The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial

From The Conversation

Don’t let the green naysayers drown you out.
Component/Shutterstock

Mark Maslin, UCL

The fossil fuel industry, political lobbyists, media moguls and individuals have spent the past 30 years sowing doubt about the reality of climate change – where none exists. The latest estimate is that the world’s five largest publicly-owned oil and gas companies spend about US$200 million a year on lobbying to control, delay or block binding climate policy.

Their hold on the public seems to be waning. Two recent polls suggested over 75% of Americans think humans are causing climate change. School climate strikes, Extinction Rebellion protests, national governments declaring a climate emergency, improved media coverage of climate change and an increasing number of extreme weather events have all contributed to this shift. There also seems to be a renewed optimism that we can deal with the crisis.

But this means lobbying has changed, now employing more subtle and more vicious approaches – what has been termed as “climate sadism”. It is used to mock young people going on climate protests and to ridicule Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old young woman with Asperger’s, who is simply telling the scientific truth.

Anti-climate change lobbying spend by the five largest publicly-owned fossil fuel companies.
Statista, CC BY-SA

At such a crossroads, it is important to be able to identify the different types of denial. The below taxonomy will help you spot the different ways that are being used to convince you to delay action on climate change.

1. Science denial

This is the type of denial we are all familiar with: that the science of climate change is not settled. Deniers suggest climate change is just part of the natural cycle. Or that climate models are unreliable and too sensitive to carbon dioxide.

Some even suggest that CO₂ is such a small part of the atmosphere it cannot have a large heating affect. Or that climate scientists are fixing the data to show the climate is changing (a global conspiracy that would take thousands of scientists in more than a 100 countries to pull off).

All these arguments are false and there is a clear consensus among scientists about the causes of climate change. The climate models that predict global temperature rises have remained very similar over the last 30 years despite the huge increase in complexity, showing it is a robust outcome of the science.




Read more:
Five climate change science misconceptions – debunked


Model reconstruction of global temperature since 1970. Average of the models in black with model range in grey compared to observational temperature records from NASA, NOAA, HadCRUT, Cowtan and Way, and Berkeley Earth.
Carbon Brief, CC BY

The shift in public opinion means that undermining the science will increasingly have little or no effect. So climate change deniers are switching to new tactics. One of Britain’s leading deniers, Nigel Lawson, the former UK chancellor, now agrees that humans are causing climate change, despite having founded the sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation in 2009.

It says it is “open-minded on the contested science of global warming, [but] is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated”. In other words, climate change is now about the cost not the science.

2. Economic denial

The idea that climate change is too expensive to fix is a more subtle form of climate denial. Economists, however, suggest we could fix climate change now by spending 1% of world GDP. Perhaps even less if the cost savings from improved human health and expansion of the global green economy are taken into account. But if we don’t act now, by 2050 it could cost over 20% of world GDP.

We should also remember that in 2018 the world generated US$86,000,000,000,000 and every year this World GDP grows by 3.5%. So setting aside just 1% to deal with climate change would make little overall difference and would save the world a huge amount of money. What the climate change deniers also forget to tell you is that they are protecting a fossil fuel industry that receives US$5.2 trillion in annual subsidies – which includes subsidised supply costs, tax breaks and environmental costs. This amounts to 6% of world GDP.

The International Monetary Fund estimates that efficient fossil fuel pricing would lower global carbon emissions by 28%, fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46%, and increase government revenue by 3.8% of the country’s GDP.

3. Humanitarian denial

Climate change deniers also argue that climate change is good for us. They suggest longer, warmer summers in the temperate zone will make farming more productive. These gains, however, are often offset by the drier summers and increased frequency of heatwaves in those same areas. For example, the 2010 “Moscow” heatwave killed 11,000 people, devastated the Russian wheat harvest and increased global food prices.

Geographical zones of the world. The tropical zones span from the Tropic of Cancer in the North to the Tropic of Capricorn in the South (red shaded region) and contains 40% of the World population.
Maulucioni/Wikipedia, CC BY-SA

More than 40% of the world’s population also lives in the Tropics – where from both a human health prospective and an increase in desertification no one wants summer temperatures to rise.

Deniers also point out that plants need atmospheric carbon dioxide to grow so having more of it acts like a fertiliser. This is indeed true and the land biosphere has been absorbing about a quarter of our carbon dioxide pollution every year. Another quarter of our emissions is absorbed by the oceans. But losing massive areas of natural vegetation through deforestation and changes in land use completely nullifies this minor fertilisation effect.

Climate change deniers will tell you that more people die of the cold than heat, so warmer winters will be a good thing. This is deeply misleading. Vulnerable people die of the cold because of poor housing and not being able to afford to heat their homes. Society, not climate, kills them.

This argument is also factually incorrect. In the US, for example, heat-related deaths are four times higher than cold-related ones. This may even be an underestimate as many heat-related deaths are recorded by cause of death such as heart failure, stroke, or respiratory failure, all of which are exacerbated by excessive heat.

US weather fatalities for 2018 alongside the ten- and 30-year average.
National Weather Service, CC BY

4. Political denial

Climate change deniers argue we cannot take action because other countries are not taking action. But not all countries are equally guilty of causing current climate change. For example, 25% of the human-produced CO₂ in the atmosphere is generated by the US, another 22% is produced by the EU. Africa produces just under 5%.

Given the historic legacy of greenhouse gas pollution, developed countries have an ethical responsibility to lead the way in cutting emissions. But ultimately, all countries need to act because if we want to minimise the effects of climate change then the world must go carbon zero by 2050.

Per capita annual carbon dioxide emissions and cumulative country emissions. Data from the Global Carbon Project.
Nature. Data from the Global Carbon Project

Deniers will also tell you that there are problems to fix closer to home without bothering with global issues. But many of the solutions to climate change are win-win and will improve the lives of normal people. Switching to renewable energy and electric vehicles, for example, reduces air pollution, which improves people’s overall health.

Developing a green economy provides economic benefits and creates jobs. Improving the environment and reforestation provides protection from extreme weather events and can in turn improve food and water security.

5. Crisis denial

The final piece of climate change denial is the argument that we should not rush into changing things, especially given the uncertainty raised by the other four areas of denial above. Deniers argue that climate change is not as bad as scientists make out. We will be much richer in the future and better able to fix climate change. They also play on our emotions as many of us don’t like change and can feel we are living in the best of times – especially if we are richer or in power.

But similarly hollow arguments were used in the past to delay ending slavery, granting the vote to women, ending colonial rule, ending segregation, decriminalising homosexuality, bolstering worker’s rights and environmental regulations, allowing same sex marriages and banning smoking.

The fundamental question is why are we allowing the people with the most privilege and power to convince us to delay saving our planet from climate change?


Click here to subscribe to our climate action newsletter. Climate change is inevitable. Our response to it isn’t.The Conversation

Mark Maslin, Professor of Earth System Science, UCL

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
348 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Richard Horton
November 29, 2019 10:05 am

We seeing this to remind us how how crappy their “arguments” are?

Reply to  Richard Horton
November 30, 2019 4:39 pm

It’s a classic case of projection.

David L Hagen
Reply to  Richard Horton
December 1, 2019 11:42 am

Mark Maslin posted on Linkedin with a link to this article: “The fossil fuel industry, political lobbyists, media moguls and individuals have spent the past 30 years sowing doubt about the reality of climate change – where none exists. The latest estimate is that the world’s five largest publicly-owned oil and gas companies spend about US$200 million a year on lobbying to control, delay or block binding climate policy….”
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6606117368064204800/

David Hagen response: “Reality Check: This effort directly contradicts the essential high standard of scientific integrity detailed by Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman that is essential to science. See Feynman’s 1974 Commencement Address to Caltech “Cargo Cult Science”.” http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

Mark Maslin: “Spoken like someone who really does not really understand science nor the scientific method. As soon as someone quotes Feynman you know they are ignorant of the basic rules of science which involves increasing weight of evidence and continual testing of ideas and theories.”

David Hagen: “Mark Maslin Where is Physics Noble Laureate Richard Feynman wrong? “…scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought … of utter honesty…leaning over backwards. eg, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid … other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked…
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them…if you know anything … possibly wrong—to explain it. If you make a theory, eg & …put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. … When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition… give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another” http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

David Hagena: “Mark Maslin
John Von Neuman: “With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.” How many parameters are there in IPCC’s global climate models?
Thomas Kuhn detailed the “Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition” 2012. When predictions of climate models with numerous parameters diverge from independent radiosonde and satellite data, I’ll stick with the data – and await the revolution quantifying the real foundational science. Are you really following climate science?
Or the Climate Lemmings enticed by the Climate Piper?
http://bit.ly/34DDvXE

David Hagen: “This imposes Lysenkoism again via asserting political “consensus”. That destroys the very foundations of the Scientific Method of Test All THings, & Take Nobody’s Word for it. https://www.genetics.org/content/212/1/1
Mark Maslin: “Again you really really do not understand the science method. Next you will be quoting the ‘Galileo’ argument saying that just because tens of thousands of scientists over 180 years have tested anthropocen climate change again and again – may be the politically motivated climate change denier might be right!”

David Hagen: “Mark Maslin Apollo NASA scientists & engineers motto: “In God we trust. All others bring data”. Every model used had to be proven against data. They landed a man on the moon and brought him back safely. Apollo NASA scientists & engineers at TheRightClimateStuff.com developed the only validated accurate climate model. I recommend you study the methodology and the model to understand the real scientific method. https://www.therightclimatestuff.com/trcs-reports.html

Mark Maslin Per the scientific definition of climate as a 30 year average, climate has been changing for 4 billion years. Every forest converted to a field, every road and city affect climate. CO2 is one of 11 “greenhouse” gases absorbing and radiating energy. Fossil fuel use increases CO2. What have I “denied”? The IPCC’s global climate models still stand “Not proven”, failing their most sensitive prediction with > 200% TypeB errors for the Anthropogenic Signature.

Reality Check: This violates the very Foundation of Science = Test All Things – Take Nobody’s Word for it, per the Royal Society’s Motto. The IPCC models “Anthropogenic Signature” of Tropical Tropospheric Temperatures fail, by running ~ 275% hot.
McKitrick, R. and Christy, J., 2018. A Test of the Tropical 200 to 300 hPa Warming Rate in Climate Models. Earth and Space Science, 5(9), pp.529-536.
Varotsos, C.A. and Efstathiou, M.N., 2019. Has global warming already arrived? Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 182, pp.31-38.
https://bit.ly/2wFXtRN https

Mark Maslin per the Scientific Method, I referred you to two peer reviewed published papers by two independent groups. Each show that IPCC’s most sensitive prediction – Anthropogenic Signature of Tropospheric Tropical Temperatures- is running hot > 200% tested against independent Satellite & Radiosonde Data. Your challenge per the scientific method is to show identify the 275% Type B errors between models & data per BIPM’s GUM http://bit.ly/2OzESRG
I acted on IPCC warnings in 1991 with a 330 p review of solar thermal technology to redress global warming. Now IPCC models fail with predictions diverging > 200% from long term data.
Apparently having neither science nor data, you descend to ad hominem logical fallacies of asserting the moral depravity of a Holocaust Denier. By “Climate Change” you appear to further commit equivocation, implying “catastrophic majority anthropogenic global warming.”
Will you rise to Feynman’s standard of scientific integrity?
Or descend to gutter journalism?

While Mark Maslin expounds on climate deniers, China has pragmatically added 43 GW coal power in last 2 years. China now has 195.6 GW coal power under active development (with 121.3 GW under construction and 22.6 GW permitted). Compare Germany’s plans to close 43 GW coal power by 2038. Roger Pielke Jr.’ Iron Law dominates: People are willing to spend some on the environment but not much. #Climate #Power #Economy #CO2 #China #IronLaw https://www.powermag.com/china-ramping-renewables-and-building-more-coal-plants/

Phantor48
November 29, 2019 10:08 am

My how time flies!! It is April 1 already.

Greg Woods
Reply to  Phantor48
November 29, 2019 10:34 am

one year closer to the Tipping Point…

Bryan A
Reply to  Greg Woods
November 29, 2019 12:22 pm

Two recent polls suggested over 75% of Americans think humans are causing climate change

If this is in fact true, then the solution is simple…
The 75% of Americans who “Think” humans are causing climate change simply stand behind their beliefs and stop using fossil fuels, draconian legislation and carbon taxation would be unnecessary. Their personal actions would bring an end to fossil fuels as a power source as the 25% minority would be an insufficient driver to keep the industry solvent

Peter K
Reply to  Bryan A
November 30, 2019 3:57 pm

Exactly. If 75% of Americans “all agree”, then why don’t they take affirmative action, by disconnecting their house from the grid. Then put in some solar panels and batteries.

Goldrider
Reply to  Bryan A
November 30, 2019 4:15 pm

So why aren’t droves of people fleeing the fashionable enclaves of Brooklyn or Kensington and “returning to the land” to live that animal-powered, vegetable-diet technology-free 11th century “lifestyle” as if all their lives depended on it?

Oh . . . wait.

Peter Jennings
Reply to  Goldrider
December 1, 2019 7:08 am

Oboma has just bought a large mansion right on the sea front. No sea rise or global nonsense going on there it seems.

Greg
Reply to  Greg Woods
November 29, 2019 12:27 pm

the past 30 years sowing doubt about the reality of climate change – where none exists.

In fact I’m so certain that no doubt exists that I can make such a sweeping , categorical statement without even defining what I mean by “climate change”. Whatever it means its REAL. So there !!

Reply to  Greg
November 30, 2019 9:46 am

the past 30 years sowing doubt about the reality of climate change – where none exists.

In fact I’m so certain that no man made climate change to speak of exists that I can make sweeping categorical statements like “Toujours Bolleaux”

Editor
Reply to  Phantor48
November 29, 2019 10:36 am

Yeah I wonder if they live in the Goundhog April 1 day cycle that runs 365 days of the year……

Their hold on the public seems to be waning. Two recent polls suggested over 75% of Americans think humans are causing climate change.

These misleading poll claims are silly since it is a SINGLE ISSUE poll, thus big numbers can be claimed, but try using multiple issue polls and BOOM! the climate change concerns tumble to the bottom of such polls.

Here from a forum exposing what happens when MULTIPLE concerns are listed:

“New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate

LINK

The replies against it are stupid.

Gator
Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 29, 2019 11:54 am

And we all know how reliable leftist polls are, just ask Hillary.

Larry Vaughn
November 29, 2019 10:14 am

After I stopped laughing, I thought to myself, these fools need to read the book, Factfullness. As a Science educator I feel sorry for the lack of Science knowledge by these individuals.

Keitho
Editor
Reply to  Larry Vaughn
November 30, 2019 5:34 am

And economic knowledge too. When you trot off to find out how they got $5.3 trillion a year in subsidies you wonder why they stopped there. The methodology would allow $53 tr or $500 tr or even $50 bucks.

They are just a gang of motivated liars.

Now, if we are the cause of the bad weather what is the cause of the nice weather? Because this really has become all about the weather hasn’t it.

Reply to  Larry Vaughn
November 30, 2019 11:08 am

Mr. Vaughn
You can start laughing again … at your own comment.

There is no knowledge to teach about the climate 100 years from now — that future climate is a mystery, and can not be predicted — not even whether the average temperature will be warmer or cooler than today

The lack of science knowledge ABOUT THE FUTURE CLIMATE allows anyone to make predictions that can not be proven wrong in their lifetime.

Not that any human on the planet has a track record of accurate climate predictions … beyond a few weeks !

The problem here is that real climate scientists study the past and present climate, TRYING to figure out how to explain the climate changes that have already happened.

But the climate alarmists — junk climate scientists — just make wild guess, always wrong. predictions of the future climate.

And they have been doing so for the past 50 years.

50 years of claiming global warming in the future will be 100% bad news … the opposite of the actual global warming in the past 325 years — probably up +2 degrees C. since the 1690s — which has been 100% good news.

The 325 years of intermittent global warming since the 1690s has resulted in nearly the best climate this planet has ever had for human life — maybe not as good as the Holocene Optimum about 10,000 years ago, but near the best.

Perhaps half the people on this planet overlook the wonderful climate THEY CURRENTLY LIVE IN, because they are fearful of a coming climate crisis — coming for the past 50 years, but never shows up — the climate just keeps getting better !

Of course it’s said half the people have an IQ under 100, and maybe that explains everything?

lb
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 1, 2019 12:37 pm

“Not that any human on the planet has a track record of accurate climate predictions … beyond a few weeks !”

Not true. I have a track record of predicting the next summer, and I do this every november. 😉

Goldrider
Reply to  Larry Vaughn
November 30, 2019 4:16 pm

It isn’t “science.” It’s MARKETING. The whole damn thing, from the rotten fish-head all the way down.

Sweet Old Bob
November 29, 2019 10:14 am

Whats an obedient little cult slave to do ….
pass the Kool-Aid ?

Clay Sanborn
November 29, 2019 10:17 am

Looks to me that they make their own very good argument for skepticism.
And besides, God is in control.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Clay Sanborn
November 29, 2019 11:28 am

He’s doing a lousy job.

MarkW
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 29, 2019 12:49 pm

Sometimes you have to let the enemy win a few in order to position yourself and them for your ultimate victory.
It really amazes me how many people actually believe that unless they personally understand God’s plan, than it’s proven that their is no God or that his plan’s are no good.

commieBob
Reply to  MarkW
November 29, 2019 2:32 pm

… unless they personally understand God’s plan …

ROTFL! Sadly, I know such people.

JON SALMI
Reply to  MarkW
November 29, 2019 4:49 pm

As I’ve said before too many leftists ‘fact-check’ religion and ‘believe in’ climate science’.

Dan Griswold
Reply to  JON SALMI
November 29, 2019 5:52 pm

Ain’t that the truth!

Wayne K Austin
Reply to  JON SALMI
November 30, 2019 4:23 am

Keep saying it.

takebackthegreen
Reply to  MarkW
November 30, 2019 12:00 am

Oh, come on, Brother Mark! What atheist ever said “not understanding God’s plan” is the reason for their atheism?

What’s actually amazing is the reality: most atheists don’t waste any time at all thinking about your idea of god.

The Universe is wide and full of wonder. Why try to narrow it down to make it fit with plagiarized Bronze-age myths?

But since you brought it up… (I’ve read the KJV cover-to-cover at least five times. So this is first-hand reporting.) There really isn’t much of a “plan.” What there is, is a laughable amount of internal self-contradiction, mixed in with god-ordered incest, torture, slavery and murder. (Yes, even the New Testament.)

Oh yeah, and more birth announcements than any sane person should have to endure.

To end on an optimistic note: I am 100% with you that C.A.G.W. is a false belief. As false a belief as… Well, you know…

MarkW
Reply to  takebackthegreen
November 30, 2019 8:42 am

You must not know many atheists. All the time I’m told that a good God wouldn’t allow evil to exist, therefore there is no God.

There’s a difference between reading for understanding and reading looking for things to criticize.

One other thing that amazes me is how evangelical your average atheist is.

Reply to  takebackthegreen
November 30, 2019 11:20 am

Take Back:
I have been an atheist since I was old enough to understand what the word meant — roughly age 6. That would make me an atheist for 60 years.

I don’t waste any time thinking about religions or gods — religions are strange, and gods are imaginary in the absence of proof that they exist.

There is far more evidence that etraterrestrial space craft have visited this planet than proof in the existence of a god or goods.

Yet many people laugh at UFO’s, in spite of the evidence, and believe in a God, in spite of no evidence.

I’m a “prove it” person, so the claims about a coming climate crisis have no effect on me.

I don’t know what the climate will be like in 100 years, nor does anyone else.

There are many unanswered questions — I am perfectly comfortable with unanswered questions — But I’m uncomfortable when people invent a story to explain an unanswerable question.

Some people invent answers for those questions — perhaps a bible or a religion.

They have faith, not science.

The climate change “religion” also has faith, and not science.
Because wild guess, always wrong, predictions of the future climate have nothing to do with real science.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  takebackthegreen
November 30, 2019 9:31 pm

God ≡ Universe – i.e. the universe itself is the embodiment of God in the sense of Strong AI.

Kemaris
Reply to  takebackthegreen
December 1, 2019 5:41 pm

Speaking of plagiarized bronze-age myths, let’s not forget a steady-state universe and spontaneous generation.

sendergreen
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 29, 2019 1:01 pm

Nope, George Patton would never let his era’s totalitarians win one, I’m not giving these people who want to control every aspect of my life one inch.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  sendergreen
November 29, 2019 4:10 pm

sendergreen
It appears that you are not a chess player.

sendergreen
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 29, 2019 1:04 pm

He didn’t leave us, we left him. He’ll be back when He is good and ready, and when we have totally ass’ed it up on our own.

Clay Sanborn
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 29, 2019 1:09 pm

Jeff, I understand how you feel (I once VERY strongly held your position), but no, we (mankind) are to blame for all that is wrong in the entire Universe, for mankind thru Adam and Eve caused “the fall”. Since the fall nothing is as it should be. And Satan has for this time been allowed to be “prince of the air” (have certain control over this world’s people). But since God created the (fallen) angel Satan and everything, God has ultimate control over all things, and in time thru Jesus, He will put all things right again.
God knows CAGW, along with many other fallacies of mankind, derive from mankind’s pride.

Richard Patton
Reply to  Clay Sanborn
November 29, 2019 5:19 pm

Well yes, you are technically right, but we are not directly responsible for acts of nature including “climate change.” Now there ‘acts of nature’ which the media would have us believe man had nothing to do with, like the flooding and deaths in New Orleans after Katrina, when it is well documented that the mayor had warnings in his hands of flooding from NWS at least 6 hours before it happened and he did nothing. Then there were the decades of corrupt state officials diverting money to maintain the levees to their pockets. (See https://tinyurl.com/rlq6x9t). Thousands of people died because of incompetent government (all levels). But is government to blame? Noooo, it was climate change.

David Chappell
Reply to  Clay Sanborn
November 30, 2019 5:44 am

If, as you say, “God has ultimate control over all things, and in time thru Jesus, He will put all things right again” why did he let things go out of control? Sleeping on the job?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Clay Sanborn
November 30, 2019 7:59 am

Sorry, Clay. I don’t believe in any of the myths you believe in. No evidence.

I’m guessing you don’t believe life could exist anywhere else.

TRM
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 29, 2019 6:50 pm

“an office temp with a bad attitude” – George Carlin

commieBob
Reply to  Clay Sanborn
November 29, 2019 2:14 pm

They correctly state many skeptic arguments. For each of these arguments they merely state that the argument is wrong but they provide no evidence.

Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says. link

So, they don’t even pass the Monty Python sniff test.

Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  commieBob
November 29, 2019 8:14 pm

Thanks commieBob – for using the term ‘skeptic” I got sick and tired of the repeated “Climate change deniers”.

Snape
Reply to  Clay Sanborn
November 29, 2019 2:16 pm

“God is in control.”

I wonder why He likes floating islands of garbage?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Snape
November 29, 2019 3:49 pm

Did you even read the article you linked to?

“Despite the common public perception of the patch existing as giant islands of floating rubbish, its low density (4 particles per cubic meter) prevents detection by satellite imagery, or even by casual boaters or divers in the area. This is because the patch is a widely dispersed area consisting primarily of suspended “fingernail-sized or smaller bits of plastic”, often microscopic, particles in the upper water column.”

What’s the critical problem? There’s all kinks of “stuff” floating in the oceans and it doesn’t hurt anyone. Plastics are just one more set of “stuff” that will break down in the sunlight and with the help of microbes. Read some real information, not just Wikigarbage.

Snape
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
November 29, 2019 11:23 pm

@Trying to play nice

You caught me slacking. I should have read the article before using it as an example. Those photos of floating garbage? They’re real, but most are of Manila Bay. Some were taken in the Caribbean, near the shore.

That’s not to say plastic in the ocean is not a problem.

MarkW
Reply to  Snape
November 29, 2019 5:19 pm

Once again, since God refuses to behave in the manner that you believe to be appropriate, in your mind you actually believe you have disproven the existence of God.

takebackthegreen
Reply to  MarkW
November 30, 2019 12:12 am

Not what he said at all.

On the upside… a fine example of a straw-man argument, which climate alarmists are also frequently guilty of.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MarkW
November 30, 2019 8:01 am

No. But no believer has proven the existence of god. Therefore there is no reason to believe.

MarkW
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 30, 2019 8:45 am

No atheist has ever proven that God doesn’t exist, so there’s no reason not to believe.

Steve Attack
Reply to  Clay Sanborn
November 29, 2019 3:01 pm

His hand is on the thermostat, not ours.

Snape
Reply to  Steve Attack
November 29, 2019 4:03 pm

“His hand is on the thermostat, not ours.”

Right. And all this time I thought the UHI was caused by all those buildings and cement.

Steve Attack
Reply to  Snape
November 29, 2019 7:29 pm

He’s in charge of the thermostat.
We’re in charge of the thermometers, and their placement.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Clay Sanborn
November 29, 2019 5:48 pm

if X happens God is in control
if !X happens, God is in Control.
Nothing can falsify this claim it’s perfectly anti scientific

Faith based science, only at WUWT

rbabcock
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 29, 2019 8:23 pm

As opposed to fake based science that you operate under.

James Schrumpf
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 29, 2019 9:42 pm

Is that really it, Steven? Of ALL the comments on this topic, that’s the one you choose to respond to?

Really, that exact same point can be made about CAGW: is there something, anything that can falsify that hypothesis?

How about the existence of a few hundred weather stations that have flat or cooling trends over the last 30 years, mixed right in with stations that are warming? If the warming is global, if greenhouse gases are this big comfy blanket trapping the heat from the Sun, then why do these exist?

MarkW
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 29, 2019 9:47 pm

Poor Steve, his paycheck is being threatened and he’s panicking.

How long has been since Steve last tried to make sense?

sycomputing
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 29, 2019 9:50 pm

Faith based science, only at WUWT

Naturlich . . . but it sounds like you’re criticizing the notion.

If so, don’t you contradict yourself?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/18/climate-science-has-died-the-effects-will-be-big/#comment-2850041

Snape
Reply to  sycomputing
November 29, 2019 10:56 pm

“He’s in charge of the thermostat.
We’re in charge of the thermometers, and their placement.“

Well, it makes sense to split up the work.
I’m curious, though, were these duties previously announced, or were they gleaned in prayer after reading my comment?

sycomputing
Reply to  Snape
November 30, 2019 7:54 am

I’m curious, though, were these duties previously announced, or were they gleaned in prayer . . . ?

Thanks for your query professor. You know, there’s just not enough curiosity in the youth these days; thus I say, “Bravo to you young lady!”

I reckon, however, I’ll have to go with option three; mistakenly absent from your MCQ:

“None of the above.”

Steve45
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 30, 2019 5:06 pm

Does it really surprise you? This blog is full of low IQ nutters. It’s no surprise nobody takes them seriously.

RockyRoad
November 29, 2019 10:21 am

OMG,
The climate is cooling off and we’re supposed to reduce foodstuff-producing CO2?????

This author should try self-administered asphyxiation because that’s what he’s recommending for the plant kingdom!

That, or let him go three days without food and see if that changes his attitude! (What happens to a gentleman who goes 12 meals without eating? He becomes a terrorst!)

Greg
Reply to  RockyRoad
November 29, 2019 12:40 pm

“What happens to a gentleman who goes 12 meals without eating? ”
Written by someone who has never actually tried it or even talked to someone who has tried it !

He learns what fasting means and discovers to his amazement that hunger does not get worse and worse every day but stops after 24-48h.

My last fast was 20days , water only , and I hardly killed anyone. !

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Greg
November 30, 2019 6:14 am

Everyone who sleeps, wakes and has food in the morning is “breaking their fast”, ie, breakfast.

Snape
Reply to  RockyRoad
November 30, 2019 12:36 pm

@Sycomputing
“I reckon, however, I’ll have to go with option three; mistakenly absent from your MCQ:

“None of the above.””

*******
Acting as God’s spokesman, Steve Attack explained to us how the workload in question has been divvied up. I’m just wondering how and when he came upon this information?

sycomputing
Reply to  Snape
November 30, 2019 2:18 pm

Hey there you are! Heck just almost missed ya! Why for you to reply all the way over hya?

I’m just wondering how and when . . .

Hmm, not sure there friend. I suspect I wouldn’t be the best source for that info. You prolly ought to ask him. 🙂

Snape
Reply to  sycomputing
November 30, 2019 3:45 pm

“I wouldn’t be the best source for that info. You prolly ought to ask him. 🙂”

Darn, …..you presumed to speak for him in your last comment, “None of the above.”

I was counting on your mind reading skills to answer the more recent question.

sycomputing
Reply to  Snape
November 30, 2019 4:55 pm

. . . you presumed to speak for him in your last comment, ‘None of the above.’

Oh I gotcha. Since you thought you were quoting me in your reply you thought I thought I was speaking for whomever you thought you were quoting in mine. No, I was answering your question directly. Occam’s principle, you know.

Glad we cleared that up!

I was counting on your mind reading skills to answer the more recent question.

Apologies if I’ve disappointed. In my defense, I’ve had to use all my available mystic intellectuals just to figure out where from where yer gonna reply next! Is it here; is it there; is it in the next article three back maybe? Who can know for sure?

Hey I’m just ribbin’ ya a little bit. Actually, you did very well this time. I suspect you’re gonna get the hang of it soon. Remember, practice makes perfect!

🙂

Susan
November 29, 2019 10:29 am

It says vulnerable people die from not being able to heat their homes. How will pushing up energy prices help them?

Reply to  Susan
November 29, 2019 11:03 am

Making electricity less available will not help vulnerable people cool their homes either.

HotScot
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
November 29, 2019 12:48 pm

Ralph Dave Westfall

In the Uk winter of 2017/2018 there were 50, 000 Excess winter deaths, of a population of 60m.

It wasn’t a particularly cold winter.

In the 2017 Indian summer, during an ‘unprecedented’ heatwave, of a population of 1.3bn, more than 10% of whom live below the poverty line (so 130m), 222 people died from heat related conditions.

Yep, two hundred and twenty two.

Poverty, as measured by Indian standards, does not exist in the UK.

So how come so many ‘wealthy’ British people died if cold were not a far more effective killer than heat?

Reply to  HotScot
November 29, 2019 4:13 pm

They claim to be concerned about “vulnerable people” when that supports their policies. On the other hand, you tend to be skeptical about such concern being expressed by people who want to substantially reduce the human population.

Reply to  HotScot
November 30, 2019 2:48 pm

Those are killer statistics, HotScot, and I do not doubt them, but they’d be a lot more useful to me if you could provide sources/references for them.

Thanks in advance!

Reply to  HotScot
December 3, 2019 5:01 am

Please, HotScot?

Susan
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
November 29, 2019 1:17 pm

Here in the UK we rarely (even now) have to worry about cooling our homes.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Susan
November 30, 2019 5:37 am

yeah and calls that a social problem?
well I guess if society allows the idiocy of making fuel and power so expensive it cant be afforded than it could be said
but its morons like these pushing for high prices and unreliable power doing the killing to my mind.
its saturday here and one of the 2 days a week I can afford to turn the heater on for a few hrs and overnight last night was 2.7c just before summers official., my arthritic joints are giving me hell.

rbabcock
November 29, 2019 10:31 am

(a global conspiracy that would take thousands of scientists in more than a 100 countries to pull off)

Huh? It takes just one computer program to “adjust” all the reading the thousands of scientists in more than 100 countries take.

Reply to  rbabcock
November 29, 2019 11:10 am

No need for a conspiracy: non-stop propaganda plus herd instincts are quite sufficient.

Greg
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
November 29, 2019 12:47 pm

I does not need an organised conspiracy, it a conspiracy of intent. They all know that if fail to object and denounce unscientific “corrections” like the infamous Karlisation of SST records, they will ensure more panic , more political interest and MORE FUNDING.

You don’t need conspire you keep you mouth shut and allow the golden age of funding in your research field to continue.

Mark Maslin, Professor of Earth System Science, UCL seems to clearly understand the principal and can’t wait to fan the flames of “global heating” to keep his funding on the boil.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Greg
November 29, 2019 1:45 pm

You beat me to it Greg. It took one guy pretty much – Trofim Karl, to fake the “pausebuster” data.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
November 29, 2019 4:53 pm

As was famously said ten years ago on WUWT, “A conspiracy is unecessary when a carrot will suffice.”

Reply to  Roger Knights
November 30, 2019 3:03 pm

You have a very good memory, Roger!

It was one week short of ten years: Dec. 8, 2009, by Paul Vaughan:

perhaps a conspiracy is unnecessary where a carrot will suffice.

Anthony wrote about it a few days later, here:
https://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/perhaps-a-conspiracy-is-unnecessary-where-a-carrot-will-suffice/

Sunny
November 29, 2019 10:32 am

I almost fell for it then I read

“Greta, who is simply telling the scientific truth” 😂😂😂😂

After all the normal “oil is the devil”, the truth comes out…

“Switching to renewable energy and electric vehicles, for example, reduces air pollution, which improves people’s overall health.

Developing a green economy provides economic benefits and creates jobs. 😐

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Sunny
November 29, 2019 12:20 pm

The initial idea of throwing money at the green energy sector, was for that money to spawn invention and development. But we haven’t seen any new development at all, other than the windmills getting bigger and bigger.

I’m sure of a lot of off-grid and micro energy needs have benefited. The grey-nomads are loving it, having good power for their mobile homes. But every large scale green idea has failed: Wave, wind and solar.

Bryan A
Reply to  Sunny
November 29, 2019 12:29 pm

75% of Americans think humans are causing climate change…
Let them all scrap their ICE cars and buy new EVs. This should have a dramatic effect on the nation’s carbon footprint and air quality without any need for a GND legislation.
If the emboldened clip from the article is true, then the faithful will drive the remainder simply by adhering to their vaunted principles

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Bryan A
November 29, 2019 12:49 pm

“75% of Americans think humans are causing climate change”

And apparently, 22% of Germans believe that plastic bags cause climate change…

Christian
Reply to  Caligula Jones
November 30, 2019 11:16 am

As a German I’d be surprised if it really was that low. Whenever climate change is discussed, it usually takes less than 5 minutes until somebody mentions that he or she tries to do his/her part by buying fruits and vegetables not wrapped in plastic.

MarkW
Reply to  Bryan A
November 29, 2019 5:22 pm

There’s a HUGE difference between believing that man is capable of influencing the climate, and believing that the changes being caused by CO2 are going to kill us all.

Reply to  Sunny
November 29, 2019 12:56 pm

In 2021, the EU will in case of low power in the grids reduce power in private charging stations.
German link

From 2021 electricity for electric cars could be rationed

From 2021, electricity grid operators from several EU countries want to limit the charging current at private charging stations. This is to prevent the distribution networks from being overloaded at peak times. This could slow down Germany’s electrical plans.
Imagine you drive your diesel car to the filling station and want to fill it up. But the gas station attendant waves: “Sorry, I can’t give you more than ten litres. But you can leave the car here and I’ll fill it up in a few hours.” A similar scenario awaits electric car drivers in the future: At peak times, i.e. when everyone wants to recharge their electricity at home in the evening, there is a risk that the distribution networks will be overloaded.
Performance must drop at non-public charging points for electric cars

The consequence would be: the power supply would be throttled – one could also say: the power would be rationed. Instead of 11 to 22 kW on a powerful wallbox, for example, only 5 kW is provided. Charging times at the company’s own power socket are significantly extended. However, public charging stations should not be affected by this.
The background: electricity grid operators from Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the Czech Republic want to limit the charging current at private charging stations as of 2021 so that the distribution grids are not overloaded at peak times. This was announced by the electricity associations from Austria and Switzerland at the Electromobility Congress of the trade journal ATZ in Mannheim. According to the association, there are 1646 distribution network operators in the four countries who supply 109 million people with electricity.

Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

not the complet article

MarkW
Reply to  Krishna Gans
November 29, 2019 5:24 pm

You need to get your wife to the hospital? Tough luck, you should have planned ahead and bought a second car that you always keep charged for emergencies.

Randy Wester
Reply to  MarkW
November 30, 2019 6:15 am

With an EV you can have energy delivered to your car at your house, work, dentist, or shopping mall for way cheaper than you can buy it at the ‘station’ and keep it mostly ‘filled’ all the time.

The EU is talking about someday having to restrict the fill rate, perhaps to a ‘gallon’ an hour instead of three.

You’d always get your ten ‘gallons’ before morning or by the end of your workday regardless.

You’d keep a ‘gallon’ or two in the ‘tank’ all the time even if it meant going out if your way to a charging station. Maybe a little more if your wife was 8.7 months pregnant.

MarkW
Reply to  Randy Wester
November 30, 2019 8:48 am

Do you even have the foggiest clue as to how much the system you are proposing is going to cost?

The only reason why electricity is cheaper is because government hasn’t figured out a way to tax it yet. Well over half the cost of gasoline is the various taxes.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Krishna Gans
November 30, 2019 6:48 am

Smart meters achieves this.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Sunny
December 3, 2019 10:20 am

LOL. “Developing a green economy provides economic benefits and creates jobs” the same way that taking away backhoes and shovels from constructions workers and, as an alternative, outfitting an army of ditch diggers with SPOONS “creates jobs.”

These idiots don’t understand that “creating jobs” by reducing productivity destroys an economy, it doesn’t build up an economy. Ask Portugal, I believe it was, who lost 3 REAL jobs for every “green job” they “created” with Eco-Nazi mandates.

November 29, 2019 10:32 am

In September, “The Conversation” announced that the only opinions they would permit to be expressed in article comments are those in support of climate hysteria. They wrote, “the editorial team in Australia is implementing a zero-tolerance approach to moderating climate change deniers, and sceptics. Not only will we be removing their comments, we’ll be locking their accounts.”

That’s not really shocking. The Conversation has long had two moderation policies: the official written one (“their Community Standards,” which are basically Quora’s BNBR + “Be Constructive”), and the actual one (“Be Leftist”).

For instance, no matter how nice, respectful & constructive you are, and no matter how thoroughly you document your claims, suspicion of casting doubt on the climate emergency has long been grounds for deleting your comments at The Conversation. But no matter how vicious ad hominem attacks are, they’re acceptable if they are directed toward someone skeptical of the climate emergency.

So, really, not much has changed. They’ve just made it official.

However, I’m still waiting from them to officially change their name to “The One-Sided Conversation.”

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Dave Burton
November 29, 2019 11:30 am

+infinity-1

Greg
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 29, 2019 12:53 pm

+infinity-1 is still infinity .

but just in case I’ll raise you +1 .

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Greg
November 30, 2019 8:12 am

Just taking a cue from Hitchhiker’s Guide…

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Dave Burton
November 29, 2019 11:36 am

Here in Canada, our version of the New York Times ended its comment section (after failing to keep out the riff-raff, i.e., non-progressives)

As a (much too) frequent contributor, I questioned the business practice. I mean, if they are counting clicks (and they are)…and I click a half-dozen times (and I, unfortunately, often did), and now, I would click only once to read (or, more often, not click at all as I don’t read it)…how is that gonna make them more money?

Stock price is now at 46 Canadian cents.

52-wk high 1.06
52-wk low 0.45

But, hey, its heading in the right direction.

Go woke, go broke.

Gator
Reply to  Dave Burton
November 29, 2019 11:56 am

“The Sermon”

Greg
Reply to  Dave Burton
November 29, 2019 12:52 pm

They don’t seem to realise that you can’t have a conversation in an echo chamber.

but since when was any journalist interested in a “conversation”. They are there to tell you what to think and believe, no matter what side they are on.

J Storrs Hall
Reply to  Dave Burton
November 29, 2019 12:55 pm

Better yet: “The Monologue”

Reply to  Dave Burton
November 29, 2019 3:22 pm

It’s inevitable…

The Conversation finally listens, bans comments

PS Charles, you forgot to quote the funniest part of any article by Mark Maslin: the disclosure statement.

Mark Maslin
Professor of Earth System Science, UCL

Disclosure statement
Mark Maslin is a Founding Director of Rezatec Ltd, Director of The London NERC Doctoral Training Partnership and a member of Cheltenham Science Festival Advisory Committee. He is an unpaid member of the Sopra-Steria CSR Board. He has received grant funding in the past from the NERC, EPSRC, ESRC, Royal Society, DIFD, DECC, FCO, Innovate UK, Carbon Trust, UK Space Agency, European Space Agency, Wellcome Trust, Leverhulme Trust and British Council. He has received research funding in the past from The Lancet, Laithwaites, Seventh Generation, Channel 4, JLT Re, WWF, Hermes, CAFOD and Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.

“It’s hard to make a man understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
—Upton Sinclair

Reply to  Brad Keyes
November 30, 2019 2:04 pm

Wow! Thank you for that, Brad.

One of his past funders deserves special mention. JLT Re is a reinsurance company. When you think of Big Climate, you probably think of wind and solar energy companies, and perhaps electric car manufacturers. But for the reinsurance industry, climate alarmism is like money in the bank: it drives up demand for their product, and enables them to charge more for it. That’s why a German reinsurance giant, Munich Re, funds über-alarmist Stefan Rahmstorf and the Potsdam Institute (PIK).

With a $1.5 Trillion industry which is dependent on politicians and their supporters “not understanding it,” we shouldn’t be surprised that there’s plenty of money hyping the product. But the rivers of money that support climate propaganda are still truly impressive.

For example, there’s a relatively new 501(c)(3) “educational charity” in NYC called the First Street Foundation, created to hype sea-level alarmism. They popped up in late 2017, with an initial paid staff of about ten people, and quickly expanded to fifteen.

Someone obviously wrote a very big check! There certainly isn’t that kind of money supporting climate realists.

The First Street Foundation works with leftist professors at Columbia University, and their M.O. is to publish junk science in obscure journals, accompanied by flashy press releases, blasted out to every media outlet on the planet, with the general theme that wildly accelerated sea-level rise dooms coastal communities, because of climate change.

(On a humorous note, they’ve created a web site called FloodIQ.com, to tell you how deep the water will be where you live — and, according to their map, a Cat 3 hurricane would put President Obama’s mansion under more than three feet of water.)

Reply to  Brad Keyes
November 30, 2019 2:19 pm

Haha, I just got around to reading “The Conversation finally listens, bans comments.” It’s a good thing that I wasn’t sipping a beverage at the time, or I’d need a new keyboard!

Steve45
Reply to  Dave Burton
November 29, 2019 3:24 pm

The Conversation doesn’t like nutters.

jtom
Reply to  Steve45
November 29, 2019 4:03 pm

I think you have that backwards. Their conversation is limited to nutters.

Steve45
Reply to  jtom
November 30, 2019 5:08 pm

Yes all of the mainstream scientific establishment is in on the big conspiracy and only you really know the truth. It’s not that you’re too thick to understand how science works or you’re a conspiracy driven nutjob.

Reply to  Steve45
December 5, 2019 8:51 am

Steve, if you decide you’d like to learn about actual climate science, beyond the Climate Industry’s PR talking points, here’s a list of high-quality resources:

https://sealevel.info/learnmore.html

It includes:
● accurate introductory climatology info
● in-depth science from BOTH skeptics & alarmists
● links to balanced debates between experts on BOTH sides
● info about climate impacts
● links to best blogs on BOTH sides

MarkW
Reply to  Steve45
November 30, 2019 8:49 am

Anyone who disagrees with me is a nutter.
Liberalism in action.
First they ignore you, then they ban you, then they lock you up.

Alasdair Fairbairn
Reply to  Dave Burton
November 29, 2019 4:08 pm

How about “Stalin’s Conversation”?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Dave Burton
November 29, 2019 4:16 pm

Dave
I wrote to them and suggested that they adopt the name The Monologue. I did not hear back from the editor.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 30, 2019 3:41 pm

+1     ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Regan
November 29, 2019 10:34 am

These appear to be 5 jokes by a high priest of the climate death cult. It is an early April Fools.

Dr. Bob
November 29, 2019 10:36 am

I personally don’t believe the numbers stated in the article and would love to see where they come from. Probably just total money spent on all communications activities but attributed to fighting CAGW only. And how much money has been spent lobbying and advertising and financing CAGW activities. Probably a staggering sum.

Jose
November 29, 2019 10:37 am

This article is pretty funny. It’s not worth the paper it was printed on.

PaulH
November 29, 2019 10:41 am

Well, with over $1.5 Trillion at stake annually, it’s no surprise the Green Blob won’t go down without a fight. (I knew the article was junk as soon as I read the part saying Greta “is simply telling the scientific truth” – yeah, right!)

Snape
Reply to  PaulH
November 29, 2019 3:18 pm

“Well, with over $1.5 Trillion at stake annually, it’s no surprise the Green Blob won’t go down without a fight.”

Source?

*******
These folks won’t go down without a fight, either:

“According to market research by IBISWorld, a leading business intelligence firm, the total revenues for the oil and gas drilling sector came to $2 trillion in 2017. This sector is composed of companies that explore for, develop, and operate oil and gas fields. It is also sometimes referred to as the oil and gas exploration and production industry, or simply as E&P.”

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030915/what-percentage-global-economy-comprised-oil-gas-drilling-sector.asp

MarkW
Reply to  Snape
November 29, 2019 5:27 pm

Love the apples and oranges comparison.
It’s almost as if you set out to deliberately deceive.

If you want an honest comparison, let’s compare that $2T revenue of all the world’s oil companies to the total amount of money spent by all the governments of the world.

Reply to  MarkW
November 30, 2019 2:36 pm

Indeed. The Oil & Gas industry makes products that are essential for modern life, so they needn’t fund disinformation to trick people into buying them. The $1.5 Trillion Climate Industry, OTOH, is completely dependent on politicians making public policy which incentivizes or compels purchase of their products.

November 29, 2019 10:45 am

Environmental NGO’s s spend billions of dollars a year, almost none of which they have to report. In fact, the other 4 points apply much more to the climate change agitprop voices than the private sector oil and gas.

The rhetorical devices used in this piece are far from a practical discussion on these five points. In addition, the following so-called effects of climate change can’t stand much scrutiny, either: “Scientists” estimate that current targets would lead to up to 3 degrees Celsius of global heating and cause catastrophic changes across the globe, including floods, cyclones, long-lasting heat waves, and record-breaking wildfires, among others.

Geo
Reply to  Stephen Heins
December 1, 2019 4:41 pm

Ever wonder something basic?

Why don’t all the NGOs concerned about climate change fire their staffs, en mass, and devote 100% of their income to purchasing and donating solar panels to homeowners? 100%. All their income. Just give them away. It’s a crises after all. Aren’t they being selfish spending time on conferences, and advertising, and office space and staff while this crises is brewing? Why do we need any additional studies? Why do we need lobbying? Just start pouring your own money into fixing the problem, one house at a time. Imagine the millions of homes that could receive this free upgrade. Heck, I’ll bet you could get matching funds from any number of wealthy individuals and corporations. Various states and cities might kick in money to have you come to their town to do all the homes for free.

Funny how that never occurs to them….

Ed Zuiderwijk
November 29, 2019 10:46 am

The five pillars of climate change alarmism:

– a false quasi-scientific hypothesis.
– fopsy-turvy economics of ‘renewables’.
– shameless use of human missery as supporting ‘the cause’
– recruiting a scientifically illiterate political class with inuendo of climate change porn.
– scaring the living daylights out of the young and the gullible with ever more extreme fantasy disaster scenarios.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
November 29, 2019 1:16 pm

Five Pillars of Rational Climate Change Debating:

1 You stole our childhood
2 You stole our dreams
3 How dare you
4 How Dare You
5 HOW DARE YOU

markl
November 29, 2019 10:48 am

The CC propaganda is so deeply embedded and successful that it will take another LIA or catastrophic consequences from cessation of fossil fuel use to overcome it. The fear mongers have successfully moved the goal posts for the past 50 years so what’s to stop them from continuing this scam indefinitely? Don’t give up.

jbfl
Reply to  markl
November 29, 2019 12:22 pm

It is exactly like the old Marxist rhetoric from over a century ago and then dusted off, buffed up with new words in the 50’s and 60’s and here it comes again. I know, it never really goes away. But it is still tiresome, sorting out the BS. Each time though, the new audience is less equipped to think rationally.

accordionsrule
Reply to  markl
November 29, 2019 12:33 pm

If there’s a LIA they will blame co2. If there are consequences of renewables like blackouts or transformer fires they will blame the energy company.

Jim C
Reply to  accordionsrule
November 29, 2019 3:58 pm

They’ll blame evil “Capitalism”.

Roger Knights
Reply to  markl
November 29, 2019 5:10 pm

“The CC propaganda is so deeply embedded and successful that it will take another LIA or catastrophic consequences from cessation of fossil fuel use to overcome it.”

OTOH, I think 1) the argument that developing nations’ continually rising emissions will dwarf any cuts we make will have a big impact on public enthusiasm for climate action. 2) So will mass protests against green measures, such as by farmers. 3) So will electoral defeats of the architects of higher electricity costs.

Peter Charles
November 29, 2019 10:48 am

Wow! Talk about making pretzels out of reality and projection.

GordonInVancouver
November 29, 2019 10:49 am

There is something in this that I like. I am writing this from Canada.

Under the heading on Economic Denial it is stated that $860 Billion, or 1% of global GDP, would solve the climate issue. That is $86 Billion a year. I assume they only want the richer countries to pay, so lets assume 40% for the US, 40% for Europe, 12% for Japan and the rest divided between Canada, Australia and NZ. I am in Canada, Canada’s share would be $3.44 Billion for 10 years.

Between EV car subsidies, give aways to other countries, subsidies for renovations, technology credits and so on by the federal government and provinces Canada already spends more than that, to say nothing of the economic disruption caused by all of the other climate change policy and regulation. So rather than argue about whether climate change policies are causing more harm than climate change itself, why don’t we all commit to do what this article suggests? We could permanently solve a problem, get rid of a whole bunch of disruptive regulation, get the preaching/insulting greens off our back and significantly cut spending on climate change, all in one go.

Unless, of course, the article is intentionally misleading, and the writer is twisting figures to make the proposed solutions sound less expensive than they are.

sendergreen
Reply to  GordonInVancouver
November 29, 2019 12:47 pm

Also writing from Canada. I have never seen a public project whether municipal, provincial, or federal that has ever come in less than double the original estimate. Now add in the ultra corruption of the globalists, and UN control, and I don’t think there’s a snowballs chance in the hot place (certainly not Canada today) that cost estimates will come in less than a hundred times the initial projections. The bureaucratic mantra has always been “lie like hell to get the project contracts signed, and the first shovel in the ground, then let the cost spirals begin” !

After all when climate change is anything, and everything they say it is … we know the “crisis” will never end.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
November 29, 2019 10:49 am

Professor of Earth Systems Science Fiction perhaps…

Rich Davis
Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
November 29, 2019 12:11 pm

What are you saying? He uses big words like taxonomy. How could it not be true?

Reply to  Rich Davis
November 29, 2019 3:38 pm

The ‘greens’ want to tax everything … now it’s our ‘onomys to be taxed; is nothing sacred !!!

mabarnes
November 29, 2019 10:50 am

Interesting parallel, that “smoking” thing. Let’s see – lavishly funded “Scientists” DEFENDED IT to protect (an assumption on their motives, mine) their gravy train. That’s the story as commonly understood.

This one will be told the same way – we “KNOW” it’s not natural variation (how? what extent?), we “KNOW” the impact it will cause (all bad, greener Earth and more crops be damned), and we “KNOW” what are being proposed as “solutions” will WORK. And they JUST SO HAPPEN to include yet more funding for Climate Research, wholesale change of societies, and leave out the Chinese.

Yeah … how INSANE to be “Skeptical” on this matter. Not like it’s any big deal tho. UGH.

Bob Meyer
Reply to  mabarnes
November 29, 2019 10:18 pm

Since the science is “settled” we can stop funding research, send all climate scientists an enormous “Thank you” along with a pink slip and a map to the Unemployment Office.

Caligula Jones
November 29, 2019 10:54 am

1. School climate strikes
2. Extinction Rebellion protests
3. national governments declaring a climate emergency
4. improved media coverage of climate change
5. an increasing number of extreme weather events

Wow.

1. uneducated children
2. those in #1 who grew up and became rich white people with too much time on their hands
3. politicians who love empty statements that do nothing except spend other people’s money
4. see #1 and #2
5. an absolute, provable lie

This is gonna be easier than I thought…

Chaswarnertoo
November 29, 2019 10:58 am

Is it just me? WTF? Just because they say something doesn’t make it true. The insanity is growing.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
November 29, 2019 4:24 pm

Chaswarnertoo
Yes, the insanity is growing. Part of it may be desperation. However, I’m afraid it isn’t always about money. I’m afraid that some people, such as Maslin, may actually believe the things they say. And, they are given the responsibility to ‘teach’ the next generation. That is scary!

hojo
November 29, 2019 11:03 am

They are all salt and need to be toppled asap. New scary words, desperate children screaming at us, Glued youngers to the ground , Football games being stopped. The denial has been so much fun watching as the fools try so hard to make us believe. I for one will stay happy in denial until the BS just stops. How many predictions can not come true and how many kids can be scared in school each day. Again I ask what is the end game and why would I want to suffer to find out. Global climate warming change is a hoax and for one I will not defend my way of thinking, but just pass the word of it non existence. Take your ideas and put them where the sun does shine on my wonderful and non anti human earth which has supplied us with all we need to exist.

Fergie
November 29, 2019 11:06 am

Of course we don’t actually know how much of the “$200M” that the gas and oil companies (who do billions of dollars of business annually) spent on PR (most likely) was actually supporting climate crisis skepticism, but it pales in significance to the tens of billions of taxpayer dollars spent by our government on “global warming/climate change” over the past 20 years. How much is spent in the private sector by various politically oriented billionaires and the media on “climate crisis” reporting/editorial/articles and the like is anyone’s guess.

The rest of the article continues as a basic 101 course in how to use numbers and graphs in propaganda articles. The standout for me is the “tons of CO2 per capita” chart. Nothing on the chart gives you the population used. China, who is agressively pursuing modern energy intensive development based on fossil fuels, has 4X our population, yet their land area is only slightly under 2% larger than ours!

Unfortunately the media will jump on this article, exaggerate the already biased conclusions and leave out even this skewed data, leaving the non-science involved person to believe it!

ScienceABC123
November 29, 2019 11:07 am

I stopped reading after the first pillar. Can anyone point out, specifically, any climate change disaster prediction over the last 20-30 years that has come true?

H.R.
Reply to  ScienceABC123
November 29, 2019 6:10 pm

I got… nuttin’.

icisil
November 29, 2019 11:09 am

An article like this will get the patients of Climate Asylum all hot and bothered, but no one else will give a crap.

whiten
Reply to  icisil
November 29, 2019 11:55 am

The patients in charge there, are significantly increasing doses for all there, in daily bases!
Desperately.
An incredible later day live experiment in the madness of crowds.

cheers

John F. Hultquist
November 29, 2019 11:17 am

The tropical zones

Haven’t seen that used in an argument since the discrediting of the idea of environmental determinism [ Ellen Churchhill Semple (died in 1932)].

Reading this article was not the best way to start my day. I need to take a shower!

Phillip Bratby
November 29, 2019 11:17 am

Where do they find such dorks?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
November 29, 2019 5:13 pm

They are a Dime for a Dozen in university academia today. You can’t swing baby harp seal without hitting one. PhD-educated Climate Dork-robots are all around.

Stephen Richards
November 29, 2019 11:18 am

That’s the size of one green organisation Greenpeace rakes in $100 million per year.

Fran
Reply to  Stephen Richards
November 30, 2019 11:58 am

Willie Soon has a youtube talk (rant) a couple of years ago about the money flowing through Greenpeace. If other NGO’s are included, the amount of money boggles the mind. And add the MSM which blathers about CC interminably, to which we all contribute (taxes for CBC BBC ABC etc, and advertising revenues for others).

Seems to me, big spending for CC is why so many agree CC is a problem. However when not directly primed, it is good to see CC is way way down on the list of issues to worry about

Miha
November 29, 2019 11:20 am

Let’s deal with one of Maslin’s points. He says

“Climate change deniers will tell you that more people die of the cold than heat, so warmer winters will be a good thing. This is deeply misleading. Vulnerable people die of the cold because of poor housing and not being able to afford to heat their homes. Society, not climate, kills them. This argument is also factually incorrect. In the US, for example, heat-related deaths are four times higher than cold-related ones.”

Since the climate debate is about global climate what are the global figures? Rather than cherry picking as Maslin does, a 2015 paper from the Lancet reports data from 13 countries and concludes “most of the attributable deaths were caused by cold temperatures”.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext

Maslin’s right about the poor not being able to afford heating. As we are know from our energy bills, the climate alarm bandwagon is directly responsible for exacerbating this situation. And it’s going to get worse.

Dennis G Sandberg
November 29, 2019 11:26 am

If the author was serious he would say, we must go full nuclear by 2050, not “if we want to minimise the effects of climate change then the world must go carbon zero by 2050”.

“What the climate change deniers also forget to tell you is that they are protecting a fossil fuel industry that receives US$5.2 trillion in annual subsidies – which includes subsidised supply costs, tax breaks and environmental costs”. Can anyone read that statement and not realize the author is attempting to “mislead” the reader? Can anyone be that foolish? Yes & Yes.

ATheoK
November 29, 2019 11:31 am

So many lies in so few words.

And Maslin gets paid for spewing those pompous falsehoods?
A pathetic waste of funds. I doubt he’s qualified to sell burgers and chips. Leaving ditch digger as a possible occupation.

philincalifornia
Reply to  ATheoK
November 29, 2019 1:59 pm

I’m beginning to think that these cretins are driven by an intense jealousy of people who can actually do things (besides the parasitic paycheck). This one would probably have to run home to his mum if anyone tried to make him dig a ditch.

Bro. Steve
November 29, 2019 11:31 am

I keep hearing that this is all about science, as if Science were a god.

And then I later find out about weather stations being placed on rooftops or beside air conditioner exhaust, or tree rings being a stand-in for actual temperatures, or gigantic stretches of ocean where there no weather data exist, or instrumentation that never gets calibrated. And then I discover that the track record of climate disaster predictions has been a total bust. Still later I hear about scandals of data finagling to hide the decline. And it all gets capped off with an Orwellian enforcement of conformity of opinion where you lose your job or get sued for having the wrong opinion or calling a fraud a fraud.

You couldn’t make worse mockery of science if you tried to.

Dr Christopher K Fay
Reply to  Bro. Steve
November 29, 2019 8:00 pm

There is science and there is climate science. As currently practised the two are only distantly related.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Dr Christopher K Fay
December 3, 2019 10:53 am

Yeah, both have “science” in their name. That’s about it.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  AGW is not Science
December 3, 2019 11:26 am

Jessie Pinkman from “Breaking Bad”: “You don’t need a criminal LAWYER, you need a CRIMINAL lawyer…”

Now: “You don’t need a POLITICAL scientist, you need a political SCIENTIST”.

James Schrumpf
November 29, 2019 11:35 am

The CDC seems to disagree with NOAA:

Based on information from death certificates, 10,649 deaths were attributed to weather-related causes in the United States during 2006–2010. Nearly one-third of the deaths were attributed to excessive natural heat, and almost two-thirds were attributed to excessive natural cold.

It may only be a five-year summary, but it falls right in the middle of the weather.gov statistics and makes it a bit hard to believe that from 1989 to 2006, heat was the big killer, then for the next five years cold killed twice as many as heat, and then switched back from 2006 to 2018.

There’s even a disclaimer at the bottom of the NOAA charts, left off of their reproduction for this report, that reads “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the official government source of cause of death in the United States, including weather-related fatalities.”

In fact, none of the weather.gov numbers add up. According to the numbers in this article, the 30-year average for cold-related deaths was 30 (per year, I assume), which puts total deaths at 900 from cold over 30 years. Yet the CDC says there were 2/3 of 10,649, or 7135 deaths from cold over a five-year stretch from 2006-2010.

NOAA’s numbers are so far off from the CDC’s that it makes one wonder where they came from. The CDC report is very well-sourced, while the NOAA article provides nothing of its own sources, but points to the CDC as the final word. Wow.

Sparky
Reply to  James Schrumpf
December 2, 2019 10:01 am

From ‘models’, of course. Big ones,.. with big super dooper computers.

Bruce Cobb
November 29, 2019 11:38 am

Ah-ah-ah-WhaHorseshit! Darn, allergies acting up.

goldminor
November 29, 2019 11:39 am

More manure from the Conversation.

Max Hugoson
November 29, 2019 11:41 am

I guess the intent is to “keep us informed” about the looney bin.

Don’t need that.

Get enough of it every day.

Petit_Barde
November 29, 2019 11:44 am

The conversation is nothing but a bunch of eco-fascists :

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/11/academic-rigor/#comments

Dennis G Sandberg
November 29, 2019 11:46 am

Mark Maslin, from his bibliography, “He has been PI or Co-I on grants worth over £45 million (including 30 NERC, 2 EPSRC, 2 DIFD, 2 Carbon Trust, 2 ESA, 3 Technology Strategy Board, Royal Society and DECC)”. One of the best examples ever of someone who will say anything for money. Shame. The British have a fraudster in Mann’s league.

fretslider
November 29, 2019 11:58 am

It would seem Greta has left all that sciency stuff behind…

It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/climate-strikes-un-conference-madrid-by-greta-thunberg-et-al-2019-11

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/29/greta-thunberg-goes-full-marxist/

Can someone tip off The [lack of real] Conversation.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  fretslider
November 30, 2019 8:28 am

That would seem to be in line with the rumor that her parents are Antifa.

Ivor Ward
November 29, 2019 12:00 pm

So according to their bar graph, 71 people (presumably per 1000 deaths) died in Rip Currents and only 46 (winter plus cold) died of cold . A bit hard to believe! Must be a hell of a lot of people swimming in the USA!

John Endicott
Reply to  Ivor Ward
November 29, 2019 12:34 pm

If you’ve ever been to a US beach in summer, you’d know how crowded they get. Yes, there are a lot of people swimming (in the ocean) in the USA each year. I’d hazard to guess most of those deaths occurred during hours when the lifeguards are not on duty (I know a woman whose boyfriend died from a rip current while swimming in the evening, when lifeguards are not on duty), sadly all too many people don’t heed the warnings not to swim in the ocean when lifeguards are not present.

The fact that cold deaths are relatively so low speaks more to the abundant availability of cheap, reliable energy to heat ones home in the winter.

Jit
Reply to  John Endicott
November 29, 2019 1:35 pm

What does it mean by dying of cold? Not many people actually die of hypothermia, even those sleeping rough. But there are a lot of ways that cold kills indirectly – flu season, slips leading to a broken hip leading to dying in hospital, car sliding off the road.

James Schrumpf
Reply to  Jit
November 29, 2019 3:00 pm

If you head over to the cdc.gov site (the Centers for Disease Control), there are pages that explain exactly what is meant by cold-related and heat-related deaths. Those numbers are a lot different from the ones posted here, too.

mwhite
November 29, 2019 12:03 pm
MuskOx12
November 29, 2019 12:12 pm

There was WUWT post a while back about The Conversation. They blatantly discourage free speech and censor anyone who disagrees with their opinion about climate change. http://theconversation.com/climate-change-deniers-are-dangerous-they-dont-deserve-a-place-on-our-site-123164

pochas94
November 29, 2019 12:18 pm

Unfortunately for the alarmists, everyone who is old enough can remember summers hotter than the summer of 2019.

Gator
November 29, 2019 12:20 pm

Insanity in individuals is something rare – but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.
-Friedrich Nietzsche

Unlike us, the left is mostly comprised of “joiners”. They love being a part of a group, and see humans not as individuals but as herds. Leftists love getting together and sharing imagined drama and imagined oppression. Penn & Teller illustrated this beautifully on more than one occasion, and this is my favorite!

https://youtu.be/yi3erdgVVTw

Notice the complete lack of curiosity from the joiners. They question nothing and gullibly accept everything they are fed, as it feeds their hateful view of progress and ignorant world view. I would bet my life savings that every signer of that petition is a CAGW believer.

The opposite of a skeptic, is a gullible.

Pat Frank
November 29, 2019 12:25 pm

Let’s have Mark Maslin come and make his pitch as a post here on Watts Up With
That, where critical thinking applies, rather than in the warm safe pond of the Conversation where group-think reigns.

How about it Mark? I’m ready for a Conversation.

Anthony and Charles, please do extend an invitation to Mark Maslin, Professor of Physical Geography at University College London, to guest-post here at WUWT, and then to engage in a bit of critical conversation in the WUWT Comments Section about science and its standard of practice.

And if Mark Maslin wants to bring along some Conversational friends and allies to bolster the debate with a bit of friendly back-up, well, the more the merrier.

I’d love to engage those folks in an open, written, public, can’t censor, can’t make disappear, conversation.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Pat Frank
November 29, 2019 3:32 pm

Seconded.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Pat Frank
November 29, 2019 3:56 pm

“Let’s have Mark Maslin come and make his pitch as a post here on Watts Up With
That, where critical thinking applies, rather than in the warm safe pond of the Conversation where group-think reigns.

How about it Mark? I’m ready for a Conversation. ”

Me, too! Come on over and have a two-sided conversation for once.

If the Science were settled, he would be over here in a New York minute pointing out to the skeptics the errors of their ways.

But the Science isn’t settled, even though he says it is, so I don’t expect ole Mark to come to WUWT without any ammunition, and that’s the only way he can show up, because there is no ammunition. Hockey Stick? That’s not ammuntion, that’s fraud. Greenhouse gas theory? Yeah, but that’s not sufficient to prove humans are causing changes in the Earth’s atmosphere. So what other ammunition could Mark have? Nothing, There is nothing. Mark could come over and prove otherwise if he is able. I’ll go out on a limb right here and say he is unable to prove his CAGW conjecture.

He won’t come within a mile of this place. And we all know why. Because he can’t make his case by just making assertions. Not here.

The Alarmists are very assertive but they fall on their face when asked for evidence. That’s because they don’t have any.

Peter Jennings
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 1, 2019 7:27 am

I have regular arguments with these abusers and name callers and you are correct, they very rarely produce anything significant, apart from lots of insults of course.

Dave Salt
November 29, 2019 12:28 pm

I note that the graph of ‘Climate models and observations, 1970-2017’ is based upon RCP4.5 CMIP5 blended land/ocean model average (in black), two-sigma model range (in grey), according to the Carbon Brief source.

However, I believe the current claim of ‘climate crisis’ is based upon RCP8.5 projections, while RCP4.5 is a rather mild projection…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathway
…so it seems to me that they’ve undermined their claims with their own evidence!

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Dave Salt
November 29, 2019 12:48 pm

“they’ve undermined their claims with their own evidence!”

Shhh…

You.Aren’t.Supposed.To.Read.The.Fine.Print.

Rich Davis
November 29, 2019 12:28 pm

Wow!

List most of the better arguments against your case and then refute them with the powerful argument of simple negation. “All these arguments are false”

Almost as sophisticated as “I know you are, but what am I?”

Even griff does better than this and griff has never once made a compelling case.

William Astley
November 29, 2019 12:46 pm

The cult of CAGW created what is called a ‘Straw Man’ . …. the straw man is created by selecting the weakest so called Skeptic comments and then answering their own question.

The cult of CAGW are 100% incorrect in terms of the science.

If the science is 100% incorrect it is not possible to be a denier.

A denier is someone who does not repeat what the cult of CAGW are saying.

There is now unequivocal observational evidence, analysis (multiple independent methods), and linked physical logical evidence that supports the assertion that humans are responsible for no more than 5% of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2.

It is a fact that the current atmospheric CO2 have changed track planetary temperature changes not anthropogenic CO2 emission.

In addition, planetary temperature changes do not follow atmospheric CO2 changes.

These are some of the independent analysis that have shown that human CO2 emissions are responsible for less than 5% of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2.

Sources and sinks of CO2 Tom Quirk

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EE20-1_Quirk_SS.pdf

The yearly increases of atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been nearly two orders of magnitude greater than the change to seasonal variation which implies that the fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year that it is emitted.

A time comparison of the SIO measurements of CO2 at Mauna Loa with the South Pole shows a lack of time delay for CO2 variations between the hemispheres that suggests a global or equatorial source of increasing CO2. The time comparison of 13C measurements suggest the Southern Hemisphere is the source.

This does not favour the fossil fuel emissions of the Northern Hemisphere being responsible for their observed increases. All three approaches suggest that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere may not be from the CO2 derived from fossil fuels. The 13C data is the most striking result and the other two approaches simply support the conclusion of the first approach.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257343053_The_phase_relation_between_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
Summing up, our analysis suggests that changes in atmospheric CO2 appear to occur largely independently of changes in anthropogene emissions. A similar conclusion was reached by Bacastow (1976), suggesting a coupling between atmospheric CO2 and the Southern Oscillation. However, by this we have not demonstrated that CO2 released by burning fossil fuels is without influence on the amount of atmospheric CO2, but merely that the effect is small compared to the effect of other processes. Our previous analyses suggest that such other more important effects are related to temperature, and with ocean surface temperature near or south of the Equator pointing itself out as being of special importance for changes in the global amount of atmospheric CO2.

M Courtney
November 29, 2019 12:53 pm

Remember that the science is so settled that it has made no progress in 30 years.
The uncertainty in climate sensitivity has not reduced since the first IPCC report.

We have improved the computers. We have improved the measurements (ARGO buoys, satellites). We have improved the (number of) researchers.

But no progress.
It is worth asking why such faith in a branch of science is justified when that branch has hit a dead-end?
Indeed it’s almost like CO2 is not the most significant factor controlling the global climate.

Rich Davis
Reply to  M Courtney
November 29, 2019 3:16 pm

The problem is that some people are still allowed to make physical measurements. IRL measurements are so prone to falsifying the dogma, whereas if we would limit ourselves more reasonably to using computer models exclusively, then we could quickly prove that ECS is exactly 6.66 and that the oceans are boiling acid cauldrons devoid of life.

Peter Jennings
Reply to  M Courtney
December 1, 2019 7:35 am

As you may know, it has been known for a while that it is the sun that drives our climate. The planet could probably do with more CO2 in the atmosphere at present as we slip into solar minimum and get hit by more cosmic particles as a result.

James H
November 29, 2019 12:55 pm

”The fossil fuel industry, political lobbyists, media moguls and individuals have spent the past 30 years sowing doubt about the reality of climate change – where none exists. ”

If no doubt exists, why bother writing this? How much energy is wasted serving this article to us?

accordionsrule
November 29, 2019 12:56 pm

6. Solar and wind are intermittent.
7. There aren’t enough batteries in the world to compensate for that.

Nicholas McGinley
November 29, 2019 12:57 pm

Well, that was a long article that can be refuted with a short reply: Bullsh!t!

harry
November 29, 2019 1:13 pm

The $200M lobbying claim is an article from Forbes describing a report from a climate change lobbying group “InfluenceMap”. They count direct brand advertising as “lobbying against climate change action”.

How “The Con” thinks this is in any way convincing is beyond belief.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  harry
November 29, 2019 6:44 pm

“How “The Con” thinks this is in any way convincing is beyond belief.”

I think they count on most people not taking the time to do an in-depth review of their claims. They expect most people to accept what they say at face value.

Joel O'Bryan
November 29, 2019 1:14 pm

Mark Maslin demonstrates his academic moron status by writing, “Vulnerable people die of the cold because of poor housing and not being able to afford to heat their homes. Society, not climate, kills them.”

High prices for electricity and fuel kills — whether it is for A/C or heat. And the climate idiots like Maslin support energy schemes that makes energy ever more expensive to push renewable energy scams that will enrich the billionaires who have invested in these schemes. This Maslin guy is literally a moron if he doesn’t see that. Heat waves are now less common, and we have the technology for people to mitigate those effects as long as the vast majority can afford the electricity. Idiots like Maslin want pure socialism-communism where everyone (except the elites) lives in government house blocks and someone tells them when they can have heat or A/C.

This Maslin guy wouldn’t last 5 minutes in a debate with a knowledgeable sceptic. He uses half-truth arguments. He’d be running for the door, hands over his ears so he would hear climate blasphemy as he’d be unable to defend his idiotic positions, so he’d just run away.

astonerii
November 29, 2019 1:14 pm

Mine will be shorter.
The pillars of Climate Change Doom.

Carbon Dioxide, the gas that feeds all plant life which then sustains the rest of all life on earth, is a pollutant.

Massive adjustments of recorded temperature data. Large downward revisions to old temperatures followed by increases to newer temperatures. Making a false increase in temperature where none existed before.

Ever more scary predictions about climate doom that is just around the corner, but never actually present, thus far always falsified once the future becomes the present and past.

False attribution of blame for bad weather.

Indoctrination of children rather than education of children.

The erasure of history by getting rid of the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Climate Optimum and the Holocene Climate Optimum. Downplaying of the dark ages and the more recent little ice age. A complete whitewash of the impending ice age of the 1970’s.

Mann’s nature trick. Hide the decline. Lack of debate. Spiking of studies that refute Climate Alarmism.

The terrible science thought process that past changes in climate were natural but recent changes have to be man made.

No real correction for the urban heat island effect at airports and cities. Instead, the adjustments take heat island corrupted temperature trends and imprint them on uncorrupted rural temperature trends.

The oceans are hiding the heat!

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  astonerii
November 29, 2019 4:28 pm

Also there’s:
Rent seeking cargo cult scientists demanding more money to keep studying the issues and modeling them with junk models.

Zigmaster
November 29, 2019 1:17 pm

I always find it interesting to see how warmists try to make China seem like the good guys and US the bad guys. They do this by expressing emissions in terms of per head of population. The number of people is irrelevant if one country increases emissions at a rate far greater than the rest of the world is cutting theirs. The reality is that whilst everyone is frenetically trying to reduce their footprint China goes on blissfully building their coal fired power stations. When Trump said that Global warming was a scam invented by the Chinese the way it has played out suggests that whether it is true or not , it is the Chinese who are the global villain but it is the US that has been villified.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Zigmaster
November 29, 2019 1:22 pm

“I always find it interesting to see how warmists try to make China seem like the good guys and US the bad guys.”

Well, its mostly TDS.

Which is why when Trump merely continued to ban travel from the same list of countries that Obama used it was a “Muslim ban”, and the hysterics screamed…and when China actually throws Muslims into concentration camps and tries to destroy their entire religion…crickets.

But you don’t really expect morality and logic from these guys, do you? That would give the game away…

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Caligula Jones
November 29, 2019 4:36 pm

Caligula
+1

Editor
November 29, 2019 1:17 pm

I followed the Statista link and found this: “The research also found that the five companies listed support their lobbying expenditures with a financial outlay of $195 million annually for focused branding activities which suggest they support action against climate change.. So $195 of the supposed $200 million is spent on promotions that look like they support action against climate change. Well, to my mind, that should be counted as spending in favour of action against climate change. If you pump out the message that you support action against climate change, surely anyone seeing or hearing it will be induced to think that you support action against climate change.

SMS
November 29, 2019 1:37 pm

People who read WUWT know that what Mark Maslin is writing is wrong, but the majority of people do not and will believe what is written because it falls into the the framework of deception that has been brain washing our youth and uninformed for so long.

This was a very effective article.

The indoctrinated will spread the word to the less indoctrinated, who in turn will become believers; and unless you have a very sound arguement to counter each pillar; you will lose.

Someone needs to write a counter arguement to it and get it published immediately. And there lies the problem. The sceptics to not have the cooperation of the media. Scaring people is big money for the media.
And so we keep losing ground and at the same time have the better arguements.

Bill Taylor
Reply to  SMS
November 29, 2019 3:14 pm

Maybe someone can point out to him that all the fires in Australia burning in virgin rainforest that has never been touched by fire in recorded history are all the result of greenie arsonists? Even the remote ones miles from civilization. These greenie terrorists will stop at nothing to alter public sentiment.

mkelly
November 29, 2019 1:48 pm

The graph in denial #4 does not make sense to me.

China has per capital of 7 tonnes. That gives 9.5 billion with a population of 1.4 billion folks.

USA has per capita of 16.6. That gives 5.5 billion with population of 326 million.

China has total almost twice USA but they have us at 25% and China at 13%.

Christopher Hanley
November 29, 2019 2:01 pm

Maslin’s piece is replete with irrelevancies, half-truths and falsehoods it’s difficult to know where to start, here’s one ‘hot-whopper’:

“… So climate change deniers are switching to new tactics. One of Britain’s leading deniers, Nigel Lawson, the former UK chancellor, now agrees that humans are causing climate change, despite having founded the sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation in 2009 …”.

Either Maslin knows that is untrue or he’s an idiot incapable of doing the most superficial research:

“… Adaptation is at the heart of Lawson’s case. He does not question the existence of the greenhouse effect, or of man-made climate change, only its extent and the balance between human and natural factors …” (Nigel Lawson The Guardian 2 May 2008):
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/may/03/climatechange.greenpolitics

NorEastern
November 29, 2019 2:04 pm

Huge huge applause for WUWT for publishing an article by a real scientist on global warming!

Gator
Reply to  NorEastern
November 29, 2019 2:21 pm

You forgot the sarc tag.

NorEastern
Reply to  Gator
November 29, 2019 3:12 pm

I am a scientist myself so no /s tag was needed.

Gator
Reply to  NorEastern
November 29, 2019 3:27 pm

Clearly you are a political scientist.

Alan Fletcher
Reply to  NorEastern
November 29, 2019 4:26 pm

You’ll find there’s a lot of scientists here, so you won’t be intimidating, converting, or impressing anyone.

Pat Frank
Reply to  NorEastern
November 29, 2019 7:38 pm

NorEastern, “I am a scientist myself

Climate models have no predictive value, NorEastern:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full

The global air temperature record is riven with neglected non-normal systematic error:
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Frank/uncertainty_in%20global_average_temperature_2010.pdf (869.8 KB)

After all of that, there is no physical theory to covert a tree ring metric into an air temperature:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abstract/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.391

It’s all false precision.

Now what?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  NorEastern
November 29, 2019 7:43 pm

You need to really research the junk that is climate science then, Pre-2011 I just accepted climate science claims without looking behind the curtain. When I did I was horrified to really read the Climategate emails, the behaviors of this corruption and lack of ethics in the top “climatologists”.
The never-ending, very troubling adjustments to many decades old surface temperature data sets, and most especially an [adjusted – raw] temp data versus MLO CO2 with an r^2> 0.98. They are adjusting data to meet theory, it couldn’t be more clear the game being played with temps to keep making “hottest ever” claims when the daily max temp trends are all flat or down. Those are temps they can’t adjust. The inconsistencies are everywhere that they can’t adjust out. The tangled-web thing when they started lying about one thing in a connected global climate, it just unravels everywhere.

The GCMs are junk all the way down. GCMs are layer after layer of junk science that only looks like science to a casual observer. Once you get into what they do and how they go about model validation, you quickly realize what a farce climate modelling is today.

Educate yourself Nor’eastern. Use some critical thinking skills.

Joel, PhD

Loydo
Reply to  NorEastern
November 30, 2019 1:04 am

Yes, a well written and irrefutable roasting. Not so palatable for this audience but a pretty incisive dissection and explanation of the reasons for 30 years of climate change inaction. Inaction that has been so effective that CO2 concentration is STILL rising exponentially. Hundreds of replies, lots of unpersuasive, echoed opinion, plenty of zombie myths and pet theories but no substantive rebuttals. Surprise, surprise. So-called sceptics.

Gator
Reply to  Loydo
November 30, 2019 6:32 am

Loydo, it has already been refuted. Sorry that of all this simply goes over your head.

n.n
November 29, 2019 2:04 pm

[catastrophic] [anthropogenic] climate change #HateLovesAbortion

November 29, 2019 2:08 pm

This article by Mark Maslin of UCL is composed of almost 100% of the usual ‘Climate Warming’ nonsense in support of ‘The Cause’, but it is interesting to get a window into the command headquarters of the enemy.

Mike Ozanne
November 29, 2019 2:18 pm

This is from “The Onion” right???

NorEastern
November 29, 2019 2:24 pm

Simple thermodynamics tells us that CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere leads to a hotter earth. The physics is trivial. Simple probabilistic analysis reveals that the chances the last four years have been the hottest in the last 145 years without an external influence (CO2 and NH4) is a 434 million to one long shot. CO2 content in the atmosphere is currently the highest in the last 3.2 million years when the oceans were 70 to 100 feet higher and the earth was 9 degrees F warmer. The climate tipping points are obvious and if one occurs Katy bar the doors.

Gator
Reply to  NorEastern
November 29, 2019 2:45 pm

Are you serious? LOL

1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

NorEastern
Reply to  Gator
November 29, 2019 3:52 pm

” List all climate forcings”: I have no idea what that means.
“one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability”: They all do kid.

There are no longer global warming skeptics. There are only Luddites who deny it.

Gator
Reply to  NorEastern
November 29, 2019 3:53 pm

I’be never denied climate change in my life. It is what made me study geology and climatology at a major university.

Now how about answering my questions genius.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  NorEastern
November 29, 2019 4:53 pm

NorEaster
You said, “I have no idea what that means.” Tell us something that isn’t obvious.

Pat Frank
Reply to  NorEastern
November 29, 2019 10:23 pm

Simple Thermodynamics is the rationale of the scientifically inept. It works only if nothing else in the climate changes.

Fritz Möller pointed that out in 1963 during his debate with Gilbert Plass, but asserters such as you, NorEastern, have studiously ignored that ever since.

You’re assuming without any evidence that the extra atmospheric kinetic energy added by the collisional decay of CO2 appears immediately and only as sensible heat. That is a physically unjustifiable assumption.

A 0.1% annual change in cloud fraction alone is enough to offset the forcing due to CO2 emissions. Neither you nor anyone else has any idea whether that happens or not.

Satellite observational resolution is not good enough by a factor 100 to see a change of that minimal size, and the resolution of climate models is far more than 100 times too coarse to simulate the itty-bitty cloud response, if any, to the thermal flux of CO2 forcing.

The same ignorance obscures resolving any change in the rate or intensity of convection, or in the power of the Hadley circulation. Or any change in the intensity or extent of precipitation or tropical storminess. Any or all of which can adjust slightly to easily offset any extra forcing due to CO2 emissions.

In a hugely dynamic climate, you assert a case resting on stasis.

You, like all the others of the scientifically inept assertional coterie, are jumping to the conclusion that suits your prejudice.

You assert on zero scientific grounds. And then call yourself a scientist.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Pat Frank
December 3, 2019 11:54 am

Nice rebuttal, Pat.

NorEastern sounds more like the latest ID of “Lyodo” than an actual scientist.

Of course, it is possible that he/she is just the sort of ignorant pseudo-scientist “graduated” from our leftist indoctrination “institutions,” come to preach eco-nazism to the masses.

Al Miller
Reply to  NorEastern
November 29, 2019 3:04 pm

So…what happened late in the 1800’s and early 1900’s when it really was hotter? Actual thermometer readings repeatedly show this and it is extremely well corroborated by newspaper articles of the day. So out the window goes your premise that it is the hottest evah…People who want to use simple thermodynamics and “science” should try to get the facts straight first- the easily attainable ones at least.

NorEastern
Reply to  Al Miller
November 29, 2019 3:55 pm

The world’s atmospheric temperature was much cooler in the 1800’s and early 1900’s. If you know how to use Google you can look it up.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  NorEastern
November 29, 2019 5:19 pm

That’s called the LIA. What caused the MWP NorEastern? Please tell.
The Roman Warm Period.

Your belief Nor’ is exactly Mann, Jones, and their co-conspirators tried so vainly to erase the LIA.

Your homework Nor’: Why did temperatures rise 1910-1945 when CO2 was still below 300 ppm? That was a warming pulse very similar to 1980-2015 warming.
Pls explain, I’ll wait.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  NorEastern
November 29, 2019 3:08 pm

Really ? Cite your data sources please .
What is that smell in the air ?

NorEastern
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
November 29, 2019 3:58 pm

The IPCC report which you cannot understand.

Gator
Reply to  NorEastern
November 29, 2019 4:00 pm

Yet another deflection. So convincing! LOL

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  NorEastern
November 29, 2019 3:34 pm

Trivial physics is for simpletons. If you think the physics is trivial then you get the wrong answer. The physics is far from simple and the climate models have it wrong, fundamentally (wrong.

NorEastern
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
November 29, 2019 4:02 pm

Thermodynamics is trivial. It only uses differential equations a few times. Take a course in the physics of relativity or quantum mechanics to find out what is not trivial.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  NorEastern
November 29, 2019 4:58 pm

NorEastern
You must think that you are conversing with your inferiors. I have news for you. You are coming across as someone who doesn’t know what he is talking about and is bluffing. You are not going to convince anyone here that they are wrong if all you do is deflect questions.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  NorEastern
November 30, 2019 2:24 am

I did. And I remember it well. Learned my QM from Martin Veltman. Check it out, early 1970s. I must have had better teachers than you because I recognized a pseudo science and crap data when I saw them.

My advice: when in a hole stop digging.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  NorEastern
November 29, 2019 4:02 pm

Run for the hills!! The methane has turned into ammonia!!!

Fraizer
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
November 29, 2019 5:17 pm

Run for the hills!! The methane has turned into ammonia!!!

Nah,
That’s just NorEastern just stinking the place up,

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
December 3, 2019 11:56 am

I chuckled about that typo too, but didn’t want to seem pedantic in my response.

Reed Coray
Reply to  NorEastern
November 29, 2019 4:27 pm

Please be kind enough to tell us (a) the “simple” thermodynamic principle/law/theory/whatever that tells us “CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere leads to a hotter earth”, and (b) does the same “simple” thermodynamic principle/law/theory/whatever apply to water vapor?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  NorEastern
November 29, 2019 4:50 pm

NorEastern
Are you Maslin using a pseudonym? What you (and many others) fail to understand (or at least acknowledge) is that what is important is the rate and amount of warming from CO2. If I claim that by spitting on the ground I have lost weight, technically I’d be correct. However, it is of no consequence other than offering up a Red Herring argument. Few skeptics ‘denye’ that there is a theoretical contribution to the rate at which energy is radiated resulting from increasing CO2. What is critical in the debate is the magnitude of the warming for a doubling of CO2. The physics of that is not trivial. And you say that you are a scientist? In what field did you get your degrees?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  NorEastern
November 29, 2019 5:10 pm

Nor,

Your “the last four years have been the hottest in the last 145 years “ statement.

Seriously, that is some fine picked cherries. How about the MWP at 900 yrs ago, the RWP at 1,900 ya, the Minoan WP at ~ 3K ya, or the Holocene Thermal Optimum at 8 Kya?

Were those CO2 driven? Why is this one, the Modern WP, due to CO2? Use some critical thinking man.
You’ve been suckered into believing in junk science. Really.

Joel

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 30, 2019 9:37 am

He’s not a scientist, in spite of his self-promotion. He doesn’t even know what “all climate forcings” means.

Pachygrapsus
Reply to  NorEastern
November 30, 2019 8:54 am

“The physics is trivial”

Well, as soon as I hear that ridiculous claim, I know I’m dealing with a charlatan. If the physics were trivial, we wouldn’t need models or supercomputers to predict the overall effect on the Earth’s surface temperature. Obviously, there are myriad secondary effects and sinks that need to be accounted for, and even more uncertain is how a small temperature increase will affect the biosphere. The UN wants $100 Billion per year, and US politicians want to place punitive taxes on fossil fuels that will make it more difficult for people to heat their homes and feed their families. Meanwhile, former president Obama, who was touting the climate emergency as hard as anyone, promptly buys himself two large homes, each of which produced more CO2 emissions than the average US residence. Why should anyone willingly reduce their standard of living when our leaders clearly aren’t doing anything to reduce theirs? Why would anyone send money to the UN when the Green Climate Fund is using their first round of funding to build a port for the island nation of Nauru?

Sorry, but the claim that the physics is trivial is a lie, and it’s only the smallest part of the argument for climate action. It’s not a coincidence that CO2 is the target of anti-capitalists who have always tried to undermine western civilization. Nothing else has such a clear connection to the strength and well-being of a modern, prosperous nation, and if they succeed in artificially limiting CO2 emissions, they also reduce the efficiency and productivity of the world’s most prosperous nations. A neat trick, if they can find enough people to spout nonsense about the physics being trivial.

It’s hard to believe that anyone is falling for it.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Pachygrapsus
December 1, 2019 5:46 am

“Why should anyone willingly reduce their standard of living when our leaders clearly aren’t doing anything to reduce theirs?”

A very good point that needs more emphasis.

The Elites decry a CO2 crisis yet they change nothing in their lifestyles. A CO2 crisis only applies to the “little people” who are required to give up their standard of living under the Green New Deal and other crazy proposals from the alarmists.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  NorEastern
December 3, 2019 11:48 am

“Simple thermodynamics tells us that CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere leads to a hotter earth.”

Bullshit. It may tell us that increasing the amount of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere, all other things held equal leads to a hotter earth, but then here in the REAL world, “all other things” are most certainly NOT “held equal,” the “feedbacks” are net NEGATIVE, and the effect on the earth’s temperature is essentially nil.

“The physics is trivial.”

IF “all other things” are “held equal.” They are not (see above).

“Simple probabilistic analysis reveals that the chances the last four years have been the hottest in the last 145 years without an external influence (CO2 and NH4) is a 434 million to one long shot.”

First of all, that assumes, mistakenly, that the so-called “data” is accurate. It is not. In point of fact, what they are pointing to as “data” now isn’t even “data” any more. “Data” is what the thermometer readings were, not the “adjusted,” “homogenized,” (supposedly) “corrected” crap they call “data” now.

Second of all, an “external influence” is not something that is IN the Earth’s atmosphere. The fact is the “average temperature,” meaningless metric as it is, is well within the range of NATURAL variation, and there is nothing remarkable about it.

“CO2 content in the atmosphere is currently the highest in the last 3.2 million years …”

More bullshit, based on the scientific incompetence of comparing “proxy” records with modern atmospheric measurements, which is like comparing apples to spiders.

“…when the oceans were 70 to 100 feet higher and the earth was 9 degrees F warmer.”

Which has nothing to do with the CO2 content in the atmosphere. The Earth entered a full blown ice age with ~10 times the amount that is in the atmosphere now – the Earth’s temperature is indifferent to the atmospheric CO2 level.

“The climate tipping points are obvious and if one occurs Katy bar the doors.”

There ARE NO “tipping points.” Earth is a WATER planet, and the levels of other so-called “greenhouse gases” are meaningless. Atmospheric CO2 doesn’t “drive” jack shit. Present empirical evidence that it does! You can’t – because no such evidence exists, and plenty of evidence to refute the notion that CO2 “drives” temperature DOES exist.

thingadonta
November 29, 2019 2:32 pm

‘Energy cannot be created or destroyed’, except perhaps in humanities courses and in politics.

Smart Rock
November 29, 2019 2:44 pm

The so-called expenditures on promoting denial by the big 5 oil companies sound a bit phony to me, but in any case, they are trivial in the context of the budget of these companies. BP is said to have spent $53M which represents just 0.3% of its annual profit of $16.7B or just 0.017% of gross income for 2018

And if you take a minute to look at their annual reports, the oil companies are heavily invested in “renewables”, spending far more than they do in “promoting denial”.

Hard facts are in short supply at the Conversation.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Smart Rock
December 1, 2019 5:53 am

“Hard facts are in short supply at the Conversation.”

Boiling it down to the essence (short and sweet). 🙂

Steve45
November 29, 2019 2:48 pm

Half of Australia is on fire currently. Rainforests that have never burned in recorded history are on fire. But I’m sure it’s just natural variability.

Dreadnought
Reply to  Steve45
November 29, 2019 3:04 pm

Hey, Steve.

Try persistently poor forest management, then you’ll get your true answer.

Cheers,

Dreadnought.

Steve45
Reply to  Dreadnought
November 29, 2019 3:18 pm

Hey Dreadnought- why are areas 100s of miles from civilization that have never been managed and never been burnt all on fire all of a sudden?

Mike
Reply to  Steve45
November 29, 2019 4:00 pm

Dryness. And no, drought has nothing to do with the 0.8 degrees warming.
What else you got?

Steve45
Reply to  Mike
November 29, 2019 5:13 pm

Right… Reread your post again and then have a think about what you’ve said…

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Steve45
November 30, 2019 6:10 am

Lightening? If you can’t see the smoke, is something burning?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 30, 2019 2:43 pm

Maybe it’s darkening.

Steve45
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 30, 2019 5:32 pm

Yes lightning only began in modern times as part of a conspiracy by the greens.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 30, 2019 6:30 pm

And how far back do records go?

Gator
Reply to  Steve45
November 29, 2019 3:10 pm

You gullibles will believe anything your alarmist coaches tell you. Gullible as Hell…

But such fires predate climate change: “A bushfire in Lamington National Park today swept through a grove of 3000-year-old Macrozamia palms,” The Cairns Post reported on October 25, 1951. “These trees were one of the features of the park … the fire has burnt out about 2000 acres of thick rainforest country.” That is rainforest burning in Lamington National Park 70 years ago.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/not-unprecedented-fires-at-all-so-why-these-false-claims/news-story/b30996d6a360cce0e6141018205a8a4d

Ive a lovely bridge for sale, and it fights climate change.

Steve45
Reply to  Gator
November 29, 2019 3:46 pm

So let me get this straight, your argument against AGW is that half way into the last century (when global average temperatures had increased 0.2 to 0.3 degrees due to AGW since the turn of the century), an area that hadn’t burned in the last 3000 years was suddenly burning?

Gator
Reply to  Steve45
November 29, 2019 3:51 pm

I thought you said it never burned before. LOL

Try reading the article before commenting. Then you can move goalposts, and be wrong once again.

Steve45
Reply to  Gator
November 29, 2019 5:12 pm

Not the brightest are you? Probably why your wife left you and you failed in life.

Gator
Reply to  Steve45
November 30, 2019 6:38 am

News of my wife abandoning me would shock my entire family, and my wife. And the house I built 17 years ago, that sits 1 mile off of one of Americas most scenic byways is completely paid for. I now work to pass the time and pay trivial bills.

And many thanks Steve, for admitting that you have no more arguments, and must resort to baseless attacks on me.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Steve45
November 30, 2019 2:47 pm

“(when global average temperatures had increased 0.2 to 0.3 degrees due to AGW since the turn of the century)”

So you’re one of those who think the climate NEVER changes all by itself. Not too bright, are you.

Gator
Reply to  Bill Taylor
November 30, 2019 5:27 am

Thanks for proving my point Bill.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Steve45
November 29, 2019 3:38 pm

At least one third of those fire were lit by arsonist. Indeed, that’s not natural variability.

Bill Taylor
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
November 29, 2019 3:48 pm

Yes Im sure that all those fires in rainforests in the middle of nowhere that haven’t burned for millions of years are the result of arsonists.

aussiecol
Reply to  Steve45
November 29, 2019 10:07 pm

”Rainforests that have never burned in recorded history are on fire.”…Recorded history in Australia would be around what, two hundred years or less. How many years do you think the wild fire history would be Steve? Tens of thousands , hundreds of thousands? How many times did the Aborigines do burn offs when they noticed the fuel loads getting too high? Certainly more than whats happening now.

aussiecol
Reply to  Steve45
November 29, 2019 10:48 pm

Hey Steve,… ”Unlike Binna Burra, O’Reilly’s is surrounded entirely by rainforest. O’Reilly’s manager, Shane O’Reilly, says there was no need for evacuation; the nearest fires were 15km away: “The rainforest here doesn’t burn. It was pretty much eucalypt country that burned … There’s a lot of emotion surrounding this.” https://www.theaustralian.com.au/science/false-alarm-the-great-rainforest-fire-that-wasnt/news-story/1c24f7245f6ff74385be112567c79198
Hmmm,… ”there’s a lot of emotion surrounding this”. Somehow sounds familiar.

Steve45
Reply to  aussiecol
November 30, 2019 12:02 am

They thought the area around Binna Burra wouldn’t burn too. Same with Japoon national park and the Mount Hyland Nature Reserve. And it’s not even an El Nino year. Fire season is now starting earlier and lasting longer. So says, the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, and the Bushfire/Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre. Best not to put any credence to what Uncle Rupert or his minions write.

aussiecol
Reply to  Steve45
November 30, 2019 1:38 am

I don’t know who ”They thought” were, but they thought wrong. This from the same source,…”Binna Burra Lodge is not encircled by rainforest, as was claimed repeatedly. The lodge is surrounded on three sides by eucalypt woodland; it came close to being lost when a control burn 20 years ago got away. This time, ­explains Binna Burra chairman Steven ­Noakes: “The fire went tearing up a steep slope through eucalypt woodland and we’re perched on a ridge at the top. With those winds there was nothing we could do.”
Sounds a bit more credible than ABC or Guardian alarmism or who ever ”they thought” is.

Steve45
Reply to  aussiecol
November 30, 2019 4:28 am

Here’s some more rainforest that’s not meant to burn: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-08/from-space,-the-ferocity-of-queenslands-bushfires-is-revealed/10594662

but sure, go on believing what uncle Rupert tells you.

Dreadnought
November 29, 2019 3:01 pm

“Climate change deniers will tell you that more people die of the cold than heat, so warmer winters will be a good thing. This is deeply misleading. Vulnerable people die of the cold because of poor housing and not being able to afford to heat their homes. Society, not climate, kills them.”

Where to start with this..? I mean, really?! It makes me sick to the stomach to read this kind of thing. It’s very sad. Very, very sad.

}:o(

Mike Maguire
November 29, 2019 3:41 pm

in the mid/high latitudes life is still most challenged during the numerous cold months of the year by a very wide margin.
Some life has an opportunity to head south for the Winter to save itself from the killing cold and lack of food.
Much of life will go into a hibernation mode to survive these cold months. Life that is exposed to the elements all Winter suffers thru great adversity and remains in survival mode, celebrating in the Spring when it can recover as warmth brings food and health recovery and opportunities to procreate.

All animals eat plants or something that ate plants. Many to most plants either go dormant to survive the long harsh Winters or they die and come back from seeds germinated by the return of life giving warmth in the Spring.

This is why authentic science has always defined our current climate as a climate optimum on this greening planet that will continue to increase benefits to most life for the next 100 years at this rate of warming………which affects the coldest places at the coldest times of year……..maximizing the benefits to life.

Climate science was hijacked for the political agenda 40 years ago and the climate crisis/emergency is completely manufactured with fake/junk science.

If you asked scientists 50 years ago, what the optimal temperature of the planet is for life, the vast majority of them, possibly close to 100% would have stated a temperature that was warmer. None would have claimed colder. This is why the Holocene climate optimum over 5,000 years ago that was much warmer than this is referred to as an optimum.

Somehow, today, we hear that 97% of scientists are telling us the complete opposite of what nearly 100% of scientists agreed on 50 years ago.

The authentic science hasn’t changed. Life hasn’t changed. The effects of weather and climate on life hasn’t changed in 50 years.

The manufactured narratives telling us what to believe based on agenda and political belief systems via the hijacking of climate science are what changed.

NorEastern
November 29, 2019 3:44 pm

Large areas of our planet are surpassing global warming of 2.7 degrees F (1.5 degrees C). 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) global warming will occur by 2035. Realist climate scientists understand that a warming of 3 degrees C (5.4 degrees F) is our best shot at setting a limit on global warming. I am their peer and I talk to them several times a year. 5.4 degrees F of global warming is massively hot.

Gator
Reply to  NorEastern
November 29, 2019 3:48 pm

There is nothing unusual taking place.

1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  NorEastern
November 29, 2019 3:57 pm

If you claim expertise, commenting under you real name would be honest. Take it from this PhD (1979, physics & math) that those temperature increases are utter nonsense.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
November 30, 2019 2:55 pm

Hell Ed, he probably can’t even pronounce your last name.

Gator
Reply to  NorEastern
November 29, 2019 3:58 pm

The peer of a fraud is a fraud. Congratulations! You are as dishonest as the grantologists you laud.

1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  NorEastern
November 29, 2019 4:14 pm

You are a peer of “Realist climate scientists ” .
Well , that explains a lot of your unsupported claims ……
What university are you employed by ?