Reposted from Awesome Weather Facts Blog
Thursday, May 30, 2019
Disclaimer: Both of us appreciate the fact that the media exists to spread useful information around to people on a daily basis. However, when there is bias and poorly conducted journalism, it needs to be addressed seriously.
Introduction
Time and time again, media outlets and our elected officials misrepresent various social, economic, and/or environmental issues in order to boost their ratings, gain political power, and/or create mayhem and hysteria among their viewers and constituents, respectively. The climate change debate is no exception, as the issue is constantly conveyed to the public eye as a ‘crisis,’¹ (Figure 1) when in fact, good scientific analysis and data say otherwise. H.L. Mencken said it best; “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”² If one can exercise power, then that person has the ability to control you through your actions.
Agree to Disagree
While many people have the perception that there isn’t any common ground on climate change, this simply isn’t true. Dr. Judith Curry, a climatologist noted that there are a few key things most ‘skeptics’ and ‘alarmists’ agree on.³
- Global average temperatures are warmer than they were 100 years ago.
- Man-made fossil fuel combustion has contributed more or less to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
- Greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide and water vapor should cause some warming.
However, there is widespread disagreement and differing opinions on these two things…
- How much warming we have seen is or isn’t a result from man-made processes (including urbanization and land use) and what exactly causes the climate to change.
- How much more warming, if any we will see observe century (considering lower tropospheric temperatures have plateaued since the very strong El Niño of 1998) (Figure 2).⁴
Disagreement is actually good for science because it opens the door to new ideas, debate, and research. Without debate, advances in science would simply not occur.
Name-Calling Tactics
One of our biggest pet peeves in the entire climate change debate is the constant use of name-calling, and this name-calling primarily comes from those on who preach AGW. If you’re skeptical of the ‘climate crisis,’ you’re shunned and labeled as a ‘climate [change] denier.’ This use of name calling is not only unreasonable, but it also couldn’t be further from the truth. Nobody I have ever met or talked to denies the fact climate change itself exists in natural form. Climate has been in a state of constant change for 4.5 billion years, and it will continue to do so in the future. Even those who have openly stated that global warming is the biggest scam and hoax ever, such as Donald Trump (Figure 3),⁵ don’t really deny climate change – they’re usually just referring to anthropogenic climate change.
Misleading Information From the MSM and Politicians
Mother Jones, a generally left-leaning news website apparently had nothing better to do with their website’s bandwidth, than compile a list of every single one of President Trump’s Tweets mentioning “global warming” or “climate change,” calling them “insane” (Figure 4).⁵
In all fairness, Mother Jones should have also done an op-ed on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘tornado rant’ on Instagram last Thursday, May 23. What she said on her story made her “end of the world”⁶ claim believable… (just a joke, don’t take me seriously).
https://youtu.be/oHk8nn0nw18
1. AOC Has A Tornado Rant About Tornadoes
Last week, Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez took to her Instagram story (Figure 5) stating that tornadoes are getting worse due to climate change; “The climate crisis is real y’all… guess we’re at casual tornadoes in growing regions of the country?”⁷ ⁸
First and foremost, tornadoes are not casual. Most tornadoes are spawned from highly organized thunderstorms known as supercells, and as a matter of fact, most thunderstorms don’t even produce them (see the tropics for instance).⁹ ¹⁰ As Dr. Roy Spencer of UAH and Joe Bastardi of Weather Bell Analytics have been saying for years,¹⁰ ¹¹ one of the key components of tornado outbreaks are the ‘clashing’ of warm and cool air masses. When there is a lack of ‘clashing’ – as such has been the case in recent decades¹² (Figure 6) due to predominately warmer springs – tornado outbreaks and thus violent tornadoes (EF4-EF5) become more infrequent.
Because of the lack of clashing, wind shear is inhibited, which would otherwise be vital for tornadogenesis.¹⁰ The end result of this setup is a decrease in violent tornadoes, which has indeed been observed over the past 69 years.¹³ In fact, last year was the first year on record with no violent tornadoes (Figure 7). This totally destroys AOC’s theory.
2. The New York Times Ignores Weather History
Two summers ago, The New York Times stated¹⁴ (Figure 8) that extremely hot summers are becoming increasingly common, and that it’s not our “imaginations.” They say, “Extraordinary hot summers – the kind that were virtually unheard-of in the 1950s – have become commonplace. Had the authors of that piece done any actual research, then they would have known that summertime temperatures used to be much hotter in the U.S. prior to the 1980s. Raw NOAA data¹⁵ shows that the percent of days above 90, 95, and 100°F have been plummeting for over 100 years, and the 1920s, 1930s, and 1950s, without a doubt, had the worst summers on record in the U.S.
3. The Des Moines Register and Elizabeth Warren Fail to Address Iowa Flooding Seriously
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a Democrat running for President in 2020, visited Iowa this past spring to address the flooding that was widespread across the state.¹⁶ She stated, “I’m very worried about seeing the floods again. Climate change is real, the problem is urgent and we are running out of time.”¹⁶
The entire problem with her statement is that recent flooding in Iowa had nothing to do with climate change. In fact, it was ‘just the weather.’
February, March, and April of this year were among the coldest on record across the western 2/3 of the U.S., especially the Northern Plains.¹⁷ Temperature departures from normal were a good three to six degrees below average in Iowa, which meant that the ground was frozen from both the winter and first half of spring.¹⁸ With the two large storm systems that rolled through the region in March and April dropping a nice, solid snowfall and rain, the combination of a frozen ground and melting snow meant that the water had nowhere to run off to, thus creating the flooding.¹⁸
In Summary…
In each scenario shown above, it is clearly evident that both journalists at media outlets and politicians alike have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to climate science, simply because they are too ignorant to look back at the past and look at statistical data that derails their train. And perhaps they purposefully don’t look at the data in order to gain power and control over the American people.
These politicians are trying to implement policies that would put intense regulations on fossil fuel companies and the American people. If they can implement these policies, then that’s one more thing they can control. While I’m all for renewable energy (if it were to be sustainable and effective), fossil fuels are our ‘way of life.’ Without them, we’d suffer consequences far greater than has ever been known to man.
It’s important we educate the youth about the non-mainstream view of climate change, because our weather history and actual statistics are important for not only setting the record straight, but for our country’s well being.
REFERENCES
[1] Sullivan, Kate. “Bernie Sanders says climate change is an ‘existential crisis.'” CNN. February 25, 2019. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/politics/bernie-sanders-climate-change-existential-crisis/index.html.
[2] Mencken, H.L. “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” BrainyQuote. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/h_l_mencken_143263.
[3] Steele, Jim. “Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. Patrick Moore demolish Michael Mann in climate debate!” A Walk on the Natural Side. June 12, 2019. Accessed May 30, 2019. http://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2018/06/dr-judith-currys-debates-climate-change.html.
[4] “UAH Version 6.0 with Trendline.” Wood for Trees. Accessed May 30, 2019. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/trend.
[5] Schulman, Jeremy. “Every Insane Thing Donald Trump Has Said About Global Warming.” Mother Jones. December 12, 2018. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/12/trump-climate-timeline/.
[6] Shorts, TheDC. YouTube. January 22, 2019. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHk8nn0nw18.
[7] Fredericks, Bob. “Meteorologist takes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to task about climate change message.” The New York Post. May 24, 2019. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://nypost.com/2019/05/24/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-chided-by-dc-meteorologist-about-climate-change-message/.
[8] Bastasch, Michael. “‘It’s Just the Weather’: Meteorologist Fact-Checks Ocasio-Cortez on Climate Change.” The Daily Caller. May 23, 2019. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/23/ocasio-cortez-weather-fact-check/.
[9] “Thunderstorm Hazards – Tornadoes.” National Weather Service – JetStream. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/tornado.
[10] Bastardi, Joe. “Some cold hard facts on tornado activity.” CFACT. May 23, 2019. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://www.cfact.org/2019/05/23/some-cold-hard-facts-on-tornado-activity/.
[11] Spencer, Roy. “Roy Spencer: Why so many tornadoes this year? It’s not what AOC, Bernie Sanders (or maybe even you) think.” FOX News. May 29, 2019. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/roy-spencer-tornadoes-ohio-ocasio-cortez-sanders.
[12] ERSL : PSD : US Climate Division Maps. March to May 2008-2018. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/usclimdivs/climdiv.pl?variab=Temperature&type=1&base=8&mon1=3&mon2=5&iy%5B1%5D=&iy%5B2%5D=&iy%5B3%5D=&iy%5B4%5D=&iy%5B5%5D=&iy%5B6%5D=&iy%5B7%5D=&iy%5B8%5D=&iy%5B9%5D=&iy%5B10%5D=&iy%5B11%5D=&iy%5B12%5D=&iy%5B13%5D=&iy%5B14%5D=&iy%5B15%5D=&iy%5B16%5D=&iy%5B17%5D=&iy%5B18%5D=&iy%5B19%5D=&iy%5B20%5D=&irange1=2008&irange2=2018&xlow=&xhi=&xint=&iunits=1&scale=100&iwhite=1&iswitch=0&Submit=Create+Plot.
[13] Livingston, Ian. “2018 will be the first year with no violent tornadoes in the United States.” The Washington Post. December 26, 2018. May 30, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2018/12/26/will-be-first-year-with-no-violent-tornadoes-united-states/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8eb032ca52a1.
[14] Popovich, Nadja and Pearce, Adam. “It’s Not Your Imagination. Summers Are Getting Hotter.” The New York Times. July 28, 2017. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/28/climate/more-frequent-extreme-summer-heat.html.
[15] Heller, Tony. “UNHIDING THE DECLINE FOR WINDOWS.” The Deplorable Climate Science Blog. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://realclimatescience.com/unhiding-the-decline-for-windows/.
[16] Norvell, Kim. “Farmers should be part of the solution to climate change, Elizabeth Warren says in Iowa.” Des Moines Register. May 3, 2019. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2019/05/03/iowa-caucus-election-2020-elizabeth-warren-climate-change-farmers-flooding-missouri-river/1094532001/.
[17] ACIS Climate Maps. High Plains Regional Climate Center. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://hprcc.unl.edu/maps.php?map=ACISClimateMaps.
[18] Hassan, Adeel. “Why Is There Flooding in Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa and Wisconsin?” The New York Times. May 18, 2019. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/us/nebraska-flooding-facts.html.
Posted by Chris Martz Weather at
4:41 AM
Very good and very true
Thank you!
Except… points of agreement: point 1 is the only correct statement.
Point 2, man-made fossil fuel combustion (a strange phrase, when you analyse it) has risen exponentially, yet atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen more or less linearly, for over 150 years.
Point 3 – why? Unless you believe that the “greenhouse effect” is real, and “greenhouse gases” have any influence; please show the scientific evidence for this.
CO2 absorbs energy in a region that the earth emits.
That’s all the evidence you need.
Please. Which came first, the CO2 or the temperature? Do you blame the minuscule amount of man made CO2 vs. the huge (comparitively) amount outgassing from a warming ocean? I guess I would like more evidence…
Again, look to history DayHay, the 140,000 year Antarctic ice core sample shows unequivocally that to the extent CO2 and temps. are correlated….global temps. always precede CO2 levels. That obviously fits with your point that water vapour is the greatest cause of CO2 saturations in the atmosphere.
That’s not evidence. That’s only one side of the picture. Now tell us how CO2 deals with this absorbed energy? Absorbing does not mean trapping or heating or slowing or delaying.
One CO2’s “absorbing”, among over two thousand molecules, will maybe jiggle a bit and give up its energy to all those other molecules. Think about that — a jiggle in over two thousand other molecules — is there really any heating there? (RELATED QUESTION: Does an ant pissing in a fire-hose stream make any difference?)
>>All the evidence you need.
That does not prove that CO2 is causal. Warming could equally be caused by industrial dust settling on Arctic ice sheets, which can then absorb five times as much insolation. And that is a lot of extra energy entering the atmosphere.
Do an image search for “Arctic dark or black ice”. So what is your proof that CO2 is causing warming, rather than ice-albedo?
R
Mark was being sarcastic.
I wonder if any of the 3 statements are true. I don’t know of any long-term temperature records that are original or have not been been corrupted by manipulations.
If there are, can anyone point them out to us and document that they are original and not corrupted?
Tony Heller has now documented that some of the supposedly raw data sets have now been altered, although it remains unclear to what extent this is the case.
One thing is for sure: When the people responsible for collecting, storing, and disseminating both present day and historical records and data have proven themselves to be not merely duplicitous and untrustworthy, ideologically motivated, given to holding tight to speculative ideas, secretive and unforthcoming, and frequently just plain wrong…not just those things, no… but also spiteful and egotistical liars and not even very smart, anyone who places any confidence in what they say about the records they have been in charge of is on very shaky ground at best.
Having said that, there are local records and data bases that seem to be in original condition, and people who have stored copies of the data sets that consist of collections of these local daily records.
Plus we have historical accounts from print and video media, and sites that have stored digital copies of vast collections of old newspapers from many and various locations around the world.
It has occurred to me that someone could go into these stored newspaper records and collect out the daily weather information therein. Most newspapers have and still do contain daily records of not just local weather information, forecasts, and previous day data (often hourly temperature, wind, and humidity figures), but also daily national and international temperatures for yesterday and the coming day.
It would be a large undertaking, but this info, if stored as digital copies of photographs of the newspapers, would represent a huge store of info which is virtually guaranteed to be unaltered.
In fact, if enough of these which contain hourly logs of the previous day can be found and looked at, an assessment can be made as to the accuracy of the method of using high and low temp to get a single daily average. If humidity information on an hourly basis is also present, one might even attempt to get information that represents not just temperature, but actual energy content of the air.
Actually, media ratings have tanked like never before, so that’s clearly not a motive.
I believe it was a motive. It just didn’t work.
In the UK proper journalism died out decades ago and the current bunch of politicians are the most ignorant and incompetent we have ever suffered. The two go hand in hand since they feed off each other in a bubble and has resulted in a case of a politician lying being taken to court. In the past the journalists would have exposed the lie and humiliated the liar, so acting as a mechanism to deter the lies. Not so today.
Oh yeah? I’ll put up US journalism as at least as ignorant and incompetent as UK’s.
Yep. All Out Crazy. But we have the Abbopotomus.
“One of our biggest pet peeves in the entire climate change debate is the constant use of name-calling, and this name-calling primarily comes from those on who preach AGW. If you’re skeptical of the ‘climate crisis,’ you’re shunned and labeled as a ‘climate [change] denier.’ This use of name calling is not only unreasonable, but it also couldn’t be further from the truth. Nobody I have ever met or talked to denies the fact climate change itself exists in natural form. Climate has been in a state of constant change for 4.5 billion years, and it will continue to do so in the future. Even those who have openly stated that global warming is the biggest scam and hoax ever, such as Donald Trump (Figure 3),⁵ don’t really deny climate change – they’re usually just referring to anthropogenic climate change.”
1. You gave a charitible interpretation to Trumps meaning. When he says “climate change’ is a hoax
he means, AGW is a hoax.
2. You refused to give the same option to folks who call you a climate change denier.
Here is a clue
A) When trump says “climate change” he means AGW
B) When X calls you a climate change denier he means AGW denier. or anthropogenic climate change
denier
Stop playing the silly game.
No believer in AGW means merely “climate change” when they call you a clmate change denier
they mean ACC denier. After all they dont call it the IPACC and it was set up to investigate
ACC not natural climate change.
It would be nice were it so- that only AGW “believers” (faith?) call anyone a denier. Truth is, they manufacture “climate change” from weather and that is the foundation of their belief. per the article. Not very scientific especially since no one to date has quantified AWG and that is the real issue. It is everywhere from all warming to some warming cause by humans.
Our local mostly liberal newspapers continue to have articles on “climate change” when it is only weather. That is what this post says very nicely. In essence, the AGW “believers” count all weather as climate when it suits them. While any more stringent research would show that it has happened before. The world of climate and weather did exist before 1978 and it is astonishingly cyclic.
Worse yet, large segments of the press, political bodies and public now conflate climate and climate change with weather, screaming about climate change and referring to commonplace and ever-present storms and weather related events.
While some of this has been occurring for some time, at this point it has been raised to an absurd and hysterical level.
Some people clearly know better, but speak in this manner anyway, since they know they can get away with it, and will not be called out. But at least some are just as clearly so incredibly ignorant and misinformed that they actually do not know that what they are saying is not even semantically correct. Climate is not weather, and climate change does not mean severe weather. It is incredible that this even needs to be said, and yet it does.
On at least one level, we might take this as good news: Level-headed and rational people know that weather is not climate, know that storms and severe weather and dramatic weather related events have always occurred.
I think that we need to be very forceful in calling attention to the fact that severe weather events are not becoming worse over time, that the frequency of such is not increasing, and that there is literally nothing unprecedented occurring with regard to the weather, nor is the climate changing, to the extent the long term averages are doing so, any more rapidly than historical norms, and that such change is not occurring unidirectionally.
There is no place on Earth that is warmer than ever. No place where storms are worse then ever. No place where the frequency of droughts, floods, heat waves, cold snaps, fires, or anything else, are worse or more frequent than ever.
We live in an age of unrelenting hysteria, with elected officials making inane statements such as that a flooded floodplain in Spring is event from which that area will never recover, mentally ill children are invited to stand before national legislatures to tell adults how to run our lives and economies, and are exalted with high praise for their insight by callow morons who think doomsday prophesizing is astute scientific reasoning.
You conveniently left off the “C” in CAGW. Typical. Without the “C” there is no argument, and no climate war. If all we know is that man has possibly contributed some to the warming, then there is no “crisis”, no “emergency”, and actually no reason for us to “act” (even if action made a difference), other than to do what we would and should do anyway; adapt.
Impending doom or Catastrophe is implied in the language of the alarmist. Everybody should know that “Global Warm…ahhh we really meant Climate Change all along” is going to kill Mother Earth and in turn all the Children of the Earth. We all need to turn our energy needs over to the High Priests in Government in order to save us from ourselves. It is in GAIA they place their faith and you, Bruce, need to be burned at the stake for your heresy.
The word ‘denier’ is used to conflate skeptics with holocaust deniers. It’s pure propaganda. It’s intended to promote hate and revulsion against skeptics.
If we’re being completely fair, the word ‘denier’ applies more correctly against those who deny natural variability. Dr. Mann comes to mind. His hockey stick implies a thousand years with little natural climate change.
No, he means CATASTROPHIC climate change is a hoax.
More specifically, he means that alarmists and politicians pushing idiotic policies that would ruin our economy with demonstrably little or no impact on “climate”, while allowing India and China use of fossil fuels until 2030, are perpetrating a hoax.
What he said.
It is even more inane than that: Even in the places where these policies are in effect, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent on endless studies and useless RE devices, very little, and in some cases zero, reduction in emissions has resulted.
Scandalous wasting of taxpayer dollars has achieved little more than raise the price of power several times over, and done so while causing very real and possibly irreversible damage to wildlife, ecosystems, resource supplies, and quality of life.
Absolutely right CommieBob. Denier is an ugly word, purposely chosen to be insulting and to equate honest climate skepticism with holocaust deniers.
The better term is “climate contrarian.” “Contrarian” has enough negative connotations (e.g., crank) to satisfy warmists.
There is really no defense for the name calling, Mr. Mosher. Saying “What they really mean is…” is admitting that they aren’t saying what they really mean. It is admitting that they are intentionally lying. They don’t even believe what they are saying! Yet they say it over and over again for a very clear reason. It is an attack on those who disagree with them. It is not a reasoned argument. It is a complete misrepresentation of their opponents position (lie). It is childish and irresponsible.
Would you be placated if I explained that when Donald Trump called climate change a hoax that he really meant something that you agreed with? No, of course not. He called it a hoax. That’s what he did. And when we are called climate change deniers (akin to holocaust deniers), we are being intentionally slandered. It says a lot about you that you would try to defend name-calling as perfectly acceptable in an important debate on science and policy.
I would point out that this is exactly what Steven Mosher, Nick Stokes, and the rest of their ilk have spent many long years and tireless hours doing, virtually nonstop.
In Mosher’s case, it is particularly galling, given that he spends the balance of his time spewing demeaning insults on anyone who he disagrees with.
Steven Mosher is, afaik, an English graduate. As such he will know the power of language especially when used for propaganda purposes. The fact that ‘Global Warming’ has morphed through many descriptors to ‘Climate Change’ (and there is more to come) is not accidental, and Steven Mosher knows this: He gets two bites of the alarmist’s cherry – by endorsing the corruption of language and then by excusing it in a patronising explanation in order to win (cheap) debating points.
How ’bout the “snipping” and censoring?
I deny nothing. I reject that the IPCC has the legitimacy to establish what is and what is not climate science by virtue of what they publish in their reports. I reject the IPCC’s wildly over-estimated climate sensitivity that requires the next W/m^2 to be many times more powerful at warming the surface than the average W/m^2, despite the obvious fact that the climate can not tell one W/m^2 from any other.
The ‘denier’ attribute is only applied by alarmists to skeptics because legitimate science disputes their position and the only support they have is rhetoric and name calling. As I see it, alarmists are like children throwing a temper tantrum because Trump won’t let them lie cheat and steal to get their way.
The hoax is the drumbeat of alarmism.
Well said!!
The key issue is the belief in the Precautionary principle. The idea that this issue (or any issue) is so catastrophic and imminently irreversible that we cannot afford to wait for any evidence that the idea is not just wrong.
It’s quite probable that climate sensitivity to GHGs is very low. Natural variations fit just as well with the observations as unnatural Doomsday scenarios.
But so long as Realists ask for evidence and Alarmists ask for action the debate will always be acrimonious. There cannot be agreement.
It is hard to pinpoint exactly what is key.
I have seen no reason to think warming is in any way bad for life or for people, whether or not it is warming, where it may be doing so, or by how much.
The base premise is that warming is harmful.
Get rid of this demonstrably false premise, and the entire debate becomes academic at most, and a case of worrying about the exact wrong thing at worst.
Nicholas +1
Mosh.
This post is not a silly game,
You and Stokes know that the USA had hotter temperatures in the 1930’s than recent .
You both know that tornadoes are trending less from the 1970’s to none last year.
You know that hurricanes are on a downward trend .
You both know that the world was warmer in the MWP than it is now .
If you refuse to accept these facts then are you not then deniers of history .
You both know that the Vikings farmed in Greenland 800 years ago but that is not possible now.
The news media and politicians through out the world seize on every heat wave every flood , every drought and every bout of harsh weather to hammer home the CAGW story .
I am proud to be a CAGW skeptic as the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is at this time an unproven .
As the post states we do not deny that man has an effect on climate , being urbanization and land use change and that the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause some mild warming ( less than one degree Celsius )
The labeling of the threat of increasing CO2 as a “Climate Emergency ” and “Climate Extinction” is nothing but propaganda to take political control.
The scarier the better ,they dramatize the danger and every one will fall in line .
Yeah but models…
Considering the totality of the way these two post, it is hard to see them as anything other than apologists for the CAGW alarmist industry.
Impossible, really.
They fervently defend the indefensible, make ridiculous arguments to support the CAGW narrative, ridicule skeptics at every opportunity…
Their willingness to make what are oftentimes ludicrous arguments, and to do so doggedly and persistently, their devotion and attention to making sure they weigh in with astounding regularity, the reliability with which they can be counted on to appear whenever certain subjects or arguments appear, their apparently limitless amounts of time they have available to spend doing so, and the years long interval over which they have maintained the above, are virtually inexplicable…absent some concrete incentive, financial or otherwise, to doing so.
“and that the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause some mild warming ( less than one degree Celsius )”
Still giving their pet hypothesis too much credit; that would ONLY be true IF “ALL OTHER THINGS” were “HELD EQUAL,” meaning that the hypothetical warming only exists where the CO2 level in the atmosphere doubles but everything else remains constant.
In the real world, the “other things” are NOT “held equal,” the “feedbacks” are negative (just look at climate history for the lack of amplification of even much higher CO2 levels on temperature and even anti-correlation of temperature vs. CO2 levels, and the long periods of relative climate stability, none of which could occur in a climate typified by positive feedbacks), and the ACTUAL (as opposed to HYPOTHETICAL) effect of CO2 on temperature is essentially NIL.
“No believer in AGW means merely “climate change” when they call you a clmate change denier, they mean ACC denier.”
Of course. I’m annoyed at our side’s deliberate obtuseness about this matter. It’s not even clever anymore, if it ever was.
No, they mean a lot of things, and the people using this terminology are hardly monolithic.
This is a fight. A battle. People are being attacked, in many very real senses and aspects.
People lose jobs, become hounded by legions of attack dogs on social media, get doxed, attacked by mobs, have careers ruined and reputations torn to shreds and their research defunded, find it impossible to get hard work published, and all manner of other actual harms, from the physical to the financial and emotional and psychological.
This is costing us all money, actual hard earned dollars in increased costs for things, based on what many are certain is nothing but a pack of lies.
And the liars use language to do a lot of their attacking.
Language like calling people deniers, saying they deny science, deny climate change, deny climate, hate children, deny reality.
You may know what you mean and what you hear when someone says these things, but if it is different than the words used, that is your brain interpreting those words according to your sensibilities and beliefs.
Because what they say is what they said, not what you choose to hear, Roger Knight.
When people are accused of denying science, they are not being told that their beliefs of catastrophic global warming may be mistaken. It is not some passing annoyance when all of the people running for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES are on record as calling for gigantic expenditures upwards of $100 trillion dollars, along with mandating government control of virtually every aspect of our lives and our futures!
I am not annoyed at your obtuseness Roger Knight, I am outraged at you imbecility and condescension on what is the most consequential issue of our time: A massive scheme to grab power and money from each and every person on the planet who has any, and to rob us all of the future we want and could otherwise expect!
”B) When X calls you a climate change denier he means AGW denier. or anthropogenic climate change
denier ”
No. What they mean is that you do not believe in SCIENCE. That is about the limit of their understanding. I know this because I listen to them almost daily.
Science does not require belief. Just reason and information. The warmists just made up another vengeful sky fairy to scare the sheeple.
IPACC was already taken at least three times. You (Mr. Mosher) are likely unfamiliar with the first two.
You (Steven) are likely unfamiliar with the insurance company (but it doesn’t really count as it was created in 2002).
You are also likely unfamiliar with The Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee; it is associated with the UN, so using IPACC would not have been a good option.
And perhaps they purposefully don’t look at the data in order to gain power and control over the American people.
If you apply the Duck Test, that’s what it looks like.
Pressure changes causing the vortex to head south, was followed by sudden intense tornado increase in the 70s, around 1975, was a year of an intense increase.
Recent history, we have the vortex heading south, and again an anomalous sudden intense Tornado year.
Cold air.. when conditions are right, and it’s rare they are (for such intensity of the T season), there is a sudden intense increase.
Blaming any of it on AGW is just plain silly.
A tornado drove the English out of Washington; Tornadoes are more American than AOC.
LOL! That’s funny, and yes, you’re right. A tornado did touch down in D.C. during the war of 1812. I remember watching it on the History Channel.
AOC says you are a liar. Not only was the History Channel not on in 1812, TV wasn’t invented until the 20th century and besides, people don’t live that long.
Re. Steven, 2 June. So how do the “Warmers come CC crowd”
manage to separate “Normal “” climate change” from the Man made
variety ?
Second point, while I accept the sensational reporting by the Media as a
means of filing in the blank pages, or the unfilled TV time, why do the
Demotractic politicians go along with it.
Is it just a case of “”Whatever it takes”” to get into office, in which case one
would think that upon attaining office it shoaled be in their interest to have
a strong economy running. Including the use of fossil fuel rather than the unrealisable windmills an solar.
Or are they simply a part of the movement to first destroy the economy,
then in the guise of saviours will promise to “”Save us” if only we will
accept the new form of government, i.e. Communism mark two.
MJE VK5ELL
Reply: The latter.
Having worked with the news media at every level I will note that the overwhelming majority of the news media, especially the national dailies, remaining local newspapers, two cable news networks and three broadcast networks are registered Democrats and liberal to far left. Those that are not Democrats are certainly not Republicans. The Democrat Party, MSNBC and CNN are all part of the same movement. Though rumor has it that the NY Times has told its reporters and pundits not to go on either cable channel anymore. Hmmm?
Seriously, you expect the worst con artists on the planet – politicians – to give a flying whistle about reality?
That bimbo Fauxcahontas Warren went campaigning in Iowa to spout her nonsense when she has no understanding of anything related to the subject of “climate” or farming. She’s on the same level of stupidity and cupidity as AOC, who can’t tell a radish from a rutabaga (and is dumber than both of them combined) and is fake afraid of her garbage disposal. They never miss a beat, any of them.
She is a law professor with a profound ignorance and misunderstanding of basic legal issues and principles.
Knowing this, it is hardly surprising that she has no idea what she is talking about when speaking outside of her area of training.
The climate emergency is far more about imposing socialism than anything else.
I agree!
apart from birth death marriages crash reports and a rare item theres little in msm newspapers worth reading, and way many opinion pieces that people seem to take as utterly true and how they should also think
scary really.
giving up tv some 20yrs ago was the best thing I ever did;-)
Ditto. When my expensive (overpriced) TV quit on me, I disconnected myself from cable completely and have had no desire to go back since 2006.
Excerpt from article:
SO, ……. which is it, ……. fossil fuel combustion has contributed more, …. or has contributed less ……. to the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels?
Iffen they didn’t know fer shur, ……. then they shouldn’t of made mention of it.
Here’s why I said that. There are many skeptics out there who have put forth compelling evidence that suggests carbon dioxide level increases are natural due to warmer oceans releasing the CO2. Now, some skeptics and people on the AGW side of the debate say it’s a man-made increase, which I believe is more probable. Either way, CO2 levels have been boosted the atmospheric CO2 level in some way.
Chris Martz Weather – June 2, 2019 at 4:55 am
Chris Martz, thank you for your response, …… but, ….. first of all, I just hafta “gotcha” you on the fact that you did not “practice” in your above quoted comment ……. what you were “preaching” in your published article, which was, to wit:
Anyway, Chris Martz, …. you can refer to me as being a “skeptic” or ”denier” of the junk-science of CO2 causing Anthropogenic Global Warming climate change (CAGW or AGW) ……. iffen that makes you feel better and provides mental justification for your misnurtured belief in/of the aforesaid.
And ps, Chris, I am one of those “ who have put forth actual, factual, undeniable, compelling evidence” that the warming oceans are responsible for the average 1 to 2 ppm yearly increase in atmospheric CO2, ……. as well as actual, factual, undeniable, compelling evidence that the average 6 ppm biyearly cycling of atmospheric CO2, …. as denoted on this modified copy of the Keeling Curve Graph ……… is a direct result of the seasonal temperature change of the ocean waters in the Southern Hemisphere.
The literal fact is, ……. it is those who believe the pseudo-claims of CAGW that are the “skeptics” and/or ”deniers” of the actual/factual science of the natural world.
Cheers, ….. Sam C
let us not overlook the fact that it is language like this that allows a scientifically illiterate and mentally ill 15 year old child stand in front of the legislatures of entire huge countries and not only insult and condescend to, but refer to as virtual idiots, a huge number of the smartest and most accomplished scientists on the planet, including several Nobel prize winning researchers and educators.
And do so to worldwide praise and accolade, hailed around the globe as a visionary and a leader whilst orating on matters of science. Not actually saying anything factual of course, but just referring to some “climate science” she has had drilled into her starkly and woefully propaganda-susceptible young mind.
All she knows is what she has been force fed her whole life.
And her only talent is a pliable mind that can be convinced beyond doubt by pure lies, ludicrously exaggerated possibilities, and end of world doomsday fantasizing, and then repeating it back in the form of a grave warning.
And this is the language that makes it possible.
This is the language which cleverly devious charlatans with evil intent have devised to neutralize what everyone ought to know is the only mode of thinking that has ever elevated us past the ability to pick up a rock.
Nicholas Mc, ….. your above description is not inclusive to said “15 year old”, ….. but pretty much describes somewhere between 40% and 60% of the adult US population
“Poll: 43% of Americans say socialism would be a good thing for the country”
That percentage of 43% would be much, much higher for the “10 to 40-year old’s” because the Public School’s curriculum has mandated the teaching of said for the past 30 years.
College campuses are now rampant with partisan liberals promoting Socialism.
The truly frightening thing is, …… a large percentage of the US population is now promoting that which WWII with Germany and the Cold War with the USSR was fought to put a stop to.
It is distressing when one hears polling information to the effect that large numbers of people in the US (and other countries, to be sure) now answer favorably to questions regarding socialism.
However, this concern is somewhat tempered when one takes account of some facts regarding polling in general, and the question of acceptance of socialism in particular.
Specifically, I have seen the polls you make reference to, but I have also seen others that contradict this conclusion that a large plurality and possibly a majority of certain groups of the general populace embrace socialism.
For one thing, it is well known that polling is notoriously unreliable, subject to all manner of errors and manipulations.
How questions are phrased, what the lead in to the question was, how the people polled are selected, how they are contacted, the context of the polling process, and even such things as what day of the week, time of day, tone of voice of the pollster…all of these can alter the results, and not by just a little.
The motivations of the pollster are often key, and the biases of those devising the polling and doing the sampling can work their way into the results even when steps are taken to avoid this, and many take no such steps at all.
Besides for skepticism about polling results and the reportage of such, I am pretty sure that 40-60 of people are not mentally ill, at least not the degree of that unfortunate teenager. Even without resorting to the argument that what is normal regarding mentality is by definition what is found in the majority of subjects in a populace.
Being afraid of standing on the edge of a cliff is normal for people who live on the ground, but a severe mental handicap for mountain goats.
And while I agree that the average person is woefully ignorant of scientific knowledge and the general idea of the scientific method, I believe that few are so utterly convinced by global warming propaganda as Greta Thunberg is.
I think people are easily convinced that getting free stuff is a great deal for them, but few support giving up control of their lives and freedom so that other people can get something for nothing.
Our challenge is doing what we can to help ensure that people are not cowed or led down the garden path by these lunatics.
Nicholas McGinley – June 4, 2019 at 1:00 pm
Nicholas, would you say you “believed the same” ……. iffen we were discussing “Christian Religion” propaganda …… rather than “global warming” propaganda?
And iffen Greta Thunberg is actually autistic, learned disabled, or worse, …… then she was not convinced of anything, ….. because she would not be mentally capable of being emotionally convinced of much anything.
I am not partial to any organized religions, and I certainly am not in the thrall of the propaganda any of them spew. I am certain that none of thee organizations exist for any other reason than to perpetuate themselves and the scams they are running. I am even more sure that none of them speak for God, or have any sort of unique ability to know the answers to the great questions of existence.
As for Thunberg, I am not expert on autism, and have not heard anyone say she is autistic.
I have heard that she suffers from a condition called Asperger’s syndrome.
But that is not the mental illness I am referring to when I spoke of her. I was talking about such things as her belief that she can see CO2, that she knows the future, that her visions of imminent doomsday just ahead represent, in her mind, some sort of objective reality, rather than something she imagines, her belief that the only appropriate response anyone should have to her warning is to take her warnings with grave certitude of the veracity doomsday acomin’ and to immediately, one and all, go into single minded panic, which she feels is our only hope for salvation.
Although I am not sure about this last bit…she has not actually said doomsday is avoidable, jus that we must panic.
Unfortunately, if she is correct, we have no chance, being that no one who is preaching global warming alarmism has actually proposed or advocated for anything that will actually reduce the concentration of the Devil Gas in our air, or even slow emissions, let alone reduce them.
Case in point: California and Germany are two places which have apparently gone the furthest along the legislative road to actually doing something, as opposed to merely talking about doing something. But neither place accomplished anything besides costing themselves a crap load of money, raised the cost of power, and pretended they are making a difference. And even if they did succeed in reducing their own emissions to zero, it would not make any difference anyhow, since part of what they have done is simply shift emissions elsewhere, and their emissions are an insignificant fraction of the world totals in any case.
And this is the best part: Both have completely eschewed the only known way to ACTUALLY supplant fossil fuels with COI2 emission free sources of energy, which nuclear. In fact, both have taken steps to reduce and ultimately eliminate nuclear!
And both have spent a sum of money on useless wind and solar to have, had the money instead been spent on building nuclear generation capacity, accomplished their goal of zero emissions! Completely!
Irony seems too bland and mild a concept to describe this situation. And utter idiotic lunacy barely begins to describe the people responsible.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/09/11/had-they-bet-on-nuclear-not-renewables-germany-california-would-already-have-100-clean-power/#14457ea0e0d4
Sinks are overwhelming sources. Perhaps since the concentration increase is low compared to fossil emissions, Gaia is asking for more.
Gaia is asking for more? You bet she is. Returning sequestered carbon to the atmosphere in the form of CO2 is that best thing humans have ever done or will ever do for life on planet Earth.
George Carlin speculated that the reason the Earth evolved humans was because it wanted plastic. While that is funny, it is also probably close to reality, since plastic is derived from fossil fuels. It is believed the atmospheric CO2 concentrations dropped to 180 ppm during the last glaciation, a mere 30 ppm shy of the level at which most of the plant life on Earth would wither and die, collapsing the global food chain! Releasing CO2 into the atmosphere is strengthening the biosphere and has likely everted the next great extinction event!
“more or less'”
Often means “some” but not much.
Example: Mother says to her sister, “Samuel grew 2″ , more or less, last year.”
Or, Samuel says to wife: “That dress cost how much?” Wife says: “$450, more or less.”
John F., …… it simply means “obfuscation”.
The 1st example, the mother was just making a wild guess because of her ignorance. The 2nd example, the wife was intentionally obfuscating to deceive and confuse her husband.
Cheers
When using the “more or less” in a sentence it generally means an approximate amount that’s unknown or not exact in weight or volume.
An example would be that each box of cantaloupes had 10 cantaloupes and their weight was more or less 50 pounds.
The amount of Carbon Dioxide from Fossil Fuels is a calculated figure based upon the amount of CO2 in Fossil Fuels if burned to complete combustion per volume of coal, gasoline, diesel, etc. Because there’s no way to accurately measure if any Fossil Fuels are burned at complete combustion the amount of Carbon Dioxide contributed by humans is more or less unknown.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/06/02/hegerl2018/
AOC is what? 29 years old? and like many human beings she thinks that what is happening now is happening for the first time ever. People also think that having about 8 billion people on the planet can’t possibly mean more damage when nature does what nature always has done. Millions, maybe billions of words are written and spoken about climate and weather and the study of both will in no way mitigate the actuality of what happens. Adapt or die should be the way to think about the planet. We will be gone, our short lives never allowing us the ability to live with the consequences of our stupidity. We need to get over ourselves.
“….the Media and Politicians Have No Clue What They Are Doing in Climate Science …”
Oh, they have a clue all right. They know very well what they are doing. They are supporting Climate Change as a way to increase taxes and milk and control the population.
And the reason they seem so dumb is that that will be a good excuse when the whole rotten edifice falls over, and people start looking for scapegoats. They you will hear a lot of ‘Don’t blame me, I was just told things by an expert and didn’t understand any of the science…”
Problem is the MWP was probably warmer with lower CO2 levels- whole thing is a nonsense.
The Roman and Minoan warm periods were even warmer.
Not just power, but money of course is driving the CAGW lunacy from Democrats. Restructuring the energy infrastructure via government diktat and crony capitalism (subsidies, tax breaks) is a huge opportunity to make money if you (the investor) are on the “winning” side. The government needs power to force this creation of winners and losers in the economy. Obama was keen on this with his “pen and phone” unconstitutional power grab from the legislative branch.
One particular thorny “problem” (a problem for the authoritarians) here in the US is our federal constitution, which sets strong limits on what the Federal government can do, and reserving substantial power to the States and the People. Progressives of course hate that, at least when its their side controlling Washington DC. The hypocrisy was so rich and thick coming from the Democrat-socialists suddenly becoming States Rights adherents with Trump and a Republican Congress for 2017-2018 after they were decrying such things for 8 years of the Obama Maladministration.
Which of course animates the Left’s hysterics everytime they are reminded about Justice Ginsburg’s health. In that regard, there was a huge amount of “climate” money interests behind the dirty tricks the US Senate Democrats were trying to pull on Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation last September and October. The 3 way mashup of the renewable investment interests (Tom Steyer being the face of that but there are so many more), the politics the Democrats use to do their paymasters’ biddings, and a complicit media was quite the sight to behold last Fall if one was paying attention.
The Democrats are going to be desparate to undo Donald Trump’s Conservative swing of the Supreme Court. Hence their plans to Pack the Supreme Court with 4 more Liberal justices when the day comes they control Congress and the WH again. They won’t tlak much about Court Packing now, as polling shows its unpopular. But everything they want to do depends on a Supreme Court that will allow them to gut key tenets of separation of powers and States Rights. And havig a complicit media in that regard will be essential when that day comes.
What we must do between now and when that day comes when they attempt to Pack the Court is educate the American public to what is happening. We must keep throwing wrenches into the Left’s propaganda campaign of gas lighting the American public on Climate Change and dishonesty on severe weather events. And the Democrat’s at all levels must be forced to answer the question of where they stand on Supreme Court Packing, to put them on record now so voters can see how power hungry they are.
In the 1930s, FDR has a huge majority in both houses of congress, and strongly desired to pack the court.
Even then, there was sufficient awareness of why this was a monumentally bad idea, and he was unable to do it.
The whole reason for having a Supreme Court is to prevent political whims of the moment from being able to rewrite the laws which everyone has to live by at the will of whoever is holding office at that moment.
If one party was successful in packing the SCOTUS, it would be a precedent that could then be repeated by the other side when they came to power. The net effect would be to make issues of constitutional law dependent on who won the last election.
Even if the court was packed, it may not be a slam dunk to reverse prior rulings. After all, the balance of the court has shifted before, and it did not mean that the party in power was able to dictate to the justices how they will rule on specific cases.
I agree completely. To do so would be a monumentally dumb mistake, and in the longer term would turn out to be a stupid and futile attack on the Constitution by the Democrats. But when did that ever stop them?
Harry Reid lamented his biggest political mistake of his career as Senate Majority Leader was to start down the path to eliminating the filibuster. Now used to great effect by a GOP Senate and Republican President to fill the courts and the President’s cabinet positions over any objections from Democrats.
But when Reid did that in 2013, it was to much cheering and applause from the NYTimes and all the other Leftists who believed they foresaw only a Democrat ever being elected US President again.
Doing the right thing (correct thing, the ethical thing) has always eluded Democrat’s because of their inherent hubris, belief in their own lies told to constituents, and belief in their own moral superiority.
If you need any proof that they can’t learn from their repeated political machination-mistakes, simply look no further than the Blue states now trying to circumvent the Electoral College process. Each state that has enacted/passed that un-Democratic law is potentially subverting the will of their own state voter’s majority choice for President. How incredibly dumb is that?
“In the 1930s, FDR has a huge majority in both houses of congress, and strongly desired to pack the court.
“Even then, there was sufficient awareness of why this was a monumentally bad idea, and he was unable to do it.”
Per what I’ve read, Founder wanted to add six justices, which was unpopular, but his party’s congressional leaders told him they had the votes to pass a 4-new-justices packing bill. FDR peevishly rejected this half-a-loaf option.
The whole story is far more complicated than that.
FDR’s efforts to get legislation passed that was deemed unconstitutional went on for years.
In the end, it was resistance to what was obviously a bad idea in the long run from a few people on both sides of the aisle, along with the death of one very key figure in the matter (several died over a critical period of time but one was particularly significant) that prevented it from happening for long enough that new elections occurred, sentiments changed, and the whole idea evaporated.
And at the time, the press was apparently far more literate and far less in the sway of one political party.
The press opposed the idea in general, and the public was vacillating in support but came down generally against it in the majority, over time.
Apparently even Democrats held the Constitution in regard at the time.
But regardless of any of the past or future machinations, what is really going on here is that there are people who wish bypass the legislative process by judicial fiat.
Getting things enshrined into law that would never be able to make it through the legislative process, at least not without causing massive political and electoral damage to one side or the other is irresistibly alluring to people who want to have their way but hold a minority view.
This is not at all what FDR had in mind and was doing, although the result was the same: Concentration of power and the elimination of important checks and balances that have long served our country well.
FDR was able to get new deal legislation passed easily through congress, but many of these were found to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.
This is rather a different proposition than installing justices who will vote to create or maintain “rights” that do not exist anywhere in the constitution, until they are “discovered” by these woke justices.
So that must be the reason you climate alarmists changed your terminology from “global warming” to “global climate change”, because you were losing the PR battle since most people, even non-scientifically educated persons understand that the climate has always changed, that it gets warmer, then gets cooler, then gets warmer, etc. etc. etc.
The fact is that climate skeptics do NOT accept the premise that all climate change experienced today is caused by human sources. If you want to call that denial, then you are indeed practicing propaganda, since to “deny” something is to pretend that it is not true or does not exist as fact, presupposing you alarmists are correct and we skeptics are acting solely in bad faith to deny the undeniable.
You cannot bring yourselves to admit that you are practicing propaganda, and conducting a political argument, rather than simply debating matters of scientific probity.
Therefore you alarmists are all liars, by definition. We skeptics are truthful, because we admit that we, and nobody else, do not know how earth’s climate system functions, and the relative contributions of all the factors that cause climate to change both naturally and due to human actions.
We are truth-tellers, and you are all liars.
Well, I think the following counts as “science.”
If my anti-GHE theory is incorrect ‘splain w/ science why so and how.
If my anti-GHE theory is correct contemplate the consequences.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert.”
– J Robert Oppenheimer.
By reflecting away 30% of the incoming solar energy the atmosphere/albedo make the earth cooler than it would be without the atmosphere much like that reflective panel behind a car’s windshield.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6503085690262216704
Greenhouse theory has it wrong.
The non-radiative processes of a contiguous participating media, i.e. atmospheric molecules, render ideal black body LWIR from the surface impossible. The 396 W/m^2 upwelling from the surface is a “what if” theoretical calculation without physical reality. (And, no, it is not measured!) (TFK_bams09)
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6507990128915464192
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
Greenhouse theory has it wrong.
Without the 396 W/m^2 upwelling there is no 333 W/m^2 GHG energy up/down/”back” loop to “warm” the earth. (TFK_bams09)
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6457980707988922368
Greenhouse theory has it wrong.
These three points are what matter, all the rest is irrelevant noise.
No greenhouse effect, no CO2 global warming and climate changes are neither caused nor cured by man.
Nick Schroeder, BSME CU ’78, CO PE 22774
Why does it seem like no matter what the subject under discussion is, you only ever have one thing to say, which you repeat over and over again, ad nauseum?
Nicholas McG
Because no one has offered a science based rebuttal.
You got one?
The atmosphere cools the earth and GHE goes in the trash.
Why post a “science based rebuttal” if one is not needed, to wit:
Nick Schroeder – June 2, 2019 at 6:30 am
Nick, …… and just what does the ……. “non-radiative processes of atmospheric molecules” …. have to do with the radiation of ….. “LWIR from the surface”?
Sam C, …… AB, BPS, 63’
Sam,
The surface can’t upwell/radiate 396 W/m^2 BB per the K-T balance and assorted clones.
No 396 means no 333 and no GHG warming loop.
Of course this begs the main issue: the atmosphere cools the earth.
Greenhouse effect theory assumes that the atmosphere warms the earth, i.e. by 288 K with – 255 K without = 33 C warmer. That 255 K is calculated assuming the naked earth keeps its 0.3 albedo.
That’s not a mistake, that’s deliberate misrepresentation, i.e. fraud.
And all the handwavium, pseudo-science, upwelling/downwelling/”back” LWIR and BB from the surface which supposedly explain how that warming functions (Which does not exist!!) are equally fraudulent.
Speaking of handwavium, what of making a point about samll changes in the specific composition of the atmosphere we do have on the planet with an ocean we do have, by speaking about a planet with no water and no air whatsoever?
It may be the only thing you think about, have an opinion or view on, or believe to be important or worthy of discussion, but many obviously feel differently.
I am not going to follow you off-topic.
There are lots of threads that have radiative physics as a central or peripheral topic.
I did not offer that comment because I disagree with you or wish to rebut your opinions and view.
I was hoping to allow you to realize that there are other things to talk about, like the subject(s) of this article and comment thread.
Our host has politely asked you numerous times to stay on topic and not try to hijack or divert threads to the only thing you seem to ever have on your mind.
I do not think he does so because he is the only one who finds it annoying and distracting and at times verging on rude, tone deaf, or selfish.
But hey, it aint my blog.
JMO.
Do you really have nothing to add to the subject at hand, either this one or another?
Here we have another article that clearly demonstrates the illegitimacy of the climate crisis narrative. The article is rational, well documented, clear, mature and completely persuasive to a sane mind. Yet, there have been countless articles just like this over the years, and they have been largely ignored and ineffective. It reminds me of the following, classic movie scene. (Hint: Chris Martz and Daniel Lai are wearing the Roman Collar.)
Boy, isn’t that Technicolor still gorgeous? And hats off to George Pal, for the best “alien assault vehicles” ever.
So, we have to wait for warmistas to die of the plague?
The analogy only goes so far, but if we argue that the Martians died from the ‘natural’ Earth, then yes, the same thing will eventually get the warmistas. The real question is how much damage will the do before they are finally stopped?
That is the 64 trillion dollar question, for sure.
They have already done more damage than most people do or could imagine.
Even if the whole thing collapsed tonight, the damage is widespread and runs deep, and that is even besides for the money it has and will already cost us.
And the money is staggering.
Besides for the wasted resources and time, so many issues that could have been effectively addressed have been completely bypassed or ignored.
Entire generations miseducated, untold numbers of young people poisoned by toxic thinking, once venerable scientific and educational institutions with squandered credibility that may be irreparable…
It cannot be overstated how damaging this has been.
+42
Every critic of CAGW should understand the definition of a promotion. This one is from the old and highly speculative Vancouver Stock Exchange. It is valid in many circumstances, particularly now:
“In the beginning, the promoter has the vision and the public has the money.
At the end of the promotion, the public has the vision and the promoter has the money.”
And on climate hysteria, the money is up to the trillions of dollars.
“media outlets and our electedv officials misrepresent various social, economic, and/or environmental issues in order to boost their ratings” Media ratings have tanked like never before, so that’s clearly not a motive.
Linda Goodman: You are correct that ratings have tanked, but the article is also accurate when it says that they misrepresent issues in order to boost ratings. For the media and the politician, this practice is like heroin or cocaine. In the short term, it delivers the desired benefits (an instant bump in the overnight ratings). In the long run, it will kill you (the slow death of the MSM). In the process of slowly dying, it takes more and more of it to briefly experience the short term benefits, so they keep doing more and more. They are addicted to fake news. It’s their drug of choice and it is killing them.
+100
There are a lot more disturbing things going on here than just simple, random bias.
The underlying causes of bias are disturbing:
1) bias for hire at media outlets
2) systematic and serial lying for monetary or power gain
3) group think without thinking of fact checking
and
4) assuming science and science education won’t be harmed in the process
And the postscript of AOC saying it was just a joke shows the callousness of the group think.
CAGW and attributing climate entirely to CO2 levels reminds me of another H.L. Mencken quote “For every complex human problem, there is a solution that is simple, attractive, and wrong”.
Make that “Three MORE Examples”.
If it’s bad, it’s caused by CO2.
If it’s good, it happened despite CO2.
If nothing changed, that’s also caused by CO2.
Inconvenient math: No + $ = Yes
Sometimes it’s above normal. While other times it’s below average. It’s always a political climate that follows prevailing winds, which are often uncorrelated with science and people, and dependent on special and peculiar interests.
I have tried to read the paper that we have delivered at our house lately(why we are doing is due to the wife and I do like some of the comics) Almost everything I read is full of opinion and short on facts. You can pick almost any article read it and [learn] almost nothing other than an event happen, the how and why are all gone. I looks to me that the people that now work for newspaper only have a seventh grade intellect level, their sentence structure is mostly right but the underlying knowledge is not there.
The seems to be a persistent conflation of Climate Change with Global Warming.
The two are only related by simulation results from broken computer models.
Talking of climate crisis, have there been catastrophic climate changes in:
1) Atacama desert
2) Bergen, Norway
3) Archangel, Siberia
But sometimes the media get it correct (or more or less!).
As a for instance, on the “Outsiders” show (broadcast on Sky News Sunday morning), Rowan Dean referred to the “Al Gore Effect”. Apparently every recent time Al Gore has visited Australia the temperature has suddenly dropped. True to form, Mr Gore is to visit in the next week or so to speechify at some sort of climate conference, and we have suddenly gone into Winter!
From the Brisbane Courier-Mail (photos deleted):
https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/taxpayers-cough-up-for-climate-crusader-al-gore-lecture-on-pollution/news-story/af3cca287f7ebe211d11d1948eb4e868
Taxpayers cough up for climate crusader Al Gore lecture on pollution
State taxpayers will fork out more than $320,000 to help fund a conference by former US Vice President Al Gore to lecture Queenslanders on climate crisis amid the Government’s own Adani mine debacle.
Renee Viellaris, The Courier-Mail
Subscriber only
|
May 25, 2019 6:30am
GREEN warrior and former US Vice President Al Gore’s vision to train “climate leaders” to “communicate the urgency of the climate crisis” will be subsidised by Queensland taxpayers under a plan that was to dovetail with a new Shorten government.
The multi-millionaire and an outspoken opponent of the Adani coal mine will run the three-day session in Brisbane from June 5-7, as Queensland students as young as eight are encouraged to join a “Minister’s Climate Challenge” to help solve climate problems.
The State Government announced last year the former US Vice President would host the Climate Reality Project. It was before last weekend’s crushing election defeat, which weaponised the delay on Adani.
HOW MANY ABC JOURNALISTS DOES IT TAKE TO WORSHIP AL GORE?
It is believed the project was to be bolstered and leveraged by an expected prime minister Bill Shorten, who fought the election on Labor’s twin policies of a 50 per cent renewable energy target and reducing pollution by 45 per cent.
Al Gore giving his updated presentation in Houston, TX in An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth To Power from Paramount Pictures and Participant Media.
The event, which would likely have drawn Mr Shorten to Brisbane for the event if he won office, is to be run during Queensland’s first Climate Week from June 2—8 June.
And by the time Mr Gore arrived in Australia, it is believed Adani’s approvals would still be on hiatus if Federal Labor won.
The Courier-Mail can reveal taxpayers will stump up and least $142,000 to hire the Brisbane Convention Centre and one project co-ordinator for the project. The total cost is unknown because the Office of Environment Minister Leeanne will only reveal what it has forked out in “project milestones”.
Ironically, a week after former US President personally trains volunteers, the state’s Co-ordinator-General must finalise Adani’s groundwater approvals after the Premier said she was “fed-up” by delays.
Resources Minister Matt Canavan yesterday labelled the “hypocrisy” a “sequel to the Bob Brown (anti-Adani) convoy”.
“I welcome Al Gore to our great state,’’ Senator Canavan said.
“I hope he can hear the message of how our state’s fantastic coal creates jobs, powers the world and produces a better environment because it is cleaner.
“This sequel to the Bob Brown convoy ramps up the hypocrisy: fewer electric cars, more private jets. When Bob Brown brought a convoy to Queensland, he got the Adani mine going within weeks.
“We Queenslanders should think about what major dam or power station we want Al Gore to target so he can help us get that going too”
In a statement, Ms Enoch said, “The Queensland Government is supporting the climate leadership training by providing funding for the venue and a Brisbane-based Climate Reality Project manager. Al Gore is not being paid by the Queensland Government.
“The Palaszczuk Government is a strong supporter for action on climate change and we are proud that Queensland is hosting this international event.
“The Government is not deciding who attends the Climate Reality Leadership Training, that is a matter for the Climate Reality Project organisers.
“Climate Reality Leadership Training has been held all over the world, including in Melbourne and Sydney.”
In 2017, Mr Gore told Guardian Australia editor Lenore Taylor, “The Adani mine doesn’t have its financing, I hope it never gets its financing,” he said. “It’s not my place to meddle with your politics, but truly, this is nuts.”
“Disagreement is actually good for science because it opens the door to new ideas, debate, and research. Without debate, advances in science would simply not occur.”
Nailed it. None of this “the science is settled because 97% blah blah” malarkey.
I’m just glad I’ve held onto my gas-fired stove that I can light with kitchen matches (if the power goes out) and my great-grandma’s oil lamps, instead of counting on any politician to really, really, really care about whether or not my votes live or die. I may have to get a couple more, plus a wood-burning stove for winter.
On the main issues where there is supposedly agreement. “Global average temperatures are warmer than they were 100 years ago”.
How accurate and reliable is the global average temperature? At each meteorological station, the temperature is determined at a certain place and at a certain time, and this value refers to a certain surface area. It is obvious that the temperature can not be the same in different places of this area, and, therefore, each measurement result already represents a certain conditional averaged value with a certain error. Naturally, the temperature varies with time during the day, and averaging over time also requires taking into account the average deviation.
In other words, the calculation of the average global temperature is a statistical procedure, and according to the rules of statistics, the calculation of the average value makes no sense without an estimate of the standard deviation value and the error in determining average value. So far, there are no sufficient grounds to believe that the announced increase in the average global temperature over the past 100 years differs significantly from the measurement error and the calculation of this value.
«Greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide and water vapor should cause some warming” .
Probably, I belong to the “minority of skeptics”, because it seems to me that the theory of the greenhouse effect still has no scientific justification. First, there is not a single reliable laboratory experiment confirming this effect. Secondly, the fact that the molecules of “greenhouse gases” absorb infrared radiation does not prove that it is these gases that determine the temperature of the atmosphere. In physics, infrared and thermal radiation are not identical. In fact, the main components of the atmosphere are nitrogen and oxygen that are transparent to IR radiation, but, nevertheless, they absorb heat in accordance with their heat capacity. At the same time, the contribution of the heat capacity of “greenhouse gases” to the total heat capacity of air due to their low concentration and relatively small difference from the heat capacity of the main components is negligible.
“2. Man-made fossil fuel combustion has contributed more or less to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.”
——————
This, the above, simply clarifies the condition;
That the alarmists, lukewarmers and “skepticts”, are still in more or less the same page…as for this given point.
God forbid this kind of proclaimed “guess” or proclaimed “knowledge” be wrong or false in consideration of reality as per natural proposition of reality..
.as per means of nature;
…all I can or could say…
far too much gone in “rebelling” against the natural order there, in the means of concept and principals of nature!
From my point of view and understanding, this happens to accommodate clearly, the clause of the out most arrogance and that of the “holier than nature” megalomania…of humanity as per such proposition!
Still, only the time has the ultimate right of telling…in the End!… regardless of whatever beliefs or silly convictions of mortals…like any one of us can hold!!!
Sorry for the straight forward expression given!
cheers
Wait…what?
Jim Steele’s blog post (link in footnote 3) is well worth reading, especially for anyone who is not into the technicalities of the science. One nit to be picked: the footnote gives that date for that post as 2019; actually it was last year, 2018.
“Disclaimer: Both of us appreciate the fact that the media exists to spread useful information around to people on a daily basis.”
Got you fooled then.
The media exists to sell people things they think they need to know, either directly via subscriptions, paywalls or purchased print media, or indirectly via advertisement. In many ways they are entertainment but at the end of the day they are an industry and process and sell information to those who are willing to pay for it.
Private media is a business. They are under little obligation to tell the truth. They are under obligation to turn a profit. The myth that media is somehow a moral guardian of truth is a promoted by media themselves.
“Both of us appreciate the fact that the media exists to spread useful information around to people on a daily basis. ”
Naivety noted.
The naivety may be that the question of useful to whom? has not been asked.
“it is clearly evident that both journalists at media outlets and politicians alike have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to climate science, simply because they are too ignorant…”
Omit the phrase “when it comes to climate science”.
A friend who should know better posted something directed at “doubters.” It was a recent article featuring the incomparable Gavin Schmidt claiming how wonderful NASA’s data sets were in agreement, meaning they could make predictions with greater confidence. But then they just couldn’t help themselves, including in the article how “the AIRS data suggests it is warming even faster than we thought.” I make this observation for two reasons. One is the use of the term “doubters.” This either is peculiar to my friend or may indicate a softening of the rhetoric of the climate change crowd. The second reason is that when I pointed out the incongruity of claiming how accurate one’s data sets are and then stating that it is warming even faster than we thought, I got no response. Facts and logic are like poison to the ACC/AOC crowd.
In summary: it’s a cult, like scientology only pretending to be based on science.
> Both of us appreciate the fact that the media exists to spread useful information around to people on a daily basis.
Useful to whom?
H.L. Mencken>> a false front for the urge to rule.
So why do you think they don’t know what they are doing? “Gimme more power” is not a very complicated concept.
Thoughts that might untwist knickers:
1. The current issue with name calling is a long held tradition in newsprint journalism. It probably started in caves with pieces of charred wood combined with some kind of tribal argument.
2. We are in a warm period and will be for quite some time going forward. The current alarm will eventually die away because, well, it will get boring after about 100 years or so.
3. When the kiddies are alarmed over trivial events, this mother recommends parents ignore the kiddies and go on about their business being adults. Besides, fighting among children makes them tired and more easily put to sleep at bed time.
Only three? The NYT alone is a laughingstock with thousands of cases.
It must be a sizable component of their finances via pay-to-play news.
I always think the concession that many / most sceptics make that man causes some warming by burning fossil fuels ( but not dangerously ) is a concesssion that should not be made. I know that theory tells you it should be the case but I believe that if it hadn’t been brought up as a subject no one wouldve looked to it as a natural correlation. No normal human being would think “ I wonder why the world is warming ( if indeeed it is , when one has government sanctioned adjustments) . It must be carbon dioxide which is necesssary for life but is released from fossil fuels. You couldn’t really think of that unless you actually had an agenda. There are so many other natural factors that must ( instinctively) influence climate that the influence of increasing a trace gas to becoming slightly less trace is such a small influence that it would have zero correlation. To believe this would turn the climate system into a manic pathway of global self destruction is a pretty crazy narrative.It just doesn’t make sense. If there is a correlation ( and I dispute there is ) the correlation is so weak as to eliminate the suggestion there is a causal link.
The only way that warming / climate change is man made is that it is man made up ( in someone’s imagination. We are talking about a non- fiction fantasy fairy tale that unless we can change the story somehow will have a pretty sad ending.
As a sceptic I think we shouldn’t concede the co 2 link at all. Man has no direct influence over global temperatures and climate.
At least some of the people willing to concede that humans have caused at least some change in the conditions of the atmosphere, is related to such factors as land use changes, with associated effects such as UHI warming and direct addition of heat energy.
Not everyone who thinks people have effected the statistics that are overly simplistically referred to as “climate” (global averages are not climate, because climate is a local thing which refers to long term averages of the weather conditions. And isolated or temporary effects are not global, although when surface stations are used to determine global averages and these stations are concentrated in built up and expanding urban areas, these local effects can skew the averages and imply a global effect when none may in fact be present) are doing so out of belief that CO2 has an inevitable and quantifiable effect on the overall temperature of the entire planet.
And allowing that CO2 may have some small effect on temperature does not imply conceding that CO2 concentration is the (or a) atmospheric thermostatic mechanism. Several possibilities exist and several arguments have been made to this effect, such as that other factors overwhelm this effect, or that it is counteracted by negative feedbacks (which can be virtually instantaneous or have some slight delay or may have some temporal or spatial smoothing), via mechanisms related to the hydrological cycle, convection, and the overall circulation patterns of the atmosphere.
Etc.
“Man has no direct influence over global temperatures and climate.”
While I generally think you have made an excellent comment here, Zigmaster, I also think that this final sentence is not supportable by a strictly scientific thought process.
I am not sure what you mean by “direct”, or how this modifier alters the assertion (does man indirect influence?), but I am sure than speaking in declarative absolutes regarding matters under debate or disagreement short circuits the mental process necessary to arrive at objective conclusions about what is true and what is not.
Questions remain.
My best guess would be that our influence on the atmosphere is somewhere in between “humans caused changes are now controlling completely” and “humans have no effect or influence” the atmosphere and temperatures and climate regimes of the planet.
At a minimum, there are drastic local and micro climate effects caused by land use changes, direct additions of energy, redistribution of water, and alterations to the atmosphere.
People that live in cities experience greater Summer temps that adjacent rural areas, but also are somewhat less cold in Winter and cold nights. Less water infiltrates into the ground when it rains or snows, but impermeable surfaces that allow rapid runoff prevent standing water which may cause flooding, although channelization and poor planning may flood downstream areas MORE frequently.
Few things in life are all bad or all good.
It’s great we have over 100 comments on this topic but… meanwhile the green new deal has passed in New Mexico and Various EU countries are pushing for 0 emissions. I would be more interested in seeing reports on the environmental Pros vs. the economic Cons of the many green new deals being forced on us while we laugh about AOC’s idiocy. I just don’t see us doing enough watching of the what they’re doing while we’re focusing way too much on what they’re saying.