Josh: Zombie Climate Science is back! (now with extra zombies)

Readers may recall yesterday that I posted about a wacky paper that said Earth was on it’s way to a “hothouse state”. The press release for it was so bad, and so full of straw men arguments, I didn’t even bother to look up the actual paper.

The Guardian went a bit loopy with it.

And Ben Pile @climateresistance on Twitter summed it all up like this:

Josh had similar thoughts, and came up with this:

Bishop Hill bothered to look up the paper, should you want to bother reading it. It’s junk science at it’s worst, and apparently sailed through peer review in less than two months.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/07/31/1810141115

The abstract:

 

 

Advertisements

154 thoughts on “Josh: Zombie Climate Science is back! (now with extra zombies)

  1. Climate zombies wobble, then they do fall down.

    Unfortunately, they get back up — they’re zombies.

      • The study is titled “Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene”.

        Augury is the practice from ancient Roman religion of interpreting omens from the observed flight trajectories of birds (aves). When the individual, known as the augur, interpreted these signs, it is referred to as “taking the auspices”. [Adapted from Wikipedia]

        • If they were to practice augury at a windmill station, they could supplement their predicitive capacity through reading avian entrails.

  2. This was a lead story on the influential BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning. The BBC, despite its charter, takes an utterly one sided approach to man made climate change. it did not occur to the presenters and the BBC ‘climate correspondent’ that this sort of story is not really consistent with the huge amount of alarmist stuff that they have peddled before. Poor journalism

    • BBC one o’ clock news on TV covered this big time with lots of scary footage. The impression given was that the apocalypse is almost on us. I found it laughable but many innocents will no doubt have been horrified at what is apparently about to happen. Sadly many people still believe that the BBC is trustworthy.

    • There was a time, not that long ago, when people living under oppressive regimes all around the world, would listen to the BBC news on short wave radio. It was their best, if not their only source of factual and unbiased reporting.

      Sad, innit?

        • I gave up listening to the BBC World Service quite some time ago. There was more and more AGW and other trendy PC stuff being pushed and the last straw for me was the incredibly irritating bash-you-on-the-head-with-noise racket between the time signal and the ‘news’. That was very sad after earlier years of much better output and its formerly good reputation.

      • Smart Rock..

        I was once one of those living and working in remote third world places who listened religiously to the BBC world news on my short wave. Radio Moscow always occupied the closest frequency to the BBC for their English language fake news.. to the discriminating ear, besides the content, the giveaway was the odd American vowel in their imitation BBC English!
        Cheers

    • Allan

      BBC Radio 2 today, the Jeremy Vine show with Vanessa Phelps (Ugh!) standing in had an appallingly one sided ‘debate’ with climate ‘experts’ on whether the current UK, European and World heatwave indicated global warming.

      Predictably they wheeled on three or four ‘experts’ who variously said it was a ‘signature’ of climate change (whatever that means) and that the 1976 UK heatwave may have been a 1 in 100 year event, but we’re now seeing these as 1 in 50 and that’s likely to drop quickly. I’m paraphrasing but it’ll be available on iPlayer if you can stomach it.

      They then wheeled on a couple of callers to ask some lame questions to ‘challenge’ the ‘in studio’ professor who, from memory was from, wait for it…….. yep! the University Of East Anglia (it may have been one of the others but I was so enraged by the biased content I could barely speak other than mutter obscenities).

      This wasn’t just poor journalism, it was a determined effort to present the case for AGW on one of the most popular radio shows in the UK, presented by the Biased Broadcasting Corporation.

      • It’s a great shame some of the stalwarts here on WUWT couldn’t have called the show. It would have been wonderful to hear the Beeb’s embarrassment.

          • Archer

            I have had my say on the Jeremy Vine show, on a completely different subject.

            They didn’t object to me, as a former Cop, having a real go at a Chief Constable on the subject of reasonable force. I recall my parting shot was that if he dared enter my house with malicious intent he wouldn’t leave in the same condition he arrived.

            And yes, it happened once, and the criminal came off a very sorry second best, nor was I charged, but I’ll suffer that indignity to protect my family and property to the best of my abilities. My point was that I’ll make damn sure the message gets round the criminal fraternity never to consider violating my domain.

            Sorry, veering OT.

            The climate event was, however, stage managed beyond belief. This was a BBC luvvy, love in discussion on the evils of climate change, joined by every self seeking, grant claiming scientist they could round up for a 20 minute show.

            Ye, I’ll damn well complain!

    • It is a given that they’re still running polar bear climate extinction hysteria in 2028. ABC and SBS have been talking complete rot about sinking islands for thirty years now, with no end in sight, even though they know perfectly well that it’s dishonest misleading nonsense. Truth does not sell enough advertisement space, lies are much more profitable.

  3. The BBC has run with it too , in fcat it has got a lot of coverage so in true climate ‘sceince’ fashion its total lack of credability means nothing becuse of its PR impact.

  4. Here in Canada, most mainstream media have taken up this old retread and are spreading it like it’s something all-new. Same for the current heatwave in Europe. Everyone has already forgotten last winter’s extreme cold in Europe… But of course, it was also caused by man-made climate change.

  5. Would love to know what a “Planetary Threshold “ is. Perhaps if we all got together, faced east and jumped forward in unison, we could slow things down a bit. Do I need a (sarc here?
    No wonder the Guardian is looking for contributions.

    • Conditioning to fear requires relentless hype to elicit the desired hysteria responses.

      The main stream media will not relent, they will keep shreiking until everyone is driven mad and starts ‘seeing’ what’s not there, and starts shreiking hysterically too.

      It’s what you do to start a stampeed, and thus to get everyone moving fast in one direction as one group as they panick at what they know not.

      Otherwise known as creating consensus.

      The news informs us so that we make wiser choices.

    • Mexico City gave itself an earthquake generated by excited World Cup fans jumping up and down simultaneously.

    • “Planetary Threshold”, that’s where you step over the edge of the flat earth. There be dragons. There be zombies. One big step for Mann…

  6. As the Chinese and the Russians will never cooperate we are all doomed!!!! So lets not worry about it as we cannot stop it. Buy a Ford Ranger, turn up the A/C, launch the ski boat and enjoy it.
    Hasta la Vista baby.

  7. then STOP THE CHEMTRAILS !!! water vapor is #1 source of warming…heat cannot escape at night. Global Warming is a nighttime phenomenon where heat cannot escape to space due to cloud cover. CHEMTRAILS are a big contributor to the water vapor.

  8. One meaning of guardian is someone who makes decisions for incompetent people. I think it also applies in this case, the difference being that The Guardian is also incompetent.

    • As Larry Niven’s Louis Wu character said in his “Ringworld” novel, “The gods do not protect fools. Fools are protected by more competent fools.”

  9. I just don’t effing get it. How is it that people think they can have any control or effect whatsoever on ice age vs interglacials, especially 1) given the nature of the system itself, and 2) given that these massive swings in “average global temperature” have been going on for millions upon millions of years? At what point do they stop doubling-down on their sensationalist scare-mongering?

    • They don’t want to control the climate they want to control society.
      This is just a convenient dodge.

      • For some, for sure. But I’m sure there a bunch of legitimate true believers writing these papers that have had their brains broken through cognitive dissonance backlash.

      • Yep, the watermelons (green on the outside, commie red on the inside) are at it again. They are convinced that “climate change” is the best way to put the chains back on their recalcitrant serfs… heck, they think they can convince their serfs to put the chains back on their own legs…

    • KO, look at this comment from one of the researchers.

      Professor Johan Rockström, from the Stockholm Resilience Centre and one of the authors of the paper, is a leading expert on positive feedback mechanisms. He told the BBC “What we are saying is that when we reach 2 degrees of warming, we may be at a point where we hand over the control mechanism to Planet Earth herself.”

      He added: “We are the ones in control right now, but once we go past 2 degrees, we see that the Earth system tips over from being a friend to a foe. We totally hand over our fate to an Earth system that starts rolling out of equilibrium.”

      • Thanks for the quote. But the presumption! We currently control things? It’s laughable. The tail does not wag the dog in the real world. Plus, his presumption that the Earth is a friend is erroneous: Nature has been trying to kill us all non-stop since the beginning. Human adaptability, perseverance, and inspiration are what have allowed us not only to survive as a species, but to prosper…to the point, apparently, where we’ve become infected with a plethora of parasites.

      • Rockström or “Skrock”-ström as in swedish for superstition is NOT an expert on climate, He is an agricultural engineer, i.e a university farmer. Well-known to the swedish skeptics for his non-stop nonsense.

    • At what point do they stop doubling-down on their sensationalist scare-mongering?

      It’s in the abstract above — “new governance arrangements.” It’s never been a secret, they always tell you what they’re doing. When they have a New World Order, with total abolition of national sovereignty, then there will be no further need for globull warming, or freezing, or ozone depletion, or alien attack.

      • Today’s lecture: Us vs Them: Defeating the Enemy.
        Tomorrow’s lecture: Choosing a New “Them”.

        There is never an end for totalitarianism seekers. It can’t survive without some unifying “Other” against which to struggle. When all external enemies are defeated, it must perforce turn within itself.

  10. … sailed through peer review in less than two months.

    Peer review doesn’t ensure that a paper is valid. The only way that could work is if the reviewers actually reproduced the paper’s findings.

    Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. link

    That pretty much explains the ‘consensus’ in climate science.

    It is widely acknowledged that peer review is fatally flawed. Getting science on an even keel is a gargantuan task and there are no obvious answers.

    • Even at its best, peer revue only means that, in the opinion of the reviewer(s), the author(s) picked an interesting topic, researched it with reasonable methods, and avoided obvious blunders. BFD

      • But anymore it only means that the blunders are given a pass if the paper furthers “The Cause”.

  11. “Peer review” shows what it is worth at PNAS. On the other hand, the authors are modestly predicting only the hottest temperatures in 1.2 million years, not “evah”.

    • Peer Review – often thought to be the gold standard in scientific assessment – only works when the peers doing the review are equally drawn from a wide range of scientific viewpoint. Sadly this is no longer possible in the climate science arena

    • The review process at PNAS is particularly poor. It’s more of a vehicle for distribution, less an academic journal.

    • The problem with that graph is that both poles are the same temperature. In reality, the south pole is a lot colder than the north pole. link

      Paleoclimatology might not be that useful at predicting possible future conditions. The planet’s continents keep shifting around and changing the possibilities for ocean currents. Was there a gulf stream a billion years ago? Probably not, at least not as we now know it.

      On the other hand, what the graph does show is that the temperature at the equator doesn’t change much. It is probably strongly regulated by the physical properties of water and air. link

      • Bob, the gradients on the left side refer to the S. Pole; N. Pole, as you say, is less cold. The right side is showing estimated GMT. In the post discussion, a modern warming period graph shows the two poles on the same chart.

      • The graph is crummy. My interpretation of the scale on the 4th horizontal line from the top is latitude, beginning with the North pole. The equator is the vertical line in the middle of the chart. The South Pole is on the right hand side.

        • I was in QC for 25 years and if we had a problem with a customer who would not see sense we would show them a graph based on the Baffle Them With BS principle. Worked every time because no one will admit they don’t understand the graph.

    • The reason why the poles have the same temperature in the middle is because these depend on the environment there based on.

      Severe Icehouse based on large land mass over the pole. These likely favour no warm ocean currents from reaching it.

      Extreme Hothouse based on ocean over the pole with little or no land surrounding it. Warm ocean currents are likely to reach the pole in this situation.

      If the Arctic ocean region was all land, the pole there would be much closer to -50c. In this scenario interglacials would disappear and we would be stuck in permanent ice age conditions.

    • Oceans serve to mitigate effects of solar cycles, in which sun spikes are the determinant untouchable by Climate Priests’ Collective Concordance.

  12. This kind of thing makes me want to puke. There is something seriously wrong with these people. The greens, in my mind, align themselves with the Remoaners (who decry everything Brexit, spreading doom and gloom everywhere) and the Trump-bashers in the US (always digging and looking non-stop for dirt to heap on his valiant efforts).

    Instead of celebrating all the wonderful things we are so lucky to enjoy in our lives, all they want to do is to spread fear everywhere.

    I know what I would like to do with the b***** lot of them – but I don’t think it would get past moderation.

  13. “New governance arrangements”. (Call me old-fashioned, but thought these arrangements were made by the people voting in a democracy.)

    • Many of the ‘remoaners’ and those demanding concerted international action on climate change are offshoots of the same ‘new ideology:’ big government (by better people.) They are often members of an elite owing their living to the state or the international community, which prioritises international policy over local (national) democracy, and searches for new ways to leverage international initiatives over local consent. Hence the tendency to blame any unfortunate election result on ‘populism;’ as I often say, populism is what you call democracy when you don’t like the result. The start of the current international climate initiatives was the creation of Agenda 21, with the foundations laid by Maurice Strong. In Europe, the power of the collective over the individual nation was enshrined in the founding principles of the EEC – to avoid any repetition of the kinds of events that triggered the second world war.
      Both initiatives were almost certainly intended to benefit humanity, but the unintended consequences include a steady drift towards totalitarianism and the abolition of freedoms based on choice and prosperity.

      • Well said, for the most part.
        Your attribution of origin, to beneficent intent, is questionable.
        Regardless, the monster has now stepped into the open and revealed its true nature.

      • And don’t forget “The League of Nations” formed after WW1. Wilson promoted it but couldn’t convince the Senate to go along. The “MSM” back then wasn’t as …centralized… in it’s reporting as it is today.
        We could use more “diversity” in the MSM (and the internet “media”) today.
        It seems that “diversity” today means the opposite of being free to express diverse opinions.
        (I think The Bill of Rights called it something along the lines of “Freedom of the Press”?)

        • Actually, it’s freedom of speech. meaning anyone’s speech. The Lamestream Media WANT you to believe the First Amendment applies only to them.

          • You’re right of course.
            I didn’t mean to imply that freedom of speech only applied to those who would decide what is allowed to be heard.

    • You missed the word “new.” As in “NEW Governance Arrangements” aka NWO.
      Governmental perfection will eliminate the need to vote.

  14. Chasing weather headlines at its worst. They’ve been doing it so long that no one listens anymore.

  15. Definitely in the well, that’s not really news, but its interesting… department:

    I am certain quite a few of us have noticed that “climate science goofiness” is seasonal. For example, it seems like phys.org and other sites have just been loaded to the gills with “save a tree, eat a beaver” type articles of late. How plastics need to be banned, blatantly labeling the effluent-stream of petrol and coal fueled engines as pollutants. We’ll bake unless we atone for our profligate sins. All that.

    And lo, the Northern Hemisphere Summer weather is warm! As most often it is, most years. While never so cheekily banal as to just vomit up, “Its hot! Its global warming!”, the very same intent is clearly telegraphed with the uptick in climate-change, doom-and-gloom articles. Of our very near future roasting at our own hands.

    Tipping points — which cannot and have not been shown to exist — are today’s bogeymen. Beware the Jabberwock, my Son. The Jaws that bite, the claws the grab; Beware the jubjub bird, and shun the infamous Bandersnatch!

    TO OUR FEARLESS SITE MASTER — again it might not be terribly arresting, but perhaps we might have an article from your research team on just this observation? I’d think it shouldn’t be too hard to count professional literature citations by season, and plot ’em for say the last 10 or 20 years. If — as hypothesized — there is a strong correlation between mean temperature and the number of Sky is Falling serious, professionally submitted and run papers … well, it does kind of indict the Purveyors of Doom for coöpting Dear Old Mother Nature’s seasonal variations to their own nefarious ends.

    Just asking…
    GoatGuy

  16. It only takes two seconds to rubber-stamp something, but they knew that wouldn’t look good, so let it sit for 2 months for proper aging. You have to do these things properly.

  17. There still have not figure out that they should not use the word “collective”. It’s a dead giveaway, comrade.

  18. A letter in the AUgust edition of Geoscientist, a magazine put out by the Geological Society of London, raises the same spectre. Martin Siegert of the Grantham Institute at Imperial College wrote “The the scientific evidence for human induced climate change is irrefutable … The challenge is for us to decarbonise our global economy by around 50 years’ time.” This without a shred of evidence that CO2 causes climate change, when it clearly does not cause warming -ie the Pause, and that high CO2 levels during warm interglacials have never prevented the return of a new ice age, nor the onset of warming when CO2 levels were at their lowest.

  19. But these are “leading” scientists guys! How can you argue against leading scientists?

  20. Bishop Hill bothered to look up the paper, should you want to bother reading it. It’s junk science at it’s worst, and apparently sailed through peer review in less than two months.

    Did he actually write a review anywhere? I couldn’t find it in his blog…

  21. There is no science in this paper. It is totally about speculation and as such should never have been published. But that is the sad state of science, or should I say Climate Science, today. Littke science, lots of ideology.

  22. “and apparently sailed through peer review in less than two months.”

    They had to get it in the news while the hot summer is still going.

    Anyway, this is Agenda21. Surprised it didnt mention gender though like the Paris blurb.

  23. This is one of those days where Climatology appears to be the Bre-X of Science.
    With Bre-X, the assay results from each new hole that was drilled yielded still more gold, and the size and projected value of the ore body expanded.
    At least with Bre-X, public participation in the shenanigans was voluntary.

  24. Hmmm, what happend some 2-3-4 000 years ago? or 9000 years ago when temperatures where 6 degr C higher than today in these regions?
    We can’t only beleve what we hear, we must be sure… Though we also do what’s right. We let our oun minds decide what is wrong or right, don`t we…?

  25. Junk science it certainly looks like, but here in Norway it is featured in almost every MSN news outlet.

  26. See, this is how Zombie’s are made. All the ‘climate change’ people are worried about the planet. So they loose sleep. An article in the Assoc. of Individual Investors describes how people who don’t get enough sleep make bad investment decisions. And another article in Science News describes how people who don’t get enough sleep develop Alzheimer’s. The struggling, not so smart college student takes out a massive student loan to pay for college. An easy course to take is climate. The only requirement is to believe that ‘climate change’ ( as defined by AGW) is real. So they graduate and not receiving the huge grant monies to pay off the loan, they buy a ton of carbon credits believing that they have nowhere to go but up. It’s a no brainer. Then as the price of carbon credits fall, the sleep deprived zombies, worrying about money now in addition to saving the planet, develop Alzheimer’s. They can’t remember last weeks article on global warming that contradicts the new findings. Or anything that happened in the last 30 years. And if they can’t sue some oil company or change the political landscape so that their investments do go up, what are they going to do? And of course Run Away Greenhouse is replaced with a new term hothouse. Which didn’t happen, but it will someday. it’s just around the corner. And let’s bring back tipping points. It’s a brand new idea, wasn’t thought of 30 years ago. Both ideas were trotted out 30 years ago and trotted out as, ” we have to get rid of democracy now. It’s too slow to fix this catastrophic event that we befall all of us by 2008″.

    See, what I think is that critics of AGW, if analysed, probably don’t have mountains of debt. Probably are smarter and have better memories from getting a good nights sleep. Had a company to pay for their education. More widely read and better educated.
    That’s why when talking to a fellow critic of AGW, you don’t have to provide links. They already know what you are talking about. They remember that discussion from 3 months ago. AGWer’s have no clue and can’t understand any concept beyond what they were brainwashed with. Sleep deprivation makes it easier to brainwash someone…. where’s a link for that? The Zombie Apocalypse has arrived….
    As well as the Orwellian aspect of authority figures. … your not a mathematician, only peer reviewed people can be mathematicians, and mathematicians say 2 plus 2 = 5.

  27. Dominoes again?

    Weren’t dominos used in the Harvey et al. paper to describe the way people were criticizing their work? Yes, here it is, a section heading called: Climate-change denial by proxy: Using hot topics as “keystone dominoes”

    “These topics are used as “proxies” for AGW in general; in other words, they represent keystone
    dominoes that are strategically placed in front of many hundreds of others, each representing a separate line of evidence for AGW. By appearing to knock over the keystone domino, audiences targeted by the communication may assume all other dominoes are toppled in a form of “dismissal by association.”

    [Showing the failure of polar bears numbers to plummett as predicted is apparently a “keystone domino.” It can’t be seen as a valid topic of scientific criticism in its own right.]

    “Junk science at it’s worst”? Now we have a contest going: I though it couldn’t get worse than the Harvey et al paper.

    But I guess that was the other lesson learned by researchers and journalists from the Harvey paper (besides using the domino analogy). Really bad junk science not only sells, it sells really well. The media love it and don’t care that it’s cr*p.

    • Susan Crockford

      The ultimate domino is, of course, that no one has reliably and empirically demonstrated CO2 causes global warming.

      There should be hundreds of studies demonstrating the concept from the last 40 years but I can only find one which has been debunked.

      On that basis alone, they don’t have a domino to knock down in the first place.

      How credible would you be if you didn’t know a Polar Bear from a Budgie.

      Yet they can’t touch CO2 driven climate change other than by sense, they can’t smell it other than by faith and they can’t see it other than by superstition.

      CO2 derived climate change must be empirically demonstrated in a replicable manner by credible scientists before any more money is wasted on it.

      If they can’t count it, it don’t count!

  28. “Collective human action is required…..”
    And there it is! A fear mongering tale written expressly to justify the marketing pitch that ‘Collectivism/Socialism is required’!

  29. I wonder if the authors of this paper practise what they preach? No electricity, cars, running water, computers, drugs, birth control etc
    I have a sneaky feeling they all went downtown to celebrate on a city centre when their paper was published.

    • Still no Northwest Passage , and it looks as if there will be no North East Passage this year (unlike last August).

    • The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry. 🙂

      Perhaps these crash-test dummies will serve as examples of what not to do, and save the rest of us a lot of wasted time and money.

    • 143,000 German jobs in the wind industry? Is that number credible? According to this resource, in 2017 Germany produced 17.9 TWh of offshore wind and 88.7 TWh of onshore wind power, for a total of 105.7 TWh. If there are 143,000 jobs in the wind power industry as that article asserts, the annual production per job is well under 1 GWh / job (739 MWh in fact).

      If this is even remotely close to the truth, it is beyond dispute that wind power is not “sustainable”. Assume capital and all the other non-labor costs for operations make up 50% and that means the other half of the wholesale price for 105.7 TWh has to pay the wages/salaries of 143,000 people. How many people in Germany can maintain a remotely decent life on that? Or looked at another way, how high would electricity prices have to go to pay for all that labor on 105.7 TWh worth of sales?

          • John Endicott

            Judging by the current state of the country, Zombies is a fair description of the poor Zimbabwean people.

            If you want an example of the benefits of colonial practises Vs the hopelessnesses of Marxism, it’s right there.

            The bread basket of Africa reduced to the basket case of Africa because of racism. That is, racism against whites.

            Now it seems the new government is reversing the trend by offering cheap farming land to the white farmers Mugabe kicked out, violently.

  30. Meanwhile, on a global scale, nothing is changing in fact as regards global temperatures or sea levels in human lifetimes, particularly not the tropospheric temperatures where all the CO2 GHE is predicted to be.

    I prefer to believe actual data to the prophesies of computer modelling priests who write the modes that amplify their chosen cause and dismiss other possibilities as not large or variable enough. And ignore clouds as the major climate control. And are wrong.

    Religions promise life after death that you must believe in and pay to receive, or else. Science demands independent validation of laws. That’s not a characteristic or deliverable of “climate science”, which has become branch of religion, an act of faith, also akin to bookmaking or economic forecasting, using the same approach of manipulating gains in numerical models to fit assumed causes to reality by correlation.

    No laws are proved.

    It’s not rocket science, that must work as advertised or people notice.

  31. COULD is not a useful word in science (used 3 times in the abstract).
    Could implies something is in principle possible without say anything about its probability of occurring.
    Many possible coulds are very improbable.
    If the authors can’t go beyond could, why should the reader?

    • Happened to listen in on PBS “News Hour” at my mother’s recently (I don’t have TV).
      The entire show was in the subjunctive!

  32. When do the summer zombies switch to daylight savings time and hit up fall and winter news items?

  33. It used to be that science was about the search for truth. How is this paper at all searching for truth? How does this paper at all adhere to the scientific method? What hypothesis is being tested and confirmed against observations? Any publication that publishes this nonsense is no longer a scientific journal.

  34. When it gets hotter, the oceans make more clouds, and cool it down again. Even the extreme warmings of the 7Ka interglacials are ended very abruptly by clouds after a 12 degree rampage at the poles and 100 metre sea level rise, evidenced by their precipitation. CO2, that the warming oceans emit as a conseqence of warming, has almost nothing to do with this, as it carries on burgeoning , ignored by the climate but enjoyed by the plants, while the water vapour also emitted by the warming oceans that modellers claim amplifies warming produces evr more clouds that stop any further warming by carrying much more heat towards space while also reducing insolation from the dominant energy source, the sun. It’s not climate science. It’s physics.

    Whatever the impulses that cause change, mainly the 100Ka Milankovitch cycle eccentricity, clouds keep us in a tight band that limit the upper and lower limits of the ice age cycle by increasing or decreasing solar insolation and ocean heat transfer to space. The energies and effects we are responsoble for are insignificant in this, And most certainly are not CO2, on the evidence of the ice age interglacial warming, never mind the failure of CO2 risng 40% to heat the troosphere as prophesied by “climate scientists”. The new internal dichotomy.

  35. Like the notorious pseudo-scientific climate models, the warm-mongers contradict each other. Only in January this year, we were told that the “worst-case global warming scenarios were not credible,” [1].

    More importantly, though, only in May this year, we were told that collision and radiative processes physics for CO2 molecules in the atmosphere were incorrectly calculated in CMIP5 models and other considerations, and when the corrections were made it turned out that all the human contribution (due to burning of fossil fuels) to the observed warming of ~0.8 degree Celsius since 1880 has been a puny 0.02 degree Celsius [2].

    It’s much ado about nothing, isn’t it?

    According to [2], whatever “climate change” we are seeing today is 97.5% natural, and… hugely beneficial, resulting in global greening [3] and higher crop yields around the globe [4]. It is, as it turns out, perfectly natural for the global temperature to vary by about 1 degree Celsius per century [5], EVERY century for the past 8,000 years, not just the last one. The change we’ve seen since 1880 has actually been LESS than average, not more.

    The earth’s climate is remarkably stable, thanks to the earth’s oceans, seas and great lakes (like the Caspian). Nothing we do on the dry land, which covers only about 25% of the planet’s surface, of which only about 1/3rd, that is, about 8% of the planet’s surface, is affected by human activities, primarily agriculture, can have much effect on the earth’s “global climate.”

    The PNAS paper [6] discussed here is, of course, baloney. The exhortations to “stewardship,” “globalism,” “collectivism,” “decarbonization of global economy,” “behavioral changes,” “transformed social values,” and “new governance arrangements,” are enough of a give-away.

    These people are totalitarian enviro-fascist freaks making a yet another attempt at taking over the World. Frankly, I’d rather face a catastrophic climate change than let them, and others like them, lord over us.

    [1] https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25450
    [2] https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aabac6
    [3] https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3004
    [4] https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2015.00048
    [5] https://doi.org/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417
    [6] https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810141115

    • Or boys, for those greens that have that – entirely valid, of course – declination, amongst the many such available [all equally valid and affirming, I am positively certain].

      Auto
      Still noting that CO2 is – to the nearest one-tenth of one percent – zero in the 2018 Global Atmosphere.

  36. “trying to turn what the scientists admit is wildly speculative into political capital.”

    Apt summary of the climate change movement dating back to before the 1970s cooling scare.

    • Which is different than when Svante Arrhenius proposed his famous theory. He thought the warming would be beneficial. It was cold at the time, and he was from Sweden.

  37. Climate change, be it of natural or anthropogenically enforced origin, will always happen.
    What these commentating scaremongers on Auntie and other MSM always forget is the fact that
    there is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever for mankind to exist forever.
    Volcanoes, asteroids, who really cares or is afraid of? Once the dinosaurs turned into chickens, presumably because of an asteroid hitting hard. May be mankind will awake one day on the fast lane to Zombieland?
    I don’t really care. I care much more about these criminals called journalists who, in the interest of their media, start telling lies and stories. It seems something like a circulus vitiosus: The Manns take driftwood for real and make a Hockey stick out of it, the journos blow up the story and the politicians with a fine nose for shtonk, follow suit and encourage the Manns. DJT doesn’t seem to be completely immune, but he has, as far as this ugly part of life is concerned, the guts to act with common sense.

    • Come on, steroids aren’t that bad. I mean sure, they’ll shrink a man’s frank and beans, and give him some serious backne, and make you beat the crap out of your stuffed animal collection, but mass extinction? NOT!

      What?

      Oh…

      Umm… Never mind.

    • Chris M needs to use this as an example, the peer reviewers are a disgrace to let this through.

  38. I thought that interrupting the Gulf Stream (Thermohaline Circulation) would eliminate the warmer waters from entering the colder Arctic Region thereby causing the area to cool and more ice to form.

    • Interrupting the Gulf Stream isn’t possible without at least two things happening.

      1) The winds stop blowing.
      2) The continents reconfigure dramatically

      Gradually melting sea ice isn’t going to do squat.

      Just ask Carl Wunsch.

  39. It’s so easy to refute by simply observing that Earth didn’t tip over into a hothouse state in previous epochs when CO2 levels were much higher than today’s. Where’s the lucidity?

  40. When did ‘science’ morph into ‘political advocacy’?
    Funny, I used to take the ‘science’ more seriously.
    Now it reads like political propaganda.
    And I take it about that seriously.
    It’s a shame from my perspective, this change in what we call science.

  41. Sounds familiar: A solution looking for a problem to solve. One World Government is the answer—as always.

  42. This presciently, is how I envisioned the threshold tipping point of the whole climateering enterprise in an outpouring of zany energy. I recall from long ago the boiling up of brownish bogwater for tea while doing geological survey work in northern Canada. The water was teeming with little bugs and as it heated, they swam evermore frantically seeking out the coolest parts, making a visible pattern of the convection cells in the water until they expired. Minutes later the water began to roll in boiling and a hand measure of tea was thrown into the already tea-colored fluid, soon settling out to a clear, not unpleasant drink.

    The climateers know since Trump that the game is up and, like the bugs, are scurrying crazily, giving up their all in a futile crescendo of desperation. I feel a little compassion for them as I did the first time for the bugs.

  43. Caption from the picture: Polar bears on sea ice: the loss of Greenland ice sheet could disrupt the Gulf Stream, which would in turn raise sea levels and accelerate Antarctic ice lass.

    I fear it’s already too late to save the Antarctic polar bears, but if we act now we can still save the Arctic penguins 🙂

  44. The paper this refers too is one, if not the most awful unsupported ever in climate science.

    They suggest that all Greenland ice, all ice on mountains and all ice on Antarctica will melt.

    All significant warming periods during previous interglacials ended in dramatic cooling that lead to the next major ice age. There has never been situation where the planet has lead to a hothouse state with land masses roughly where they are over the last 30 million years. No change in the atmosphere over this period can lead to this scenario, only based on continental drift that they conveniently ignored.

    I can’t take this seriously so how about another wacky claim that neutrinos from the sun may end the world from the film 2012, about the same chance as each occurring for real.

    A hothouse state refers to the planet having no continental glaciers whatsoever.

    Once you know that it’s not worth even bothering discussing this any more.

  45. Do they even understand what they write? “Decarbonize the global economy”. Doesn’t that mean no wood, no food, no life?

  46. The Pranksters on Olympus are tempting (with the 2016 El Niño and these recent fires and heat waves) warmists to go out on a limb with extremist proclamations (eg Mann’s) and predictions like this Hothouse Earth one. IOW, they’re setting warmism up for a fall.

  47. It seems they recycle all these old apocalyptic predictions whenever the weather is hot or after a major hurricane. Real science doesn’t need the help of props to convince the public. That is a trademark of propaganda.

  48. A lot of ” if, could, might, likely” in the short abstract.
    IF one million unicorns fa**ed, that COULD affect …..whatever.

  49. Over here in the UK, this summer’s rebooted ‘Catastrophic AGW’ hooey seems to coming from every angle.

    Even people who seemed to be mildly sceptical of it before seem to be sucking it in and getting angsty.

    It just goes to show: ‘We’ thought we were winning, but all it takes is a hot summer and loads of agitprop…

    Jesus wept, it really is like 2007 all over again! Al Gore and his mates must be rubbing their hands together with glee.

    }:o(

    • They cite: Ganopolski A, Winkelmann R, Schellnhuber HJ (2016) Critical insolation-CO2 relation for diagnosing past and future glacial inception. Nature 529:200–203
      https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16494

      Yet such summer insolation is near to its minimum at present4, and there are no signs of a new ice age5. This challenges our understanding of the mechanisms driving glacial cycles and our ability to predict the next glacial inception6. “

      That only cites:
      4. Berger, A. & Loutre, M. F. An exceptionally long interglacial ahead? Science 297, 1287–1288 (2002)
      5. Kemp, A. C. et al. Climate related sea-level variations over the past two millennia. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 11017–11022 (2011)
      6. Masson-Delmotte, V. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 383–464 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013)

  50. What’s the difference between a tipping point and a threshold? Has the posited tipping point (whatever it was, I never found a good description) not occurred and the term is now toxic? Is threshold the new, modern, and “it’ll really happen this time” term?

Comments are closed.