Climate Change Fears of Teen Activist Are Empirically Baseless

Link to documentation, journals, and primary sources.

Advertisements

65 thoughts on “Climate Change Fears of Teen Activist Are Empirically Baseless

  1. In this debate I come back to the fact that air has a puny heat content. It can’t do much. Every physical scientist and engineer knows that. Why do we get ridiculous projections? Is the level of fraud that bad?

    • The level of fraud, hype, exaggerations, and outright falsehoods presented as facts by the global warming alarmists and “climate crisis” doomsday catastrophists, is far beyond what any rational person ought to be willing to tolerate.

      • Unlike the world predicted by ‘Max Headroom’, we’re allowed ‘off’ switches.

        Scaring the bejasus out of children here might get them to sit up straight and eat their vegetables once or twice, but it’s never helped children elsewhere, and it’s never worked for very long.

        Let’s keep these nutters away from children. School should be about education, not indoctrination.

    • “Mike McHenry December 21, 2019 at 6:38 pm
      In this debate I come back to the fact that air has a puny heat content. It can’t do much. Every physical scientist and engineer knows that. Why do we get ridiculous projections? Is the level of fraud that bad?”

      Ayup!
      Succinct and accurately stated, Mike.
      Yet, that miniscule atmospheric heat content is alleged to warm vast areas of land and water.
      CO₂ the subdeity molecule.

      • Greenhouse warming occurs not in proportion to the atmosphere’s heat content, but in proportion to how much absorption and emission of those IR frequencies are slowed in their emission to space, the slowing occurring because the final emission is from the high, cold atmosphere.

    • Absolutely true. Atmospheric temperature is only an indicator. 90% of increasing heat is stored in the sea. Also about 40% of the excess CO2 pumped in is dissolved in the sea and neutralized by dissolving calcium carbonate from shells and coral. This doesn’t happen without deleterious effects on the ecology. Let’s get our reliable energy from nuclear and stop burning fossil fuels.

      • I’m good with building nuclear power plants in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and I would like to invest. Or at least invest in a Trans-Canada power transmission line.

        But it will never happen until we don’t have to pander to every nay-sayer, grudge, and greivance, and we have to buy off every opportunistic speculator.

        I would be ALL for a spectacular increase in crown coal royalties. I doubt the $5 million a year Alberta gets now would half pay for the civil service to count up the tonnage. And 200 years to pay for the carbon tax utilities’ Enron Clause fiasco.

      • John Lindberg, there’s no evidence whatever that CO2 emissions have had any influence on air temperatures.

        Argo float thermometers are not sufficiently accurate to measure the supposed change in ocean heat content, your positive declarations notwithstanding.

        Dissolved CO2 does not attack the carbonate of living shellfish or corals. Biological carbonate deposition is energy-driven and can easily tolerate small shifts in pH. Glyco-protein layers also sequester biological carbonate surfaces from direct contact with sea water.

        There has been no know deleterious effects on ecology from CO2. Instead, the Earth has greened up by about 15% since 1980, all due to greater water resistance due to CO2 emissions, and more CO2 available for cellulose production.

        Fossil fuels are cheap, and no more polluting than nuclear power. Let the market decide which power source is best.

        Meanwhile let’s stop pouring tax money into the pockets of rich cynical subsidy farmers. No more tax support for wind or solar. Let them sink or swim on their economic own.

      • …”Also about 40% of the excess CO2 pumped in is dissolved in the sea and neutralized by dissolving calcium carbonate from shells and coral…”.

        Hold on there! John L
        Where did the calcium carbonate ( 43% of your oyster by weight I’m told) come from in the first place if not from disolved CO2 on its way to the vast limestone deposits like the white cliffs of Dover ??
        Cheers
        Mike

    • Physicist after physicist I’ve spoken with credits the AGW claim about CO2 warming. They say the science is overwhelming.

      When I ask about the overwhelming science, they can’t present it. When I present my case, as often as not, they’ll get angry. Or they become silent and that’s the end of the conversation.

      I think the power of social pressure is far greater than anyone gives it credit. It causes otherwise tough-minded physicists to accept insupportable claims.

      I find uncritical acceptance of gender fluidity, too, and for the same reasons of social pressure, even though the empirical evidence thoroughly disproves the idea.

      Everyone is afraid of criticism. Moral cowardice seems to widely (though not universally) be the default psychological state.

      • Those physicists should be ashamed of their spineless inability to apply their training properly to analyze the claims. Where the crap do some of them get their PhDs?

        They value their status and their jobs to the point of allowing themselves to be won over by falsehoods.

      • Not all physicists accept AGW uncritically. Myself, for example.

        Certainly, CO2 can change the temperature of the air a smidge. 1-2C is a reasonable estimate. That change will really only be seen at night. That’s the total change, no matter how much you add (of what’s available in fossil fuels).

        OTOH, water vapor and cloud coverage change the temperature massively every single day. You can feel it for yourself. A humid night is a warm night. A dry clear night is a cold night. It’s water that controls the climate on this planet. The oceans are giant moderating heat sinks that prevent excessive cold or warmth. Cloud development moves energy from the ocean to the upper atmosphere in huge convective cells, where the energy is lost to space. What happens over land, where we live, is incidental.

      • When you ask for proof of such fundamental physics, the PhD guy gives up on you as not having the ability to accept his level of enlightenment on the phenomena. He politely declines before he has to tell you what you have made apparent about your knowledge concerning the issue. This stuff is “hard” and took humanity 7000 years after the invention of writing to “discover”. For example if you don’t believe that Kinetic energy equals 1/2 mv^2, it is impossible for a Ph.D guy to “back it up with research” while you discuss the topic with him.
        As far as CO2 warming, this short video shows the physics. What the “skeptic” argumeny is really a about is not “Does CO2 affect the atmosphere” but “How much does it…”, which is very little…
        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kGaV3PiobYk

      • Galileo had difficulty convincing the Pope of some things, too. Both well educated, just couldn’t communicate and agree.

        Whether we’re headed for more summer heat or winter cold and ice, the prudent thing is probably going to be to build in plenty of insulation, regardless of the mechanics of how you heat and cool it, more insulation now is better.

        So to the probable one degree and eight inches of sea level rise? Meh. From here it looks like the sun will rise and set. Let’s just agree on that, and insulation.

    • Yes Mike, the atmosphere can only hold less than .1% of the planet’s heat. A buckshot ball can’t heat a cannon ball, no matter how you mate them. Physics might as well be magic to the masses, considering the general comprehension level.

  2. She’s preaching to choir here at WUWT. Just pass it along to your friends and family.

    Climate Change policy is the real threat to humanity and biosphere.

  3. It is not a fraud or a scam for most. It is a story that people believe and act upon because it benefits them in some way to believe it. The scientific facts never supported an Earth-centered universe, but the story that the Earth was the center of the universe fit very nicely into the story of the Universe that humans had created. The facts that said otherwise were ignored for Centuries and resisted when they could no longer be ignored.

    Even people like Stephen Schneider, who likely knew that global warming had a low risk of being a big problem, argued that the small risk was enough to support draconian action. This is because Schneider had a perspective that gave credence to a precautionary principle rooted in modern environmentalism. He had a faith-based philosophy that the Earth was somewhat fragile and the actions of humans were somehow harmful to the planet. This has been a mainstream philosophy since the 1960s, and is partially derived from the post-modern movement. The story is coherent if you choose not to look too closely, just like the Earth- entered universe and many other historical paradigms that turned out to be incorrect in part or in whole.

    The average Joe cannot believe that tens of thousands of individuals are willingingly taking part in a colossal scam. The notion of a well-coordinated, world-wide scam involving untold thousands of co-conspirators is pretty ridiculous. What is actually happening is the spread of a false narrative, which has happened countless times throughout human history and is still happening today in multiple fields.

    We are simply witnessing the power of a false paradigm, and like all false paradigms, this one will collapse or morph into something quite different in time. Since there are many powerful groups benefiting from the false paradigm of a climate change crisis, they will defend it quite vigorously to the bitter end, because that is what we humans do.

    The best thing we can do is to keep spreading videos like the one posted above and let the truth take care of itself. We make no progress talking about a colossal scam that average people instinctively know is not possible.

    • As an example of false paradigms that collapsed quite suddenly, and were revealed to be scams, I refer us to the real estate bubble of the first seven years or so of this century.
      Look at what it took for the myth to be broken and people be disabused of their delusion, that real estate prices only go up, that you must “buy now or be priced out forever”, etc.
      How many believed those few who tried to warn that a bubble existed, and the prices being paid for quite ordinary housing were unsustainable, irrational, and in fact idiotic and ultimately incredibly destructive to our entire economy and the wealth of vast numbers of people?
      No one who was caught up in it was listening to reason…and yet when it all collapsed and the delusion was broken, how many are willing to admit their own part in the madness.
      Yours is indeed an insightful analysis, James Clarke.

    • Agreed, very cogent observations here. In addition to the vested interests in keeping the whole scam going, there must be a real fear among the alarmists about what will happen when the bubble finally does burst. Trillions have been wasted on this nonsense and it was all their fault. There are going to be recriminations.

      • once again recriminations yes..but the end result?
        all the climastrologists will stay employed the massive profiteering corporations will remain untouched,
        quite a few of the poorer workers will lose their jobs in PV installs,
        no govt will get their funding returned, whats left of it anyway
        WE the taxpaying mugs will get more bills for removal n dumping the birdshredders,
        the people who’ve made a motza on land leases will be laughing just a little less as their income goes.
        gore and the other parasites stay fat n rich
        and we have to cope with 2 gens of mind f*^ked kids, needing years of re education to sort their screwed brains out.
        pretty much like the realestate sellers walked away scot free as did the banksters and investment mobs.
        years wasted repealing green laws, and trying to sort the mess out
        and a whole pile of poor nations peoples angry and still refusing to accept it was all shite and wanting more money anyway..they could become a real issue for violence and mayhem
        cynical me? YUP

      • Trillions of cubic feet of irreplacable natural gas are being wasted by flaring.

        I can’t escape the feeling that we are witnessing the squandering a golden opportunity to:

        not freeze in the dark and to

        not run short of the nitrogen fertilizer that feeds half of the 8 billions alive today.

        Conservation did not suddenly become a bad idea because nutters started panicking about a harmless change to CO2 levels.

      • There must be “significant recriminations” otherwise, t we’ll see e a continuation of this sort of false paradigm being perpetrated in the future.
        Can we really afford to continue doing this?

        • Unfortunately there will be no “significant recriminations” once this house of cards collapses. Remember the Credit Default Swap fiasco of a dozen years ago? In the end the big players were rewarded, the criminals forgotten, a few scapegoats were villainized and the whole mess was swept under the rug, with the cost borne by the general public.

          Why should this be any different?

      • Stonyground, “and it was all their fault.

        Only partly their fault. They made the play. They didn’t force anyone to buy it.

        That was the scientific societies. They just rolled over.

        If there’s any real fault to assign, assign it to the National Academy and to the American Physical Society.

    • “It’s a story that people believe and act upon . . . ”

      “Act upon” it HOW, exactly? By screaming and yelling in their echo chamber of virtue-signalers? I don’t see ANYWHERE in the world, least of all in fashionable urban enclaves like NYC or London where the emotional theater is loudest, ANYONE opting out of a modern industrial fossil-fueled lifestyle.

      NOT ONE of these “true believers” are moving to rural backwaters to grow their own organic food, live a pre-industrial, subsistence agrarian lifestyle off the grid without modern transportation, illumination, heat, AC or computers. None of them are refusing travel in cars and planes or eat foods flown in from the whole earth to their favorite restaurants. 1% or less are even trying to give up eating meat, and most vegan wannabes are forced to return to omnivory in 6 months’ time.

      If anyone, anywhere, is “acting upon” CAGW hysteria beyond media-created “pseudo events,” please let us know how/where/what in this space!

    • James, I think your analysis is correct. I suggest that although Joe Average may not see Climate Change as a scam (or declare it as such) the issue is not a priority in the voting booth.

      • snikdad, I’m one of the many ‘Joe Average’ who totally see CAGW as a massive destructive, divisive scam and I declare such as much as I can. A month ago I sent an email to 20 of my friends to point out why CAGW wasn’t real. For some weird reason artists (in every field) seem to be mainly leftist thinking.

        I gave them fact based reasons as to why the propaganda simply couldn’t be true. Some of which I’ve learned here. I’ve been researching the negatives of solar energy for around eight months now (on a daily basis) among other related areas. Sixteen of my ‘friends’ didn’t even respond to my email. Only one of the four that did, said that ‘I’m still the same person’ and wants to maintain a friendship’. I have known some of them for many years, they aren’t willing to have a conversation. I considered some of them dear friends, not so much as a phone call.

        The reason I made this a personal response is that I wanted to point out that ordinary folk have something to lose too. I understand that the reputations and even careers are on the line for scientists, and when you’ve worked your whole life to find your place and to make a difference it’s hard to take risks and, you’ve got a whole lot more to lose.

        I have also written to newspapers, media outlets and state and federal politicians, all to no avail. It seems that no one is willing to talk publicly about the toxic side of renewable energy.

        I absolutely do not believe in CAGW but I would have thought that exposing the environmental and economic costs of wind and solar renewables would have ‘Joe Average’ giving it a bit more thought. A discussion like that is irrelevant of CC. If we could make it clear that ‘wind and solar renewables’ are in fact adding to CO2 levels, even though ‘we’ know that CO2 makes no difference. But they don’t get that more coal is used to create these ‘renewables’ than if they weren’t built at all. They don’t know how toxic the extraction of rare earth materials are and that this byproduct is at best being held in vats till someone can figure out what to do with it. They don’t think about the fuels used to transport materials to manufacturing plants then onto ports to be distributed globally, creating more CO2.

        Isn’t the whole premise of wind and solar renewables supposed to reduce CO2 emissions? Isn’t it supposed to be ‘clean’? These people talk about ‘closing the coal mines’. Do they not understand the extent of mining required to build their precious renewables?

        Joe Average leaves it up to the scientists to tell them that too much CO2 is dangerous for them, that it will destroy the world as we know it. The scientists have an understanding of CO2 that is beyond their comprehension. They have been told regularly by all forms of MSM that the Science is settled!

        They accept that statement because they wouldn’t even know how to refute it. Why can’t we get a truth out there that they can research themselves. I’m not a scientist, but I now know that renewable wind and solar will actually create a problem that we wouldn’t otherwise have. I know how much damage they are doing and the technology is being pushed forward at a terrifying rate! No one talks about the toxic side of recycling of wind and solar either, and that almost no one is doing or even wants to recycle them.

        For me, the Science is settled that CO2 is not a problem. But I do in fact believe that we should be looking after our planet in so far as we can and wind and solar renewables are an unnecessary and serious problem!

        I have a talent in my field of art but it’s unlikely I will go anywhere with it now that I’ve made my stance clear in regards to the whole ‘Climate Change’ issue. I reached a point where I need to be true to myself. I can at least claim self respect, even if here I am simply preaching to the converted.

  4. It is a bit hard for me to give credence to people whose sole argument for a particular position is that: “they feel bad.” As far as I know, people are responsible for how they feel; their feelings are within their own purview. My thinking means that there is no obligatory “safe spaces” on campus or anywhere else. You are entitled to go hide and ruminate and cogitate and bemoan your life. There is help for you if you elect to go seek it. Of course you can go to your friend’s house as long as they can tolerate you and your emotional troubles and they can help you process your feelings about a number of issues currently in the social milieu. Otherwise, society is not obligated nor are you entitled to some safe harbor. If my child comes to me seeking comfort and compassion, I will provide that; however, I do not see our greater society compelled to provide such comfort just because my child is not yet willing or able to carve out such a sanctuary for themselves.

  5. Now I get it. Seems some are more sensitive to carbon dioxide which is not good news for fizzy drink makers and there may be a link there that needs investigating-
    https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/carbon-dioxide-in-homes-offices-and-classrooms-could-cut-our-capacity-for-complex-strategic-thinking-by-50percent-within-80-years-scientists-warn/ar-BBYdYOp
    Hang the fizzy drink studies for a lark as there’s a sizeable grant in this for studying the long term epidemiological risk to MIG welders for sure and welcome to the new lead.

    • This is all bull$hit.

      “The world’s carbon-dioxide problem doesn’t just affect the atmosphere – the gas is starting to fill our homes, schools, and offices, too.”

      The CO2 levels have always been much higher indoors. Even back in the nineteenth century they used CO2 measurements to check if indoor ventilation was sufficient.

      Nothing that can’t be cured by opening a few windows.

      • “This is all bull$hit.”

        No I’m right behind them. Our PM should immediately announce that forthwith no publicly paid official shall remain airconditioned on his watch as a fair dinkum exemplar to all those who work in the great outdoors and under the iron rooves of our factories and workshops to the rousing cheers of the doomsters all round. Back to the future like the grandparents’ days and all for the sake of the Gretas. What more outstanding moral leadership and direction could you ask for especially in our classrooms and lecture theatres?

  6. NEW YEAR’S T-SHIRT (not seen yet):

    SOON IT WILL BE COOL NOT TO BE AN ALARMIST – THEN WHERE WILL WE BE??

    (Oh, sorry didn’t mean to shout).

  7. Great video, brief and fact filled and unlike many where the presenter is uninteresting and in a class like setting.

  8. Just read a New Scientist article about how the earliest trees (in the Devonian) cooled the planet by removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Yes, another scholarly article going beyond it’s remit (ie. trees appeared two million years earlier than was previously thought) by genuflecting to climate change. And, no, there was no mention of how the earliest trees made the surface of the planet more habitable by creating shade etc. That would be positivity in action and modern scholarly articles, concerning ecology, botany and the like, must drench themselves in carbon dioxide inaction negativity.

    Is it a wonder that teens are so fearful, when so much of modern science seems hell-bent on spreading fears rather than simple facts.

  9. Stephen Schneider was one of the main proponents of the coming ice age in the early 1970’s (perhaps he was closer to reality than one would like to believe).This featured on the cover of Time Magazine at the time with the headline “The Ice Man Cometh”. Schneider was to the forefront of this article. As the world temperature did a mild upswing in the 1980’s Schneider jumped ship and suddenly became an early advocate of CAGW. Funny how the science could change so rapidly as the temperature trend changed. The less said about the charlatan the better.

    • He apparently had overcome cancer but died from a pulmonary embolism travelling in first class returning from an overseas climate conference.

  10. What I always find amazing is that this girl preaches about how dangerously hot it is getting. So why does she need to rug up so heavily just to go down to the ocean?

  11. A great debunking – everything referenced and not a ‘Could’, ‘Might’ or ‘May be’ in sight

  12. Amanda did a nice job. I couldn’t watch any of the Greta crap. It’s too hard to listen to an uneducated 16 year old pontificate on a science matter anyway. Throw in the mental issues and I’m out. Hopefully someone told her that the data doesn’t support her fears and she should go back to school.

  13. Thunberg’s parents make my skin crawl. They messed up the second child as well, and just like the mother of Polanski’s victim delivered her to Polanski, the Thunbergs served up their kid for a figurative of the former, for attention and money.

  14. Let’s reorder the world economy where poverty is now at historic lows based upon the rantings of a high school drop-out. Makes sense to me.

    Just another example of how Progressivism has failed and this is the final hail Mary pass of the game.

  15. This is a great video. Now could we also have a video version of Michael Crichton’s “State Of Fear”?

  16. TIME Magazine cover
    It seems the video critic has fallen for the first trap of warmist’s in calling the discussion “Climate Change” when in fact the topic is Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Climate has always changed. AGW claims are that the man made production of CO2 are causing the earth to warm with catastrophic results. At no time has this been claimed by using the accepted scientific method of Hypothesis, Experimentation and Publishing a paper in an accepted Scientific Journal for peer review and discussion. If you have such a document, feel free to identify it here and elsewhere.

    • Scientifically you are right.
      However, you would have to use common keywords used by alarmists to get their attention.
      This video is not for You and me, but rather a video intended to help the young ones and their parents to overcome their baseless anxiety, after having watched Gore horror movies and Greta’s Scary Movie 2019.

Comments are closed.