Opinion: We Must Confront ‘Climate Change’ with Reason Rather Than Emotion

Reposted with author permission from the Times of San Diego

Posted by Editor on November 8, 2019 in Opinion

North America from space
North America from space in composite image from NASA’s Earth Observatory satellite.
By Joe Nalven

Writing about “climate change” is at once easy and difficult. The term is claimed by various groups as “weather,” “something that’s been with planet earth for several billion years” as well as “about to cause the end of the world.”

Spark Neuro, a neuromarketing firm, took a semantic approach to analyzing “climate change.” Six terms were examined with participants hooked up to measure galvanic skin responses, facial coding, eye tracking and electroencephalographs to track brain activity. Three groups were chosen to study reactions: Democrats, Republicans and Independents.

The company’s algorithm takes into account that we are not solely rational; we have emotions. Those emotions skew or load affect onto our responses to the world around us, including the words we use. That is as true of scientists as well as bus drivers, college professors and, well, all of us.

As you might imagine, alarmists who want to motivate a lackadaisical public would want something more dramatic than “climate change.” Most surveys that ask us to rate “the most important thing’”among a list of policy choices generally rank “climate change” at or near the bottom. Other priorities are seen as more important, including health care, the homeless, unemployment, education, and perhaps even fixing potholes.

Opinion logoSo, ramping up the emotion of “climate change” is important if it is to have a higher priority, and especially if major transformations in lifestyle and government expenditures are required. The winning terms in Spark Neuro’s research were “climate crisis” and “environmental destruction.”

I asked Spencer Gerrol, President of Spark Neuro, if the company would be willing to analyze a different set of terms ─ for a client that wants to tamp down the emotional loading of a term like “climate crisis.” The political arena is populated by those promoting apocalyptic thinking.  Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Jay Inslee each referred to climate change as an “existential threat” at a townhall sponsored by CNN.

A list of terms to describe those advocating for what is likely an implausible future include:  “alarmist,” “doom-sayer,” “scaremonger,” and “fanatic.”

Gerrol detoured around my request and suggested a different objective. “This is one of those polarizing situations with two groups locked into opposing understandings of climate change. I think it would be better to encourage people to be more like political independents. We found them open to different possibilities. Then, we could get more dialogue and possibly some meaningful things done. We should work to break up the prevailing group-think and seek out those willing to debate in the spirit of learning.”

Building Blocks for a Spirit of Learning on Climate Change

There are many pathways to understanding the nature and dynamics of climate change. A modest approach is to seek guidance from the scientists who labor in this arena.

Will Happer is a physicist and author of over 200 scientific peer-reviewed papers and a co-author of one of the first books on how CO2 emissions affect the climate. Happer points to the difficulty of building computer models to predict future climate change since the calculations need to encompass two very turbulent fluids – the oceans and the atmosphere. After all, the earth is a water planet with 70% of the surface area covered by water, while the atmosphere contains aerosols, green-house gases and large amounts of water cycling as rain, snow and clouds.

Complex equations and real-world data to describe these two interactive systems are truncated because of their complexity, their variability in geologic and historical time, as well in different regions of the world. Nevertheless, the simplifications of computer models provide a façade of exactitude that has not existed in the past, does not exist at the present, and unlikely in the future.

Dr. Judith Curry, similar to other climate scientists, has opined that “early predictions of warming are too high relative to actual observations. Blaming all of the recent warming on carbon dioxide emissions is incorrect. Solar indirect effects and multi-decadal oscillations of large scale ocean circulations have been effectively ignored in interpreting the causes of the recent warming.”

It is difficult for us — primarily lay consumers of ‘cience and often via the media — to fully grasp these learnings from those who ply the scientific waters.

But we can get a good sense of how scientists interact with each other in terms of what might be called the intellectual combat of scientific inquiry. That process is not a simple reading of papers and articles. Recall how Albert Einstein had to fight against the prevailing consensus in order to convince the scientific community of his theories of relativity. This required a paradigm shift from Newton’s fixed space to a flexible space.

More recently, medical experts were convinced that it was stress and spicy foods that caused peptic ulcers since it was inconceivable that bacteria could live in an acidic environment. However, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren showed that Helicobacter pylori was the chief culprit for those ulcers. Another paradigm shift that had to overcome the prevailing scientific consensus. Einstein, Marshall and Warren each received Nobel Prizes.

Today, we are in the midst of a contest between methods and concepts of how best to understand climate dynamics ─ a collection of phenomena and processes that have been with planet earth for several billion years.

In order to fully appreciate the debate among climate scientists, especially with respect to predicting the future with computer models, we need to recognize the major role that statistics plays in interpreting the data, actual and putative. Nicholas Lewis has been playing an important role in this scientific drama.

Recently Nature, an important journal in the science community, retracted an article that delved into the interaction of ocean and atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition. The authors explained their retraction:  “Shortly after publication, arising from comments from Nicholas Lewis, we realized that our reported uncertainties were underestimated owing to our treatment of certain systematic errors as random errors. In addition, we became aware of several smaller issues in our analysis of uncertainty. Although correcting these issues did not substantially change the central estimate of ocean warming, it led to a roughly fourfold increase in uncertainties, significantly weakening implications for an upward revision of ocean warming and climate sensitivity.”

And just recently Nicholas Lewis scorched another article, likely to experience the same fate as the preceding one.

After discussing several statistical errors and missteps, Lewis asks why such problems continue: “It is a little depressing that after many years of being criticized for their insufficiently good understanding of statistics and lack of close engagement with the statistical community, the climate science community appears still not to have solved this issue.”

You might ask why an op-ed such as this should dig into such minutiae. My goal is not to prove that the consensus is wrong (even if it is overstated), but rather that the foundations employed in predictive climate models need to be vetted again and again. This is one of the missing elements in most of the articles we read in the media and from lobbying groups. We read about consensus and certainty, not the ebb and flow of the quest for climate change understanding.  It appears that alarmism is enhanced when the rush to consensus stumbles over the math used to predict the climate future.

Perhaps another give-and-take would further reveal the failure to listen in the consensus community.

Steven Koonin, director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University and formerly Energy Department undersecretary in President Obama’s first term, gave a talk that partly dealt with sea level rise. A commentary by Dr. Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, criticized Koonin. Obviously, both are well-regarded scientists with important institutional roles. Yet, there’s the give-and-take that we miss out on in reading mainstream media accounts, but is essential to figuring out what to believe: Is there an argument over fact? Is there an argument over interpretation? Or is there anger that blinds participants to actual scientific dialogue?

It is worthwhile tracking the back and forth between Koonin and Schmidt regarding sea level rise. Is there a scientific debate or rather one creating a strawman of the other?

Koonin describes the approach he took in a recent talk on climate, reflecting on the critique offered by Gavin Schmidt: “I try to be careful with my words (even in an unscripted talk) and am disappointed that they’re not read with comparable care. I’m also disappointed that Schmidt didn’t address the point I made, rather than just dismissing what he thinks I said.

Schmidt says, “Apparently, Koonin doesn’t think rapid sea level rise is going to happen in the future because it hasn’t happened over the last 100 years at the Battery in NYC.”

Koonin replies:  “Again, Schmidt is criticizing an interpretive quotation. The transcript from the video is:  ‘I don’t think that’s going to happen [a one meter rise by 2100]. I’m not certain, but it sure looks discordant with what we’ve seen for the last 150 years.’”

Koonin further explains:  “For sea level to rise 1 meter by 2100 would require an average rate of 12 mm/yr through the end of this century. That’s about six times the rate we’ve seen for the past 150 years and four times the rate we’ve seen in recent decades (and likely also in the 1940’s). So I don’t see much reason to change my quote.”

So, if this brief exchange characterizes nuances in the scientific dialogue over climate change and its effects, we can see how media and advocacy groups fail to understand the tectonic gaps in attempts to measure not just sea-level rise, but CO2 effects, climate sensitivity, anthropogenic contributions to climate change, and the multitude of other variables distributed over planet earth, and impacting poor and rich societies in different ways. This is the difficulty in the minutiae of scientific discourse that the consensus blithely ignores.

With respect to sea level rise, Curry notes that “future sea level rise scenarios ignore all contributions from natural climate variability, and rely on climate models that are apparently running too hot that are anchored by unrealistic emissions scenarios.”

The Unintended Consequences of Mistaken Predictions

Far be it from me to say that prediction X is incorrect since the prediction cannot be falsified until the time comes for measuring its truth or falsity. But so many predictions have been wrong that it is probably best to temper the doom-saying.

A funny example – now that we have survived to 2019 – is ABC’s 2009 broadcast of an apocalyptic vision in its special Earth 2100 with dystopian visions for the years 2015 and onwards. Predictions included milk costing $12.99 a gallon, gas $9 a gallon, a hurricance leveling Miami with thousands killed, and at some time New York City underwater. Read that again: New York City is underwater.

But none of that happened. It makes for good theater, but not a news commentary, especially not about sea level rise. And yes, Abaco island was devastated by Hurricane Dorian this year, but the buildings were not built for that situation. Better architecture and building materials may be the better answer to Mother Nature rather than trying to change her with solar panels and wind turbines in distant regions of the world. That’s a discussion worth having.

Plausibility is the better path than implausibility when it comes to climate predictions. Curry has delved into a fairly technical analysis of the worst-case scenario to identify plausible climate change outcomes. Her recent article requires a close read on the various projections of climate sensitivity. That discussion goes beyond the scope of this essay, but for those wanting to follow her analysis, you can find it here.

Suffice it to say, the expansive predictions of a world overwhelmed by sea level rise falls into category of the highly implausible. A computer prediction can’t change the bottom-line conclusion of what is plausible and what is implausible, unless one imports truncated and unrealistic computer models. While it is fascinating to read of end-of-the-world predictions, disastrous climate change effects are more likely to result from the impact of large meteors, exploding super volcanoes, uncontrolled disease without vaccines, and crazed dictators.

The Danger of Exaggerating Climate Change

Our emotions affect how we use and react to words. That is what drove Spark Neuro’s investigation into words that would engender stronger emotional reactions than the simple phrase “climate change.”

Emotions can drive frenzied group behavior as well. Think of intense sports rivals with stands packed with their respective supporters. Think of a celebrity in the midst of a crowd of fans. Fans? Oh yes, that comes from the word “fanatic.”

Adulatory crowds also have negative versions: mob behavior. Think of the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror in the late 18th century. Think of the 21st  century Muslim man in India who was hung by a Hindu mob for eating beef and hurting religious sentiments. The examples are multiple and extend to all factions and to all nations. We are all potential converts to fanatic behavior.

The question becomes whether there is value in psyching up a community to any particular cause. Here I am not arguing the moral certainty of group X or Y, of whether one animated group is justified or not. Rather, the point is that environmental and social advocacy groups are, in fact, seeking to animate the public into a more visceral response. This is not a question of facts, but of animating what is perceived as a lackadaisical public.

Led by the organization Public Citizen, about a dozen groups from Sierra Club, Greenpeace to Progressive Democrats of America, have urged major media outlets to substitute more dramatic language than simply “climate change.”

“The words that reporters and anchors use matter. What they call something shapes how millions see it—and influences how nations act,” according to Public Citizen. “And today, we need to act boldly and quickly. With scientists warning of global catastrophe unless we slash emissions by 2030, the stakes have never been higher, and the role of news media never more critical.”

“We are urging you to call the dangerous overheating of our planet and the lack of action to stop what it is—a crisis––and to cover it like one.”

The real danger may not be spending trillions of dollars in a Green New Deal but its crowding out of other needs to more immediate problems with more visible chances of success. Also consider that developing countries may see this Green Deal emphasis as morally pernicious: First World countries built their countries on polluting technology but now want to deny that same opportunity to Third World or less developed countries. That rationale has driven the exemptions to China and India in the Paris Climate Agreement.

One can argue the rightness or wrongness of such prioritization of national and international expenditures, but the larger point is that discussions should not be short-circuited by hyped up language, especially in the age of social media.

I can hear objections that a mass movement to save the world from warming, sea-level rise, hurricanes, pestilence and similar catastrophes has important value. Others, who may have doubts about such dire predictions, may simply want to hedge their bets and could be persuaded to spend exorbitant amounts to “save the planet.”

But would transformative projects to upend a bleak climate future actually work? One such possible future is already here. The California wildfires show how imposed governmental guidance, corporate interests, environmentalist preferences, and a desire to live off the beaten path can combine in perverse ways, and thus fail to protect the citizenry. Even the most idealistic climate advocate should acknowledge the likelihood of disasters flowing from good intentions.

In 1841, Charles Mackay, a Scottish journalist, collected a series of such emotion-driven crowd phenomena that can be likened to current efforts to ramp up climate advocacy: Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. There was the Dutch Tulip mania in the 18th century. The fascination of alchemists and their delusion of being able to turn base metals into gold. The Flagellants of the 14th century who whipped themselves, hoping to seek the pity of God or to rid themselves of the bubonic plague. In the United States, we might note the Salem Witch Trials of the 17th century, or more recently, the Red Scare of the 20 th century. These are just a handful of public delusions that are a recurrent human social problem. Call it an outsized emotional reaction that spreads to a community (which is sometimes described as a mass psychogenic illness). It can be positive or negative, mild or frenzied, localized or uncontained and widespread.

That is the herd thinking to which we are susceptible. Mackay observed in 1841, “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”

That danger has always been part of the human condition. The challenge is to recognize it, to be cautious in participating it, and to avoid urging it upon the wider community when the cause is uncertain, ambiguous and unlikely to be solved by the frenzy of the masses.

Joe Nalven is a former associate director of the Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias at San Diego State University.

Opinion: We Must Confront ‘Climate Change’ with Reason Rather Than Emotion was last modified: November 9th, 2019 by Editor

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 13, 2019 10:36 am

One should always approach serious maters with reason rather than emotion. That should go without saying. But if skeptics are going to be taken seriously, then we need to get out ahead of the traditional alarmist message that the world is ending in 12 years. We should be proposing solutions when these alarmists keep crying.. ‘We have to do something’. Solutions that if implemented are a net plus for society at large whether or not climate change and CAGW is true or not.

As a potential solution to ‘do something’ to arrest climate change, I would advocate that the best use of a major investment of money to be spent ‘tackling climate change’ would be to harden and strengthen the electricity grid on the assumption that we are really going to need a robust grid in the future. While the alarmists advocate for EV’s and electricity replacing natural gas appliances, just as a few examples, then that a hardened electricity grid is something that skeptics could really get behind since we are going to need a much more robust and reliable electricity grid into the long term future whether global warming and climate change are the negative they are making it out to be. California comes to mind with a failing electricity grid that could definitely use a complete makeover.

Of course, replacing appliances with electricity or even widespread adoption of EV’s won’t make a hill of beans difference to the weather, but if the alarmists are satisfied that spending monies on ‘doing something’ will make them feel better, then I advocate that skeptics get out in front of this discussion and propose to ‘do something’. Hardening our electricity grid won’t be a waste of money because we know we are going to need it anyway into the long term future. Let’s make sure we spend any money on climate change issues wisely, and do things we need to do anyway. Starting with improving the capacity and robustness of the national electricity grid would be the smartest thing to do, and one with the most return.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  Earthling2
November 13, 2019 10:57 am

Earthling2 : “One should always approach serious maters[sic] with reason”

The Theory of CAGW offers no tools of reason. There are no Laws, Axioms, Postulates nor formulae. There is no science to apply.

How then can we “approach” this “serious matter” with “reason”?

Reply to  Thomas Homer
November 13, 2019 12:01 pm

I didn’t say we reason with them about the theory of CAGW. I said we should use reason ourselves to make things happen that need happening anyway. A hardened electricity grid is the one thing we require for an advancing world, whether that future electricity supply is met with nuclear, coal/gas, or renewables. We already know that renewables won’t even come close to supplying new demand, let alone replace the majority of already installed production which is still a majority of fossil fuels globally. So that really only leaves nuclear as a long term option. Any increase to our demand of electricity on the grid both from production and consumption all rely on a much expanded reliable and robust electricity grid. Let’s get on with that project. It is a win win for everyone, and the alarmists should really accept this as a win for their goal of converting everything to electric. We also need to accept new generation atomic/nuclear power, as that is the only real long term solution to our energy requirements over the next few centuries.

Reply to  Earthling2
November 13, 2019 6:38 pm

I am in favor of this re-tasking of the herd. There are probably many other ways this can be done. We will need better roads for the (snicker) autonomous vehicles too.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  Earthling2
November 14, 2019 6:23 am

Earthling2: “to make things happen that need happening anyway”

You mentioned in an earlier article that you thought that saying CO2 is “plant food” is not a worthy argument in confronting the CAGW theory. Now you’re saying that there are things we “need” to do anyway, implying that we need to limit CO2 emissions.

Here’s some reasoning:
Carbon is required by all Carbon Based Life Forms.
All Carbon Based Life Forms participate in the Carbon Cycle of Life.
The Carbon Cycle of Life cannot complete without CO2.
CO2 is necessary for Life.
More CO2 feeds more life.
Life depends on the extraction of Carbon from atmospheric CO2 through photosynthesis by plants and phytoplankton.

The CAGW theory offers no tools of reason after more than 100 years of study. CO2 back radiation is not being measured in any meaningful way.

Perhaps you could explain your ‘reasoning’ for concluding that there are things that need to happen anyway.

Reply to  Thomas Homer
November 14, 2019 7:28 am

Thomas, perhaps you can refresh everyone’s memory which article you allude to your claim I said “You mentioned in an earlier article that you thought that saying CO2 is “plant food” is not a worthy argument in confronting the CAGW theory.” That is most certainly not my position, obviously CO2 is plant food, as NASA has shown in the greening of the good Earth. I also think that doubling of CO2 to 540 ppmv from preindustrial 280 ppmv would be an amazing feat for humanity to have achieved. So you just pulled that one out of your arse. We have been near CO2 extinction levels for the better of a million years or better during the long ice age advances. Doubling CO2 from near extinct levels does not represent a risk to humanity in the next 50-100 years. We don’t have enough fossil fuels to raise it past a doubling for very long before it starts its long march back to CO2 extinction in the long term scheme of things. Perhaps human destiny and why we are here was to ensure we have enough CO2 in the biosphere for life to prevail. CO2 is the miracle of all life on this planet.

What I did say, is this is an opportunity to get a major infrastructure project approved in hardening and expanding the reliability of our electricity grid. It is something that needs doing for the long term health of our economy as electricity is probably the one thing that cannot be much approved upon. We will probably use electricity for the next 10,000 years and any work we can get done on this file now is probably the most important thing we can do. Whatever source that powers it in the long term future doesn’t change the fact that we really need a major expansion of Transmission and Distribution. Just look at the disaster in California for what happens to a grid when it isn’t maintained.

The only thing you think is controversial for doing so, is there is some type of admission to the alarmists that they are correct and we need to limit carbon CO2 by expanding and hardening our electricity grid. I don’t even understand how you get to that. The alarmists want to do something, anything, to tackle climate change, and that usually means spending money. All I am saying is let’s spend that money on something useful and not some hare brained scheme to lower CO2 that won’t have any effect on anything. There is only so much money to spend on anything useful, and a major upgrade to our national electricity grid would be the best money spent. If we were able to get a bipartisan bill approved between the Democrats and Republicans for an infrastructure bill to make major investments into our electricity grids, then that would be a very positive thing to happen, because it needs happening.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  Thomas Homer
November 14, 2019 8:41 am

Earthling2 – I apologize for attributing a comment to you that you do not agree with.

“CO2 is the miracle of all life on this planet.” … I concur.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  Thomas Homer
November 14, 2019 8:55 am

Earthling2 – In an earlier article this is what you said:

“I think the writing is on the wall that some type of effort will be required by society in general to lower CO2 emissions over time, as we see here in the West. Fighting that battle by just saying more CO2 is better for the biosphere will lose that argument, even though it may be a true statement.”

John Endicott
Reply to  Thomas Homer
November 14, 2019 10:48 am

The alarmists want to do something, anything, to tackle climate change

Not true. For example, the most CO2 free source of reliable energy, Nuclear, is verboten to most alarmists. They don’t want to do “anything” they only want *you* to do what *they* tell you to do (they themselves, on the other hand, need do nothing but signal their virtue as they scold you about your CO2 footprint even when theirs greatly dwarves yours)

David A
Reply to  Thomas Homer
November 13, 2019 12:18 pm

Thomas. I suggest we continue to reasonably illustrate their unreason.

John Endicott
Reply to  Earthling2
November 13, 2019 10:59 am

but if the alarmists are satisfied that spending monies on ‘doing something’ will make them feel better

Alarmists are *never* satisfied. Meeting them half-way only moves their goal posts further along. By giving in to their message, you only strengthen their message and their resolve. You don’t negotiate with terrorists or alarmists. If you want to harden the grid, for example, you don’t do it for climate change (even as mere lip service) you do it for the real world rational reasons that it would be a good thing to do, not for the made-up reasons that the alarmists push, especially as hardening the grid will require doing stuff that the alarmists are adamantly against: not relying on unreliables (wind/solar) and building more fossil fuel and/or nuclear plants.

Robert Austin
Reply to  John Endicott
November 14, 2019 9:57 am

I agree. There is a major contingent of activists for whom the “climate emergency” is a facade for their hidden objective of destabilizing western democracies and destroying our capitalist/free market economy. Grid hardening would be a worthwhile expenditure but would merely rouse the activists to louder caterwauling.

John Endicott
Reply to  Robert Austin
November 14, 2019 10:41 am

Indeed. And to be clear there’s nothing wrong with grid hardening, it’s a good and prudent idea. However, there’s everything wrong with attaching “because climate change” to it for all the reasons already express and more.

D. Anderson
Reply to  Earthling2
November 13, 2019 1:45 pm

I question the motives of the people driving the alarmist narrative. I accuse them caring more about creating a communist world than a green health world.

Nothing exposes this motive more than their stead fast opposition to nuclear power. They don’t want clean energy, they want us living in the dark.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  D. Anderson
November 13, 2019 5:59 pm

D. Anderson
You said, “…, they want us living in the dark.” You may be giving them more credit than they deserve. It is my impression that the zealots know so little about science and technology that they can’t give thought to why their solutions won’t work, and what the consequences will be. Their prefrontal cortex is exercised less than their amygdala. But, then, I’ve long maintained that humans are not really rational creatures. Usually, they are only capable of engaging in rational behavior long enough to achieve their irrational goals. Those with formal backgrounds in science and engineering have an advantage in training that allows them to resist the initial temptation of using the reptilian portion of their brains. There is a principle in martial arts that one has already lost the fight if they allow themselves to become angry. Therefore, they are conditioned to suppress the emotion. The large majority of voters have neither trained in martial arts, or science and engineering. But, they still have a vote.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 14, 2019 12:29 pm

Mr. Spencer, I fear you are right (“they are only capable of engaging in rational behavior long enough to achieve their irrational goals”). I am often introspective trying to ensure that my positions are not based on emotion. I do see (and I know I guilty of) expressions of emotion on this website. Usually, it just exasperation of seeing the same old evidence-lacking canards repeated over and over.

When I argue with a believer, I usually just try to ask questions of them. Do they know if Earth has ever seen higher temperatures? Do they know if the Earth has ever seen higher CO2? Even Wikipedia agrees on these points. You can’t find a legitimate source that disagrees. Why do commercial greenhouses pump CO2 into their structures? What concentration of CO2 is allowed in US boomer subs? If we do everything the IPCC requests, what will be the temperature difference in 2100? At what cost?

I can’t argue with them. But when I ask them questions, we get away from IPCC Report ‘thumping’, and discuss what we all know. And try to see where if figures into reality.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  KaliforniaKook
November 16, 2019 6:26 pm

I suspect that a lot of times they can’t answer your questions. My favorite question is, “What is the probability that after 4.5 billion years, the Earth happens to be at the optimum temperature for life?”

Reply to  Earthling2
November 13, 2019 2:21 pm

Reason doesn’t influence extreme ideologues and climate alarmism is nothing but an extreme political ideology. It stopped being science with the inception of the IPCC and their agenda of replacing free market capitalism with the centralized control of socialism under the ruse of the greater good, which is the same ruse that’s always used to support socialism. The resulting subversion of science by this extreme ideology proactively keeps climate science broken, for if it’s fixed, the pseudo-scientific justification for their socialist agenda evaporates. It’s so wrong and for such unethical reasons, it’s an embarrassment to all legitimate science.

There can be no better example for why a political ideology must never replace the scientific method when establishing what is and what is not legitimate science.

Mark H
Reply to  Earthling2
November 13, 2019 2:39 pm

“Of course, replacing appliances with electricity or even widespread adoption of EV’s won’t make a hill of beans difference to the weather, but if the alarmists are satisfied that spending monies on ‘doing something’ will make them feel better, then I advocate that skeptics get out in front of this discussion and propose to ‘do something’”

A big problem with this is Oportunity Cost. As it stands currently, the alarmists basically want the entire world to divert all of their resources and efforts towards combating a perceived problem that is not as much of a problem as they think, and no amount of effort on our part can change (because they are trying to pull what they think is a control lever, but it’s not connected).

All of these resources are wasted. Imagine what we could do with the trillions and trillions of dollars. We could do things like actually hardening our infrastructure to be able to withstand the changes in climate that will come, regardless of what we do.

Reply to  Earthling2
November 13, 2019 8:09 pm

@ Earthling2 re “We should be proposing solutions” – “we” are proposing a solution, to wit “ there is no problem so don’t do anything”.

Like all liberals the climate luntics think that they, and only they, can know what is right and true. If you cross them then you get a tantrum or worse. How do you reason with complete, abject stupidity?

Civilization is not a Darwinian survival trait – we stopped killing off the morons a long time ago and even abortion doesn’t get rid of them fast enough.

Hey Griff, you there?

Reply to  Cube
November 14, 2019 11:30 am

Cube sez, and worth repeating:
“Like all liberals, the climate luntics think that they, and only they, can know what is right and true. If you cross them then you get a tantrum or worse. How do you reason with complete, abject stupidity?”

Mr. Cube
It is not appropriate to compare liberals with lunatics.
That is very insulting to lunatics !
Richard Greene
The Cliff Claven of Finance
Former Lunatic.
Former Village Idiot Assistant

Charles Higley
Reply to  Earthling2
November 13, 2019 8:41 pm

Lots of good stuff above, but, despite the fact that there might be some erroneous but slightly scientific work out there that needs to be refuted or critically analyzed and shown wrong, there is enormous amounts of just junk science and fatally flawed, biased studies that should never have seen the light of day. These should be rejected at first go and not given deeper analysis, being a waste of time and effort.

Ken Irwin
Reply to  Earthling2
November 14, 2019 4:21 am

You can’t solve a problem that doesn’t exist !

Reply to  Ken Irwin
November 14, 2019 5:24 pm

Ken Irwin
The “problem ” is too many pesky Republicans in “Warshington” and not enough socialism — that
is the actual “problem” the coming climate crisis cult ” is trying to solve.

It’s hard to sell socialism on economic performance, or the amount of liberty, but you can sell socialism to “save the world for the children”.

Reply to  Earthling2
November 14, 2019 7:33 am

To most people outside academia who’ve not been “educated” beyond their intelligence, “Save the Planet!” conjures up eyerolls and an automatic reference to George Carlin’s immortal satiric rant.

“Climate Crisis” is transparent virtue-signaling by white, NPR-totebag dowagers and neck-bearded Millennial geeks in tony East Coast towns, who are OF COURSE against CAGW like they’re against breast cancer and child molesters. Now honestly, people, you know anyone in FAVOR of those things? Sacrifice required = zero. It’s all about having the “right” bumper sticker on your Subaru.

If anybody ever asks me what I think about “climate change,” in order to assess my “green cred” which is actually considerable, I’ve got a ready answer: “All things equal, I’d rather see warmer than colder!” 😉

Let ’em go full Druid-witchey looney bird. The farther they stray from the mainstream, and the more they sound like that old-time religion, the more people dismiss them as a New Age doomsday cult and ignore their silly caterwauling.

Reply to  Earthling2
November 14, 2019 12:30 pm

Using scientific terminology, you are a fool.
Not a complete fool, just a regular fool.
But I think there is hope.

Your first sentence was so foolish, I stopped reading:
“One should always approach serious maters with reason rather than emotion.”

Your sentence is wrong for the following reason: The very gradual warming of our planet, and adding CO2 to the atmosphere, has been wonderful news.

You have no clue there is no serious climate problem.

You would never even consider that possibility

You are too busy believing climate fantasies about the future, imagining a coming climate “crisis”, that we have been warned about for 50 years — where is it ?

We have lots of experience with global warming — we don’t need wild guess predictions of the future climate.

We’ve had about 325 years of intermittent, mild global warming since the late 1600s.

Almost 80 of those years included adding lots of CO2 to the atmosphere.

I challenge you to list the names of any people who were hurt, in any way by roughly +2 degrees C. global average warming since the 1690s.

Your time is up.

No one was hurt.

Past warming was good news.

The planet is ‘greening’.

Food crops are growing faster and bigger.

The real serious problem, which is WAY over your “luke-warmer” head, is the gross overreaction to a nonexistent climate problem.

You falsely believe the future climate is a “serious mater” (I assume you meant “matter” — only fools make a spelling error in their first sentence — I try to wait until my second paragraph).

Actually, in life, there ARE serious matters than you SHOULD react to emotionally, not with reason, such as picking a girl friend, or a wife.

November 13, 2019 10:41 am

We must confront the unreasonable climate crusades with reason rather than emotion. The country depends on it–and that’s not just a few Party committees in some major cities.

November 13, 2019 10:45 am

The “Red Scare of the 20 th century” was real and not delusional. Alger Hiss and others were proven to be working against the United States and for the international Communist cause. Joseph McCarthy may or may not have been over-zealous in his prosecution, but the motivating cause for the HUAC hearings was real and dangerous.

Reply to  Gary
November 13, 2019 11:55 am

Thanks, Gary, I was about to make the same point.

Ron Long
Reply to  Gary
November 13, 2019 11:56 am

Right you are, Gary, and it has morphed some, but is still with us. CNN allows “sure I am a Communist, but with a little c” types to go on at length about things, and not in a fair and balanced way.

Reply to  Ron Long
November 13, 2019 2:27 pm

What does Communism have to do with anything? The definition of Communism is: “a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.”

The only remaining Communist countries are China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam. Only one “player” in there. Russia hasn’t been a Communist state since December 25, 1991.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  PeterT
November 13, 2019 6:05 pm

Peter T
The point is that many on the left don’t acknowledge that the communist experiments were/are failures. They want to resurrect the failed political experiments, and impose communism on the existing democracies.

Reply to  Gary
November 13, 2019 1:48 pm

McCarthy blacklisted (with the help of Hoover) dozens of innocent people with zero evidence, and ruined many lives for no reason. You should have said “over-zealous in his PERsecution.”

Reply to  PeterT
November 13, 2019 5:59 pm

Pretty much standard practice for climate zealots, they even eat there own do you really need a list of those targetted?

There is not much between the current climate change zealots and McCarthy and when you see the dangerous ideas coming from Mann and Stephan Lewandowsky it could get a lot worse.

Reply to  PeterT
November 13, 2019 8:11 pm

And many that were supposedly innocent turned out not to be when Glasnost opened at least a few of the hidden closets.

John RT
Reply to  PeterT
November 14, 2019 10:22 am

cf. Evans, Blacklisted by History … an accurate account of what McCarthy did
No blacklister, he.

Reply to  PeterT
November 14, 2019 11:09 am

PeterT, obvious you’ve bought in to the propagandists & history revisionists. And how could you not today see the results of the neo-marxism that was getting started back then? Clueless much?

Reply to  Gary
November 14, 2019 10:30 am

Yes, Gary, I made that same point way down below. The academic/media/historybook derogatory “Red Scare” is a perfect example of fact-omission & history revision. IOW, lies.

November 13, 2019 10:45 am

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.” And there, in 1 sentence, is the source of and reason for Catastrophic Human Caused Climate Change and Socialism…. well, that and money.

Roy W. Spencer
November 13, 2019 10:50 am

Regarding the Earth image shown, NASA doesn’t have an “Earth Observatory” satellite. Just mentioning it so people don’t start spreading misinformation, the correction of which ends up taking up a lot of my time now from emails I receive.

November 13, 2019 10:59 am

Should be required reading.

Dodgy Geezer
November 13, 2019 11:04 am

We tried reason in the 1990s. We were met with emotion, and ignored.

There is now too much money and too many careers riding on alarmism for anyone to admit that they are wrong. So reason will not help us.

All we can do is watch the whole thing crumble of it’s own volition – as it must. And then we will be blamed for not warming anybody…

That is the way humans work…

J Mac
November 13, 2019 11:10 am

The ‘Red Scare’ is a derisive term similar to ‘Science Denier’, both created and employed by socialists to discredit opposition without examining the underlying evidence. I wonder why Joe Nalven chose to use that particular emotion charged derogatory appellation?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  J Mac
November 13, 2019 12:37 pm

Ignorance of history or inherent political bias. Neither shows him in a good light.

John RT
Reply to  J Mac
November 14, 2019 10:58 am

Thank you, J Mac & D. J. Hawkins
Joe Nalven, with many others, may know little of ‘Social Democrat’ contributions to Communist theory and practice. Lenin claimed the term, one hundred sixteen years ago. Many anti-market folk favor Left/Liberal concepts.

Joe Nalven
Reply to  John RT
November 15, 2019 5:48 am

Excellent question. My parents were ‘fellow travelers’ and I was named after Josef Stalin. The US and Russia were allies in 1943 beyond the fascination what communism offered in the minds of many in the US. One of my uncle’s couldn’t get a job with the government because of my parents affiliation. Of course, this ‘scare’ was partly delusional, partly real. I thought the problematic nature of this scare as revealed through history should be a cautionary note to how we react to other scares – for better or worse. It’s hard to judge from various moments in time and even within any given moment. History is messy. I speak as having been a cultural anthropologist working abroad and doing cross-cultural work in the binational bicultural US Mexico border region. Thank you for probing the ‘Red Scare’ reference.

November 13, 2019 11:19 am

“We must confront climate change with reason”

Commercialize GEN III and GEN IV fission reactors NOW ..

Specifically ..

GE’s PRISM IFR ( integral fast reactor ) as a “waste” burner
ThorCon, Flibe, or Terrestrial’s version of a MSR ( molten salt reactor )

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Triffin
November 13, 2019 11:55 am

Confront climate change?
Must we?
I do not think we must do any such thing, let alone pretend that people can “tackle the climate crisis”, or that politicians can control the weather via tax policy, or by any others means whatsoever.
A large number of idiotic notions are implicit in the statement “We must confront climate change with reason”, and anyone who is paying attention to the words and ideas being bandied about ought to recognize this and call it out immediately and every time.
This sort of word- and thought-creep is a very insidious form of psychological manipulation, worse in many ways than outright gaslighting. In fact, it represents a success by those who seek to control the way we think of things and hence control the conversations we have.
Human beings have no ability to control the weather of a planet anywhere, for even a minute, let alone the long term climatic conditions all over the globe over some long stretch of time.
The idea, that jackass climate liar so-called scientists or their pinheaded lackwit politician partners in crime can do so, is gobsmackingly dumb.
There is no climate crisis.
Climate change, to the extent that it exists, has been remarkably gentle and beneficent by any objective historical reckoning.
Nothing is happening, regarding the weather the world is experiencing, that is in any way outside of the normal historic range of conditions.
The only verifiable difference between current conditions and those we know to be the case in the past is that the biosphere is being greatly enriched by the addition of more of the basic raw material from which it is made.
CO2 fertilization has led to a huge and pervasive increase in the photosynthesizing organism that are the base of the food chains of virtually all life and every biome on Earth.
What needs to be confronted are the despicable fools that originate, perpetuate, and propagate this alarmist insanity.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
November 13, 2019 1:35 pm

Thank you Joe Nalven for your great essay. And to Nicholas McGinley, I ask how exactly are we to confront “the despicable fools that originate, perpetuate, and propagate this alarmist insanity.”?
Today for the first time, ever, I think, I saw a sensible article in a widely read publication (in Canada) the Financial Post. Please check secondary links. https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/joe-oliver-building-pipelines-will-combat-climate-change-and-enrich-the-canadian-economy.
I wish I had the money to fund a global poll on believers / non-believers in CAGW. It would have to be put together in a way that Greta doesn’t ignore it. I know I’m naive…

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  PeterT
November 13, 2019 2:17 pm

Confronting people, I am fairly certain, is a far more straightforward and easily accomplished task than confronting climate change.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
November 13, 2019 8:13 pm

@Nicholas McGinley Thank you

William Holder
November 13, 2019 11:24 am

On countless occasions over the last 15 years I have assumed a particular study or review of a study would mark the end of this AGW nonsense. 15 years because prior to that I was a great advocate of curbing CO2 emissions having been introduced to the concept in college in 1989. By the end of 2003, growing doubts were cemented by the “Pause”.
It is abundantly clear at this point that Climate Change as Greta Thunberg knows it is here to stay and will impact on politics and decision making far beyond my increasingly diminishing life span. The reason for this is quite simple, three decades of education that have put forth a hypothesis as fact. Liberals who once challenged the establishment are now the establishment and refuse to be challenged. Liberals who once championed free speech and an intellectual openness are dictating what ideas and speech are acceptable and what isn’t and enacting laws to support their positions. We have lost not only this battle but the war and it seems unlikely that the larger public will ever be exposed to intellectual honesty again – only dogma, at least until a new age of enlightenment comes to pass. OK Boomer.

Reply to  William Holder
November 13, 2019 6:26 pm

I presumed in 1992 (five years after the initial media circus, including the ‘sciencey’-media) that the whole thing would last about 30 more years, and would do massive damage to the credibility of science and education before it was over.

The damage to science and to education has been done, and the 30 years is approaching in 2022, but I would say at least another 20 years on top to finally overturn this absurd baseless fake ‘climate-change’ hysteria. It was called “greenhouse effect” from 1987 to 1992, but keeps changing its’ name as it wears them out, and the mantra becomes so laughable than no one cares about it anymore, now like a hydra is has many equally hysterical and insane names for itself.

“Climate Derangement Syndrome” (CDS), is the best and most suitable name for it so far, IMO.

The good thing about ‘Saint Greta’ being forced by her own tongue on to sailing boats, is that we hear so much less from her. There’s not a lot of 4G cell-towers out in the ocean, apparently.

The other good thing is that Greta is finally getting a clue that:

1) The earth is a really, really big place, even its smallest ocean is absolutely vast.
2) Low-footprint ‘Green’ transportation sucks real bad, it’s profoundly slow and a serious PITA.
3) Oceans are not ‘acidic’, in any way shape or form. The hull is not melting.
4) Oceans are not full of gigantic rafts of plastic from horizon to horizon, they’re gorgeously clean.
5) There’s almost but not quite no people or boats out at sea.
6) Even small oceans are vast wildernesses that are in ridiculously good natural health.
7) She’s discovering that perhaps she knows far less about everything than she’d ever suspected.
8) Discovered what being a hypocrite is and how not to be one (first of all, shut your gob a lot more).
9) Experiencing unplugged freedom from the noise and insanity of the Internet and its memes.
10) Discovering the shocking variability of weather and the humbling fear of having zero control of it.
11) Able to deeply relax and quell her inner terrors, to relax and smile until her face seriously hurts.
12) Is enjoying discovering the shocking beauty of the allegedly destroyed, spoiled, toxic and ‘dying’ planet.
13) Is slowly, imperceptibly realizing that just maybe she’s been fed a load of imaginary deceitful bullshit by a craven scab of political scum who are using her without regard to what it will do to he, inside – which is such a low-act.
14) Is inevitably beginning to grow up a little bit.

Alternatively she learns little to nothing from these experiences and comes back as doltish and deluded as when she left.

I hope not for her sake.

Reply to  WXcycles
November 13, 2019 8:22 pm

Points 1-14 are extremely unlikely.

Nicholas McGinley
November 13, 2019 11:26 am

“…disastrous climate change effects are more likely to result from the impact of large meteors, exploding super volcanoes, uncontrolled disease without vaccines, and crazed dictators.”

What on Earth would make anyone think that climate change effects, disastrous or otherwise, could possibly result from diseases, lack of vaccines, or crazed dictators?
Even the first two items make me wonder about this line of thought: A meteor impact that is powerful enough to cause disastrous climate change would likely have far more immediate and dire effects, as would an eruption of a super volcano.
I suspect that the sentence was originally written differently and was changed later without being looked at carefully enough, and I also understand that the main point is that since humanity has actual Very Bad Things to be concerned with, having such a huge percentage of time and money being expended worrying about a hypothetical and highly dubious one is in itself a Very Bad Thing.
The immense number of activists spending gigantic amounts of money and time jetting and yachting around the world to jabber about their doomsday fantasy, or the so-called “climate scientists” freeloading boatloads of scarce tax dollars in order to do endless, and endlessly repetitive, studies and reports and modelling narrowly focused on an issue they claim is settled beyond any need for debate or discussion…all of this time and attention and expenditure of resources could easily be focused on problems and issues of a definitive and solvable nature.
No one is going to drown due to rising sea levels, or die from ocean acidification, or suffer due to a somewhat warmer Arctic wasteland, or more mild Winters and overnight low temperatures.
But long before the ocean rises the next ten inches, many people will die due to coastal storms, due to earthquakes, due to volcanic eruptions, due to disease outbreaks…and due to lack of clean drinking water, inadequate sanitation, lack of access to inexpensive energy…all of which can be addressed with better funding, education, monitoring, and improved warning systems and procedures.

Instead money for these sorts of things are being sucked away by an obsessive focus on the boogeyman of global warming catastrophism, education has been transformed into political indoctrination which is short on facts and encouragement of independent thought and critical thinking, and long on groupthink, doubletalk, and alarmist propaganda, and environmental studies in general are now almost exclusively focused on one-sided analysis of worst case scenarios in which all problems, whether real or imagined, are misattributed to “climate change”.

John Garrett
November 13, 2019 11:37 am

That is a brilliant piece and should be re-printed by the New York Times, Bloomberg, the WaPo, National Geographic, Smithsonian, et al. It should be read aloud by NPR, PBS, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and Auntie Beeb.

We know, of course, that it won’t (and more’s the pity).

Reply to  John Garrett
November 13, 2019 12:54 pm

It is brilliant in its own careful way like dealing with theologians/mullahs with all the power. It also carefully describes the loss of science process to non-science readers. But it goes beyond some listed media outlets in the scale of the problem when a UN agency is the main bomb thrower of authority.

Joel Snider
November 13, 2019 12:02 pm

Well, my reasoned opinion is that people alive a hundred years from now should wait and see what the world is like and deal with it then.

Bruce Cobb
November 13, 2019 12:17 pm

We don’t need to “confront climate change”, any more than we need to “confront gravity”. There’s nothing wrong with our climate, nor would there be anything we could do to change it if there was. It’s a faux issue.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 13, 2019 1:08 pm

Kinda like erosion also. Who knew such basics could be reconfigured into a multi-trillion dollar global emergency at the expense of other social and environmental issues?

November 13, 2019 12:23 pm

Yes, emotion is a factor, but that’s not the controlling factor. Most people simply don’t get worked up at all about climate change. Of course name any subject in the universe and there will be a small subset of idiots who will get all worked up about it. But most people simply don’t get worked up about the subject of climate change. And those who do get all emotional, there is nothing that can be done to get them off their sugar high of emotion.

The real controlling factor in people’s approach to climate change is knowledge and understanding. Only the scientifically illiterates on the planets think that the climate doesn’t change all the time, that it always has changed, and always will change. Of course there are gazillions of Climate Alarmists who put on a show of pretending to be know it alls when it comes to science, but their abject ignorance is all too plain to see.

The best means of shaping public opinion is through education and patient explanation. Don’t go emotional, and don’t go all anti-science either. Luddism is a surefire way to discredit yourself – which is why I don’t understand why so much of what Middleton writes and other commenters expound upon amounts to nothing more than luddism and anti-scient.

Explain the science. It sells itself.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Duane
November 13, 2019 5:12 pm

Do you really think the alarmist rhetoric is based on solid science?
If so, I got a bridge to sell you.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Duane
November 14, 2019 9:19 am

So go ahead, Duane, ‘splain “the science”.
We’ll wait.

November 13, 2019 12:28 pm

“We Must Confront ‘Climate Change’ with Reason Rather Than Emotion”

If we truly, honestly did this, there would be one side that really wouldn’t like the outcome of the analysis!

Joel O'Bryan
November 13, 2019 12:52 pm

“Better architecture and building materials may be the better answer to Mother Nature rather than trying to change her with solar panels and wind turbines in distant regions of the world. That’s a discussion worth having.”

That’s a discussion the GreenSlime billionaires are paying hundreds of millions of dollars every year on propaganda (Climate Communications) and buying Democrats with lavish amounts of campaign cash exactly to avoid. The “Science is Settled” is their rallying cry to saddle the middl- class with serfdom-enabling crushing energy bills. Extracted money that then flows to the GreenSlime via their renewable energy schemes and carbon credit arbitrage.

November 13, 2019 1:37 pm

“We Must Confront ‘Climate Change’ with Reason Rather Than Emotion”

Duh! Emotion has absolutely no value in an honest scientific discourse. Unfortunately for climate science, the whole movement falls apart when emotion is removed from the discussion.

Steve Z
November 13, 2019 1:52 pm

I wonder if circa 2033, 30-year-old Greta Thunberg will realize she still needs a coat in Sweden in the winter, the sea level is still the same in Stockholm, and cars and airplanes are still whizzing around, and she’s still alive and healthy, and have the courage to come out and say “I was wrong”?

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Steve Z
November 13, 2019 5:37 pm

Sea level will be LOWER in Stockholm 2033..


It’s likely her head will explode..

November 13, 2019 2:35 pm

Joel Kotkin wrote an Op-Ed two days ago about the unsustainable policies in the state of California, https://joelkotkin.com/unsustainable-california/. It’s a good read and tells you a lot about imposing huge economic pain on the most vulnerable when emotions dominate policy choices.

Reply to  Sean
November 14, 2019 8:32 am

Thanks for linking to Joel’s most recent post. I found a way to get a new RSS feed to work to make sure I don’t miss any of his new efforts. For some reason my old feed stopped working back in 2017 or so.

His post from back in October is enlightening as well-

Today’s Radical Green Movement Demands Submission To An Elite Governing Class

November 13, 2019 3:21 pm

This dichotomy of thought / perception seems to be well explained by Jung’s psychology of personality types, specifically ‘Thinkers’ vs ‘Feelers’ (as used in the Myers Briggs personality tests).
This article explains it:

More importantly for CAGW, people’s personality once formed rarely changes, so don’t expect to change a ‘Feelers’ mind about CAGW with rational (‘Thinker’s) argument. However this article does give some hope – it explains how Thinkers should ‘engage with and manage’ Feelers.
BTW, maybe someone could analyse US politics from this POV – it might be more productive than just shouting across the aisle!

November 13, 2019 5:16 pm

The article about Spark Neuro was very interesting. I am sure that
Dr. Gobbles would have approved. Its clearly emotion that is the problem,
and as emotion is a part of the human beings make up, then what is the
solution ?

A good example of the use of emotion is the rise of Hitler. Dr. Gobbles
built up Hitler into almost a God like figure, when in reality he was nothing
of the sort.

Had the Vienna Art Centre accepted him he would probably have led a fairy
normal life as a minor r painter, but his rejection made him very bitter, and
his experiences in the First World War added to that. Personally I liked his
paintings, but the were from a much earlier period and thus old stuff.

As with all such matters it was the circumstances of the period, 1920 to 1933
which shaped events. The collapse of Wall Street coupled with the attempt of
Russian Communism to expand , who took advantage of the effect on a
weal Weimer Government which led to the rise of his Hitler’s political
Party , that of National Socialism.

It was the very harsh terms of the Allied Peace Treaty, mainly driven by
the French desire for revenge that caused the German people to demand of
their Politicians a better deal, plus the very real fear of Communism, all very emotional stuff, which finally lead to 1933 and Hitler’s win at that years
election. From then onwards Dr., Gobbles played on the emotions of the
German people and their belief in Hitler and National Socialism. This
belief was still their right up to the final days of May 1945, and the end
of the European war.

In regard to the phronema of “”Climate Change”” I am of the opinion that
it can all be traced back to the book by Ratal Carson “”Silent Spring.””
written in 1960. Now this was a minor matter of concern by itself, but the
collapse of European Communism in 1991 led to the people in the Western countries, mainly I think the USA , who had always dreamed of a perfect
world, led by a government of the people, which of course would be led by
them .A Communist Party Mark two, with none of the mistakes of the first

But what could they deo, why there was this concern, mainly in the Western
World countries that Capitalism was slowly destroying the planet Earth.
That the profit motive was destroying Nature. And there was this gas
called CO2.

So it was perfect vehicle for the unhappy believers in the theory of
Communism as the solution to the Worlds problems, to embrace first
Global Warming, then when it stopped warming, change to Climate Change.

But going on the Communist Parties how to book, first you have to destroy a economy and its way of life. Then you offer the people the alternative.

As Joseph Stalin correctly referred to them, there are lots of Useful Idiots
out there to help the cause, lots of emotions to be tapped, they are of
great value. Never mind about scientific facts, its all about “”To save the

Today of course it the Climate movement is almost “”Too big to be allowed
to fail””, a lot of businesses love it, just as long as the politicians in their
endless search for votes, will pay them very generous subsidies and that
makes it a real problem. The politicians love it, its the perfect “”Arms length””

The Media also love it, both the commercial one, and the now peoples media.
Pile on the emotions, no dry as dust scientific stuff. So much easier to say
97 % say that it is true.
Never mind such things as the economy, our “”Betters”” will sort things
out in our “”Brave New World”” as Huxley would have said. .

Its almost a faith , and its become a case of “”The old time religion is
good enough for me “” situation.


Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Michael
November 13, 2019 10:29 pm

Hitler was a great painter.
I heard he once did a whole house, three rooms, two coats, in a single day!

November 13, 2019 5:17 pm

But I think the main problem with climate models is not the empirical input data.
The main problem is that the fundamental equations for the earth’s atmosphere and oceans are too hard to solve with the necessary detail, even for the most advanced computers.

Approximate solutions must be devised. These approximate solutions involve many parameterizations that involve human judgment…. AKA educated guesses. Spatial and temporal grid sizes for numerical solutions of the Navier-Stokes equation are an example of such parameters.

The compounding effect of many educated guesses, even if each individual guess is physically reasonable, has probably led to the striking exaggeration of warming by climate models.

— William Happer

Alas, as someone has pointed out, this sort of rationality has little ground on which to land in people who are solidified climate doomsayers.

Someone else at another website has said, thus, that this is no longer a rational discussion, but rather a war between rationalists and emotionalists.

Gary Mount
November 13, 2019 6:07 pm

This article left out 90% of what the atmosphere is composed of.

Clyde Spencer
November 13, 2019 6:14 pm

“The words that reporters and anchors use matter. What they call something shapes how millions see it—and influences how nations act,”

That is why I have continued to complain about the general use of phrases like “ocean acidification,” and “becoming more acidic.”

Wiliam Haas
November 13, 2019 6:19 pm

The reality is that climate change is taking place so slowly that it takes networks of sophisticated sensors, decades to even detect it. We must not mix up true climate change with weather cycles that are part of the current climate. Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we are experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them.

Jon Jewett
November 13, 2019 7:03 pm

Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Climate (Cooling, Warming, Disruption) is a cult and a suicidal one at that.

Debate using science and reason? Good luck with that! They are still calling for the imprisonment of us climate realists.

Peter Roman
November 13, 2019 10:07 pm

Hayhoe on Twitter was using the high tide in Venice story to promote climate catastrophe. A questioner said wait – if the highest tide was 50+ years ago how do you explain that in terms of global warming? She threatened to block him for being impolite since he used the term alarmism. The Reuters story was pretty good in a way. It had the mayor moaning about climate change but noted past major flooding. And then it mentioned that a flood control system designed in 1984 was supposed to be in place in 2011 but now the completion date is 2021. The cause? “A flood barrier was designed in 1984 to protect Venice from high tides, but the multi-billion euro project, known as Mose, has been plagued by the sort of problems that have come to characterize major Italian infrastructure programs — corruption, cost overruns and prolonged delays.” Adaption is the key. Italy needs to stop moaning.

Reply to  Peter Roman
November 14, 2019 2:53 pm

According to the Guardian, the Neo-Assyrian empire may have collapsed due to climate change. It does not explain what caused the climate change c600 BC.

November 14, 2019 1:30 am

If the climate alarmist continue to win, then maybe the right wing
politically may use the military to stop what is becoming a national
emergency. Unlikely you say, so see the film “”Seven days in May”” and
“” The Guardians “”””.


Wim Röst
November 14, 2019 3:01 am

Great article. But the question remains: how can we cool down the masses that have been put in motion by fear and by a near endless stream of misinformation?

People that are fearful ‘narrow their mind’ and ‘follow the leader’ (IPCC). They are not open for discussion anymore, nor for the facts. How do we get them again ‘with their feet on the ground’? To start with politicians.

Having met some people in Brussels, all good willing people there don’t understand anything of ‘climate’. All rely on ‘public information’ and on the IPCC. The IPCC however is not a scientific institute but part of a political organisation, the UN. And the UN desperately needs ‘Common Dangers’ to get ‘all noses [of all states] into the same direction. An endless stream of ‘doom suggesting’ reports is the result, all produced by the same kind of ‘scientific evidence suggesting’ UN machines that are not restrained by the Scientific Method. No politician realizes.

‘Science’ only says: ‘it may’, ‘it might’, ‘it could’, ‘if’ and ‘when’. Which is not a base for any policy at all. For justifying policy hard evidence is needed, excluding all ‘other options’ that could explain the not unusual and very modest warming of the last century.

Jeff Id
November 14, 2019 3:45 am

Just to help Nick Lewis out, the reason they can’t get their statistics worked correctly is because the ‘science’ really has very little to do with climate. The resulting findings with corrected statistics, which completely invalidate all doom-predicting climate models would do great damage to an industry that spends greater than 100 billion dollars per year trying to create a global socialist government.

November 14, 2019 6:03 am

In the United States, we might note the Salem Witch Trials of the 17th century, or more recently, the Red Scare of the 20th century. These are just a handful of public delusions that are a recurrent human social problem.

Wrong. The Red Scare was completely legitimate — it was an early recognition of the then-blossoming neo-marxist infiltration into Hollywood & the media (branching from the original Frankfurt School that infiltrated Columbia University). Casting it as a “delusion/conspiracy theory” was the technique used to discredit it using that same Hollywood/media influence. We see & suffer from the results of the infiltration today……

Robert Austin
Reply to  beng135
November 14, 2019 10:20 am

Yes, the Red Scare was not a delusion. perhaps some innocents were unjustly pursued but there was no shortage of genuine traitors and red saboteurs. In the US you had the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss among others. In Britain you had your Philby, Burgess and MacLain. In Canada Igor Gouzenko, cipher clerk in the Russian embassy defected to Canada revealing all sorts of Russian dirty tricks. The USSR’s vow to overwhelm western democracies was no delusion.

Reply to  Robert Austin
November 14, 2019 11:44 am

Robert, not just from the USSR, the movement had plenty of enthusiastic native collaborators — obviously now natives have long since taken over the movement. Russia or China or Cuba or whoever are totally irrelevant today.

November 14, 2019 11:24 am

Just a small note to the essay I wrote here, ” We Must Confront ‘Climate Change’ with Reason Rather Than Emotion.” The original title to the essay was “Climate Realism.” However, the editor thought the current title was better. Maybe yes, maybe no. But I like the comments that kick the tires, so to speak, of the essay, including the title. Thank you all, Joe

November 15, 2019 2:50 am

The argument is not about climate change, but the redistribution of wealth, which strategy is equally lacking in reason. Here’s a sample of the sort of statements made in the period when global warming hysteria was being ramped up.

1988: Christine Stewart, addressing the media as Canadian Minister of the Environment, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

1989: Stephen Schneider, an author of three IPCC reports, (in the October issue of Discover magazine), “… we”d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

1992: Timothy Wirth (addressing the Rio Climate Summit), United Nations Foundation. “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

1992: Maurice Strong (addressing the Rio Climate Summit), “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.” Maurice Strong was the first executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme and Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations.

1992: Richard Benedick (addressing the Rio Climate Summit), “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.” Richard Benedick was Deputy Assistant of State.

1996: Mikhail Gorbachev (former Soviet Union President) “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

2000: President Jacques Chirac of France, addressing the U.N. Conference on Climate Change, “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

2007: Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters, writing in the science journal Nature, “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state.”

2010: In Nov 2010 Ottmar Edenhofer Co-chair of UN-IPCC Working Group 3 said: “One must say clearly that we redistribute de-facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore”.

2011: Peter Moore, Greenpeace co-founder, on Fox Business News, “We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years…The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. Its not good for people and its not good for the environment…In a warmer world we can produce more food.”
Responsibility, Moore said, lies with “A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue.”

Reply to  Fabius
November 15, 2019 5:34 am
Joe Nalven
Reply to  Fabius
November 15, 2019 6:11 am

Excellent set of quotes. These point to the problem of how groupthink, or ideological-think, or a paradigm truncated our thinking and how it ties into the further problem of political-economic control. I’ve wondered how to create an open dialogue with social justice warriors that co-opt environmental issues. Perhaps humanity is doomed to hopscotch from one governance model with one set of righteousness to another – with any Galileo-type thinkers locked up for safe keeping. A bit pessimistic.

Johann Wundersamer
November 24, 2019 6:11 am

“emotions skew or load affect onto our responses to the world around us, including the words we use.

That is as true of scientists as well as bus drivers, college professors and, well, all of us.”

Including Greta “how dare you” apprentice.

Johann Wundersamer
November 24, 2019 7:08 am

“Fans? Oh yes, that comes from the word “fanatic.””

Oh no, quite the contrary, in fact the word “fanatic” stems from the word “fan”.

From people protecting their ancient imperators, bevor the invention of air conditioners.


Of course the fan bearer were the greatest “fans” of the Pharaoh – their very own lifestyle depended on him.

In warm times plagued by vectors and pests.

Johann Wundersamer
November 24, 2019 7:40 am

“Adulatory crowds also have negative versions: mob behavior. Think of the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror in the late 18th century.”

There is no such thing as “French Revolution’s Reign of Terror”.

There was a revolution of the people in the Ile-de-France following a bold and callous gross violation of peoples right to live and to sustain their families lives.

The following “Reign of Terror” was raised and uphold bei Politicians, on the forefront the infamous, efficient and opportunistic organizer of the police, Joseph Fouché:


Johann Wundersamer
November 24, 2019 8:03 am

There is no such thing as “The fascination of alchemists and their delusion of being able to turn base metals into gold.”

Instead there WAS a PROMISE of alchemists and their ‘delusion’ of being able to turn CLAY into gold” – that they fulfilled:

The European Obsession with Porcelain | The New Yorker

11 Nov 2015 · The man most often credited as the original creator of European porcelain was a German by the name of Johann Friedrich Böttger. He was an alchemist—he said that he knew how to turn lead into gold. Porcelain was white gold, valued for both its durability and its delicacy, and also prized for its exotic origins.


Is Meissen porcelain valuable?

Is porcelain made of clay?

Basically, the chemical composition of porcelain is a combination of clay, kaolin (a primary clay known for its translucency), feldspat, silica and quartz, but other materials may be added. It is traditionally fired at high fire temperatures above 1260°C (2300°F). …

Porcelain is a highly durable and hard material.Mar 12, 2014


%d bloggers like this: