Climate alarmism is still bizarre, dogmatic, intolerant

Claims defy parody, as alarmists become more tyrannical and their policies wreak havoc

Guest opinion by Paul Driessen

Climate alarmism dominated the Obama era and run-up to Paris. But it’s at least as bizarre, dogmatic and intolerant now that: President Trump pulled the United States out of the all pain/no gain Paris climate pact; the US EPA is reversing anti-fossil fuel programs rooted in doom-and-gloom climatology; America is producing and exporting more oil, gas and coal; developing nations are burning vastly more of these fuels; Poland is openly challenging EU climate diktats; and German, British Australian and other politicians are voicing increasing concerns about job-killing, eco-unfriendly “green” energy.

With trillions of dollars in research money, power, prestige, renewable energy subsidies, wealth redistribution schemes, and dreams of international governance on the line, the $1.5-trillion-per-year Climate Industrial Complex is not taking the situation lightly. Climate fear-mongering is in full swing.

Tried-and-true scare stories still dominate the daily news, often with new wrinkles tied to current events. The Winter Olympics were going to take “a huge hit from our warming planet,” the pressure group Protect Our Winters warned us (yes, it’s an actual organization). Of course, that was before fiendishly frigid conditions repeatedly postponed events and drove spectators from PyeongChang slopes.

But of course, bitter cold is “exactly what we should expect” from the global warming “crisis,” said Climategeddon expert Al Gore, who got a C and D in the only two science courses he took in college. It’s reminiscent of dire predictions that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2010 (or 2015 or 2025), and “children just aren’t going to know what snow is” (until record cold and snow battered the UK a couple years later).

We’re likewise propagandized constantly with deliberate falsehoods about “carbon pollution.” We burn carbon, in the form of hydrocarbons and coal. In the process, we emit carbon dioxide which is not a pollutant. It is the miracle plant food that makes life on Earth possible.

Other standard scares ignore the innumerable, monumental benefits of carbon-based fuels – and blame these fuels and CO2 emissions for planetary warming (and cooling), rising seas, forest fires, and every major problem from malaria to rainstorms, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes.

A newly discovered danger, say a couple researchers, endangers green sea turtles. Planetary warming is causing up to 99% of turtle eggs to hatch as females. It won’t be long, perhaps just decades, until “there will not be enough males” to propagate the species. Some “30 years of knowledge” support this thesis.

That would take us all the way back to 1988, a decade before the 18-year global warming “hiatus” that was interrupted by the 2015-16 El Niño; a half-century since the Dust Bowl and record high planetary temperatures of the 1930s; 40 years after scientists were convinced Earth was about to enter a new little ice age; and some 750 years after the 300-year-long Medieval Warm Period. One has to wonder how sea turtles managed to survive such previous warm spells – and cold periods like the four-century-long Little Ice Age, since cold weather apparently churns out only male sea turtles.

Not to be outdone, Hillary Clinton asserted that women “will bear the brunt of looking for food, looking for firewood, looking for the place to migrate to when all the grass is finally gone, as the desertification moves south” because of climate change. Wrong. Entire families will continue to bear these burdens because of anti-energy policies imposed in the name of sustainability and climate change prevention.

(For more fearsome forecasts, see The Warmlist, a no longer complete, but still entertaining compendium of some 800 horrors supposedly caused by “dangerous manmade global warming and climate change.”)

The constant consternation strikes many as ridiculous. But others have become true believers – and have committed to not having children, not taking showers, de-carbonizing, de-industrializing and de-growing developed countries, shutting off oil pipelines, and other futile actions that bring no earthly benefits.

Our planet has certainly been warming. Thank goodness for that, because the extra warmth lifted habitats and humanity out of the Little Ice Age and its chilly, stormy weather, greatly reduced arable land, short growing seasons and CO2-starved crops. Powerful, uncontrollable natural forces drove that temperature rise. Earth may now face dangerous Mann-made global warming and climate cataclysms concocted by computer models – but no “unprecedented” or “existential” human-caused dangers in the real world.

Question or challenge climate crisis orthodoxy, however, and you will be vilified and face RICO prosecutions, bogus slander and SLAPP lawsuits, censure or expulsion from your university, attacks for sponsoring museum exhibits, or even “four hots and a cot” in a jail or a faraway gulag.

Thankfully, there are excellent antidotes: books by climatologists Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Jennifer Marohasy, Tim Ball, political observer Marc Steyn and others; and websites like ClimateDepot.com, WattsUpWithThat.com, DrRoySpencer.com and Global Warming Policy Foundation.org, for example.

For a concise, yet comprehensive, and eminently readable lay guide to real climate science, geologist Gregory Wrightstone’s Inconvenient Facts: The science that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know may meet your needs. Its 123 pages are organized into two sections and 30 easily understood chapters, written in plain English and complimented by over 100 colorful charts, graphs, tables and illustrations, covering all the common climate issues, fears and myths.

The book is capped off by a handy list of 60 inconvenient facts that eviscerate alarmist dogma, and15 pages of references. As Lord Christopher Monckton’s says in his foreword, Wrightstone has succeeded “splendidly” in reliably distinguishing myths from realities in the climate debate.

The opening section devotes 54 pages to explaining greenhouse and climate basics, showing how carbon dioxide is huge in planetary life but minuscule on the climate front, skewering the myth of a 400 ppm CO2 “tipping point,” analyzing climate models versus real world measurements of global temperature, and showing why and how water vapor plays such a vital and dominant role in weather and climate.

Carbon dioxide, he notes, is essential plant food that makes forests, grasslands and crops grow faster and better, with less water, and thus able to feed more people from less land. Figure I-15 summarizes data from 3,586 experiments on 549 plant species and depicts how crop yields would increase and generate trillions of dollars in overall monetary benefits, if CO2 levels rose by 300 ppm. His analysis of the “hockey stick,” computer models and temperature predictions is equally illuminating.

Part II of Wrightstone’s book examines the many assertions and myths of a coming climate apocalypse, and demonstrates why they fail to meet basic standards of scientific evidence and integrity. The opening chapter demolishes the phony 97% “consensus” of scientists who supposedly agree that humans are now the primary cause of extreme weather and climate change, ushering in a catastrophic future. Subsequent chapters address famines, forest fires, tornadoes, hurricanes, melting ice packs, rising seas, polar bear populations, and other staples of climate alarmism.

“Ocean acidification,” he points out, is a term deliberately chosen to alarm people about an imaginary problem. Being honest, and saying seas might become very slightly less alkaline (have slightly lower pH levels) from more atmospheric and oceanic CO2 in the coming centuries, wouldn’t suffice. Worse, an oft-cited study ignored a full century of readily available data, and instead used computer models to fill in the contrived “gaps” on pH levels. As Wrightstone suggests, many people would call it Climate pHraud.

The bottom line? Scientists still do not understand the complexities of climate and weather. They still cannot separate human influences from the effects of powerful natural forces that have brought often profound climate changes throughout history. There is no evidence of a coming climate cataclysm.

Spending trillions of dollars – and condemning billions of people to expensive, insufficient, unreliable, land and raw material gobbling wind, solar and biofuel energy – is not just unnecessary. It is immoral.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy and environmental policy.

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

156 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
markl
February 19, 2018 10:16 am

Sometimes I feel we are just pissing into the wind trying to convince people there is no climate Armageddon due to burning fossil fuels but the facts are s-l-o-w-l-y being recognized and the failed doomsday scenarios are piling up. I don’t think science will beat the AGW narrative with all the MSM support it has but common sense just may.

Anthony Castaneda, engineer
February 19, 2018 10:25 am

You get more and more brazen examples of this giant fraud everyday, and the oranized, paid for, internet intimidation that ipcc, and global alarm scientists are using, to keep their funding intact. Right now, there are paid thugs on YouTube trying not to win a debate, but intimidate people from challenging this nonsense.

February 19, 2018 11:18 am

I would think a 99:1 ratio of females to males would be a response to improved conditions for turtle breeding. It only takes one guy to fertilize a LOT of females. I’d think moving the other direction, with 99 males to 1 female would be the response to declining turtle conditions.

MarkW
Reply to  James Schrumpf
February 20, 2018 7:49 am

Sea turtles tend to be solitary animals, it would take a long time for one male to even find 99 females.
Of course the sea turtle who’s genes had a higher temperature set point (that is, one genetically programed to produce more males at the new higher temperature) their offspring would have a huge advantage in the next generation.

February 19, 2018 11:24 am

cave paintings threatened … one that caught my eye on the long list. Tragic !
Is mental decay on the list? — I didn’t read it all, obviously.

Joel Snider
February 19, 2018 12:29 pm

This illustrates the problem with attempting to be reasonable with the unreasonable. Anyone who has paid attention to any issue pushed by this personality type (currently manifested most often in Progressives) is that anything they get – even if it’s every damned thing on their list – is ‘just the beginning, just a bare beginning’ and they will have a new list tomorrow. In functional reality, it’s not compromise, it’s ratcheting.
The mechanism is simple. Remember, the warm-fuzzy is a fading high – addicts will need a stronger hit tomorrow.

Alan Tomalty
February 19, 2018 1:46 pm

How many people heat their homes with electricity even though electricity heating is near 100 % efficient? Not many of the 25% that live in places with a winter. That is because electricity has always been too expensive compared to fossil fuels. If you make electricity from fossil fuels you are paying for the conversion costs You might as well burn the fossil fuels to begin with. That is why people in cold climates in the winter use fossil fuels or they will freeze to death. Renewables wont save them from freezing to death because they are intermittent. You will always need either a hydroelectric , nuclear or fossil fuel backup. It is that simple. Most of the greenies in a cold climate today are using fossil fuels (except the ones with cheap hydro) to save him/her from freezing to death. What hypocrisy?

willhaas
February 19, 2018 5:02 pm

I believe that Mankind’s out of control population is not a very good idea because the Earth’s surface area is finite. I believe that burning up fossil fuels just a quickly as possible is not a good idea because the Earth’s supply of fossil fuels is finite. The AGW conjecture seems quite plausable at first but a more in depth analyssi of it uncovers very serious flaws I would like to add global warming as another reason to conserve on the use of fossil fuels but the AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and cannot be adequately defended.
The AGW coinjecture depends upon the idea that the insulation effects of the atmosphere is caused by a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. According to the conjecture these so called greehouse gases provide a radiant greenhouse effect that keeps the surface on the Earth on average 33 degrees C warmer than it would be otherwise. Calculations were made decades ago that a doubling of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere would cause a global temperatuere increase of 1.2 degrees C, ignoring any feedback effects. The change in global temperature caused by a doubling of CO2 is known as the climate sensivity of CO2. One scientist has pointed out the these radiametric calculations failed to take into consideration that a doubleing of CO2 would cause a slight decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere, enough to decrease the climate sensivity of CO2 by more than a factor of 20. So instead of a climate sensivity of 1.2 degrees C, we have a climate sensivity of less than .06 degrees C.
Then there is the issue of feedbacks. According to the AGW conjecture, CO2 based warming will cause an increase in H2O in the Earth’s atmosphere which will cause even more warming because H2O is also a so called greenhouse gas with LWIR absorption bands. In fact, for those that believe in a radiametric greenhouse effect, H2O is by far the primary greenhouse gas. Molecule per molecule, H2O is a stronger absorber of IR then is CO2 and there is so much more H2O in sthe Earth’s atmosphere then is CO2. H2O averages between 1 to 2 percent in the Earth’s atmosphere globally while the level of CO2 is nomaly .04 percent. H2O based warming will cause more H2O to enter the atmosphere so much so that the possible effects of CO2 is insignificant.
What the AGW conjecture totally ignore’s is that besides being a so called greenhouse gas, H2O is a major coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. The over all cooling effect of H2O is evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly lower than the dry lapse rate so instead of the feedback effects of H2O amplifying the warming effects of CO2 by a factor of 3 that the AGW conjecture likes to assume, more realisticly H2O attenuates the warming effects of CO2 by a factor of 3, yielding a climate sensivity of CO2 of less than .02 degrees C, which is a trivial amount.
There is no real evidence in the paleoclimate record that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is evidence that increased temperatures result in more entering the Earth’s atmosphere which is because warmer oceans do not hold as much CO2 as cooler oceans but there is no real evidence that the increased amounts of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere have caused any warming. There is no evidence in the paleoclimate record that CO2 has any effect on climate.
A lot of work has been done with climate modeling. The IPCC has been supporting a plethora of climate models with the hope that they will provide evidence of the warming effect of CO2. The large number of these climate models is evidence that a lot of guess work has been involved. These large number of models have generated a wide range of results but thay all seem to have one thing in common. They have all been wrong. They have all predicted global warming that has not iaken place. These models all have the idea, that more CO2 causes warming, hard coded in which begs the question and renders the results useless. If anything these computer models show what would happen if CO2 did cause warming but becaue the results have been wrong if these simulations provide evidence of anything it is that added CO2 is not the cause of global warming. On the other hand others have generated models that show that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control.
A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of a radiametric greenhouse effect caused by greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass decreases cooling by convection. It is a convective and not a radiametric greenhouse effect that keeps a real greenhouse warm. So to in the Earth’s atmosphere. There exists a convective greenhouse effect caused by gravity and the heat capacity of the atmosphere that keeps the surface of the earth on average 33 degrees C warmer that if would be otherwise. All gases in the Earth’s atmopshere contribute to tis effect. This convective greenhouse effect is totally ignored by the AGW conjecture. 33 degrees C is the warming effect derived from first principals and 33 degrees C is the amount that has been measured. There is no additional warming caused by a radiant greenhouse effect. A radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, on Earth, or anywhere else in the solar system. The AGW conjecture depends upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect but such a radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction. Hence the AGW conjecture is nothing but science fiction. This conclusion is all a matter of sceince.
There may be many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels, but climate change is not one of them.

MarkW
Reply to  willhaas
February 20, 2018 7:52 am

The earth’s surface is finite, but we can create more. We do so every time we build a multi-story building.
The supply of fossil fuels is probably finite, however we have hundreds of years before it runs out. The best strategy is to use it now to create wealth, then our many times great grand children can use that wealth to create technologies that we can’t even imagine, to solve the problem when and if it finally does arise.

willhaas
Reply to  MarkW
February 20, 2018 10:35 am

The amount of indoor space is still finite as is the mass of the Earth. Hundreds of years is not a long time at all. If mankind does not control his own population then nature will, catastrophically.

MarkG
Reply to  MarkW
February 20, 2018 7:25 pm

In a hundred years, most of the human race will be living in space… or in caves.
It’s truly ludicrous that, while we’re going through the fastest period of change in the history of the human race, some people believe they can make predictions about the future by simplistically extrapolating current trends.

Larry D
February 19, 2018 9:52 pm

Sigh. Time to throw this out again. Some perspective on carbon dioxide and global temperature.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
Note that the Earth displays a stable regime 15° Centigrade above current temperature.
And here is a reconstruction of how the continents were laid out during the Early and Middle Jurassic.
http://www.scotese.com/images/I180_zonef.jpg

ivankinsman
February 20, 2018 3:03 am

So if the climate sceptics are right in their assertion that AGW is a hoax and a fallacy, and that renewables are only being taken up because of subsidies so the future lies with fossil fuels, then why is a country like Japan now making a decision that is fossil-fuel/nucleur- based energy policies are now outdated and the country needs to shift towards a strategy incorporating renewables? https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/02/20/japan-task-force-echoes-foreign-minister-calls-to-back-renewables-over-coal-nuclear-peoples-trust-toronto/

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  ivankinsman
February 20, 2018 5:25 am

then why is a country like Japan now making a decision that is fossil-fuel/nucleur- based energy policies are now outdated and the country needs to shift towards a strategy incorporating renewables?

Politics. Encouraged by the one-way propaganda from our self-called “educated elites” in academia and politics and banking who make their power and money from “their power as political and academic elites” for the benefit of those in academia and politics and banking as “educated elites” ….

ivankinsman
Reply to  RACookPE1978
February 20, 2018 7:03 am

I really think is not quite what made them decide this but rather the cost benefit variables.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  ivankinsman
February 20, 2018 7:26 am

Yes. The cost-benefit analysis looks like this:
More subsidies from the politicians give more benefits to the people who donate power, money, access and promotions (media time and exposure) back to the politicians who control the subsidies and grants and the budgets for the academics and bureaucrats and companies who purchase the windmills. While causing greater costs to the people who are NOT the favored politicians in the favored states and provinces and in the favored businesses of the politicians who vote to control the subsidies! Cost and price of the electricity irregularly generated by the windmills is irrelevant. Damage caused by the windmills is irrelevant, their white pristine “image” of purity and wholesome fruit is all that is required.

ivankinsman
Reply to  RACookPE1978
February 20, 2018 7:43 am

This to me is a rather neat solution. If a fossil fuel advocates wants to use fossil fuel energy they can choose to do so – and probably pay more. If a renewables advocate wants energy from renewables then they also have this option. Keeps both energy consumer types happy:
https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/02/20/why-this-kentucky-entrepreneur-is-looking-beyond-coal-to-renewable-energy-forbes/

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  ivankinsman
February 20, 2018 8:42 am

Nice idea. But the exact opposite is happening.
Your politicians (responding to pressure and publicity from the climastrologists’ bandwagon of catastrophe alarmists and subsidy-seekers in the academic and renewable industries) FORCE all of us (who pay the real bills and taxes) to buy at artificially-higher prices the electricity produced by the subsidized windmills and solar plants by mandated prices, while the damage and wear and tear caused TO conventional (fossil, gas turbine and nuclear) plants BY the subsidized and politicized renewables industry is ADDED to the lower cost electricity generated BY the reliable power plants, who now have less product they can sell.
At the meter, you cannot distinguish between solar power, coal-power, hydro-power or nuclear electrons.

MarkW
Reply to  RACookPE1978
February 20, 2018 7:54 am

The fact that you think at all, has yet to be proven.
To date all you have managed to do is regurgitate propaganda that you are paid to regurgitate.
[?? .mod]

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  MarkW
February 20, 2018 8:32 am

MarkW
Can you get me copies of that W-2 you rather high-handedly claim is paying me? IRS ain’t gonna give me no credit without pay-per-proof evidence!
See, if I am getting paid from the supposed well-funded fossil fuel conspiracy against CAGW propaganda, why is it that I am freely donating to this site (and others such as CO2Science) but getting no money from them?

MarkW
Reply to  RACookPE1978
February 20, 2018 7:55 am

Just looking at the name of that web site is enough to prove that there is nothing worth reading there.

MarkW
Reply to  RACookPE1978
February 20, 2018 8:23 am

I do note that the troll wants to keep all of his subsidies in place. It really is fascinating how something that survives only through subsidies and mandates can be declared an economic success in the minds of socialists.

MarkW
Reply to  ivankinsman
February 20, 2018 7:53 am

Oh great, another troll who believes that something is true or not based on how many self serving politicians buy into it.

ivankinsman
Reply to  MarkW
February 20, 2018 9:00 am

Fact, reality … call it what you want. The replacement of a proportion of some fossil fuel energy with renewables is an immovable force so just get used to it.

MarkG
Reply to  MarkW
February 20, 2018 7:26 pm

And, since unreliable energy is so wonderful, we can scrap all the subsidies, can’t we?

paqyfelyc
Reply to  ivankinsman
February 21, 2018 3:19 am

Your question has no sense whatsoever. You think we will trust some political declaration cherrypicked and and highlighted by a site self naming itself mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com? seriously?
What we DO know for sure, however, is that Japan have a just as long track record of silly, self-damaging, decisions as any other country, including Pearl Harbor and the late Paris agreement.

ivankinsman
Reply to  paqyfelyc
February 21, 2018 3:27 am

3rd largest economy on this planet. This is an extremely successful, forward-looking country with a highly educated workforce.
Yet another example of how backward Trump and Pruitt’s advocacy of fossil fuels is looking when referenced against its global economic competitors.

Brett Keane
February 22, 2018 9:13 am

But, Ivan, we can see why Japan has been struggling for years now. Why subsidies? What happens if they rely on wind? Or to you on a tight-rope with more gaps than rope? People die from your beliefs. Please spare us more pitiful stuff!

Verified by MonsterInsights