Back in 2015 in the run up to Paris COP, French mathematicians published a thorough critique of the raison d’etre of the whole crusade. They said:
Fighting Global Warming is Absurd, Costly and Pointless.
- Absurd because of no reliable evidence that anything unusual is happening in our climate.
- Costly because trillions of dollars are wasted on immature, inefficient technologies that serve only to make cheap, reliable energy expensive and intermittent.
- Pointless because we do not control the weather anyway.
The prestigious Société de Calcul Mathématique (Society for Mathematical Calculation) issued a detailed 195-page White Paper presenting a blistering point-by-point critique of the key dogmas of global warming. The synopsis with links to the entire document is at COP Briefing for Realists
Even without attending to their documentation, you can tell they are right because all the media climate hype is concentrated against those three points.
Finding: Nothing unusual is happening with our weather and climate.
Hype: Every metric or weather event is “unprecedented,” or “worse than we thought.”
Finding: Proposed solutions will cost many trillions of dollars for little effect or benefit.
Hype: Zero carbon will lead the world to do the right thing. Anyway, the planet must be saved at any cost.
Finding: Nature operates without caring what humans do or think.
Hype: Any destructive natural event is a result of humans burning fossil fuels.
How the Media Throws Up Flak to Defend False Suppositions
The Absurd Media: Climate is Dangerous Today, Yesterday It was Ideal.
Billions of dollars have been spent researching any and all negative effects from a warming world: Everything from Acne to Zika virus. A recent Climate Report repeats the usual litany of calamities to be feared and avoided by submitting to IPCC demands. The evidence does not support these claims. An example:
It is scientifically established that human activities produce GHG emissions, which accumulate in the atmosphere and the oceans, resulting in warming of Earth’s surface and the oceans, acidification of the oceans, increased variability of climate, with a higher incidence of extreme weather events, and other changes in the climate.
Moreover, leading experts believe that there is already more than enough excess heat in the climate system to do severe damage and that 2C of warming would have very significant adverse effects, including resulting in multi-meter sea level rise.
Experts have observed an increased incidence of climate-related extreme weather events, including increased frequency and intensity of extreme heat and heavy precipitation events and more severe droughts and associated heatwaves. Experts have also observed an increased incidence of large forest fires; and reduced snowpack affecting water resources in the western U.S. The most recent National Climate Assessment projects these climate impacts will continue to worsen in the future as global temperatures increase.
Alarming Weather and Wildfires
But: Weather is not more extreme.
And Wildfires were worse in the past.
But: Sea Level Rise is not accelerating.
Litany of Changes
Seven of the ten hottest years on record have occurred within the last decade; wildfires are at an all-time high, while Arctic Sea ice is rapidly diminishing.
We are seeing one-in-a-thousand-year floods with astonishing frequency.
When it rains really hard, it’s harder than ever.
We’re seeing glaciers melting, sea level rising.
The length and the intensity of heatwaves has gone up dramatically.
Plants and trees are flowering earlier in the year. Birds are moving polewards.
We’re seeing more intense storms.
But: Arctic Ice has not declined since 2007.
But: All of these are within the range of past variability.
In fact our climate is remarkably stable, compared to the range of daily temperatures during a year where I live.
And many aspects follow quasi-60 year cycles.
The Impractical Media: Money is No Object in Saving the Planet.
Here it is blithely assumed that the court can rule the seas to stop rising, heat waves to cease, and Arctic ice to grow (though why we would want that is debatable). All this will be achieved by leaving fossil fuels in the ground and powering civilization with windmills and solar panels. While admitting that our way of life depends on fossil fuels, they ignore the inadequacy of renewable energy sources at their present immaturity.
The choice between incurring manageable costs now and the incalculable, perhaps even
irreparable, burden Youth Plaintiffs and Affected Children will face if Defendants fail to
rapidly transition to a non-fossil fuel economy is clear. While the full costs of the climate
damages that would result from maintaining a fossil fuel-based economy may be
incalculable, there is already ample evidence concerning the lower bound of such costs,
and with these minimum estimates, it is already clear that the cost of transitioning to a
low/no carbon economy are far less than the benefits of such a transition. No rational
calculus could come to an alternative conclusion. Defendants must act with all deliberate
speed and immediately cease the subsidization of fossil fuels and any new fossil fuel
projects, and implement policies to rapidly transition the U.S. economy away from fossil
But CO2 relation to Temperature is Inconsistent.
But: The planet is greener because of rising CO2.
But: Modern nations (G20) depend on fossil fuels for nearly 90% of their energy.
But: Renewables are not ready for prime time.
People need to know that adding renewables to an electrical grid presents both technical and economic challenges. Experience shows that adding intermittent power more than 10% of the baseload makes precarious the reliability of the supply. South Australia is demonstrating this with a series of blackouts when the grid cannot be balanced. Germany got to a higher % by dumping its excess renewable generation onto neighboring countries until the EU finally woke up and stopped them. Texas got up to 29% by dumping onto neighboring states, and some like Georgia are having problems.
But more dangerous is the way renewables destroy the economics of electrical power. Seasoned energy analyst Gail Tverberg writes:
In fact, I have come to the rather astounding conclusion that even if wind turbines and solar PV could be built at zero cost, it would not make sense to continue to add them to the electric grid in the absence of very much better and cheaper electricity storage than we have today. There are too many costs outside building the devices themselves. It is these secondary costs that are problematic. Also, the presence of intermittent electricity disrupts competitive prices, leading to electricity prices that are far too low for other electricity providers, including those providing electricity using nuclear or natural gas. The tiny contribution of wind and solar to grid electricity cannot make up for the loss of more traditional electricity sources due to low prices.
These issues are discussed in more detail in the post Climateers Tilting at Windmills
The Irrational Media: Whatever Happens in Nature is Our Fault.
Other potential examples include agricultural losses. Whether or not insurance
reimburses farmers for their crops, there can be food shortages that lead to higher food
prices (that will be borne by consumers, that is, Youth Plaintiffs and Affected Children).
There is a further risk that as our climate and land use pattern changes, disease vectors
may also move (e.g., diseases formerly only in tropical climates move northward).36 This
could lead to material increases in public health costs
But: Actual climate zones are local and regional in scope, and they show little boundary change.
But: Ice cores show that it was warmer in the past, not due to humans.
The hype is produced by computer programs designed to frighten and distract children and the uninformed. For example, there was mention above of “multi-meter” sea level rise. It is all done with computer models. For example, below is San Francisco. More at USCS Warnings of Coastal Floodings
In addition, there is no mention that GCMs projections are running about twice as hot as observations.
Omitted is the fact GCMs correctly replicate tropospheric temperature observations only when CO2 warming is turned off.
In the effort to proclaim scientific certainty, neither the media nor IPCC discuss the lack of warming since the 1998 El Nino, despite two additional El Ninos in 2010 and 2016.
Further they exclude comparisons between fossil fuel consumption and temperature changes. The legal methodology for discerning causation regarding work environments or medicine side effects insists that the correlation be strong and consistent over time, and there be no confounding additional factors. As long as there is another equally or more likely explanation for a set of facts, the claimed causation is unproven. Such is the null hypothesis in legal terms: Things happen for many reasons unless you can prove one reason is dominant.
Finally, advocates and IPCC are picking on the wrong molecule. The climate is controlled not by CO2 but by H20. Oceans make climate through the massive movement of energy involved in water’s phase changes from solid to liquid to gas and back again. From those heat transfers come all that we call weather and climate: Clouds, Snow, Rain, Winds, and Storms.
Esteemed climate scientist Richard Lindzen ended a very fine recent presentation with this description of the climate system:
I haven’t spent much time on the details of the science, but there is one thing that should spark skepticism in any intelligent reader. The system we are looking at consists in two turbulent fluids interacting with each other. They are on a rotating planet that is differentially heated by the sun. A vital constituent of the atmospheric component is water in the liquid, solid and vapor phases, and the changes in phase have vast energetic ramifications. The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure.
Say what you want about the liberal arts, but they’ve found a cure for common sense.
By Robert Curry writes at American Thinker Making Sense of Common Sense. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.
As we all know, acquiring common sense can be a matter of life and death. I’m thinking, for example, of the teenage boy who swallowed a garden slug on a dare, became paralyzed, and died recently. Because children lack common sense, parents must do what they have always done, trying to instill common sense in their children while at the same time using their own common sense to encompass the growing child.
Becoming a person of common sense has always been a life-defining challenge, but acquiring common sense has gotten a lot more difficult for young people in our time, especially if they have spent some time in our institutions of higher learning. My witty friend Robert Godwin has this to say about that: “Say what you want about the liberal arts, but they’ve found a cure for common sense.”
When I headed off to college, my high school teacher who was my mentor offered me two commonsense rules to follow: “Take care to stay well, and choose professors, not courses.” Because of my high regard for him, I took his words to heart. Later, when I saw the problems my fellow students brought on themselves by not getting enough sleep and generally being careless about their health, I understood the practical wisdom of what he had told me. And the second rule helped me more quickly understand the value of navigating my way through college by who was teaching the course rather than by the course title.
For years, I handed on the same commonsense wisdom to young folks I knew when they headed off to college. But I have not offered that advice for some years now. Here is what I tell them now: “They are going to try to knock common sense out of you; don’t let them.”
Post script: From the comments below, Otto was pushing for info regarding volcanoes and the Holocene Climate Optimum. I responded thus:
Otto, I don’t see volcanoes causing the HTM (Holocene Thermal Maximum).
The HTM ended at different times in different parts of the world, but it had ended everywhere by 4,000 BP (BP here means the number of years before 2000) and the world began to cool. Your link refers to the Santorini eruption ending the Minoan warming as well as that civilization.
From Renssen et al. 2012:
“The Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM) was a relatively warm climatic phase between 11 and 5 ka BP, as indicated by numerous proxy records (Kaufman et al., 2004; Jansen et al., 2007, 2008; Wanner et al., 2008; Miller et al., 2010a; Bartlein et al., 2011). The relatively warm conditions during the HTM are commonly associated with the orbitally-forced summer insolation maximum (Wanner et al., 2008; Bartlein et al., 2011). However, proxy records suggest that both the timing and magnitude of maximum warming varied substantially between different regions across the globe, suggesting involvement of additional forcings and feedbacks (Jansen et al., 2007; Bartlein et al., 2011). One important additional factor affecting the early Holocene climate is the remnant Laurentide Ice sheet (LIS).
From this we learn three things:
Climate warms and cools without any help from humans.
Warming is good and cooling is bad.
The hypothetical warming from CO2 would be a good thing.
It’s just common sense, after all.
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.
Where are you coming from? And how much of your income come from oil and gas. Climate change is here and will only get worse if people like you can’t deal with real science. Go back to school!!!
Thanks for commenting Margaret. No $$$ from petroleum companies or from Big Green; Just calling it the way I see it after digging into the details for years. Nothing unusual is happening in our climate despite what you’ve been told. The future is a matter of opinion, with cooling more likely than warming IMO.
Margaret Neville, you were treated with an extraordinary level of civility and patience, neither of which you earned or deserved.
AN ESTIMATE OF THE CENTENNIAL VARIABILITY OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURES.
Lloyd., PJ. Energy & Environment · Vol. 26, No. 3, 2015
There has been widespread investigation of the drivers of changes in global temperatures. However, there has been remarkably little consideration of the magnitude of the changes to be expected over a period of a few decades or even a century. To address this question, the Holocene records up to 8000 years before present, from several ice cores were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature was 0.98 ± 0.27C. This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
A true tour de force.
If you did not want to mislead the readers (oh but you want to, no question about that), why do you show the global temp chart with a 50 (!!) degrees celsius scale? We are talking about 1-2 C now, why the 50 degrees scale? Oh, I see, so that the line SEEMS to be nice and flat (which it is not, if you look closely). The whole article is filled with these types of misleadings. Sad.
Andras, that graph shows the range of temperatures I experience during a year where I live. Sad that you have been misled, but not by me.
The daily temperature swing is about 15C or even more, so rightully IMO hyperventilating on a 0.01C graded scale can be considered bonkers.
In economics. it is common to make graphs from lower left to upper right corner by scaling. Not in hard sciences.
Curious, I looked up Minoan Warmng. I got lots of links that were opinion pieces. Here is a couple of authoritative sites:
I appears that volcanic activity was a climate driver: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683617752840?journalCode=hola
Here is an interesting piece of the later medieval warm period:
Otto, you have to add lots of salt to anything on the missnamed SS site. Attempts to disappear the global warm period in the middle ages have failed.
See Rise and Fall of the Modern Warming Spike.
red: MWP warming
blue: MWP cooling (very rare)
yellow: MWP more arid
green: MWP more humid
grey: no trend or data ambiguous
You complain that I cited Sceptical Science, but then you cite wattsupwiththat.com and co2science.org. Then you complain of data censorship and, of course, conspiracy. Have we entered the religious domain yet?
I still see no mention of significant volcanic activity as a climate driver.
Otto I posted on volcanic climate effects twice.
On Seafloor Eruptions and Ocean Warming. https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/10/05/overview-seafloor-eruptions-and-ocean-warming/
On Land Volcanoes and the Little Ice Age https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2019/06/28/the-lia-warming-rebound-is-over/
OK, but did you acknowledge, at any point, possible volcanic culpability in the Minoan Warming?
otto, I don’t see volcanoes causing the HTM (Holocene Thermal Maximum).
Your link refers to the Santorini eruption ending the Minoan warming along with that civilization.
From Renssen et al. 2012:
“The Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM) was a relatively warm
climatic phase between 11 and 5 ka BP, as indicated by numerous
proxy records (Kaufman et al., 2004; Jansen et al., 2007, 2008;
Wanner et al., 2008; Miller et al., 2010a; Bartlein et al., 2011). The
relatively warm conditions during the HTM are commonly associated with the orbitally-forced summer insolation maximum
(Wanner et al., 2008; Bartlein et al., 2011). However, proxy records
suggest that both the timing and magnitude of maximum warming
varied substantially between different regions across the globe,
suggesting involvement of additional forcings and feedbacks
(Jansen et al., 2007; Bartlein et al., 2011). One important additional
factor affecting the early Holocene climate is the remnant Laurentide Ice sheet (LIS).
From this we learn three things:
Climate warms and cools without any help from humans.
Warming is good and cooling is bad.
The hypothetical warming from CO2 would be a good thing.
It’s just common sense, after all.
“Warming is good and cooling is bad” – Until the permafrost melts: https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/01/11/thawing-permafrost-matters/
Not happening, Otto.
Is so happening: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01313-4
OK Otto, I leave it to you to worry about the Arctic, count me out.
I really wish that you were right. That is why I, initially, took and interest in your blog. But your ignoring the world’s most respected science journal (Nature) shows that you choose to cherry pick studies to support the your stated assumptions.
Otto, please, Nature? The most respected science journal? Anyway, volcanoes have a cooling effect. Even the IPCC thinks this, and climate modelers use aerosols to offset their outrageous CO2 sensitivity parameters to try to hindcast to match past temperature records.
Well, OK, Nature is only #6. I was remembering an old ranking: https://tools.niehs.nih.gov/srp/publications/highimpactjournals.cfm
You are so on target. Another thing people fail to realize is the Earth and Sol are getting older
thar things lthis
Before my keyboard went bezerk. I was trying to say that our sun and planet are getting older.
Using a new carbon 14 dating technique, the Japanese were able to show what was once a period of heat of and sea level rise that created new living creatures happened around 5000 years ago rather than the original 15,000 years ago. They dug up mud from one of the deeper trenches in the Pacific Ocean where life still thrives near thermal vents. They seperated out the amino acids left by dying sea creatures similar to plankton and shrimp and were able to carbon date them with that surprising 10,000 year difference of when the wam up actually occurred and caused more plants and animal life to flourish on the islands.
The Japanese talk about how certain areas in Japan tend to flood every so many years and have set measures up to prevent flood disasters.
The elders talk about how things have not really changed since they were children. They rember times when some winters were warm and others that were brutally cold.
Climate has been changing long before humans had a chance to do anything with fossil fuels. Think of volcanic eruptions, lightning that would start wildfires, ice ages that created and shaped landscapes over and over again. It’s just what happens.
And everytime the son throws a solar flare and solar radiation at us, it tears mesosphere and lets more UVA and more UVB light through. Plus because the moon has no atmosphere thay same radiation does what is called “moon melting” where it scoops parts of the moon into space as small bits of debris.
NASA has some great insights. We are not the only planet suffering from global warming changes. The others in our solar system are as well. Yet, nobody lives on those planets.
Thanks for commenting rst. I thought your first message ended a bit abruptly. You are obviously more into the space dynamics than I, but take a similar humble view of what we humans can do about natural events. In another context some years ago, Michael Crichton wrote:
“Our planet is five billion years old, and it has been changing constantly all during that time. […] Our atmosphere is as violent as the land beneath it. At any moment there are one thousand five hundred electrical storms across the planet. Eleven lightning bolts strike the ground each second. A tornado tears across the surface every six hours. And every four days, a giant cyclonic storm, hundreds of miles in diameter, spins over the ocean and wreaks havoc on the land.
The nasty little apes that call themselves human beings can do nothing except run and hide. For these same apes to imagine they can stabilize this atmosphere is arrogant beyond belief. They can’t control the climate.
The reality is, they run from the storms.”
Thanks Ron, yes I take a more astronomical approach as that is what I am familiar with. I have always been into science and even just from general observations even across history you can tell when the Earth warmed up i.e. the Renaissance Period happened because of a warming period and people were more prosperous because of it.
I also follow plate tectonics, volcanic activity and the like across history as well. We are indeed due for another ice age but it will be from Antarctica who has a region where the ice is growin at a decent rate per year. Not sure what that will do climate wise to South America. I am assuming that creatures and humankind will have to adapt like they have for eons.
The WW2 bomber observation is spot on.
Surely you are not talking about the P 38 found in Greenland. That is in the wrong end of the world from Antarctica. Greenland is up near the Artic Circle.
Thank you for the hard work you do here.
Thanks Sunset, your past comments and postings aided me early in my learning curve on climate matters.