An open letter to #ClimateStrike participants

From the organization web page.

By Brian Dingwall, New Zealand

Hi Kids,

Many of you will be marching today, demonstrating for an issue you believe to be very important.

Many years ago, I was young, well informed, and absolutely convinced I knew enough to make good decisions for the future of the world, and couldn’t understand just how obtuse all the oldies were, how they just didn’t know the stuff I had just learned.

Malthusian economics drove most of us, the Club of Rome had reported, and to my subsequent shame, I confess that in 1975 I voted for the Values Party….I wanted a better world, I knew resources were on the verge of running out, the population was out of control, and we were polluting our one and only planet. It was, I thought, time for the change that was so desperately required

The Values party did not get in, to our surprise the resources did not run out, Simon won his bet with catastrophist Erhlich, as countries became more wealthy they cleaned up their environments, particularly water, farmlands, and air.

China is now wealthy enough to be doing exactly that right now, following in the footsteps of Japan, Taiwan, and Korea. We certainly never see the famous foaming rivers of industrial Japan anymore.

Economists now understand that the ultimate resource, the human imagination, never runs out.

So is it likely to be with climate change. I urge you to never abandon your scepticism, for a critical mind is your most important asset.

Be able to articulate exactly what evidence has persuaded you to your opinion. Opinions though, are not evidence. Consensus is not evidence.

The world has many historic consensuses that have turned out to not be so. So far, I don’t mind sharing with you, I have yet to be persuaded.

My background is in science, with a smattering of economics, and statistics and I well understand the case for catastrophic climate change. I find it unconvincing.

As do a raft of well qualified experts in many fields, even Nobel prize winners, and I urge you to find out who they are, and why they have reservations.

There are two sides to this debate, but only one is well resourced, so you have to work a bit harder to find the arguments of the sceptical scientists.

One of the very great tragedies of the whole issue is that since 1990, it has been very difficult for scientists to garner resources from governments to research natural climate change, but we can be certain that the forces that wreaked great climate changes in the past are still active, and may be a much greater magnitude than those wreaked by CO2.

For today please reflect on these things:

All the CO2 being released today is simply being returned to the atmosphere whence it came, and is now available to the biosphere, which we can see is already flourishing as a result. Global temperatures have increased (about 0.7C degrees in last 100 years) ever since the little ice age, and continue to but at nothing like the rate predicted by climate models.

We live from the equator to (nearly) the poles, and hence are particularly adaptable, and will adapt to minor temperature changes and have in the past through climate optima, and little ice ages.

Much of the land surface of the earth is too cold for habitation or agriculture, some warming of the northern latitudes of Canada and Russia for example will be welcomed.

Here in New Zealand, we produce food for the world, with one of, if not the lowest “carbon footprints” of any country. Should you actually succeed in killing this industry, that production will be conducted elsewhere, at a higher carbon cost…..so the improvement as you see it, in New Zealand’s emissions will be more than offset by extra emissions elsewhere….we will be adding to the problem, not mitigating it.

It is also very important that each of you understands that for any complex problem, there are a range of decisions, trade-offs, to be considered. Do we understand all the benefits that follow from the use of fossil fuels? How many of these are we prepared to sacrifice? What would a fossil fuel-less world look like for you (hint: I don’t think you would like it very much).

Have you read or even heard of the “moral case for fossil fuels”, and do you understand the extent to which they feed and clothe the world, provide us with our tools, and our leisure, empower our devices, and enable our travel at present? House us and clean us?

You are not informed if you only read one side of the case. I happen to believe in free markets, the economics of von Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Simon, McCloskey, and many of the moderns but I have also read Marx, and various of the collectivist economists, you must know what all the opinion leaders are saying and why.

So do seek out “lukewarmers” like Curry, Lewis, Christy, Soon, Balunias, they will lead you to a raft of others “the counter-consensus” that you, like me, may find rather more convincing than the orthodox climate church.

Personally I have learned that what I knew at your age (vastly more than my parents knew, of course) was not always right….now captured in the expression “it’s not what we don’t know, it’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so”.

We once believed in leeches, blood-letting, that washing our hands was not important, that continents didn’t drift, that stress causes ulcers, a daily aspirin is good, and that there is always an imminent catastrophe on the horizon that never materialises.

The question is whether what we know for sure that the specific climate change you worry about is human caused, will have a measurable and substantial impact, and is real. What climate change would have been quite natural? Will we look back in years to come and think “we believed what?”

Have we included accurately in our models the impacts of short and long term natural oceanic cycles, cosmic rays impact on cloud nucleation, clouds, the sun and sunspots, what, if anything, is there still that we don’t know that we don’t know? Can we get initial conditions right?

Always examine closely the logic of the case…we have only one world so all we can do is create computer models of the climate, and wait to see if nature tells us the models are a good approximation of the real world suitable for projecting future climates…..and if climate is a 30 year average of all our global “weather” then we probably have to wait at least two preferably more periods of 30 years simply to validate the models so 100 years or so.

So far the projections and predictions have been wildly wrong, the polar ice is healthy, the Manhattan freeway is not underwater, sea-level rise is not accelerating, and snow is far from “a thing of the past”. As climate scientist and keeper of one of the satellite records ironically observes “the models all agree the observations are wrong”.

And the economics don’t work, as Nobel prize winner Nordhaus teaches the cost of mitigation is an order of magnitude greater than the cost of the problem, so the cure is worse than the disease.

Don’t take my word for it, or anyone’s. Read for yourselves, go to source. Do not trust any scientist who calls a peer scientist a “denier”. Understand peer review, and that a peer reviewed paper is more often than not just the opening salvo in a chain of events that may or may not ultimately expose a scientific truth.

Be very careful of any theory where the accepted facts (historic temperatures, and the location and number of the thermometers)) change regularly to suit the narrative.

And finally, enjoy your day, be yourselves, trust your own judgment, read widely, and look behind the data to the motives of the players.

There is a (slim) chance you are right, but even if you are, trust in human ingenuity, that fabulous engine of change, to ensure survival not of the world as we know it, but of an even better world than previous generations enjoyed….we will not revert to sleeping with our food animals on dirt floors with unpainted walls! As humans have done for most of our time on earth….

Originally published at whaleoil.co.nz

125 thoughts on “An open letter to #ClimateStrike participants

  1. I bet none of these “strikers” realise that we exhale at ~40,000ppm/v and LWIR does not care one hoot where the CO2 comes from, it will behave exactly like CO2 from burning coal.

      • Jordan Peterson would tell these insufferable young people to first learn to clean up their rooms before setting out to cure the problems of the world.

      • The greatest graduation speech that every Student should hear, by Bill Whittle, on economics and wealth building.

    • It’s not the CO2 per se that is the problem. It’s the stuff we dug up that is long buried and put back at an unnatural rate. Misapplying the theory does nothing to disprove it. Attack the actual theory.

      • Sheri

        Sure. CO2 in the atmosphere has very little effect on the global near surface air temperature and varying the concentration has little detectable effect. The quote above is good: “all the models agree that the observations are wrong”.

        As GHG concentrations tend to zero, the air temperature rises because of direct heating by the surface. That means the presence of GHG’s cools under some conditions and warms under others. Where are we on that curve now? No one is talking.

        The fear-mongering about GHG’s is not legitimized by scientific argument or a valid, coherent set of concepts. They are campfire “wolf stories”.

        We have much bigger real problems than inflated concerns about “temperature”. One is the evident corruption of the publishing houses that have succumbed to the threats of the cli-sci agitators. They are publishing cowards and everyone including their abusers knows it. That’s why they continue to brazenly repeat their threats, and carry them out occasionally, “pour encourager les autres”.

        That’s how the Gambinos work, why not the staff of the UEA and Penn State?

        • Crispin: I understand that. People always seem to need to discredit AGW somehow when I simply pointed out an erroneous statement. Why? I’m simply reporting what the theory says. I learned that from a presentation by MIT and several other sources. I’m trying to be scientifically accurate. Is that so wrong?

          Mark: We humans are so very much more efficient than volcanoes. Also, volcanoes do not appear to put out as much CO2 as people are lead to believe. You can look it up. So no, not like a volcano exploding. (And since someone will probably object here, volcanoes also cool with the particulates so they both cool and warm according to theory. I guess we did too until we cleaned up a bunch of our particulate pollution. Again, we’re more efficient than volcanoes.)

      • It’s not the CO2 per se that is the problem. It’s the stuff we dug up that is long buried and put back at an unnatural rate. Misapplying the theory does nothing to disprove it. Attack the actual theory.

        I assume the “stuff we dug up” refers to coal and oil.

        We’ve figuratively “dug up” a lot of trees too to make wood for our living structures, putting a lot of dead wood back at an “unnatural rate” too. Same for the minerals that form cement, which we have put back for our city structures at an “unnatural rate”.

        The very foundation of human civilization, as we know it, is based on taking materials out of nature and converting them to sustain that civilization. All of human civilization, thus, is “unnatural”, according to your point of view, because we use nature to nurture human growth.

        Why do you think humans and human endeavors are unnatural, when we ourselves and all that we do came from nature? Who is anyone to judge that what humans do is “unnatural”? Civilization and human advancement is a part of Earth, … a part of nature, … thus, “natural”.

        You appear to be anthrophobic. If there is any misapplying going on, then it is in the point of view that you put forth about humans and their civilizations . Civilizations are created from nature, WITHIN nature, as PARTS OF the natural realm that INCLUDES humans.

        What is your idea of “natural”? Is there a universal concept of what “natural” is that could have any legal binding force to constrain humans to their “natural” places?

        You speak of “theory”. Okay, what’s yours about how “natural” humans are or should be in their actions? What theory empowers you to call what humans do “unnatural”?

        Volcanoes have been natural, right? Lightening that set forests on fire and burned millions of prehistoric acres regularly were natural, right? Many natural forces have caused combustion-producing fumes that routinely hovered about the land, long before humans came onto the scene. Might humans merely have shifted where this combustion takes place, rather than added it and its fumes at an “unnatural rate”? And the CO2 part of this combustion is not even that much — there are much worse substances in any combustion that we should be more concerned about.

        State the theory that you yourself believe supports the idea that humans, in their “unnatural” behavior, are changing climate in any way, let alone in any “unnatural” way by producing CO2 as a byproduct of advancing civilization. Describe it in your own words.

        Why do you believe what you believe? Are you really looking at the facts for yourself, or are you merely quoting what certain passionate speakers tell you?

      • I’d be interested to hear an explanation of why burning millions of years worth of compressed biomass (coal) in a few decades / centuries, a geological instant, would NOT have an effect on the atmosphere and climate. I’ve not seen any quantification of the equivalent biomass burn rate.

          • Les, I wasn’t trying to prove anything.

            It’s just that I’ve never seen any analysis starting from the amount of coal used so far, and calculating how much past biomass that represents. Then comparing the gradual CO2 release and recycling that would have occurred over millions of years (if it hadn’t been compressed as coal) with the faster release due to industrial use of coal; in both circumstances, the pathways of CO2 circulation in the atmosphere for how long against how much absorbed by plant growth etc., looking at what might be expected from historic and on-going coal usage.

            I’ll reword my previous question as an hypothesis: that the rate of CO2 release from coal under current circumstances would have no greater effect than if that CO2 had been released slowly from the breakdown of the equivalent biomass in the past if it had not been preserved as coal. (A side-question: what, if any, was the effect in the past environment of sequestering all that biomass as coal rather than if it had been recycled at the time?)

            I think it’s probable that someone has done some comparative analysis from this perspective and readers here might know of any publications. For me this has been a thought experiment (because I don’t have the data to do it in reality) – on the basis that it’s always useful to turn over and look at something from a reverse perspective.

    • I was hoping that the New Zealand primary school children (5-11 years old) ‘leading the country’ would also take a little time to set the policy on
      * Central Bank Lending Rates
      * Defense expenditure and strategic direction
      * Hydroelectric power plan t placement
      * Reducing the public spending deficit
      * Initiating an immigration debate (which the shooter so clearly had a position on, but no debate to date).

      Why won’t these little scholars give us their immense wisdom on this, when credentialed academics from NZ Universities have publicly hailed them as ‘leading the country’ ????

      (yes, this is a shot at the idiots in New Zealand who are using children as political pawns and claiming that they’re teaching the adults about complex issues – pure steaming bunk, from Leftist control freaks of course)

  2. What happened in Sydney today;

    https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/fantastic-turnout-school-climate-strike-draws-big-crowd-in-sydney-20190315-p514hk.html

    I wonder what the giant earth beach ball is made from?

    Interesting, I work near Town Hall here in Sydney, and was within earshot of the speeches for a short while. It seems to me to be nothing more than brainwashed alarmism. There was a point where the John Lennon song, “Imagine”, was being performed to rapturous cheers. Little do they know Lennon wasn’t the “great” man most people like to think he was. He was no fan of kids and he hated his son.

          • This seems to be Breitbart fake news.

            The Australian media are reporting that the Good Guy chased the shooter with a credit card machine and threw it at him, then picked up one of the shooter’s rifles, abandoned empty, and threw it at and broke the windscreen of the shooter’s car, scaring him off.

            The guy really is a hero; challenging the shooter without a gun himself. He didn’t have one: it is illegal to carry guns in New Zealand in city and suburban areas, and into places of worship. No-one does and definitely not rifles, except for terrorists. Because of this, when the good guy picked up the empty rifle, he also took the big risk of the police assuming he was one of the terrorists.

        • Were this a more typical Muslim extrmist terrorist attack … the shooter’s mental health would be front and center in the media discussion. When a Caucasian is involved … it is down to racism, islamophobia, hate, and all manner of political speculation.

          Have you noticed the same divide in media treatment of climate skeptics? We are treated as islamophobic, hateful, mass shooters. Because we (evidently) HATE humanity … and wish everyone to be DEAD from (insert human calamity here); asthma, flooding, starvation, ad nauseum. All because we question the hysteric and politically-motivated “science” of CAGW.

          Can we PLEASE all return to the SANITY as nicely described in the above letter ?

    • HAS

      Dreadful. However I note the NZ has pinned this on ‘The extreme right wing’ which I find offensive as like most of us, I’m extreme right wing in that I believe in small governments, freedom of speech, freedom to worship, freedom of thought, Democracy and peaceful political discourse amongst many other right wing values.

      I do not, however, believe in violence!

      The perpetrator/s are murderers, they do not belong in any peaceful political arena including Democratic socialism and assumed political ‘allegiance’ should not be used as an opportunity for cheap political point scoring.

      How many of those dead were members of a right wing political party and how must their relatives be feeling at that insensitive attribution.

      If there is a heaven I’m sure the victims will find a better place there than amongst our reprehensible politicians.

      RIP.

      • Blaming it on the extreme right is a means for the left to equate racism with conservatism and make it unpalatable for the uninformed to vote conservatively. Somebody actually looked at the scum bags website and posted a summary of some of his wacky ideas – https://medium.com/the-radical-center/the-demented-politics-of-the-new-zealand-terrorist-b513fe610b2f

        Take this with a grain of salt obviously but it looks like he considers himself an eco fascist – extreme green, over population radical and racist that admires China’s government. Definitely not a small government low tax fan.

      • “I’m extreme right wing in that I believe in small governments, freedom of speech, freedom to worship, freedom of thought,”

        That’s what I believe in, too, and those beliefs are about as UNextreme as one can get.

        Those are all middle-of-the-road conservative values. The bedrock of the conservative movement.

        That’s what the Left tries to characterize as the Extreme Right. Nothing extreme about us. The use of “extreme” or “Far Right” is just a Leftwing smear meant to demonize the Right. The Left wants to make all conservatives out to be Nazis. They, the radical Left, are the real Nazis.

        • Tom Abbott

          BBC Radio 2, the most popular radio station in the UK was today, reciting the ‘right wing’ terrorist description on the news ever half hour. The BBC is a public broadcasting service with a pledge to remain unbiased and objective at all times. It rarely is.

          I was so fed up I turned to Radio 4, another BBc station that at least occasionally demonstrates some integrity to be met with a psychologist commenting on the schoolchildren demonstrating against climate change today. By his account, sceptics are in denial because, amongst many other wacky reasons, we don’t understand the science!

          I’m sorry, but I was a climate ‘alarmist’ thanks to having left wing clap trap shoved down my throat dy in and day out by the MSM. But I took the time to examine the science over a number of years so I could make my own informed decision before I concluded climate change was entirely natural and man has nothing to do with it. Nor am I a scientist, this was a real struggle for me.

          Yet we have a qualified psychologist who clearly conforms to the ‘97% consensus’ without even questioning it!

          Who the eff is in denial here? The moron doesn’t recognise his own denial which renders anything he says utterly worthless, his education wasted and science discredited because he refuses to visit sites like WUWT and even consider an alternative opinion.

    • Just a postscript on this that probably won’t be read by many, but a response to those that seek to suggest children being caught up in climate change protests and/or blaming the alt right are in the same category of the recent events in NZ.

      When I was of the same age of these protesters we were active in the CND and the anti Vietnam movement. We attended demonstrations during school lunch hours etc, and memorabily for us (and probably for no one esle) when LBJ visited NZ and stayed overnight at Government House we were expected to line the drive as his entourage swept past. A group of us turned our backs.

      Looking back I’m not really quite sure where right lay on the issue. Also it became clear that some of the adults involved in the CND and Committee on Vietnam were closely associated with Russia.

      But the point is we were learning about how civil discourse occurred in NZ.

      Hopefully the young people involved in the climate protests in NZ will be learning the same.

      Readers may feel the young people are being manipulated or the media are against the alt right, but that will come out in the wash over the next 20 years.

      Much more important to teach the next generation the ways we deal with this stuff.

  3. The older you get, the more you understand the world is not black and white, but multiple shades of grey.

    • 🙂 greyer by the year…from another old ranga downunder.
      funny how its all so crisply black n white either /or when your’e young.
      then…life happens

    • The more acute your understanding, the easier it is to resolve the dots – and you see that everything is black and white.
      And you don’t get muzzyheaded enough to miss the fact that grey can not exist without black and white
      And you don’t get so stupid as to pronounce lack of understanding to be wisdom, failing habitually to recognize self contradictions are lies.
      But a fool can’t help but preach his ignorance. That’s part of why we can’t have nice things..

  4. Talked to a student handing out flyers for this friday’s schoolstrike in Switzerland, if she could tell me how much CO2 is in our atmosphere? She said “She doesn’t know the numbers, but we have to do something…” Apparently she had no idea whether is was 50%,5% or 0.04%. At least she agreed that CO2 is the basis of life on earth. She seemed a bit confused after I told her some numbers…
    I encourage you, go out and talk to these people, they might as well listen, at least some of them.

    • And then to think that they all walk around with the biggest font of information that ever existed.

      • I’d call it the biggest fount of information that never existed.

        I listened to three Junior Alarmists on the CBC and it was excruciating. Cult clips and ideological possession with very pleasant intentions to change society in fundamental ways.

        Society needs fundamental changes, but not through a unity based on fabricating an apocalypse. There are enough real ones to merit creating the international organisations needed to prevent war and shut down transnational criminals.

        International criminal activity is crisis enough to justify lots of rearrangements in our affairs. But at least it solves a problem we have, not one we want for political purposes.

    • FrankM

      Ask any of them what the most prolific GHG is and they say, without hesitation, CO2.

      Whatever happened to basic science education in our schools?

      • …..and the basics of using a calculator, and that goes for some “adults” I know too. We have a few on here.

        The premise is a crock and the purported solution to the crock premise is a crock too. I’ve offered to buy some such nitwits a calculator, or steer them in the direction of a napkin and a pencil. Too little too late though.

        Mosher’s excuse is that his Major is English, but he can’t spell or use grammar correctly either.

      • The political educational complex has weaponized science, history, literature etc. Schools at all levels are little more than indoctrination centers to promote the socialist manifesto.

      • Absolutely, you just have to feel sorry for them, they really do not know anything about anything.

  5. From what I can tell by education standards of today Brian, your target audience won’t comprehend any of the many “big” words in your letter and simply reply “Pepsi..?”

    Besides, I bet pretty much all of those striking yuppie larva were luxuriously conveyed to the event using mummy’s diesel Toorak Tractor (SUV), as they are to school and back every day, including soccer, tennis, cricket, football and chess practice, while daddy kills every living thing in the lawn as he mows it and in the garden he sprays.

    It’s a sad state of affairs for my fellow Man and I hope future historians are scathing and name names, particularly etching failed prognostications on those “scientists” tombstones, and keeping them under lock and key until required.

  6. and here we see the huge problem we actually do have, not least with cause & effect

    It is that: This guy here writing his open letter *is* the problem, or certainly is symptomatic of The Problem.
    or is afflicted.

    Is is that the marching/striking children have got him worried
    That he feels compelled to ‘say something’, to interfere and to meddle.
    Are they *really* a threat? Children?

    Put that to him and we’ll see him…. doing or saying what?
    Babbling. Waffling. Arm waving about speech freedom etc etc
    OK

    But wait – these are somebody else’s children.
    (We’re getting close now….)

    Why is the author here ‘compelled’ to tell everyone else how to rear their children?
    Does he really have that right – these Modern Times?

    What else might he feel compelled to tell them?
    What car to drive. What house to live. What food to eat. What children to have. What carbon to emit.
    (Nearly there…)

    So, how is what the author here is doing, *any* different from what warmists/alarmists are doing – basically= telling everyone else how to live their lives.

    And *THAT* is The Problem
    The problem is = The reason that this letter was written. Not its contents, not who its aimed at, anything like that.
    The problem is *why* was it written in the first place.

    I would assert that “There are too many rats in the cage’
    YMMV – it certainly will
    Try to ensure you’re not inside a drug induced bubble of magical thinking. please
    ‘Some’ people notice such things – esp Mr Trump and why he asserts that man-made climate change is a hoax.
    Being the deal-maker and broker that he is, he can see when folks are running a hustle – when the people selling something wouldn’t even buy their own product.
    Climate Scientists not least. In fact, the less science you know, the clearer it is.
    (The Human Animal cannot lie etc etc blah blah blah)

    So what is the Human Animal behind this letter trying to conceal?

    OK
    My example for today and that I’m just reminded of…
    35 years ago, I could drive into Central London any old time I liked AND find a free parking spot, on a back-street, within 200 yards of Eros statue.
    Now, I will be photographed every 2 miles or so while out of town and when with town will be in view of at least one camera (reading my car number plate) constantly.
    The car I was driving then (2 litre Lancia Beta) would cost me about £25 in congestion and emission charges.
    The nearest on-street park I might find now would be in Leytonstone – 15 miles away from Piccadilly Circus and it would cost £5 per hour, charged 24/7/365.

    Also making today’s news is the cost of Insulin.
    The WSJ sent me a video (still up there) asserting that Insulin cost $4 per ml in 2002 to $13 in 2013
    Now costs $290 per vial compared to $21 twenty years ago

    And Things Have Never Been Better?????????????????????????????????

    • The letter’s not the problem, neither are the striking yuppie larva. It’s the media that’s sucking the rest of the world into this BS boondoggle, because they’re owned by the very left that want to control us.

      But one more thing: Nobody has the RIGHT to NOT be offended about anything and everything, ever.

    • Peta of Newark – at 3:06 am

      Trump…Being the deal-maker and broker that he is, he can see when folks are running a hustle – when the people selling something wouldn’t even buy their own product. Climate Scientists not least. In fact, the less science you know, the clearer it is.

      BINGO! Hollywood made a movie “Ghost Busters”
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S4cldkdCjE
      about folks running a hustle. Here’s the money quote from that very funny movie:
      https://i.postimg.cc/qvTBWxK6/image.png
      It fits the Climate Change precautionary principle to a tee.

    • Interesting. A person who apparently holds what can only be called the primitive belief that children are POSSESSIONS and may be treated as the owner sees fit.

      My insulin costs that much too. I’m happy to be alive. (The horrible huge greedy corporation Walmart sells NPH for what it cost you 20 years ago. It’s the old-fashioned type, but I still use NPH and have for nearly 50 years. There are options.)

  7. Peta

    35 years ago the diagnosis of cancer was a death sentence. Today, 80%+ of early diagnosis cancer leads to a positive outcome.

    35 years ago you would be submitting your post by written letter and delivered by post to a newspaper.

    35 years ago we had just stopped using lead in fuel which we were inhaling and has been credibly linked to increased levels of violence.

    35 years ago global poverty was far higher than it is now.

    35 years ago child mortality rates were higher than they are now.

    35 years ago we were emerging from the threat of Global cooling.

    35 years ago Electric Shock Therapy was commonplace.

    35 years ago (in the UK at least) we barely understood care in the community and the ‘loonies’ were incarcerated in asylums where their chances of recovery were virtually zero.

    35 years ago we were just beginning to understand how bad smoking tobacco was for people.

    35 years ago the River Thames was poisonous, last year we had a Beluga whale as a short term resident.

    35 years ago a crash in your 2 litre Lancia Beta at 30mph would likely see you seriously injured and trapped. That is bareky the case at 50mph today.

    And you’re complaining about parking in London?

    • hot scott
      Almost all those things you mention, we can very quickly fix/change with corrective actions.

      The climate takes generations to respond to a change.
      Rather like the Titanic and iceberg: If the berg had been spotted in time, action to avoid catastrophe could have been taken. Unfortunately it was spotted too late and the rest is history. It takes a long time for a large ship to respond to steering.
      It takes even longer for the earth climate to respond to changes in our activity. Act early and changes will be smooth and simple, act late and those actions will have to be extreme. Act too late and much of civilisation will be history!

      • Gag, you seem to think we are no longer capable of adaptation. A dead snail can crawl faster than oceans are rising.

        • Jeff Alberts March 15, 2019 at 6:37 am
          hmmm, how do you adapt all the cities built on low lying land. buildings are very slow to adapt.

          My point was that if you see climate changing, how long will it take to bring back to acceptable?
          How quickly will we react? how quickly will the climate take to react to our reaction?
          what will be the peak climate anomaly before it begins reacting?

          Ignoring early warnings can be “SILLY”

          relying on interventions – firing salt to seed clouds, seeding oceans, space mirrors, etc. may work but you need to be able to control the effect to prevent overshoot and an ice age!

          • “My point was that if you see climate changing, how long will it take to bring back to acceptable?”

            WHo decides what is acceptable? Acceptable in one place is unacceptable in another.

            You know sea levels are lower now than they were in warmer times during this interglacial, right? You know there are ancient ports that are now miles inland (partly due to receding oceans, partly due to tectonics), right?

            The point is, oceans have risen and fallen much faster than now, and humanity is still here. Buildings can be re-built elsewhere, happens all the time. Do you really expect climate anywhere to be ever static? Non-changing? That would mean the end of life on the planet.

          • “relying on interventions – firing salt to seed clouds, seeding oceans, space mirrors, etc. may work but you need to be able to control the effect to prevent overshoot and an ice age!”

            The only ones proposing such idiotic things are alarmists who think they need to “defeat climate change”.

          • ghalfrunt

            Cities have been lost before. It’s an economic threat to the wealthy who are stupid enough to invest their money in beachfront properties not expecting them to be affected by weather far less climate change.

            I’m also aware some prominent, wealthy climate change campaigners have bought beachfront properties.

            I’m also aware the UK taxpayer will be spending in excess of £5bn refurbishing the houses of Parliament, which is located in the banks of the River Thames, merely feet from high the high tide line when the North sea floods in. This suggests politicians don’t have the slightest interest interest in climate change other than for its tax raising opportunities.

            We didn’t ‘ignore’ the early warnings of Saddam’s WMD’s did we? Sadly, as with everything else these days, our politicians lied to us.

            They are doing the same with climate change.

      • It is the considered opinion of many naval architects that had the Titanic rammed the iceberg head on it would have ruptured one maybe two forward compartments and would never have sunk.
        It was the attempted avoiding action that doomed the Titanic.
        Now explain the precautionary principal to me.

      • This is the latest excuse for why the models keep getting climate wrong.
        The reality is there is no crisis in climate and if there ever is going to be one, it won’t be caused by too much CO2.

      • And back when CO2 levels were some 10x higher than today, life flourished into huge forests, there was no runaway greenhouse (otherwise we wouldn’t be here talking about it today) and the Carboniferous “sequestered” all that as coal.

        We’re just putting that back into the atmosphere where it came from, but we can’t keep up because that dang CO2 only lasts some 10 years in the atmosphere (because it’s 1.5x the weight of air and likes to sit near the ground) and all that dang plant life is currently sucking it up and recovering from starvation. I mean, why else would farmers pump CO2 into their greenhouses? Besides, the oceans and volcanoes outgas far more CO2 than we ever could.

        It’s also been proven through ancient ice cores that atmospheric CO2 rises lag temp rises by some 800 years or more.

        So ghalfrunt.. Why the HELL are you trying to steer ships..? Are you brainwashed or unintelligent?

        • ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N March 15, 2019 at 7:10 am
          you seem to believe modern society would flourish under carboniferous conditions. I have seen no proof that this is true – have you?

          How did Erpetonyx arsenaultorum society handle the high sea levels? More importantly were the continents in the same place as today? Will continental drift have changed the climate with 10x higher co2?

          You may be at cool temp with no violent storms but others suffer 42°C temperatures (with high humidity this would be deadly) rain “events” seem to be frequent. higher temps=higher evaporation= more precipitation (including snow)

          The oceans and its biota indeed breathe – this is a large part of the annual cycle of co2.
          volcanoes to date are not a significant source of atmospheric co2

          Co2 is a well mixed gas at breathable altitudes. the molecules race about when above 0K.

          Pumping co2 into green houses does not increase nutritional value of most crops.

          • – You seem to believe CO2 is a poisonous pollutant, while every plant on the planet tells you otherwise. Besides we currently have 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere. How many would die from a change to 0.4% or more such as in the Carboniferous..? Buckleys, f-all and none.

            – Continental drift not all all important. Has no bearing on CO2 molecules typically NOT heating anything. You’re grasping at straws.

            – 42°C and high humidity..? We get this all the time in Australia and almost nobody dies except the weak elderly exposed for long periods. Cold is the biggest killer and proven statistically.

            – Higher temps= more snow..? Snow occurs only in certain conditions and therefore higher temps don’t create it. It has to be cold to snow, always. Whatever amount of water vapour is in that region’s atmosphere at the time naturally contributes. But with all this “dangerous warming” you’re crying about, the Atacama desert is still missing out on the “more rain and snow” you confidently prognosticate. Give up dude.

            – CO2 is not well mixed when the air is still, allowing the molecules to settle. There was a village in a valley (South America, Africa?) that was swamped overnight by high concentrations of CO2 bubbling from the lake above them. Many deaths occurred. CO2 is heavier than air and always settles to the ground in still conditions or don’t you comprehend that? “Well-mixed” is always the greentard’s first propagandised and misunderstood go-to. How far do the molecules “race about” in still conditions – from one end of a frosty football field to the other in nanoseconds..? Not. In a still room, you can store CO2 in an open bucket.

            – Nutritional value isn’t the point or the reason for pumping CO2 into greenhouses. It’s economics and proves plants grow faster with higher CO2 levels. They also use less water. You’re deliberately prevaricating, as you guys do because you have no empirical proof CO2 causes anything but greater benefit, and definitely no “catastrophic” warming.

    • 55 years ago my father had a heart attack and his doctor told him to stop smoking.

      15 years ago smoking was banned in workplaces in Ireland – a world first. Yet
      it took more than 40 years after we knew about the harm of smoking to start abandoning the consensus view.

      I do not know whether to laugh or cry when I watch the children marching in Dublin. There are various parts of this city that are a filthy mess but these children want to “fix” the climate (?) of the world. They are unconcerned about the mess in their backyards (and perhaps own rooms?) – which they can clean up – but believe they can somehow influence significant change in the average temperature of every region – which is a delusional fantasy.

      • @Michael in Dublin. When we marched against the Vietnam War, there were still a few other problems yet to be fixed, such as smoking in workplaces, lead in fuel, higher death rate in car accident etc. We contributed to the ending of the war and there’s also been improvement in some of these even though there’s still much to be done (wars + other issues). However we are pretty good at multitasking, so I don’t see a problem in trying to reduce climate warming and cure cancer at the same time. I don’t remember hearing anyone say that if you try to cure cancer, it means you’re unconcerned about heart disease and diabetes.

        I can’t imagine that you have any hard evidence that the school-children protesting have messy backyards and rooms (I’ve read this meme elsewhere) and that they are unconcerned about other issues. It seems to be a fairly petty criticism of their actions.

  8. Nice try, Brian, and you are correct. However, I find that talking Climate Change in a rational, scientific way to adults who have made up their mind is 100% unproductive. I show them data collectively demonstrating how chaotic the climate system is, then some of the bigger controls, ie, glacial cycles, and they seem to think this is the trick they have been warned about coming true. Today children who have not finished organizing their adult brain functions into producing logical results, will engage in group-think, and will ever after believe they are correct. I’m hoping for a Little Ice Age to serve as a wake-up call, because anything short of that is not likely to change them. but “Press On” as General Yeager said.

    • I find that talking Climate Change in a rational, scientific way to adults who have made up their mind is 100% unproductive.

      Right you are, Ron Long. The same as talking to Bible believing Creationists, ….. they avert their eyes, ears and mind to any and all commentary contrary to their beliefs, …… and likewise with teens, etc.

      • Right you are, SCC. Though I’m a bit disappointed you didn’t use the word “iffen” in your post. I thought that was a requirement.

        • Thanks for asking, …… but, but, but, ….. Jeff, … one uses “iffen” when they questioning something …… and one pretty much knows exactly what to expect from the misnurtured/miseducated minds of the Biblical Creationists and/or a majority of teenagers, ….. so, there is little wonder what their reaction will be.

      • That’s if our indoctrination centers schools are still teaching kids to read.
        .
        .
        .
        Having firsthand experience at being a kid and knowing that most kids can no longer read cursive script, I propose that all writings skeptical of catastrophic CO2-based anthropogenic climate change with falsifying evidence be written in cursive. It will seem like code to them.

        Kids, being kids, will wonder what secrets are being kept from them and will work hard to puzzle it all out and “catch us” at hiding the things they “shouldn’t know.”

        It’s a plan right in line with children’s mental makeup, and would be effective in reaching quite a few kids who would otherwise stay mired in the groupthink of their peers. All it takes is to change the minds of 20% of the kids and the rest will follow along soon enough.

        • “Kids, being kids, will wonder what secrets are being kept from them and will work hard to puzzle it all out and “catch us” at hiding the things they “shouldn’t know.””

          That, or all the housecats in the world will go crazy trying to figure it out.

  9. The main problem with the Yoof of Today is not merely their ideological mental block, but their utter innumeracy. I asked one young Climatista what the current atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was. She had absolutely no idea. I told her it was 405 parts per million. She looked blank. When I pointed out that this was equivalent to 4 molecules of CO2 per 10 000, up from 3 per 10 000 in the pre-industrial period she was astonished. The idiot couldn’t give me a coherent explanation how one more CO2 molecule per 10 000 would lead to catastrophe.

    • Yes, numeracy is the key, not any specific scientific knowledge.

      Adolescents (and adults too!) with minimal mathematical skills can more quickly and easily do back-of-an-envelop calculations. Most humans already possess sufficient curiosity or “attitude” to ask questions and have doubts about what they are told, but need some basic intellectual tools to take the next step.

  10. 55 years ago my father had a heart attack and his doctor told him to stop smoking.

    15 years ago smoking was banned in workplaces in Ireland – a world first. Yet
    it took more than 40 years after we knew about the harm of smoking to start abandoning the consensus view.

    I do not know whether to laugh or cry when I watch the children marching in Dublin. There are various parts of this city that are a filthy mess but these children want to “fix” the climate (?) of the world. They are unconcerned about the mess in their backyards (and perhaps own rooms?) – which they can clean up – but believe they can somehow influence significant change in the average temperature of every region – which is a delusional fantasy.

  11. My only comment to these kids is: without the use of fossil fuels, you all would be naked and dead from cold and starvation within 5 days. best to all from the very snowy Swiss mountains, Fred

    • Your country is the cleanest I have ever visited and I hope I may be able to visit again. Third world countries are the worst. However, for such a small population Ireland should be ashamed of the situation in various parts of Dublin.

  12. Well, I’m glad the IPCC and others have set a short timelimit for climate catastrophe of 12 years. At least these kids won’t have to wait too long to figure out they were duped by the CAGW promoters.

    Open letters to kids are ok. Kids need instruction.

    What we ought to do is find a way to point all the kids to WUWT and when they read it, they will calm down and realise that there is no emergency and go back to school.

    • “At least these kids won’t have to wait too long to figure out they were duped by the CAGW promoters.”

      That hasn’t helped with those who believe in biblical prophesy, the “predictions” that keep getting pushed back and back… I don’t see how it will change with CAGW believers.

      • Most Christians are not taken in by the predictions, as they are also aware of the warning that “no man knows the day or the hour”. If a prophesier claims to know, he obviously is 1) wrong, and 2) puts himself on a level with God, as only God has that information. Christians know to ignore such [LANGUAGE. Mod].

    • Sorry, no way will they believe an evil Fossil Fuel Industry paid site like this.
      Do I need a sarc tag?

  13. “Trust your judgement”? Their judgement is that they know more and are more caring and the world has always sucked and corrupted those who have lived in it longer than they. (Youth worship married to the field of education is such a powerfully bad idea.)

    • Yeah, the letter could be greatly improved by removing that line. If they are on strike, they’ve already proved their judgement is questionable.

  14. I’m sure just about all the children involved in this “strike” will see this article and say, TL;DR

  15. You realize of course that all “open letters” written here are really not written for the intended party.
    They are written for the faithful to sit an clap.

    You lost the kids.

    You failed to publish science
    you failed to get any grad students
    you failed to teach anyone a better understanding of the climate.

    you threw tomatoes, called it skepticism, and pretended that was the full job of doing science.
    and you lost the kids.

    and now you are relegated to writing “open letters” for the peanut gallery to read and nod ceremoniously

    looks grim

    • There is a really good child rearing axiom that applies to this situation, “to use is to abuse”. Regardless of your politics, I hope that with your own children you don’t use them to further your ambitions be it sports or politics or show business or anything else. It’s a shame that the kids are being used like this.

    • Steven

      There are more kids NOT protesting that there are protesting.

      Because people don’t like the protests it doesn’t mean they are effective.

  16. LOVED this letter. I lived through exactly what the author did. In 1974, as a young Mechanical Engineering student at Kansas State, we studied “Limits to Growth” from the Club of Rome (I still have that book) in our Engineering Honors class. We treated it like gospel, and even played with the traveling MIT op-amp computer “simulator”. Turns out, it totally missed the point about human innovation. Also read “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels” by Epstein. Great perspective-setting book. I’ve done a lot of recent work in Europe, and am in horror at the despoiling of their landscape with “bird grinders” and solar arrays. I wonder day to day if there’s hope that societies will come to their senses about energy and its role in prosperity and advancement. This letter is a good start. Should be read by every young person.

  17. I can fix this silliness pretty quickly:

    Turn off the heat in their schools. And the lights. No audio-visual aids, you can only read books. If it’s light outside. No fuel for the big yellow bus–WALK your ass to school, 6 miles! No smartphones, no place to charge that because C02, y’know. BTW, no refrigeration, so fuggetabout eating meat which you need to give up anyway. Goes double for milk. So when that warm fructose-juice is gone, whatcha gonna eat then? Maybe the lettuce hasn’t gone rusty yet. Nothing in the supermarket ’cause the trucks are all parked. Think you can escape to somewhere better? Hope you can row, because no planes and no ships either unless they’ve got sails. No heat, lights, TV, phone, or safely kept food in your parents’ house, either my little chickadees. And when you fall down the stairs and break your leg, no X-rays, no MRI’s, no modern operating rooms. Just bite down on a stick, yelling “Arrrrgh!” while the bones are yanked around and splinted awake.

    I think I could talk ’em into going back in their classrooms with something to think about pretty quickly.

    The question is why skeptics are not doing more of it.

  18. “It’s time for a climate strike”.
    Methinks what they actually need is a climate smack.

  19. When America’s Youth of Today (late teens and college age), who are adamant believers in CAGW, head NORTH toward the Canadian border to enjoy their 7 to 10 days of Spring Break vacation by frolicking on the lake shores in the bright Sunshine, hot air temperatures and swimming in the really, really warm lake water ….. then you will know for sure that they are ….. “practicing the global warming claims that they are peaching”,

    And don’t be telling any of those young Climatista that the entire population of Phoenix, AZ is already PAST DUE for dying an agonizing death of “heat stroke” simply because of the fact that, to wit:

    The current yearly average local temperature for Phoenix, AZ is …. 26.7°C (80.0°F)
    The current yearly average global temperature for the earth is ……. 13.9°C (57.0°F)

    “DUH”, …….. Phoenix, AZ is already 23.0°F HOTTER than the average global temperature of 57.0°F and there has been NO MASS DYINGS in the City, …… and just why those silly young and not-so-young Climatista believe that a 1.0°F or even a 3.0°F increase in average global temps is going to kill any people……. can only be explained by their belief in the “magic” of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

  20. Thank you, Brian,
    This is a very cogent, level-headed composition. I think it speaks well to the emotionally driven mindset, which in my opinion comprises most of the CAGW impressed global citizenry.

  21. It was a good article, but wasted because the author assumes these people are mostly like him, just a flip to the other side of the same coin. They are not. They are marxists. Global Warming Doom is a prop for Socialism. They will abandon it in a heartbeat if they find a better vehicle to promote Socialism.

    Its a mistake common to conservatives – they think the hungry Tiger can be influenced by an appeal to intellectual integrity or civility, because Tigers are human just like them. This is also why socialism keeps turning up like a bad penny. That one responsible for over 120 million dead in the last century. After what they have done, Socialists should be terrified of being accurately identified as socialists. Instead, we keep helping them up off the mat. And we have to re-fight battles we had already won, watch good people get destroyed taking terrain we though had been secured. To what end?

    Yes. We have “proved” we are better than the Marxists. That will be of some comfort in the labor camps. Well done. But we are running out of fighters, and this win streak will not last forever. The tigers are nothing like us. They are not interested in any Scientific Method, they are not swayed by reason, they are not capable of learning from their mistakes, they are not interested in any truths you want to share. They are going to have to be put down.

    But I doubt the Right has the courage to initiate that level of violence. Never the right moment, never the right cause. Keeping powder dry that will never be put to use. Passivity is a feature of conservatism, not a bug. The Left routinely overplays their hand, and sometimes that gets them smacked down, but more often their audacity is rewarded. The Right tends to ALWAYS err on the side of caution, and are adept at turning complete routs into orderly retreats. They would play a Prevent Defense for 4 quarters in order to lose by a few field goals instead of a few touchdowns. Who do you think will prevail?

    The Left, of course. Because we don’t want to kill every last one of them. And we will write 500 word articles lamenting the Fall of the Republic and whoever is being unpersoned this week.

  22. “Malthusian economics” — really? — you would use a phrase like this to talk to kids?

    “Club of Rome” — ?? — you really think kids would have any idea what that is?

    “Values Party” — ?? — come on! — This is way over any kid’s head !

    Sorry, but I just do not see this as an open letter to … kids. As such, I cannot see any kid really taking the time to read it, let alone assimilating any insight from it.

    Talking to kids with any hope of success would require a much more kid-like tone and more careful choice of words.

  23. Brian Dingwall, I had a little chuckle as I started to read your article when you referenced voting for the “Values Party” (the forerunner to the Greens for non New Zealanders benefit). At high school I was a member of the Labour Party when Norm Kirk was Prime Minister. At my 1st election when I was among the first 18 year olds to have the right to vote, I joined the Values Party. I voted for Values at the next election in ’78, but by ’81 Robert Muldoon (the incumbent National Party Prime Minister 1975-1984) had convinced me I was wasting my time.

    I still have my dusty old copy of “The Limits To Growth.” I cringe at the thought that I believed all of the nonsense promoted in that book. I had always challenged authority, but in this case I fell into the trap of thinking that the authors of TLTG were just onto it! At the time there was very little to counter TLTG. It was mostly by attrition that I came to realize that at best the authors of TLTG were mistaken, and at worst they were deliberately misleading.

    Beware of hidden agendas!

    I would like to think that today’s version of us young zealots will learn quicker than I initially did how some adults fill eager young brains with their beliefs. I hope they learn to challenge all authority.

    As far as what happened in Christchurch yesterday, to call the perpetrators extreme right wing might be an easy way to button hole these people for the MSM & politicians, but a more accurate description would be along the lines of Skinhead/White Supremacists. What started in the late 70’s as the ‘Boot Boys’ and punk rockers quickly developed into the highly racist & often violent Skinheads with links back to England. Christchurch and the lower east coast of the South Island has been a hot bed for these types ever since. They are less prevalent in the rest of the country. The skinheads then morphed into National Front type white supremacists. I believe authorities have spent so long looking outwards for threats that they have forgotten these types of threats can emerge in a similar way to the likes of Timothy McVie at Oklahoma City. For the moment I not hearing any mention of this from the MSM. Questions are already being asked as to why, despite reports that these people were posting threats on social media in the past month, didn’t flags pop up around them warning us of this internal threat?

  24. Looking back on my early years I now consider myself to have been fortunate in that the events occurring at that time helped to shape my thinking processes.

    For example in 1936 aged 9 years, I returned from India to the UK. so I missed out on the worst of the Great Desperation, but it was still bad, so I learned early on that money does not grow on a tree anywhere.

    Then in 1938 we returned from Egypt. Now 11 and wishing to buy a
    second hand telescope, but no pocket money I went to work. A paper round Monday to Saturday, and later on Saturday morning delivering grocer is, a bile with a basket in front, up and down the hills of Salisbury in Wiltshire..

    This taught me the value of work to be able to earn money to then be able to
    buy something that one wanted.

    Then the second world war started, this initially did not make much
    impression on me, that changed when we moved to live in Twickenham, 14
    miles due West of the CBD of London. So I and others of course had a front
    row seat of the “Battle of Britain” first daylight, followed by the night
    bombing.

    Now all of these things made a big impression on my young brain, and made
    me realise that basics like staying alive are far more important than wondering
    what will happen to the climate in the year 2100 really were.

    MJE VK5ELL

  25. One thing that I find really irritating is how all the proponents of the CAGW conjecture are so smug about having succeeded in co-opting the children into these protests – like old Mosher on here. Smug, nay cock-a-hoop.

    The MSM are in thrall to them, and anyone who makes even the mildest of criticisms is roundly castigated. Matey who wrote this open letter will probably get a dose of it, if anyone notices: They’ll finger him for being a ‘Big Oil-funded Climate Denier’.

    When will this abject nonsense ever end..?!

    }:o(

  26. Interesting that the kids march happened on the same day a self described ‘eco-fascist shot up a mosque killing 49 people in New Zealand. In his manifesto he mentioned how when he was a Communist, he was well aware of the utility of using grossly exaggerated eco-doomsday narratives to recruit useful idiots and he proposes the far right do the same thing. So impending climate catastrophe justifies fascist solutions. The World is overpopulated which increases Carbon emissions so killing people is the way to go. Scary stuff and maybe indoctrinating kids is the thin end of the wedge.

    • “fossil fuel” is a misnomer with a slurring tone. If coal, oil or gas were fossils, they couldn’t be fuels.
      Solar, chemically stored energy (SCSE) is a better description. I doubt we could build nuclear plants without it.

  27. What a joke. Everyone can swing a sign around and yell things. “Do something”. Funny how it’s always the other guy who should do “something”.

    We should tell these kids to get rid of their smartphones and video games, and start cleaning the roads from trash. Let’s see how enthusiastic they now will be.

  28. Has anyone explain to the kids that the Green group who’s idea of doing
    something will result in at best intermittent electricity, or at worst none at all.
    What would the little darlings do without electricity.

    All this ” Something must be done ” stuff reminds me of the then Prince of
    Wales, later to be fortunately a brief King Edward the 8th, was touring the
    parts of Wales where the coal mines had closed down. This was about
    1936.

    He then returned to London and declared that “Something must be done”.
    Having done his Duty he returned to the sea south of Italy, to have fun
    with his numerous mistresses, all married to the elates of London’s society.

    So the “Something must be done”” goes back a long way, but of course it
    is never the solution to the real problems of society.

    MJE VK5ELL

Comments are closed.