Thoughts for the Day


Sucking the Oxygen Out of the Environmental Movement


Environmentalism and Socialism


The Climate Denier Trick


  1. Mankind is increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere





The Single Best Reason Not To Be Worried About Climate



a catastrophe.

But some scientists do come up with catastrophic warming
forecasts.  They do so by assuming that our Earth's climate is
dominated by positive feedbacks that multiply the initial warming from
catastrophe does not come from the science of greenhouse gases, but
from separate hypotheses that the earth's climate is dominated by
positive feedback.
This is why saying that greenhouse gas
theory is "settled" is irrelevant to the argument about catastrophic
forecasts.  Because these positive feedbacks are NOT settled science.


there are other causes for measured 20th century warming other than
century's experience implies negative rather than positive feedback in

However, climate scientists are unwilling to back down from the thin
branch they have crawled out on.  Rather than reduce their feedback
assumptions to non-catastrophic levels, they currently hypothesize a
localized, making it unlikely they are providing sufficient masking to
make catastrophic forecasts viable.  I go into several reality checks
aerosols are in the northern hemisphere, meaning that most all the
cooling effect should be there -- but the northern hemisphere has
while the south has hardly warmed at all.


  1. The climate is dominated by strong positive feedback, despite
    our experience with other stable systems that says this is unlikely and
    feedback levels.
    despite the fact that aerosols really only have strong presence over
    world has been the one without the aerosols.

warming over the next century.  Most of this warming will be
concentrated in raising minimum temperatures at night rather than
maximum daytime temperatures  (this is why, despite some measured
temperature records set
).  There are many reasons to believe that man's
do have will be lost in the natural cyclical variations the climate
experiences, but we are only just now starting to understand.



Many of us, especially those who were trained as meteorologists,
have long questioned the climate research community's reliance on
computerized climate models for global warming projections.  In
contrast to our perception that the real climate system is constantly
readjusting to internal fluctuations in ways that stabilize the system,
climate models built upon measured climate behavior invariably suggest
a climate system that is quite sensitive - sometimes catastrophically
sensitive "” to perturbations such as those from anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions.  Unfortunately, it has been difficult to
articulate our "˜hand-waving' concerns in ways that the modelers would
appreciate, i.e., through equations.   

for this dichotomy.   Taking the example of clouds in the climate

To what extent are climatic variations in
clouds caused by temperature change (feedback), versus temperature
change being the result of cloud variations? 


  1. Tony Edwards:

    The other aspect of "feedbacks" is that the temperatures for any given area can vary, in the temperate zone, from well below freezing in the winter to near body temperature in the summer. Yes, I know this is not "climate", but the weather does not, so if there are any "tipping points", where we get runaway warming, this would happen every summer. The fact that it doesn't is not proof, but is very suggestive that there are not any positive feedbacks.

  2. SuperMike:

    Everybody complains about the weather; no one does anything about it. :) (Remember the good old days when this was true?)

  3. diz:

    I'm not sure Point 3 is strictly necessary.

    Though it seems far unlikelier that Point 4 is true if Point 3 isn't.

  4. James R. Ament:

    Good post!

    If the "true believers" of this hysteria achieve their goal of reducing economic growth in this so-called greedy selfish evil empire of ours to "save the planet," we will have significant increased poverty in the U.S. which will then increase calls for the strong central state, i.e. socialism... the excuse being: "capitalism has failed." In other words, the politicians will theoretically correct with their right hand, problems caused by their left hand. The trick in doing this is to make sure somebody else gets the blame.

    It has always been so.

  5. stan:

    Yes, 10 years from now, the climate alarmists will have done serious damage to the environmental movement. The damage they will have done to science, however, will be far greater.

    The computer models cranked out by the stats geeks and their computer code will have caused the public to lose respect for the scientists who actually do real science.

  6. John Moore:

    A point that I often use, which really ticks off the alarmists, is that even if they are right about #1-#5, it is impossible for us to have a significant impact on CO2 levels in the atmosphere by political means.

    The reason is simple: the negative feedback in the economic and political systems will prevent truly drastic measures from going into effect, or lasting. Furthermore, the free-riders (like China) will destroy any remaining political argument.

    Climate alarmism is a luxury of those who can afford luxuries. It is death to the poorest of the poor, and not very interesting to most people on earth, who have more direct threats to deal with.

    Unfortunately, as the DDT ban shows, if only poor people are dying for the cause of environmental correctness, it doesn't matter to the alarmists - they don't have to worry about Malaria in San Francisco or New York City.