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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
“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.
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.
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. ! 🙂
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.
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.
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.
.
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?
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)).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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”.
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.
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…
“I can’t unsee the emperor’s bare kneecaps.”
I’ve seen his bum …
… not a pretty sight !!!
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
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.
What an absolutely beautiful essay! It so deserves the award, and its many thoughtful points deserve praise and careful study. Bravo!
A little bit of science would be nice.
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.
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.
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.
“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.