Also a time of good cheer!
Here's to 2019. May it be a great year for the sharing of
rational analyses of climate variation, and may that lead to
better informed teachers and children everywhere.
Friday 21 December 2018
Christmas Greetings
J S Bach wrote some pretty good music! His Christmas Oratorio has added to the joy and beauty of this time of year.
Also a time of good cheer!
Here's to 2019. May it be a great year for the sharing of
rational analyses of climate variation, and may that lead to
better informed teachers and children everywhere.
Also a time of good cheer!
Here's to 2019. May it be a great year for the sharing of
rational analyses of climate variation, and may that lead to
better informed teachers and children everywhere.
Monday 17 December 2018
COP24 Climate Alarm PR idea: Let's Try Anxious Children instead of Polar Bears or Hockey Sticks
 |
| Pic: KIARA WORTH/IISD/ENB |
But back to the BBC. Their author notes 'One of the most striking things about this conference of the parties was the presence of energised young people in far greater numbers than I have ever seen them at a COP before.', and goes on to conclude his piece with a photo and a quote from the troubled Swedish schoolgirl who has been presented as the leader of school 'strikes' to promote climate alarm.
What I take to be an official blog/site for COP24 is also big on children: check out this video on how they were used in the opening ceremony:
Indeed,
there was a section of
the conference explicitly for getting children involved in producing
recommendations:
'This Friday, December 14th, during the Climate Change Conference
'This Friday, December 14th, during the Climate Change Conference
COP24
in Katowice, young Polish delegates will take part in a discussion
panel
entitled “No climate for young generation…”, organized by
UNICEF
Poland
and The UNEP/GRID-Warsaw Centre.'
'Representatives
of the young generation from different regions
of
Poland will meet at the event of the Polish Presidency at the
COP24
to jointly debate issues related to climate change. 25
delegates,
supported by experts, will discuss the most
important
challenges in selected areas ...'
'...At
the end of the meeting young people will write recommendations
regarding
urgent actions in the field of climate protection... '
The intellectual and/or moral poverty of climate alarm
campaigners
has been easy
to illustrate for
years. This
latest COP parade adds to the pile. As more and more
adults are able to tackle, refute, and object to the specious
and hyperbolic claims of those seek to raise alarm over our
impact on climate variation, it makes sense for campaigners
to increase their already substantial attention on children -
not only to brainwash them for future use, but also to use
them now as levers on political power.
latest COP parade adds to the pile. As more and more
adults are able to tackle, refute, and object to the specious
and hyperbolic claims of those seek to raise alarm over our
impact on climate variation, it makes sense for campaigners
to increase their already substantial attention on children -
not only to brainwash them for future use, but also to use
them now as levers on political power.
How about a conference on how to help children cope with
and recover from the climate alarmism foisted upon them?
How about recommendations to help adults who have been
harmed by such alarm during their school years?
Let
us not forget that the case for alarm over our impact on
climate
is a frail and unsatisfactory one. It may have a place
in academic discussions, but it does not have anything like
enough substance to be used for important decision-making.
Professor Nir Shaviv summarised this neatly the other day
in an address to the German parliament (emboldening by me):
in academic discussions, but it does not have anything like
enough substance to be used for important decision-making.
Professor Nir Shaviv summarised this neatly the other day
in an address to the German parliament (emboldening by me):
'Three
minutes is not a lot of time, so let me be brief. I’ll start
with something that might shock you. There is no evidence
that CO2 has a large effect on climate.
with something that might shock you. There is no evidence
that CO2 has a large effect on climate.
'The two arguments used by the IPCC to so called “prove”
that humans are the main cause of global warming, and
which implies that climate sensitivity is high, are that:
a) 20th century warming is unprecedented, and
b) there is nothing else to explain the warming.
These arguments are faulty.'
Note
added 19 Dec 2018. See the Shaviv link above for more
as
excellent sources of more information on rational rather than
ideological
perspectives on climate variation. The summary
version
of
their latest report is a good place to start.
Note added 20 Dec 2018. The Global Warming Policy Foundation
(GWPF) has just published a note concerning some of the shoddiness
in the recent IPCC report. Here are the concluding paragraphs:
'The SR1.5 report represents a very significant departure from
previous IPCC reports in the direction of increased alarm regarding
global warming, particularly as compared with the Fifth Assessment.
No rigorous justification for this departure has been provided.
In reality, since the Fifth Assessment considerable evidence has
accumulated suggesting that global warming is more of a long-term
threat than a planetary emergency.
This evidence consists mainly of observational results suggesting
lower climate sensitivity (i.e. less warming in response to any given
increase in greenhouse gas concentrations) and results indicating a
greater contribution from natural variability to explaining observed
global temperature trends.
The IPCC has not passed on this evidence to policymakers in its
SR1.5 report. The report has also not passed on to policymakers
some very important information published by climate modellers
since the last IPCC assessment report regarding the empirical tuning
of climate models to achieve desired results.
The failure of previous IPCC reports to document the models’ tuning
procedures has been described by these modellers as a ‘lack of
transparency’. The projections of future warming published by the
IPCC are completely dependent on the reliability of these models.
In view of these deficiencies, the SR1.5 report does not merit being
regarded by policymakers as a scientifically rigorous document.
There is much recent scientific evidence, not referred to in the report,
to support a more considered mitigation strategy than the extreme
measures proposed in the report. Meanwhile, the worthy goals discussed
in the report, such as sustainable development, poverty eradication
and reducing inequalities, should be pursued on their own merits
and not made dependent on unsettled climate science.'
The note was written by Prof J R Bates.
(' Professor J. Ray Bates is Adjunct Professor of Meteorology in the Meteorology
Note added 20 Dec 2018. The Global Warming Policy Foundation
(GWPF) has just published a note concerning some of the shoddiness
in the recent IPCC report. Here are the concluding paragraphs:
'The SR1.5 report represents a very significant departure from
previous IPCC reports in the direction of increased alarm regarding
global warming, particularly as compared with the Fifth Assessment.
No rigorous justification for this departure has been provided.
In reality, since the Fifth Assessment considerable evidence has
accumulated suggesting that global warming is more of a long-term
threat than a planetary emergency.
This evidence consists mainly of observational results suggesting
lower climate sensitivity (i.e. less warming in response to any given
increase in greenhouse gas concentrations) and results indicating a
greater contribution from natural variability to explaining observed
global temperature trends.
The IPCC has not passed on this evidence to policymakers in its
SR1.5 report. The report has also not passed on to policymakers
some very important information published by climate modellers
since the last IPCC assessment report regarding the empirical tuning
of climate models to achieve desired results.
The failure of previous IPCC reports to document the models’ tuning
procedures has been described by these modellers as a ‘lack of
transparency’. The projections of future warming published by the
IPCC are completely dependent on the reliability of these models.
In view of these deficiencies, the SR1.5 report does not merit being
regarded by policymakers as a scientifically rigorous document.
There is much recent scientific evidence, not referred to in the report,
to support a more considered mitigation strategy than the extreme
measures proposed in the report. Meanwhile, the worthy goals discussed
in the report, such as sustainable development, poverty eradication
and reducing inequalities, should be pursued on their own merits
and not made dependent on unsettled climate science.'
The note was written by Prof J R Bates.
(' Professor J. Ray Bates is Adjunct Professor of Meteorology in the Meteorology
and
Climate Centre at University College Dublin. He was formerly
Professor of
Meteorology
at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, and a Senior
Scientist
at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre. In his early career he was
Head
of Research at the Irish Meteorological Service.)
Wednesday 28 November 2018
Climate Cartoons by Josh, International Treasure
While the rise of climate alarmism and its intrusion into politics, education, and the mass media is a dismal event that would strain anyone's faith in mankind's ability to cope with propaganda and fear-mongering, there are some consolations to be found in the works of people who stand opposed to the flow of nonsense, hyperbole, and half-baked 'science'.
One example is the Cartoons by Josh. His work highlights the conceits, the arrogance, the foolishness and worse of the climate scaremongerers, and it does so with huge amounts of charm, and even compassion for these destructive and ill-informed people.
Josh's Calendar for 2019 is now shipping. When the climate madness subsides into some kind of academic obscurity, and if there is a big effort to understand the collective madness of the CO2 Scare, then these cartoons will be, as they say, collectors' items. I'm certainly going to keep all my copies of past and future calendars as a kind of poor man's collection, one which I hope will be of interest to show just how the whole costly charade was seen through by some as it happened. We were not all duped. We did not all jump on the bandwagon be it for fame or for fortune or merely to get a glow from 'saving the planet'. Plus the cartoons are also just plain funny. Raising a smile or even a laugh in the midst of the madness is quite an achievement. Thank you, Josh.
One example is the Cartoons by Josh. His work highlights the conceits, the arrogance, the foolishness and worse of the climate scaremongerers, and it does so with huge amounts of charm, and even compassion for these destructive and ill-informed people.
Josh's Calendar for 2019 is now shipping. When the climate madness subsides into some kind of academic obscurity, and if there is a big effort to understand the collective madness of the CO2 Scare, then these cartoons will be, as they say, collectors' items. I'm certainly going to keep all my copies of past and future calendars as a kind of poor man's collection, one which I hope will be of interest to show just how the whole costly charade was seen through by some as it happened. We were not all duped. We did not all jump on the bandwagon be it for fame or for fortune or merely to get a glow from 'saving the planet'. Plus the cartoons are also just plain funny. Raising a smile or even a laugh in the midst of the madness is quite an achievement. Thank you, Josh.
Monday 23 July 2018
Climate Panic Puzzle Partly Pinned Down
The astonishing, and depressing, success of the climate alarmism 'movement' has long been a puzzle to me. The explanation of it may well take decades to settle down on a widely agreed version, not least since so many academic disciplines are involved, and many not so academic drives to gain power and wealth are there too.
But a puzzle well-described is a puzzle more likely to be solved. On the science sides of the puzzle, the role of the so-called climate scientists has been evocatively captured by a chap called Smolin looking at another field that shares with climate studies a severe shortage of good or adequate data*. Here are his observations as presented by the oceanographer Carl Munsch (hat-tip Judith Curry):
But a puzzle well-described is a puzzle more likely to be solved. On the science sides of the puzzle, the role of the so-called climate scientists has been evocatively captured by a chap called Smolin looking at another field that shares with climate studies a severe shortage of good or adequate data*. Here are his observations as presented by the oceanographer Carl Munsch (hat-tip Judith Curry):
From one point of view, scientific communities without adequate data have a distinct advantage: one can construct interesting and exciting stories and rationalizations with little or no risk of observational refutation. Colorful, sometimes charismatic, characters come to dominate the field, constructing their interpretations of a few intriguing, but indefinite observations that appeal to their followers, and which eventually emerge as “textbook truths.”
Consider the following characteristics ascribed to one particular, notoriously data-poor, field (Smolin, 2006), as having:
1. Tremendous self confidence, leading to a sense of entitlement and of belonging to an elite community of experts.
2. An unusually monolithic community, with a strong sense of consensus, whether driven by the evidence or not, and an unusual uniformity of views on open questions. These views seem related to the existence of a hierarchical structure in which the ideas of a few leaders dictate the viewpoint, strategy, and direction of the field.
3. In some cases a sense of identification with the group, akin to identification with a religious faith or political platform.
4. A strong sense of the boundary between the group and other experts.
5. A disregard for and disinterest in the ideas, opinions, and work of experts who are not part of the group, and a preference for talking only with other members of the community.
6. A tendency to interpret evidence optimistically, to believe exaggerated or incorrect statements of results and to disregard the possibility that the theory might be wrong. This is coupled with a tendency to believe results are true because they are ’widely believed,’ even if one has not checked (or even seen) the proof oneself.
7. A lack of appreciation for the extent to which a research program ought to involve risk.
Smolin (2006) was writing about string theory in physics. Nonetheless, observers of the paleoclimate scene might recognize some common characteristics.
Note that string-theory is part of theoretical physics, a field noted for having a high proportion of very bright scientists. Contrast that with the field of climate science, noted for being a somewhat ramshackle collection of often self-identified 'experts' from fields not known for high intellectual challenges such as geography, computer coding, weather forecasting, and planetary science.
The task of helping those who have been through the school system over the last 30 years, and those entering it soon, will be made easier the more insight we have into the causes of the Climate Panic. Helping with what? With the dismal, destructive, degrading, distorting world view that mankind is doomed thanks to industrial progress and the associated production of carbon dioxide. There is not a shred of convincing evidence or argument for that view, but it seems widely adopted in political, media, and academic circles.
* Noted added 07 Oct 2018. The Climategate Revelations (esp. the HarryReadMe file - details here) pointed to shoddy data and shoddier data management. Now John McLean has dug into the manure to expose more data quality problems, and in more detail: http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-temperature-data-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/
'“I was aghast to find that nothing was done to remove absurd values… the whole approach to the dataset’s create is careless and amateur, about the standard of a first-year university student.”
– John McLean
* Noted added 07 Oct 2018. The Climategate Revelations (esp. the HarryReadMe file - details here) pointed to shoddy data and shoddier data management. Now John McLean has dug into the manure to expose more data quality problems, and in more detail: http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-temperature-data-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/
'“I was aghast to find that nothing was done to remove absurd values… the whole approach to the dataset’s create is careless and amateur, about the standard of a first-year university student.”
– John McLean
His report is available here for $8: https://robert-boyle-publishing.com/product/audit-of-the-hadcrut4-global-temperature-dataset-mclean-2018/
Monday 2 April 2018
Warmism 2 is upon us - a new wave of scaremongering around CO2 to sustain the 'golden shower of research grant money'
JR writes:
'The
evolution of global warming theory
I have not seen any explicit comment on this but it seems that there has been a large change over the years in what Warmists try to scare us with. There has been a Warmism 1 and a Warmism 2.
Warmism 1 is the Warmism of Al Gore, with sea level rises of 20 feet drowning most coastal cities. That was certainly scary and warranting of urgent action. But it was most implausible. 96% of the earth's glacial ice is in Antarctica and even at the continental margins the temperature there is many degrees below zero. So a few degrees of temperature rise might melt some sea ice but nothing more would happen. Melting sea ice cannot raise the sea level. So where was the required great volume of water going to come from? Mars?
Warmism 1 had another fault as well. It assumed a most implausible effect of clouds. It said that warming would be gradual until the cloud cover became much more extensive than it now is. And there is no doubt that a warmer world WOULD have more clouds as more water evaporated off the oceans.
But Warmism 1 at that point made two great theoretical leaps. They said that the increased cloud cover would warm the earth when clouds in fact normally cool the earth by blocking out the sun. But let's glide over that point and accept their assumption that clouds would warm us. The Warmist at that point makes another great leap. He says that at some point a "tipping point" would be reached so that warming would suddenly accelerate and we would really roast.
Normally, when scientists try to predict the future they make a straight line extrapolation from existing trends. But Warmism 1 aborts that. Because of the tipping point, the past is no longer a guide to the future. Things will get a lot hotter very suddenly. They will get much hotter than they would under a normal extrapolation from the past. So while scientific prediction of the future is possible in some instances -- by looking carefully at the past -- Warmism 1 abandons that and makes a prophecy based purely on speculation.
I have tried to tell the story of Warmism 1 as straight as I can but I think its implausibilities are nonetheless obviously gross. And, although it has never been formally abandoned by anyone, it has quietly faded away from most Warmist discourse. It is, for example, years since I have heard anything of the tipping point.
So Warmism 1 has been replaced by Warmism 2.
Warmism 2 is much less fantastical. It has reverted to the normal scientific method of predicting the future by extrapolations from the past. There is no Deus ex machina that causes warming to suddenly leap. It hypothesizes a steady process of warming at some specified rate. But finding that rate is the issue. Vast guesses about what CO2 does are used to get a rate.
Different authors assume different rates and the actuality always seems to be less than any predicted rate. So the accepted rate of warming has trended steadily down in the face of all the predictive failures. So under Warmism 2 we will have a temperature rise of only about 2 degrees Celsius and a consequent rise in sea levels of inches, not the yards predicted by Al Gore.
But that is rather boring. It is hard to frighten people with just a few inches of sea level rise so a whole new industry has arisen which says that the few degrees of predicted warming will lead to catastrophic weather events -- hurricanes etc. But even that is a dead end as dramatic weather events considered overall do not seem to be increasing and may even be decreasing.
So Warmism has in a way disappeared up its own back passage. It no longer has any pretence of science behind its warnings of doom. It is merely an example of telling a big enough lie often enough so that less informed people will believe it. And while it continues to give scientists a golden shower of research grant money, the myth will be maintained -- JR.'
I have not seen any explicit comment on this but it seems that there has been a large change over the years in what Warmists try to scare us with. There has been a Warmism 1 and a Warmism 2.
Warmism 1 is the Warmism of Al Gore, with sea level rises of 20 feet drowning most coastal cities. That was certainly scary and warranting of urgent action. But it was most implausible. 96% of the earth's glacial ice is in Antarctica and even at the continental margins the temperature there is many degrees below zero. So a few degrees of temperature rise might melt some sea ice but nothing more would happen. Melting sea ice cannot raise the sea level. So where was the required great volume of water going to come from? Mars?
Warmism 1 had another fault as well. It assumed a most implausible effect of clouds. It said that warming would be gradual until the cloud cover became much more extensive than it now is. And there is no doubt that a warmer world WOULD have more clouds as more water evaporated off the oceans.
But Warmism 1 at that point made two great theoretical leaps. They said that the increased cloud cover would warm the earth when clouds in fact normally cool the earth by blocking out the sun. But let's glide over that point and accept their assumption that clouds would warm us. The Warmist at that point makes another great leap. He says that at some point a "tipping point" would be reached so that warming would suddenly accelerate and we would really roast.
Normally, when scientists try to predict the future they make a straight line extrapolation from existing trends. But Warmism 1 aborts that. Because of the tipping point, the past is no longer a guide to the future. Things will get a lot hotter very suddenly. They will get much hotter than they would under a normal extrapolation from the past. So while scientific prediction of the future is possible in some instances -- by looking carefully at the past -- Warmism 1 abandons that and makes a prophecy based purely on speculation.
I have tried to tell the story of Warmism 1 as straight as I can but I think its implausibilities are nonetheless obviously gross. And, although it has never been formally abandoned by anyone, it has quietly faded away from most Warmist discourse. It is, for example, years since I have heard anything of the tipping point.
So Warmism 1 has been replaced by Warmism 2.
Warmism 2 is much less fantastical. It has reverted to the normal scientific method of predicting the future by extrapolations from the past. There is no Deus ex machina that causes warming to suddenly leap. It hypothesizes a steady process of warming at some specified rate. But finding that rate is the issue. Vast guesses about what CO2 does are used to get a rate.
Different authors assume different rates and the actuality always seems to be less than any predicted rate. So the accepted rate of warming has trended steadily down in the face of all the predictive failures. So under Warmism 2 we will have a temperature rise of only about 2 degrees Celsius and a consequent rise in sea levels of inches, not the yards predicted by Al Gore.
But that is rather boring. It is hard to frighten people with just a few inches of sea level rise so a whole new industry has arisen which says that the few degrees of predicted warming will lead to catastrophic weather events -- hurricanes etc. But even that is a dead end as dramatic weather events considered overall do not seem to be increasing and may even be decreasing.
So Warmism has in a way disappeared up its own back passage. It no longer has any pretence of science behind its warnings of doom. It is merely an example of telling a big enough lie often enough so that less informed people will believe it. And while it continues to give scientists a golden shower of research grant money, the myth will be maintained -- JR.'
'JR' is John Ray, an astute Australian commentator on the climate alarm scandal. His 'Greenie Watch' blog postings are invaluable. The above text was posted there on 2nd April, 2018. See: http://antigreen.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/the-evolution-of-global-warming-theory.html#links
Note added 3 April 2018. For useful background on the gestation of part of Warmism 2, see: http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2018/04/climate-change-trial/
Note added 3 April 2018. For useful background on the gestation of part of Warmism 2, see: http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2018/04/climate-change-trial/
Friday 23 March 2018
Three Cheers for 'Human Achievement Hour'
The disgraceful panic over rising CO2 levels has led to many harms, not least to the mental well-being of children, and the physical well-being of just about everyone. The jejune 'Earth Hour' is but one manifestation of the rot that has spread into many groups, organisations, and even governments.
Celebrate 'Human Achievement Hour' instead: https://cei.org/humanachievementhour
Or, how about 'Energy Hour': https://climatelessons.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/earth-hour-is-phoney-energy-hour-is.html
And the 'must-read': https://climatelessons.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/i-abhor-earth-hour-abundant-cheap.html
Note added 24 March. Jo Nova calls for 'Power Hour': http://joannenova.com.au/2018/03/fight-the-forces-of-darkness-celebrate-powerhour-tonight/
'It’s your chance to show your commitment to fighting the forces of darkness.'
Note added 25 March. Mark Morano's site provides more links to sensible responses to the 'Earth Hour' lunacy: http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/03/24/star-treks-william-shatner-promotes-earth-hour-darkness-but-he-is-rebuked-by-forces-of-light/
Celebrate 'Human Achievement Hour' instead: https://cei.org/humanachievementhour
Or, how about 'Energy Hour': https://climatelessons.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/earth-hour-is-phoney-energy-hour-is.html
And the 'must-read': https://climatelessons.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/i-abhor-earth-hour-abundant-cheap.html
Note added 24 March. Jo Nova calls for 'Power Hour': http://joannenova.com.au/2018/03/fight-the-forces-of-darkness-celebrate-powerhour-tonight/
'It’s your chance to show your commitment to fighting the forces of darkness.'
Note added 25 March. Mark Morano's site provides more links to sensible responses to the 'Earth Hour' lunacy: http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/03/24/star-treks-william-shatner-promotes-earth-hour-darkness-but-he-is-rebuked-by-forces-of-light/
Wednesday 21 February 2018
Inch by Inch, Row by Row, Make the Climate Rascals Go
Here's a slightly modified first verse of an even more heavily modified 'Garden Song' which I put together about 5 years ago:
Inch
by inch, row by row
Make the
climate rascals go
All it takes is to check, don'tcha know
For their claims are so unsound.
All it takes is to check, don'tcha know
For their claims are so unsound.
And here is a recent example on WUWT of what people can find when they check climate-alarm-campaigners' scare-stories about climate. There is surely great scope for including such examples in school textbooks as and when the climate alarm fad fades away and the whole sorry farce can be studied in ways to help children and adults recover from the propaganda onslaught they have endured.
'...
Climate Alarmist have over time gone from focusing on Global Warming,
to Climate Change to simply fear of Carbon. Thus, this research
sought to determine the credibility of Ten (10) very frequently cited
Climate Alarmists Claims.
Below
are Rebuttals to each of these ten typical climate alarmists’
claims. The
rebuttal authors are all recognized experts on their topic and each
rebuttal demonstrates the claim fallacy by merely citing the most
credible empirical data.
Claim
#1: Heat Waves are increasing at an alarming rate and heat kills
For
Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_AC
– Heat Waves
Claim
#2: Global warming is causing more hurricanes and stronger hurricanes
For
Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_AC
– Hurricanes
Claim
#3: Global warming is causing more and stronger tornadoes
For
Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_CA
– Tornadoes
Claim
#4: Global warming is increasing the magnitude and frequency of
droughts and floods.
For
Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_AC
– Droughts and Floods
Claim
#5: Global Warming has increased U.S. Wildfires
For
Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_AC
– Wildfires
Claim
#6: Global warming is causing snow to disappear
For
Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_CA
– Snow
Claim
#7: Global warming is resulting in rising sea levels as seen in both
tide gauge and satellite technology
For
Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_CA
– Sea Level
Claim
#8: Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland ice loss is accelerating
due to global warming
For
Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_AC
– Arctic, Antarctic, Greenland
Claim #9: Rising atmospheric
CO2 concentrations
are causing ocean acidification, which is catastrophically harming
marine life
For
Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_CA
– Ocean pH
Claim
#10: Carbon pollution is a health hazard
For
Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_AC
– Health'
More
from the WUWT
article:
'On
February 9, 2018, The Concerned Household Electricity Consumers
Council (CHECC) submitted a fifth Supplement to their Petition to
provide additional new highly relevant and credible information.
(See:EF
CPP Fifth Supplement to Petition for Recon FINAL020918 )
It relates to variables other than temperature describing the Earth’s
Climate System. '
Monday 19 February 2018
Clearing up the Mess produced by Climate Alarmism: watch out for Nolans and Baizuos.
The damage done to children and other vulnerable groups by the climate alarmists has yet to be quantified and assessed, but seems likely to be deep and extensive. Here is one recent example: young women, whose entire education could have been contaminated with climate alarmism, are agonising over whether or not to have children: http://wgntv.com/2018/01/31/climate-change-is-impacting-some-womens-decisions-to-have-children/
This blog will continue to report on people and materials that can help those who wish to repair such damage over the coming decades.
Here are a couple of types of people who will get in the way of such efforts: nolans and baizuos.
This blog will continue to report on people and materials that can help those who wish to repair such damage over the coming decades.
Here are a couple of types of people who will get in the way of such efforts: nolans and baizuos.
NOLAN /di’khe’d/ A bigoted blowhard, someone unwilling to listen to other points of view, someone who thinks they have licence to cast moral judgement upon others, someone who makes a show of being independently minded, intellectually rigorous and scrupulously impartial but is in fact someone who toes the party line and is in reality no more than a PC ‘bot’ churning out the Liberal Establishment orthodoxy whilst suppressing inconvenient facts. Alternate /J.O’Brien/
Hat-tip: Biased-BBC, https://biasedbbc.org/blog/2018/02/19/start-the-week-open-thread-161/
BAIZUO. 'The
word 'baizuo'
is,
according to political scientist Zhang Chenchen, a Chinese word that
ridicules Western “liberal elites”. He further defined the word
“baizuo” with the definition “People who only care about topics
such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment” and
“have no sense of real problems in the real world”; they are
hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only
to “satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority”; they are
“obsessed with political correctness” to the extent that they
“tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of
multiculturalism”; they believe in the welfare state that “benefits
only the idle and the free riders”; they are the “ignorant and
arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think
they are saviours”. The term has also been used to refer to
perceived double standards of the Western media, such as the alleged
bias on reporting about Islamist attacks in Xinjiang. The
use of the word “Baizuo” could be an insult on the Chinese
Internet.'
'Baizuo' is apparently
pronounced 'buy-tshwaah'
Hat-tip: Samizdata, https://www.samizdata.net/2018/02/samizdata-er-chinese-word-of-the-day-baizuo/
Monday 8 January 2018
Repairing the Damage to Children Caused by Climate Alarmists: letters from Ross McKitrick and Richard Lindzen
It seems the high school students mentioned in the previous post sent their 5 questions to other distinguished climate authorities, not least to Ross McKitrick and to Richard Lindzen. Both have made their replies public. Here is the one from McKitrick:
Five questions from students about climate change
Ross McKitrick January 2018
'In late 2017 I was contacted by a group of students at a high school in Europe asking if I would answer some questions on climate change for a project they were working on. Here are the questions they asked, and the answers I gave them.
1. What is behind global warming? Over the last 150 years there have been influences due to strengthening solar output, land-use changes, increased greenhouse gases and natural variability, among other things. The dominant school of thought in climatology is that rising greenhouse gas levels explain most of the overall warming trend since the 1950s. There are good reasons to support this, although the climate system is too complex to assume the matter is settled. The mechanisms by which the sun affects the climate are not well understood, nor are the mechanisms behind clouds, ocean-atmosphere interactions and other basic processes. The relative lack of warming in the tropical troposphere and over the South Pole are not easily explained under the theory that greenhouse gas levels dominate the climate system.
2. What can we do to prevent global warming? If it is a natural process, nothing. If it is mainly due to rising greenhouse gas levels we need to ask instead whether we would want to prevent it. It would require complete cessation of fossil fuel use, which would cause intolerable economic and social costs and would only yield small changes in the time path of global warming for the next century or more. Even large-scale emission reductions (such as under the Paris and Kyoto treaties) would only cause a small slowdown in the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100, so any benefits from such policies are likewise tiny, yet the costs would be enormous. The small warming that took place since the early 20th century was largely beneficial, and the astonishing social and economic benefits associated with cheap fossil energy far outweighed any problems it might have created. It is likely that this will be true over the next century as well.
3. If we don't do anything about it, how does it affect us and our descendants? Humans flourish in every climate on earth from the tropics to the polar regions. We are very adaptable. The only issue is whether changes take place so quickly that we cannot adapt, but history shows this to be a rare situation. Climate processes are slow, and if the climate models are correct, the changes are gradual and predictable. People can adapt to warming conditions more easily than to cooling conditions. The IPCC predicted that over the next hundred years, changes in economies and technology will have a much larger effect on peoples' lives than changes in climate.
4. What will happen in the future, and what are the alternatives for us, if the Earth becomes unlivable? There is no chance that greenhouse gases will make the Earth unlivable. If an asteroid hits, or another ice age begins, or something like that, then we face catastrophe. But the question essentially asks, what happens if we all die? The answer is, we all die.
5. How can we save Earth if it isn't too late? To ask the question is to reveal that you greatly overestimate your size in relation to the Earth. We could not ruin the Earth even if we tried, nor could we save it if it faced ruin. Our planet is a remarkably adaptable and robust home. We don't live in a giant china shop where everything is fragile and breakable, it's more like a playground where everything is made to withstand considerable wear and tear. Over the Earth's history the amount of CO2 in the air has typically been 2-10 times higher than at present yet the plants, animals and oceans flourished. Much of the past half million years have been ice age conditions which wiped out life on the northern continents, yet it always came back as soon as the ice retreated. If you take the view that the ordinary human pursuit of prosperity and happiness will somehow destroy the planet you will end up adopting an anti-human outlook. This is both a scientific and an ethical error. Set your sights on a more modest scale, by trying to be a good citizen and be helpful to the people around you, and you will make much better decisions than if you are thinking in terms of faraway abstract categories like saving the Earth.
Good luck with your studies.'
Downloadable from here: https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/5questions.pdf
Unfortunately, the Lindzen reply is behind a paywall, here:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12129-017-9669-x
Hat-tip for both to SEPP: http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2018/TWTW%201-6-18.pdf
Five questions from students about climate change
Ross McKitrick January 2018
'In late 2017 I was contacted by a group of students at a high school in Europe asking if I would answer some questions on climate change for a project they were working on. Here are the questions they asked, and the answers I gave them.
1. What is behind global warming? Over the last 150 years there have been influences due to strengthening solar output, land-use changes, increased greenhouse gases and natural variability, among other things. The dominant school of thought in climatology is that rising greenhouse gas levels explain most of the overall warming trend since the 1950s. There are good reasons to support this, although the climate system is too complex to assume the matter is settled. The mechanisms by which the sun affects the climate are not well understood, nor are the mechanisms behind clouds, ocean-atmosphere interactions and other basic processes. The relative lack of warming in the tropical troposphere and over the South Pole are not easily explained under the theory that greenhouse gas levels dominate the climate system.
2. What can we do to prevent global warming? If it is a natural process, nothing. If it is mainly due to rising greenhouse gas levels we need to ask instead whether we would want to prevent it. It would require complete cessation of fossil fuel use, which would cause intolerable economic and social costs and would only yield small changes in the time path of global warming for the next century or more. Even large-scale emission reductions (such as under the Paris and Kyoto treaties) would only cause a small slowdown in the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100, so any benefits from such policies are likewise tiny, yet the costs would be enormous. The small warming that took place since the early 20th century was largely beneficial, and the astonishing social and economic benefits associated with cheap fossil energy far outweighed any problems it might have created. It is likely that this will be true over the next century as well.
3. If we don't do anything about it, how does it affect us and our descendants? Humans flourish in every climate on earth from the tropics to the polar regions. We are very adaptable. The only issue is whether changes take place so quickly that we cannot adapt, but history shows this to be a rare situation. Climate processes are slow, and if the climate models are correct, the changes are gradual and predictable. People can adapt to warming conditions more easily than to cooling conditions. The IPCC predicted that over the next hundred years, changes in economies and technology will have a much larger effect on peoples' lives than changes in climate.
4. What will happen in the future, and what are the alternatives for us, if the Earth becomes unlivable? There is no chance that greenhouse gases will make the Earth unlivable. If an asteroid hits, or another ice age begins, or something like that, then we face catastrophe. But the question essentially asks, what happens if we all die? The answer is, we all die.
5. How can we save Earth if it isn't too late? To ask the question is to reveal that you greatly overestimate your size in relation to the Earth. We could not ruin the Earth even if we tried, nor could we save it if it faced ruin. Our planet is a remarkably adaptable and robust home. We don't live in a giant china shop where everything is fragile and breakable, it's more like a playground where everything is made to withstand considerable wear and tear. Over the Earth's history the amount of CO2 in the air has typically been 2-10 times higher than at present yet the plants, animals and oceans flourished. Much of the past half million years have been ice age conditions which wiped out life on the northern continents, yet it always came back as soon as the ice retreated. If you take the view that the ordinary human pursuit of prosperity and happiness will somehow destroy the planet you will end up adopting an anti-human outlook. This is both a scientific and an ethical error. Set your sights on a more modest scale, by trying to be a good citizen and be helpful to the people around you, and you will make much better decisions than if you are thinking in terms of faraway abstract categories like saving the Earth.
Good luck with your studies.'
Downloadable from here: https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/5questions.pdf
Unfortunately, the Lindzen reply is behind a paywall, here:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12129-017-9669-x
Hat-tip for both to SEPP: http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2018/TWTW%201-6-18.pdf