Climate Cult Exploits Harvey

By | 2017-06-02T18:30:05+00:00 September 1, 2017|
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Shortly before Donald Trump’s inauguration in January, meteorologist and climate writer Eric Holthaus unleashed a Twitter torrent confessing his depression about the new president. Holthaus admitted he was seeing a counselor due to his “climate despair” and whimpered that it was difficult to work or do much of anything.

“We don’t deserve this planet,” Holthaus tweeted. “There are (many) days when I think it would be better off without us.”

But Hurricane Harvey has apparently boosted Holthaus’ spirits. He is working at a feverish pace now, churning out a number of “I-told-you-so” articles and interviews. By Monday, Holthaus had already penned an overwrought article for Politico, where he wags a literary finger at us:

We knew this would happen, decades ago. We knew this would happen, and we didn’t care. Now is the time to say it as loudly as possible: Harvey is what climate change looks like. More specifically, Harvey is what climate change looks like in a world that has decided, over and over, that it doesn’t want to take climate change seriously.

There was more back-patting: “If we don’t talk about the climate context of Harvey, we won’t be able to prevent future disasters and get to work on that better future. Those of us who know this need to say it loudly.”

Nothing like a devastating Category 4 hurricane to cure those climate blues!

Of course, Holthaus is not alone. Before the first raindrops started to fall in Houston, climate activists and their propagandists in the media were already blaming Harvey on man-made global warming. But that wasn’t enough. President Trump, his voters, and the Republican Congress are also culpable. Oliver Willis, a writer for the anti-Trump website Shareblue, suggested via several tweets Sunday morning that the hurricane could have been avoided had we listened to Al Gore, honored the Paris Climate Accord, and elected Hillary Clinton:

Even though some cooler heads in the scientific community cautioned against politicizing the hurricane while people were losing their lives, homes, and every possession, activists and the media would hear nothing of it. They persisted. Pope Francis even got in on the action, calling for a world day of prayer for the care of creation: “We appeal to those who have influential roles to listen to the cry of the Earth and the cry of the poor, who suffer the most from ecological imbalance.”

It’s impossible to catalog all the ridiculous comments and accusations made over the past week, so a few highlights will have to suffice. In a CNN.com article, Jeffrey Sachs, a Columbia University professor and regular climate scold, demanded the resignation of Texas Governor Greg Abbott over the hurricane: “Once the immediate crisis ends, the governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, should resign with an apology to his state and his country. Then the Texas delegation in Congress should make a public confession. They have lied to their constituents for too long, expecting the rest of America to keep bailing them out.” Sachs called Texas a “moral hazard state” (he must have missed all the amazing videos of Texans helping each other regardless of color or political persuasion) because “Houston is an oil town, and the American oil industry has been enemy No. 1 of climate truth and climate preparedness.” Despicable.

Some cheered the devastation. George Monbiot, a particularly noxious climate writer for The Guardian, implied Houston deserved what it got:

The storm ripped through the oil fields, forcing rigs and refineries to shut down, including those owned by some of the 25 companies that have produced more than half the greenhouse gas emissions humans have released since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Hurricane Harvey has devastated a place in which climate breakdown is generated, and in which the policies that prevent it from being addressed are formulated.

Cenk Uyger, co-host of a YouTube news roundtable called “The Young Turks” (he’s not so young, as it happens), best represented the unintellectual and unscientific view of the climate cult when he said this on Monday:

So, if you’re one of those snowflakes who is going to get triggered when I say this has to do with climate change, go ahead and cry right now. If you’re gonna say it’s too say it’s too soon, I’m gonna say it’s too late. It’s not too soon to talk about climate change, we should have talked about it a long time ago so these storms wouldn’t be this severe. If you are a knucklehead who doesn’t understand science, and you say, oh well we used to have storms like this before, that doesn’t answer anything.

Alrighty, then. After we clear away the bluster, blame, and political posturing, what does the science say? Despite warnings after Hurricane Katrina that huge storms would increase in the near future, it has been 12 years since a major hurricane hit the U.S. mainland, and Harvey is only the fourth Category 4 or 5 hurricane since 1970. Between 1929 and 1969, the United States suffered through 14 storms of that magnitude.

Roger Pielke, Jr. is a leading expert on extreme weather; he has been personally and professionally attacked by climate alarmists for his scientific evidence debunking the false claim that climate change causes more extreme weather events such as hurricanes. “Scientific assessments, including those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. government’s latest National Climate Assessment, indicate no long-term increases in the frequency or strength of hurricanes in the U.S. Neither has there been an increase in floods, droughts, and tornadoes, though heat waves and heavy precipitation have become more common,” Pielke wrote in Friday’s Wall Street Journal.

He denounced those politicizing Harvey, noting “without data to support their wilder claims, climate partisans have now resorted to shouting that every extreme weather event was somehow ‘made worse’ by the emission of greenhouse gases.” Pielke suggests a better solution is to focus on preparing for weather catastrophes rather than assigning blame.

But alas, laying blame is what liberals and Democratic politicians do best. Rather than make a compelling case based on science or evidence, they exploit tragedy to advance their agenda, which has less to do with science and everything to do with control. Whether it’s a massive storm, violence in an American college town, or a mass shooting, these folks only know how to reflexively respond with emotion. A destructive deluge in America’s fourth largest city is no exception.

 

About the Author:

Julie Kelly
Julie Kelly is a senior contributor to American Greatness.
Loading...

212 Comments

  1. Dan Schwartz September 1, 2017 at 1:38 pm

    The real problem in Houston is that since it’s practically at sea level so far inland, the natural terrain floods very easily. The damage has been exacerbated by almost no zoning, and shoddy, almost third-world building codes. What’s more, Houston dodged a bullet because the path of Hurricane Harvey’s eye did not travel up the Houston ship channel, which would have made the damage much worse.
    As President Reagan said, “if you want more of something, subsidize it,” and these tens of billions of dollars of “free money” which will pour fourth from Washington will come without strings, such as once a property has been subsidized once for flood damage repairs, it is ineligible for any subsequent subsidies.

    • derekcolman September 2, 2017 at 4:55 pm

      Houston is at a point where 2 major rivers join. There are many towns like that in the world and the one thing they all have in common is that they are all prone to severe flooding.

  2. Leatherneck September 1, 2017 at 1:55 pm

    Mankind attempting to affect the climate is akin to a flea standing in the middle of some train tracks and trying to stop a freight train that weighs about 4,000 tons.

    • aj1575 September 3, 2017 at 2:05 pm

      Mankind can influence the weather. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from an average of 300ppm to now over 400ppm, this clearly affects the climate. And this raise can clearly be attributed to mankind (even climate deniers haven’t come up with a better explanation why it has risen so fast since mankind started to burn fossile fuel.

      • DrZman September 3, 2017 at 2:19 pm

        Please show proof that the rate of temperature increase has risen faster since man has started to build fossil fuel. There is no question that earth’s temperatures have been on the rise for at least 10,000 years and sea level has risen over 100 feet since then, but show how man has accelerated this trend. I would like to see the data.

        • mabele September 3, 2017 at 2:48 pm

          I’m kind of curious to hear you tell us why the CO2 concentration has risen from 300 to 400 ppm first, though. If mankind didn’t do it, what did?

          And to be fair, aj1575 posted first.

          • DrZman September 3, 2017 at 3:20 pm

            You have a reading comprehension problem. I did not say anything about the rise in CO2 concentration. I asked about temperature increases – how has that been accelerated by man. You are jumping to a conclusion that because CO2 concentrations have increased, it’s climate change. Is that good or bad?

            So tell me how and how much CO2 increases have “changed the climate”? BTW, CO2 concentrations have been much higher than this in the earth’s history.

          • mabele September 3, 2017 at 3:28 pm

            I simply asked you to explain a rather significant change in the chemical composition of the Earth’s atmosphere. Why can’t you? Climatologists have an explanation, why can’t you provide one as well? Are they correct, perhaps? If not, tell me why not and provide me with the alternative explanation.

            As for the CO2 composition being much higher in the remote past, pretty much all of us learned that in high school. Of course, we also learned that that was the case during the same period that sea levels were several meters higher than currently and huge expanses of North America as well as the other continents were underwater…..

            Which would tend to support what the climatologists are telling us now about the effects of CO2 rise.

          • DrZman September 3, 2017 at 3:38 pm

            What I cannot explain is why you are avoiding my initial comment. I realize that CO2 concentration has gone up recently. What effect does this have on the climate. Why are you avoiding my question?

            Sea level has risen about 120 meters in the past 10,000 years or so since the end of the last ice age as the earth has warmed since this time. I don’t understand your point about continents being covered with sea water followed by recession?

            Ahhh. “climatologist telling about the effects of CO2 rise”. That’s exactly what I asked you for in the first place. Please provide citations. Did you learn to read?

          • Nixon's Back September 3, 2017 at 5:20 pm

            So this is based on chemical group theory. You have to first draw a Lewis diagram of CO2. Then look at the symmetry operations that can be done in 3 dimensions. You’ll end up seeing CO2 is grouped as CinfV. When you look at the group table you will see that 4 bands of IR radiation excite the molecule. It is 2 bends and an asymmetric and symmetric stretch. IR radiation at certain bands are trapped by this molecule and released as a photon. Or the molecules bump into each other causing more energy to conduct in the atmosphere. So adding more CO2 means more of the IR energy is absorbed and conducted through the atmosphere. Also CO2 only has 4 bands, but that’s not the only IR absorbed intermolecular non-covalent interactions will also trap IR radiation.

          • earlysda September 3, 2017 at 7:57 pm

            And perhaps more warmth will increase crop yields and make life easier and better for more people?

          • Nixon's Back September 4, 2017 at 5:33 am

            What are you talking about? That’s off-topic from what I’m saying, doesn’t make sense, and founded in no scientific thought. Please leave this conversation to the adults, thanks!

          • earlysda September 4, 2017 at 6:33 am

            DrZman, who you were replying to, said specifically: “climatologist telling about the effects of CO2 rise”.
            When you replied to him, you noted some of what you believe to be effects of CO2 rise.
            I did the same.
            .
            Do you understand now?

          • Nixon's Back September 4, 2017 at 7:21 am

            Justify it however you want. It wasn’t really on topic and not scientifically grounded. It added nothing to the conversation. It also does nothing to quantitatively or qualitatively to address the question of excessive warming.

          • earlysda September 4, 2017 at 4:23 pm

            There is no “excessive warming”, so your premise is flawed from its inception.
            Why is it that observed facts are often denied by Global Warming believers?

          • Nixon's Back September 4, 2017 at 5:04 pm

            I’m not talking about warming or anything. Just the simple chemical reason that CO2 traps heat. I could careless about your conclusions or “facts.” Deny chemistry all you want but I was answering a question. Sorry if chemistry is too complicated for you.

          • earlysda September 4, 2017 at 5:26 pm

            Still sad because facts deny your original premise?
            Good!
            Maybe your recovery has started. 🙂

          • Nixon's Back September 4, 2017 at 5:40 pm

            No they don’t? What are you talking about all I said is CO2 traps heat and excessive CO2 will trap heat. Dherr it’s chemistry you dummy. Explain to me how CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas? Oh you can’t. All you can do is spout BS. Good on you believe what you want, but CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The degree to which it is can be debated, but it traps heat. I said excessive CO2 can cause excessive heating at certain IR bands. Damn it’s simply chemistry.

          • earlysda September 5, 2017 at 5:42 am

            OK
            Sorry your recovery hasn’t started.
            .
            Meanwhile, those of us who understand science by observation, will continue to believe and follow facts, rather than unsubstantiated belief systems that start with faulty premises like those who believe in Global Warming nonsense.

          • Nixon's Back September 5, 2017 at 5:53 am

            Lol sorry you declare yourself to know science, but in reality you can’t even understand the simple principle of how CO2 traps radiation. Also how it has nothing to do with global warming or climate change. As I said it can be debated as to how much and the interactions, but it doesn’t change the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

          • earlysda September 5, 2017 at 6:48 am

            There is no “excessive warming”, so your premise is flawed from its inception.
            .
            How many times would you like me to repeat it, before you understand it?

          • Nixon's Back September 5, 2017 at 6:57 am

            I understand you’re an idiot. How does it not get through your thick skull that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so excessive CO2 will lead to excessive warming.

          • earlysda September 5, 2017 at 7:04 am

            There is no excessive warming.
            .
            Is this short enough to understand?

          • Nixon's Back September 5, 2017 at 7:06 am

            Moron, are you listening at all. That is an entirely different debate.

            So this is based on chemical group theory. You have to first draw a Lewis diagram of CO2. Then look at the symmetry operations that can be done in 3 dimensions. You’ll end up seeing CO2 is grouped as CinfV. When you look at the group table you will see that 4 bands of IR radiation excite the molecule. It is 2 bends and an asymmetric and symmetric stretch. IR radiation at certain bands are trapped by this molecule and released as a photon. Or the molecules bump into each other causing more energy to conduct in the atmosphere. So adding more CO2 means more of the IR energy is absorbed and conducted through the atmosphere. Also CO2 only has 4 bands, but that’s not the only IR absorbed intermolecular non-covalent interactions will also trap IR radiation.

            My entire first post where did I say excessive warming?

          • earlysda September 5, 2017 at 4:37 pm

            Nixon’s Back wrote: It also does nothing to quantitatively or qualitatively to address the question of excessive warming.
            .
            You do realize this makes your highly technical account look very suspicious, like maybe a cut-n-paste job, when you can’t even read your own writing.
            .
            Your belief in Global Warming is reprehensible, and I will continue to point out it’s errors.

          • Nixon's Back September 5, 2017 at 4:44 pm

            Yes, because your reply was crops will grow better. Which does nothing to explain anything. Do what you wanna do boss. No errors here

          • earlysda September 5, 2017 at 4:52 pm

            Not willing yet to come to grips yet with the fact that you said excessive warming(and then gave a lot of hot air showing us clearly why it is impossible to scientifically support that statement)?
            .
            Ah, that’s cute. 😉

          • Nixon's Back September 5, 2017 at 4:55 pm

            Huh? It was a response to you. Say what you want dummy.

          • DrZman September 4, 2017 at 10:03 am

            It started with my reply to Mabele.

            I stated nothing about the effects of CO2 rise. Please do not make up stuff. I admitted that there has been a rise and that is all – period.

          • earlysda September 4, 2017 at 4:25 pm

            Just quoting you, good sir.

          • vaccinia September 3, 2017 at 11:06 pm

            This is great for P-chem but the climate and climate prediction have FAR more variables than this, Yes?

          • Nixon's Back September 4, 2017 at 5:43 am

            I agree, but is that notbhow CO2 traps radiation? Also, I take any chance I have to talk symmetry operations.

          • vaccinia September 5, 2017 at 3:56 pm

            Wanting to discuss symmetry operations is fine (and perhaps even laudable given the penchant for discussing anything BUT the science here) , but CO2 trapping of radiation is really a small part of what is really under discussion…at least in my case.

          • Nixon's Back September 5, 2017 at 4:16 pm

            Thanks! I was just answering how CO2 traps radiation. That is how it does, it def is a bit much, but just thought I could enlighten as to CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Also it burns me up inside to type without a subscript #waronscience 🙂

          • Louis Tilchin September 3, 2017 at 3:46 pm

            Significant change? 300 parts PER MILLION to 400 parts PER MILLION? That is the equivalent of adding one grain of salt to a pot of food designed to serve 50 people. It is statistically insignificant and that is why every climate model they have run has failed. The majority of the increase in temperatures over the past century occurred in the first 50 years BEFORE industrialization. Post WWII, a period of RAPID intdustrialization, led science to predict a coming ICE AGE in the early 1970’s due to massive cooling. Look it up :).

          • Martin Forde September 3, 2017 at 4:06 pm

            yea, totes bro! your blood is less than 1% iron… who needs it anyway? significant! as in statistically significant! as in different from the average! different from chance! a bonafide change in temperature driven by greenhouse gas emissions…

          • mabele September 4, 2017 at 4:44 am

            A 33% increase strikes me as a significant change in chemical composition. The poster right after me made the point even more neatly. Even more minute “absolute” changes in the levels of certain vitamins in your body – B12, for instance – can prove quite conclusively fatal.

            So what caused this 33% increase? I’m still waiting.

          • rwisrael September 3, 2017 at 3:50 pm

            The question is, did the increase in temperature cause the increase in atmospheric CO2, rather than did the increase in CO2 influence the temperature.There does seem to be a correlation, but causation is not certain.

          • Martin Forde September 3, 2017 at 4:04 pm

            its… a … greenhouse … gas… it…. traps … heat…

          • rwisrael September 3, 2017 at 9:18 pm

            Not .. very… much.. of… the.. total ..atmosphere…. water vapor likely has a larger effect.

          • Night9Hawk September 3, 2017 at 10:35 pm

            Do you understand what a greenhouse gas is and what the different kinds are? Have you studied their actual ability to retain heat? Do you understand how much of a part it plays in the climate system as opposed to, for example, non-reflective surfaces such as asphalt? Or how effective of a greenhouse gas it is as opposed to water vapor? Or that the sun is not a constant source of energy, but a variable source of energy. Take the time to read this article

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

            which explains that the relationship between sunspots and energy output for the sun. We’ve been in “maximum” period for the past 100+ years but that seems to be ending and we seem to be entering another period of lower solar output. I’m not saying that carbon dioxide can’t play a role but at it’s current level it’s not a major player in our climate. If anything it’s causing the earth to experience a greening up that it’s not experienced in a LONG time.

          • DrZman September 3, 2017 at 4:50 pm

            Thank you. Too many people have been indoctrinated as to cause and effect when this is poorly understood by scientists.

          • Night9Hawk September 3, 2017 at 10:28 pm

            We live in a age of unreason where truth is unimportant. People believe the nonsense they’re being fed by a news media filled with morons. We’ve come a long way from the “Murrow Boys” sort of news reporters who were actually well-versed in a subject and could intelligently explain things to people. Instead we have failed politicians like Al Gore hustling people for money by telling them fairy tales.

          • Night9Hawk September 3, 2017 at 10:25 pm

            There are some who claim to have proof that the temperature rise actually CAUSES the CO2 levels to rise but those sorts of claims are based on conjecture from ice cores. I would say that it’s almost impossible to prove so I discount it.

          • Martin Forde September 3, 2017 at 4:03 pm

            Science has conclusively proven that the recent warming trends can not be the result of natural emission or changes in solar irradiation. So like… you’re wrong… plain and simple… wrong.

          • vaccinia September 3, 2017 at 11:01 pm

            How do you know?

          • DrZman September 4, 2017 at 10:06 am

            Oh? Prove that. There is some strong evidence that sunspot activity increases radiation from the sun which heats the earth. I don’t think science knows how profound this is as of yet, but the correlative evidence that it has contributed to the earth’s heating and cooling is strong.

            Whereas it is controversial that CO2 has caused or will cause significant global temperature increases or “climate change” as it has more recently been called.

          • Freddie Freeloader September 3, 2017 at 10:43 pm

            When the oceans warm they release co2 . Co2 is a lagging indicator, look it up!!

          • earlysda September 3, 2017 at 7:55 pm

            Martin, that’s a great graph you got there!
            Now zoom out to a 1,000 year view, and you will see cycles going up and down, some much greater than what we have observed here in the last 140 years.
            If you really want to go the “cherry-picking” route, I suggest you check the last 18 years, where the CO2 concentration has continued climbing, but the global average temperature has not.
            Quite interesting, no?

          • vaccinia September 3, 2017 at 10:59 pm

            I have a very similar graph! You do know the difference between correlation and causation, no?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ab8d39fa520778317301d7fc870abcefc402c364d967b29b9abb2e774bdd8a19.jpg

        • Martin Forde September 3, 2017 at 4:01 pm

          Im sorry, you don’t get to discredit 3 million scientific articles on the topic because of …. you know… you’re ignorance and arrogance.

          • noloc September 3, 2017 at 7:33 pm

            “… you’re ignorance and arrogance.”

            Once again proving that unintentional irony is the most hilarious kind.

          • vaccinia September 3, 2017 at 10:52 pm

            You made that up, right? Admit it! Let’s try reality, shall we?

            Cook
            et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of
            papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930
            (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed
            and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). A later analysis by
            Legates et al. (2013) found there to be only 41 papers (0.3%) that supported
            this definition. Cook et al.’s methodology was so fatally flawed that they
            falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to
            know more about the papers than their authors. The second part of Cook et al.
            (2013), the author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their
            methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the
            authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with
            the abstract ratings.

        • aj1575 September 4, 2017 at 4:12 am

          The graph on this site shows it pretty good.
          http://www.futuris.it/public/eng/about_renewable.html

      • kitman3 September 3, 2017 at 2:53 pm

        yeah the plants and trees love it!!!
        you don’t know climate history – there was more CO2 in the atmosphere in ages before SUV’s and a technological mankind existed – it’s the weather it changes all the time.
        BTW – rotting vegetation and volcanos account for most of the CO2 not us!

        • aj1575 September 4, 2017 at 4:08 am

          Show me when the CO2 concentration was over 400ppm for the last time (and how the world looked back then).
          The CO2 on the earth is kind of a closed System, and in balance. With taking it out from the Underground und burning it, we change this balance.
          And yes, the weather changes, but if it starts to change in only one direction (warmer), then we have a Problem.
          BTW, I’m ready to hear your climate history, please tell me the interesting Points. I will listen to you, ask question.

      • Leatherneck September 3, 2017 at 2:56 pm

        If that’s true, why has the concentration in pre-historic times (millions of years ago) been estimated at above 7,000 ppm? The dinosaurs didn’t become inundated by rising sea levels and they sure as hell didn’t burn any fossil fuels.

        • mabele September 3, 2017 at 2:58 pm

          A lot more of the Earth was underwater then. Which pretty much supports what the climatologists are predicting.

          Over what period of time did it rise to 7000 ppm? And how difficult was it for the dinosaurs to move their coastal cities hundreds of miles inland once they realized what was happening, LOL?

          • rwisrael September 3, 2017 at 3:45 pm

            The Climate Changes that caused extinctions were more likely due to ice ages than warming. Cold kills.

          • Westviking September 3, 2017 at 4:39 pm

            so does heat. cf the kids who die in hot cars. the earth is like a car parked in the sun, and we’re all trapped inside.

          • rwisrael September 3, 2017 at 9:16 pm

            The lack of air circulation kills them. We have this thing called wind on earth.

          • mabele September 4, 2017 at 8:39 am

            Didn’t seem like wind helped those extinct creatures 250 million years ago, though I’m pretty sure we had it then, too.

          • rwisrael September 4, 2017 at 9:26 am

            Were they in closed up cars too? Volcanic activity isn’t ACC.

          • disqus_GpiUsQLtur September 4, 2017 at 5:43 am

            What a ridiculous analogy. Does the parked car have oceans circulating hot and cold currents? Does the parked car have heat sinks and sources throughout it? Just more hyperbole from the climate cultists.

          • mabele September 4, 2017 at 4:29 am

            The Permian-Triassic mass extinction event 250 million years ago seems to have been associated with elevated atmospheric CO2 levels and significant temperature increases. It resulted in the extinction of about 95% of all living species around at the time.

            I know, I know. We’d adapt. We’re not “dependent” on any other stinkin’ animal or plant species! All 7 billion of us would just painlessly migrate into air-conditioned glass domes and start drinking synthetic protein shakes. A wonderful future for our kids…

          • rwisrael September 4, 2017 at 7:30 am

            More likely geological vulcanism was the cause, or a major meteorite strike or some combination. It wasn’t from “ACC”.

          • mabele September 4, 2017 at 8:05 am

            So now, in addition to tacitly admitting that the largest mass extinction event was related to heat rather than cold, you’ve self-admittedly also been reduced to (? wishful) speculation as to the underlying cause.

            And of course, you realize that saying the Permian-Triassic event wasn’t due to burning fossil fuels doesn’t in any way exclude the possibility that the present temperature rise could be. After all, human beings have never been around for any of those mass extinctions in the past.

          • rwisrael September 4, 2017 at 9:26 am

            Sounds like science to me. “who’s to say”. The event was most likely caused by vulcanism. But let’s change the way we live because the earth has warmed up by a degree or two in the last 150 years, due to ???. CO2 increases that hadn’t happened when the increase started?

          • Leatherneck September 3, 2017 at 7:45 pm

            Oh, and where did all of that water disappear to? Or, did you ever think that more land is now above sea level because tectonic plate movement and erosion of existing above water land masses caused more land to rise above sea level?
            Yep, it took a real long time for those dinosaurs to move their cities, especially those dinosaur sized skyscrapers. The largest “extinction” occurred about 65 million years ago and it was not due to “climate change” caused by changes to the atmosphere. It was due to a massive collision between the earth and another planetoid of huge asteroid. That collision caused the atmosphere to be filled with dust and other crap that effectively cut off a great amount of the sun’s radiation. That caused an almost immediate, in geological terms, ice age. The dinosaurs were not able to adapt (evolve) quickly enough to survive. They, and their cities, essentially disappeared in a relatively short time.
            “Carbon dioxide concentrations dropped from 7,000 parts per million during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago to as low as 180 parts per million during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years.
            During the “industrial” revolution the uncontrolled burning of fossil fuels, as opposed to what you might think, resulted in quite a significant lowering of global temperatures.
            Mankind may be responsible for a slight increase in the present earth’s temperature, but the recent past few thousand years include a very warm period 1,000 years ago and a cold period 500 years ago.
            Evidence that temperature variations over the past 2,000 years indicate that the earth’s average temperature bounces around naturally to a larger degree than other paleo-reconstructions indicate, and further, that temperatures about 1,000 years ago were not that dissimilar to today’s temperatures. This suggests that the earth’s ecosystems are more resilient (and adaptive) than some pessimists give them credit for—not a favorite topic in the mainstream press. And certainly not something that scammers, like Al Gore, would ever mention.

          • mabele September 4, 2017 at 4:17 am

            Straw man. Neither I nor anyone else denies that there were massive climate fluctuations in the past, much more significant than what’s happening now although quite possibly, with the exception of the asteroid collision, a good deal less abrupt.

            The point is that those were all associated with mass extinctions and major topographical changes. The issue isn’t whether mankind COULD adapt, it’s whether we really want to endure the pretty significant destruction / dislocation of lives and property that would ensue as a result of the “adaptation process”.

            Many species of dinosaurs went extinct BEFORE the asteroid collision, btw, but you knew that, right?

          • Leatherneck September 4, 2017 at 7:49 pm

            You’re really contentious, aren’t you? I never said that mankind existed during those times, that was your assumption. Do some independent research, you might actually learn something.

        • aj1575 September 4, 2017 at 4:03 am

          The world looked very different millions of years ago, so it is difficult to estimate the CO2 concentration back then, and also the climate as a whole.

          But this diverts only from the problem we have today.

          Again, there are some simple Facts.

          1. CO2 is a climate Agent (it absorbs light at a certain wavelength, and thus keeps the energy from the sun on the earth; otherwise, this part of light would be reflected).

          2. Mankind produces huge amounts of CO2 (the concentration has risen from under 300ppm to over 400pp, since the industrialization)

          3. The climate is getting warmer. http://takvera.blogspot.ch/
          Now, connect the dots.

          • Leatherneck September 4, 2017 at 7:49 pm

            If the climate is getting warmer, then why are we in a 20 year cooling trend?

          • aj1575 September 5, 2017 at 3:28 am

            Show me the data that prove or indicate a 20 year cooling trend.

          • Leatherneck September 5, 2017 at 10:16 am

            Look it up for yourself, it’s available for all doubters to see. I’m stating facts, if you disagree, the proof is on you, not me.

          • aj1575 September 5, 2017 at 12:18 pm

            I found an article about a twenty years cooling trend, but it only talks about the winter weather in the USA. Even this article http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/08/data-analyses-show-rapid-global-surface-cooling-growing-arctic-ice-thickness/ talks about a cooling trend, while most of the graphs show clearly a warming trend. Of course, you can always pick an area, or a time frame with cooling over a certain time frame, but all global graphs over the last 100 years show a warming, and an accelerated warming in the last 25 years.

          • Leatherneck September 5, 2017 at 3:01 pm

            Whatever, you will believe what you want to believe. Have you got stock in Al Gore’s schemes?

          • aj1575 September 6, 2017 at 11:29 am

            Why do you attack me, instead of giving an answer to my actual message. There is no 20 year cooling trend on a global level. The temperatures on a global level are raising.
            Can you agree on that?

          • Leatherneck September 6, 2017 at 5:31 pm

            Nope, Ain’t junk science great? I’ll bet that you’re a “flat earther” too, aren’t you?

          • aj1575 September 8, 2017 at 4:24 am

            I’ll bet you just like to troll around here, and your mind is set, no matter what arguments you read.
            I think you would still vote for Trump, even after you’ve been presented a smoking gun of his russian connections, and he is exposed as a big fat liar…

          • Leatherneck September 8, 2017 at 2:11 pm

            Yep, I’d vote for President Trump over any Rino that the obstructionist republiCANTs will put up against him, and ANY demoncRAT the Soros cronies nominate. Do you have a problem with that, loser? Would you like a nice hanky to dry your eyes?

          • aj1575 September 12, 2017 at 2:08 pm

            Yes, I think this is a problem, because you seem unwilling to readjust your position based on facts. You are not even considering it.
            This is like being a Colin Kaepernick fan, and not reconsidering it, after he deceided to sit during the national athem.
            Sometimes we have to make adjustments.

          • Leatherneck September 8, 2017 at 10:19 pm

            You don’t have a “message”. You cite the results of junk science whose paid proponents hope to make a profit off of your gullibility.

          • aj1575 September 12, 2017 at 2:05 pm

            I have a message. Global warming is real, and it is man made. And it is not junk science, it is just the ability to put three facts together, to one conclusion…
            The climate is getting warmer.
            CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
            Humans “produced” billions of tons of CO2 in the last 150 years.
            From my point, its not up the me prove anything more, it is up to the deniers to prove that there is no connection between these 3 simple facts, and the conclusion.

          • Leatherneck September 13, 2017 at 10:55 am

            CO2 is a naturally occurring trace gas which is also an augmented by-product of animal metabolism. Without CO2 there would be no vegetation, no vegetation, no oxygen, no oxygen, no animal life.
            The global average concentration of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is currently about 0.04%, or 400 parts per million by volume (ppm).

            CO2 was much higher in the past.

            Reconstructions show that concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have varied from as high as 7,000 parts per million (ppm) during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago to as low as 180 ppm during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years.

            “The killer proof that CO2 does not drive climate is to be found during the Ordovician- Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods when CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppmv (parts per million by volume) and about 2000 ppmv respectively. If the IPCC theory is correct there should have been runaway greenhouse induced global warming during these periods but instead there was glaciation.”.

            So much for your junk science. Do you need a nice soft hanky?

          • aj1575 September 17, 2017 at 12:08 pm

            The CO2 level never was so high during the time humans walked around. The recent spike coincides with the huge production of CO2 by humans. So if you do not have a better explanation for the raise in the last 100 years, you should accept, that it is manmade.
            Your comparison to very old times does not hold, because we don’t know how the world looked back then. So yes, the concentration was much higher back then, but there where no humans back then, so it is hard to tell what a human life would have looked then.
            And why is the period you mentioned proof, that CO2 does not drive the climate, is there any information about the temperature on earth back then, and how the climate looked?

          • Leatherneck September 17, 2017 at 12:52 pm

            You just LOVE junk science, don’t you? Explain why there are 23,000 more polar bears living now as opposed to the 7,000 when Al Gore was born. “Global Warming” supposedly destroys their habitat.

          • aj1575 September 18, 2017 at 12:35 pm

            A short google on the topic reveals the true reason, why there are more polar bears today, then there where 40 years ago. The reason is simple; hunting. Hunting on polar bears is now forbidden in most areas, while it was still allowed 30 years back. No wonder that there are more polar bears now.
            The same happens in europe, where the brown bear makes a comeback in middle europe, a place where bears did not exist for the last 70 or so years, because they were killed wherever they where (because they posed a threat to farm animals and humans). The same actually happens with the wolf. So don’t bring the polar bear up, as an argument that global warming does not exist.
            But as long as we are talking about science; there are three facts that I like to show you:
            1. global temperature is raising
            2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
            3. mankind produces huge amounts of CO2
            now, connect those three dots, and the conclusion should be easy….

          • Leatherneck September 18, 2017 at 2:07 pm

            Yep, the conclusion is very easy, junk science is more readily to the likings of the sheeple, you bring one of them.

          • aj1575 September 19, 2017 at 3:34 am

            Explain me the “science” behind the growing polar bear Population, and what it does have to do with global warming.

          • Leatherneck September 19, 2017 at 3:06 pm

            Well Stupid, it has nothing to do with non-existent global warming. They have more natural habitat now. That habitat is known as ice.

        • Phil Ostrand September 4, 2017 at 5:06 am

          BTW pre historic is not millions of years. It is thousands. And in the last 500 million years CO2 concentrations HAVE NEVER REACHED 7000PPM. Do Not Makt Sh!t Up!

          https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/

          • Leatherneck September 4, 2017 at 7:49 pm

            Pre-Historic is any time frame prior to written history. Do some actual research, dunce, you’re wrong.

          • Phil Ostrand September 5, 2017 at 6:09 am

            Do some some actual research stupi. The highest levels show 3000 ppm. about 400-600 million years ago. Do you know what life was like on earth 400-600 million years ago? The were no land animals. Know why? Because the ozone layer had not formed yet so none could survive. Are you really that stupid??? What you voted for Trump. Of course you are…

          • Leatherneck September 5, 2017 at 10:14 am

            So Phillie, you voted for the HildaBEAST, talk about being a stupid loser, you take the cake.
            During the Cambrian period, in which most major animal phyla appeared, as indicated by the fossil record. the CO2 levels were in the 7,000 ppm range.
            Your statement that the ozone layer had not formed 400-600 million years ago is patently false. “Formation of the Ozone Layer. Over two billion years ago, early aquatic organisms called blue-green algae began using energy from the Sun to convert molecules of water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) and recombine them into organic compounds and molecular oxygen (O2)”.
            Yep Phillie, you’ve proven, once again, that you should be sitting in the corner wearing your dunce hat.
            Now then, just crawl back under your bridge with the rest of the loser Trump haters.

      • czechlist September 3, 2017 at 3:00 pm

        There as been extreme weather events throughout history when the atmospheric CO2 levels were higher and lower
        And no, I will not cite. anything. Read a little history – everyone on every side of every argument needs to read history – remember history did not begin when you were born so “I remember when…” doesn’t cut it.

        • Westviking September 3, 2017 at 4:37 pm

          read a little science, though, as well

          • RNHou September 3, 2017 at 6:42 pm

            A very little just like you?

          • 4Justice September 3, 2017 at 8:43 pm

            The faked reports, or the unproven ones?

          • vaccinia September 3, 2017 at 10:41 pm

            Don’t mind if you do! Here you go…..

            Global climate models for which CO2 is a prime variable and the focus of AGW have failed to predict temperatures and other climate phenomena.

            So we start with “Climate change: The case of the missing heat”, Nature
            505, 276–278, 2014.

            For several years, scientists wrote off the stall as noise in the climate system: the natural variations in the atmosphere, oceans and biosphere that drive warm or cool spells around the
            globe. But the pause has persisted, sparking a minor crisis of confidence in the field. Although there have been jumps and dips, average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998, in seeming defiance of projections of climate models and the ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases.

            On a chart of global atmospheric temperatures, the hiatus stands in stark contrast to the rapid warming of the two decades that preceded it.Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the warming should have continued at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012. Instead, the observed warming during that period was just 0.04 °C per decade, as measured by the UK Met Office in Exeter and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East
            Anglia in Norwich, UK.

            What this indicates is that CO2 has continued to rise yet global temperatures have not, ALL CIMP5 models have tried to predict this hiatus and failed.

            Further, Micheal Mann (of hockey stick fame) has confirmed that his statistical modeling methods have also failed in this regard:

            “Predictability of the recent slowdown and subsequent recovery of large-scale surface warming using statistical methods”, Geophysical Research Letters Volume 43, Issue 7 2016 Pages 3459–3467.

            “The temporary slowdown in large-scale surface warming during the early 2000s has been attributed to both external and internal sources of climate variability. Using semi-empirical estimates of the internal low-frequency variability component in Northern Hemisphere, Atlantic, and Pacific surface temperatures in concert with statistical hindcast experiments, we investigate whether the slowdown and its recent recovery were predictable. We conclude that the internal variability of the North Pacific, which played a critical role in the slowdown, does not appear to have been predictable using statistical forecast methods.”

            Note that even Micheal Mann has concluded that current modeling has failed to predict current temps, and I quote, ” does not appear to have been predictable using statistical forecast methods”.

            I can go on & on about other model failures. However, what this demonstrates is that the science is NOT settled, and there are significant variables at work which FAR outweigh man’s contribution to warming at the present time.

            I’ll leave you with the IPCC’s conclusion:

            In 2007, IPCC WG1.said and I quote…… “we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

          • Phil Ostrand September 5, 2017 at 6:13 am

            Lies…

          • vaccinia September 5, 2017 at 3:49 pm

            The scientific literature is lies? You science DENIER you! 😉

            I will bet you have never taken a science course in your life……bet you can barely spell it!

        • aj1575 September 4, 2017 at 4:01 am

          Well, there are people who smoked and did not die from cancer; is this prove that smoking does not cause lung cancer? definitly not. But you try do away with climate change with the Argument, that there was extreme weather in the past, and climate change was not a thing back then, so it can not be today.

          Again, there are some simple Facts.

          1. CO2 is a climate Agent (it absorbs light at a certain wavelength, and thus keeps the energy from the sun on the earth; otherwise, this part of light would be reflected).

          2. Mankind produces huge amounts of CO2 (the concentration has risen from under 300ppm to over 400pp, since the industrialization)

          3. The climate is getting warmer. http://takvera.blogspot.ch/2015/01/record-heat-continues-in-australia.html
          Now, connect the dots.

      • Denis Ables September 3, 2017 at 3:30 pm

        More accurate, mankind can influence co2 level. Whether co2 increase has any impact on the global temperature is another issue.

        • Westviking September 3, 2017 at 4:38 pm

          that’s been established. cf venus.

          • Walther11 September 3, 2017 at 5:59 pm

            You tell someone else to read a little science and then make a statement like “that’s been established. cf venus.”?? Maybe it is you that needs to do a little reading.

          • Denis Ables September 4, 2017 at 2:29 pm

            Venus? Hardly. The pressure at ground level on Venus is equivalent to someone here on earth being 1000m below the ocean. P=tv, so t = P/V.

        • aj1575 September 4, 2017 at 3:54 am

          It is another issue, but it is scientificaly proven, that more CO2 in the atmosphere leads to higher temperatures.

          here are the articles that explain it: https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

          http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wa0veOS7pDA

          • Denis Ables September 4, 2017 at 2:20 pm

            Skeptical Science is totally ito Alarmism. How do they explain the hiatus in temperature increase, not only admitted by te IPCC, but also by NOAA, who started playing games with the data and named that process “Pause-Buster”. NOAA added back in shipboard temperature intake which had a known .12C bias, and had been replaced by 3,000 ARGO sinking buoys specifically designed for that environmental measurements. They also attempted to introduce an unvetted temperature dataset in that same scenario. Then the guy in charge of that stuff quickly retired.

            But, in any case, the only proof that co2 increases temperature is constraned to closed chambers, which, like a greenhouse, do not convect across their firm boundaries, unlike the open atmosphere where satellites detect heat escaping to space. Grenhouses do not edperience planetary feedback either.

          • aj1575 September 5, 2017 at 3:36 am

            Skeptical science gives explanations to the complex Topic, and busts some myth that are told. So don’t attack skeptical science, but you rather come up with better arguments.
            CO2 is not the only Thing that affects the climate, so if the temperature raises slower because of another effect (sun activity for example), than this does not prove that climate change is not real.
            But again, so far you could not bring up better explanations for climate Change. The only thing you, and professional paid climate deniers do, is sow doubt, without having explanations.

          • Denis Ables September 5, 2017 at 2:04 pm

            (sigh) You haven’t been paying attention:

            There is no evidence indicating that co2 levels, much higher than now over geologic periods, have had any impact on the planet’s temperature. The only correlation , tracking both up and down trends, in co2 and temperature variation over geologic periods shows temperature variation first, followed hundreds of years later by similar variation in the co2 level. This is the opposite of what alarmists (including Al Gore) claim. No evidence, not even a decent correlation !

            Our current warming (such as it is) began NOT in the 1800s, (a cherry-picked start date), but at the bottom (the first low temperature) during the earlier Little Ice Age, which happened before the mid-1600s. That implies almost 200 years of natural warming because co2 did not begin increasing until around 1830-1850. What’s more, it’s silly to believe that, in 1830, the ongoing temperature increase had much to do with co2 increase. After all, the planet had been warming for 200 years, and the annual increase in co2 level was minuscule, averaging about 2 ppmv (parts-per million by volume) per year. How many decades, or centuries would it take before the aggregate co2 increase would be sufficient to even begin to impact thermometer readings? Yet alarmists talk about a one-degree increase, all of it due to human activity. They have to begin counting during the early 1800s to come up with that one degree. Most of that one degree (assuming it’s accurate) was likely due to the ongoing natural increase which began in the 1600s. Does anybody believe that natural warming terminated after two hundred years, just as co2 began to increase? Co2 is a trace gas which, even today, represents four hundredths of one percent of the atmospheric volume.

            The greenhouse gas theory, as applied to the open atmosphere, is accompanied by a prediction. If the greenhouse gas theory is applicable to the open atmosphere, then there MUST be a warmer region about 10k above the tropics. This is a NECESSARY condition. If that result is not met, the validity of the theory is compromised, insofar as its applicability to the open atmosphere. However, even if the so-called “hot spot” is found, that is not SUFFICIENT. There must also be other evidence. Despite decades of radiosondes the hot spot has not been found. Alarmists typically don’t bring this subject up any more, unless they think they can prove the hot spot has been found. Some actually claim it has been found, but it’s usually just analytical obfuscation, a poor substitute for actual data. They’ve gone as far as replacing thermometer readings with wind. Nothing adequate so far.

            The alarmist computer models all ASSUME (? Groupthink) that water vapor is the actual culprit, causing 2 to 3 times the increase in temperature as supposedly brought on by co2 increase. Nobody even knows whether the net water vapor feedback in temperature is positive (up) or negative (down). Projecting temperature a century out based on dubious assumptions is an academic, rather than a serious exercise.

            President Obama made it clear that “climate change” was his top priority. He is sufficiently articulate and reasonably intelligent so should have been able to communicate to the folks what his climate scientists have explained to him. Instead, Obama chose to visit Alaska and point out two receding glaciers, claiming that was evidence of “climate change”. (This is similar to alarmists desperately proclaiming every bizarre weather event, such as Harvey, to be “evidence”.) But Mr. President, there’s a problem. We are hopefully still between ice ages, so no surprise that some glaciers are receding. If there were no receding glaciers we’d clearly be into our next ice age. Also, there is no shortage of increasing glaciers, both in Alaska and elsewhere. Even worse, one of the two Alaskan glaciers Obama pointed out, “Exit” by name, has been receding since about 1730, which implies it is a natural event because it started receding 100 years before co2 began increasing. Co2 remains the only possible link to human activity apart from our concrete jungles which have long since been identified as Urban Heat Islands. However, the UHIs have no impact on their surrounding rural areas, so obviously have no impact on the global temperature. Also, UHIs make up a very small part of the earth’s surface. 70% of the surface is water, and there are jungles, mountainous areas, deserts, forests, grasslands, plus numerous other uninhabited regions.

            Why do NASA and NOAA both prefer terrestrial temperature data? Neither agency makes use of satellite data, not even for comparison. That makes no sense. It’s part of their budget. Satellite temperature monitoring was introduced because NASA thought it would be more accurate. Almost every terrestrial weather station is located within some UHI. Many of these surface temperature stations do not even satisfy the government’s own minimum basic requirements. The raw temperature data never sees daylight. The raw data is significantly impacted by the fact that it comes from a UHI. But there are also local influences unique to each station, and frequently changing, which must be addressed. Both types of problems involve significant revisions to the raw data. There are often significant distances between temperature stations. This would imply that the data must be weighted by how large an area is represented by each measurement. The conventional position is that the overall error in global temperature is about 1/10 of a degree. I recall seeing one study which concluded the uncertainty error may be as large as one degree !

            Satellite data also has its problems, but these appear to be less severe and that data can easily be compared to weather balloon data.

            The alarmists claim that the Medieval Warming Period was only a regional event. Their own email (exposed via ClimateGate) showed that they had to “get rid of the MWP”. Phil Jones, a critical player in this group, had publicly stated that if the MWP was global, then that’s a “different ballgame”. Why this concern? Because the MWP warming cannot be explained by the computer modelers. It had to be a natural warming, and it was likely warmer than it is now. The modelers must include both co2 and and water vapor feedback. Without water vapor feedback, the warming projected by co2 increase becomes much less critical. Absent co2 increase, there is also no water vapor feedback. Of course, the fact that the MWP was global and warmer than now does not prove that our current warming (such as it is) has not been at least partially brought on by human activity. However, it does bring on an embarrassing question, particularly since the alarmists have no evidence to support their case. Some alarmists have even argued that “there is no other reason for our current warming”. If it was naturally warmer 1,000 years ago, why are we excited about the current temperature? The polar bears have apparently been doing very well !

            Their is an abundance of evidence indicating that the MWP was global. I’ve pointed out just some of the evidence in subsequent paragraphs.

            The best indicator is the temperature data from 6,000 boreholes which were spread around the globe. This borehole data conclusively shows the MWP trend was global. (It was indeed synchronous.) Joanne Nova’s website has an interesting discussion of that data, which was collected by others. Next, the receding Mendenhall glacier in Alaska has recently exposed a shattered 1,000 year-old forest. No trees have grown at that latitude anywhere near that site since then. That site had to have been considerably warmer than now. Trees don’t generally grow anywhere near glaciers. There has been a similar exposure in the Alps, but that forest is 4,000 years older. The Alps were apparently almost free of glaciers back then, and there was a higher forest line 2,000 years ago. Peer-reviewed studies have long since concluded that earlier warming durations during this interglacial were warmer than subsequent ones. Mann’s dismissal of the MWP doesn’t work. That event was not even unusual. Antique vineyards have been found at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown today. Graves have been found in various locations below the perma-frost.

            Next, google the Greenland temperature study (gisp2). Greenland was warmer during the MWP than it is now. Greenland, Alaska, and Europe are all remote from each other. All appear to also have been warmer than now.

            Finally, there are hundreds of peer-reviewed MWP studies (gisp2 being one). Almost every MWP study has been cataloged by co2science.org. This website also permits access to such studies by region. A subset of these studies directly address temperature rather than such things as rainfall, drought, etc. An exercise left for the reader is to go to co2science.org, and select (say) a half-dozen regions, all remote from the northern sites mentioned already, and pick at least one temperature study from each region. You will find each site to have been as warm, likely warmer than it is now. This merely reinforces the borehole temperature data which itself conclusively demonstrates that the MWP trend was a synchronous global event. So, Phil, it is indeed a whole different ballgame !

            The “97% consensus” claims also need attention. This claim is a desperate attempt to distract, probably because there is no evidence linking the planet’s warming to human activity. Even if that 97% consensus claim had been accurate, it wouldn’t have mattered, because consensus has never correlated well with controversial scientific claims. The first 97% consensus “study” involved non-professional surveyors (definitely not Gallup) who sent out about 10,000 queries, presumably to scientists. Only about 3,000 bothered to respond. These “surveyors” then filtered out all but 77 of the responses (!!!?),only 2 of which were identified as “deniers”. There’s clearly many more than two books written by skeptical scientists. The critical question to put to respondents should have been “Do you believe the IPCC’s claim that human activity is the PRINCIPLE cause of global warming?” The response to more ambiguous questions does not establish a meaningful consensus. The entire controversial issue involves AGW versus CAGW, and the “C” stands for catastrophic.

            The IPCC has clearly declared that human activity is the PRINCIPLE cause of global warming, but the IPCC provides no justification for that claim. (The claim itself means little. If 99 other forcings, each less than or equal to 1% were also involved, would the remaining 2% due to human activity be the “principle cause”?) The IPCC is a bureaucracy (and a political, not a scientific organization) desperately trying to survive. Any weaker statement would quickly empty the trough they are feeding from. The issue is, if we are having some impact, how much? And, if significant, is human activity sufficient to over-ride Mother Nature’s trend? Nobody knows., but the credibility of the alarmists, with its various distracting bogus claims has not helped. The left and right have taken up positions. Most of both groups care nothing about the science. In this particular case the Left has dug a very deep hole and senses doom if they are proven wrong, so anything goes. More than one UN & IPCC management has claimed that it’s “not about climate change”, but about income transfer from western governments to third world countries – supposedly to atone for our sinful generation of excess co2.

            Another of the “97% consensus” claims involved an automated search of key words in published documents in climate science periodicals. That’s ludicrous because it is well known that skeptical scientists had great difficulty, not only obtaining research grants to support their work, but also difficulty in getting their findings published. The folks involved in the ClimateGate fiasco had plenty of (taxpayer) money and with that comes the power to influence both editors and universities. Any search of such documents was bound to find mostly those already feeding at the government trough, or aspiring to do so. These folks obtained grants easily and their work was readily accepted by their “peers”. Ironically, the keyword algorithm was itself faulty because skeptical authors who had succeeded in publishing, and who also bothered to look, found that they too were counted as part of that consensus !

            This madness should have ended when Obama’s EPA Administrator admitted to Congress that even if all nations attained their emissions goal by 2030 the net drop in temperature by 2100 would be a fraction of one degree. (Keep in mind that daily temperature variation spans at least several degrees and annual temperature variation spans tens of degrees.) Since the cost of this supposed solution would involve TRILLIONs of dollars the precautionary principle immediately comes to mind.

      • DrZman September 3, 2017 at 3:31 pm

        How does raising the CO2 level clearly affect the climate? Please explain recorded effects.

        • Martin Forde September 3, 2017 at 4:07 pm

          its… a…. greenhouse… gas…

          • Martin Forde September 3, 2017 at 4:08 pm

            there… are …. millions… of … papers… on…. this…

          • vaccinia September 3, 2017 at 10:48 pm

            So is water vapor, which is in much greater supply in the atmosphere……

        • Westviking September 3, 2017 at 4:39 pm

          venus

          • marcosamine September 3, 2017 at 5:17 pm

            Where’s our sulfur? It isn’t just co2 in that atmosphere

          • Night9Hawk September 3, 2017 at 10:22 pm

            And Venus is MUCH closer to the sun than the earth. Knee jerk comments like “Venus” actually show a lack of understanding of the situation. Where I’m sitting right now there was a mile thick glacier 20,000 years ago and the world sea levels were several hundred feet lower than they are today. 10,000 years ago that glacier melted due to a warmup and vegetation returned to this area after being absent for 80,000 years. What caused the glaciers to form in the first place and what caused them to melt? Certainly the CO2 levels didn’t rise and it wasn’t human activity that caused them to melt.

          • marcosamine September 3, 2017 at 10:30 pm

            And the mathematical equation their models are based on isn’t even solved yet. In order for the models to work they have to plug in assumptions to get answers. Answers that haven’t been right yet.

          • Night9Hawk September 3, 2017 at 11:05 pm

            You’re right. The models that have been created to date are all fatally flawed and don’t really predict anything accurately. Our understanding of the various elements of the climate system is still in it’s infancy and prevents the models from being accurate. There was an interesting article I read several months ago which talked about the role that cosmic radiation plays in the formation of clouds. In brief the Earth’s magnetic field creates a shield against that sort of radiation but some does get through and causes the formation of clouds. if there was an increase in level of cosmic radiation then there should be more clouds, which would reflect the radiation away from the earth, and cause cooling.

            http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html

        • aj1575 September 4, 2017 at 3:47 am

          The global effect is pretty clear. There is a clear correlation between those two. This observation is also backed by the science behint it.
          http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/co2-and-rising-global-temperatures
          Now it is up to you to prove the opposite, that there is no connection between temperature and CO2 (I mean a real Explanation for the raising temperatures, not something like, therewere also warmer periods in the past; there were also reasons why it got warmer in the past)
          Do you have a theory?

      • Sam Delaney September 3, 2017 at 9:12 pm

        By how much did the additional 100 ppm of CO2 increase global temperatures? What would the temperature be if CO2 should increase to 800 ppm?

        You don’t know because the models have not accurately predicted how man-made CO2 affects the Earth’s complex and dynamic environment.

        Before making drastic changes to energy sources and production methods the science must be able to answer those basic questions.

        • aj1575 September 4, 2017 at 3:33 am

          Good logic, because we only know that manmade CO2 makes the climate warmer, but do not know by how much, we go on like before…
          This is like saying, I do not exactly know how unhealthy Smoking is, so until somebody can put it into exact numbers, I will continue Smoking…

      • Stan L. VanderWerf September 8, 2017 at 12:39 pm

        Not true. Global Warming Alarmists (those that believe in man-made global warming) say CO2 gets placed in the atmosphere and then the planet heats up. But the reverse is actually true and ice core samples prove it. The planet heats up due to natural forcing, and then CO2 goes up. There is undeniable evidence that we have historic LOWS in CO2. The planet has revealed to us a range of 180ppm to 7,000 ppm in CO2 over historic time. Without CO2, plants die and if they die, so do we. There is also a growing body of knowledge that increased CO2 actually cools the plant, vice heating it. There is SO MUCH uncertainty and countervailing evidence opposing the Global Warming Alarmists claims that they look to me like children having temper tantrums when they don’t get what they want.

        • aj1575 September 12, 2017 at 2:13 pm

          You are talking about times, where humans did not exist. So CO2 might have been as high as 7000ppm, but without humans wandering around.
          The current level is the highest since man walk on earth. And considering the amount of CO2 we produced, it is safe to say that we are responsible for that raise. It is also worrisome that it seems that higher temperature leads to more CO2, because this suggests a positiv feedback loop. More CO2, means higher temperature, means more CO2.
          The actions of humans leads to a higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, this is an undeniable fact.

    • Martin Forde September 3, 2017 at 3:57 pm

      May I refer you to google scholar which has 3 million scientific articles on the topic. You don’t get to spread your bs anymore. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=climate+change&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C14&as_sdtp=

      • GeorgeTyrebyter September 3, 2017 at 5:39 pm

        If you had one paper that “proves” CO2 is the cause, that one paper would be enough. You wouldn’t be reduced to pointing to a formless mass of research without understanding what it actually said.

        I generally point to “Celestial driver of phanerozoic climate?” by young and smart astrophysicist Nir Shaviv and old and smart geochemist Jan Veizer, 2003, for evidence that CO2 isn’t the primary driver.

        The short story of their collaboration is that Shaviv went looking for something to match his results of galactic cosmic ray flux over geologic time, and found Veizer’s research into ocean temperatures over geologic time, or at least the last 540 million years of the very common crustacean whose shells held a record of the water temperature they grew in. Veizer was about to abandon his research because he couldn’t make it fit any measure of CO2, what he expected the driver to be.

    • Phil Ostrand September 4, 2017 at 5:06 am

      You are wrong. One flea. nope. No affect. 7 billion fleas?

      • Leatherneck September 4, 2017 at 7:49 pm

        Still no effect.

  3. FreeMarketMaven September 1, 2017 at 6:19 pm

    Great piece, Julie!!

    • Julie Kelly September 2, 2017 at 6:49 am

      Thank you!

  4. GrannyAesop September 2, 2017 at 12:36 pm

    To the people throwing stones on the Dunkirk = Harvey post: at least it had a positive message. Have you seen the cartoons mocking Texas that were so rancid even Politico had to pull one of theirs?
    If the trillions of dollars spent on building the flea circus (hat tip: Leatherneck) had been spent on flood control, levee maintenance (lookin’ at you, NO), and so forth, there would never be another problem on the coasts.

  5. Sandra123456 September 3, 2017 at 8:43 am

    The question that I have never seen answered is: How would climate change be stopped? ( …and don’t tell me we need more money for…)

    • DrZman September 3, 2017 at 2:22 pm

      *If* climate change were real then those who think we should stop it would back modern nuclear generation of electricity. This would allow us to replace coal and natural gas burning plants as they are decommissioned. It is a lot less destructive than millions of acres of solar panels and windmills which still have to have peaking power backup of coal and natural gas to ensure electricity 24/7.

      The fact that these people do not back modern nuclear suggest their agenda has something to do with things other than “climate change”.

      • Brian Rookard September 3, 2017 at 3:37 pm

        Actually, James Hansen does back nuclear energy. But when you bring that up to the environmentalists … well then they disagree with him on that. Convenient.

    • Martin Forde September 3, 2017 at 4:15 pm

      are we talking to a fracking wall…. reduce emissions!

  6. Undecider September 3, 2017 at 9:54 am

    This “reenergizing” won’t last long as the whole climate change scam is built on a house of cards. Suddenly morons will think they can once again get to the north pole and get stuck in ice.

  7. canadian2 September 3, 2017 at 1:20 pm

    The US is one of the few places in the world where this level of ignorance is not uncommon. Though here it extends to the very top with a totally uninformed Buffoon POTUS. Even as so many in so many different ways are dealing with the very real impacts of climate change on a daily basis. An aversion to science is not a recipe for long term success for a country. The “author” may wish to speak with the insurers who must factor it into everything they do and have for decades now. But of course for them, it is also just a silly fantasy, this climate change, and they deliberately waste massive amounts of time and money pretending they need to pay attention to it. Wow – sometimes the stupidity of the Faux News quasi right is astonishing..

    • davemarney September 3, 2017 at 1:29 pm

      You have no idea what you’re talking about. Sorry. Go ahead and give us your list of “very real impacts” of climate “change” — the kinds of impacts that were caused by man and only by man, and thus can be solved by man.

      • mabele September 3, 2017 at 2:52 pm

        I’m not sure he can.

        But in the other hand I think you have nothing to refute him with either. I wouldn’t rely on you to tell me whether my brain aneurysm needed to be operated on, unless you happen to be a brain surgeon.

    • Craig the Czech September 3, 2017 at 1:40 pm

      America put twelve men on the moon. Canada?

      • noloc September 3, 2017 at 7:49 pm

        Some of the major exports of Canada are maple syrup, hockey, and in the case of Canadian2, metric tons of insecure defensiveness, self-righteousness, arrogance, and delusional lecturing of the heretics who dare to question The Cult.

    • czechlist September 3, 2017 at 3:28 pm

      Why do you CAGWs reduce everything to politics?
      Just kiddin’ – I know why.

  8. davemarney September 3, 2017 at 1:27 pm

    99% of the people in the world couldn’t make a scientifically sound argument either for or against man-made “climate change”, even presuming for a moment we could pass a miracle and actually define what that means to everyone’s satisfaction.

    Among the the chattering classes, the failure rate is 100%. It’s silly, really, to engage in any debate on the topic. It’s a hopeless mess. The truth is out there somewhere, and maybe some day in 100 years some brilliant mind will reveal all in a grand unified theory. Until then, throw another steak on the BBQ.

    • Paul52 September 3, 2017 at 2:29 pm

      99% of the people in the world do not understand nuclear physics. Therefore the atom bomb doesn’t work?

      The fact is that there is only one group denying climate science in the entire world, the right wing of the United States.

      Everyone else, everywhere, knows it’s true.

      • Sebastian Cremmington September 3, 2017 at 2:49 pm

        Wrong, most people just don’t care about it one or the other. You know who does care??? The EU, and their most important policy to combat climate change was to promote diesel passenger cars which has been an unmitigated disaster!!!

      • czechlist September 3, 2017 at 3:13 pm

        I suggest you read forego your bias confirmation sources and read some climate papers from UK, Australia, China, Japan, Russia ..

        • Martin Forde September 3, 2017 at 4:10 pm
          • czechlist September 3, 2017 at 4:51 pm

            Sheer numbers are meaningless. It’s the veracity of the content that matters.
            I laugh each time I hear a politician say – I turned over thousands of emails or papers. Doesn’t matter if they haven’t turned over the ones that will convict them.

          • vaccinia September 3, 2017 at 11:32 pm

            They say nothing of the kind, they are on climate change NOT necessarily on AGW….Here let’s go with this:

            Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans aretheprimary cause). A later analysis by Legates et al. (2013) found there to be only 41 papers (0.3%) that supported this definition. Cook et al.’s methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about
            the papers than their authors. The second part of Cook et al. (2013), the author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4%of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with the abstract ratings.

      • Freddie Freeloader September 3, 2017 at 11:00 pm

        Ummmm no they don’t, there’s ZERO proof…

      • vaccinia September 3, 2017 at 11:29 pm

        They are all alot more gullible? The scientists don’t know it’s true, how do they?

        : Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are theprimary cause). A later analysis by Legates et al. (2013) found there to be only 41 papers (0.3%) that supported this definition. Cook et al.’s methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. The second part of Cook et al. (2013), the author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with the abstract ratings.

      • Wild Bill September 4, 2017 at 1:36 pm

        The benefits of the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280 PPM to 404 PPM are obvious, and they are measurable — higher crop yields and less malnutrition worldwide, for example. However, alarmist claims of impending catastrophic events are hypothetical, and the impending catastrophes have a ZERO probability of occurring.

      • Freddie Freeloader September 4, 2017 at 1:45 pm

        Even Mann is on board with this almost 20 years old hiatus in warming??!
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/20/the-new-consensus-on-global-warming-a-shocking-admission-by-team-climate/

    • czechlist September 3, 2017 at 3:10 pm

      So you are saying 75 million can make such an argument? sarc off

  9. rlhailssrpe September 3, 2017 at 2:11 pm

    It is impossible to refute a prediction that any thing bad that will happen in the future proves me right. Bad things will happen in the future. Bad things have happened in the past. (Christopher Columbus lost ships to hurricanes.) People will die in the future. It is a certainty. But this is not a scientific argument. It is the stuff that witchcraft trials were made of. We once executed old women with missing teeth and warts on their nose, when bad thing happened.

    We know that without carbon combustion, the millions who live in Houston would not have a livelihood. It is a major city devoted to a vital carbon industry which supports our advanced standard of living. Without carbon fuels, Houston would be a small fishing village and we all would be poor.

    There are legitimate debates on why we permitted, via prior decisions, an infrastructure which is devastated. Tens of thousands lost their homes. But it is miraculous that only a few dozen deaths occurred. In other nations many thousand die in major storms.

    There are many false prophets, who lead to sorrow and loss.

    • Sebastian Cremmington September 3, 2017 at 2:55 pm

      Global warming…I mean climate change! The world is getting hotter…I mean extreme weather will happen! They changed to extreme weather patterns because obviously some people will benefit from a warmer earth.

  10. Paul52 September 3, 2017 at 2:25 pm

    Of course we can ignore the numerous record storms that have hit the Pacific Coast of Mexico, the Philippines, Taiwan, the fact that half of Bangladesh is under water as we speak, and other incidents involving GLOBAL warming since if it doesn’t happen to the US it doesn’t happen, right?

    Did you have to be able to tell which of Mark McGuire’s homerswere steroid induced to know he was on steroids?

    • marcosamine September 3, 2017 at 5:26 pm

      You must have been born yesterday because all those places have a history of severe storms.

      • Paul52 September 3, 2017 at 6:47 pm

        Read what I said again.
        “Record storms.”

        • noloc September 3, 2017 at 7:59 pm

          The word “record” is a meaningless media hype word, like “historic” and “unprecedented”. Those words sound all scary and ominous to the sheeple and make for good ratings or click-bait but are ultimately meaningless. In the meantime, back in the real world, much of the weather “record” and the ability to detect and measure storms, particularly those that never make landfall, goes back only to the start of the weather satellite era in the 1970s. From the beginning of Earth 4.5 billion years ago until the 1970s, if a storm didn’t make landfall there was little to no chance humans would even know about it, let alone get accurate measurements of it.

        • marcosamine September 3, 2017 at 9:01 pm

          Records are relative since world wide records aren’t very good more than 50 – 100 years.

  11. Todd Nelson September 3, 2017 at 2:29 pm

    What is interesting is that is was 2 COLD fronts that stopped Harvey from moving away from Houston.Texas was hit by a category 4 hurricane in 1915, the same as Harvey, and again in 1916. It must have been all the jackrabbits farting that caused those 2 monster hurricanes.

    • Paul52 September 3, 2017 at 2:33 pm

      What is interesting is that temperatures are rising worldwide and water temperatures in the Gulf were as much as seven degrees above normal, thus the enormous amount of vapor leading to the huge rainfalls.

      And, what kept Harvey in place was the weakness of the jet stream, a result of warmer temperatures in the Arctic.

      • Sebastian Cremmington September 3, 2017 at 2:37 pm

        Thank God the good people of Houston developed fracking which has actually lowered carbon emissions. How much of climate change funds should be devoted to fracking for more natural gas???

      • Todd Nelson September 4, 2017 at 9:37 am

        Liar

  12. DisgustedwithElitism September 3, 2017 at 2:46 pm

    If the science were sound, would it be necessary to
    * alter the data?
    * lie about altering the data?
    * keep tinkering with the assumptions until the computer models deliver the desired results?
    * shout down and condemn those with competing theories and conclusions?
    * insist time is so much of the essence we have no time to gather data and assess it?
    * change their minds and the focus of their alarm from “global warming” to “climate change?” [Hint: Climate it is not constant; it is always changing.]

    • mabele September 3, 2017 at 2:55 pm

      If the science were wrong those who refute it would be able to come up with straightforward explanations for things like why the Great Barrier Reef basically bit the dust in a timespan shorter than my current chronological age, or what exactly besides humankind caused the atmospheric CO2 concentration to go from 300 to 400 ppm in less than two centuries.

    • Martin Forde September 3, 2017 at 4:14 pm

      1) theres a difference between altering data, and normalizing data to account for batch effects and measurement error.
      2) the frack are you talking about. it’s listed directly in the paper methods. the data is freely available. because clearly you know so much about modeling multimodality data, by all means model the data how it should be modeled or GTFO
      3) jesssus
      4) jesssssssus, then fracking publish!
      5) 3+ MILLION SCHOLARLY ARTICLES ON THE TOPIC
      6) globe’s still warming, yo….

      • marcosamine September 3, 2017 at 5:23 pm

        They haven’t even solved the underlying mathematical equation their models use so they have to input a lot of assumptions in that equation to make it work.

        They haven’t predicted anything correctly yet.

      • vaccinia September 3, 2017 at 11:20 pm

        Ever heard the term Garbage in- Garbage out?

        The foundation of concerns regarding global warming is a 150+ year instrumental temperature record, supplemented by studies of paleoclimatic evidence obtained from ice cores, tree rings, sediments, etc. However, the instrumental temperature record is composed of temperature data collected from poorly sited and poorly maintained measurement stations, which are then “normalized” in an attempt to correct for the influences of the poor station siting and maintenance. The surveyed US stations have an average expected measurement error in excess of 2 C. It is from this record that the surface temperature anomal y is calculated to two decimal places, which requires the assumption that the condition of the sensor and its surroundings has not changed since the beginning of the measurement period. This is a highly suspect assumption, to say the very least; and, represents an unstable foundation for programs intended to fundamentally alter the global energy system.

        What could possibly go wrong?

  13. erichwalker September 3, 2017 at 2:53 pm

    Every time there is a record setting cold weather event, some arctic blast that sets record lows in 41 states, the climate industry cried “weather is not climate!! This is just a weather event!! Look at the long term trend!!!”

    Which might make sense, except when there is a warm weather event, the same people say “See!! We told you!! Look at the storm!!!” And the next arctic blast? Ignored. Dismissed. It was only in 2006 that Al Gore assured everyone that the polar ice caps would be gone in 10 years, and Florida would be completely under water. We’re still waiting, Al.

    I’m old enough to remember being told that automobile emissions were going to bring about a new ice age. And anyone who doubted it was labeled a denier, same as today. Then it was global warming, then the catch-all “climate change.”

    I’m also educated enough to know that water vapor captures 200 times more heat than CO2, and yet nobody is worried about H2O emissions. It is clearly evident in the environment; the sun sets in a tropical jungle. The sun sets in a desert. The temperature in the desert plunges. In the jungle it remains warm at night. The difference? Well, it’s not CO2.

  14. stubbs September 3, 2017 at 2:58 pm

    Well it was fast. It was a mere few years ago that even climatistas would preface their statements with a distinction between weather and climate, the latter named as the longer termed entity. Now, I guess in the face of public doubt about the claim of climate change, every rainstorm is being cited as evidence of climate change. Their tactics have changed, and I think it is because they know that they are not winning in the public opinion.

  15. Denis Ables September 3, 2017 at 3:29 pm

    That fellow wringing his hands should instead devote some of that concern to understanding logic, if not climate science.

    There is no evidence indicating that co2 levels much higher than now have had any impact on the planet’s temperature. The only correlation tracking both up and down trends in co2 and temperature variation, over geologic periods, shows temperature variation first, followed hundreds of years later by similar variation in the co2 level. No evidence, and not even a decent correlation !

    Our current warming (such as it is) began NOT in the 1800s, (a cherry-picked start date), but at the bottom (the first low temperature) during the earlier Little Ice Age, which was before the mid-1600s. That implies almost 200 years of natural warming because this was before co2 began increasing. What’s more, it’s silly to believe that the initial temperature increase, perhaps as early as 1830 had much to do with co2 increase. After all, the planet had been warming for 200 years, and the annual increase in co2 level was minuscule, averaging about 2 ppmv (parts-per million by volume) per year. How many decades, or centuries would it take for co2 increase (even assuming it has some impact on temperature) to impact thermometers? Yet alarmists associate a one-degree increase being caused by human activity. They’re going back to 1830 to come up with that number. Most of that one degree (assuming it’s even accurate) is likely due to the ongoing increase caused by natural warming. Does anybody think natural warming terminated after two hundred years, just because co2, (a trace gas involving a few hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere) began to increase?)

    The greenhouse gas theory brings along its own prediction. If co2 is affecting the globe’s temperature then there MUST be a warmer region about 10k above the tropics. This is a NECESSARY condition. If it’s not met, the theory is not valid, insofar as its application to the open atmosphere. Even if the so-called “hot spot” is there, that is not SUFFICIENT. There must nevertheless also be evidence.

    The alarmist computer models all (? Groupthink) ASSUME that water vapor is the actual culprit, causing 2 to 3 times the temperature increase supposedly brought on by co2 increase. But nobody even knows whether the net water vapor feedback is positive or negative.

    President Obama made it clear that “climate change” was his top priority. He is sufficiently articulate and reasonably intelligent enough to be able to exlain why. After Obama has access to the top climate scientists. What did he do? He visited Alaska and pointed out two receding glaciers, claiming that was evidence of “climate change”. (Not unlike the alarmists now, excitedly proclaiming every bizarre weather event to be “evidence”.) But Mr. President, there’s a problem. We’re between ice ages, so no surprise that some glaciers are receding, else we’d be into our next ice age. Also, there continues to be some increasing glaciers, both in Alaska and elsewhere. Even worse, one of the two Alaskan glaciers, “Exit” by name, has been receding since about 1730, so that recession began 100 years before co2 began increasing. Co2 is the only possible link to human activity apart from our concrete jungles which are already known as Urban Heat Islands. However, the UHIs have no impact on their surrounding rural areas, so obviously also have no impact on the global temperature. Also, UHIs make up a very small part of the earth’s surface. 70% is water, and then there are jungles, mountainous areas, desert, forests, grasslands, and numerous other uninhabited regions.

    Why do NASA and NOAA both use surface temperature data? Neither uses satellite data, not even for comparison, which obviously makes more sense. Almost every terrestrial weather station is located within some UHI. Many of these surface temperature stations do not even satisfy the government’s own basic requirements. So, the raw temperature data never sees daylight. This data is significantly impacted by the fact that it is located in a UHI. But there are also local influences to address which are unique to each temperature station. Both kinds of revisions to the raw data are estimates of (1) UHI influence, and (2) local influences, so station data must be weighted differently. There are also significant distances between many temperature stations. The raw data from each station also carries unique intrinsic error(s). The government claims the overall error is about 1/10 of a degree. I’ve come across one study which claims it’s one full degree.

    Satellite data also has some problems, but these appear to be less severe and can also be calibrated by using weather balloon data.

    The alarmists claim that the Medieval Warming Period was only a regional event. Their own email (exposed via ClimateGate) showed that they had to “get rid of the MWP”. Phil Jones a critical player in this group, had publicly stated that if the MWP was global, then that’s a “different ballgame”. Why this concern? Because the MWP warming cannot be explained by the computer modelers. It had to be a natural warming, and it was warmer than now. The modelers must have both co2 and their assumption about water vapor feedback. Without water vapor feedback, the warming becomes much less critical. Without co2 increase, there is no water vapor feedback. (Of course, their assumption about water vapor feedback is likely wrong.)

    But thres’s plenty of evidence indicating that the MWP was indeed global. The best indicator is the 6,000 boreholes which were spread around the globe. This borehole data conclusively shows the trend was global. Joanne Nova’s website has an interesting discussion of that data. The receding Mendenhall glacier in Alaska has recently exposed a shattered 1,000 year-old forest. No trees have grown at that latitude anywhere near that site since then. Therefore, it must have been considerably warmer than now. There has been a similar exposure in the Alps, but that forest is several thousand years older. Antique vineyards have been found at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown today. Graves have been found in various locations below the perma-frost.

    Google the Greenland temperature study (gisp2). Greenland was warmer during the MWP than it is now. Greenland, Alaska, and Europe are all remote from each other.
    Finally, there are hundreds of peer-reviewed MWP studies (gisp2 being one). Almost every such study has been cataloged by co2science.org. This website also permits access to such studies by region. A subset of these studies directly address temperature rather than such things as rainfall, drought, etc. An exercise left for the reader is to go to co2science.org, select (say) a half-dozen regions, all remote from the northern sites mentioned already, and pick at least one temperature study from each region. You will find those sites to have been as warm, likely warmer than it is now. This merely reinforces the borehole temperature data which itself conclusively demonstrates that the MWP trend was a synchronous global event. It is indeed a whole different ballgame !

    The “97% consensus” claims are a desperate attempt to distract because there is no evidence linking the planet’s warming to human activity. Even if the consensus had been accurate, it wouldn’t have mattered, because consensus has never correlated well with controversial scientific claims. The first 97% consensus study involved non-professional survey folks who sent out about 10,000 queries, presumably to scientists. Only about 3,000 bothered to respond. The “surveyors” then filtered out all but 77 ( ! a no-no), and only 2 of these were identified as “deniers”. The primary question in this survey asked an ambiguous question that any prudent scientist would have answered the same way. Something like, “do you believe that human activity has some impact on the global temperature?” Almost any skeptic would agree. The response to that ambiguous question does not establish a meaningful consensus. The entire issue is AGW versus CAGW, the “C” stands for catastrophic.

    The IPCC has clearly declared that human activity is the PRINCIPLE cause of global warming, but the IPCC provides no justification for that claim. The IPCC is a bureaucracy (and a political, not scientific organization) desperately trying to survive. Any weaker statement would doom them. The issue is, if we are having some impact, how much? Is it enough to over-ride Mother Nature’s trend? Nobody knows., but the credibility of the alarmists, with theses bogus consensus as well as other ludicrous claims has not helped. The left and right have taken up positons and leftists have dug a deep hole and sense doom if they are proven wrong, so anything goes.

    I recall at least one other “97% consensus”. This one involved an automated search of key words in published documents in climate science periodicals. It is well known that skeptical scientists had great difficulty, not only obtaining research grants to support their work, but also difficulty in getting published. The folks involved in the ClimateGate fiasco had plenty of money and with that comes the power to influence both editors and universities. Any search of such documents was bound to count mostly those feeding at the government trough, or aspiring to do so. These folks obtained grants easily and also managed to publish their work. Ironically, the keyword algorithm was also faulty because skeptical authors who had succeeded in publishing, and who bothered to look, found that they too were counted as part of the consensus !

    • czechlist September 3, 2017 at 4:20 pm

      And the Obama team “cherry picked” the Exit glacier because it has shown some receding. Others are still growing normally.
      I just checked Alaska Cruise lines and they are advertising witnessing “…glacier calving icebergs…” not “come see the receding glaciers”.

      • Denis Ables September 3, 2017 at 7:44 pm

        There are some receding glaciers; in fact, lots of them. But so what? We’;re still (hopefully) between ice ages. That alone rebuts any claim that a receding glacier is “evidence” and clearly shows Obama hasn’t even a clue as to what “evidence” means.

        • vaccinia September 3, 2017 at 11:14 pm

          JFYI….

          “The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen ,Norway . Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.” — AP as published in the Washington Post, November 2, 1922

    • Max Flasher September 3, 2017 at 6:09 pm

      You’ve put a lot of interesting facts in your post but they’ll all be ignored by leftists. That certainly is a big reason why I totally distrust them.

      • Denis Ables September 3, 2017 at 7:49 pm

        Not only their bogus claims. Even the folks at NOAA attempted to change the data to overcome IPCC’s admissin of a pause (hiatus) in increasing warming. They called this “pause-buster”. They re-introduced temperature data from ship intake which had been replaced by 3,000 ARGO sinking buoys specifically designed for this purpose. The ship intake has a known .12C temperature bias. Then they tried to replace the terrestrial database (? what the hell was that about) with an unvetted database. The folks that were responsible for that activity retired just after doing that. That book “The Madness of Crowds…” comes to mind.

        • Max Flasher September 3, 2017 at 8:46 pm

          A really awful situation. We seem to lack a common reality and without something as basic as that, how do we have a country?

          It used to be, not so many years ago, that you could look back and see the noticeable social erosion over the past year. Now that time frame seems to be rapidly shrinking. It now almost seems like you can see the unraveling of the social fabric of our society from one week to the next.

          I’ve always liked reading history. Something that’s always bothered me about reading history though is that you realize how distressingly common it is for societies to become insane and self destruct. During the dreadful twentieth century major nations like Germany, Japan, Russia and China became quite insane for periods of time. Now it seems to be our turn.

          Why does this happen? Why does this keep happening? Why do people periodically become insane and destroy what they worked so hard to create? I suppose it’s just a severe flaw in human nature. All we can do is hope for the best. Hopefully this time will be different.

          Recently an Assyrian at work in Chicago told me that “All of Iraq is ruined”. They’re heartbroken over what has happened to their country. So are the Vietnamese I work with about what’s happened to Vietnam. Hopefully fate will be kind to us and spare us from the dreadful nightmare which has befallen their former countries.

  16. wheretonow September 3, 2017 at 3:40 pm

    So climate change results in far fewer landfalling major hurricanes but when one comes, it leads to offsetting high pressure areas (hundreds of miles away) that resist the storm’s inland movement and hold it in place partially over water so it pumps rain into a fixed location instead of distributing it over a wider area. Weird.

  17. Martin Forde September 3, 2017 at 3:58 pm

    so there’s like … 3 million scientific articles on humans impact on climate change… https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=climate+change&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C14&as_sdtp=

  18. 1TomLarkin9 September 3, 2017 at 4:20 pm

    The global warming scam has been pure fraud since day one. The American public has been lied to in the process of looting the US Treasury. The media knows that global warming is a lie and has fraudulently published knowingly false articles. Just google anti-global warming.

  19. Westviking September 3, 2017 at 4:50 pm

    this is like saying paul revere exploited the british landing

  20. Sam McGowan September 3, 2017 at 4:55 pm

    The Houston flooding occurred because a major hurricane ran into a front and stalled, then turned around and drifted south and came just south of Houston while pumping in Gulf moisture. There’s a good reason many meteorologists don’t believe in “climate change,” they actually understand weather (and yes, Virginia, weather and climate are the same – precipitation, wind and temperature.)

  21. Chi_ed September 3, 2017 at 5:02 pm

    If this is serious, it would help if the biggest proponents didn’t have some of the biggest carbon footprints. It’s like Decaprio campaigning against slavery but owning 1000 slaves, he’ll free them once someone acts? Kristof has visited a 150 countries on what ? a solar plane , Al Gore has a carbon footprint 2000 times the size of mine, yet he gets to pontificate? When Krugman moves out of his 5 acre gated 7,000 square foot estate and trades places with me and my 900 ft condo he would have a better talking point. But in the meantime enjoy your vacation in France Mr Krugman, I’m walking down the street to enjoy the local festival.

  22. Todd Nebel September 3, 2017 at 5:15 pm

    Hysterical, scientists announce a eclipse and everyone is on board. Step on the toes of oil companies, etc and now you get misinformation campaigns through media outlets like Fox News saying climate change doesn’t exist. Their viewers (like Julie Kelly) are now experts on climate change (not the scientists). Back it up with other writers with a agenda on the internet and you get a political issue when it should strictly be a scientific issue. I totally understand why the guy felt depressed, it’s from having to deal with a skeptical public and so called experts like Julie Kelly

  23. Max Flasher September 3, 2017 at 6:04 pm

    Even if it’s true that there’s man made global warming there’s nothing that can be done about it. The same type of leftists who brought us Obamacare now want a blank check so they can stop global warming and “Save the Earth!!!”. Just imagine people like Hillary, Bill and Al Gore being in charge of a plan to stop global warming and “Save the Earth!!!”.

    Jonathan Gruber said the stupidity of the American voter helped get Obamacare passed. How could anyone trust people like this? They’re obviously hoping the public will be stupid enough to let them enact their latest social engineering scam.

    This one would be on a global scale. What they really want to do is transfer wealth from the West to third world countries, make themselves rich and also fund various leftist causes. I have not the tiniest bit of trust for leftists.

    • vaccinia September 3, 2017 at 11:34 pm

      Because this guy IS one of the people Gruber is talking about….

  24. Walther11 September 3, 2017 at 6:06 pm
  25. Seamus Sterchi September 3, 2017 at 6:15 pm

    If Harvey= Climate Change then Not Harvey=Not Climate change

    Since Not Harvey>>>Harvey what does that say about climate change?

  26. alexpinca September 3, 2017 at 7:14 pm

    This is about as contemptible as those who charged that people were “USING” Sandy Hook to attack the the 2nd Amendment rights. Such convoluting thinking staggers the mind.

  27. Michael Peterman September 4, 2017 at 12:26 am

    And as soon as we go through another ‘quiet’ period of hurricanes, then then the climate ‘outraged’ will be blaming that on global warming.

    Just can’t win but we can ignore.

  28. Itche-Meir September 4, 2017 at 12:52 am

    that “climate cult” is represented by the leaders of 91 percent of the world’s population

  29. Joel A. Edge September 4, 2017 at 3:04 am

    Someone posted that if everyone was vegan, Harvey would never have happened. These people are deranged.

  30. Phil Ostrand September 4, 2017 at 5:12 am

    Houston has had 4 500 year floods in the last 8 years. The statistical probability that this would occur randomly is basically zero. Global Warming is here. It is happening. And if you do not think so, you are willfully ignorant, greedy, and don’t give a damn about your children.

    • get2djnow September 4, 2017 at 11:42 am

      Could it be that your calculations of a “500 year flood” doesn’t comport with reality’s calculations? Nah, there’s zero chance that you’re wrong, right?

      • Phil Ostrand September 6, 2017 at 7:20 am

        Actually that is exactly why the 500 year calculations are wrong, because they do not account for a warmer atmosphere, increased humidity and energy coming off the Gulf. The new normal is more rain in Houston due to Global Warming.

        • get2djnow September 6, 2017 at 7:50 am

          Bwahahaha! You people will do anything to reinforce your preconceived notions of warming. And the best part is that you and Michael Mann will lie through your teeth and suppress any opinions that don’t conform to your own. Of course, this is something you don’t see Conservatives doing: silencing opponents.

    • Freddie Freeloader September 4, 2017 at 1:50 pm

      How come Mann believes that there’s a 20 years old unexplainable hiatus in so-called warming now???
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/20/the-new-consensus-on-global-warming-a-shocking-admission-by-team-climate/

  31. TNCBG September 4, 2017 at 6:39 am

    Weather isn’t the same as climate unless the weather is really bad. The warmists have been so desperate for a weather catastrophe that they can’t hide their glee over Harvey. They have been so disappointed in the hurricane season for so long, but it’s all better now. Thousands of people displaced from their homes, billions in damage, death, despair and destruction everywhere you look….finally! Even the atheists are thanking God for this climate change supporting event proving that we are without a doubt destroying the planet. If only Trump hadn’t withdrawn from the brilliantly crafted Paris Accord, this could have been prevented. Nations of the world with countless agendas and corruption throughout their governments were coming together in unprecedented cooperation to control the planet’s climate. The ever generous U.S. was ready and willing to pay for this planetary love fest, and their would be no more hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts or heat waves. The millions who still use wood and animal dung for heat would be given solar panels and wind mills to power their palatial mud huts. Damn that Trump and his denier supporters….but thank God for Harvey!

  32. Feeb September 4, 2017 at 6:57 am

    I have been following the data regarding Global Warming since I was 10 years old. I have a Phd in Physics and
    an excellent back ground in Chemistry. Scientists have been concerned about Global Warming since we understood
    both the Green House Effect and Black Body Radiation. They conspire to let the sun’s radiation in but not let the sun’s radiation
    out, thus forming a one way energy valve. All the Science is there. Just because some of our fellow human beings want to
    make a secular religion out of Global Warming doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. It is and Muller’s analysis shows that it is happening far more rapidly than even the cultists realize. Muller’s mentor and his student got the Nobel Prize and he may one day also. If you do not get this then you need to go to the nearest Community College and take some Physics and Chemistry classes before you opine another word on the subject.

    • TNCBG September 4, 2017 at 7:08 am

      Um, Al Gore and Obama got Nobel prizes. Muller would be better off without it. As for the changes in the climate, we should direct our resources towards response instead of prevention. The need for fossil fuels is not going away anytime soon, so there is zero chance that we can stop whatever change is on the horizon. The elites are not decreasing their carbon footprint, they are building on high ground just in case.

    • Freddie Freeloader September 4, 2017 at 10:49 am

      So just exactly how old are you feeb??

    • get2djnow September 4, 2017 at 11:39 am

      I’ve asked every cult follower like you: How many degrees warmer will it be in 2100 a.c.e.? What would be the projected difference if Paris & Kyoto had been fully implemented? Divide each of the degrees by the money spent to save them. Now sell that to the American people, & stop lying, for a change.

  33. dwstick September 4, 2017 at 10:12 am

    Famous sayings uttered throughout human history:

    Global Warming is real. The science is settled.
    Phrenology is real. The science is settled.
    Drapetomania is real. The science is settled.
    Alchemy is real. The science is settled.
    Phlogiston is real. The science is settled.
    Astrology is real. The science is settled.
    The Ptolemaic Model is real. The science is settled.

  34. Wild Bill September 4, 2017 at 1:39 pm

    If climate alarmist mythology were true, the percentage of people who are malnourished, worldwide, would be increasing, year by year. However, the opposite it true.

    As the amount of CO2 in the planet’s atmosphere has increased, human malnutrition, worldwide, has decreased. Why? Crops grow better nowadays, as a result of the carbon dioxide fertilization effect.

Comments are closed.