Wednesday, January 13, 2021

Some notes for climate skeptics

Excellent resource here: "Why Everyone Should Be A Climate Skeptic"

"Consensus? 200+ New 2019 Papers Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarmism"

No consensus: Only 0.3% of 11,944 climate papers from 1991-2011 found >50% of post 1950-warming anthropogenic.

Here are 1,500 peer-reviewed skeptical scientific papers published between 2016 and 2018 alone.

Crop yields are way up.

Wildfires are way down.

Polar bear population is way up (by a factor of 4-6 since the 1960s).

According to the IPCC, hurricanes are decreasing.

About 10,000 years ago there wasn’t much ice in the Arctic. It’s only in the last 1000 years that we’ve seen this coverage of ice that persists significantly through the summer time"

IPCC says this about floods: "overall low confidence at global scale regarding EVEN SIGN of these changes"

Large number of peer-reviewed non-hockey-sticks here; keep scrolling

Climate models have been running *much* warmer than reality.

Medieval Warm Period Project site here contains a lot of detailed information about peer-reviewed papers finding that the period was warmer than the current period.

See ClimateGate "outed emails" here.

Extremely important warmist technique: Smooth out the fluctuations of climate in the past, leave in just the last one, then claim that the last fluctuation *must* have been caused by humans since it's abrupt!

Global Warming Petition Project: 31,487 American scientists (9,029 with PhDs) signed this strongly-worded skeptical statement.

Good Twitter follows include @SteveSGoddard @wattsupwiththat @curryja @BigJoeBastardi @ClimateDepot @JunkScience @ClimateAudit @EcoSenseNow @NoTricksZone @RogerAPielkeSr @JamesDelingpole @sjc_pbs @JoanneNova

Good skeptic sites include: Watts Up With That; Climate Depot; NoTricksZone; Climate Etc.; Not A Lot of People Know That

'Einstein's successor' Freeman Dyson is a climate skeptic. See interesting climate quotes from him here.

A complete list of things caused by global warming

NASA GISS: Global average temperature "may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58°F"

On sea level rise:
NASA: "global mean sea level has risen by 8 inches..since 1870"

Seas have risen naturally ~400 feet in the last ~20k years.

Second-century Roman port now two miles inland

Trying to prevent imaginary CO2-induced bad weather leads to bad energy choices, and bad energy choices can kill: African clinic's solar panels power lights OR fridge; not both
About CO2:
Maybe 3-4 volumes of CO2 "pollution" are deliberately injected into each can of your Coke!

People burn gas/propane in greenhouses to RAISE CO2 to ~1500 ppm

We all exhale ~40,000 ppm CO2.
Odd: Everyplace is allegedly warming much faster than everyplace else

We're not supposed to confuse weather and climate, but lots of warmists have claimed that we can see climate out of our windows.

Top 10 most convincing CAGW arguments

Warmist climate scientist time budget

Until U can tell me exactly what caused Minoan/Roman/Medieval warm periods, Dark Ages/Little Ice Age cooling, early 20th cent. warming, & mid-20th cent. cooling, I refuse to believe U understand natural variability enough to rule it out as the #1 post-1970s warming cause.

Good question to ask alarmists when they tout any climate change solution: How much global cooling (deg C by 2050) do we allegedly get, and why should we want global cooling?
I started out as a casual believer in AGW, then became more and more skeptical as I dug into the alleged evidence for myself.

Many climate skeptics have followed a similar path.
I don't see warmism as a conspiracy--it's mostly groupthink mixed w. plenty of foolishness & some outright fraud.

I've communicated w. lots of warmist scientists & the vast majority clearly have just taken it on faith that CO2 is the climate control knob.
A treasure trove of Heartland climate conference videos is here.

I highly recommend Alex Epstein's book "The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels".


Anonymous said...

You're just believing anything that you read on the internet that lines up with your position. I mean, yeah, our brains do seem to be biased that way. That's why we need scientific method, to overcome that delusion prone mind.

Let's say you want to believe in ESP, I can point you to a site that will show you 100 papers that appear to support that. But if I don't address the design and methodology of those papers ... or reveal that those papers are cherry picked ... or that those papers are say funded largely from people selling ESP goods ... or that the true consensus from thousands of proper studies is that we simply have no robust, validated evidence (so far) for ESP, well, that would be delusional, ignorant, and would be spreading misinformation. That is exactly what you are doing.

This on the other hand
is robust and well validated

The basic principles of climate are sound.

Carbon dioxide IS a warming gas. This is basic physics.

Carbon dioxide has increased significantly. Hard physical evidence from ice cores and elsewhere.

The increase in carbon dioxide is due to humans burning fossil fuel. Again, hard physical evidence. The isotopes of carbon that arise fossil fuel are different from natural sources like decay.

Brian French said...

Facebook just refused my link to your article...???

Secure Account
If you didn't post this, we can help secure your account

About your post
Only you can see this post.
If you request a review, we'll have someone take another look at the post.
Heres a link to a series of study reports that deny the Human Caused Climate fraud.... (hat tip to Tom Nelson)

Brian French said...

I was just blocked on facebook for posting a link to your article...

Secure Account
If you didn't post this, we can help secure your account

About your post
Only you can see this post.
If you request a review, we'll have someone take another look at the post.
Heres a link to a series of study reports that deny the Human Caused Climate fraud.... (hat tip to Tom Nelson)

Brian French said...

Facebook is blocking links to this post as not meeting community standards. Maybe if a few thousand people posted it they might get a message.

The anonymous poster above is obviously a shill It's his facts that are wrong.... and have been disproven by climate events and lack of them.

Ill be distributing this to my network for posting on facebook

Jonk said...

When asked if I believe in climate change I always ask for clarification. Which version? What do you mean by climate change? Political definition or scientific? AGW / CAGW? Etc.

JimD said...

FWIW: I ws just now able to post a link to here on Facebook. It -seems- to still be available.

Anonymous said...

Can you do us a favor? Where can we get realistic climate forecasts? Whenever I check the climate forecasts put out by the federal government's "Climate Prediction Center" all they ever predict is that the N. American continent will experience more global warming. See the latest forecast below:

You'd think with a level-headed conservative like Donald Trump, we'd get more honest climate forecasting from a federal government agency. Alas, instead we continue to get the usual liberal alarmist crap about how the temps will supposedly be warmer than average. Please, please, please point us to a web site with more accurate climate forecasting. We're sick of Obama liberal hysteria about temps continuing to go up.

Anonymous said...

This is really interesting....A Discernment of Global Warming, Part 1 & Part 2, Clarity Radio with Bryan Management Team;,

Next Broadcast: October 11, 2019

Topic: Discernment of Global Warming Part 2

ArtDa said...

Before the evolution of land plants, our atmospheric temperature was much higher than today, and contained a lot of CO2 and little oxygen. Then plants came along and used the CO2 to grow. Plant matter under heat and pressure eventually became fossil fuel- coal, crude oil and natural gas. Now we are reversing the process, and can expect increasing atmospheric CO2 and higher temperatures.

steve b said...

Tom, you post nonsensical information without an understanding of what numbers are significant and what are irrelevant. Why? Numbers and complexity and human decision errors are my thing. I also had a Harvard trained atmospheric physicist Father who was a devout Republican. And, i have never been a Democrat. If you want to discuss using deductive reasoning email me ... i realize it would be quite unusual for you to open to deduction because you are very invested in opnion and isolated talking points but what the heck ... live and learn and suck it up if you are being mislead ... by the way, the background warming and cooling graph on your Twitter is not a measurement of temperatures, but rather tree rings, which change with temp. Water, ocean and air flow currents, etc. It looks like you have northern european focus set of tree rings ... maybe your should investigate thise who published the graph and why these people did not tell you about hhe ocean current changes and how the are represented by the data ...

nzpete54 said...

"Anonymous said...

You're just believing anything that you read on the internet that lines up with your position"


Anonymous said...

"Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is the most massive scientific fraud in human history."

You expect us to believe that? Denying it is the biggest HOAX ever.

Anonymous said...

The billionaires got mad & spasmodic because they don't know that we CAN escape extinction: Earth lasers' plasma shield CAN prevent a devastating global blackout/all nuclear plants' blasting by asteroid explosion (as in Tunguska-1908 & Chelyabinsk-2013) or solar storm hit! NINE times near-miss extinction so far: 1972, 1989, 2003, 2006, 2012, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021

Anonymous said...

Part 1
Hi Tom, I just found your blog. Thanks for your efforts. I am a geologist and I find mainstream media's obsession with "climate change/man-made climate change" strange, because, as you point out it is an ongoing natural process that has existed far longer than homo-sapiens have.
While the mania started with incompetent/fraudulent science, politicians have eagerly taken the helm of this Titanic, and now, more recently, central bankers have joined them on the bridge. Why? Aren't politicians more concerned with taxing and spending and bankers more concerned with smooth function of markets and commercial banks, and assisting the government in funding its deficits? What background do central bankers have that allows them to understand the science? None. What tools do central bankers have that enable them to modify the climate? None. So what's got them so interested?
The western world is drowning in debt. Historically, when nations are this indebted, their leaders usually blame neighboring countries and go to war. While wars don't reduce debt, they sure do distract the populace from the true causes of their deteriorating standard of living, and war gives the people a obvious scapegoat for their predicament. The aftermath of WW2 showed how a victor of war could mend its finances, by rebuilding the infrastructure of the vanquished. After the rebuild, the vanquished received favorable trade terms from the USA, and gradually returned to prosperity. Gratefully, most everyone in the west agrees that major war is too devastating a price in order to mend our finances. However, what if we had to rebuild our infrastructure without first destroying it with war? Wouldn't the rebuild generate economic growth for a generation or two, in societies that have gone ex-growth? What excuse could we possibly use that would convince people across many countries, of many diverse cultures, that such a massive spending program is necessary? (1/2)

Anonymous said...

Part 2
In the past, governments have managed their people with nationalistic propaganda and religious dogma. In a growingly secular western world, would religious dogma mobilize the masses? Not likely, besides this cause needs to appeal to all people of all religions. Nationalistic propaganda won't work, that path leads to war. Governments and bankers need a unifying issue that gives each person a religious zeal, but does not come with the baggage and rivalries of ancient religions.
The "scientists" that dreamed the man-made global warming theory were not trying to provide cover to governments and bankers, they were trying to make a name, and a living, for themselves, nothing more. They were just bad scientists. But their crackpot theory had utility for the ruling class. The theory has been co-opted to cover a desperate attempt to jump start growth to pay down debt.
Mass media works for the ruling class. As long as the ruling class (government, bankers, and the wealthy) find man-made global warming useful cover for their plans, the mass media will never accurately portray the science of climate.
Please recognize most humans are not logical, they are emotional. Evolutionary psychologists believe our ability to reason evolved from early primates living in groups. The primates on the lower social rungs sought to curry favor with the alpha by anticipating the thoughts and needs of the alpha, then demonstrating to the alpha, and the group, that they are onside with the alpha. In this way, they would reap benefits from the leaders, the alphas. This behavior is essentially groupthink. Our ability to reason evolved, not to avoid groupthink, but to entrench it. That is why most logicians/scientists are socially awkward. It is rare for one individual to seamlessly manage both ways of thinking. As a result, most humans (other than us) are looking to curry favor with their leaders. The mass media tells us what our leaders are thinking, and the population attempts to demonstrate their understanding - t-shirts, fundraisers, campaigning, etc.
You are facing a serious uphill battle. The science is a crucial step, but many other steps are required to successfully overcome the groupthink machine.
All the best! (2/2)