Fake climate science and scientists

Alarmists game the system to enrich and empower themselves, and hurt everyone else

Paul Driessen

The multi-colored placard in front of a $2-million home in North Center Chicago proudly proclaimed, “In this house we believe: No human is illegal” – and “Science is real” (plus a few other liberal mantras).

I knew right away where the owners stood on climate change, and other hot-button political issues. They would likely tolerate no dissension or debate on “settled” climate science or any of the other topics.

But they have it exactly backward on the science issue. Real science is not belief – or consensus, 97% or otherwise. Real science constantly asks questions, expresses skepticism, reexamines hypotheses and evidence. If debate, skepticism and empirical evidence are prohibited – it’s pseudo-science, at best.

Real science – and real scientists – seek to understand natural phenomena and processes. They pose hypotheses that they think best explain what they have witnessed, then test them against actual evidence, observations and experimental data. If the hypotheses (and predictions based on them) are borne out by their subsequent findings, the hypotheses become theories, rules, laws of nature – at least until someone finds new evidence that pokes holes in their assessments, or devises better explanations.

Real science does not involve simply declaring that you “believe” something, It’s not immutable doctrine. It doesn’t claim “science is real” – or demand that a particular scientific explanation be carved in stone. Earth-centric concepts gave way to a sun-centered solar system. Miasma disease beliefs surrendered to the germ theory. The certainty that continents are locked in place was replaced by plate tectonics (and the realization that you can’t stop continental drift, any more than you stop climate change).

Real scientists often employ computers to analyze data more quickly and accurately, depict or model complex natural systems, or forecast future events or conditions. But they test their models against real-world evidence. If the models, observations and predictions don’t match up, real scientists modify or discard the models, and the hypotheses behind them. They engage in robust discussion and debate.

They don’t let models or hypotheses become substitutes for real-world evidence and observations. They don’t alter or “homogenize” raw or historic data to make it look like the models actually work. They don’t hide their data and computer algorithms (AlGoreRythms?), restrict peer review to closed circles of like-minded colleagues who protect one another’s reputations and funding, claim “the debate is over,” or try to silence anyone who dares to ask inconvenient questions or find fault with their claims and models. They don’t concoct hockey stick temperature graphs that can be replicated by plugging in random numbers.

In the realm contemplated by the Chicago yard sign, we ought to be doing all we can to understand Earth’s highly complex, largely chaotic, frequently changing climate system – all we can to figure out how the sun and other powerful forces interact with each other. Only in that way can we accurately predict future climate changes, prepare for them, and not waste money and resources chasing goblins.

But instead, we have people in white lab coats masquerading as real scientists. They’re doing what I just explained true scientists don’t do. They also ignore fluctuations in solar energy output and numerous other powerful, interconnected natural forces that have driven climate change throughout Earth’s history. They look only (or 97% of the time) at carbon dioxide as the principle or sole driving force behind current and future climate changes – and blame every weather event, fire and walrus death on manmade CO2.

Even worse, they let their biases drive their research and use their pseudo-science to justify demands that we eliminate all fossil fuel use, and all carbon dioxide and methane emissions, by little more than a decade from now. Otherwise, they claim, we will bring unprecedented cataclysms to people and planet.

Not surprisingly, their bad behavior is applauded, funded and employed by politicians, environmentalists, journalists, celebrities, corporate executives, billionaires and others who have their own axes to grind, their own egos to inflate – and their intense desire to profit from climate alarmism and pseudo-science.

Worst of all, while they get rich and famous, their immoral actions impoverish billions and kill millions, by depriving them of the affordable, reliable fossil fuel energy that powers modern societies.

And still these slippery characters endlessly repeat the tired trope that they “believe in science” – and anyone who doesn’t agree to “keep fossil fuels in the ground” to stop climate change is a “science denier.”

When these folks and the yard sign crowd brandish the term “science,” political analyst Robert Tracinski suggests, it is primarily to “provide a badge of tribal identity” – while ironically demonstrating that they have no real understanding of or interest in “the guiding principles of actual science.”

Genuine climate scientist (and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology) Dr. Judith Curry echoes Tracinski. Politicians like Senator Elizabeth Warren use “science” as a way of “declaring belief in a proposition which is outside their knowledge and which they do not understand…. The purpose of the trope is to bypass any meaningful discussion of these separate questions, rolling them all into one package deal – and one political party ticket,” she explains.

The ultimate purpose of all this, of course, is to silence the dissenting voices of evidence- and reality-based climate science, block creation of a Presidential Committee on Climate Science, and ensure that the only debate is over which actions to take first to end fossil fuel use … and upend modern economies.

The last thing fake/alarmist climate scientists want is a full-throated debate with real climate scientists – a debate that forces them to defend their doomsday assertions, methodologies, data manipulation … and claims that solar and other powerful natural forces are minuscule or irrelevant compared to manmade carbon dioxide that constitutes less that 0.02% of Earth’s atmosphere (natural CO2 adds another 0.02%).

Thankfully, there are many reasons for hope. For recognizing that we do not face a climate crisis, much less threats to our very existence. For realizing there is no need to subject ourselves to punitive carbon taxes or the misery, poverty, deprivation, disease and death that banning fossil fuels would cause.

Between the peak of the great global cooling scare in 1975 until around 1998, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperatures did rise in rough conjunction. But then temperatures mostly flat-lined, while CO2 levels kept climbing. Now actual average global temperatures are already 1 degree F below the Garbage In-Garbage Out computer model predictions. Other alarmist forecasts are also out of touch with reality.

Instead of fearing rising CO2, we should thank it for making crop, forest and grassland plants grow faster and better, benefitting nature and humanity – especially in conjunction with slightly warmer temperatures that extend growing seasons, expand arable land and increase crop production.

The rate of sea level rise has not changed for over a century – and much of what alarmists attribute to climate change and rising seas is actually due to land subsidence and other factors.

Weather is not becoming more extreme. In fact, Harvey was the first Category 3-5 hurricane to make US landfall in a record 12 years – and the number of violent F3 to F5 tornadoes has fallen from an average of 56 per year from 1950 to 1985 to only 34 per year since then.

Human ingenuity and adaptability have enabled humans to survive and thrive in all sorts of climates, even during our far more primitive past. Allowed to use our brains, fossil fuels and technologies, we will deal just fine with whatever climate changes might confront us in the future. (Of course, another nature-driven Pleistocene-style glacier pulling 400 feet of water out of our oceans and crushing Northern Hemisphere forests and cities under mile-high walls of ice truly would be an existential threat to life as we know it.)

So if NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio and other egotistical grand-standing politicians and fake climate scientists want to ban fossil fuels, glass-and-steel buildings, cows and even hotdogs – in the name of preventing “dangerous manmade climate change” – let them impose their schemes on themselves and their own families. The rest of us are tired of being made guinea pigs in their fake-science experiments.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and author of articles and books on energy, environmental and human rights issues.

Advertisements

173 thoughts on “Fake climate science and scientists

  1. The US has an annual per capita carbon footprint of 16 metric tons. Many of the countries from which we get refugees and immigrants (legal and illegal) have footprints of about 3 metric tons. Obviously, an immigrant is likely to have increased their carbon footprint by a factor of between 2 and 5 as well as having more children than non-immigrants. So why is it that many, if not most of those concerned about the climate are so opposed to any attempt to restrict illegal immigration?

    • Living with a low carbon footprint is difficult. That’s why people from Central America are desperately trying to enter the U.S. And why “progressives” are not moving to Central America. They could – Belize is an English speaking country, so they would not have to learn Spanish or Mayan. Learn?? (shudder)

      • If you look at the OCO-2 material you will realise that Australia has a low carbon footprint. Ok NASA have tried to hype up the CO issue created by bushfires but that is all up-and-away, not collecting in confined spaces. Might be bunk.
        I sometimes detect small increases in CO2 from localised bushfires and burn-offs, but they don’t appear on the satellite monitoring.

    • “So why is it that many, if not most of those concerned about the climate are so opposed to any attempt to restrict illegal immigration?”

      The Democrats are the party of the welfare check. They love spending other people’s money to try to buy votes. In this case, the illegal aliens are expecting to get a welfare check when they come here and the Democrats expect to receive their votes as a result. So illegal aliens are new Democrat voters the way the Democrats see it. The illegal aliens also come from socialist countries so they have an expectation that the State is supposed to take care of them and run things and that fits right into the Democrat mode, too.

      I know illegal aliens are not eligible to vote in U.S. elections, but they do anyway.

      Republicans need to make sure that only legal U.S. citizens vote in our future elections. Otherwise our American values will turn into South American values, i.e., socialist, authoritarian government..

      • To add insult to injury, many of these believers in science don’t believe in vaccinations. And they allow unvaccinated immigrants to bring 3rd world and otherwise previously eradicated diseases into our communities.

        • R Shearer.
          “To add insult to injury, many of these believers in science don’t believe in vaccinations.”
          I’m going to assume you mean mainstream climate “science” here. If that is what you meant then I would love to see your proof of that rather weird statement.

      • I know illegal aliens are not eligible to vote in U.S. elections

        Not yet, Democrats are working on that “problem”.

      • …I know illegal aliens are not eligible to vote in U.S. elections, but they do anyway…

        They vote legally in local elections in many places in the US.

        • Indeed, as I said Democrats are working on that “problem”, and the first step is making it legal for them to vote locally. It’s the boiling frog. you start at a low temp (local elections) and slowly raise the heat until the frog is boiling (the illegals are voting in national elections) and the frog doesn’t even realizes what’s going on.

          • ‘Boiling frog’ is a myth. That big Al loves to use it to peddle his climate scams speaks volume about how fake it is

          • The boiling frog is a metaphor. A metaphor doesn’t need to be factual to illustrate a point, all it needs to do is get the point across.

      • Illegal aliens have an impact on elections even if they don’t actually vote. They tend to settle in democrat strongholds and since they are counted in the census, they allow democratic strongholds to retain stronger representation in congress.

        Legal immigrants do vote and being predominantly non-white, they largely vote democrat.

        • Indeed, it’s why the Democrats are so terrified of the citizen question being added to the census.

    • Kevin, the left doesn’t want to restrict immigration because a high percentage of them vote for Democrats. The important point of Alinsky (and other) is first get elected (then you can run amuck and do what you want, like AOC).

    • 16 metric tons per person!? damn.. that’s barely enough to feed 20 square meters of paulownia trees :/ We really need to lift our game and get to burning more to push those CO2 levels up if we’re going to help increasing the biomass of the planet.
      🙂

    • Absolutely disgusting that articles lile this one are being to the public at large. Climate change is an undeniable reality to people living in parts of the world that are the most affected SO FAR.

      • “Climate change is an undeniable reality …” Of course this is another classic straw man. Few people ‘deny’ climate change. The question most readers here ask is ‘what is the cause?’. So far, I haven’t seen any compelling evidence that humans are the main driver of climate change. So far, I haven’t seen any compelling evidence that the climate is changing from good to bad.

      • Of course “science” is “real”, but do you know what it actually is? Do you understand that it is a process – a set of rules used to understand the natural world around us? Somehow I don’t think you do.

        • So true.
          Many with an agenda [intentionally?] confuse scientific “conclusions” with science, the lazy man’s interpretation.

      • Give us say three examples of places in the world where “climate change is an undeniable reality”, with the parameters for making that statement.

      • “Absolutely disgusting that articles lile this one are being to the public at large. Climate change is an undeniable reality to people living in parts of the world that are the most affected SO FAR.”

        Really, show one verifiable Climate victim anywhere in the world, I can show you 7+ billion people that are benefiting from increase carbon fertilizer in the atmosphere that is making our food grow better, making it cheaper and more readily available especially to low income peoples around the world. I can show you billions of people that have lives that are blessed with cheap energy that keeps them from starvation and privation all over the world.

      • Science IS Real April 29, 2019 at 7:08 am
        “Climate change is an undeniable reality to people living in parts of the world that are the most affected SO FAR.”

        I agree, but do you really understand how the climate is changing? Look at the link below. after you do that research how many of the last five years has France had their grape vines damaged by late frosts or early. Next do the same with Germany Spain and Italy.
        Also look into berries and apples.
        Yes climate change is real, it is getting colder. No not in the data bases or the models, but in the very fields we grow food.

        There is one thing saving us from mass hunger and shortages. Thanks to CO2 we have been able to grow enough surpluses that we are untouched by the losses. Except the farmers.
        This is not new, it has happened before. Take a year or two to just read history.

        Question both sides of any argument ruthlessly,but always give special effort to the side that what say the science is settled. You may find they have a personal stake in view point.
        michael

        https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vineyards-candles-frost-grapes-wine-france-germany-chablis-weinboehla-a8870711.html

      • I’ll offer you the same challenge I give to all alarmists: pick your favorite sign of climate change that is “an undeniable reality to people living in parts of the world that are the most affected SO FAR,” and I’ll do the research to show you why you’re wrong. And I will use only sources such as NOAA, USGS, , etc.

        Name your poison.

    • I’m OK with that – environmentalists and everything they do is actually bad for the environment. I’m proud to be anti-environmentalist.

      • Because the heroes of environmentalism are industrial factories and coal burning electrical plants (if you are a blithering idiot).

        • Hey GET A,

          I have an idea. Let’s outlaw (or over-regulate, a distinction without a much difference) industrial factories here in the West.

          Then they’ll just displace to other 3rd World shit-holes where there are minimal to no environmental standards or workplace standards, and send them our good paying jobs too?

          Because all those raw materials to finished products that makes your iPhone and feel-good Prius come from industrial scale manufacturing processes to be affordable to folks like you and me.

          Maybe you should FIRST give up your industrial lifestyle’s desire for modern conveniences before you call someone else an idiot for understanding where they came from?

          • I’m thinking Mr/Mrs/It Clue is the same non-gender-specific entity as Science is real.

    • Environmentalism is about self loathing and believing you don’t belong in the environment. That’s OK if the self afflicted would keep it to themselves.

  2. “But they have it exactly backward on the science issue. Real science is not belief – or consensus, 97% or otherwise. Real science constantly asks questions, expresses skepticism, reexamines hypotheses and evidence. If debate, skepticism and empirical evidence are prohibited – it’s pseudo-science, at best.”

    Debate is is not prohibited. You are free to debate all you want.
    No one, however, is obligated to answer your questions.
    The earth aint flat, regardless of your questions.
    No one is obligated to loan you their stage or anwser your demands to “debate” them.
    No one is obliagted to invite you to their news program
    or read your paper
    or explain things to you.
    You are welcome to debate and question, but you dont get to unilaterially dictate the terms

    The debate happens every day, at conferences, in journals. And if you do good work you’ll be heard
    anthony was heard, nic lewis is heard, mcintyre is heard.
    You get a hearing. you dont get to set the rules of the court or jury. do MORE than
    question, do science and offer a BETTER explanation and you get accolades.

    But doubt, mere doubt, mere questions? a bot can imitate most skeptics and has successfully
    on the internet.

    Real skeptics realize that doubt is a methodological TOOL not a position.
    That doubt is a step in the journey but not the end.

    • Steven,
      Hogwash. It is up to those making the claims (theory) to prove it, and if that means answering questions and/or debating others, then so be it. It is not up to the rest of us to prove them wrong. If their theory can’t hold up under intense scrutiny, then it is rubbish. This is 10x more true when they then use their theory to advocate policies to fundamentally change our entire civilization according to their designs. The stakes are too big to fall back on 97% consensus arguments, or “the debate is over”, or “the science is settled”, all of which happen far too often (and you know it).

    • If no-on is obligated to answer my questions than how can I be obligated to pay the taxes they insist I pay?

      If climate scientists don’t want to debate, I’m fine with that – but then they have to stop telling those in power that they have to do stuff. They cannot – and you cannot – have it both ways.

      As for “real skeptics”.. oh please, stop making your arguments by stating your premises.

      • “real skeptics”.. oh please, stop making your arguments by stating your premises.

        Or by setting up strawmen.

    • Besides, skepticism as a tool, the scientific method imparts an ethical obligation on the practitioner to:
      – recognize and acknowledge uncertainties.
      – explore alternative interpretations/explanation.

      On those two points, Climate Science is so far failing miserably. And in too many cases… intentionally.

    • Mr Mosher…
      BAD FORM
      Absolutely Noone here insists the world is “Flat”
      Comparing Climate Skeptics to Flat Earthers is BAD FORM.

      The Earth Aint Flat, regardless of your assertions either.
      The Earth Aint Flat, regardless of Socalist Media refusal to present the Skeptical side of the debate (which would prevent the overthrow of Capitalism)
      The Earth Aint Flat, regardless of why journalt refuse to print most skeptic science papers.
      The Earth Aint Flat, regardless of how regardless of your “Belief in Science” (belief is Religious and not required in True Science)

    • Steven

      I can watch almost any “News” show today in the US mainstream media and hear time and time again the term “science denier” about anyone who question the orthodoxie. There are plenty of politician that have advocated for making “deniers” criminals. Real scientist like Anthony and Nic and many others are constantly being harassed and branded, while total crackpots on the other side get taken seriously, has any real scientist on the AGW side said one world about and her 12 years until the world ends crap, not that I have heard.

        • The only time Mosh deigns to comment on such things is when he whines about us paying attention to people who make such statements.

    • Steven,

      You get a hearing. you dont get to set the rules of the court or jury.

      You’re right that nobody should be hindered in the quest for understanding. Unfortunately, this isn’t applied equally. Most media outlets and most politicians do set the rules and filter the message lopsidedly. Anthony, Nic Lewis, and McIntyre don’t get much of hearing. They do get called names (denier); they do get lied about (on the payroll of big oil); they are ridiculed — even when they do good work. Let’ see these criticisms applied to all parties when they fail to meet standards.

    • “Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.” John Kenneth

      Unless you’re Steven Mosher, then no proof is needed.

      The truth exists whether you’d like to admit it or just shout down those expressing it.

      Carbon based life forms require carbon. Let’s start there, is that true?

    • “The debate happens every day …”

      Who was the guy in Australia that got fired for his attempt at honest debate … Peter Ridd was it? Do you still remember his name? Why was he fired … was it because he wanted honest debate, or because he was calling attention to the dishonest corrupt controlled ‘debate’?

      How many others are afraid of ‘debate’ because they don’t want to go through the same nightmare?

      (same question as always … what keeps some people from seeing things for what they are; are those people stupid, deluded, or corrupt/evil?)

    • …do MORE than question, do science and offer a BETTER explanation…

      Wrong. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG!!!!!! You have it exactly bass-ackwards, Mr. Mosher. Those proponents of CATASTROPHIC Global Warming™ Climate Change™ Climate Weirding [whatever they’re calling it now] haven’t proven anything yet!!! They have made extraordinary claims yet all they have to support their claims are models that have demonstrated an abject failure to replicate reality! In the null hypothesis, the first thing we all should assume is that nothing is going on that hasn’t gone on before. And there is no data to demonstrate otherwise. So indeed, skepticism is, in this case, merely a matter of asking, “Show me the evidence, real data, not merely a computer game model!” and sitting back and waiting for the blank looks and/or lack or response. And instead all we get are ad hominem attacks.

      Which leads me back to one of your earlier baseless assertions:

      Debate is is not prohibited. You are free to debate all you want.

      Not if you’re in the Comments section of The Guardian. …or RealClimate. …or Wikipedia. …or [and a whole bunch of others]. Any comment that does not toe the party line is summarily deleted, and often the commenter is banned for his temerity.

      I expect no answer from you because that’s the way you operate, comments that dissect your position you simply ignore and pretend they didn’t happen. Mr. Mosher, I know you have a brain, use it.

    • The earth aint flat, regardless of your questions.
      ======
      Steve, a better analogy is “the Earth is the center of the universe”.

      97% of all scientists believed that for thousands of years, and people were burned at the stake less than 500 years ago for suggesting otherwise. This is very similar to CO2 and Climate Change, where people that suggest otherwise have their careers burned at the stake.

      The same is not true for the flat earth, which was known to be false thousands of years ago, with good estimates of the size of the earth from that time. We don’t see any evidence of people being burned at the stake for suggesting the earth is round, because the curvature of the earth is readily apparent in many different situations.

    • Steven Mosher

      You quote a paragraph but only refer to question and debate. What about, “Real science constantly … reexamines hypotheses and evidence.”

      And “If debate, skepticism and empirical evidence are prohibited – it’s pseudo-science, at best.”

      Your reaction? Bluster at best; dishonesty at worst.

      Your AGW hypothesis is based on the fantasy that the cooler atmosphere raises the temperature of the warmer surface (some loonies claim by 33C) with the energy that the surface previously transferred to the atmosphere. You obviously have your own laws of thermodynamics. But then you would have to, to make the fraud “believable”.

      Junk science, cargo cult science, group think. Take your pick. But not science.

    • Lets be real the problem isn’t the science argument as such, there are plenty of out there stupid theories scientists work on.

      The problem is climate science goes one step further it mandates a single answer and then tries to trust that solution on the world. To do that they made climate science into politics and sold it to the media and politicians and so it moved from a science to a political discipline.

      Some this tiny pathetic little discipline with not even real scientists (like Mosher himself) and political activists think they can dictate not just the science but the response at a global level. Well the people of the world have given you their answer as the politicians have found out. There is a zero chance that the great emission controls pie in the sky of climate science will happen in the near future.

  3. The trouble is there is nowhere in Europe where there is a place to escape this insanity and even in the USA despite Trump’s best efforts the green rabies continues to spread like the disease that it is. The article is dead right- this nonsense is already killing people and will soon kill millions more if it continues to flourish.

    • I really don’t think the libtard disease is spreading, it’s just those that are already infected are becoming more vocal in last ditch desperation to stay steadfast to their religion.

  4. Mr. Driessen,

    Just excellent!

    I believe your commentary above pretty much knocked the ball out of the park.

    I am saving a link to this WUWT webpage to pass on to any climate alarmist that I may encounter in the future.

  5. So if NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio and other egotistical grand-standing politicians and fake climate scientists want to ban fossil fuels, glass-and-steel buildings, cows and even hotdogs – in the name of preventing “dangerous manmade climate change” – let them impose their schemes on themselves and their own families. The rest of us are tired of being made guinea pigs in their fake-science experiments.

    That’s the tell that there is no science in ‘Climate Science’. It has always been about power and money. Otherwise, the most vociferous proponents of the schemes would just shut up and get on with what they see as necessary to ‘Save The Planet’ and not let us plebes in on the secret.

  6. Nice article, Paul. Not trying to be pedantic, but I assume in the last sentence of the second last paragraph (in parenthesis) you meant to say “glaciation” rather than “glacier”. Anyway, just FYI. Thanks!

  7. I’m surprised nobody quoted Richard Feynman, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

    • In today’s New Age Science, “consensus” is invoked as a ploy to invert the Null hypothesis.
      This results in the pseudoscience:
      – “Show that it’s not CO2 causing the warming, as both are going up simultaneously.”
      – Alternatively stated as, “demonstrate its natural, not man-made.”

    • That quote from Feynman is somewhat misunderstood.

      Too often it is taken “people who claim expert status are ignorant fools.”

      What Feynman was conveying was more subtle.

      The more one does actual careful, rigourous, documented experimentation and hands-on research, you find you frequently are presented with things you thought were true that ain’t so, or there seems to be frequent, nagging exceptions you can’t explain with what you thought you knew. And that conundrum usually gets worse, not better, the longer you dig and analyze and try and control variables in the experiments. Clean up one problem, and you find (or realize) 2 or 3 more. Maybe not big problems, but nagging questions of “what if.”

      And going in, everything you thought you to be true (or expecting completely replicable) was taught in an undergrad-early graduate school textbook by some accepted “expert” in the field.
      Or your original knowledge base walking in to the problem was to run control experiments came from a one or a series widely regarded, peer-reviewed research articles from noted experts in the field. And you come to realize nagging problems exist, the more you dig, the more you find. And the experts were ignorant of those.

      (As an aside, or corrollary — In many ways, the replication crises has long been with us. It is just coming to critical mass because of the entry of so many new hybrid disciplines, with so many new researchers chasing limiting amounts of dollars, and the intense pressure to find positive results to publish. Feynman recognizes this in his 1980’s interview were he describes much of social sciences as pseudoscience because they can find whatever they need to to justify a statement.)

  8. A common problem in both the immigration and climate discussions is the purposeful distortion of language.
    A great example in the former is the emotional phrase “No human is illegal!
    To me that slogan makes as much sense as “You can’t hug a child with nuclear arms!”

    The person is not illegal, but you cannot deny that without documentation his or her residency is illegal; they are an “illegal resident”. Period. That’s a matter of law and not morality.

      • Yeah – to be ‘illegal’, all you’ve got to do is commit an illegal act.
        But isn’t it amazing how they manage to portray the most self-serving positions as the moral high-ground? All Dims want from these people is to votes to make them a permanent majority.
        And of course, the rest of the swamp wants the cheap labor.

    • The bigger problem is that not a single one of the people spouting that nonsense believes that anybody from anywhere in the world should have the unfettered right to come and live and work in the US (or UK or Germany or wherever).

      As with all those they claim are racists or uncaring, they believe in controlled immigration – the only actual difference between the vast majority of people is how much immigration and how is it run. They think they are supremely virtuous because they want a bit more immigration (and often times not even that).

        • “What about a shotgun that’s cut just a little bit too short?”

          In that case it is the ownership (activity) of said shotgun which is illegal, not the object itself.

        • The law makes illegal the manufacture, modification, sale, and possession of a shotgun with a barrel that is too short. Things don’t commit crimes, people do. Outlawing the existence of things is stupid and unenforceable, which is why laws are usually written as I noted in my first sentence.

      • So is any narcotic not covered by an exemption like in a hospital, as are weapons of mass destruction.

        Things can be illegal as much as activities.

  9. “… manmade carbon dioxide … constitutes less that 0.02% of Earth’s atmosphere (natural CO2 adds another 0.02%)”

    Is this accurate?

    • Only very roughly.
      And only if one takes for a given the premise that preindustrial CO2 levels were around 280 ppm.
      And that all increases since then are man made (I for one do not see much reason to dispute this. Bigger fish to fry for one thing, and FF emissions have surely raised levels substantially), and thus are “unnatural”.
      Given the normal rules of rounding, it would seem that the second number ought to be given as 0.03%

      • Given the normal rules of rounding, it would seem that the second number ought to be given as 0.03%

        0.02% (the first number) + 0.03% (your suggested second number) = 0.05% or 500 ppm which is entirely too high.

        • Pre-industrial levels are believed to be 280ppm (or 0.028%, or rounded, 0.03%). Currently the CO2 is measured at 410ppm (or 0.041%, or rounded, 0.04%). That means the increase is 130ppm, (or 0.013%, or rounded, 0.01%).

          Some, or all of that 0.01% is manmade. Some is natural.

          • Indeed Jeff. But the article claimed 0.02 man made and 0.02 natural. Nicholas suggested the second number should be 0.03 without suggesting any change to the first number.

      • That’s what I thought – 0.01/0.03%. Even then I’ve read that man’s contribution to that 0.01% is only 4%, the remainder, I suppose being due to CO2 out-gassing from warming oceans.

      • The other problem with the 280 ppm claim as pre-industrial really means to say it was the likely CO2 concentration at the End of the 400 year long LIA, ~1850 or so.

        Proxy reconstructions of various mehtods al of course have their own uniques problems and assumptions. Ice core bubble analysis of trapped gasses have resolution and diffusion questions/uncertainties. It tends to present nice smoothed data on CO2 concentration changes.

        But we know today that ENSO has been working for a very long time in the tropical Pacific. And we see quite clearly the impact of El Nino’s and La Nina’s, especially the big ones, on the modern instrumental records. So where is that in the proxy recons?

        We also know that during LIA onset, glaciers started growing everywhere, and high latitudes became much more frozen again (Greenland colonies wiped out, tree line recessions everywhere you look, mega droughts in the centuries lasting decades). And further back from LIA, the 5,000 year old Otzi (the frozen man in Italian Alps) discovery tells us his time in Europe’s heartlands were a time of warmth , before the glaciers grew dramatically again and buried his body in ice. All these cold periods would have dramatically slowed the biological CO2 sink fluxes, allowing natural sources to force the dynamic equilibrium concentration higher. Where is that in the proxy recons?

        All these hidden problems in the proxy recons of CO2 tells us there is a wider variation in CO2 than admitted.
        I’m not doubting that much of the additional CO2 today is FF derived, and it continues to push ever higher due to contnued burning of FFs. I’m just skeptical climate science seems to know exactly how much is natural using the convenient End LIA value of 280 ppm.

      • icisil – April 29, 2019 at 7:40 am

        “… manmade carbon dioxide … constitutes less that 0.02% of Earth’s atmosphere (natural CO2 adds another 0.02%)”

        Is this accurate?

        Iffen you add your 0.0200% manmade to your 0.0200% natural you would get 0.0400% total which is close to current CO2 quantity of 0.0414%.

        And if the 1880 the atmospheric CO2 was about 0.028%, ….. whereas in 2019 the CO2 is 0.0414% then must be humans are responsible for every ppm increase in CO2 since 1880.

        And the only way to verify the “human cause” is to test the atmospheric CO2 for an H-pyron.

        You see, ….. there are actually two (2) different types of CO2.

        There is both a naturally occurring CO2 molecule ….. and a hybrid CO2 molecule that has a different physical property. The new hybrid CO2 molecule contains an H-pyron which permits one to distinguish it from the naturally occurring CO2 molecules.

        The H-pyron or Human-pyron is only attached to and/or can only be detected in CO2 molecules that have been created as a result of human activity. Said H-pyron has a Specific Heat Capacity of one (1) GWC or 1 Global Warming Calorie that is equal to 69 x 10 -37th kJ/kg K or something close to that or maybe farther away.

        Thus, said H-pyron is very important to all Climate Scientists that are proponents of CO2 causing Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) because it provides them a quasi-scientific “fact” that serves two (2) important functions: 1) it permits said climate scientists to calculate an estimated percentage of atmospheric CO2 that is “human caused” ……. and 2) it permits said climate scientists to calculate their desired “degree increase” in Average Global Temperatures that are directly attributed to human activity.

        As an added note, oftentimes one may hear said climate scientists refer to those two (2) types of CO2 as “urban CO2” and ”rural CO2” because they can’t deny “it is always hotter in the city”.

        And there you have it icisil, ……. the rest of the story, their secret scientific tool has been revealed to you.

        Yours truly, Eritas Fubar

    • It’s a moot point of course, but I don’t think it is. CO2 is somewhere around 405ppm, an increase (supposedly) of about 125 ppm since the Industrial Revolution. Even saying, for the sake of argument that 100% of that increase is due to man, that would make man’s contribution about 31% of the total CO2, making it 0.0123% of the atmosphere, and the natural contribution 0.0276%.

    • 200 ppm = 200/1,000,000, so yes. However, and important distinction is that green house gas theory does not rest solely on the “concentration” of the gas but on the number of infrared absorbing CO2 atoms between the ground and space. Also, it is worth noting that small concentrations of molecules can have big effects. A blood alcohol of .05% (or 500ppm) will get you a DUI in Utah. The limit OSHA limit for ozone is just 0.1 ppm.

      • To quibble with your DUI example, the natural level of blood alcohol is essentially zero. A level of 0.05% is an essentially infinite or at least very very large increase from natural background.

        Accepting that earth’s background CO2 level in 280 ppm, going to 410 ppm is a 40% increase of the basic building block of life.

      • The bump comes when you try to explain how a 1 ppm increase in CO2 could possibly direct enough heat into the oceans to raise their temperature the observed amount over the past 3 decades, thereby causing the ‘not as frozen’ polar wintertime temperature anomalies responsible for driving up the calculated global temperature. Along with that there needs to be a process hypothesized by which CO2 can cause amplification of positive ENSO activity. These are clearly observed influences on global temperature which priests of the Model Fellowship of Mann, parish of the Church of Omnipotent Greenhouse In Carbon must somehow reconcile to human culpability.

      • Playing Devil’s Advocate here, I’d say that a blood alcohol level of 0.05% has a statistically insignificant effect on one’s reaction time and judgement. The reason it gets one a DUI is because of pressure the Federal government put on states by playing games with Federal Highway funding.

        At least, that’s the way I remember it. The same games were played with the 55 national speed limit.

      • Also, it is worth noting that small concentrations of molecules can have big effects.

        It’s also worth noting that each additional molecule of CO2 has less effect then the previous one. It’s an exponential relationship (perhaps you’ve heard the phase a doubling of CO2 before). In other worse if it take X ppm to raise temps by 1 degree, it’ll take another 2X ppm to raise it a second degree (IE 1X + 2X = 3X to raise it a total of 2 degrees) and then another 4X ppm to raise it a third degree (IE 1X + 2X + 4X = 7X to raise it a total of 3 degrees) and another 8X ppm to raise it for a 4th degree (IE 1X + 2X + 4X + 8X = 15X to raise it a total of 4 degrees) and so on.

        • It’s also worth noting that each additional molecule of CO2 has less effect then the previous one.

          “YUP”, just like adding sugar to your coffee.

          One teaspoon of sugar makes your coffee sweet, 2nd teaspoon makes it half-sweet, …. and a 3rd teaspoon of sugar to your cup of coffee and it will start tasting sour.

          • I wouldn’t know. I find coffee to be vile regardless of the amount of other stuff (milk and/or sugar) you add to it.

          • A bitter tea sipper-upper, …..HUH, ……… or do you use black pepper to “sweeten” it?

            Anyway, ……………..

            (perhaps you’ve heard the phase a doubling of CO2 before). In other worse if it take X ppm to raise temps by 1 degree, it’ll take another 2X ppm to raise it a second degree

            “YUP”, I hear/read it all the time ……. but I haven’t yet figured out how the 2nd batch (2X ppm) of CO2 knows it’s the 2nd batch being added so that it will only absorb ½ as much thermal energy as the 1st batch of CO2.

            And then how does the 3rd batch of added CO2 know that it’s the 3rd batch so that it will restrict its absorption of thermal energy to only 1/3rd of what the 2nd batch absorbed?

            And which batch of CO2 (1st, 2nd or 3rd) starts re-radiating its absorbed thermal energy the firstest? Is it “last in – first out”, …… or “first in – last out”?

    • The atmosphere is currently approx. 410 ppm that would be 0.041% of the atmosphere. So 0.02% + 0.02% = 0.04% is roughly correct for the total. However, it’s questionable as to the breakdown between man-made and natural since it’s been estimated that it was something like 275 ppm in 1750 (when CO2 concentrations were not attributable to man) which would not only make the entire increase from 1750 to present (135ppm) as being man-made but also a bit more than that (another 60 or so ppm) meaning natural CO2 has been decreasing as man as been adding CO2. If that’s the case, they should be thanking man for adding all that CO2 as without it, life would soon be no longer sustainable on this planet as we’d be at 200ppm and dropping (once below approx. 150 ppm, the plants will die off).

    • There was an article here on WUWT a few months ago demonstrating that the amount of CO₂ produced from the combustion of FF is less than the uncertainty of the natural sources/sinks. A separate article (I think linked to a research paper) calculates the amount of anthropogenic atmospheric CO₂ to be about 6% of the total. So no, it’s not very accurate, but that only reinforces Mr. Driesen’s point: we can’t do anything about Global Warming™ cuz it ain’t our fault to begin with!

    • Icisil

      I’d allocate it 0.01% anthropogenic and 0.03% natural, assuming of course that humans are not in any way natural, and that anything humans do to stay warm and fed is unnatural.

  10. Climate hysteria has reached a new peak especially in the UK. Here is a link to the GWPF complaint re the recent BBC fearmongering broadcast, with blatantly false statements by Mann, Oreskes and Attenborough and a link to my guest post on WUWT which challenged the whole dangerous warming meme head on .
    https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/04/BBC-complaint-April2019.pdf?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=ac93b96d82-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_04_26_09_49_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-ac93b96d82-36404485

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/23/the-co2-derangement-syndrome-a-historical-overview/
    Here is a quote
    “When analyzing complex systems with multiple interacting variables it is useful to note the advice of Enrico Fermi who reportedly said “never make something more accurate than absolutely necessary”. The 2017 paper proposed a simple heuristic approach to climate science which plausibly proposes that a Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity was reached in 1991,that this turning point correlates with a temperature turning point in 2003/4, and that a general cooling trend will now follow until approximately 2650.
    The establishment’s dangerous global warming meme, the associated IPCC series of reports, the entire UNFCCC circus, the recent hysterical IPCC SR1.5 proposals and Nordhaus’ recent Nobel prize are founded on two basic errors in scientific judgement. First – the sample size is too small. Most IPCC model studies retrofit from the present back for only 100 – 150 years when the currently most important climate controlling, largest amplitude, solar activity cycle is millennial.
    This means that all climate model temperature outcomes are too hot and likely fall outside of the real future world. (See Kahneman -Thinking Fast and Slow p 118) Second – the models make the fundamental scientific error of forecasting straight ahead beyond the Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity which was reached in 1991. These errors are compounded by confirmation bias and academic consensus group think.”

  11. From the article: “So if NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio and other egotistical grand-standing politicians and fake climate scientists want to ban fossil fuels, glass-and-steel buildings, cows and even hotdogs – in the name of preventing “dangerous manmade climate change” – let them impose their schemes on themselves and their own families. The rest of us are tired of being made guinea pigs in their fake-science experiments.”

    Isn’t it wonderful that we live in a Republic made up of individual States!

    This way a fool like Bill De Blasio can ruin a state like New York, but none of the other states are obligated to follow suit. In fact, the other states can note the failures in New York and decide that is the last thing they want to do in their state.

    We have several Leftwing experiments in government going on. It will be interesting to see how it all works out. They look like trainwrecks.

    Bill De Blasio is a real piece of work.

  12. As long as they can maintain the 97% consensus lie it is difficult to assume that 97% of scientist are dishonest, lying, or practicing poor science.
    Probably very few scientists have actually studied climate or even closely perused the evidence. Even fewer are actually qualified in climate sciences and of those with some qualifications have them in fields that only encompass a narrow portion of the subject.
    My own research has shown that most who proclaim the dangers of AGW and CO2 have no relevant education or experience. A obvious example is Al Gore and his theological education. It seems that economists have the most (often absurd) opinions. In fact they seem to dominate the list of IPCC authors. I am not even sure economics qualifies as a science.
    It seems that even a degree in Philosophy or Psychology is an excuse to pontificate on the dangers that accrue from our use of the planet.
    It is obvious that our planet has warmed recently and many times in the past and CO2 levels have fluctuated wildly. To attempt to make that into a clear and present danger and an excuse to incite panic is the arrogance of an elite group in the extreme.
    A great post Paul.

    • My coworker, a PhD chemical engineer was a believer in CAGW until I showed him the temperature record that is used to make the claim that the sky is falling. How looked at it and said, “That’s just random fluctuations in the data!”. He had assumed that the data actually were significant. Now he knows better.

  13. The 97% consensus is so anti science and those firmly believing in the science they espouse to prove global warming totally miss how wrong that is.

    I have been following some topics in Astronomy and that field is in such a state of flux and so is Quantum Physics. If scientific fields aren’t in a constant state of questioning they become non scientific.

    The links are to articles about how the universe is expanding faster than what was previously thought and how this information is going to change the current ideas, “break everything” as one scientist said.

    https://www.cnet.com/news/universe-is-expanding-faster-than-we-thought-and-no-one-knows-why/

    https://astronomy.com/news/2019/04/hubble-hints-todays-universe-expands-faster-than-it-did-in-the-past

    • The more obvious problem with consensus is that Climate Change (and its derivative, Alarmism), have obviously not been the accepted position for ever. So was Climate Change untrue until 51% of scientists accepted it? And if you cannot question “the science” how did man-made climate change become “the science”?

      Would it now become untrue if a freak accident wiped out all the Alarmists at a conference?

  14. In California, at least, some of the worst environmental problems have been caused by the actions of environmentalists:
    1) Adding MTBE, a known carcinogen, to gasoline – poisoned fish, leaked into water wells.
    2) Forest fires.
    3) Wind Farms – kills birds, including endangered species such as bald eagles and condors. (A $10,000 fine for anyone else).
    4) Solar farms – destroys the habitat for desert tortoises and Mojave rattlesnakes.

    Meanwhile, the streets of San Franciso are covered with feces, due to the policies of the same people.
    (The New Brown Deal ?).
    The environment is too important to be left to the decisions of environmentalists.

    Also, I am not sure that climate “scientists” are unaware of conventional scientific methodology – they just choose to ignore it when it does not fit their political agenda.

    • You must also consider the LOSS and despoiling of the VISUAL environment by windfactories and industrial-scale solar installations. The wrecking of our visible environment is every bit as soul crushing as loss of animals and habitat.

      The greens decry suburban sprawl yet ALL these industrial-scaled “renewables” are located far from the urban centers, and cover over pristine, unspoiled territories. “Renewable sprawl” should be fought even MORE vigorously than suburban sprawl.

  15. Great article–but I recommend one change: For “algorithm,” substitute “AlGoreRhythm,” thus getting right the spelling of “rhythm,” perhaps the only word with two h’s, neither of which begins a syllable.

    • Hmmm, the rhythm method was useful until science managed to make an effective pill out of mares pee. Now we happily enjoy the benefits of real science. Science that actually creates a benefit for people.

  16. The idea that there is a ‘Climate Crisis’ resonates with children, and is not recognized as such by most adults is because it is just that — a childish notion.

  17. When I started a job as Chief Geologist for a mining company in Argentina, one of my charges was to provide education in modern mining exploration techniques. I remember one “class” where I asked the assembled Argentine Geologists “what does it mean when I am wrong about a geological interpretation?” I was met by a stunned silence. Finally one of the younger geologists said “the boss is never wrong”, and the older geologists said that’s it! We are seeing more and more that social demands trumps scientific facts, that is, few persons want to challenge the crowd. Good job with the topic, Paul D.

  18. “But instead, we have people in white lab coats masquerading as real scientists. “…all promoted by Hollywood, Pop singers and school children.

  19. AGW cannot exist because of the existence of a force called surface tension. Surface tension is a force naturally occurring on the surface of water and it blocks physical heat from penetrating the surface of water, however it does not block radiated energy . We make the mistake of assuming that because the sun heats the ocean that the ocean accepts physical heat through its surface

    • Rubbish. Where did you get that from, the back of a cereal box? The term “physical heat” will not be found in any real science textbook. Heat energy is simply the total kinetic energy of the molecules of an object. There’s no reason a hot gas can’t transfer heat to a cooler liquid via physical contact. Since gases are less dense they don’t have as much total energy per volume to transfer, so in order to measure the increase of heat in the liquid, the gas needs to be much hotter. Try putting a pan of water into a hot oven. The water will heat up even if the water is shielded from the IR of the heating source (usually electric thermal elements).

      So yes, heating the atmosphere up a degree or two won’t make a measurable difference in the temperature of the oceans, but not for the reasons you gave.

      • The heat transfers mostly by conduction via the pan.
        Try hanging a canvas bag filled with water and hang it out of the window of your vehicle in the extreme heat of the desert sun. Take the temperature of the water at regular intervals! Post your results.

      • >>
        Rubbish. Where did you get that from, the back of a cereal box? The term “physical heat” will not be found in any real science textbook.
        <<

        I guess you need to read more textbooks. From my textbook on Classical Thermodynamics:

        “Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across the boundary of a system at a given temperature to another system (or the surroundings) at a lower temperature by virtue of the temperature difference between the two systems. That is, heat is transferred from the system at the higher temperature to the system at the lower temperature, and the heat transfer occurs solely because of the temperature difference between the two systems. ”

        Jim

  20. The first line after “We Believe” should have been
    – “In Displaying Our Wealth and Politically Correct Virtues to Our Neighbors”.

    That sign is another way to say “No Trespassing – Members only”

  21. “and claims that solar and other powerful natural forces are minuscule or irrelevant compared to manmade carbon dioxide that constitutes less that 0.02% of Earth’s atmosphere (natural CO2 adds another 0.02%)”
    Although the whole article is well thought out and accurate in its conclusions, this one point deserves to be addressed. It states a central assumption in the IPCC CO2 analysis and their efforts to create the image of looming catastrophe this article seeks to expose as false. In fact anthropogenic CO2 amounts to only about 4% of the atmospheric CO2 and has accounted for only about 15% of the post industrial revolution gain (Harde 2017).
    Mr. Driessen and many other skeptics seem to have missed this important point and should weigh the evidence that supports it. The evidence used by the IPCC to support their claim of 30% are very week and have been formulated using erroneous logic.

  22. Fake climate science is the work produt the IPCC. To keep the deception going, they fabricated a self serving consensus around the reports they generate all in support of the UNFCCC and its repressive agenda of stealing wealth and redistributing it to corrupt third world regimes under the guise of climate reparations.

    Applying the scientific method to climate science has not worked and will not work until the IPCC and its cult like following is exposed for the fraud against science they’ve perpetuated. This will be difficult as it’s their committed role to collude with the political left and the MSM in order to circumvent both scientific and economic truths that unconditionally precludes their agenda and even their reason to exist.

  23. We’re beyond hope.

    When politicians give time to a mentally ill child as saviour of the planet and groups like XR spread their lies we are well beyond reason.

    The fools are following the barking mad people like this dangerous guy at Cumbria university, no I didn’t know either.

    https://jembendell.wordpress.com/about/

  24. It’s proving hard for truth to catch up with reality when we aren’t being told what reality is. The media has effectively blocked all messages contrary to the AGW narrative. We’re at the point of only time will tell.

    • The only good thing is that more and more people are coming to the realization that the MSM is too often full of fake news and thus can not uncritically be trusted to be truthful. To paraphrase a certain princess:
      The more the MSM tries to tighten its grip via fake news, the more people will slip through their fingers and no longer see them as a trustworthy news source.

  25. It is said that from the enlightenment on a process of secularization started that is still going on today in the western world. But all that happened is, for many a person, the old religion is replaced by a new one: “science”. I put in quotation marks because of course pure science is not a religion. But the deep and general belief with the public – “science will give us the way and the truth” – is.

    In my view this attitude towards science as the new “savior” is a myth. Scientists in the end are tool-makers. Clever tools maybe, or frightening ones, or not so good ones, but still: just tools. As far as scientists themselves are not happy with this and want some more and uphold the “savior” myth and prefer to shroud in religious-like cloth and authority, they uphold this myth themselves.

  26. Fake climate science is the work product the IPCC. To keep the deception going, they fabricated a 97% self serving consensus around the reports they generate all in support of the UNFCCC and its repressive agenda of stealing wealth from the developed world and redistributing it to corrupt third world regimes under the guise of climate reparations. This can only be described as insanity motivated by greed and envy, supported with ignorance, malfeasance and fear mongering. It’s an embarrassment to all science that fake climate science has arose and has been allowed to persist.

    Applying the scientific method to climate science has not worked as it should and will not work until the IPCC and its cult like following is exposed for their fraud against humanity. This will be difficult as it’s their committed role to collude with the political left and the MSM in order to circumvent the many scientific and economic truths that unconditionally preclude their agenda and even their reason to exist.

  27. Looking at this from outside the USA, I’m unimpressed.

    (1) Isn’t this old news? From early March?

    (2) What’s the difference between the “Presidential Committee on Climate Science” this article talks about, and the “Presidential Commission on Climate Security” that was announced a few weeks ago?

    (3) Can anyone here give a list of names (beyond William Happer) of who will be on the commission, or committee, or whatever it’s called?

    (4) By what date is the commission, committee, or whatever it’s called, tasked with issuing its report?

    Sorry to be a curmudgeon, but (as you all know) this is important… and not just to Americans.

    • (1) Isn’t this old news? From early March?

      Eh? The article discusses many things and you are focused on one little details whose link is to an article from early March. Government moves slowly, a month and a half is an eye-blink.

      (2) What’s the difference between the “Presidential Committee on Climate Science” this article talks about, and the “Presidential Commission on Climate Security” that was announced a few weeks ago?

      They’re the same thing. Different reporters refer to it differently for some reason.

      (3) Can anyone here give a list of names (beyond William Happer) of who will be on the commission, or committee, or whatever it’s called?

      It’s only in the proposal stage thus far (it was proposed by Dr Happer) so I don’t know that there are any other names as yet attached to it.

      (4) By what date is the commission, committee, or whatever it’s called, tasked with issuing its report?

      That’s all stuff that would be determined when the commission is actually commissioned. You don’t set dates before you even have the go-ahead to get started. It does no good to say “this commission will issue a report in July” only to have the wheels of government move so slow that your commission doesn’t get green-lit until the December *after* your proposed deadline.

  28. “In this house we believe: No human is illegal” Yeah right. How about I buy bus tickets for illegals at the border to their house? “In this house we have no lower economic asylum seekers” Freaking liars and idiots.

  29. Paul Driessen unintentionally helps with the confusion when he writes “Weather is not becoming more extreme.” There are not two “species” of weather: normal and extreme. Droughts and floods, storms and good downpours, windless days and gale force winds, heat and cold are all the different forms of weather we have to face. None should be described as “extreme” even when we as human experience the weather conditions as harsh. These are all simply weather even though we may speak about unseasonal weather.

    • And yet they have quantifiable extent, intensity etc. “Extreme” is a statistical statement, and you can’t have the discussion without statistics (and familiarity with the concepts of statistics). For example, a “heat wave” is still a “heat wave”, but what is happening to the number of local record-breaking monthly temperature extremes?

      • what is happening to the number of local record-breaking monthly temperature extremes?
        ========
        the number of record highs was much greater in the 1930’s than today.

          • “That’s [temperatures being warmer in the 1930’s] only in the continental United States”

            The speculation about CO2 and it causing CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) says that the Earth is currently experiencing unprecedented warmth with the recent decade being warmer than anything in the past. And this “unprecedented” warmth is supposedly caused by human-caused CO2.

            But that apparently does’t apply to the United States because, as Geoff wrote, the temperatures were warmer in the 1930’s in the U.S. than they are today. So the U.S. is not experiencing unprecedented warming, it’s no warmer now than in the 1930’s, and the 1930’s warmth took place before CO2 became a factor. So, No CAGW in the USA.

            And, or course, it is silly to assume that the U.S. is different from other areas of the world when it comes to temperatures and CAGW. We should mention that unmodified temperature charts from around the world also show the 1930’s to be as warm as today. No CAGW there, either.

            What doesn’t show the 1930’s being as warm as today are the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick charts. No unmodified charts from around the world resemble the bogus Hockey Stick chart. It is unique because it is a fraud.

            Here’s the real temperatrue profile of the globe, Hansen 1999:

            https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/uhcnh2.gif

            No CAGW.

          • The number of highs is greater than the models say it should be.

            Not all that impressive of a statement.

      • The number of record highs is not outside the range of normal.
        Neither is the number of record lows.

    • Seriously? Paul didn’t make this up on his own. He is merely responding to the false claim of Climate Alarmists that “violent weather events are becoming more extreme”. Pretty hard to dismiss a false claim without mentioning the claim one is dismissing.

  30. When Climate Science became corrupted, that was bad enough, but now the politics and economics have become corrupted too. The Stern report and various other documents laid out a way of addressing the issue by looking at future costs of climate change and present costs of avoiding those future costs. We can argue about future costs, the discount rates etc. but at least it makes sense as an approach.

    In the last few months we have had legions of the ignorant and ill-educated stepping up to say we should simply spend whatever it costs to stop any kin of change. That is truly mad, truly irresponsible and will truly make us much, much poorer. There is no no balance, no reason in the debate. The need to avoid going above an arbitrary temperature based on an unrealistic model is driving economic decisions. This is I am afraid madness.

  31. When they live their beliefs, and move into a non carbon producing cave, I’ll consider their point of view. Until then, utter nonsense.

  32. Straw man parade never gets old I suppose.

    Why not get more creative, given the endless repetition of lore? Why not spice up the myths?

    “In real science, innocent children are not traded on the black market to be fed to computer algorithms, as is common in climate science.”

    Time to up the outrage factor?

    • Time to up the outrage factor?

      What and start acting like your side (aka the climate alarmist side)? no thanks, we’ll leave that kind of scummy behavior to your heroes.

    • Please list the strawmen, and why you consider them to be strawmen.
      If you can’t, or refuse to, that will say all that needs to be said about your integrity.

      • Hmmm, I see no list of strawmen. But I’m sure Geoff is busily writing it up as I speak and will be posting it shortly /sarc

  33. “If no person is illegal, then”… the people who proclaim that should remove the locks from the doors of their houses and cars. That uninvited homeless person sleeping in your bed? He’s not illegal, “he’s your brother”.

    Let the homeless break in and squat in every house that proclaims “no person is illegal”, and see how quickly the owners call the police to evict the “undocumented resident”. 😉

    • Countries have sovereignty which is why you need passports and visa to enter them, and it is illegal to enter them without such permission. Countries that sign up to the UN treaty allowed you to seek refugee status but that is not a right of entry.

      Specifically what the UN refugee treaty says is a “refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom” it says nothing about the country itself having to take them in.

      So yes refugees that simply cross a border can be illegal if they do not follow the laws of the country they enter. They do not have to be given right to live in the country they enter. There is also no such thing as an economic refugee or climate refugee they are not a listed class in the agreement.

      Perhaps everyone should read what the UN agreement actually says
      https://www.unhcr.org/1951-refugee-convention.html

  34. Well we live in a world where the #1 box office movie of all time is essentially a cinematic recreation of children playing superhero in the backyard, one upping each other with whatever ridiculous power they can think of to react to what their friends just came up with, so what do you expect.

  35. The simple solution to change minds is to cut off their electricity. “I’m sorrreeeeee!!” is the universal refrain.

  36. So many posts on WUWT include some version of:
    “The ultimate purpose of all this, of course, is to … ensure that the only debate is over which actions to take first to end fossil fuel use … and upend modern economies.”

    That is quite true, but putting it that way plays into enemy hands. And AGWers are ENEMIES of all life on Earth, because life begins with carbon dioxide. They pretend the opposite, and that a trillion dollars of economic damage is “doing nothing.” They are as economically illiterate as they are science illiterate.

    But we need to reframe the “debate” into one about the well-being of life.

    • I had an argument with someone that truly believes we need to not only stop CO2 emissions, but remove existing CO2 also. He had no idea about photosynthesis or how we are all here present on this earth due to CO2 and photosynthesis. I am afraid that many, many of our children have been indoctrinated to the point that they believe CO2 is poison and should be totally eliminated. May God help us all.

  37. Every city on earth changes the climate as compared to what was there before. This has nothing to do with CO2, it has to do with replacing a natural environment with an artificial environment. This isn’t just temperature. It affects solar absorption/reflection, wind patterns, humidity, rainfall, snowfall, etc.

    And as the city grows in size, everyone in the city experiences climate change. A much greater climate change than what the IPCC predicts for CO2. And cities are growing.

    The intellectual dishonesty in Climate Science is to downplay the local effects. But it is the local effects that people experience. Global averages are by and large meaningless, because no one experiences the global average.

  38. What a piece of junk. The writer is quick to reject every scientific evidence about climate change but has no qualm about believing that the sun is the primary factor for climate change. There are many scientific literature that studies the solar cycle but there are no clear evidence to show a close relationship with increasing global temperature.

    The sun is in a solar minimum. Yet global temperature remain high.

    The hypothesis that more co2 is good cannot hold when the writer chose not to believe that co2 do not result in warming.
    Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths. These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

    The writer tries to show that he understand the attitudes of a good scientist but contradicts himself by only choosing to believe in what he want to believe in, ignoring the lack of clear evidence in those theories that he chose to believe in.

    • KBK –> Why do you think that temperatures should change so rapidly? Don’t you realize that the oceans hold tremendous amounts of heat. They act as a flywheel on temperature. What the sun does today won’t be felt for years.

    • “Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths. These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.”

      Nope, all measurements at the surface (starting with Gero/Turner 2011) show the total IR is not increasing. Sorry you were so easy to fool by the propagandists.

    • What is this mythical “evidence about climate change” that has your panties in such a knot?

    • Koh Bock Keat – April 29, 2019 at 1:35 pm

      The hypothesis that more co2 is good cannot hold when the writer chose not to believe that co2 do not result in warming.
      Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths. These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

      Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases.

      Koh Bock Keat, why do you keep SWITCHING back n’ forth between the ….. warming effects of CO2 ………. and the thermal energy radiation of greenhouse gases?

      Water (H2O) vapor is an extremely more powerful GHG than CO2, ….. and, … on average, there is 75X more water (H2O) vapor in the atmosphere than there is CO2 (34,000 ppm verses 405 ppm)

      S, Ko Bo, …… just when are your favorite scientists gonna measure the influence of water (H2O) vapor on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation?

      Will it be sometime this Century, …… or the next one?

  39. Paul, you were close when you said: “If debate, skepticism and empirical evidence are prohibited – it’s pseudo-science, at best.

    Using current terminology, that should probably now be stated as:

    If debate, skepticism and empirical evidence are prohibited – it is FAKE SCIENCE.

    • There are approximately 140 million pages of online blog / commentary / tweets / web pages dedicated to the prospect of “debating” scientific evidence on climate. The fact that it isn’t debated well doesn’t prove that “debate is prohibited”. Activism in this area seems deeply fueled by persecution obsessions.

      • That information probably doesn’t reach 1% of the population. Yet, for some reason you felt the need to make your silly comment.

      • Try having a letter critical of the AGW religion printed in just about any major newspaper.
        Try getting a documentary detailing the flaws of AGW and the general circulation models aired on any major broadcaster.

        If you think a blog page is the equivalent of ABC/CBS/NBC/NPR, then you are either a fool or a liar.
        I leave it to you to let us know which category you fall into.

        • Heck try being a skeptic on air in studio at the same time as an alarmist, let alone have a conversation between the two. Just ask Gavin Schmitt how that works.

  40. Science is never “settled”. Any scientist who claims it is needs to have his credentials revoked.

  41. Where is the evidence that CO2 does what it is claimed to do by the green blob? Is it in text books? Is it in peer reviewed literature? Is it in The Bible? The Koran? The Torah? A political party manifesto?

    All we have had up to now is a paper by Feldman et al (2015), “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010”

    http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

    which Berkeley Lab claimed to be “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface”

    https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

    which it wasn’t, of course. We are still waiting for that piece of fantasy science.

  42. “it’s pseudo-science, at best.”
    ==================
    Pseudoscience is the search for positive examples. Real Science is the search for negative examples. Pseudoscience is proven if lots of positive examples are found. Real Science is proven if no negative examples are found.

    This is the difference between Pseudoscience and Real Science. In Pseudoscience you receive money to find examples where rain is wet, leading to the conclusion that rain is water. In Real Science you receive money to find examples where rain is not water, leading to the conclusion that rain may be water or frogs or ….

    Pseudoscience can’t handle the case where it rains frogs, because it only looked at one side of the story. Climate science has the same problem. It only looks at human causes and has no idea of how much climate changes naturally. As a result, after 30+ years and hundreds of billions of dollars, we have made no progress in determining CO2 sensitivity.

    And because of this, no one can reliably predict what effect CO2 policies will have on climate. It could all be an enormous waste of money. The solution is not to spend the money on the change that it might be true. Rather, spend the money on determining if it might be false. This has not been done.

  43. Just curious…

    Did that $2 million house have a fence? Are they going to welcome illegals in? Perhaps a few Guatemalan caravan types or a couple of young Islamic ‘refugees’?

    Ut would be quite normal for the true believers to proclaim such things from inside the safety of their alarmed and fortified house.

  44. The above is true, however, there is nothing new in it.

    There is nothing in the above to stop the constant fighting left against everything logical that threats their ideological red lines, as everything to them has become political.

    We need a new subject. Something that has legs, something that is meaningful, purposeful, intellectually interesting to both left and right.

    Ignore the fact that there is no CAGW.

    The left has amped up CAGW to the point, that they advocate forced spending on ‘green’ wind and solar ignoring reality.

    ‘Green’ wind and solar energy is fundamentally limited due to basic engineering reasons. It is physically impossible to substantially reduce human emission with that scheme.

    The only scheme that significantly reduces human CO2 emission is fission.

    There is a ‘new’ liquid fuel (molten salt) fission reactor that is six times more fuel efficient than a pressure water reactor, that can be mass produced as it simple, compact, and operates at atmospheric pressure, that produces heat at 600C which opens up trillions of dollars of heat industrial applications, that has no catastrophic failure modes, and that is roughly 1/3th to 1/5th the cost of a pressure water reactor is the subject to get a dialog started with the thinking left.

    • *rollseyes*. While I give you credit for a willingness to respond to replies (unlike kent who also endlesly bangs the same drum), we’ve been over this before. You are hyping vaporware (and yes it *is* vaporware as long as a commercial operation remains perpetually “a few years” away). We’ve been hearing about this “great” “new” liquid fuel for *years* now and yet there still is no commercially operating reactor to compare the hype to the reality with and there won’t be for a “few years” yet (which is the same story we’ve been hearing for *many* years now) As great as it sounds on paper and as much as I’d love to see it come to fruition, there’s no point banging the drum until there’s something real to bang the drum about and currently there isn’t and won’t be until the first commercial operation goes online (whenever the hell that ends up being).

  45. “you can’t stop continental drift, any more than you stop climate change”

    Hey now there’s an idea!

    !$!$!$!

    Thanks Paul

Comments are closed.