Newsweek’s “The Debate” podcast invited James Taylor on their program to debate Heather Goldstone, the chief communications officer of the Woodell Climate Research Center.
Kudos to the podcast hosts at Newsweek for giving this topic a fair and even-handed airing.
You can listen below.
Here is the link to the Newsweek article by James Taylor
JAMES TAYLOR , PRESIDENT OF THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE
ON 8/3/21 AT 8:05 AM EDT
For the vast majority of the time that human civilization has existed, temperatures have been significantly warmer than today. More than 30,000 scientists have signed on to a paper saying that we’re not facing a climate emergency.
Throughout the history of the earth, a more normal level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been about 1000 parts per million, not the 420 ppm we see today. The fact that carbon dioxide levels are so high, and yet compared to over the past few 100 or few 1,000 years, temperatures are lower than they’ve been throughout most of human civilization, tells you that carbon dioxide is not the control knob for global temperatures.
I believe humans may be playing some role in that warming. But saying you know for sure—I think that’s really taking a leap of logic. The American Meteorological Society is the only scientific body in the world whose full membership has been polled extensively on this issue. And when they are asked, “How concerned are you?” only 30 percent say they are very concerned.
I believe humans may be playing some role in that warming. But saying you know for sure—I think that’s really taking a leap of logic. The American Meteorological Society is the only scientific body in the world whose full membership has been polled extensively on this issue. And when they are asked, “How concerned are you?” only 30 percent say they are very concerned.
We know for a fact that the earth is greening; NASA satellites have measured it. We also know for a fact that crop production is setting records nearly every year in most countries. According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, they have very low confidence of any negative observed impacts between global warming and severe weather events. NASA satellites have measured a decline in global wildfires. We see beneficial impacts from more atmospheric carbon dioxide and warmer temperatures.
It is very important to have affordable and abundant energy; that’s the lifeblood of any economy. There’s a reason why in virtually every country in the world, new energy projects being built and being implemented are coal and natural gas, primarily. I don’t think that the leaders in virtually every country in the world lack intelligence; I don’t think they’re stupid. There’s a reason why coal and natural gas dominate energy production. If and when the day comes that wind power, solar power can compete with coal and natural gas, I’ll be the first one cheering them on.
You can read the rest of the article here.
Does the Pope shit in the woods?
And no one hears it or cares.
Does a wooden hobby horse want a hickory
d!<&?
Is the bear Catholic?
Record amounts of polar bear scat appear in the Arctic, but The Guardian has reported tests prove it is atheist or at least pagan. So Catholic scientists’ skepticism over CAGW is debunked.
Polar bears are white. The Pope often wears white.
Hmmm.
Let’s have more respect for the privileged:
UK climate change minister Alok Sharma travelled in 6 months to and from various destinations in total of 200,000 miles, or the equivalent to eight times around the Earth. No Sharma did not go to woods, he used airlines toilets, one assumes but you can never be sure with the government ministers what they get up to, unless someone does leak CCTV recordings.
The image of two brains punching it out is not accurate. It is more like a scientific brain versus a climate change amygdala. It’s not an even fight but the public has no clue. They think the emotional person must be in the right.
CO2 didn’t dip below 2000 ppm until the end of the Devonian, but kept falling down into the 300s during the Carboniferous glaciation. But it climbed back up over 2000 in the Late Permian and for at least two intervals later in the Mezozoic. The PETM and Eocene peak also probably reached that level.
So, IMO, average Phanerozoic CO2 concentration is closer to 2000 ppm rather than 1000.
yes. if we don’t grow up soon, we are all going bankrupt
Considering that the Little Ice Age was a period of famine, plague, and war, the only reason to consider warming back to the Medieval Warm temperature a bad thing is either ignorance or perversity
Yeah, but the trend was your friend: 100 Years’ War, 80 Years’ War, then 30 Years’ War. And subsequent plagues were less lethal than the Black Death. Plus, with so many fewer people, famines killed not as many, at least in Europe, giving agriculture time to catch up before population recovered.
Somehow, relying on plague reminds me of Paul Enrlich, who seems to be the most cold blooded person since Iosip Dzugashvili (AKA Joseph Stalin)
That’s because he’s one of our lizard-king overlords
My population biology prof. Butterfly populations, that is.
Invited a Marxist buddy to guest lecture on Khoisan sustainability and low hours worked hunting and gathering.
Yet when I interviewed him some years after graduation, he said he’d have to charge me to talk any more.
Here’s a link to a paper that says that very thing. If you care about your fellow humans, you have to be excited by the possibility of a little beneficial warming.
The debate should be over the complete stupidity of climate change hysteria. There is not, has never been, and will never be a global warming crisis brought on by fossil fuels.
If the Sun starts shining brighter, then there could be a global warming crisis – good luck trying to stop it with wind turbines.
Don’t wind turbines blow away the heat rays?
Only until they lower the other two legs and reveal themselves as War of the Worlds tripods.
“THE greatest threat to humanity, is not from any natural event that will always test our existence, rather, the reflexive reactions that enable massive, overarching, and draconian Big-Government policies that result from superstition and self-interest.”
@JWSpry
536 AD….the worst year in history….the Dark Ages….are we going back? We need MSRs and we need’em now!
I’m sure you know what you mean by an MSR.
Here’s the acronym list off the net:
https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/MSR
Is your meaning in there?
I dunno – I didn’t look….but it’s molten….and salty….and there is a reaction…..from the thorium.
Thanks for spelling it out, why didn’t you do it in the first place?
its well understood here.like MWP and holocene optimum.
But actually we dont need molten salt reactors, what we need are government guarantees that they wont shut down nuclear power for no reason and a nuclear authority that isn’t political and concerned with making nuclear so ‘safe’ its unaffordable.
Plus public education in science and maths mandatory.
How many ‘disasters’ do you know of where no one died at all?
At the moment Rolls Royce and a few orhers have the right approach with SMRs No unceratin new technology, just exsting technology designed down to a cost and up to a safety specification and factory built in quantity.
We don’t want a McLaren supercar, we want lots of Ford model Ts.
A short search on “California Diablo Canyon” turns up a Wikipedia article that says, “Specifically, the operating licenses for Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 would not be renewed when they expire on November 2, 2024 and August 26, 2025”
And that article also says that Diablo Canyon provides 8.6% of the Golden State’s power.
One has to wonder what sort of State of Emergency the California government will come up with when that occurs.
Here’s a page from “The Union of Concerned Scientists” on “Natural Gas Power Plant Retirements in California” They of course think it’s a good thing, but it’s a good rundown on the shut down of all non nuclear steam generation in the state.
The bottom line in all of that is, California and the rest of the climate alarmists really do think the economy can be run on windmills and solar panels. Running off the cliff is getting closer.
Larry Elder will probably keep those nuclear reactors in service. He may add a few, too. 🙂
The new TRUMP! administration need to promulgate regulations where any excess electrons that cross a state border will incur a 100% federal tax. That ought to fix the “renewable” situation.
In a highway accident, the bigger vehicles have the potential of causing the most damage.
Smaller nukes such as those powering submarines and other warships may be a safer option. More could also mean lower transmission losses.
Of course, big trucks usually have the most experienced and best trained drivers and may be provided with better maintenance. We do not want to fall into the trap of lower quality personnel and maintenance just because the threat is somewhat less.
Early Fords where pretty safe for conditions of the day but were really not that reliable. I know, I drove a Model A as a young fella. It was my first car, already old, but with lots of spare parts in junkpiles.
The U.S. military is working on building small nuclear reactors for smaller applications, such as powering a military base.
https://www.defensenews.com/smr/energy-and-environment/2021/03/23/portable-nuclear-reactor-project-moves-forward-at-pentagon/
2 second search!
Yes, anyone can do it.
If it can power a submarine, it can power a military base.
Keep in mind that besides us resident harpies that guard the truth and punish liars, there are probably many more casual viewers who aren’t familiar with commonly used acronyms.
“its well understood here.like MWP and holocene optimum”
Not by everyone. We should spell it out so those unfamiliar will understand what we are talking about.
Heather is a climate scientist, she needs climate research to be important just like an art critic needs art to be important.
James continually went back to IPCC, NOAA, and NASA for evidence that there is no emergency.
Emergency? Willis pretty much “put the knife through the heart” of this BS nonsense.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
Not sure I agree with you about sunspot but sure do about current temperatures, though, per UAH satellite data, we are below even the 80s.
No – then they’ll discover that the temperature in the 1880s was actually cooler than measured
No – then they will adjust the temperature record in the 1800, THEN they “Discover” 1880 was actually cooler than originally thought.
More like Kierkegaard’s “Leap of Faith!”
It is difficult to tell why people vote as they do here. Sometimes it appears that they disagree with your conclusion, but don’t have a good riposte. Frequently, it seems that the resident trolls are responsible for those small number of downvotes. Only the Shadow knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men.
I refuse to down vote anybody. If I disagree I will say why and that’s my down vote (no need to double it). If I agree, I up vote.
But I never up vote my own comments, of course.
Somehow those rules seemed to emerge as self-evident. But clearly others disagree as someone is down voting.
I have on occasion down-voted troll-bots just because I get so tired of their repeated inanity and demonstrated inability to learn. However, I usually point out the error of their ways, knowing full well that it will go over their heads.
“I refuse to down vote anybody. If I disagree I will say why and that’s my down vote (no need to double it). If I agree, I up vote.”
I’m pretty much the same way.
I don’t downvote or upvote, other than to upvote an unreasonably downvoted comment. I don’t like the concept at all, as it is far too easy to downvote and move on, rather than having to organize your thoughts enough to engage in discussion.
Is La Niña close?
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202108.gif
Strange that the forecast for Aug 21 is in no obvious way display or denoted differently from what were presumably observations for prior months, or were those predictions too?
This is not a forecast, but a status as of Aug. 5, 2021.
Ah. August of 2021, and prior months the same. Thanks.
I read through the comments and Katharine Hayhoe’s image appeared below under Related Posts.
Can someone use a smudge brush on that and any future such image?
Why ruin anyone’s day?
As Steve Case mentioned, before using an acronym it is accepted practice to spell out the phrase – clean it up when appropriate. For example, 97% or 1.5C° are wild arsed guesses (WAGs).
Yes WAG has a different generally accepted meaning in the UK, particularly in the Gutter Press at major sporting events.
Surely that’s Ozzy Osbourne?
The Newsweek comments are almost all really ignorant personal attacks on the author.
So I tried to add actual information, and here is what happened. Newsweek sucks!
Your comment on Yes, the climate is changing. No, it’s not an emergency |
Opinion has been rejected as it contains content that is in breach of our community guidelines.
https://www.newsweek.com/yes-climate-changing-no-its-not-emergency-opinion-1615632
CLIMATE CHANGE, COVID-19, AND THE GREAT RESET
A Climate, Energy and Covid Primer for Politicians and Media
Published March 21, 2021, Update 1e published May 8, 2021
thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/climate-change-covid-19-and-the-great-reset-update-1e-readonlyDOTdocx
THE CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (CAGW) AND THE HUMANMADE CLIMATE CHANGE CRISES ARE PROVED FALSE January 10, 2020
thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/the-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming-cagw-and-the-humanmade-climate-change-crises-are-proved-falseDOTpdf
As bad as The Conversation and Yahoo! One would think that they don’t want anyone reading anything but sanctioned propaganda.
Heather Goldstone’s debate summed up: never mind the fact that climate scientists have looked at any recent change in extreme weather and have found no statistically significant evidence of an increase in hurricanes, tornadoes, drought, or extreme rainfall – she simply asserts that recent extreme weather events have been exacerbated by climate change. Never mind that CO2 is greening the earth and increasing crop yields thus helping to feed the world, including the poor – she asserts only negative impacts on the most vulnerable. Never mind that 30,000 scientists have signed a declaration of no climate emergency – she asserts that there’s no debate. Never mind that wildfires have actually declined in the last 100 years – she simply ignores that. Never mind that China, India, and other developing countries are responsible for all of the worldwide increase in CO2 emissions and now more than double US emissions – she says the US has the means to pay for the (asserted) problem and should take the lead. Never mind that it has been warmer through almost all of human recent history – she asserts that we’re in a climate emergency.
What a load of griff.
I suspect that is a meme being born…
The New Meme – It’s Official!:
Don’t give me any of your griff.
You’re totally full of griff.
A great steaming pile of griff…
I suppose I am being unkind – on the other hand, if griff had ever said anything remotely correct…
It sounds like Heather doesn’t want to take no for an answer.
I’m in my bubble. Please don’t try to pop it with your unhelpful words. If you do, I’ll just stop listening. My mind is made up.
Of course man is adding some heat to the atmosphere.
You can’t burn millions of tons of coal, gas & wood without adding some heat.
You can’t pave over thousands of acres without adding some urban heat island.
You can’t run millions of ICE engines without adding some heat.
Of course the amount added from these things is so little in the scheme of things as to be insignificant, as any almost invisible amount generated by the CO2 added to the atmosphere..
Looking at the sunspots we are likely to be wishing CO2 did a lot more heating than it does in the very near future.
The operative word here is “negligible.”
Yes!
Half the Med and Turkey is on fire, with record heatwaves in places… heatwaves also in Iran, Lapland, various parts of Siberia, new record temp W Greenland, heatwaves -5 a t last count – in USA/Canada, heatwave in E Europe and Russia… exceptional flood and rain events in Germany/Netherlands/Belgium, China and India.
Not ‘just summer’ or ‘just weather’
What a load of snail frothy! In Portugal we are not even having summer, let alone excess warming! I want the warming you and your ilk have been threatening for lo these 30 years.
Pamela
It appears we have had our summer in Ireland – one week – with temperatures since early spring all below average. I would love to have a good spell of global warming. With our dry weather we have recently had a big gorse fire which I welcome because it is a horrible plant.
We are not dry, despite summer usually being our dry season, so no terrible eucalyptus fires like in 2017. We are grateful for this. Our temps are staying in the high teens-low 20s, comfortable to chilly, but certainly not beach weather!
Addendum to avoid a possible misunderstanding:
Our temperatures have been running below average for months and months bar the week when we had some summer with slightly above average temperatures.
griffy refuses to answer the question – why do these heat waves always cool off? Why doesn’t the temp remain high?….and more bad news for griffy – the arctic ice re-freeze begins in just weeks away.
Since the planet as a whole is refusing to live up to the prophesies of the sacred models. griff is forced to concentrate on individual locations and then proclaim that those locations are representative of the entire planet. That way he can ignore all the locations that aren’t being as cooperative.
“griffy refuses to answer the question – why do these heat waves always cool off? Why doesn’t the temp remain high?”
Good question. CO2 is acting very strange.
Griff after his usual morning reset of his RAM.
Any news ? 😀
Is that your global heat ?
The dark blue, upper right corner of the globe is your Siberia. 😀
BELGIUM AND THE NETHERLANDS SUFFERED COLDER-THAN-AVERAGE JULYS, AS THE FARMERS’ ALMANAC FORECASTS A ‘GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM’ WINTER FOR THE U.S.
August 5, 2021 Cap Allon
“Grab Your Gloves! Fetch Your Fleece! Winter is going to be a season of flip-flop conditions with notable polar coaster swings in temperatures!”
Last year when small portions of Siberia were having record warmth, those areas were proof positive of global warming.
This year when large areas of Siberia are much cooler than normal, Siberia doesn’t exist.
From NOAA’s “Daily Weather Records” website [ URL : https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records ].
“Global Summaries” tab, “Global All Time Records Summary” table, “Last 365 days” line.
HIGH MAX : 724
On average two new “All time hottest EVAH !” records are set somewhere around the world every single day. If you want to make cherry pie there are no shortage of “cherries” to “pick” from.
Can you imagine when the very first temperature measurement was taken? It was both the hottest and coldest on record, EVAH!! It must have sent the civilized world into utter turmoil!
Delusional nonsense, lies and wild exaggerations. You are desperate and running scared – not too long now before your CAGW scam collapses, eh?
NW passage still closed with thick new ice and old ice
So far for Canada 😀
Taylor mentioned that global wildfires have decreased, which is correct, and much-repeated.
However you have to dig into the data. About 70% of wildfires are savannah fires and this is where the decrease has occurred due to changes in wind and rainfall patterns. But the savannahs are sparsely populated; that decline needs to be seen in the context of more fires in populated areas, wildfire acreage in the USA, for example, has doubled since the 1990s.
Then there’s this:
Last month was the world’s worst July for wildfires since at least 2003 when satellite records began, scientists have said, as swaths of North America, Siberia, Africa and southern Europe continue to burn.
Driven by extreme heat and prolonged drought, the ignition of forests and grasslands released 343 megatonnes of carbon, about a fifth higher than the previous global peak for July, which was set in 2014.
“This stands out by a clear margin,” said Mark Parrington, a senior scientist in the EU’s Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service, which estimates the carbon releases. “The July global total this year is the highest since our records began in 2003.
Source
84% of US wildfires are started by humans . California is the most populous state . you do the math
Is there any reason to suppose that percentage has magically doubled?
Whatever the reason for the initial ignition, the resulting fires are becoming larger in extent and severity.
Thomas Swetnam, professor emeritus at the University of Arizona who studies forest fires, tells Doyle Rice at USA Today that it’s not necessarily the case that more people are maliciously setting fires or that Smokey Bear has failed in his mission to educate the public. Instead, Swetnam says that climate change is the biggest driver of increased fires. An increase in drought, fuel buildup in unburned forests, earlier springs and higher temperatures are all contributing to more combustible forests. So the same actions that might have caused a small, easily extinguished fire decades ago are now creating dangerous infernos.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/study-shows-84-wildfires-caused-humans-180962315/
The National Interagency Coordination Center at NIFC compiles annual wildland fire statistics for federal and state agencies. As the statistics before 1983 were not derived from the current reporting process, information before 1983 should not be compared to subsequent data.
Only cherry picked data have to be considered, ok 😀 😀
Considering early double-counted data would indeed be a cherry-pick.
Randy Eardly, NIFC.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-global-warming-has-increased-us-wildfires
Neither temperatures nor length and severity of droughts in the area are anything unusual, so it can’t have anything to do with climate.
Perhaps it’s the refusal in recent decades of the state and national EPAs to permit any kind of clearing and controlled burns in these areas?
Increased forest fire activity across the western United States in recent decades has contributed to widespread forest mortality, carbon emissions, periods of degraded air quality, and substantial fire suppression expenditures. Although numerous factors aided the recent rise in fire activity, observed warming and drying have significantly increased fire-season fuel aridity, fostering a more favorable fire environment across forested systems. We demonstrate that human-caused climate change caused over half of the documented increases in fuel aridity since the 1970s and doubled the cumulative forest fire area since 1984. This analysis suggests that anthropogenic climate change will continue to chronically enhance the potential for western US forest fire activity while fuels are not limiting.
https://www.pnas.org/content/113/42/11770
We show that state-wide increases in autumn temperature (~1 °C) and decreases in autumn precipitation (~30%) over the past four decades have contributed to increases in aggregate fire weather indices (+20%). As a result, the observed frequency of autumn days with extreme (95th percentile) fire weather—which we show are preferentially associated with extreme autumn wildfires—has more than doubled in California since the early 1980s.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab83a7/meta
We show that state-wide increases in autumn temperature (~1 °C) and decreases in autumn precipitation (~30%) over the past four decades have contributed to increases in aggregate fire weather indices
You know the ignition temperature of woods ? Just 1°C was missing ? 😀 😀
Nobody is suggesting that higher temperatures are triggering spontaneous ignition!
What they are doing is increasing aridity. Hint: dry fuel burns better. From the paper:
California’s climate has changed considerably over the past several decades. The state’s five warmest years on record occurred in 2014–2018 In addition, over the past century, robust state-wide warming occurred during all 12 months, with the most pronounced warming in the late summer and early autumn. This warming has increased the likelihood and magnitude of hydrological drought, decreased mountain snowpack, and increased vegetation moisture stress and forest mortality. Rising temperatures and declining snowpack—in combination with precipitation deficits that are consistent with emerging evidence of mechanisms that support decreasing precipitation in autumn and spring have acted to extend California’s fire season. As global warming continues in the future, regional warming and snowpack loss are expected to accelerate, concurrent with a regional increase in the frequency of both wet and dry precipitation extremes. Therefore, even absent substantial changes in average precipitation, warming and seasonal shifts in hydroclimate will likely yield pronounced aridification across most of California.
You know that heat alone isn’t responsible for drought.
That’s why in winters it may burn too. So, heat is no reason for wildfires.
Don’t forget bad forrest management is a main reason for severe fires.
Unfortunately, all other reasons usually are forgotten if CC could made culpable.
Wind can dry out vegetation in a matter of minutes. It doesn’t take a long drought to get a fire going.
Ho hum, the same paid shills reach the same pre-conclusions.
I don’t care what these so called “scientists” conclude.
The fact remains that there is nothing at all unusual about the weather in California.
Once again actual weather fails to live up to the sacred models predictions.
There are always two sides to a story. Hearing, or only sanctioning one, is akin to a half-truth:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/anderson-reminder-ecosystem-dependent-periodic-233600114.html
Something to consider is that as the western US opened up with the California Gold Rush, trees had to be cut to build cabins and later, larger homes and commercial buildings. Trees supplied timbers to support mine tunnels and headframes. Trees supplied lumber for hundreds of miles of flumes, sluice boxes, and early dams. Lastly, wood was the fuel of choice to heat living quarters before coal mines and petroleum byproducts were developed. Prior to the arrival of ‘Pilgrims’ from the east, the natives regularly burned the forest understory. The forests of our West looked very different at the beginning of the 20th century than they do now. The oldest trees are now about 100 years old and the understory is often choked with small trees and brush.
However, there is no question that the bulk of fires are started by arsonists. There is also the problem of careless ignition by people not properly tending campfires and trash burning. Then, there is also the unique problem of increased risk from expanded power-lines supplying a burgeoning population, and routing those power-lines through forests recovering from the post-1850 thinning.
It is highly questionable that the US temperatures are higher than they were in the 1930s!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/06/the-gestalt-of-heat-waves/
Forest fires were far more common before the 1950s than since. Comparison with the 1990s says nothing about weather and everything about idiotic forest management practices and more people in the woods.
You do not have the data to back that up, as there was no consistent reporting until 1983. Do you really believe an area the size of Nebraska went up in flames in the 1930s?
You also have to factor in that fire-fighting has become more sophisticated and better organised in recent decades, so all things being equal, area burned should decrease….
• As of today, a total of 8,202,557 acres have burned in U.S. wildfires. In 1930 and 1931, over 50 million acres burned each year and during the 10 year (hot and dry) period from the late 1920’s to the late 1930’s an AVERAGE of 30 million acres burned every year in the United States. Additionally, the 2001 National Fire Plan update indicates that an average of 145 million acres burned annually in the pre-industrial, conterminous United States.
Official Year-to-Date Wildfire Stats: Beyond the Rhetoric & Hysteria
No data source given for the 1920s/1930. That would be because there is no reliable data.
Who cares what happened in 1500-1800AD?
“Historically, fire has been a frequent and major ecological factor in North America. In the conterminous United States during the preindustrial period (1500- 1800), an average of 145 million acres burned annually. Today only 14 million acres (federal and non-federal) are burned annually by wildland fire from all ignition sources. Land use changes such as agriculture and urbanization are responsible for 50 percent of this 10-fold decrease. Land management actions including land fragmentation and fire suppression are responsible for the remaining 50 percent.”
History is full of big fires
or here
There are maybe no exact data, as there are no exact data of historic climate, but here they are said to have a value 😀
“Ask” some trees, their reprodution is based on fire for some species.
Will say, evolution of some plants are dependent of fire.
And that lets assume, heavy fires have a long , a very long history.
It is important because the forests that we have today are different from what existed prior to the arrival of Europeans. The early settlers had a few decades of benefits from past practices before the new forest management practices caught up with them.
Also, we now have invasive plants that are better at propagating fire along the ground. Not to mention the role of the eucalyptus trees in the Great Oakland Hills Fire of 1991.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/25-years-later-Oakland-hills-ripe-for-another-9984731.php
“Who cares what happened in 1500-1800AD?”
Seriously? I’m guessing you don’t know what the word “precedent” means.
Do you have any evidence that people 50 years ago did not have the ability to accurately measure the size of a fire, and weren’t able to add large numbers together.
Your willingness to dismiss the abilities of those people who lived back then, just because that better fits into what you want to believe, is rather disturbing.
It’s interesting that our ancestors couldn’t count forest fires, yet somehow they were able to measure the temperature of the earth to within a hundredth of a degree.
Shouldn’t, as forest management got worse because of “green thinking”
Except that ‘prescription burning’ was a way of life for the indigenous people living in the forests before the immigrants put a stop to it.
I love how he assumes that those who practice forest management today are more sophisticated than those who came before.
Is it more sophisticated to ignore the wisdom of the ages and stop all proven forest management techniques, because the new age thinking is that man is bad and leaving forests alone is the “moral” thing to do.
Yes, I do have the data showing that my statement is a fact.
Look at the state data. Peak year for acreage burned in my home state of Oregon in the past 100 years was 1922. The closest years were those of the three Tillamook Burns in the 1930s and ‘40s. As a kid in the ‘50s I could still see the effects.
Look at other states and you’ll see the same. But facts don’t interest you.
“Last month was the world’s worst July for wildfires since at least 2003 when satellite records began,”
All the way back to 2003, huh? What about before 2003? Anything happen then?
Unicorns spotted in Griffland.
For every place warmer than normal, there is another place cooler, often contiguous to the heat wave zone. Heat moves around in the atmosphere. The US had far more heat waves in the 1930s than in the 2010s.
griff seens to thing that summers have been heat wave free up till now.
The Mediterranean is on fire? Now that’s quite the trick.
Exceptional floods that occur every few decades.
A report in the UK i newspaper on the fires in Turkey says
“Authorities are investigating the causes of the fires, including human ‘carelessness’ and possible sabotage by Kurdish militants.”
‘Eight die and thousands evacuated as wild fires ravage south of country’ by Beril Eski , in Bodrum. 4th Aug 2021.
As though “100-year flood” is a newly invented term.
Nope, no cherry picking here. The only thing on fire is your hair.
This article in Newsweek is followed by a flood of attempted vilification of the author without addressing the main points he made. This is the only course alarmists can follow to try to discredit those who disrupt their fixation. Both this article and work of CLINTEL, in my mind, follow the best scientific practice of men like Michael Faraday.
Here is what I posted on Newsweek. I consider it a sensible defence that may encourage some readers on this site:
There is a pattern of attacks on this article. The writer is attacked and not the main points that he is making. The attacks ignore his direct references including to IPCC reports. Those who want to use the consensus argument to support alarmism ignore the history of scientific discovery. This shows science is not about consensus but about theories tested by repeated experiments. As for the veracity of scientists who question the unfounded alarmism – not the fact of climate change – the writer refers to the American Meteorological Society as being the only group with an extensive poll. This and the results can be verified.
For those who do not believe there are any credible groups that reject the threat of climate change, I can refer to Clintel which was founded by Prof Guus Berkhout in the Netherlands. I have read or listened to a number of their presentations and found them characterized by careful reasoning and clear logic. Their contributions come from scientists and engineers who recognize our extraordinary human ability to adapt to adverse conditions and suggest this the wisest way forward.
Good post to Newsweek, Michael. As a signatory to CLINTEL, I totally support Guus Berkhout’s efforts to being sanity and sound science to the question of CAGW.
AGW debate over the last few decades & this interview.
Scientist A makes wildly generic claims & subjective/emotion. So Scientists B points out small selected time frames of weather changes of smaller areas that don’t fit the claimed trends & generalisations. So, Scientist A claim we have to pick longer time frames & average more areas together & trust the consensus science. So Scientist B checks the consensus science, checks the average global data over longer times and proves Scientist A is 95% wrong. So Scientists A points out shorter time frames of subjective weather changes of smaller areas ignoring the consensus science & re-appeals to emotion.
BTW: Scientist A is a climate change believer.
So was your comment posted and allowed to remain, or was it “cancelled”? I’m hoping for the former, which would be a major change for Newsweek, but I have a hard time imagining it happening.
But then again it’s hard to imagine they even published this debate, so I guess anything is becoming possible.
My comment is still up. A couple of replies naturally fail to address my main points. I left them with some food for thought:
The extraordinary Mathematician, George Polya, wrote (1944), “in theoretical matters, the best of ideas is hurt by uncritical acceptance and thrives on critical examination.” Without this, as a foundation, there can be no profitable discussion of climate.
Splendid! Luck to you!
In addition to “the history of scientific discovery” there is the historical record to be discovered, which in the case of climate change ref. CO2 is available for the last 550 million years, with pretty fine granular data for the last 20,000 or so, certainly the last 2,000. There has never been a temperature reversal preceded by a CO2 change.
Michael, I just posted this to the Newsweek article, and it’s “pending”, as you might imagine.
“The AGW “consensus” of 97%?
Disproven a long time ago, yet still repeated.http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/07/29/new-study-undercuts-ipcc-keynote-finding-87796/
The risible Doran-Zimmerman report responsible for the 97% consensus thigh-slapper is discussed here:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/10/an-oopsie-in-the-doranzimmerman-97…
Please note that 4% of the 79 “qualified respondents” out of the 10,000 queried did not think that temperatures had risen since the Little Ice Age
-10,257 Earth Scientists were sent an invitation
– 7,054 scientists did not reply to the survey
– 567 scientists surveyed did not believe man is responsible for climate change
– Only 157 of the remainder were climate scientists- The “97%” is only 75 out of 77 subjectively identified “specialists” or 2.4% of the 3146 who participated in the survey out of 10,257 invited. What’s interesting is that 3% of the “qualified respondents” didn’t think the earth had warmed since the Little Ice Age.
About 20 minutes in Goldstone began to lose it. The tone of her voice changed from one of confidence to one of desperation.
Taylor constantly hit her with the data like the repetitive jab of a seasoned boxer. Then Goldstone casually dismissed the data from NASA, NOAA and the IPCC but Taylor continued to quote to her.
Crisis? What crisis?
Eventually, Goldstone, true to form, could not deny the data but questioned whether it was being interpreted correctly.
Of course, it will all be forgotten by the weekend.
Kudos to Newsweek for defying the consensus on Climate. Perhaps this shows that, at long last, the MSM is beginning to wake up and notice the tide turning.
More likely, Newsweek was seeing a drop in readers and therefore published click-bait controversy to bump the numbers.
kind of shocked , but happily so , to hear him eviscerate her like that . he cited ipcc , nasa , noaa , statistics and facts repeatedly while she seemed totally at a loss to respond with anything more than ” but can’t you see how bad things are all because of co2 ? ” I think its because she and her folk live in a bubble where they are never challenged but are always reinforcing each other’s hysteria . and once again she tried to play the motivation , ad hominem card with her what’s wrong with these people for not believing us ? line of attack . I wish he had cited people like bill gray , Koonin , curry , baliunas, Dyson , happer and the many top scientists who disagree .also a brief recounting of past weather disasters far worse than today would have brought some sizzle to his presentation . and it would have been interesting if he had mentioned the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on climate scientists that didn’t get used to fight real pollution and environmental problems . but he stuck with the high road and reduced her to blathering anyway
as a well paid professional science communicator , she might want to start looking for a new job . but probably they will congratulate her back in woods hole for doing such a good job .
I wish he had cited people like bill gray etc. also a brief recounting of past weather disasters… and if he mentioned the billions spent on climate scientists that didn’t get used to fight real pollution…
Yes, except for the CO2 spike just about everything the alarmists bring up can be shown to have happened before.
Yeah, he was kind of a one note Charley. CO2 augmented food production is a good clear note, but there’s more did he mention increased life expectancy? Increased quality of life?
Then there’s the negative side of the argument the nastiness of climate science exposed in the 2009 email dump. The obvious re-writing of historical climate data. The censorship in the media. Propaganda mills.
Well, OK, it was only 45 minutes and avoiding blind alleys and he said she said arguments is important, but I got tired of hearing about the NASA/NOAA greening of the earth support.
” when information conflicts with a deeply held belief …we reject the information ” sounds like a pretty good description of heather in this debate . notice on the final question she couldn’t even imagine any facts that could shake her faith . a true believer
as one of the three stooges once said , I tried to think but nothing happened
some years back woods hole scientists did a study of reefs in a high co2 , low ph environment . they were shocked ( and clearly bummed) that the reef was thriving . it has gotten very hard to find even the rewritten watered down press release from woods hole . heather at work
I’m still mystified by something, and need some enlightenment: just what is it about a warm, user-friendly planet that scares the living poker chips out of the Coldbergers and their buddies the Greenbeaners?
Can’t make any sense of it, and while I’ve kind of enjoyed a coolish summer this year, it does not mean I want to see snow falling on my lawn in September.
One possible explanation is that those promoting the scare are using it as a smoke screen to promote their political agendas and stir up grant money.
Those that are getting scared simply don’t know any better.
Yeah, these same people were just as “scared” a few years back about the coming “Global Cooling”, and of course, they proposed the same exact solutions: cut back on FF use, and destroy Capitalism. They don’t care one whit about the “planet”, they only care about using any current debate to advance their agenda.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/
I do not like using the 30,000 scientists question human-caused climate change, because science is not about consensus but rather about creating hypotheses and then testing them. On this account, the models and climate change hysteria fail, and Taylor has the better argument.
On the other hand, ask Politifact to use the same methodology to analyze the 97% consensus claim.
politifact, now that’s funny.
Assuming the reference is to the Oregon Petition, why should anyone care about what a bunch of dentists, doctors, electrical engineers, physicians and veterinarians think about climate change? The only qualification needed to sign the petition was a Bachelor of Science degree or higher. In fact 0.5% of the signatories had a degree in climatology or atmospheric studies. Even if you include the disciplines they describe as ‘directly related to the physical environment of the Earth’ you can only get to 12%, fewer than the proportion with a Medical or Biology qualification.
According to figures from the US Department of Education, approximately 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the polling criteria at a time that would make them eligible. So that’s a hit rate of around 0.3%.
And when you are soliciting opinion it is hardly best practice to include a cover letter and faked-up review article only supporting one side of the argument. That alone disqualifies the Petition as a serious survey of opinion.
Once again, John displays the standard elitist attitude that only those who are anointed with the title of “Climate Scientist” are allowed to have an opinion on climate.
Anyone with a brain is capable of reviewing the evidence and forming an educated opinion.
Scratch a liberal and you will always find an elitist with totalitarian tendencies.
It was Taylor who said they were scientists. The point is his mendacity in claiming that ‘More than 30,000 scientists have signed on to a paper.…’ as if that was at all meaningful. It may sound a lot but in context and over a decade it is a tiny tiny minority of those eligible. Secondly, simply holding a degree does not make you a scientist, as evidenced by the inclusion of dentists, chiropracters and veterinarians on the list. Thirdly it was deceptively marketed with an error strewn article which mimicked the layout and font of the Proceedings of the NAS (who swiftly issued a statement saying it was nothing to do with them).
The fact that Taylor relies on this discredited project speaks to the weakness of his position, in my opinion.
If only this type of scrutiny was applied to the false “90 % agree” BS…..
Anyone who does science, is a scientist.
Most of the people you believe to be scientists, stopped being one years ago.
Science is not consensus.
Of course it is!
It’s a consensus until some some other scientist comes along and publishes experimental results that is then verified by others.
People being people, there are ALWAYS contrarians.
However, anyway ….
https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Consensus_science
“For example, the scientific consensus on Global Warming that it is happening and is primarily caused by human production of greenhouse gases would not be called “consensus science” if a scientific consensus is not the primary supporting argument. If conclusive evidence that Global Warming is occurring and caused by human activity has resulted in a scientific consensus on the issue, the conclusive evidence is the main support rather than the consensus itself so the term “consensus science” would not apply.
Even if it were an emergency, it isn’t man made and we can’t stop it.
Dingdingding!!! We have a winner!
Global warming. The gift that keeps on giving.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1473235/europe-freeze-over-atlantic-ocean-system-collapse-gulf-stream-amoc-scn
just more hype on the buildup to Glasgow.
Obvious what is happening here. They are getting scared that the GSM might be real, and their entire GW propaganda might be revealed as a house of cards. So they are setting the stage that if we go into a new LIA, it will of course be further proof of AGW. Can you sense the desperation becoming stronger and stronger? That Newsweek would even consider publishing an actual debate on AGW, with a strong proponent on the anti side, shows they know they are suddenly losing the argument.
Thank for the informative post. The 3rd paragraph is repeated, above.
Don’t take downvotes seriously unless they number more than five. There are at least five non-serious trolls who hang out here, and something you wrote may have set one of more of them off. Notice, they did not make a reply. Why not, if they disagree? Maybe they don’t really have a reasonable argument to make.
Heather Goldstone: A disgraceful human being.
No evidence, no arguments, no self-awareness, no ethics, no responsibility, no shame
The consensus among thinking people seems to be: Climate change is a given, not a problem. CO2 mitigation is a problem, not a solution.
The emergency is whether or not we kick their lying globalist asses out of power before the Leftist Communist Bidet admin
passes Draconian laws to screw us all!!