The real climate science deniers

Manmade climate crisis promoters reject inconvenient evidence of natural climate change

Paul Driessen

Fifty years ago, I helped organize Earth Day #1 programs on my college campus, calling attention to serious pollution problems that afflicted much of the USA. Over the ensuing decades, laws, regulations, and changed attitudes, practices and technologies reduced most of that pollution, often dramatically.

I didn’t buy into the 1970 end-is-nigh, doom-and-gloom, billions-will-die hysteria that Ron Stein and Ron Bailey summarize, including the manmade global cooling crisis. I don’t buy it today, either – certainly not this year’s Earth Day focus on the alleged manmade global warming crisis, also blamed on emissions of carbon dioxide, the same gas that humans and animals exhale, and plants use to grow. We’re told the crisis is unprecedented, and poses existential threats to humanity and planet. What nonsense.

But what I find fascinating in all this is the steadfast, often nasty determination of scientists, politicians and interest groups promoting alarmist themes – and profiting immensely from them – to reject and deny any science, history and evidence that undermines their claim that nothing like this ever happened before.

The “highest ever” temperatures are a mere few tenths or even hundredths of a degree above previous records set many decades ago. The United States recently enjoyed a record 12-year respite from Category 3-5 hurricanes, ended finally by Harvey and Irma in 2017. Violent tornadoes were far fewer during the last 35 years than during the 35 years before that, and the complete absence of violent twisters in 2018 was unprecedented in US history. Modern day floods and droughts were certainly no worse than past floods or the multi-decade droughts that devastated Anasazi, Mayan and other civilizations.

However, alarmists insist, Earth’s climate and weather were stable and unchanging until humans began using coal, oil and natural gas. We must eradicate fossil fuels now, they say, regardless of what biofuel, battery, wind and solar replacements (and mining for raw materials to manufacture them) might have on wildlife, scenery, environmental values or human rights. Their disconnect from reality is astounding.

Equally fascinating is the notion that melting glaciers are something new. It amounts to asserting that everything was just peachy until American, European and Greenland glaciers started melting a few decades ago, threatening us with catastrophic sea level rise. It amounts to claiming the glacial epochs never happened; their mile-high ice sheets never blanketed a third of the Northern Hemisphere, multiple times, with warm periods in between; and seas haven’t risen some 400 feet since the Pleistocene ice age, leaving the entrance to Cosquer Cave and its Paleolithic paintings 115 feet beneath the Mediterranean.

It amounts to claiming the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods never happened, and weren’t followed by the Little Ice Age, when priests performed exorcisms, asking God to keep glaciers from inundating villages in the Alps of Europe. It’s as though we couldn’t possibly be finding what we are finding today.

In the latest example, government and university researchers recently found numerous Viking-era artifacts along a Norwegian mountain pass that had been heavily traveled for at least 700 years, but then was buried beneath the ice and lost to history for 1,000 years. Locals used the rough 2,200-foot-long pass to travel between summer and winter lodgings, while long-distance trekkers used it as a trade route.

Within the treasure trove were tunics, mittens, horse shoes and bits, remnants of sleds used to haul food and gear over winter snow, a small shelter, and even the remains of a dog with a collar and leash. They all came to light because the glacial ice is again receding, as Earth continues its post Little Ice Age warming.

Alarmists insist the warming is due to fossil fuels, and deny that it is just part of natural climate cycles. And much more evidence of past warming and cooling periods has also come to light in recent years.

In 1991, German hikers found the incredible mummified and heavily tattooed remains of “Oetzi the Ice Man” sticking out of the ice in the Oetzal Alps near the Italian-Austrian border, at an altitude of some 10,000 feet. A partial longbow, bearskin hat and other artifacts were found nearby. He had died about 5,300 years ago from an arrow wound and had the blood of four different people on his clothes and weapons. He is further evidence of human habitation in these alpine areas during past warm periods.

Tourists and archeological teams have also discovered parts of shoes, leather clothing, fragments of a wooden bowl and numerous other items from 3000 to 4500 BC (BCE) that have emerged from the alpine ice. They are among the oldest objects ever found in the Alps. A Bronze Age pin, Roman coins and early Medieval artifacts have also been found. They show how these mountain passes and trails, impassible during cold, more glaciated periods, served as vital trade routes in periodic warmer centuries.

Norwegian ice fields show shrinkage and growth patterns similar to those of the alpine glaciers, says Norwegian glacial scientist Atle Nesje. The archaeological findings “seem to fit quite nicely with our glacier reconstructions,” he adds, which helps us understand past, present and future climate changes.

Years of research by Swiss and other scientists have produced similar findings – sometimes human artifacts, but also plant and animal remains, in areas of newly melted ice. In one location in the Swiss Alps, University of Berne geology professor Christian Schluechter found pieces of wood 12-24 inches thick and the remains of a moor. Melting waters had flushed them out from under the glacier. That means the ice there is hardly “perpetual,” he says. There were multiple periods of warmer weather and less ice.

In fact, carbon-14 dating shows ten “clearly definable time windows” over the last 10,000 years – periods when glaciers were limited to regions up to 1,000 feet higher in the Alps than today. This means that, for multiple long streches of time, “the Alps were greener than they are today,” Schluechter concludes.

Inca children sacrificed 500 years ago in Argentina’s Andes have also emerged from melting glaciers.

Off the Florida coast, the Mel and Deo Fisher archeological diving team didn’t just find the famous Spanish galleon Nuestra Señora de Atocha, which sank during a ferocious 1622 hurricane, or only the British slave ship Henrietta Marie, which went down during a 1700 hurricane, after leaving 190 Africans in Jamaica to be sold as slaves. They also found charred tree branches and pine cones from a forest fire 8,400 years ago, when this ocean area 35 miles from Key West was still well above present day sea levels!

Even an entire forest has been discovered, protruding from the melting Mendenhall Glacier near Juneau, Alaska – an area I visited several years ago. Roots, stumps and large segments of entire upright spruce or hemlock trees have already been found across several acres. They are the remains of a forest that thrived there for as long as 2,350 years, until it was buried by glacial ice around 1,000 years ago.

The chronicle of amazing discoveries yielded by melting glaciers goes on and on. Their most important lesson is that our current climate is but a snapshot in time, on a vibrant planet where climate change and extreme weather have been “real” since time began. Only a science-denying climate alarmist would refuse to recognize this. Simply put, there is nothing “unprecedented” about what we are seeing today.

This is dangerous stuff – sacrilegious, even. It pulls the rug from under demands for a post-Coronavirus Green New Deal. It must be suppressed. And frightened climate science deniers are doing their best to keep it out of “mainstream” and social media. Realists must do their best to disseminate climate facts. 

Of course, it may be that these past climate changes were caused by carbon dioxide and water vapor from wheezing, snorting horses, oxen and humans – laboring at the edge of exhaustion, doing what our fossil-fuel-powered vehicles and equipment do for us today. But it’s far more likely that the changes were due to a complex and still poorly understood combination of solar and other powerful natural forces.

Climate alarmists may not want to recognize or discuss these natural fluctuations and causes. But the rest of us should, and this historic evidence must be a central part of that discussion.

Improving our knowledge of what these forces are and how they work together will enable us to better predict, prepare for and adapt to future climate changes. Continuing to focus on carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases,” as the primary or sole cause of climate changes and weather events, will ensure that we never get beyond the politically driven climate and energy battles in which we are now engaged.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power ● Black death and other books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
83 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gordon
May 18, 2020 6:23 pm

Also there is little mention by the Climate Alarmists of how little we understand the history of Ocean Temperatures, history of the details of Ocean Currents the impact of clouds on the energy flow. Climate Science is very poorly understood. The uncertainties are immense. If it was a settled science we would need only 1 Computer Model that tracks the history of the climate, what we have now is a bunch of garbage generators developed by alarmists.
The article clearly demonstrates that we do not understand the climate drivers that generated an amazing variation in the climate.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gordon
May 18, 2020 7:59 pm

“The article clearly demonstrates that we do not understand the climate drivers that generated an amazing variation in the climate.”

Yes, look at the big move the ENSO meter just made today. They should explain that before moving on to explaining CO2’s role in the atmosphere.

DocSiders
Reply to  Gordon
May 19, 2020 8:27 am

Tidal gauges (good proxies for ocean temperature trends) show a very linear and very gradual warming trend over the last 150 years. There was no ~1950 “carbon-greenhouse” acceleration in the sea level rise…just lots of low amplitude noise.

May 18, 2020 6:26 pm

“also blamed on emissions of carbon dioxide, the same gas that humans and animals exhale, and plants use to grow”

the climate change argument is not that there is something evil or unhealthy about CO2 but that the perturbation of the current account of the carbon cycle with carbon from millions of years ago that does not belong in the current account of the carbon cycle, upsets the carbon cycle and causes atmospheric CO2 to rise.

Respiration CO2 is in the current account of the carbon cycle and therefore not relevant in this context. An argument against the climate science position must be made in the context of the climate science position and not by equating respiration CO2 to fossil fuel CO2.

Pls see paragraph#11 here:
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/04/17/abs-temp/

fred250
Reply to  chaamjamal
May 18, 2020 6:42 pm

“that does not belong”

But it does belong.

It got accidentally sequestered, and we are now liberating a small amount of it back into its natural habitat where it will do the most good.

Reply to  chaamjamal
May 18, 2020 8:19 pm

The climate change argument is not that there is something evil or unhealthy about CO2 but that the perturbation of the current account of the carbon cycle with carbon from millions of years ago that does not belong in the current account of the carbon cycle, upsets the carbon cycle and causes atmospheric CO2 to rise.

… thus, making CO2 evil and unhealthy. All you have done is provide a lengthy, verbose restatement of WHY the climate-change argument characterizes CO2 as evil and unhealthy.

Respiration CO2 is in the current account of the carbon cycle and therefore not relevant in this context.

Current accounting of the carbon cycle, nonetheless, demonizes respiration CO2, thus, fragmenting CO2 from the position of a life-basis, life-sustaining chemical structure, elevating a tiny rise in atmospheric concentration to the position of a poison, rather than rationally relating CO2 to the normal range of gas exchange of a complex living system. It’s like saying that enclosing ourselves in a cabin increases respiration CO2 to dangerously high levels, when, actually, the level is within a quite habitable range.

Also, the current account of the carbon cycle grossly underplays the life-enhancing effect of the added CO2 to the plant respiration process, which makes discussing respiration, in a much broader context, most relevant.

An argument against the climate science position must be made in the context of the climate science position and not by equating respiration CO2 to fossil fuel CO2.

CO2 is CO2. Discussing respiration CO2 within the context of any discussion of CO2 is certainly NOT “equating” human breathing to mechanical combustion. Doing so merely points out the narrowness of the climate-change argument and lack of vision in seeing the whole picture.

StephenP
Reply to  chaamjamal
May 19, 2020 12:32 am

How much CO2 was there in the atmosphere and what was it doing before it was sequestered in fossil fuels?

Tim Gorman
May 18, 2020 6:53 pm

“The “highest ever” temperatures are a mere few tenths or even hundredths of a degree above previous records set many decades ago. ”

Our ability todat to measure the global average temperature to a tenth of a degree, let alone a hundredth of a degree, is non-existent today. And there is no way we can determine temperature with that precision in the historical record.

It’s as if scientists today were never taught the use of significant digits or how to handle uncertainty when trying to combine measurement of different things measured by different measuring devices.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 18, 2020 7:35 pm

“The “highest ever” temperatures are a mere few tenths or even hundredths of a degree above previous records set many decades ago”

AGW is a theory about long term temperature trends and not about temperature events. The other weirdness of the “unprecedented” claims of climate science is the illogical assumption that “unprecedented” proves human cause.

https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/03/24/unprecedented/

Reply to  Chaamjamal
May 18, 2020 8:25 pm

AGW is a theory about long term temperature trends and not about temperature events.

Popular-press promotion of AGW, however, is precisely about alleged temperature events (i.e., warmest YEAR ever, etc.). Read the popular-news-outlet headlines.

DocSiders
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
May 19, 2020 8:36 am

Unfortunately for Western Civilization, and Justice, and Truth, and the preservation individual liberties and the Constitution, the monolithic Press today has an agenda.

John Andrews
Reply to  Chaamjamal
May 18, 2020 8:38 pm

I know what you are saying and agree, however AGW is not a theory, it is a hypothesis that is under rigorous investigation.

Newminster
Reply to  John Andrews
May 19, 2020 2:07 am

I would query whether it is under “rigorous investigation”!

ATheoK
Reply to  Newminster
May 19, 2020 5:09 am

Agreed, Newminster!

“John Andrews May 18, 2020 at 8:38 pm
I know what you are saying and agree, however AGW is not a theory, it is a hypothesis that is under rigorous investigation.”

A very common claim amongst alarmists.
Every alleged research into that hypothesis is either ignored by alarmists, e.g. inconvenient “Roman Climate Optimum Period’ debris found under glaciers, or the research is fudged/coerced into supporting alarmist belief.

DocSiders
Reply to  John Andrews
May 19, 2020 8:38 am

AGW is a hypothesis under unjustified vigorous (certainly not rigorous) promotion.

DocSiders
Reply to  John Andrews
May 19, 2020 8:41 am

AGW is a hypothesis that is under vigorous (certainly not rigorous) promotion (not investigation).

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Chaamjamal
May 19, 2020 8:12 am

The long term temperature trends of the AGW climate models all boil down to a simple y=mx+b linear equation. The only differences between the models is the value of “m”. Since the input data used to determine “m” has only one significant digit (most of the thermometers used can’t read to the tenth of a degree accurately) then you can’t even state that the global average temperature will increase by “1.4” degree! You can only say it will increase by 1deg or 2 deg. Because of significant digits you can’t get any closer than that. If you could measure “m” directly to a tenth of a degree then you can state “m” to one decimal place. Can *you* measure “m” directly or must you depend on calculating “m” from measurements with one significant digit?

MarkW
Reply to  Chaamjamal
May 19, 2020 8:44 am

If your trend is less than the margin of error on your data, then you can’t claim to have found a trend.

Robert B
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 18, 2020 7:46 pm

They are taught to deal with uncertainty by correcting for it – and unsurprisingly, it turns out worse than we thought.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 18, 2020 7:50 pm

The sadder reality is that any metric labeled ‘average global temperature’ is absurdity itself. There is no such thing. Every area measured, and very few are anyway, has a completely different actual ‘heat’ content than any other even with the exact same temperature.

And then the fact that the oceans have at least 1000 times the heat capacity of the air is completely ignored. The energy required to raise the temperature of the oceans by 1K is just not possible to ‘trap’ with water vapour, let alone paltry trace amounts of CO2.

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
May 19, 2020 12:42 am

CLAIM: “Zig Zag Wanderer May 18, 2020 at 7:50 pm
The sadder reality is that any metric labeled ‘average global temperature’ is absurdity itself. There is no such thing”

RESPONSE: See paragraph#17 here
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/04/17/abs-temp/

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  chaamjamal
May 19, 2020 4:47 am

I have to say that your article linked is not persuading me. There are a number of different points put forward, but the general thrust of your argument evades me. I will spend more time reading it however (it is rather long).

I do not think it addresses the fact that the heat capacity of the oceans is 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere, and that no greenhouse effect can raise the oceans’ temperature by 1K.

I do appreciate your many inputs, and support you effort in combating disinformation.

Peter
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 18, 2020 7:56 pm

“It’s as if scientists today were never taught the use of significant digits or how to handle uncertainty when trying to combine measurement of different things measured by different measuring devices.”

They were all taught but conveniently forgot all about it.

MarkW
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 19, 2020 8:48 am

With satellites, we can measure the temperature to a few tenths of a degree. The problem is that good satellite data only goes back a decade or two.

Prior to satellites, you only have ground based sensors.
Sensors that were only read to the nearest degree.
Sensors whose maintenance was spotty at best.
Sensors where the immediate surroundings were haphazardly maintained.
Sensors that adequately covered less than 1% of the earth’s total surface area, and non-randomly at that.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  MarkW
May 19, 2020 6:43 pm

Even satellite measurements have an uncertainty interval. Different water vapor (i.e. clouds) values can cause the temperature value determined by the satellite to be uncertain. In fact, the satellite doesn’t even measure temperature, it measures radiance at certain frequencies. The temperature is then inferred from the radiance value. While the measurement device in the satellite may be very precise there is no guarantee that it is accurate to three (or even two) significant digits because of external factors that can affect the radiance value.

Make sure you understand the difference between accuracy (how close to the true value your reading is) versus precision (how many digits you can read out).

A digital voltmeter may read out to 3 decimal places – i.e. high precision. That doesn’t mean it is accurate at all. The uncertainty of the reading you get from that 3-decimal place voltmeter may actually have an uncertainty (a measure of accuracy) of +/- 0.1 volts – meaning your 3 decimal places of precision is useless. You really shouldn’t record a value with more than one decimal point.

I agree with your assessment of historical temperature data.

Remember also that satellites cover the entire earth every 24 hours. Averaging those 24 hour readings to give a daily global average tells you exactly what when it comes to the temperature envelope on a global basis?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 19, 2020 9:42 pm

“Our ability todat to measure the global average temperature to a tenth of a degree, let alone a hundredth of a degree, is non-existent today. And there is no way we can determine temperature with that precision in the historical record.”

Nothing to do with precision or accuracy. We don’t measure global average temperature at all, because there is no such thing.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
May 20, 2020 5:16 pm

Mr Alberts
Excellent point.
Global average is a statistic prepared by smarmy government bureaucrats with science degrees who create permanent job security by showing more global warming.

A majority of surface grids include guesses for one or more weather stations — some areas of Africa are claimed to have record heat when there are no weather stations at all in the grid !

Weatherguesser
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 20, 2020 4:52 pm

It should also be noted that the “historical record”, at least outside Central England, is mostly contained within the period since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850, a period of slow, relatively steady increase, so that every year could be expected to set new record high temperatures. That short record is not representative of Earth’s climate, which has undergone much greater excursions than have occurred during the Holocene.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 21, 2020 8:56 pm

Tom G

It’s as if they were making stuff up.

May 18, 2020 7:24 pm

Mainstream climate scientists are geothermal deniers.

http://phzoe.com/2020/04/29/the-irrelevance-of-geothermal-heat-flux/

http://phzoe.com/2020/02/13/measuring-geothermal-a-revolutionary-hypothesis/

http://phzoe.com/2020/02/25/deducing-geothermal/

There’s no denying reality, except by sophistry…

‘Uhm, Zoe, don’t you know that it’s the cold atmosphere that “forces” the surface to get hotter? It has to be this way because our ideological mathematics and fudge factors produces the same result; so it has to be as we assert. Science works by assertion and circular reasoning.’

Yeah, OK.

http://phzoe.com/2020/03/04/dumbest-math-theory-ever/

MarkW
Reply to  Zoe Phin
May 19, 2020 8:50 am

Here we go again. Zoe’s attempts to use bad/invalid analogies to prove that she’s the only person in the world who actually knows what is going on.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MarkW
May 19, 2020 9:42 pm

She’s a broken record.

Reply to  MarkW
May 20, 2020 9:18 am

Exactly what the cult of Fourier would say.

You only think you are right because your stupid base has been around for so long.

You are not based in reality, but a false premise. Wake up, fools!

commieBob
May 18, 2020 7:49 pm

I used to accept the CAGW mantra until Dr. Michael Mann (Nobel prize winner, just ask him, also self incriminated fraud because of adverse inference) erased the MWP and the LIA. One of my hobbies is history. History indicates that the MWP and LIA happened all over the globe. Chinese example In places where history wasn’t recorded, there is proxy evidence.

I owe a debt of gratitude to Mann for making the scales fall from my eyes.

markl
May 18, 2020 7:49 pm

Isn’t Ox the direct result of photosynthesis? Without CO2 we would not have Ox to breath. Correct? How much Ox is too much and would stopping all man made CO2 … <5% of all produced … hurt or help us?

philincalifornia
Reply to  markl
May 18, 2020 8:11 pm

True indeed. We thrive because we breathe in the excrement of plants and trees. Kind of humbling really.

fred250
Reply to  markl
May 18, 2020 8:50 pm

“Isn’t Ox the direct result of photosynthesis”

An Ox eats grass, hay etc, so I guess you could say that.

Without grass, hay etc… there would be no Ox 😉

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  fred250
May 19, 2020 9:43 pm

You said it borther.

Ian Coleman
May 18, 2020 7:53 pm

Well sure, if you’ve figured out that climate change is just a monsters-under-the-bed story, it really does bother you that so many people (who are otherwise intelligent) have fallen for this nonsense. My own theory is that many people require a certain amount of crisis and conflict to feel that their lives have meaning. I think that Bill McKibben may have actually admitted that, when he was young, he was on the lookout for some kind of moral crusade that he could take up as his life’s vocation.

Climate change is perfect, if you’re of that particular type. First of all, it can’t be falsified. You can say anything you want, if you’re making prediction about life in 2050. Second of all, it costs you nothing to fight climate change. You can still drive a car and live in a house and watch TV. You can live like David Suzuki and Al Gore, and you haven’t broken any rules. Perfect. And you can invoke the great god Science. Michael Mann and Phil Jones are scientists. Anything they say is Science. Because you listen to them, you’re a rational, prudent and decent human being. Unlike that guy Anthony Watts, who is some kind of contrarian troublemaker. (Why isn’t this man in jail?)

If you argue with climate change enthusiasts, their argument usually boils down to, you’re stupid. Which is an odd coincidence, since my argument to them is, word-for-word, the same thing.

Reply to  Ian Coleman
May 18, 2020 8:31 pm

The underlying maturity of the climate-change debate is illustrated as follows:’

Is not. Is to. Is not. Is to. Is not. Is to.

The sentences are just filled out a bit more with neat sounding strings of words.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ian Coleman
May 19, 2020 4:57 am

” I think that Bill McKibben may have actually admitted that, when he was young, he was on the lookout for some kind of moral crusade that he could take up as his life’s vocation.”

Bill McKibben was interviewed on the CBS tv program “60 Minutes” on Sunday about the Wuhan virus? and Human-caused climate change. He sounded like he was a True Believer in the belief that humans are damaging the planet and it’s only going to get worse if we don’t do something about it. He seems very Malthusian.

He also said “we have to flatten the curve on CO2”. He looked very serious. You know something: fanatics look very serious, too.

Cam_S
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 19, 2020 8:11 am

I found the Bill McKibben interview here.

What will be the new normals after the coronavirus pandemic?
History shows the aftermath of plagues have brought about radical transformations for societies. So what changes could come in the aftermath of COVID-19?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-new-normal-society-effects-changes-60-minutes/

J Mac
May 18, 2020 8:15 pm

Whoo Boy! This article will have Simple Simon’s knickers in a tight twist… and Jack Dale will be spinning like a dreidel! More popcorn, please!

J Mac
Reply to  J Mac
May 18, 2020 11:21 pm

Dang! Should have included ‘triggered’ Mosher, as well!

Steven Mosher
May 18, 2020 8:19 pm

“However, alarmists insist, Earth’s climate and weather were stable and unchanging until humans began using coal, oil and natural gas.”

err no.

This is known as a strawman.

The way you avoid making stupid arguments, skeptical or not, is by showing EVIDENCE.
in this case, it would be evidence that showed.

1. There is an objectively identifiable group called “alarmists”
2. They “Insist” that Earths climate was stable
3. They insist that Earth’s weather was stable.

The reason why the author does not provide evidence for his position is because it is horse shit.
There is no group of alarmists ( a nasty thing to call people) who INSIST
that weather has been stable.

fred250
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 18, 2020 8:54 pm

“There is no group of alarmists”

There most certainly is.. eg Mann and his cronies…

Even bending and twisting past climate to get rid of things like the MWP, so they can keep up that alarmism.

And of course you are one, yourself. ! Funny about that.

Or maybe a better name is “climate fantasist”

Jim Gorman
Reply to  fred250
May 19, 2020 6:56 am

Or homogenizing the ’30s temperatures to lower values. It is one thing to do this with areas that have no measurements, but to mess with recorded data is unconscionable. That is what uncertainty calculations were developed to deal with. To change recorded temps in order to “reduce uncertainty” is not scientific, it is mathematicians wet dream of “making” the numbers look better!

Joel Snider
Reply to  fred250
May 19, 2020 10:58 am

Ironic that ol’ Mosher the lion-hearted complains about strawman arguments while using them.

AND pretends offense at being called an alarmist (he is – it’s only a matter of degree, and how far he kicks the can down the road), but I can’t remember him complaining about skeptics being compared to Holocaust deniers – hell, you can’t even change ‘denier’ to ‘skeptic’ on WATTS’ Wiki-page – it’ll change back within five minutes – I’ve spent entire lunch hours playing that little game.

And I guess Mr. Mosher has missed all the public narrative regarding ‘stability’ of the climate – or apparently takes no issue with that narrative – although a better way to describe it would be that the climate was ‘pristine’ – just going along its merry way, until humans came along.

But no – what we get is ‘we don’t know where, we don’t know when, but something AWFUL is going to happen’.

I think in recent weeks, we’ve seen the potently exploitive effects of fear, and what happens when we let it rule us.

They say God hates a coward – it’s because you get the life that a coward earns.

Alex
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 18, 2020 10:41 pm

Of course, there are no alarmists. Only people who exaggerate. There is a lot of media exagerration, political exaggeration and various doomsters that think we only have a short, livable planet unless we do what they want.
There are no alarmist groups, racist groups, sexist groups. They can’t be identified as a group so they don’t actually exist.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 18, 2020 11:19 pm

Someone called Ed Hawkins from the Department of Meteorology at the University of Reading certainly thinks the GAT has been pretty stable for two thousand years varying by ±0.2C until the past 100 years or so and I’m guessing he’s not alone:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg

ANDY MANSELL
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 19, 2020 12:47 am

Unlike ‘denier’, which is a much nicer thing to call people…

LdB
Reply to  ANDY MANSELL
May 19, 2020 1:42 am

Mosher is a tough drive by gangster and is exempt … it is only you that has to be nice.

cerescokid
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 19, 2020 3:56 am

Mosher continues to keep his head in the sand. Liberals believe in the alarmist junk because they want to believe in the alarmist junk. It’s the only game in town. If it wasn’t climate, it would be something else to provide themselves with some do good, feel good, I’m important, I’m relevant uppers. Liberals want that enemy. They need that enemy. They want an excuse and vindication for government interventionism, which provides the centrality to their lives.

If not, what is the point of living?

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 19, 2020 4:32 am

“1. There is an objectively identifiable group called “alarmists””

extinction rebellion?

MarkW
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
May 19, 2020 8:55 am

Didn’t AOC proclaim that we have only a dozen years to prevent the death of all life on earth?
There have been several European politicians who have claimed that by 2100, the only continent that will still be able to support life will be Antarctica.

Joel Snider
Reply to  MarkW
May 19, 2020 11:27 am

Yeah – I guess Mosher doesn’t pay attention to the rhetoric on his own side. Go figure.

It’s not ‘a’ group. It’s a LOT of groups. One might even call it a socio/political movement.

Eamon Butler
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 19, 2020 5:12 am

.
The World temps are rising to dangerous levels, it will end in about 12 years, millions of climate refugees, etc. Essentially every disaster, including the current virus issue, is linked, no matter how obscure, to the ”Climate emergency/crisis. Not Alarmist???
”2. They “Insist” that Earths climate was stable
3. They insist that Earth’s weather was stable.”
These are implications from the Alarmists’ claims, even if not directly stated. If I said you should slow down, you could imply that I think you are going too fast, even though that’s not what I said.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 19, 2020 6:59 am

What is the optimum concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere?

MarkW
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
May 19, 2020 8:56 am

My guess is that the level would be between 1000 and 2000 ppm.

John Shotsky
Reply to  MarkW
May 19, 2020 11:10 am

I used to work in a commercial greenhouse. We kept the temperature up, and the CO2 level about 1200ppm. No, I didn’t feel differently when in that environment except that I sweat a lot in hot, humid atmospheres…

DocSiders
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
May 19, 2020 9:02 am

42

DocSiders
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 19, 2020 8:49 am

The word “Alarmist” is hardly nasty enough for the despicable group that is corrupting science to promote a Global Authoritarian Socialist Tryanny.

MarkW
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 19, 2020 8:53 am

Insisting that prior climate shifts didn’t exist sure seems like people trying to claim that before CO2, the climate was stable.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 20, 2020 5:19 pm

Masher
Did you forget the Mann “hockey stick” chart?

boffin77
May 18, 2020 8:34 pm

Here is 130 years of average temperatures at Peterborough Ontario. Data is from Environment Canada as plotted by WeatherStats.ca. Hottest year was 1936. Slope of the average temperature = 0.0 deg C per century.
https://www.snapfish.com/library/share?via=link&token=64ZGO8NIYs2v3wkAUhIvag/SFO/27951363079060/SNAPFISH

Mike Dubrasich
May 18, 2020 8:44 pm

Dear Mr. Driessen,

Please add the following to your stack of papers:

Hood, E., Fellman, J., Spencer, R.G.M., Hernes, P.J., Edwards, R., D’Amore, D., Scott, D. 2009. Glaciers as a source of ancient, labile organic matter to the marine environment. Nature 462: 1044-1047

The researchers found that the organic debris issuing from beneath glaciers in the Gulf of Alaska has carbon dates of 3,900 yr D14C age. A quote from the Abstract:

Along the GOA [Gulf of Alaska], the last major cycle of glacier retreat and re-advance occurred during the Hypsithermal warm period between 7,000 and 2,500 yr BP. …

Bits of carbon in the rivers flowing out from beneath glaciated watersheds in the Gulf of Alaska were found to be 4,000 years old. Ergo, 4,000 years ago the watersheds were forested, not glaciated.

The glaciers that are there today formed roughly 2,500 years ago. Before then, going back 7,000 years, there were no glaciers in those watersheds, but there were forests.

When it was warmer than today, forests grew quite nicely, thank you, in places where they won’t grow today due to accumulated glacial ice. If the existing glaciers were to melt, forests would grow there again. Unfortunately that is very unlikely, since global temperatures have been trending downward for the last ~6,000 years.

observa
May 18, 2020 11:19 pm

They get all their info from the touch screen and we know the constant barrage of propaganda they get with that so anything you have to say gets the fingers in the ears treatment-

Megs
Reply to  observa
May 19, 2020 1:56 am

Thanks observa, that made me smile. Sad to think that the PC brigade would look at his show with disdain these days.

I just had a thought we could fast forward footage of AGW rallies and add Benny Hill’s theme music.

Petit_Barde
May 19, 2020 12:35 am

Science, facts and fair argumentation are not possible in the MSM when national media – mostly public and funded by mandatory taxes paid by taxpayers – are infested by climate clowns like ABC in Australia for example :

Centre-leftist
May 19, 2020 12:52 am

Never underestimate the difference between conservation and environmentalism.

Conservation works when science is placed before politics. Environmentalism goes the other way around.

knr
May 19, 2020 1:41 am

It has always be an epic irony that Mann’s hockey stick only works if you accept wide scale climate change denial . For without it there is no handle on the stick in the first place. Mann is a ‘climate change denier ‘ !

May 19, 2020 1:53 am

You were very nice in calling them alarmist. Could we get some other adjectives for them? Like KOOK’S ????

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Terry Roehrig Sr
May 19, 2020 9:52 pm

“Kook” would be a noun, not an adjective. “Kook’s” is a possessive, meaning belonging to Kook. Kooks is probably the word you’re looking for, but again, not an adjective. 🙂

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Terry Roehrig Sr
May 19, 2020 10:07 pm

I prefer to play on “clinically insane” with “climactically insane”

Gregory Woods
May 19, 2020 2:30 am

The Green New Deal = The New Black Death….

Farky Knell
May 19, 2020 2:57 am

It’s high time these activists were called out for their steadily escalating bouts of exaggeration and poorly disguised misanthropy that seek to confuse the public with specious science that barely deserves the name.

Real science is performed by those driven by a desperate desire to know the truth, who, having postulated an idea that advances knowledge on a topic, spend as much time trying to falsify it as prove it. But it seems the ratbag element of climate science has never considered that option, and merely keeps piling on to the pathetic groupthink meme that “CO2 is bad, it must be the control knob for everything on earth because someone said it was, and you humans should be ashamed of yourselves for wanting to be warm and comfortable, you b**tards. But not us, obviously. We’ve got to fly to Paris to save the world.”

Their deliberate use of insulting language in this cause similarly does them no credit. To call those who eschew drinking the Kool-Aid “deniers”, deliberately associating us with those who reject the fact of a wartime holocaust, is especially ironic when, as the author point out, it is the catastrophists who deny the notion of a constantly cycling climate, bizarrely believing that there exists some kind of Goldilocks state for our planet, and that they know exactly what it is.

Their flagrant and wilful use of the term “unprecedented” also deserves condemnation. Yes, everything is unprecedented when you’re dealing with the history of the last 3 weeks, but in the context of a 5 billion-year-old earth it should be used with restraint, given that accurate and reliable records have only existed for a heartbeat by comparison. Even then, some climate scientists have felt that they have the right to retrospectively adjust the historic data that has been so carefully collected for generations. In other branches of science, that would invite visitation by people bearing tar and feathers; but climate science is apparently different, because those people are on a mission, blessed by greenliness to save us from ourselves. In idle moments, I sometimes imagine a burly, ill-tempered lighthouse-keeper, who has trudged out to his Stevenson screen day-after-day in all weathers to capture the instrumental facts, meeting the spotty postgraduate student who has just adjusted thirty years-worth of his efforts from the comfort of his air-conditioned office computer, using an algorithm devised by a pale man with a beard who has not been outside for some time.

We have all seen the value of computer modelling with multiple unknown variables in this current pandemic, and climate catastrophism is another perfect illustration of how easy it is to get things spectacularly wrong when you pretend to know things that you don’t really know about a complex situation.

Climate emergency caused by emissions? I don’t think so.

This paper from 2015 should put everything in perspective for anyone capable of some basic arithmetic:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240

These guys, from Lawrence Berkeley labs at UCB, have actually defied climate tradition by doing some actual observation and measurement rather than fantasising and modelling like all the others, and have found that CO2 was indeed responsible for 0.2 W/m2/decade of increased downwelling radiative warming between 2000 and 2010. Considered as an addition to the 330 W/m2 or so of punishing backradiation from the atmosphere that is supposedly responsible for all mankind’s ills, does any reasonable person think that an increased potential warming effect of about 1 part in 1600 in 10 years is cause for panic?

No, I thought not.

Francisco
Reply to  Farky Knell
May 20, 2020 10:03 am

IPCC is a hammer that will always find its nail.

John Shotsky
May 19, 2020 5:43 am

This all stems from the IPCC and it’s charter, in 1988. The charter STATES that it’s job is to evaluate HUMAN CAUSED climate change. It ASSUMES humans are the cause of climate change, and all of the money that has gone into the IPCC for the last 30+ years has been to build the case for CO2 emitted by human activities. Nothing more. No need to study nature or even understand it. CO2 is a straw man that no one has been able to knock down. And, until that happens, it will remain as it is…
The original charter says:
“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”

May 19, 2020 6:12 am

the steadfast, often nasty determination of scientists, politicians and interest groups promoting alarmist themes – and profiting immensely from them – to reject and deny any science, history and evidence that undermines their claim that nothing like this ever happened before.

A remarkably similar line, maybe even the exact same line, could be written of Corona.

I’ve struggled to understand why many on the “Believe Science!” side have not exactly believed science in Corona and have embraced what seems like anti-science paranoia. In a word, they’ve embraced Faith.

I conclude that the way to understand puzzling cases like that is that a “cult” (in the anthropology sense), a religion-like dynamic, is at work. Not the most novel observation in the world, but one worth understanding. And not as metaphor, either.

On Corona as a Cult, an in-depth treatment of the subject was missing, so I wrote one, here:

An anthropological study into the “Corona Cult.” Pro-Panic hardliners and the media succeeded in erecting a virus-centered apocalypse cult as state religion and inducing a mass-conversion event to it, in March 2020 (May 18)

Ian Coleman
May 19, 2020 6:43 am

Yes, Mr. Shotsky, the IPCC’s statement of purpose begs the question. People cause climate change and this is axiomatic. This core doctrine immediately leads to the proposition that all climate change induced by human agency must be harmful. We have to adapt to it and mitigate the harms. The IPCC is very unlikely to comprehensively,,objectively, openly and transparently conclude that climate change will be essentially harmless.

Walt D.
May 19, 2020 8:42 am

The biggest Climate “Science?” Denier is Mother Nature.
She always acts in a way so that they are always wrong.

R.S. Brown
May 20, 2020 7:21 pm

Paul,

There I was, a Freshman at a small, private collage in NE Ohio, for the
first Earth Day.

Although we were worried about the news of an area river burning due to
the toxic stuff that was dumped upstream, and then leading into Lake Erie,
we also had the lyrics from Hair drifting through our collective
subconscious:

“Welcome sulfur dioxide,
Hello carbon monoxide
The air, the air is everywhere
Breathe deep, while you sleep, breathe deep…”

Note that carbon dioxide wasn’t an issue back then.

%d bloggers like this: