I & I Editorial BoardFox News plans to start a 24-hour weather channel, and according to the Guardian, probably the looniest newspaper in Great Britain, “climate crisis researchers worry about the channel’s reach to perpetuate misinformation and advance political goals.” The alarmists actually have more to worry about than that. Their narrative continues to crash into reality.
To start with, how do they explain that three new studies show warming from 2001 to 2019 “was driven by increases in absorbed solar radiation, not human emissions”? Sure, the eco-activists will do what they always do: obfuscate, dodge, change the subject, and call out the “science deniers.”
They will do the same when confronted with the news that the last six months were the coldest on record in Antarctica. Just one of those places in a warming world, they say, where it happens to be more frigid than usual. Apparently we’re supposed to forget all that business about the continent, along with the North Pole, being “the ‘canary in the coal mine’ for detection of global warming.”
“As Antarctica holds about 90% of all the ice on the planet, what happens in Antarctica will have major effects on the rest of the world,” Discovering Antarctica, a partnership of organizations that includes the United Kingdom’s Foreign & Commonwealth Office, said some years ago.
More recently we were told that “Antarctica is headed for a climate tipping point by 2060, with catastrophic melting if carbon emissions aren’t cut quickly.”
Maybe the record-breaking winter in Antarctica is simply an anomaly on the way to that “tipping point.” But Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has noted that across the world “temperatures at any given location” are “almost as likely to be cooling as warming.” So while one region is warming (or cooling), another somewhere is cooling (or warming). It’s useless to argue otherwise. Of course if Antarctica had just gone through its warmest winter on record, the news would be filled with stories of how it’s irrefutable evidence of impending doom.
The alarmist narrative has also been beaten back by the facts, as the hysteria about “sea level, hurricanes, and other weather extremes,” is “based on the illegitimate cherry picking of starting dates for the trends,” says Lindzen.
Furthermore, the widely accepted, often-used assertion that says 97% of scientists agree that the climate and our earthly environment are in trouble due to warming is a blatant case of misinformation. Lindzen calls it “a bizarre fantasy” concocted through “various shenanigans,” and explained why this is the case in a National Association of Scholars essay.
This isn’t Lindzen’s opinion but a fact that others have recognized, as well. Mike Hulme, a professor in human geography at the University of Cambridge who “explores the idea of climate change using historical, cultural and scientific analyses,” says the 97% consensus article “is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it.”
The global warming scare is more than three decades old, yet the disaster that’s been forecast on a nearly daily basis since the late 1980s has yet to arrive. That’s the reality, that’s the brick wall that the alarmists keep banging their heads into. That’s the fact they refuse to acknowledge.
— Written by the I&I Editorial Board
Using these vague “policy violations,” Google is now threatening to demonetize us. It’s part of Big Tech’s effort to silence conservative voices.
I’m old enough to remember when the climate alarmists were all a-twitter about the “next ice age” and global cooling; about the glaciers heading in our direction and causing shorter growing seasons for food crops. We’ve gone from *that* to the current bete noir of global warming without a single breath between the one and the other,.
Do you remember Arbor Day and the wholesale planting of seedling trees? Does the name Luther Burbank ring a bell? And what is it that trees and grass and bushes and other plants do? The absorb CO2 and ‘give off’ O2. Planting trees is just one thing we can do in answer to the climate change lemmings,. Think of it – if we planted one tree for every one of us in the US, that’d be somewhere around 350 million trees. By golly, that’d remove literally tons of CO2 from the atmosphere and, wow!, provide firewood for the cooling spell that sure to come. A couple of years of planting one for everyone and …
Global cooling was never the scientific consensus. Someone is always saying something about something.
Sorry, but you need to check out history, in the early 70’s the official position of the UN was to spread coal dust over the Arctic to increase heat absorption from the sun and thus “avert the next ice age”
Let’s analyze the climate :
-Drought and forest fires in the Western USA-cause climate change
-Torrential rains, floods, tornadoes, Mid and Eastern USA-cause climate change
-Torrential rains, floods in Europe-cause climate change
-Drought in Australia- cause climate change
it is, has been and always will be Mother Nature at work and humans have no way to change it.
Perhaps climatists could explain the lack of humans’ role in the historic cyclical climate history of the earth over the last 12,000 years which is well known, starting with the end of the last great Ice Age and in the last 1000 years the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice age of the Middle Ages, the warm dust bowl of the 1930-40s, the cold period of the 1950-70s and the warm period of the 1980s-1990s. It doesn’t take computer modeling to study the past, actually today’s computer models cannot model the past’s history,
Today’s computer models do model the past. Volcanic activity and changes in solar radiation are responsible for the last 12000 years.
Today’s Computer Models have one thing in common . . . they have ALL been Wrong. Garbage In = garbage out!
Environment Canada reported last spring that the Arctic Ice was 27% above Normal last Winter.
Yes . . . the same Arctic Ice that krazy Al Gore said would be gone by 2012.
AGW is still an Unproven Hypothesis . . .
“African climate response to orbital and glacial forcing in 140,000-y simulation with implications for early modern human environments/”
Significance
A computer model calculates the changing climate/vegetation from 140,000 y ago to the present for Africa, Arabia, and the Mediterranean Basin. The results illustrate how and when changes in Earth’s orbit, greenhouse gases, and ice sheets change the climate. The model makes this long calculation using the full set of dynamic/thermodynamic equations with sufficient spatial resolution to calculate monsoon and storm track rainfall over this region. The results explain when and where the climate was wetter or drier and how the vegetation changed. The simulated environmental changes agree with observed paleoenvironmental data in most areas. The results will help assess whether and how climate, hydrology, and vegetation changes may have influenced human dispersal out of Africa.
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/5/2255
The idea of CO2 warming Earth’s climate is well over a century old, but the narrative of global warming as pending disaster itself is closer to five decades old. Not just three. I first heard it expounded in a physics department seminar at Montana State University by some visiting professor in the Autumn of 1974. This was even before the Charney report. It is an idea that makes great headway among activists, while making no progress at all toward truth.
Climate change is a religion, not a real scientific discipline accepting of evidence and open to truth and modification. Antarctica and scientific evidence of cooling will be filtered out of the mainstream and social media propaganda and entertainment streams until such time as it can be reframed to fit the fixed political agenda underlying climate change. Real sciences like physics change radically in response to relativity, quantum mechanics and other advances. Whereas climate change is fixed dogma, never giving an inch or making modifications in response to new contrary evidence. Like an intolerant religion, any dissent or contrary scientific facts are viewed as heresy and cause for ex-communication or cancellation.
What percent of scientists agree with something is pure political rhetoric and hot air, not a measure of truth, and is irrelevant to true science. It is pure partisan political propaganda designed to persuade and tame minds into submission. Climate change religion is laden with grandiose religious visions of apocalyptic doom if the peoples of the world do not repent and submit. Just a prong, along with the myriad mandates and Jabs of Obedience, to get populations kneeling in fealty to the Global Reset political agenda. Can’t blame businesses for going along with the new religion, as the ESG cloak is good for business. Reducing carbon footprints is old-fashioned energy efficiency, reduced input costs per unit of output. Hard to argue against more profit. Humans seem to need a god or higher cause to believe in, and for atheists climate change to save the world fits the bill better than traditional beliefs to save souls.
We are currently experiencing the highest carbon dioxide levels humans have ever encountered. We are currently in the world’s sixth mass extinction. The Earth will continue to warm even if greenhouse gas emissions stop today. Those are facts.
There are no statistically valid models with predictive validity in the real world that relate man-made greenhouse gasses to climate. Feel free to cite your sources.
Leif Ericson says man-made global warming is a myth. During the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), 950-1250 CE, fields in Greenland were cultivated. During the Little Ice Age (LIA), 1300-1850 CE, these fields became permafrost and still are. That says the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than it is right now. Fossil fuels weren’t a factor in MWP or LIA.
Look up the Wikipedia entry for Paleoclimatology. The graphs shows the earth has had both no ice and been an ice ball. In neither case did man exist as a species yet.
It is statistical folly to use about 100 years of data to extrapolate climate cycles that last hundreds or thousands of years. Only the gullible or math challenged believe in the statistical validity of models built on 100 years’ worth of data, that have failed completely to predict future temperature patterns.
What happened to the good old days, when everybody talked about the weather but nobody tried to do anything about it?
In 2012 it is estimated that the activities of man produced about 34.5 billion metric tons of CO2. You are welcome to discover your own favorite value. 34.5×10^12kg / 44g/mole = 7.84×10^14 moles of CO2. Our atmosphere has a mass of about 5.15×10^18kg / 29g/mole = 1.78×10^20 moles of air. 7.84×10^14 / 1.78×10^20 = 4.4ppm/yr of CO2 emitted. Somehow the earth figures out how to squirrel away ~2.4ppm/yr leaving us with a net increase of 2.0ppm/yr. The amount of CO2 left in the air is an equilibrium problem. Seasonal fluctuation is about 5.0ppm as northern hemisphere plants grow and then decay, so that might be an indication of what plants can do. Problem is, they just can’t keep up with us.
Some 10% of what humans emit per year is more or less permanently stored in the biosphere, 5% in the ocean’s surface layer and 30% in the deep oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. If we should stop all emissions today, the decay rate of the extra CO2 above equilibrium is about 52 years (e-fold time) or 40 years (half-life time).
How long will it take the political left to embrace next generation nuclear energy as the only serious plan for pricing fossil fuel out of existence?
“That’s the reality, that’s the brick wall that the alarmists keep banging their heads into. That’s the fact they refuse to acknowledge.”
So it is. Yet, is there a more irrelevant truth? The drive to “de-fossil” society continues at an accelerating pace. Until politicians pay a price for going along with this nonsense, nothing will change.
Maybe Fox Weather will let people get the weather not wrapped in the context of a climate crisis narrative. That could be appreciated by many and threatening to TWC.
The truth is that the so called greenhouse effect is actually a consequence of convective overturning and not radiative gases at all.
It would occur on a planet with no such gases at all.
Radiative gases would affect the size and distribution of climate zones but not the average global temperature. Our emissions would not make a discernible difference within natural variability.
Every single news piece on cities preparing for sea level rise, or horror stories about whole cities being inundated, they never, ever show the sea level trends in the area. And every single time, I go and look it up and see a perfectly linear increase going back as far as the records are kept. No acceleration, no sign of run-away rise, nothing but slow and steady. They don’t ever show you that, because they know full well it completely undercuts their argument.
It was a shipwreck waiting to happen in the first place
The climate of the Earth is determined by the action of our sun. Carbon dioxide is a natural fertilizer for plants, feeding a hungry world. Even Afghanistan has reported bountiful crops this year, as has Australia. Christiana Figueres, the General Secretary of the IPCC at the time of the last Davos meeting, whence arose the climate panic, held a news conference to explain to reporters that the “climate change” effort was the world’s best chance of eliminating hated “Capitalism”. You can look that one up!
Who says today’s climate is optimal? Historical records show vineyards in Roman Britain. Today’s climate is too cold to allow vineyards there. The Roman Warm Period was warmer than it is now, which was a good thing for humanity, not the disaster global warming alarmists are always predicting from warmer temperatures.