision, he uses “how long your string is”. The length of my strong when I talked “#1 is not debatable” was 100 years.

  10. Very nice, a geologist fried gave me the basics twenty years ago. When I hear it, I mutter to myself, ‘For the sake of the dinosaurs!’ I hadn’t realized we’ve already reached the early Armageddon years. Thanks.

  11. Way to go Zoltar!
    I think the only area I disagree is the motives of the elites behind this. Reading the UN’s Earth Charter confirms to me the climate issue is ultimately about controlling the population while ushering in a new Gaia based religion.

    Good work & thank you! I’ll be sharing your post with others.

    • In actual fact, and this is a belief, only with NO facts to back it up, the UN is desperate to establish control over all of the peoples of the Earth…including US. They are taking seriously numerous politicians threats to stop the funding (we give them the majority of their funding. Without us, they got NOTHING, including ‘peace-keeping’ forces). Thus, it is felt to be imperative that the UN control our elections and our FINANCES. Trump has stalled ’em for a bit, but not for long. Look for future efforts.

      • Ah yes, the UN; when Climate Criminality is the subject, their name should be mentioned.

        “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific and intergovernmental body under the auspices of the United Nations, set up at the request of member governments, dedicated to the task of providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change and its political and economic impacts.”

        What a joke! The UNIPCC conducts no research of its own, which should come as no surprise; follow the money; it’s not in the research, it’s in the solutions recommended by the Summary for Policy-Makers (SPM) addendum to its Assessment Reports (AR’s).

        Incuriously, the “solutions” quite often benefit those who propose them.

        Ever wonder why the UNIPCC has fought reform and scrutiny? Don’t waste your time.

        The UNIPCC answers to no one, has no obligation to give an audience to anyone that doesn’t confirm the “Consensus” and has NO Conflict-Of-Interest (COI) provision.

        A while back, an Interacademy Council investigation recommended sweeping changes to the UNIPCC.

        *(T)he council said (the UNIPCC) needs a full-time executive director, more openness and regular changes in leadership.

        *It called for stronger enforcement of its reviews of research and adoption of a COI policy, which the IPCC does not have, even though its parent agencies do.

        *The (COI) issue was raised because of former Chair Rajendra Pachauri’s work as adviser and board member of green energy companies, etc., etc., etc.

        The UNIPCC’s response? “FUCK OFF!!

        We’re talking TRILLION$ in “solutions” here, financed by ‘taking $ from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries.’

        Why did the Maldives take a half a BILLION in “Climate Reparations” and build golf courses and airports to promote tourism rather than move all their crap to higher ground?

        The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), comprised of a veritable Who’s Who of Climate Criminal Lefties; (Fat Albert, Maurice Strong, Frank Raines, Uncle Georgie Soros, the Lefty Foundations, et al) was shuttered for failing to fulfill the one reason for its existence: lining the pockets of Gucci-slippered Carbon Traders and rent-seeking corporations.

        Expected to generate trades reaching into the 14 figures, it would have been a CLIMATE CRIMINAL’S wet freakin’ dream!

        “At its founding in November 2000, it was estimated that the size of CCX’s carbon trading market could reach $500 billion. That estimate ballooned over the years to $10 trillion.”

        That’s some serious jack for trading what amounts to thin air.

        If anyone wonders what kind of people that kind of money tends to attract, it wouldn’t be Sunday School teachers or the Boy Scouts!

  12. One of the interesting things about the argument is that the central element – the “manmade” part – is a Hitchcockian mcguffin. If we figure out both that an ice age is about to begin, and that we can stop it, does anyone think that anybody is going to say, “Hey, wait – this one’s natural, we gotta let it happen”? It’s ludicrous.

  13. Zoltar Speaks!, excellent comment, well-researched. You have spurred me to look into more of this for myself. I wonder what it would take to promote a more balanced view of the data? As things are now, the climate apocalypse crowd remind me of nothing so much as a religious cult that keeps sweeping their past failed doomsday predictions under the carpet while still shouting that the end is near…

  14. This is what happens when no scientists are involved in a discussion of this issue.
    Here’s the basic rebuttal to Zoltar:
    More to the point, here’s 194 more rebuttals to every AGW denier claim I’ve ever seen, and a few I’ve not.
    The comments are also at a much higher level of scientific discourse than here on this blog. Even the one from skeptics or deniers( not necessarily the same thing, I was a ‘skeptic’ until 2005 when I changed my mind).

    Anyway, things like Milankovitch cycles are well-known and accounted for in many models, indeed there are whole scientific papers dedicated to studying such effects. It’s not a job for a non-expert, really.

    Anyway, the real problem with our almost-certainly at least partly human-induced climate change is that it is happening over a period of decades to centuries rather than over a period of millennia. This, by the way, strongly hints its not natural. It also places ecosystems at great risk, not that I’d expect most here to care about that ‘greenie’ concern.

    No, I’m not a doomer. At least not if China and Asia go nuclear in a big way as they seem to be planning to. They emit more carbon dioxide than the US does, after all. And I doubt very many ‘clean coal’ plants or anything like that are going to be built in the US anytime soon to change that calculation. I just find it amusing that anyone can think they are smarter than all the people multiple fields of science. Climatologists, ecologists, chemists (atmospheric and regular) physicists, those who study solar cycles… it goes on and on) Zoltar needs to publish in Nature and get his Nobel Prize, stat!

    At least that is unless you are also claiming a huge conspiracy by every Major scientific organization and well known science journal in the whole entire world which would prevent poor Zoltar from getting the fame due to him for totally disproving AGW . And we would have gotten away with it to, if it wasn’t for all those pesky kids! Oh, and all the scientists in over a hundred countries including those that don’t even have our own grant system. And the Exxon scientists who internally came to the conclusion that AGW was something to look into at least. Liars, frauds, and incompetent boobs all. Of course we wouldn’t be pushing such an outlandish fantasy would we?

    • Good comment, tough needlessly written in the always welcome”asshole” style that so endears any participant. I especially like,

      Anyway, the real problem with our almost-certainly at least partly human-induced climate change is that it is happening over a period of decades to centuries rather than over a period of millennia. This, by the way, strongly hints its not natural.

      Boy, THERE’S the kind of certainty that it’s responsible to rely on to justify spending trillions of dollars and turning the economy inside out! Absolutely! Makes sense to me!

      Then there was this..

      It also places ecosystems at great risk, not that I’d expect most here to care about that ‘greenie’ concern.

      Nice. I think I know the contributors better than you do, and that stereotyping and smearing is completely unfair. Yes, there are relatively few snaildarter fans here. Good. Opposing fanatic and obsessive environmentalism doesn’t translate into shrugging off the health of ecosystems, but by all means, demonize principled dissent. Jerk.

      Your comment is a big improvement on “ARGHHHHHHHHHHHH!” But more obnoxious.

      • Speaking of the snaildarter…

        In 1979, a dam (the Tellico) on the Little Tennessee River was 95 % completed when that little bugger was found to be in the way.

        The Tellico Dam wasn’t needed for power generation or flood control. Turns out it was a sop to cement contractors that needed pandering which was cheerfully, if cravenly, supplied by an up-n-coming politician.

        The newly minted Endangered Species Act (ESA) was presented with its first challenge.

        The gist of it was a “God Squad” created, it would issue waivers based on the cost/benefit analysis of completing projects where ESA designees had the poor judgement of holing up in the way of “progress.”

        Whether they employed “settled science” is unknown, but not really the point.

        Whom some call America’s greatest environmentalist, David Brower: ”This was the beginning of the end of the Endangered Species Act.”

        Now, who was that Mother Gaia ravaging/God’s Creatures Murdering/ESA destroying up-n-comer?

        The name Al Gore, Jr. ring a bell?

        If you’ve ever wondered why I pull no punches with Nobel Laureate, Grammy & Oscar-winning, and EPIC POS Fat Albert, wonder no more.

        Read the brutal treatise by Jeffery St. Clair ( Fearless Voice Of The American Left Since 1993) “Al Gore: The Origins Of A Hypocrite.”

    • Clarence in Baltimore,
      You linked to a source ( that literally publishes scientific propaganda talking points; they are literally presenting scientific hypothesis as fact; this is scientific fraud!

      I’ve actually had direct personal experience with and your use of Progressive Magical Thinking to link to that particular cite as a source to validate your opinion tells me everything I need to know about your scientific knowledge.

      I’ll talk about #1 on the Global Warming & Climate Change Myths page that you linked to.

      Climate Myth = “Climate’s changed before.”
      What the Science Says = “Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.” (if you click on that text you get the basic level explanation of the science)

      Basic Level Explanation
      “Greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes. This time around humans are the cause, mainly by our CO2 emissions.”

      Intermediate Level Explanation
      “Scientific analysis of past climates shows that greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes. The evidence for that is spread throughout the geological record. This makes it clear that this time around humans are the cause, mainly by our CO2 emissions.”

      Now I’ll discuss specific statements that are being presented as fact.

      “Humans are now the dominant forcing”; this is an unproven scientific hypothesis and not scientific fact. Climate forcings are different factors that affect the Earth’s climate. These “forcings” drive or “force” the climate system to change. The claim that “humans are now the dominant forcing” is a outright intentional propaganda lie; the sun has been and will always will be the dominate forcing for climate change, the fact that the sun is relatively stable does not negate the fact that the sun is and will always will be the dominate forcing for climate change. Their claim is completely illogical and is not based on science, it’s 100% propaganda bull shit!

      “This time around humans are the cause, mainly by our CO2 emissions”; this is an unproven scientific hypothesis and not scientific fact. The hypothesis that humans are the cause is based on a completely separate unproven hypothesis that CO2 is the dominate forcing.

      “Scientific analysis of past climates shows that greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes”; this is an unproven scientific hypothesis and not scientific fact. This hypothesis is based 100% on correlation equals causation and not scientific principles.

      “The evidence for that is spread throughout the geological record.”; this is an unproven scientific hypothesis that is based on an observed correlation, it is not scientific fact. There is a verifiable correlation, there is NOT a verifiable causation, this is BAD SCIENCE and it is scientific fraud to present it as fact.

      “This makes it clear that this time around humans are the cause, mainly by our CO2 emissions”; this is an unproven scientific hypothesis and not scientific fact. When your hypothesis is built upon the core of another unproven hypothesis, it is BAD SCIENCE to present a conclusion based solely on the unproven core hypothesis as fact. it is scientific fraud to present this as scientific fact. is absolutely full of skillfully written information that intertwines fact based science and unproven hypothesis presented as fact and their ability to let the unproven hypothesis completely override proven science is absolutely astounding. They do not tell you what’s proven science and what’s unproven hypothesis, this is scientific fraud! The website is the equivalent to scientific snake oil salesmen.

        • Clarence would never have had a response, since Clarence does not understand science. I suspect a degree in Underwater Left-handed Puffer-fish husbandry is to blame. ULP looks like a a great field to a new high school student, combining climate religion with environmental responsibility, but then the classes are so boring, consisting of ideological droning (since Puffer-fish do not need help) that students skip class to get high and post snap chat pictures their parents would disapprove of.

          Then they graduate and learn the most important phrase for their new career: “Would you like to make that a Venti?”

  15. Hmm. I , at least, called no-one names.
    I also don’t see why you felt the need to totally ignore my China/Asia versus the US comment. Unlike most of the “Greenie” commenters here I’m not ‘freaking out’ because I know that in most ways our future really is NOT in the US’s hands no matter what we do or our loveable orange President (whom I voted for and knew withdrawal from Paris would happen) does.

    I was thinking about publishing a comment in your other thread on this saying I agreed with you about the Paris Climate Agreement being mostly smoke and mirrors and that it is bad for environmental hysteria to be spread around on Facebook due to a mostly symbolic decision. But I was very tired. I’m glad I didn’t, seeing how you mangled my argument. If you want to call me Smug, well, fair assessment. I waited until what I considered satellite evidence came in and then UNLIKE most current ‘skeptics’ I didn’t close my mind and insist on the corruption of literally whole disciplines. I also remember being at Watts place (amazing how the known and probably much more $ lucrative conflicts of interest of most pushing BS on the “skeptical” side , gets ignored by you and those on this blog. Few scientists ‘live large’ on the public dime) back when he was screaming that Anthropogenic Global Warming was a total fraud that the scientists knowingly perpetrated and that many or most of them didn’t believe it themselves. I remember when the ‘leak’ happened, noticing that whatever else you could say about the scientists involved, they apparently really thought there was global warming and that man done caused most of it. I also noticed that many (perhaps most) skeptics never changed their tune. See, I’ve been around this issue a very long time (My first brush with skepticism was a guy I still respect Jerry Pournelle and his concerns about the ‘hockey stick’ graph. He seems to have moderated his position somewhat over the ensuing years), and I’ve watched ‘skeptics’ double down and dig in, even denying former compatriots respect when they’ve changed their mind or done experiments to ‘disprove ‘ things such as surface temperature measurements only to end up proving them. Almost all the scientists and science writers I’ve respected who were initially anti – or skeptical have gone over to the AGW ‘side’. At some point, however, one doesn’t become a skeptic one becomes a religious believer. I changed my mind after evidence came in. People like you don’t change your mind, instead you double down requiring more and more stupidity or dishonesty from the other side until eventually it gets into Illuminati territory. And since neither you, nor Zoltar will either try to contact the scientists involved (to clear things up) nor change your opinion in any way no matter what, you also are totally useless when it comes to any solutions by the US or anyone else. Then you complain its mostly liberal environmental groups who have voices in this matter. Well, that’s partly the fault of you and yours so I don’t want to hear it.

    Anyway, just as scientists shouldn’t act as authorities on the law, neither should lawyers act as authorities on science. It was amusing triggering you though. Amazingly, I’m a bit smug because I have thousands of experts around the world behind me, whereas you are even smugger and think all those experts must be wrong. I’m so glad that geniuses like you and Zoltar are available for intellectual and scientific edification!

    • 1. Saying that most here don’t care about the environment is no different from calling them names. If I write “Unlike you, I will be horrified if Jews are wiped from the fact of the earth,” I just called you an antiSemite.

      2. You were correct about Asia. The Green lobby here is also the no-nukes and anti-fracking lobby, meaning that they will insist on wind and solar until they turn blue, whether it is practical or not. YOU didn’t mention THAT.

      3. If anyone mangled your argument, you did. Zoltar’s comment aside, Ethics Alarms has never denied the existence of climate change, just that it has been dishonestly argued. You continued that by contradicting yourself

      4. “I’m a bit smug because I have thousands of experts around the world behind me, whereas you are even smugger and think all those experts must be wrong. I’m so glad that geniuses like you and Zoltar are available for intellectual and scientific edification!”

      Water mark of an asshole, right there. You are just setting straw men on fire, and crowing about it. You say, smugly, AGW is a proven fact, then wrote at the same time that the “A” was really unproven. Want to see it again?

      Anyway, the real problem with our almost-certainly at least partly human-induced climate change is that it is happening over a period of decades to centuries rather than over a period of millennia. This, by the way, strongly hints its not natural. It also places ecosystems at great risk, not that I’d expect most here to care about that ‘greenie’ concern.

      “almost-certainly at least partly human-induced” does not mean settled, nor certain; you write that, and then you write “Almost all the scientists and science writers I’ve respected who were initially anti – or skeptical have gone over to the AGW ‘side’”…which means, according to your own assessment, they are hyping—which is deceptive, dishonest, unprofessional and unethical…THEN you have the gall to write, “I have thousands of experts around the world behind me, whereas you are even smugger and think all those experts must be wrong.”

      I never said they were “wrong,” and I don’t believe they are all wrong. They also are not in agreement, except on the broad question of the significant warming of the earth.

      You can dissent and give your opinion all you want. You do not, however, get away with insulting me, misrepresenting what is written here, and talking like a smug asshole about enjoying “triggering” me while crowing about an argument that lacked integrity.

      So if you want another shot here that doesn’t get trashed the second I see it, you can apologize for your attitude and snark, and promise to be minimally respectful. You can send it to Warning: if it’s not an apology and just more snark, I won’t read it, and will block you from my mailbox. If it’s a real apology, then you’ll be reinstated. As of now, you’re banned.

      Otherwise, get lost. I told you that your first comment on this topic was obnoxious, and you came back with more. From the Comment Policies (which if you didn’t read them, you should have, and if you did, you intentionally breached them):

      Initiating your relationship on Ethics Alarms with snark, sarcasm, nastiness or ridicule is a bad strategy–as I noted above, you have to earn the privilege of talking to me like that. You may not get a second chance.

      I know you have commented before, and well, so I’m giving you a THIRD chance. See you after the apology, or not.

    • Wow. THAT’S a stretch. Also crawling close to climate change skepticism territory. Gore and the models predicted an increase in catastrophic hurricanes, which in fact have almost vanished. No plausible explanations have been forthcoming, since the obvious one is “We don’t know what’s going to happen. Still.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.