A while back I offered up what I called “One Last Climate Post“, and indeed I stand by that. My reasoning was that the debate that I was reviewing was very old and that all the players were well known. The “science” was new to me, and I was treading in deep water, not knowing enough about it to be writing about it.
Since that time I have been immersed in the science, and now feel much more comfortable with it. It is accessible to all of us, and not hard to comprehend. All we need do is look around us. For every scary claim by climate scaremongers and doomsayers, there is ample evidence that the planet is doing well. Polar bears are many and healthy, storms, fires, droughts are lessening in number and intensity. Carbon is increasing in the atmosphere, and the positive effects are now coming to fruition with a greener planet. Gradual warming, as has been going on for 400 years now, is a positive thing. Where the Roman Warm Period gave rise to an empire and an explosion in technology, the Little Ice Age brought with it the Dark Ages and Black Death. Our current warm period is yielding more food, more and healthier people and amazing technology.
I think it is the “more and healthier people” aspect of our warming period that spawned Michael Mann and the arrayed forces behind him. They are trying to scare us into de-carbonizing. Here’s an email from “Climategate” that is somewhat revealing, dated 10/3/2003:
“Let our supporters in higher places use our scientific response to push the broader case against [Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick]. So I look forward to people’s attempts to revise the first [paragraph in] particular. I took the liberty of forwarding the previous draft to a handful of our closet colleagues, just so they would have a sense of approximately what we’ll be releasing later today – i.e., a heads up as to how [M and M] achieved their result.”
Mann is nothing but a propagandist and an asshole. He denigrates anyone who disagrees with him, and has gone so far as to get people fired from scientific journals to shut them up. But in immersing myself in the science (or lack of it) behind him, it has become apparent that the science doesn’t matter. So I am not surprised that anti-Mann material is all over YouTube, otherwise a heavily censored medium. In the same manner, it does not matter that Michael Mann has been exposed as a fraud by McIntyre and McKitrick, that MM has been undone by MM. It is a sideshow, a distraction, nothing more. Mann knows his science is bogus, and also that he will continue to occupy a high profile in the media. He is juiced.
So what’s up? Despite the corruption of the “climatology” community, the anti-carbon agenda is in full-speed ahead mode. Donald Trump, who pulled us out of the Paris Accords, is most likely an “anti,” that is, someone used as controlled opposition who will actually advance the opposite agenda that he purports to support. He did this with Obamacare, so why not Climate Change?
The latest scare being brought our way, and I mean scare as in “My God, I hope they don’t pull this off,” is the Green New Deal being pushed by new frontispieces, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey. Here it is as summarized by Wikipedia:
- 1. Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.
- 2. Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.
- 3. Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States.
- 4. Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.
- 5. Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible.
- 6. Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity.
- 7. Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.
- 8. Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail.
- 9. Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible.
- 10. Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible.”
Items 1-3 are right out of the Green Party agenda, debatable but not new. I tend to support government-sponsored health care, as insurance companies are so corrupt that a government-run system cannot be worse than what we have. I remember back in the day proposals for a guaranteed national income, free higher education for all … these things have legitimate proponents and detractors. It is good fodder for open and honest debate. Have at it. Honesty abounds on all sides, and anyway, as in the past, nothing will come of it.
Items 4-10 are a recipe for a New Dark Age rather than a Green New Deal. And note this: all seven of these proposals are based on bad science. The science does not matter.
The ongoing climate debate is a sideshow, and meant to be that. The real thrust of Mann-Gore and company is to halt the spread of wealth, health and prosperity, to put an end to a greening planet, and to put us back in the Little Ice Age (if not literally, figuratively). That they call it a “Green New Deal” is the ultimate irony. They are amazingly in-our-faces crooked and corrupt.
This is where we need to focus our efforts, to get the Green New Deal Movement to go save some other planet somewhere else. I suggest Mars, as we are fake-going there anyway.
By the way, there is a new scare now concerning species extinction called the Biodiversity Report, from the same people who gave us the Hockey Stick. Judith Curry here highlights the testimony of Marc Morano, who in long and passionate written testimony claims that the emperor has no clothes. For this reason he is scorned by the others offering testimony. They say he should not be allowed to interfere with their lie-fest. It is a long post by Dr. Curry, but highly recommended.
Piece of Mindful 
I think taking “the planet” as a whole is sloppy to say the least, both for scaremongering and for downplaying. Some places are not doing well, others are.
I don’t know if this is the case and it contradicts your statements, which on the natural level are correct, about California wildfires. Storms come and go, just as droughts. It is the impact of droughts that has lessened, because of globalized trade vs. local production, but droughts are there and mostly related to overpopulation and thus extreme water drainage.
Are you taking into account the extreme deforestations in the Amazon, Africa and Southeast Asia, or just focusing on something else you see “becoming greener”?
150-200 seems a better number, or probably alternatively even better 10,000.
The “Dark Ages” are not related to the Little Ice Age (which is even in its broadest sense not going back before 1257 (Samaras eruption, see below), but most scholars use it for the 16th-19th centuries):
Yes, but just like what the AGW fearmongerers are doing, it is wrong to ascribe that to “global warming” (which doesn’t exist). It is mostly a function of technological advancement itself.
Local and regional warming and cooling are real, but are far more related to human intervention than with some imagined large-scale climatic phenomenon. Warming takes place mostly in urban areas (where most of the people live and where most of the people experience warming (real), so are easier to convince of global warming (false).
Cooling tends to take place in rural areas, especially in large agricultural ones.
These are just some factors, the whole situation is far more complex than this and it is the interaction between them that really makes the change:
Local warming effects
– urbanization – bricks, asphalt, cement and other materials are far bettter in capturing heat (from the Sun) and releasing it more slowly than grass, trees and surface waters.
– more cloud cover – due to exhaust gases and industrialization mainly; clouds form around dust in the atmosphere, more clouds means less outflow of heat (especially at night)
– desertification – less trees means less shadows and more heat to be captured by the sediment
– large volcanic eruptions – by causing cloud cover at night, a denser air that can contain more heat, but see below
Local cooling effects
– deforestation and agriculture – forests are better at maintaining heat than grasslands; more outflow of heat
– hydro-engineering – reservoirs and other re-arranged surface waters are worse at capturing heat, as a secondary effect it creates cold fronts
– large volcanic eruptions – by causing cloud cover during the day, a denser air that can reflect more heat; volcanic eruptions are wynorrific
Climatology and meteorology are extremely complex sciences and restricting them to some sloppy simplifications is not justified, not for the fearmongerers and not for the downplayers alike.
LikeLike
These past few months my reading and viewing has been exclusively regarding climate change. Every statement I made is defensible by use of actual science. There is something going on with the climate change agenda, something big and scary, but it has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with command and control, and perhaps keeping 1.5 billion brown people in their place. AGW is one of the biggest propaganda campaigns I have seen since AIDS, meant to reach every schoolkid.
Scare talk about the Amazonian basin and desertification are just wrong. The planet, due to increased CO2, is not necessarily warming (much), but is indeed getting greener. I used 400 years as that number represents the bottom of the Little Ice Age. https://www.google.com/search?q=nasa+satellite+map+greening+of+the+planet&client=firefox-b-1-d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZnfqilcviAhUBOK0KHexRDHcQ_AUIESgC&biw=1467&bih=721#imgrc=M7YlIqjZjDEzfM:
The Black Death happened during a period of cooling, when crops were shrinking, growing seasons getting shorter, ergo nutrition was inadequate and people were susceptible to disease. Europe lost perhaps 40-60% of its population. If the place had stayed warm, the same germ would not have had such a devastating effect. Normal human immune systems protect us from such outbreaks.
I don ‘t care who refers to what, but I think of the Dark Ages as the period after the Medieval Warm Period and before the Modern Warm period. I’ll change the name, if you like, to LIA.
I was just looking at a map of US areas in drought. Remarkably low. https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/ The CA drought ended with a vengeance, and they have been able to restore most of their reservoirs. So maybe when the next drought comes, they will be prepared, just as they adapted and now are prepared for earthquakes. Humans are a very adaptable species.
Cloud cover, also known as aerosol, is a cooling factor, causing less sunlight to reach the planet’s surface. You listed it as a warming agent.
Climatology and meteorology are accessible sciences, and understandable. It takes effort. I claim no great expertise but am not saddled with Schaefer brains, and can grasp and process complex subject matter. I once worked in an office with a young lady who could not be given a complex task, as she would merely write on it “COW.” That is short for “can of worms.” That was her way of saying “it’s too complicated!” Your words remind me of her.
LikeLike
You think your reminiscence of some COW lady affects me? You’re wrong.
The AGW alarmists are just as wrong as the “nothing to see, the planet’s doing great, it gets greener, there’s more diversity than ever” crowd.
Just like the truth is somewhere in between the FCC* and the ANC*.
It’s a dialectic that is not representing reality. Desertification, rearrangement of surface waters, pollution, habitat loss, urbanization and overpopulation and -consumption are real issues. They are not caused by “global climate change” (strip away the first shell of lies), but they are there (assess real cause and effect).
In general, slightly elevated temperatures are beneficial to life, but that is not restricted to plants (“it gets so green here”). Also ‘parasites’ (molds, bacterial colonies) thrive with higher temperatures and humidity/precipitation. And they can have a negative effect on the ecosystem.
We don’t live in a simplistic world, and people pushing simplistic narratives are dead wrong. The AGW proponents even more because they are pushing the biggest money and social engineering scam of history, but that doesn’t excuse the other side.
The “Black Death” was brought to Europe from Asia, mostly by (((merchants))), who were carrying the problem with them. Of course proper health and nutrition can prevent or reduce problems, but to throw it all on that and linking it one-to-one to climate is not acknowledging the complexity of “Mother Nature”.
Glaciers come and go, storm intensity increases and decreases, temperatures increase and decrease, sea levels rise and fall, ecosystems expand and retreat, precipitation booms and busts.
To deny the human factor in some of those is ridiculous and provides food for the Antifa/Gore/AGW supporter crowd wanting to subvert us. Be honest about what we humans can and did do to Gaia and what we are incapable of (global climate change). Only then you can have a sensible discussion and unraveling of the spaghetti of lies, half-lies and distortions of the truth.
*FCC = Fearmongering Conspiracy Crowd – FEMA camp Alex Jones and consorts; perpetrating the narrative that the government is mass murdering us on a big scale, that we need to live in fear all the time
* ANC = Autohoax Nihilist Crowd – opposames of the former; just turning the table 180 degrees is not solving the problems; some people get murdered by governments, and many things are staged, but NDNGH ever and you don’t have anything to fear narratives are just as much BS as the fearmongering from the other side of the table.
LikeLike
I regard the idea that truth always lies between two extremes to be wrong … truth can be at either extreme or anywhere in between. You presume that because I regard AGW as a large propaganda hoax, that I assume that everything is cool. I only say that we are Ok to do nothing about climate change … it is not harming us, and we cannot stop it anyway. The largest drivers in weather and climate are the sun and the oceans. Beyond our control.
I am aware that the Black Death was brought to Europe by foreign agents, but please explain why, when these threats are always around, that they don’t routinely infect and kill millions of people? The situation has to be right, and shrinking crops, hunger and famines, seem to be the correct recipe for a large die off. They were undergoing climate change, not the good kind.
We have many problems, as you list, and need to work on them. AGW is a huge money sump that prevents addressing real problems. The hyperbole and lying that crowd engages in is upsetting to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This graph is from the IPCC 1990 climate assessment, back when they still acknowledged the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. The Hockey Stick removed these two periods, part of their hype. Note the placement of the Black Death, and the bottom of the LIA, about 400 years ago.
LikeLike
I cannot edit that without losing the graph, but I am not conflating the timing of the BD and LIA.
LikeLike
We are on the same page then and sometimes it takes some scuffle to get there.
The “truth between two extremes” point is a bit more exoteric as you can define the “extremes” just the way you like. But in general I think mathematically it makes sense; between 0.000 and 100.000% there are infinite other numbers.
The thing to wake for with this topic and with other topics is not to give ammunition to those who try to slander us. Even if we don’t care about that slander. Because in the end it is irrelevant how we feel about it.
Take the Great H Mystery. People calling us “antisemites” because we question a Story from the past are wrong, but at the same time if we leave space to them to use that silly schtick, then we haven’t made our point well enough, and it only serves as a challenge to improve ourselves.
It is that fine line where FE jumped in and went on the “Discredit By Association spree”. Even if we don’t believe in FE or even in a DBA strategy, the effect of it still is real and tangible. “You question NASA/Space Travel, that means you are a FEr.”
“No, and let me explain you why.”
It may be tiresome to not generalize and to not make claims we cannot back up, but in the end it is there where reason prevails and we flourish.
LikeLike
We generalize to simplify, always acknowledging exceptions and trying to understand if they are meaningful. With AGW they are using the H propaganda meme, that if you don’t buy in, you are a “denier.” That removes intelligent thought processes from the debate, replacing them with mental states. “Denial” is something a man or woman does even knowing a spouse is a raging alcoholic. That’s how the propaganda works. They claim truth to be their property, and suggest that if you don’t agree, you are mentally unstable. Shit works.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, you’re right. Hence my proposal to stay away from using “their” language and focusing on the real science. And luckily on this very topic MANY scientists are appaled, not only by the ‘theory’, but also by the behavior.
Science is [by definition] never settled.
LikeLike
Science is not science unless it is falsifiable. Skepticism labeled “denial” is just propaganda.
LikeLike
That is definitely true. But that’s also why we should care for the ones who have insights speaking out/being skeptic;
– Mattogno, Graf, Kues et al. on the H Mystery, as historians
– Germar Rudolf on the same as a chemist
– architects and engineers (even when they back up a faulty narrative) on 9/11 (see the 9/11 Fraud docu for great insights)
– many many scientists, quite some of which are geologists, speaking out against AGW
– medical professionals on AIDS/Ebola/Vaccines, etc.
– gun experts shouting “this is not real bullet fire!” at Las Vegas
That is where the real strength lies.
LikeLike
Hello, I’m a new reader and enjoying my time here. I just wanted to pass on a very informative blog concerning the green new deal propaganda and lies. http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/10/06/a-100-trillion-dollar-storytelling-campaign/
LikeLike
Thank yyou for this
LikeLike