Thanks, Colorado Springs Gazette, for Warning of the Dangers of “Climate Change Catastrophism”

From ClimateREALISM

By Linnea Lueken

The editorial board of the Colorado Springs Gazette published an article describing the harm being caused by “climate change catastrophism,” the constant repetition of woefully overstated claims about the risk of climate change. The story cites a recent letter published in the peer reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), in which a team of international scientists urge their fellow researchers to avoid exaggerating the likely impacts of climate change, warning it may be contributing to mental health problems, particularly among young people. This represents a much more balanced and practical position, avoiding sensationalist claims and focusing on a realistic assessment of the state of climate knowledge.

The Colorado Springs Gazette article, titled “Boulder scientists warn of ‘climate change catastrophism,’” says “[e]nough with climate-change scare tactics. They hurt people, possibly more than they will suffer from climate change.” They cite a letter published in PNAS under the title “Catastrophic climate risks should be neither understated nor overstated,” penned by climate scientists Matthew G. Burgess, Roger Pielke Jr., and Justin Ritchie.

The Colorado Springs Gazette writes:

In the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the scientists warn of too much focus by the scientific community on unlikely worst-case scenarios — including imminent extinction of human life — rather than more plausible outcomes that fall between Armageddon on one extreme and “no worries” on the other. Alarmism, they explain, leads to impossible goals of ending all fossil fuel consumption by mid-century, social disarray, and mental health problems.

The letter itself takes aim at a specific paper in PNAS, “Climate Endgame: Exploring catastrophic climate change scenarios,” which says catastrophic, extinction-level climate scenarios need to be explored more in scientific literature. Burgess and his co-authors argue that there is already significant overemphasis on the “catastrophic” predictions and modelling.

From the letter:

“Kemp et al. note that recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports emphasize sub-2 °C scenarios. Simultaneously, IPCC reports also overemphasize catastrophic scenarios, as does broader discourse. For example, the cataclysmic Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5) and Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 5-8.5 (SSP5-8.5) scenarios—now widely considered implausible—account for roughly half of the scenario mentions in recent IPCC Assessment Reports’ impacts (Working Group II) sections, similar to underlying scientific literature.”

This is consistent with what many scientists, like those cited at Climate Realism, have warned. RCP8.5 and similarly high emissions scenarios are unrealistic, likely impossible. Unfortunately, despite its implausibility, RCP8.5 is widely used in climate science and climate policy literature to promote extreme climate change disaster scenarios that are not supported by the data. The goal being to spur world governments into an extreme and immediate, “great reset,” of global economic and political systems.

The letter’s authors correctly point out that “[o]veremphasized apocalyptic futures can be used to support despotism and rashness.”

They continue:

For example, catastrophic and ultimately inaccurate overpopulation scenarios in the 1960s and 1970s contributed to several countries adopting forced sterilization and abortion programs, including China’s one-child policy, which caused up to 100 million coerced abortions, disproportionately of girls.

The authors also cite the recent banning of synthetic fertilizers—a long supported policy goal of environmentalists and climate alarmists—in Sri Lanka, which led to a food crisis that Climate Realism covered, here.

Climate alarmists exaggerate the rate of recent warming and the risks of extreme weather to motivate radical political actions. The editorial board of the Colorado Springs Gazette and the PNAS should be thanked for making this point. The Earth’s climate does change, and will continue to do so, and it is wise to meet this change with realistic mitigation efforts. An overcorrection imposed by world governments, like banning fossil fuels, is likely to cause far more harm and destruction than climate change itself.

Linnea Lukin

Linnea Lueken

https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/linnea-lueken

Linnea Lueken is a Research Fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy. While she was an intern with The Heartland Institute in 2018, she co-authored a Heartland Institute Policy Brief “Debunking Four Persistent Myths About Hydraulic Fracturing.”

5 29 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
47 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
AGW is Not Science
November 17, 2022 6:20 am

One gigantic nit – I’d have to disagree that we should employ ANY “mitigation” efforts. Replace that with “ADAPTATION” to whatever changes to the “climate” ACTUALLY OCCUR.

Because that is all humanity will ever be able to do about “climate change.” The notion that humans can control, or direct, or limit, or determine the direction of, “climate change” is the ultimate hubris.

Barnes Moore
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
November 17, 2022 6:55 am

Come on, you didn’t get the memo? If we can control Co2, we can control the climate. Actually, I was going to post the exact same thing as you using slightly different words. We adapt or die, but we don’t mitigate.

slindsayyulegmailcom
Reply to  Barnes Moore
November 17, 2022 11:19 am

You got the wrong memo. Co2 doesn’t control the climate. The sun, oceans, snow/ice and clouds control the climate.

Sun: Distance 148 million Jan (max energy), land cools titled 23 degrees north away from sun as snow extend 45 million km2 lowering earth’s temperature.
Opposite in July.
Oceans: Cold deep water rises that was warm before and changes over decades.
Clouds: Global cloud cover determines how much sunlight reaches the surface.

What does CO2 do? As a trace gas needs lots of heat to be absorbed. The sun has enough to raise the gas temperature above absolute zero and possible to 200K.

An atmospheric window above 200K stops absorption of radiation from the earth below extreme hot parts of earth at 363K.

A mechanical process of force against a parcel of air matter produces heat that is emitted to the ground.

Solar heat that is absorbed by the surface escapes to space leaving only earths internal heat. Both mechanical and transported heat via circulation.

MarkW
Reply to  Barnes Moore
November 17, 2022 1:10 pm

I can guarentee that Co2 has no impact on weather or climate.
CO2 is another issue.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
November 17, 2022 10:02 am

Yes, ‘mitigation’ implies any changes in the climate will necessarily be negative. No one needs to mitigate an increase in plant life. There may be places on Earth once very cold that will develop a climate that is more conducive to human habitation. We may be able to grow food in more places. We may even want to talk about taking advantage of climate change.

Editor
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
November 17, 2022 10:32 am

There is a fine line between mitigation and adaptation — and a great deal of overlap.

Societies can mitigate damages to natural disasters by changing local building ordinances to forbid re-building on repeatedly flooding land and sea shores. By dike building, dune creation and maintenance, correcting past mistakes with river management, better planning for water release from dams — in short, often mitigation is mostly correcting past mistakes to prevent repeated damage. Mitigation also covers guessing for possible futures and preventing future damage by taking no regrets actions today.

Adaptation is a similar problem — a fine example are cities built in America’s dry Southwest 1) without planning and building the necessary water infrastructure to support a new 1, 2 or ten million extra people and their homes and businesses and 2) adapting to the present and future by forbidding green grass lawns in those same desert cities. Florida (and other east coast states) has not adapted to the PAST — and still allows building multi-million dollar homes directly on the beaches of ephemeral sand bars off its coasts — directly in the paths of hurricanes which must come eventually.

Richard Greene
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
November 17, 2022 4:34 pm

Delete mitigation and adaption.

The climate on our planet is always changing. All humans and animals automatically experience climate change and know how to adapt to it.

What we need to learn is how to judge whether our climate is currently better than average or worse than average.

In my opinion, it is clear Earth’s climate is currently better than average for humans, animals and especially plants. Humans and animals might have preferred the slightly warmer Holocene Climate Optimum from 5000 to 9000 years ago. Plants are definitely happier with the higher CO2 level today. The climate on our planet does not get much better than it is today. We should be celebrating more CO2 in the atmosphere and the slightly warmer planet than in 1850.

COMING CLIMATE CHANGE CRISIS PROPAGANDA IS SO EFFECTIVE THAT IT PREVENTS MOST PEOPLE FROM ENJOYING TODAY’S WONDERFUL CLIMATE. 

U.S. HURRICANES MAKING LANDFALL HAVE BEEN IN A DOWNTREND 

SINCE THE LATE 1800s. 

MAJOR US TORNADOES HAVE BEEN IN A DOWNTREND SINCE THE 1950s. 

US HEAT WAVES, DROUGHTS AND FOREST FIRE ACRES BURNED  PEAKED IN THE 1930s. 

THE 1930s STILL HAVE THE MOST US STATE MAXIMUM HEAT RECORDS OF ANY DECADE, BY FAR. 

hiskorr
November 17, 2022 6:22 am

And thank you Ms L (however it’s spelled) for calling attention to the CSG article. May there be many more!

John Hultquist
Reply to  hiskorr
November 17, 2022 10:02 am

Linnea Lukin’s photo and position is at the end of the post.
The Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy is part of the Heartland Institute. Art Robinson has played a role in the climate controversy, including the Oregon Petition.

I suspect there is overlap of adaptation and mitigation in many people’s minds. I prefer adaptation in dealing with weather events because problems mostly are caused by poor decisions, such as building a house in a flood plain or on a sandbar.

Richard Greene
Reply to  John Hultquist
November 17, 2022 4:40 pm

We use furnaces, air conditioners and warm clothing to adapt to the weather. Does anyone really need to adapt to a +1.1 C. degree change in the average temperature over the past 172 years (1850 to 2022). Especially since most of the warming was in colder nations, during the colder months of the year, and at night? Do people in Siberia have to adapt to warmer winter nights since the 1970s?

David Dibbell
November 17, 2022 6:30 am

“The Earth’s climate does change, and will continue to do so, and it is wise to meet this change with realistic mitigation efforts.”

If by “mitigation” you mean what the UN means – reduction of CO2 and other non-condensing GHG emissions for climate reasons – then no, such measures are not wise. Better to just adapt and protect in response to whatever climate conditions emerge. Have the courage to do nothing, as there is no reliable basis for thinking that GHG “mitigation” can produce any climate modifying effect at all. Promote reliable energy sources for electricity, ample supplies of energy-dense fuels, and sensible efficiency measures.

Last edited 12 days ago by David Dibbell
David Dibbell
Reply to  David Dibbell
November 17, 2022 12:38 pm

FYI when I say “what the UN means” by mitigation it is this. Emission reductions is the focus.

https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/climate-action/what-we-do/mitigation

E. Schaffer
November 17, 2022 6:42 am

For those interested in the core of the science, I think this here is a beautiful twist. According to the orthodoxy there are two main anthropogenic drivers of climate change – GHGs and aerosols. The latter shall be cooling and hold back the otherwise GHG related warming by about 1/3. Now that is a 1/3 globally, despite aerosols being concentrated in mid NH latitudes. There this negative forcing should even dominate GHG forcing. So how did it turn out..

comment image

Funny, isn’t it?

https://greenhousedefect.com/contrails/aerosols-in-climate-science

meteormike
Reply to  E. Schaffer
November 17, 2022 1:32 pm

Thanks so much for that article with the graphs.

Here’s NASA passing on a study that LIES to us. The video shows the model NOT getting future warming projections right. Compare it to the above ACTUAL data from your article.

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

I captured a frame of their “accurate global models” below.
Compare this modeled forecast to the empirical data above, showing the REAL warming increasing in the higher latitudes of North America at 4 times the rate as warming close to the equator and 7 times the rate of warming in the high latitudes of South America.

The models continue with this wrong forecast to the end of the century. An extremely wrong global temperature profile for another 75+ years.

These are the models that are the entire basis for eliminating fossil fuels……..that have gifted us with almost every technological advancement in this age and are feeding half the planet with synthetic fertilizer and beneficial atmospheric CO2.

Screenshot 2022-11-17 at 15-03-50 Climate Religion - MarketForum.png
meteormike
Reply to  meteormike
November 17, 2022 1:38 pm

This is the end frame of the video simulation from global climate models.

The title of the article, again is this:

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

Screenshot 2022-11-17 at 14-56-22 Climate Religion - MarketForum.png
Richard Greene
Reply to  meteormike
November 17, 2022 4:54 pm

Zeke H, used IPCC models for TCS with RCP 4.5. The predictions were similar to actual global warming in the 1975 to 2022 period. Not scary enough for the IPCC to publicize.

IPCC publicizes ECS with RCP 8.5 to scare people.
That’s what they do — scare people.

They also calculate TCS with RCP 8.5, which is close to half the ECS with RCP 8.5. but that’s none of your business !

Richard Greene
Reply to  E. Schaffer
November 17, 2022 4:49 pm

That’s a baloney chart
There is no average temperature for the Southern Hemisphere before 1900 — just a wild guess. And the numbers for the Northern Hemisphere are very rough with few weather stations outside the US and Europe.

SO2 aerosols must be a minor climate change variable. The global average temperature often moves in the wrong direction compared with the “SO2 theory”

1975 to 1980: SO2 up accompanied by global WARMING,
The “SO2 theory” says rising SO2 should cause global cooling, NOT global warming. Did all the SO2 suddenly fall out of the sky in 1975, allowing a global cooling trend to reverse to a global warming trend in 1975? I don’t think so!

Three 5 year or longer periods since 1980 with SO2 declining had a flat temperature trend, NOT a global warming trend. The last of those periods was the past 8 years: The UAH temperature trend was flat while SO2 emissions were falling. The “SO2 theory” says falling SO2 should have caused global warming, but that did not happen.

Ron Long
November 17, 2022 6:42 am

Well, there’s a bit of fresh air from Ms. Leuken, and the Colorado Springs Gazette. I wonder when there will be a debate, with scientific data, of whether there is any anthropogenic signal in the always changing climate?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Ron Long
November 17, 2022 7:53 am

There shall be no real debate to challenge the ruling dogma- it is verboten.

abolition man
Reply to  Ron Long
November 17, 2022 8:13 am

Fresh air, or one of the first holes in the dike between reality and Climate Catastrophism!?
If we believe that we can actually mitigate a changing climate, then we should be pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere to try and stave off the next period of glacial expansion!
Most likely it is all just vanity, and the ability to control the weather is a bigger pipe dream than fusion power!

ResourceGuy
November 17, 2022 6:55 am
Gunga Din
Reply to  ResourceGuy
November 17, 2022 7:41 am

I had my last (of many) joint back in the early ’70s.
If you smoke tobacco, you inhale and exhale casually.
With a joint, you inhale the smoke as deeply as you can and hold it in as long as you can.
Of course it’s going to do more damage to the lungs.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Gunga Din
November 17, 2022 7:58 am

which reminds me of a favorite cartoon

index.jpg
AndyHce
Reply to  Gunga Din
November 17, 2022 1:49 pm

There are more ways to enjoy marijuana than smoking — if you happen to enjoy the stuff. To each his own. If, that is IF, actual health damage can be assigned to any behavior not necessary to continuation of health and life, tobacco, alcohol, any other recreational drug use, sky diving, and so on, the rational approach is to let people make their own choice but exclude insurance coverage for any provable related damage.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Gunga Din
November 17, 2022 4:56 pm

While I don’t smoke or drink, I’ve heard from old timers that todays weed is so strong compared with the 1970s, that one puff is enough. That’s good news I suppose, because the tar content of weed is very high.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  ResourceGuy
November 17, 2022 7:53 am

make brownies instead

Tony_G
Reply to  ResourceGuy
November 17, 2022 10:50 am

I remember when the argument was that pot is safer than cigarettes. One of the reasons was that “cigarette smokers smoke a lot more of them”

clougho
November 17, 2022 7:22 am

She will probably be investigated by the political left.

Peta of Newark
November 17, 2022 8:18 am

Fantastic. Lovely. Very nice.
In other news: Fish can swim.

So apart from pointing out the blinding obvious and berating them for doing it, (which will only reinforce what they do) why not try something constructive?
Just For A Change.

How’s about venturing an actual reason for why they do what they do?

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Peta of Newark
November 17, 2022 10:05 am

Money and power. Just as obvious.

Gums
November 17, 2022 8:21 am

Salute!

Great to see we have some realistic climate science folks up in Boulder, a hot bed of very clueless folks that migrated from California a few decades ago.
Of course, the Pielke family has been “cancelled” by the clueless, but continue the good fight.

I really support the previous post about “adapt” versus “mitigate”. OTOH, we can and have mitigated several environmental problems that were caused by human activities and then successfully mitigated….. think about polution and strip mining and poor forest management and….. But the global climate! Beam me up. As Carlin put it, we can’t even take care of our human species!

As a part time resident of Colorado near the Springs, I was glad to see the article. If there was a populace used to “climate change” in terms of temperature and water variation, then that is the place. Wake up around 0700 at the cabin in early July at 42 deg F, and by 0830 it is 65 deg. Two years ago we had about 6 inches of snow the Labor Day weekend. One year no rain, next year floods in Boulder they had not seen for years. Well? Colorado is the “centennial” state, and many immigrants from California and the “east” are just not prepared for the climate and the vastness. Especially in winter months. The really “old timers” like me that have been up there for about 60 years know how to take a joke and know that we puny humans cannot turn a CO2 knob and control global temperature or climate, which is a lot more than just a tenth of a degree on your recording thermometer ( we gardeners have such and also know trends like frost dates, rainfall and tropical storms here in Florida).

Gums sends…

Phil
Reply to  Gums
November 17, 2022 4:22 pm

Don’t be fooled. These are fully committed warmunists. From their editorial:

“Indeed, the climate is changing. Society needs to address it with real solutions. None of those solutions benefit from needless and counterproductive catastrophizing that harms humanity. We will best address climate change by sticking with the science, embracing achievable policies and avoiding histrionics.”

It doesnot add up
November 17, 2022 9:23 am

The real emphasis we need is on the catastrophic consequences of net zero policy. Guranteed to impoverish humanity and result in huge numbers of deaths, whatever happens to the climate.

strativarius
November 17, 2022 9:31 am

“”…the constant repetition of woefully overstated claims about the risk of climate change. “”

The Harrabin stratagem

John Hultquist
November 17, 2022 9:48 am

I subscribe to the local Ellensburg Daily Record to get the grocery ads, comics, and check to see if I knew any of the recently deceased.
It is published just 4 days a week. Ownership is something called the Adams Publishing Group.
I do not recall any anti-AGW articles. The Climate Cult rules!

gyan1
Reply to  John Hultquist
November 17, 2022 10:58 am

The Seattle Times removes comments citing empirical data or peer reviewed science countering climate crisis lies. They have been suspending my account so facts can’t be presented. I’m careful not to violate terms of use. Real world evidence is labeled misinformation. Globalists have iron fist editorial control of all legacy media. Official VAERS data is also off limits.

gyan1
November 17, 2022 10:48 am

Hopefully the tide is turning. Boulder is a hotbed of woke psychosis. Any questioning of catastrophic warming is met with the denier label. Is sanity returning?

Neo
November 17, 2022 11:00 am

A fresh one … Climate change is making migraines, strokes and DEMENTIA more severe and common, review claims

Tom Abbott
November 17, 2022 1:38 pm

From the article: “Alarmism, they explain, leads to impossible goals of ending all fossil fuel consumption by mid-century, social disarray, and mental health problems.”

Isn’t that the truth!

Alarmists should stop lying about the Earth’s climate.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 17, 2022 4:00 pm

If they didn’t lie they wouldn’t have anything to say.

Richard M
November 17, 2022 2:50 pm

There should be no alarmism. The Seim/Olsen 2020 experiment already demonstrates that CO2 warming effect is near zero.

The results of our study show the near-identical heating curves when we change from air to 100% CO2 or to Argon gas with low CO2 concentration. Nevertheless, we observed absorption of IR radiation in the front chamber. We also observed the increased radiation density in the rear chamber due to the backscatter from CO2. The change in observed backscatter radiation should give us a measurable temperature increase of 2.4 to 4 K by using the Stefan Boltzmann law. But we only observe a very slight temperature increase due to CO2 backscatter.

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=99608

As I’ve mentioned in the past, this lack of warming is due to atmospheric boundary layer equilibrium. The feedback from equilibrium processes effectively cancels any warming. A real experiment that backs up the physical explanation.

This essentially falsifies all the warming scenarios, even the weak ones.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Richard M
November 17, 2022 5:02 pm

Must be a baloney experiment
Infrared radiation frequencies affected by CO2 are not saturated. Therefore, CO2 increasing should impede Earth’s ability to cool itself. CO2 over 400ppm is a weak, harmless greenhouse gas. Even the Climate Howlers admit that. They have to triple the expected effect of CO2 alone, with a huge water vapor positive feedback, to scare people. CO2 alone is a nothing burger.

Richard M
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 17, 2022 7:15 pm

The 15 mm band is saturated and the edges have very little energy. As a result almost all of the surface energy that can be absorbed is already being absorbed and very low in the atmosphere.

This doesn’t mean CO2 cannot be excited via collisions and radiate energy. This is what leads to increases in IR emissions throughout the atmosphere. More CO2 will cause more of these types of emissions. Some of that energy reaches the surface. This is the 3.7 W/m2 that is often quoted for the warming signal.

However, atmospheric boundary layer equilibrium is why that energy cannot cause warming. The experiment is simply demonstrating this mechanism.

Kevin Kilty
Reply to  Richard M
November 17, 2022 7:27 pm

That experiment has many weaknesses. I outlined some of them here.

Richard M
Reply to  Kevin Kilty
November 18, 2022 9:08 am

From what I understood of your objections they don’t affect the main thrust of the experiment. The basic result of almost no warming still seems valid.

beng135
November 18, 2022 10:32 am

Look at that pic! You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, da*n you! God da*n you all to h*ll! 🙂

Gunga Din
Reply to  beng135
November 18, 2022 10:57 am

Is that a quote from “Spaceballs”?

%d bloggers like this: