The Weak Foundation of Calls for Climate Action

Makes you wonder what it will take to make them admit the anti-fossil-fuel narrative has all been bull$#!+ all along. The precedents do not leave a lot of room for optimism: 60 years after its core concepts were proved incoherent in the Cambridge Capital Controversy, and 14 years after its humiliating failure even to hint at the GFC before it happened, mainstream neoclassical capital theory is still being taught as the only academically acceptable alternative. Planck famously claimed acceptance of a new scientific paradigm had to await the deaths of those raised with the old one; but all of the original CCC contenders on the neoclassical side are now dead, yet their bull$#!+ theory rolls on as sacrosanct as ever. Are we going to have to wait for superhuman artificial intelligence to tell these idiots they are wrong?

 

Experts : Overpopulation Destroyed The Planet In 1972
Posted on February 23, 2021 by tonyheller


22 Feb 1894, 5 – Cheyenne County Rustler at Newspapers.com

We also ran out of water in 1974, and food in 1980. . . .

 

Hush now.... She's rewatching Frozen 2 for the thousandth time...

 

Major Survey Shocks: German Youth Rejecting Need For Radical Behavior Change To Fight ‘Climate Crisis’
By P Gosselin on 12. March 2021

Share this...
Frustrated by lockdowns and restrictions, Germany’s youth may be showing signs of rebellion as a comprehensive European Investment Bank generational survey shows “climate protection aspect does not seem to have the high priority among young people.”

Youth-led movement a myth…

 

Doomsday fatigue...

 

Humanity survived previous warming cycles
Guest Blogger
Discovery of the “whys” for previous warming cycles, like what occurred during the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods are unlikely to qualify for government funded research, so the easier route…

While the chart below suggests substantial warming since the 1600’s, humans cannot be blamed for any significant amount of warming until after about 1950, which is when atmospheric CO2 concentrations began to increase markedly.

So, how is it that the warming from about 1700 to 1950 was natural, but the warming before 1700 is not?

Discovery of the “whys” for previous warming cycles, like what occurred during the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods are unlikely to qualify for government funded research, so the easier route to funding is to enhance the seriousness of the need to prevent the ‘current’ warming cycle and its potential threat to humanity, the same humanity that endured previous warming cycles.


. . . .

 

No Defense News, Climate Change Can’t Be Threatening Military Operations if Weather Isn’t Getting Worse
CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS MARCH 25, 2021

 

Is cooling at hand?

Brutal 2020/21 Northern Hemisphere Winter One For Record Books…And Continues Into Late April!
By P Gosselin on 21. April 2021

Share this...
This update was written in mid-April 2021 to report even more global cooling as measured by satellites and new harsh cold events, particularly in Western Europe that have severely harmed early crops.

Harsh cold events have also struck China, Russia, the Mediterranean, the Middle East, North America and Australia.

By Allan M.R. MacRae, April 21, 2021



The northern hemisphere winter of 2020/21 was one for the record books and is dragging on into late April. Image (for illustration only): NASA (public domain).

We published in 2002 that there was no catastrophic human-made global warming /climate change crisis, and green energy schemes were not green and produced little useful (dispatchable) energy.

Global warming is not a threat, but global cooling is dangerous. In 2002 we predicted that global cooling would start circa 2020, based on low solar activity, and that prediction is strongly supported by the evidence.

Our 2002 predictions are among the most accurate on the planet: “If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.” . . .

 

Ever Deeper And Deeper Into "Climate" Fantasy
April 24, 2021/ Francis Menton

• 
  It never ceases to amaze me how the very mention of the word “climate” causes people to lose all touch with their rational faculties. And of course I’m not talking here just about the ordinary man on the street, but also, indeed especially, about our elected leaders and government functionaries.
  
  
• The latest example is President Biden’s pledge, issued at his “World Climate Summit” on April 22, to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 50 - 52% from the levels of 2005, and to do so by 2030.
  
  
• In my last post a couple of days ago, I remarked that “Biden himself has absolutely no idea how this might be accomplished. And indeed it will not be accomplished.” Those things are certainly true, but also fail to do full justice to the extent to which our President and his handlers have now left the real world and gone off into total fantasy.
  

READ MORE

 

The Climate Change 'Crisis' Is Based on a Fallacy

Steven Koonin, New York Post

 

Climate alarmists could ‘cancel’ your pets
Charles Rotter
“Are our pets gobbling up the planet? From the meat-based meals to kitty litter to plastic poop bags, pet care is unarguably bad for the environment,” Vox said, offering ways…

 

Sorry, CBS, NOAA’s “U.S. Climate Normals,” Report Misrepresents the Science
CLIMATE RECORD MAY 7, 2021

 

The AGW edifice is built on a foundation of sand.
Hundreds More Papers Published In 2021 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm
By Kenneth Richard on 14. February 2022

Share this...
In 2021, several hundred more scientific papers were published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media sources.


These scientific papers affirm the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes…emphasizing that climate science is not settled.

More specifically, the papers in this compilation support these four main skeptical positions — categorized here as N(1) – N(4) — which question the climate alarm popularized in today’s headlines.

N(1) Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined.

N(2) The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/precipitation extremes…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.

N(3) The computer climate models are neither reliable or consistently accurate; the uncertainty and error ranges are irreducible; and projections of future climate states (i.e., an intensification of the hydrological cycle) are not supported by observations and/or are little more than speculation.

N(4) Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment, whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields, lower mortality with warming). . . .

 

Want to make a bet with me about this? I will bet you that these “hundreds of papers” say nothing of the sort - see i have seen claims like this before and usually it is a cut and paste from a google search banking on the fact that no one - particularly the denialists, will actually examine the papers they have included

 

Snopes is on to it

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/

 

Looks like the sceptics have finally accepted the earth is warming. After a somewhat constipated passage through stage 1...

 

"Both stories primarily consisted of regurgitated material from a blog called the “No Tricks Zone” (NTZ)"

 

This is obvious from the actual paleoclimate data, which shows variations similar to the modern warming when human influence could not possibly have been significant, and when CO2 did not change significantly, either.

Also indisputably correct.

At least, the ones that are based on wildly inaccurate assumptions are not.

This might be going too far. It is not clear how good an AI-based deep learning climate model could be, if it were given accurate data to work with instead of data systematically falsified to agree with the proved-false CO2-controls-temperature hypothesis.

The ones based on assumptions that support anti-fossil-fuel hysteria aren't, anyway.

Agree 100%.

 

Why always make $#!+ up? Which climate skeptic has ever denied that the earth has warmed to more normal Holocene temperatures following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years?

 

Indeed why make things up? No Tricks Zone has been caught red handed doing just that to try and “prove” there are papers denying global warming

As for prior warming/cooling of earth - please point to the climatologist who is denying that? Please? Is the IPCC denying it? Are any of the scientists you love to hate denying that earth has gone through climate changes in the past.

Where the disagreement lies is that climatologists and Paleoclimatologists and Palaeontologists all agree that those climate changes all had a “driver” or a reason, Milankovitch cycles, solar output, volcanism, exposure of lime deposits etc

 

So snopes indulges in smears and sneers that seek to deny facts published in peer-reviewed scientific journals while providing no contrary evidence, and calls such blatant propaganda "fact checks."

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....

 

We are talking about the Trixie Dixie blog and its manufactured conclusions.

 

If I had a dollar for every...



...from you, I'd be as retired as J.H.

 

Feel free to disprove what they say. They are quite specific so all you have to do is prove they are wrong

crickets

 

A five-year-old attack piece? Really?