More Warming - Please?

 There’s always good with the bad, this is one possible example:

“The biggest benefit of emissions is global greening, the increase year after year of green vegetation on the land surface of the planet. Forests grow more thickly, grasslands more richly and scrub more rapidly. This has been measured using satellites and on-the-ground recording of plant-growth rates. It is happening in all habitats, from tundra to rainforest. In the four decades since 1982, as Bjorn Lomborg points out, NASA data show that global greening has added 618,000 square kilometres of extra green leaves each year, equivalent to three Great Britains. You read that right: every year there’s more greenery on the planet to the extent of three Britains. 

https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/02/15/why-global-warming-is-good-for-us/

AGW Alarmism as Obvious as Ever

 What the science can determine versus what the Alarmists say - it’s just stupid. People make claims in the name of science that science cannot possibly have determined. 

Science is conjecture, attempt to disprove, reassess or refine conjecture, attempt to disprove. If unable to disprove, conjecture may become hypothesis. 

Alarmism is pure conjecture, strongly held belief. In other words, some weak assed shit.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-media-vs-climate-science-11618355224?mod=djemalertNEWS

Deming reportedly said “It’s not what we don’t know that gets us, it is what we know that isn’t so.”

https://nypost.com/2021/04/24/obama-admin-scientist-says-climate-emergency-is-based-on-fallacy/

Who will you believe, your lying eyes or the climate alarmists?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/23/how-global-warming-isnt/

More Ice?

In the Southern Hemisphere, sea-ice levels just smashed through the previous record highs across Antarctica, where there is now more ice than at any point since records began. In the Arctic, where global-warming theorists preferred to keep the public focused due to some decreases in ice levels over recent years, scientists said sea-ice melt in 2014 fell below the long-term mean. Global temperatures, meanwhile, have remained steady for some 18 years and counting, contrary to United Nations models predicting more warming as carbon dioxide levels increased.

https://principia-scientific.org/ice-growing-poles-global-warming-theories-implode/

I don't know if this is more "sky is falling" or "emperor has no clothes" or "boy who cried climate alarmism". 

Paris Climate Accord and Other Foolish Bufoonery

"If power corrupts, as it is said, Americans are going to feel a jolt of degeneration when Joe Biden plugs back into the climate-change network. Rather than save the world from global warming, a President Biden would force Americans to spend more of their hard-earned dollars just to keep the wheels turning and the lights burning."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/12/editorial-a-return-to-the-paris-climate-accord-wou/

This is the kind of stupid that will define the JB tenure - shallow, pointless, symbolic and expensive. 

Hanson Been So Wrong for So Long

Bolstered by the sycophantic-praise he received following his 1988 Congressional testimony on man-made global warming, NASA climate scientist/activist James Edward Hansen continued his prophesies well into the 2000s–despite his ever-growing list of climate fails.

“The greenhouse effect is here,” pronounced doomsayer Hansen back on June 23, 1988.

“We’re [still] toast,” he repeated with a straight face 20 years later, in 2008.

https://electroverse.net/nasa-climate-prophet-james-hansen-said-the-arctic-would-be-free-of-summer-ice-by-2018/e

Just incorrect predictions, one after another, that doesn't mean he doesn't understand what's happening, does it?

How Dare You Claim It Is Not a Catastrophe?!

 Another example of how opposing the climate religion will get a person ex-communicated. 

https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/07/28/prominent-environmentalist-censored-forbes-called-white-supremacist-writing-sense-about-climate-14938

Shellenberger tries to speak truth to power but ....

then something strange happened at Forbes and they took the article down. Shellenberger's Points:

· 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

https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/07/28/prominent-environmentalist-censored-forbes-called-white-supremacist-writing-sense-about-climate-14938

One conjecture plus another conjecture plus another conjecture equals catastrophic climate ....

"The few estimates that the IPCC does provide should give any but the most fanatical climate advocate pause. A carbon tax instituted to meet the 1.5°C limit would have to be between 10 and 20 times higher than for a 2°C limit and require a tax of up to $6,050 per metric ton. This compares to the $92 for the undiscounted value of the Social Cost of Carbon estimated by the Obama administration. The Social Cost of Carbon aims to identify the net damage caused by each additional ton of carbon dioxide. It also equates to the benefit of reducing emissions by the same amount.

"Thus a $6,050 carbon tax to meet Biden’s net-zero goal would be set at a level more than 60 times the hypothetical climate benefits — and that’s assuming China and other large emerging economies cut their emissions too. Seen this way, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that net zero is a form of climate sadism, especially on the middle class and the less well-off."

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/508762-joe-biden-bets-on-net-zero

Conjecture 1:  Someone somewhere has any idea of how much temperature increase would be caused by amount X of carbon in the atmosphere

Conjecture 2:  Someone somewhere can predict what will result from the conjectured amount of temperature increase (previous temp increases have been associated with better living conditions for at least some areas of the world)

Conjecture 3:  Net zero energy is possible without nuclear power

Conjecture 4:  Net zero energy is the best investment humans can make to make life on this planet better for our progeny  

There's no point in going beyond conjecture 1. Since no one yet has provided a testable hypothesis of carbon driving climate change, the rest is barely conjecture

The article describes the IPCC's speculation about how to get to net zero and the prescription includes global top down government directing every action and a taxation on meat, because of meat's assumed carbon cost (only true when considering cattle that are grain fed/finished).

Prosperity Means Choices

I don't know if this will be a good idea or bad. I do know that absent excessive wealth - far more than the minimum - no one will have time or the inclination to explore these types of options. 

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/22/1004218/how-green-sand-could-capture-billions-of-tons-of-carbon-dioxide/?itm_source=parsely-api

There's Dirty Work Afoot Here Lads

And this is just part of it, as is fairly well documented in "A Disgrace To The Profession".

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/02/28/the-academic-blacklist-climate-alarmists-dont-want-you-to-know-about/ 

Dyson, fair winds and following seas on the journey ...

Dr. Dyson called himself a scientific heretic and warned against the temptation of confusing mathematical abstractions with ultimate truth. Although his own early work on QED helped bring photons and electrons into a consistent framework, Dr. Dyson doubted that superstrings, or anything else, would lead to a Theory of Everything, unifying all of physics with a succinct formulation inscribable on a T-shirt.

In a speech in 2000 when he accepted the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, Dr. Dyson quoted Francis Bacon: “God forbid that we should give out a dream of our own imagination for a pattern of the world.”

Relishing the role of iconoclast, he confounded the scientific establishment by dismissing the consensus about the perils of man-made climate change as “tribal group-thinking.” He doubted the veracity of the climate models, and he exasperated experts with sanguine predictions they found rooted less in science than in wishfulness: Excess carbon in the air is good for plants, and global warming might forestall another ice age.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/28/science/freeman-dyson-dead.html

"It is not what we don't know that gets us, it is what we know that just ain't so."

The short version - the ultra thin plastic bags people think are going to "destroy" the planet are better than all of the alternatives.

https://www.city-journal.org/needless-panic-over-disposable-plastic?fbclid=IwAR1kgafUKfGyuAmncSJwgWlS0lZ_4PSMoGWzyQq5ZuWRvHlqeC1dI2JIxtU

Greta You Should Have Taken the Slow Boat to China

In summary, the paris climate treaty is still the same joke it always was, and the Chinese will make sure it is never worth discussing again. They are going from around 4000 coal plants and adding at least ten percent to that. That's more than the rest of the world could close even if they could do so. 

"The International Energy Agency notes that coal accounts for 46% of global carbon emissions. To meet the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change target of keeping global warming below 1.5°C through 2100, the world much achieve, as Global Energy Monitor puts it, a “58[%] to 70% reduction in global coal power generation by 2030.”"

If the world's most political scientific body, the IPCC's absurdly specious predictions happen to be true, that means we are all going to be toasty warm and all the climate alarmists can say "I told you so" assuming we live to see the day. 

I hate to repeat any of this conjecture, which is being treated as if it has any basis in reality, at all - the point is, even if one bites on the pretense that the IPCC can predict the future of climate based on their paranoia about the ferocious power of CO2 to warm planet earth; and they are right that warming will be worse for humans and not better; and that wealthy, healthy humans cannot adapt; there's nothing the non-Chinese world can do to stop it. Better build your survival strategy around being wealthy and adaptable.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/23/china-going-big-on-coal-guarantees-the-world-wont-meet-its-carbon-cutting-goals/

"The Pseudo Science is Settled"

“Climatology has become a political party with totalitarian tendencies,” she charges. “If you don’t support the UN consensus on human-caused global warming, if you express the slightest skepticism, you are a ‘climate-change denier,’ a stooge of Donald Trump, a quasi-fascist who must be banned from the scientific community.” These days, the climatology mainstream accepts only data that reinforce its hypothesis that humanity is behind global warming. Those daring to take an interest in possible natural causes of climactic variation—such as solar shifts or the earth’s oscillations—aren’t well regarded in the scientific community, to put it mildly. The rhetoric of the alarmists, it’s worth noting, has increasingly moved from “global warming” to “climate change,” which can mean anything. That shift got its start back in 1992, when the UN widened its range of environmental concern to include every change that human activities might be causing in nature, casting a net so wide that few human actions could escape it.

https://www.city-journal.org/global-warming#.XbGKGtFqQQM.email

Politicization of Science

https://electroverse.net/another-climate-scientist-with-impeccable-credentials-breaks-ranks/

This is how the Nazis convinced the people of Germany to hate the gypsies and Jews - repeat the same lies over and over. Even the IPCC agrees with this:

"Climate forecasting is simply not possible, Nakamura concludes, and the impacts of human-caused CO2 can’t be judged with the knowledge and technology we currently possess.

The models grossly simplify the way the climate works."

CO2 Up, CO2 Down

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/09/25/israeli-astrophysicist-dr-nir-shaviv-how-climate-change-pseudoscience-became-publicly-accepted/

Shaviv: "There is no evidence on any time scale showing that CO2 variations or other changes to the energy budget cause large temperature variations. There is, however, evidence to the contrary. Tenfold variations in CO2 over the past half-billion years have no correlation whatsoever with temperature; likewise, the climate response to large volcanic eruptions such as Krakatoa.Both examples lead to the inescapable upper limit of 1.5 degrees C per CO2 doubling—much more modest than the sensitive IPCC climate models predict. However, the large sensitivity of the latter is required in order to explain 20th-century warming, or so it is erroneously thought."

Censorship: "My interview with Forbes. A few hours after the article was posted online, it was removed by the editors “for failing to meet our editorial standards.” The fact that it’s become politically incorrect to have any scientific discussion has led the public to accept the pseudo-argumentation supporting the catastrophic scenarios."

More Storms? Fewer Storms?

The devastating impacts in 2017 from Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria invoked numerous alarming statements about hurricanes and global warming. However, it’s rarely mentioned that 2017 broke an 11 year drought in U.S. major hurricane landfalls. This major hurricane drought is unprecedented in the historical record.

Of the 13 strongest U.S. landfalling hurricanes in the historical record, only three have occurred since 1970 (Andrew, Michael, Charley). Four of these strongest hurricanes occurred in the decade following 1926.

https://judithcurry.com/2019/06/25/hearing-on-climate-change-and-natural-disasters-today/

Case Closed?

I don't like the language "climate hustler" as much as "true believer" or "religious zealot".

This has been a tough week for climate hustler Michael Mann, who lost his defamation and libel lawsuit against respected climatologist and warming skeptic Dr. Tim Ball at the same time it was announced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that there has been no U.S. warming since 2005.
Mann, who poses as a climatologist at Penn State, has had his court case against genuine climate scientist Dr. Tim Ball dismissed, with Mann ordered to pay court costs, for failure to produce supporting evidence to prove his claim that global temperatures took a sharp upward turn when the Industrial Revolution and fossil-fuel use began pouring CO2 emissions into the atmosphere.

https://www.americanthinker.com/…/michael_manns_treering_ci…

I want less pollution like Mann does, but I'm unwilling to throw everything under the bus for the pretense that they know what is causing what in the atmosphere, especially since they can barely even measure what is happening in the atmosphere.

Also covered in the review is Mann's boasts about trickery the data in 2009, Mann's careful use of data, much like Keys did with his 7 countries study, to hide temperature variation in the hockey stick.

Algore - Does He Feel Berra's Pain?

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/08/12/gore-says-his-global-warming-predictions-have-come-true-can-he-prove-it/

"Predictions are hard, especially about the future."

Predictions Are Hard, Especially About the Future

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Yogi_Berra

Neils Bohr, Yogi Berra, the quote is as funny from either source. The linked article is about the many and desperate predictions of the alarmists. It reminds me of all of the doomsday cults who talked themselves into thinking that the creator was ready to end the world and bring us all home to him or her, on some specific day or other. They were convinced! Certain! And they are all still here.

It would be foolish not to worry about humanity's impact on the climate we need for survival. However, equally foolish would be to believe all the belief about how much humanity could know about what has causes the world's climate to change over the many years.

"Correlation is not the same as causation. And any gap between the two grows wider with each additional component that affects climate. A non-exhaustive list of climate inputs includes the sun, the moon, Earth’s rotation, Earth’s orbit, ocean currents, volcanic activity, and clouds, all of which are beyond man’s control."  https://issuesinsights.com/2019/07/29/will-the-global-warming-hysterics-never-tire-of-being-wrong/

My point is there's no reason to kill today out fear that we may be killing tomorrow. The alarmists believe that "saving the earth (for human use)" is worth massively increasing the power of governments, making massive reductions in human wealth and more or less giving those oh so enlightened beings, politicians, the chance to say what is good and what is bad in human behavior.

I'm not real keen on that. In fact, that anyone would be willing to do so is hard to believe.

Lastly, since AGW concerns are mostly an example of the "emperor's clothes" phenomenon, and therefore a matter of marketing (often called making people want what they don't need and can't afford) we find that we are extolled to hate big oil companies and all the evil "science deniers" they spawn. The "real" enemy then, is those few organizations that deliver the most useful product of all time at an absurdly low price every free citizen and therefore keeps more humans alive and living with more ease and choice than at any time in human history. Hmmm.

I'll know they are serious about their dire predictions when they sell all their coastal property and move to Colorado.

I'll know they are serious when they advocate killing and eating all pets as one of the desperate measures needed to save the planet (for the use of people), because there would be nothing that would stop unneeded carbon emissions faster than the cessation of feeding pets and no human rights would necessarily be violated.

I'll know they seriously believe that catastrophe approaches when they advocate the termination of all humans past a certain age, or past a functional capacity of health, or beyond the ability to produce more value than they consume - because certainly if the entire planet (specifically, the use of the planet by humans) is at stake we have to make some "hard choices".

I'll know they are more serious when US politicians simply admit that, even given the fact that the US is reducing emissions more than rejected world standards would have required, it will amount to nothing given the growing power generation of the Chinese and a similar boom in other nations just growing into industrial capacity. Why do they still guilt trip you and me when we can literally do nothing to solve the global issues?

The easy and obvious answer - fear gives them a path to power, and power is their aim anyway, AGW is the means to the end.