By David Mason-Jones
With the Glasgow summit drawing near we face an unrelenting onslaught from parts of the media to convince us that the outcome is a foregone conclusion. According to one media editor, not only is it a foregone conclusion but it is also our chance to be on the right or wrong side of history.
Under the same general line of persuasion, we are pushed to accept the implication that those who don’t agree are vacuous brained, laggers, incapable of understanding or accepting science, not caring about the environment and so mentally stuck-in-the-mud that they are incapable of accepting change. This media pounding affects from time to time I sometimes feel defeated by all the spin. I get exasperated that this issue seems driven by emotional ‘reasoning’ (if that’s not a contradiction of terms) rather than the detached process of observations about the real world, collection of data, testing of hypotheses and deductive reasoning.
What a wonderful thing it was therefore to read Patrick Moore’s recent book, ‘Fake invisible catastrophes and threats of doom’ ISBN-85685955-0-2 published by Ecosense Environmental Inc.
The wonderful aspect is that here is a person with impeccable environmental credentials stretching way back to the start of the global warming scare, and beyond, who reveals a story of conversion. Having been a co-founder of Greenpeace itself, and a member of its governing board for many years, Moore’s commitment to a healthy environment is beyond rational dispute. He has however changed his mind from the position touted by the organisation he once helped to form and nurture in its early years. He changed by a process of intellectual and scientific enquiry where he has researched the claims and emotion-laden statements about the state of the planet and the role of carbon dioxide plays. He simply finds the evidence for catastrophe lacking. Indeed, he finds the exact opposite to be the truth.
Moore reveals an interesting insight at the start of the book. Instead of going straight into a set-piece analysis of factors supposedly contributing to, or ‘proving’, the human caused global warming hypothesis, he poses a question. He asks the reader to ponder why it is that so many of the so-called proofs of the warming hypothesis are based on things that are either invisible or inaccessible to the average person. In the invisible category he cites carbon dioxide and radiation and in the remote category he cites Polar Bears and coral reefs. As average people find it hard to carry out a Polar Bear count, they are forced to rely on, and trust, the ‘experts’ who have the financial backing and incentive to perpetuate the story.
When I read Moore’s insight ab out invisible and remote things, I was hooked for the rest of the book. I assure others that they also will be hooked, right to the end of the last chapter.
Moore develops chapters on the Great Barrier Reef, which, incidentally, even the Australian Institute of Marine Science says is in good order, the geological record of carbon dioxide levels during times of high carbon dioxide and periods of low carbon dioxide, the asserted link between carbon dioxide levels and atmospheric temperature rises and falls, the impossibility of the Oceans becoming acid, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch which, those who have gone looking for it just can’t find. Of course, Polar Bears get a big mention.
In chapter after chapter Patrick dismantles the false claims with withering logic. He supports his case by reference to published scientific studies and multiple maps and graphs.
All this is done generally without rancour and personal attacks – a refreshing change to what you will hear on much of the media about the fear of global warming. I say ‘generally’ because there is one major instance where he drops his reluctance to make it personal and this comes in the last chapter. For fear of spoiling the ending by telling everyone the bizarre situation in the last chapter, I will not reveal it. I’ll just advise readers to get the book and read it for yourselves – you will not be disappointed.
There is a further sub-text to the book which sits just below the surface of the logic-based argument Moore presents. This is about the endless tug-of-war in communications theory between the reliance on emotion to get your message across or the reliance on strict logic to convey your message.
In terms of the conventional wisdom about communication, the sales trainers, advertising executives, speech writers and spin doctors will tell you that emotion trumps logic in terms of its power to persuade. So why doesn’t Patrick Moore give up on logical persuasion and only appeal to raw emotion? Moore obviously discards this option because it would not be ethically justified to resort to the unethical tactics of the other side. Patrick Moore actually cares about the facts and logic.
So what to do – press on with logic or go for the emotion? I applaud Patrick Moore in plugging away with harder task of telling the rigorous scientific truth because eventually, the false emotional appeal of threats of doom will fail of its own accord. The advertising campaigns supporting the cigarette industry in many countries provide a case in point. If you look back at the advertising from decades ago, you will see that it was emotion, emotion and emotion. If you wanted to jet-set off the sophisticated foreign countries, you had to smoke this cigarette. If you wanted to be popular with the opposite sex then you had to smoke this brand and if you wanted to be a real man, active and strong, you had to smoke this one.
And it worked. Smoking rates soared.
Cigarette advertising was never about the medical truth that, over time, smoking can cause severe health problems and death. For many years, the emotional message about smoking prevailed over the logical message. But once the medical evidence against the benefits of smoking became overwhelming, the emotional message began crumbling and has collapsed in many countries.
So may it be with the Great Carbon Dioxide scare and the work of Patrick Moore. He is heroic in setting down the case that we are living in a time when future generations may well cite as being one of the greatest examples of the Madness of Crowds in all history. To do this he has had to find the courage to face the ire of many people who were once his comrades …. and he has succeeded admirably.
I highly recommend the book.
David Mason-Jones is a freelance journalist of many years’ experience www.journalist.com.au
While you concentrate on meta issues (polar bears, temperature record), you miss out how rotten the core of climate science is. It is bad, cause if you would realize, the thing would be over.
Is it too hard to imagine the truth, that the GHE actually looks more like this, and GHGs only “add” as “single factor removal” some 35-40W/m2?
Ed, are you aware of the Le Châtelier Principle in chemistry. Very pertinent to climate, but seemingly unknown to clisci, or maybe even most physicists. Basically, even if you were to get all the physics-based climate math right, you would have to multiply the result by a value 0, because the system resists change.
Damn spellhelper Not 0 (zero) but less than 1, and greater than 0
Great. Yet I have little interest in substituting comprehensible facts with pure speculation. But hey, what is my deep analysis worth compared to you having heard about the “Le Châtelier Principle in chemistry”. omg…
But you outline the problem: people are bots, always repeating the same phrase, no communication possible.
Le Châtelier’s law is about chemical systems at equilibrium. If a concentration of one of the components changes, the equilibrium shifts to compensate for it and reestablishes an equilibrium state.
The atmosphere on the other hand is never at equilibrium (day-night variations, variations of solar intensity, cosmic ray intensity/cloud formation (due to solar magnetic field variations), chaotic behavior of our atmosphere etc…
Not just climate science.
There is one field where replication is routinely attempted. Drug companies scour the scientific literature trying to find experimental results that can be turned into profitable drugs. When they find something, the first thing they do is to attempt replication. What they have found is that as many as nine out of ten published results are wrong. In fact, many experimenters can’t even reproduce their own results. link
It’s called the replication crisis and there’s no good reason to think any other branch of science is much better. It’s caused by the corrupting influence of perverse incentives.
To have a career in academia, you have to publish. Publishers are looking for interesting results (that don’t upset apple carts). There’s no penalty if your research is found to be wrong. So, what do you think desperate academics, or wanna be academics, are going to do? (That’s obviously a rhetorical question.) One version works like this.
It gets much worse when money, politics, or ideology are involved. It’s why our dear Dr. Mann, a self admitted (by adverse inference) fraud, is richly rewarded and honest researchers like Ridd and Curry lose their careers.
Insisting that research findings be replicated, or at least reproduced, before being published would raise the cost of research but it would improve the signal to noise ratio so much that it would be well worth the extra expense.
“To have a career in academia, you have to publish.”
Too true. When I unfortunately worked in the public sector at a well known scientific establishment many moons ago, my line manager wanted to get promoted & was told if that’s what he wanted he must write a paper or two on something or other, regardless of how proficient he was!!! The papers are all that counts!!!
Part of the replication problem is the fact that most experimenters don’t consider all the variables involved in an experiment. If you want to duplicate the results of a substance introduced into mice then you *have* to know the exact genetic makeup of the mice and specify that in the writeup so that the same strain of mice can be used in the replication. If you are going to measure an attribute of something you *must* specify the environment the “something” is in right down to the last excruciating detail. And even more important you *must* understand uncertainty and how to propagate it and state it. Far too many replications fail because of trying to get the *exact* same answer when the uncertainty interval allows for a measure of inexact duplication.
Very good points, and you notice how modern peer review journals tend to downgrade “methods” to fine print, supplementary material, or previous publications. It can be very difficult to replicate even computer based modelling where all parameters are (should be) specified.
Thanks for the comment on Mann. I had never heard the term “adverse inference” before, and was rather impressed that the legal system was smart enough to not only come up with it, but enshrine it in common law.
“research findings be absolutely independently replicated”
Necessary change.
Evidenced by undead research, e.g., hokeystick, that are allegedly replicated by close associates of the original team.
When one looks at popular scare stories on the environment, there is vanishingly little science present.
Penn and Teller’s bit on a petition to ban DHMO (dihydrogenmonoxide) is at the same level as most green propaganda the skit was parodying.
Best skit I ever saw, brilliant!!! It just goes to show that the green movement has infected & diseased every aspect of modern society to the point of total ignorance among the general public, the comments in the skit such as “water companies are putting tons of the stuff in our reservoirs, the nuclear industry uses tons of it, food companies are putting it into our food & drinks”, etc. etc.!!! It was alarming how many people were only too willing to sign the petition!!! Good old Agenda 21 is at the bottom of all scary stories!!!
My son had his college class in a panic over dihydrogen monoxide when he gave a speech about it!
Oh I do hope he was indulging in a little leg-pulling!!! 😉
Here is a free copy, please share with you family and friends
Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom
Also read this book The moral case for fossil fuels
I enjoyed their episode on recycling. They dropped off several 50 gallon garbage cans,each a different color, and told the home owners different criteria for each can. No matter how ridiculous the requirements the home owners said,” OK. If it’s good for the environment.”
Ridicule of the climate scammers works too. Merciless ridicule at ridiculous climate claims that never happen. This is the Josh approach, that is, turn them into cartoon clowns they are in real life.
The climate changes slowly. The emergency is that we need to act to prevent future problems. The future not yet happening means that effect of the emergency is invisible to todays people.
It may be invisible but when it occurs it will not be nice!!
Since previous eras have seen CO2 levels much, much higher than today’s, or even what they’re projected to rise to, without any climate “emergency”, there is no logical “when” any emergency might occur in the future.
You’re projecting pure conjecture without a scintilla of scientific logic.
That makes AGW a form of religion, nothing more or less.
Amen!
Wasn’t there earlier just a push for recycling before the progressive countdowns of a climate apocalypse became fashionable?
So what are you doing about meteors ghal … the planet depends on your action?
The really wonderful part space would provide is the ability to get away from you leftards.
They are everywhere and they strive to infiltrate everything.
True, but as Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol-Pot all knew, get to the children first!!!
Everything he can, which is nothing. Ditto for so-called climate change.
My first question to climate alarmists and their sympathizers is: – What change are you talking about? Climate change is an oxymoron. Even violent changes are natural.-
Ghoulfront,
The putative (but not real) climate emergency was fueled by inaccurate climate models and phony (unrealistically high) radiative forcing functions (RCP 8.5, for example). There is unlikely to ever be a true climate emergency – we’ll run out of fossil fuels before the planet could ever see drastic negative climate impacts. In fact, for the foreseeable future the small climate changes we might see will probably be net positive. What’s happening is a bunch of dishonest people (like Al Gore) trying to profit from the fears of the ignorant. Which are you, ghoulfront, a dishonest fear monger or one of the ignorant?
Al Gore “trying” to profit??? What do you call a $4M sea-front retirement mansion his silly movie, An Inconvenient Lie!!!
his silly movie, An Inconvenient Lie got him!!!
Apologies peeps! HAGWE!
If we don’t commit energy suicide, we will never run out of “fossil” (i.e. hydrocarbon) fuels. Titan, the largest moon of Saturn, has vastly more readily available hydrocarbons than does the Earth. And all of the energetics involved in bringing them to Earth are (surprisingly to me) economically favorable, especially compared with “renewable” energy sources.
But it will require technology fueled by cheap energy to implement. If we screw around with renewables, and render ourselves unable to mount large commercial space projects, then we will be doomed as a civilization as we know it. Not in the near term, of course. I am a very new grandfather, and don’t expect my grandchild to live in want unless it is forced on her. But her grandchildren…not so confident about their well-being.
Nice try, except what the headlines scream is climate emergency NOW
Droughts and heat waves NOW
Catastrophic sea level rise NOW
All lies
All your people
Go deal with them
Call them out
Or STFU on here
halfrunt,
I so glad that you finally acknowledge that there is a real problem scheduled to occur in the near future! I’m sure that you are referring to depletion of CO2 in the atmosphere that will doom all life as we know it, if we don’t counteract the natural processes that cause this to occur!
The best program that I have seen so far is to wisely use our fossil fuels as we develop Gen. 4 nuclear power. This should enable us to raise CO2 levels up to the 500-600ppm range, which would be far better for the biosphere; allowing the temperate regions to spread into higher latitudes and many forms of life to expand out of the tiny regions they are currently restricted to due to our current continuing ice age! While I doubt that we can produce enough CO2 to stave off the next period of glacial onset, raising it to 800ppm or so would be quite beneficial to the plants trying to survive the chill! Enough nuclear power plants could give us the electricity needed to sinter cement on a scale to keep this level far into the future; where, hopefully, Man can learn to control our environment far beyond the puny attempts we make at present!
Cement production is going to fall towards zero. Geopolymers are cheaper, stronger, more heat resistant and threaten the whole viability of the cement industry.
Search for an organisation called TNO and see what they are doing with brick making in Malawi as a example of action.
See what PPC in South Africa is doing with high temperature geopolymers. They are trying to get ahead of the crowd and patent everything they can discover.
Large structures with geopolymer castings up to 180 tons were built in South America more than a thousand years ago. They made alkali and acid-based versions. See the 5th edition of Davidovits’ book “Geopolymers” for the latest details.
You’d think the anti-CO2 people would be all over this technology. Maybe their real goals lie elsewhere.
Isn’t geopolymers made from fly ash? I.e. the leftover from burning coal? Maybe someone should inform Sen. Manchin? Or better yet, AOC?
The Geopolymer Institute lists 10 classes of geopolymer of which fly ash geopolymer is one.
https://www.geopolymer.org/science/intoduction/
If what you say about geopolymers is true, they would already be in widespread use. I smell a huge caveat on this.
Not necessarily.
Ask Otzi the iceman…..there he was wandering through spring flowers, albeit with an arrow in his back. Lies down for a rest and expires. He is almost immediately covered by snow [in spring]. If he wasn’t covered almost immediately scavengers would have dismemebered him. He stays covered in snow and ice for 5000 years.
It might have been local but it was climate change and it was very quick.
Funny you mention it, there’s a movie about Otzi, just came across it last week
https://tubitv.com/movies/590016/iceman?start=true
And Satan will be given to rule over all the earth for a period.
My long standing questions have been:-
Has there mean more atmospheric CO2 in the past?
Has there been less atmospheric CO2 in the past?
Has the world been warmer in the oast?
Has the world been colder in the past?
Has the worls been drier in the past?
Has the world been wetter in the past?
Has the world been windier in the past?
Has the world been calmer in the past?
Are any combinations of more/less CO2, heat/cold, wet/dry, wind/calm mutually exclusive?
The answers to all questions is yes except the last one.
So what is going to be “not nice”?
One thing the climate cluckers cant answer is:
what is the ideal temperature of the planet? 72 degrees? 73.456? 98.6?
It’s funny that they can be so confident that what is invisible now will be drastic in the near future, but make any predictions about skyrocketing power prices and loss of jobs and you’re laughed at like a chicken little.
“Arnold Schwarzenegger brands leaders who prioritise cash over climate ‘stupid or liars’”
That old saying rears its ugly head yet again. “It is better to stay silent & let people think you are an idiot, than to open your mouth & prove them right!”.
The climate is never static. The question we are here about is whether carbon dioxide is causing deleterious change outside of the normal variability. The paleoclimate record shows we are currently on the very low end of carbon dioxide proportion of the atmosphere in the history of the planet. There is no evidence that previous proportions of carbon dioxide led to some runaway greenhouse effect or any other real impact – other than its necessity for plant growth.
The claim that the current or future amount of carbon dioxide will have some predictable impact on the climate has been tested for decades and all the doomsday claims have been false. The sea level rise predicted by Hansen and others in 1988 were wrong. The claims of famine and mass starvation were wrong. The claims destruction of the great barrier reef were false. The media has a constant drumbeat of stories that are very hard to falsify and end up being fake when you later find out that the studies mentioned could not be replicated or the methodology was ridiculous.
If they understood the system they could make predictions that would be verified by observation. They don’t understand the system. All of the models run hot. All of the models predict different results for what sort of changes to expect in one area vs another.
And then there is the financial interest in perpetuating this hoax. The MASSIVE amount of money being demanded from countries all over the world ( except China ) all go to these institutions that employ the people claiming impending doom. If any “scientist” question the dogma — like a scientist that questions the origins of SARS-COV-2 — they are purged from academic life. They are pilloried by the press. They are threatened with violence and attacked.
If the claims they were making were verifiable and their evidence could be skeptically evaluated by all in an open marketplace of ideas – maybe one could accept their claims. But since the bounds of any conversation about these claims are enforced with censorship, manipulation, character attacks, and the “science” boils down to pseudo-eschaton religious claims about impending doom when its hotter, colder, wetter, or dryer than average – any given day – their hypothesis must be rejected.
Here is a free copy, please share with you family and friends
Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom
Also read this book The moral case for fossil fuels
If the climate changes slowly, then we have many decades in which to adapt.
On the other hand, CO2 rates began rising by more than trivial amounts in the late 1940’s. That’s almost 80 years. There has been plenty of time for the catastrophes you dream of to start occurring. How much longer are you going to wait before admitting the failure of your religion?
BTW, do you have any evidence that a temperature increase of a few tenth’s of a degree over 100 years or more, is going to be “not nice”?
Climate change: A little warmer, a little wetter and alot greener; no deterioration of any climate metric. But there is that monster in your bedroom closet.
Trade future challenges, which future humanity will be better able to address, for current day energy poverty. Yes, by all means, let’s keep 600 million people in Africa without electricity.
I cannot be typing this, as I died in a a famine in 1973. Or was it air pollution in 1974?
You’ve forgotten Tom, according to the scientificky chaps back in the 1970s, all the oil has run out by now & we now have nothing to power our cars/trucks/trains/aeroplanes etc!!! It’s all gone because the “experts” said so & I expect they didn’t have an agenda back then, did they?
The atmospheric CO2 level increased 1/100th of one percent in the sixty years from 1960 until 2020. By 2350, when the Earth will begin a five hundred year cooling period, the CO2 level will have increased another 5/100th of one percent. After 2350 the CO2 level will probably decrease as vegetation levels decrease.
Here is a free copy, please share with you family and friends
Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom
Also read this book The moral case for fossil fuels
He asks the reader to ponder why it is that so many of the so-called proofs of the warming hypothesis are based on things that are either invisible or inaccessible to the average person.
_____________________________________________________
You can’t see it, it’s over there, it’s just below the surface, but it’s gonna getcha!
Global Cooling, Acid Rain and the Ozone hole (Over Antarctic no less!)
But here in Wisconsin, the winters are warmer, not the summers. The media keeps telling us about record breaking weather events, but doesn’t say how far back the previous record was.
“the winters are warmer, not the summers” is another example of “either invisible or inaccessible to the average person”. The average person has no idea that it is a warmer winter and same-as-before summer making an average “warmer/hotter” anomaly that becomes “warmest ever”. Numbers and math are invisible or inaccessible to most, so the average person is told it is “scientific” or “statistical” bad news, with no understanding it is merely Earth getting slightly less frozen, not such a terrible thing.
Yes, I note that runaway agw has never inspired a horror novel from Stephen King.
Probably the premise is too improbable for even Stephen to take on.
I mean, horror fiction has to have a basis of even a scintilla of probability to put the frighteners on the punters.
Wouldn’t be much different from most horror and sci-fi to come before…. in the 50’s radiation turned animals and plants into bloodthirsty monsters, in the 60’s and 70’s, pollution turned animals and plants into bloodthirsty monsters. In the 80’s and into the 90’s there were a slew of post nuclear holocaust stories and movies, and then into the 90’s we had the wave of homicidal computers and evil artificial intelligence sci fi and horror… and on and on. “Climate change” is just the flavor of the day in the early 2000’s and like all the trends before, it will pass. And most sensible people will realize that radiation won’t spawn giant ants, pollution won’t create man eating mutants, and as of yet sinister computers don’t rule the world, we haven’t nuked the world into oblivion and the planet hasn’t (and isn’t going to be) cooked!
Out of all of those scary scenarios, the only ones I could remotely see as ever being a real problem would be a worldwide nuclear war and possibly at some future point AI could pose risks. The rest are just writers’ fantasies….
But Greta can see co2 🙂
Science and facts and logic I love, but most people don’t respond well to them, and generally don’t read much in the way of non-fiction books to begin with. There is no magic formula for rhetorically defeating warmunist propaganda.
But in the end result, warmunism is self-defeating … when your message is that you must give up much of your current standard of living, and any hope for the future, not only financially speaking but also physically (i.e. you must now freeze in the dark, and have no more freedom of personal transportation), there just is not a lot of appeal to that message.
The classic notion of “enlightened self interest” will prevail. It has so far, and there is no sign that it will not in the future. Most people rate climate change at the very bottom of their list of worries. Family security, financial security, having fun, enjoying your life’s work … the “pursuit of happiness” … that’s always vastly more motivating for real people than any phantom environmental scare.
….”will prevail. It has so far,” So far, actually, it’s the climate Nazis that dominate the airwaves and the chambers of government and even corporate board rooms. Billions being wasted solving invisible and imaginary problems, while billions of people face real problems of health and poverty alone.
Everybody says there is a climate change problem. Nobody is willing to do anything about it. That means everybody is just paying lip-service to a fashionable meme-of-the-moment. But, since there is lots of money to be made, it will be popular until people are asked to spend some real (to them) money or experience real depravation.
I hope it gets read by the masses.
I hope it gets read by Boris Johnson!
Ok, OK, OK!!! I’ll go spend my Christmas money on that and Apocalypse Never and maybe something on geology/why volcanoes exist – you know: all the good stuff that you can read on the sofa while the cat purrs in your lap and the snow flies in circles outside. Geezo Pete, if I wanted extra credits, I’d have taken geology anyway…..
What????
Oh, while I”m at it: there’s a new SETI signal from the general direction of Proxima Centauri.
Happy Hallowe’en, to all of you!
Sara,
Even better than Apocalypse Never is Jim Steele’s book; Landscapes and Cycles! That and Dr. Moore’s book are on my desk for quick reference any time I have a question!
I distinctly remember reading a book on Ice Ages, back in the early 1990s when I began questioning the Global Warming narrative. The author, a geologist, stated that temperatures always rise rapidly just before dropping down into the low temps of glacial onset. While I have subsequently learned that temps appear to rise and fall any number of times during an interglacial, it still gives me pause when I consider how ill prepared modern civilization is for global winter to return!
Enjoy your winter reading. I think that I’m going to study the Old Testament this winter and see if I can find some solutions for our modern problems!
Abolition Man,
You say to Sara,
“I think that I’m going to study the Old Testament this winter and see if I can find some solutions for our modern problems!”
I commend you to read Genesis Chapter 31 which says that in the Bronze Age Joseph (the one with the Technicolour Dreamcoat) told Pharaoh that climate has always changed everywhere and it always will. He told Pharaoh to prepare for the bad times when in the good times, and all sensible governments have adopted that policy throughout the thousands of years since then.
That tried and tested policy is sensible because people will merely complain at taxes in the good times, but they will revolt if they are short of food in the bad times.
Sadly, in 1990 several governments decided to abandon that policy and, instead, to try to control the climate of the entire Earth and, thus, to “stabilise” it. The world has gone mad.
Richard
Thanks, you two! You gave me some stuff to refer to, and I will be soaking up such stuff this winter.
The best avenue for argument with people who are not into science, engineering and math, is historical accounts and evidence that is self explanatory. There is lots of this around.
My favorite, and one my young grandson understood immediately, concerned a 5000 year old white spruce tree (long daed!), still rooted near the Arctic shore at Tuktuyaktuk in NW Canada.
This substantial tree stands a hundred km north of today’s treeline. One would have to go several hundred km further south of the treeline to find a white spruce (yes, the same species) this size, where it is ~6-8°C warmer average than at Tuk.
Since Arctic ‘enhancement’ means that the Arctic temperature anomaly is ~ double what the global average anomaly is, the global a average temperature 5000yrs ago was about 3-4°C, temperatures of half this are what the Eurocentric totalitarians are hyping about.
Trolls from the Dark Side are welcome to come and see if their betters have posted talking points to refute this!
Alpine villages under glaciers still
Forest remnants under glaciers
Mountain tree lines hundreds of feet higher
Sea levels far higher than today
Endless evidence it has been much warmer within human civilization terms and yet limitless clowns and idiots waving proxy studies “proving” its warmer now than any time in the Holocene.
A bad joke on us all
Science was broken when the world’s scientists accepted the Hockey Stick. Evidence that it remains broken is provided when scientists accept statements that weather extremes are worsening. It will only heal when scientists, en masse, jump up and start screaming “bullshit” to the profiteers.
Ruf and Evans (Michegan) have used the CYGNYSS system to look for ocean smoothing caused by pollution associated with microplastics, so perhaps the Great Garbage Patches are not totally undetectable. However, they did detect two major sources of plastic debris, one of which is the Yangtse.
Two points from this. Their method can now be used to measure by how much the oceans are smoothed and what this implies for the production of salt aerosols. Fewer breaking waves means less stratocumulus and more surface warming.
The second point is less obvious. Lake Michegan has warmed at more than twice the rate expected. It would probably be a good Idea to look at its surface for oil and surfactant pollution to see if that is the reason. A rowing boat and a couple of weekends should suffice. And if a couple of undergrads could quantify the effect it would be a major contribution to the debate.
Oil and surfactant smooths warm: lower albedo, less evaporation, less mixing, less cloud cover. They pull down less CO2 and if they force phytoplankton to use CCMs they may even alter the C12/13 ratio. This possible contribution to AGW is ignored. Why?
JF
The ‘catastrophes’ are neither fake, nor invisible: they are actual and with us right now.
This has been a year of truly exceptional rain and flood events, extreme heat events.
The UK is currently experiencing another round of heavy rain and flooding – part of being 6% wetter than 30 years ago thanks to climate change.
The sea ice is retreating, the ice caps are thinning the glaciers are in faster retreat than 30 years ago.
No amount of denial and politically inspired posturing can disguise those facts – nor can you keep ignoring them.
The sea ice is retreating, the ice caps are thinning…
https://arctic-roos.org/observations/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-thickness-and-volume/
griff, I sincerely hope that the tortuous rearrangement of your brain warps is not hereditarily transmitted (for the sake and well-being of your descent, of course). That is why I often pause and think about the conversation of your grand-children while taking their coffee or tea, commenting on how foolish their grandpa was to think that he lived during a catastrophe and that the world, all species including man, would be extinct due to “climate change”…
There was a time, 8k years ago, Sahara was green, how bad was that ???
More recently, North Africa was the granary of Rome. Probably same climate as today, but the Romans were good engineers and were able to adapt to conditions. Today’s climate activists are the modern equivalent of the nomads, and their goats, who remade the area back into desert.
“The UK is currently experiencing another round of heavy rain and flooding – part of being 6% wetter than 30 years ago thanks to climate change.”
Welcome to Great Britain, read what you write, “another round of heavy rain & flooding”!
So you have finally accepted that this stuff has happened before?
I used to work as a trainee draughtsman at an organisation called Thames Water Authority as a young man, with its remit to look after the River Thames and all of its tributaries. We were working on several flood alleviation schemes at the same time, as a result of the demand from the public via guvment to provide such protection, especially for London after severe flooding in 1947? I believe – the grey cells storage facility doesn’t quite work the way it used to ;-)). The city of Exeter also suffered such flooding around the same time, requiring flood channels to be constructed parallel to the main river, along with major weir systems to counteract said flooding!!!
Yes Dear Boy, a wonderful series of assertions. all it needs now is some evidence to back it up!
griff seems to believe that if he tells the same lies often enough, they will become true.
Well that is what his mentors have told him, “If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth!” Attributed to Vladimir Lenin. “The mass of the people are more likely to believe a big lie than a small one”, attributed to one Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf! He clearly holds some interesting reading material!!!
I remember in my youth in th 50ies, GB was known to be rainy, main talking theme when people meeting people in the streets was the weather and everone had his umbrella present.
During ten of those years I lived in the Netherlands. Made trips to know Belgium, France, Switzerland, Austria, Germany. Very often abstained from a few hour’s trip to GB because of its rainy fame….
.+
The clue is in the second paragraph,spliff. “a year”
Third paragraph should read “parts of the UK are experiencing “
How are things in the Antarctic currently?
“No amount of denial and politically inspired posturing can disguise those facts – nor can you keep ignoring them.”
First of all, you haven’t posted any facts – just mentioned a series of events which happen from time to time called weather, which I should point out are not being ignored but are being discussed as weather events but without the level of over-the-top emotive alarmism common to idiots like you.
Secondly, I should like to point out that your comment perfectly describes your alarmist position entirely and what is COP26 but pure politically inspired posturing and (scientific) denialism.
Thirdly, be careful what you wish for, Griffy – you might get exactly what you want and have to deal with the consequences.
“UK is currently experiencing another round of heavy rain and flooding”
10 wettest years for England & Wales, starting with the wettest:
1872
1768
2012
2000
1852
1960
1903
1882
1877
1848
(From Hadley England & Wales Precipitation 1766 – 2021)
And for wettest individual months:
October 1903 = 218.1mm; November 1852 = 202.5mm.
Looks like the Victorians had some real ‘catastrophes’ to deal with.
Griffy can’t ever make the distinction between weather and climate. Whatever passes for his brain must be so short term he fails. For poor Griffy the sky is always falling.
I guarantee, that if we have any instances of record cold this coming winter, little griff will be the first to remind everything about the difference between climate and weather.
Halloween is near…the griffter returns.
He never want away. Unfortunately.
Dude – you act like we are all not paying attention to the weather or that we don’t know what weather has been like in the past. You cherry pick flooding events today as anthropogenic – while pretending worse floods in the past were natural. Droughts of today are anthropogenic – but worse droughts in the past are natural. Its silly, man.
California has had century long droughts and century long wet periods – all before industrialization. Yet you get 2 drought years in a row now and the claim is that its anthropogenic?! Its absurd.
Sea level rise has been slowly rising linear since the beginning of tide gauge records. It varies greatly based on local tectonics. In Sweden the sea level is falling as it is in Alaska. In Sydney its about the same rate. In New York – that whole plate is still undergoing isostatic rebound and sea level is rising there the same rate is was rising in 1860. But its been rising at that rate for the last 8000 years The predictions made by the warmist zealots has been falsified.
Look at the phase of the AMO for what your weather trends will be like. Its interesting you say 30 years ago and not 50 years ago. The AMO warm phase is almost spent – any year now it will shift into the cool phase and you can then pretend carbon dioxide from China is causing your winters to be colder and more snowy. In 1990 the AMO was well in the cool phase shifting into the warm phase. Now we are in the tailings of the warm phase. Its an oscillator.
Antarctica just had their coldest winter. Arctic sea ice is not “thinning” – it waxes and wanes every year. Its been generally flat the last 15 years and the sea ice extent largely follows the trends of the AMO.
None of this is “denial” or “politically inspired posturing” beyond your demand that is must be so. You have accepted claims that seem to ignore the variability of climate systems for all the history of this planet. You have accepted claims that took longstanding ideas that were verified by historical texts, historical crop yields and other historical records and pretended things like the Roman, Minoan, and Medieval Warm periods did not exist. And these revisions of history were made only after the financial incentives of institutions aligned with the carbon dioxide doom hypothesis. Hell even the temperature records have been tampered with at every revision. If you just look at the observed data – the claims made by the current institutions are falsified. But that’s ok – they will just “process” the data to get the answer they need to demand another round of funding.
Then there are the places where these people show who they really are. When they coerce, threaten, and manipulate,. When they demand people “hide the blip”. When they take incompatible record sets like ice core samples that are the average of thousands of years at every data point — and tack on modern “processed” data to the end to get a “Hockey Stick”. Not to mention the exclusion of all disconfirming observations.
You have accepted a religion Griff. Its been obvious for years. You should go outside and take a walk. The claims of impending doom are exaggerations.
That’s probably the reason that honest politician Al made a packet Gore told young people NOT to listen to old people, because they’ve seen it all before!!! Does that honest politician still turn up at these climate jamborees? No, because he has made the money he wanted to make from the scam, & disappeared into obscurity!!!
As usual, griff just regurgitates his old, disproven lies, as if they were brand new.
There has been nothing unusual this past year in regards to climate. Everything that happened has happened before, and earlier occurrences were often worse.
As to the 6% increase in rain, first off, the accuracy of the data is not sufficient to draw such a conclusion. Secondly, even if it does exist, 30 years is half the AMO cycle.
Sea ice hasn’t been retreating for almost 10 years.
There is no evidence that sea ice is thinning.
30 years again, climate alarmists really do believe that history started yesterday.
I’m still waiting for you to produce a fact that hasn’t already been refuted.
“UK is currently experiencing another round of heavy rain and flooding”
So, in case you think that major floods in the UK are just a recent occurrence, all caused by “climate change”, let me introduce you to Datchet, on the River Thames near Windsor:
“Datchet’s historical records from the 1600s onwards contain many accounts of flooding, including ‘great floods’ in the years 1774, 1809, 1822, 1852, 1894 and 1947″
Some of the history of Windsor itself includes “The Victorian Floods in Windsor
1869, 1872, 1875, 1877, 1891 and 1894″ – but even they admit that the 1852 floods were worse than these.
https://datchethistory.org.uk/general-articles/history-datchet-floods-flood-defences-documents-time/
http://www.thamesweb.co.uk/windsor/windsorhistory/floods1875.html
“the glaciers are in faster retreat than 30 years ago”
You have such a limited time horizon – the Earth and its climate have been around a lot longer than 30 years. Let’s look back a little further:
“there is much evidence that during certain periods
of the first millennium glaciers were smaller (or of equal
sizes) than they were at the end of the 20th to early 21st centuries
in many regions”
[O.N. Solomina et al. / Quaternary Science Reviews 149 (2016)]
What is so exceptional about “the last 30 years”? It’s hard to see once you study the actual science, rather than the political rhetoric.
Given that many glaciers were at their maximum Holocene extents between the 17th and mid-19th centuries, let us be very glad that they have retreated since then.
I would take issue with the closing paragraphs which attempts to draw a parallel with the tobacco industry. This paints a far too optimistic vision of the future. The tobacco industry wasn’t supported by universities and august academic institutions; it wasn’t supported by NGOs, nor was there an equivalent to the IPCC that periodically put out reports showing that smoking was harmless to a 90% confidence.
No, this is an ideology as fierce and impervious to revision of facts as was the Soviet Union. Nothing can stop this juggernaut except for time itself – decades and decades of time.
I fear you you are right.
Any “improvement” in the weather will be put down to our superb efforts to reduce C02.
Any “worsening” will be put down to lack of effort in reducing C02.
Either way, the leaders of the religion will exhort us to greater and greater efforts to destroy our economies and ways of life.
I see no way to stop this religion.
Yes, whatever the particular DNA trait that compels many humans to adhere to some religion or other will be with us for as long as we walk this planet.
“Belief” = “Irrationality”
Or short-term collapse….which is what happened to the USSR.
Great article. I’ve been meaning to read Patrick Moore’s latest book for a while so now I’ve ordered it. His progression in thought is interersting. It reminded me of another conversion, that of Malcolm Muggeridge, a well known intellectual and TV personality of the 60s.He was well known for his often controversial views on a wide range of topics among which was his vigorous attacks on religion. After arguing for years against the existence of God he became a devout Catholic
He should have read up on a bit of Catholic Church history – there was nothing “devout” about earlier Popes, Bishops, etc
Redwing, where did you get the book please?
The EU is on record for saying several years ago that, “Even if it turns out that Manmade global warming theory is false, isn’t it better that we learn to use less of everything?”.
Can’t find the original quote, possibly it’s been “disappeared”, but it stuck in my throat ever since!!! To my knowledge Human beings haven’t actually exhausted any resources, but technology has made us change the way we do things & what resources we use, as it always has done throughout Human history!!! Classic example, Whales, if it wasn’t for fossil fuels, (or where crude oil is concerned mineral-based fuels), they would have been extinct long ago before we would have created the technology to protect & preserve the species!!!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/amp/
I’ve met and spoken to Dr. Moore a couple of times. A great speaker and clear thinker.
First of all, slight quibble about that ‘book’ screenshot.
It tells us the ‘Carbon’ in the crust combined with ‘Oxygen’, presumably also in The Crust, to make CO2
Tht anybody could put such abject garbage onto a piece of paper, that any proof reader could ‘let it go’ and that any printer could print and publish it is,frankly, beyond belief
If nothing else, where did the Oxygen come from?
Patrick Moore.
Set up Greenpeace as what if not an organ to broadcast his virtue thus staking claim to the fame & fortune he knew he was perfectly entitled to.
OK. nice
But he was no good at it.
2 reasons:
Trivially just look at his picture – a middle aged overweight blob, certainly with pre if not actual T2 Diabetes and thus well on his way to Type 3 diabetes = Dementia
Those of you following my exhortions and now well on your way to a 3rd consecutive Dry January will see what I see in that photo = an empty shell of a man, a wax dummy. That is the photo of a Zombie.
That’s Part 1 of why he ‘lost’ Greenpeace
Part 2
The bright young things (byts) he employed inside Green[eace realised that signalling virtue wasn’t much of a money spinner and ‘modified’ it slightly
(Or should that be ‘Meta-fied’ ha ha ha)
Those BYTs saw that selling indulgences was much more profitable. But the silly old fart founder in his zombified state simply couldn’t ‘get it’ and he had to go. He’d become a real risk and liability, as bloated, probably alcoholic, old farts are to any organisation. just look at Boris Johnson for starters
This is where ‘learning to dance’ comes in handy – Angels tread where Petas fear and all that jazz and thus Peta waas to be seen at Latitude Music festival. Held annually in Suffolk UK
Latitude noted especially for its catering to ‘young families’ and also of a very left leaning disposition of the artists selected to appear there
And there, circulating in the crowd around the cafes and bars ogf the festival are the GreenPeace Sharks.
Bright,good looking mid-20’s females complete with an unstoppable line of ego-stroking banter preying on young parents with their kids in tow- exactly the sort who acutely aware of and thinking of ‘The Children’
Also complete with notepads and tablets capable of setting a Direct Debit form your bank within seconds of your ‘giving them the nod’
I enjoyed my chat with the young woman, who wouldn’t? so I strung her along but eventually she had to ‘draw a close’
I said ‘no‘ She knew I meant it – one of the benefits of Dry januarries is that you realise the utter futility of trying to “Pass Porkies”
She instantly took on the demeanour of the very thing that sank The Titanic – and walked.
Back to Patrick
yes bonny lad, what you’re saying about ‘invisible things‘ and ‘unverifiable data‘ we can all agree with but, many of us have known it for 10, 15 or even 20 years now
So with your, as we’re told, immaculate and long standing environmental concern, why wait so long to write this book?
Good Grief Man, Where The <expletive> Have You Been All This Time?
OK OK OK
Cut it all short, lets draw a close and it is with mention of ‘Crowd Madness‘ – which this thing patently is.
The talk about invisible gases doing Magical Things in impossible-to-reach places and all-powerful supercomputers and Sputniks flying over head is all the stuff of dreams = Hallucination basically. With appeals to what are effectively, All Powerful Gods
So Mr Moore, rather than 10 years late at least in pointing out The Blinding Obvious, why not investigate the cause of those hallucinations and especially why So Many People seem to be simultaneously affected
The very best place Mr Moore, is in the mirror. It is in the number you get when you wrap a tape-measure around your own waist…
What a great refutation! Patrick Moore is FAT!
I think Peta has ‘issues’, so best ignored, sad really as she used to come up with good stuff in the past.
back on post – Patricks book is good, I’m on a second reading.
Fine example of a low blow. …The best place is the mirror…, the only meaningful sentence.
.-
“Peta” is probably a sock puppet for a sad old hacker trying to discredit this site. Like the maggot of an ichneumon wasp inside a caterpillar.
PETA – if you’re so young and beautiful, show us a selfie!
Looks excellent from Patrick Moore – I just bought the paperback on Amazon so I’ll soon find out
Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom: Moore, Patrick: 9798568595502: Amazon.com: Books
“Invisible” is an excellent point.
I had also noticed that the locations of direst catastrophe were never where people live.
Places like – Antarctica (despite its actual cooling), Arctic, big ocean basins, Siberia, Himalayas, Greenland, Sahara desert (despite its actual shrinking from CO2) etc., etc.
Amazon does not offer an ebook version, which is strange. This Amazon review is also troubling: 3.0 out of 5 stars The endorsements of this book lack credibility
Reviewed in the United States on March 23, 2021
Verified Purchase
I found what Mr Moore had to say about about climate change, ocean acidification, GMO’s, nuclear power and other current doomsayer topics to be fascinating reading. In fact I agree with the bulk of his theorizing but it is not what’s between the covers of this book that I find troubling, it is the endorsements he chose for the back cover.
One would think the author would call upon highly respected scientists to give a ringing endorsement to this book but instead we are presented with blurbs from Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee! No matter what your politics are certainly any thinking person would agree that these two men are not leading lights in the sciences. If anything they are more representative of the anti science community.
With no backup from the science community for his beliefs, which fall outside of mainstream climate science, I have to wonder why would anyone pay attention to Patrick Moore?
Other than disagreeing with most liberals, I have seen no evidence that either Trump or Huckabee are anti-science.
Donald Trump said…. “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,”
I’d say that was anti science and I’d add, Olympic level dumb.
Simplest of Simons,
Could you please provide your evidence that the Chinese are not following in the footsteps of the Russians in supporting environmental groups! I’m pretty sure that the US intelligence agencies have been reporting on this for decades, but you probably don’t accept anything they say except for the existence of proof of Russian collusion in 2016!
So tell me Einstein, do you think the Chinese invented the concept of global warming? If not then the rest of what you wrote was nothing more than a distraction and a poor one at that.
It’s not anti-science! It\s anti-Chinese policy!
Do you have a problem reading?
I have a problem with people who think a dumb comment like that is not anti science. Clever people all over the planet are trying to get a handle on what is happening to the planet’s climate and dumb ass Trump lowers the whole thing to a cheap racist rant (which, let’s face it, was a dog whistle to those who follow him who are racists). Either he is clueless about the science, or was deliberately lying to gain political points at the expense of the science. Take your pick, either way it was an attack on science.
A so called scientific profession that has allowed itself to be infiltrated by politics ceases to be a scientific profession from that moment onward, & therefore deserves any ridicule it gets, & where necessary, be attacked!!!
Your political naivete is astounding. No one has said the Chinese *invented* the concept of global warming. That doesn’t keep the Chinese from exploiting divisions in America to make us weaker.
What *is* happening to the planet’s climate? Do *YOU* know? You can’t tell from the GAT because it doesn’t tell you if maximum temps are going up, if minimum temps are going up, or a combination.
Without this data how *do* you tell what is going on?
My guess is that it is *YOU* that are clueless about science because you *assume* something about the climate that isn’t really in evidence!
‘… because you *assume* something about the climate that isn’t really in evidence!
How do you explain this then?
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/annual-with-forcing.pdf
Let me guess, it’s all fake right?
Mark S:
Amazon does offer a Kindle edition. At the Amazon book’s webpage click on
“See All Formats & Editions”. Then choose Buy Kindle ($7.49). They are hawking
their Kindle Unlimited plan so its a bit sneaky…
Downside: my Kindle Paperwhite does not display graphs very well.
Here is a free copy of
Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom
Also read this book The moral case for fossil fuels
Yes, honey, there are monsters under the bed, so don’t you dare look to see for yourself.
Why do we have smog so extreme in cities around the world that the air is unbreathable and people are suffering from respiratory illnesses? Why is that not addressed in this discussion thread? What about water supplies polluted by hazardous waste from farming and mining, and yes, oil pipelines? What about coastal eco systems impacted by the oil industry? Or oil spills from tanker traffic? What about the extinctions of beneficial insects? To say it’s just good old earth carrying on as usual and there’s nothing to worry about is so bloody patronizing. Why does Patrick Moore cherry pick his arguments, and ignore the suffering people are going through? If the science is so convincing why not present some positive solutions? I find these arguments divisive and arrogant. Why not take the middle ground and work towards real solutions?
I’ve asked this of alarmists also: why are the catastrophic problems we hear about other people in other places in an undetermined future time? The claims that a storm in Philadelphia is caused by climate change (to date) are just silly, a conclusion determining a cause.
Never changed a mind or moment. Just blank silence. Adams would say a display of cognitive dissonance, preventing a rational review of their beliefs.
Also, he says, an exercise in futility to argue.
Here is a free copy, please share with you family and friends
Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom
Also read this book The moral case for fossil fuels