I & I Editorial BoardGhoulish scold John Kerry, the White House’s climate hobgoblin, has repeatedly warned that the world is not on track to contain a 1.5-degree Celsius increase in global temperature above the pre-industrial level, and this means disaster is looming. Others have made the same point, and the media just goes along for the ride. Their predictions are worthless, though. We know this because the United Nations told us so.
The rock-solid, undeniable fact is that it’s impossible to make long-term climate predictions, because our climate is ever changing and volatile. It says so in the Third Assessment Report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
And it has said this since 2001, when that report was put together.
Yet Kerry and his ilk, and we use that term with with greatest contempt we can muster, continue to tell us they can predict the global temperature of the future and it’s going to burn us all.
The alarmists point to the sentence that follows, which says, “Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.” They then claim that damning passage is taken out of context.
So now there it is in context. Have we misrepresented the IPCC’s point? Not at all. This supposedly probative sentence does not contradict the uncertainty expressed in the previous sentence, it corroborates it. Relying on “probability” and the “possible” does not inspire confidence, especially in light of previous predictions’ failures. The “experts” can do no better than guess.
Not only is the claim that the future climate can be accurately predicted a load of bunk, the 1.5 degree threshold, which most alarmists say is inevitable, is blarney, as well. It is not based on science, says University of Colorado environmental studies professor Roger Pielke Jr., but on “realpolitik.” The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change “always recognized that the 1.5 C target was much more grounded in political aspirations than in science, noting in 2015, for instance, while following up on its commitment to reconsider the target.”
Pielke continues:
The 1.5 C target was adopted as an aspirational target under the Paris Agreement, but in much that followed, the rhetoric that has accompanied it has elevated it into an actual policy goal that many take seriously (such as President Biden). However, at the time it was enshrined in the Paris Agreement, many experts viewed the target as an impossibility.
The world is lied to about global warming on a daily basis. The falsehoods are incessant, malicious, and harmful. These unprincipled liars ought to be ashamed. That they’re not tells us a lot about them.
— 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.
“Experts” can do no more than guess”… theoretically in an honest world. What these “experts” have resorted to doing in order to keep the gravy coming in, is to manipulate data in favor of warming. Warming can be manufactured by reducing temperatures in historical data, and this is exactly what they’ve been caught doing.
1.5 degrees was pulled out of, pun intended, thin air. Just as 6 feet of separation during the Wuhan flu. They make up numbers and we are all supposed to follow, in lock step, or be punished.
Just to emphasize ow ridiculous both numbers are, they could have said 6 degrees and 1.5 feet…
In the old days science was proven on verified facts today science is proven on created facts with no proof. Welcome to Biden’s Liars World.
Sounds like you’ve never heard of the scientific method.
We know what the scientific method is SUPPOSED to be, Cletus. We also know Progressives are temperamentally incapable of speaking the truth.
Funny. Almost all of the lies seem to be coming from the right.
From climate change to election fraud.
@Glen When you belong to the suicide cult of Marx, aka Demunists, lots of things “seem to be” that bear no relationship to reality. It seemed to be that if Obamacare were passed you would get to keep your doctor and your insurance – false. It seemed to be that President Trump “colluded with Russia” – false. It seemed to be that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation – false.
I understand the mechanism. When you are a totalitarian, your entire sales pitch is a steaming mountain of lies, and therefore truth is an “existential threat.”
A long as they are doing gender studies instead of alternative energy development in the colleges and universities we will continue to be petroleum-dependent, translating as more wealth for america’s potential enemies and more debt for the united states to keep importing energy, and as long as we have administration officials like biden, who dumped our strategic petroleum reserve into china’s fuel tanks, the beatings will continue. Climate be damned, when goods dont make it to market because the trucks cant run, there will be hell to pay, and if you think the air stinks now, wait ’til the parks get clear-cut to provide heat to cook breakfast. We dont need mandates, we need common sense, and leadership that will keep the lights on while encouraging alternatives development, coal, oil, nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, conservation, ‘poo gas’/natural gas a la Pickens Plan, and hey, while we’re at it why not a presidential science prize $$$$ amirite
Climate scientists have been correct about warming for decades, while deniers keep predicting that cooling is coming soon.
It’s been cooling since 2017. Science deniers pretend it isn’t true.
Deniers said the warming stopped in 1998, until it became entirely ridiculous to say that.
6 years is not a meaningful trend in climate change, and never has been.
Cherry-picking an exceptional data point, and using it as a baseline is bad science.
Every decade since the 1970s has been warmer than the previous, including the current decade.
Ok. But is the world getting warmer, yes or no? I know the winters of my youth were far more cold and snowy than they are now.
That is a very poor question. If you knew more about this topic you would know it has been warming for over 2000 years. So temperatures rising does not prove man made global warming is true.
No, it was cooling for about 8000 years, overall, until 1910.
I agree that the current rising does not, by itself, prove that humans are causing the warming. But the science does.
We have caused a 50% increase in atmospheric CO2, That HAS TO cause warming.
And the Milankovitch cycles do not explain the warming we are seeing. Only the CO2 does.
We are 3+ million years into the Earth’s 5th Ice Age. Ice Ages account for about 10% of the Earth’s entire history. For the past 40,000 years it has been steadily warming. About 11,500 years ago, it got warm enough to be considered an inter glacial period – one of many within this Ice Age. Inter glacial periods account for about 10% of Ice Ages – or about 1% of the Earth’s history. This inter glacial period appears to be totally unremarkable, and today’s temperatures are still 8F / 5C cooler than the last one 130,000 years ago.
Today’s temperatures are, scientifically speaking, the LEAST likely to be considered “normal” for the Earth.
Everything above is established scientific fact. It is not possible that this is a “crisis.” The only looming crisis will be for the alarmist cabal threatened with losing their taxpayer funded money train when people finally wake up to their scam.
With that context, it is important to understand that if the IPCC report on climate change is 100% correct, it means we are in no danger whatsoever. Climate is changing at a, pardon the pun, glacial pace. Innovation is happening exponentially. After decades of research wasted in nearly-useless technologies of wind and solar, we finally have a technology which will provide clean energy 24×7 pretty much anywhere in the world – and, unlike nuclear, shows the potential to become cheaper than electricity from natural gas or other fossil fuels. With over 3 billion Euros in secured funding for 24+ plants, Eavor’s solution (closed loop geothermal) is pretty much a done deal. I wonder, then, why not one single mainstream media outlet has mentioned them? Make the source energy cheap enough, and it becomes economical to produce synthetic clean burning carbon neutral substitutes for gasoline and diesel/jet fuel. Changes to infrastructure / equipment needed? None at all. For those who prefer an EV, something like Influit Energy – which requires no scarce, toxic, expensive, limited supply, combustible materials.
Sorry folks, Armageddon is cancelled.
No, the climate is not changing at a glacial pace. It is warming much, much faster than happens at the end of a glacial period.
Citations for your remarks? Which climates have changed? Is the Amazon a frozen tundra? Is Alaska now an escape from the winter cold? When we have a cold winter, like the many we’ve had recently, the alarmists scream that “weather is not climate!”, But when it gets warm, then “weather is proof climate”.
Here is an inconvenient fact, CO2 makes up .04% of the total gas in the atmosphere and has for decades in spite of all the “metric tons” entering the atmosphere of which 94% are not caused by humans. The idea that a trace gas is going to boil the oceans is as ridiculous as thinking that 4 grains of pepper are going to change the taste and characteristics of a cup of 10,000 grains of salt.
Mankind is a mere pimple on one cheek of the earth and we have no control, direct or otherwise on the earth’s atmosphere.
Even Michael Shellenberger, who was a bonafide climate alarmist, has realized that he was being duped by climate hustlers who have stolen billions of taxpayer dollars selling climate snake oil.
Data please?
What these Climate Nutcakes should know it that back in the 1970’s it was Global Cooling and New Ice Age was coming the very same liberal rags Time and Newsweek were giving that Top Coverage and 1978 episode of In Search Of did one about the New Ice Age and the hard winter of 1976/77
Time and Newsweek are not climate scientists.
The majority of peer-reviewed climate science articles on the subject in the 1970s predicted warming, not cooling. But deniers use the popular press to deceive people about that fact.
Where are your citations showing the majority of peer reviewed studies from the late 60’s early 70’s? I’d like to read them.
I stopped listening to these apocalyptic “predictions” long ago, for two reasons.
One, failed predictions. When I was a kid in the 1960s, all we ever heard about was “overpopulation”. We were all going to starve! Then in the 1970s it was “global cooling”. We were all going to freeze! Then came acid rain, then ozone hole shrinkage, then “global warming”, then “climate change”, and now it’s back to “global warming”. Ridiculous.
Two, the IPCC. This panel of so-called “experts” purposely suppressed publishing any scientific paper which strayed from the climate-change gospel.
How can we believe anything the IPPC publishes given this travesty?
So no, the “experts” have lost all credibility, they are not to be believed.