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.

348 thoughts on “The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial

    • 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/

      • 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

        • 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.

        • 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.

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

      • 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 !!

        • 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”

    • 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.

  1. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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?

      • “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. 😉

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

      • 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.

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

        • 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…

          • 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.

          • 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.

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

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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?

        • 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.

    • 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.

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

      • 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.

        • @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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

      • “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.

    • 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

      • 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?

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

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

        • “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?

          • 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.”

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

  2. 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!)

    • “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. !

    • @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?

      • 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. 🙂

        • “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.

          • . . . 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!

            🙂

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

      • 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?

    • 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.

  4. (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.

  5. 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. 😐

    • 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.

    • 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

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

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

        • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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

      • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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.

    • 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.

  6. 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.”

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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

      • 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.)

        • 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.

          • 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

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

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

  7. 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.

  8. 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!)

    • “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

      • 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.

  9. 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.

    • 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….

  10. 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.

    • 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

  11. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • “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.

  12. 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.

    • 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.

  13. 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.

    • 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.

  14. 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
      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!

  15. 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.

  16. 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!

  17. 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?

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

    • 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

  19. 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!

    • 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.

    • 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

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

    • 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.

  23. 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.

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

        • 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”.

  24. 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.

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

    Don’t need that.

    Get enough of it every day.

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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!

    • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

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

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

    • “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.

      • 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.

  32. 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!

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

      Shhh…

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

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

  36. ”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?

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

  38. 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.

    • “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.

  39. 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.

  40. 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!

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

  41. 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.

    • “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…

  42. 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.

  43. 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.

    • 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.

  44. 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%.

  45. 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

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

        • 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?

        • 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

    • 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.

  46. 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.

  47. 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.

    • 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.

      • ” 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.

        • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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.

    • 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?

    • 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?

    • 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

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

    • “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.

      • “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.

    • “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.

  48. 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.

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

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

  49. 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.

  50. “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(

  51. 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.

  52. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

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

    • That’s a remarkable series of imprecise statements for a scientist. If you and your peers happily chat amongst yourselves in these terms I’d suggest getting out and talking to scientists that know a bit more about uncertainty.

      • Stats are a specialty of mine. Global warming caused by CO2 and NH4 is now at 5 sigma probability of being correct. That equates to a 99.999999999% probability that it is happening now.

        • Go on then specialty stat man, go through your math for us – as slowly as you like. We’ll be here. Could you also let me know what is the probability of me being at a higher elevation if I walk up the hill by my house?

          …… and please, please stop typing NH4. It’s even more cringeworthy than your claim to be a scientist.

          • He’s proved using statistical methods that when the temperature of the earth is increasing, the higher temperatures are the most recent ones. Most people just look at a graph. From his other posts, he seems to have also proved that correlation = causation.

        • NH4? That must be new stuff altogether.

          ‘Stats are a speciality of mine’. Any publications on the subject? just for comparison, I have 4.

        • NH4? You sound like someone I had a discussion with some years ago that claimed CH4 (Which I think you actually meant) had, and I quote, “Four carbons”, I kid you not.

    • NEScientist,

      Your posts are made up out of whole cloth.

      If you are a scientist, explain to us the difference between a dipole moment and an induced dipole moment, and why this makes water vapor such a vastly more effective greenhouse gas. And then, explain to us just how much higher is the altitude at which the Atmosphere is freely able to radiate to space because CO2 has grown from maybe 280 ppm to maybe 410 ppm, and just how much more energy will be retained in the atmosphere because of this, and just how much the so-called Global Average Surface Temperature will rise, and when…

      • One of the delights of being a graduate student back in the 1970s was that you were lumbered with tasks like communicating to the public. Answering questions as good as one could in writing or on the phone, that sort of thing. You soon learn of a special group of callers, crackpots who want to sell you their own theory of relativity or their unique value of the Hubble constant. After a while you get a good nose for them because they have their own idiosyncracies, special use of woolly language, special attention for irrelevant detail, numbers to great accuracy with many decimals. Language to bamboozle you into awe.

        Our friend NE ticks most of the boxes.

    • NorEastern
      5.4 deg F above the global average might seem “massively hot” to someone who has not experienced 120 deg F. However, if you were as acquainted with the topic as you try to convey, you would understand that there is more warming going on at night and in the Winter, than there is in the day and in the Summer, and it is warming more in the Arctic than elsewhere. They all contribute to an increase in the average global temperature, but don’t mean that we are going to fry.

      You sound like a stereotypical, hand-waving, Chicken Little who is incapable of doing “trivial physics.”

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/06/the-gestalt-of-heat-waves/

        • I see it, now. You are a child looking to argue and pretend to be an adult. Give yourself a few more years to grow. When your brain matures take another look at the science of global warming.

          • This Noreaster troll has been around here for couple of days now. His posts are all baseless assertions, not one backed up with references or facts. And he will never respond to challenges directly or engage in civil debate.

            Don’t feed the troll.

        • NorEastern
          All of what you state is unsupported opinion. You haven’t succeeded in convincing anyone that your claims of being a scientist have any basis in fact. Nor do you actually seem to have anything other than a superficial understanding of the problems. Why do you waste your time when you don’t have any substance to offer?

    • NorEastern,

      Have you ever taken a look at the global temperature data? The NOAA Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) version 4 has temperature records from over 27,000 weather stations around the world. According to their website:

      Relative to previous versions, v4 provides an expanded set of station temperature records as well as more comprehensive uncertainties for the calculation of station and regional temperature trends. The increase in station data comes primarily from the temperature observations available in the Global Historical Climatology Network–daily dataset (GHCNd; Menne et al. 2012), which have been combined with the original monthly sources used in previous versions of GHCNm. Additional station data collected under the auspices of the International Surface Temperature Initiative are also used (ISTI; Rennie et al. 2013) and the data merging process was conducted within the ISTI project. Combining these various sources brings the total number of monthly temperature stations in v4 to approximately 26,000 compared to 7200 in v2 and v3.

      That’s really impressive — maybe the most comprehensive temperature record of Earth ON Earth.

      Some people feel the GHCN Monthly summaries have been altered and manipulated too much to provide a true picture of Earth’s temperature regime, but I figure it’s what we have, and what everyone works with; so let’s take a good look at it to see what we do have.

      I’ve been a database s/w developer for about 30 years now, and have done a lot of data warehouse design; I’m pretty comfortable mining data from big piles of it like this one. Just to keep things simple, I’ll point out a couple of items that deserve an explanation, and that aren’t about adjustments.

      One of the standard baselines for generating is the 30-year period from Jan 1981 to Dec 2010. Out of those 27,000+ weather stations, there are only 1088 that have a complete record throughout that time, with no missing months of data and no quality issues. Of those 1088 stations, 77 of them show a flat or negative trend over the most recent 30 year period. If the data quality is relaxed a bit, to allow 6 months of missing data from a 360-month series, that proportion goes up to 1/3, with 877 stations showing a cooling or flat trend, and 2383 stations warming.

      How can those nice graphics showing “unprecedented warming” across the poles be created from such sparse data?

      Seems to me that the grand global average anomaly is but a whitewash of the actual great diversity in temperature trends in the world. I think we’d know a lot more if we focused in closely on smaller regions, rather than trying to get a one-size-fits-all average anomaly.

  53. “This argument [cold-related deaths] is also factually incorrect. In the US, for example, heat-related deaths are four times higher than cold-related ones. “

    He then shows a graph indicating that, based on the 10 and 30 year averages, cold-related deaths are increasing while heat related deaths are decreasing. Kind of inconvenient in a warming world, huh?

    Probably without realizing it, he also makes the case that people are dying due to lack of air conditioning, not due to lack of heating.

    The greatest affront, however, is not really his: The self-titled website “The Conversation” is not, and never has been, a conversation. It is merely “The Boring Sermon”.

  54. I feel that scepticism is slowly growing but the alarmism is getting louder. It’s gonna end in tears. They will need a bucket of icy cold reality water dumped over them to wash all the tears away..
    I still think all this will end with a decade. It will go something like this…. Governments will begin to make noises about the need to ”adapt to the changing climate rather than destroying economies” (which will lead to rioting and misery). The alarmists will get even louder but governments will start to look for, and present, evidence showing it’s not as bad as we thought. The argument will continue but will be more two-sided. the realists will start to win the argument because they have reality on their side. The alarmists will begin to dissipate as they realise their fight is futile. The climate will immediately start doing nothing. Life will go on…

  55. There is a possibility that CO2 adds NO net heat to the Earth’s atmosphere. As Moller pointed out, a two-percent increase in cloud cover could offset a doubling of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere. Increasing warmth in the atmosphere would create more water vapor, which would create more clouds.

    Someone ought to ask Mark Maslin if he can rule out the possibility that CO2 adds no net heat to the atmosphere. If he says yes, he is a liar, or extremely uninformed, and if he says no, then all his predictions about the effects of CAGW are just so much speculation.

    What do you say, MarK? Can you rule that possibility out for us?

    If you can’t rule that out, then I guess the science isn’t really settled, now is it.

  56. You really can’t fix stupid.Do to the warmists what they want to do to us. Cut them off from all fossil fuels, modern technology, confiscate all their assets and possessions, force them to live in caves and produce all their needs themselves. This is what they want to do to us so it’s fair and reasonable they show us the way.

  57. I am unsure why a normally sane site such as WUWT would deign to re-publish such a load of garbage in such detail. Surely just a precis might have sufficed along with some comment to provide a sanity break from the content?

    Giving such public advertising to the unsane is doing them a far greater favour than any of them have earned.

    Can you imagine the Conversation posting an entire WUWT post in full? They simply cherry pick anything they can take exception to so as to ridicule the site to the mouth-breathers who read their tripe.

    • MarkMcD

      Let me respond to your question because I sent Charles the link to The Conversation article. Sun Tsu (The Art of War) advised that one should know their enemy. I think it is important to see what alarmists are saying to understand what they are trying to accomplish. Further, if an alarmist asks any of us about Maslin’s article, we are not taken by surprise and have had an opportunity to think about its failings.

      Secondly, The Conversation is unlikely to allow any cogent, factual response on their site. So, we make an end run around the hypocrites’ ban by allowing knowledgeable people to respond here. Actually, because The Conversation tends to be an echo chamber with those in agreement with the progressive goals being the faithful readers, WUWT probably is a more effective outlet for criticism, even if we were allowed to respond on the original venue.

      Thirdly, WUWT might be accused of cherry picking if the entire article wasn’t presented. I think that Maslin and The Conversation editors are their own worst enemies. Anyone familiar with the topic can clearly see how weak Maslin’s arguments are.

      • I have not been reading this site for long and am intensely grateful for this article and the subsequent commentary. Just for one example, I knew the original article was wrong on Chinese vs US emissions but hadn’t figured out why before the answer was given.

  58. Here in the normally mild south West of Ireland it has been a cool November to say the least. Daily maxima in the single degrees Celsius generally and lots of night frost – down as low as – 4 Celsius.
    Tonight I had a drink with a friend of mine who is an intelligent well educated guy who told me that everyone including himself were remarking on how freakishly mild November had been. It seems that narrative now trumps lived experience.

  59. Maslin makes the claim “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.”

    Well, they have “remained very similar” if one’s definition of “very similar” is having a positive slope. However, if the definition is that the value of the slopes are all within some small range such as 5%, then the claim is suspect. Even so, if the slopes of the temperature rises are not realistic, i.e. agreeing with the historical record, then it is just proof that they all show poor skill in predicting.

    The greatest sin in science is being right for the wrong reason. The only reason that any of Hansen’s1988 forecasts (i.e. Draconian Emission Cuts, which haven’t taken place!) even come close to the actual temperature record is that he assumed a theoretical volcanic eruption about 2014, which also did not take place! A simple linear extrapolation of the temperatures from 1964 through 1988 provides a forecast that is superior to Hansen’s computer model, without the necessity of any hypothetical events that didn’t occur.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/30/analysis-of-james-hansens-1988-prediction-of-global-temperatures-for-the-last-30-years/

  60. Another thing. In his “red” figure he has annual CO2 emissions per capita on the left (OK the numbers may be correct). On the right is a little figure labelled “cumulative emissions” by country. Cumulative since when? He must have gone back a long way in time to get the US and EU cumulative emissions so much greater than those of China and India. Totally misleading, and I’m quite sure it’s deliberately misleading.

    Hayhoe used cumulative numbers of US forest fires in one of her presentations. Of course, being cumulative, the line always goes up, even though the annual numbers were decreasing.

    Sneaky little tricks. The facts aren’t enough; they have to play around to make things look bad. That’s what makes them alarmists.

  61. It is really unfortunate that those of us who foster genuine and healthy scientific debate by questioning climate orthodoxy have calmly accepted the term “Denier” without protest. To me, any one who uses the term is a low-life of sorts, unworthy of respect and serious discussion. The term is an ad hominem insult, and anti-semitic to boot. Wherever it appears, it should be roundly condemned.

  62. Here, I fixed it for you:

    If x happens, it’s climate change.

    If !x happens, it’s also climate change.

    And it’s all caused by Man emitting the Magic Molecule CO2!

    • Yes, that shows that the God hypothesis and the AGW hypothesis are equally empty. In other words, AGW is another religion.

  63. 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.

    Improved Human Health? What? Reducing the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere is going to improve human health? OMG. The Warmists are like marijuana pushers … TRUE Believers who are convinced their “product” will cure all ills in the human condition. Yep, about as FAR from science as one can get.

  64. Some (a few?) of us have the knowledge necessary to calculate the probability that global warming is not occurring. What are the odds of choosing the 4 highest numbers from a bag of 145 numbers in 4 draws? So we have the 4 hottest years out of 145 years of climate observations occurring in the last 4 years. Selection without replacement. Basic probability. Trivial to calculate. Worse than Lotto odds.

    • NorEastern,
      Even if your assertion that the last 4 years were the warmest in the last 145 years, that by itself is meaningless. There are many characteristics of a data set that must be understood before you can begin making any conclusions. For example, natural systems often exhibit clustering of data values, but these clusters are not necessarily indicative of anything special; they can be random or the result of a serially correlated process. Just being able to calculate probabilities or odds ratios (they are not the same) is not equivalent to understanding the data.

      • Simple probability states that you are wrong. The probability of choosing a specific set of n numbers from a bag of m numbers has been understood for centuries. I pose a simple question devoid of all other variables. Please tell me the probability of choosing 4 specific tiles from a bag of 145.. The CO2 content in our atmosphere is at the highest level in 3.2 million years. That should tell you something.

        • Sorry NorEastern but we have had many contradictors before you and I must say that your argumentation is very naive. Unless the level increases a little bit this will probably be my last comment to you because it will likely be a waste of time for everybody (you, me, and the poor other readers). 
          What you are doing is a very naive version of empiricism or inductivism, ie. trying to derive some physical law from simple observations while being unable to provide any explanation at all… To paraphrase a little bit your initial question (with some humour), the probability that, in an upward time series, the last 4 values are the highest is … one. But this is not science, not even *simple* science, this is not science at all. Same thing is you think to see any proof with the “3.2 million years” CO2…
          What you should do, instead, is not to answer to your own questions (which are irrelevant) but to address scientific questions and start providing good explanations for :
          – if CO2 is the main driver to climate, what are the other ones ?
          – how do you quantify them ? What are the uncertainties ?
          – What are the underlying physical principles at work with CO2 driving climate, and the same for other forcings ?
          – Knowing this, is it possible to refute natural variability? How ?
          – What is the real predictive power of models, given uncertainties in the data and systematic errors?
          – How these previous answers can explain as well *opposite* observations ? (for instance, MWP or even recent 1940-1970? but also declining relative humidity ? no hot spot ? …)
          etc. etc. 
          These are the main questions coming to my mind. 
          Our skepticism is not linked to our naivety, but the fact of being told so high claims based on so fragile and inconsistent explanations to questions above…

        • NorEastern, I play (at) golf. When I pay 18 holes I typically hit the ball 90 times and each time I hit the ball it comes to rest somewhere on the golf course (ignoring out-of-bound shots). 18 of those shots end up in the bottom of a hole–so a priori I know to within an inch or two where 18 of my shots will come to rest. This means that I routinely hit 72 shots that land at locations somewhere on the golf course. If prior to my first golf swing I designate an area two-inches by two-inches on the golf course and ask: “What is the probability that after hitting the ball with my first swing the ball will come to rest within the designated square two inches on a side?” The answer is: “I don’t know, but the probability is very small.” For each of the remaining 71 shots, I designate a similar (but possibly different) two-inch by two-inch area of the golf course. Before I start my round of golf, I ask “What is the probability that each of my shots will come to rest within its designated two-inch area?” Because that probability is vanishingly small, I conclude I can’t possibly have played the round of golf I did play. Somehow with a thorough understanding (i.e., with a non-deni@r understanding) of AGW principles, I can reconcile the two (the a priori probability estimate that my round of golf will happen with the actual probability (one, 1) that it did happen. So much for the voodoo mixing of actual results with a priori probabilities of those events occurring.

          This probability lesson was brought to you by the good peer-review folk in the AGW community.

    • So what ? Temperatures are not distributed randomly from one year to another. There are physical processes, trends and correlations. What you (think to) prove is just that we observe (*) a somewhat upward trend which nobody really refutes here… Your argument is so superficial that it tells nothing on the climate, but a lot on you.
      (*) putting aside the many problems with measurements and adjustments, of course

    • NorEastern
      Are you proposing selection with or without replacement? However, it isn’t really a good analogy because what you are dealing with is not unique items, but measurements that have autocorrelation. That is, one can expect a given temperature measurement to be correlated with the other measurements in a time series. So, the probability increases significantly! You really are a charlatan!

    • You’re laboring under the misapprehension that there is such a thing as a “global average temperature”, and that because we can calculate an average, that all those individual temperature readings go in the same direction. You’re no scientist.

    • Given the fact that your arguments attempting to support your CAGW ideology are laughably illogical handwaving, I’d say the odds you being a moron are fairly high.

  65. Denial is a Nazi-era concept as in denial of life deemed unworthy of life (e.g. selective-Jew). They also originated or progressed concepts of diversity (i.e. color judgment) and exclusion, Jew privilege, political congruence, social justice, and redistributive change along the communist-socialist-fascist axis.

    • This is war, in the semantic theater. Choose your rhetoric, but be careful from where you draw your inspiration.

  66. @NorEastern
    “Please tell me the probability of choosing 4 specific tiles from a bag of 145?”

    Did someone predict the last 4 years would be the warmest ever? Otherwise, if they were ranked 4th, 9th, 7th, and 2nd, you could ask, “what are the odds the last 4 years would be the 4th, 9th, 7th and 2nd?”

  67. I’m interested in the claim that the models closely match the observed temperature changes.

    We have had articles on WUWT showing that the “average” prediction is about twice the actual change.

    How are these two claims to be reconciled?

  68. Well the climate models have remained very similar over the last 30 years – they have consistently been unable to predict decadal level fits and starts and consistently overestimate the magnitude of everything and consistently fail to agree with each other and spectacularly fail to predict the future no matter how much curve fitting they do.

  69. This article is a joke.
    For something called “The Conversation,” they are remarkable by their determination to avoid anything resembling a conversation or even readers’ comments.
    https://theconversation.com/the-five-corrupt-pillars-of-climate-change-denial-122893

    Also notice the slight-of-hand where they put the US CO2 emissions as “per head” at the top of the chart so the largest emitter in the world, China, can appear lower. If it was in percentage terms, China would soar above every other country.

  70. Norway alone spends about 40.000 million NOK (around 4.000 million USD) in 2019 alone on activities related to stopping “climate change”. That is about 20 times more than the combined spending by the 5 oil majors.

  71. saving our planet from climate change?

    It’s hard to imagine a more profoundly ignorant and confused statement. Climate is always changing. Humans have lived for 200,000 years. Multicellular life for 630 million years. During none of that time has climate ever been static.

    Yes there have been mass extinctions. They have mostly been cooling events, such as the end-Permian

    https://www.nature.com/articles/srep43630

    and also the dinosaur extinction.

    The more minor extinction of megafauna at the last glacial maximum was also from cold.

    Maskin is a scientist who has published good research in geosciences. For instance in the subject of the mid-Pleistocene transition (“revolution”). But here his political and social prejudices are getting the better of him and he is disgracing himself, his university UCL and his profession. He should seek help if he is experiencing personal issues that are driving him to this flail of ignorant prejudice and class hate.

    “Save us from climate change?” Ignominious nonsense from someone who knows much better.

    • “Saving our planet from climate change” is every bit as ignorant and every bit as reflective of ultimate hubris as “saving our planet from the rising tides.”

  72. “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).”

    Statements like this may sound plausible to the uninformed, but Maslin knows well that a single scientist responsible for a global dataset can change the whole thing in the name of homogenisation. This illustrates that his preposterous claims are created to deceive the public rather than make any serious point.

  73. Such vanity and hubris. Why have none of the climate Armageddonists bothered to speculate on the possible BAD outcomes that could arise from mankind’s intentional tinkering with the climate? It seems to me that whenever Man in his limited wisdom interferes with nature, we get outcomes like the Cane Toad infestation of Australia. I’m sure a lot of very smart people had some important sciency discussions to convince themselves that it was a terrific idea to let Cane Toads hop loose in Australia. The science was settled. Well, it didn’t turn out so good, did it?

    And we are expected to trust Hockey Stick guy and his fellow Armageddonists to know what’s best for the planet when there are innumerable examples throughout history when “the experts” got it exactly WRONG.

    Vanity and hubris.

    • Thing is, with the cane toad in Australia, the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations along with support from CSIR as it was called back in 1935 gave approval for their introduction because the CSIR were planning to release the European toad in other parts of Australia.

      Yes, great example of how not to do things.

  74. 1. Science denial
    This is the type of denial we are all familiar with: that the science of climate change is not settled.

    True.

    2. Economic denial
    The idea that climate change is too expensive to fix is a more subtle form of climate denial.

    It’s not only too expensive, it’s impossible to fix.

    3. Humanitarian denial
    Climate change deniers also argue that climate change is good for us.

    Climate change coming out of the ice age has been good for us. The problem is, winter is still too cold.

    4. Political denial
    Climate change deniers argue we cannot take action because other countries are not taking action.

    Commit economic suicide? You first.

    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.

    Genius. Those who are so certain of the promises of the future should stick to playing roulette.

  75. Wailing WAPO HEADLINE: “Americans like Green New Deal’s goals, but they reject paying trillions to reach them”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/11/27/americans-like-green-new-deals-goals-they-reject-paying-trillions-reach-them/

    Ay, there’s the rub. Similar poll a few years ago in NYTimes. No doubt the Climate hysteria propaganda succeeds in getting people to mouth the right words. What it can’t do is convince people to let the Climate fanatics and enviro-fascists pick their pocket.

    Hence the Yellow Vest protests in France; widespread farmer protests across Europe; the Chinese massive cutbacks in Green energy investments; the collapse of the wind power industry in Germany… referenda on carbon taxes fail even in the bluest of blue states.

    The lefty Climate fanatics can only win by using state power to outlaw dissent and push back. Drump likely will use this as a weapon against whatever hapless Dum Party candidate emerges.

  76. Sobbing WAPO HEADLINE: “Americans like Green New Deal’s goals, but they reject paying trillions to reach them”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/11/27/americans-like-green-new-deals-goals-they-reject-paying-trillions-reach-them/

    Ay, there’s the rub. Similar poll a few years ago in NYTimes. No doubt the Climate hysteria propaganda succeeds in getting people to mouth the right words. What it can’t do is convince people to let the Climate fanatics and enviro-fascists pick their pocket.

    Hence the Yellow Vest protests in France; widespread farmer protests across Europe; the Chinese massive cutbacks in Green energy investments; the collapse of the wind power industry in Germany… referenda on carbon taxes fail even in the bluest of blue states.

    The lefty Climate fanatics can only win by using state power to outlaw dissent and push back. Drump likely will use this as a weapon against whatever hapless Dum Party candidate emerges.

  77. “Society kills the vulnerable,” is a most cowardly use of the passive voice. No, society does NOT kill vulnerable people who can’t afford to heat their homes. The colder temperatures combined with people like the author who want to artificially raise the price of energy they use, kills them, or more accurately, he participates in the cult that is indifferent to cold deaths due to potential economic harm to the vulnerable of YOUR OWN policy prescriptions.

    His refutations of the arguments of “D Nye rs” are simply bare assertions, with some assumed mathematics that are not in evidence. How in God’s name did the climate change before human civilization existed? Natural causes, poorly understood, is how. How well do current so-called climate scientists understand these natural causes? Poorly, is how. How do models do? Poorly. How do they reproduce clouds, water vapor and albedo changes? Poorly. How are past temperatures during the Medieval Warm period and the Dust Bowl Era dropping in the data if humans are not changing them? How poor is the logic of a person who could go look at Tony Heller’s charts, or could honestly go to the NASA and NOAA or CSIRO sources, himself to ask these question for himself? Only a fool would NOT conclude that someone is lowering past temperatures, putting fingers on the scale, and that some cause is at work. Australia actually had an arbitrary limit on recording low temps build into it’s data collection systems. How could any intelligent person casually dismiss that a suspicious, self-serving cause is at work corrupting the data and the science of people who see themselves as saving the planet? Stop reading The Conversation, fool, and start reading WattUpWithThat.

  78. Their chart on carbon emissions is deliberately misleading and part of the anti-Western Communist strategy. They pull this hat trick by saying “cumulative” emissions, which includes all emissions (estimated) from past decades before any attempts were made to curb them. China is now by far the largest carbon emissions producer, and their numbers steadily increase. The US has been slowly dropping for years, as has the EU.

  79. Anyone have any thoughts on the models vs temperature comparison? I have seen many charts on WUWT that show the models not tracking. This article shows they are tracking.

  80. –This article is republished from The Conversation…–

    Interesting Conversation…”shut up, you crazy, corrupt deniers”.

  81. 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. –> 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 to fend off sick green conspiracy theories of illicit trafficking, to fend off sick green conspiracy theories about racketeering and extortion.

    • In my Canadian jurisdiction the “oil companies” are all on board with the dictates of the Climate Emergency policies of the Canadian Government. But even if they were not…

      200 million dollars is a fly speck compared to the amount Western Governments are spending, borrowing to legislate, and finance the phoney “green economy”. In 2015 a month after Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Government was elected, his new Government sent 300 “delegates” by commercial and Government JETS for a week of champagne and caviar. All on the Canadian taxpayers bill. The only delegation that was bigger was the host France itself, most of who’s delegates could train or bike to the event.

      If a private company decides to lobby, at least they are using their own company funds they had to EARN., and not taxes extorted from citizens at the threat of jail.

Comments are closed.