Category: Environmentalism (General)

         This is the seventh and final post in this series; all prior posts are available on our website: www.mllg.us. The following summarizes our beliefs about climate change.

        Climate always is changing; climate change is a tautological phrase intended by proponents of manmade warming to weaponize every weather event. Earth has been warming for nearly 200 years in fits and starts, with pauses and even intervals of cooling. We are in a 20-year pause, with no warming since 1998 other than El Nino years. This warming is a normal part of climate cycles caused by changes in solar irradiance, eccentricity of Earth’s orbit, obliquity (axial tilt) and position at perihelion. Humanity’s contribution, if any, to warming is minor and inconsequential.

        The highly touted 97% scientific consensus that mankind is responsible for most warming originated with John Cook, whose work has been discredited. All other sources, including NASA, alleging a scientific consensus are equally spurious. If, a arguendo, a consensus existed, it would be limited to man causing most warming and nothing more. Other scientific groups, including 31,487 physicists, have reached an opposite consensus. The 2018 Nobel Prize in Economics went to an economist whose work proved that mitigating warming causes humanity more harm than good.

        Data showing rising temperatures result from human adjustments to terrestrial data, nearly all of which lowered temperatures in earlier years to create a misleading impression of a warming trend. Satellite data, which have no human adjustments, show no significant recent warming pattern. Other credible data show no recent increase in record temperatures, extreme weather or net melting of icecaps. Even if all these things were happening, it would be evidence only of secular – and not manmade – warming.

       Other convincing arguments against man’s role include, inter alia, warming throughout the solar system, argument from authority, Occam’s Razor, history of junk science, failure of all climate scares to materialize, meltdown of computer models, refusal to debate, outright (hockey stick) frauds, politicization and political correctness of science and media, science is never settled, Singapore and changes in CO2 sensitivity. There also are powerful economic, political and religious arguments.

        A potent argument against government action to reduce emissions is its global scope. If the USA reduced carbon emissions to zero, it would cut greenhouse gasses by 29 ppm in 80 years with no effect on temperature. Unilateral climate actions wreck our economy, harm ordinary people and achieve no benefit. When developed nations seek to reduce greenhouse gasses, they export pollution to dirtier undeveloped nations.

        The Green New Deal doesn’t protect against an existential threat, it is one. Green energy is a dead end, a reality obvious to Warren Buffet and many western nations that are quietly expanding fossil fuel resources. Renewables are running into immutable physical limits of energy density and economic limits of cost. Wind and solar must be 100% backed by fossil fuels. Humanity should adapt to any future climate-caused dislocations instead of impoverishing ourselves in a futile attempt at mitigation.

        All progressive movements consist of two groups. There are a few leaders, who either know or who are agnostic that manmade warming is a giant hoax. Then there is a large cohort of acolytes and media who guzzle the cool aid. To progressives, truth is irrelevant because the ends justify the means. They know that their ideas are so toxic they can’t ever get what they want at the ballot box. So they search for another way, i.e. manmade climate change. It is not about climate; it never was!

        This is part six of seven parts; all prior parts are on our website: www.mllg.us.  The global nature of climate is of supreme importance and is where we begin.

Global Scope of Greenhouse Gas Emissions  

        Climate intrinsically is global. Unilateral actions by the USA, and even by the entire western world, are insignificant because the west already has taken stringent measures vis-a-vis the rest of the world. If the USA went totally carbonless, the effect would be 29 parts per million in emissions by 2100 and would result in no discernible difference in temperature. A billion people still are without electricity and population will grow 3.6 billion by 2100 – nearly all outside the west. This moots any climate actions that exclude China, India, Africa and the rest of the non-western world.

          A closely related issue is carbon dioxide leakage. When western nations impose unilateral measures to reduce CO2, it usually “leaks” or shifts to less developed nations resulting in no net reduction. Emissions often increase because less developed nations are energy inefficient. When economic activity shifts from the USA to say Bangladesh, our emissions go down but global emissions increase. Earth would be much better off if manufacturing remained in the USA, even if our own emissions stayed higher.

The Green New Deal (“GND”)

       The environmental movement took a sharp left turn after the fall of the USSR. Former commies, with nowhere to go, infiltrated the green movement becoming watermelon environmentalists, i.e. green on the outside and red on the inside. But their goals never changed; now they are trying to achieve them by hijacking climate change.

        Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, said: “The interesting thing about GND is that it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all . . . we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.” The GND is like a progressive wish list; it includes: (1) family sustaining wage; (2) medical leave; (3) family leave; (4) paid vacations; (5) retirement security; (6) health care; (7) affordable housing; (8) anti-discrimination measures; and (9) pro union provisions. The GND opposes every reliable, affordable and abundant form of energy and costs up to $100 trillion. The Green New Deal doesn’t protect America against an existential threat; it is one!

Why Green Energy (Renewals) is Not the Future

        Green energy is not our future. No one says it out loud because they are too busy virtue signaling; but their actions speak. Across the world, nations (including Sweden, Germany and the USA) have concluded green energy can’t ever supply their needs and are busy adding massive amounts of fossil fuels to the grid. Warren Buffet just invested an additional $10 billion in oil and gas resources. Despite massive subsidies, green energy remains too expensive and nations cannot risk running out of electricity.

        It all comes down to the physics of energy. Technical innovations cannot solve the fundamental problems of green energy; they are inherent in nature. We can make more and bigger solar panels and wind turbines, but we can’t make the sun shine or the wind blow more often. Also, wind and solar must be 100% backed by fossil fuel capacity.

       The cost of wind and solar has deceased but there is little room for further savings. Battery technology has run up against immutable natural limits. Wind and solar are not energy dense, require lots of land and are not economically competitive even with huge subsidies. Fossil fuels are not an existential threat, they are an existential resource.

Adaptation is Preferable to Mitigation

       Mitigation means lowering temperature via human action and is wrongheaded because: (1) Nobel Laureate William Nordhaus demonstrated the best policy is to do nothing; (2) there is a significant chance mankind is not causing warming and mitigation would be wasted; (3) the world will be much richer  in many decades when potential warming problems may surface; (4) mankind always has been adapting to  climate; (5) spending a dollar today costs much more (present value) than spending a dollar in the distant future; and (6) adaptation can much more precisely target spending to specific identifiable problems instead of indiscriminate spending on mitigation.

         Adaptation is safer and more cost-effective. Mankind, as it has since time immemorial, will adapt to whatever curve balls climate may throw at us. Besides, market economies work incredibly well to solve any challenges facing humanity.

         This is the fourth of seven parts; prior parts are on our website: www.mllg.us.  We begin by summarizing the case against manmade warming made in prior posts.

        This is the third of seven parts; you can read the first two parts on our website: www.mllg.us. In this part we address the UN-IPCC, US National Climate Assessment, rising temperatures, extreme weather, rising sea level and melting icecaps and glaciers.

           UN-IPCC: Other than the putative 97% scientific consensus described in Part II, the IPCC is the most frequently cited authority for anthropogenic warming. The IPCC has made many alarming, dire and even apocalyptic pronouncements; but they also have stated that “Moderate warming is a net benefit to humanity“. The IPCC, in its most recent report, simply states: “Human interference with the climate system is occurring and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” This hardly rises to the level of a clarion call for drastic action to fight an existential threat.

         IPCC reports, glommed onto by the media, are summaries of thousands of pages of raw data; they are written by politicians (not scientists) and often are at variance with the underlying data. As a governmental body, the IPCC is inherently political and its scientists are compromised by lucrative grants and cowed by political correctness. A recent IPCC report described a worst case scenario in which manmade warming would lower global GDP by only 14 one-hundredths of one percent per year to 2100.

        US National Climate Assessment: The most recent assessment stated that in the worst case, the GDP of the US would be 4% greater in 2090 if there were no human effect on climate. This is a nothing burger.

         Rising Temperatures: Frenzied media reporting of high temperatures makes this the third biggest reason people believe in manmade warming. But there are numerous and serious flaws with reported temperature data; the top ten are listed below.

        This is the second of seven parts; read the first part on our website: www.mllg.us.

The most frequent, and likely strongest, argument by believers in manmade warming is the existence of a near-unanimous (97%) consensus of climate scientists. It is therefore critical to deconstruct this assertion, including its origin, accuracy and scope.

        The original and most referenced source is a 2013 study by John Cook, who runs a website promoting catastrophic climate change. Cook wrote that 97.1% of the papers he surveyed agreed the earth is warming and human emissions of greenhouse gasses are the main cause. Cook took data, much from non-scientists, from the internet using the search phrase “sea ice climate change“. Cook counted papers stating there was manmade warming but not how much and included papers he believed implied it. Only 2% of the papers explicitly stated humans were the main cause of warming.

        Cook’s work was reviewed by four professors who read the same papers; their findings, published in Science and Education magazine, concluded only 41 of all 11,994 papers (0.3%) endorsed the claim that human activity causes most warming. Many scientists Cook included protested and asked their papers not be counted.

       The National Academy of Sciences published a survey by Stanford University student William Anderegg, who used Google Scholar to survey the 200 most prolific authors on climate change. He determined 97% to 98% believed man was responsible for most warming. His survey included only 200 out of many thousands published.

         NASA’s website cites Cook and Anderegg for its 97% scientific consensus claim, thus lending its imprimatur. The media then glom on repeating the claim as coming from NASA. After that meme is repeated year after year by government, politicians, media and educators, many people (especially youth) unquestioningly adopt it as their mantra. Nonetheless, those who cite NASA really are relying on Cook and Anderegg. Note: NASA has also stated that changes in the solar orbit of earth, along with alteration to its obliquity (axial tilt), are responsible for changes in climate.

        There are a few other sources alleging scientific consensus. A two-question online survey published in Eos claimed 97% of climate scientists agree temperatures have risen and humans are a significant contributing factor. Only 79 of 3,146 respondents claimed to be climate scientists. Last, in Science Magazine Naomi Oreskes alleged 75% of abstracts in scientific journals supported the view that human activity is responsible for most warming. However, many dissenting articles were excluded and the methodology was flawed. When subsequent researchers (Peiser, Schulte, et. al.) attempted to replicate the study, they found only 33% and not 75%.

         Readers can judge the veracity of the 97% scientific consensus, which alleges only that the planet is warming and man is the main cause. That the earth is warming is uncontested and hence meaningless. Man as the main cause means only at least 51%. Thus, the putative consensus, which includes only a tiny number of climate scientists, extends only to humans causing at least 51% of warming – no other consensus.

        It is imperative to understand what is not included in any claimed consensus: there is no scientific consensus about whether or not: (1) benefits from warming outweigh the harm; (2) warming is an existential, or even dangerous, problem; (3) we should attempt mitigation; (4) more CO2 is harmful; (5) CO2 significantly affects climate; (6) combatting warming is a high priority; (7) mitigation is preferable to adaptation; and (8) we should spend trillions today for uncertain and infinitesimal benefits in the distant future. None of these things are part of any claimed consensus.

Many Scientists Reach a Different Consensus

          The Environmental Science & Policy Journal published a study reporting most climate scientists question climate data and computer models and believe climate science can’t predict future climate change. An American Meteorological Society survey reported that only 39% believe manmade global warming is dangerous.

           In a particularly damning riposte, 31,487 physicists, 9,029 with PH.Ds, signed a petition stating: “We urge the US to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The proposed limits on greenhouse gasses would harm the environment and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence human release of CO2 is causing, or will, in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric CO2 produce many beneficial effects upon the plant and animal environments of Earth.”

           The 2018 Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded to William Nordhaus for his work on the economics of climate change. His work demonstrated economic policies necessary to limit warming do far greater harm to humans in reduced economic output and that it is better for governments to do absolutely nothing about climate change.

        Finally, progressive arguments for scientific consensus ring hollow. Progressives embrace science when it suits their purpose but cynically deny science when it doesn’t as in, inter alia, nuclear energy, rent control, and minimum wage, all of which enjoy a genuine scientific consensus well above 90% opposed to their policies.

        Welcome to Climate of Confusion, our most ambitious effort ever. Our first posting in 2007 was about global warming and we have written about climate change more than any other subject. Despite harboring strong opinions, we tried hard to present an objective, fact-based, principled and logical analysis. We ask readers similarly to suspend their opinions and to consider climate change on a de novo basis as they read this series, presented in 7 consecutive parts over the next 20 days.

Part I        Introduction and Anthropological vs. Secular Warming

Part II       Case for Manmade Warming – 97% Scientific Consensus

Part III      Remainder of the Case for Manmade Warming

Part IV      Scientific and Logical Case Against Manmade Warming

Part V       Economic, Political, Religious Case Against Manmade Warming

Part VI      Global Scope, Green New Deal, Green Energy, Adaptation

Part VII     It’s Not About Climate; It Never Was

        We titled our series Climate of Confusion because many people are confused. Climate change is complex, involving science, economics, politics and religion with existential overtones. Manmade warming proponents rely heavily on the existence of a scientific consensus, UN-IPCC pronouncements and media reports. They also cite temperature data, extreme weather, shrinking ice caps and receding glaciers.

      Manmade warming opponents cite the failure of myriad climate scares to materialize and the computer model debacle. In 30 years of apocalyptic predictions, nothing dire has occurred and all scares proved exaggerated and unfounded. Opponents cite different data, which conflict with those of proponents, whose data they assert are politicized, biased and even fraudulent. They argue that spending trillions now for uncertain and infinitesimal benefits in the distant future makes no sense.

        Let’s establish a few basic truths. Yes – climate is changing, but it always is changing; climate change is a fatuous tautology intended by proponents to transform every weather event into a proof. Yes – global warming is real and has been occurring for nearly 200 years. Yes – mankind can affect climate, such as in urban heat islands. Yes – carbon dioxide is increasing and can affect temperature, although current research shows a much smaller effect than earlier believed. Yes – warming may be caused in part by man; it is impossible to prove a negative. And yes – a moderately warmer climate with more CO2 is a net benefit to life on Earth.

        We begin by posing a profound question we never have seen asked. Believers in manmade warming argue it is an existential threat justifying unlimited spending and regulation at the expense of all other human and environmental needs even if it entails sacrificing our lifestyle. The most ardent believers state we have only a few years remaining to avert Armageddon. In a gross misapplication of the precautionary principle, they demand we act immediately even without certainty about causation.

      This begs the obvious question: if warming is the greatest calamity in human history, does it matter whether its cause is secular, anthropological or a combination? Won’t the harm be just as existential? Shouldn’t we combat warming  just as vigorously regardless of cause? If humans can mitigate manmade warming by reducing CO2, shouldn’t we also be able to mitigate secular warming? If warming truly is a threat to life on Earth, why not focus on it instead of debating its causation?

        Yet, manmade warming proponents never argue warming per se is the problem. They oppose only manmade warming, even while acknowledging warming is, at least in part, attributable to solar activity. Could it be that it really isn’t about climate?