I & I Editorial BoardEditor’s note: Google proves once again that it will demonize any content that doesn’t toe the line on “climate change.” (See the notice we got below.) But as the article itself shows, the attempts by the left, including Big Tech monopolists like Google, to censor views they don’t like can’t overcome the truth, or common sense. If you’d like to make a direct donation to I&I, click here.
The end is near. That’s what we’ve been told since the beginning. The doomsdayers have cited a variety of cataclysms that will do us in, from asteroids to resource exhaustion to a dying sun. But they all have one thing in common: So far, they’ve all been wrong. Same with the climate alarmists. And the public is catching on.
A study, published by the Stanford University School of Sustainability, no less, found that “resistance to climate action has become a global movement that strengthens after governments implement climate-related policies.”
“We found that counter climate change organizations tend to emerge after pro-environmental policies are institutionalized in government,” said the study’s senior author.
Of course they do. As our friends at the Committee to Unleash Prosperity observed, this has happened “maybe because the war on fossil fuels has deindustrialized Germany and many other European nations. Maybe it’s because green energy is so much more expensive to produce. Maybe because the biggest polluters like China have done nothing.”
Let’s add another “maybe.” The resistance is likely also based on a growing skepticism. We have been bombarded by global warming scare stories for more than three decades and yet we’re still here. No matter how much the alarmists cheat, lie, obfuscate and bully, it’s obvious that the entire narrative is based on assumptions, speculation and political ideology. Every claim they make can be easily refuted. To name a few, which we’ll call the big three:
We just lived through the hottest year/month/week/day on record. This is meaningless. Hottest compared to what? The only reliable measure we have is from satellite readings that go back to only 1979 and they show nothing to get worked up about.
All other data are entirely unreliable. Mixing tree rings, mercury thermometer records that are “adjusted,” numbers from nonexistent and compromised weather stations and modern equipment to whip up widespread fear is scientific malpractice.
Let us muddy the climate waters even more by mentioning that the concept of a “global temperature” is “thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility.”
The experts, using their climate models, tell us that we’re headed toward disaster. Steve Koonin, who is no Republican operative nor corporate shill but a Massachusetts Institute of Technology- and CalTech-educated physicist and Obama appointee, has pointed out that results produced by models “generally don’t much look like the climate system we observe.” To keep the fearmongering hot, the “modelers then adjust (‘tune’) these parameters to get a better match with some features of the real climate system.”
“Climate models overheat,” is another way to say it.
There’s a scientific consensus that man is overheating his planet. Science does not work by consensus. The idea was invented. There are skeptics in the climate science field, and not just 3% (as is often claimed, based on spurious data), and their work is important, even though they’ve been professionally and socially shunned, vilified and attacked for daring to buck the narrative.
We expect the alarmists, if any of them read this, will accuse us of being paid off by the oil industry. If only. We could use the cash.
But we have not received a penny from anyone in the fossil fuel sector. I&I’s global warming position, formed decades ago while making up the editorial board at Investor’s Business Daily, was arrived at independently and honestly after we looked at the facts.
We can’t say the same for the alarmists, who are emotionally invested in disaster, demand more government funding and regulation, and can’t curb their perverted urges to control the lives of others.
— Written by the I&I Editorial Board
1. CO2 is a trace gas at 420ppm, that is 0.042% of the atmosphere. It’s been over 4000 ppm in the past. At around 270ppm and below, all plant life dies, and all animal life with it.
2. The idea that CO2 is a primary, or even THE PRIMARY, element influencing climate is absurd on its face. Ocean currents, cloud cover, sun activity, interactions between the poles and the tropics, and many other influences are involved.
3. All of their predictions are based on the computer models that they program. They cannot predict the weather more than a few days out, but we’re supposed to believe that they can tell us what the weather will be in 50 years—again, absurd on its face.
4. If their models are so good, why don’t they punch in the data from 1980 and compare their predictions to the actual weather in 1990 or 2000? The answer is obvious.
5. Climate records show clearly that CO2 rises AFTER the temperature rises, NOT BEFORE.
The Climate thing, whether it be global cooling or global warming, along with acid rain, nuclear annihilation, loss of rain forests, hole in the ozone, incandescent light bulbs, et.al. are all scams created by the liberal, leftist crowd, where the only solution to these imminent crises (and there’s always a new one on the horizon) is to separate you and me from our money and our freedoms.
First, I want to compliment you on not letting gpt write for you. If you did, I couldn’t tell.
Next, you come across as someone who had some experiences that made you a bit stand-offish. If people are trolling you, it may be because dogs only chase things trying to get away.
Finally, how can you bull-horn everyone about Google censoring you, and in the same breath admit to censoring comments? Is having your site listed on Google a right or a privilege?
Hi Ross, thanks for the comment and the compliment. Our issue with Google is that it is purposefully trying to use its dominance of online advertising to *defund* content and views it doesn’t like. We suspect they abuse their search algorithm to the same end. This is an abuse of its monopolistic power to push an ideological agenda. We, in contrast, are a small, independent news and commentary site, and we take pride in the work we produce. We want our comment site to live up to the standards we set for ourselves, which is many are automatically blocked as spam, and why we refuse to post comments that violate our simple rules. I hope this helps. But if you want to discuss further, send an email to contact@issuesinsights.com.
All the climate alarmists “experts” seem to have been infected by the same “chicken little, the sky is falling” contagion that infected our “medical experts” during the COVID pandemic.
“Man made climate change” relies on the ignorance of photosynthesis……which is very real. Plants, trees, crops, ocean plankton etc absorb (remove) CO2 and convert it into O2 which we all very much need. A mutually symbiotic relationship as I recall from grade school.
Years ago I worked for a group in an environmental firm that would have benefitted from manmade climate change being a real thing. They put a couple of the “whizzes” on a trek to investigate. Their conclusion was that climate variations correlated with sun spots, with no observable connection between temperature and human activity.
As part of the research, the two attended a symposium of climate experts. They reported that while most presenters pushed man-induced climate change, one dissenter started his presentation with asking the audience, “Please raise your hand believe climate change is a serious problem?” Almost the whole room raised their hands. Then he said, “If you are working on a government research grant for climate change research, put your hands down.” All but two hands went down. He proved his point…climate change research persists because the government has an agenda for pushing a narrative for the purpose of control. If scientists do not affirm the narrative, research funding ends. Scientists have a vested interest in perpetuating a lie if their paycheck depends on it…just like every other profession, follow the money.
ITts interesting to note that the most prolific period of mammalian life on earth – the pleistocene – was at a tine when the C)2 levels – as evidenced by stoma size and other morphic indicators along with geophysical markers – was in the 4000 ppm range.
What is even more interesting is that if you try to get a discussion of where the threat to humanity and other species comes from using this as a data point, you get an ideological blast, not a scientific, data-based discussion.
And by the way, the climate models can’t hindcast (track against a know data set… for example the year 205 where we have the data and the outcome) for more than about 3 months before starting to go chaotic. but we are supposed to trust them to predict 100 years into the future.
Sanity grows.
They are making cutbacks at the EPA and going through al these federal grants so change is coming.
The article mentions consensus. When I see climate stories, I always like to see “consensus” come up and I note who brings it up and why. Using it as a shield or an “argument” reliably tells me who is talking through his hat.
It’s not a popularity contest, it’s science. In science, a proper role for consensus is to serve as a kind of bird dog, a way to identify high value targets. Indivisible atoms, an earth-centered universe, or disease arising out of an imbalance of humors, all were consensus positions for centuries and all made famous the people who blew them up.
I have an undergraduate degree in biology from back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, and at that time it was emphasized to me that data were EVERYTHING. Real scientists literally went hungry or even died rather than lose their field notes or specimens. You either have the data or you don’t, and the climate alarmists don’t. So they conjure models and pretend they are data. Like serving tofurkey at Thanksgiving. They pretended to have the world’s temperature record (complete with adjustments!) at University of East Anglia, but when the world asked to see it, oooops, the dog ate it. Losing your data is not just careless or unfortunate, not just un-scientific, a-scientific and anti-scientific, it is or ought to be utterly disqualifying.
As Glee noted in his comment, scientists — like all other humans — have a vested interest in perpetuating a lie if their paycheck depends on it. Look no further than the COVID panic-demic for evidence. Very early on, for reasons that remain unclear to me, hospitals full of mavens supposedly steeped in science were awarded a spiff of, I believe, 15% on total charges if a patient’s death was in any way related to COVID. Gosh, I wonder what happened next. In answer to my question, three specific things that happened locally were that a guy who wrecked his motorcycle at high speed, suffering massive multiple blunt force trauma, AND a guy with a gunshot wound to the head AND a guy with Stage 4 colon cancer all died of COVID.
Alarmists have been allowed to establish the language used in the climate change discussion. They have turned the innocuous term “climate change” into a short form of “human-caused catastrophic global heating”. It’s nonsensical in a number of ways, but the totalitarian nature of alarmism, of any kind, denies the right to challenge such notions. Now we take the silliness of “climate policy” seriously, not recognizing that it’s as absurd as, say, sunshine policy.
Of course, the term doesn’t need to make sense if serves to obscure the agendas of those who are eager for more power and profit and eschew science, honesty, and reality itself. Maybe there’s a growing realization of the damaging unreality of “fighting” non-existent change in the actual climate.
Thank you. But it’s worse than you describe. The terminology has been in effect market-tested like product names for soap or snacks. Weather (yawn) became another ice age (whoops) became climate change (inconvenient truth) became global warming (no one escapes) became anthropogenic global warming (all humans are guilty) became climate chaos (chaos is really unpredictable; no wonder we’re always wrong).
It’s all Globaloney.
Quadruple the CO2, crank up the temp 10 C and in 3,000 years Greenland melts while Antarctic loses less than 8% of its ice volume and sea levels rise 8 meters worst case scenario.
And if the temp continued to climb, antarctic would completely melt after 30,000+ years.
This planet has been much hotter. Were still coming off of an ice age. Sea levels have been rising for 1,000’s of years.
Yes. Fossil fuel does contribute to CO2 levels, but there’s nothing we can do to alter the planets wobble, which has a lot more to do with the natural warming that we see than fossil fuel emissions.
There’s no doomsday ahead. Not in our lifetimes nor those of our great great grandchildren.
In fact, for the first 2,000 years of the worst case scenario, Antarctic ice gets thicker.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/I-Janssens/publication/225155243_Response_of_the_Greenland_and_Antarctic_Ice_Sheets_to_Multi-Millennial_Greenhouse_Warming_in_the_Earth_System_Model_of_Intermediate_Complexity_LOVECLIM/links/0912f5066d4d9e7abd000000/Response-of-the-Greenland-and-Antarctic-Ice-Sheets-to-Multi-Millennial-Greenhouse-Warming-in-the-Earth-System-Model-of-Intermediate-Complexity-LOVECLIM.pdf?origin=publication_detail&_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6Il9kaXJlY3QiLCJwYWdlIjoicHVibGljYXRpb25Eb3dubG9hZCIsInByZXZpb3VzUGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIn19
>modelers then adjust (‘tune’) these parameters to get a better match with some features of the real climate system<
This sounds like calibration, which is a common practice among technicals. If the inputs are bad then the results will be bad and calibration won’t make it better IMHO
Climate activists tried to portray our ‘green future’ as one in which jobs are plentiful and high paying and utility bills would not rise appreciably. Not surprisingly, the public is realizing that they’ve been sold a bill of goods.
There’s also hypocrisy: if GW is really and ‘existential threat’ why do we keep out Chinese EV’s which cost a fraction of what Detroit offers?
This is good news since global warming has NOTHING to do with carbon emissions! Dr. Gerald E Aardsma (Ph.D. Physics, University of Toronto, 1984) has new research showing this. He has written four papers. This one is a MUST read. “Greenland Ice Cores Destroy the Milankovitch/Carbon-Emissions Theory of Climate Change and Corroborate the Noahic Events Theory of Climate Change”. Check it out!
My guess is that the great majority of climate alarmists could not answer basic questions such as “What makes the wind blow?” Then how can they reliably evaluate complex issues such as the direction and velocity of climate change on any time scale?