“Climate Myths” by John Stossel

Schist you already know by David Middleton

John Stossel literally (well, maybe figuratively) is a rock star…

Climate Myths
John Stossel|Posted: Nov 20, 2019

“How dare you? You have stolen my dreams and my childhood!” insisted teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg at the United Nations. “We are in the beginning of a mass extinction!”

Many people say that we’re destroying the Earth.

It all sounds so scary.

But I’ve been a consumer reporter for years, and I’ve covered so many scares: plague, famine, overpopulation, SARS, West Nile virus, bird flu, radiation from cellphones, flesh-eating bacteria, killer bees, etc. The list of terrible things that were going to get us is very long.

Yet we live longer than ever.

Now I’m told global warming is different.

The Earth’s average temperature is rising. It’s risen 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880. The U.N. predicts it will rise another 2 to 5 degrees this century. If that happens, that will create problems.

But does that justify what’s being said?


Town Hall dot com

He goes on to demolish nonsense… Exactly what he did for ABC before the nonsense became politically correct.

For a thoroughly demented alternative reality, please see Billy Boy McKibben’s latest unhinged, totally greentarded screed in the Graunaid,

119 thoughts on ““Climate Myths” by John Stossel

    • “A race against time” [2019]

      “The decarbonization process must be launched as soon as possible. Unless total global emissions start to decrease we will look like a bunch of fouls if the global temperature start to go down. it will be almost impossible to achieve any credibility for any of us.”

    • The 2 % ‘guardrail’ is completely arbitrary, plucked from the air by Phil Jones of CRU, per the climate gate emails where Phil admits he just made it up.

      I would hazard that Stossel is wrong, temps in many areas have declined since 1880, esp when UHI is taken into account, and the reality that much of the world did not, and still does not have, reliable temp measurements, so the cult of warmtarding can infill to get the answer they want.

      • I would hazard that Stossel is wrong, temps in many areas have declined since 1880

        Um, what part of “average” do you not understand. Average, by definitions means, that some areas will be below the average and some areas will be above (unless all are equal, but what’s the odds of that in a place as big as a planet). so the fact that many areas have declined compared to the average does not negate the average because it’s equally true to say that other areas rose compared to the average and thus on average the risers out weight the decliners

        Now what you can say about an averages is that they can be deceptive. For example an Average of +10 makes it seem like most of the numbers are positive, like so
        +5, +15, +2, +18, -1, +11 average +10
        but that could be a false perception, as the follow sequence of number illustrates
        +82, -1, -10, -4, -2, -5 average +10

        It’s generally accepted that temperatures have warmed since the 1880s. That’s not a controversial statement. It’s not just based on the temp records (which have their problems, some of which you mentioned), but historical weather facts as well (been to a frost fair on the Thames lately? didn’t think so). So while the accuracy of Stossel’s specific number (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) may not be known, the fact still remains that it’s overall warmer now than it was then (at least for areas of the world occupied and monitored by humans)

        • Average of what?
          If data is missing what are you averaging?
          Temps vary wildly by region. Some regions are colder than 100 yrs ago, some not.
          There is no Global anything with Climate.

          • I agree that the “global average number” itself is rather meaningless, however that does not change the historical facts that, in general, it really was colder in the 1800s than it is today. And you do yourself no favors buy burying your head in the sand and ignoring history.

          • Right? In my immediate area there are at least 7 weather stations, 5 in amateur backyards and 1 at the nearest airport. All report to “Weather Underground” with a continuous feed of their readings. There can be as much as a 10 degree variation among all of these, compared to the thermometer sitting in the shade on my front porch. Following the readings, it is beyond obvious which thermometers are on the sunny side of a building, which in urban heat islands, which on the shores of a large body of water, and which in rural forested areas.

            The idea that there are remotely enough weather stations, let alone accurate ones, over enough of the Earth’s surface to come up with a meaningful average of anything is, patently absurd. Most people pay no attention to any of this, which is the only reason the agitprop is still partially effective. Any 5th-grader who gets outdoors can debunk it with personal observations immediately.

          • There IS an average – we just don’t know what it is, mostly because there are not enough measuring stations on the surface of the earth at close enough intervals to give us a sufficiently precise idea of the number. But it doesn’t matter anyway because NO statistic, and ‘average’ IS a statistic, is a predictor of the future number, ever. A number provided today cannot tell us what that number will be tomorrow – within a range, yes, but just how precise do we want to get?
            Weather is what is happening at a particular place at a particular time, and Climate is the sum of all weather [however that is determined].

          • But it doesn’t matter anyway because NO statistic, and ‘average’ IS a statistic, is a predictor of the future number, ever

            Indeed, at best that statistic can be used to describe the past and illustrate how that statistic has change over past time (ie it was warmer here colder there and somewhere between the two over yonder). It can’t tell us anything useful about what that statistic will end up being in the future.

          • There’s this little thing called google (there are also alternatives if you don’t like google for whatever reason) that can help you easily find the answers to your question.

            first known frost fair was in 695, though it wasn’t called such back then.

            1608 was the first frost fair that was called a frost fair.

            the Frost fair of 1814 was the last, however (as William Andrews notes in his book Famous Frosts and Frost Fairs in Great Britain: Chronicled from the Earliest to the Present Time) there almost was one in 1881 as the winter was so severe the “it was expected by many that a Frost Fair would once more be held on the Thames”.

        • If you look at unadjusted rural regional temperature records you will find recent cooling as often as warming. Averaging opens the door to perfidious adjusting. I do not claim that there has been no warming since the Maunder Minimum, there has. Only that any such warming cannot be attributed to CO2.

        • In fairness an average which leaves out the oceans, large parts of Asia, Africa and South America is not much of an average.

          We’ve had great coverage since 1980 when the satellites went online and even though UAH shows 1.3C per century rate (1.9C if you use RSS “adjusted” version). Both of those are mostly covering the positive phase of the ocean cycles. We have 40 years out of a 60-70 year cycle so it’s a good start.

          Ironic that even with “adjustments” the trend is still below the 2.0C that was pulled from the air as “Yet Another Tipping Point”.

        • John
          If you have a situation where an average is increasing, that can be accomplished by either 1) ALL temperatures increasing, 2) some temperatures staying the same while others increase, or 3) some temperatures increasing more than others decline.

          The key to understanding what is happening is to examine the coefficient of variation (CoV). In case 1, the CoV will have little if any change while the mean increases; in case 2, there will be a small increase in the CoV and a small increase in the mean, and in case 3, there will be a relatively large increase in the CoV and a slight increase in the mean. The key is the probability distribution function of the global temperatures.

          Giving a mean alone, without information on the standard deviation and skewness is a good way to throw away essential information. The alarmists have gotten good at that.

        • How is an average global/regional temperature determined? Is it the highest temp recorded for a given day added to the lowest recorded temp in a given place and divided by 2? What if the lowest temp lasts for many hours but the highest temp only lasted for 1 hour? Is there any weighting by duration?

        • How would you know if it was colder in the 1800s than it is today? Who was measuring temperatures in the 1800s in Africa, Asia, South America or the South Pacific…not to mention the Poles?
          We saw the contortions the Climategang went through to ‘trick’ ‘hide’ and ‘fudge’ the data…how could anyone have confidence in that?

          • How would you know if it was colder in the 1800s than it is today?

            It’s called history. You might want to look into it sometime so you can learn something.

        • John Endicott. Undeniably it is warmer now than in the 1880s and that warming is coincident with a rise in population and CO2. It was however warmer in the Medieval, Roman and Minoan warm periods without the CO2 so what is your point?

          • “Undeniably it is warmer now than in the 1880s”

            It’s not undeniable, because there is no “it”. There is no physically meaningful global temperature. Some places (perhaps even most places) have warmed since then, some have cooled, some have remained relatively static.

          • It’s not undeniable, because there is no “it”.

            There is an “it”, it’s just that you are just confusing “it” with a number (“global temperature”). The two things are not the same , even if the later is used as a proxy for the former.

            Some places (perhaps even most places) have warmed since then

            and there “it” is. If most place have warmed than “it” is true that it has generally warmed since then. If most places have not warmed then “it” is false that it has generally warmed since then. “it” is as simple as that.

        • In 1825 the bridge that had significantly restricted flows was replaced with a less restrictive bridge. Tidal (back water) flow increased, less stagnant water flowed free

          And Jack Frost, along with his ice fairies, was as much driven from the lower Thames as well as enticed to the Erie canal (as evidenced by the fact that the Erie canal never froze over prior to 1825).

          But if one only wants look at a single variable, like temp, one is entitled to do so.

          • Apples to Oranges, The Eerie canal didn’t even exist prior to 1825. The Thames has existed for centuries prior to the 1800s, and while the bridge was reworked (the old bridge was demolished and replaced in 1831, *NOT* 1825 as you wrongly stated), still the cold winter came close to freezing over the Thames as late as 1881 (and perhaps there would have been a frost fair that year had the bridge not been replaced, who can say). However, it hasn’t come even that close in all the years since. Not to mention that frost fairs *pre-date* both the name “frost fair” and the old bridge (the old bridge began construction in 1176, the first known frost fair was *five centuries* earlier in 695 – when the river froze over for six weeks and vendors set up booths on the frozen river in which they sold goods).

            The point, which as flown way over your head, is that there is plenty of historic information (in addition to the temperature record) to come to the conclusion that generally it is warmer today than it was back then. so the claim that it *hasn’t* warmed (again generally speaking) since then is not supportable.

          • John… the fact that there has been a slight warming in the current period is meaningless, unless discussed in relation to all the previous periods of warming. So far, there is nothing to indicate a difference between them. We are just as likely to enter a period of cooling… as continue the slight warming… that has been blown all out of portion by those favoring a one-world socialism!

          • John, you are right about the Erie Canal,

            Human activity allowed the Erie canal to freeze over, only after 1825 (when it was built).

            But, Human activity also slowed water flows and enhanced freezing when a bridge was built over the Thames (1100’s).

            And, Human activity reduced the freezing when obstructions were removed on the Thames (1830’s).

            [Human activity may or may not be responsible for Jack Frost (& his Ice Fairie cohorts) abandoning the London Thames in recent times. Some one wizer than me can will need to acquire the grant funding to figure this part out.]

            My point being that, with respect to global climate change discussions, references to the Thames frost fair should be considered a silly distraction.

          • Gene: So far, there is nothing to indicate a difference between them. We are just as likely to enter a period of cooling… as continue the slight warming… that has been blown all out of portion by those favoring a one-world socialism!</I.

            Gene we are in agreement.

            Dom: My point being that, with respect to global climate change discussions, references to the Thames frost fair should be considered a silly distraction.

            It’s a data point, one of many. Attempting to dismissing data points in a discussion about global climate change (particularly with bogus apples to orange comparisons, such as your eerie canal one) is what is a silly distraction. The point, that went whoosh over your head, is that we have historical data points (the Thames freeze being just one example of many, another example would be the over all number of shrinking vs growing glaciers) that support the notion that the world has warmed since the 1800s. so claiming that it’s “wrong” to say the world has warmed since then just isn’t supported by either the historical data points or the temperature record.

      • I believe the 2C “guardrail” was created by economist William Nordhaus, and then backfilled by climate scientists like Jones.

    • That’s a laugh, coming from the man who admitted that the 2° figure had no scientific relevance and was basically intended to give the simple-minded pollies some nice easy figure they could (probably) just about understand.

    • “it will be almost impossible to achieve compliance with the 2°C guard rail.”

      Well, that 2C “guard rail” has now been changed to 1.5C. The temperatures haven’t been climbing like the alarmist predicted, so in order to keep the crisis atmosphere regarding human-caused climate change going, they have lowered the “out of thin air” number. It’s worse than we thought, they say. Be very afraid, they say. Give us your money to fix it, they say.

    • “Unless total global emissions start to decrease between 2015 and 2020, it will be almost impossible to achieve compliance with the 2°C guard rail.”

      Important: That 2009 warning assumed that the problem was the emissions of the developed world, as was true back then, and that if “we” cut back on “our” emissions, the rate and extent of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere could be materially affected. That’s no longer true. Unexpectedly, the developing world has greatly increased its emissions and has committed itself to continuing to do so. Thus, this call to action is no longer actionable. It’s been overtaken by events. Money should be spent on adaptation (how about earthquake resilience measures on the Pacific Northwest?), not mitigation, which is expensive and futile.

      • And then, we are only responsible for 4% or so of Co2 increase annually.
        And then there was the natural experiment in 1929-1931 when human CO2 production went down by 30% and CO2 continued its languid rise and temp kept increasing to 1941. And in WWII and the post war reconstruction CO2 stabilized and temp went down slightly, but enough to generate the alarms that the Ice Age is coming! See Time and Newsweek and ScienceNews in the early 70s

  1. “For a thoroughly demented alternative reality, please see Billy Boy McKibben’s latest unhinged, totally greentarded screed in the Graunaid,”

    Bill McKibben writing in the Grauniad would have to be the gold standard of CAGW raving. Do not even consider looking at it let alone eading it for fear of your mental health. Take LSD, peyote together with magic musrooms and any amount of modern party drugs in any quantity you like but just do not expose yourself to Bill McK writing in the Grauniad.

      • Are you feeling Ok Dave?

        If you do that again I’ll have to isolate the airlock, Dave, you cannot be allowed back on board.

        I don’t want to do that but I must if you do not undergo rehab immeditely Dave.

        Do you understand?


        (acknowledgements to 2001: A Space Odyssey”)

    • You have to know what goes on in his squinched little mind if you intend to put a counter-argument together.

      That bit of claptrap was almost as obnoxious as the auto auction’s ads that start “All these cars MUST BE SOLD!!!!”, but at least the auto auction has a real product to sell. The similarity? McKibben, the bitter little person cranking out that copy, is doing everything possible to spook the living daylights out of the naive and sell a phony product, like some sideshow barker, whereas the auto auctions do have a real product, and they don’t guarantee nuffin’, but you’ll get a car! The difference is that the car may or may not start, but McKibben is lying in his teeth to scare the living daylights out of you.

      Moving on…..! McKibben’s attempts to scare people fail to relay something important: take all the atmospheric carbon out of the picture (physically impossible) and the oxygen content will rise enough to kill off everything but plants and bugs. I wonder how he’d like a six-foot long centipede as a visitor…?

      • “… take all the atmospheric carbon out of the picture (physically impossible) and the oxygen content will rise enough to kill off everything but plants and bugs.”

        I sure hope you are being sarcastic here, but I am not detecting any of the telltales of it.
        Plants need CO2, but animals do not.
        And with no CO2, where would more O2 come from?
        And what makes you think elevated O2 is toxic to everything but plants and bugs?

      • Oh, golly, McGinley, it would help if you understood or knew anything at all about the history of this planet.

        But here’s a clue for you: during the Carboniferous period, the atmospheric level of oxygen was 30%. Plants of all sorts were in abundance, exhaling O2 into the atmosphere, but that does NOT mean there was no CO2. The giant bugs I refer to were little darlings like 6-foot centipedes with poison fangs and Meganeura, an ancient relative of the modern dragonfly with a winspan up to 29 inches.

        How did these things get this big? Simple. Bugs don’t have lungs. They breathe through spiracles which are pores in their thoraxes. And some biologists tried to find out if bugs could be forced into growing LARGER than they are now by isolating them in containers with the higher O2 level. Corckroaches, no. But dragonflies – yes, immediately, they grew bigger.

        The higher atmospheric level of oxygen at 30% also provides an opportunity for intense wildfires which are not extinguishable. Fossil charcoal (initerite) from the Silurian period shows this.

        The current atmosphere level of oxygen is about 21%, which allows land and air animals to breathe without acquiring oxygen poisoning (hyperoxemia), which is fatal.

        I brought this up a few days ago on one of David Middleton’s posts.

        And frankly, I don’t care whether you believe me or not. I have plenty of backup for what I said.

        Any questions?

        • Those massive wildfires would be natures way of exerting control over the ambient O2 levels.
          O2 concentrations get too high, fires recombine it into CO2.

          • Bryan… Why do you feel O2 has gotten too high? The only time I know of where O2 rose above current levels was (as Sara pointed out) the late Carboniferous period. Our current wildfires are the result of humans starting them (95+ percent), terrible government policies, and (at least on the West Coast) an influx of flashy one-hour fuels!

      • Priceless!!!!

        There have been some summers when the asphalt on city streets was so overheated by sunshine on clear, cloudless days, that it softened enough for city buses and heavy trucks to leave ruts. But that’s a thing of the past right now. I think it was in the late 1980s or early1990s, when there were also some rolling power blackouts.

  2. So we have a natural recovery from the death and famine of the Little Ice Age.
    I’m more worried about the grand solar minimum than a few degrees of welcome warmth. I’ll worry when there are Hippos in the Thames like 125,000 years ago.

  3. People that believe that the use of fossil fuels is bad should stop making use of all goods and services that make use of fossil fuels. But apparently they are not doing that. For example they wear clothes, and eat food that was transported to market by fossil fuel burning trucks. The live in buildings and walk of surfaces made from materials that were brought to the building site by fossil fuel burning trucks. They make use of water delivered to them through pipes that were delivered to the construction site by fossil fuel burning trucks as well. …It is their money that keeps the fossil fuel companies in business.

    • Or we could work in an organised measured fashion to remove them in an orderly and practical way, using alternatives as and when they become available.

      Construction sites in London now often bring in material and ship out demolition waste by water, by the way, not by truck. My water company pumps sewage using gas generated from sewage and also uses that electricity to pump water. There are tens of thousands of small changes like that advancing renewables and sustainability, step by step.

      • And how does that material get to the ships (from wherever it’s sourced) and to the construction sites? (not to mention how the material is constructed in the first place) and how does the waste get back to the ships and taken away from them when they arrive at their destinations? Hmmm? Wanna bet there are lots and lots of fossil fuels involved?

        And that’s not to mention that not every place has easy access to a body of water large enough for ship traffic. Landlocked locations don’t have the option of using ships.

          • Most real-world commercial ship traffic certainly does. In the land of unicorn farts that griff inhabits, every ship is a zero-carbon sailing vessel that in no way use fossil fuels.

          • I was thinking that Grifflandia Boats were barges that were rowed by Scores of indentured den!al!sts as penance for their willful sinfulness.

      • griffunist sez:
        Or we could work in an organised measured fashion to remove them in an orderly and practical way

        Why in the world would any reasonable people do such a thing?

        • Indeed. The only reason to “remove them” is to replace them with something that is cheaper and just as, if not more, reliable. (such as the move from coal to natural gas). Renewables (aka unreliables) are neither of those things.

        • To waste money by decommissioning facilities with perfectly good life expectancy in favor of spending even more money to replace then with more costly “Eco-Friendly” versions.

      • Not good enough, Griff. All construction in the UK must end. You know this. Please keep at it. Then you’ll be in the Guardian.

    • And besides fossil fuels powering agricultural machinery, fossil fuels are important in producing fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides. Fossil fuels are also important in producing food additives and supplemental vitamins, and medicines. One of the consequences of destroying the economies of scale resulting from the existing infrastructure of fossil fuel exploration, production, refining, and distribution will be an increase in the cost of food and medicines.

  4. “Urgent! The transfer of power and surrender of your individual liberties and wealth to the politicians has to happen NOW, or the won’t be able to loot as much.”

    • That’s one of my favorite arguments.
      Let round up this decade, so we have following data points:
      2020 to 1990 – data point 1
      1990 to 1960 – data point 2
      1960 to 1930 – data point 3

      So how can you calculate “catastrophic trend” in a stochastic function having 3 data points?

  5. I googled John Stossel and found that he has done a lot of work debunking liberal myths. Thomas Sowell has been doing that for a lot longer. If facts mattered, most liberals would be slinking away with their tails between their legs.

    The liberals pretend they have facts on their side. They’re deluded.

    • Liberals have declared that they have the right to determine what is and isn’t a fact.
      Their beliefs are facts.
      Anything they disagree with is not a fact.

      Ergo, the facts are on their side.

      • Stop calling them “liberals”. They are leftists. They are fascists. The root word of liberal is liberty, and liberty is the last thing those people, leftists, wish to promote.

        Just say no to Newspeak!

        • Unfortunately, there are some who insist that when one uses left and right, that you must be referring to the original meaning in which those who sat on the right hand of parliament supported the crown, while those on the left hand side didn’t.
          They get quite incensed when any other definition is used.

          • It’s complicated. If you were in the Soviet Union would you be conservative if you supported communism? If you supported capitalism, would you be called liberal?

            I always thought liberal-conservative depended on openness to change. There’s evidence that even that isn’t reliable.

            Oh my aching brain.

      • Yes, pls. refuse to fight on a battelfield set up by enemy.

        Start with correction that socialists are left, incuding national ones (from Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn).

  6. Climate Change doesn’t worry me at all.
    Democrat’s climate change Policy should scare the crap out of everyone. Their policy is seriously bad news, a con man’s scam unless you’re very rich and deeply invested in renewable energy schemes meant to bilk every out of any economic future.
    And the only way to solve that is to not vote for any of them.

    Like a prion disease, most members of that political party are now infected with the Greentard Brainwasting Virus. GBV has left their brain full of holes, most babbling on incoherently about bad orangeman, expressing an illogical carbonphobia, the need for unchecked power over other people, and other despotic rants.

    • Like a prion disease, most members of that political party are now infected with the Greentard Brainwasting Virus.

      Or maybe the old scare about cellphone EM radiation scrambling brains was actually true? 😉

      • There is some evidence that transcranial magnetic stimulation affects the brain. It seems reasonable to me that almost any electromagnetic radiation could affect thought processes in the brain. On the other hand there is little evidence that non-ionizing radiation can cause cancer. link If the radiation is strong enough to actually cause burns, I would expect that it would have the same effect as any other burn.

  7. The “climate” narrative has spun out of control, and into “full retard” mode. They’ve taken lying to a whole new level, with lies couched in lies couched in still more lies, mixed with a mind-blowing level of mass delusional psychosis. Billy McKibbles has to go all in on the crazy greentardation just to stay relevant, being old, white and male, which are now the 3 most evil things one can be, though I suppose I should add being hetero now, with all the crazy talk about gender. Of course, the fact that they are having a big Climate Show coming up in ten days has something to with the uptick in Climate Hype and Hysteria.

  8. Is Bill McKibben the Adam Schiff of climate or is Adam Schiff the Bill McKibben of Congressional hearings?

    • I say you are being highly insulting, but I can’t figure out whom you should be apologizing to for the comparison. I’m going to go with you owe McKibbles an apology, at least he seems to genuinely believe his own nonsense, whereas shifty-Schiff knows he’s lying through his teeth (his eyes are a dead giveaway).

  9. It was a good article and showed up in many places. Unfornutely, it’s mostly preaching to the choir, but Stossel is generally good and I enjoyed reading it in all its versions. If only Greta had anything near such speaking skills, instead of just scowling all the time. Yeah, we’d realize she’s clueless, but still, I’d pay to see it.

  10. Yep, the stupidity is spreading faster than ever. Brookline, MA just banned the use of fossil fuels in new buildings and renovation projects. The news coverage fails to highlight whether the proponents actually understand that their efforts will have no real impact other than seriously raising home utility bills.

    • An ethos of both collectivization and social-shaming morality run very deep in the Puritan tradition which still holds resounding sway in Massachusetts. In the 1600’s, anyone who had a divergent idea let alone action would find themselves swiftly confined to the “stocks,” pelted with rotten vegetables. Ref: Albion’s Seed, highly recommended book.

      Hasn’t changed much. The would-be “thought leaders” are performing their upper-class-marker of “luxury belief” in the boogeyman “climate change,” and are so incurably arrogant they think a couple of gas hookups more or less would actually alter the equation.

      This overweening self-importance (thinking your petty choices can “make a difference” in the universe itself) is the latest sect of the weather-demon religion. New England “elites” are rotten with this sanctimony and have been since the Arabella’s keel hit Plymouth Rock. They really think deep down they are the “Elect of God” whose place it is to whip the Deplorables into shape and into line.

      Ironically, in the last glaciation their state was about 3 miles deep at the bottom of a glacier. And you know how God LOVES irony!

  11. “Many people say that we’re destroying the Earth.
    It all sounds so scary retarded. ”
    There, fixed.

  12. There’s no such thing as climate change.

    There, I said it!

    We have rain, sunshine, snow, sleet hailstones, hurricanes, tornado’s, typhoons, wind, etc. They just appear in different places at different times under different conditions.

    What we might have is rising temperatures, or falling, temperatures (thanks in part to the current solar minimum) which is what is casually referred to a ‘Climate Change’. But it’s not, it’s temperature change.

    Whilst it may affect where and when climate events happen, and no one can really prove it does, it is still temperature change.

    By conforming to the alarmists narrative we are tacitly agreeing with them.

    By re-branding the climate change ‘phenomenon’ to Temperature Change we might narrow the conversation (what conversation one might ask) and deal with it on sceptics terms.

    Discuss the issue at hand instead of all the imaginary surrounding issues that are used to blow smoke.

    • “… There’s no such thing as climate change. …”

      And Geology shows that over the time-scale of a human life time you’re strictly correct. You need a minimum of about 500 years to unambiguously see planetary climate-change trends (presuming any actually occurred within that 500 year interval).

      Anything shorter is regional weather-noise trend, not a planetary climate-change trend.

  13. It’s discouraging that bad pseudo-scientific work is accepted as gospel, and the public reaction gets more alarmist rather than less. I thought ClimateGate was a real turning point–finally the evidence will be considered. There was a lot of dissection of an IPCC report about the same time. Today the IPCC is considered much too conservative for the crazies–poorly grounded, somewhat alarmist conclusions in official reports are seen as capitulating to the deniers. “OK Boomer,” now shut up.

    Fear of human intervention in nature seems to have no real limits, even though these same people love their phones, indoor heating and cooling, etc. Wilderness camping is more to be celebrated than experienced (although there are a fair number of people trampling around, doing some harm to ecosystems they supposedly love), and very few people want to live next door to predators that prey on humans (although, wolves in Yellowstone…). These extreme fears and hopes (hopes for some mysterious new technologies) must be occupying mental space that was formerly occupied by something else, like religion. The faith that science can somehow take over is probably foolish.

  14. I have recently heard that the next IPCC report will include solar forcing as a part of the climate discussion.
    Is this true and, if so, how will it affect the report? Is this why the hysteria level of the Hoaxers has hit 11?

    • The IPCC always have a bit on solar forcing and say the various arguments put forward are not convincing.

      In my view climate science has now reached the point where climate models prove the climate models, reality need not try to intervene. I have seen arguments placed on this site that from people who know about such stuff that model records provide more reliable records than raw records.

      The model proves the model all is well!

  15. For what it’s worth one of the reasons why there’s never likely to be another frost fair on the Thames has nothing whatever to do with climate. The river was made much narrower during the 19th century to accommodate Sir Joseph Bazalgette’s amazing Victorian sewer system in the Embankment; and, as a result the flow became too high for ice to form.

  16. should not the headline be “Noted Climate Scientist Jon Stossel”?

    come on! the dude is an icon in the Physics community!


    • Your inability to touch any of the point Stossel made is showing. Perhaps noted climate scientist chris *snicker* doesn’t know as much as he thinks he does.

  17. “I’ve been a…reporter for years…global warming is different…that will create problems…does that justify what’s being said? ”

    If it “will” create problems, how does any sane person think that business as usual will turn out better? John Stossel is not a reporter, he is an “affiliated” Fox commenter with a selfish agenda, an aparently suicidal agenda.

    • I think when Stossel says CO2 will cause problems he is referrring to the problems the alarmists create when they try to control the Earth’s weather. That causes a *lot* of problems.

      • Loydo is a lot like griff, he never actually reads the articles he’s responding to.

        PS: Even if it does create problems, the fact remains that the problems caused by renewable energy are many magnitudes greater.
        PPS: The good that is done by CO2 and slightly warmer temperatures vastly outweighs the tiny bit of harm they might cause sometime in the far future.

        • > Loydo is a lot like griff, he never actually reads the articles he’s responding to.

          It’s not what he is paid for.

        • Loydo is a lot like griff, he never actually reads the articles he’s responding to.

          with both of them, it’s not so much that they don’t read them, it’s that they don’t understand what little they do read of them (this same failure to comprehend also applies to the links they supply to “support” their viewpoint, often when you read the links they supply, you discover that the links don’t indicate the conclusions they made about those links). I suspect a lot of their inability to comprehend what they read is willful (IE “there are none so blind and those who refuse to see” applies).

  18. No amount of “decarbonization” that the US/the West can do will have any effect [even if warranted]! It is China and India and the third world who have set the world on this path now. Talk to them. Simple fact.

Comments are closed.