Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
Scientific American launched an effort in April 2021 to manufacture a politically contrived “climate emergency” propaganda campaign as noted in their article highlighted below.
The article noted the following regarding its “climate emergency” proclamation.
“Journalism should reflect what science says: the climate emergency is here. The statement we have issued was coordinated by Covering Climate Now, a global journalism initiative with more than 400 media partners. Here it is:
April 12, 2021
From Covering Climate Now, Scientific American, Columbia Journalism Review, the Nation, the Guardian, Noticias Telemundo, Al Jazeera, Asahi Shimbun and La Repubblica:
The planet is heating up way too fast. It’s time for journalism to recognize that the climate emergency is here.
This is a statement of science, not politics. Thousands of scientists—including James Hansen, the NASA scientist who put the problem on the public agenda in 1988, and David King and Hans Schellnhuber, former science advisers to the British and German governments, respectively—have said humanity faces a “climate emergency.”
Their claim that “The planet is heating up way to fast” coupled with a supporting reference highlighting the Democratic Party Senate climate alarmist hearings in 1988 prominently featuring climate alarmist testimony from NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen undermines and invalidates any credibility of their proclamation.
The WUWT article shown below also published in April of 2021 provides a detailed analysis of the extraordinary number of flaws and errors contained in the pure speculation and conjecture of these Democrat driven 1988 climate alarmist hearings that was based on NASA’s completely inadequate and faulty climate model.
The WUWT article provides the following analysis of Dr. Hansen’s NASA climate model 1988 testimony.
“Figure 3 from the testimony of Dr. Hansen (Attachment A Figure 3) shown below addresses the climate model analysis of the 5-year running mean global average temperature anomaly for the period 1986 to 2060 for three greenhouse gas scenarios that were generated by the NASA GISS climate model discussed in more detail in Attachment A to Dr. Hansen’s testimony.
Scenario A (solid top line extending to 2060) represents continued increased growth of greenhouse gas emissions and shows that from year 1986 an increased temperature anomaly of about 4.5 degrees C during that period.
Scenario B (top dotted line extending to about 2030) represents continuing greenhouse gas emissions at levels consistent with 1986 emissions levels and shows an increase temperature anomaly of about 1.5 degrees C during that period.
Scenario C (bottom dotted line extending to about year 2040) represents significantly reduced emissions and shows an increased temperature anomaly of about 0.8 degrees C during that period starting in 1986.
The latest UAH satellite measured global average temperature anomaly for the period from 1979 to 2021 shows a decadal rate of increase of about 0.14 degrees C. For the period staring from 1986 to 2021 the rate of UAH global average temperature anomaly is also about 0.14 degrees C per decade which results in an increase of about 0.49 degrees C during this period.
The UAH 0.49 degrees C measured temperature anomaly increase from 1986 to year 2021 is far below the temperature anomaly increases represented by the NASA GISS model used in the Democrats 1988 hearing which shows temperature increases from 1986 to 2021 as being about 1.4 degrees C increase for Scenario A, about 1 degree C increase for scenario B and about 0.6 degrees C for Scenario C.
The UAH temperature anomaly increase of about 0.49 degrees C in the period between 1986 and 2021 is even below the Scenario C NASA GISS case (0.6 degrees C) which assumed significant reductions in global emissions that never happened.
Measurements of the global average temperature anomaly since the Democrats 1988 hearing clearly shows the NASA GISS climate model relied upon in these hearings grossly overstates the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on global temperatures.
The claims made by numerous Democratic Party Senators and scientific “experts” about global average temperature anomalies increasingly dramatically in the future because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions highlighted at this hearing (1.5 to 4.5 degrees C temperature anomaly increase by 2030) have been proven WRONG.”
Clearly the NASA climate model utilized in the Democrats 1988 climate alarmist hearings that postulated the global temperature anomaly would increase by 1.4 degrees C between 1986 and 2021 based on increasing global emissions grossly overstated the actually measured 0.49 degrees C anomaly increase that did occur during that period meaning that Scientific American’s hyped propaganda that “The planet is heating up way too fast” is unsupported by actual data which demonstrated that only about 1/3rd the hyped global temperature anomaly increase actually occurred.
The planet is heating up much more slowly than climate alarmists claimed in the Democrat’s climate alarmist hearings in 1988 even with significantly global increasing emissions driven solely by the world’s developing nations lead by China and India.
The actually measured global temperature anomaly between 1988 and 2021 establishes that there is no scientific basis for Scientific American’s flawed propaganda claim that the “climate emergency is here”.
Scientific global temperature anomaly data measured since the 1988 Senate hearings destroys any credibility in Scientific American’s “climate emergency” propaganda hyped claim by climate alarmists that the “planet is heating up way too fast”. This failure is also further demonstrated by the more than 5 year-long global declining monthly temperature anomaly trends revealed by all 5 major global temperature anomaly measurement systems including the UAH,RSS,GISS, Hadcrut4 and NOAA between 2016 and 2021 as shown below.
The declining measured global temperature anomaly declines between 2016 and 2021 have occurred despite the continuing increase in Mauna Loa measured global atmospheric CO2 levels as shown in the graph below.
The “climate emergency” claim hyped by Scientific American and other political climate alarmist entities is based on the completely fallacious statement that “the planet is heating up way to fast” with that flawed claim representing nothing but politics and propaganda that is disproved by actually measured global temperature anomaly temperature measurements between 1988 and 2021 as well as being directly contradicted by the more than 5 year-long declining global temperature anomaly data presented by all 5 major global temperature anomaly measurement systems between 2016 and 2021.
Hansen’s “scenario A” was based on a 1.5% increment of GHG emissions. That was in 1988 and he could not predict the rise of China and other developing countries. So instead emissions even grew by 1.7%, exceeding A, making B and C irrelevant. And yet A runs far too hot, let alone B and C.
The world emissions increased at more than 1.5%
In 1971 CO2 was 15Gt In 2021 it’s 38Gt which is 1.87% year on year
That’s a very good thing, since one thing we can positively prove is the beneficial affect it has on plant growth.
Odd how MLO measurements were above the mean trend line, despite half the planet being in lock down.
Not odd at all since mankind is an insignificant CO₂ contributor.
Plus, what actual CO₂ reductions caused by the lockdown were minimal contributors of CO₂.
Then there is the fact that mankind’s CO₂ atmospheric contribution is approximately 4% total.
CO2 went up during the whole Covid lock and shutdowns: shows you that Nature is the driver, not human activity. GDPs went down alright!
We’re not supposed to mention that or even notice it, yet it is a perfect experiment to provide real evidence supporting the skeptical position.
NASA’s satellite data shows clearly that the Earth is greener now than it was back in 1979, when satellites were first launched to observe the Earth, presumably as a result of the evil wicked CO2 tiny increase in the atmosphere, even parts of the Sahara Desert has begun to green making the desert shrink!!! Far too much negativity as a result of political manipulation is being made by manipulators & controllers for political gain!!! When speaking to a scientist from the UK Wet Office he insisted that they did point out the positives of a greening world, but as I pointed out to him, none of that “positive” every made it to the MSM!!!
For the FOURTH time of asking, Griffy baby, please explain why a few million years ago, the Earth’s atmosphere contained 19 times as much CO2 than it does today, yet the planet was in the grip of an Ice-Age, does that fact alone not discredit Manmade global warming theory???
Alan,
The griffter is out in the orchard looking for a few more cherries! Trying to get him to answer a question is like trying to teach a pig to fly; even if you were successful, the result could be a real $h!t show!
Dear A the B
Please jog my memory and provide a reference to your statement that “a few million years ago, the Earth’s atmosphere contained 19 times as much CO2 than it does today”.
I am curious and would like to know. Thank you.
In the Cambrian era the CO2 concentration was as high as 7000 ppm and yet there were ice ages and no evidence of elevated temperatures. This is also my number one question.
A quick search turns up stuff like this:
https://www.thoughtco.com/cambrian-period-542-488-million-years-1091425
“Not a lot is known about the global climate during the Cambrian period, but the unusually high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (about 15 times those of the present day) imply that the average temperature may have exceeded 120 degrees Fahrenheit, even near the poles. Eighty-five percent of the earth was covered with water (compared to 70 percent today), most of that area being taken up by the huge Panthalassic and Iapetus oceans; the average temperature of these vast seas may have been in the range of 100 to 110 degrees Fahrenheit.”
I love “unusually high levels”, “imply”, “may have been”
That’s why I’m looking for more data.
Tony, there isn’t a shred of evidence that temperature was high otherwise it’d be on a big screen in Trafalgar Square
Alan,
I’ve seen it before but I’m having trouble lately finding anything that shows what you said (high CO2 during ice age) – any chance you have some links that would help?
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/climate-sensitivity-guiding-climate-policy/
Rising atmospheric CO2 with no significant change in weather, let alone climate. Temperature anomalies that can be completely explained by natural processes and phenomena, and point events that cannot, outside of observation and recording, be discerned from physical artifacts. Global greening has been good for people, flora. and fauna. But, attribution to human activities is, in unfortunately, premature.
This article from the BBC seems to explain why the three physicists got the Nobel Prize. It looks as if they fit in with the current groupthink and have developed models that provide it with a semblance of respectability, (just in time for COP26).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58790160
Manabe has said that while climate models are useful for many things they have no predictive value . He worked with dyson in the 60’s which lead to dysons dismissal of climate models as predictive tools
Interesting!
Why doesn’t someone tell the politicians that the climate models cannot be used as predictive tools?
For too many of them Climate Models are just a tool to power.
(How much of The Green Raw Deal had to do with “Climate Change”?)
Politics is the science and art of leverage to reach or simulate a consensus.
Mostly the 5 decade warming can be explained by contrails, which partially move the emission altitude to 35.000-40.000ft. The temperature there is about 220K, black body emissions only 130W/m2, 110W/m2 less than average emissions (240W/m2).
Accordingly if contrails only effectively cover 1% of the sky, that produces a forcing of 1.1W/m2. Go figure..
When you look at the UAH chart above the majority of the high blue points are in the NH winter = Arctic amplification. No one knows what causes A A so it’s too early to make the call that the earth is warming let alone identify a cause.
I wonder how many climate scientists have ever completed a jig saw puzzle. My guess is zero.
No one? I do know. In fact it is pretty simple. It is all about sea ice. If the water is not frozen you have a maritime climate, with temperatures hardly falling below 0°C. Once the water is frozen you get a continental climate, the gloves are off and temperatures can drop to -30°C or lower.
That is how the sea ice extend has a huge impact on artic surface and air temperatures and how it produces a massive feedback. Also there is no warming of arctic summer, where temperatures are around 0°C anyhow.
Yeah, we can’t have the practically-uninhabitable climate of the Arctic improving — more humans might start moving in.
/sarc
E.Schaffer
If one looks at the Arctic sea ice variation over the October to February (Winter) period, it is about 1 to 1.5msqkm over the satellite era. About 8 to 10%. Big deal.
You do not know, you are guessing.
In 2016 I studied the Jan and Feb local conditions for the towns in Russia that experienced the temperature increase. temperature movement in Jan from -27 up to -20.
The only thing that had changed was the direction of the wind, from the normal NW to SSW. The wind that warmed town was NOT coming from the Arctic ocean from the north, it was coming from lower latitudes. As soon as the wind changed back to the normal NW, the temperature dropped again.
It is that same wind that influences the sea ice area. Look where the reductions of sea ice occur, and then look at the wind patterns at that time.
Arctic Amplification is not caused by local variables, it is imported. Now have another look at the temperature chart and see the influence it has on determining global temperatures in the NH winter period.
Regards
Joe Bastardi cites increased water vapor pumped into the atmosphere by El Ninos.
Large increases of water vapor especially affect normally dry environments.
Maybe, but it doesn’t stay in the atmosphere, does it? It tends to fall out of it on a fairly regular basis.
ATtheoK
Joe Bastardi is mostly correct. It is the massive convective intrusion into the atmosphere at Tropical latitudes that promotes the pole ward trajectory of energy. Towards both North and South simultaneously. He is correct in stating that hi energy periods like El Nino are significant contributors.
When atmosphere at -20C is caused to move say 100 to 200km northward into a -27C area, then you have Arctic Amplification.
The Connolly duo of father and son almost got it right but could not explain the motive action at all. They saw it, but not the action and how it is being recorded in data.
Regards
“Hansen’s “scenario A” was based on a 1.5% increment of GHG emissions. That was in 1988 and he could not predict the rise of China and other developing countries. So instead emissions even grew by 1.7%, exceeding A, making B and C irrelevant. And yet A runs far too hot, let alone B and C.”
“One idiosyncrasy that you have to watch in Hansen’s descriptions is that he typically talks about growth rates for the increment , rather than growth rates expressed in terms of the quantity. Thus a 1.5% growth rate in the CO2 increment yields a much lower growth rate than a 1.5% growth rate (as an unwary reader might interpret).”
Stephen McIntyre
What?!
It is a 1.5% increase in emissions he assumes, pretty simple. I did not look up the specific data, but I would assume this led to higher CO2 concentrations in his model than in reality, despite an emission pathway of rather 1.7%. Why so? Well, because like any alarmist he would project CO2 sinks giving up their job, which unsurprisingly they did not.
You are correct that the actual measured rate of emissions has been greater than the NASA GISS model assumed at 1.5% per year and yet actual measured anomaly temperatures never climbed anywhere near the hyped GISS model “projection” as is the case of all UN IPCC models as well.
BP statistical energy data in their year 2021 report shows emissions growing by about 2.4% per year from 1988 to 2019 and at about a 2.2% rate in the 1988 to 2020 (reduced emissions year from covid) showing how badly exaggerated the NASA GISS model was which is a clearly documented result concealed by climate alarmists and media propagandist.
Then how do we get the politicians to listen and stop the net zero juggernaut before it destroys the west?
How do we get the universities that have signed on to the ‘climate emergency declaration’ to reconsider?
https://uwaterloo.ca/climate-emergency-declaration/
Many universities have divested themselves of investments in fossil fuel stocks, so will probably be kicking themselves soon.
Then wait for the begging bowl to come out.
Progressive prices forced by resource dislocations coupled with shared/shifted responsibility.
This is an interesting question. Do you think politicians heard the cumulative millions of people chanting “F… Joe Biden” at football games last weekend? If not, they’re stone deaf.
I would like to heard millions chanting “Warmer is better”. Probably won’t happen, but if it did the stone deaf tyrant authoritarian fake science grifters wouldn’t hear that either.
Maybe sign language would work. Or smoke signals. Or just kick the grifters to the curb. One thing for certain: Scamarific Anti-American is a heaping BS bucket.
I prefer Let’s go Brandon
Yeah, I just can’t work out why thousands of people were chanting “Let’s go Brandon” at a football match 😕
Pray tell, which particular “sign” were you thinking of displaying towards the globalist totalitarians??? 😉
Give them enough rope combined with social distancing. The score gets settled in the bread lines. Make a list.
Tell your family, friends, and neighbors about data altering.
Yes please do everyone …. and be sure to tell them that it made not a jot of difference to the “G” in AGW ……
blob:https://wattsupwiththat.com/315a84d5-7dbb-4a31-9b89-9634e14f4bac
Also tell them that the US observational network was a shambles back then with many volunteer observers who “did their own thing”. Like reading and resetting the Max thermo during the early evening – which on a day at the peak of a heat-wave, meant that the next day had the temp that it was reset at the previous day. Despite it actually being cooler!
would anyone like to return to to that practise of a built-in warm bias?
Thought not.
Unable to edit above “iPhone” says no !
Maybe you got cancelled…
Would we be able to tell the difference, Mr. Banton?
Btw – I’m still waiting for you to tell everyone WHEN this will happen.
I was a NWS COOP Observer for 18 years in Pennsylvania (#36-5470). I know how to site equipment and take observations — called RAW data. Anyone who alters that data creates an alternative reality.
Yeah, don’t you just love how they assume you were all brain dead? I wish I saved the post by the daughter of a South American station volunteer who was outraged at the ridiculous adjustments that had been made to his accurate and conscientious readings.
Accordionsrule is a great name — and very true. I’ve been playing since 1958 — and taking personal Wx Obs since 1965.
But John, we’re all supposed to believe indoctrinated, woke pasty-faced modeller-apparatchiks in mom’s basement and not honest, intelligent, hard-working citizens.
Exactly. Close your eyes as you have no need to see data. Just listen to us and we’ll tell you what to believe and not to believe. Welcome to 1984.
Have you ever looked at the Dale Enterprise adjustments. Definitively fishy
At first I thought you were talking about my chiropractor, but now I see the chart. Good stuff. That “value added” label reminds me of “we’re from the government and here to help you.”
Of course they have made a ridiculously large adjustment for that rare potential of hitting the next day’s high after the evening reading. TOB has a counterbalancing duplication effect on the lows, which adjustment is of course ignored.
While minimizing the huge UHI effect by first smudging “trusted” (i.e., airport, inner city) stations across the miles before inspecting them for UHI. Also zero adjustment for a meniscus which is 0.3 degree lower than the actual high reading at the bulge, and zero adjustment for the exponential effect of gravity on the taller fluid column of a high temperature.
And another thing. When and if a reader intercepts the temperature
as it is climbing during the evening reading, they may have RAISED the next day’s reading, but they have LOWERED the high of the day they are reading it, because the high hadn’t been reached yet. Think about it.
Zero upward adjustment for that artificially low reading. Only a huge downward adjustment for that higher high reading getting applied to the next day.
The TOB adjustments are a ruse — another bias invented to further the agenda of the “man-made” climate change hoax. Anyone who believes climate change is an existential threat lives in an alternate reality — while ignoring rising crime rates.
“the US observational network was a shambles back then”
If that’s the case, then the data is flat-out useless and shouldn’t be used at all. “Adjustments” to a guess doesn’t correct anything.
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/05/the-wildly-fraudulent-tobs-temperature-adjustment/
https://realclimatescience.com/2015/07/what-is-the-real-value-of-tobs/
It seems to be getting harder and harder to find a political party to vote for that will end this insane march to economic destruction.
Maybe that will change once blackouts become more commonplace, and taxes rise enough.
One thing is for certain, there are movements within political parties which, whilst not denying the existence of climate change, are very unhappy about the direction the UK at least is taking.
The principle ‘agitators’ are many of the Brexit supporting Conservatives under Boris Johnson.
The best PM we never had, David Davis (an actual bona fide classic scientist) wrote an article for the Telegraph yesterday everyone on this blog (with certain exceptions) would have been cheering.
Reproduced here:
“The French politician Jean-Baptiste Colbert described the tax riddle best: “The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing.”
Well, there has been a lot of hissing on the Tory benches of late after Boris Johnson’s decision to rack up national insurance payments. True, after much honking and squawking, the din died down by the time the NI hike came to a vote. But many of us remain deeply disturbed by the direction of Government economic policy.
We are heading down a road that history teaches led to national ruination and political disaster for my party when it was last attempted. At 36 per cent of national output the tax burden in the UK is at its highest level for 70 years and is set to go even higher. For Tory MPs fearful of losing their seats, it is worth bearing in mind that no government in recent times has raised taxes and then gone on to win an election.
Margaret Thatcher cut taxes sharply and went on to win three elections. John Major put them up and lost spectacularly. Tony Blair fought off attempts by Gordon Brown to raise taxes and won twice. Brown, as Prime Minister, put them up and lost. David Cameron resisted pressure for higher taxes in the austerity years and won.
Of course, the public finances have been knocked for six by the pandemic as the Government has borrowed eye-watering sums – £400 billion at the last count – to finance lockdown. This money will have to be paid back – ultimately – but slapping more taxes on a population already groaning under a burden last seen in the aftermath of World War II is not the way to do it.
If taxes are high, so is spending. According to the latest ONS figures, total managed expenditure now sits at the dizzying height of 52 per cent of national output – 12 percentage points higher than before the virus struck.
As a former Brexit Secretary and ardent advocate of quitting the EU, I find it ironic that we have broken free of the Brussels yoke only to embrace Continental levels of taxation and public spending. We should not forget that since the formation of the Eurozone 20 years ago, the UK has grown faster than the members of that club, which include the supposed economic powerhouses of France and Germany. Who would bet that on our present trajectory, we will be able to say the same 20 years from now?
Raising taxes beyond a certain point – and we have reached it – just does not work.
First, it depresses economic activity, stifling the growth that we need to maintain and then raise living standards. It pushes up unemployment and restricts the formation of dynamic new firms essential for prosperity.
Second, we should stop obsessing about how to share out the national cake. We should concentrate on baking a bigger cake so there is more to go round. The Chancellor’s decision in his last Budget to raise corporation tax – the tax on company profits – from 19 per cent to 25 per cent, reversing the downward path of recent years, is exactly calculated to bake a smaller cake.
Third, we should remember the policies of Nigel Lawson, probably our greatest post-war chancellor, who cut tax rates and increased the tax take. By cutting taxes, he helped transform Great Britain from the sick man of Europe to the envy of the western world. And the corollary of his policy is that beyond a certain point, increasing taxes reduces revenue to the Treasury.
With higher taxes people in general work less hard and for fewer hours. Why slog away for 60-70 hours a week (as many owners of small businesses do) only to see most of the extra wages disappearing into the Treasury black hole? As for the well-off, they just hire more and better tax lawyers. Or leave the country, along with their investments. Right now, the top one per cent of earners pay nearly 30 per cent of all income tax. Push tax rates higher and they are going to find more ways of escaping the clutches of the taxman.
But it is not just our quasi-socialist tax and spend policy that bothers me. Cheap energy was the foundation stone of UK prosperity. The Industrial Revolution, which transformed our country and in time the rest of the Western world, was built on coal. But now, under intense pressure from global warming radicals, we have embraced a policy of expensive energy.
Coal has gone, nuclear is dying, gas and oil are being phased out. Before us looms the energy gap – not enough energy to keep the lights on – and after that will come a combination of a swingeing increase in bills for domestic and industrial consumers and, as the current crisis illustrates, insecurity of supply.
The Government’s hell for leather pursuit of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 (including the banning of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030) threatens a huge drop in living standards for our children and grandchildren.
This might be worthwhile if it did any good for the climate. But Britain accounts for one per cent of global CO2 emissions. Meanwhile, China merrily carries on building legions of new coal-fired power stations while relishing our self-inflicted penury to come.
It is perfectly proper for the government to pursue a rigorous policy to deal with climate change, but it must think through the consequences for ordinary working people, their cost of living, their jobs, their energy security. Whether this involves more nuclear power, or even more exotic ideas like the proposed enormous electrical interlinks with Moroccan wind farms, the policy demands that they match their enthusiasm with more imagination and more careful planning.
If not, the current combination of tax, energy and regulatory policies, far from levelling up, will impose a crushing cost of living crisis on the ordinary working families. Increasing wages may help a bit, but these will feed into more inflation if not matched by increasing productivity. That will demand more investment, which will not be helped by the corporation tax hike. It will also demand more deregulation, more competition, and more – not less – economic freedom.
We need a whole new, Conservative, economic strategy. It starts by dealing with the £400 billion cost of Covid. We should treat it like war debt and get it off the nation’s short term balance sheet. We should issue long-dated Covid bonds and sell them at home and abroad. Then in 50 years from now Covid will be just a distant memory and cost.
Once we have done that we have a reasonable chance of balancing the books, which should primarily be done by encouraging economic growth, not cruel tax hikes. Savings will have to be made, but they should be achieved with an eye always on the impact both on the ordinary family and on our economic growth. We might start by saving at least £100 billion with the cancellation of HS2.
Boris was once the nation’s foremost advocate of creating a dynamic, low tax, high investment, light-regulation, high productivity society and economy – the one that we all dreamed of when we voted to leave the EU.
Let us hope that when we return from our conference he will have been reinvigorated in his belief in these foundational concepts of conservatism. They have worked so well for our country down the decades, and only by embracing them will he deliver the prosperity that this nation is capable of.”
HS2 was a product of our entrapment in the EU, it was a policy that demanded all regions of the EU must be accessible by high-speed trains!!! It had nothing to do with improving access for all (if it actually would do) around the country whatsoever, that would have merely been a by-product of the scheme!!!
HotScot, I was at the Reform Party UK’s conference last Sunday. They are already advocating many of the policies you suggest. Lower tax rates to encourage economic growth. Getting rid of unnecessary, destructive laws that harm the economy – such as IR35 (which is the main trigger of the lorry driver shortage, not Brexit as some claim). They haven’t yet, unfortunately, seen the truth on the “global warming” scam. But, judging by the several conversations I had with fellow attendees over energy and the green agenda, right after the session in which the topic was (very poorly) covered, there are plenty of party members who are clued up on the issue. I’ll be looking to write up for them something about this in the next few days.
I welcome your participation in these events. At least there are some members of the climate sceptics prepared to scrutinise these people.
Having said that, the reform party are like the rest of them before they get into power. It’s easy to make promises, but reality hits when they achieve power and get sight of the real accounts, not the ones the public sees I might add.
Politics is all about horse trading, and the public interest be damned. The only PM in my living memory who could look a gift horse in the mouth and realise behind the pearly whites was a pantomime job was Maggie.
“It is perfectly proper for the government to pursue a rigorous policy to deal with climate change…”.
Even Davis doesn’t understand.
That’s code for “It is perfectly proper for the government to pursue a rigorous policy of doing nothing”.
Davis is a bonafide scientist, he’s been desperately doing the political rounds to convince people to take vitamin D these past 18 months.
He gets it.
Don’t count on it, Venezuela continues to decline even more.
Your question has a built in flaw in it. It assumes the politicians want to or would pay attention to actual science if it is presented to them. As the late great commentator Rush Limbaugh used to say, global warming is a politician’s dream. It gives them everything they want to control a population. They get to control what we eat, how hot or cold we can keep our homes, whether or not we can drive and if so how much and how far, whether or not we can fly or take vacations, our healthcare system, you name it, they get to control it in the name of saving the planet. And if it trashes our economy but the temp keeps “rising” they’ll say they were just too late BUT they are fighting to lower future increases. If the temperature begins to go down, they’ll do their best to take credit BUT they still need to keep their fingers on the economic control knob.
I don’t think they give a whit about the economy or our freedoms, in fact I believe they hate our (US) freedoms. They’d like to be well thought of by their UN friends and their European counterparts when they jet set around the world going to their meetings about how to tighten their control over populations.
Because they are politicians, they don’t want to listen to or see anything that might just cut the flow of £/$ of taxpayers money into their bank accounts!!! With totalitarian organisations such as the European Union emerging around the world, removing very subtlety the democratic process which created it in the first place. We have seen in the UK the mother of all parliaments reduced to corruption beyond belief through the MPs expenses scandal, they had nothing else to do other than use the public purse to enrich themselves, the same in the EU with MEPs expense scandal, MEPs have no power whatsoever it is the un-elected, un-democratic, un-elected, un-sackable EU Commissioners who have the power & make the laws!!! I don’t wish to be too political, the EU is the very embodiment of what Adolf Hitler wanted, a European super-state run by Germany, it may not be how he envisaged it, but Germany runs the EU!!! With potential ructions between Germany & France, the whole ghastly edifice could come crashing down, albeit slowly!!! The Global Government waiting in the wings is watching very closely indeed!!! Good old Agenda 21!!!
Looks like Larry Hamlin hasn’t read the news about this year’s Nobel Prize in physics.
Too cryptic. Can you explain?
https://apnews.com/article/nobel-prizes-science-reinhard-genzel-roger-penrose-europe-2259a97932e3c368fdbd870841f16264
This is a MAJOR news item in the world of science and climate, but since it doesn’t fit the narrative of this web site, you don’t see it mentioned.
A few of us commented on it and it reminded us of when Aung San Suu Kyi got the peace prize when she was the darling of the media. The Nobel has always had controversy because of the committee selection process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies
I have no idea why you think it’s important or major. If you believe Mikey Mann he was the first to get one some time ago when Al Gore and the IPCC was given it in 2017.
So in your opinion was this more or less major than the 2017 prize?
And who was that guy who got a Peace Prize before he took office and even had a chance to do anything?
Barry at least was embarrassed about it.
Not so M. Mann, who only got a Piece of a Prize anyway. 🥱
That just goes to show how worthless this award really is.
The “peace” prize is a totally different thing from the Nobel prize. It comes from a politically oriented body rather than the scientific/intellectual organization created by Nobel.
The physics prize is every bit as political as any other Nobel prize because of the committees … as stated above you think that just before COP26 we have the prize going to climate science is an accident?
Afraid to burst your bubble, but the Nobel prize has been politicized too, along w/just about everything else.
The Nobel PC Prize has always been political BS.
What we have here is the corruption of a REAL Nobel, in a science subject.
It often happens that a Nobel is shared between different scientists who contributed to the same thing. I don’t think a prize has ever been split basically into two “half Nobels” for completely different work on different things.
ie. Giorgio Parisi got the real Nobel prize for physics and the other clowns were given half his money.
Another respected institution bites the WOKE dust.
You write off the Nobel prize because you think two Nobel prize physicists are clowns? Do you have a science degree? Maybe you just have a gut feeling? Maybe you can go through some of their recent published papers and offer them some pointers.
Here’s one from 25 years ago: Simulation of abrupt climate change induced by freshwater input to the North Atlantic Oceanhttps://zenodo.org/record/1233168#.YV1e85pBxPY
So woke.
Total nonsense. Not surprised you would use it as an example.
Here is the real deal. The Nobel committee obviously feels these guys have a home run with a climate model. Has anyone seen it? Have they put it out to make a forward projection that can be verified? Hindcasting only proves how well parameter changes can be modified.
If the Nobel committee is correct, them I am going to hit up my Congress people about cutting funding for all the other models that are out there!
Einstein did not receive a NP for his any of his work in space-time, gravitation, relativity, etc. Rather it was for something nearly completely unrelated: the photovoltaic effect.
So in the lead up to COP 26, Nobel decides to recognize early pioneers in a thoroughly discredited field, climate models.
And this purely political action is news?
The models are clearly crap and not fit for purpose so you can file this award alongside Gore’s as political pandering of the worst sort.
Didn’t Obama win a Nobel Peace prize for droning brown people in the Middle East?
Obama is infamous for starting and progressing Iraq war 2.0, and world war from Tripoli to Kiev, while sustaining (a la Clinton) the war in Afghanistan. That, and immigration reform, with children in cages.
Obama was applauded for the very things they would have tried to impeach Trump for.
Really! I could swear I just read it 10 seconds ago. But, how could that be when you tell us it doesn’t get mentioned here?
But the actual observational data does not seem to support the predictions that were derived from the work of these three scientists. Your argument seems to be that because the Nobel Prize committee awarded a prize that we should ignore the observational data. How is that science?
Lysenko won 8 orders of Lenin – none of those awards made his theories anymore valid. They certainly made them politically more dangerous to contradict.
Actually, the third guy got half the money for work on “spin” in doped copper, arguably actual physics. The two CliSciFi early modeling guys had to split the other half else the physics people would be up in arms over giving the bulk of a physics prize to modelers.
Since the actual physics of CO2 GHE wouldn’t give alarming temperatures, they arm-waved water vapor amplification. The Nobel committee, socialist politicians not scientists, apparently didn’t get Gavin Schmidt’s memo that they were wrong. Oh, well. Just more evidence of the degradation of once prestigious awards.
That was very artfully written, but managed to cover the ground admirably well. Irony can sting.
Thank you, Rory.
“Your argument seems to be that because the Nobel Prize committee awarded a prize that we should ignore the observational data. How is that science?”
Excellent question!
The Nobel price should be understood in the way that these climate models are now able to show that increased CO2 will increase the global temperature. But not how much or how fast. Actually the climate will change if I fart or not. It is matter of how much how fast and the role compared to natural variations. It it cold we have to worry about on a planet of water.
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1445359093905084417?s=20
Given their asserted ability to reliably and easily predict climate change, let them offer a hypothesis that is testable within sensory limits and a climate period. It hasn’t happened yet.
Mods, is this actually Ron Stein, seems like a troll bogarting his name?
Could be two people with the same name.
Don’t hold your breath. The science will continue to be ignored by the politicians and media.
They are in too deep to change track now.
There is no money in ignoring the hoax crisis!
“They are in too deep to change track now.”
Yes, I think the only thing that will change minds is an extended cold spell.
The alarmists are going to be hard-pressed to explain extended cooling while CO2 in the atmosphere continues to increase.
The alarmists are going to be hard-pressed to explain extended cooling
Wanna bet they still try to find a way? Seems like they’ve been laying the groundwork already.
Oh, yes, the alarmists have already pre-empted any cold weather. Michael Mann has already said a decade or two of cooling would not invalidate Human-caused Climate Change.
I think that was his response when “The Pause” first became visible.
So, yes, a little cold weather won’t change the minds of the promoters of Human-caused Climate Change, but I bet the average person will be questioning it when the weather is obviously colder.
Yes, too deep to read and observe….Just don’t call them part of real science.
NOAA SST-NorthAtlantic GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979 With37monthRunningAverage.gif (880×481) (climate4you.com)
“The planet is heating up way too fast.”, that’s what Mikey Mann invented the hokey stick to show. That didn’t work out too well, but forget about it, we’re in a climate emergency and send me the money (when they ask for funding do they guarantee they will cool the earth?
Scientific American is neither. They jumped the shark on on politics dominating science during the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) era, going full political over all else.
Being unwilling to admit that the models mostly run ridiculously hot shows their basic political nature. Climate modeling has been quite political since the TTAPS “nuclear winter” study, and with about the same ratio of science to politics as that study.
Hamlin picks the 2015/2016 El Nino as the start point for his four anomaly graphs. This is a blatant cherry pick since starting a year earlier wipes out his claim of declining global temperatures.
Besides everybody knows that you need more than 5 or 6 years of data to establish a “trend” in climate science. Baselines are constructed from 30 years of data.
Tell that to the climate alarmists who use an afternoon heavy downpour or a hurricane becoming a cat 4 for 8 hours as signs of a climate crisis. The whole crisis narrative is built on nonsense like that.
So you do actually agree it’s blatant, cherry picked nonsense?
The cherry picking you and all the other warmists continually do?
Does this mean the chronic warmest day, month or year on record whining from Warmist/alarmists is cherrypicking?
Snicker…….
And throw in the fact that the past data has been “adjusted” …
(TheWayBackMachine is your friend.)
Yeah. The ‘trend’ approach yet again – as if that actually meant something; “everybody knows” is complete and utter rubbish (please insert appropriate expletive of your choice) – everybody knows that the ’30 year baseline for a trend’ was invented by a climate enthusiast in a vain attempt to stifle discussion for the next 20 years or so after he said it. If you really believe that you need a trend as a crutch for your lame argument, then please go right ahead and use it, whatever helps you and all that.
An honest question.
It was my understanding that in the 1920’s 30 years was established as the range for “average temperature” because most reliable records for most llocations only went back about 30 years.
Is that where the 30 year baseline for a trend comes from?
PS If I’m not mistaken, don’t most climate patterns run in 60 year cycles?
Has anyone redone “average temperature” based on 60 year cycles?
Ronald,
You are correct. How about the Holocene warm Period ( warmer than today DEPENDING on the source you use ) What about the Minion warm Period ( as Warm ) the Roman ( as Warm ) and the Medieval Warm Period ( as warm ).
P.S. all of these warmed AS QUICKLY and in some cases more quickly.
These warm periods extended at times hundreds of years.
So how much of the current warming is Man Made and how much is Natural?
If you know I would love to hear the answer. By my estimation the CURRENT amount of warming attributable to CO2 MAY ( and this is a MAY ) be close to 20% – 25%. With the rest POTENTIALLY being due to natural mechanisms.
Until you can measure HOW MUCH of the warming is due to Man, how are you supposed to know how much or even if you SHOULD interfere?
P.S. Please note that most ‘skeptics’ though not all believe man influences the environment. We just Called BS when we heard things like 8 Degrees Celsius by 2050. Or the idea that we would be ICE FREE in the Arctic by 2020 etc and so on.
Not only that but now let me ask, how many years of a down-line trend would you need to see before you said that AGW is wrong in its current incarnation?
10? 15? 30? 50? it is going to change from person to person. I am interested to see if the next El Nino places us to a higher level or not.
Also when was the last revision done to temperature adjustments done? Wasn’t it around 2016? I forget… maybe 2014? Didn’t that then cool the past and increase current warming? Seriously I do not remember.
So while I believe the world has warmed, and partially due to Humans ( we do a LOT ) I have not had someone separate natural and mankind increases in a way that I find satisfactory. I hope to see it someday soon.
Yes, but a 4-5 year cooling trend while CO2 continues to increase, does not fit well with the pseudo science of the climate crisis. We all know that the climate industrial complex used the warming of the last 3 super El Ninos as strong evidence for CO2 induced warming. Hamlin is using the same arguments against them. The climate hoax was always destined to be hoisted by its own petard!
Yes, there must be an explanation for the recurring and persistent anomaly of an anomaly. The problem with the attribution of the original anomaly to CO2 emission must be traced to CO2 emissions, or something. Perhaps it can be completely explained by natural processes and phenomena.
The 18+ year pause put the nail in the CliSciFi climate crisis. A Super El Nino breathed some life back into it, but COP26 will be its last hurrah.
And now the AMO and super El Nino pause have something say in the crowded room of advocacy science and MSM. They will get their say though.
Well, a short trend either up or down can be explained by cyclical known processes. Namely PDO. The real question is can the La Nina dampen heat enough that the coming El Nino afterwards does not increase us to a ‘new level of warmth’
Currently AGW says that this is a step ladder, and it very well MAYBE based on the observed data.
If this trend gets broken then the argument on their end is more difficult.
Finally AGW / Climate Change can be occurring without it being a crisis. I am all for methods or energy that move us away from utilizing as much CO2 production – I do not want levels to really drop either. I think there needs to be a discussion WHERE should temperatures ideally be and CAN we as a society create a system of getting there? I would love to believe we have the power to adjust the temperature of the planet. I just doubt that we have as much control as what has been suggested to date.
He could start his graph at 1998 and get the same downtrend; the year 1998 being statistically tied with 2016 for the warmest year in the satellite era.
A degree warming in a century during a glacial retreat in the middle of what would otherwise be an ice age is probably quite normal….just we didn’t have thermometers until 1714….and didn’t record any readings….Sure our CO2 emissions might be making it a half a degree warmer….also essentially no difference in the grand geological scheme.
Hi,
Can you point to another example of a one degree temperature rise over 100 years? The recent rise is significantly faster than any that we can reliably measure from proxy records.
Go to the website “abrupt climate change”. Evidence was recorded in Greenland and Antarctica of several degrees warmings within a few years by the early Holocene(!)
Greenland and Antarctica are NOT the Earth.
They happen to be extreme regional versions of Earth’s climate at the top and bottom of the planet.
In no way does proxy temp data from them tell us what the Earth’s mean temperature was doing.
Does all the evidence that much of North America was covered in ice sheets a mile deep during the last ice age tell up nothing about the Earth’s climate because it is a “extreme regional version”.. at the top of the planet?
Jesus, a person simply can’t be born with that level of stupidity, you would need constant practice. You would need to spend hours watching MSNBC to achieve that level of idiocy.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, … are you going to get up off the canvas and take an even more severe beating, Bantam weight?
Izaak, nothing is “measured” from proxy records.
“Implied” would be more accurate.
(which is very vague for “settled science”, don’t you think?)
Not only did Izaak say measured from proxy records but “reliably” so.
Izaak believes in the power of words; all form no substance
That we infer from proxy records.
The end of the Younger Dryas, about 11,500 years ago, was particularly abrupt. In Greenland, temperatures rose 10°C (18°F) in a decade (Alley 2000). Other proxy records, including varved lake sediments in Europe, also display these abrupt shifts (Brauer et al.
Proxy data does not have the resolution of thermometers. Suffice it to say, current global temperatures are equal to or less than the various optimums of the Holocene. And the world has been cooling for about 6,000 years. Science denial is an ugly thing.
”Can you point to another example of a one degree temperature rise over 100 years? The recent rise is significantly faster than any that we can reliably measure from proxy records.”
Oh for Christ sake! How the hell does anyone know the rate of temp change 1000 years ago, let alone 5000. This argument using measured tacked on to proxy is beyond stupid. Yet so many continue to use it.
“reliably measure from proxy records”
What’s the MDL (Method Detection Limit) for a “reliable proxy measure”?
Where I work, after running suspended solids on the same sample about 50+ times we found that our lab’s measurements only agreed 95% of the time at a value of 2.4 mg/L. Any value below that was not reliable.
How many times has your “reliable” proxies been run through that blender?
“The recent rise is significantly faster than any that we can reliably measure from proxy records.”
Seriously? A one & one-tenth (1.1) degree Celcius rise over 150 years is a mere pathetic 1/7000th degree Celcius per year!!!!!!!!! Shocking, isn’t it??? No thermometer on Earth can measure to that degree of accuracy!!!
The temperatures have cooled by about 0.4C in less than a year, according to the UAH satellite chart.
It’s 7/1000th degree C per year. Never do math alone.
1690-1730. The same warming in just 40 years.
Your comment is ignorant at best, Isick. Dishonest at worst.
Accurate air temperature measurements only began with the invention of the Stevenson screen that kept sunlight off the thermometer. The Stevenson screen was modified to have a double roof to keep the inside from heating up from sunlight on the roof and other significant changes in 1894. It was only then that standardized air temperature measurements could be made but the Stevenson screen didn’t start spreading widely outside Great Britain until about 1900. The earliest measured estimate of the average worldwide temperature is only a little over 100 years old, and those early estimates had very high error because they came from sparsely located standardized measurement stations.
So, as you should know, the only way we have ever had to estimate worldwide temperatures prior to about 100 years ago is from temperature proxies. The ONLY way. In proxy records, there are MANY time periods when the temperature rose faster than it has in the last 100 years, as several people have correctly pointed out here.
Isick, you have contributed nonsense to this blog for many years, so you likely know that your comment is flat wrong and you are trying to mislead. Why are you being dishonest, Isick?
Hmmm … There used to be a mile of ice over NYC. It’s gone now.
Is that a reliable proxy observation?
Unless Fred Flintstone worked in a strip mine harvesting coal, I think it’s safe to say that Fossil Fuels didn’t melt all that ice.
Ma’ Nature did.
Hey dude, just how much resolution do those proxies you are recommending have? 50, 100, 10,000 years per data point. You’re talking about records with a resolution of days. Have you found the average temperature for the last 100 years. Not the trend, but the actual average. That would be one data point in some proxies and none in others. Not much chance of recognizing the rate of change in one data point is there?
“The planet is heating up way too fast. It’s time for journalism to recognize that the climate emergency is here.”
***********
With this screed they published back in April, so-called “Scientific American” demonstrates that they have become little more than a component of what I argue is a collective real-world Orwellian Big Brother out there. No respectable scientific publication would ignore or suppress all of the evidence that refutes and dis-confirms the the climate alarmist narrative.
By ignoring the refuting evidence and by the careful publication of false or disputable statements and narratives, pseudo-SA demonstrates its abandonment of science in favor of power and control for the advancement of activist agendas. Authoritarian power requires careful control over minds of the masses by dictating what they are told and not told, by what they are to believe and not believe. Control over the mass media is vital towards that end.
The problem of course for pseudo-SA and its ilk is that they do not control ALL of the climate-related websites on the Internet. WUWT is no doubt a painful thorn in its side. They undoubtedly are aware of WUWT other similar websites, but it does not stop them from doing what they do.
I do not subscribe to SA and admit that some of what they publish may be of genuine scientific interest. But confusing arrogance, egotism and hubris for righteousness and virtuosity can still make people behave is strange and irrational ways.
Scientific American had an article in this month’s issue about the abortion issue: Roe v Wade, specifically.
I guess that was social science.
And then they publish trash like this, by Naomi Oreskes, infamous climate change propagandist::
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-understand-how-science-denial-works-look-to-history/
Tom,
I am continually amused by alarmists like Oreskes who keep preaching about science as though it is some kind of infallible and unquestionable realm of human knowledge.. This of course is especially true for the CAGW narrative where dissent cannot be tolerated in govt and the mass media if it is to remain credible in the public eye.
Oreskes’ demonization of what is called ‘science denial’ only serves to make it more apparent that there is something being hidden from sight in the great climate debate — something none of us are supposed to see and be aware of. With that kind of behavior, the demonizers only serve to beclown themselves.
Pseudo-Scientific American — a political rag by any other name.
I understand that Facebook, Twitter etc attach “warnings” to content that doesn’t meet their “factual” standards.
So I’m going to suggest that alarmist climate articles get flagged with the following tag, to convey that the the “science” being presented –
turns the scientific method on its head, and approaches a hypothesis backwards –
The major problems facing humanity are the destructive effects of the recurrence of extreme weather events that have occurred throughout human history and have been just as bad, and often worse in the past, than the current extreme events which are usually blamed on rising CO2 levels.
Fixing these ‘real’ problems is technologically possible, but would require an enormous amount of money and energy to build more dams, improved drainage systems, relocate people living in potential flood plains, building massive numbers of new dwellings that are resistant to damage from hurricanes, and so on.
Unfortunately, the political and economic systems in most countries are unable to tackle these problems in a practical and effective way because doing so would require an admittance of serious negligence in protecting citizens from the effects of extreme weather events in the past.
It would also require an admittance that climate change and/or global warming is not the main problem, which would cause a huge public outcry, and possibly court cases, accusing many scientists and politicians of lying.
“Fixing these ‘real’ problems is technologically possible, but would require an enormous amount of money and energy to build more dams, …”
I don’t think requires an “enormous amount of money”.
I think a solution is for government to sell the ocean as cheap real estate. Cheap real estate
being about $500 per acre or per square km at 247 acre time $500 is 123,500 so
$123,500 per square km. Or since like to give stuff away {to voters} could give some ocean to
owners of beach property {so they don’t ocean settlement right front of them- and/or a some point in future use the ocean real estate, themselves {starting 30 years in future}. While selecting other ocean real estate which sell for $123,500 per square km which could used once bought. They could also reserve ocean real estate for public use- obviously they would not sell sea lanes- but also keep other ocean real estate other uses.
Since when does the government owns the ocean?
I am talking ocean within 12 miles of shore.
It is common with people talking ocean settlements want to beyond any nation’s laws beyond 12 miles- the idea is they start the own nation.
I was under the general assumption what with State California {and other State] State of California is within 3 miles and US Federal extends to 12 miles.
I searched and didn’t find that, but, here:
“Maritime limits and boundaries for the United States are measured from the official U.S. baseline, recognized as the low-water line along the coast as marked on the NOAA nautical charts in accordance with the articles of the Law of the Sea. The Office of Coast Survey depicts on its nautical charts the territorial sea (12 nautical miles), contiguous zone (24nm), and exclusive economic zone (200nm, plus maritime boundaries with adjacent/opposite countries).”
U.S. Maritime Limits & Boundaries (noaa.gov)
In terms of coastline or getting stuff washed onto the beach:
“In reality, courts have ruled in many cases that no one owns the actual coastline. This is roughly how it works: Federal coastal laws vary in different parts of the country, since each state has different laws. Under what’s known as “riparian” law, according to Wikipedia, “water is a public good like the air, sunlight, or wildlife.”
But I am not talking about coastline.
I mostly interested in State rather than Federal waters- an ocean settlement within 3 miles, more interested in waters about 100 meter deep [or deeper}.
I think settlements should/could have an “artificial surfing area” so ocean topography which would increased surfing waves, would be a better location.
Also these settlement would low in the water rather something multistory- or lower in water then large ships.
”Way to fast.” First, learn proper grammar then preach to me about 1 degree of allied warming.
Years ago on WUWT there was a lot of fall out from posters that believed putting a political spin on AGW was either anti science or demeaning. Many of those posters are either gone or silent now. Anyone that believes science alone will change the course of the predominant AGW narrative is naive. Even with real life data contradicting AGW it will take years to turn this ship around even if it can be done at all. The Globalists bank rolling the AGW effort have too much invested to ever give up. We/realists, and nature, have to outlive them.
To use a military metaphor the battle has moved to the policy front where the alarmists are in a shambles.
Failure there will force a reluctant rethink in the area of science IMO.
The battle is moving into the ruinous cost and life-threatening fronts. The U.S. 2022 and 2024 elections will chart the mid-term fate of the climate wars. Hell, COP26 might even deal a mortal wound.
Hell, COP26 might even deal a mortal wound….
Dear gawd I hope so. I’d love to witness a few true believers I know dine on their beliefs, before I die.
I’m long pitchforks, 40 years from now to maturity.
Nice thought but the word (##) you use means it wont happen.
Because the exact same thing has happened a good few dozen times before in Human History when history tells us that Civilisation X collapsed.
“X” being Romans, Minoans, Phoenicians, Himyar, Aztec etc etc
Every single time, the ‘Climate’ was deemed to have changed and wasted their sweet, lovely, settled & civilised little worlds.
Yes certainly, The Climate did change for all those people but it was they themselves that changed it.
Simply by being ‘settled’ i.e. not nomadic
Thus they changed the climate by destroying the dirt beneath their feet, its fertility and thus theirs and how it changed the climate was by simply drying it out.
Executed via repeated slash/burn, tillage for monoculture cropping and (over) grazing, especially by goats
But all those previous civilizational mishaps were small local affairs
## The ‘word’ being = Globalist
We are headed for exactly the same fall that tripped up all previous attempts at civilisation, except this time, next time, It Will Be Global
The fixation with CO2 and the greengas effect is drawing money and every other ‘resource’ away from realising what the problem is.
And via the fixation with CO2, something that The Ancients didn’t have, we are exponentially hastening our demise.
One Word to sum that up= Biomass
P haha S
Planet Stupid (PS) will come to an end but very few people are actually going to witness it.
Somewhere out there in the land of Internet Never Forgets is or must be a document that the UN created and published 6 years ago (2015)
It said that we were gonna run out of dirt.
That document told us: 60 (sixty) years……….
Bullshit! Advanced economies improve life.
Dave,
I agree, but only when you have well educated, free range humans!
Until humanity can overcome the major criminal political organizations, like the ChiComs, the Mexican drug/human trafficking cartels, and the DemoKKKrat Party, we will never be able to overcome the stifling of human potential and the crushing of individual freedoms!
The rate of warming before ~1945 when human emissions were relatively insignificant is almost exactly the same as the rate after ~1980 as emissions were continuing to rise, separated by a 40 year period when rapidly increasing emissions had no effect on temperature.
And that assumes the GAT record before satellite measurements is accurate which is very doubtful.
The trick to contemporary climate Scientology is to ignore all conflicting historical references, all data and all evidence contrary to the AGW narrative. Then use logical fallacies wherever and whenever possible.
Also cherry pick dates to suit YOUR argument whilst arguing that everyone else’s arguments are invalid due to cherry picking of dates, etc. Use trend lines at every opportunity where they support YOUR argument whilst arguing that everyone else’s trends are invalid due to being too short, not clear enough or cherry picking the start or end dates. In climate scientology my argument, no matter how poorly constructed, is always right and everyone else’s is wrong by default if they disagree.
What you have described, Richard, is a method of debate known as confession through projection. If you’ll notice, it has been the preferred method used by Democrats for years. Naturally the warmunists couldn’t resist the technique. Always blame the other guy for what you’re about to do or have just done. The bad and dishonest science we’ve suffered through from the warmunists has been by design, not by accident or ignorance. It’s fraud.
Or hide the ongoing corruption of something by promoting it. How often have we heard lately “follow the science”? Or the practice of “fact-checking”? When science and facts are exactly what they are destroying.
Exactly!
This is what happened to Scientific American along with many other institutions (Credit to @iowahawkblog):
1. Identify a respected institution.
2. kill it.
3. gut it.
4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.
The fun thing with contemporary Scientific American is searching for tid-bits of science among the glossy pages of propaganda and oooh – ahhh sensationalism. It’s like that children’s pass time of ‘what’s missing in this picture?’ … only the children’s game is harder.
There isn’t any dip in the CO2 chart from 2019 to 2021, during the major shut down for the COV19 in China, USA and UK. So what proportion, of this CO2 is anthropogenic?
Chin grew 5% during the ChiCom virus.
You’re referencing what is possibly the only real time experiment into a causative relationship between anthropogenic CO2 and warming.
Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.
Figueres is perhaps the perfect person for the job of transforming “the economic development model” because she’s really never seen it work. “If you look at Ms. Figueres’ Wikipedia page,” notes Cato economist Dan Mitchell: Making the world look at their right hand while they choke developed economies with their left.
Considering the above admissions, and that others attached to the UN have made similar admissions, what is the point debating the climate hoax and creatively accounted warming politics.
Climate is natural Earth Cycles.
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
Yes, it’s called Socialism, & billions will die of starvation & disease, which is the entire objective of Agenda 21, at the same time enriching the protagonists to the tune of billions (£/$), presumably raided from the poor devils whose lives were sacrificed so brutally & mercilessly in the effort to create their longed for dystopia!!!
Quote:”Nothing But Politics And Propaganda Unsupported By Scientific Data”
Just very recently someone here linked to an interview with Aldous Huxley in/of circa 1958
Did many people follow that link?
What concerned Huxley was the combination of some (in his thinking of the time then) some mythical ‘drug’ in combination with ‘advertising’
The ‘drug’ being one that folks would take voluntarily because it made them feel good but seemingly had no adverse effects
He recognised even then the power of advertising as it was being derailed misused even then, by ‘Madison Avenue’
Thus he foresaw self-inflicted brain-washing, that The Advertisers could wield incredible power.
Propaganda Power and he knew, recently out of of WW2, the very considerable force that propaganda was
You know me doncha, thus you know what ‘the drug’ is and you/me/we all know what the ‘adverstising’ is now what we all refer to as Main Stream Media or the MSM
The drug is ‘sugar’
As refined sugar but especially as Cooked Starch.
That is the mind bending drug we all (not all actually) gladly consume – in fact we are told to consume it by contemporary medicine
If that wasn’t bad enough, we are ‘not actively discouraged’ from consuming alcohol and now, to add to the already hideous mix, cannabis is now becoming ‘good’
Then the folks take onboard (UK daily average adult consumption) six hours of propaganda coming out of their own TVs
it is Huxley’s Worst Nightmare Come True – in combimation with Eisenhower’s “To be gravely regarded”
We really are in some very deep sh!t here
PS Wanna know another drug now being foisted upon us, for our ‘good health’ of course.
Salt deprivation
Because stopping folks from eating ad-lib salt brings on significant reduction in cognitive skill. A few brave researchers have been there done that and measured it.
‘reduction in cognitive skill‘ being a complicated way of saying ‘depressed’
i.e. having your mind/brain/nervous system chemically inhibited from functioning as it should.
(Thus leaving you wide open to propaganda/brainwashing)
Exactly the same as when you get drunk, get high on weed, eat sugar and thus take a power nap – or even – have a mug of Horlicks/Ovaltine/Hot chocolate as a remedy for insomnia
Its really evil out there but you know what, the folks perpetrating that evil actually do really think they are ‘doing good’. Just As Huxley said.
Sound familiar from anywhere, the guards at Concentration Camps by example………..
The ‘doing good’ part of it, believing you are doing good is what I often talk about = Magical Thinking
Magical Thinking being= self brainwashing = exactly what long-term users of chemical depressants do to themselves
i.e. ‘classical’ alcoholics, weed smokers and, the sugar (comfort food) eaters
According to rudolf Steiner humanity’s downfall was due to over consumption of potatoes
That is no more a “journalist” initiative than the alleged “13000 scientists” are scientists.
They are all disingenuous ACTIVISTS, masquerading as scientists or journalists.
It sort of amuses me that the IPCC claims that the science is settled, but science is never settled, and that ninety something per cent of scientists agree, but fail to mention they are associates of IPCC and in number represent a small fraction of the world’s scientists.
And then a brilliant mathematician from Great Britain, hereditary Lord Christopher Monckton, produced the results of his audit of IPCC climate modelling and revealed the many errors and omissions that created climate hoax.
Not long afterwards two batches of hacked emails exchanged by the climate hoax creators were made public, and called climate gate 1 and 2. Those emails exposed the plotting and even the concerns about the possibility of being exposed.
can’t we ever have the correct spelling of TOO not TO???
To with a single o is a preposition!
Too right.
Two times To equals Too
Et tu Brute?
I only saw one mistake using “to”. I saw two instances where too was used correctly.
All three words could bee changed to the spelling “tou” and the problem would bee solved.
Too to or not to too?
Only two choices?
Which tu tou choose?
Do I give a tofu?
On a blog? Know.
“The UAH 0.49 degrees C measured temperature anomaly increase from 1986 to year 2021 is far below the temperature anomaly increases represented by the NASA GISS model used in the Democrats 1988 hearing which shows temperature increases from 1986 to 2021 as being about 1.4 degrees C increase for Scenario A, about 1 degree C increase for scenario B and about 0.6 degrees C for Scenario C.”
This nonsense again?
Hamlin overstates the predicted rate of warmng by around 25% then uses an inappropriate time series for comparison. The five year average in Scenario B (described as ‘perhaps the most plausible‘ ) ending 1986 was 0.33C, five years to 2019 (the last year for which I have data) was 1.03C, a rise of 0.7C. The linear trend is 0.27C/year.
Hamlin then uses the wrong observation. Hansen was predicting global surface temperatures, so what happened there? Oh no! According to the NASA data the warming was just over 0.7C, far too near the ‘plausible’ rate to be any good for us. What about the satellite data (Numerous posts here recently have correctly said the satellite data in not measuring the surface, but hey) OK it is not global and it does not measure the surface but let’s have a look at the RSS data. Oh no, 0.74C – it’s warmer than NASA! No good at all. But about UAH from our friends Spencer and Christy? Ah, 0.49C. Perfect. Phew!
If you state the predictions accurately, and compare measurements of the actual quantity being predicted under the Scenario nearest to what actually transpired (Scenario B). Hansen did a remarkably good job.
This was pointed out last time this nonsense was posted.
Well said. Unfortunately it wont be the last time WUWT republishes this same misleading garbage. I guess it brings in the clicks and that’s obviously way more important than the truth.
You want the truth? https://youtu.be/–F0QBQjhnA?t=102
The models all go linear (y = mx + b) after a short number of years which is a dead give away that the physics is no longer controlling the calculations, the parameters are. In other words, what people think will happen, not science.
Gavin Scmidt wrote a good article at Real Climate way back in 2007 on how well Hansen 1988 was holding up (right in the middle of the “Slowdown (/ Hiatus)”, as it turned out).
One of the most interesting parts was right at the end :
– – – – –
OK, let’s do that (see graph below) …
Which Hansen scenario came “nearest” to actual measurements during the “Slowdown” period (from 2001 to 2014) ?
I’d have to say Scenario C for that period, then reality got the memo and caught up.
An oxymoron.
Scientific American will not engage in a civil discussion on climate with CLINTEL.
Either
“We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We’re Going to Say So” (SA)
Or
“There is no climate emergency” (CLINTEL)
Those not prepared to engage in a substantial, intelligent and public conversation on climate, which Prof Guus Berkhout and his foundation would welcome, show they cannot match engineers who work in the real world with their experts who fill the hallowed halls of academia.
Did Hansen predict a flooded Manhattan? In UK we’ve had a fairly miserable summer l’m told – was in SW France meself so missed it – so with a really frosty winter we might see climate crisis scepticism breeding amongst the common people who believe that weather is climate. We’ll see. Do I detect a note of desperation amongst alarmists? In their bones they detect a Great Cooling upcoming?
“…they detect a Great Cooling upcoming?”
Indeed, indeed, I feels it in me bones.
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png
What tune do you whistle as you walk past the graveyard?
As spaghetti graphs go, hers is might ugly.
And yet during the mid-Holocene, we had many of these where today it is too cold for them to grow.
And we know the reason why ….
Are you ever going to explain what “insolation” means in your fav graph, Banton? Or where it came from?
Totally dodged my point, unsurprisingly. Why are there no live trees at this location today?
So they can measure insolation each summer 25,000 years ago and average them into 6 data points? That means the resolution per data point is about 25,000/6 ~ 4000+ years per point. Better yet, they know it out to 25,000 years in the future? Hardy, Har, Har!
Thanks for providing more evidence that the oceans have been the driver of warming
An .edu site — corrupt/biased/faked info.
I think there is a lot more than a note of desperation. Ever since they realised that the atmospheric temperatures indicated severe cooling and the only thing keeping the warming con going was UHI and constant adjustments, they’ve been trying every thing they can to move their alarmism into high gear. It’s easy to spot just how desperate they are by the whining and repetition of failed arguments, as if peddling the same rubbish again and again ad nauseum will somehow prevail this time.
“It’s easy to spot just how desperate they are by the whining and repetition of failed arguments, as if peddling the same rubbish again and again ad nauseum will somehow prevail this time.”
Weird. I was thinking almost the exact same thing. 😉
“Did Hansen predict a flooded Manhattan?”
Not in any work published by him. He was asked during an interview how the view from his office might change under doubled CO2, and his off-the-cuff reply included the river flooding the West Side Highway.
But, despite various misinformed claims that his prediction has failed, we’re still a long way off 560ppm of CO2.
Real Climate Science
NASA : Arctic Ice Free And Manhattan Underwater – In Six Weeks!
=====
Yes he did predict no more Summer ice in the Arctic by 2018 the latest and 2013 the earliest, not even close.
The Salon writer who INTERVIED him says Hansen did make that flooding prediction.
“The Salon writer who INTERVIEWED him says Hansen did make that flooding prediction.”
I never said otherwise. Point is, it was a conditional prediction of what might happen assuming CO2 levels had doubled, which for the sake of argument the interviewer said could take 40 years. The context was an interview for a book.
A few years later the interviewer mis-spoke and gave the number of years as twenty in error and omitted the CO2 part of the prediction, triggering a predictable piling on.
A doubling of CO2 takes us to 560ppm, we’re at around 410ppm, so some way to go fairly to assess the prediction. (I also believe the Highway has been rebuilt in the interim but I am willing to be corrected on that).
I attach an image of the West Side Highway from October 2012 🙂
“Yes he did predict no more Summer ice in the Arctic by 2018 the latest and 2013 the earliest, not even close.”
That’s at odds with what he has written. Was it some kind of conditional forecast? What were his exact words? What was the context?
Hey, John!
Is there a particular method that recommend for memory-holing things that you don’t like to remember? I was wondering if you installed a lockbox or just walled off a section of your brain where you can put science and data that are too uncomfortable!
I’m sure a lot of other Gretatards would like to have a good method for dealing with the inconvenient truths of geology, oceanography, and astrophysics!
Why do you suppose that there are 10-20 times more deaths from cold than from heat? How many humans would you feel comfortable killing off to “save the planet?”
Has anyone come across a survey of the types of religious beliefs that ‘Alarmists’ and ‘Skeptics’ tend to subscribe to?
It seems logical to me that Skeptics would tend to accept the ‘Theory of Evolution’ which basically states that all species, from bacteria to humans, exist because of their ability to adapt to the environment. Species which have failed to adapt, have become extinct, and there are many, many examples of those.
The Dinosaurs were not able to adapt to the extreme changes in climate, around 65 million years ago, which were probably caused by asteroid strikes and/or massive volcanic eruptions. However, our ancient ancestors during this time, which were small, furry creatures, were able to adapt, survive and eventually evolve into the Homo Sapiens Sapiens species, which we are today.
It’s rather amazing to consider that our small, furry, ancient ancestors were able to adapt to far greater extremes of climate, around 65 million years ago, than any of us experiences today,
We seemed to have moved from ‘adaption’ to ‘control’. In other words, we think we don’t need to adapt because we can ‘control’, whatever the threat might be.
It’s unfortunate that even though many of the major players understand this; it only makes them more determined to take more and more drastic action. They know the emergency isn’t coming, and they want to take credit for averting it. Who doesn’t want to be credited for saving the world?
We need to prepare for energy insecurity. Sadly, those who are most vulnerable will be least prepared. Worse, our children are scared and unhappy, birth rates keep declining and many young people feel too hopeless about the future to be willing to invest in their own education and careers.
The legacy of Mann and Hansen.
It’s waiting for the next El Nino.
https://rclutz.com/2021/05/08/adios-global-warming/
Send in the adjusters.
May I suggest that these T data graphs are overlaid with the CO2 curve?
That would put instant context into the ‘T NOT caused by CO2’ claims.
The real climate emergency is to hoover up as much cash before honest taxpaying voters catch on that the climate isn’t warming significantly and it was all a scam to pick their pockets and impoverish their lives.
The sad things is that when this all blows over and natural cycles prove them obviously wrong they will tilt to some other cause and use the Edward Markey excuse of “who could have known?”. They won’t get called out for abject stupidity. Isn’t that right BBC, NYT, and NPR?
Stop paying your taxes. Thats the only way to force the government to listen.