Last week, the BBC reminded us that we have just three years left to drastically reduce all CO2 emissions, or we risk crossing the dreaded 1.5°C warming limit set by the Paris Agreement.
The ice age paper you cite is N of 1 as is the paper that you cite in support of your “hoax” thesis. There are always scientific outliers and that is a good thing because those outliers provoke more examination of the data. Sometimes there is an element of truth that taken in isolation upends everything, but when considered holistically changes things at the margins but doesn’t change the bigger story. The ice age guy was right about particulates cooling things off, but did not account for the larger impact of increased greenhouse gases. The vast majority of the data and scientists agree that the planet is warming due to greenhouse gas emissions increases, one paper challenges that consensus and we’ll see what more we can learn from that. Perhaps their analysis will be fully validated and we’ll all be relieved. If so no hoax will be involved. Just a lot of scientists trying their best to develop a better understanding of the world and getting it wrong. That said, as best I can tell the forecasting errors (in terms of temperature increase) of the “consensus” have erred on the side of underestimating temperature increases. At the end of the day the planet does not care. It is we humans who will live with the consequences of our actions for good or ill.
That is an excellent, balanced response, my friend. I hope we both agree that the proposed solutions to climate change will adversely impact the poor, and I argue that temperature increases are not outside normal observed variations. I live in South Texas, where it is damn hot - but it was much hotter in the 1930s, and 1900 was hotter still. That's why the Galveston Hurricane, which killed between 6,000 to 12,000 people, was so devastating.
I worked as VP of Engineering for 4+ years for a small division of a large company that supplies super high accuracy oceanographic temperature and salinity measurement instruments that are used by NOAA to track changes in the ocean. Around 2014, NOAA automagically changed their decades long standing test protocol in terms of the depth at which measurements are made. Result? Their measurements started showing a temperature rise in the oceans. Since we also got the data for our PhD data scientists to monitor for data integrity, our scientists very quickly blew the internal whistle. WTF was going on? Result? We asked NOAA about it and they poo pooed saying the change was to enable the “data to be more consistent with truth due to seasonal currents”. Result, we shut up because we did not want to disrupt our revenue flow. Result? NOAA got a sheize load more funding for “climate change”. Result? Then our sales bumped up big.
That littleepisode is the definition of hoax. How anyone is refusing to see how that is the correct word for the multi-institutional creation of deliberately flawed data for the purpose of pushing a false narrative is beyond me.
This was done systematically to the major sources of global temperature data. Actually direct data fraud. It was in response to the 2010-2012 era "warming pause" discourse.
No. The people changing the data sets have no valid reason for why.
There is a reason. It’s not defensible. The money changers and tax collectors needed a reason to tax carbon as an additional revenue source.
The problem, the science doesn’t support it. And the forecasted expectations have fabulously failed to materialize. These are facts. Even the reefs are coming back suggesting a cycle we never considered might exist.
The climate alarmists haven’t proven their case. They’ve just made massive amounts of money crying wolf.
I agree that it’s an excellent response, but Tim, you seem to be totally sidestepping what he is very eloquently implying— ie that these are complex matters and that cherry picking outlier studies and then brandishing them as examples of ‘grift’ is its own grift. Ironically, you along with Joe Rogan and others are crying that the issue is being politicized but are Exhibit A in said politicization.
Actually not it is definitely helping the poor doing subsistence farming harvesting more crops and death and disease due to freezing or extreme cold increase quality of life and decrease energy cost and thus deforestation. I lived in Africa for 45 years and have seen first hand.
Shocker: 400 ppm CO2 cannot warm the earth period. How is that? CO2 absorbs at 6.3 micron wavelength and re-emits very long wave far-infrared IR at 6.3 microns or less.
This is relatively "cold" at 193 K or -80 C, and cannot heat anything else up unless the other object or molecule is below that temperature or energy state.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that heat moves from hot to cold, not the opposite.
The absence of any humility that you yourself might be wrong, or that, at the very least, others might be mistaken, but well intentioned, leaves a former physicist, like myself, who would otherwise be receptive to a fresh perspective reaching for the "mute" button after 3 paragraphs.
“Just a lot of scientists trying their best to develop a better understanding of the world and getting it wrong.” Can you admit that there is an entire industrial complex built up around the climate change narrative? For the average person a new “original sin” for using fossil fuels? For the average school child a psychological mind game removing their optimism for the future and replacing it with inter generational conflict and “how dare you!”. Meanwhile actual solutions, such as reforestation and afforestation are not sufficiently developed or even outright rejected? Meanwhile wasting millions and billions on grift with no real solutions involved? Come ON! Please wake up. This is way more than scientists sorting things out. Is social and psychological manipulation. The worst news, to me, is that if the scientists promoting the climate change narrative turn out to be right, and we’re still living in the eat the bugs world of Bill G and friends, with all their “solutions” that don’t work, we will suffer both sides of terrible plans. They need an excuse to justify predetermined management outcomes. Surely you can understand that.
I freely admit that there are multiple commercial interests seeking to benefit from the risk of climate change. A different group of commercial interests are invested in denying climate change to preserve their cash flows/asset values. It is also true that scientists chase research dollars and that there have been more of those available for climate change research in the last few decades. It is also true that the numerous models that have been developed to project the future build upon other models which build on other models and that the final results are therefore quite subject to error.
That said, while there are some sensation/attention seeking scientists the vast majority are serious, curious people who are just trying to figure out how everything fits together. And while they won’t leap to adjust their thinking based on evidence (they are human after all) they will ultimately follow the data to where it leads (this is not a quick process because while “data speaks” it doesn’t always do so in a loud and clear voice).
I don’t believe in “saving the Planet”. The planet is going to be fine - it has gone through many changes in the past and will go through more in the future, no matter what we do. I care about us humans. The more we manage our society in a way that increases global temperatures the more disruption there will be. Some disruption will be positive - increased agricultural production for example. We see the negatives already and unless one refuses to see what is in front of ones own eyes (“a constant struggle” per Orwell) those negatives will increase societal stress. We humans have a very long history of conflict under conditions of stress. It is not a pretty history. I’m therefore very inclined to ignore/look away from climate change as it makes me very uncomfortable and somewhat despairing. And then I remind myself that while I can’t solve the problem I can do something positive. We didn’t get here through one dramatic act after all.
Yes, but that industry sustains our civilization. Do you drive a car? Do you eat food from a super market? Sure it’s unsustainable and damaging and corrupt in all kinds of ways. But the climate change narrative offers no real sustainable solutions except grift on guilt. Via the climate change narrative our consciences are being used against us to further embed systems of power that subjugate us. Our best intentions to move toward truly sustainable lifestyles and positive improvement to the environment are being used by cynical yet powerful people (who are most likely fatalistic about the environment) to further cement their own power and control over the world.
Sorry if you took it as being about you. That’s not what I intended. So let’s make it about Pieter Hoff, one of the no doubt multiple or many people who have proposed a real solution to climate change via Reforestation of man made deserts (for example massive parts of North Africa and elsewhere that were once forests) all around the world. He proposed that if we planted and maintained a forest roughly the size of Spain every year for 40 years, we would remove the excess CO2 from the atmosphere. He was a Dutch farmer and successfully developed core technology to help trees grow in otherwise inhospitable environments (the waterboxx).
Where were Bill Gates and Al Gore and other so called climate change leaders when Pieter Hoff needed support, attention, funding etc? They shut out reforestation as a solution. I don’t know if they ever even met with Pieter, but a few years ago he passed away, may God rest his soul. Fortunately his work is still available online https://www.thetreesolution.com/en/
The point is the people pushing the climate narrative are using it as a justification for pushing social agendas predetermined based on the goal of de pop u lay shun. They don’t actually want to rebalance the atmosphere to pre industrial co2 levels. They just want to use the crisis to further their own goals of gaining control and power.
Sure. Reclaiming lost forest is a good idea. Then what?
Meanwhile, the right wing Bolsinaro was doing the opposite and accelerated the destruction of the Amazon. And now Trump is trying to bully Brazil into backing away from prosecution him.
As long as climate alarmism pays the bills, the hoax will continue. No one ever gets grant money by saying “everything is going to be fine”. Guess what? Everything is going to be fine. Everyone now on the planet will be dead in 150 years, replaced by the next bunch of (insert your emergency here) alarmists.
Everything is not fine - there is toxic pollution, plastic pollution, garbage crisis, habitat destruction. However, governments are wasting resources on greenhouse gases - the one environmental issue that is not a problem.
I believe that the ocean releases 40% of all CO2. At least that’s what David Attenborough is saying. He also says that there is a great natural way to store the ocean’s CO2 via plankton. Which also feeds some whales and certainly is the base line of all food. But people have decided to take this bottom line source of food out of the ocean to use themselves. Similarly kelp which absorbs CO2. Now trawlers are trawling the seabed and removing the kelp forests.
It seems to me that the planet would heal itself very easily if they left its structures alone. I do not believe the CO2 from cars in Britain makes one iota of difference compared to the destruction of the planet’s natural healing abilities: the forests and the oceans will absorb it all if we let them. Furthermore the CO2 in the atmosphere is already greening areas of the planet - those that haven’t already been too denuded, trees burnt for fuel, etc.
Israel leads the world on greening the deserts, closely followed by the UAE.
Sub Saharan Africa has largely desertified its environment by destruction of habitat, war and corruption as well as burgeoning populations.
To sum up, I feel we either care for the environment/planet and we thus survive or we don’t and we humans largely disappear. I’m not interested in global warming as such, more in global destruction.
The ocean holds a massive amount of carbon dioxide (CO2), estimated to be around 38,000 gigatons (Gt). This is significantly more than the carbon stored in the atmosphere or on land. The ocean acts as the largest carbon reservoir, playing a crucial role in regulating atmospheric CO2 levels and mitigating climate change.
Can you explain how the tiny change in atmospheric C02 results in catastrophic climate change that will destroy agriculture and cause large amounts of “climate refugees” from rapid sea level changes (this is the alarmism you keep wanting to be defined). I’m not saying it’s not happening btw, I just want to see if you can simply explain to me how CO2 forcing works in theory.
The problem many people who are questioning the narrative have is that alarmists refuse to accept (its sheer denial really, ironically) that rapid cessation of using fossil fuels will certainly kill several billion people on this planet within a generation. Not only that, nothing short of total war would actually dismantle the fossil fuels industry, because the developing countries that have not had access to fossil fuels will happily burn it and industrialise as the existing industrial powers commit suicide by phasing it out. China and India alone are burning more coal per year than the whole world was in the 90s. The inertia is baked in buddy, enjoy the ride we don’t know where it’s going with the climate but we do know that agriculture and global food distribution is almost 100% dependent on fossil fuels and there’s nothing that will scale up in time to make any meaningful difference. The only way forward is adaptation and personally I’d rather take my chances with that than pull the plug on industrial civilization.
"The inertia is baked in buddy." Sigh, you are right on that one. The question is how to proceed from here. Presumably the past does offer us some insights. We transitioned from wood to coal, then from coal to natural gas primarily due to economic factors. Since 2000 US coal generated electricity is down by 60%. While the coal miners lost their jobs economic collapse in the US did not follow. And today the levelized cost of solar is $20-$40 MWh vs. $60-$120 MWh for coal. And the cost of solar is continuing to fall as it scales. There are a lot of non-GHG emission power sources we can develop further, like next generation geothermal - which leverages the technology used for fossil fuel extraction. Thorium reactors show promise - and China is betting big on them as part of their shift away from coal. Wind and solar are proven. Geoengineering is a risky proposition, but may become necessary. History tells us we can transition energy sources. Adaptation is a necessity, of course, but I don't see why the reality of baked in inertia should stop us from pursuing an energy transition to reduce the degree of adaptation we will need to undertake (adaptation is not cheap after all, look at the price of all those seawalls we are putting up).
"The inertia is baked in buddy, enjoy the ride we don’t know where it’s going with the climate but we do know that agriculture and global food distribution is almost 100% dependent on fossil fuels and there’s nothing that will scale up in time to make any meaningful difference. "
At least you admit that decades of denial and delay have gotten us to the point where the consequences will be more dire, and you also admit that deniers and fossil fuel shills have no idea what maximum temperature increase they want. It's almost like they don't care how many lives are disrupted, and how many billions it will cost, as long as they get to keep their profits. Canada alone is facing the third summer heading toward 200,000 evacuees, with hundreds of homes and businesses lost.
Are you telling me that you come here not knowing how the greenhouse gas effect works with respect to CO2? You're really that much of a moron that you come here with all these jargon words and you don't even understand the most fundamental reason why we're even having this discussion?
It seems odd given that the midwest and Texas had FOUR record storms last week, and we have idiots like you thinking it's normal.
Certainly. It is on a long tv programme voiced by David Attenborough which I watched about a month ago. Part of his series about our planet. I’ll try and find the exact statement. But I imagine you’ll be better at that than me!
Shocker: 400 ppm CO2 cannot warm the earth temperature period. How is that? CO2 absorbs at 6.3 micron wavelength and re-emits very long wave far-infrared IR at 6.3 microns or less.
This is relatively "cold" at 193 K or -80 C, and cannot heat anything else up unless the other object or molecule is below that temperature or energy state.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that heat moves from hot to cold, not the opposite.
Deniers don’t care, and deniers are too stupid to understand how ACC makes this worse…
«Nearly 30 per cent of the forested land base in the Prince George Fire Centre, which covers B.C.'s northeast, is likely to burn by the end of this year, according to the province.
Forest Minister Ravi Parmar says the region has already seen nearly 7,000 square kilometres burned by wildfires since June. That's by far the most of any of B.C.'s six fire centres, with the second highest being the Northwest Fire Centre, where just under 40 square kilometres have burned.
"People in the area have endured not just the physical threat of fires, but the emotional toll of displacement, smoke and uncertainty," Parmar said during a visit to the fire-affected region this week.»
Just pay attention, dude. For example, in Canada, they are experiencing the third summer in a row of rampant, ACC-worsened wildfires. In each summer, and this will likely prove to be the same, over 200,000 people had to be evacuated a to one time or another. Hundreds returned to flooded or burnt out homes.
Now Texas...what will be the final tally, in billions, when the total cost of the recent flooding there will be reckoned? Not to mention the nearly 300 dead people, many of them children.
63,000 dead in Europe from overheating in 2022.
Do you want me to provide a comprehensive list? Are you gonna pretend none of this has anything to do with fossil fuel emissions? if so, then you're too stupid to have ao conversation with,.
That ignores the vast history of climate science. The place scientists glitch is why we arbitrarily picked a CO2 and Temp baseline and then demanded it never change? More on that quandary here: https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/the-climate-is-changing
1. CO2 levels are not a leading indicator, but a trailing indicator (well demonstrated by ice core measurements )
2. Current CO2 levels are estimated to be at the lower end of historic & prehistoric levels, and
3. At levels that are borderline starvation levels for plants (CO2 I’d plant food)
4. All our food ultimately comes from plants,
5. Which depend on sunlight as well as CO2 to grow
6. People (such as Bill Gates, who think that there are too many people alive) say that the answer is to block sunlight striking the earth (you should never take advice from anyone who thinks that there are too many people living (unless they are about to drink their hemlock, & not even then),
7. Someone has pointed out that life in the oceans, which cover 70% of the earth, depends upon phytoplankton which depend on sunlight in the topmost layers of the ocean and they will largely die off under Gates, et al scheme. (You can’t hate Bill Gates enough).
8. The world has been both much hotter and cooler than current times
9. Ice age & mini ice age were times of extreme privation sickness and death.
10. Mankind has always been able to adapt to the ever changing climate.
11. Never has mankind had the level of technological resilience that we have now, nor have we been as well nourished as rich as we are now.
12. Fossil fuels are not just fossil fuels, but are generated by geologic processes that are only recently being understood (meaning we are very unlikely to run out of them
Not to be cynical, but it’s a truism that pretty much all solutions to all problems more negatively impact the poor. The climate system is wickedly complex and effects are localized, e.g. global average temperatures can rise even as some areas cool. Momentum is such that whatever changes are in the offing in my lifetime are baked in. My children will be the ones living with the consequences of the actions we do or don’t undertake going forward.
I spent seven years in Afghanistan implementing solutions to help the poor, with my main contribution being the refurbishment of massive irrigation systems in Nimroz Province. When I was in Kabul and Jalalabad, I knew Afghans who were killed every winter by leaking Bukhari heaters. Reliable electricity would have eliminated that problem, but we didn't provide it with the billions we spent. We did provide street lights with solar panels to power them but the Afghans stole those and used them to power water pumps to drain millions of gallons of water out of the Helmand and Hari Rud rivers to irrigate poppy fields. The Afghan children will be the ones paying for our mismanagement and lack of vision. Your children and my grandchildren will be OK. If we stop wasting trillions on the climate change grift, they'll do even better.
Relatively inexpensive, primarily Chinese manufactured solar cells are reported to be big in Pakistan now. They free people from the unreliable (or essentially non existent) electrical grid and from fissile fuels that can be expensive for them. Some developing areas may skip traditional electric I infrastructure and go to small local electric installations, similar to what cell phones did. https://apple.news/Az7nU1cqeSpibruPw5qmiQg
What solutions do you refer to? W&S do not lower co2 emissions over their “raw material to recycle” lifespan, and cost loads more (impact on the poor). And all this for extrapolations that are wickedly complex. Local areas have exhibited droughts/floods/ cool spells/warm spells etc as long as we can peer back.
A very naive response that overlooks the extreme politicizing of the academy in recent decades. Nobody challenging the CAGW orthodoxy has the faintest hope of obtaining funding or a job, other than incumbents like Lindzen who have been there for decades.
The problem being that today big money is involved in 'solving climate" as well as some ideologues, that have grabbed a hold of it to push forward their own agenda. This is evident in the fact that unlike pure scientific inquiry, scientists that don't support the right viewpoint are heavily penalized. For quite some time, we could only hear from the right scientists when it comes to climate change. Unfortunately, this is a far bigger problem in all sorts of scientific inquiry than most of us would like to admit. The consequences of incorrect conclusions can often be catastrophic. The way science is utilized today, as our primary guiding light, to justify massive global efforts that impact billions of people, raises the stakes substantially. In my view, this elevates 'science' and scientific decision making far beyond the level of it's usefulness as a tool, and moves it into the danger zone. Science like everything else, has limits.
I agree with you on science having its limits. Ideally our society is capable of engaging in reasoned discourse based on facts and humility on the limits of our knowledge. It dismays me when I see the word "hoax" bandied about because it contains certainty. If you look at the larger body of research uncertainty is always part of the equation. Ultimately our society needs to determine what risks to take on. There is the risk of "overreacting" and the potential for disruption associated with that and the risk of "underresponding" and the potential for disruption associated with that. I view the risks of #2 as greater than the risks of #1 (indeed I see virtue in #1 that is unassociated with climate change - I like not changing light bulbs as frequently, I like not breathing gasoline fumes, I enjoy the temperature in my house being more stable, I love EV acceleration etc. I'm not blind to the fact that (at the moment in the US) an EV is an expensive proposition out of the range of many if not most Americans or that while mandating the replacement of gas appliances may cost you less in the long run in the short run it can make you broke. These are hard choices and its dishonest to pretend otherwise. I just wish that we could recognize that reality rather than demonizing people with either viewpoint.
Hand waving and hysteria every bad weather event is ACC, when there is no solid trend. You haven’t addressed any of my points on how we stop using fossil fuels without killing everyone from starvation.
Climate change is a flat-out hoax, cooked up by elites to tighten their grip on us. The so-called devastation is just fearmongering to manipulate and control.
I think your point is that climate change is promoted by tech elites; no argument. Is climate change denial promoted by fossil fuel elites? If your answer is “yes” does it come down to a choice between elites?
I’m not knowledgeable enough to know whether devastation is in the future. I do know (through personal experience) that the climate is changing globally and getting warmer overall. Maybe we have nothing to do with it. On the other hand, if we do it seems to me that we should do something about it sooner rather than later especially given the fact (which everyone agrees on) that fossil fuels are a finite resource.
I wish you were right. Unfortunately I’m 67 years old and I’ve lived long enough to experience the changes. The trends will not magically arrest themselves.
As a 66-year-old reflecting on childhood memories of extreme weather, you might be experiencing memory distortion or reconstructive memory, where the passage of time softens or alters how you recall those events. When you were a kid, storms, floods, or heatwaves might have seemed less severe because of your limited understanding, sense of invulnerability, or even the excitement of a child’s perspective. Over time, those memories may fade or lose their emotional weight, making past weather events feel less intense than they actually were.
This can be amplified by today’s media and some climate scientists who frame current weather as uniquely extreme, which might make your childhood memories seem milder by comparison. While climate change is likely happening—and human activity may be contributing—the narrative of catastrophic weather pushed by some vocal groups can exaggerate the difference between past and present. Weather has always had extreme moments, and what you’re recalling might not be as tame as it now seems. It’s not the apocalyptic crisis some claim, but a complex issue that doesn’t always match the hype.
Sorry, no. Frighteningly enough I’m also referring to changes that I’ve experienced in the last 30 years as an adult. And those changes are not all local. I have relatives in Europe and the summers there consistently warmer than they used to be - and the reliable winter snow is a thing of the past (BTW, not just hearsay, I visit relatively often). The drizzle that used to characterize Seattle is fading away, to be replaced by more real rain. On the bright side there are now honest to God warm days in May. The town I grew up in California’s Central Valley is cooler now - the trees were small when I was growing up and they are big now. However consistent, my life experience isn’t conclusive, but when you combine it with data readings from around the world . . . the planet is getting hotter. Wish it wasn’t so, but it is what it is.
The Earth's climate spans billions of years, so a 66-year human lifespan offers only a tiny snapshot of its history. While the planet is cooler now than in much of its ancient past, recent data shows a clear warming trend. This warming could intensify, potentially benefiting humanity by extending growing seasons and opening new habitable regions. However, relying solely on 66 years of observation ignores deep geological records—like ice cores and sediment layers—that reveal far greater climate shifts over millennia. Short-term personal experience can't capture the full scope of these patterns or predict long-term trends with accuracy.
It's not an outlier either. There are hundreds that have gone overlooked as well. Simply put, the only consensus is that the climate has been changing forever. The place scientists glitch is why we arbitrarily picked a CO2 and Temp baseline and then demanded it never change? More on that quandary here: https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/the-climate-is-changing
There have been people pointing out the academic fuckery since the early 90's, and the establishment has done HORRIBLE things to these people. As we've seen lately with the Covid debacle, the scientific journals are less than incorrect, they are utterly, PERVERSELY corrupted by industry regulatory capture. Randall Carlson has done many hours in his podcast to showcase the precise papers that were disregarded and the names of the monsters that led the witchhunts that got us here. Its high time we gather any and all dissident voices who were vindicated on these topics, and LET THEM SPEAK TO THE WORLD FOR ONCE.
Not to be a bummer, but this ain't gonna stop the climate crazies. Prof Lindzen has been stalwart for decades on this. There has never been a shortage of convincing evidence countering the Anthropogenic Global Warming narrative. It's not about evidence and reason, it's about emotion.
Oh, and money. I forgot money.
When the big bosses stop funding the climate bs, it will finally stop. But not a moment sooner.
It’s also about pride. Those who have promoted the lie, researched the lie, made art about the lie, teach the lie, get lovely money for lying- are married to it. They can’t handle the humiliation of being wrong- they will drive themselves to complete desperation to keep perpetuating it.
CO2 concentration plots as a ‘hockey stick’ graph. CO2 is alleged to warm Earth. Warmth melts ice, which should raise sea levels. NOAA charts of historical sea levels show a slow linear rise since tide records have been kept. So, CO2 rate of change is exponential, but ocean level rate of change is linear. A beautiful theory destroyed by one ugly fact?
The lockdown on any institutional academic or media support for counter narratives is global. It's not just money, it's the money. It's state level actors.
Let’s not forget that all of the proposed “solutions” to climate change are projected to have minimal impact on CO2 levels…at best. Trillions of dollars spent on windmills and solar will have practically zero impact. There is one power source which might have an impact, but the greenies won’t even consider it…nuclear. Which demonstrates how unserious they are at addressing this issue.
"Richard S. Lindzen is former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT),4 a position he held from 19835 until his retirement in 2013.6
Lindzen’s academic interests lie within the topics of “climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability,” according to his faculty profile at MIT.7
Lindzen is a former distinguished senior fellow at the Cato Institute‘s Center for the Study of Science.8 The Center shut down in 2019, and was no longer affiliated with Lindzen at that time. “It’s unclear when he left Cato, and [Spokeswoman Khristine] Brookes declined to comment on personnel issues,” E&E News reported.9
The Cato Institute, a conservative think tank where Lindzen has also published numerous articles and studies, has received at least $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.10 In his 1995 article, “The Heat Is On,” Ross Gelbspan reported that Lindzen charged oil and coal organizations $2,500 per day for his consulting services.11
Lindzen has described ExxonMobil as “the only principled oil and gas company I know in the U.S.”12
In addition to his position at Cato, Lindzen is listed as an “Expert” with the Heartland Institute,13 a member of the “Academic Advisory Council” of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF),14 and an advisor to the CO2 Coalition, a group promoting the benefits of atmospheric carbon dioxide.15
Fossil Fuel Funding
As part of a March 2018 legal case between the cities of San Francisco and Oakland and fossil fuel companies, Lindzen was asked by the judge to disclose any connections he had to connected parties.16
In response, Lindzen reported that he had received $25,000 per year for his position at the Cato Institute since 2013. He also disclosed $1,500 from the Texas Public Policy Foundation for a “climate science lecture” in 2017, and approximately $30,000 from Peabody Coal in connection to testimony Lindzen gave at a proceeding of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commissions in September 2015.17
Convenient that the properties of CO2 he writes about are objective scientific facts then.
By the way, to anyone reading this, above is a climate bot. Notice its ability to pull out a set of talking points on every element of the issue, like a church apologist.
Am I the ONLY person who realizes that the dread 1.5 degree Celsius rise in average global temps is equivalent to a 2.5 degree Fahrenheit rise in average global temperature?? 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit is the average temperature change between breakfast and brunch across most of the Northern and Southern Temperate Zones. The Temperate Zones are the world's most productive agricultural regions.
Look,I'm not a scientist, but I'm also not a fool. I'm fairly certain we could withstand an average temperature increase of 2.5%. And I'm certain that it would greatly benefit large-scale agriculture and thus reduce global food insecurity.
We (humans) certainly can, it's not about how it directly effects a human but how it effects our environment (natural disasters), our food supply (animals and plants), and our geography (rising sea levels). Also its not a 'one time increase'. The consensus is NOT that "if global temperatures rise above 2.5F our environment will collapse", it's that once it passes that threshold it is incredibly unlikely to progress downward and will only get warmer. 2.5F turns into 5F turns into 10F turns into your crops can't survive anymore in many parts of the world (in a near future scenario, perhaps 30-100 years).
Some day you'll be old like me, Nico. And you'll come to realize that everything the climate alarmists predict, never comes true. This nonsense began in the 1970s and every iteration of these dire warnings always contains a short time frame (usually as decade) within which mankind MUST stop doing X, and immediately start doing Y, or we will all perish by a certain time. The most hyperbolic announcements always get the most attention, and have uniformly not occurred. Ever.
Thank you! I almost wrote, "How dare you?" as an acknowledgement of the consummate climate grifter, Greta Thunberg. I can't get an accurate forecast for golf in the morning much less what's going to happen in two days. Yet, the liberal "woke" have chosen to die on the this hill in spite of all the erroneous predictions from the geniuses promoting this scam. The Weather Channel mentions "Climate Change" every day as they pay homage to the hoax. I understand that scientists need their funding to perpetuate their careers but truth and accuracy would be a better way to go to establish a modicum of credibility. Climate no doubt changes but higher taxes isn't the answer nor is buying green energy to make Al Gore wealthier.
CO2 is 75% of the atmospheric gas that absorbs 4 and 10-15 micrometer photons. It’s well mixed. It causes more H2O, which they ignore, which is 1-5%. Higher CO2 regreens deserts which changes albedo from .5 to .2, as plants can reduce stomata, and evapotranspiration further increases H2O. That reduces glaciation; ice reflects 90%, water absorbs 90%. Samuel Bankman Fried was also from MIT. Lots of other mitigating complex science is involved. Don’t fool yourself or others into thinking you actually comprehend this. The IPCC has a huge range because permafrost and human cognitive dissonance imply we might see 2,000 ppm atmospheres, which won’t literally instantly kill humanity, but will absolutely reduce executive brainfunction and complex decisionmaking by ~50%. It would increase food production, but reduce vitamins and minerals 20-40%, further damaging clear thinking. Also microplastics. Idiocracy was so on the nose.
Glaciation, or the formation of ice sheets and glaciers, is a long-term impact influenced by Earth's orbital variations, specifically the Milankovitch cycles.
Milankovitch cycles are primarily forced by orbit/eccentricity, which is partly driven by desertification and dust. More dust means dirty glaciers, which melt. Speaking of melting, the positive or negative feedback cycles of climate change are directly impacted by heat trapping gasses. The reason the IPCC is so hard for most people to understand is all the mitigating influences. But you seem like you know what you’re talking about... I do only have a bachelor’s in astrophysics and a deep interest in climate change; I’m not the sole arbiter of truth. I’m publishing a research paper in a few weeks and would encourage you to read the papers I cite, preferably several times. Most dense writing takes a few reads to comprehend. I wrote this quickly because you’ve proffered false premises with authority, and I presume any response will be written in like manner. Feel free to go do your own research.
No you are dead wrong. The cycles are primarily entropy exchanges with the sun. Low entropy photons from the sun exchange with high entropy particles from the earth. That is the foundation of global warming/cooling. It has nothing to do with humans
I don’t disagree that I am obviously in purgatory, but see above to my comment explaining my contestation of your premise. I understand entropy better than you, but not as good as Boltzmann, but you do make me want to follow his lead, which I won’t because of Kant.
You don’t understand entropy better than me. Read Emperors New Mind by Roger Penrose. He has a great summarizing of global warming. The humans not involved that would require you to revert back to Newtonian mechanics.
I still disagree with your premise. You’re appealing to authority you don’t have based on authorities you obviously don’t comprehend. I almost certainly don’t understand entropy better than Penrose; I highly doubt he and I disagree that much, I presume your limited understanding of what he said and what I’ve said inhibits your ability to adequately comprehend how much he and I disagree. In other words, I’m staking the claim you’re less of an arbiter of truth than I. I definitely do understand how .04% of a well-mixed portion of gasses can absorb photons and transmit it to the 99%+ which don’t absorb those wavelengths but which CO2 touch thousands of times a second, transferring vibrational energy, aka entropy, before they can de-excite by releasing a photon. They’re 3D molecules, unlike N2, O2, or Ar, so they can constantly absorb photons in those wavelengths and transmit the energy to vibrational energy in ways the aforementioned cannot. Presuming you don’t break out some new physics and win a Nobel prize, I highly doubt you comprehend things as well as you claim. Here’s an analogy: it’s like a bucket of water with holes, the sun is the spigot, the size of the bucket is the total amount of gas, and CO2 is plugging the holes. It’s rather simple. At least 10-30% of all humans to have ever existed were killed by bacteria or viruses which are microscopic and orders of magnitude much less than than .04% of their bodyweight. You’re far too presumptive. I only plan to advocate ways to economically alleviate the problem at hand in a cost-effective scalable manner without reversion to the stone age.
In which multiverse was I unaware that Chris was a prospective VC or that the entirety of the argument would be viewed by other VCs? None.
I’ve already stated my multiverse shtick is an inside joke between me and my other selves… Only with my informed consent will anyone make money off my broken back. “I don’t care if you’re the Cesar of Russia!” A lot of interesting information is about to become public knowledge. All roads lead to Mena, Arkansas. Until NATO builds the bridge to Sicily, not even Sicilian roads reach Rome.
300 mya Iowa and the Great Lakes were along the equator, Milankovitch cycles have changed dramatically on geological timescales due to continental drift. Gravity may alter milankovitch cycles due to resonance with Mars, but that’s solely by virtue of altering albedo patterns by altering orbit, precession, etc. It’s a 2.4 my cycle, which is minimal compared to the 40k and 100k cycles, that’s because gravity is exceptionally weak compared to strong, weak, and electronmagnetic forces.
No, you just keep saying you proved it. You don’t back up assertions. You obviate. You ignore. You don’t comprehend half the words you use. This is puerile and a waste of time. I can’t even realistically begin to debate you on the facts because you’re just not that smart. Dunning Kruger.
Obviously we’re the same species you autistic moron. You think human is grand enough to cause extreme warming on earth you imbecile. It’s the tilt, and obviously gravity because how the fuck else would it all exist? Or do you also rely on creationism?
You’ve been proven dead wrong. The warming being experienced is through earths tilt. Not the co2, that amount not needed by the atmosphere would be radiated into space
That’s not how milankovitch cycles work, it’s the tilt paired with the eccentricity of orbit. It’s impossible to argue with you, it took fifty replies to get you to agree with me on entropy. You’re barely older than me. You keep saying I’ve been proven wrong, but you haven’t proven anything and barely seem to comprehend physics, much less my overarching argument. It’s ridiculously nonsensical to say the amount “not needed” is radiated into space. That makes no sense. Heat isn’t needed, it isn’t radiated to space, it’s absorbed by co2 and transferred kinetically to n2/o2.
Heat is radiated to space, eventually, obviously. But it’s not “needed”, it flows until it reaches equilibrium, adding CO2 alters how quickly it radiates. I’m tired. You’re wrong. You make claims that are illogical. You’re barely older than me. You make assumptions that are entirely unfounded. I’ll reply no more. But thanks for giving me a better idea of where people misunderstand reality.
I’m sorry, it’s really hard to understand what you don’t get. You keep saying proven, but you made an unsubstantiated statement; I proved my argument significantly better than you. I proved it more; I said so, that makes it true (but also it is true). Just saying something doesn’t make it true. I can’t build an argument because you use physics words you don’t understand. You just keep saying the same thing and keep hurling insults to avoid building an argument or finding common ground, presumably due to deep seated inadequacies.
Humans are not causing the warming being witnessed. The m cycles are. The past 485 million years of geological evidence proves it is cyclical without humans.
I think the record shows you’re triggered. It’s only nonsensical because you like calling factual physics hypothetical. I already live in a van down by the river… Check and mate. It’s only nonsensical because you “know physics”.
I also clearly said it’s not going to result in doomsday overnight or immediate extinction, if at all; actually I think nuclear war, a solar flare, asteroid, or supervolcano, explicitly paired with humanity consisting of many of your ilk, is the most likely cause of future extinction.
lol. Did you get triggered? You don’t have any argument other than your nonsensical hypothetical that essentially deduces into doomsday prepping. So take your fake smart ass and buy a van and live in the woods alone and prep for your apocalypse. But you won’t because even you know your argument is fraudulent.
We are presently 50,000 years away from when the M cycles suggest that. Of course, linear time is a poor form of measurement that exist solely in your mind. Not anywhere else in nature
<<Lindzen and Happer use physics to demonstrate that CO2’s warming effect is limited by its logarithmic absorption of infrared radiation. The warming effect of each molecule of CO2 decreases as its concentration increases. They estimate low climate sensitivity (~0.5–1.5°C per CO2 doubling), which is far below the IPCC’s range of 2.5–4°C.>>
They duped you...they deliberately withheld the effects of water vapour feedback, which increased CO2 directly causes. They led you to poisoned water, and you drank deeply. You're one dumb-ass mule.
You act that increased CO2 is bad. All life on Earth depends on atmospheric CO2 and it’s a measley .04%. If it drops below 150ppm, photosynthesis collapses. It is lower now than when dinosaurs roamed free. We are cooler now than when Julius Caesar invaded Gaul. Climate Change is a hoax and always has been. We are fleas on an elephant’s ass arguing over who is steering the elephant. This is why most people just aren’t buying what you are selling.
It’s the total concentration. Apparently you can’t keep up. All that carbon from oil and coal was in the ecosphere - forests, swamps, shallow seas - before it was sequestered in the ground due to geological forces. It is just going back where it came from. The Earth has been in a CO2 deficit since the start of the Ice Ages. The plants will thank us for increasing CO2 even if you are too ignorant to see it.
Historical CO2 levels have been much higher than current levels. According to earth.org (not exactly a conservative group), CO2 was 180-300ppm during the Ice Ages when life on Earth struggled. However, 1-20 million years ago it was in the 500ppm range. Go back further and it was closer to 1000ppm and as high as 2000ppm. While 20 million years may sound like a long time, if the age of the Earth were a year, the last 20 million years would be December 30-31. This is why I am not worried. Things are just going back to where they should be.
The climate panic clown show will roll on , simply because there are :
(a) too many conmen making money out of it and getting their virtue signalling jollies out of it at the same time while media cretins applaud.
(b) too many idiots, who having become accustomed to the media generated climate bogeyman, couldn’t exist without their daily dose of fear going around and around in their heads like a blowfly in an empty room, while they sort their garbage into different bins to protect the future , blah, blah ad infinitum.
In addition it provides a marketable “rational” similitude for what passes as religion in the collapsing West.
Climate clown comment, lacking any logic at all. Banks, big tech, big pharma are all making truck loads of money, climate clowns just aren’t as good at it ,but are an even bigger cin.
This post would be much more credible and worth considering if it did not so quickly and clearly descend into contemporary domestic US political framing .
There are other countries in the world who could not care less about which team controls US policy , they care about reality .
Science is a working hypothesis . Based on empirical observation of reality .
Glaciers are reducing in mass at an accelerated rate . I missed the part of your essay that dealt with this and other real world measurable phenomenon .
Eh. It actually seems like much of the world cares quite a bit about which team controls US policy, as US policy demonstrably has a big share of global influence in terms of both soft and hard power. Which countries are you speaking for?
Unfortunately, the paper’s contents can be easily predicted by the authors political and financial connections. The left doesn’t have a monopoly on what constitutes acceptable doctrine. If there is anything useful in the paper, which contributes to our shared understanding of our influence in climate, then hopefully it will be found. However, at this point it looks like so much more propaganda to support a political view.
The core science underlying CO2 driven climate warming was worked out in the late 1800s. Was remarked on in the UK House of Lords in 1959. It’s not new and it’s not radical.
Not taking action to mitigate and adapt will have far more impact on the poor than doing so.
No it wasn't. The radiative greenhouse effect was rejected by the 1930s and only resurrected by Exxon in the 50s because they were looking for schemes to enact oil industry regulation because they faced too much competition. Cargill, the main competitor in the states, funds Heartland institute. Exxon, rather its owner in the 70s Chase Manhattan, 70s, funded the climate alarmism narrative, Club of Rome, WEF, etc.
The radiative greenhouse effect makes no sense unless there are physical glass panes between the layers of the earths atmosphere. The features attributed to a radiative effect are actually caused by pressure and adiabatic effects.
I love the phrase "a shocking display of academic integrity". While it might be shocking relative to the indisputable biases of academia as a whole, the author here -- Richard Lindzen -- has been on the right side of this issue for decades. He has consistently been one of the strongest and best credentialed voices against climate change hysteria.
All your responses seem to be calling people names. That is a clear indicator of a weak argument. Lindzen is a shill because of his ties to the Cato Institute. Does that mean all the pro-climate change pundits are shills because they have ties to left leaning think tanks? Logic would suggest so. The simple point is that NONE of the gloom and doom predictions of the last 50 years - be they another ice age, Florida under water, famine, end of the Gulf Stream, more hurricanes, or ice free poles - have come true. Objectively, the “climate experts” don’t know what they are talking about. They are to climate what Cramer is to the stock market.
My house was supposed to be underwater almost 30 years ago. Plenty of properties that were once beachfront have been lost, but only because some people are dumb enough to build on naturally moving barrier islands. Don't build on constantly shifting sands.
We have the same thing out west with fires. People build in grown up places with a long history of fires, don’t clear brush from their property, and are then shocked when they lose their homes to fire. Easier to blame climate change than admit your own stupidity.
He quotes a 2015 article about CO2 causing “greening”, when in 2019 NASA published a study showing most of the “greening” is from tree planting in India and China. If all that “greening” is so good, why is CO2 still increasing, and why is it still getting warmer?
List the links they have to left leaning think tanks.
You may notice, though I doubt it, that the comments I’m responding to make claims for which there are no actual proofs for. Dude sin’t even interested in looking at what people who spend their lives studying climatology say, yet accuses me of not wanting to read Linden and Happer, which I have
thanks Simon, for demonstrating the emotiomal incontinence peculiar to the alarmist archetype. You might consider leaving any debate to the dispassionate archetypes capable of thinking like a scientist. I for one, am really bored with you and your proliferation. Just dull man, just dull.🤣🤣🤣
There’s a lot here, but let’s clear away the ideological fog and deal with what you’re actually claiming:
⸻
1. Lindzen & Happer’s paper “blows up climate science”?
It doesn’t. It wasn’t peer-reviewed, published, or vetted by climate scientists. It’s a white paper self-published through the CO₂ Coalition, a political advocacy group co-founded by Happer. That’s not how science works — and anyone presenting it as a definitive refutation is either unaware of how science is vetted, or counting on their readers not to check.
They argue climate sensitivity is low (~0.5–1.5°C per CO₂ doubling). But the best available science, including paleoclimate data, satellite observations, and energy balance studies, consistently puts the likely range around 2.5–4°C, with a best estimate near 3°C:
📚 IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers (2021), p. SPM-19
Even climate skeptic Judith Curry admitted in 2021 congressional testimony that “we have a likely range of climate sensitivity from observational studies from about 2 to 4.5°C.”
⸻
2. “Extreme weather isn’t increasing”
This is just false — and NOAA, WMO, and independent attribution studies all say so.
“Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe.”
— IPCC AR6 Working Group I, p. 10
Some examples:
• Hurricanes: Global frequency is steady, but Category 3–5 storms are becoming more common.
• Heatwaves, floods, droughts: Increased frequency and intensity across Europe, North America, and Asia.
• Wildfires: Longer seasons, drier fuels, and more extreme conditions.
This isn’t alarmism. It’s just what the data shows.
3. “Failed predictions” — cities underwater, no more snow, coral reefs dead
Let’s not pretend exaggeration by journalists or activists cancels the science. Here’s what actual projections said:
• Sea level rise: IPCC projected higher flood frequency, not Atlantis. And we’re seeing that now — ask Miami Beach or Jakarta, which is literally moving its capital city.
• Coral: Over 90% of the Great Barrier Reef has bleached at least once since 2016.
• Snow: Warmer air holds more moisture. So in some places, snow increases (until warming dominates); in others, it disappears. Just like the models said.
There’s a difference between narrative failure and scientific failure. The models are doing just fine.
⸻
4. “CO₂ is plant food, so warming is good”
CO₂ does enhance photosynthesis — but that’s not the whole story.
• Benefits plateau at higher levels.
• Crops suffer from heat stress, nutrient imbalance, and water scarcity.
• Pests and diseases increase with warming.
• And greening trends are uneven — not a get-out-of-climate-jail card.
“CO₂ fertilization is not enough to offset the negative effects of climate change on food security.”
— FAO & IPCC SRCCL, 2019
The irony here is that the same folks who say models are unreliable then latch onto NASA’s greening estimate from satellite data models and pretend it proves climate change is good.
⸻
5. “Net-zero policies do more harm than good”
Let’s break that down.
• Fossil fuels already cost trillions globally in climate damages, health impacts, and air pollution deaths.
🔗 IMF (2023): Fossil fuel subsidies hit $7 trillion/year when externalities are included.
Developing countries are not being “harmed” by clean energy. They’re already being hammered by climate extremes — and renewables are often more accessible and stable than fossil imports.
⸻
6. “Climate models are flawed”
Models aren’t crystal balls — they’re structured simulations based on physics. And they’ve done remarkably well over the last few decades.
📊 Hausfather & Peters, Nature, 2020:
“Climate models published from the 1970s onward have generally been accurate in projecting global temperature trends.”
People love to mock the uncertainty ranges, but that’s called honest science — unlike the “it’s all fake” crowd, who never publish in peer-reviewed journals and never show working code, equations, or reproducible results.
⸻
7. Lindzen & Happer are being “ignored” because they’re right?
No, they’re being ignored because their arguments have been weighed, tested, and rejected. Lindzen’s been wrong about climate for decades. He predicted cooling after 2000. He claimed warming would stop in 2005. He was a paid consultant for oil and tobacco interests. He’s not some persecuted Galileo — he’s just a physicist who never accepted the field’s empirical results.
This isn’t a clash of “alarmists vs realists.” It’s a clash between mainstream, testable, global scientific work — and a handful of politically motivated outliers pushing a message that conveniently aligns with fossil fuel interests.
You don’t have to love the IPCC, the UN, or the renewable industry. But pretending this entire field is a “grift” based on one paper by two retired contrarians is just lazy. The science isn’t perfect — but it’s a hell of a lot better than the narrative you’re selling.
There are hundreds that have gone overlooked as well. Simply put, the only consensus is that the climate has been changing forever. The place scientists glitch is why we arbitrarily picked a CO2 and Temp baseline and then demanded it never change? More on that quandary here: https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/the-climate-is-changing
You’re right that climate has always changed — but that’s not the question. The relevant issue is why it’s changing now, and how fast, and what the consequences are. On that, the scientific consensus is clear and evidence-based: human CO₂ emissions are the dominant driver of the unprecedented warming we’re observing.
“It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land.”
— IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, 2021
1. There is a strong scientific consensus — and it’s not just based on opinion.
The idea that there’s “no consensus” is demonstrably false. Multiple independent studies confirm over 97% agreement among publishing climate scientists that humans are the primary driver of modern warming:
• Cook et al., Environmental Research Letters, 2013
• Anderegg et al., PNAS, 2010
• Lynas et al., Environmental Research Letters, 2021 — >99% agreement
That’s not a vote. It’s a convergence of evidence across paleoclimate, physics, atmospheric chemistry, and direct observations.
2. The baseline isn’t arbitrary — it’s chosen for relevance and clarity.
We didn’t “randomly pick” a CO₂ level or a temperature. The pre-industrial baseline (~1850–1900) is used because it reflects the climate before large-scale fossil fuel use began.
Why that matters:
• CO₂ was ~280 ppm before the industrial revolution.
• It’s now over 420 ppm — a 50% jump in 150 years, unprecedented in the past 800,000 years.
• Temperature is rising faster than at any time in the Holocene (last 12,000 years).
🔗 NASA: Evidence for Climate Change
🔗 IPCC AR6 FAQ 1.1
That’s why the Paris Agreement targets 1.5°C or 2°C above pre-industrial levels — to limit impacts like sea-level rise, extreme heat, and ecosystem loss.
3. Yes, climate has changed before — but not like this.
Past changes were driven by orbital cycles, solar output, and volcanoes — all of which we can measure. None of those explain modern warming.
In contrast:
• We know CO₂ traps heat — it’s basic physics, demonstrated since the 1800s.
• We know humans are emitting tens of billions of tons of CO₂ per year.
• We’ve measured the isotopic signature of that carbon — and it’s fossil-derived.
• We’ve tracked ocean heat content, ice loss, glacier retreat, and sea level rise — all consistent with warming.
4. That blog post you linked? It repeats the same rhetorical misdirections.
I read it. It downplays attribution science, ignores paleoclimate context, and cherry-picks timelines. Saying “climate has always changed” while omitting the human fingerprint on modern change isn’t insight — it’s misdirection.
In Summary
Yes, the climate is changing — it always has. But this change is different in cause, rate, and risk. The baseline isn’t arbitrary — it’s historically grounded.
The consensus is not groupthink — it’s what happens when multiple disciplines converge on the same conclusion.
If there’s a real argument to be had, it’s over how best to respond — not whether the science is sound.
Michael, a “different perspective” doesn’t overturn physical reality — especially when that perspective hinges on rhetorical sleight of hand rather than evidence.
I did read your piece. Simply calling this “a different perspective” doesn’t make it more valid, and it certainly doesn’t make it scientific. It just means it’s ideologically aligned with your bias.
If you want to challenge mainstream climate science, you’ll need more than a blog post and a shrug at the evidence. That’s not how scientific understanding moves forward.
Oh, it's science backed. That means you missed all those nifty hyperlinks. Silly goose. I know a Troll when I meet one. Your shit is all ChatGPT created. Talk about a lack of critical thinking.
The ice age paper you cite is N of 1 as is the paper that you cite in support of your “hoax” thesis. There are always scientific outliers and that is a good thing because those outliers provoke more examination of the data. Sometimes there is an element of truth that taken in isolation upends everything, but when considered holistically changes things at the margins but doesn’t change the bigger story. The ice age guy was right about particulates cooling things off, but did not account for the larger impact of increased greenhouse gases. The vast majority of the data and scientists agree that the planet is warming due to greenhouse gas emissions increases, one paper challenges that consensus and we’ll see what more we can learn from that. Perhaps their analysis will be fully validated and we’ll all be relieved. If so no hoax will be involved. Just a lot of scientists trying their best to develop a better understanding of the world and getting it wrong. That said, as best I can tell the forecasting errors (in terms of temperature increase) of the “consensus” have erred on the side of underestimating temperature increases. At the end of the day the planet does not care. It is we humans who will live with the consequences of our actions for good or ill.
That is an excellent, balanced response, my friend. I hope we both agree that the proposed solutions to climate change will adversely impact the poor, and I argue that temperature increases are not outside normal observed variations. I live in South Texas, where it is damn hot - but it was much hotter in the 1930s, and 1900 was hotter still. That's why the Galveston Hurricane, which killed between 6,000 to 12,000 people, was so devastating.
I worked as VP of Engineering for 4+ years for a small division of a large company that supplies super high accuracy oceanographic temperature and salinity measurement instruments that are used by NOAA to track changes in the ocean. Around 2014, NOAA automagically changed their decades long standing test protocol in terms of the depth at which measurements are made. Result? Their measurements started showing a temperature rise in the oceans. Since we also got the data for our PhD data scientists to monitor for data integrity, our scientists very quickly blew the internal whistle. WTF was going on? Result? We asked NOAA about it and they poo pooed saying the change was to enable the “data to be more consistent with truth due to seasonal currents”. Result, we shut up because we did not want to disrupt our revenue flow. Result? NOAA got a sheize load more funding for “climate change”. Result? Then our sales bumped up big.
Any questions?
That littleepisode is the definition of hoax. How anyone is refusing to see how that is the correct word for the multi-institutional creation of deliberately flawed data for the purpose of pushing a false narrative is beyond me.
Pushing false narratives ^^^
I’m sure many things are beyond you.
This was done systematically to the major sources of global temperature data. Actually direct data fraud. It was in response to the 2010-2012 era "warming pause" discourse.
Prove it.
Interesting example of incentives skewing external perceptions
More like “interesting example” of lying.
So you don’t have any actual evidence the data are wrong. Got it. A consistent increase is caused by…???
No. The people changing the data sets have no valid reason for why.
There is a reason. It’s not defensible. The money changers and tax collectors needed a reason to tax carbon as an additional revenue source.
The problem, the science doesn’t support it. And the forecasted expectations have fabulously failed to materialize. These are facts. Even the reefs are coming back suggesting a cycle we never considered might exist.
The climate alarmists haven’t proven their case. They’ve just made massive amounts of money crying wolf.
“ And the forecasted expectations have fabulously failed to materialize.”
Which ones? Be specific.
That’s quite an allegation. Who and what did they change? Be specific.
When you find a voice not on the alarmists payrolls I might listen to them.
Which alarmist prediction has come true?
The top layer of water is warmer. It’s physics.
Still no actual, you know, evidence. Like I just said.
I agree that it’s an excellent response, but Tim, you seem to be totally sidestepping what he is very eloquently implying— ie that these are complex matters and that cherry picking outlier studies and then brandishing them as examples of ‘grift’ is its own grift. Ironically, you along with Joe Rogan and others are crying that the issue is being politicized but are Exhibit A in said politicization.
Right now the effects of climate change are adversely affecting the poor.
Actually not it is definitely helping the poor doing subsistence farming harvesting more crops and death and disease due to freezing or extreme cold increase quality of life and decrease energy cost and thus deforestation. I lived in Africa for 45 years and have seen first hand.
Again, not rich people…
https://substack.com/home/post/p-167916475
Over 200,000 people faced evacuations form ACC-worsened wildfires and floods in Canada, two years in a row. Hundreds came back to no homes.
And it wasn't the rich.
I’m sure that had nothing to do with advancing urban/wild interface + poor forest management
Do you have stats? Otherwise it’s just a story.
Personal experience. Lies damn lies and statistics
So no data.
It's just stories, dude. I gave you counter-examples, with numbers.
Right now climate change policy is adversely affecting the poor by raising electricity and transport costs.
Look who ran away as soon as proof was demanded!
You're a fucking coward.
Prove me wrong. The more you insult the more reasonable my position looks.
You still haven't done any of the critical thinking ideas I gave you, huh?
And I'm still waiting for you to prove that poor people are suffering from renewable energy.
You prove you right. It’s not up to me to prove you wrong.
Run the numbers for us, and include the costs ACC is incurring on them.
The climate has changed throughout millennia. We only showed up recently.
Did you come up with that one all by yourself? Or did the talking pints site forget to tell you that it always changes for a reason?
This tune the reason is our fossil fuel emissions.
Thanks for playing.
Not here to play Young Grasshopper.
Shocker: 400 ppm CO2 cannot warm the earth period. How is that? CO2 absorbs at 6.3 micron wavelength and re-emits very long wave far-infrared IR at 6.3 microns or less.
This is relatively "cold" at 193 K or -80 C, and cannot heat anything else up unless the other object or molecule is below that temperature or energy state.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that heat moves from hot to cold, not the opposite.
What happens when the “heat” (aka thermal energy) moves more slowly? Tell us what that does to the temperature of the radiating body.
So you don’t understand radiative heat transfer? Nor the greenhouse effect?
mmmK.
TrUsT the PsYeNcE, gAtEkEePeRs NEVER LiE 🤡
Oh look…another clown who can’t type.
It probably looks like that inside your brain too.
I see you have no response to this comment, but you choose to troll me on another.
It's hard not to think you're not interested in genuine discussion, but just want to spout your propaganda.
You sir are delusional. I have not trolled you on anything.
Can you show me where I said you did?
The absence of any humility that you yourself might be wrong, or that, at the very least, others might be mistaken, but well intentioned, leaves a former physicist, like myself, who would otherwise be receptive to a fresh perspective reaching for the "mute" button after 3 paragraphs.
“Just a lot of scientists trying their best to develop a better understanding of the world and getting it wrong.” Can you admit that there is an entire industrial complex built up around the climate change narrative? For the average person a new “original sin” for using fossil fuels? For the average school child a psychological mind game removing their optimism for the future and replacing it with inter generational conflict and “how dare you!”. Meanwhile actual solutions, such as reforestation and afforestation are not sufficiently developed or even outright rejected? Meanwhile wasting millions and billions on grift with no real solutions involved? Come ON! Please wake up. This is way more than scientists sorting things out. Is social and psychological manipulation. The worst news, to me, is that if the scientists promoting the climate change narrative turn out to be right, and we’re still living in the eat the bugs world of Bill G and friends, with all their “solutions” that don’t work, we will suffer both sides of terrible plans. They need an excuse to justify predetermined management outcomes. Surely you can understand that.
Would my waking up make me woke? ;-)
I freely admit that there are multiple commercial interests seeking to benefit from the risk of climate change. A different group of commercial interests are invested in denying climate change to preserve their cash flows/asset values. It is also true that scientists chase research dollars and that there have been more of those available for climate change research in the last few decades. It is also true that the numerous models that have been developed to project the future build upon other models which build on other models and that the final results are therefore quite subject to error.
That said, while there are some sensation/attention seeking scientists the vast majority are serious, curious people who are just trying to figure out how everything fits together. And while they won’t leap to adjust their thinking based on evidence (they are human after all) they will ultimately follow the data to where it leads (this is not a quick process because while “data speaks” it doesn’t always do so in a loud and clear voice).
I don’t believe in “saving the Planet”. The planet is going to be fine - it has gone through many changes in the past and will go through more in the future, no matter what we do. I care about us humans. The more we manage our society in a way that increases global temperatures the more disruption there will be. Some disruption will be positive - increased agricultural production for example. We see the negatives already and unless one refuses to see what is in front of ones own eyes (“a constant struggle” per Orwell) those negatives will increase societal stress. We humans have a very long history of conflict under conditions of stress. It is not a pretty history. I’m therefore very inclined to ignore/look away from climate change as it makes me very uncomfortable and somewhat despairing. And then I remind myself that while I can’t solve the problem I can do something positive. We didn’t get here through one dramatic act after all.
Do your best, and He will do the rest.
The "industrial complex" is the one built up around consuming fossil fuels, and lying about the effects.
Yes, but that industry sustains our civilization. Do you drive a car? Do you eat food from a super market? Sure it’s unsustainable and damaging and corrupt in all kinds of ways. But the climate change narrative offers no real sustainable solutions except grift on guilt. Via the climate change narrative our consciences are being used against us to further embed systems of power that subjugate us. Our best intentions to move toward truly sustainable lifestyles and positive improvement to the environment are being used by cynical yet powerful people (who are most likely fatalistic about the environment) to further cement their own power and control over the world.
“ the climate change narrative”
Just WTAF is that supposed to be? Am I supposed to take you seriously when you post that garbage?
My goodness…now it’s all about me. It’s also destroying our civilization, and most of us are too stupid to understand that, much less fix it.
Sorry if you took it as being about you. That’s not what I intended. So let’s make it about Pieter Hoff, one of the no doubt multiple or many people who have proposed a real solution to climate change via Reforestation of man made deserts (for example massive parts of North Africa and elsewhere that were once forests) all around the world. He proposed that if we planted and maintained a forest roughly the size of Spain every year for 40 years, we would remove the excess CO2 from the atmosphere. He was a Dutch farmer and successfully developed core technology to help trees grow in otherwise inhospitable environments (the waterboxx).
Where were Bill Gates and Al Gore and other so called climate change leaders when Pieter Hoff needed support, attention, funding etc? They shut out reforestation as a solution. I don’t know if they ever even met with Pieter, but a few years ago he passed away, may God rest his soul. Fortunately his work is still available online https://www.thetreesolution.com/en/
The point is the people pushing the climate narrative are using it as a justification for pushing social agendas predetermined based on the goal of de pop u lay shun. They don’t actually want to rebalance the atmosphere to pre industrial co2 levels. They just want to use the crisis to further their own goals of gaining control and power.
Sure. Reclaiming lost forest is a good idea. Then what?
Meanwhile, the right wing Bolsinaro was doing the opposite and accelerated the destruction of the Amazon. And now Trump is trying to bully Brazil into backing away from prosecution him.
Pleas tell who has what agenda here, K?
Vastly more money behind the alarmist industry, carbon taxes, etc.
Question: who owns the fossil fuel industry?
Really? Compared to the billions of profit made by fossil fuel companies?
What a bizarre assertion.
As long as climate alarmism pays the bills, the hoax will continue. No one ever gets grant money by saying “everything is going to be fine”. Guess what? Everything is going to be fine. Everyone now on the planet will be dead in 150 years, replaced by the next bunch of (insert your emergency here) alarmists.
Everything is not fine - there is toxic pollution, plastic pollution, garbage crisis, habitat destruction. However, governments are wasting resources on greenhouse gases - the one environmental issue that is not a problem.
ACC is a problem, dude.
What is "climate alarmism"?
I believe that the ocean releases 40% of all CO2. At least that’s what David Attenborough is saying. He also says that there is a great natural way to store the ocean’s CO2 via plankton. Which also feeds some whales and certainly is the base line of all food. But people have decided to take this bottom line source of food out of the ocean to use themselves. Similarly kelp which absorbs CO2. Now trawlers are trawling the seabed and removing the kelp forests.
It seems to me that the planet would heal itself very easily if they left its structures alone. I do not believe the CO2 from cars in Britain makes one iota of difference compared to the destruction of the planet’s natural healing abilities: the forests and the oceans will absorb it all if we let them. Furthermore the CO2 in the atmosphere is already greening areas of the planet - those that haven’t already been too denuded, trees burnt for fuel, etc.
Israel leads the world on greening the deserts, closely followed by the UAE.
Sub Saharan Africa has largely desertified its environment by destruction of habitat, war and corruption as well as burgeoning populations.
To sum up, I feel we either care for the environment/planet and we thus survive or we don’t and we humans largely disappear. I’m not interested in global warming as such, more in global destruction.
But what does an old woman know???
"I believe that the ocean releases 40% of all CO2."
Can you tell me where you got that from? Link, please.
The ocean holds a massive amount of carbon dioxide (CO2), estimated to be around 38,000 gigatons (Gt). This is significantly more than the carbon stored in the atmosphere or on land. The ocean acts as the largest carbon reservoir, playing a crucial role in regulating atmospheric CO2 levels and mitigating climate change.
David Attenborough’s Ocean
OK…I don’t doubt that. Then why does atmospheric CO2 keep going up?
Can you explain how the tiny change in atmospheric C02 results in catastrophic climate change that will destroy agriculture and cause large amounts of “climate refugees” from rapid sea level changes (this is the alarmism you keep wanting to be defined). I’m not saying it’s not happening btw, I just want to see if you can simply explain to me how CO2 forcing works in theory.
The problem many people who are questioning the narrative have is that alarmists refuse to accept (its sheer denial really, ironically) that rapid cessation of using fossil fuels will certainly kill several billion people on this planet within a generation. Not only that, nothing short of total war would actually dismantle the fossil fuels industry, because the developing countries that have not had access to fossil fuels will happily burn it and industrialise as the existing industrial powers commit suicide by phasing it out. China and India alone are burning more coal per year than the whole world was in the 90s. The inertia is baked in buddy, enjoy the ride we don’t know where it’s going with the climate but we do know that agriculture and global food distribution is almost 100% dependent on fossil fuels and there’s nothing that will scale up in time to make any meaningful difference. The only way forward is adaptation and personally I’d rather take my chances with that than pull the plug on industrial civilization.
"The inertia is baked in buddy." Sigh, you are right on that one. The question is how to proceed from here. Presumably the past does offer us some insights. We transitioned from wood to coal, then from coal to natural gas primarily due to economic factors. Since 2000 US coal generated electricity is down by 60%. While the coal miners lost their jobs economic collapse in the US did not follow. And today the levelized cost of solar is $20-$40 MWh vs. $60-$120 MWh for coal. And the cost of solar is continuing to fall as it scales. There are a lot of non-GHG emission power sources we can develop further, like next generation geothermal - which leverages the technology used for fossil fuel extraction. Thorium reactors show promise - and China is betting big on them as part of their shift away from coal. Wind and solar are proven. Geoengineering is a risky proposition, but may become necessary. History tells us we can transition energy sources. Adaptation is a necessity, of course, but I don't see why the reality of baked in inertia should stop us from pursuing an energy transition to reduce the degree of adaptation we will need to undertake (adaptation is not cheap after all, look at the price of all those seawalls we are putting up).
"The inertia is baked in buddy, enjoy the ride we don’t know where it’s going with the climate but we do know that agriculture and global food distribution is almost 100% dependent on fossil fuels and there’s nothing that will scale up in time to make any meaningful difference. "
At least you admit that decades of denial and delay have gotten us to the point where the consequences will be more dire, and you also admit that deniers and fossil fuel shills have no idea what maximum temperature increase they want. It's almost like they don't care how many lives are disrupted, and how many billions it will cost, as long as they get to keep their profits. Canada alone is facing the third summer heading toward 200,000 evacuees, with hundreds of homes and businesses lost.
Yes, you really are that Deplorable.
Nothing to see here...
<<Search efforts paused as more flooding rains hit Central Texas
Flooding has extended beyond Texas, with watches over portions of Oklahoma, Arkansas and New Mexico.>>
Fucking idiot.
I need a few of your words clarified first.
What is "catastrophic climate change"?
What is an "alarmist"?
Are you telling me that you come here not knowing how the greenhouse gas effect works with respect to CO2? You're really that much of a moron that you come here with all these jargon words and you don't even understand the most fundamental reason why we're even having this discussion?
It seems odd given that the midwest and Texas had FOUR record storms last week, and we have idiots like you thinking it's normal.
Certainly. It is on a long tv programme voiced by David Attenborough which I watched about a month ago. Part of his series about our planet. I’ll try and find the exact statement. But I imagine you’ll be better at that than me!
I dunno. I’m just trying to figure out what that has to do with our emissions causing climate change.
Shocker: 400 ppm CO2 cannot warm the earth temperature period. How is that? CO2 absorbs at 6.3 micron wavelength and re-emits very long wave far-infrared IR at 6.3 microns or less.
This is relatively "cold" at 193 K or -80 C, and cannot heat anything else up unless the other object or molecule is below that temperature or energy state.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that heat moves from hot to cold, not the opposite.
Global warming is very destructive.
Link please
Deniers don’t care, and deniers are too stupid to understand how ACC makes this worse…
«Nearly 30 per cent of the forested land base in the Prince George Fire Centre, which covers B.C.'s northeast, is likely to burn by the end of this year, according to the province.
Forest Minister Ravi Parmar says the region has already seen nearly 7,000 square kilometres burned by wildfires since June. That's by far the most of any of B.C.'s six fire centres, with the second highest being the Northwest Fire Centre, where just under 40 square kilometres have burned.
"People in the area have endured not just the physical threat of fires, but the emotional toll of displacement, smoke and uncertainty," Parmar said during a visit to the fire-affected region this week.»
What is a kilometer?
Just pay attention, dude. For example, in Canada, they are experiencing the third summer in a row of rampant, ACC-worsened wildfires. In each summer, and this will likely prove to be the same, over 200,000 people had to be evacuated a to one time or another. Hundreds returned to flooded or burnt out homes.
Now Texas...what will be the final tally, in billions, when the total cost of the recent flooding there will be reckoned? Not to mention the nearly 300 dead people, many of them children.
63,000 dead in Europe from overheating in 2022.
Do you want me to provide a comprehensive list? Are you gonna pretend none of this has anything to do with fossil fuel emissions? if so, then you're too stupid to have ao conversation with,.
That ignores the vast history of climate science. The place scientists glitch is why we arbitrarily picked a CO2 and Temp baseline and then demanded it never change? More on that quandary here: https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/the-climate-is-changing
“but I can’t quantify that assumption,”
Seriously? 🤦🏼
It’s the rate of change and what humans evolved with, stupid. My god why do you not know this by now? Were you educated in a red state? Trump U?
1. CO2 levels are not a leading indicator, but a trailing indicator (well demonstrated by ice core measurements )
2. Current CO2 levels are estimated to be at the lower end of historic & prehistoric levels, and
3. At levels that are borderline starvation levels for plants (CO2 I’d plant food)
4. All our food ultimately comes from plants,
5. Which depend on sunlight as well as CO2 to grow
6. People (such as Bill Gates, who think that there are too many people alive) say that the answer is to block sunlight striking the earth (you should never take advice from anyone who thinks that there are too many people living (unless they are about to drink their hemlock, & not even then),
7. Someone has pointed out that life in the oceans, which cover 70% of the earth, depends upon phytoplankton which depend on sunlight in the topmost layers of the ocean and they will largely die off under Gates, et al scheme. (You can’t hate Bill Gates enough).
8. The world has been both much hotter and cooler than current times
9. Ice age & mini ice age were times of extreme privation sickness and death.
10. Mankind has always been able to adapt to the ever changing climate.
11. Never has mankind had the level of technological resilience that we have now, nor have we been as well nourished as rich as we are now.
12. Fossil fuels are not just fossil fuels, but are generated by geologic processes that are only recently being understood (meaning we are very unlikely to run out of them
13. The Cassandras are lying.
Has climate change even reached the status of “theory” yet?
Long ago. Try to keep up.
Not to be cynical, but it’s a truism that pretty much all solutions to all problems more negatively impact the poor. The climate system is wickedly complex and effects are localized, e.g. global average temperatures can rise even as some areas cool. Momentum is such that whatever changes are in the offing in my lifetime are baked in. My children will be the ones living with the consequences of the actions we do or don’t undertake going forward.
I spent seven years in Afghanistan implementing solutions to help the poor, with my main contribution being the refurbishment of massive irrigation systems in Nimroz Province. When I was in Kabul and Jalalabad, I knew Afghans who were killed every winter by leaking Bukhari heaters. Reliable electricity would have eliminated that problem, but we didn't provide it with the billions we spent. We did provide street lights with solar panels to power them but the Afghans stole those and used them to power water pumps to drain millions of gallons of water out of the Helmand and Hari Rud rivers to irrigate poppy fields. The Afghan children will be the ones paying for our mismanagement and lack of vision. Your children and my grandchildren will be OK. If we stop wasting trillions on the climate change grift, they'll do even better.
Kudos to you for the work you did.
Relatively inexpensive, primarily Chinese manufactured solar cells are reported to be big in Pakistan now. They free people from the unreliable (or essentially non existent) electrical grid and from fissile fuels that can be expensive for them. Some developing areas may skip traditional electric I infrastructure and go to small local electric installations, similar to what cell phones did. https://apple.news/Az7nU1cqeSpibruPw5qmiQg
What solutions do you refer to? W&S do not lower co2 emissions over their “raw material to recycle” lifespan, and cost loads more (impact on the poor). And all this for extrapolations that are wickedly complex. Local areas have exhibited droughts/floods/ cool spells/warm spells etc as long as we can peer back.
That's simply not true.
WowSimon, you really hit that one out of the park. Shame that critical thinking is so rare.
Just responding in kind, dude. I'm not the one making shit up, so I don't feel a great need to put a lot of work into saying much.
What brings you here?
A very naive response that overlooks the extreme politicizing of the academy in recent decades. Nobody challenging the CAGW orthodoxy has the faintest hope of obtaining funding or a job, other than incumbents like Lindzen who have been there for decades.
The problem being that today big money is involved in 'solving climate" as well as some ideologues, that have grabbed a hold of it to push forward their own agenda. This is evident in the fact that unlike pure scientific inquiry, scientists that don't support the right viewpoint are heavily penalized. For quite some time, we could only hear from the right scientists when it comes to climate change. Unfortunately, this is a far bigger problem in all sorts of scientific inquiry than most of us would like to admit. The consequences of incorrect conclusions can often be catastrophic. The way science is utilized today, as our primary guiding light, to justify massive global efforts that impact billions of people, raises the stakes substantially. In my view, this elevates 'science' and scientific decision making far beyond the level of it's usefulness as a tool, and moves it into the danger zone. Science like everything else, has limits.
I agree with you on science having its limits. Ideally our society is capable of engaging in reasoned discourse based on facts and humility on the limits of our knowledge. It dismays me when I see the word "hoax" bandied about because it contains certainty. If you look at the larger body of research uncertainty is always part of the equation. Ultimately our society needs to determine what risks to take on. There is the risk of "overreacting" and the potential for disruption associated with that and the risk of "underresponding" and the potential for disruption associated with that. I view the risks of #2 as greater than the risks of #1 (indeed I see virtue in #1 that is unassociated with climate change - I like not changing light bulbs as frequently, I like not breathing gasoline fumes, I enjoy the temperature in my house being more stable, I love EV acceleration etc. I'm not blind to the fact that (at the moment in the US) an EV is an expensive proposition out of the range of many if not most Americans or that while mandating the replacement of gas appliances may cost you less in the long run in the short run it can make you broke. These are hard choices and its dishonest to pretend otherwise. I just wish that we could recognize that reality rather than demonizing people with either viewpoint.
You still haven’t explained how we get China to cut carbon and how fast we need to do it.
Hand waving and hysteria every bad weather event is ACC, when there is no solid trend. You haven’t addressed any of my points on how we stop using fossil fuels without killing everyone from starvation.
Climate change is a flat-out hoax, cooked up by elites to tighten their grip on us. The so-called devastation is just fearmongering to manipulate and control.
I think your point is that climate change is promoted by tech elites; no argument. Is climate change denial promoted by fossil fuel elites? If your answer is “yes” does it come down to a choice between elites?
I’m not knowledgeable enough to know whether devastation is in the future. I do know (through personal experience) that the climate is changing globally and getting warmer overall. Maybe we have nothing to do with it. On the other hand, if we do it seems to me that we should do something about it sooner rather than later especially given the fact (which everyone agrees on) that fossil fuels are a finite resource.
I wish you were right. Unfortunately I’m 67 years old and I’ve lived long enough to experience the changes. The trends will not magically arrest themselves.
As a 66-year-old reflecting on childhood memories of extreme weather, you might be experiencing memory distortion or reconstructive memory, where the passage of time softens or alters how you recall those events. When you were a kid, storms, floods, or heatwaves might have seemed less severe because of your limited understanding, sense of invulnerability, or even the excitement of a child’s perspective. Over time, those memories may fade or lose their emotional weight, making past weather events feel less intense than they actually were.
This can be amplified by today’s media and some climate scientists who frame current weather as uniquely extreme, which might make your childhood memories seem milder by comparison. While climate change is likely happening—and human activity may be contributing—the narrative of catastrophic weather pushed by some vocal groups can exaggerate the difference between past and present. Weather has always had extreme moments, and what you’re recalling might not be as tame as it now seems. It’s not the apocalyptic crisis some claim, but a complex issue that doesn’t always match the hype.
I agree that there is far too much hype around this issue. It has become politicized to our collective detriment.
Sorry, no. Frighteningly enough I’m also referring to changes that I’ve experienced in the last 30 years as an adult. And those changes are not all local. I have relatives in Europe and the summers there consistently warmer than they used to be - and the reliable winter snow is a thing of the past (BTW, not just hearsay, I visit relatively often). The drizzle that used to characterize Seattle is fading away, to be replaced by more real rain. On the bright side there are now honest to God warm days in May. The town I grew up in California’s Central Valley is cooler now - the trees were small when I was growing up and they are big now. However consistent, my life experience isn’t conclusive, but when you combine it with data readings from around the world . . . the planet is getting hotter. Wish it wasn’t so, but it is what it is.
The Earth's climate spans billions of years, so a 66-year human lifespan offers only a tiny snapshot of its history. While the planet is cooler now than in much of its ancient past, recent data shows a clear warming trend. This warming could intensify, potentially benefiting humanity by extending growing seasons and opening new habitable regions. However, relying solely on 66 years of observation ignores deep geological records—like ice cores and sediment layers—that reveal far greater climate shifts over millennia. Short-term personal experience can't capture the full scope of these patterns or predict long-term trends with accuracy.
I have no argument there - 66 years is a blink and the climate is a very complex system.
Really? I think you're just not smart enough to understand it.
It's not an outlier either. There are hundreds that have gone overlooked as well. Simply put, the only consensus is that the climate has been changing forever. The place scientists glitch is why we arbitrarily picked a CO2 and Temp baseline and then demanded it never change? More on that quandary here: https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/the-climate-is-changing
There have been people pointing out the academic fuckery since the early 90's, and the establishment has done HORRIBLE things to these people. As we've seen lately with the Covid debacle, the scientific journals are less than incorrect, they are utterly, PERVERSELY corrupted by industry regulatory capture. Randall Carlson has done many hours in his podcast to showcase the precise papers that were disregarded and the names of the monsters that led the witchhunts that got us here. Its high time we gather any and all dissident voices who were vindicated on these topics, and LET THEM SPEAK TO THE WORLD FOR ONCE.
Quick quiz.
First question: What “greenhouse gas” is reportedly impacting “global warming”, oops sorry, “climate change” the most?
Don't you know?
Nice try. Yes. I. asked you first. Go ahead Einstein, make my day.
If you know, why are you asking?
Because he realized early on that you’re a dumbfuck!
And right here is why we can’t have nice things.
Not to be a bummer, but this ain't gonna stop the climate crazies. Prof Lindzen has been stalwart for decades on this. There has never been a shortage of convincing evidence countering the Anthropogenic Global Warming narrative. It's not about evidence and reason, it's about emotion.
Oh, and money. I forgot money.
When the big bosses stop funding the climate bs, it will finally stop. But not a moment sooner.
It’s also about pride. Those who have promoted the lie, researched the lie, made art about the lie, teach the lie, get lovely money for lying- are married to it. They can’t handle the humiliation of being wrong- they will drive themselves to complete desperation to keep perpetuating it.
How many billions did Exxon rake in while they were lying?
https://www.npr.org/2023/01/12/1148376084/exxon-climate-predictions-were-accurate-decades-ago-still-it-sowed-doubt
Which "lie"? Be specific, and tell us how you know it's a "lie".
Please give us your version of "convincing evidence countering the Anthropogenic Global Warming narrative. "
I've looked at what Lindzen has to say, and he doesn't actually make sense. His MIT colleagues even told him so.
CO2 concentration plots as a ‘hockey stick’ graph. CO2 is alleged to warm Earth. Warmth melts ice, which should raise sea levels. NOAA charts of historical sea levels show a slow linear rise since tide records have been kept. So, CO2 rate of change is exponential, but ocean level rate of change is linear. A beautiful theory destroyed by one ugly fact?
Not "allegedlY". It does.
Do they have to have a directly linear relationship? Who says?
The lockdown on any institutional academic or media support for counter narratives is global. It's not just money, it's the money. It's state level actors.
You mean like the Epstein list? And the State of Florida?
What are "climate crazies"?
Co2
Cobalt 2? What’s that?
FFS
Yep, good writing is important.
Let’s not forget that all of the proposed “solutions” to climate change are projected to have minimal impact on CO2 levels…at best. Trillions of dollars spent on windmills and solar will have practically zero impact. There is one power source which might have an impact, but the greenies won’t even consider it…nuclear. Which demonstrates how unserious they are at addressing this issue.
The biggest enemy of nuclear in the US is actually the fossil fuel industry.
Pointless response. Fossil fuels and FF companies aren’t going anywhere, any time soon.
The best solution is to stop burning fossil fuels. Take it from there.
That’s a silly response.
You make a better one. Show me how it’s done.
I guess reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, because I did.
I pointed out a major flaw, to which you had no response.
Read my initial post again genius.
Lindzen is a paid shill.
"Richard S. Lindzen is former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT),4 a position he held from 19835 until his retirement in 2013.6
Lindzen’s academic interests lie within the topics of “climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability,” according to his faculty profile at MIT.7
Lindzen is a former distinguished senior fellow at the Cato Institute‘s Center for the Study of Science.8 The Center shut down in 2019, and was no longer affiliated with Lindzen at that time. “It’s unclear when he left Cato, and [Spokeswoman Khristine] Brookes declined to comment on personnel issues,” E&E News reported.9
The Cato Institute, a conservative think tank where Lindzen has also published numerous articles and studies, has received at least $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.10 In his 1995 article, “The Heat Is On,” Ross Gelbspan reported that Lindzen charged oil and coal organizations $2,500 per day for his consulting services.11
Lindzen has described ExxonMobil as “the only principled oil and gas company I know in the U.S.”12
In addition to his position at Cato, Lindzen is listed as an “Expert” with the Heartland Institute,13 a member of the “Academic Advisory Council” of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF),14 and an advisor to the CO2 Coalition, a group promoting the benefits of atmospheric carbon dioxide.15
Fossil Fuel Funding
As part of a March 2018 legal case between the cities of San Francisco and Oakland and fossil fuel companies, Lindzen was asked by the judge to disclose any connections he had to connected parties.16
In response, Lindzen reported that he had received $25,000 per year for his position at the Cato Institute since 2013. He also disclosed $1,500 from the Texas Public Policy Foundation for a “climate science lecture” in 2017, and approximately $30,000 from Peabody Coal in connection to testimony Lindzen gave at a proceeding of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commissions in September 2015.17
"
Convenient that the properties of CO2 he writes about are objective scientific facts then.
By the way, to anyone reading this, above is a climate bot. Notice its ability to pull out a set of talking points on every element of the issue, like a church apologist.
“ By the way, to anyone reading this, above is a climate bot”
Whatever you need to believe, coward.
But the results of those properties with respect to climate change are bullshit.
Am I the ONLY person who realizes that the dread 1.5 degree Celsius rise in average global temps is equivalent to a 2.5 degree Fahrenheit rise in average global temperature?? 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit is the average temperature change between breakfast and brunch across most of the Northern and Southern Temperate Zones. The Temperate Zones are the world's most productive agricultural regions.
Look,I'm not a scientist, but I'm also not a fool. I'm fairly certain we could withstand an average temperature increase of 2.5%. And I'm certain that it would greatly benefit large-scale agriculture and thus reduce global food insecurity.
The US could. But there are many countries that can not. Prepare for hundreds of millions of refugees from the Middle East and South Asia.
We (humans) certainly can, it's not about how it directly effects a human but how it effects our environment (natural disasters), our food supply (animals and plants), and our geography (rising sea levels). Also its not a 'one time increase'. The consensus is NOT that "if global temperatures rise above 2.5F our environment will collapse", it's that once it passes that threshold it is incredibly unlikely to progress downward and will only get warmer. 2.5F turns into 5F turns into 10F turns into your crops can't survive anymore in many parts of the world (in a near future scenario, perhaps 30-100 years).
Some day you'll be old like me, Nico. And you'll come to realize that everything the climate alarmists predict, never comes true. This nonsense began in the 1970s and every iteration of these dire warnings always contains a short time frame (usually as decade) within which mankind MUST stop doing X, and immediately start doing Y, or we will all perish by a certain time. The most hyperbolic announcements always get the most attention, and have uniformly not occurred. Ever.
Thus will it ever be.
Even Exxon was right with their predictions from the 70s. But they seem t think it's better to keep lying about it...
https://www.npr.org/2023/01/12/1148376084/exxon-climate-predictions-were-accurate-decades-ago-still-it-sowed-doubt
I guess my question was too hard.
List the things predicted by climatologists that haven’t come true.
Hansen was correct thirty years after his 1986 prediction.
Great piece sir. Yes man made global warming or climate is a lot of bs.
Thank you! I almost wrote, "How dare you?" as an acknowledgement of the consummate climate grifter, Greta Thunberg. I can't get an accurate forecast for golf in the morning much less what's going to happen in two days. Yet, the liberal "woke" have chosen to die on the this hill in spite of all the erroneous predictions from the geniuses promoting this scam. The Weather Channel mentions "Climate Change" every day as they pay homage to the hoax. I understand that scientists need their funding to perpetuate their careers but truth and accuracy would be a better way to go to establish a modicum of credibility. Climate no doubt changes but higher taxes isn't the answer nor is buying green energy to make Al Gore wealthier.
I could not agree more. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
CO2 is 75% of the atmospheric gas that absorbs 4 and 10-15 micrometer photons. It’s well mixed. It causes more H2O, which they ignore, which is 1-5%. Higher CO2 regreens deserts which changes albedo from .5 to .2, as plants can reduce stomata, and evapotranspiration further increases H2O. That reduces glaciation; ice reflects 90%, water absorbs 90%. Samuel Bankman Fried was also from MIT. Lots of other mitigating complex science is involved. Don’t fool yourself or others into thinking you actually comprehend this. The IPCC has a huge range because permafrost and human cognitive dissonance imply we might see 2,000 ppm atmospheres, which won’t literally instantly kill humanity, but will absolutely reduce executive brainfunction and complex decisionmaking by ~50%. It would increase food production, but reduce vitamins and minerals 20-40%, further damaging clear thinking. Also microplastics. Idiocracy was so on the nose.
Co2 has nothing to do with the glaciers.
Glaciation, or the formation of ice sheets and glaciers, is a long-term impact influenced by Earth's orbital variations, specifically the Milankovitch cycles.
Milankovitch cycles are primarily forced by orbit/eccentricity, which is partly driven by desertification and dust. More dust means dirty glaciers, which melt. Speaking of melting, the positive or negative feedback cycles of climate change are directly impacted by heat trapping gasses. The reason the IPCC is so hard for most people to understand is all the mitigating influences. But you seem like you know what you’re talking about... I do only have a bachelor’s in astrophysics and a deep interest in climate change; I’m not the sole arbiter of truth. I’m publishing a research paper in a few weeks and would encourage you to read the papers I cite, preferably several times. Most dense writing takes a few reads to comprehend. I wrote this quickly because you’ve proffered false premises with authority, and I presume any response will be written in like manner. Feel free to go do your own research.
No you are dead wrong. The cycles are primarily entropy exchanges with the sun. Low entropy photons from the sun exchange with high entropy particles from the earth. That is the foundation of global warming/cooling. It has nothing to do with humans
I don’t disagree that I am obviously in purgatory, but see above to my comment explaining my contestation of your premise. I understand entropy better than you, but not as good as Boltzmann, but you do make me want to follow his lead, which I won’t because of Kant.
Also, everyone sited in the article has light years more comprehension than you on everything discussed.
What you have is certificated thought. It’s worthless.
You don’t understand entropy better than me. Read Emperors New Mind by Roger Penrose. He has a great summarizing of global warming. The humans not involved that would require you to revert back to Newtonian mechanics.
Ok. Well that’s just like, your opinion, man.
I still disagree with your premise. You’re appealing to authority you don’t have based on authorities you obviously don’t comprehend. I almost certainly don’t understand entropy better than Penrose; I highly doubt he and I disagree that much, I presume your limited understanding of what he said and what I’ve said inhibits your ability to adequately comprehend how much he and I disagree. In other words, I’m staking the claim you’re less of an arbiter of truth than I. I definitely do understand how .04% of a well-mixed portion of gasses can absorb photons and transmit it to the 99%+ which don’t absorb those wavelengths but which CO2 touch thousands of times a second, transferring vibrational energy, aka entropy, before they can de-excite by releasing a photon. They’re 3D molecules, unlike N2, O2, or Ar, so they can constantly absorb photons in those wavelengths and transmit the energy to vibrational energy in ways the aforementioned cannot. Presuming you don’t break out some new physics and win a Nobel prize, I highly doubt you comprehend things as well as you claim. Here’s an analogy: it’s like a bucket of water with holes, the sun is the spigot, the size of the bucket is the total amount of gas, and CO2 is plugging the holes. It’s rather simple. At least 10-30% of all humans to have ever existed were killed by bacteria or viruses which are microscopic and orders of magnitude much less than than .04% of their bodyweight. You’re far too presumptive. I only plan to advocate ways to economically alleviate the problem at hand in a cost-effective scalable manner without reversion to the stone age.
Astrophysics comprehension should have removed the confusion for you.
Nobody’s confused on entropy but you.
In which multiverse was I unaware that Chris was a prospective VC or that the entirety of the argument would be viewed by other VCs? None.
I’ve already stated my multiverse shtick is an inside joke between me and my other selves… Only with my informed consent will anyone make money off my broken back. “I don’t care if you’re the Cesar of Russia!” A lot of interesting information is about to become public knowledge. All roads lead to Mena, Arkansas. Until NATO builds the bridge to Sicily, not even Sicilian roads reach Rome.
300 mya Iowa and the Great Lakes were along the equator, Milankovitch cycles have changed dramatically on geological timescales due to continental drift. Gravity may alter milankovitch cycles due to resonance with Mars, but that’s solely by virtue of altering albedo patterns by altering orbit, precession, etc. It’s a 2.4 my cycle, which is minimal compared to the 40k and 100k cycles, that’s because gravity is exceptionally weak compared to strong, weak, and electronmagnetic forces.
No, you just keep saying you proved it. You don’t back up assertions. You obviate. You ignore. You don’t comprehend half the words you use. This is puerile and a waste of time. I can’t even realistically begin to debate you on the facts because you’re just not that smart. Dunning Kruger.
It’s the M cycles that cause the warming not humans and not co2.
You believe your species is grand but it’s not. It’s inconsequential and you aren’t altering earths warming cycles. Stupid child.
I don’t believe our species is grand, I believe we’re the same species, and you represent the opposite of grandeur.
Obviously we’re the same species you autistic moron. You think human is grand enough to cause extreme warming on earth you imbecile. It’s the tilt, and obviously gravity because how the fuck else would it all exist? Or do you also rely on creationism?
You’ve been proven dead wrong. The warming being experienced is through earths tilt. Not the co2, that amount not needed by the atmosphere would be radiated into space
That’s not how milankovitch cycles work, it’s the tilt paired with the eccentricity of orbit. It’s impossible to argue with you, it took fifty replies to get you to agree with me on entropy. You’re barely older than me. You keep saying I’ve been proven wrong, but you haven’t proven anything and barely seem to comprehend physics, much less my overarching argument. It’s ridiculously nonsensical to say the amount “not needed” is radiated into space. That makes no sense. Heat isn’t needed, it isn’t radiated to space, it’s absorbed by co2 and transferred kinetically to n2/o2.
No fucking shit dumbass. Obviously gravity is paired with the tilt. You make the stupidest arguments, boy genius.
Heat is radiated to space, eventually, obviously. But it’s not “needed”, it flows until it reaches equilibrium, adding CO2 alters how quickly it radiates. I’m tired. You’re wrong. You make claims that are illogical. You’re barely older than me. You make assumptions that are entirely unfounded. I’ll reply no more. But thanks for giving me a better idea of where people misunderstand reality.
Look at how you make dumbass arguments, get proven wrong, and then come back arguing what I just proved.
I’m sorry, it’s really hard to understand what you don’t get. You keep saying proven, but you made an unsubstantiated statement; I proved my argument significantly better than you. I proved it more; I said so, that makes it true (but also it is true). Just saying something doesn’t make it true. I can’t build an argument because you use physics words you don’t understand. You just keep saying the same thing and keep hurling insults to avoid building an argument or finding common ground, presumably due to deep seated inadequacies.
Humans are not causing the warming being witnessed. The m cycles are. The past 485 million years of geological evidence proves it is cyclical without humans.
I’ve always known that to be true.
I know you think you know.
Phase space is in perfect equilibrium. Humans are not disrupting it to anywhere near the point to cause global warming.
You don’t know physics.
I know more than you can memorize, young child. So do all the people you disagree with. You’re stupid.
Basic second law of thermo
Thanks boy genius. I can’t wait to read your fraudulent paper in 3 weeks.
I think the record shows you’re triggered. It’s only nonsensical because you like calling factual physics hypothetical. I already live in a van down by the river… Check and mate. It’s only nonsensical because you “know physics”.
I also clearly said it’s not going to result in doomsday overnight or immediate extinction, if at all; actually I think nuclear war, a solar flare, asteroid, or supervolcano, explicitly paired with humanity consisting of many of your ilk, is the most likely cause of future extinction.
lol. Did you get triggered? You don’t have any argument other than your nonsensical hypothetical that essentially deduces into doomsday prepping. So take your fake smart ass and buy a van and live in the woods alone and prep for your apocalypse. But you won’t because even you know your argument is fraudulent.
And my dear boy, you are the one without your own thoughts and theories. You are the parrot of institutions we all know are fraudulent.
We are presently 50,000 years away from when the M cycles suggest that. Of course, linear time is a poor form of measurement that exist solely in your mind. Not anywhere else in nature
I also agree with Zeno!
Can y'all take this wankfest of a willie-measuring contest elsewhere? FFS
I’d win…
Actually, can’t you go fuck off somewhere else?
I take math
Take anti-dumbass and less insta-bitch, instead. Also grammar and logic lessons.
Also, young boy, we have 485 million years of geological evidence that proves my point. You have fraud.
No, we’ve 485 my of geological evidence that proves my point.
Also, your rich to declare my grammar is insufficient when you dialect is that of a 20 year old valley girl.
You’re*
I am intellectually superior to you. Those of us who are smart enough to retire in our early 40’s call young boys like yourself “fake-smart.”
Of course you are!!!
<<Lindzen and Happer use physics to demonstrate that CO2’s warming effect is limited by its logarithmic absorption of infrared radiation. The warming effect of each molecule of CO2 decreases as its concentration increases. They estimate low climate sensitivity (~0.5–1.5°C per CO2 doubling), which is far below the IPCC’s range of 2.5–4°C.>>
They duped you...they deliberately withheld the effects of water vapour feedback, which increased CO2 directly causes. They led you to poisoned water, and you drank deeply. You're one dumb-ass mule.
You're describing a positive feedback loop. It cannot possibly be true.
Why's that?
You act that increased CO2 is bad. All life on Earth depends on atmospheric CO2 and it’s a measley .04%. If it drops below 150ppm, photosynthesis collapses. It is lower now than when dinosaurs roamed free. We are cooler now than when Julius Caesar invaded Gaul. Climate Change is a hoax and always has been. We are fleas on an elephant’s ass arguing over who is steering the elephant. This is why most people just aren’t buying what you are selling.
It’s the rate of change, stupid. Try to keep up.
It’s the total concentration. Apparently you can’t keep up. All that carbon from oil and coal was in the ecosphere - forests, swamps, shallow seas - before it was sequestered in the ground due to geological forces. It is just going back where it came from. The Earth has been in a CO2 deficit since the start of the Ice Ages. The plants will thank us for increasing CO2 even if you are too ignorant to see it.
What do you mean by “deficit”? Be specific.
Historical CO2 levels have been much higher than current levels. According to earth.org (not exactly a conservative group), CO2 was 180-300ppm during the Ice Ages when life on Earth struggled. However, 1-20 million years ago it was in the 500ppm range. Go back further and it was closer to 1000ppm and as high as 2000ppm. While 20 million years may sound like a long time, if the age of the Earth were a year, the last 20 million years would be December 30-31. This is why I am not worried. Things are just going back to where they should be.
Yes, over 200 million years ago, and it took millions of years to sequester. We’re releasing it orders of magnitude more quickly.
It’s the rate, dude. Please try to keep up.
The climate panic clown show will roll on , simply because there are :
(a) too many conmen making money out of it and getting their virtue signalling jollies out of it at the same time while media cretins applaud.
(b) too many idiots, who having become accustomed to the media generated climate bogeyman, couldn’t exist without their daily dose of fear going around and around in their heads like a blowfly in an empty room, while they sort their garbage into different bins to protect the future , blah, blah ad infinitum.
In addition it provides a marketable “rational” similitude for what passes as religion in the collapsing West.
It's fossil fuel companies who are making the most money.
So all of you logic actually applies to them.
Climate clown comment, lacking any logic at all. Banks, big tech, big pharma are all making truck loads of money, climate clowns just aren’t as good at it ,but are an even bigger cin.
You're too stupid to apply your money logic to the ones making all the money, huh?
I can't help you.
Welded on climate fuckwit with one thought going around like blowfly in an empty room
Pre-1990 the left tried to take down capitalism with economics.
That failed, so they now try to take it down with science and culture (climate and DEI).
Physics is just doing it's thing, and it's mostly righties who are too stupid to understand it.
This post would be much more credible and worth considering if it did not so quickly and clearly descend into contemporary domestic US political framing .
There are other countries in the world who could not care less about which team controls US policy , they care about reality .
Science is a working hypothesis . Based on empirical observation of reality .
Glaciers are reducing in mass at an accelerated rate . I missed the part of your essay that dealt with this and other real world measurable phenomenon .
Eh. It actually seems like much of the world cares quite a bit about which team controls US policy, as US policy demonstrably has a big share of global influence in terms of both soft and hard power. Which countries are you speaking for?
Unfortunately, the paper’s contents can be easily predicted by the authors political and financial connections. The left doesn’t have a monopoly on what constitutes acceptable doctrine. If there is anything useful in the paper, which contributes to our shared understanding of our influence in climate, then hopefully it will be found. However, at this point it looks like so much more propaganda to support a political view.
The core science underlying CO2 driven climate warming was worked out in the late 1800s. Was remarked on in the UK House of Lords in 1959. It’s not new and it’s not radical.
Not taking action to mitigate and adapt will have far more impact on the poor than doing so.
No it wasn't. The radiative greenhouse effect was rejected by the 1930s and only resurrected by Exxon in the 50s because they were looking for schemes to enact oil industry regulation because they faced too much competition. Cargill, the main competitor in the states, funds Heartland institute. Exxon, rather its owner in the 70s Chase Manhattan, 70s, funded the climate alarmism narrative, Club of Rome, WEF, etc.
The radiative greenhouse effect makes no sense unless there are physical glass panes between the layers of the earths atmosphere. The features attributed to a radiative effect are actually caused by pressure and adiabatic effects.
"The radiative greenhouse effect was rejected by the 1930s"
By who?
I love the phrase "a shocking display of academic integrity". While it might be shocking relative to the indisputable biases of academia as a whole, the author here -- Richard Lindzen -- has been on the right side of this issue for decades. He has consistently been one of the strongest and best credentialed voices against climate change hysteria.
Actually he hasn't. He's a clown, and has been outed as such by his own MIT colleagues.
All your responses seem to be calling people names. That is a clear indicator of a weak argument. Lindzen is a shill because of his ties to the Cato Institute. Does that mean all the pro-climate change pundits are shills because they have ties to left leaning think tanks? Logic would suggest so. The simple point is that NONE of the gloom and doom predictions of the last 50 years - be they another ice age, Florida under water, famine, end of the Gulf Stream, more hurricanes, or ice free poles - have come true. Objectively, the “climate experts” don’t know what they are talking about. They are to climate what Cramer is to the stock market.
My house was supposed to be underwater almost 30 years ago. Plenty of properties that were once beachfront have been lost, but only because some people are dumb enough to build on naturally moving barrier islands. Don't build on constantly shifting sands.
We have the same thing out west with fires. People build in grown up places with a long history of fires, don’t clear brush from their property, and are then shocked when they lose their homes to fire. Easier to blame climate change than admit your own stupidity.
Who said that? Any climatologists?
He quotes a 2015 article about CO2 causing “greening”, when in 2019 NASA published a study showing most of the “greening” is from tree planting in India and China. If all that “greening” is so good, why is CO2 still increasing, and why is it still getting warmer?
List the links they have to left leaning think tanks.
You may notice, though I doubt it, that the comments I’m responding to make claims for which there are no actual proofs for. Dude sin’t even interested in looking at what people who spend their lives studying climatology say, yet accuses me of not wanting to read Linden and Happer, which I have
thanks Simon, for demonstrating the emotiomal incontinence peculiar to the alarmist archetype. You might consider leaving any debate to the dispassionate archetypes capable of thinking like a scientist. I for one, am really bored with you and your proliferation. Just dull man, just dull.🤣🤣🤣
That's really too bad for you. "Boring" is repeats of weather animations.
I await your more continent responses.
This should be good.
Hey Simon, thanks for responding. Why don’t we do a live Substack video or other chat? In or out?
Wassamadda, dude? Special K run out on you already?
should I take that as ‘out’?
No? You can’t write well enough, or are you afraid I’ll be able to fact check you too easily?
You can respond right now. Are you too chicken?
Tim,
There’s a lot here, but let’s clear away the ideological fog and deal with what you’re actually claiming:
⸻
1. Lindzen & Happer’s paper “blows up climate science”?
It doesn’t. It wasn’t peer-reviewed, published, or vetted by climate scientists. It’s a white paper self-published through the CO₂ Coalition, a political advocacy group co-founded by Happer. That’s not how science works — and anyone presenting it as a definitive refutation is either unaware of how science is vetted, or counting on their readers not to check.
They argue climate sensitivity is low (~0.5–1.5°C per CO₂ doubling). But the best available science, including paleoclimate data, satellite observations, and energy balance studies, consistently puts the likely range around 2.5–4°C, with a best estimate near 3°C:
📚 IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers (2021), p. SPM-19
🔗 ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1
Even climate skeptic Judith Curry admitted in 2021 congressional testimony that “we have a likely range of climate sensitivity from observational studies from about 2 to 4.5°C.”
⸻
2. “Extreme weather isn’t increasing”
This is just false — and NOAA, WMO, and independent attribution studies all say so.
“Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe.”
— IPCC AR6 Working Group I, p. 10
Some examples:
• Hurricanes: Global frequency is steady, but Category 3–5 storms are becoming more common.
• Heatwaves, floods, droughts: Increased frequency and intensity across Europe, North America, and Asia.
• Wildfires: Longer seasons, drier fuels, and more extreme conditions.
This isn’t alarmism. It’s just what the data shows.
🔗 climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
⸻
3. “Failed predictions” — cities underwater, no more snow, coral reefs dead
Let’s not pretend exaggeration by journalists or activists cancels the science. Here’s what actual projections said:
• Sea level rise: IPCC projected higher flood frequency, not Atlantis. And we’re seeing that now — ask Miami Beach or Jakarta, which is literally moving its capital city.
• Coral: Over 90% of the Great Barrier Reef has bleached at least once since 2016.
🔗 gbrmpa.gov.au
• Snow: Warmer air holds more moisture. So in some places, snow increases (until warming dominates); in others, it disappears. Just like the models said.
There’s a difference between narrative failure and scientific failure. The models are doing just fine.
⸻
4. “CO₂ is plant food, so warming is good”
CO₂ does enhance photosynthesis — but that’s not the whole story.
• Benefits plateau at higher levels.
• Crops suffer from heat stress, nutrient imbalance, and water scarcity.
• Pests and diseases increase with warming.
• And greening trends are uneven — not a get-out-of-climate-jail card.
“CO₂ fertilization is not enough to offset the negative effects of climate change on food security.”
— FAO & IPCC SRCCL, 2019
The irony here is that the same folks who say models are unreliable then latch onto NASA’s greening estimate from satellite data models and pretend it proves climate change is good.
⸻
5. “Net-zero policies do more harm than good”
Let’s break that down.
• Fossil fuels already cost trillions globally in climate damages, health impacts, and air pollution deaths.
🔗 IMF (2023): Fossil fuel subsidies hit $7 trillion/year when externalities are included.
🔗 imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel-subsidies-surged-to-7-trillion
• Renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels in most of the world:
🔗 IRENA (2023): “Solar and wind are the lowest-cost sources of electricity in history.”
🔗 irena.org/publications/2023/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2022
Developing countries are not being “harmed” by clean energy. They’re already being hammered by climate extremes — and renewables are often more accessible and stable than fossil imports.
⸻
6. “Climate models are flawed”
Models aren’t crystal balls — they’re structured simulations based on physics. And they’ve done remarkably well over the last few decades.
📊 Hausfather & Peters, Nature, 2020:
“Climate models published from the 1970s onward have generally been accurate in projecting global temperature trends.”
🔗 nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3
People love to mock the uncertainty ranges, but that’s called honest science — unlike the “it’s all fake” crowd, who never publish in peer-reviewed journals and never show working code, equations, or reproducible results.
⸻
7. Lindzen & Happer are being “ignored” because they’re right?
No, they’re being ignored because their arguments have been weighed, tested, and rejected. Lindzen’s been wrong about climate for decades. He predicted cooling after 2000. He claimed warming would stop in 2005. He was a paid consultant for oil and tobacco interests. He’s not some persecuted Galileo — he’s just a physicist who never accepted the field’s empirical results.
🔗 skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
⸻
Final Thought
This isn’t a clash of “alarmists vs realists.” It’s a clash between mainstream, testable, global scientific work — and a handful of politically motivated outliers pushing a message that conveniently aligns with fossil fuel interests.
You don’t have to love the IPCC, the UN, or the renewable industry. But pretending this entire field is a “grift” based on one paper by two retired contrarians is just lazy. The science isn’t perfect — but it’s a hell of a lot better than the narrative you’re selling.
Great reply.
There are hundreds that have gone overlooked as well. Simply put, the only consensus is that the climate has been changing forever. The place scientists glitch is why we arbitrarily picked a CO2 and Temp baseline and then demanded it never change? More on that quandary here: https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/the-climate-is-changing
Michael,
You’re right that climate has always changed — but that’s not the question. The relevant issue is why it’s changing now, and how fast, and what the consequences are. On that, the scientific consensus is clear and evidence-based: human CO₂ emissions are the dominant driver of the unprecedented warming we’re observing.
“It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land.”
— IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, 2021
1. There is a strong scientific consensus — and it’s not just based on opinion.
The idea that there’s “no consensus” is demonstrably false. Multiple independent studies confirm over 97% agreement among publishing climate scientists that humans are the primary driver of modern warming:
• Cook et al., Environmental Research Letters, 2013
• Anderegg et al., PNAS, 2010
• Lynas et al., Environmental Research Letters, 2021 — >99% agreement
That’s not a vote. It’s a convergence of evidence across paleoclimate, physics, atmospheric chemistry, and direct observations.
2. The baseline isn’t arbitrary — it’s chosen for relevance and clarity.
We didn’t “randomly pick” a CO₂ level or a temperature. The pre-industrial baseline (~1850–1900) is used because it reflects the climate before large-scale fossil fuel use began.
Why that matters:
• CO₂ was ~280 ppm before the industrial revolution.
• It’s now over 420 ppm — a 50% jump in 150 years, unprecedented in the past 800,000 years.
• Temperature is rising faster than at any time in the Holocene (last 12,000 years).
🔗 NASA: Evidence for Climate Change
🔗 IPCC AR6 FAQ 1.1
That’s why the Paris Agreement targets 1.5°C or 2°C above pre-industrial levels — to limit impacts like sea-level rise, extreme heat, and ecosystem loss.
3. Yes, climate has changed before — but not like this.
Past changes were driven by orbital cycles, solar output, and volcanoes — all of which we can measure. None of those explain modern warming.
In contrast:
• We know CO₂ traps heat — it’s basic physics, demonstrated since the 1800s.
• We know humans are emitting tens of billions of tons of CO₂ per year.
• We’ve measured the isotopic signature of that carbon — and it’s fossil-derived.
• We’ve tracked ocean heat content, ice loss, glacier retreat, and sea level rise — all consistent with warming.
4. That blog post you linked? It repeats the same rhetorical misdirections.
I read it. It downplays attribution science, ignores paleoclimate context, and cherry-picks timelines. Saying “climate has always changed” while omitting the human fingerprint on modern change isn’t insight — it’s misdirection.
In Summary
Yes, the climate is changing — it always has. But this change is different in cause, rate, and risk. The baseline isn’t arbitrary — it’s historically grounded.
The consensus is not groupthink — it’s what happens when multiple disciplines converge on the same conclusion.
If there’s a real argument to be had, it’s over how best to respond — not whether the science is sound.
Correct. I addressed all that in the link. Just copying and repasting your content isn't helping the matter. Try reading a different perspective.
Michael, a “different perspective” doesn’t overturn physical reality — especially when that perspective hinges on rhetorical sleight of hand rather than evidence.
I did read your piece. Simply calling this “a different perspective” doesn’t make it more valid, and it certainly doesn’t make it scientific. It just means it’s ideologically aligned with your bias.
If you want to challenge mainstream climate science, you’ll need more than a blog post and a shrug at the evidence. That’s not how scientific understanding moves forward.
Oh, it's science backed. That means you missed all those nifty hyperlinks. Silly goose. I know a Troll when I meet one. Your shit is all ChatGPT created. Talk about a lack of critical thinking.