Is Climate Change Abe Lincoln’s Fault?

From CFACT

By Kelvin Kemm

Mark Twain said, “Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.” His real name was Samuel Clemens, and in 1863, he adopted ‘Mark Twain’ as a pen name. The most common explanation of where the name came from is that as the riverboat men on the Mississippi measured the depth of the water, they would call out ‘mark twain’ at the ‘two fathom’ mark on a rope. A fathom is about six feet, so that mark indicated that there was twelve feet of water, and so it was safe for the boat to move.

There is, however, an alternative explanation. Sam was a newspaper reporter in Virginia City, which was a mining town on the eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada. He was well known in the saloons around town where he reportedly consumed many drinks, no doubt on his hunt for news stories. In the saloons, they would have a chalkboard, and the barman would mark up the customer’s drinks on the board. Apparently, Sam would order two drinks and call out to the barman, ‘mark twain, indicating that he should mark up two drinks at a time.

Whatever the truth of the origin of the name is, it has certainly become a famous name in history. There would be no doubt that the boatmen of the Mississippi would be very well-aware of daily weather conditions. Mark Twain clearly would have been. So, it is very important to make a distinction between climate and weather because these days they are so often confused.

Half a lifetime

‘Climate’ is the state of affairs which one can observe over some region, over a period of something like 30 years. In contrast, ‘weather’ is short term, from one day to the next, or from one week to the next. For some newspaper to report evidence of climate change because there was a heavy storm yesterday is crazy.

Mark Twain traveled around the world a lot and so he would have examined the recorded climate for any region that he was visiting. But having grown up with the riverboats, he would have been very well aware that the weather at any time that he arrived somewhere might not at all be what the recorded general climate indicated.

So, if you ask the question, “Is climate change taking place or has climate change taken place?” the first thing you have to do is ask the secondary question, “What period of time are you referring to?” If you ask, “Is the climate today the same as it was at the time of the dinosaurs?” the answer is clearly no. Similarly, if you ask, “Is the climate today the same as it was during the time of President Lincoln?” the answer is also no.

The temperature of the atmosphere of the planet has changed over much shorter periods than from the dinosaurs to now. It is well known and verified that there was a warm period known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from around the year 950 to 1250. During this time, grapes were grown in England and the Domesday Book of 1086 records vineyards at Tiddington in Oxfordshire.

That warm period was followed by a cold period known as the Little Ice Age (LIA), from about 1250 to 1850. This covered the time of Shakespeare. During this time there were paintings produced of the Thames freezing over, even showing horse-drawn carriages riding down the frozen Thames.

The potato famine in Ireland also happened during this period. There are historical records showing that food shortages in Ireland and Europe were part of the reason that the Pilgrim fathers went to the New World of America.

Top hat marker

Abraham Lincoln was president right at the end of the LIA, at a time when temperatures in the U.S. were about a degree colder than they are now.

It is also an historical fact that the Industrial Revolution came about from the middle of the 1800s, at about the same time as the term of office of Lincoln.

The planet is now going into a period of modern warming, so temperatures are around 1° to 2° warmer than at the time of Lincoln. So yes, there has undoubtedly been global warming of a bit more than a degree since the time of Lincoln, which is also the time of the Industrial Revolution.

There has never been any argument that there has been some global warming and some consequent climate change.

The discussion point of merit is not whether it has happened, but rather what caused it?

Carbon’ is simplistic

To blame ‘climate change’ on industrially created CO2 is totally simplistic. It is far too convenient for the warming enthusiasts to blame observed warming on modern industry. By far the more plausible explanation is a variation in the incidence of cosmic radiation from outer space which alters the amount of cloud cover, which in turn alters the amount of heat reaching the ground. The cosmic rays are in turn controlled by the stream of electrically charged particles coming from the Sun, which are controlled by the magnetic field of the Sun. These particles interact with the magnetic field of the Earth.

It has been known for centuries that the Sun goes through an 11-year solar cycle, during which time the activity of the Sun varies and consequently alters the magnetic shield around the Earth.

So, try to exhibit the wisdom of Mark Twain and don’t blame every unusual storm on ‘climate change,’ which is then darkly linked to ‘the fault of modern industry.’

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
3 Comments
leefor
September 7, 2026 10:35 pm

“A fathom is about six feet”. Nope it is 6 feet.

DD More
September 7, 2026 10:38 pm

UV Solar – Reconstruction of solar UV irradiance since 1974 (2009)

Solar radiation at 130–175 nm (Schumann-Runge continuum) is completely absorbed in the thermosphere. Over activity cycles 21–23, solar radiative flux in this spectral range varied by about 10–15% (Figure 5a), i.e., by more than a factor of 100 more than solar cycle variations in the solar total energy flux (total solar irradiance). 

In the oxygen Schumann-Runge bands (175–200 nm) and Herzberg continuum (200–242 nm), important for photochemical ozone production and destruction in the stratosphere and mesosphere, solar irradiance varied on average by about 5–8% (Figure 5b) and 3% (Figure 5c), respectively. 

In the Hartley-Huggins ozone bands between 200 and 350 nm, solar radiation is the main heat source in the stratosphere. At these wavelengths, the amplitude of the solar cycle variation is of the order of 1%, which is still an order of magnitude stronger than variations of the total solar irradiance.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012375/pdf

All the energy crossing the top of atmosphere still has to get out. Lucky for us, most of the 130-175 nm range spends all it’s time making and loosing ozone.

The complete data set of the reconstructed solar irradiance at 115–400 nm over the period 1974–2007 is available as auxiliary material and at http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/data.html

CO2 is in the 100 PPM change area.

September 7, 2026 10:41 pm

Short essay and a [Ctrl-F] search on “blame” comes up 1/3. Nothing is said about the notion that a warmer world is a better world. Poems have been written about a rare day in June. We don’t look to assign blame for pleasant weather. Warmer weather should be celebrated. The other side of the debate wants to make the case that warmer weather is a problem when it is not.

So, if you ask the question, “Is climate change taking place or has climate change taken place?” the first thing you have to do is ask the secondary question, “What period of time are you referring to?”

It might be better to ask: “Is it a problem and why?”