Even Environmentalists Are Skeptical

Church of ClimatologyThe crazy liberal climate change idiots have been screaming for decades that the sky is falling and it’s all our fault. They claim that the ice caps are going to melt, that the beach-front property is going to flood, that there will be terrible tornadoes and hurricanes, fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!  Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave!  Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!

But you know, when they even have people on their own side going “hey, it just doesn’t add up”, it’s clear that they’ve got issues. Recently, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore came out and admitted that anthropogenic global warming doesn’t make any sense.

Patrick recognizes something that I’ve pointed out many times in the past, that climate is cyclical, it changes naturally, no matter what we do to it.  We have heating trends and cooling trends which are often brought on by differences in solar radiation and volcanic cycles.  We can study the past and find ice ages and heat waves that occurred long before humanity was putting a drop of CO2 into the atmosphere.  In fact, Dr. Moore has now come to the conclusion that human industrialization has saved the planet by replenishing CO2 in the atmosphere that has been absorbed by millions of years of plant growth.  We’ve gone from 3,000 parts per million in the atmosphere to 282 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution.  An optimal level is 1,500 parts per million, something we currently rest at a quarter of.  Here’s Patrick Moore’s speech at the Ninth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

So why does this keep going on and why do so many people buy into it?  The problem is, this has been going on for many decades now, the whack-a-loon environmentalists screaming that man is ruining the planet, yet the planet continues on just fine.  From the “global cooling” in the 60s and 70s to the “global warming” of the 2000s and now to “climate change” when they realized neither of their previous battle cries could be taken seriously, they keep getting everything wrong, yet they still keep making new claims because this is a religion, not a genuine scientifically valid position.  You can start with Paul Erlich’s crazy predictions, made in 1975 at a speech at the British Institute for Biology, where he argued “by the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people. If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 and give ten to one that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower quality than it is today.”  He was entirely wrong.  You can look at the claims made by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 2005 which claimed that imminent sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by “man-made global warming” would lead to massive population disruptions and that by 2010, more than 50 million “climate refugees” would need to be rehomed elsewhere as those portions of the globe became unlivable.  They were entirely wrong.  Or the Pentagon report in 2003 called “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security” that claimed man-made “climate change” was actually a “national security concern” and predicted that within 10 years, California would be flooded with inland seas, parts of the Netherlands would be entirely unlivable, the polar ice would be all but gone in the summers, and surging temperatures would destabilize the weather system.  That was completely wrong too.  In 2000, David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), predicted that snow would become virtually unheard of in England and that “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”  Of course, since then, snowfall, both in the UK and abroad, has been quite healthy, making Viner’s words absurd at best.  Let’s not forget Al Gore’s dire predictions that the polar ice caps would be entirely free of ice by 2013, which is simply not the case.  I can go on and on and on but I think this suffices to show just how ludicrous these claims of anthropogenic climate change really are.

Well, I suppose I ought to address the claims made that scientists all agree that global climate change is happening.  It isn’t true.  Forbes magazine wrote an article where it detailed that the number of wildfires, a typical prediction made by the global warming fanatics, has has fallen more than 15 percent since 1950 and according the National Academy of Sciences, that trend is likely to continue to fall for decades. On droughts, a 2012 study published in Nature admitted there has been “little change in global drought over the past 60 years.” The UN’s own climate “specialists” had to admit that in many regions of the world, “droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter.”  Hurricanes and tornadoes and other severe storms are top of the Chicken Little routine for climate fanatics, but even those aren’t bearing out their claims.  Professor Roger Pielke, Jr. at the University of Colorado points out,  “when the 2014 hurricane season starts it will have been 3,142 days since the last Category 3+ storm made landfall in the U.S., shattering the record for the longest stretch between U.S. intense hurricanes since 1900.” The reality is, “global warming” actually stopped about 18 years ago but the fanatics are still running around the field waving the flag for their cause.  The UN had 73 “climate models”, every single one of which has been soundly discredited.  This isn’t a scientific position, it’s an emotional one, brought on by liberal self-loathing.

It’s also dishonest.  Liberal environmentalists have blind faith that this anthropogenic climate change is happening, just like theists have blind faith that their gods are real.  No matter what happens, it’s evidence for their fanatical beliefs.  If it gets hotter, it’s climate change.  If it gets colder, it’s climate change.  If it stays the same, it’s “climate change pause”.  More storms? Less storms?  More ice?  Less ice?  It’s all climate change.  Reality has no chance of changing their beliefs.

For people who don’t know, “climate change” is a massive business, clocking in at more than $360 billion dollars worldwide every single year.  Liberals have every reason to push it, it makes them money. The whole “green revolution” is a massive money-making campaign to make people feel guilty about the way they’ve been doing things so they can spend way more money on whole new technologies that really aren’t any better than the ones that came before.  Take electric cars.  I’m not going to talk about their inefficiency, I am going to point out that they are not better for the environment than gas-powered cars. The manufacturing of the batteries alone is much, much worse for the environment than just driving your regular automobile and the energy required to charge them comes mostly from coal-fired power plants.  The reality is, it not only isn’t better, it’s arguably worse for the environment but we’re talking about high-emotion and low-information consumers who listen to what their political ideologues say and don’t think a moment before whipping out their hipster wallets.  Politicians are only too happy to pass all the “carbon taxes” they can, they get more money to play with, plus it buys votes from the gullible.

We have environmental issues on this planet to be sure, we need to deal with them as best we can, but running around like a chicken with it’s head cut off, spouting liberal alarmist drivel, doesn’t actually fix any of the problems we actually have.  Maybe it’s time to take a deep breath, take a look at what the data actually says rationally, without all the emotional mumbo-jumbo that typically goes along with these discussions and see what’s actually true and what’s just not justifiable.

26 thoughts on “Even Environmentalists Are Skeptical

  1. You are so deeply misinformed and poorly-educated about climate and climate change, and such a deeply wounded victim of so many climate myths, that it would literally take thousands of words to attempt to correct your ignorance on this subject and treat the intellectual wounds affecting you where this topic is concerned.

    So I am simply going to provide a set of links to reports and websites that you should consult, though I am almost certain you will not bother to examine even one of them, given that on this subject you are clearly a victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect).

    You really should get yourself a good general book on just climate science (climatology), since from much of what you have written about climate change reveals a less-than-adequate understanding of just basic climate science.
    There are just enough actual facts in your post to give the entire post a veneer of credibility. But this is an illusion. This post is full of data cherry-picking and comments based on debunked climate myths and misconceptions. As a result the conclusions and claims presented in this post are erroneous.

    CLIMATE CENTRAL http://www.climatecentral.org

    Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com

    Climate Change at the National Academies http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/

    What We Know
    American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS) http://whatweknow.aaas.org

    U.S. Global Change Research Program: Understand Climate Change http://www.globalchange.gov/climate-change

    National Climate Assessment Report
    Climate Change Impacts in the United States http://nca2014.globalchange.gov

    NASA GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE WEBSITE http://climate.nasa.gov

    Climate Change: How Do We Know? http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    Climate Change Evidence and Causes
    Report published by National Academy of Science http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-

    Climate Change: Evidence, Impacts and Choices
    National Research Council http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/files

    IPCC Fifth Assessment Report http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ The Physical Science http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/ Impacts, Adaptations, and Vulnerability

    Climate Literacy http://cpo.noaa.gov/OutreachandEducation/ClimateLhttp://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/literacy/c… (Free download of document.)

    Climate: The Basics http://www.c2es.org/science-impacts/basics

    Know the Facts: A Skeptic's Guide to Climate Change http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/skeptics-guid

    RealClimate: Climate Science from Climate Scientists http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/200

  2. “Recently, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore came out and admitted that anthropogenic global warming doesn’t make any sense.”

    This is quite comical. You think the fact that an environmentalist rejects the evidence for anthropogenic global warming makes for a convincing argument that human-caused global warming/climate change is not happening or that it is some global leftist conspiracy? Your headline for this piece is certainly highly misleading. One environmentalist denies the science of anthropogenic climate change and you think this somehow significant or represents some kind of crisis in the science or within the ranks of envionmentalists. Wow, are you deluded. Moore is simply wrong. He, like you, does not actually understand climate science nor the evidence for anthropogenic climate change. That he rejects the conclusions of the IPCC report simply makes him look silly, just as it does for you.

  3. “Patrick recognizes something that I’ve pointed out many times in the past, that climate is cyclical, it changes naturally, no matter what we do to it.”

    Holy shit! You actually think you have found some serious flaw in the scientific community's arguments supporting the conclusion that the planet's climate is changing due to human activity? You actually think that the very scientists whom you are criticizing here don't actually know that there is a cyclical nature to climate change? There is absolutely nothing controversial nor actually insightful in your comment You've presented a strawman argument here. Every climate scientist on the planet, including the more than 2000 scientists whose research is the basis for the conclusions of the IPCC report, know this. That the planet has undergone climate change in the past is not a part of the debate. No climate scientist actually argues differently.

    The conclusion's about anthropogenic climate change incorporate the knowledge about past climate change. The anthropogenic climate change conclusion is based on the well-established fact that the climate change is occuring at a rate exceeding the normal background rate and that this is largely the result of the burning of fossil fuels.

  4. This argument that increased CO2 concentrations will be a benefit because CO2 is plant food is one of the many climate myths recycled time and again by people who simply do not understand the way Earth's natural climate system works. This particular myth has been thoroughly debunked by the climate scientists at the website Skeptical Science. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.ht… This myth has also been addressed by New Scientist magazine (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.html#.VRwzM0I-BE5).

    This argument represents the false "more is better" philosophy. From http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.ht

    “However, this "more is better" philosophy is not the way things work in the real world. There is an old saying, "Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing." For example, if a doctor tells you to take one pill of a certain medicine, it does not follow that taking four is likely to heal you four times faster or make you four times better. It's more likely to make you sick.”

    “It is possible to boost growth of some plants with extra CO2, under controlled conditions inside of greenhouses. Based on this,  'skeptics' (more accurately called denialists – my addition) make their claims of benefical botanical effects in the world at large. Such claims fail to take into account that increasing the availability of one substance that plants need requires other supply changes for benefits to accrue.  It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth will see an increase in deserts and other arid lands, reducing the area available for crops.”

  5. “…They keep getting everything wrong,….”

    It is you who keeps getting everything wrong. Your level of ignorance on this subject is staggering in its depth and breadth.

  6. “…yet they still keep making new claims because this is a religion, not a genuine scientifically valid position.”

    No, it is your position that is not genuinely scientific nor valid.

  7. That Paul Ehrlich, the Pentagon, the United Nations Environment Programme, David Viner, and Al Gore got predictions about the impacts of global warming wrong does not invalidate the science that demonstrates that global climate change and global warming are real, nor the scientific consensus that exists concerning the science and the conclusions.

    It is comically ironic that you should quote the National Academy of Science in support of your claim that there is no anthropogenic climate change, given that this prestigious body of scientists has issued several reports that clearly establish that anthropogenic climate change/global warming is real. The NAS even has an official position paper available at their website detailing their support of the science behind climate change and the conclusions of the IPCC and the scientific community. (http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf)

    Every major scientific organization in the United States with relevant expertise has confirmed the IPCC’s conclusion, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society,] the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The list of international scientific organizations affirming the worldwide consensus on climate change is even longer (http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php)

  8. Talk about a non-sequitur. The entire paragraph about droughts and wildfires is one enormous non-sequitur. It has absolutely no relevance to the scientific consensus among the world's climate scientists that anthropogenic climate change is real.

  9. You are without a doubt a climate change/global warming denialist, a.k.a contrarian. You are not a genuine skeptic on this topic. You clearly have not formulated your views on climate change through an unbiased examination of the facts and evidence. Nor have you done an intellectually honest examination of the evidence. Climate change denialism falls on a spectrum that ranges from those who “not only deny global warming, but insist the opposite is occurring” to those who state that ”global warming was happening, it was caused by humanity, it is a very bad thing and previous governments could and should have done something, but it's too late now!” (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming_denialism). You occupy the position on this global warming denialism continuum at the position which holds that “Global warming is happening, but it’s not caused by humanity — so we don’t have to do anything.”

  10. “This isn’t a scientific position, it’s an emotional one, brought on by liberal self-loathing.”

    Wrong again. It most certainly is a sound scientific position supported by a wealth of quality scientific evidence. That you claim otherwise is only indicative of your ignorance about this evidence and your dogmatic allegiance to your political ideology. As for the comment about liberal self-loathing, your remark is a false characterization brought on by your own irrationality and political dogma.

    By the way, if self-loathing were the reason liberals accept the science behind anthropogenic climate change then you would have to accept the same self-loathing based on conservatism within the ranks of your fellow conservatives. There are number of conservatives who support the science of anthropogenic global warming. This would include U.S. Representative Chris Gibson (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/13/3611016/gop-down-with-agw/), former Representative Bob Inglis (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/10/513568/climate-republicans-global-warming-initiativ/), former Secretary of State George Schultz (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-reagan-model-on-climate-change/2015/03/13/4f4182e2-c6a8-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html), 38% of self-identified conservative Republicans in the general public (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/13/3611016/gop-down-with-agw/), and the conservatives who blog at climateconservative (http://www.climateconservative.org/?page_id=17), just to name a few.

    I think, in fact, that you are one of the conservatives that the conservatives at climateconservative.com had in mind when they wrote the following:

    “The climate debate exemplifies how many on the political right have veered dangerously away from traditional conservatism. Too many are allowing themselves to be influenced by a right wing media that is dominated by libertarian ideologues and a ratings-driven desire to inflame partisan passion. It seems preposterous that a thoughtful conservative could actually allow the climate skepticism of a radio talk show host to trump the serious, non-partisan, research of the world’s foremost climate experts.”

  11. “Liberal environmentalists have blind faith that this anthropogenic climate change is happening…”

    I won't pretend to speak for “liberal environmentalists” but those of us who are actually familiar with both climate science and the evidence concerning anthropogenic climate change do not accept the conclusion on the basis of blind faith. The scientific evidence very clearly establishes that the planet is experiencing climate change (global warming) in the present due largely to human activity. Any intellectually honest examination of all the data and evidence – not the kind of cherry-picking exercise in which you have engaged – gives more than ample rational reason to accept what the overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists have concluded from their research and the data: human-caused global climate change is real.

    You repeatedly attempt to portray climate change science as some liberal conspiracy. But it is totally irrelevant what this liberal or that liberal says or writes about climate science. What matters is what the expert climate scientists say and publish. What matters is the evidence itself as presented by these climate scientists in thousands of research papers published in peer-reviewed journals. And that body of evidence and scholarship is very clear in what it establishes. Human-induced climate change is happening.

  12. “Maybe it’s time to take a deep breath, take a look at what the data actually says rationally, without all the emotional mumbo-jumbo that typically goes along with these discussions and see what’s actually true and what’s just not justifiable.”

    This is actually quite good advice. So perhaps you should start doing precisely this, because nothing in this long diatribe of yours gives any evidence you have actually done this. You have not examined the data rationally. You've engaged in typical climate change denialist tactics: cherry-picking the evidence, intellectual sleight-of-hand, distraction, distortion, repetition of debunked claims and myths, misdirection, misrepresentation of the science, and a host of logical fallacies.

  13. I watched your latest Bitchspot Quicke podcast, Relatively good podcast. However, while you may have convinced yourself that you are comfortable using logic, reason, and critical thinking, you are inconsistent in their application. This is most evident with your position on anthropogenic climate change. You have deluded yourself into thinking that you have effectively used these skills in arriving at the erroneous conclusion you have concerning this topic.

  14. I know we disagree a lot on this topic of climate change, I will try build a response later (or not). I need to give a quick comment, as I do take one serious exception about the development of new technology. While it certainly is not viable (and as such creates a lot of pollution) at the moment and it is been driven largely by environmentalism. The reason it is been done is so that we have an alternative when the fossil fuels run out. Its not so much that everything is running out that quickly (there are still many years ahead) but rather that the quality of the fossil fuel is decreasing in many markets.
    My recent post Scientist and theist?

    1. I think environmentalism has been the public face, I don't think for a second that the people who make these technologies really give a damn about the environment, they're just using that as an advertising gimmick to sell a new product line at inflated prices. The whole thing is a marketing gimmick, if it wasn't, they'd actually care that what they've made is worse for the environment than what we already have. They aren't helping, they're doing more damage. If their point is to protect the environment, they wouldn't have something that demonstrably harms the environment on the market. There's a reason they don't talk about the manufacture of the batteries or about the source of electric power for the cars. They're just trying to gloss over the downsides and make people think they're actually making a difference when they're really not.

  15. BTW Cephus, the Ninth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is actually the Heartlands Institutes which is an climate change denier think tank. So, I have to give some skepticism towards the speech by Patrick Moore. In fact I would say the Heartland Institute is as politicized as the Al Gore camp.
    My recent post Scientist and theist?

    1. It doesn't really matter where the speech is given, it's the content of the speech that matters. It's the actual data that matters. People get too caught up in the who and not at all concerned with the what.

  16. To the author of this blog I have a few questions for you. Are you a Scientist? If not, than it is not wise to discuss scientific matters as though you know what you are talking about. What are your credentials and academic background? If you don't have any scientific experience than you are most likely a layman, have some humility and admit your lack of knowledge. Let's clarify a few things: Environmentalist does not equal Scientist even if they may think they can speak with authority about science. A Grand-Global Liberal Conspiracy is just that, a conspiracy and nothing more, provide some evidence that it exists or don’t bother pretending that it is anything BUT gibberish. Political affiliation does not equal scientific understanding, so simply because someone of left wing leanings or of any affiliation accepts or denies science DOES NOT mean they grasp the concepts of such knowledge. Common sense/intuition does not trump the Scientific Process/Thinking; many concepts in science are counter-intuitive. And finally, Reality IS NOT black and white, often times it is complex so when a layman attempts or thinks he/she can dismiss an entire discipline of science, it reflects poorly on their rationality and intellectual maturity.

    1. Actually, yes, I am trained in the sciences and have scientific degrees, thanks for asking. There really aren't a lot of "scientists" out waving their arms around and screaming the sky is falling, those are almost all laypeople who are selectively biased, embracing only those things that support their agenda and entirely ignoring the rest. Truth is discovered only when *ALL* of the evidence is evaluated together, something that the liberal left refuses to do (to be fair, the religious right is no better).

  17. Thanks for explaining it. When I read your article, I also find it confusing on your closing statement but you pointed me to the right conclusion. Thanks again!

  18. It seems to me that the best way to maintain standards while reducing CO2, would be to encourage on-site solar for buildings in the sunny places and more local, smaller scale projects. You still need a grid and power plants of course, but from what I've read, the CO2 trade-off could be large, along with less water use in energy production, though there are pollutant trade-offs.

    The local high school just put solar panels over the main parking lot, which is estimated to cover 85% of the schools need, and save the public "$20 million over the life of the project" in energy bills. Also provides nice covered parking.

    My recent post FEMA Announces New Climate Change Policy: Publish Our Propaganda In Your State Disaster Plans, Or Else!

    1. Actually, we have a means of solving or even reversing global warming, regardless of the cause and it's downright cheap. Construct a bunch of bug ships that spray ocean water into the atmosphere, it will reflect a large part of the sun's heat back into space. We've known about this for a while, but the crazy liberals want nothing to do with it because it doesn't make them money and it doesn't increase the size of the government. It costs about 10% of the current "green energy" outlay. Of course, it will never happen because it doesn't give the powers that be political power.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)