I&I Editorial Board
Prince Charles’ recent pronouncement that we have only 18 months to save the planet from man-made global warming was followed up by a BBC report telling an identical tale. (Is there something in the Thames?) Nothing new here, though. The same wild, irresponsible guesses have been made for decades, and so far none has been right.
“Now it seems, there’s a growing consensus that the next 18 months will be critical in dealing with the global heating crisis, among other environmental challenges,” BBC environment correspondent Matt McGrath wrote last week with great certitude.
“Observers recognize that the decisive, political steps to enable the cuts in carbon to take place will have to happen before the end of next year.”
The year 2020, McGrath continued, “is a firm deadline” because “one of the world’s top climate scientists … eloquently addressed” the danger in 2017.
We’ve had “firm” deadlines before. Nothing happened. But we’re supposed to believe this one is really “firm.” That it can’t be ignored. Forget all those previous predictions of doom, they tell us, because this time they have it right. And maybe the window is not even 18 months. Those grand ruminators at Think Progress are sure we have only 14 months.
While the alarmists are busy today foretelling the coming climate disaster, they’ve conveniently forgotten the encyclopedic catalog of failed predictions. They just delete them from memory much the way that Moscow erased historical figures whose existence reflected poorly on the Soviet way, or displeased the thugs in power.
But some remember those frenzied forecasts. Following is but a small taste of a smorgasbord of baloney:
- Al Gore once declared that “unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases” were taken within the next decade, “the world will reach a point of no return,” eventually suffering “a true planetary emergency.” That was 13 years ago.
- Gore is of course the same fellow who in the mid- to late-2000s kept telling us the Arctic Ocean would soon be ice-free. The ice, which is still there, had grown thicker and had wider coverage in 2014 than when Gore made his prediction. Earlier this year, before the growing season had ended, Wattsupwiththat reported the “2019 Arctic sea-ice extent is already higher than the previous four years and six out of the last 14 years.”
- In January 2009, former NASA scientist and corporate witch hunter James Hansen swore that the incoming president had a mere four years to save the world.
- Later in the year, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown (the Thames, again) said there remained “fewer than 50 days to set the course of the next 50 years and more.”
- Also in 2009, 124 months ago, the prince of Wales worried out loud the world had “less than 100 months” to save itself.
- 2009 was a particularly looney year. Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada, wrote “we have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it. … We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours.”
- While speaking to then-Secretary of State John Kerry in May 2014, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius warned that “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.” Nearly 1,900 days have passed since. The chaos is in the foreign minister’s head.
- In 2015, mayors from around the world signed a statement that said the “last effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human-induced warming below 2-degrees” Celsius had arrived.
- Almost 20 years ago, in Y2K, the British Independent quoted a climate researcher who said in coming years the children of England “just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Thirteen years later, that same newspaper told readers to “stand by for icy blasts and heavy snow.”
Despite the weight of mistaken forecasts, the alarmists plod on. Even in the most recent editorial on this site regarding global warming hysteria, a few reader comments, which proved the point of that particular piece, indicate that the madness might be untreatable.
(One reader accused us of being “funded by the oil companies, and conservative movements.” Our response: If only. We’re funded by no one. What little revenue we have comes from a few generous readers hitting our tip jar and some minimal advertising. But of course the comment was not intended to illuminate — it was uttered to discredit our work through a made-up link to “evil” corporations and institutions. The aim is to poison and end the discussion, and is typically employed as a last-ditch effort to save a failed argument.)
The alarmists never consider that there could be other factors in the observed changes, that it’s possible the temperature record is hopelessly flawed, the predictive models faulty, the research “proving” their point itself corrupt. There were references in the comments made to the “facts” — for instance, half of the ocean reefs are dead, whales have starved, rising sea levels are threatening civilization — but no effort was made to show a direct link from these observations to man’s carbon dioxide emissions. We’re simply supposed to believe. Just because.
Which should be expected, because it’s not possible to make that connection. Correlation is not the same as causation. And any gap between the two grows wider with each additional component that affects climate. A non-exhaustive list of climate inputs includes the sun, the moon, Earth’s rotation, Earth’s orbit, ocean currents, volcanic activity, and clouds, all of which are beyond man’s control.
Not outside of human control, though, is the burning of fossil fuels, which the alarmists say is overheating Earth due to the greenhouse effect of the carbon dioxide released in combustion. But also released into the atmosphere are particulates, which have a cooling effect because they reflect solar energy back toward the sun. What of this, we ask the fearmongers?
Though there exists reasonable doubt, the alarmists desperately want to believe. Have to believe. Worse, they feel compelled to make everyone else believe. Express doubt in their narrative and expect to be talked down to, ridiculed, written off as a rube, or worse, labeled a puppet of malign interests.
But just as they have been wrong through decades of missed predictions, they’re also wrong in their accusations against the “deniers.” They, of course, don’t see it that way. True believers will never admit they’re wrong, even when their own eyes show them they’ve been mistaken.
— Written by J. Frank Bullitt
Issues & Insights is a new site formed by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. We’re just getting started, and we’ll be adding new features as time permits. We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we believe the nation needs the kind of cogent, rational, data-driven, fact-based commentary that we can provide.
Be sure to tell all your friends! And if you’d like to make a contribution to support our effort, feel free to click the Tip Jar over on the right.
People who believe in the man-made global warming scam are like the fleas on a dog’s ass, believing that they control the dog!
Do you communicate with the fleas on a dog’s ass?
Well, you certainly responded to his call.
There are two very simple facts the Liberals will not acknowledge:
#1 This Earth can only sustain 2 billion people without burning fossil fuel – John Deere does not run on batteries… so, what to do with 5 billion dead bodies?
#2 The “deal” Trump wisely backed us out of would have taxed USA and sent this money to the #1 and #4 producers of CO2 – Chairman Mao’s China, and India…
Humans are irrefutably having an impact on the climate of this planet. Here are some facts https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
NASA has fudged the figures they use, in the name of adjusting them to reflect better ‘accuracy’. Take a look at the satellite temperature data – it consistently shows no unusual variations in temperature. The terrestrially-based data is wildly inaccurate, due to placing temperature gauges in places where they pick up ambient heat from buildings, highways, heat reflected from topographical features like rocks and cliff faces, and many other heat sources that have nothing to do with carbon dioxide levels.
IMHO, there’s now a global ‘climate industrial complex’ whose vested interest is to keep the money coming to combat the current bogeyman called carbon dioxide. The first Earth Day was 1970, which has provided us with 50 years since then of increasing propaganda from what have become ecological extremists.
As usual, it’s pretty simple: Follow the Money.
Follow the money?
NASA and NOAO have already been caught lying.
Sorry to burst your bubble – NOAA has been moving their Automated Weather Reporting Stations from open fields to “heat islands” in the center of airports with black-top tarmacs and 400 F jet exhaust artificially increasing the “historic” records. NASA knows this…
My reasoned post is not here, but the one with nasty sentences stays. I thought we had standards here.
I love when no one with any scientific knowledge condemns the experts. I’ll stick with experts.
No one is condemning the experts. If a doctor tells you you have cancer and you only have 6 months to live and 5 years later you’re still alive, it’s safe to say the doctor was wrong without condemning him or her. I cannot think of even one single prediction from the climate experts that was correct, can you? Why would I believe them now?
just because it didn’t happen on the predicted time-tables doesn’t negate what’s happening – what’s your explanation for all of the weather phenomena that’s happening at this very moment?
There is nothing new going on. Some places are seeing record highs; some record cold. Happens frequently, considering the number of places that maintain records. It’s called weather.
How many farmers got flooded out by that Chinese Hoax?
The thing about records is by definition they become harder to break. Because by definition they are on the extreme ends of the “norm”. For example running time of Usain Bolt is very hard to beat and the distribution is becoming more and more flat (i.e., there is a limit on how fast we can run).https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World-record-progression-100m-men.png
However, withe the “weather” we have a very different story. Record high temps,a record draughts, record rainfalls and floods, record colds (i.e., all extremes) are becoming more regular they are becoming the norm. Records by definition cannot happen “frequently_!
My explanation is, it been warming for awhile and in a few months it will start cooling. Then it will start warming, followed by, you guessed it, cooling
Sounds like conservative science at its deepest level.
That’s good, very nearly Geo.Carlin’s weatherman: “Tonite’s forecast —- dark. Continued mostly dark tonite, turning to widely scattered light, in the morning.”
Weather. When in the past was there not variations from day to day, week to week, decade to decade, etc.? There was never homeostasis.
Yes, I m sure those of you without decent educations in this field are much smarter than the scientists.
Weather ≠ climate
Yup, that’s why you take the long term approach s the IPCC has done. Go to the site and look at the graphs of actual conditions through time, then come back and tell us what you found.
Why is it that the only solution posed to fight climate change is a massive redistribution of money and a massive takeover of the economy by the state?
There have been two technologies that are proven to reduce carbon emissions: fracking and nuclear. They have (and could) greatly reduce carbon while also powering and strengthen economies.
Yet both are vilified by the environmental left. Why? Because reducing carbon isn’t the ultimate goal, but replacing capitalism with socialism and transferring wealth is.
Technology and the market has been making the world better year after year. There is no reason that if humans are causing a warmer climate, by releasing more carbon, that the market couldn’t combat this with cleaner energy production. Relying on renewables or getting rid of fossil fuels is a fantastically unserious position.
But that isn’t the true point is it?
I think you are still stuck in the 20th Century. My entire household and two electric cars are powered by the PV solar system on our roof.
The cheapest power available to utilities today is wind and PV plus battery storage!! Yup, . . the time is here for utility-scale batteries which have already proven themselves.
The Green New Deal can save us and save us money at the same time.
Then I guess you are doing your part. But you won’t be happy until you force everyone else to do as you say. Hardly freedom and liberty, as I see it.
Nobody is forcing you to be decent. It is your choice.
The best way to know that the left doesn’t really believe climate change is a real danger and your statements have no real meaning to them is if doing what you say was economical and an idea whose time to come, the Dem’s wouldn’t be worried about raising nearly 2 billion for the upcoming presidential election alone and would instead be raising private money to prove their ideas on energy (such as what you imply) are an idea whose time has come. Actions speak louder than words. All these liberal tech companies who hate conservatives aren’t interested in taking their profits and pouring them into energy sectors they “claim” are key to the world’s survival. Google and Amazon alone could open solar energy and wind plants to blanket the earth. They don’t…why…they know it’s not really practical. Go watch Jeffrey Sullenberger, Obama’s first climate advisor. Spent three decades believing and even forming the “green new deal.” He discovered he was wrong. France lowered their carbon footprint by 50 percent by building a double digit number of nuclear plants in ten years and now electricity is cheap for poor and middle class, helping their economy by providing better living standards. Germany didn’t build any nuclear and now electricty is double the price of France, lol. What evidence do you have on your side?
Do you know it takes 4 times the energy to make a PVC than the produce?
Show me the scientific source of that assertion.
If PV and wind are cheapest…stripping out subsidies of course, then why do you need the GND to force ppl to transition? If it’s cheaper as you say, ppl, and companies, do it willingly. The answer is because it’s not, and it never will be. The left’s need for a GND to impose their will be force is proof of that
You are bleating from ignorance.
I hope you’ve factored in the embodied energy in the manufacture and relatively short lifespan of the PVCs (20 years) and the car batteries (8 years) in your overall calculation of the costs you’re incurring. And don’t forget that when those photovoltaic cells and those car batteries are spent, they’ll probably end up on a toxic dump in the third world, poisoning the environment.
How does fracking reduce carbon emissions in any way it has many negative environmental effects including ground water contamination.
It’s almost amusing that when conditions indicate that global warming is not occurring, record snowpack, growing glaciers, etc…, signs that perhaps the future is not quite so bleak, instead of being greeted by sighs of relief, they are ignored.
It’s as if the true believers want their catastrophic predictions to come true.
It seems they are in fact haters of western civilization.
The do have a lot of control whether the dog scratches his ass or not. Which explains why some perfectly normal people do things related to the scam “save the planet”
Does there exist a peer reviewed scientific article from a reputable journal, authored by highly qualified researchers that proves that there is a direct link link between CO2 emissions and global temperature changes? Such an article would have to account for all the other possible sources of temperature variation (as you mentioned above).
Yes. It is called the IPCC reports
IPCC reports were modified. CO2 emissions were taken on heat islands & top of Mauna Loa volcano-hello.
The answer to the question in the title of this article is no. No they will not tire. It is their religion. Period.
At some point can’t those of us who understand concepts like “proof” and “Truth” just STOP pretending that there’s anything left of the Global Warming fraud to continue to discuss!?
Can you please tell me what your proof and truths are? I’m genuinely interested in your point of view!
Climate will do what climate will do as it has for hundreds of millions of years. Meanwhile, decisions and policy need to be based on hard fact.
There are some crucial, verifiable facts – with citations – about human-generated carbon dioxide and its effect on global warming people need to know and understand at
The discussion is too long to post here but is a quick and easy read. I recommend following the links in the citations; some of them are very educational.
I went to that site and found it is run by a journalist, not a scientist.
It’s easier to fool people then it is to convince them that they have been fooled. Mark Twain. (Hope I got that right).
Global Warming/Climate Change is the “Original Sin” of the current age. Without original sin, the church would have nothing to compel participation and financial support from the believers.
Greetings from Paris. Last week, it was 42 C (107 F), an all-time record.
Hyperbole from politicians does not falsify climate change. Run your own numbers.
Greetings from Calgary Canada. This year (2019) we had snow fall in January, February, March, April, May, June. On the first day of summer (June21 ) we were covered with a 10 inch snow fall. JULY 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13 and my furnace was consuming 10 cubic feet of natural gas daily just to keep us from freezing. Yet our minister of environment announced that Canada is warming up 3 times faster than normal. If this warming trend continues, I shall have no more use for my lawn mower, and will be trading it in for a snow blower. And we are located at 51 degrees latitude. Please try to digest these facts and numbers.
Crickets???? Imagine that!
Did you expect us to bother explaining the differences between local weather and climate?
this is a GLOBAL planetary issue, not local to your city or town. Weather patterns are shifting all over the planet due to climate change. (not weather change)
Umm… But snow in June in Calgary isn’t normal, is it? Especially that much? That is one of the reasons the term climate change was adopted over global warming – overall the planet is heating, which will cause all sorts of weird weather events, not all of them hot. The Earth is a balance, your extreme snow is the balance to Europe’s extreme heat 🙂
Please understand that climate change/global warming increased the weather volatility. You cannot refute climate change by saying “but it is getting colder …” Global warming was an unfortunate name. Please don’t cling on the name and look for the meaning and consequences
And we have heatwaves in the arctic area as well as record number of forest fires there
Not does one localized weather event prove it. Every warm anomoly is CC, every cold anomoly is just weather, right?
To those of you without decent educations in this field, nobody knows what your silly ideas may be.
Accurate predictions in any field of study, in any industry will always vary from the truth. The fact remains however that over 90% of all environmental scientists worldwide believe that human activity is the leading contributor to climate change on this planet. It’s not about who predicts the day of the apocalypse, it’s that we put in the correct measures now so that day never comes.
If ‘accurate predictions’ always vary from the truth, as you say: then they are not ‘accurate’.
You have been deceived. The correct number is 32%. The other 68% of climate scientists could not reach a reliable conclusion from their studies. Only 32% of the scientists that conducted climate studies could reach reliable conclusions and 90% of them agreed that temperatures were rising.
Could you please show us the source of those numbers?
Most sane comment so far. Thank you!
Unlike most here, I EARNED a Master of Science in thus field. My opinions are from science not politics like most here.
Y8u have been fooled, suckered, by the same people who lied you into Trickle-down, “WMD!”, and “BENGHAZI!!”.
Instead of taking cheap shots, let’s actually DISCUSS the science here. How many are concerned about the acidification of the oceans? The behavioral changes in marine creatures with the increasing temperature and lowering of the pH are already evident, and many af having trouble forming shells. What do you think we should do about it?
Scientists are always thirsty for new info. Here are volumes to quench your thirst.
Those are both old and untrue. I got my opinion in this field by earning a Master of Science in it in 1982. How did you get yours?
Want to debate the science?
Don’t argue with him. He posts on other boards and trust me – he is absolutely smarter than anyone on the planet because of his degree from 1982. The waste of time in the back and forth isn’t worth it.
You went into this field because you already decided it was important. You are an activist that thinks they are a scientist…the most dangerous kind.
How silly. I took the hard classes you could not endure. You are positing based on political prejudice.
I suggest we discuss the science, shall we?
I predict he will sneak away.
Those things may indeed be happening, but isn’t the issue whether a direct causal link can be established between climate change and human activity? I have yet to see any convincing evidence of that. I see numerous attempts to imply that correlation is causation, and I see a lot of appeals to authority (the so-called 97% consensus), but what I don’t see is empirical evidence to support the hypothesis.
“A non-exhaustive list of climate inputs includes the sun, the moon, Earth’s rotation, Earth’s orbit, ocean currents, volcanic activity, and clouds, all of which are beyond man’s control.”
And forest fires, cow farts, carbon dioxide and methane released from the oceans, etc.. Not to mention that two of the most populated nations on Earth (India and China) are two of the largest producers of CO2, and will not be subject to, or will not obey, whatever “climate regulations” that politicians and world leaders might come up with. “We have only 18 months” (or whatever) “to save the world from Climate Change!!” Sure thing — good luck trying to convince China and India of that.
The whole “Global Warming / Climate Change” alarmism is just such utter nonsense, it almost leaves me completely speechless when I hear it. Almost.
Let’s discuss it. Have you seen the graphs in the IPCC Report Summary? They are just records of the past. I suggest you take a look.
Thanks for the article and the critical mindset, which I think is necessary and this mindset reflects true science. Science also means being wrong, and correcting/adapting.
And I do like fact based, data-driven information and a civil discussion. In my view, we do have an issue, not with warming alone, but with decline of bio-diversity as well (and many other issues). For me, the question is: What are the solutions to these issues? What other explanations, besides mere criticism, that you might offer (which explains the collected data)? And what are possible solutions to address some of these issues in your view?
Good question! I believe the keys lie a little with permaculture and a lot with water retention. For anyone looking for a slightly different take on the solutions needed, I recommend Sepp Holzer to get you started!
Sorry. “Sustainable Lifestyles” are too spartan and restrictive to be implemented with any reliable degree.
Being a former engineer for a large power company and having earned a Master of Science in Energy and the Environment, I had PV panels installed three years ago, with my estimated payback of 15-17 years, . . the right thing for an eco-freak to do. Before they could be installed, we acquired a VW e-Golf electric car.
The savings in gasoline alone took the solar system payback down to 3 1/2 years. So, we added a used Tesla Model S, P85, and that took the payback down to less than three years, which means we now get free power for household and transportation.
But that is not all: We do not need to go to gas stations, we fuel up at home at night with cheap baseload power. During the daytime, the PV system turns our meter backwards powering the neighborhood with clean local power, which we trade for the stuff to be used that night. If we paid for transportation fuel, the VW would cost us 4 cents/mile to drive, and the Tesla would cost 5 cents/mile at California power prices.
No oil changes are a real treat along with no leaks. And since it has an electric motor, it needs NO ENGINE MAINTENANCE at all. We do not go “gas up”, or get tune-ups or emissions checks, have no transmission about which to worry, no complicated machined parts needing care.
The future got here a few years ago, but some had their heads stuck in the past.
As long as you don’t travel more than 100 miles at a time
I am traveling from the SF Bay Area to Bend Oregon soon, and the cost will be zero. My old Tesla Model S, P85 gets free supercharging for the life of the car, and there are supercharging charging stations every 130 miles for my car, which gets 265 miles/charge. I can go across the country for free in my Tesla, and it will need no tune-ups or oil changes or emissions checks or transmission work or muffler problems.
Your payback period calcs are thanks to massive subsidies and clean energy mandates, paid for by your neighbors so that you can feel smug. It’s obviously working. You’re welcome for the free smug.
Well gosh, WR2, what do you think of this? It is from the industry itself!
Personally this is all psychological…how many months left in Trumps first term? …ans 18 months….climate collusion with progressives maybe?
You’re not any better then the see no facts or even less facts proving the opposite. What are according to you the real reasons of a climate change that has now become undeniably.
This is just a propaganda article.
And furthermore, let’s say we are not the cause, there is still a lot to gain from preserving our planets ressources cause with the ever growing population thus is also an issue that is undeniable.
The message of this article sounds like we are not proven to be the cause so let’s just continue and see what happens???
And if you are wrong after all and they were right but just not about the timeline, then you just doomed us all!!!
Couple of issues there though… This article is full of inaccuracies that are not attributed (so you can’t check the source). Also, if we’re wrong, but we acted like it’s coming anyway, all we end up with is a cleaner world. Even if you don’t believe in climate change, there are still people dying of pollution with poor air quality becoming a leading cause of death in certain areas. And if we’re right, by the time we are indisputably feeling the effects, it’ll be well past too late.
Better safe than sorry, I guess?
“Better safe than sorry” is a lazy argument when the resulting “solution” will have zero effect on the supposed problem, and destroys the economy. Also, stop conflating particulate pollution (real pollution) with CO2 which is a trace gas and an essential part of the atmosphere and health of the environment. Huge strides have been made, and continue to be made, since the 70s in reducing real pollution. Empirical evidence of increased temperatures, ocean acidification, more extreme weather events, rising oceans, etc, etc does not exist. One needs only to dig deeper into the data to realize nothing outside of normal parameters is actually occurring. Just take note of every time an article says “may, might, could, should, etc” when describing future calamity. That’s because none of it has happened yet. And they are in panic mode because every year their predictions fall flat and reduces what little credibility they have left.
Triton (sorry, it won’t let me reply directly) – it’s not a lazy argument as switching to sustainable measures does not have to cost the economy. The best solutions are the ones that make money overall. Think of it more like starting a business: there’s a cost going in which is offset by expected returns over time.
And just to be clear, I did not intend to imply that pollution and carbon are equated. I simply meant if we live cleaner lives, pollution would be reduced in relation to that.
But let me also add here a previous point I made – carbon is not really the problem. For some reason we are being misdirected from water to carbon, when the real solutions lie with proper water retention systems and permaculture.
I love the idea of a renewable power Utopia, but desertification is the real culprit, which is caused by the destruction of waterways and clear cutting. Fixing these issues would alleviate climate change more than just getting off fossil fuels.
Julia, you took me off guard because I’m not used to seeing civilized responses. After years of seeing so much hostility on the internet, I find myself being more aggressive than I normally would be as well. Sad its come to that. We disagree on some of the points, but I found your comments about water retention interesting and will take a look at that perspective. Thanks.
No worries Triton! I believe we are all just trying to understand the truth in this land of confusion (and fake news from both sides). Mostly, I think the best discourse requires the separation of science and politics, and that’s a true challenge. But it is not the government’s job to lead the people, but rather to reflect its will.
Obviously there are special interests which lie on both sides. The important part for us, I think, is to disconnect from consumerism. It’s not doing anyone any good and it’s causing the suffering of many.
And since you’re open to it (PS that’s awesome!) the UN has a report on desertification that shows a link between human agricultural practices and the creation of the Sahara. I’ll try to find a link 🙂
Thanks for being a super person!
Trees, lots of trees! Plant lots of trees. Since the start of the industrial revolution we have cut down half of the ones we had.
When you have your PhD in climatology, then perhaps you’ll have something of value to add to the discussion. Until then, this unscientific equivalent to the National Enquirer belongs in a dumpster.
Ok Mr/Ms PhD, tell me how this theory (I use the term loosely since there is no scientific climate change theory) can be falsified. Surely mr/ms PhD knows a hypothesis becomes a theory only after attempts to falsify it fail.
Climat change is not a theory. It is not even forecasting, it is finding a temperature trend and then poorly extrapolating it and then making stuff up as to what it means.
Please note argument by authority often makes one look like a fool.
I feel your editorial suffers from the same emotional and vauge language that you critique you don’tgive references to your comment concerning the release of ‘cooling particles’. It seems that the projections bother you. Over 90% of climate scientists STUDIES show a huge increase in CO2 since 1850s ie after the industrial revolution . This traps heat in the atmosphere .In the corresponding time frame the Earth’s temperature has increased . How quickly this leads to major ice melt and sea level rise is unknown. For you to take this timeframe
ambiguity and then disregard all of these scientific studies is bewildering. Every country in the world signed onto a climate treaty there’s only one country that doesn’t want to ? I’m more inclined to believe the 90% of the scientific community and the rest of the world than a subset of one country
Just explain how to change the course when China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Vietnam, Russia, etc. will not go along with the plan. The US and EU are at and below 1992 levels (now less than 25% of global) and worldwide emissions doubled in that time.
Without destroying the economy and causing the starvation of billions of people, how do you plan on making the changes you demand with technology that does not exist?
I get it, you can bring up solar, wind and electric vehicles,etc. that will cause more emissions in creation that necessarily saved, taking into account the mining of the raw materials and the disposal of the worn out components (its getting better, but still not there). It will happen over time, but on technology schedule, not a government timeframe.
Nuclear and hydroelectric is dead on arrival with environmentalists, but they have the lowest emissions of all. Best thing now is to adapt (humans are good at that) and give technology time.
Technological time frames are often faster than those of governments. China increases its renewable energy every year
Whatsupwiththat is of course lying again about the extent of artic sea ice. Look at the graph at https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/. I then notice you further back up your views with a fseriea of dumb and out of context quotes from politicians and just one from a scientist Hansen – who was referring to the increasing difficulty of addressing the problem evey year that goes by. Berkeleyearth.org (run by an ex-denier btw!) has a beautiful series of color coded images illustrates average earth temp over the past century or so. You nutjobs won’t see it even when it’s right in your face because you’re ideologically driven – so you continue propagating nonsense like this and unfortunately Trump deplorables read it and think they’re getting the facts.
Sorry but Al Gore and Gordan Brown? They are both off there rockers anyway
The answer to the hook is no they will never tire ( please disregard the hysteric adjective) – nor should they. Human beings have a responsibility to keep their home as clean as they can and reduce consumption. Our resources are limited and our filth is much- I do not see where there is any argument. This orb can support a limited amount humans and if one does not believe that then your brain has a serious comprehension issue. What I find encouraging is there are those who practice and promote respect for their home through countless endeavors and will continue to point out the folly of disregard.
It’s been a 50 year scam. In the 70’s it was Global Cooling. Debunked. The next 30 years it was Global Warming. Debunked. Then, overnight, the scam was changed to Anthropomorphic Climate Change. Cause WHO could argue against Climate Change?!?
The Earth is 4 Billion years old and the climate has changed thousands of times. It’s always in a state of change.
So, why? Why all of the lies? It’s purposeful.
1. It’s a means to de-industrialize western civilization, and destroy the manufacturing bases of those countries.
2. It’s a great vehicle for Marxist redistribution, and even cultural Neo-Marxist twaddle. I’ve heard plenty of morons spout things like, “Climate Change disproportionately effects marginalized groups and people of color!!” and morons eat it up.
3. There’s a MASSIVE industry behind it. The Global Warming/Climate Change education industry in the USA is about $13 BILLION PER YEAR.
This is my standard package on global warming:
Global warming is pure fraud. If anyone is truly interested, simply go
to YouTube and start watching global warming videos. Those videos are
overwhelmingly negative towards climate change. Here are two videos to
get you started:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbalx6UyAXY The global warming
fraud has cost the US Treasury on the order of $500 billion over
thirty years for unnecessary alternative energy subsidies. For
example, the Arctic is not melting, watch the second video. The
problem is the corruption of the data. Almost ALL of the warming is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgk3xFHvWLE&t=59s Also try
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YMttEhtgpk An early video to
frame the problem is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQPGU85cm4A One other point: most
of the pro-climate change articles are published in publications that
do not allow general comments. the result is climate claims that have
no basis in fact are allowed to stand unchallenged.
I have many more videos dedicated to specific issues.
I bet I can find at least as long a list of YouTube videos proving the world is flat. And your first link doesn’t work.
Global warming is a boon for mankind & not a curse as some would have you believe. In other words, enjoy the warmth while you can. It likely won’t last. If another ice age descends upon us, we may have to build Noah’s ark-like spaceships & flee planet earth.
Would this article even pass a high school science class? A simple google search of various NASA links etc demolishes the dishonest cherry picked claims about the Arctic Ocean ice. I’d love to see J. Bullitt respond himself.
Even bette,r take from the same exactly same years as the conspiracy blogger highlighted and guess what
It’s still less.
The silver lining here is, the words of a dying narrative are ratcheting up in hopes of preserving the lie are falling on an ever increasing logical public. The global warming/ world communism narrative is clearly dying and the powers that be have no alternative but to scream the same garbage at us only louder and more frantic.
I feel like you’ve missed a key point here… The claims of disaster you mention, generally, do not say that we have X amount of time before disaster/apocalypse/whatever. Instead, they claim we have X amount of time before we can’t fix it anymore. We are currently on track with a lot of the predictive models – and many were adjusted for more drastic conditions based on current data coming in.
The systems we are messing with are intertwined. Start with permafrost, for example. We may cause a little to melt, but that starts a chain reaction that we can’t stop or control, melting further and further down into the Earth. That releases stored carbon and here we all are…
The lie is not climate change itself – the climate is changing at a rate faster than any time in human history because of human action, that is indisputable – but the actual lie is the focus on carbon. It’s a distraction and a by-product that doesn’t need all the attention it’s getting. The truth is that water is the key to everything, yet no one’s talking about it. And I can’t figure out why.
What’s really hilarious – is that we are now entering a “solar minimum” of low to zero sunspot activity that is expected to last 10-50 years. It will directly impact the Earth’s climate (making it colder) because less sun storms caused by sunspots means less heat coming to the Earth.
It’s going to be fun watching the Global warming alarmists spin the coming cold spell into just more proof the earth is getting warmer.
Just because the world hasn’t been destroyed yet doesn’t mean that all those doomsayers were wrong. It may take another 50 or 100 years before Holland and other lowlying areas are inundated and the climate too hot to live in in many regions. And it may well be that we all get our act together and make big changes to reduce CO2 emission and that therefore those doomsday scenarios won’t occur after all. That still doesn’t make them wrong! This is the job of scientists, to learn, to extrapolate, and to predict, and advice us on what changes to make. The doctor may warn you that you’ll get a heartattack or diabetes if you don’t change your ways, even though you feel fine now. That doesn’t make him wrong. And if you change your ways and live a ripe old age will you be upset with the doctor?
It makes no difference whether these alarmist are right or wrong. If they are right we will still be doomed because there is not the technology or ability to completely get off fossil fuel as our energy source in that amount of time. If they are wrong then the world goes on as normal. Right means destruction- – – wrong means a fifty-fifty chance that nothing will happen. I opt for the wrong.
https://www.infowars.com/new-finnish-study-finds-no-evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/ New Study shows mans contribution to total increase in carbon dioxide is 0.01%. The results of this study was corroborated by a Japanese University. The Finnish study will never see broad dissemination. I can’t imagine why that will be so (sarcasm).
And did you believe those other lies about Sandy Hook??
It hasn’t been either published or peer-reviewed. That makes it pretty much worthless. And it’s wrong, anyway. https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/
Thanks to a PhD in applied mathematics and masters on industrial engineering, I can understand the science behind climate change. However, I cannot understand the confidence of the masses who know nothing about the climate science (and think that they understand more than a scientist working on the subject).
It is kind of like the dark ages where people were killed because they argued that earth revolves around the sun and not vice-versa. Or the “good” old days where people were encourraged to smoke… The difference is this time people are killing themselves and every other living thing with them…
Here are some newspaper articles based on research for the ones who are still curious:
https://futurism.com/amazon-rainforest-deforestation-crisis-point/ along with this article there needd to be an article explaining why Amazon forests is important can be translated
Just wanna give you a thumbs up for the grist link! Love those guys!
“Nothing has happened” <— gold
I remember back in the 70’s that it was man made global cooling that the “climate experts” were worried about. When most sane people rejected them – it became global warming. Now it is climate change. I believe that whatever “changes” that happen to the environment due to burning fossil fuels – will be dwarfed by the sun, volcanic activity, ice ages, etc. I like the quote in this article about – CO2 may cause warming but particulates may cause cooling. I quess the smart thing to do – is burn more wood & coal!
That 70s cooling thing was the musings of a scientist still alive who says it was just a “what-if” post, not a serious proposal..
The level of CO2 is at 415 ppm and even if we stop human emissions now it would take 1O million years to return to ” normal” so we’ve actually run out of time This article is therefore irrelevant even though its fake news.
If you think oil is the problem,
Stop using it completely. Now.
Environmental terrorists criticise ‘big oil’, but who is financing them?
Articles attacking the validity of climate change research always focus on the inaccuracy of the predictive models. They never address the recorded temperatures or the addition of 100ppm of co2 to the atmosphere and the demonstrable effect that has on retaining IR.
CO2 emissions do cause an issue. The challenge is how to make a change. The EU has emissions lower than 1992. The US has emissions statistically equal to 1992. The rest of the world has emissions over 220% of the 1992 non-US/EU levels. The US and EU are now less than 25% of the world total (China is greater than the US/EU combined). No matter what the US/EU do, it will not make a difference in the long term. Prince Charles, Al Gore, Theresa May, Angela Merkel, James Hanson, Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, etc. cannot change that fact no matter how much they yammer about it.
Technology does not run on a governmental timeline and it will take time for non-carbon energy generation is economically viable – I am betting on hydrogen fuel cell technology. How we produce energy 50-100 years from now will be a totally different mix. That technology getting to the developing world so they can pull themselves out of poverty without carbon emissions will do more than anything happening in the US or EU.
In the meantime, man as been the most adaptable species on the planet. Adapt to the changes (that means more than 5% of the EU homes having AC) and support the research for better energy generation. It will get here, but not on a government schedule.
I don’t know about alarmists but I do know the study of climate science has now reached what they call a Gold Standard meaning there is less than 1 chance in a million they are wrong. So do you think you are that 1?. Until the science community states it’s not us then I have to believe in what science tells me
Your time trying to de-bunk climte change is coming to an end and you know it. The evidence is all around for people to see and experience. They are beginning to see through you now so enjoy your delusion that you can stop it. What is the temperature in France and Spain these days? Oh yeah, record heat waves.
It is easy to provide evidence that these self proclaimed climate scientists from the IPCC are lying:
The claim, that we will see global warming of = + 2 degrees because of man made greenhouse gas emissions is a mathematical equation, which contains so many unknowns and variables, that the equation is mathematically unsolvable. But these “scientists” offer a result for an unsolvable equation.
Therefore, it is beyond any doubt a wrong result und these “scientists” are liars.
The correct answer is that the impact of our man made greenhouse gases to the climate is unknown!
Fracking and nuclear aren’t acceptable alternatives, not because the goal is something to do with destroying capitalism, but because the goal is to make sure there planet stays inhabitable. There’s no economic system of any kind if there’s no planet to live on. Some of my fellow climate change realists (we accept the real science that it is happening) think nuclear is a good option, but the fallout from the accidents that have already happened are unacceptable.
I am not going to return too much to this blog. It showed up on my news feed and I don’t like my news to come from an echo chamber, but there’s nothing to see here. More of the same ideas that we can’t be successful without being destructive. A lack of imagination on new technological possibilities and lack of acceptance of the power humans have been working in the climate. At least deniers are a minority.
To other climate change accepters: don’t waste your time here. Make sure to vote.
What a pointless article, it would be better to call upon something so drastic such as global climate change to engage people earlier than required to make necessary changes, as we see people take a long time to make any changes and those that would need to be done at the critical point would never happen. It is funny to that you have chosen the few cases of misprediction (or choose what you like to call them) and do not mention all the information that has helped and supported understanding of the global environment and that that has helped people/beings.
Unfortunately, I fell for this click bait of negativity.
You are obviously a paid shill. No one can be so dumb as to think that the Arctic is safe from man made warming.
All we know is that CO2 increases and temperature increases move together. However historically CO2 increases follow temperature increases. If that is true, then CO2 does not cause temperature to rise but is the result of temperature increases. So what causes temperature to increase. Solar activity including variations in earths orbit. According to Ruchard Ally, variations in earths orbit cause temperatures to increase, heating up the oceans, releasing CO2, thereby causing an increase in CO2.
The truth is that CO2 amplifies the warming because warmer oceans release distilled CO2 leading to more warming
You are repeating a misconception. Historically, CO2 follows temperature increase because man-made factories did not exist. What they are showing is that an initial change (such as orbital change) can amplify the warming through a feedback loop. Whether the change is from orbital variation or from human emissions, the fact is this warming will create a feedback loop. You are basically making the case for anthropogenic warming. The direct radiative forcing from, say, doubling CO2 is easily calculated from basic physics. From there, the historical evidence shows that we will not only experience the direct radiative forcing but a feedback loop will occur further increasing the Earth’s temperature. So instead of a one degree temperature increase for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 it will more likely be 3 degrees. At worst maybe it will be 6 degrees. If we’re lucky it might only be 2 degrees. Do we gamble with the fate of this planet? Our only home in the entire universe? Why gamble when there are plenty of alternative technologies to develop?
Let’s think about pollution rather than climate breakdown. In fact, let’s even take, for the moment, the assumption that man-made climate change is not real. How about this?
There are increasing levels of toxins and plastics in our environment, caused by man. These actions make us ill. Our destruction of the natural environment and this planet’s biodiversity is causing ecosystems to collapse. We need a healthy world in order to survive. There is a delicate balance on earth that we need to maintain in order to live.
Therefore, we should stop using fossil fuels and try to live in a sustainable way in order to safeguard this planet for our children.
See? Whether you believe in climate change or not, carrying out the actions advocated by these so-called hysterics will result in a healthier planet.
Why would you not want a healthier planet? It is what sustains you.
From an M.S. in earth scientist: The 97% consensus figure you read about. The scientific method was not followed by the student writer. Thesis would have been thrown. Indeed a simple 2 question survey was sent out to 10k scientists globally. Y or N answers only. Only 3000 were returned-problem #1. #2 the student reduced the 3000 tally to 79 because 79 were on line with her bias. From there 75 of the 79 completely agreed with her premise that there is global warming, it is due to CO2, & it is man-made. Valla!
Rule #1 is politicians are about persuasion on emotional trends. They do not have a degree in science or economics. The climate issue is about income redistribution by having fossil fuel companies which do well & wonderful for one’s pension to give money out to poor countries so that all countries can be equal. I studied this issue back in my STS class well over a decade ago. Emails were discovered from the IPCC & here among the pro-warming side. This is the reality of carbon credit system. Company X, a rich & productive company, sets up shop in some poor, ugly region of the USA. They have the assets so are willing to bypass emissions standards which are collected by say the U.N. & redistributed to poor country Z which can’t even boil water. And they are ecstatic. However, the poor residents where Company X reside do not have the financial capacity to move out of the region or lobby for changes so they are stuck with the asthma problems, etc. That’s in reality how it works. Now part 2 is tell all the people on pensions if they would like divestiture from any type of energy company & then call me in the morning.
Let this earth science explain basic earth science 101 which is now be left out of the “education” portion of some of these left-wing websites on environment. The ultimate driver of our climate is the sun-we are the right distance from this unremarkabley mid-life, yellow dwarf star-GV2. The sun emits in all wavelengths of the spectrum-mostly visible light. How the earth is perceived to be warm. The sun radiates & the light reaches us in 8 minutes. What is absorbed by the ground is reradiated back as infrared-which is longwave radiation which is warm. When the amount of intake surpasses the nocturnal outtake, the heat accrues-this happens in summer & wanes as the seasons wane. The earth has a differentiated mass & is not geologically dead. We have several layers of increasing temp & density. We have the ocean crust & continental crust, below is the plastic mantle which circulates magma in cells around the globe moving the plates; next is the liquid outer core of iron which provides our magnetic field; innermost is the very hot & very dense inner core of iron & nickle. The earth comprises many elements & still undergoes radioactive decay of heavy elements which under decay release heat. The processes of the past still exert themselves today. The surficial area comprises several ocean & continental plates which circulate around the globe at a slow pace. This creates our geology & topography. The topography in turn creates barriers which create for different pressure areas, different wind currents, & different ocean currents-all of which contribute to climate. The geography looked much different 100 million years ago. Currently the North American Plate is moving southwestward at 2″ a year. This motion will close up the Pacific Ocean in what is known as a Wilson cycle. The Atlantic will thus enlarge. We will eventually collide with southeast Asia-now watch your border. The North African Plate is bulldozing into Europe, creating earthquakes in regions like Turkey, Iran, & Greece. The Austra-Indian Plate is bulldozing into the Eurasian Plate. Both are nearly same density so one cannot comfortably subduct under the other. This causes mountain growth. The 90 East longitude is an active earthquake region as is the Ring of Fire in the Pacific which involves Oceania up thru Alaska. This causes earthquakes & volcanos. Volcanos are also triggered by hot spots-under Hawaii & Yellowstone. The Hawaiian chain is moving northwestward & a new seamount is expected to surface as a new island. The Juan del Fuca Plate & Cocos Plate are being gobbled up as they subduct under North America. This causes earthquakes of a kind different from the right strike-slip transform fault known as the San Andreas.
Nothing you have said addresses the fact that solar output has decreased while the climate has warmed. Until you address this basic issue, everything else looks like smoke and mirrors.
Thank you, I’m a middle aged man living in United States of America, you’re making sense in a world of nonsense. Keep up the good work. 👍
The earth has a differentiated atmosphere comprising the troposphere where we have weather, the stratosphere where we lack weather & where planes fly, the mesosphere, the ionosphere which contains the Van Allen belts which capture dangerous cosmic radiation, the thermosphere, & then the exosphere. Key is the unique unequal distribution of landmasses & sea basins which help make our weather. Heating is unequal. This drives air pressure differences which is what creates wind. Mountains & valleys disperse winds & set up condensation patterns. The earth has semi-fixed air pressure belts on the globe. These are regions of steady climate. There are also traditional wind belts such as the Trade Winds which move weather systems west to east. Where 2 distinct air masses meet we obtain a front. CO2, a gas, not a pollutant, does not create a photon or a front. CO2 does absorb a narrow band of infrared radiation. This is why cities are hotter because of the local greenhouse effect. The globe features several high powered jet streams that move west to east. When the jets ride at a lower latitude, we here in the northeast tend to get a cold winter & cooler summer. When the jets can’t dip down, it allows for the strong Azores-Bermuda high to circulate hot, humid air into the northeast to create heatwave after heatwave. El Nino is a natural phenom known to cause drought in one area of the globe & rain in the other. It reverses the trade winds & thus circulates warmer air to regions in its path. Climate always changes over time. Back in the Archaen & Hadean eras, the earth was a hot unliveable mess. Oxygen came about via evolution of bacteria. We were fortunate that vegetation then expanded. Vegetation absorbs CO2 under the solar cycle & exhales O2. In the nocture, the cycle reverses even for vegetation. Without vegetation where would be. Part of the decomposition process of plant or algael materialf is the longterm formation of oil or coal under extreme heat & pressure. So consider where would be without vehicles or furnaces. Now I have no problem with solar, geo, or wind it’s just that they lack the horsepower to energize the entire grid. They can only supplement. They are costly currently & must be subsidized. Wind turbines ya think would be ideal at fast windspeeds but are designed to break at 30 mph windspeed. So you can’t get a whole lot on that. You will hear the pundits say storms & disasters are worse than they ever wore. How would they know? Were they around in the 1700s or the 1200s or the 400s or B.C. Hurricanes & T-storms are nature’s way of ridding the earth of excess heat. They form when tropical water reaches a rather low pressure & temp of 80+ down to a depth of 200′. It then needs the Coriolis Force to get going. The condensation of heat results in a large loss of water. Hurricanes do not form at the equator because there is no Coriolis Force there. Tornados occur because of the collision of drier air masses surmounting a high barrier then mixing with very moist hot air from the G of M. It drives pressure gradients resulting in very low pressure. In summer most of the winds that affect the NE come from the SW which brings hot, humid air. In winter, this trend reverses & we get more of a NW flow. On occasion we get a NE flow which in winter brings a Nor’easter but in summer can bring us coastal hurricanes up to New England.
So what in your view constitutes a disaster? Do all the people need to die in the same place at the same time?
Last time I checked burnt stuff was black, black absorbs heat, so how do these magic particulates not absorb heat?
I did like the hints towards “Project Fear” quite a good use of an age old propaganda, classic journalistic techniques. You must have “decades of experience.”
This column and most of the comments are an enduring monument to the scientific ignorance (and, in many cases, stupidity of the American public).
The article starts with 9 bullet points. Only one is a statement by a scientist. That means 8 of the statements are worthless.
The only one from the scientist (James Hansen) is taken totally out of context. He did NOT say ‘four years to save the world.: Instead, he said “We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world.” And why 4 years? Because that’s the presidential term limit.
This is the way, non-scientist climate deniers lie. And you can see all their fellow deniers just eat up the lies in the comments.
The comments. Here a just a few of the questions asked:
“It’s almost amusing that when conditions indicate that global warming is not occurring, record snowpack, growing glaciers, etc…, signs that perhaps the future is not quite so bleak, instead of being greeted by sighs of relief, they are ignored. ”
EXCEPT Glacier ice mass is decreasing by a lot. The IPCC report has the data to prove it.
“Does there exist a peer reviewed scientific article from a reputable journal, authored by highly qualified researchers that proves that there is a direct link link between CO2 emissions and global temperature changes? Such an article would have to account for all the other possible sources of temperature variation (as you mentioned above).”
EXCEPT There are hundreds in just he past 5 years, and their work is summarized with data in the IPCC report.
“You have been deceived. The correct number is 32% (= number of climate scientists who accept AGW). The other 68% of climate scientists could not reach a reliable conclusion from their studies. Only 32% of the scientists that conducted climate studies could reach reliable conclusions and 90% of them agreed that temperatures were rising.”
EXCEPT it’s a lie. The IPCC report has the data to prove it.
“A non-exhaustive list of climate inputs includes the sun, the moon, Earth’s rotation, Earth’s orbit, ocean currents, volcanic activity, and clouds, all of which are beyond man’s control.” And forest fires, cow farts, carbon dioxide and methane released from the oceans, etc…”
EXCEPT all discussed in the IPCC report and shown to be minor compared to AGW.
and on and on. Instead of repeating Fix News talking points, why don’t these deniers read the IPCC report? Because they can’t read science? Because they can’t read something longer than 3 pages? Because their friends don’t? Who knows? But they need to stop writing crap until they do.
Then there are questions asked such as:
“Why is it that the only solution posed to fight climate change is a massive redistribution of money and a massive takeover of the economy by the state?”
EXCEPT none of this is true. We can solve climate change by committing to renewable energy (mainly solar and wind) because both of these are now cheaper than nuclear, cheaper than coal, and cheaper than some natural gas plants.
And that’s despite the fact that renewable energy gets billions of dollars less in subsidies than fossil fuels.
Stop denying AGW. Read the IPCC report. Here’s the summary version:
This post is not entirely fair just because climate alarmists exaggerate, doesn’t mean that climate change isn’t happening, ice sheets continue to decrease although it isn’t a linear change.
I would like to think that 99% of the observations, data and expert scientists have our backs and although they are not magicians who can precisely pinpoint the exact time as many seem to think and use to fault them in their work they are most certainly on the right track and right side of history. We can see many of the predictions already coming to fruition. If we would just all work together for the common good …wouldn’t that be nice for once. I found your article quite arrogant and misinformative.
This author misses the point about the “slow moving tsunami”. The “prediction” that we have “hours” was not literal, it was figurative. Yes all these predictions are hysterical. That’s because they seek political action and that is a prerequisite to motivate people. It does not invalidate the science that demonstrates a clear and considerable risk in our contribution to the greenhouse effect.
Correlation does not prove causation, but much of science is based on correlation between variables. It is just as much a fallacy to dismiss correlation entirely. In this case scientists have investigated other potential causes and found that they do not correlate with the experienced warming. In this way those other things mentioned (e.g. sun, orbital changes etc.) can be dismissed or quantified so as to find the magnitude of forcing contributed by our activities.
The reality is most of the warming experienced from the latter half of the 20th century is due to our activities and the frequency with which we experience weather extremes is now becoming so noticeable that dismissing the science just because the world hasn’t imploded in a supernova is the kind of ridiculous straw-manning that can be expected from someone in denial.
You may not be a paid shill. But you are probably obsessive over your right to disagree: and that is after all your right. I have believed this skepticism before with similar motivation. I have researched the science for a long time to find the flaws and to listen to those few scientists who express contrarian views. But their scientific positions are weak with little more than the speculative possibility that scientists are missing something major. Anyone in any field of science can speculate in this way and normally it isn’t contentious because there aren’t political implications. In fact this kind of contrarianism is healthy for science. But regardless, with this topic there are political implications and the fact you can find one, two or a handful of scientists to express contrarian opinions does not mean that they should control the narrative.
Much of their fan-base simply doesn’t understand what is being discussed, they repeat fallacies or misconceptions regularly (such as quoting Al Gore, a politician, as an expert on climate science) and they ignore the overwhelming evidence, from many independent sources and angles, that continues to confirm 1. the probable sensitivity of the climate system and 2. our likely contribution to it’s warming.