Since some EA commenters have chosen to send their credibility to die on the metaphorical hill of Rep. Omar’s ridiculous climate change tweet of last week, I felt this paired set of reports made an important point. Amazingly, so far at least, these irreconcilable contradictions—and this is far from the only one in the climate change “settled science” debate—- don’t seem to shake the faith of climate change fanatics even a little bit.
Which itself is useful information….
Ethics Alarms 
Warmalistas changing equine in mid-Global Warming Enhanced-stream, that something new?
Not exactly.
(bolds/caps/italics mine throughout)
Dr. David Viner, Senior Research Scientist/ Climate Research Unit (CRU)-East Anglia University, U.K. (of ClimateGate infame) in 2000: “Within a very few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
5 of the 6 snowiest winters in the U.S. (’03, ’08, ’10, ’11, ’13) quickly ensued.
Tipping Points are issued, come and go, and just like nutcase Preachers, nutcase Warmalistas simply reissue, and Lefties (most, not all) get pulled along by the nostrils.
“In 2001 global warming meant fewer major snowstorms with SOME SCIENTISTS EVEN PREDICTING THE END OF SNOW, but in 2015 global warming means more major snowstorms.”
Huh??
“Some scientists are now saying global temperature rises will lead to more massive snowstorms like the one that covered Boston in several feet of snow this week (mid March 2108) — a complete turnaround from what climate scientists were saying just a few years ago.
“In 2001, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC) reported that ‘milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.’
“The IPCC doubled down on this claim in 2007, saying that ‘a growing number of case studies of larger settlements indicate that climate change is likely to increase heat stress in summers while reducing cold-weather stresses in winter.’ ”
That mean Warmalistas were against more snow before they were for it…?
“It’s Tough To Make Predictions, Especially About The Future.” Y. Berra
I find it interesting that my power company can predict the weather. I am on fixed-rate billing (my bill is the same every month at a rate fixed each March). In March 2022, my rate was increased by $30/month over the previous year. This March, my bill was lowered $25 over the previous year. The summer of 2022 was really hot, which is why I built a solar-powered window air conditioner that spring. How did I and the power company know 2022 would be really hot and 2023 would be cooler? The summer of 2011 was very hot (temps exceeded 117 degrees F that year). Because of that, the summer of 2022 was going to be hot. The sun has an 11 year suspot cycle that greatly effects global temperature. When the sun puts off more energy, the earth is warmer. This year was still going to be hot, but not THAT hot. Luckily, 2022 wasn’t nearly as bad as 2011. Luckily, this is el Nino weather, so our summer has been pretty cool and wet.
The problem with the global warming crowd isn’t the idea that the temperature is changing, it is their blind insistence that it is solely due to manmade CO2 releases. Additionally, they think changing temperature is some kind of immediate global emergency. Of course the temperature is changing, global temperatures are always changing. Of course global temperatures are warming some, we are still coming out of an ice age. We still have several degrees before we reach the temps of the Viking age or the Roman era. Those were eras of prosperity that ended when the temperatures cooled. It may be that the only reason we can sustain our current population is because of our advanced agricultural methods. Increased CO2 will increase plant growth and crop yields. Starving plants of food (CO2) isn’t the best way to encourage plant growth. In fact, I am thinking of patenting solar-powerd, self-replicating, bio-organic, atmospheric-CO2 extraction devices. You might call them trees, but I am claiming them. Send me my government money.
One of my favorite studies, back when we were still allowed to publish these, was a study on how much CO2 could plants take in. A air-tight (or close to it) greenhouse was set up with a controllable amount of CO2 injected. The first thing the researchers found was that the plants grew like crazy, super fast and super big. The second was that it was very hard to keep elevated CO2 levels about a certain amount because the plants sucked it down as fast as they put it in. The third item was that at CO2 levels so high that all humans would be dead just by walking into the greenhouse, the plants were fairing better than ever, but dang, it was nearly impossible to put enough CO2 in there to keep it at lethal levels. There was no mechanism in industrialized society that could come close to that kind of CO2 output on a long term, global basis.
So yeah, I like your solar powered, self-replicating, bio-organic, atmospheric CO2 extraction devices. While you do trees, I think I’ll do shrubs. They grow faster and don’t require as much work.
Was that the one done about 1990-1991? I was taking a biology class from that professor at the time. Even then, biology had bought into the global warming hype. The professor actually expected the plants to die in elevated CO2, not grow faster. When he explained this to the class, my friends and I thought he was an idiot. What organism grows slower or dies when you give it more food? Well, he was honest enough to follow the data and admit his mistake, got a great paper, and was awarded the ‘paper of the year’ by the U of M.
Yes, that is the time frame the paper was written in and could very well be the same paper. It was verboten when I started studying a related field in the mid-late 2000s. We were trying to determine if carbon capture for our project made sense. Economically, we knew it didn’t, but from an environmental standpoint, we thought we should look into it.
Finally we decided that while it made no sense from an economic or environmental standpoint, we should include it as an option from a political standpoint. That paper was one of many that convinced us.
Unfortunately, when we provided a reasonable attempt to power and fuel our nation at about $100/barrel of oil equivalent with very limited pollution, but still using fossil fuels, well, it was politically inconvenient and we got shut down from the highest levels.
I think that the first headline stating a theory as fact is inappropriate in this context, but other than that, I must admit I don’t see why these two articles are supposed to make me doubt the existence of climate change (specifically man-made global warming) either. Both articles attribute the differing possible effects on Ireland to a rise in global temperature, their sources just disagree on what those effects may be in the near-term. I don’t know of many people who argue that specific localized effects in one nation are certain; part of the concern about climate change is the unpredictability of what those effects may be.
I didn’t say, nor do I believe, that the two articles “are supposed to make [anyone] doubt the existence of climate change.” What they do is show how the climate change dogma, narrative and theology is full of inconsistency, speculation and sufficient contradiction that anyone using the “settled science” dodge is either dishonest or not too bright. If the “science” leads to predictions that Ireland will be cooler AND warmer depending on how you looks at the models and data, then there is little reason to believe any predictions from the “experts” are anything but educated guesses…consistently publicized as more, for consumption by the gullible or the hysterical.
Perhaps I spoke too sloppily. If instead of “doubt the existence of climate change,” I said “doubt that climate change is in large part caused by man, causing a global rise in temperature, and poses a serious threat to the quality of human life,” would you have the same objection? The latter two are predictions that most climate scientists seem pretty united in and confident about, even if they lack confidence about, say, what the exact near-term effect in Ireland will be.
Not really. That climate change is occurring seems undeniable—which doesn’t mean that models and predictions about how long, to what extent and with what results are not still speculative and thus wholly deniable. Also deniable: the theory that there is anything practical, affordable and effective that can or should be done about climate change to address uncertain and speculative models and predictions. That human activity is the most likely cause of what has been observed so far is a good bet, but a good bet is not the same as a sure thing, adn pretending it is is unscientific and irresponsible, while saying it is ins dishonest and unethical.
“Also deniable: the theory that there is anything practical, affordable and effective that can or should be done about climate change to address uncertain and speculative models and predictions.”
All Global Warming Predictions Are Infallible…Until They’re Not
MONEY QUOTE: “Yes We Will Never Get To The Jetsons, By Restricting Humans To The Energy Capabilities Of The Flintstones!”
Computer models are a hypothesis, not a conclusion. If the model does not accurately predict real world outcomes, the hypothesis is wrong. Climate scientists have yet to create a model that accurately predicts real world outcomes, yet they continuously present those models as “settled science.” An unproven hypothesis is the opposite of settled science. Blind faith in unproven hypotheses undermines trust in the scientific method.
And with these educated guesses, there seems to much guesses intermixed with the education.
“If the “science” leads to predictions that Ireland will be cooler AND warmer depending on how you looks at the models and data, then there is little reason to believe any predictions from the “experts” are anything but educated guesses”
And there is even less reason to believe any of their “solutions” to the problem – which increasingly appear to just be massive facades to cram progressive and nascent totalitarian societal re-programming down our throats.
NO reason.
Many people who question anthropogenic global climate change have good reason to do so. Here are a few of the facts that make believing the anthropogenicity of climate change difficult for me.
This “hottest days ever” claim has been shown to be mostly false. For example, the Rome data point was from a model, not actual data. Indeed, while the temperature measured was almost two degrees Celsius below what the high was claimed to be, that high was under previous highs from the last few decades recorded in Rome. The actual temperature of the day in question was 40C, measured at the Urbe airport, not 41.8. Rome’s highest temperature ever recorded is not 40.8C as claimed, but instead 42C. This high temperature was recorded at the Ponte di Nona bus station in 2005.
Other high temperatures predicted were followed by actual data anywhere from 8-20C lower than the predictions.
In the few instances of recorded temperatures being high, they were pulled from small towns that have no historical data and sometimes do not have the highest quality thermometers, but places that have previously been used for this data have not shown any kind of real jump.
Finally, in the (very) few instances of recorded data from a standard site with proper measurement, the temperatures in question were almost exclusively land temperatures (taken on ground level). We have never used land temperatures in this capacity before, because they are affected by too many variables and can give false data depending on a great many factors. Instead, we have always used air temperature (measured at two meters above the ground). The idea that these new land-based temperatures are hotter than the previous air-based temperatures should be no surprise. Reflected heat of concrete will make these higher, if nothing else will.
When lies like these are spread, rather than providing us with unfalsified data, it is hard to take this seriously. I have other reasons, but I don’t have time this morning to write my usual treatise.
Sarah, you should keep writing.
I have written several things in EA regarding climate…some alright and one post that was pretty bad. This time, I will add a thought from my perspective as a Christian. And before I’m panned too badly, I will make the bold claim that what follows has at LEAST as much credibility and viability as what Rep. Omar tweeted last week (and she got a LOT of hearts on it). So here goes…
We’re not going to save this planet. All you man-made climate-change alarmists, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez suggesting we have only five or ten or twelve years to save the planet, czar John Kerry flying around repeating the “science is settled” to whoever will listen, hapless Greta Thunberg yelling at us with that signature scowl and the you’re-not-doing-enough guilt trip, all you grade-school students who think you’re gaining time with your “climate strikes”, Michael Mann with his hockey-stick, Katharine Hayhoe with…whatever she says, Ford Motor and Amazon and Google and everyone else committing to carbon neutrality to save the world, the IPCC, all of you…every last one of you…
You’re not saving the planet. You’re tilting at windmills. This planet won’t be saved because it’s destined for destruction…by fire. It’s all going to burn up…cars and clowns and cities and crickets and chap-stick…all of it. God determined it, He promised it, and recorded it at the back of the Bible through the pen of Peter in his second letter (the third chapter, as we divide the writing). He wrote:
“Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.”
I’m a strong believer in stewarding what we’ve been given, in conservation, and environmental responsibility and recycling. But I’m a stronger believer in the One that made me and holds me together, and I don’t believe those words from Scripture are a joke.
Sarah, you should keep writing.
I have written several things in EA regarding climate…some alright and one post that was pretty bad. This time, I will add a thought from my perspective as a Christian. And before I’m panned too badly, I will make the bold claim that what follows has at LEAST as much credibility and viability as what Rep. Omar tweeted last week (and she got a LOT of hearts on it). So here goes…
We’re not going to save this planet. All you man-made climate-change alarmists, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez suggesting we have only five or ten or twelve years to save the planet, czar John Kerry flying around repeating the “science is settled” to whoever will listen, hapless Greta Thunberg yelling at us with that signature scowl and the you’re-not-doing-enough guilt trip, all you grade-school students who think you’re gaining time with your “climate strikes”, Michael Mann with his hockey-stick, Katharine Hayhoe with…whatever she says, Ford Motor and Amazon and Google and everyone else committing to carbon neutrality to save the world, the IPCC, all of you…every last one of you…
You’re not saving the planet. You’re tilting at windmills. This planet won’t be saved because it’s destined for destruction…by fire. It’s all going to burn up…cars and clowns and cities and crickets and chap-stick…all of it. God determined it, He promised it, and recorded it at the back of the Bible through the pen of Peter in his second letter (the third chapter, as we divide the writing). He wrote:
“Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.”
I’m a strong believer in stewarding what we’ve been given and in conservation, in environmental responsibility and recycling. But I’m a stronger believer in the One that made me and holds me together, and I don’t believe those words from Scripture are a joke.
I am glad that these beliefs bring you comfort, Joel, but as I do not share those religious beliefs, I hope you can understand why they do not comfort me, and why I don’t think they should have anything to do with how we run a pluralistic democracy.
“… rather than providing us with unfalsified data, it is hard to take this seriously.”
Bingo, bango, bongo.
It is hard to take it seriously because anything less is at best, propaganda, or at worst, a new faith-based religion.
The one thing it definitely is not … is science.
We need to stop using “climate change” as a proxy for human caused changes in global cooling or heating. I don’t care if it is hotter than it has been in 120,000 years or not if it not something humans caused. We cannot debate the expected outcomes if we have not yet proven the causal forces that are causing longitudinal statistics to show changes in temperature and weather patterns. These changes have been occurring for eons.
There is far too much information relating to past climate changes to suggest all current changes are man-made and to believe that man can stop these changes is the height of hubris. What we can do is adapt to the changes. There is no immediate emergency that warrants we surrender to the scientific, corporate and governmental interests who are using the dogma of man-made climate change to keep their funding streams going, replacing the Petro-Chemical oligarchs with themselves as clean energy oligarchs, or ensuring that they maintain control over the people by scaring them into obedience.
One of my big problems with the whole ‘climate change’ agenda is that the people who are pushing it don’t believe it, either. If they believed it, they would push agendas that would further the goal of counteracting global warming, but they don’t. They push agendas that are outrageously expensive, damaging to the economy and the wellbeing of people, and don’t do much, if anything about the warming of the planet.
(1) Electric vehicles. This is an easy one. The demand to eliminate cars and trucks and replace them with electric vehicles is a high-profile and telling example. First of all, electric vehicles are not capable of replacing many of our vehicles, such as semis. Secondly, we probably lack the resources to replace even most of our cars (alone) with electric vehicles, especially since we oddly won’t allow the mining required to obtain the materials. Thirdly, of electric grid is completely incapable of powering this massive addition to the electric load, especially since we are making it more unreliable with renewables. Most impotantly, however, THEY DON’T REDUCE CO2 emissions significantly or at all. Their increased energy involved in production and the battery replacement cycle makes them worse or marginally better than today’s gasoline powered cars (depending on your assumptions). For my use, my gasoine powered cars are better for the environment.
(2) Meat. There is a big push to eliminate meat from our diets for ‘global warming’. However, anyone with half a brain realizes that the ‘fake meat’ they are creating takes vastly more energy to produce than a cow does. Lets take a large vat of rhizobium and extract a few hundred milligrams of leg-hemoglobin so we can make our soybean patty taste like meat? Sure, that’s so much more efficient than a cow or chicken. Of course, a lot of our beef is grown on western grazing lands where you are ONLY allowed to graze cattle. Removing the cows from that land, without opening it up to other agriculture (as the Biden administration has done) only reduces the amount of food produced, increasing the world starvation we are facing.
(3) Electric grid. The biggest thing we have done to reduce CO2 emissions from electricity generation is the cogeneration with natural gas. In cogeneration, the natural gas is burned in a gas turbine, and the hot exhaust from the gas turbine is piped into a steam turbine. This results in a thermal efficiency of over 60% for the generation of electricity. Gasoline cars are about 25% and diesels about 35% for comparison. I didn’t even know it was possible to get thermal efficiencies that high until I investigated the claim that our CO2 reductions were due to natural gas. Why aren’t we celebrating that? Why are we building thorium reactors instead of letting the Chinese use our designs to do it? Instead of using these technologies that really make a difference, we are building wind farms in places without wind and pushing solar energy in Michigan and Wisconsin.
(4) Petroleum and Natural Gas. Too much here to even go into, but we want to ban the use of these as fuels, but we want to use MORE of them for plastics, and we won’t allow the refineries to be modified to change their mix of products to favor the plastic producing fractions over the fuel fractions. So, if they are successful, we will produce a lot of hazardous waste that we will burn in the air instead of burning in our cars or to produce electricity. Makes sense.
So, the big things the ‘global warming’ people want will make life miserable, but not affect global warming much. So, why don’t they focus on the things below?
(1) Efficient transport. If you want to use less energy, use less energy. A big, heavy, electric vehicle is not an energy-efficient way to take a letter to the post office. Shifting from a 3000 lb gasoline powered car to a 4500 lb electric car doesn’t necessarily save energy. Why not a motorcycle? Why not an electric bicycle? Why not a small, lightweight car? Why aren’t these being pushed? Why aren’t the safety regulations being changed to allow more fuel-efficient vehicles, instead of putting breathalyzer interlocks on them or making them weigh 8000 lbs with batteries? Why not make dedicated bike lanes (or roads) to encourage this? Why not make the stoplights and traffic flow more efficient? Why not encourage people to live close to where they work. I don’t mean make new ’15 minute cities’ by massive construction projects, I mean revive housing in areas near workplaces and revive small towns that already exist.
(2) Legislate lighter-colored roofs and pavement. Lighter colored shingles save a lot of energy and don’t cost any more than dark shingles. Why wasn’t this the first thing done?
(3) Store water underground. Over 2/3 of the greenhouse effect is water vapor. Water vapor is the MOST important global warming gas. Over the last 70 years, we have been building vast reservoirs to provide water to our cities. Half of this water is lost every year to evaporation and leads to humid cities that don’t cool down at night. The higher nightime temperatures is the #1 effect of global warming and it is mostly due to these reservoirs. Pumping the water into the ground is cheaper, yields more usable water (little lost to evaportation), and eliminates this humidity-induced warming. The temperature monitoring stations in the cities have been emphasized more and more over rural ones in the climate models, so this warming is overrepresented in temperature reports. Why aren’t we addressing this if we actually care about the problem? I asked one of the leading researchers in this field why he doesn’t apply for global warming grants when he complained about having trouble finding funding for his research. The entire room (of experts) laughed at the idea and he said that his research was not considered relevant to global warming by the global warming community.
I could go on, but you can see that what the global warming proponents are NOT doing is as important as what they ARE doing. They aren’t really trying to slow or eliminate global warming. They are just trying to control YOU.
They aren’t really trying to slow or eliminate global warming. They are just trying to control YOU.
Bingo.
Outstanding, Michael!
Going up as a COTD pronto!
No concern for the fauna which climate change is WARMING out of existence before our very eyes?
(bolds/caps/italics mine throughout)
*Ediths’ Checkerspot Butterfly:
“HIGHER TEMPERATURES ENHANCED THE BUTTERFLY’S SURVIVAL. Warm microclimates are critical for its survival. Caterpillars living in cooler microclimates develop more slowly, while those actively basking in the direct sunlight digest their food more quickly and grow more robustly. COOL RAINY YEARS OFTEN EXTIRPATED LOCAL POPULATIONS.”
*The Golden Toad:
“An exotic and previously unknown chytrid fungus, now named Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (“Bd” for short). Bd was virulent between 53° and 81°F (11.6 and 27°C). Its optimum growth occurred between 60° to 77°F (15.5 and 25°C), but the fungus also survived near-freezing temperatures. In contrast, TEMPERATURE OVER 86°F KILLED THE FUNGUS.”
And my (heh!) fave; *The Emperor Penguin:
“Their numbers plummeted AMONG TRACKING BANDED SPECIES because THE TRACKING BAND WAS IMPAIRING MOST OF THEIR ABILITY TO SURVIVE, MUCH LESS THRIVE.”
Re: Joel Mundt’s comment at 9:50 AM: The more likely translation of 2 Peter 3:10 is “the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare,” supported by more reliable textual evidence (New International Version 2011). The NIV Study Bible notes that while fire is frequently connected to God’s final judgment of the world, the idea of being laid bare supports the view that in the end God transforms the existing world rather than completely destroying it. The ideas of complete destruction and of transformation might both be meant in Scripture as the end of the world is an event beyond our present understanding.