RE: Bill Nye misinformation. Here is a link to an older CNN Crossfire YouTube clip where Bill Nye is confronted with facts from the latest IPCC report (at the time) about hurricane frequency and other things. The point is made that the IPCC report indicates that there is no detection of an increase in hurricanes. His response? "Hurricane shmericane!". The argument seems to always change from there. Well they're bigger, they're wetter, they stay in once place longer, they throw more sharp objects, they spread COVID, etc.. https://youtu.be/rUjx2lChTMQ
Excellent presentation summarizing the history and current state of climate science. It's very difficult for the average person to weed through all the information/misinformation available on the internet, but this presentation is the best short summary that I've seen. A few years ago I had generated a US hurricane impact pivot table and chart (similar to yours) based on the data from the NOAA web site (https://tinyurl.com/mr2kck59 "Pivot Table 2"). Like yours, this chart shows no upward trend. I attempted to do something similar with US temperature data, since a popular YouTube poster questioned the inconsistent NASA temperature trend graphs when comparing their chart from 1999 to the current chart on their web site. I was able to find the source for both charts on the NASA GISS web site, and there is actually a disclaimer on the current chart that attempts to explain the disparity, "The corresponding graph in Hansen et al. (1999) shows a smaller trend, since it is based on data that were not yet corrected for station moves and time-of-observation changes, see this FAQ.]". The YouTube poster contends this disparity is fraudulent. The main point of the fraud claim is that the 1999 chart showed the peak years for warming in the US were around 1934, and that has subsequently been altered to be an increasing trend by the adjustments mentioned in the footnotes of the current chart. In addition to hurricane trends, have you also looked at temperature data trends in the US, and what are your thoughts on the temperature adjustments made to the NASA US temperature data? Thanks!
You make a well prepared talk and give a good, transparent background for your conclusions. Staying true to the references you give is very important. A lot of published material does not, these days.
One thing I do not quite understand is when you say that in spite of the findings you have on the observed state of the climate system you still see the need for going to zero (or net zero?) GHG emissions. Why?
It might be that you have stated the time frame for going to zero, and if that is in +100 years I do agree primarily on the basis that we should try and find better ways of harnessing nuclear energy. But I must have missed that part of your statement, and thus it seems to stand alone. Then it would seem that it also incorporates the need to go to zero around 2050.
The lack of integrity in science is displayed in spades in the Public Health area and the response to Covid 19. See this just published on Substack by Vinay Prasad.
An excellent talk! I personally disagree with your acceptance of the severity of the "problem," but you are to be commended for avoiding cognitive or confirmation biases. Having been a scientist in a contentious public arena (nuclear waste), I know how difficult that is.
Again, from my own experience, it is all too easy to lose your humility when being introduced as a "cultural icon." When something like that happened, I would invariably reply that "I have the feet of clay to prove it." Too many self-proclaimed "climate experts" - even if rightfully regarded as experts - seem to ignore the vast sea of uncertainty surrounding their small island of expertise.
"We know much about our climate, but that knowledge seems dwarfed by the uncertainties inherent in that knowledge and the certainty that there is so much yet to learn. This, to me, inspires humility rather than the arrogant certainty that seems to abound."
Covid symptom severity can be managed with immune regulation. Adequate vitamin D prior to contracting Covid and calcifediol for those admitted to hospital.
Dror et al 2022 involved 1,176 patients, 253 of which had records of serum vitamin D prior to COVID-19 infection. The results conclusively determined that patients with vitamin D deficiency (< 50 nmol/L) were 14 times more likely to have severe or critical disease than patients with serum content ≥100 nmol/L.
Castillo et al 2020 was a RCT of 26 patients in which calcifediol was administered to 13 upon admittance to a hospital in Andalucia, Spain. The results were statistically significant, equating to a 93% reduction in the odds of ICU admission.
Nogues et al 2021 examined 838 participants in hospital. Those supplemented with calcifediol had 87% less need for ICU submission and a greater than 70 % reduction in mortality.
Great episode. Smart. Unpretentious. Good production values You are doing great work for your allies, fellow scientists, and the ESG DISCUSSION.
A couple of things: Over 50% of all deaths attributed to air pollution are more precisely attributed to interior air pollution, which complicates any discussion about “air pollution.” Secondly, the problems with ESG are fundamental to any new market. As of yet, none of the three components can be quantified in any rigorous way, nor is there an international agreement on rules for the taxonomy of trading and accounting practices.
After Harvard’s $2.3 billion loss on ESG trading announcement today, I think the politics of ESG have started turning against it. Jamie Dimon, etc.
Finally, thank you for creating a forum for the broader energy and environmental discussions. Steve
Your honesty just got you a subscriber. I don't agree that climate change is a problem, any more than the fact the climate is always changing will always require us to adapt. I want us to adopt widespread nuclear breeder reactors and utilize the 100,000 years of thorium etc. that we have to make energy as cheap and reliable as possible. An energy dense society is one that is better for wildlife and humans.
There is so much info out there, but our sheeple don't have the time to challenge the MSM or the politicians. And they keep making the same mistake over and over again.
Other articles and points to consider:
Here is a summary article to a fantastic book everyone should read. The book is spectacular and eye opening. The author used to be a diehard environmental activist.
"On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare"
Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s
Netherlands became rich not poor while adapting to life below sea level
We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture"
I'm not claiming this article is the only explanation, but it could be one of many:
"NASA admits that climate change occurs because of changes in Earth’s solar orbit, and NOT because of SUVs and fossil fuels"
This author took a "climate change indicator" chart and illustrates how every single chart was a different timeline! In other words, statistical fraud:
Even if, and a very big if, levels of CO2 directly impacted global average temps (immeasurable temps by the way), here are some facts that show the US is reducing emissions:
CO2 emissions are exactly the same now in the USA as they were in 1990 - almost 30 years ago. Scoot down to the line chart. From the EPA - Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data Explorer:
In the US, CO2 emissions have declined from a peak of 6,128 metric tonnes in 2007 to 5,270 in 2017, a reduction of 15%, so it is not true that there have been no reductions. There has also been a rise in 2018 of a few percent which is projected to be mitigated by a similar fall in 2019.
"EIA expects U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions to fall in 2019"
The reason that climate change is such a hotly debated topic and so many seem to "care" is because of predictions OTHER people make. There is behind all of this some idea that these predictions imply something bad, or at least worse than if we implemented the proposed “solutions.” And notice all of the proposed solutions lead to one place... increasing the power of the state (defined as an involuntary government) to unprecedented levels. It’s no wonder at all that the “absolute science” comes from the state (and as explained above, science is not absolute). Many people or groups want to get control of other people, and hence the desire to find a plausible system explanation (including projection / prediction) that can be tied back to a regulatory policy that yields the control.
Check out this quote from 2017 (nothing has changed since then):
"April 22 was the 47th anniversary of the first Earth Day, which occurred in 1970. Since that day, the number of people on Earth has increased from 3.7 billion to 7.5 billion, and average life expectancy for all the world's people has risen by 11 years, to 67 years old (NOTE 78 in the United States). Likewise, food production has soared and energy production and consumption, mostly thanks to fossil fuels, has increased by more than four times. Since the first Earth Day, the natural environment has improved substantially, through urbanization, and the biosphere and agriculture are more robust. Earth is greener, because of the additional carbon dioxide in the air, as numerous studies now show. Since the first Earth Day, the flawed computer models backed by radical environmentalists have failed continuously, and we now know they can never serve as a reliable tool to make policy judgements governing the future of human life on Earth."
And BTW, CO2 is an inert gas pumped into green houses to grow plants better/faster.
There is no climate change or global warming problem caused by humans or that we need to worry about. It's political propaganda by the state to increase taxes and gain control over others. Politicians use fear topics like this to buy votes. They do the same with racism, terrorism and virus outbreaks. The state needs a boogie man to keep people in fear so they can continue to tax and increase their power. The state adds no value to our society so they have to lie to keep their jobs. Note almost all the "climate change" scientists are funded directly or indirectly (e.g., federal grants, school funding etc) by the government. It's a political con.
To truly understand something in a manner that is provable, one needs an actual proof. If the proof implies a chaotic system, one of the things that the proof can prove is that the system cannot project future outcome of any real system. In narrower aspects of the system (which are not chaotic) one can prove outcomes given a set of assumptions (axioms), but there is no such thing as an absolute (consistent and complete) proof in any complicated system. In other words, the models built by "scientists" are subsets of the chaotic system and don't represent reality.
Few understand that science is not absolute. Science doesn’t have theorems or proofs, it has theories – because they cannot be proven. Computer science isn’t actually a science, it’s a philosophy/math – with theorems and proofs. So far computer science cannot predict a chaotic system. So don't believe the doomsday "predictions" based on "models."
One thing is certain, as there is proof by existence. Projections by those who think they have plausible system explanations have failed to a significant degree. While their theories cannot be proven, they can be (and have been) disproven. There is of course the long history of chicken little cults, including “The Coming Ice Age” from the 70’s-80’s, or Armageddon from a little earlier. Remember the acid rain scare? What happened to that? Nothing happened. Government was wrong. Overpopulation was another scare that didn't happen. Remember the "coming ice age" theories in the 70s and 80s? Here's a film from 1978 saying ice age coming (same doomsday narrative as today):
The motivation is always the same – it’s a con to gain control over people. Apart from the daily political debate, if you remove the emotion and alarmism, you will not observe anything really "happening." There are always doomsayers, and they have almost always been wrong, whether it is their observation or conclusion.
More here about all the apocalyptic predictions that didn't come true:
Our environment is a highly complex system. You can't model a complex system. It's impossible (see why below). The sun, solar flares, gravity, magnetic poles, plate movements, volcanoes (which spew more CO2 than anything into the air), are all factors. It is FAR from conclusive that humans are causing any trouble.
Does the climate change? Of course it does; always has. Few realize it has been far worse millions of years ago. Too many people are living in their little bubble called "a lifetime." Does human activity have some effect on the weather? Sure it does. But it's a complex system that is not fully understood. Solar flares and changing magnetic poles may be bigger factors than humans, but there is no theory with enough evidence that explains what exactly is happening (good or bad). Ice caps change; they always have. The Antarctic is actually growing faster than the Arctic is shrinking - nothing to be alarmed about. Our life spans and even the existence of man on the Earth is a microscopic event in history of the planet.
Did you notice "Global Warming" is now "Climate Change?" Why? Because the climate doesn't obey previous predictions, but who can deny things "change"? Chaos theory is logical proof that predictions against complex systems are useless. Arguments in favor of the "climate change" religion, like all religion, are not falsifiable - and therefore by definition not "scientific". All resolutions point to political control. Environmental "science" has taken the place of economic socialism/communism as the statist's wedge of choice. The old models have fallen out of favor. Without state funding there would be no such "climate change" theory. "Climate change" is state propaganda used to drive more taxes. Same happened with over-population, acid rain and the coming ice age. Heck, the fact that the only people pushing the agenda are politicians tells you its suspect.
I'm not debating there may be temp increases in certain places. That's normal. Change is always happening. But evidence and/or proof of cause (similar to establishing the Theory of Relativity or Gravitational Theory) and then predicting something bad is going to happen deserves great skepticism.
An experienced, unbiased computer scientist will tell you that the math behind the predictive models practically constitutes fraud. The past does not predict the future, so if there is a rising temperature, there is no evidence it will continue. It's hard for people to grasp that models (which are attempted "explanations") of chaotic systems cannot project actual system behavior - ever. This is not a limitation in current methods, measurement capabilities or processing power. It is an absolute limit that can never be overcome.
Climate change is a way for government funded scientists to scare up more funding and politicians to justify taking more control over the economy and our lives.
Do the people who are opposed to "climate change" really want the climate to stop changing? When will the climate be "correct"? How will we know? Who gets to decide?
Exactly. There is nothing more efficient than fossil fuels, except for nuclear. Everything around us was possible by cheap and efficient fossil fuels. Poor countries can't build an economy on expensive, intermittent "clean" energy. Fossil fuels made all our lives so much better, and now politicians want to reverse it all which will just make everything much more expensive. The poor get hurt the most.
It’s really refreshing to see an expert who is being honest. I was very concerned about climate change 10 years ago, but as I because familiar with the noble cause corruption and the science, and then looked at the utterly counterproductive policies being pushed (which will get people killed) I decided to fight this
I really enjoyed this video, all the more because I know so little about climate, but I’ve had a gut feeling that “the science” related to climate, as portrayed in the mainstream media, is about as reliable as, say, “the science” related to health reporting. In both cases there’s a certainty, a shrillness, a sense of immediate alarm (as in, “you have to read this! You have to do this!”) that puts me on guard.
All I know with climate is that I don’t know, and I don’t even know which information to trust.
The same is true with health news, although I know a bit more about that subject. You have shrill unreliable reporting in the media for decades, you have iffy expensive medicines advertised on TV (“Ask your doctor about...”), and then when something like a pandemic comes along, it -- like everything else-- gets turned into a political event and no one knows whom to believe. People default to believing the simplistic messages from their tribe or team--and both tribes were guilty of putting their own agendas and messages above the public health.
The thing to do would have been to set aside all politics, look hard at all available data (which were growing and changing the big picture daily) and work together to bring the best evolving information and messages to the public-- including clear explanations about _why_ the best advice was changing as the situation evolved.
But no. Even in the midst of a global crisis, each side was interested in “winning.” I see that happening with climate too: “We’re all about to see climate Armageddon,” versus “No there’s nothing to see here.”
Those positions are clearly not “The best minds coming together and disagreeing about the date.” These are two different politically driven versions of reality, unhindered by data.
The unfortunate result with covid is that the US had (continues to have) one of the worst mortality rates in the world, and we learned that even the CDC bends to political pressures and is not necessarily data-led in its advice.
This is disastrous both for science and for the public.
The Boston Globe’s climate desk regularly publishes scare stories about sea level rise. I’ve written them and explained the math on how long it would take Boston Harbor to rise to the front door of the Globe’s office (at the current rate of rise). We’d need to see an immediate 10x in Greenland ice sheet melt to get anything like the projections being used to scare people. It’s criminal in my mind that government paid scientists are participating in this fraud, and that once-respected newspapers are propagandists.
NASA says radar altimeters from space. But the same point remains. The daily tidal changes, storm surge, wind, and currents dwarf the trend of 3.4 (± 0.4) mm/yr NASA claims since 1993. How the hell do they think they can get 1 sign of ± 0.4 mm/yr with a satellite 20,000km up with wobbles its orbit? It’s insane. They’re leaning on some dubious math and probably assuming errors cancel to get something that absurdly small.
RE: Bill Nye misinformation. Here is a link to an older CNN Crossfire YouTube clip where Bill Nye is confronted with facts from the latest IPCC report (at the time) about hurricane frequency and other things. The point is made that the IPCC report indicates that there is no detection of an increase in hurricanes. His response? "Hurricane shmericane!". The argument seems to always change from there. Well they're bigger, they're wetter, they stay in once place longer, they throw more sharp objects, they spread COVID, etc.. https://youtu.be/rUjx2lChTMQ
Excellent presentation summarizing the history and current state of climate science. It's very difficult for the average person to weed through all the information/misinformation available on the internet, but this presentation is the best short summary that I've seen. A few years ago I had generated a US hurricane impact pivot table and chart (similar to yours) based on the data from the NOAA web site (https://tinyurl.com/mr2kck59 "Pivot Table 2"). Like yours, this chart shows no upward trend. I attempted to do something similar with US temperature data, since a popular YouTube poster questioned the inconsistent NASA temperature trend graphs when comparing their chart from 1999 to the current chart on their web site. I was able to find the source for both charts on the NASA GISS web site, and there is actually a disclaimer on the current chart that attempts to explain the disparity, "The corresponding graph in Hansen et al. (1999) shows a smaller trend, since it is based on data that were not yet corrected for station moves and time-of-observation changes, see this FAQ.]". The YouTube poster contends this disparity is fraudulent. The main point of the fraud claim is that the 1999 chart showed the peak years for warming in the US were around 1934, and that has subsequently been altered to be an increasing trend by the adjustments mentioned in the footnotes of the current chart. In addition to hurricane trends, have you also looked at temperature data trends in the US, and what are your thoughts on the temperature adjustments made to the NASA US temperature data? Thanks!
You make a well prepared talk and give a good, transparent background for your conclusions. Staying true to the references you give is very important. A lot of published material does not, these days.
One thing I do not quite understand is when you say that in spite of the findings you have on the observed state of the climate system you still see the need for going to zero (or net zero?) GHG emissions. Why?
It might be that you have stated the time frame for going to zero, and if that is in +100 years I do agree primarily on the basis that we should try and find better ways of harnessing nuclear energy. But I must have missed that part of your statement, and thus it seems to stand alone. Then it would seem that it also incorporates the need to go to zero around 2050.
Could you elaborate a little more on this?
Thanks! Yes, my view is that net-zero CO2 is achievable by 2100, and I certainly support the expansion of nuclear energy.
The lack of integrity in science is displayed in spades in the Public Health area and the response to Covid 19. See this just published on Substack by Vinay Prasad.
https://sensiblemed.substack.com/p/still-no-data-on-pfizer-bivalent?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1000397&post_id=79235067&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
Roger:-
An excellent talk! I personally disagree with your acceptance of the severity of the "problem," but you are to be commended for avoiding cognitive or confirmation biases. Having been a scientist in a contentious public arena (nuclear waste), I know how difficult that is.
Again, from my own experience, it is all too easy to lose your humility when being introduced as a "cultural icon." When something like that happened, I would invariably reply that "I have the feet of clay to prove it." Too many self-proclaimed "climate experts" - even if rightfully regarded as experts - seem to ignore the vast sea of uncertainty surrounding their small island of expertise.
In a piece I wrote for Bill Hooke a few years ago (https://www.livingontherealworld.org/science-is-the-art-of-approximation/), I concluded:
"We know much about our climate, but that knowledge seems dwarfed by the uncertainties inherent in that knowledge and the certainty that there is so much yet to learn. This, to me, inspires humility rather than the arrogant certainty that seems to abound."
For your time in Norway.
Covid symptom severity can be managed with immune regulation. Adequate vitamin D prior to contracting Covid and calcifediol for those admitted to hospital.
Dror et al 2022 involved 1,176 patients, 253 of which had records of serum vitamin D prior to COVID-19 infection. The results conclusively determined that patients with vitamin D deficiency (< 50 nmol/L) were 14 times more likely to have severe or critical disease than patients with serum content ≥100 nmol/L.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0263069
Castillo et al 2020 was a RCT of 26 patients in which calcifediol was administered to 13 upon admittance to a hospital in Andalucia, Spain. The results were statistically significant, equating to a 93% reduction in the odds of ICU admission.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7456194/#:~:text=Conclusion,due%20to%20proven%20COVID%2D19.
Nogues et al 2021 examined 838 participants in hospital. Those supplemented with calcifediol had 87% less need for ICU submission and a greater than 70 % reduction in mortality.
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/advance-article/doi/10.1210/clinem/dgab405/6294179
Regards
Let's all stick on topic, thanks!
Great episode. Smart. Unpretentious. Good production values You are doing great work for your allies, fellow scientists, and the ESG DISCUSSION.
A couple of things: Over 50% of all deaths attributed to air pollution are more precisely attributed to interior air pollution, which complicates any discussion about “air pollution.” Secondly, the problems with ESG are fundamental to any new market. As of yet, none of the three components can be quantified in any rigorous way, nor is there an international agreement on rules for the taxonomy of trading and accounting practices.
After Harvard’s $2.3 billion loss on ESG trading announcement today, I think the politics of ESG have started turning against it. Jamie Dimon, etc.
Finally, thank you for creating a forum for the broader energy and environmental discussions. Steve
Your honesty just got you a subscriber. I don't agree that climate change is a problem, any more than the fact the climate is always changing will always require us to adapt. I want us to adopt widespread nuclear breeder reactors and utilize the 100,000 years of thorium etc. that we have to make energy as cheap and reliable as possible. An energy dense society is one that is better for wildlife and humans.
Thanks for subscribing! Glad to have you here.
Part 4...
There is so much info out there, but our sheeple don't have the time to challenge the MSM or the politicians. And they keep making the same mistake over and over again.
Other articles and points to consider:
Here is a summary article to a fantastic book everyone should read. The book is spectacular and eye opening. The author used to be a diehard environmental activist.
"On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare"
https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2020/6/29/on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare
Excerpt: "Here are some facts few people know:
Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”
The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”
Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s
Netherlands became rich not poor while adapting to life below sea level
We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture"
I'm not claiming this article is the only explanation, but it could be one of many:
"NASA admits that climate change occurs because of changes in Earth’s solar orbit, and NOT because of SUVs and fossil fuels"
https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-08-30-nasa-admits-climate-change-not-caused-by-suvs-fossil-fuels.html
Below are other sources I have read that convinced me there is no climate problem:
"The Skeptic's Case"
https://mises.org/library/skeptics-case
"Is The Global Temperature Record Credible?"
https://youtu.be/yqZGgaZaXig
This author took a "climate change indicator" chart and illustrates how every single chart was a different timeline! In other words, statistical fraud:
"My Gift to Climate Alarmists"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8455KEDitpU
Regarding CO2:
Great source: http://iloveco2.com/
Even if, and a very big if, levels of CO2 directly impacted global average temps (immeasurable temps by the way), here are some facts that show the US is reducing emissions:
CO2 emissions are exactly the same now in the USA as they were in 1990 - almost 30 years ago. Scoot down to the line chart. From the EPA - Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data Explorer:
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ghgdata/inventoryexplorer/#allsectors/allgas/gas/all
In the US, CO2 emissions have declined from a peak of 6,128 metric tonnes in 2007 to 5,270 in 2017, a reduction of 15%, so it is not true that there have been no reductions. There has also been a rise in 2018 of a few percent which is projected to be mitigated by a similar fall in 2019.
"EIA expects U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions to fall in 2019"
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=40094
And then there is this... China and India are a much bigger "problem" than the US:
During this time Chinese emissions have tripled since Y2K to 15,000 metric tonnes, compared to those of the US (and the EU) of around 5,000 tonnes.
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/
India is growing fast (from 1,500 tonnes in Y2K to 3,000 tonnes).
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/india/
So it makes no sense that we are worried about the US, at least with regards to an inert gas that is good for plants.
Now this is a scientist: Prof Richard Lindzen - Global Warming For The Two Cultures
https://youtu.be/X2q9BT2LIUA
And don't dare claim CA fires are proof of climate change. This article explains it all and proves Newsom is the politician I described above:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/09/david-stockman/the-planets-not-angry-but-the-pelosi-newsom-harris-climate-howlers-are-truly-dangerous/
I also highly recommend this book. It explains how the state uses "experts" to push its agenda:
https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state
Part 3....
The reason that climate change is such a hotly debated topic and so many seem to "care" is because of predictions OTHER people make. There is behind all of this some idea that these predictions imply something bad, or at least worse than if we implemented the proposed “solutions.” And notice all of the proposed solutions lead to one place... increasing the power of the state (defined as an involuntary government) to unprecedented levels. It’s no wonder at all that the “absolute science” comes from the state (and as explained above, science is not absolute). Many people or groups want to get control of other people, and hence the desire to find a plausible system explanation (including projection / prediction) that can be tied back to a regulatory policy that yields the control.
Check out this quote from 2017 (nothing has changed since then):
"April 22 was the 47th anniversary of the first Earth Day, which occurred in 1970. Since that day, the number of people on Earth has increased from 3.7 billion to 7.5 billion, and average life expectancy for all the world's people has risen by 11 years, to 67 years old (NOTE 78 in the United States). Likewise, food production has soared and energy production and consumption, mostly thanks to fossil fuels, has increased by more than four times. Since the first Earth Day, the natural environment has improved substantially, through urbanization, and the biosphere and agriculture are more robust. Earth is greener, because of the additional carbon dioxide in the air, as numerous studies now show. Since the first Earth Day, the flawed computer models backed by radical environmentalists have failed continuously, and we now know they can never serve as a reliable tool to make policy judgements governing the future of human life on Earth."
Here is the article:
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/a-fools-errand-al-gores-15-trillion-carbon-tax
And BTW, CO2 is an inert gas pumped into green houses to grow plants better/faster.
There is no climate change or global warming problem caused by humans or that we need to worry about. It's political propaganda by the state to increase taxes and gain control over others. Politicians use fear topics like this to buy votes. They do the same with racism, terrorism and virus outbreaks. The state needs a boogie man to keep people in fear so they can continue to tax and increase their power. The state adds no value to our society so they have to lie to keep their jobs. Note almost all the "climate change" scientists are funded directly or indirectly (e.g., federal grants, school funding etc) by the government. It's a political con.
Part 2....
To truly understand something in a manner that is provable, one needs an actual proof. If the proof implies a chaotic system, one of the things that the proof can prove is that the system cannot project future outcome of any real system. In narrower aspects of the system (which are not chaotic) one can prove outcomes given a set of assumptions (axioms), but there is no such thing as an absolute (consistent and complete) proof in any complicated system. In other words, the models built by "scientists" are subsets of the chaotic system and don't represent reality.
Few understand that science is not absolute. Science doesn’t have theorems or proofs, it has theories – because they cannot be proven. Computer science isn’t actually a science, it’s a philosophy/math – with theorems and proofs. So far computer science cannot predict a chaotic system. So don't believe the doomsday "predictions" based on "models."
One thing is certain, as there is proof by existence. Projections by those who think they have plausible system explanations have failed to a significant degree. While their theories cannot be proven, they can be (and have been) disproven. There is of course the long history of chicken little cults, including “The Coming Ice Age” from the 70’s-80’s, or Armageddon from a little earlier. Remember the acid rain scare? What happened to that? Nothing happened. Government was wrong. Overpopulation was another scare that didn't happen. Remember the "coming ice age" theories in the 70s and 80s? Here's a film from 1978 saying ice age coming (same doomsday narrative as today):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kGB5MMIAVA
The motivation is always the same – it’s a con to gain control over people. Apart from the daily political debate, if you remove the emotion and alarmism, you will not observe anything really "happening." There are always doomsayers, and they have almost always been wrong, whether it is their observation or conclusion.
More here about all the apocalyptic predictions that didn't come true:
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2019/04/19/earth-day-2019-fifty-years-of-apocalyptic-global-warming-predictions-and-why-people-believe-them-part-1/
Our environment is a highly complex system. You can't model a complex system. It's impossible (see why below). The sun, solar flares, gravity, magnetic poles, plate movements, volcanoes (which spew more CO2 than anything into the air), are all factors. It is FAR from conclusive that humans are causing any trouble.
Does the climate change? Of course it does; always has. Few realize it has been far worse millions of years ago. Too many people are living in their little bubble called "a lifetime." Does human activity have some effect on the weather? Sure it does. But it's a complex system that is not fully understood. Solar flares and changing magnetic poles may be bigger factors than humans, but there is no theory with enough evidence that explains what exactly is happening (good or bad). Ice caps change; they always have. The Antarctic is actually growing faster than the Arctic is shrinking - nothing to be alarmed about. Our life spans and even the existence of man on the Earth is a microscopic event in history of the planet.
Did you notice "Global Warming" is now "Climate Change?" Why? Because the climate doesn't obey previous predictions, but who can deny things "change"? Chaos theory is logical proof that predictions against complex systems are useless. Arguments in favor of the "climate change" religion, like all religion, are not falsifiable - and therefore by definition not "scientific". All resolutions point to political control. Environmental "science" has taken the place of economic socialism/communism as the statist's wedge of choice. The old models have fallen out of favor. Without state funding there would be no such "climate change" theory. "Climate change" is state propaganda used to drive more taxes. Same happened with over-population, acid rain and the coming ice age. Heck, the fact that the only people pushing the agenda are politicians tells you its suspect.
I'm not debating there may be temp increases in certain places. That's normal. Change is always happening. But evidence and/or proof of cause (similar to establishing the Theory of Relativity or Gravitational Theory) and then predicting something bad is going to happen deserves great skepticism.
An experienced, unbiased computer scientist will tell you that the math behind the predictive models practically constitutes fraud. The past does not predict the future, so if there is a rising temperature, there is no evidence it will continue. It's hard for people to grasp that models (which are attempted "explanations") of chaotic systems cannot project actual system behavior - ever. This is not a limitation in current methods, measurement capabilities or processing power. It is an absolute limit that can never be overcome.
Climate change is a way for government funded scientists to scare up more funding and politicians to justify taking more control over the economy and our lives.
Don’t fall for it!
https://climatechangedispatch.com/record-coral-cover-of-great-barrier-reef-shames-climate-alarmists-media/
Do the people who are opposed to "climate change" really want the climate to stop changing? When will the climate be "correct"? How will we know? Who gets to decide?
Worse, they want us to go back to the people-killing climate of the little ice age.
Exactly. There is nothing more efficient than fossil fuels, except for nuclear. Everything around us was possible by cheap and efficient fossil fuels. Poor countries can't build an economy on expensive, intermittent "clean" energy. Fossil fuels made all our lives so much better, and now politicians want to reverse it all which will just make everything much more expensive. The poor get hurt the most.
Roger, can you point to any professional society or organization that is exhibiting leadership in demanding integrity in climate science?
Not at present, no.
It’s really refreshing to see an expert who is being honest. I was very concerned about climate change 10 years ago, but as I because familiar with the noble cause corruption and the science, and then looked at the utterly counterproductive policies being pushed (which will get people killed) I decided to fight this
^ "as i became"
I really enjoyed this video, all the more because I know so little about climate, but I’ve had a gut feeling that “the science” related to climate, as portrayed in the mainstream media, is about as reliable as, say, “the science” related to health reporting. In both cases there’s a certainty, a shrillness, a sense of immediate alarm (as in, “you have to read this! You have to do this!”) that puts me on guard.
All I know with climate is that I don’t know, and I don’t even know which information to trust.
The same is true with health news, although I know a bit more about that subject. You have shrill unreliable reporting in the media for decades, you have iffy expensive medicines advertised on TV (“Ask your doctor about...”), and then when something like a pandemic comes along, it -- like everything else-- gets turned into a political event and no one knows whom to believe. People default to believing the simplistic messages from their tribe or team--and both tribes were guilty of putting their own agendas and messages above the public health.
The thing to do would have been to set aside all politics, look hard at all available data (which were growing and changing the big picture daily) and work together to bring the best evolving information and messages to the public-- including clear explanations about _why_ the best advice was changing as the situation evolved.
But no. Even in the midst of a global crisis, each side was interested in “winning.” I see that happening with climate too: “We’re all about to see climate Armageddon,” versus “No there’s nothing to see here.”
Those positions are clearly not “The best minds coming together and disagreeing about the date.” These are two different politically driven versions of reality, unhindered by data.
The unfortunate result with covid is that the US had (continues to have) one of the worst mortality rates in the world, and we learned that even the CDC bends to political pressures and is not necessarily data-led in its advice.
This is disastrous both for science and for the public.
But really:
Et tu, Bill Nye?
The Boston Globe’s climate desk regularly publishes scare stories about sea level rise. I’ve written them and explained the math on how long it would take Boston Harbor to rise to the front door of the Globe’s office (at the current rate of rise). We’d need to see an immediate 10x in Greenland ice sheet melt to get anything like the projections being used to scare people. It’s criminal in my mind that government paid scientists are participating in this fraud, and that once-respected newspapers are propagandists.
weather/air pressure influence sea level. how could one measure 1mm global rise?
NASA says radar altimeters from space. But the same point remains. The daily tidal changes, storm surge, wind, and currents dwarf the trend of 3.4 (± 0.4) mm/yr NASA claims since 1993. How the hell do they think they can get 1 sign of ± 0.4 mm/yr with a satellite 20,000km up with wobbles its orbit? It’s insane. They’re leaning on some dubious math and probably assuming errors cancel to get something that absurdly small.
^1 sigma. I hate iPhone autocorrect