Section topics:
A response to Brian Crowley re embracing the climate alarmism narrative;
“Lunacy, insanity, craziness…” Terms too strong to describe climate alarmism? You read and decide;
The misuse of “misinformation”;
Celebrating CO2 (Craig Idso on the benefits of more CO2);
The global warming “Pause” continues;
The uncertainty of climate measurements;
Climate points;
Notes on climate physics;
The hysterical demonization of CO2;
Uncertainty about Earth’s carbon cycles;
Renewables versus fossil fuels;
And more…
This from the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)…
“The State of the Climate 2021: Empirical observations show no sign of “climate crisis”
“London, 14 April, 2022 – A systematic review of climate trends and observational data by an eminent climate scientist has found no evidence to support the claim of a climate crisis.
“In his annual State of the Climate report, Ole Humlum, emeritus professor at the University of Oslo, examined detailed patterns in temperature changes in the atmosphere and oceans together with trends in climate impacts.
“Many of these show no significant trends and suggest that poorly understood natural cycles are involved.
“And while the report finds gentle warming, there is no evidence of dramatic changes, with snow cover stable, sea ice levels recovering, and no change in storm activity.
“Professor Humlum said:
“’A year ago, I warned that there was great risk in using computer modelling and immature science to make extraordinary claims. The empirical observations I have reviewed show very gentle warming and no evidence of a climate crisis.”
GWPF director, Dr Benny Peiser said:
“’It’s extraordinary that anyone should think there is a climate crisis. Year after year our annual assessment of climate trends document just how little has been changing in the last 30 years. The habitual climate alarmism is mainly driven by scientists’ computer modelling rather than observational evidence.’”
My response to Brian Crowley re his article urging Canadian Conservatives to take climate change seriously (I sent this to the editor of the Financial Post several weeks ago). Brian urged us to “get serious” and be “adults” by accepting his proposal on what the Conservative position should be.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/brian-lee-crowley-conservatives-need-to-take-climate-change-seriously-while-rejecting-destructive-left-wing-solutions
Brian Crowley illustrates once again the virtue signaling that many politicians engage, wagging their fingers at too much rush to decarbonize, but yes, warning that we must do something to deal with this “real crisis of climate change”, and voters tell us to do so. But, as Jordan Peterson has cautioned, how wise is it to govern by survey? Remember Brian, the populations that you appeal to, they want us to do something because they have been panicked silly over past decades with endless end-of-world scenarios from alarmist scientists, celebrities, politicians, and media. Hence, their support for the salvation scheme of climate alarmists- radical and rushed decarbonization.
Brian lectures us about “golden means” and “adult positions” in reference to the above balancing act between his two purported extremes, and then with most politicians today he affirms the alarmist narrative once again.
Yes, climate change is real. No one has ever doubted this because climate is a complex, dynamic system that is never in stasis (i.e. unchanging or static at some “optimal state”). And taking climate change “seriously” would mean acting rationally by using the plentiful fossil fuels that enable us to create wealth and adapt to never-ending climate change, whether warming or cooling.
But you are not serious Brian if you mean buying into the alarmist narrative that has dominated public discussion for years- i.e. that (1) CO2 levels, already rising before industrialization began, are now rising mainly due to human emissions (remember that with the Covid shutdown and 7% decline in human emissions, CO2 levels continued to rise “naturally” just as before). You are not serious if you claim that (2) CO2 is the dominant influence on climate despite the amassed evidence that other natural factors overwhelm the CO2 influence (plus, the warming influence of CO2 is now “saturated” in physics terms and logarithmically declines with increasing CO2 levels). And you are not serious if you claim that (3) the mild climate change of the past century (1 degree C) is “catastrophic” and an “existential crisis”.
This apocalyptic alarm movement claims that climate change is mainly “human-caused” so we must try to turn that CO2 knob and “keep it from passing 1.5 degrees C” into “catastrophe” territory. That is King Canute-like irrationality- to set up your chair on the beach and believe that you can control nature as Pres. Obama claimed.
The decarbonization crusade, whether rushed or delayed and enacted more prudently, is based on unproven assumptions built into discredited climate models.
Respected climate physicists Lindzen, Wijngaarden, Happer, and many others tell us that climate mitigation endeavors are irrational (based on the absurd belief that we can control climate) because CO2 is just a “bit player” in the climate game and is consistently overwhelmed by other natural factors. So what we have been observing in climate over past decades and centuries is “natural variation”, as ever before.
Also, take seriously the almost 32,000 scientists who signed the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine Protest Petition stating there is no good evidence that more CO2 and climate warming is bad for the world and lots of good evidence that it is good for the world.
And your “serious risk for Canadians”? There has been no risk from the past century’s mild 1 degree C warming in a world where the real risk is that 10 times more people die every year from cold than die from warmth (Lancet study). We need even more degrees of warming that will lessen the horrific annual death rate from cold (see Bjorn Lomborg research on this at https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-heat-cold-deaths-medical-journal-health-risk-energy-cost-fossil-fuels-11631741045). And we need more CO2 to continue the amazing greening of Earth that has already experienced a 15% increase in green vegetation across the planet just since 1980. Meaning more food for animals and increased crop production for humanity.
“Doing the right thing environmentally” would be to celebrate more CO2, as Patrick Moore urges, for the amazing benefits that this basic food of all life brings to the world. CO2 has been at starvation levels far too long and needs to get back to the multiple-thousand ppm levels of past history where all life thrived and there was no climate catastrophe because of the disconnect between CO2 levels and world average temperatures (note those paleo-climate graphs and Vostok ice-core research). And temperatures need to return to the 5-10 degree C warmer levels of past history where all life thrived and enjoyed extended habitats where tropical species of flora and fauna reached the polar regions (the ice-free world for most of past history of life).
(Note: More warming does not “fry” the already warm areas of Earth as more heat is distributed by Earth’s ocean and atmosphere convection currents more to colder regions (polar), to colder seasons (winter), and to colder times of day (night).)
Point- there is no need to tax carbon or decarbonize our societies. So just as you lecture us, get serious Brian about real climate science and be an adult in regard to what the real debate is about. The key issue is the role of CO2 in climate change, something that alarmists have exaggerated all out of proportion to reality with their discredited climate models.
Yes, do the right thing environmentally. Stop the insane demonization of CO2 and the insane decarbonization crusade that is ruining societies. Present the public with the full body of data on CO2/climate change without the obsessive framing of things in apocalyptic terms and then with a properly informed public let us all discuss rational adaptation approaches.
Brian, let that be the proper “adult” Conservative position.
Note:
While there is no doubt that CO2 contributes a bit to warming, it is not the cause of the Modern Warming Period that began before industrialization. The Modern Warming Period has been on a warming trajectory since the end of the Little Ice Age of 1645 to 1715. The warming since has been natural and did not shift to become mainly “human-caused” around the ramped-up industrialization of the Post-World War 2 era. Further, our Modern Warming has not been “catastrophic” and is not becoming an “existential crisis”. The 1 degree C warming over the past century has been beneficial to all life, especially as our modern era warming is still the coolest part of our 11,000 year Holocene interglacial. (See Patrick Moore’s material on “Celebrating CO2”)
Note:
A side bar feature in many movies is the theme of “CO2 poisoning”. Yes, CO2 can become toxic to humans, but only at very high levels (i.e. above 5000 ppm for many hours, or tens of thousands of ppm for shorter periods). There is no danger of CO2 rising to such levels over the future. Further, the CO2 levels over most of the history life have been in the multiple-thousands of ppm and were not toxic to life but enhanced life immensely because CO2 is the basic food of all life. And remember, we are at the tail end of a 140 million-year historical decline in CO2 levels that almost proved fatal to all life some 20,000 years ago when CO2 dipped below 200 ppm, down to 185 ppm, just 35 ppm above the level at which all life dies (150 ppm).
This from Heather Exner-Pirot– “The green transition has created a global food crisis that will only get worse” (We are getting all of the pain of soaring costs and none of the climate benefit. It is a policy disaster of the worst kind). April 12, 2022
Aside from a quibble about her comment below re “compound the climate crisis” (there is no “climate crisis”) this is good on the energy mess created by bad climate policies that have hindered energy investment and development.
“According to Bloomberg, energy costs will surpass 13 per cent of global GDP this year — the highest proportion in modern times. By comparison, it was less than four per cent of global GDP in 2020, and 6.5 per cent in 2021.
“That nine per cent of global GDP, which represents about $8.5 trillion, could have been spent on education, health, infrastructure, housing or other important measures. Instead, it has been siphoned off into spiralling energy costs created not from a lack of energy resources, but from climate policies that intentionally reduced their supply by limiting investment and rejecting new exploration, infrastructure and production…
“Low energy prices are fundamental to human development, global stability and our capacity to transition to non-fossil fuel sources of energy. Political leaders have been willing to sacrifice energy affordability in service of other policy goals. If we do not re-prioritize it, we will compound the climate crisis with avoidable humanitarian crises.”
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/heather-exner-pirot-the-green-transition-has-created-a-global-food-crisis-that-will-only-get-worse
This from P. Gosselin: “New Study: Arctic was much warmer 6000 years ago, 90% of glaciers, ice caps smaller than present or absent!”
Quotes from link above:
“Climate alarmists hate this inconvenient fact: hundreds of temperature reconstructions show that the northern hemisphere was much warmer over much of the past 10,000 years (Holocene) than it is today…
“In the paper’s Figure 10d (above), the higher the curve, the smaller were the glaciers. Clearly, we see that the Arctic region glaciers were much smaller 6000 years ago than today. Many in fact disappeared altogether and so summers were warmer.”
This from Wattsupwiththat.com
Quotes from link:
“Mitigation of Climate Change? To lessen harmful climate change the IPCC must identify the causes. It claims that 80% of global warming is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, without giving any physical evidence. It claims as physical evidence the projections, forecasts, and predictions from climate models which fail basic testing against physical evidence. Thus, as a physical science, the models are worthless for prediction.
And from climate modeler Mototaka Nakamura:
“’All climate simulation models have many details that become fatal flaws when they are used as climate forecasting tools, especially for mid- to long-term (several years and longer) climate variations and changes. These models completely lack some of critically important climate processes and feedbacks and represent some other critically important climate processes and feedbacks in grossly distorted manners to the extent that makes these models useless for any meaningful climate prediction. It means that they are also completely useless for assessing the effects of the past atmospheric carbon dioxide increase on the climate.
“The models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (worse, in a sense that they can produce gravely misleading output) only when they are used for climate forecasting…
“’The two most important greenhouse substances by far are water vapor and clouds. Clouds are also important reflectors of sunlight. These matters are discussed in detail in the IPCC WG1 reports, each of which openly acknowledge clouds as major sources of uncertainty in climate modeling.”…
“The linear warming trend since January 1979 still stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).”
“This modest rise is within natural variability and does not constitute a climate crisis. Nor does it mean that the linear trend will continue at the same rate…
“Further, all five of major greenhouse gases are saturated, meaning that their effectiveness declines with increasing concentration and carbon dioxide and water vapor are strongly saturated…
“Any organization that claims to be able to forecast the earth’s climate without correctly considering the characteristics of the atmosphere is a political organization, not a scientific one. The findings of the UN IPCC are political, not scientific.”
And this…
Do you believe in climate change? Yes I do, but not the widely propagated narrative of “dominantly human-caused climate change”. Science does not affirm that exaggerated tale. There is likely some human contribution to climate change (still uncertain how much). Good climate science reveals that natural factors show stronger correlations to the climate change that we have observed over the past.
And I do not believe the “climate crisis” element in the alarmist narrative because there is no evidence that Earth is rapidly and excessively heating up. Further, storms, floods, droughts, and wildfires are not getting worse or more frequent. Simply stated: There is no climate crisis.
And what about the many benefits of more CO2 and a few degrees more warming in an abnormally cold world where 10 times more people die every year from cold than die from warmth? Also, with more plant food in the atmosphere (i.e. that is “CO2” for the science challenged) there has been a 15% increase in green vegetation across the Earth over the past 40 years. That should be celebrated as it means more food for animals and increased crop production for humanity.
In conclusion, there is no need to tax carbon or decarbonize our societies.
“Lunacy… insanity… craziness…”. Terms too strong to describe climate alarmism and rushed decarbonization? Maybe not. You decide after reading this…
Mass-death totals from war areas often numb the mind and emotions. But personal accounts from our fellow human beings of their experience of the overwhelming terror of life, such details of their personal experiences expose their anguish and suffering to the rest of us (make it more comprehensible and relatable). In response I think of the Jewish resort to “protest theology” after the Holocaust. That they were going to hold God accountable in judgment for that horror. The planet we inhabit too often descends into these eruptions of insanity that leave one acknowledging that the world can be a fucking awful place for too many people. Here is Viktoria Kovalenko, a Ukrainian mother’s story… I cry with her.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61038811
And from Wattsupwiththat.com
I would have framed this as a status report on the “lunacy of decarbonization”. Good detail on progress re energy storage and horrific costs of renewables.
This is good on the misuse of the term “misinformation” and how it has deformed scientific debate. Apply this also to the climate debate…
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/opinion-misuse-of-the-term-misinformation-has-muzzled-scientific-covid-19-debate
Quotes from above link…
“Prosecuting erstwhile “misinformation” has resulted in ridiculous examples of scientific censorship, such as banning the prestigious Cochrane Collaborative from Instagram after its review on masks concluded that there was little evidence to support their use in the community. Likewise, the British Medical Journal, one of the most reputable peer reviewed journals in medicine, has been cited as misinformation by Facebook. It does beg the question, who is the arbiter of truth? Is it the executives of technology giants? Is it the TV news director? The newspaper columnist? The Twitter doctor with the most followers? And why is the “truth” in Canada different than the truth in, for example, Scandinavia? Should critical social decisions be made in quiet backrooms with profit motives front of mind or hashed out, through vigorous debate, in full view of the public?…
“In the end, ad hominem attacks, unilateral application of standards and the wide misuse of the term “misinformation” have muzzled valid criticism, poisoned dialogue and silenced the perspectives of people with valuable insights. The first major consequence is that valid ideas have been rejected without full consideration. This has resulted in a very skewed understanding of the real risk of COVID-19 and the merits of restrictions and vaccines by the public, mostly along political lines.
“The second chilling effect is that valid commentators have been scared away from public discourse, no matter how valid their concerns. Some have legitimate fears of loss of livelihood, others fear social opprobrium or professional repercussions. Others lack the will to fight. Has this happened? We assure you it has: from the unapologetic attack by the CBC on participants in a University of Calgary debate to the most recent vague, disjointed vilification of physicians advocating for children. Few are willing to brave the gauntlet; many of those who do are forced to retreat.
“Exploring the data openly is essential, no matter where it leads and no matter whose pet theory it debunks. When done well, reasonable people from apparently disparate points of view often show more agreement than not. Those who speak up thoughtfully, especially with valid data, should be acknowledged for their courage and met with respect and thoughtful critique. We should not mindlessly accept anything, nor should we blindly reject. Nobody speaks gospel and the public should meet all claims with scepticism, including those who proclaim themselves prophets — COVID-19 is a novel virus and no one is an “expert.” There is no right way to “do” COVID-19. If we look around the globe, no two places have responded in the same way. We need to maintain skepticism about “what works” when so many other variables explain the rise and fall of COVID cases. All claims should also consider the interaction with social values and consequences, lest we end up with the status quo: a policy agenda that is not aligned with reality.”
Scientist Craig Idso, CO2 specialist, beginning “a new series of articles discussing the many ways in which rising atmospheric carbon dioxide benefits humanity and nature”.
The Many Benefits of Rising Atmospheric CO2 — An Introduction
Quotes:
“Composed of one carbon and two oxygen atoms, this simple molecule serves as the primary raw material out of which plants construct their tissues, which in turn provide the materials out of which animals construct theirs. Knowledge of the key life-giving and life-sustaining role played by carbon dioxide, or CO2, is so well established, in fact, that humans—and all the rest of the biosphere—are described in the most basic of terms as carbon-based lifeforms. We simply could not and would not exist without it.
“Ironically, far too many demonize and falsely label this important atmospheric trace gas a pollutant. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead of being shunned like the plague, the ongoing rise in CO2 should be welcomed with open arms…
“During the past three decades of my professional career I have performed countless hours of research, conducted multiple experiments, published a series of professional journal articles, written several books, created videos and feature-length documentaries, and authored thousands of commentary articles exploring the effects of CO2 on the biosphere (much of that work can be found at my CO2 Science website, www.co2science.org). In all those activities I have come to know that, far from being a pollutant, this colorless, odorless, tasteless and invisible gas benefits the biosphere in a multitude of ways…
“Sadly, most of the population remains woefully unaware of the many positive impacts of CO2 on the biosphere. This is no surprise, considering the constant and steady stream of misinformation our society endures from sources dedicated to demeaning and defaming CO2…
“Yet, these endeavors have failed miserably because they have neglected to evaluate or even acknowledge the manifold real and measurable benefits of the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content. As a result, many important and positive impacts of atmospheric CO2 enrichment remain underappreciated and largely ignored in the debate over what to do, or not do, about anthropogenic CO2 emissions. And that omission does not bode well for policy decisions.”
Note: Contrary to obsessive claims of “climate crisis”, the mild global warming of past decades has again paused just as it also paused from roughly 1997-2014 after a slight warming from the mid-1970s to mid-1990s. This fact makes it highly uncertain if further warming will return or a long-term cooling trend will emerge. Point? There is no “climate crisis” that has to be countered with irrational decarbonization policies that are harming many people with severely rising energy costs.
See this good summary of the flatlining of global warming by scientist David Whitehouse at
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-truth-about-the-global-warming-pause
Quotes from the above link…
“I noted in an earlier article that the world’s media were ignoring research papers in mainstream scientific journals that showed that global temperatures had slowed or stalled…
“The lesson of the pause is not that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist, but rather that the computer models, which predicted an acceleration in global warming, and on which current policy is based, have proved to be inaccurate. Nevertheless, the pause is an important event that enriches our understanding of a highly complex climate system. In the future, a long-term rise in global temperatures may resume. There is a good chance, however, that the recent super El Niño (2015-16) only interrupted the 1997-2014 pause. No-one knows. But if the pause were to resume or warming keeps slowing down, many of the fundamental assumptions of climate science would have to be re-assessed.”
Also, this data from Christopher Monckton…
Quote from above link (note the trend in the graph included)
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
“The new Pause (since 2014- the 2015-16 El Nino was an event in a trend line) has lengthened by another month. On the UAH satellite monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, seven and a half years have passed since there was any trend in global warming at all. As always, if anyone has seen this surely not uninteresting fact mentioned in the Mainstream news media, let us know in comments. One of the best-kept secrets in what passes for “journalism” these days is that global temperature has not been rising steadily (or, since October 2014, at all). It has been rising in occasional spurts in response to natural events such as the great Pacific shift of 1976 and the subsequent strong el Niño events, rather than at the somewhat steadier rate that one might expect if our continuing – and continuous – sins of emission were the primary culprit.”
Note the uncertainty regarding climate measurements, the miniscule amounts involved, yet the exaggerated claims of “climate crisis”. This is from Ken Haapala commenting on research from climate scientist Roy Spencer…
“(Spencer) “If we are to believe the last ~15 years of Argo float measurements of the ocean (to 2000 m depth), there has been a slight warming equivalent to an imbalance of 1 Watt per sq. meter, suggesting a very slight imbalance in those energy flows.
“(Spencer) “One watt per sq. meter.
“(Spencer) “That tiny imbalance can be compared to the 5 to 10 Watt per sq. meter uncertainty in the ~240 Watt per sq. meter average flows in and out of the climate system. We do not know those flows that accurately. Our satellite measurement systems do not have that level of absolute accuracy.”
“(Haapala) Global energy balance diagrams (which you have seen) have the numbers massaged, on the basic assumption that all of the imbalance is due to humans.
“(Spencer) “I repeat: NONE of the natural, global-average energy flows in the climate system are known to better than about 5-10 Watts per sq. meter…compared to the ocean warming-based imbalance of 1 Watt per sq. meter.
“(Spencer) “What this means is that recent warming could be mostly natural…and we would never know it.
“(Spencer) “But climate scientists simply assume that the climate system has been in perfect, long-term harmonious balance, if not for humans. This is a pervasive, quasi-religious assumption of the Earth science community for as long as I can remember.
“(Spencer) “But this position is largely an anthropocentric statement of faith.
“(Spencer) “That doesn’t make it wrong. It’s just…uncertain.
“(Spencer) “Unfortunately, that uncertainty is never conveyed to the public or to policymakers.”
“(Haapala) Two days before the above post, on March 1, Spencer reported the February 2022 update to the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly:
“(Spencer) “The linear warming trend since January 1979 still stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).”
“(Haapala) There is nothing dangerous about the warming occurring in the atmosphere and certainly no reason to declare a climate crisis, imposing severe government restrictions on the use of fossil fuels. The predictions/projections/forecasts of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its followers are a clear example of the importance of a comment by Richard Feynman:
“(Feynman) “If there is something very slightly wrong in our definition of the theories, then the full mathematical rigor may convert these errors into ridiculous conclusions.”
“(Haapala) Claiming the globe is experiencing a climate crisis is a ridiculous conclusion.
Another note: Point is that state/bureaucratic intervention in the choices of populations (free markets) usually mucks things up badly.
Block fossil fuel development with government policy. You then get less investment and development of new fossil fuel resources. The result is restricted supplies of fossil fuels. Prices then naturally rise, and as fossil fuels are the basis of economies, price increases break out all over in all sorts of other things (i.e. inflation).
Climate points, Wendell Krossa
The hysteria over climate change continues to surge to new crescendos of madness (the agonal breathing spasms of a dying movement?). We are being compelled to immediately and entirely decarbonize our societies within a decade or so- consequences be damned. We are being coerced, via state policy, to abandon what should be plentiful and cheap fossil fuels that have enabled humanity to lift billions of people out of poverty over the past century or so, fossil fuels that have enabled us to achieve the amazingly improved human condition of today, as well as achieving environmental improvement (i.e. Note that wealthier nations are more successful in caring for their environments- see “Ecological Kuznets Curve” or “Environmental Transition” research by scholars like Indur Goklany).
Anti-industrial society/anti-capitalism crusaders have successfully demonized CO2 in public consciousness as a “pollutant… (even) poison” and created an anti-science narrative that (1) rising CO2 over the past century is mainly from human emissions and (2) that CO2 is the dominant influence on climate change and (3) that climate change is becoming “catastrophic” and portends the end of the world if we don’t decarbonize immediately.
The climate alarmists have created hysterical fear of the food of all life that has long been at “starvation levels” (i.e. we are at the tail end of 140-million year decline in CO2 levels, a decline that descended to the dangerously low levels of 20,000 years ago- 185 ppm- that were barely above the level- 150 ppm- at which all life dies. That continued decline would have become a true apocalypse.).
Alarmists have demonized this trace gas that all life depends on for survival and needs in multiple-thousands of ppm in order to flourish properly. (see Gregory Whitestone’s “CO2 is not a pollutant” at https://co2coalition.org/2022/02/28/your-honor-co2-is-not-a-pollutant/)
Note that there is no connection over paleo-climate history between high levels of CO2 (multi-thousands of ppm) and any climate catastrophe (i.e. “burning world”).
So also with climate warming: We are at the tail end of a multi-millennia cooling trend, that began with the end of the much warmer Holocene Optimum of 10,000-6,000 years ago. Our Modern Warm Period is the coolest of the four main warm periods of our interglacial (Holocene Optimum, Roman, Medieval, Modern). Just four centuries ago we descended into the coldest period of our Holocene interglacial, the Little Ice Age of 1645-1715, and have since been recovering slightly with a mild 1 degree warming over the past century. We are still far below past average warmer temperatures that enabled life to flourish more. We would benefit from several more degrees of warming and that would not produce “climate catastrophe”.
Disappointingly, most people on both sides of our political/social divides agree with the climate alarmism narrative that is more based on apocalyptic mythology than science. Such agreement is obviously influenced by decades of panic-mongering over climate change.
While many brave spirits are speaking out against the alarmist narrative and decarbonization madness, there is still too much kowtowing and even cowardice that refuses to openly challenge the alarmist distortions on climate (Due to fear of alarmist ad hominem counter-attack, smearing, and cancelling pogroms?).
Contrary to climate alarmism narratives, good climate science and climate physics shows that we do not know (1) how much humanity actually contributes to rising CO2. Whereas, we do know with increasing certainty (2) that CO2 is not the dominant influence on climate, and we do know (3) that climate change is not becoming catastrophic but continues to do naturally what it always does- change constantly (i.e. naturally varying between warming and cooling trends). We also know that climate records show no increasing trends in heatwaves, floods, droughts, or storms. Even the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) admits this.
Plainly stated: There is no “climate crisis”. That is the great ideological propaganda lie of our time.
Yet politicians, celebrities, alarmist scientists, and media continue to push the anti-science climate apocalyptic narrative. The consequences of the decarbonization salvation scheme (consequences brought about by state anti-fossil fuel policies and consequent declining investment in new fossil fuel supplies) are already emerging in rising energy costs that harm the most vulnerable people the most. Add the geo-political dangers from dependence on totalitarian regimes for energy supplies.
Familiarize yourself with basic climate physics (i.e. the physics of CO2) and recognize that there is no sound scientific reason to tax carbon or decarbonize our societies. CO2 is not a threat but, to the contrary, a great benefit to all life. And we are still at suboptimal levels for life. Plants prefer CO2 levels over 1000 ppm, which is what horticulturalists/farmers provide in greenhouse settings. The mild rise of CO2 over past centuries to 400-plus ppm today has revived plant life with a 15% increase in green vegetation across the Earth. Greens ought to be celebrating that massive greening of our planet.
Further notes on climate physics:
CO2 doubling (400 ppm to 800 ppm) may add another degree of warming as its warming influence declines logarithmically with increasing levels. “May?” Yes, because other natural factors continue to overwhelm the miniscule or “bit player” role of CO2 in climate change (see research on ocean multi-decadal shifts from warming to cooling phases, cosmic ray influence on cloud formation, and other factors).
Note:
The public understanding of climate science has been severely distorted by alarmist messaging that obsessively claims that every extreme weather event is more proof of looming climate catastrophe. Add the endless setting of dates for the apocalyptic ending of the world (2030 is one of the latest). This hysterical panic-mongering terrorizes populations, rendering people susceptible to irrational alarmist salvation schemes like decarbonization. Frightened people, with their survival impulse heightened, are not open to debate but have retreated into confirmation bias mode.
Confirmation bias? Climate alarmism affirms the inherited natural belief of most people in apocalyptic mythology, long promoted by religious traditions and now embraced by “secular” ideologies like Declinism (i.e. past paradise ruined by humanity, life now declining toward catastrophic ending, humanity deserving punishment, need for a salvation/atonement scheme in order to restore a lost paradise, etc.).
Note:
Politicians regularly appeal to polls/surveys that show widespread public support for their decarbonization policies. But remember those are polls of populations that have been alarmed by apocalyptic climate messaging for over four decades, populations that have heard almost exclusively the alarmist narrative on climate change that is favored by media. There has been little counter information on climate presented to the public on the true state of climate (i.e. climate physics). When the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine “Protest Petition” was taken to Washington DC, it was almost entirely ignored by media. Almost 32,000 scientists, among the best minds on the planet, signed that petition that stated…
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Note:
More warming does not necessarily make already warm areas of the planet warmer/hotter. More incoming heat is distributed naturally by Earth’s ocean and atmospheric convection currents to colder areas (polar regions), to colder seasons (winter), and to colder times of day (night).
Note:
CO2 levels are no threat to humanity till well over 5000 ppm and there is no chance of it rising to such levels over the long-term (i.e. no “runaway” trends).
Another reposting on Major counter points to climate alarmism (clarity on big picture factors)
We are at the lowest point in a 140 million year decline in CO2 levels. Just 20,000 years ago CO2 dipped below 200 ppm to 185 ppm, almost declining to the level at which all life dies (150 ppm). For most of the past 500 million year history of life CO2 has been at multiple-thousands of ppm and life thrived during such eras.
With a slight rise from starvation levels to the 400-plus ppm of today, plant life is once again thriving with a 14% increase in green vegetation across the earth just since 1980.
Average surface temperatures today are some of the coldest in the 500-million year history of life. For much of the pasts 500 million year history of life average temperatures have been 5-10 degrees C warmer than today and life thrived with extended habitats, including tropical flora and fauna moving into the polar regions.
Today’s Modern Warm Period temperatures are still the coolest of our Holocene interglacial.
We do not know for certain that the modern rise in CO2 levels is due more/mainly to human emissions or natural sources. We know that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and only a bit player in global warming, consistently overwhelmed by other natural factors.
Majority of voters reject Green energy policies
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/mar/26/voters-reject-team-bidens-energy-policies/?mc_cid=3e3ae10cbc&mc_eid=bbd9cad85f
Basic climate physics
The hysterical demonization of CO2
News media regularly report that surveys/polls show that the crusade to transition to renewables has majority voter support (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/15/climate/climate-change-survey.html). This is viewed as validation for the decarbonization crusade. And yes, of course many voters support the crusade because they have been terrorized over past decades with endless scenarios that fossil fuel emissions are causing “catastrophic climate change” and consequently the end of the world is nigh (i.e. 2030 as the latest date for the end). Every out-of-the-norm weather event (i.e. heat waves, cold spells, floods, wildfires) is promoted as more evidence of the climate alarm narrative of looming apocalypse (“final tipping point… last chance… existential crisis… end of world”, etc.). Hence, the climate apocalypse message that we are all going to die if we do not jettison fossil fuels… now.
This irrationally exaggerated narrative is based on the demonization of CO2- the very food of all life that has long been at starvation levels. The climate apocalypse narrative wrongly claims that CO2 is the dominant influence on climate change, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary that varied other natural factors show the strongest correlations to the mild climate change that we have observed over past decades and centuries.
But apocalyptic narratives are powerful and will not be refuted by climate facts/evidence. Apocalyptic is intuitively embraced and tightly held by most people because it has dominated human consciousness for millennia in religious systems and now in ideological systems like Declinism, the single most prominent and influential theme today (i.e. that life is declining toward disastrous collapse and ending). The deeply embedded belief in apocalypse (subconsciously hardwired) leads to confirmation bias response to endless new iterations of this primitive myth. As many have concluded- Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up- the apocalypse is coming. And once populations have been terrorized, and their survival impulse incited, people are then not open to hearing contrary facts that disabuse them of their beliefs. Its all very profoundly mythical, religious, and emotional (a fundamentalist-like apocalypse crusade).
This from Ross McKitrick: “The 2030 emissions plan: Canada’s gift to Putin”, The sad reality is that the federal government does not care what its climate plans will cost people.
https://financialpost.com/opinion/ross-mckitrick-the-2030-emissions-plan-canadas-gift-to-putin
Quotes from McKitrick article:
“… the sophistry runs even deeper: are they saying we are experiencing more heat waves, fires and floods due to climate change? They skate past that question without answering it, so let’s see what the experts say. The 2019 federal science report on climate change noted (p. 34) that robust statistical assessment of trends in heat waves is “challenging” and that in Canada there’s only medium confidence that more places have experienced an increase in the number of heat waves than a decrease. Meanwhile, the 2017 U.S. National Climate Assessment reported (pp. 190-91) that heat wave magnitudes were considerably higher in the 1930s, while over the past century high temperatures experienced a net decline in almost all regions east of the Rocky Mountains.
“Canadian wildfire data are kept at the Canadian Wildland Fire Information Service. The nearby charts show the number of forest fires and hectares burned from 1990 to 2020. Spot the emergency if you can.
“As to flooding, in the 2012 Special Report on Extreme Weather the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said (p. 176): “In the United States and Canada during the 20th century and in the early 21st century, there is no compelling evidence for climate-driven changes in the magnitude or frequency of floods” and they have not revised that conclusion since. In the most recent 6th Assessment Report (Ch. 11 page 55), the IPCC noted in addition that “In Canada, there is a lack of detectable trends in observed annual maximum daily (or shorter duration) precipitation.”
“In addition to carbon reduction, the federal government also wants new powers to control what it calls “disinformation” on the Internet. It would indeed be nice if there were less disinformation out there, but when it comes to claims about the supposed climate emergency, the costs of climate policy and the role Canada should play in meeting global energy needs, the government is the main source of it, not the answer to it.”
And this on the uncertainty about the Earth’s carbon cycles and how much natural factors contribute to atmospheric CO2.
This research raises questions over claims regarding the contribution from fossil fuel emissions. Note that the imbalance “is about three times the global fossil fuel emissions each year.” This undermines claims that human emissions are largely responsible for rising CO2 levels.
Quotes:
“Virginia Tech researchers, in collaboration with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, have discovered that key parts of the global carbon cycle used to track movement of carbon dioxide in the environment are not correct, which could significantly alter conventional carbon cycle models.
“Either the amount of carbon coming out of the atmosphere from the plants is wrong or the amount coming out of the soil is wrong,” said Meredith Steele, an assistant professor in the School of Plant and Environmental Sciences in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, whose Ph.D. student at the time, Jinshi Jian, led the research team. The findings are to be published Friday in Nature Communications.
“We are not challenging the well-established climate change science, but we should be able to account for all carbon in the ecosystem and currently cannot,” she said. “What we found is that the models of the ecosystem’s response to climate change need updating.”
“Jian and Steele’s work focuses on carbon cycling and how plants and soil remove and return carbon dioxide in the atmosphere…
“This carbon dioxide that’s coming in and going out is essential for balancing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, which contributes to climate change and storing carbon long-term.
“However, Virginia Tech researchers discovered that when using the accepted numbers for soil respiration, that number in the carbon cycling models is no longer balanced…
“By analyzing multiple fluxes, the amount of carbon exchanged between Earth’s carbon pools of the oceans, atmosphere, land, and living things, the researchers discovered that the amount of carbon soil respiration coming out of the soil is about 95 petagrams. The gross primary productivity should be around 147. For scale, the difference between the currently accepted amount of 120 petagrams and this is estimate is about three times the global fossil fuel emissions each year.”
And this by Paul Homewood on renewables versus fossil fuels (pros and cons)
“Fossil Fuels v Renewable Energy?
“Let me start by stating that I am not pro or anti anything. In a free market, the best technologies, solutions and products automatically come to the fore, without the need for subsidies, regulations and mandates.
“If renewable energy is all that is promised, it will do the same.
“There is of course no doubt that the cheap, abundant and reliable energy provided by fossil fuels has transformed society and made all of us better off than ever before in so many ways.
“We get rid of them at our peril!…
“(On renewables) And it is of course intermittency which is the overriding problem here. You can forget about batteries and other forms of storage, as these can typically only supply power for an hour or two. This is useless when the wind stops blowing for days and weeks on end…
“The simple reality is that we will continue to need fossil fuels for many years to come. In the long term we will have look to develop new technologies such as nuclear fusion, or build small nuclear reactors and the like if we want to decarbonise.
“Renewable energy has a part to play, but it can never be the whole answer.”