By Michael David White
A change in temperature is a change in climate. We worry about man-made climate change if a temperature change will last decades or centuries and if the change will disfigure the environment.
The physical basics of climate change state that “atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are rising, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and it absorbs and re-radiates longwave radiation downwards. The radiation is trapped (or at least delayed) meaning that there is more of it around and hence temperatures go up.” [1]
Solar energy which would normally go out into space is kept inside earth’s weather system by the presence of carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, especially water, “trap some of the heat we receive from the sun and prevent it from bouncing back into space.” [2]
***
How much can increased atmospheric carbon dioxide be expected to warm the earth? If the atmosphere is sensitive, it will heat a lot. If insensitive, new carbon dioxide will have limited effect. Climate change proponents argue that if the atmosphere is sensitive, we must phase out use of fossil fuels.
The opponents agree with all of the science laid out here, but think the atmosphere is not sensitive to increased carbon dioxide, meaning that carbon dioxide emissions will not have a profound impact on water and clouds and the greenhouse effect. Skeptics believe other factors, like the sun and the ocean, are predominant in creation of weather and temperature.
We know from the historical record that “the climate changes all the time, in different and unpredictable” [3] ways.
Earth’s temperature changes constantly. The range of temperatures is approximately 6.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 10,000 years. The chart shows temperatures in Greenland fluctuating between negative 29 degrees Celsius to negative 32.5 degrees Celsius. Do they prove climate change real? Yes, climate change is real and constant. Is “manmade” carbon dioxide causing climate change? In all of the 10,000 years shown in the chart man played no role in the change of temperature or the carbon dioxide level. The climate changes with or without man’s presence. (See the chart: “10,000 Years of Climate Change. The Climate Has Always Changed.”)
Is the addition or subtraction of carbon dioxide the consequential factor in the creation of global temperature? Is air with added carbon dioxide the “greatest threat facing humankind today”? [4] Or, if we take action to reduce carbon dioxide, will we simply close “a window in a house with no walls”? [5]
***
Pre-industrial carbon dioxide was 280 parts-per-million (ppm). Current carbon dioxide is 400 ppm.
Our current carbon dioxide level is “near to an all-time low as assessed against the geological record.” [6] Using a 550 million-year timeframe, the “earth currently exists in a state of carbon dioxide dioxide starvation.” [7] Carbon dioxide is increasing, but compared to history it’s abnormally low.
Sea levels have been rising due to the climate but “sea levels have been rising steadily at the same rate for at least the last 700 years.” [8] Sea levels have risen about 130 meters – equal to a 30-story building — in our current interglacial, beginning 12,000 years ago. [9]
Sea levels for the past twenty years have risen 3.2 millimeters a year, according to the University of Colorado. [10] They are rising a foot-a-century. The width of a laptop screen.
Ice at the poles is also a critical measure of temperature trends. Ice cover in Antarctica in 2014 was greater than any in the satellite record started in the late 1970s. NASA says sea ice cover in Antarctica has grown 1.5 per cent a decade for several decades and was 7.7 million square miles at its maximum in 2014. [11]
Ice cover in the arctic is at or near lows in the satellite record. The National Snow and Ice Data Center reports three million square miles of arctic ice in July 2016. The poles are moving in opposite directions, but the arctic is shrinking faster (21,000 square miles a year) than the Antarctic is growing (7,300 square miles a year).
***
The key figure in dangerous manmade global warming is temperature change. Temperatures have warmed 0.7 degrees Centigrade in the twentieth century. [12] Other sources say the increase is slightly higher or about 0.8°C or 1.4°F. [13] The increase is small enough to be almost “undetectable” for human observers. The Met Office calls the increase 0.8° C in the last 150 years. [14] “But the great bulk of it—0.5°C out of the 0.8°C—occurred during the last quarter of the twentieth century.”
The increase in temperature stopped about eighteen years ago. [15] The rapid upward movement of temperature at the end of the 20th Century created a factual basis for concern, but not an alarming concern in view of the historic temperature record.
“We actually live in a cold epoch,” according to Ian Plimer, emeritus professor of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne and professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide. “Ice is a rare rock and has been on Earth for less than twenty per cent of its history.” [16]
Warming of one degree centigrade since the Little Ice Age is also “entirely unalarming in rate and magnitude”, said Robert Carter, Emeritus Fellow and Science Policy Advisor at the Institute of Public Affairs, science adviser at the Science and Public Policy Institute and chief science adviser for the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), “when compared with other similar natural warmings that occurred over the preceding 10,000 years.” [17]
“Plotted in the same scale as a standard outdoor home thermometer,” said Anthony Watts, Retired American Meteorology Society certified television meteorologist, “the change of the last 130 years is hardly even visible.” [18]
***
Carbon dioxide is not the only factor in the creation of temperature.
Oceanic weather patterns influence temperature. They include the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation. [19]
Garth W. Paltridge, emeritus professor and honorary research fellow at the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Oceans Studies, hypothesizes that “internal ocean behavior could be a major cause of the warming over the past half-century.” [20]
The planets also influence temperature.
The earth itself has “natural cycles that span tens of thousands of years including changes affected by Earth’s tilt (41,000 year), eccentricity (100,000) and precession (20,000).” [21]
Astronomer Milutin Milankovitch has argued that the earth’s tilt, eccentricity, and precession profoundly influence glaciation [22] – the rise and fall of global ice.
Glaciers, including ice at the poles, play a major role in temperature. Ice expands and temperature falls. Ice retreats and temperature rises.
The glaciers are especially influenced in their decline or growth by sun patterns. “The major factor in long term glacial growth and retreat is summer insolation (the amount of incoming solar radiation).” [23]
The possible disappearance of sun spots today has led to speculation that “the most likely climatic trend over the next several decades is one of significant cooling rather than warming,” said Professor Carter, former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University. [24]
A lot of influences make weather. Ocean-weather patterns, variations in the earth’s astronomical patterns, the sun’s intensity, the level of carbon dioxide, and its interaction with water in the formation of clouds, all factor into the creation of temperature.
If the earth does warm quickly, the concern is that we will have “fast-rising seas, failing crops, melting ice caps, permanent droughts, worse epidemics and mass extinctions.” [25]
We could reach catastrophic tipping points. Burning oil, gas, and coal may lead to “sea level rise, ice sheet melting, torrential rains, drought, hurricanes, and any other severe weather event.” [26]
***
In 2001 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “predicted a huge and rapid rise” [27] in temperatures of up to up to six degrees in this century. After the warming life on earth would be “wiped out”. “Millions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.” [28]
Huge fire balls smash into cities. They explode with the power of atomic bombs. Flash floods wreak havoc. “Life on earth ends in apocalyptic storms.” [29]
The seas rise 100 meters. Water covers the land.
***
This sounds frightening, and it will be devastating if true, but the climate models scientists invented to see the future have falsified the reliability of the predictions of doom. [30]
We have had “37 consecutive years of documented, systematic model failure.” [31] “The failure of the models … need to be acknowledged” [32] but the proponents refuse to admit their error.
“The current generation of general circulation climate models (GCMs) are unable to make accurate projections of climate even ten years ahead, let alone the 100-year period,” said Mr. Carter, the former earth sciences professor. [33]
If the theory of dangerous manmade global warming predicts the future, and if weather models prove scientists cannot predict the future, then the alarmist theory about a dangerous future has been disproved as a scientific hypothesis. You cannot reasonably champion a scientific theory when your own work proves you do not have the expertise to make the claim. (Please see the chart: “Climate Models Fails to Predict Warming Trends”.)
Yet an overwhelming majority of climate scientists confidently predicted global warming would accelerate but “there has been no further warming at all” [34] since approximately the year 2000.
The models prove above all else our ignorance, said Mr. Paltridge of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Oceans Studies. “The chances of proving—proving in the hard scientific sense—that change of climate over the next century will be large enough to be disastrous are virtually nil.” [35]
Dr. Roy Spencer, who runs the University of Alabama at Huntsville global temperature data, said climate models have so far “failed miserably”. [36]
***
There are benefits to warming if the warming trend returns. We may end up embracing warming as a precursor of abundant wildlife and human comfort.
The cold kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. [37]
There will be “dire economic implications of trying to cease the use of fossil fuels.” [38] Poverty is the most successful and dangerous human disease. Fossil fuels are the primary medicine we take to fight poverty.
I think of those persons, for example, who burn manure to stay warm and cook their food. Fumes from this burning are “the major source of indoor pollution in the developing world and is reckoned to cause at least a million deaths a year.” [39] Electricity and natural gas would solve this problem. Both require the creation of carbon dioxide emissions.
The increase of carbon dioxide has made the earth “observably greener”. [40] Carbon dioxide is the basic plant food. Carbon dioxide is the key to photosynthesis, the process plants use to live and grow. Carbon dioxide is like oxygen for plants.
Our attitude toward carbon dioxide should start by recognizing that “the biggest health risk in the world today, particularly of course in the developing world, is poverty.” [41] Fossil fuels play a huge role, perhaps the primary role, in the war against poverty.
***
We are spending big money on climate change. “The current re-direction of global funds in the name of climate change is of the order of a billion dollars a day.” [42] Climate change has also been called a “trillion-dollar industry”. Renewable-energy investment is $359 billion annually. [43]
The corridors of power in big science are filled with true believers zealously advocating for the adoption of the dangerous manmade global warming theory; referred too here as the alarmist movement. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the primary vehicle of alarmists, is “the expression of the beliefs of a small circle of scientists and interested lobbyists who, against all evidence, have convinced themselves that humans are having a dramatic effect on the Earth’s climate,” said Dr. Willie Soon, a researcher with the Solar and Steller Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. [44]
You have read that 97 per cent of scientists have attained a consensus agreeing that half of the global warming since 1950 has been caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide. Legates et al. checked the scientific papers on climate to verify the 97% consensus. They found “0.5 per cent of the abstracts of 11,944 scientific papers on climate-related topics published over the 21 years from 1991-2011 had explicitly stated an opinion that more than half of the global warming since 1950 had been caused by human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.” [45]
One-of-200 papers say dangerous manmade global warming is real, but the media says 97 of 100 scientists support the theory. If scientific papers are the library of scientific knowledge, the 97 percent consensus figure is a hoax. Big Media has manufactured a fake truth.
***
The important figures in the field should be contacted and questioned so that we know the true state of opinion. Disagreement is much wider than reported. 31,487 U.S. scientists “have publicly signed a statement that they consider the dangerous manmade global warming hypothesis inconsistent with the evidence.” [46] (See the Global Warming Petition Project.) If there are more than 30,000 scientists who question the dangerous manmade global warming theory, how many support it? How can we even start a meaningful conversation without having elementary questions answered?
We don’t have basic facts about the judgments of leading practitioners. What if only 10 percent of climate physicists and weather experts are hardcore advocates of dangerous manmade global warming and all the rest is media bias?
Nigel Lawson, the British politician and author, says “the overwhelming majority of scientists in climate and related fields, therefore, remain commendably open to the possibility that some other influence—such as the sun—may be the true primum mobile of the Earth’s climate.” [47]
***
“The IPCC asserts against all evidence that the sun has little influence on climate change,” said Dr. Soon, the aerospace engineer. A total of 41 persons worked on an IPCC chapter on the sun. Only one was an expert on solar physics. Their work is “shot through with critical errors and serious misrepresentations.” [48]
The media has reported literally hundreds of events and trends caused by global warming; presumably many of them attested by scientists. One famous list has 883 entries of changes caused by global warming.
In that list climate change has caused: alligators in the Thames, animals to head for the hills, the reduction of avalanches, increased avalanches, beetle infestation, confused birds, blood contamination, cave paintings to be threatened, lost clownfish, the earth crumbling, the earth dying, the earth warming, the earth’s light dimming, the earth pushed past the point of no return, the earth slowing down, the earth spinning faster, the earth exploding, the earth turning upside down, deafness in fish, lopsidedness in fish, glacial earthquakes, the balding of hedgehogs, indigestion, Italy to be robbed of pasta, a Maple syrup shortage, the speed up of ocean waves, oyster herpes, alteration of penguin sex lives, rabid bats, sexual promiscuity, sour grapes, traffic jams, a truffle shortage, the doubling of water bills, and witchcraft executions. And 850 other things.
***
The likelihood is that the content of carbon dioxide in our air today has had no influence on the occurrence of this list of bad or unusual things. Who is paying for attaching the ills of the world to dangerous manmade global warming?
Global warming “risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavor.” [49]
The U.N. panel on climate change will not acknowledge the powerful non-carbon dioxide factors which create weather because they are “financially and ideologically dependent upon coming to a single, aprioristic viewpoint, regardless of the objective truth.” [50] What we have done is “create a monster that ignores the truth.”
If dangerous manmade global warming is falsified, the proponents lose everything: Money, job, reputation, meaning. The only thing they will recover is truth and honesty.
There is good reason to believe both truth and honesty have lost their place among scientists as we shall see in part two of our work on climate change.
Part 2: Climate Change: Data is a Travesty
Climategate in 2009 proved the scientists were “quite capable of deliberately selecting data in order to overstate the case for dangerous climate change.” [51] The leading scientists spoke openly about gatekeeping research journals “to deny publication of any material that goes against the orthodox dogma.” These are the actions of a person or group that is committing fraud.
To make your point or hide the truth you may change the representation of data. Both of the charts above show the same numbers. (See the chart: “140 Years of Climate Change on Two Scales”.)
In the Climategate emails we saw desperation to escape from data. The scientists saw the failure of climate models falsified their theory of dangerous manmade global warming.
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” said Dr. Kevin Trenberth, Distinguished Senior Scientist in the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a major author in the history of the UN reports on climate, who has published 532 scientific articles or papers, including 62 books or book chapters, and over 247 refereed journal articles. [52]
The travesty is maintaining public advocacy for a theory which in private you know has been disproved. Dr. Trenberth embodies the travesty.
The pause in warming, if it remains steady, or if temperatures fall, then the massive global warming industry will die, and the reputation of the leaders will be ruined.
“The tyranny of the experts is now crumbling,” said Andrew Bolt, columnist for the Herald Sun and Daily Telegraph. [53]
***
Big Media calls skeptics deniers. Big Media make opponents of a scientific hypothesis equal to the people who say Hitler did not kill Jews.
Academics who want to speak up don’t speak up because “dissent can be career-threatening.” [54] Skeptics are “cast into outer darkness and dismissed as ‘anti-science’ or a ‘denier.’” [55]
Something is driving the warming proponents which is overruling the scientific method. A billion-dollars-a-day of work is part of it. The power and the glory is part of it. The totalitarian nature of progressivism is part of it. My opinion is that the totalitarian instinct, the horrendous human trait given religious preeminence in the progressive faith, is now the guiding driver of proponents.
***
The confidence of the proponents should have been tempered by now after seeing the work their models have done, but their failure has had no effect on their opinion. Many of their predictions are now proven false. Their failed predictions have had no effect on their opinions.
“Al Gore claimed in his film An Inconvenient Truth that seas were rising so fast ‘that’s why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand’. … (but) in a British court case, Justice Michael Burton found ‘there is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.’” [56]
In December 2008 Mr. Gore said the ‘entire North Polar ice cap will be gone in five years’. [57] “Ted Scambos, of the US Snow and Ice Data Centre, told the ABC there was ‘a very strong case that in 2012 or 2013 we’ll have an ice-free (summer) Arctic’.” [58] Ice covered 1.7 million square miles of Arctic in the minimum of 2015; the minimum being the period after summer temperatures have reduced the ice to its smallest footing. Eight years after his prediction, Mr. Gore is off by an ice sheet equal to six times the size of Texas.
Bertrand Timbal, of Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, said in 2009 the rain there will never rain like it once did. “We are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.” [59]
In 2010 and 2011 Australia had it wettest two-year period on record. In the story quoting Mr. Timbal, the lead paragraph said: “SCIENTISTS studying Victoria’s crippling drought have, for the first time, proved the link between rising levels of greenhouse gases and the state’s dramatic decline in rainfall.” [60]
If drought proves climate change, what does heavy rain prove? Did the newspaper print a story saying heavy rain proves there is no climate change?
In 2005 the IPCC said global warming would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. [61] Have there been any climate refugees as of 2016?
“In 2000, Dr. David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit of Britain’s University of East Anglia claimed ‘children just aren’t going to know what snow is’.” [62] Then came the snow. “Five of the northern hemisphere’s six snowiest winters in the past 46 years have occurred since Viner’s prediction.”
If no snow proves climate change, what does heavy snow prove?
***
Will the planet heat dangerously and fast?
“Little likelihood exists that conceivable levels of human emissions will cause dangerous future warming,” said Mr. Carter, the former professor of earth sciences. [63] There is an “equally likely occurrence of global cooling” and cooling is more likely. [64]
“No unambiguous evidence exists for adverse changes to the global environment caused by human-related CO2 emissions,” said Mr. Carter. “In particular, the cryosphere (glacial ice) is not melting at an enhanced rate; sea-level rise is not accelerating; no systematic changes have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme meteorological events; and an increased release of methane into the atmosphere from permafrost or sub-seabed gas hydrates is unlikely.” [65]
In other words, “the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers” [66] like the sun, ocean currents, and earth’s cycles.
Changes in temperature in the 10,000-year record and the 140-year record show that recent temperature changes are normal in magnitude. The 10,000-year record has a range of 3.74 Centigrade. The 140-year record has a range of 1.34 Centigrade. The magnitude of change in the long record is almost three times greater than the range in the short record. (Please see the chart: “The Banality of Climate Change. 140 Years of Climate Change and 10,000 Years of Climate Change”.)
“We forecast that global average temperatures will trend neither up nor down, but will remain within 0.5 °C (1°F) of the 2013 average,” said Kesten C. Green, Senior Research Associate of the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, University of South Australia, and Senior Lecturer at University of South, and J. Scott Armstrong, of Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, and an expert on forecasting. “There is neither need to worry about climate change, nor reason to take action.” [67]
“The cost of global warming that might result from human activities, as reported by the IPCC, is very small,” said Alan Moran of the Institute of Public Affairs. [68]
If we do continue to experience warming, it is likely to be beneficial. [69]
“The optimum CO2 content is more than 1,600 ppm (as compared with current content of 400 ppm).” [70] After warming “there is a huge increase in biodiversity” and “extinctions are universal in colder times.” [71] “All across the planet, the historical increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration has stimulated vegetative productivity.” [72] “Global warming and its myriad ecological effects tend to foster the expansion and proliferation of animal habitats, ranges, and populations.” [73]
***
It’s possible we will experience planetary catastrophe, but “there is no scientific basis” [74] for predicting catastrophe, so “a policy of decarbonisation cannot possibly make sense,” especially given “the unequivocally adverse economic impact of the decarbonisation policy.” [75]
Even if it did make sense to limit carbon dioxide “there is no chance of any meaningful agreement being concluded” [76] by the important nations that must agree.
We are pursuing a policy that’s not needed for a group of nations which will never live by the terms required which, if they did agree, they would violate, and penalties cannot be enforced.
“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing,” said Professor James Lovelock, the author of the Gaia hypothesis, who in 2006 predicted billions of deaths from climate change, and who now predicts that we cannot predict the climate’s changes. [77]
Climate science Professor Judith Curry, professor at the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, told the US Congress in 2014: “For the past 16 years, there has been no significant increase in surface temperature … The IPCC does not have a convincing or confident explanation for this hiatus in warming.” [78]
***
Something is missing from our consideration of dangerous manmade warming. It is now a billion-dollar-a-day industry. What could we use that money for that is more important than carbon dioxide’s influence on temperature?
Does everybody have clean water? Does everybody have a dry safe home? Is every person protected from heat and cold and rain? Do they eat well? Is the kitchen clean? Why does their home smell? Why are they burning manure on the stove? Why is the floor made of dirt? Do they have no shower here? No soap and hot water? No clean towels? Do the poor know what it’s like to get into a clean bed and go to sleep protected from the elements and noise and hunger? Can you imagine taking all of these good things away from hundreds of millions of poor people based on a guess?
We have a very scientific method for curing the condition of poverty. It has undergone rigorous testing in millions of experiments. This method to eradicate poverty is called capitalism. Cheap energy turbocharges capitalism. Expensive energy kills it.
***
“The greatest immorality of all concerns the masses in the developing world,” said Mr. Lawson, the writer. [79] The most effective form of disease is dire poverty. The impoverished person ends up “suffering all the ills that this brings, in terms of malnutrition, preventable disease, and premature death.”
A great effective weapon against poverty is energy. Fossil fuels make the world go around. Make it speed up. Make capitalism work. Make the poor wealthier.
“Energy is the most basic of economic resources behind wealth and living standards even though it represents only 5 per cent of GDP.” [80] The dangerous manmade global warming hypothesis demonizes the energy needed to fight poverty. By diverting us from the proven way to end poverty “global warming orthodoxy is not merely irrational. It is wicked,” said Mr. Lawson. [81]
Poverty is a real source of misery and death here and now. By blocking the advance of economies, our actions taken to combat dangerous manmade global warming may one day rival the great wars of the 20th Century as great totalitarian destroyers of wealth and happiness. The more successful the proponents of dangerous manmade global warming, the greater the misery they will bring to the world.
“The economically vulnerable have been pushed into fuel poverty,” said Mr. Plimer. “Vulnerable people die earlier, costs and unemployment increase and, in the Third World, such climate policies create the continuation of crippling poverty and unnecessary deaths, especially amongst women and children.” [82]
***
Ice is a rare rock. We expect ice on earth only 20% of the time. Since we live in a time which is comparatively cold in geologic history, shouldn’t we call warming normal? If two of three days in the last 10,000 years have been warmer than today, shouldn’t we expect warmer temperatures?
If we live in a time of carbon dioxide starvation, should we welcome the addition of carbon dioxide? It makes the plants grow. It makes the trees strong. It makes the animals and the forests come to life. Cold kills. Warmth gives life. If carbon dioxide brings life to life, do we need more carbon dioxide?
If carbon dioxide was a thousand times higher than today in the last two ice ages, how can we believe a miniscule addition of carbon dioxide will lead to dangerous warming? In the past we had extreme cold during the time we had extreme carbon dioxide. These facts make one skeptical the “manmade” carbon dioxide will be dangerous.
What about the other makers of weather? What about the sun, the oceans, the changes in the earth’s cycles? What about water and clouds? We have to know all of these things perfectly before we can precisely say what role carbon dioxide plays in temperature. Do we know all of these things well enough? Should we be skeptical of our knowledge, especially about the future?
We read about the arctic losing ice. We never read about the expansion of ice in the Antarctic. Should we trust the media if they tell us the bad all the time and the good never?
We read that 97 percent of scientists say man is responsible for a majority of global warming, but in fact only .5% percent of scientists gave that written opinion in the scholarly literature. The consensus is .5% not 97 percent. How do you believe anything the press says after that kind of lie?
The AP Style book says that the opponents of dangerous manmade global warming cannot call themselves skeptics because they don’t promote scientific inquiry or critical investigation. The AP pretends to know the minds of millions of persons, but it is impossible for them to know. The AP has also fully incorporated as true the 97 percent “consensus” falsehood by saying skeptics “reject mainstream climate science.”
The forces of darkness are taking arms in support of a sea of dishonesty. The attorney general of California has initiated a prosecution of the oil companies for their research and opinions on dangerous manmade global warming.
The attorney generals in New York, California, Massachusetts, and US Virgin Islands are conducting “an ongoing investigation into potential fraud by ExxonMobil” for “knowingly misleading the public and investors on the dangers of climate change.” [83]
A subpoena was issued for a decade of Exxon’s communications with over 100 academics, think tanks and universities. [84] The government attacks speech with the power of the state. This is how totalitarian society advances.
Big Media could care less. Writers have abandoned their first principle. Free speech is the first commandment for writers, or it was. Now it slows progressive ideology so free speech is abandoned. The progressive writers have abandoned free speech the same way scientific bodies have abandoned neutrality and the encouragement of individual opinion in the climate change debate. Group think is winning everywhere the progressives go. It’s what they do and who they are.
All of this has an obvious cause. We must remember that progressivism is a social disease, a group psychosis, and that the heart-and-soul of progressive thought is totalitarian domination. The out group members are deniers, social outcasts, monsters. Conservatives are Jews in Nazi Germany. Skeptics are conspirators who say Hitler did not kill the Jews.
How did progressives grow so immediately comfortable and capable in the most notoriously evil human conduct; the kind of frightening conduct which is warned about in every work of literature whose theme is man’s inhumanity to man?
***
The Global Warming theory, if it is disproved, will be the greatest crime ever committed against the poor and humanity. Its adherents have perpetrated shocking destruction within the scientific community by breaking centuries of principle requiring free thought, individual opinion, unswerving respect for dissent, and open-and-free publication of all data.
Even if carbon dioxide has little or no influence on weather or temperature, global warming may end up being the Joseph Stalin and the Mao Zedong of the 21st Century. It should be treated as a danger of the exact same nature except that the dead bodies are not as easy to count. The poor are spread all around the world and they will suffer and die everywhere, but many more will die if the progressives have their way on climate change.
The manufacturing of consent in the climate change debate proves that progressivism is the greatest threat to mankind in the 21st Century. Progressivism must be defeated and destroyed and ended. The massive destruction of wealth and encouragement of poverty by climate change proponents proves it.
Michael David White writes about politics economics and history at The Right Track Magazine.
ENDNOTES
[1] Climate Change: The Facts, 2015, Edited by Alan Moran, Stockade Books & The Institute of Public Affairs, Location 3690
[2] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1379
[3] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1373
[4] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1375
[5] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 2334
[6] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1019
[7] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1031
[8] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1930
[9] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 234
[10] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 4004
[11] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 4028
[12] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 990
[13] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 3776
[14] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1401
[15] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 2229
[16] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 218
[17] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1015
[18] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 3777
[19] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 691
[20] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 2067
[21] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1282
[22] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 793
[23] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 795
[24] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1192
[25] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 3935
[26] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 242
[27] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 3936
[28] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 3941
[29] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 3947
[30] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 456
[31] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 483
[32] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 578
[33] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1153
[34] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1403
[35] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 2111
[36] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 3965
[37] Cold Weather Kills Far More People Than Hot Weather, The Lancet, May 20 2015
[38] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 124
[39] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1467
[40] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1460
[41] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1447
[42] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 2102
[43] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 2170
[44] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 824
[45] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 951
[46] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 2519
[47] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 954
[48] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 841
[49] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 2075
[50] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 959
[51] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 2135
[52] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 3954
[53] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 3905
[54] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1372
[55] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1912
[56] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 4010
[57] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 3208
[58] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 4023
[59] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 3990
[60] “It’s Not Drought, It’s Climate Change, Say Scientists”, August 30 2009, By Melissa Fyfe, Sydney Morning Herald
[61] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1673
[62] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 4032
[63] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1050
[64] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1186
[65] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1149
[66] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1507
[67] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 2653
[68] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1691
[69] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1393
[70] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 221
[71] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 271
[72] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1160
[73] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1167
[74] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1543
[75] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1508
[76] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1561
[77] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 3974
[78] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 4041
[79] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1611
[80] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1856
[81] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 1618
[82] Climate Change: The Facts, Location 314
[83] State AGs Vow to Tackle Climate Change and Fossil Fuel Industry Fraud, March 29 2016, By Samantha Page, Think Progress
[84] Climate Change Prosecutors Suffer Setback as AG Pulls Exxon Subpoena, June 29 2016, By Valerie Richardson, The Washington Times
UPDATE: For those few people that were confused about the footnote links being “broken” …here’s a bit of education. An essay written in Microsoft Word that has bookmarks for reference notes will not translate to WordPress because WordPress offers no support for in-page links, i.e. bookmarks. It’s been a long standing problem, people that write in MSWord often get this idea that their documents, including complex tables, math, overlays on images, etc, will automatically translate to the web…they won’t.
So to quiet the complaints for those that didn’t figure out that a link inside brackets like this [3] means look at the footnote [3] at the bottom, I’ve simply deleted all links on the essay, save for one.
I’ve also edited the text to read “carbon dioxide” rather than “carbon” to use accurate terminology.
If folks want to help me edit the volume of works I publish here daily, I’m open to volunteers. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mr. White, if I read 3 pages of an article and STILL can’t discern the author’s point, or even his point of view, the author is doing it wrong. No thank you.
Who is Michael David White?
https://therighttrackmagazine.com/michael-david-white/
He’s the author of this book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LYLVF2K
The links to the endnotes that I tried give
Oops! That page can’t be found.
It looks like nothing was found at this location. Maybe try one of the links below or a search?
The same- or similar looking – article appears on other websites.
https://climatism.wordpress.com/2016/12/29/climate-change-the-frightening-rise-of-dangerous-manmade-global-voguing/
https://therighttrackmagazine.com/2016/10/15/3-climate-change-the-frightening-rise-of-dangerous-manmade-global-voguing/
https://climatism.wordpress.com/2016/12/29/climate-change-the-frightening-rise-of-dangerous-manmade-global-voguing/
Michael David White, I couldn’t finish your article for the many reasons mentioned in comments prior to mine.
A lot of specific criticisms have been made in this comment thread. You’ve been peer reviewed and you should make constructive use of those criticisms.
There seems to be something ‘there’ to your article, but a lot of readers here can’t make out what it is. My suggestion, or criticism, is to break up your essay into parts, such as sea level, GHGs, consensus science, or whatever groupings that make sense of all those points. Then make use of the pointers given to you, such as using ‘carbon dioxide’ instead of ‘carbon’ unless you really are discussing carbon.
Take heart and maybe give it another go, keeping in mind the criticisms offered above.
Tweedle dum and Tweedle dee
Tony L and Tony B
Progressive trolls seem to show up in pairs like Jehovah’s Witnesses. Often a father and son in matching smart suits. Always reading from the little black book with prepared answers to a small list of permitted questions – nothing beyond this narrow list would ever be talked about. Really very like CAGW evangelists.
Hint: to debunk an argument you need to do more than just say “it’s been debunked”. You need to actually debunk it. “Trust us we’re the experts” and “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain adjusting all the climate data” are also old, failed and dead strategies.
Why not debate the science? O I forgot – it has to be in the little black book of prepared questions, answers and cooked data.
Yes the article is somewhat disorganised and amateurish. However it just shows that the egregious flaws, contradictions and inconsistencies in the AGW narrative can be easily seen through by anyone with scientific curiosity looking at the facts.
Ptolemy 2
You mean tone b not me. I think he has been on duty during December.
I have made no comment other than this one on this thread.
Tonyb
If its Voging, it can’t be man made.
Vogons are not a human species…
…I’ll get my coat….
Don’t forget your towel.
“Progressive trolls”
Really, ptolemy2, a Progressive troll? Just for having a bit of fun with a post which seems to have way more entropy content than is usual around here. Do note that I try to avoid engaging certain personalities around here and Toneb is one of them.
I think you might be getting torqued up a bit too tight on this one.
The reference links don’t work for me.
Big media COULD care less. If they could care less, why don’t they? The expression (tired, overused and silly) should really read “Big media COULDN’T care less. In other words, they care so little that they can’t care any less.
Yes, Trebla – exactly. I was going to write something similar myself but I’m glad you did.
I do get tired of reading the American version of what should be written, in PLAIN English. They write the exact opposite of what they mean.
Voguing – see here for cultural reference.
https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/fashion-blog/2014/nov/18/-sp-vogueing-dance-came-back-into-vogue-madonna
Clicking on a few of the backup notes reveals that there are no pages linked to the numbers. This may be a technical problem only, but it does subtract from an otherwise well written article. Also,referring to CO2 as ‘carbon’ is lazy and sloppy. Saying I didn’t read the article because he refers to CO2 as ‘carbon’ is equally lazy.
“Saying I didn’t read the article because he refers to CO2 as ‘carbon’ is equally lazy.”
There are thousands of articles and papers about CO2 and climate change. Have you read them all? There is nothing lazy about deciding not to read an article that is poorly written.
I join with other comments above. PLEASE stop using the term “carbon” when you mean “carbon dioxide.” This is a cave-in to warmist sophistry and propaganda. Using a term like “carbon pollution” falsely conflates CO2, a necessary and beneficial gas, with true atmospheric pollutants such as black soot, unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and other harmful carbon based molecules.
From the article:
“If carbon was a thousand times higher than today in the last two ice ages, how can we believe a miniscule addition of carbon will lead to dangerous warming? In the past we had extreme cold during the time we had extreme carbon. These facts make one skeptical the “manmade” carbon will be dangerous.”
Huh?
a thousand times higher?
Thanks for the heads up. It will be corrected to: “If carbon dioxide was up to a thousand times higher in the first great ice ages, how can we believe a miniscule addition of carbon dioxide will lead to dangerous warming?”
pt 2
Or another random walk through the gishgallop of he OP.
“The increase is small enough to be almost “undetectable” for human observers.”
Well, of course it is!
Do you expect changes that SHOULD happen in geological time-scales to be noticeable in a human life-span?
“Warming of one degree centigrade since the Little Ice Age is also “entirely unalarming in rate and magnitude”,”
Again No……
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/DailySummary/GISS_land+ocean_1880-2014.png
That 1C has largely happened since 1970, since the +ve forcing of CO2 outpaced the -ve one of aerosol and since the previous major -ve PDO/ENSO regime (the last one merely caused the *pause*).
And this is the correlation to CO2 using the empirical Forcing=5.35ln(c/co) W/m^2 ……
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/annual-with-forcing-small.png
“Carbon is not the only factor in the creation of temperature.”
Science doesn’t say it is – so correct.
On geological time-scales it is orbital eccentricity, which is then fed-back into by the carbon cycle.
Natural variation is the movement of the climate system’s stored heat into and out of the atmosphere. ~30 years sees that cycle complete and the TOA imbalance is what we revert to.
“The possible disappearance of sun spots today has led to speculation that “the most likely climatic trend over the next several decades is one of significant cooling rather than warming,””
Yes but of the order of 0.1% – same has happens in a normal solar cycle min (ask Leif Svalgaard)…..
“In the previous reconstructions, the 17th-century ‘Maunder Minimum’ total irradiance was 0.15 to 0.65% (irradiance change about 2.0 to 8.7 W/m^2; radiative forcing about 0.36 to 1.55 W/m^2) below the present-day mean (Figure 6.13b). Most of the recent studies (with the exception of Solanki and Krivova, 2003) calculate a reduction of only around 0.1% (irradiance change of the order of –1 W/m^2, radiative forcing of –0.2 W/m^2; section 2.7). Following these results, the magnitude of the radiative forcing used in Chapter 9 for the Maunder Minimum period is relatively small (–0.2 W/m^2 relative to today).”
Yes there is a greater reduction of UV – which does affect the stratospheric PV, and can initiate polar tropospheric polar plunges. However as we see this winter – it leaves the Artic warmer.
IOW: the net TSI budget (W/m^2) remains unaltered.
Toneb, I’m sure you understand that this is too sharp a site to toss out something like : the 1C rise is since 1970. Actually, the 1C since 1970 was wrought in June last year by a guy called Tom Karl of NOAA. He did this just before he retired, would you believe? It is well known as the “Karlization” of temperature, a desperate act to get rid of the dreaded Pause, which had been in effect for two decades, essentially the length of time that all the CAGW hype has been about. Yes, the El Nino came to the rescue anyway, but that isn’t CO2. The fact you used the one year old dishonest Karlization graph is very telling to readers on this site.
Also, the 1C rise in temperatures over the last 30 years has prodigiously been touted as Unprecidented in the temperature record. Yet, Toneb’s second graph above indicates that between about 1755 and about 1770, temperatures rose from an average of 6.75C to an average of 9.55C or 2.8C in 15 years this would equate to a truly unprecidented rise of 5.6C over the same 30 year period.
Look for yourself.
OK 0.7 C.
“the El Nino came to the rescue anyway, but that isn’t CO2. The fact you used the one year old dishonest Karlization graph is very telling to readers on this site.”
Just part of the cycle. You don’t get to end it on the down bit, which is what the *pause* was due to.
Yes the PDO /ENSO cycle is natural but it has to play through.
Yet they keep on ending at higher temps.
How,s that happening then?
And at the same time OHC is rising.
If there is a net transfer of heat from the oceans to the atmosphere then it should cool, and over the long term stay stable.
http://climatefeedback.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/n-g_temperature_El-Nino_1967withlines.gif
http://www.globalwarming-sowhat.com/_Media/ocean-heat-content-2016_med.jpeg
Toneb,
your use of the GISS temperature data set,invalidates your entire post and destroys your credibility.
You also like most warmists ignore the too high predictive PER DECADE warming rate the IPCC many times posted from 1990 onwards. You also keep ignoring the Satellite temperature data altogether.
Wish you would stop being a dishonest person on this topic.
The much fabricated GISS is the only thing he has.
He KNOWS its a farce, and he KNOWS that he is being DELIBERATELY DISHONEST.
Dishonesty and outright LIES are the only things the AGW scammers have to fall back on.
“your use of the GISS temperature data set invalidates your entire post and destroys your credibility.”
So the sat temp data does not invalidate your *argument*?
See my further posts.
There’s NOTHING that is more adjusted in the sphere of climate science than UAH/RSS.
“Wish you would stop being a dishonest person on this topic.”
If merely correcting mis-truths and presenting the science (linked) is dishonest ….
Then frankly that comment says more about where you come from my friend. ( conspiracy ideation)
Try refuting what I posted and not using ad hom.
You lost the *argument* straight off.
What would you do without those Hockey stick charts, Toneb?
Pt3
“In 2001 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “predicted a huge and rapid rise” [27] in temperatures of up to up to six degrees in this century.”
No it didn’t …..
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ulrich_Cubasch/publication/235948804_Climate_Change_2001_Synthesis_Report/links/00b4952a888af0e5af000000.pdf
“Global average surface temperature is estimated to increase 1.2 to 3.5°C by the year 2100 for profiles that eventually
stabilize the concentration of CO2 at levels from 450 to 1,000 ppm. Thus, although all of the CO2
concentration stabilization profiles analyzed would prevent, during the 21st century, much of the
upper end of the SRES projections of warming (1.4 to 5.8°C by the year 2100), it should be noted
that for most of the profiles the concentration of CO2 would continue to rise beyond the year 2100.
The equilibrium temperature rise would take many centuries to reach, and ranges from 1.5 to
3.9°C above the year 1990 levels for stabilization at 450 ppm, and 3.5 to 8.7°C above the year
1990 levels for stabilization at 1,000 ppm.”
“We have had “37 consecutive years of documented, systematic model failure.” [31] “The failure of the models … need to be acknowledged” [32] but the proponents refuse to admit their error.”
No…..
And give the usual (GISS is *adjusted* and can’t be trusted)
,then quote the Trop temp Sat data series (which one? RSS v1.0 to 4.0 or UAH up to V6.0(beta5)
And even then they don’t agree with sonde data since the AMSU sensor took over in ’98…..
http://postmyimage.com/img2/792_UAHRatpacvalidation2.png
“The increase of carbon has made the earth “observably greener”. [40] Carbon is the basic plant food. Carbon is the key to photosynthesis, the process plants use to live and grow. Carbon is like oxygen for plants.”
It is/has.
However the Earth’s biosphere including humans flourished at 280ppm of the “insignificant trace gas” and no more is necessary, with the law of diminishing returns and then worse involved…..
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production/
“The likelihood is that the content of carbon in our air today has had no influence on the occurrence of this list of bad or unusual things. Who is paying for attaching the ills of the world to dangerous manmade global warming?”
“alligators in the Thames”
A *classic*
Look up Milankovitch cycles.
“The confidence of the proponents should have been tempered by now after seeing the work their models have done”
Err, nope……
NB: adjusted for forcing that actually occurred v those that were projected at the time of the CMIP5 runs.
“‘entire North Polar ice cap will be gone in five years’. ”
He was quoting one estimate of someone who had not yet published a paper on it. In the same speech Gore also quoted 22 years … oh, and you meant 7 years. Yes?
“Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”
Gore was alluding to Wieslaw Maslowski at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey and the actual prediction from Maslowski’s 2009 publication (not a peer-reviewed paper) is, “Autumn could become near ice free between 2011 and 2016.”
He was wrong. AS is likely to be the case for an outlier prediction.
He did do a peer-reviewed paper in 2012 ….
http://sci-hub.bz/10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105345
Now to the nub of it …..
“Something is driving the warming proponents which is overruling the scientific method. A billion-dollars-a-day of work is part of it. The power and the glory is part of it. The totalitarian nature of progressivism is part of it. My opinion is that the totalitarian instinct, the horrendous human trait given religious preeminence in the progressive faith, is now the guiding driver of proponents.”
Now there is a name for someone who says that, ignoring the near certainty of the science. I’ll leave you to figure what it is.
Sceptic?
So what is the red curve in the graph? The subset of UAH TLT that is in the part of the world covered by RATPAC-A? And what is the blue graph – RATPAC-A with weighting of various altitudes according to the weighting curve of UAH TLT? And what is the left scale – how much these disagree with global UAH TLT? I wish it was more clear what these are, because the red and blue curves agree well with each other, especially in the AMSU period.
Donald:
It is the UAH data series minus the RATPAC A 850-300mb throughout showing the disconnect at the MSU to AMSU changover.
Now Mears at RSS has said that they do not know which is the incorrect sensor and so have produced v4 such that it minimises the diff between both sensors.
Christy at UAH has said that the new AMSU should be the correct one (no reason – just newer). And they have gone with that a being correct.
Result – both are wrong but UAH is likely most wrong.
They are running too cold.
If the Y axis is UAH minus RATPAC A 850-300 mb, please explain what the red and blue curves are. At this point, I still suspect that the Y axis is UAH TLT global minus RATPAC A 850-300 mb, and one of either the red or blue curves is UAH TLT global minus RATPAC A measurements, and the other is UAH TLT global minus its subset that is the part of the world covered by RATPAC A. I ask for clarification to refute in a good specific way or to confirm my suspicions here. Your response noted as December 29 1:05 PM does not explain why there are red and blue curves and their split linear trends, as opposed to only one curve and one split linear trend with a disconnect around 1999.
Toneb: Giss is not the only falsified temperature set you use. By itself it will invalidate your argument but there is more. You have made it your business to unearth data that falsifies not just one but several demogrified temperature sources. By using such falsified temperatures your babble that makes use of them is worthless. Specifically, the falsified temperature sources you use belong to “CMIP3 individual reealizations…” and “Global mean temperature anomalies” graphs. Look at figure 15 in my book “What Warming?” to find the truth. That UAH vs. Ratpac of yours I don’t recognize either. The downslope in its twenty-first century is intriguing and may have a partial explanation but aspects of ENSO that exist after 2012 you have completely wiped out. The fakery of the first two graphs I mentioned has a common origin so let’s look at that. Satellite data show that in the eighties and nineties there was no warming and that a hiatus existed from 1979 to 1997. The last date was the beginning of the super El Nino of 1998 which put an end to the ENSO peaks that existed between it and 1979. You ignore the existence of the hiatus of the eighties and nineties and create a temperature increase of 0.2 degrees Celsius during this period. Your fakery does not end there because that imaginary heat now becomes the base upon which the super El Nino and the twenty-first century that follows are built up. Furthermore, you also keep raising the temperature during the first part of the twenty-first century twhen there is no warming. Using the November issue of UAH satellite data, any warming stops after this and global temperature begins to cool down before the first decade is over. It does that for ten years and then turns up again in a buildup to the El Nino of 2016. Both CMIP3 and CMIP5 completely ignore the existence of this El Nino. This is not surprising because climate models are pretty worthless that way. There has been enough time to check on the performance of the earlier ones and they all fail to correctly predict what is ahead. What they do most consistently is predict warming that never happens Looks like wishful thinking made true by their million-line climate programs running on supercomputers. As to the real future, if you extrapolate the downward slope between 2002 and 2012 linearly through and past the 2016 El Nino you will find that the most likely future global baseline o will return to what used to be in the (real) eighties and nineties baseline. It is not likely that any models can predict anything like that. There is still more here but I don’t feel like beating a dead horse any more..
While I quite agree with the overall thrust of this piece, there are some questionable assertions. This one stands out:
Where does the author get this idea from? There is a method to avoid this kind of bloopers. It is called “homework.”
“On yet another scale, geology shows that all six of the great ice ages were initiated when atmospheric CO2 was far higher than at present and, with the first two great ice ages, up to a thousand times higher than the current atmospheric CO2 content.” Location 215 of Climate Change: The Facts. Ian Plimer. Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne and Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide.
That was a typo in “Climate Change, the facts”. It’s 400 now. It has been as high as 7000, IIRC <20times.
The second major ice age, the Cryogenian, had CO2 nothing like a thousand times what it is now, closer to 3.5 times what it is now.
The atmosphere has 400 ppm CO2 now. One thousand times more would be 400,000 ppm, or 40%. Such a value would completely wipe out all animal life. Probably not even plants could sustain it. Where would all the carbon come from, as well as the oxygen that is also part of the CO2? How could the geochemical carbon dioxide sinks be prevented from functioning long enough for such a high concentration to build up? It is completely fanciful.
“Creation of temperature…”
What? This is like speaking of the creation of distance. I was tired of this essay even before reaching this puzzler.
What the heck is “voguing”? I couldn’t get past the title.
w.
Try this out…
https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/fashion-blog/2014/nov/18/-sp-vogueing-dance-came-back-into-vogue-madonna
I think the article writer is referencing the stylized posturing of it, as a metaphor.
How voguing came back into vogue
The dance, invented on the streets of Harlem in the 1980s and given cult status by the documentary Paris is Burning, is back in the mainstream.
Grauniad
Ha – I missed Steve Fraser’s response.
I am the only one here who finds Toneb’s casual use of completely made up temperature anomaly data disturbing? People of his ilk need to be called out on this EVERY time they present false data.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
–Joseph Goebbels
Fake quote.
Perhaps he meant to cite this
2. Hitler and the “Big Lie”
The false Goebbels quotation above is actually a take-off on Hitler’s familiar statement in Mein Kampf, which is often misunderstood. Hitler stated:
“In this they [the Jews] proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds, they more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads, and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others.…” (p. 231 of the Manheim translation)
It’s amusing how often quotes about lies are themselves lies.
Goebbels did say this about the English and lies, which might fit Jonathan K’s argument:
“The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.”
Joseph Goebbels – Churchill’s Lie Factory
TLDR – but since the author has fallen into the trap of referring to carbon dioxide as “carbon” the rest is highly suspect.
I understand this is a quote from a published work, I would still suggest replacing it with:
In other words, “the impact of [anthropogenic] climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers” [66]
Regarding: “If carbon dioxide was a thousand times higher than today in the last two ice ages, how can we believe a miniscule addition of carbon dioxide will lead to dangerous warming?” Except CO2 never was that high any time during or after the Cambrian period. The highest it got to any time since the beginning of the Cambrian period was about 15 times as high as it is now.
One of the best compilations utilizing short synopses presented on a single page that I’ve seen. Thanks for all the work!
This part of the article stuck out to me:
““Energy is the most basic of economic resources behind wealth and living standards even though it represents only 5 per cent of GDP.” [80] The dangerous manmade global warming hypothesis demonizes the energy needed to fight poverty. By diverting us from the proven way to end poverty “global warming orthodoxy is not merely irrational. It is wicked,” said Mr. Lawson. [81]”
The promotion of the CAGW speculation is causing great harm to humanity, now and in the future. We need to wake up and get our priorities straight. The CAGW speculation is diverting resources from areas where they are really needed.