Do you catastrophize about the impact of the global average temperature rising 1.8°F (1°C) ~150 years?

Do you acknowledge that 8 times more people die from cold weather than heat every year?

Do you acknowledge that there is no clean tech future without significantly increasing our fossil fuel burn?

What is all of this about? A power grab?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48467532)

Climate change is a feature of planet earth. It was around long before humans. The planet has oscillated between being ice free and totally frozen and many states in between; While it seems reasonable that human activity could have an effect, it's clearly up against some Brobdingnagian forces which we don't grok. Succinctly, human understanding of the very complex planetary climate system is still rudimentary; therefore, we don't know to what extent human activity actually does influence climate. We know for sure that it does some things, or at least one thing. We know that cities are warmer than the surrounding countryside. Likewise, we don't understand what non human forces influence climate change.

Climate science has become severely handicapped by the theology of climate change and the "science" has devolved to being a competition among models to see which one can best explain past data and therefore predict future events. In my uneducated and ignorant view (so I am told) the historic data has large error bars around it because of inconsistencies in the way measurements were made and then fudged in order to be "corrected." On top of that the models reflect limited understanding of the physics of climate and have become curve fitting exercises (again, Learned Leftists tell me I am ignorant in this matter, but I persist in my heresy). We're not even sure what to put into the models. Solar flux? Orbital precession? Cosmic rays? Magma circulation? Magnetic pole drift? It's a lot more the CO2 and noisy temperature and sea level data. The models are supposed to be based on inputs from physical understanding, but physical understanding is lacking so modeling has become a series of curve fitting exercises. Moreover, almost all climate research is funded by governments and woe to the brilliant egghead who proposes something that might upset the consensus view: ye shall not be funded. It's not just physics that proceeds one funeral at a time.

The net result is that we are nowhere near being able to predict climate trends well enough to risk destroying the world in order to save it.

I will say that human activity might well push climate change one way or the other, and that there are some interesting tidbits suggesting we might ought not to plan on unconstrained growth of burning stuff. We do emit a lot of carbon dioxide, methane, extra water vapor and various other things into the air, sea and land that could well be contributing to climate change, not to mention cancer, endocrine disruption, etc., but we have no idea how much of an effect we are truly having. We do know based on geologic history that HUGE climate changes (not just a piddling 2 or 3 degrees C) have occurred with no humans around at all.

For the record, I am all in favor of pursuing the scientific study of climate, but it should focus more on understanding the basic mechanisms and less on dueling models. Does no one remember what GIGO means?

One thing I find curious is that nobody talks about climate change winners and losers. When sea level rose a hundred meters or more after the last glacial melt off I am sure it pissed off the prehistoric coastal elite, but it also made much of northern Europe, Asia and America habitable for the first time in quite a while. Maybe a little global warming might make things better in some places? Think I could get that project funded? NOT!

If we really wanted to reduce CO2 emissions we could feasibly convert the world to run extensively on nuclear power, but the same folks who want all "clean" power don't like nukes, either, and have mostly run them out of town for probably the next 50 years at least.

Right now everything runs 75% on fossil fuel. You can't build and deliver more windmills or batteries or solar panels or nuclear power plants without burning increasing amounts of fossil fuels. A prudent planet manager would in my opinion already have ramped up nuclear power just in case, but for various reasons, including economics, that hasn't happened.

Another thing we don't do is build robustly. Why put weak buildings in the hurricane country? Why build things right on the beach or in flood plains? Much of Holland has been kept dry by dikes and pumps (insert finger in the dike joke here) for centuries, and even New Orleans does some of the same, though in their unique half assed creole way. I grew up on the Mississippi River. Every year it floods. Finally, in the 20th century, it occurred to people to build levees. If the climate does change abruptly in a bad way, it's likely to do so regardless of human activity. Then everyone will have to learn to build robustly.

I have no idea how many people die of cold vs. heat, but it would not surprise me that more freeze to death.

As to what it's all about, it's how humans do things. Some folks, e.g., Al Gore, saw an opportunity to get rich and more famous. Maybe he really believes some of it. Some people have made it a religion. Some people like power. There are probably some sincere folks, but I don't think you can be both sincere in your belief and also a catastrophist - there are just too many unknowns. Just my humble opinion. If I am wrong, I probably will not know. Learned Leftist tells me that by saying that I am committing murder on future generations because it is my duty to run around shouting "the sky is falling." To do otherwise is to be complicit and guilty of the climatic equivalent of felony murder. So it goes.

I don't have an electric car or hybrid (well, one of them is a "mild" hybrid, but mainly for extra oomph and to satisfy the EPA CAFE standards). I do recycle. I have geothermal heat pumps. I have 10kW of solar panels. The geothermal heat pumps are worth it regardless,though they are subsidized. The government paid me to put in the panels, but as an engineer I admire their quiet simplicity as they make 13+ MWhr/year, but only when the sun is shining. Nevertheless, they are elegant.

Fire and Ice

By Robert Frost

Some say the world will end in fire,

Some say in ice.

From what I’ve tasted of desire

I hold with those who favor fire.

But if it had to perish twice,

I think I know enough of hate

To say that for destruction ice

Is also great

And would suffice.

As is often the case this has tended toward the unedited rant. So be it <Poast>

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48467894)

other than not having a clue what this means, i agree

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48468115)

Climate change/acid rain/50 simple things kids can do to save the planet

Not spreading HIV by being "blood brothers"

Kwanzaa is a legitimate holiday.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48467998)

the HIV shit was insane. it wasn't until middle school that i even understood *why* all the focus was on gays. because my whole life was filled with "very special stories" and tv sitcoms where a chick gets it or one of the other outliers that wasn't unprotected promiscius gay sex.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48468031)

I'm convinced that Magic Johnson never had it and was paid a fortune to pretend he did. If you look up how Magic Johnson made so much money, it's some ludicrous story about a chain of "inner city movie theatres," and we're just supposed to nod our heads and say "wow what a savvy business move!"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48468072)

Then I saw that it was just like all the other flu strains that they hyped up where only the elderly or people with preexisting conditions were dying. The only reason hospitals were overcrowded was the initial fearmongering

I'd still like to hear a convincing explanation for why flu cases virtually disappeared. I'm convinced the whole thing was a psyop and the numbers were all conflated together.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48468150)

The explanation I was given was that people were isolating so flu cases were down but COVID was more transmissible so that's why COVID still struck

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48469633)

They scared everyone with HIV/AIDS when basically no one (especially back then) who wasn't gay or an IV drug user got it.

Also, not so much in schools, but media used the Matthew Shepherd murder to push gay rights when his murderers were also gay and it was a meth deal or something gone bad.

Hollywood and fashion industry pushed the heroin chic/anorexic look which led to anorexia and bulemia. But they never got straight men to say, "hey this isn't sexy, only fags and pedophiles think this is attractive. No porn stars look like that."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48468048)

How do people say this over and over and over. Are all of you just reading the same twitterslop

We don't hear about acid rain anymore because we largely stopped doing the shit that could cause it. People say the exact same thing about the ozone hole: "WHy diD wE StoP CARinG?"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48468465)

It's all been bullshit to push new laws and regulations, or to create a racket for energy companies.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48468488)

Wow, crazy that when you kill the emission which causes something it doesn't become a concern anymore. Can't believe people were worried about that stupid ozone hole anymore either

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48468636)

"But there was one very pesky problem. Unlike SO2 *which really does produce unhealthy smog*..."

Acid rain never came to fruition because we stopped it before it became a problem by spreading the "SO2 = bad" message and largely regulating SO2 emissions out of existence.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48468998)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48469089)

Again, it was never a big deal. Gasoline vehicle emissions probably result in a similar effect, but there is no panic because the ensuing regulations would not result in a profitable opportunity for the government or large corporations.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48469120)

Acid rain wasn't a big deal not because it was a mass delusion, but because action was taken before there was enough SO2 spewed into the atmosphere to cause it to be an issue. So it was "hysteria" in the sense that "people are portraying acid rain as a definite problem now rather than a potential problem in the future", but not in the sense of "it's just nonsense gibberish fraud fairy tale". If we had never crushed SO2 emissions this would've come to pass.

The thing is that acid rain killing forests isn't the worst side effect of SO2 emissions, it's that people can't fucking breathe if there's enough of it in the air (and it doesn't take much for this to happen). So there was an incentive to strangle SO2 long before emissions got to the magnitude of acid rain being an issue.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48469199)

China and India probably produce more SO2 today than North or South America ever did in 1970. Feel free to link to any empirical evidence of environmental or biological harm, other than higher readings in soil or water

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48469276)

not disputing your point, but weather forecasts seem way better now than when i was a kid. like way better.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48468918)

My take is that until scientists can explain what led to the wild fluctuations before humans and even in relatively recent history, and until they can scientifically demonstrate how and when a certain level of CO2 or whatever in the atmosphere will lead to catastrophe, then it all seems like conjecture and a convenient excuse to tax or hamstring certain industries.

And if it really is such a pressing issue, then the environmentalists shouldn't be focusing on Western civilization, but China and India. I can't remember where I heard it, but a guy said if the entire UK disappeared completely, with all its people and industries, global carbon emissions would only be lower by 3%

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48468005)

That said, libs need to recognize that western civilization is not the issue, and hamstringing our own industries isn't smart

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48469210)

Cliff Mass is a professor at UW in atmospheric sciences and he's run afoul of the current dogma. He actually explores potential benefits for some regions. We know now that the earth is greener than at any point in human history. Adding carbon (life food) and additional energy to the system will clearly benefit growth. History has shown that when it's warmer out humans do better. If you trace the fortune of empires, bad shit happens not when it gets hotter but rather when we cool. And obviously entering into another rapid cooling phase (which humans have experienced relatively recently ~12k years) would be devastating. Maybe we avert another ice age?

One of the real tragedies of climate change being the near exclusive focus of environmental causes, is the divide preventing us from uniting to fight impacts to our environment that I suspect would get very broad support. I think most people don't like to see our planet shit on with pollution. I like trees and forests. People want clean water and so on. But we can't get there because the starting point always has to be global warming. Nothing can supercede it. I suppose it makes logical sense if you follow it back to the premise 'omg we're all going to die in 20 years' like kids are being taught.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48468192)

One of the few good boomers

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48468501)

oh, and "We do know based on geologic history that HUGE climate changes (not just a piddling 2 or 3 degrees C) have occurred with no humans around at all." on what time scales?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48469184)

Some estimates are even more extreme: https://www.science.org/content/article/500-million-year-survey-earths-climate-reveals-dire-warning-humanity

BTW, LOL at this Science article which inadvertently makes the case for powerful non-human warming influences.

Looking more recently, you can see that estimates show significant oscillations: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356606430/figure/fig3/AS:1095462799060993@1638190092136/Global-mean-temperatures-over-the-last-500-000-years-11.ppm

Remember that the Sahara desert was not a desert within human history (the African humid period 11,000-5,000 years ago).

There are many estimates, but they all show the same general pattern.

The typical hockey stick temperature graph we see shows warming being 1.8 degrees C since 1880. We don't know whether that's really right, as the measurement locations and techniques have changed, and while researchers have tried to compensate for that it's not 100% certain they have done it correctly. However, let's assume it's correct.

Even if the 1.8 degree number is right, we have no idea how much of it is due to human activity and how much is due to other forces. The general approach is that it's all due to human activity, but we really don't know. That might be right. Or human activity might account for 10%. It's even remotely possible that it would have warmed more without human activity. People like to overlay CO2 charts and a temperature graph and say "AHA!" That's correlation, not causation. CO2 is actually a pretty weak greenhouse gas compared to a lot of other things (methane, for example), but there is a lot of it in the atmosphere. The most important greenhouse gas is water vapor. It's 95+% of the effect, but it's hard to measure historically. The trouble with water vapor is that the warmer things get the more of it there is likely to be in the atmosphere, but it's a very complicated system. CO2 gets used as a proxy for the climatic effects of human activity, but it's not the most important driver.

Regardless of the data, it seems clear than climate is changing. The growing season where I live has increased a bit in the 25 years I've lived here. Anecdotally, I seem to spend more time cutting back brush.

What we just don't know is how much human activity is affecting climate. It seems reasonable to assume there is some effect, and perhaps it's major. Common sense and things we do know for sure do dictate that it's not a good idea to belch unnecessarily large amounts of combustion products into the air. OTOH, the net zero notion that climate advocates are pushing is unachievable without destroying civilization. If we did achieve it, maybe it would even put us back into an ice age. Many climatologists used to believe (and probably still do but won't say so) that we are in an interglacial period within an ice age, and that a new freeze is coming. That was the climate headline in the 1970s. There's even some chance that anthropogenic warming is saving us.

I don't see any reason to believe that the IPCC'S 1.5 degree catastrophe limit for temperature rise is well reasoned. In my view the understanding is not just there to make such a prediction with any confidence.

If you are a true believer nothing will dissuade you, though.

Once, again, here's my synopsis: The climate is changing. It is a feature of the planet. Human activity is most likely affecting the rate of change, but we are not yet in a position to quantify that change with enough certainty to warrant disrupting the world economy. One thing we need to do more of is to plan for climate change, because in the long term it's going to happen even with net zero.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48469806)

here are two NASA charts about US temperatures.

https://klimatboken.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/usa-temp.jpg?w=751&h=323

the one on the left, from 1999, was done by James Hansen who is a hero to the people who think climate change is really threatening human survival. notice that the high point is exactly where we'd expect it: during the Dust Bowl. notice that the temps drop from there until 1979, which is what we'd expect because science was running all those "the ice age is coming!" articles. (we are basically overdue for the next glacial period, btw.) temps bounced back up from 1979 to 2000 (although they didn't reach the highs of the 1930s). then temps went flat from 2000-2020, although that's not on that chart.

the graph on the right is the more recently adjusted graph where the Dust Bowl is downgraded and the 1932-1979 drop is eliminated. it's fraud.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48469024)

There really have only been three high profile accidents, of which one was ultimately a nothing-burger (Three Mile Island, which maybe did cause some environmental contamination and increased some bad health incomes, but then so do oil and coal plants every day), one was the result of a wholly exogenous catastrophe (Fukushima, and note that IIRC some hydro dams got blown up by the storm and a lot of people drowned but nobody cited that as an argument against hydropower), and one was legitimately a nightmare scenario but was caused by Russian idiocy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48469076)

"your cattle fart too much guess your way of life is done here haha"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48470482)

Saying that the earth was much hotter 9 million years ago isn't a sensible retort to the question "should we do something about GHG emissions?" It isn't even sensible to say that there was an "ice age" 20,000 years ago. The relevant period to think about is more like 100-200 years.

And one has to be Drake Mallard-level retarded to deny that temps have significantly increased over the last 70 years.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48470610)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48470685)

Do you not see how earth's temperature 60 million years ago is irrelevant to whether we should do something about GHG?

"There is no way to know about short term fluctuations or how quickly some of the changes may have occurred. There could have been 30 degree variations over short periods of time and we wouldn't know."

This is Consuela-level dumb my friend. No climate denier has even hypothesized a mechanism for 30-degree variations over short periods of time (or found any evidence of such variations). And from (at a minimum) evaluation of the polar ice caps and pollen patterns in the muck at the bottom of lakes, we have a very good picture of how climate has changed over the period of time that's more relevant to humans (let's say the last 100k years).

Let me ask a different question to help me evaluate your thinking: Person A says "one shouldn't smoke cigs because they cause cancer." On a scale of 1-10 how compelling do you find person B's response, "but my grandpa smoked for 60 years and he didn't get cancer"?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48470748)

until you get some credibility, your ilk is going to remain ignorable even if you have good arguments and evidence.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48470810)

I'm familiar with your oeuvre so I'm guessing you'll be too retarded or disinterested to read this for comprehension, but for the posters with 100+ IQs: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48470837)

change between 2023 and 2000

China 34.0% 13,259.64 3,666.95 increase +262%

United States 12.0% 4,682.04 5,928.97 decrease −21%

India 7.6% 2,955.18 995.65 increase +197%

European Union 6.4% 2,512.07 3,563.26 decrease −30%

Russia 5.3% 2,069.50 1,681.14 increase +23%

Japan 2.4% 944.76 1,248.81 decrease −24%

Iran 2.0% 778.80 353.93 increase +120%

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48470870)

BTW, I assume you have read about the flash frozen mammoths? That's a big mystery, but it seems that at least locally in the past there have been very sudden and extreme temperature changes sufficient to freeze some of these large beasts right where they stood with their stomach and even mouth contents preserved. Nobody is saying it was a global or even a widespread local phenomenon, but there is no believable explanation for how this happened.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48472488)

that is such a short snapshot -- just a fraction of a second in terms of earth processes -- and for nearly all of that time we have nearly no direct data for virtually all the earth.

if you take a longer view, you see powerful circumstantial evidence of significant swings up and down.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48471274)

"if you take a longer view ... significant swings up and down."

The whole point of my response to OldHLSdude is that it doesn't help to say it was super hot 50 million years ago, and is likely to get super hot again 50 million years from now, because humans weren't around at the first, and won't be around at the second. Realistically we only need to worry about whether we're going to see a spike that will negatively impact are way of life within a short time horizon. I suppose we could say 1,000-2,000 years, but still.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48473805)

the criticisms of shitlib chicken little mentality being applied to stupid policies is all legit. but the entry-level arguments dismissing concerns about short-term climate change are LOL-level stupid and they all get so religious about them that they can't reason outside of that framework.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48477164)

https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48477215)

I understand AGW is not "all made up bullshit," but a lot of the data they use and hostility toward skeptics is flat out unscientific.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48477242)

it's a good intro to Koonin. Lomborg is worth reading. Judith Curry too.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48480532)

I've read some of Judith Curry's blog posts, and I believe she has taken heat for sharing some of Tony Heller's graphs and findings. I started this thread the other day asking if anyone can debunk a few graphs that would seem outrageously important, if true:

http://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5652983&mc=16&forum_id=2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48480653)

still, some of the facts he touts are solid af. so if you do it carefully you can cherry pick verifiable facts he focuses on.

one of my favorites was his comparison of the 1999 NASA graph of historical US temps as compared to the same graph 20 years later. all the changes run counter to well established history (e.g., the Dust Bowl and the late 1970s warnings of the coming ice age) and run in lockstep with the AGW narrative. but once you know where the graphs are, you don't need to invoke Heller at all.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48481730)

But yeah some of his stuff seems dubious, but when a lot of it is just statistical analysis of official datasets and old newspaper clippings with historical info, it warrants consideration

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48481780)

recall that the reigning models of climate change treat CO2 as a control knob for climate: increase CO2 and you directly get hotter climates. the models do this by assuming that CO2's effects have a multiplier effect on how water vapor traps heat. that's not based on direct evidence; it's an assumption.

but we're now seeing papers claiming that, not surprisingly, CO2's contributions to heat have diminishing effects as Co2 rises. (we already know that that's true about methane.) if these papers hold up the entire edifice of CC crumbles and falls. one problem for the CC crowd is that while they control all the models and the IPCC position papers, they cannot stop this new line of research.

https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs2024144_44701276.pdf

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590123024015548

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48491386)

this evidence supports Lindzen's proposition

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48491419)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A24fWmNA6lM

Opening sequence transcript:

Opening Sequence

‘People are dying and entire ecosystems are collapsing and we are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth – how dare you!’ GretaThunberg’s speech to the UN, September 23 2019.

This is the story of how an eccentric environmental scare grew into a powerful global industry.

STEPHEN KOONIN: It’s a wonderful business opportunity – ok you want climate? We’ll give you climate.

TONY HELLER: There’s a huge amount of money involved, this is a huge big money scam.

JOHN CLAUSER: There are not just billions of dollars, there are trillions of dollars at stake.

It’s a story of self-interest and big government funding.

ROY SPENCER: People like me, our careers depend on funding of climate research (pause). This is what I have been doing just about my whole career, this is what the other climate researchers are doing with their whole career, they don’t want this to end.

MATTHEW WIELICKI: If CO2 is not having the huge negative impacts that we claimed it was originally then how are we going to stay in business?

TONY HELLER: A lot of people’s livelihoods depend on it – they’re not going to give that up.

This is the story of the corruption of science.

PATRICK MOORE: There is no such thing as a climate emergency happening on this planet now – there’s no evidence of one.

WILLIAM HAPPER: The climate alarm is a nonsense, you know . . . it’s a hoax, I’ve never liked hoax, I think scam is a better word, but I’m willing to live with hoax.

It’s a story about the bullying and intimidation of anyone who dares to challenge the climate alarm.

MATTHEW WIELICKI: To speak up against or about climate alarm in any sort of sceptical way was essentially career suicide.

BENNY PEISER: Activists are even calling for any scepticism to be criminalised.

It’s the story of an assault on individual freedom.

WILLIAM HAPPER: It’s a wonderful way to increase government power, if there’s an existential threat out there worldwide, well you need a powerful worldwide government, you know, to cope with it.

BENNY PEISER: We see all these authoritarian measures being adopted in the name of saving the planet.

WILLIAM HAPPER: You’ve suddenly got the population under control all over the world.

CLIMATE: THE MOVIE (The Cold Truth)

We called it industrial progress. Since the industrial revolution, the development of free market capitalist mass production has made ever more goods ever more affordable to ever larger numbers of people.

Mass production marched hand in hand with mass consumption. In the modern age, ordinary people enjoy a level of prosperity never before achieved in human history.

But all the while, we are told, we were destroying the planet. Computers have calculated what is in store for us, as we produce and consume ever more.

The weather will get worse. The planet will boil. We greedy humans must accept limits of our lifestyle. Consume less. Travel less. Those who deny the climate crisis are not just wrong, they’re dangerous, spreading the poison of doubt among a gullible population. These deniers should be shunned and shamed and censored. For these climate deniers are flat-earthers. They are anti-science.

Teaching at New York University is one of these climate deniers. Professor Steven Koonin is one of America’s leading physicists. He was a science adviser to President Obama, and both vice-president and provost of Caltech, one of the most prestigious scientific institutes in the world.

STEPHEN KOONIN: I teach climate science to my students at NYU, and I always tell them to check the data or the papers yourself, and they all come out of that course with their eyes wide open.

Professor Koonin’s best-selling book Unsettled argues that mainstream scientific studies, accepted by official agencies, do not support the notion that there is any kind of climate crisis at all.

STEPHEN KOONIN: Of course I’ve been called a denier and my response is ‘Tell me what I’m denying, because I’m quoting to you from directly from the official UN’s scientific reports.’

Dick Lindzen also dismisses the claims of climate alarmists. He’s one of the world’s leading meteorologists, was professor of meteorology at both Harvard University and MIT, and has served on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.

DICK LINDZEN: Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, if you go to their section on working one group one which is the science, they don’t support any of these claims and I assure you having served on them it’s biased. But you couldn’t get any real scientists to agree to some of the nonsense that’s being promoted.

Will Happer, another denier, is another of America’s leading physicists. He has been a science adviser to three presidents, and professor of physics at both Columbia and Princeton University.

WILLIAM HAPPER: There’s this mischievous idea that scientific truth is determined by consensus; in real science there are always arguments, no science is ever settled, so it’s absurd when people say the science of climate is settled, there’s no such thing as settled science, especially climate.

Dr John Clauser is one of the most respected scientists in the world. In 2022 he won the Nobel prize for physics.

JOHN CLAUSER: The science is appallingly bad in my opinion – there are a large number of scientists who are in violent disagreement, they refer to themselves as sceptics, since I am no longer worried about losing funding or a job or whatever, I call myself a climate change denier.

These very eminent and respected scientists, and others like them, are not flat-earthers. They do not deny science. So what’s the evidence that has caused them to dismiss the climate alarm as nonsense?

Part 1: HISTORY OF THE EARTH

For the last 500million years, temperatures have varied greatly, but for almost all that time, the earth was much, much warmer than today. We are told that current temperatures are unprecedented and dangerously high. It’s possible to check if this is true, because we have evidence of earth’s climate history, dating back hundreds, thousands and even millions of years.

The desert of Judea, by the Dead Sea. Professor Nir Shaviv from the Racah Institute of Physics has come here looking for clues. Thousands of years ago, this place was under water, and etched into the rocks are lines which, if you know how to read them, tell the story of earth’s climate history.

NIR SHAVIV: And here is the climate. We’re at the lake bed of what used to be Lake Lissan. It’s a lake that existed until the end of the last ice age. Back then the lake level was maybe 100metres above where we are located. When we want to reconstruct the climate of the past we have to look for evidence – for clues. And the lake existed, it had deposits and by looking at these layers here, we can actually reconstruct how the climate has changed.

Warmer water means more life, the accumulation of more shells and bones from sea creatures, and other changes that are reflected in the ancient layers of the lake bed. The lines act as a kind of thermometer. And this is just one of the many ways geologists can reconstruct past climate.

NIR SHAVIV: In other places we can go to stalagmite caves and see the annual rings that we have in the stalagmites, or we can drill cores from the bottom of the ocean and look at layers there, or many other places. But here I think this is one of the nicest places because you can actually see, you can actually see, how the climate has changed.

So when we look back in time what do we find? For 200million years dinosaurs roamed the Earth . . . An Earth marked by fertile dense forests, teeming with life. And at no time during those 200million years were temperatures as cold as they are today.

STEVEN KOONIN: If you go back maybe 200million years it was maybe 13 degrees warmer than it is now. So, on a geological perspective, this is not at all unprecedented.

Compared with the last half billion years, the earth right now is exceptionally cold. In fact, there are very few times when it’s been this cold.

STEVEN KOONIN: We’re relatively cold. Maybe not quite the coldest it’s been in 500million years, but pretty close to it.

MATTHEW WIELICKI: We are in a remarkably cool period if we look over the last 550million years. In fact, only one other time period in that last 550million years was the temperature as cool as it is now.

The mammals who now inhabit the earth began to evolve around 60million years ago, when the world was much warmer than today.

MATTHEW WIELICKI: If we just look at the last 65 million years – so this is after the dinosaurs go extinct, mammals really start taking over, and our evolutionary ancestors start to live on the land. Any time period within the last 65million years was warmer than it is essentially today.

The earth’s mammals, humans included, appear to thrive when it’s warm – warmer than it is now.

PATRICK MOORE: There’s no doubt that warm is better than cold in geological history. We are a tropical species. A human being in the shade naked dies at 20C. From hypothermia.

We evolved on the equator in Africa, and the only reason we were able to get out of there eventually was fire, shelter, and clothing.

Over the last 50million years, temperatures steadily declined, plunging the earth into what geologists call the Late Cenozoic Ice Age. We are still in that ice age.

PATRICK MOORE: The reason there’s all that ice around the poles is because we’re in an ice age. Everybody knows that who knows anything about the history of the earth. This is an ice age. We’re at the tail end of a 50million-year cooling period, and they’re saying it’s too hot.

If we zoom in on the past few million years, we see temperatures sinking, and as they do fluctuating between extremely cold periods and slightly milder periods. The extremely cold periods are called glacial maxima, when the planet is mostly covered in ice. And the slightly less cold are called glacial minima, when there’s just ice at the poles.

For the past ten thousand years, fortunately, we’ve been in a slightly less cold glacial minimum, known as the Holocene. With milder weather humans began to emerge from their caves and, several thousand years ago, we see the rise of the first great civilisations, in a blissful period which, according to many studies, was considerably warmer than today. This is known as Holocene climate optimum.

STEVEN KOONIN: It was called an optimum because people thought that warmer was better.

Since then, temperatures have declined and begun to fluctuate. In Roman times there was a blissfully warm period. Followed by a brutal cold period in the dark Ages. Then came the balmy Medieval Warm period, according to many studies as warm or warmer than today. Followed by an especially cold period known as the Little Ice Age, possibly the coldest in the last 10,000 years.

And here it is, the Roman warm period, the cold dark age, the medieval warm period, and then the very cold little ice age, from which – for the past 300 years or so – we’ve been recovering.

The longest instrumental record of temperature in the world comes from central England. And this is what it shows. Since the worst of the Little Ice Age, from 1650, the temperature has risen, gently, by little more than 1 degree Celsius.

WILL HAPPER: The central England record of temperature is a world treasure. It’s the longest continuous record that we have. And it’s certainly not a very alarming record. It began in the depths of the Little Ice Age, and so you can see the slight warming that followed the Little Ice Age there is certainly nothing very alarming happening today at the very end of the record. Most of the warming that we’re observing today is from recovery from the Little Ice Age, whatever caused that.

DICK LINDZEN: Well, you know, we’re talking about over the entire industrial period, of about 1 degree centigrade.

To put this in 1 degree in perspective, let’s look at New York Central Park. Records show that there has been no overall change in temperature here since 1940. But, from one year to the next, the average temperature can vary by 3 degrees Celsius without many New Yorkers even noticing. In fact between the warmest year in the 1960s and the coolest in 2000, there’s a difference of 5 degrees Celsius.

STEPHEN KOONIN: The average temperature on this day could be five degrees different to the average temperature on this day a year ago, or two years ago.

WILL HAPPER: You know, when I hear people pontificating about 1 and a half degrees leading to the end of civilisation I just think they’ve been smoking. You know, are you crazy?

According to thermometer readings since 1880, there’s been a very mild increase in temperature. Only by stretching the Y-axis on this graph is the increase noticeable. This is the rising line, used by official agencies as proof of global warming. But is it accurate?

Professor Ross McKitrick is an expert in statistical analysis at Guelph University. He noticed something odd about modern thermometer records. Thermometers, even in the same region, give out very different readings, depending on where they’re located.

ROSS McKITRICK: I was interested in the question of how you explain the spatial pattern of warming. Some places warm a lot and some places don’t warm much, and it turns out that it’s highly correlated with the spatial pattern of economic activity.

Where there are more people and there is more human activity, there’s more heat. This is known as the Urban Heat Island effect. This can be illustrated with a satellite heat map of Paris. The centre of Paris can be as much as 5 degrees Celsius warmer than the surrounding countryside.

WILLIE SOON: Paris, London Beijing, Shanghai – you name it – New Delhi, all of them, absolutely demonstrated that effect.

So how has this affected the official temperature record? In the early part of the 20th century it was normal to erect weather thermometers just outside towns. Close enough to check every day, but away from the heat of urban life. But over the 20th century those towns have expanded. Suburbs have spread. There are more roads, more cars. Thermometers which were once outside towns, are now surrounded by shopping malls, offices, factories and houses.

ROY SPENCER: These towns and all the locations where these thermometers are located, on average they’ve all grown in population, since 1880. You’ve got buildings growing up around the thermometers, you’ve got parking lots – so you’ve got all of these non-climate influences which are affecting the temperatures, which raises questions about the quality of the thermometer data for monitoring global warming.

To correct for this corruption of the data, an obvious solution is to use only records from rural weather stations, which have been less affected by urban development. This has now been done by a team led by Dr Willie Soon.

WILLIE SOON: We combine all the best rural stations, anything we can collect from we collect. And we show, if you don’t use this set and use only rural you get a very different kind of picture.

According to rural temperature records temperatures rose from the 1880s but peaked in the 1940s. Then there was a marked cooling until the 1970s. After that temperatures recover, but are still, today, barely higher than they were in the 1940s.

WILLIE SOON: What we see is that basically we have a warming from 1900s or so to the 1930s and 40s, and then it cooled in a substantial way to the 70s, 76 or so. Instead of a long-term systematic warming trend, it has a variability. Every 50-60 years or so. Kind of a variation.

It’s not just rural thermometers that show little warming. Merchant ships and other naval vessels have been measuring the temperature of the sea since the 19th century. In red we see the land temperature record since the 1860s, which has been inflated by urban thermometers. But in blue is the ocean temperature record. From around 1900, the two begin to diverge. Ocean records show far less warming in the 20th century and the pattern more closely resembles the rural temperature record.

WILLIE SOON: Sea is not meant to be contaminated by the urban heat island effect, am I right? Yes? So, when we compare the two records, within the range of uncertainty this behaviour actually fits.

Scientists have also studied temperature change by looking at tree rings, which again shows very little warming. There’s a gentle rise till the mid 20th century, a cooling to the 1970s, followed by a mild recovery. Once again it shows temperatures today are barely different to those of the 1930s and 40s, and the pattern closely resembles rural temperatures.

Satellites too seem to be telling a different story. Our ability to measure global temperature accurately took a leap forward when satellites began to orbit the earth. One of the scientists who pioneered the use of satellites to measure temperature is Dr Roy Spencer, who in the 1980s was senior scientist for climate at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center.

ROY SPENCER: We were discussing over lunch, isn’t there some way we can use satellites to monitor global temperatures, because as you know the temperature network of thermometers is pretty skimpy around the world. So it’s kinda hard to get a global temperature.

Dr Spencer’s development of weather satellites was revolutionary. He and his colleague Professor John Christy have been awarded NASA’s medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.

ROY SPENCER: Our satellite data begins in January of 1979 – that’s when we have complete global coverage – and we have it right up to the present.

There was one critical question about temperature that satellites were singularly well equipped to answer.

ROY SPENCER: Has there been a spurious warming that has crept into the global warming temperature records over land that’s just a result of an increase in population? And that’s something that we’ve been analysing and working a lot on lately. We’re finding that especially in urban areas, er, it’s large, since 1980 most of the warming it looks like is due to the Urban Heat Island Effect.

WILL HAPPER: We’re lucky to have a few independent scientists like John Christie and Roy Spencer with their satellite measurements of temperature. Before they started releasing this, the ground base temperature records were going wild. They were going up crazy with no bounds. But now they have to contend with the fact that there’s this independent and probably better way of measuring the whole globe’s temperature. Which is not alarming at all.

Evidence from multiple sources now agree that the official global temperature record, as used by world governments and reported in the world’s media, is showing far too much warming over the last hundred and twenty years, artificially inflated by urbanisation.

ROSS McKITRICK: You look at the weather balloon records, the satellite records, the rural records, the ocean records don’t warm nearly as much as land. All these indications show that the big warming pulse in the records is the northern hemisphere land record, and that’s also where most of the data contamination is happening.

But of the mild warming that has taken place in the past 3-400 years, can any of it be attributed to human emissions of CO2?

Professor Henrick Svensmark is visiting the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and taking a stroll in the evolution garden, dedicated to preserving the oldest surviving plant species on earth. These plants aren’t just pleasing on the eye. They can also tell us about levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in earth’s geological past.

HENRIK SVENSMARK: What we have here is a ginkgo tree, and it is actually a living fossil, in the sense that this type of tree first appeared about 270million years ago. On the underside of the leaf there are what we call stomata, which are the cells that can uptake CO2. So they’re actually measuring how much CO2 is in the air, and they adjust the number of the stomata to how much CO2 there is.

And by looking at fossils and by measuring how many there are at a different time it says something about what the level of CO2 was back in time.

So when we look back in time, what do we find? Over almost all of the last 500million years, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been far far higher than it is now. Even with modern industry’s contribution to CO2 levels, by geological standards, the level of atmospheric CO2 today is close to being as low as it has ever been.

HENRIK SVENSMARK: We know, for instance, that the CO2 levels were much higher than we have today. At present we have about 400 parts per million; 500million years ago, it might have been 2,000 parts per million. So a much, much higher concentration of CO2.

MATTHEW WILEICKI: I think current estimates of global CO2 is 423 parts per million today. If we look through the Phanerozoic, the last 550million years, we would see CO2 on the order of 7,000 ppm.

CO2 is plant-food, and the result of much higher levels of atmospheric CO2 in the past, was a much, much greener world.

MATTHEW WIELICKI: Periods of elevated CO2 tend to be time periods of huge biodiversity on the planet. In fact, we are in a CO2 famine if we look over the last 550million years.

At the depths of the most recent glacial maximum, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere sank so low, all life on earth came close to extinction.

TOM NELSON: They say CO2 is higher than it’s been for a hundred thousand years. What they don’t tell you in that period we’re talking about is that CO2 sank so low that all life on earth nearly died.

PATRICK MOORE: Twenty thousand years ago, CO2 is at the lowest level it as ever been in the history of the earth, 180 parts per million. If it had gone down another 30 parts per million, we’d all be dead.

MATTHEW WILEICKI: There is a low point of CO2 where photosynthesis becomes so inefficient that plant life would die. Then everything else starts to perish after that.

WILL HAPPER: During the last glacial maximum, there’s good evidence that in many parts of the world there was plant starvation from not enough CO2. So we should be very grateful that CO2 levels are beginning to go back up; we are still far from the historical norm which would be several thousand parts to the million, there’s not enough fossil fuel to get there but at least we’re making a start.

But has the small recent increase in CO2 affected the temperature? We would now show you a picture of CO2, but we can’t, because it’s invisible. CO2 makes up a tiny fraction of the gases in the atmosphere, just 0.04 of a per cent. It is just one of 25 different greenhouse gases, which taken as a whole, form only one part of earth’s complex climate system. So what evidence is there that this trace gas is having any noticeable impact on the climate? If it were true that higher levels of CO2caused higher temperatures, we should be able to see it in Earth’s climate history. Here scientists are drilling into ancient ice cores. These cores tell us both about past temperatures and CO2 levels. Scientists have indeed found a link between temperature and CO2. The trouble is, it’s the wrong way round.

WILL HAPPER: It’s true, over the last few million years of the ice age that we’re in now, that CO2 and temperature are correlate but if CO2 is the driver, it has to change first, and the temperature has to change second.

MATTHEW WILIECKI: In fact, when you start to look at the data very specifically you see the exact reverse. Temperature starts to rise first, and then on the order of a century, two centuries later, we start to see a rise in CO2.

ROSS McKITRICK: It’s long been known that the temperature actually moves first. So, temperature goes up, CO2 goes up after that. Temperature goes down, CO2 goes down.

TONY HELLER: Ice ages start when CO2 is at its maximum, and ice ages end when CO2 is at its minimum. The exact opposite of what would occur if carbon dioxide was controlling the temperature.

TOM NELSON: The question ‘does CO2 drive the temperature?’ is easily resolved, you can look back in time over hundreds of millions of years and see levels have changed radically many times. Did this cause temperature change ? No. Absolutely not. CO2 has never driven temperature change in the past. Never.

Nor is it clear in recent times that CO2 is having any effect on temperature. Here we see industrial output of CO2 since 1750. From the mid-19th century to the mid-20th century there only was a slight increase. It’s not until the 1940s that industrial production of CO2 begins to take off. But this doesn’t match the temperature record. According to rural thermometers, most of the warming in the past 200 years occurred before the 1940s and have barely changed since then.

STEVE KOONIN: One of the embarrassments that the IPCC doesn’t like to talk about was that the 1930s, when human influences were much smaller, were particularly warm.

WILLIE SOON: That’s the puzzle, the first early part where we have such sharp warming, from 1900 to 1930s and 1940s – the CO2 could never cause that temperature rise.

That the 1930s and early 40s were so hot was puzzling. More puzzling still was what happened next.

WILL HAPPER: By the end of World War 2, CO2 was really going up. And yet the temperature was going down.

WILLIE SOON: From 40 to 70, while CO2 continued to rise, this thing started to cool. What happened?

PATRICK MOORE: Journalists were writing about the coming ice age. It was on the cover of Time magazine.

TONY HELLER: The 1970s was the new ice age, that was the big story.

And how about since the 1970s? According to computer climate models, over the past half century, rising CO2 should have led to this increase in temperature. But according to multiple satellite and balloon measurements, what actually happened was this:

ROY SPENCER: What we’ve found from the satellite data is that the global atmosphere is not warming up as fast as the climate models say it should be. There are a couple dozen climate models now that have been worked on for decades, billions of dollars, tens of billions of dollars have been invested in these climate models, and we find that generally speaking virtually all of the climate models produce too much warming over this period, since 1979 up to the present.

Now even if we say that surface thermometers are correct, they still don’t produce as much warming as most of the climate models say there should have been in the last fifty years.

STEVEN KOONIN: The models individually, and even collectively when you average all of them in so-called ensembles, they don’t get it right.

WILL HAPPER: You can already see that the main support of the climate alarm movement, these enormous computer models, they’re clearly wrong. They don’t agree with what we observe. They’re all running much too hot. They don’t get the geographical distribution of temperatures anywhere close. They don’t get El Niño, La Niña cycles. They’re just nonsense.

All climate models are based on the assumption that CO2 drives temperature change. But actual observations and historical evidence clearly suggest that it doesn’t.

JOHN CLAUSER: Yes, I assert that there is no connection whatsoever between CO2 and climate change. That’s all a crock of crap in my opinion.

PATRICK MOORE: There is no truth to the idea that the earth is warming now more than it has been in the past. It’s a lie. There is no truth that CO2 is higher than it should be. That is a lie.

Earth’s climate has changed many times over the course of its long history, and will continue to change, without any help from us.

WILL HAPPER: Climate always changes, you know? Who denies climate change – it’s always changing.

But if CO2 doesn’t drive climate change, what does?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48510449)

=====

NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE – CLOUDS

In Earth’s atmosphere there are powerful forces at work, and perhaps the most powerful of all are clouds.

JOHN CLAUSER: CO2 is quite unimportant in controlling the Earth’s climate. What is important is clouds. Clouds don’t absorb any energy at all, they simply reflect all the sunlight back out into space. Big bright white clouds and they vary dramatically from one day to the next. That is hundreds of times more powerful than the trivial effects of CO2.

But what controls the number and density of clouds on earth? Professor Henrik Svensmark, from the Danish National Space Institute, is in Jerusalem with the astrophysicist Nir Shaviv. Together they’ve been exploring cloud variation and its effect on climate. And, strangely, they’ve found a link between clouds and exploding supernovae, far off in our galaxy.

HENRIK SVENSMARK: When we have big stars, they don’t live very long relatively, only a few million years up to 40million years but they end their life in a huge explosion which we call a supernova.

Exploding supernovae send out vast quantities of debris – tiny charged subatomic particles known as cosmic rays – travelling almost at the speed of light. And as they hit earth they develop into seeds which attract water vapour, and form clouds.

NIR SHAVIV: The really mind-boggling thing is that using geology, you can reconstruct the climate on earth over the past billion years. And you can reconstruct our galactic journey. Both tell the same story.

But what about temperature change on shorter time scales? The sun – our source of heat and light, a seething mass of gigantic magnetic storms, which vary in strength and number over time, and which affect earth directly and indirectly. When it is very active the sun sends giant gusts of solar wind through the solar system. This solar wind warms us indirectly, by acting as a barrier, limiting the number of cloud-forming cosmic rays reaching earth.

HENRIK SVENSMARK: Sun, we have the solar wind it carries this sort of magnetic field out to a large distance and it works like a shield against cosmic rays.

NIR SHAVIV: When the sun is more active you have a stronger solar wind, you have less cosmic rays ageing the inner solar system and ageing the atmosphere and the clouds which are then formed are less white, they reflect less of the sunlight, which means that it’s going to be warmer here on Earth.

Here is a proxy reconstruction of ocean temperatures over thousands of years. And here is one of solar activity over the same period. What is causing the ocean temperature to change is clearly variations in solar activity.

WILLIE SOON: Because IPPC is determined to go on a narrative that only CO2 can drive the climate system, they turn off the sun essentially. The sun is just a background thing for them. It doesn’t do anything.

Astrophysicist Willie Soon decided to look again at the rural temperature record for the past 150 years. Then he looked at a record of changes in solar activity over the same period. To Dr Soon, it was obvious that it was the sun, not CO2, that was driving temperature.

WILLIE SOON: As of 2023, IPPC says this: that the sun has absolutely zero chances to explain the changes of the climate system, on a broad scale, let’s say global warming in the northern hemisphere. We say no! We can easily demonstrate it. All of it. There is zero for the CO2, 100 per cent for the sun. How about that?

NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE PART 2 – EXTREME WEATHER

STEVEN KOONIN: So my first instinct as a scientist, and what I teach my students is, well let’s look at the data. And when you do that, you discover, as you can read in the IPPC reports themselves, that it’s pretty hard to find trends in extreme events, much less attribute them to human influences.

ROSS McKITRICK: You’ve now had decades of putting the idea in people’s heads that any time the weather is bad, it’s climate change and greenhouse gases. I think people at this point can’t help themselves. If there’s a heatwave, immediately everyone is thinking ‘Oh, what have we done to the weather?’

STEVEN KOONIN: If somebody says on the news, well this is the warmest day since 1980 or something, well you can look up the temperature records, and see for yourself whether it was warmer in the 1930s, as it often is.

US temperature records are the best in the world, and here is the official US government record of heatwaves in the US over the past century. It shows very clearly that the 1930s were far more prone to heatwaves than we are today. Not only were there more heatwaves in the 1930s, the heatwaves then were much hotter than those of today. Likewise official figures show that the number of hot days in the US has markedly declined.

TONY HELLER: The United States was much hotter in the 1930s. North Dakota reached 121 degrees F. South Dakota was 120 degrees F. Wisconsin was 114 degrees F. These sort of temperatures are just completely out of range of anything people experience now.

A common mistake is to suppose that higher average temperature will mean more hot weather. But this isn’t true. Here again is the Central England Temperature Record, the longest instrumental temperature record in the world. Summer temperatures, over the past 300-400 years, since the end of the Little Ice Age, have barely changed at all. It is winter temperatures that have been slightly rising. The earth’s climate has not been getting hotter, it’s been getting milder.

WILL HAPPER: And that’s certainly being observed all over the world, if you look at temperature records the high temperatures are almost unchanged. But cold temperatures at night, or during the winter, are going up a little bit. Not very much, but you can measure it.

STEVEN KOONIN: When the average goes up it’s really more due to the coldest temperatures getting warmer. So the temperature’s getting milder rather than getting hotter.

What about the increasing number of wildfires we’re often told about?

STEVEN KOONIN: If you look at the actual number of forest fires from satellite observations, the actual number is going down.

Here is an estimate of global wildfires since 1900. It shows a clear decline. And here is a record of areas affected by wildfires in the US. It shows that wildfires were far, far worse in the 1930s.

WILLIE SOON: From the 1930s and 1920s, when you have data, the thing was huge. Five to ten times bigger than the current level.

How about hurricanes? The US has by far the best record of hurricane activity in the world. Over the past 120 years, there is no overall change. In fact the trend is slightly down. When you [look at the data] for hurricanes, technically tropical cyclones, you see there is no long-term trend. How about the rest of the world? Here is a chart of global hurricane activity over the past 40 years.

WILL HAPPER: Hurricanes have been around for ever, you know. We’ve got good proxy records of hurricanes and there’s been no change in their frequency, even the IPPC admits that.

How about melting ice-caps and drought? Here’s a satellite record of temperature in Antarctica since the late 1970s. It shows no increase whatsoever. And here is a record of global drought since 1950. There is no observable increase at all. Polar bears are meant to be going extinct, but studies suggest their numbers are growing. The Great Barrier reef too, but it recently reached record levels.

PATRICK MOORE: There is no such thing as a climate emergency happening on this planet now. There is no evidence of one.

TONY HELLER: Yeah, the extreme weather story is just absurd. There’s no basis to it at all. It’s just based on propaganda. The actual data shows the opposite.

STEVEN KOONIN: I’ve shown you the official data, the official science, tell me what I’m denying.

WILL HAPPER: The climate alarm is nonsense, it’s a hoax, I’ve never liked hoax, I think scam is better word but I am willing to live with the hoax.

But why are we told, again and again, that man-made climate chaos is an undisputed scientific fact? Beyond question. Beyond doubt. To answer this, we must examine the so-called consensus on climate change.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651881&forum_id=2#48514266)