1988 was a barn-burner year for climate alarmists. Then-Sen. Al Gore’s steamy congressional hearing trumpeted a planet on fire, and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created to produce pseudo-scientific evidence blaming it on unfair capitalist industrial prosperity-spawned CO2 emissions.
Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart explained the real cause for urgency. She told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Stewart was wrong. Consequences of that phony science upon environmental and energy regulatory policies matter a great deal. So let’s consider some inconvenient facts.
1. No Recent Warming Despite Higher CO2
First, no one I know “denies” that climate changes, both warmer and colder, and for better and worse. Not so very long ago, U.S. cooling of about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit between 1945 and 1975 prompted The New York Times and other major news publications to headline “experts” trumpeting the arrival of a new ice age.
During “modern times” the global climate has been warming in fits and starts since the last “little ice age” (not a true ice age) ended about 200 years ago. Yet apart from entirely natural 1998 and 2015 ocean El Nino spikes, satellite and weather balloon measurements show no statistically-significant global warming for nearly two decades.
U.S. surface records obtained from the most reliable thermometer stations — those not corrupted by local “heat island” influences such as instrument relocations, urban developments or other man-made changes — show no significant warming over the past 80 years. There have been more all-time U.S. cold records than heat records since the 1940s.
Based upon the most reliable land surface data (UK Hadley Center, or “HADCRUT”), the average annual planetary warming between 1850 and 2015 is virtually imperceptible . . . and certainly not “dangerous.”
2. Extreme Claims Proven Extremely Wrong
Contrary to prevalent fear-mongering, sea levels have been rising at a constant rate of barely 7 inches per century without any measured acceleration. Even the latest 2013 IPCC report states; “It is likely that GMSL [Global Mean Sea Level] rose between 1920 and 1950 at a rate comparable to that observed between 1993 and 2010.”
Periodic Arctic warming cycles have been reported by whalers and explorers dating back centuries. Alpine glaciers at Glacier National Park have been receding since the little ice age ended. (Incidentally, polar bear populations are now at a record high.)
As for the sensationalized melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, a British Antarctic Survey reported that this is “within the natural range of climate variability” over the past 300 years, and that “more dramatic isotopic warming (and cooling) trends occurred in the mid-19th and 18th centuries.” Overall, the Antarctic ice mass has been steadily growing since first recorded by NASA satellites in 1979. The 2013-2014 expanses exceeded all previous measurements.
Regarding that “extreme weather” we’ve been warned about, no category 3-5 hurricanes have struck the U.S. coast since October 2005, setting a record lull since 1900. Both NOAA and the IPCC have admitted that there has been no increase in the severity or frequency of droughts, floods, thunderstorms, or tornadoes in decades. Nor has the number of U.S. wildfires increased.
3. Inconvenient Confessions From IPCC Authorities
So how much confidence should we place upon IPCC objectivity to guide regulatory policies? Consider but a couple of statements from key inside sources in their own words.
No matter how much of their little charade falls apart and is exposed, leftist climate alarmists will continue to believe in their religion.
If Gore told them solar panels were draining the sun causing the holes freaks would agree and they would find a consensus, then immediately pour billions into research.
1. No Recent Warming Despite Higher CO2.
That’s not what the plotted line on the graph says. What don’t we understand about long-term trends vs. short term fluctuations?
2. Extreme Claims Proven Extremely Wrong
Did Mr. Bell get his “extreme claims” from the movie The Day After Tomorrow? The projected sea level increases actually range from .18 meter (7 inches) to .59 meter (23.22 inches) by the end of the century, depending on the climate model scenario that plays out. What’s “extremely wrong” is Larry Bell’s straw man, which misrepresents the projections to begin with. (That and his misuse of the English language. Extremely wrong? A thing is either wrong or right, not extremely one or the other. But it would be unfair to question an architect’s expertise concerning climate science based on poor writing skills, wouldn’t it?)
3. Inconvenient Confessions From IPCC Authorities
This pretty much comes down to an ad hominem attack, isn’t it? That and a misrepresentation. No one has actually “confessed” anything.
The author is taking an out-of-context comment made by Tom Wigley and suggesting it refutes climate projections altogether. Actually, such critical and candid exchanges between scientists are part of the scientific process. They’re not formal conclusions, they’re part of the process used to reach conclusions. The out-of-context comments wouldn’t be there to mislead people in the first place, had private email not been hacked for that very purpose.
A number of the comments cited as evidence aren’t even from scientists. Ottmar Edenhofer, for instance, is an economist, not a climate expert; Christiana Figueres is a diplomat, not a climate expert.
Larry Bell, the author, isn’t a climate scientist either. He’s an architect, who has never produced a single peer-reviewed document relating to climate in his life. He does crank out enormous volumes of garbage such as this article, however. And no doubt gets paid for doing so.
@Greg: Or, “No matter what, I shall dutifully believe what I am told to believe, always and forever.”
From the lying mouthpiece for redistribution in the White House, . . . “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and powerful storms.”
In the age of Obama, new insults have emboldened the uninquisitive and uninformed, including, “you’re a Climate Change denier.”
Look in a mirror.
Larry Bell is not a climate scientist. He’s an architect. He has no background in climate science. The points he makes in his article are bogus, for the reasons cited. That won’t keep it from appearing on Newsmax, of course.
@Greg: Anyone can collect data and present it. Last time I checked, algore is not a climate scientist, either. Hell, he’s barely a human being.
It also does not take a climate scientist to see that ALL the dire predictions of doom and disaster if we do not hand all the world’s wealth over to liberals and allow them the spend as THEY think best have failed to come to pass.
Al Gore doesn’t conduct climate research. He’s a politician. He talks about the implications of the work the scientific community has done. There was hyperbole in his narrative. He was alarmed by the implications and trying to get average people to pay attention.
Actually the “dire predictions” are long term. Climate scientists take a longer view than somebody’s 4-year term of office. Barring some theoretical trigger event, such as a sudden shift in oceanic currents or a massive release of trapped greenhouse gases, the dire consequences will appear over the course of a century or more. Deniers have mischaracterized the long-term warning as if scientists had predicted an asteroid strike at 2:30 PM next Tuesday, and then declare the threat to be nonexistent when the day proves to be uneventful.
This is purposefully deceitful. The threat hasn’t gone away. They’ve only managed to trick people into thinking it was imaginary, and they’ve done so with ulterior motives. Usually they’re about money. That’s easy enough to figure out, when you learn who’s funding the disinformation campaign.
@Greg: Al Gore is a liar masquerading as a carnival show barker raking in millions off his cherry-picked data.
Let’s look at short-term predictions; polar bears extinct? No polar ice? Increased storms? How about warming itself? When it comes to failure, you are never short of excuses… only, they are all silly and weak.
Did you expect polar bears to become extinct by 2:30 PM next Tuesday?
@Greg: Uh, the Great and Powerful Gore said they already WERE going extinct, due to global warming, when in fact their population is booming; they are becoming a nuisance, actually.
At this point, I expect to hear nothing but lies from Al and the rest of the traveling troup of hucksters… and I have not been disappointed.
@Greg: Earth Day in 1970? Among them were the end of civilization within 15-30 years, 100-200 million deaths to starvation annually for ten years, urban dwellers having to wear gas masks to survive, and my personal favorite – an ice age by the year 2000. I remember these predictions, there is starvation but its due to war. The ice age comes every year in Wisconsin..oh thats winter.
What a relief it was to find out the earth wasn’t going into another iceage! Why again does that happen every few 10thousand years or so?
Have the scientists figured out why some Mastodons were flash frozen with greenery in their guts?
Polar bear populations are not booming. Populations are stable in some areas, increasing in at least one, and declining in others. For more than half of their habitat, there’s no data.
Their greatest threat is habitat loss, which relates to Arctic sea ice decline. That fluctuates season to season and year to year, but the overall trend of the annual minimum is downward. If habitat is lost, the creatures that depend on it will also be lost. That’s the way it works.
When information comes from unreliable sources, the conclusions that follow from it will also unreliable.
The planet is presently seeing a 6th mass extinction event. That’s an established fact, even if the only news of the day is about Donald Trump once again breaking wind.
@Greg: Aside from the fact that you are wrong, you do make a very strong case supporting the accusation that the left has been lying all along. For, if you cannot find the data showing their population, how can you surmise they are vanishing?
Oh… by just thinking of something bad, claiming it is happening and blaming it on global warming. THAT’S HOW!!
Greg is a “Church of Climate Change” religious fanatic.
The only thing Larry Bell’s three “facts” suggest is the gullibility of his readers. They prove absolutely nothing. They aren’t even facts.
@Greg: True dat; climate change is absolutely nothing.
@Greg: The planet is presently seeing a 6th mass extinction event. That’s an established fact and what were the causes of the 5 before , man made? What were the causes of the previous climate changes? I know its hard but you can say you dont have a friggin clue, like todays climate scientists giving Pope Gore his data with which he makes such wildly wrong predictions based upon.
While computer climate models are enormously complex, and I don’t even pretend to understand them, the fact that increased concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide would tend to retain more heat from solar radiation is not an especially complicated idea. Greenhouse gases allow less of the Sun’s energy to be reflected back into space. The result of less heat escaping is a gradual increase in temperature. What else would we expect? Why would we think this would be without consequences?
Planetary-scale human activity is a new factor added to all natural cycles. It’s a new variable. Why would it, unlike all others, somehow be irrelevant? To my mind, thinking that would be the totally illogical assumption.
People aren’t paying attention. The expansion of vast oceanic dead zones should be scaring the hell out of us. Instead, we ignore the obvious warnings. We pretend it isn’t happening; that we can just continue on our merry way.
Greg continues to try to impress us with his scientific ignorance, by spouting unproven theorem as if it were fact. He also ignores the facts that after an unusually active 13 year period of high solar activity (mid 1980s to mid 1990’s) that coincided with a rise of temperatures, the Sun has been in a calmer, cooler cycle that has resulted in a nullification of the recorded temperature increases.
No Chicken Little, the sky is not falling. The public is getting wise to the “climate-change” con-job. Most ethical climate scientists and meteorologists are rejecting the whole AGW/ACC religious fanaticism.
First of all, it’s not “religious fanaticism.” It’s acceptance of the conclusion that planetary-scale human activities are affecting climate. Neither religion nor fanaticism figure into the conclusion.
Secondly, over 90 percent of climate and earth scientists believe that to be the case. You’re claiming that 90 percent of the specialists most knowledgeable in the field are unethical.
The list of international scientific organizations that support the conclusion is a very long one. Their carefully considered scientific opinions are unlikely to be swayed by poorly argued assertions cranked out by a politically motivated architect.
@Greg: It has been shown that even the “90%” claim is a lie.
It’s the acceptance of a unproven theory via a manufactured consensus.of a supposed “majority of scientists” most of whom have no experience whatsoever in that field of science. (and politicians with a political agenda,) That’s faith-based, and comparable to a religion, not science.
Wikipedia again? Tsk Tsk. so pathetic. The 90% is false. It’s a hoax. A number created out of thin air by Obama based on a misreporting of articles, (many of whom’s authors said that their articles reached no such conclusion).
Again, all of these “conclusions are based on an organization opinion relying on a consensus of scientists, most of whom have no scientific training or credentials in the field of climate science..
…(are) worth exactly squat, because opinion isn’t scientific proof.
I’ve actually worked daily with climatologists. The AGW/ACC claims are bogus, unproven, junk science. The satellites do not lie, the data proves that we are now in a cooling trend, and have been since the mid-1990’s. The monitoring data of solar storms proved an increase in storm activity from the mid-1980’s to mid-1990’s, which resulted in high temperatures from the sun, which is what cause the temperature to rise. The temperatures have receded in the last 20 years, erasing and in fact reversing the (averaged) temperature aberrations of the 1908’s. Tides are now lower, the polar pears are not going extinct from drowning, both ice caps are bigger and thicker, 2016 is proving to be a cooler year, and none of Al Gore’s inconvenient lies have come true.
Even every single leftist explanation of the 97% (Greg can’t even quote the propaganda correctly,) has been proven false.
The 97 Percent Solution
There is no consensus
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere …”.
The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’
Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims
Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists
97% consensus? No!
Obama’s ’97 Percent’ Climate Consensus: debunked, demolished, staked through the heart
New Study: Majority of Climate Scientists Don’t Agree with ‘Consensus’
Liberal Media Love Flawed Studies Claiming a Vast Scientific Consensus on Climate
Ninety Seven Percent Is Not What You Think
Where Did ’97 Percent’ Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From?
‘97% Of Climate Scientists Agree’ Is 100% Wrong
‘There is NO climate crisis’: Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science
What else did the ‘97% of scientists’ say?
Not by any credible sources.
The Global Warming Petition Project is not a credible representation of the opinions of a majority of climate scientists, or even of a majority of all persons who might fall under the far more general category of scientists. Hardly any climate scientists signed the petition, and the number of scientists that signed it represent only a tiny fraction of all people who fall into that more general category.
The catch twenty-two of Greg’s parroted dogma, is that anyone who disagrees with his church of man-made climate change, is not recognized by his high priests as “credible”
The problem with his link’s “denial” of of the petition, is that they base their denial of the petition because it limits the signatory to a very narrow range of scientists: (i.e. those who might know about climate changes and computer models).
Meanwhile, the organizations who’s dogma he does accept place no limits on what fields of science may be part of the “consensus.”
I would go much further, and limit the only “credible” opinions to being from only those who trained in those sciences related to climate and climate history:
* Atmosphere, Earth, and Environment fields: atmospheric science, climatology, meteorology, astronomy, astrophysics, earth science, geochemistry, geology, geophysics, geoscience, hydrology, environmental engineering, environmental science, forestry, oceanography.
* Physics and Aerospace: physics, nuclear engineering, mechanical engineering, aerospace engineering
* Chemistry: chemistry, chemical engineering
* Biochemistry, Biology, and Agriculture: biochemistry, biophysics, biology, ecology, entomology, zoology, animal science, agricultural science, agricultural engineering, plant science, food science
None of the other sciences have any more background or expertise in the relevant sciences than does non-scientists Bill Nye and Greg.
There are many reasons why a critical reader might not consider certain sources or arguments to be credible that have nothing to do with shared or conflicting opinions. I told you what my specific problems are with Larry Bell and his article, for example.
Bill Nye, a popular figure you seem to have it in for of late, isn’t an authority on climate change either. On the other hand, he doesn’t demonstrate faulty logic every time he opens his mouth. He doesn’t deliberately misrepresent his opponents projections in the way of straw man arguments, nor does he routinely engage in ad hominem attacks.
There are a few on the other side of the climate issue who present sound arguments entirely worthy of consideration, but the majority of climate deniers seem to take the Larry Bell approach. They’re not about truth. They’re about disinformation and the dishonest manipulation of public opinion.
@Greg: “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.” Michael Crichton 17 January 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology
Dispelling the myth of the 97%
Global warming hoax fails, alarmists fall back on “97% agree” lie
Man made global warming not supported
What the 97% said of the survey
HEY…. here’s a 97% you might not like:
Global warming predictions wrong 97% of the time
Larry Bell, architect; Anthony Watts, a television weatherman with a degree in nothing; James Delingpole, an English Lit major; Dr Kevin “coach” Collins? I’m guessing he probably isn’t a climate scientist, either.
There’s a reason it matters when a strong majority of the most highly trained specialists in a particular scientific field share a conclusion. There are also reasons why “Three Facts Prove Climate Alarm Is a Scam” is a totally bullshit assertion.
Greg, there are a multitude of climate scientists who do not ascribe to the “watermelon” green scam of AGW., including one of the founders of GreenPeace. The very fact that the AGW cultists changed the name of their scam from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” – only after the embarrasing 19 year and growing pause in so-called global warming should indicate the lack of scientific validity of the AGW scam. Gore’s predictions of the disappearance of Arctic ice – thouroughly disproven by satellite photos showing the largest amount of Arctic ice since we had the capability of taking satellite pictures of the North Pole – combined with the recent scientific report of decreased temps on Mars concurrent with the ongoing decrease in solar output – should put the nail in the coffin of the AGW cult, were actual SCIENTIFIC DATA the basis of decision-making.
What should be even more definitively conclusive regarding the irrationality of the AGW cult is the fact that the calls for government control of energy we are hearing from the AGW cultists today are EXACTLY the same as what was being demanded by the Ehrlich crowd of Chicken Littles in the 1970s when they were shrieking about a pending ice age.
When the AGW cultists can explain – validly – how atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased over the last 20 years without causing global temp increases at the same te – then MAYBE they would have scientific validity. Until then, their screaming nonsense should continue to be viewed as nothing more than the lying scam that it is.