Chris Wright speaking at American Conservation Coalition’s 2023 Summit. Photo by Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
A recent article posted at MSNBC, written by Ja’han Jones, titled “Trump’s pick for energy secretary thinks climate change is good, actually,” claims that Trump’s energy secretary pick Chris Wright is wrong to claim that there have been positive impacts from climate change, rather than the looming catastrophe the media claims. Wright is right, and Jones at MSNBC is wrong.
Jones writes that Wright “has downplayed the risks of rising global temperatures and argued that climate change might actually be good for the world.” He goes on to quote a Wall Street Journal article that quotes Wright from an interview he did with PragerU, where the WSJ reported:
“But he also says climate change makes the planet greener by increasing plant growth, boosts agricultural productivity and likely reduces the number of temperature-related deaths annually. “It’s probably almost as many positive changes as there are negative changes,” he told conservative media nonprofit PragerU last year, referring to climate change. “Is it a crisis, is it the world’s greatest challenge, or a big threat to the next generation? No.”
Jones complains that “the things Wright lists as positives of rising atmospheric carbon — like more plant growth and a boost in ‘agricultural productivity’ — don’t always occur in climate change scenarios, and when they do, they aren’t always positive developments.”
Jones is conflating real world observations of increases in plant growth and crop productivity, which are what Wright is referring to, and climate computer model scenarios, which are not real and often don’t produce results that correspond to reality, especially but not limited to various of their projections of crop production under climate change. As Climate Realism has repeatedly discussed, here, here, and here, for example, models run way too hot, and as a result their projections about various types of impacts are way off.
Crop production has increased globally, with a large part of that increase being attributable to increased carbon dioxide and improved growing conditions. For instance, cereal crops (wheat, rice, corn, et cetera.) which make up a large percent of staple foods for people around the globe have increased massively. Data from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) show that cereal yields have increased by around 52 percent, and production grew by 57 percent, between 1990 and 2022. (See figure below)
World records are set frequently, with the most recent occurring in 2022.
At Climate Realism, we have written over 200 articles going examining production and yield data various crops around the world, at local and global scales. The data show increasing trends in crop production can be found for most crops across the spectrum, from fruits to tubers to vegetables. Both production and yields have increased, and this can only be a good thing for decreasing rates of hunger and malnutrition.
It is not just cropland either. According to data from NASA, the earth has greened over the same period that the most alarming warming is supposed to have occurred, deserts are being reclaimed and wildlife habitat expanding — and no catastrophe for life has accompanied it.
Another point Jones attempts to make is that “contrary to Wright’s claim about temperature-related deaths, the Environmental Protection Agency reported this year that ‘dramatic increases in heat-related deaths are closely associated with the occurrence of hot temperatures and heat waves.’”
Jones is being deceptive. He shifted to discussing just heat-related deaths, when Wright said temperature related deaths have declined. Once again, Wright has the facts on his side.
Because of the declines in days with cold temperatures, deaths tied to suboptimal cold temperatures have declined significantly as the planet has modestly warmed. Data from a recent analysis published in the Lancet shows that cold deaths significantly outnumber heat related deaths, by almost 10 to 1, with cold killing more than 6 million people every year, and heat killing only just over 600 thousand. Between the years 2000 and 2019, an increase in heat related deaths of about 116 thousand, has been offset by a decline in cold related deaths by about 283 thousand. Cold deaths have declined by more than double any increase in heat related mortality. This means Wright was correct, there has been a net decrease in temperature related deaths.
To finish the article, Jones lists off the whole bevy of other alleged catastrophic impacts of climate change, including wildfires, droughts, insect borne diseases, and other subjects, all of which Climate Realism has discussed in detail previously, none of which are worsening.
Jones’ and others’ claims to the contrary, Wright is correct that climate change has produced substantial benefits over the past hundred-plus years, benefits that are rarely discussed by the mainstream media. By contrast, contrary to the mainstream media’s constant flow of assertions of doom, climate change has caused little in the way of proven concrete harms. Jones and MSNBC at large would do their readers a service by actually looking into the subjects that Wright and similar climate realism proponents discuss, rather than uncritically reposting canned claims climate induced disasters handed to them by alarmists.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ja’han Jones is The ReidOut Blog writer. He’s a futurist and multimedia producer focused on culture and politics. His previous projects include “Black Hair Defined” and the “Black Obituary Project.”
The go-to guy for insightful climate information!
“futurist“
Yeah, that’s what it says. Think about that for a moment.
So, he writes for Joy Reid, who has culturally appropriated non-black hair. Did he call her out on that?
Even though climate change is going to obliterate the planet and all life as we know it, it will still be
“worse than we thought!!”
Worse than we thought is so 2023
2024: Worse than worse than we thought
I wonder what Ja’han Jones was educated in? Journalism? He clearly doesn’t know science, or history.
Seems to be a “mouth” driven by a near zero STEM intellect.
The fact that he worked at MSNBC puts him in the same category as the Madcow and Whoopi-do !
Madcow is of course a denizen of Wokeachusetts.
Hey, I’ve always wondered if American MSNBC or other American Network News was broadcast widely on other countries satellite TV distribution systems on a daily basis and if the news anchors are well known?
American treats news anchors on TV as celebrities which is strange, but been that way since Walter Cronkite.
We have BBC America and Al Jazeera broadcast here, but they’re just a token channels that no one really watches. I couldn’t name a single personality from them.
I glance at the occasional MSNBC youtube clip.
They are nearly all completely self-obsessed, totally loony and absolutely divorced from reality. !
How does the Mad Cow get paid so much for being a compete moron !?
There is, in fact ZERO proven down-side to the current levels, or double, or double again, levels of atmospheric CO2.
NO evidence of the slight increase aCO2 in the last 45 years causing any measurable warming.
New study, (uses models, so take it how you like) shows no warming from 350-400ppm and very little from 100-300ppm
8 Taiwanese Engineers Determine The Climate Sensitivity To A 300 ppm CO2 Increase Is ‘Negligibly Small’
The guys are engineers, so IMHO, more likely to understand energy transfer better than any activist “climate scientist” is capable of doing.
Better to be silent and thought to be a fool, than to speak up …. too late for you
Looking in the mirror, preening yourself again, hey dickie-boi !!
Everybody know you are a fool and a clown, except you.
Great to see you totally unable to counter a single thing I typed though.
You still haven’t managed to produced anything but yapping bluster.
Care to try .. for once????
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
3… Please state the exact amount of CO2 warming in the last 45 year, giving measured scientific evidence for your answer.
As a scientist who has followed global warming/climate change since 1992, a prominent feature is the overall pessimism of scientific reports. Harm is stressed far more often than Benefit.
What a sour, withered lot these climate researchers turned out to be!
A classic example from a few years ago is the fabricated “Social Cost of Carbon” SCC that was used as in input into some economic studies that people actually believed. There was no balance, for example, no offsetting “Social Benefit of Carbon.” Thankfully, the SCC is seen far less now than when it was invented. As is said, it “carries the seeds of its own destruction.” People wake up to cons sooner or later.
Money has long been used as a measure of success or failure, of cost versus benefit, but it was a novel and false technique to employ money analysis by leaving out some the variables, like those with a + in front of them.
Linnea is correct to point out the neglect of positives like crop yields and vegetation greening.
Geoff S
“Social Benefit of Carbon.”
Good point- should be talked about a lot more.
CO2 has to be redefined as NOT a pollutant because CO2 is the staff of almost all life on our planet. Leftists are a pollutant.
*applause*
The media is filled with bad news
Bad news gets attention and page views
Scary predictions get attention and funding for scientists.
What newspaper or website only publishes good news? The closest I ever found was a CO2 website that published one page summaries of scientific studies of CO2 enrichment and plant growth. Almost every summary there was good news about CO2. They stopped publishing new material in 2020 but still have a great archive:
CO2 Science
This was learned in the early 1970s when a few scientists — certainly less than 5% — got a huge amount of attention predicting a coming global cooling crisis. Few scientists made long term predictions to the press. But the few who dud got a huge amount of attention.
The global cooling crisis predictions peaked in 1974 and then a global warming trend, still in progress, started in 1975. The media never reports the predictions that were wrong, which is just about every prediction made by humans for centuries.
Some of the earlier analyses concluded that temperature rises would be net beneficial up to 2 degrees C.
Nordhaus’s initial DICE model analyses concluded that global warming was less worse than the efforts to stop warming up to around 3 degrees C. This is not to say that warming is positive below this; just that the costs of trying to stop warming were higher than the costs of doing nothing.
Later DICE analyses with considerably modified inputs reduced the break-even to 1.5 degrees C.
The cost of trying to stop warming, is a complete and absolute WASTE OF MONEY.
It will have absolutely zero effect because CO2 is not remotely responsible for that beneficial warming.
Maybe it might be worthwhile trying to find better ways of reducing URBAN warming in the cities that have a tendency to get regularly above 35-40C.
Was in Penrith a few years ago on a really hot day..
I would have call it dangerously hot….. But it was nothing to do with human CO2.
Anything above 36 C enters into the dangerous range. That is the temperature at which the human body, without artificial aids, can no longer lose heat. That does not mean a human body cannot survive and even thrive in those hotter temperatures. We see people living in that kind of micro climate all the time.
“Anything above 36 C enters into the dangerous range.”
36C = 97F
People live in Arizona. I lived there for a year and I didn’t like it, but I can say “life went on” for them on summer days of 43C.
43C=110F
The average body temperature for humans ranges from 88 F to 98 F.
With rounding 98.6 rounded down is 36 C.
Your post confirms that people can survive and live in that kind of micro climate. Thanks.
The 98.6 degrees F body temperature was just spurious precision in converting “about 37 degrees C” to F.
Lots of people live and work at elevated air temperatures. The main thing is to drink lots of fluids to compensate for the losses due to sweating.
On that day, someone from the gathering I was at measured it as 50C+ at street level.
We all stayed in the air-con comfort with lots of “fluids”, except to go outside for a few seconds to feel what “really hot” was actually like.
If the planet needed a thermometer inserted anywhere to take its temperature, Penriff would be where comatose creatures usually have a thermometer inserted.
And now for something completely different, a man with three buttocks.
Since taking a body temperature is attempting to measure the core temperature, taking the temperature of the planet would require a 4000 mile hole drilled.
;-))
Penriff is better than St. Mary’s, Mt. Druitt or Cranebrook.
“Was in Penrith a few years ago on a really hot day” BeNasty2000
Extreme heat causes brain damage and science denial. Have your head examined. I expect, and hope, they find nothing.
Still waiting for you to produce some actual science, dickie-boi
Don’t be a FAILURE all your life. !!
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
3… Please state the exact amount of CO2 warming in the last 45 year, giving measured scientific evidence for your answer.
I wonder what their contingency plans are like for the end of the ice-age? If 3C is a crisis, what would 10-20C be?
Greenhouse warming is mainly in colder nations,, except Antarctica, and mainly in the six coldest months of the year. A 2 degree C. tipping point is irrelevant BS).
You have yet to show that warming by atmospheric CO2 even exists.
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
So far.. a complete failure.
My problem with this article is the author apparently assumes that CO2 is causing Earth’s atmosphere to warm. There is no evidence supporting this conclusion.
The author tries to turn increased CO2 into a positive by noting that increase CO2 is stimulating vegetation on Earth. And this is a positive.
But, the author implies that CO2 is indeed warming the Earth, but this is a good thing, not something to be feared.
Warming *is* a good thing, but there is no evidence that the current warming is connected to CO2. Insinuating that it is, is not supported by any evidence.
What should be said is the current “Cyclical Warming” is good for all the reasons given in this article.
Assuming CO2 is causing the current temperatures is just wrong. CO2 didn’t cause the similar high temperatures in the 1930’s or the 1880’s, so why assume it is causing similar warming today? Especially since even today CO2 warming cannot be measured. CO2 warming theoretically could be near zero, yet here we are assuming it is causing all the warming we experience today.
Stop the speculation and assumptions about CO2! Go with what we know, which is not much, and not enough to declare that CO2 is causing any of the warming we are experiencing today.
We have evidence of CO2 greening of the Earth. We have NO evidence of CO2 warming of the Earth.
Get that Hockey Stick “hotter and hotter and hotter” chart image out of your brain! It’s a figment of the Temperature Data Mannipulators imagination meant to promote the idea that CO2 is causing current warming. But it’s not science, it’s science fiction. Don’t believe it!
“Warming *is* a good thing, but there is no evidence that the current warming is connected to CO2.”
It might be- to some unknown degree, most likely not much. So suggesting that it’s the most significant factor should be avoided without definitive proof.
It is very small for a hypothetical totally dry atmosphere that does not even exist.
In the presence of all other GH gases, particularly unlimited amount of water, the effect of added CO2 is further diminished due to Le Chatelier’s principle.
Add negative feedback of clouds, and becomes zero within uncertainty of the measurement.
In science such unnecessary unknowns are eliminated by Occam’s razor.
You need a shave
Cloud cover percentage has declined 7% in the past two decades. That is NOT a negative feedback to global warming. The measurements are not that accurate and could have a +/- 10% margin of error.
You need a functional brain… but its not going to happen !
When one accounts for the specific heat capacity of CO2, increasing it in the atmosphere has an effect. It takes less energy to raise the temperature. HOWEVER, the effect, although not zero, is miniscule. It is comparable to the towel boy at a football game.
According to Modtran, doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm should result in an increased background temp of 1.2 degrees C….Allowing for constant RH with temp increase, and worst case clear sky conditions… More cloud due to increased atmospheric water vapor content, therefore lower surface temp, is not included. Run as many cases as you like yourself on UChicago website.
Come to your own conclusions as to what the international effort to be within 1.5 C warming is all about….
According to my pet goldfish most of the pseudo science is bogus.
As far as using someone else’s calculator, no thanks. No way to assess hidden and unintentional assumptions, let alone verify the math.
Almost all of this is based on an assumption that there is such a thing as a “greenhouse effect.” That hypothesis has yet to be validated, tested, and subjected to the null hypothesis tests.
“there is such a thing as a “greenhouse effect.”
99.9% of scientists since the 1800s have been wrong about the greenhouse effect, which is measured every day of the year. (back radiation). But you know better?
Oh dear, poor dickie’s only evidence is a FAKE consensus.
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
3… Please state the exact amount of CO2 warming in the last 45 year, giving measured scientific evidence for your answer.
Don’t continue to be an abject failure.
99% of the scientists since the 1800s have been repeating the same mistake. Looking closely at the experiments conducted and the results recorded, there is no greenhouse effect. At best, as it was reported, is that results were similar to a greenhouse, which it was. Closed box with a glass top. Sealed glass tubes. And in the Tyndall and Foote experiments, water “saturated” air had an equivalent effect as 100% CO2 and that matches specific heat capacity in a fixed volume (Cv).
So called back radiation has nothing to do with how a greenhouse works. FYI, the scientific definition of back radiation is radiation directed to the original source (aka the sun).
MODTRAN is closer to 0.7 egrees C. with no feedbacks
Though measurements are not particularly accurate, relative humidity declined from 1980 to 2020. Absolute humidity increased from 1980 to 2000 and remained relatively steady from 2000 to 2020. Cloud cover percentage declined 7% in past two decades.
The effect of CO2 x 2 is just a guess, in a range of 0.7 to 5.5 degrees C. which is the same as saying no one knows. 1.2 is a conservative guess.
If you assume ALL warming since 1975 was caused by CO2, the ECS of CO2 is 2.4 (NASA GISS surface temperatures) or 1.8 degrees C. (UAH satellite temperatures).
If you’re a member of the WUWT Peanut Gallery (aka The Climate Nutters) the ECS of CO2 is zero.
ASSume.. and guess….. the dickie-boi way.
Science and evidence not so much. 🙂
Care to try for once ???
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
3… Please state the exact amount of CO2 warming in the last 45 year, giving measured scientific evidence for your answer.
4… Please provide empirical scientific evidence that the ECS of atmospheric CO2 is anything but zero.
“If there are no measurements to support a conjecture, it is just speculation.” [RG]
“(NASA GISS surface temperatures)”
Pretending that most of the NASA GISS surface temperatures is NOT from urban warming and mal-adjustments is just PLAIN IGNORANCE.
To pretend that it is from CO2 just takes that ignorance to a whole new level. !
That’s dickie-boi for you. !
“(UAH satellite temperatures).”
As you have shown many times, there is no evidence of any warming by CO2 in the UAH satellite data.
Unless you are dumb and ignorant enough to say El Ninos are driven by CO2.
I do concede, however, that there is a good chance that you are that dumb. !
So, the red thumber is able to show some warming, other than from El Nino events, in the UAH data…
… or just a bit upset because it knows that it can’t. Diddums.
“The effect of CO2 x 2 is just a guess, in a range of 0.7 to 5.5 degrees C. which is the same as saying no one knows.”
We agree on something.
Exactly my thoughts.
Climate is always either warming or cooling, in fact, it does both at the same time, depending on a chosen time scale. But CO2 has never been climate driver in the past, and despite all of the noise, there is Net Zero evidence that it causes any warming today. Regardless of whether climate is warning or cooling on whatever time scale, and if the effects are good or bad, it is a huge mistake to concede that CO2 causes any warming. This makes you play the game by the rules set by the opponent.
Yet, CO2 is a very important player in the carbon life cycle. Billions of years of carbon sequentialization have lead to conditions of plants starving, global desertification and ecosystems decline. George Carlin once joked that perhaps Nature created humans because it wanted plastics, but could not produce them on its own. Replace plastics with returning the sequestered carbon back to biological cycle, reviving declining Earth ecosystems, and it is not a joke anymore, it is the reality. Humas are staving off inevitable death of life on Earth as we know it.
” it is a huge mistake to concede that CO2 causes any warming. “
It is a huge mistake for anyone to claim CO2 does not cause global warming. Only fools do that — conservatives who want to be laughed at… and there are a lot of them contributing to this thread.
Greenhouse effect evidence has been collected over 128 years and you ignore it. The most famous skeptic scientists, such as Lindzen, Happer, Spencer, Christy and Curry never deny the greenhouse effect, and they all agree that CO2 emissions add to the effect.
But the Peanut Gallery here just wants to live in ignorance, ignoring 128 years of scientific evidence … including characteristics of the 48 years of global warming after 1975 that most resemble greenhouse warming rather than solar warming.
The WUWT Peanut Gallery Reign of Error continues with its streak of perpetual climate science ignorance.
Again all the manic and EMPTY BLUSTER.
You cannot possibly class Arrhenius’s simplistic and erroneous models as science .. surely. Even you aren’t that stupid.. or are you.
The 45 years of the UAH shows ZERO CO2 warming.
You have yet to produce one single bit of scientific evidence that atmospheric CO2 causes warming.
Here is your chance.. yet again…. don’t continue to FAIL COMPLETELY.
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
3… Please state the exact amount of CO2 warming in the last 45 year, giving measured scientific evidence for your answer.
“If there are no measurements to support a conjecture, it is just speculation.” {RG}
“that most resemble greenhouse warming rather than solar warming.”
Again, complete anti-science rubbish, unbacked by anything remotely related to science.
There has been exactly zero evidence of measurable warming attributable to increases in CO2, and particularly anthropogenic CO2. Climate is always either warming or cooling, and coincidental correlation is not a proof of causation, and even more so, considering laughably short time period from the point of view of climate. Even after all of the fraudulent data rewriting and manipulation, and unfiltered UHI bias, the rate of measured warming is consistent with natural variability.
“it is a huge mistake to concede that CO2 causes any warming. This makes you play the game by the rules set by the opponent.”
That’s right. Especially when there is no evidence to demonstrate CO2 warming.
Require the opponents to prove their case.
Exactly my thoughts.
Climate is always either warming or cooling, in fact, it does both at the same time, depending on a chosen time scale. But CO2 has never been climate driver in the past, and despite all of the noise, there is Net Zero evidence that it causes any warming today. Regardless of whether climate is warning or cooling on whatever time scale, and if the effects are good or bad, it is a huge mistake to concede that CO2 causes any warming. This makes you play the game by the rules set by the opponent.
Yet, CO2 is a very important player in the carbon life cycle. Billions of years of carbon sequentialization have lead to conditions of plants starving, global desertification and ecosystems decline. George Carlin once joked that perhaps Nature created humans because it wanted plastics, but could not produce them on its own. Replace plastics with returning the sequestered carbon back to biological cycle, reviving declining Earth ecosystems, and it is not a joke anymore, it is the reality. Humas are staving off the inevitable death of life on Earth as we know it.
This was duplicated somehow, hope mods can delete it.
They may be using the rhetorical flourish of stating: “Let’s for the sake of argument assume your proposition is correct, with that out of the way, here are the reasons why your conclusions about that state are wrong”.
Why should we assume CO2 is causing any detectable warming when it is undetectable?
Climate Alarmists cannot prove that CO2 is causing any detectable warming on Earth. We shouldn’t concede that it is without evidence.
The responsibility for proving a claim is on the people making the claim.
“Assuming CO2 is causing the current temperatures is just wrong” Abbott
Were you part of the Abbott and Costello comedy team?
The average global temperature in recent years was the warmest in 5000 years according to best available measurements and proxies.
According to available data, the global average temperature has increased by approximately 0.3 degrees Celsius (0.5 degrees Fahrenheit) since the 1930s, with the most significant warming occurring in recent decades, particularly since the 1980s; however, it’s important to note that the rate of warming has not been consistent throughout the period
You have yet to produce one single bit of scientific evidence that atmospheric CO2 causes warming.
Here is your chance.. yet again…. don’t continue to FAIL COMPLETELY.
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
3… Please state the exact amount of CO2 warming in the last 45 year, giving measured
scientific evidence for your answer.
“If there are no measurements to support a conjecture, it is just speculation.” {RG}
——–
“5000 years according to best available measurements and proxies.”
That is complete and utter BS !!
That’s right, he hasn’t produced any evidence of CO2 measurably warming the Earth’s atmosphere.
He’s hoping some solid evidence will appear in the future, meanwhile, he will feed his fantasies, until evidence appears, or the cold side of the climate cyclical movement kicks in real good.
“The average global temperature in recent years was the warmest in 5000 years according to best available measurements and proxies.”
See, that’s where you get off-track, Richard: You believe in imaginary temperature history.
The written, historic regional surface temperature charts from all over the world show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. A little less than 100 years ago, it was just as warm as today.
You obviously are aware of what the regional temperature chart profiles look like, but you dismiss them. Why? Because they don’t fit your worldview? They are real, and the bastardized temperature data you use is not real.
You are living in a fantasy world, Richard. You think things are true for which you have no evidence. You think that because a greenhouse gas absorbs and emits energy that it is necessarily causing noticeable warming.
You claim that if skeptics don’t see any noticeable warming from CO2 that means they don’t think CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Do you hear yourself, Richard?
Richard is a little bit like Greta. She can see CO2. He can see global warming caused by CO2.
Trees are growing faster too. This year, the pines in Wokeachusetts produced so many cones that the branches were bent so much they looked like they were going to break. When the cones dropped- they covered the roads and people’s lawns. Someone might say “oh, that’s just something that happens periodically so it can’t be attributed to warming temperatures.” Really? Nope. I’ve been a forester here since ’73 and I’ve never seen such an abundance of pine cones.
As for models, the only ones I like are the 2 legged versions. 🙂
Even if those models are covered in oil (clothing)?
/humor
In other trees, say oak, the phenomenon is called masting. Never heard of it with pines.
In other trees, say oak, the phenomenon is called masting. Never heard of it with pines.
Yuh, with oak, the acorns seem particularly abundant every several years- to the point where you need a hardhat walking in oak forests. If there’s a similar pattern with pines, I’ve never noticed- there probably is, but it’s not so obvious.
The media does not want to lose the financial benefits of their climate catastrophe hyperbole. Headlines garner ad clicks and the media is not devolved into corporate profit centers.
Every change has winners and losers. One way to identify abandoned logic is to find messages saying there can only be winners or losers.
Any change in climate is going to benefit some, and not others. For example: Ice sheets receding since the last glacial has greatly benefited humankind overall. That means warming, to you greenies out there. There are still vast areas of permafrost in the Northern Hemisphere that would benefit from more warming.
But, it also means some places may turn to desert, as the Sahara did. It’s always going to be a trade-off.
MEDIA BIAS FACT CHECK:
Detailed ReportBias Rating: CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
YAWN !
Fact check.. Far-left zero-science mutts don’t like WUWT because it actually discusses science.
MBFC Credibility.. NEAR ZERO. !
Beetroot credibility: sinking to bottom of sewer.
Another repetition. Another boring waste of perfectly good electrons.
The MBFC rating criteria includes a specific definition that any website that does not fully embrace the CAGW hogwash is classified as a conspiracy theory pseudoscience website.
When one dives into the criteria used for their highly subjective ratings, it is clear that the assessments do not match realities at all.
Your “fact check” is all media bias.
Disclaimer:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/disclaimer/
The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only and is the opinion of individual reviewers for Media Bias/Fact Check. The opinions expressed on Media Bias/Fact Check are protected under “Fair Comment.” The information is provided by Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC News) and while we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness or accuracy of opinions/information on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
One has to wonder if Warren Beeton is the reviewer in question. The website does not disclose the names of the reviewers, so this constitutes a fair question.
I’m not one of them,but the website has sure nailed it. There’s no science nor scientific facts to be found on wuwt.
Taking this story as an example, what has been said that isn’t factual?
2nd to last paragraph, for one (there’s lots more): “ones’ and others’ claims to the contrary, Wright is correct that climate change has produced substantial benefits over the past hundred-plus years, benefits that are rarely discussed by the mainstream media. By contrast, contrary to the mainstream media’s constant flow of assertions of doom, climate change has caused little in the way of proven concrete harms.
I see you’ve highlighted the claim of substantial benefits. But I assume you’re not aware of any and I expect you didn’t read the article or at least dont believe any of it.
Would you call the greening of the earth a substantial benefit?
Here is the NASA reference
https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/goddard/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
And in terms of causing little in the way of proven concrete harms, I recommend you review the IPCC summary of climate change drivers (eg flood, drought) have emerged so far. You can find a summary table on page 1,856 of the latest assessment report, The Physical Science Basis
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
But to save you downloading and hunting for it, A screenshot of the page is below
If you dont think the greening is not a substantial benefit then I’d like to hear why you think that. If you think the IPCC climate driver summary doesn’t refute the concrete harms then I’d like to hear that too.
Oh indeed rising co2 increases vegetation on earth. But scientific research shows that the harms — rising seas, tropical diseases moving north, increasing storm disasters, more extreme temperature events, increasing prevelance and duration of droughts and wildfires, loss of species, parts of earth becoming uninhabitable — far outweigh the benefits of the greening.
Something tells me that you are taking all that for granted from the media because the table I provided from the IPCC directly refutes a couple of your claims “increasing storm disasters” and “increasing prevelance and duration of droughts and wildfires” but you listed them anyway as though you know them to be scientific fact.
Have you heard of the Dunning Kruger effect?
my claims are not refuted in the IPCC Sixth Assessment. You aren’t even citing any passage in the report, so your claim is bogus.
I’m not citing passages because I’m citing the summary table from the IPCC Sixth Assessment report. Its a succinct way of looking at what the science tells us about what has been detected so far.
Tell me what the table tells us about storms, floods and fire weather?
Cite the passage and location in the report. I’ll wait
As previously stated, the table is on page 1,856 of the AR6 “The Physical Science Basis” document.
Its a perfectly valid reference and summarises the science nicely. If you have any question about any particular entry in that table, you could find your own references elsewhere in the document.
But if you’re unwilling to even look at the table and what the science says, then who is really denying scientific facts here?
I’ll take a look
OK. Page 1851 citation, followed by my comments:
“…medium confidence of an increase in the drought hazard in
many parts of the world. This is also reflected in global-scale studies,
with Naumann et al. (2018), for example, showing that the global
mean average drought duration (based on the SPEI index which is
calculated from the difference between precipitation and potential
evaporation) increased from 7 months with the current climate to
18.5 months for a global warming level of 3°C. The apparent global
increase in drought occurrence is greater when evaporation is captured
in the drought indicator (e.g., SPEI) than when the indicator is based on
precipitation alone (as in SPI; Carrão et al., 2018). There is evidence that
the likelihood of simultaneous events in several locations will increase:
Trnka et al. (2019) found that the proportion of wheat-growing areas
1851
12Chapter 12 Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment
experiencing simultaneous severe water stress events (based on SPEI)
in a year increased from 15% under current conditions to up to 60% at
the end of the 21st century under high emissions.
The regional assessment in Section 12.4 shows that fire weather
is projected to increase with medium or high confidence in every
continent of the world, including Arctic polar regions. Globally, fire
weather is projected to increase in future, primarily due to higher
temperatures and exacerbated where precipitation reduces. By 2050,
60% of the global land area would see a significant increase in
fire weather under RCP8.5 (Abatzoglou et al., 2019). There is less
confidence in the projected distribution of change in fire weather
across regions in global-scale studies. For example, Moritz et al.,
(2012) projected an increase in fire weather in mid- and high latitudes
but a reduction in the tropics, whilst Yu et al. (2019) and Bedia et al.
(2015) projected an increase in the tropics. These differences reflect
differences in methodologies and fire weather indices adopted in various studies.”
My comment is that the table you cited reflects a statistical confidence calculation based on current data without consideration of modeling. The paragraph I cited above is what the physical modeling shows for the future rise in global temperatures.
So it is incorrect to say that scientists do not expect increased droughts and wildfires in the future due to projected future warming of the planet. In fact, they do.
Projections are from the models. For example
Even without reading the paper, I can see its a model result based on the continued high output of CO2 (that’s what RCP8.5 is) which scientists recognise as implausible in the light of the moves away from CO2 emissions we’ve already made.
You’ll find no end of papers with all sorts of claims coming from model output but the only thing that matters is what actually happens and what has actually happened in the last 70 or so years of global warming.
There are many reasons why model output is nonsense and its often covered here. In some cases the articles aren’t great but in others the issues are explored well.
Some scientists do using models but the scientific consensus as reflected in AR6 is no. They haven’t seen it as a scientific fact yet, let alone claiming cause from anthropogenic global warming. There is just a large amount of natural variability in weather and regional trends dont mean anything globally. The consensus is that we wont see it this century.
So at this point, the benefits include greening earth and increasing crop yields both measured and both as a result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere and they’re considerable benefits.
I told you it was a model result. And in spite of the fantastical postings in WUWT, the model outputs are well characterized and their accuracy understood. My claim was that fires and droughts were caused by AGW and would worsen as global temperatures climb. That claim is supported by the scientists projections.
And your claim is wrong. The scientific consensus is AGW hasn’t impacted fires and droughts. Furthermore scientific consensus says it wont emerge this century.
You’re looking at cherry picked papers and making claims based on them. That’s exactly what “deniers” are usually accused of doing.
Your claim fails a “fact check”
The IPCC doesn’t ‘cherrypick”. It represents the scientific consensus. Like other Deniers, you can;t read a scientific report.
No, the IPCC doesn’t cherry pick. It includes all sorts of references although it does tend to favour ones that support the alarmist view. That’s why that particular paper was there but it doesn’t mean the scientists say fire weather has increased.
So if you believe the IPCC has meant fire weather has increased then how do you explain table 12.12 where there is low confidence in the direction of change for “Fire Weather” that has already emerged in Historical Period?
Nice article. The notation regarding crop production increases in yields
is from a combination of factors such as Roundup Ready seeds and the
use of “smart farming” practices & equipment along with climate changes IMO. Since I started
farming in the Northern Rockies area we have gained some 90+ days of
growing season and that has allowed production of field corn which was
totally unheard of as recently as the 80’s along with 1-2 more cuttings of hay
per season.
It’s easier to just say that MSNBC is always wrong.
Then refuse to watch it. Just as with all the other Network News.
They are all just talking heads anyway whose purpose is to sell manufacturers items. Nothing makes it over the airwaves without prior approval from editors that you never see.
This column exaggerates the benefits of CO2
Improvements of agriculture from CO2 are likely in the 10% to 20% range for the last 100 ppm increase of CO2, from 320 ppm to 420 ppm. with help from longer growing seasons too. Corn for one example averages 32% more biomass with a +300 ppm CO2 boost. So a +100 ppm boost can be guessed to be about 10% to 11%
CO2 Science
Hot weather deaths actually exceed cold weather deaths but both are a tiny percentage of all cause mortality. Cold (seasonal) related deaths, such as the seasonal trend of heart related deaths, should benefit from slightly warmer winters but there are no data to prove that. Heart deaths have been the top killer in the US since the 1950s. Whatever benefit there is from warmer winters is probably offset by more people being obese.
The most pleasant global warming benefit for me is warmer winters with less snow here in SE Michigan for the past 48 years. Greenhouse warming mainly affects colder areas in the colder months of the year. Also affects TMIN more han TMAX. Greenhouse warming makes the climate more pleasant.
Earth is always getting warmer or colder.
Colder is bad news, according to centuries of anecdotes. If getting colder is bad news, then getting warmer must be good news. It can’t be that getting colder is bad news AND getting warmer is bad news too!
Of all the problems in the world, such as wars, crime, poverty and leftism, it is insane that anyone fears a very gradually warming climate … that people under age 50 have been living with for all of their lives.
“Hot weather deaths actually exceed cold weather deaths “
Data ignorance again ???
—–
“Greenhouse warming “
Have you any scientific evidence that this fantasy warming even exists ??
graph related to part 1.
and another graph…
and another one…
Improvements in agriculture due to increase in CO2 will vary with a crop and geographical region, but they are corroborated by the documented world greening. There should also be some studies of plant productivity as a function of CO2 in the air.
Longer growing seasons due to a coincidental warming that is unproven to be caused by CO2, reduce losses due to early frost and also mean longer more favorable harvesting conditions.
Very nice Linnea.
Wright said: It’s probably almost as many positive changes as there are negative changes,”
I’ve asked dozens of climate alarmists to tell me what negative changes to climate have occurred over the past 40 years. There has been no increase in the severity or frequency of hurricanes, droughts, floods, wildfire, or severe weather of any kind. Crop yields are at or near record highs. Sea levels are rising at an easily manageable 13 inches per century. No island nations have been swept away.
What are the negative consequences of climate change that we have seen in the last 40 years. None of the alarmist have been able to answer that question that could hold up to even cursory examination.
So I’ll ask all of you climate realists out there. What are the negative consequences from climate change that we have seen over the last 40 years? I don’t need a detailed response. Can you please just tell my anything bad that has happened to climate over the past 40 years, because I can find any. Thanks.
“Can you please just tell my anything bad that has happened to climate over the past 40 years,”
Sorry, can’t think of a single thing. !
My usual response to this is humans have endured (though not thrived) on much colder temperatures and thrived on warmer temperatures than today. I still can not imagine what these folks will do when the ice-age ends and temperatures go up to geological norms – 10 to 20 degrees C warmer than today!
They will be fine for a while, but long term prospects are not good. The Sun is increasing its output on the way to becoming a red giant. It will evaporate out all oceans and will end the life on Earth as we know it before delivering a final mortal blow to surviving microorganisms in explosion that will likely engulf the Earth’s orbit, but even if stops somewhere short of it between Venus and Earth, it will blow away everything from its surface and incinerate it.
Robert Frost
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
Global warming clearly has net benefits while global cooling clearly has net costs. Kind of nonsensical to talk about the benefits of “climate change” independent of which direction the change is going.
The actual change that’s coming is more likely to be cooling than warming. Seriously crazy to be worried about CO2 causing too much warming when they only actual dangers are global cooling and CO2 starvation.
If we instead we get some more continued warming, that will be very lucky.
While it is most definitely true that a slight warming is better than any cooling, it is crazy to be worried about something totally out of one’s control. Be it lucky or unlucky, neither warming nor cooling are anthropogenic. Assuming so out of bloated self-importance of humanity is preposterous and is no different from a lunatic in a madhouse imagining himself all-powerful world dictator.