WUWT Contest Winner, Professional, 1st Place – ‘The Greta Leap Forward’

I’m pleased to publish our first place contest winner in the professional category,

Topic: Is there really a climate crisis?

Write the best arguments against the theory of man-made catastrophic global warming that would convince your neighbors that there is no climate crisis.

I present “The Greta Leap Forward.” Congratulations to Jim Kelly. Look for more winning essays this week, and runners-up will be published next week. -Anthony


By Jim Kelly,

I used to accept that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) posed a real threat, since that was the consensus. But nervously. Believing something because everyone else believes it can’t be a reliable guide to physical reality.

Eventually my nerves got to me, and I put my stack of physics degrees to work reading IPCC reports. I soon beheld the emperor—not as bundled-up as one expects—and changed my mind.

I don’t presume to change yours. Most people are where I was, figuring they lack the background or the mettle to check the science themselves, and therefore yielding to consensus and authority. To those satisfied with consensus as told by NPR and Hollywood, deeper wisdom may not be accessible. They must wait for Leonardo DiCaprio to find it first.

I can only tell you what changed my mind. And if you’re anxious as I was for a clearer view of the emperor, I can recommend some good vantage points.

This doesn’t read like science

I expected the IPCC’s scientific body to sound scientific. Searching for truth, not pushing an institutional narrative.

Yet Chapter 8 of the First Assessment Report (FAR), “Detection of the Greenhouse Effect in the Observations,” reverses the scientific method. With bottomless climate data, you can find some to confirm any hypothesis. We call this procedure confirmation bias.

Or consider page xxv of the FAR summary for policymakers:

Although scientists are reluctant to give a single best estimate…, it is necessary for the presentation of climate predictions for a choice of best estimate to be made.

I sense a bureaucrat peering over the scientist’s shoulder, demanding edits to his scientific findings to meet the needs of “the presentation.”

The Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) makes qualitative pronouncements more befitting a pulpit than a scientific paper. Like Bible verses, they are helpfully numbered. Here is A.1.5:

Human influence is very likely the main driver of the global retreat of glaciers since the 1990s and the decrease in Arctic sea ice area between 1979–1988 and 2010–2019…. There has been no significant trend in Antarctic sea ice area from 1979 to 2020 due to regionally opposing trends and large internal variability.

The IPCC defines very likely to mean consistent with 90%+ of the models they ran, as if the models had no systematic error. Nevertheless they hedge with oddly selective time ranges and dismiss the Antarctic’s refusal to melt with truisms. Now I sense a lawyer peering over the bureaucrat’s shoulder.

Wait, they can’t predict the climate?

The money shot of any scientific paper is the graph where the authors compare what they predicted to what they observed. I would expect predictions to be narrow enough to be useful and authors to be upfront about their model’s shortcomings.

AR5 presents such a graph in chapter 9, “Evaluation of the Models,” reproduced below because AR6 doesn’t seem to have an update. Temperatures leveled out during this 15-year period, catching the models by surprise.

There isn’t even a consensus among the researchers running these numerical simulations.

Figure 1 – Actual Temperature Observations vs. Climate Models. Figure 1 is redrawn from AR5, WG1 report, page 771.

I wouldn’t expect models to work perfectly. Trying to predict Earth’s complex climate as a function of a single CO2 concentration variable was always a labor of optimism.

But 30 years along, the predictions span a 10x range? And still miss? This isn’t promising-start bad, this is get-out-of-my-office bad, especially given what’s riding on these models. If they can’t get the warming right, all the derivative claims about melting ice caps and fires and mass extinction are just catastrophizing, with no scientific validity. We have a word for scary causal narratives that can’t be scientifically demonstrated: superstition.

Insiders apparently understand that the global models don’t work. But AR5 downplayed the fact, and AR6 seems to hide the report card. If the IPCC were honestly reporting the state of the science, its top headline should say “Scientists cannot predict what makes the Earth warm or cool.” Policymakers and voters need facts, not whitewash, greenwash, or hogwash.

Wait, there’s no plan for fixing the climate?

In the IPCC’s WG3 report Mitigations of Climate Change I expected to read a plan for fixing the climate—a set of achievable steps that will solve the problem.

For example, “Build 3000 nuclear plants” is plan-shaped: specific, focused, feasible, and impactful. We can imagine a future day when the last plant glows to life and we cross climate change off our worry list.

Instead, WG3 approaches it from the opposite direction. It catalogs the global economy—power generation, housing, etc.—and proposes how governments might intervene in each sector. Although it frames its analysis around the UN’s 1.5°C target, it doesn’t recommend particular interventions sufficient to meet it, nor describe any done state when we can declare the crisis over.

Figure 2. The Great Reset roadmap. Table TS.3, AR5 WG3 Technical Summary

In other words, WG3’s report invites maximal disruption in every aspect of life—for parties unnamed to re-engineer where we live, what we eat, how much energy we use, etc., on an ongoing basis. A roadmap for everything but fixing the climate.

In 1958, in the original Great Leap Forward, Mao Zedong shut down China’s privately-owned farms to spur development of industrialized farming collectives. Millions shortly starved. Governments are now shutting down power plants, precipitating energy crises and freezes and blackouts. People die when it gets cold. Is that part of the plan? If the IPCC isn’t defining the plan, who is, and may we see it please?

No trillion-dollar problem is ever solved

In trying to make sense of the reports, it helped me to notice the IPCC’s mission. Not scientific understanding of the climate, but to inform climate interventions:

The objective of the IPCC is to provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies.

The IPCC’s 1988 founding resolution took AGW as fact demanding government action. It was tasked not with figuring out whether that was true, but with studying greenhouse gases and recommending lockdowns governments could impose to slow the spread.

Since then climate alarm has snowballed and threatens far more disruption than rising seas ever did. Governments have launched the biggest corporate welfare program ever, so every tin cup has come banging. Industrialists want subsidies for their solar panel companies, and cheap, reliable fossil-fuel competitors shut down. Anticapitalists see their chance to expropriate the industrialists. SJWs see a lever for more wealth distribution. And they all want normal political processes preempted because Science.

Less disruptive proposals for cooling the Earth are quietly ignored. Climate optimists are squelched and suspected of financial motivations, if you can imagine. Despite the failure of CO2 models, the IPCC doesn’t look for other climate drivers. That’s odd behavior if the powerful are genuinely worried about Earth, but perfectly sensible if they’re counting on the robust growth of climate alarm. Could it be that the only thing in Davos scarier than climate change is climate stability?

FISA court science

If the IPCC leaves out the key graph that would validate (or indict) AGW and instead dials up the “unequivocal” language, they know how equivocal their results are.

Pushing an institutional narrative, denying dissenting views oxygen, even denying the existence of dissenters, is not how science works. It didn’t used to be how journalism works, or NASA, or Twitter. The West is in the throes of a proper Maoist cultural revolution, purging the pluralism and tolerance that liberal societies have long valued.

I understand the reasoning, sort of, behind trying to silence dissenters. If people hear climate change isn’t a problem, it might be harder to solve the problem of climate change. We have a word for circular justifications: theology.

Sooner or later karma catches up to dogma. If we abandon public debate and other adversarial processes for discerning truth, we’ll get more fake news, gratuitous wars, nonsensical public health policies, power shortages—and increasing pressure to pretend not to notice. At a societal level that’s cruel, at a personal level deranging.

Freedom from the cataclysm catechism

I’m happy to be called a denier if that frees me to think for myself. I’m in good company with atmospheric physicists, Nobel laureates, geologists, geophysicists, and other heretics preaching optimism and tolerance.

And in any case, I can’t unsee the emperor’s bare kneecaps. Either scientists understand the climate, or they’re continually finding “it’s even worse than we thought,” but they can’t do both. If you have deniers, you don’t have a consensus. Either you believe climate change threatens humanity’s survival, or you prioritize it with subsidized broadband.

I can’t accept the contradictions any more than Greta Thunberg can. The Man terrorizes her with climate catastrophe without an immediate green leap forward, yet refuses to leap. I share her anger if not her conclusion. We don’t need more action, we need less terrorism. And a leap backward to practical rather than ideological electricity, to institutions that inform rather than manipulate, and to the liberalism that powered the West for centuries.

4.8 55 votes
Article Rating
101 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 7, 2022 2:17 pm

Wow! I don’t have a single formal educational qualification but I’m pretty sure that the world has been warmer in the past than it is at present. Back before we as a species were producing any significant amounts of C02. That’s it. That’s why I didn’t enter the contest.

meiggs
Reply to  Derek Wood
March 7, 2022 4:52 pm

The Man terrorizes her…mo’ man bashing, instead of Mann bashing

Steve fisher
Reply to  Derek Wood
March 7, 2022 5:30 pm

Maybe you moved to the South. Very unscientific.

Steve fisher
Reply to  Derek Wood
March 7, 2022 5:31 pm

Wait I read that wrong. Never mind.

mikewaite
Reply to  Derek Wood
March 8, 2022 1:26 am

your instinct is correct , derek . The Holocene thermal maximum or optimum . About 6-8000 years BP. several degrees higher global temperature than current . Probably local extremes even higher as suggested in a paper on Baltic sea temperature discussed in Notrickszone;
https://notrickszone.com/2022/03/07/new-study-suggests-the-early-holocenes-baltic-sea-temperatures-were-5-11c-warmer-than-present/#comments

beng135
Reply to  mikewaite
March 8, 2022 7:34 am

Agree, warming or not, there’s no need to worry about a slightly warmer climate — on the contrary, warmer has always been beneficial to people and the planet. In addition, CO2 is life and the more the better. The climatistas are obviously scare-mongering to increase their power over the masses. There is ALWAYS some scare being mongered — this one is like manna from heaven, the earth is going to be killed instead of cellphones or power lines or whatever giving you cancer.

Last edited 2 months ago by beng135
Paul Watkinson
March 7, 2022 2:19 pm

Greta title.

Scissor
Reply to  Paul Watkinson
March 7, 2022 3:09 pm

Good stuff.

gDavid
March 7, 2022 2:20 pm

It would be great if several thousands would get this out to social media. It might clear the scales off of their eyes and get their brain cells working.

Dave Fair
Reply to  gDavid
March 7, 2022 2:40 pm

Its difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on not understanding. I’ve been told I’m “Trumpian” because I see the operations of the Deep State. Yeah, and the FBI and DOJ didn’t conspire to spy on candidate, then President Trump. Go get’em, Durham!

David Dibbell
March 7, 2022 2:39 pm

“If the IPCC were honestly reporting the state of the science, its top headline should say “Scientists cannot predict what makes the Earth warm or cool.””

Agree.

The core problem is dishonesty.

Robert B
Reply to  David Dibbell
March 7, 2022 6:04 pm

The only reason to trust them seems to be that you can’t propose anything better, yourself. Of course, saying that you haven’t got a clue is better because at least it’s honest.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Robert B
March 7, 2022 8:52 pm

Not sure I get your point. If I don’t have a provable mechanism for climate change I may as well trust them.
Here is my answer to the IPCC.

I don’t know Wagar is happening with the climate.
Neither do you.
Only one of us is smart and honest enough to admit it.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  David Dibbell
March 8, 2022 4:33 am

“The core problem is dishonesty.”

Agree.

beng135
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 8, 2022 8:31 am

Yes, plus cowardice.

Tom.1
March 7, 2022 2:50 pm

Jim- A very good read, and congratulations on winning. Well deserved! I poo-pooed this contest in the beginning, but I’m glad they didn’t listen to me.

mothcatcher
Reply to  Tom.1
March 8, 2022 12:24 am

Agreed. I like this a lot. I particularly like the way it doesn’t get into the weeds of the specific arguments that sceptics have. It’s an essay, not a science paper, after all. It is a good summary of how such an unbridgeable gulf between alarmists and optimists has been manufactured, and why. It gives few hostages to fortune (though the opposition will doubtless nibble at the edges) and it is clearly designed to make people who have little or no science (that’s most people) think about where and how they are being led. I wonder if some of the less signed-up elements of the media (such as Telegraph in the UK, perhaps) might be persuaded to take it. They publish Matt Ridley, and this is not that much of a further step.

Well done, Jim. A nice achievement.

Fred Hubler
March 7, 2022 2:56 pm

Four years ago, in the midst of another strong El Nino, climate scientists adjusted the temperatures and claimed the models were working perfectly. But now we’re back to another hiatus. I see more adjustments in the future.

Sam Capricci
March 7, 2022 2:59 pm

I agree with the sentiment, I do not believe it CO2 increasing at the minuscule amounts that it is increasing, is making any difference to the world’s temperature. I almost considered entering the layman’s contest but decided I didn’t want to take the time to compile what I’ve learned over the years. I believe this is one of the greatest scams that has been perpetrated on humanity, ever.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Sam Capricci
March 7, 2022 3:55 pm

What about the “I’m a king ‘cos my Dad was, and if you don’t give me some money serf, this guy on the horse with the axe will take care of you” scam? Pretty much the same really, only without the axe.

….. and the phony-socialism is really, really, really good for poor people scam?

I could go on.

AndyHce
Reply to  philincalifornia
March 7, 2022 4:49 pm

Today’s axe is a bit more sophisticated — in general, but it is there, none the less.

Drake
Reply to  AndyHce
March 9, 2022 5:05 pm

Yep, Trudope used the AXE, take all your money.

Like the song says, “when you got nothing, you got nothing to lose”. Most leftist activists GOT NOTHING, so the only thing society can do to make them pay for their rioting and burning is take away their freedom. “Society” through the manipulation of Democrats and George Soros, are seeing to it that “the poor” will pay NO price. It seems that the LEFT knew what they were planning, and started the “no cash bail” push just at the right time.

Trudope showed responsible citizens that he doesn’t even need to take away their freedom, just freeze their money. What a wakeup call.

BTW: Signers of the Declaration of Independence paid a high price forthat action. The were responsible citizens, so had property, professions, etc.

Scissor
Reply to  philincalifornia
March 7, 2022 5:51 pm

Two weeks to flatten the curve.

Derg
Reply to  Scissor
March 7, 2022 6:34 pm

Dems are dropping Covid…it’s a losing issue everywhere but CA. They are riding Putin until November.

Jeff Alberts
March 7, 2022 3:15 pm

Right off the bat, I can’t tell where quoted sources start and end. There’s no differentiation between the narrative and quotes. Bad.

John Pritchard
March 7, 2022 3:33 pm

The world has been warming for the past 12k years since the end of the ice age (thank God because it would be chilly if it hadn`t). Anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in the last century or so are probably making a minor contribution to more recent warming but there are clearly other significant factors at work. Until the IPCC acknowledges this and stops predicting catastrophes on the basis of obviously seriously flawed computer models its work should be dismissed as unscientific scaremongering.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  John Pritchard
March 7, 2022 5:23 pm

It’s gone up and down in the last 12k years, but overall down. If it keeps going down, we’re in a world of hurt, literally.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  John Pritchard
March 8, 2022 11:09 am

For most of those 12,000 years the trend has been down. We were fortunately saved from disaster when the Little Ice Age ended and Sol gave us this pleasant reprieve from cooling. Trying to assess “climate change” at anything other than geological time scales has been the main source of failure.

Steve Case
March 7, 2022 3:39 pm

Some quotes that stood out:
___________________________________________________________

We have a word for scary causal narratives that can’t be scientifically demonstrated: superstition.

Policymakers and voters need facts, not whitewash, greenwash, or hogwash.

In other words, WG3’s report invites maximal disruption in every aspect of life—for parties unnamed to re-engineer where we live, what we eat, how much energy we use, etc., on an ongoing basis. A roadmap for everything but fixing the climate
____________________________________________________________

Oddly, “Propaganda” was not mentioned, and “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” is all of that. Although, superstition whitewash greenwash & hogwash was pretty good.

First and foremost, the notion that carbon dioxide is a problem should be thoroughly trashed.

“A roadmap for everything but fixing the climate” implies that the climate needs to be fixed. IT DOES NOT! Over the years, I’ve posted more than a few times, “Quit buying into the bullshit by referring to climate change as “The Problem” and suggesting solutions.

I look forward to better efforts.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Steve Case
March 8, 2022 11:15 am

First and foremost, the notion that carbon dioxide is a problem should be thoroughly trashed.

That cannot be emphasized enough. “The problem” is that we have people who take ANY of the propaganda seriously. There is no room for lukewarmers. The entire “climate change” narrative is wrong, from beginning to end … and it’s all equivocation. Too many people incorrectly reason that; “well, some of it must be true,” so they sit on the fence.

RickWill
March 7, 2022 3:50 pm

I have not seen the other entries but this is a compelling analysis of the overhyping and downright dishonesty – well done.

If there was such as thing as settled science, the climate needs to be informed because it is not dancing to the tune of the climate models.

Robert Alfred Taylor
March 7, 2022 3:52 pm

Nobel laureates link broken, and yields “This video isn’t available anymore”

March 7, 2022 5:19 pm

“But 30 years along, the predictions span a 10x range? And still miss? This isn’t promising-start bad, this is get-out-of-my-office bad”

Climate models do not claim to predict weather. They are not initialised to do so. They are in fact weather forecasting programs operating beyond their range, so the weather they predict is weather that could happen, but there is no claim that it will. It is however, influenced by forcings in the same way as the weather that actually happens, and so the underlying climate is predicted, even though the weather doesn’t match.

ENSO cycles are, for this purpose, weather. GCMs produce them realistically and at about the right frequency, but not at the same times as Earth. We actually at present have no way of forecasting ENSO years ahead, and GCMs can’t work miracles. So what happens is that models do not synchronise with each other, nor with Earth. But they still get the climate trend right. The Pause did not last.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 7, 2022 5:26 pm

Weather predicting programs largely don’t work either. So let’s take something that doesn’t work well, and use it for a different purpose, something that can’t be predicted (according to the IPCC). Wonderful.

Charles Rotter(@jeeztheadmin)
Admin
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 7, 2022 5:53 pm

So. Climate Models will be considered skillful if:

Y=aX+b

Climate Trend = c

and a and c are both positive.

Reply to  Charles Rotter
March 7, 2022 6:31 pm

The aim is to get the long term trend right. That is climate. There is no expectation that the trend will match on a decade scale. That is too influenced by events that are not synchronised.

Derg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 7, 2022 6:35 pm

And yet CO2 climbs

ghl
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 7, 2022 11:03 pm

Hi Nick
Yet what is the future but one decade after another? You are happy to get this first one wrong, but trust the average of the eighth, nineth and tenth ones?

Are you familiar with the code of any models? They are iterative, are they not? Do they contain bounding statements? Say IF T(var) >=T(limit) THEN T(var)= xxxx.
Because if they do then they are not models, they are digital stories, encoded assertions.

All you need is one static model of instantaneous values, of an atmospheric column over a specified terrain. Run it for different global positions, seasons, whatever is relevant. Adjust CO2 concentration as desired. Easily tested against weather balloon data, etc. That would be persuasive. Of course missing hot spots would weaken your case.
Or has this been done?

Reply to  ghl
March 8, 2022 12:09 am

“Are you familiar with the code of any models?”
My career was in CFD, so yes, I am familiar with the main fluid flow elements. And no, they don’t have bounding statements. I say that with confidence, because I know they can’t work. CFD is based on the conservation of mass, momentum and energy. Anything that interferes with that wrecks the program. Without correct physics, the program will fall in a heap.

“Or has this been done?”
Yes. What you describe is basically numerical weather forecasting. Many people are looking at how to extend that to a decadal scale. But it hasn’t really succeeded yet.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 9, 2022 3:49 am

” And no, they don’t have bounding statements”

Willis E. found this in one of the models:

C**** safety valve to ensure that melt ponds eventually disappear (Ti<-10)
     if (Ti1 .lt.-10.) pond_melt(i,j)=0. ! refreeze  

and this:
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
!@sum tcheck checks for reasonable temperatures                         
!@auth  Ye Cheng/G. Hartke                                              
!@ver   1.0                                                             
c ———————————————————————-
c This routine makes sure that the temperature remains within           
c  reasonable bounds during the initialization process. (Sometimes the  
c  the computed temperature iterated out in left field someplace,       
c  *way* outside any reasonable range.) This routine keeps the temp     
c  between the maximum and minimum of the boundary temperatures.        
c ———————————————————————-
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

and this:

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
c ucheck makes sure that the winds remain within reasonable
c bounds during the initialization process. (Sometimes the computed
c wind speed iterated out in left field someplace, *way* outside
c any reasonable range.) Tests and corrects both direction and
c magnitude of the wind rotation with altitude. Tests the total
c wind speed via comparison to similarity theory. Note that it
c works from the top down so that it can assume that at level (i),
c level (i+1) displays reasonable behavior.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

These are “bounding statements”. He found more.

Did you *really* expect anyone to take your word for this?

If you have to artificially bound the physics factors in the model then the physics aren’t correct.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 7, 2022 5:54 pm

It is however, influenced by forcings in the same way as the weather that actually happens,…” (my underline)

Nowhere in evidence.

Steve B
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 7, 2022 11:05 pm

Nick is taking courses in “Spin” again

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Steve B
March 8, 2022 12:50 am

I think that if we could harness the Stokes spin with some kind of turbine, we’d get true renewable energy.

Mark BLR
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 8, 2022 3:26 am

ENSO cycles are, for this purpose, weather. GCMs produce them realistically and at about the right frequency, but not at the same times as Earth.

Go to the NCAR/UCAR CMIP6 “CMAT 1.0 CMIP6 Repository” webpage.
[ URL : https://webext.cgd.ucar.edu/Multi-Case/CMAT/CMATv1_CMIP6/index.html ]

Why choose ENSO as an example when its line on the “Model Performance Summary” graphic is considerably more “blue and green” than many of the other “red and orange” ones ?

From AR6 (the WG1 report from last September), section TS.1.2.2, “Climate Model Performance”, page TS-17 :

CMIP6 models are able to reproduce most aspects of the spatial structure and variance of the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and Indian Ocean Basin and Dipole modes of variability (medium confidence). However, despite a slight improvement in CMIP6, some underlying processes are still poorly represented.

Your summary “mostly” includes the sentiment expressed in the first sentence of my extract.

It completely ignores the “underlying” reservations expressed in the second one.

– – – – –

But they still get the climate trend right.

When it comes to selecting among “Historical model runs”, any that don’t get “the climate trend” (from 1850/1880 to 2014) at least approximately “right” are discarded as being “physically unrealistic”.

Obviously the resulting “ensemble mean” will “get the climate trend right” !

DrEd
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 8, 2022 5:59 am

GIGO. We’re getting a LOT of garbage out from climate models — except for the Russian model. You STILL can’t explain the MWP when CO2 wasn’t an issue, can you?

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 9, 2022 8:41 am

Nick S

“Climate models do not claim to predict weather.”

Au contraire.

They claim that storms will get stronger, rains will be heavier, droughts will be drier, and winters will be warmer. They claim hurricanes will be stronger, and more frequent. They claim heat waves will be hotter and longer and more frequent, reducing crop yields. All of that is “weather”.

If it was the ’70’s cooling scare, a similar set of outputs would appear:

They would claim that storms will get stronger due to greater delta T between regions, rains will be heavier as the downside temperatures will be lower causing more condensation, droughts will be drier due to lower ambient water vapour concentrations, and winters will be colder and longer resulting in cooler summers, reducing crop yields. They would claim hurricanes will be stronger, again due to higher delta T and more frequent due to temperature differentials, as above. They would claim heat waves will be less frequent and briefer.

All that is “weather” not “climate”.

Think about the cooling from 1940 to 1977. What was the driver of that significant climatic trend? (37 years = climate). I read that after being challenged about it, modelers came up with the explanation that the cooling was caused by sulphate particles in the atmosphere from increased coal combustion. It was a pathetically inadequate explanation. It was only sustainable as an argument by ascribing an inordinately high multiplier to cooling by atmospheric particles. No one believed it. It was just Grade A ass-covering. The cooling was natural and overcame all that additional CO2.

“It is however, influenced by forcings in the same way as the weather that actually happens, and so the underlying climate is predicted, even though the weather doesn’t match.”

You have this backwards. There is no “underlying climate”. Quite the opposite. Climate has “underlying weather”. Climate is defined as the average of weather. The weather of the past 30 years defines the climate of the past 30 years. The weather of the next 30 years will define the climate of the next 30 years. The climate of the past 30 years does not “underlie” the weather of the next 30 years.

Do you need proof? The climate of 1880-1910 did not shape the weather of 1910-1940, did it! The climate of 1910-1940 did not predict the weather (hence the climate) of 1940-1977. The climate of 1977-2007 is doing a piss-poor job of predicting the weather of 2007-2037.

And the CO2 concentration is predicting nothing except the trend (and values) in the magnitude of the data adjustments NASA makes to the raw data to create the appearance of a correlation that does not exist.

“GCMs produce them realistically and at about the right frequency…”

Well, yeah! With 140 tunable parameters and 20-20 hindsight I can also predict the past with my HP calculator. What has proven to be impossible is to make a correct prediction of the global temperature trend based on the CO2 concentration. The world has cooled 0.73 C since 2016, and the volcanic eruptions of 2021-2022 have baked in another ~0.3 through 2025. That is awfully close to the 1.0 increase since ~1850.

Where does that leave modelers and CO2? In the lurch, where they belong.

The Old Farmer’s Almanac has been predicting the weather 18 months in advance since the 18th Century and gets it right 85% of the time. GCM programmers can only dream of such an achievement. The six-month regional weather predictions of Environment Canada are wrong 85% of the time, presumably because they use the same GCM’s and political biases as the IPCC. There is no other scientific explanation.

We should halt public spending on the mental sieves called GCM’s and invest it in battery & supercapacitor research. At least they hold water.

Macha
Reply to  Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
March 9, 2022 1:18 pm

Crispin…well said. Weather defines climate…. which i find is historical by definition.

whatlanguageisthis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 9, 2022 11:33 am

so the weather they predict is weather that could happen, but there is no claim that it will.

I have to disagree with this statement. CA is banning small engines. The US Federal government is shutting down pipelines and refusing drilling leases. Car manufacturers are making poor design choices to improve fleet averages. All based on the outputs of these models. If no one is claiming these model outputs are the future, why such an outsized response to them?

But they still get the climate trend right.

Based on the include chart from AR5, the predicted underlying climate is up to 5 deg C warming between 1998 and 2012. Since this is closed data set, we know it was wrong. There were three potential peaks in those predictions, I’ll estimate them at 1.8, 2.5 and 5 C. That is 3.6x, 5x, and 10x the actual result of 0.5 C. I can’t think of any job where that level of missed estimates would still qualify the person as an expert in the field. The only thing they got right was it was a positive trend.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 9, 2022 12:31 pm

Nick
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
It always was and it always will be. The way climate behaves is unpredictable; the IPCC said this back in the days when it was still being moderately honest. This simple fact hasn’t altered.
And there is no point in obfuscating by saying that models do not claim to predict weather. Climate is the summation of the weather in a given region. The climate in Iceland is not the climate in Burgundy or Nigeria or Arizona. A broad brush approach divides the planet into zones as much for broadscale convenience as anything else.
We simply do not know what causes climate optima or ice ages, big or little. To suggest that climate models are capable of telling us anything except the prejudices of the modellers is a fallacy. The models may on occasion get the trend right but to think that they tell us anything useful or that their output hasn’t been manipulated to produce a specific desired result (just how many times can a temperature reading be adjusted before it becomes a lie? Answer: Once!) is well into “I have a bridge you might like” territory.
This is not ‘science’, Nick, it’s environmental activism. The entire ‘project’ is geared to eliminating the use of fossil fuels, following Strong’s notorious belief: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
No, it bloody well isn’t!

Meisha
March 7, 2022 5:33 pm

While not directly relevant to the content of the article, it would be good to know Jim Kelly’s scientific credentials — he mentions physics degrees — and experience in climate science (if any). Since this essay is in the “professional” category, I think that author info is relevant. No implied criticism here, just curiosity.

Last edited 2 months ago by Meisha
Rob_Dawg
March 7, 2022 5:34 pm

A model that cannot hind cast cannot forecast.

Drake
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
March 9, 2022 5:10 pm

Yep! And I would like to see one of their models hind cast the MWP and the LIA.

If they can’t do that, then they are garbage.

And, of course, they can’t.

Peta of Newark
March 7, 2022 5:56 pm

A nice succinct way of calling out grotesque pieces of bloated, long-winded and contrived verbal diarrhoea as exactly what such things always are =
Socialist Manifestos

Computers are the near perfect weapons against such things…
i.e. Use the/a/any computer to do a search for the numbers/occurrences of Weasel Words.
and it don’t even need to be in any way a ‘super‘ computer either

Mike Maguire
March 7, 2022 6:01 pm

Pretty EXTREME article if you ask me.

EXTREMELY well written and makes many EXTREMELY profound points!

Great pick!

Michael Elliott
Reply to  Mike Maguire
March 7, 2022 6:13 pm

A very good article, but I prefer the earlier one by David Coe in WUWT.

“”Climate change – A emergy or not””.

It clearly shows that CO2 is just a bit player.

But the IPCC cannot shut down water vapour, so they needed CO2..

Michael VK5ELL

Derg
Reply to  Michael Elliott
March 7, 2022 6:38 pm

They need the money too.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Michael Elliott
March 8, 2022 8:44 am

”Climate change – A emergy or not””

Umm, what?

March 7, 2022 6:22 pm

There are various places around the world that are exceeding even the maximum rate shown in that graph of the IPCC models. The Sea of Marmara is off the right hand side of the graph. Lake Michigan is on the edge.

Something is causing such warming and it can’t be CO2. Why is no-one trying to find out what?

JF

Steve Case
Reply to  Julian Flood
March 7, 2022 7:35 pm

 Lake Michigan is on the edge.
_______________________

WTF ! ! ! By that you mean exactly what?

Old Man Winter
March 7, 2022 6:43 pm

In trying to make sense of the reports, it helped me to notice the IPCC’s mission. Not scientific understanding of the climate, but to inform climate interventions:
The objective of the IPCC is to provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies.
The IPCC’s 1988 founding resolution took AGW as fact demanding government action. It was tasked not with figuring out whether that was true, but with studying greenhouse gases and recommending lockdowns governments could impose to slow the spread.

As you sadly discovered, the IPCC, like the UN, is really political not
scientific, as the conclusion has been reached before any research has
been done. As such, I wouldn’t call anything they do studying, but rather
formulating propaganda. Any research that has been done is used for this
purpose and the final report is actually approved by politicians/economists,
not the scientists themselves. When discussing climate change with
someone with a technical background, I think it’s important for them to
realize it’s political B as in B, S as in S!!!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Old Man Winter
March 8, 2022 4:48 am

Excellent comment. Right on the money.

jorgekafkazar
March 7, 2022 6:45 pm

O, for some quote marks around . . . er . . . quotes.

Derg
March 7, 2022 6:46 pm

The IPCC writes like word salad Bob:

“ Although scientists are reluctant to give a single best estimate…, it is necessary for the presentation of climate predictions for a choice of best estimate to be made.”

Seriously, if this is their sentence, then climate scientists should be more clear. For settled science this paragraph is an admission that they don’t know.

Last edited 2 months ago by Derg
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Derg
March 8, 2022 4:49 am

They don’t know. They have CONfidence levels.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 8, 2022 2:52 pm

But I, for one, have little confidence in their levels of confidence, considering how little actual evidence they have to reinforce that confidence. I have more confidence in the ‘predictions’ of Nostradamus.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 9, 2022 2:02 am

Yes, that’s why I put the “CON” in confidence levels. 🙂

A G Foster
March 7, 2022 7:26 pm

Well written!

u.k.(us)
March 7, 2022 8:57 pm

Couldn’t resist.

“There’s no such thing as bad weather, only inappropriate clothing.”– Sir Ranulph Fiennes

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  u.k.(us)
March 8, 2022 8:48 am

I’m going where the sun keeps shinin’
Through the pouring rain
Going where the weather suits my clothes

h/r Harry Nilsson

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  u.k.(us)
March 9, 2022 9:03 am

Sir Randolf may have cited it, but it is a Norwegian traditional saying.

March 7, 2022 9:03 pm

An excellent well structured and argued essay by Jim Kelly, congratulations!

Sooner or later karma catches up to dogma. If we abandon public debate and other adversarial processes for discerning truth, we’ll get more fake news, gratuitous wars, nonsensical public health policies, power shortages—and increasing pressure to pretend not to notice…

That was scarily prophetic!

March 7, 2022 9:25 pm

“Scientists cannot predict what makes the Earth warm or cool.”
That statement makes no sense. Scientists claim to know what Earth warm or cool, they say it is manmade CO2.
What they have showed no skill in predicting is the actual temperatures.

The IPCC’s 1988 founding resolution took AGW as fact demanding government action. It was tasked not with figuring out whether that was true,
They have never promote studying natural climate change to figure out what causes it or how much it controlled changing temperatures. There are no obscene profits that can come from understanding natural climate change causes, actually, that would destroy their obscene schemes to control something they do not try to understand.

Could it be that the only thing in Davos scarier than climate change is climate stability?
Yes, that would destroy their obscene schemes for power and money.

Richard Hill
March 8, 2022 1:25 am

Firstly, congratulations to Jim for winning, a lot of thought has clearly gone into his essay.

Playing devils advocate though. Just because there’s conflicting evidence, seemingly duff models, why should I not be worried?
For propaganda to succeed with the masses the underlying message must be extremely simple. In this case ‘it’s physics, CO2 is bad, CO2 is causing runaway warming’. The opposing message must be equally simple, it must directly challenge the lie. Again, and again, and again. If there’s one argument that trumps all the others, then stick to it. Pointing out the many areas where the IPCC reports contradict themselves doesn’t convince the unaware, If I hadn’t done the hard yards, I’d still be left wondering which version is true.

That’s the challenge facing us, demonstrating to the layperson that additional warming from CO2 is insignificant and that our efforts should be directed at adapting to change. The subject is 99% politics now, and that is all about convincing the masses.

Steve Case
Reply to  Richard Hill
March 8, 2022 2:07 am

That’s the challenge facing us, demonstrating to the layperson that additional warming from CO2 is insignificant and that our efforts should be directed at adapting to change. The subject is 99% politics now, and that is all about convincing the masses
__________________________________________________________

Exactly, and the reason I wrote:

First and foremost, the notion that carbon dioxide is a problem should be thoroughly trashed.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Hill
March 8, 2022 4:54 am

“That’s the challenge facing us, demonstrating to the layperson that additional warming from CO2 is insignificant”

The thermometer will be our guide.

The Earth is currently cooling by about 0.7C since the 2016 highpoint.

CO2 is Up, but Temperatures are Down.

What does the IPCC and other alarmists have to say about this? Answer: Nothing.

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 8, 2022 10:12 am

What does the IPCC and other alarmists have to say about this? Answer: Nothing.”
Actually I think you know what they have to say Tom. For the stage we are in the ENSO cycle we are warm. We will of course not not be “warmest” (unless things are really hotting up) till we reach the peak of the next El Nino. But… you knew that.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
March 9, 2022 2:07 am

Simon, it appears you think the ENSO cycle has something to do with the Earth’s temperatures. You didn’t mention CO2.

It seems the Earth’s climate is a little more complicated than first thought. And it is. ENSO has its place. Other things have their place. CO2 is just one of many factors involved.

b.nice
Reply to  Simon
March 9, 2022 3:06 am

Yep, its al about ENSO, and the Sun that drives it.

Three big El Ninos have given us the slight warming since 1979, now its La Nina’s turn.

CO2 is a non-player. Great to see you finally getting there. ! 🙂

Rod Evans
March 8, 2022 1:46 am

Greta love hath no Mann, I will leave it at that use your own version.
A great essay and hopefully the beginning of a tradition, that will inspire others long into the future.

Tom Abbott
March 8, 2022 4:15 am

From the article: “If they can’t get the warming right, all the derivative claims about melting ice caps and fires and mass extinction are just catastrophizing, with no scientific validity.”

That’s exactly right.

The alarmists just assume the warming and then extrapolate from there.

Warming has turned to cooling recently with temperatures cooling about 0.7C below the 2016 highpoint. Yet, alarmist continue to assume a continuous warming far into the future, and base their projections on these assumptions and present them as established facts. But they can’t even get the warming/cooling right.

Burl Henry
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 8, 2022 7:46 am

Tom Abbott:

The 2016 “high point” was a temporary temperature spike due to an El Nino.

You have to ignore it, when considering actual temperature trends.

.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Burl Henry
March 9, 2022 2:14 am

The Keepers of the Data don’t ignore 2016 when they figure their temperature trend.

What value would you use for 2016?

Should we ignore the El Nino spike of 1998, too?

Burl Henry
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 9, 2022 7:02 am

Tom Abbott:

For 2016, I would use the 2014 value, right before temperatures began to rise (0.62 deg. C., per Hadcrut5).

And, yes, also the El Nino spike of 1998 (and all other temporary increases in temperature that are superimposed upon the temperature trend)).

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 9, 2022 9:07 am

Correct Tom A

If they can’t even get the sign right, how much less can they get the magnitude.

Climate change = ±x (Eq 1)

Where ± = + or – and x is unknown.

Tom Abbott
March 8, 2022 4:27 am

From the article: “Despite the failure of CO2 models, the IPCC doesn’t look for other climate drivers. That’s odd behavior if the powerful are genuinely worried about Earth, but perfectly sensible if they’re counting on the robust growth of climate alarm. Could it be that the only thing in Davos scarier than climate change is climate stability?”

Climate stability is definitely scarier to the Elites. Just think how stupid they are going to look if we have a decade or two of cooling.

The Elites have put all their bets on demonizing CO2, so they lose their bets if CO2 turns out to be benign.

CO2 is increasing and Temperatures are cooling. The Elites want to pretend this is not happening. They are afraid of a cooling trend. And rightfully so, since it goes completely against their climate change scaremongering narrative.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 8, 2022 3:05 pm

This planet has proven to be hostile to green plants by sequestering CO2 faster than it can reenter the atmosphere. I look at man’s small contribution to replenishing CO2 levels to a healthier level as a bonus. Any small contribution it might also provide to warming can’t be bad either.

MJB
March 8, 2022 5:48 am

The whole piece was an excellent read, with just enough narrative to tie it all together and adequate references to support the claims, but the closing paragraph, and particularly the closing sentence, really hits it home.

Well done Jim Kelly, and a sincere thanks to Anthony et al for hosting this contest. I look forward to reading the other essays.

Mairon62
March 8, 2022 5:51 am

Thanks for this essay. It reminded me of my own proud sceptic heritage! For example; how could you describe a phenomena as “global” when what was observed in Antarctica was at/or near record high sea ice, while the Arctic sea was the opposite; at/or near record lows? If co2 is a distributed gas, then why aren’t the claimed effects distributed? They are not even curious, only rationalizing. I always thought this was good evidence for a mechanical explanation like Milankovitch forcing.

Gordon A. Dressler
March 8, 2022 7:57 am

Figure 1 in the above article pretty much sums up all one needs to know, as in:

a) Why does anyone—anyone at all—still assign any scientific credibility to the IPCC and its predictions?

b) Why does the UN continue funding the IPCC, excluding the reason of politics?

c) Why haven’t the world’s “top scientists” looked that graph (or its equivalent) and expressed, ahem, consensus outrage over such poor mismatch of model predictions to solid observational data?

Last edited 2 months ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
March 9, 2022 12:12 pm

Mea culpa . . . in my last sentence of the above post I should have used the phrase “such a large mismatch” instead of “such a poor mismatch”.

Shytot
March 8, 2022 8:55 am

Nice essay, easy to read without being overlong and pointing out the basic issues that only frauds or the deluded can ignore.

I was recently looking at the same IPCC link to remember what their (one-sided) purpose was and then onto how, even though the science is settled and 97% of climate scientists agreed, they could only be 95% certain that humans were the main cause.

Aside from the fact that no science was used in the result, it’s funny to see that in line with the main words used over and over again – “could” and “might” – and even though there is an emergency / a crisis / no more time they can still only be 95% confident in their own opinions.

This essay (and similar) needs to be shared right accross the internet.

Janice Moore
March 8, 2022 10:43 am

Bravo, Mr. Kelly, bravo!

Well-written, superlatively informative, article. Do write MORE of them.

I don’t know why you have not appeared here to reply to any of the accolades, criticisms (some not worthy of being dignified with a response) and, moreover, some good questions/ observations, but (if WUWT did not forbid it) please do.

(And, if WUWT did prevent you from responding, please, at least tell us that fact.)

Don’t be shy. You are among (mostly) friends 🙂 .

Looking forward to hearing from you…

Last edited 2 months ago by Janice Moore
saveenergy
March 8, 2022 11:04 am

“I can’t unsee the emperor’s bare kneecaps.”

I’ve seen his bum …
… not a pretty sight !!!

rudy de haas(@rudydehaas)
March 8, 2022 12:02 pm

Firstly, congratulations to Jim for winning. Good for you!

However.. I’m a bit bitter because I did not win – and because this strikes me as something that doesn’t meet the stated goal:

Write the best arguments against the theory of man-made catastrophic global warming that would convince your neighbors that there is no climate crisis.”

There are no arguments here against the theory of man made catastrophic global warming. There are only arguments that say proponents of this belief cannot be trusted and both are, and have been, frequently wrong.

Arguing that you don’t see the wolf and that the boy was wrong before does not prove anything about the existence of otherwise of a wolf.

p.s. if you think I’m just being a poor loser check out my entry – a simplified version of this minus the commentary: https://winface.com/node/13

Last edited 2 months ago by Paul Murphy
Burl Henry
March 8, 2022 12:26 pm

A well written article, but nothing in it that would convince anyone that there is NO climate crisis, as was the criteria. Temperatures are still climbing, and the reason for this was not addressed.

Thomas Burk
March 8, 2022 9:58 pm

What an absolutely beautiful essay! It so deserves the award, and its many thoughtful points deserve praise and careful study. Bravo!

Jim
March 10, 2022 7:57 am

A little bit of science would be nice.

TBT Green
March 10, 2022 3:37 pm

The author opens his essay with a mention of his “stacks of physics degrees.” That (oddly phrased and imprecise statement) led me to expect a science-based argument against Climate Change hysteria, a position I happen to agree with.

Instead, this essay makes the mistake of playing the game that we skeptics are currently losing badly in the court of public opinion. The game of treating Climate Change as a “Moral Issue.”

Climate Change is, and should be, solely a scientific issue. Talking about the motivations of CAGW advocates, of politicians, of celebrities won’t convince anyone. 1) It is speculation. 2) It is opinion. 3) It exposes the biases of the debaters, and gives credence to the habit, on both sides, of ad hominem attacks, which are not logically persuasive.

I can see why this essay was chosen as the winner, since it pretends to treat a scientific issue scientifically. Its real appeal to a large cohort of our “side” is its “call the other side communists” tactic. That tactic has proven wildly unsuccessful for us skeptics, yet it plays so well in America’s ridiculous–but never-ending–Culture Wars.

If we allow Climate Change to be an argument based on opinion, motivation, philosophy–anything other than hard science–no side can ever win. That is how opinion works. There is no objective truth to arrive at.

By contrast, the 2nd Place essay is a solid example of a rigorous, persuasive, lay-person-readable argument against Climate hysteria. It is the kind of essay that doesn’t disqualify itself from serious consideration by relying on distracting political diatribes.

The 2nd place essay demonstrates the type of science-based, data-derived argumentation that will eventually change minds.

JKelly
Reply to  TBT Green
March 11, 2022 4:21 pm

I would like to believe that people can eventually be persuaded away from a hockey stick graph by another graph, but hardly anyone has the fortitude to dig into the data sources, the methodologies, the criticisms, and the counterarguments to form their own opinions. Nearly everyone defers to whoever seems to represent the consensus. From an evolutionary standpoint, that’s probably a more adaptive behavior.

Better to point to what the alarmists themselves are saying. Even dedicated climate activists seem to have no idea what’s in the IPCC reports beyond the clickbaity policymakers’ summary. I was shocked to discover what thin gruel it really is. Moreover what’s written in the reports is observable fact in a way the global temperature anomaly is not. I don’t know the authors’ motivations, but they’ve provided us a good bit of evidence something other than science is going on.

“Where’s the science?” is a curious criticism I don’t quite understand. Science is a methodology. The IPCC reports can’t justify AGW against the null hypothesis of natural climate variability, so case dismissed. That’s all that need be said about that.

But I think the public struggles with hypothesis generation. They see every institution screaming about the climate crisis, and they accept the stated narrative that the earth is in peril, batallions of trustworthy scientists are trying to warn us, and the media are helping them spread the word. What but relentless, inconvenient truth could possibly create such unanimity about the climate crisis over multiple decades? Without some alternate narrative about what’s really going on, denialism sounds like an absurd conspiracy theory.

I wouldn’t suggest there’s a single, simple alternate narrative. Quite the reverse: since governments have offered the world’s energy generation and thereby the whole global economy up for grabs, many diverse interests are at work to influence the outcome. Elon Musk doesn’t strike me as a communist, but the Extinction Rebellion people do. And I don’t think it’s ascribing motivations unfairly to point out there’s money at stake. Bernie Sanders was bidding $16 trillion of taxpayer money to secure the White House for himself. Obviously someone, or a great many someones, will be trying to position themselves on the receiving end.

I don’t have the answers. But let’s read the IPCC reports and give some of the threads a tug.

TBT Green
Reply to  JKelly
March 15, 2022 4:55 pm

JKelly:

Thank you for the thoughtful response. I hope my comment didn’t imply that your essay is devoid of science. It is obviously informed by data, and explains very well several of the major points where CAGW fails when judged according to basic standards of scientific research.

I also agree with you that there are many agendas at work to maintain the false public narrative of CAGW. (Note: I am only an occasional visitor to this website because of the frustration I feel seeing valuable, rigorous, persuasive scientific resource material–not easily available elsewhere–getting lost in the endless political and religious distractions. So I have no idea whether your contributions here tend to be science-based, or “politics/public opinion/bureaucrat-bashing etc.”) However, I feel that results are what matter.

If we skeptics engage in any way other than just sticking to the science, it validates whatever type of rhetoric is being used. Granted, the temptation is great, and a lot of people on our side are clearly on our side ONLY for non-scientific reasons (opposing the idea of CAGW happens to fit their politics). But that is NOT the right reason to be on the right side. More importantly, those kinds of engagement are simply not working. Talking about motivation accomplishes nothing. It just becomes name-calling. Communists can be right about science. Capitalists can be right about science. But in neither case does personal philosophy have anything to do with being right.

There ARE valid arguments that fall outside the “hard” sciences. In the case of economics, Bjorn Lomborg lays out mathematically sound, data-driven evidence against CAGW hysteria that doesn’t engage in ad hominem criticism of those who hold opposing views. If people can be persuaded to read his work, or view the film made about him (“Cool It”), they often take that first step towards questioning their assumptions. Yes, it is at least partially because his politics and values are more aligned with those of their “side.” But more importantly, it is because his argument is based on reason, logic and basic math.

When I discuss the subject of CAGW, I have to spend too much time explaining why it doesn’t matter that my “side” includes so many creationists and right-wind political figures. That fact pre-disposes scientifically literate people to dismiss skepticism, and causes scientifically ILliterate people to avoid even engaging in the discussion.

In other words, it isn’t Bernie Sanders’ plans for spending trillions of dollars that makes him wrong about climate change. The misinformed who follow him view him as trying to do the right thing. I feel certain HE views himself as trying to do the right thing. (As an aside: Do you really think he doesn’t believe in CAGW and advocates only for money and power? I certainly don’t. He doesn’t hate America. Dislike his politics all you want. But demonizing the opposition is the eternal mistake of social discourse.) But here’s the point: this whole paragraph is all speculative, unprovable distraction. More importantly it does nothing to combat CAGW thinking. Sanders isn’t wrong about climate change because he is a socialist, or left handed or has gray hair. He is wrong about Climate Change because he is misinformed about the science. Until he is convinced to reconsider what he “knows,” no amount of criticism from opinion writers, church goers, or political pundits is going to be persuasive.

Ditto for a sizable portion of the CAGW crowd, who don’t have some hidden communist agenda, but rather feel righteous because they believe they are on the side of good rallied against evil.

Science is the only thing that can win in the end. It obviously won’t be quick or easy. But it continues to be a fact that “us vs. them” is hurting us more than it hurts them.

Thank you again for your willingness to engage in civil discourse in the interest of ending CAGW alarmism.

JOHN CHISM(@johchi7)
March 11, 2022 3:17 pm

I understand the reasoning, sort of, behind trying to silence dissenters. If people hear climate change isn’t a problem, it might be harder to solve the problem of climate change. We have a word for circular justifications: theology.”

Merriam Webster’s definition of semantics 3b “: the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or duel meanings”

If Semantics doesn’t fit the term “Climate Change” nothing does.

Let’s be honest, in general the global population is ignorant of earth’s history of climate changes as has been studied to reconstruct it. Governments pushed the political propaganda through media to their populations on Catastrophic Climate Changes blaming their personal uses of fossil fuels emissions of carbon dioxide for Anthropogenic Global Warming that morphed to Climate Change when Global Warming failed to move the propaganda to achieve the desired effect. Only to a small fraction of the global population has “climate change” become their – “theology” – religion as true believers of the propaganda, that climate changes only started during the “Industrial Revolution” with no understanding of what the world went through before then. The vast majority are ignorant, fewer know that this propaganda even exists or is debated and the rest don’t care until it effects them in their cost of living by what their governments have done.

This Holocene Interglacial we live in – is for humans – the best climate we could wished for of 15C and argue semantics of +/- 1C of climate changes. When the bigger picture of earth’s climate is Ice House temperatures of around 10C and Hot House temperatures of around 22C that lasts millions of years each. If the REAL climate change occurred outside the boundaries of this 12,000 years pause 15C Holocene Interglacial to plunge earth into the Glacial Ice House we are still in, the human population would drop to millions – instead of the billions we are now – without the Fossil Fuels to sustain the living conditions most are living in. If we take the studies of earth’s past climate history as we understand it, 17C would be the mean, not the 15C we now live in in this Holocene Interglacial. To reach above 17C global average is more unlikely to go towards a Hot House climate. The real question is Solar Intensity Changes that will determine what the future looks like. Either way, every energy source is needed if humans are going to survive in numbers.

%d bloggers like this: