It is a sign of our times, however, that the one topic of conversation once reliably safe and boring—the weather—is now more treacherous than an abandoned mine field.
Why I Deny Big Climate Alarmism
Opinion by Walter Donway
What leads an objective non-scientist, examining the arguments, to reject “global warming,” a.k.a., “Big Climate alarmism”?
A couple weeks ago, my wife and I had dinner with a long-time friend of hers and her boyfriend. My wife had been friends with this woman for years, but never introduced me. Now, it seems, the woman wanted to meet me and to bring along her boyfriend. My wife warned me that they were “very Left,” “big Sanders supporters, now Hillary supporters,” and “politically correct.” I hoped that the restaurant’s cuisine would be endlessly fascinating material for conversation, but, just in case, I boned up on Jane Austen’s novels.
It is a sign of our times, however, that the one topic of conversation once reliably safe and boring—the weather—is now more treacherous than an abandoned mine field. (Let’s not get into that.) The global warming/climate change Gestapo (just kidding, will explain) sought out the ugliest epithet of modern times—Holocaust denier—and tailored it to fit their intellectual adversaries. It reflects, I suppose, their scientific temperament of openness to challenge and maintaining an atmosphere of objective discourse. About as much as if I, observing their bully boy tactics toward all opponents, referred to them as the Gestapo of global warming. But I don’t.
I don’t recall how global warming infiltrated into our dinner conversation. But consider: Global warming/climate change activists now view the threat as of the same magnitude as the rise of National Socialist (Nazi) aggression in the late 1930s—the basis for an article recently emblazoned across the pages The New Republic by William McKibben, one of the leading global warming/climate change activists in the world. Therefore, they believe that its implications are overwhelming in science, politics, economics, the 2016 election, health, education, agriculture, urban planning, discussion of any extreme weather, travel, population migration…
I knew that Jane Austen would be a winner!
No such luck, we were onto global warming. “Oh, so you’re a denier?”
“Well, there are no deniers…”
With infinite weariness, a look of oh-God-it’s-one-of-them: “Which means?
“I agree that the Earth’s mean global surface temperature was slowly increasing from about 1880 to 1998. I agree that the climate is constantly changing and requires vigilance and preventive measures based upon real threats such as cold snaps, drought or flooding, hurricanes… I agree that carbon dioxide and certain trace gases in the atmosphere contribute to a greenhouse effect, trapping heat from the sun within our atmosphere. I agree that since the Industrial Revolution, around 1740, average mean Earth surface temperatures may have increased as much as .7 of a degree Celsius and this contributes to the greenhouse effect.
“Did you know that when they say 97 percent of scientists agree with global warming, they mean only that they responded ‘yes’ to those statements? So do I.”
How have the global warming/climate change alarmists convinced much of the public—and of course the mainstream media, but that’s a given—that this multi-decade, sometimes multi-century prediction of the Earth’s weather, down to a degree or two, is as irrefutable, as undeniable, as the most studied and described event of the 20th Century?
My wife, kicking me under the table: “Walter, give someone else a chance to speak.”
My wife’s friend, no dummy, just looking at me, waiting, thinking: What the HELL scam is this?
I say: “But I don’t see any cause for alarm. Science and its predictions are all about how much, how fast, compared withwhat? The scientific ‘consensus’ is not about that.”
The latest “weather predictions” have moved from telling us we should bring an umbrella, when we go out, to telling us we should moth-ball industrial civilization’s dominant sources of power—of all economic production, transportation, heating and cooling, and everything else—on the basis of a long-term weather prediction.
My wife’s friend says, eyes closed, “I don’t want to discuss it, anymore.”
Who would? Would you want to lend an ear to a guy who denied the Holocaust—an historical event proven in court (at Nuremberg), attested by thousands of victims, documented by literally thousands of historians, and with known and visited sites of its hideous crimes against humanity?
How have the global warming/climate change alarmists convinced much of the public—and of course the mainstream media, but that’s a given—that this multi-decade, sometimes multi-century prediction of the Earth’s weather, down to a degree or two, is as irrefutable, as undeniable, as the most studied and described event of the 20th Century? And in doing so, deliberately envenomed a debate over the predictions of climate science—the weather?
Read the entire thing here: http://www.thesavvystreet.com/why-i-deny-big-climate-alarmism/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
…William McKibben, one of the leading global warming/climate change activists in the world.”
I strongly doubt “leading” – “hyperactive” or ADHD – like suits him better.
Weather is no more a neutral talking subject because the climateers have convinced many peoble that man can controle the weather. In fact it is worse to talk about weather than politic, because politic is local, but weather is worldwide and the climateers see themself as saving the world. So if you question the doctrine you are harmfull to the world.
It is anyway my own explanation for the heat in debates about global warming/weather.
The climateers can’t see that their measures often are worse than the small changes you observe in weather and climate.
Over the years I’ve learned it’s best to avoid the AGW discussion. If it comes up I respond with questions, starting with a request for an explanation of the enhanced greenhouse effect, which usually ends it.
I can only hope the pendulum will swing our way and it becomes politically acceptable to question the man-made global warming alarmist narrative.
Along with institutional science most of our governing, media and education elites seem certain of AGW catastrophe if we don’t act now; the hot-house of thermal-runaway, extreme weather, coastal flooding, population migration, economic ruin, drought, starvation and species extinction of historical extreme, if not now, soon.
Such is the power of media…reality is the perception of what matters, in spite of the truth. We (the public) often believe what we are led to believe even if it is incapable of happening.
I managed to avoid a similar “debate” with an old high school chum on Facebook recently. He posted a recent xkcd cartoon purporting to show the rise of the global warming catastrophe, including prehistoric temperatures and the inevitable roasting of the planet in the near future.
Now I generally enjoy xkcd, but I had to reply to his post with a link to Wm. Briggs skillful dismantling of the xkcd chart. My friend curtly replied that I had missed the point. Well, obviously he didn’t read Briggs’ article, and I was about to point this out to him, but I decided I to “walk away” instead to avoid a tiresome and time consuming confrontation. Maybe I chickened-out, but I have many things with which I must deal, and an online scuffle isn’t at the top of my priorities these days.
See the Briggs article here:
https://stream.org/xkcds-global-warming-time-series-mistakes/
Whenever you enter into a “discussion” about the climate with a true believer, simply ask them how a warming Earth would affect them. Demand that they be specific. Most will go off on a tangent about the overall picture or such, but insist they stay on topic and tell you what bad will happen to them. Most people make decisions based on emotion and personal gain or loss. Sales 101. That is why facts do not matter to them. Get them to admit that nothing is going to happen to them personally and perhaps, just perhaps, you may get them to stop worrying about it and move on to more important things in their lives.
I only talk about this topic with true believers in underhanded satirical remarks, and it appears to be working. I think the satire is starting to make them realize how foolish they look when they take the alarmism serious.
P.S. also because the science just goes over their head in the first place.
Looking at the methods section of the linked paper I note a couple of issues:
1) Temperature was controlled by “warming (via heaters suspended above the plot)”
2) Harvesting “In years 1–3 we harvested biomass once (in May), and in years 4‒17 we harvested from each subplot twice: the first one timed to peak biomass in the phenologically most advanced plots (mid-April to early May), and the second one 3 wk later at the peak of less advanced plots (early to late May).”
a) The warmth control was radiant heat facing down. Yes, this will warm the plants and soil to some degree but what about the incoming air temperature and the speed of the wind?
b) Farmers harvest at the most optimum time, when ever that occurs. Not sure how in this experiment replicates real world with phrases such as “second one 3 wk later at the peak of less advanced plots”
It is a good effort but I wonder how the detailed actions contribute to the outcome in a positive way.
This was all you wife’s fault (introducing you to a leftist “parrot” she knew).
Leftists think they know everything, but refuse to debate anything.
If you disagree with them, you are ridiculed and/or character attacked.
I “debate” with leftists I know, when I can’t avoid them, by making one bold statement about whatever liberal belief they are blathering about ,,, and then I stop talking, to wait for their “brilliant” response!
I try to have some basic data in my head for various popular subjects — my data vs. their feelings.
That pause when I’m waiting for them to respond is fun — I rarely hear anything about the subject that demonstrates more than superficial knowledge.
Most liberals are as dumb as rocks on most subjects ( I apologize to rocks, in case I just insulted them ).
They usually have conclusions with no data — and they have no desire to know more about most subjects beyond the “proper” leftist conclusions — which must be stated with the proper liberal words.
Repeating a few headlines they recall reading is the best they can do on climate change — few realize Earth’s climate is always changing — and they could not care less about historical climate data — all they care about is the coming climate catastrophe … that I’ve been hearing about for 40 years … that never comes!.
Liberals have no idea how to respond when I state that our climate today is better than it has been for hundreds of years — and has barely changed in the past 150 years — that basic overview of climate history is more than they know, so they must resort to clever ridicule and changing the subject in response.
Silence would be their best response, but liberals must get in the last word before they demand a new subject for conversation.
I live near a nature resort with dunes forests and beaches. (Netherlands) I tease leftists by declaring that we own this nature entirely to fossil fuels. First I refer to the fact that the Netherlands had almost no trees left in 1500 at 5% of the inhabitants and prosperity. Than I argue that windmills and solar panels will cause severe energy shortage so illegal wood cutting will soon be crime number one: no trees left within a year.
“I did my college thesis on ‘Global cooling’ and I personally interviewed the foremost climatologist of that era, Stephen Schneider (I think that was his name) at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder. This institution has since changed its name.”
In that case, then you of course know of the reasons behind “global cooling” … or at least catch up. Science doesn’t stand still.
From:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD010644/full
“Changes in column transparency directly after WW-2 can be clearly followed from the Feodosiya smooth time series which indicates that in 1946, compared to 1945 transparency was lower, and an obvious, almost 40-year decreasing trend started. This trend includes some 1–3 year periods with weak improvements or leveling in transparency, which, however, did not alter the general decline. In Feodosiya the decline ends abruptly with a very low AITC, p2 = 0.667 in 1983. Evolution of column transparency in Estonia and Moscow can be followed only from the 1950s onward and, although these time series are not so smooth compared to Feodosiya, they repeat the general declining pattern. In Moscow and Tiirikoja the lowest values were reached also in 1983 and at Tõravere in 1984. General decrease in column transparency during the nearly 40 years after WW-2 is apparently not limited with the latitudinal belt 44°–60°N in Europe. It is noteworthy, that an average time series of relative direct irradiance, which for the 1940s was calculated by Pivovarova using data from 11 solar radiation stations (8 from the former USSR, including Feodosiya and 4 stations from Asia, 3 from the United States) fully confirms the decline during 1945–1983”
Also….
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
“Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth’s surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990”
And…
“Over the last 50 or so years, pan evaporation has been carefully monitored. For decades, nobody took much notice of the pan evaporation measurements[citation needed]. But in the 1990s in Europe, Israel, and North America, scientists spotted something that at the time was considered very strange: the rate of evaporation was falling although they had expected it to increase due to global warming.[21] The same trend has been observed in China over a similar period. A decrease in solar irradiance is cited as the driving force. However, unlike in other areas of the world, in China the decrease in solar irradiance was not always accompanied by an increase in cloud cover and precipitation. It is believed that aerosols may play a critical role in the decrease of solar irradiance in China.[22]
There was also a prolonged cool PDO/ENSO regime….
Entertaining article. But please do your homework.
Global temperatures have not risen continuously over the past 130 years as you claim, even though greenhouse gas emissions have. In fact, temperatures dropped for some 30 years beginning around 1947. This was the era of ‘global cooling’.
‘Global cooling’ was real and it was measured. It persisted until the late 70s. It was widely reported and made P. 1 of the NY Times as well as the covers of Time and Newsweek. It was a very BIG DEAL. All scientists were on board. There was greater unanimity about the direction of climate then than there is today!
I did my college thesis on ‘Global cooling’ and I personally interviewed the foremost climatologist of that era, Stephen Schneider (I think that was his name) at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder. This institution has since changed its name.
Incredibly, ‘global cooling’ has been scrubbed from public memory and no one talks about it since its wild inaccuracy surely undermines the credibility of today’s climate alarmists. But ‘global cooling’ was real.
PS- ‘Holocaust deniers’ do not claim that Jews weren’t targeted during WWII or that many Jews were murdered along with tens of millions of non-Jews. That is a anther distortion.
‘Holocaust deniers’ (so called) dispute the numbers of Jewish dead as well all the methods used to kill Jewish prisoners.
I’ma lleftwing as are all of my friends.I avoid bringing up the topic of AGW.But on occasion ,I hgave to stand my ground .I know a thousand times more about climate than the average person who knows only what PBS And NYT says.
Confronted with acts I always get the same result.They don’t want to engage in learning facts.
The last conversation ended with my friend actually putting his hands over his ears and grimacing .
What do you call it when someone believes in something that they know nothing about?
BRAINWASHED.
Mojo, if you don’t mind my saying: You are a left-winger with common sense. In this day and age, to many who call themselves leftist, you are Not. You Must be at least just right of center and ‘center’ is as far right as they can push it!
There is a field for sorting these questions out, it’s called Atmospheric Chemistry. It is a field of science all it’s own; it has it’s own law of thermodynamics named the Ideal Gas Law, since gases and atmospheric mixes, act such that individual molecules and atoms of gas, act quite similarly, in an idealized way; even though in microscopic analysis they are readily seen to not be perfectly spherical, and all the same size.
The Ideal Gas Law was written after hundreds of years’ tedious, exacting research; about 400 years; and there is no more accurate way to discover and record the temperature of any atmospheric gas mix.
In fact the entire class of fraud known as ”GHE” and ”AGW” isn’t based on gas equations, it’s based on radiation equations which, not containing mathematics for establishing energy concentration based on density as gas equations are, can not calculate the temperature of any atmosphere or atmospheric mix.
The real atmospheric equations are in fact used by NASA and others in aviation and aerospace flight, and are in fact used in every scientific field on earth or off, where prediction of fact depends on truthful mathematical solving.
The factor in the equation that is the law of thermodynamics for solving gas and atmospheric temperatures, is ”R” and represents the average energy of a typical molecule in any atmospheric mix; and all gases, except one, get identical energy assignment.
The sole one to get a different energy assignment is water due to it’s hydrogen atoms’ electrons’ ability to absorb rather prodigious energy before giving any off as heat; so the average water vapor molecule holds a little more energy.
But the final problem with people trying to claim it’s possible for the atmosphere to warm, when more GHGs are added is that the GHGs block a large portion of sunlight from ever reaching earth; 400 ppm GHGs blocks about 20% of all sunlight.
Fewer GHGs, less sunlight to the surface of earth; less sunlight to the surface, less sunlight from it.
When you put a screen between an object warming another one, the temperature of the second one, goes down, no matter how that screen is contrived; it’s fundamental energy conservation that more light refracted out to space, is less light thermalizing on the planet.
In fact on any chart you can clearly see that the only gases reducing surface sunlight are GHGs. No other gases block any appreciable light to the surface.
This is why each time one goes to a site where it is believed that GHGs can warm the planet, there is no discussion of the actual laws of chemistry for solving the temperature of gases and atmospheric mixes.
Every time any real calculation takes place using real atmospheric chemistry, the energy in the atmosphere with more CO2 remains identical; and if one (improperly) tries to claim to count the CO2 on it’s own specific energy – it holds less energy than standard atmospheric mix, and therefore lowers the temperature of the mix.
“When you put a screen between an object warming another one, the temperature of the second one, goes down, no matter how that screen is contrived; it’s fundamental energy conservation that more light refracted out to space, is less light thermalizing on the planet.”
It’s not a “screen. If you like it’s a filter, letting Solar SW through and restricting the return flow of terrestrial LWIR
“But the final problem with people trying to claim it’s possible for the atmosphere to warm, when more GHGs are added is that the GHGs block a large portion of sunlight from ever reaching earth; 400 ppm GHGs blocks about 20% of all sunlight.”
Oh dear…
GHG’s only “block” far IR wavelengths my friend….. those emitted by the EARTH.
Of which the Sun radiates very little (near-IR yes).
The clue lies in the fact that the EarTh is a tad cooler than the Sun and it is the Earth’s terrestrial IR that is back-radiated BY GHG’s.
http://www.ozcoasts.gov.au/indicators/images/oze_fs_009_04.gif
Notice that at peak emittance the Earth’s radiation does not overlap any of the Sun’s and is the main absorption band for “400ppm GHG’s” (you must mean CO2 at that figure).
And no, it does not “blocks about 20% of all sunlight.” The WHOLE atmosphere does not just “GHG’s”.
If your answer to the question “How’s the weather?” becomes a source of anxiety, and may make or break your career, you just might be a climatologist. (- with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy)