Can we discuss the climate without the hysteria?

By |2017-05-24T11:40:43+00:00May 22nd, 2017|Climate|56 Comments

For starters, let’s recognize no “settled science” indicates human activities are dangerously overheating the planet; no remotely credible surveys indicate a consensus among scientists that we are; and no sensible people who challenge such false representations therefore deny either that climate changes or that recent warming — and cooling — has occurred. Such agenda-driven claims are antithetical to fundamental principles of scientific inquiry and honest discourse.

Earth’s mean temperatures have been warming since the last in a series of approximately 90,000-year-long Ice Ages ended about 12 to 15 thousand years ago; was at least just as warm as now 2,000 years ago and again 1,000 years ago; and has been warming in fits-and-starts since the end of the “Little Ice Age” during the mid-1800s. That warming began soon after Gen. George Washington’s troops suffered a bitter 1777 winter at Valley Forge, and Napoleon’s undertook a frigid retreat from Moscow in 1812.

Conditions warmed up considerably during the early 1900s through the mid-1940s, with temperatures much like now. That was followed by three decades of cooling which prompted leading scientific organizations to forecast a headline-grabbing imminent arrival of the next big Ice Age caused by fossil-fueled smokestacks.

A decade later, those same smokestacks were blamed for an opposite crisis . . . the world was suddenly at a calamitous overheating “tipping point.” The only hope for salvation was for developed nations to join a carbon-capping Kyoto Protocol, to buy carbon offsets from Al Gore’s hedge fund, and to give lots of money to the U.N. for redistribution in penance for unfair capitalistic prosperity.

Yes — much like the current Paris Climate Accord.

Immediately pinning the blame for this climatological catastrophe upon plant-fertilizing CO2 emissions (now re-branded as “climate pollution”) an International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was convened to sanctify, sermonize — and sell this theory. In doing so, their dismissals of natural changes and influences, persistent defenses of provably failed computer model projections, politically-edited alarmist summary reports, and media-hyped activist anti-fossil climate confabs have succeeded brilliantly.

Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

Or, as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres pointedly remarked, the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

That Paris conference agenda got a useful boost from U.S. government agency scientists at NASA and NOAA who conveniently provided “warmest years ever” claims. Both have histories of stirring overheated global warming stew pots with alarming and statistically indefensible claims of recent “record high” temperatures.

Whereas NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), a small climate modeling shop located in a Manhattan Midtown office building, reported that 2014, an El Nino year, was the “warmest year in the modern record”, it was statistically indistinguishable from 2005, 2010 and 2016.

GISS subsequently proclaimed 2016 as a new warmest year “since modern recordkeeping began,” whereas the difference versus 2015 was within one-quarter of the statistical margin of error.

A whistleblower who formerly directed NOAA’s climate data section has recently charged that the agency hurriedly prepared and released unverified and flawed global temperature information in order to push policy agendas favored by the U.N. and Obama administration at the U.N.’s 2015 Paris climate conference. The goal was to influence advanced nations to commit to sweeping reductions in their uses of fossil fuel and huge expenditures for climate-related aid projects.

NOAA’s politically sensationalized 2015 Thomas R. Karl study retroactively altered historical climate change data to eliminate a well-known “climate change hiatus” . . . a temperature period between 1998 and 2013 during which global temperatures remained flat despite much ballyhooed record atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Instead, the report claimed that the “pause” or “slowdown” in global warming never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising even faster than expected.

Although satellite measurements since 1979 show virtually none outside underreported margins of error, the altered record data now makes 2010 appear just enough warmer to suggest a media headline-prompting upward trend. Moreover, balloon recordings of the Earth’s atmosphere show no overall warming since the late 1950s, while U.S. surface records obtained from the most reliable thermometer stations — those not corrupted by local “heat island” influences such as instrument relocations, urban developments or other man-made changes — show no significant warming over the past 80 years. In fact, there have been more all-time U.S. cold records than heat records since the 1940s.

Get used to natural climate changes, there’s no sane basis for denying them. Meanwhile, let’s demand political climate changes as well.


  1. Immortal600 May 23, 2017 at 9:29 AM

    True. All the AGW crowd has going for it is lies and hyperbole. Sad.

  2. Li D May 23, 2017 at 8:43 PM

    “Moreover, balloon recordings of the Earth’s atmosphere show no overall warming since the late 1950s”
    Cmon Larry. Jeez. Can ya not discuss
    things without lyin your arse off?

  3. Immortal600 May 23, 2017 at 9:26 PM

    Larry you are correct. The AGW people can only show warming after 1958 by hiding the decline from 58-78. They are the ones who lie.

    • Li D May 24, 2017 at 2:08 AM

      Show your data.
      You can do it.
      Go on. Do it for Larry.

      • Immortal600 May 24, 2017 at 8:32 AM

        Find it yourself. I am not responding to you any more. You are just a troll here.

      • J T May 24, 2017 at 12:39 PM

        Li(e)D is a good name for you.

      • Sol_of_Texas May 24, 2017 at 2:02 PM

        If you have reliable data, when not direct those of us who are just not as intelligent as yourself to the raw sources?

        • Denis Ables May 24, 2017 at 6:11 PM

          The proponents of any theory are obligated to provide evidence if they want anybody to take them seriously. It’s laughable when a believer instead asks the skeptics for evidence.

          • Sol_of_Texas May 24, 2017 at 6:24 PM

            40 years ago, I worked on developing climate models for an international university research project (part of the team was in Germany and the other in the USA). The models were unreliable then not very useful for prediction. The change to constrained carbon cycle models have not improved anything.

            In case it is not evident, astrophysics has dominated earth’s climate change – carbon gasses have been and continue to be but an extremely negligible contribution. Large volcanic eruptions have been more significant (in the short term).

            • Denis Ables May 24, 2017 at 11:01 PM

              The difference between computer projected temperatures and the (subsequent) actual temperatures continues to widen, and this is after various “tweaks” to the models based on earlier discrepancies. Simulating a nonlinear system with both known and unknown chaotic influences may be an interesting academic exercise, but that’s why it’s referred to as “projections” rather than “predictions”.

              • Sol_of_Texas May 24, 2017 at 11:53 PM

                Would you agree with me that prediction is preferred to projection? I have little faith in the carbon gas cycle models. I also don’t believe that climate change is affected much by human beings – in case I was unclear.

                • Denis Ables May 25, 2017 at 1:49 PM

                  Preferable for the alarmists, and certainly for IPCC.

          • Li D May 25, 2017 at 2:31 AM

            Is it? Well sorry, if challengers to a null cant provide rather compelling evidence ( or any at all ) the null stands.
            So Larry has challenged the evidence about radiosondes just by saying so. But providing zip.
            Old mate immortal backs Larry, again with zip.
            So what have they got?
            I want Larry to back up his jounalism with data if requested.
            And any supporters.
            Maybe im not some AGW loon believer. Maybe I think we should trash the planet and scientists are
            crooked scamming bastards who dont want me too.
            What i think dosnt matter and dosnt absolve proponents of an idea , thats Larry and immortal, to provide evidence.

            The fact is, deniers have zero chance of challenging the null because the consilience is overwhelming.

            • Denis Ables May 25, 2017 at 1:47 PM

              And who anointed you to declare that a bogus theory is the “null theory”?

              CAn you provide some evidence? That old experiment showing that the addition of co2 to a closed chamber increases the temperature is hardly adequate for the open atmosphere. Satellites detect heat escaping to space, and greenhouses do not experience any planetary level feedbacks.

              “…the consilience is overwhelming…” bah humbug.

              The IPCC declaration is that human activity is the PRINCIPLE cause of global warming. The first “survey” never put that question to its potential respondents. They asked instead whether it was likely that human activity plays some role in terms of global temperature. EVERY credible skeptic would have to agree with that. Very few scientists will take the leap to the IPCC claim. The entire issue has been how much impact co2 may have on the global temperature.

              And, as an aside, the alarmists have no evidence that co2 level has EVER (even over geologic periods) had ANY impact on the planet’s temperature.

              In fact, even the alarmist computer models ascribe most of the temperature increase to water vapor feedback, which supposedly brings on 2 to 3 times the temperature increase as supposedly brought on by co2 increase. NOBODY knows whether water vapor feedback is positive or negative, let alone the real culprit. Their hypothesis depends on that feedback ASSUMPTION in order to obtain what appears to be catastrophic temperature increases. Not happening. In fact, co2 level has continued to increase, but there has been no statistically significant ADDITIONAL warming for the past two decades, and alarmists have no explanation. (They do have about two dozen speculative guesses, however. Does that sound like “settled science”?)

              What’s more, the greenhouse gas theory brings with it some baggage, namely…. a necessary condition for its validity is that there be a warmer region about 10k above the tropics. Millions of radiosondes over the past decades have NEVER found it. The validity of the GHG theory (in terms of the open atmosphere) remains dubious. Even if that “hot-spot” had been found, it is not SUFFICIENT. There must still be EVIDENCE.

          • Immortal600 May 25, 2017 at 11:35 AM

            An amazing response to you Denis form Li D. He evidently believes that AGW is the null hypothesis to climate change. What a hoot!. He has it backwards. The null hypothesis is that climate changes NATURALLY until shown otherwise which he and his ilk can’t do. Yet they want us to supply evidence that AGW isn’t real. Amazing! The readjusted temperature data speaks volumes about their deceit in fabricating the AGW narrative.

      • Denis Ables May 24, 2017 at 6:00 PM

        Both the RSS and UAH satellite data demonstrate no additional warming since 1998. The temperature records are public.

        Both NASA and NOAA use terrestrial data which has known problems. Almost all the surface temperature stations are located within urban heat islands (UHIs) and so have a temperature bias, and, it’s different enough that every station must be handled separately. The raw data disappears completely and is replaced by estimates. The land surface area is not well covered. There are long distances between stations, and there are no stations in uninhabited regions (deserts, jungles, forests, polar areas, grasslands. Most temperature stations do not even satisfy the government’s own minimal requirements. Ocean coverage is much more sparse.

  4. Immortal600 May 24, 2017 at 10:27 AM

    Can someone rid us of this miserable troll who comes here to spout garbage at the authors of the articles?

  5. Dr Norman Page May 24, 2017 at 11:59 AM

    Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2004+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at
    and an earlier accessible blog version at
    Here is the abstract for convenience :
    This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”

    • Denis Ables May 24, 2017 at 5:53 PM

      Forecasting the climate is a long shot. It involves a nonlinear process coupled with both known and unknown chaotic events. The difference between the temperatures projected by computer model and actual temperatures continues to WIDEN. IN any event, computer model output does not qualify as evidence. Generally the descriptor for the model output is “projections” rather than “predictions”.

    • BWMorlan May 25, 2017 at 12:46 AM

      Wrong. Simply wrong. Natural cycles are part of the story. Just like gasoline is part of the story about how your car works.

      Part. Of. The. Story.

  6. BWMorlan May 24, 2017 at 12:05 PM

    Just to clarify, there is no such thing as “settled science” except in the fevered minds of the press.

    When I taught decision science to military officers, I told them that science doesn’t “decide things”, but decision makers do. The p-values from the science alone do not capture anything about the nature of this political discussion.

    The real political decision is between the EPA-style response (as will
    be pushed by the pro-bureaucratic types) and a more market based
    solution as advocated by the free-market types.

    • BWMorlan May 24, 2017 at 12:06 PM

      See the Climate Leadership Council (conservatives) for a discussion and explanation of the CF&D (border-adjusted, revenue neutral, anti-bureaucratic carbon-fee and full dividend).

      • BWMorlan May 24, 2017 at 12:34 PM

        And yes, I get that a fee on carbon, even if fully distributed as a dividend, is not a “real” free market.

        But neither is an army of bureaucrats imposing regulations at the level necessary to do what a simple carbon tax does without anything other than the pain of prices in an open market.

        The theory is beyond this description, but many conservative and progressive economists alike agree on this use of a carbon fee to correct this tragedy of the commons,

        “Why would we expect economists to support a carbon tax? It’s very close to the economic ideal.”

        and my argument, that POLITICs alone are enough to drive us to this position, is just war-making strategy and tactics (as I learned and taught while serving).

  7. J T May 24, 2017 at 12:37 PM

    Brain-dead lib/left Socialist morons don’t want to hear these FACTS.

    • BWMorlan May 25, 2017 at 1:48 AM

      None of this is about FACTS.

  8. Yolinda Weston May 24, 2017 at 1:10 PM

    First it was mini Ice Age in the late 70’s early 80’s. Then it was Global warming and when that didn’t pan out to Gores’ prediction, it became Climate Change. If Mr. Gore had practiced what he was preaching I might have believed him. But he doesn’t. I remember weather that would curl your toes, Everything from blizzards to horrific Hurricanes, seasonal droughts to floods. The earth functions on it’s own whims and has since time began. The earth has cooled then warmed through the ages. What makes man think he can control the earth? Throwing money at the so called problem? Fining countries and people for so called carbon emissions? The answers to everything political is to throw money at it. We can fix it with enough money. But those with the control don’t give a hoot about the earth, they are just interested in control of the world. I’m a sustainable farmer I am concerned about the environment. But I temper what I do with the land by working with it not against it. The climate is easy to adjust but it flies against everything the so called scientists think has to be done. 1 replace trees from slash and burn farming, 2 plant cover crops on barren land when it is not in production, keeping the soil covered (holds moisture in the soil helping to lower the air temperature) 3 slow water from rushing down eroded and sloping land allowing more to sink in recharging aquifers, and controlling flooding. But simple is not the answer when you want control of countries and peoples.

    • BWMorlan May 25, 2017 at 12:41 AM

      I actually start with the ice age story when talking to students, because it helps explain why I drew the editorial cartoon below. Especially the role being conservative plays in dampening the “bandwagon” effect of new science, and bandwagons are how weak minds play in science. This effect is especially problematic since the ice age science was dramatic and championed by media coverage while the global warming science was less dramatic and a bit more wonkish, since ice ages support “sexy” headlines, and the media LOVES that.

    • jreb57 May 30, 2017 at 11:19 PM

      If man can control climate there is no need for the HVAC industry.

  9. Tom Halla May 24, 2017 at 1:53 PM

    Global warming is a subset of the larger environmental movement, and is quasi-political to religious in nature. I have seen predictions of doom right soon now since I was in high school in the early 1970’s. The main commonality of those claims was that they were all wrong.
    The green True Believers are useful to various politicians and rent-seekers, just like eugenics served as a prop in the 1920’s and 30’s. I am not calling the greens Nazis, just stating that their mindset is much the same.

    • BWMorlan May 25, 2017 at 1:03 AM

      I use the epithet, “rent-seekers” when I describe the sorts of greenies who think the government should pick winners like solar (remember Solyndra?) or try to write regulations (remember VW diesel tricks?).

      Then I point to Citizens Climate Lobby’s bi-partisan compromise plan, a border-adjusted, revenue neutral, smaller government, carbon-fee and full dividend tool that creates free-market like forces that actually account for the tragedy of the commons that the CPP was going to PRETEND to fix while it only increased the sense in the voters that the answer to problems like this is bigger government.

      I see the voter re-training effect as being almost as valuable as the CO2 reduction.

      • Tom Halla May 25, 2017 at 1:11 AM

        What I was thinking of as rent-seekers are people invested in wind and solar who then kick back “campaign donations” to those writing rules to favor wind and solar.

        • flyboy46 May 29, 2017 at 2:32 PM

          You mean people like Warren Buffett? Behold “the Buffett Rule” on taxes.

          The billionaire was even more explicit about his goal of reducing his company’s tax payments. “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate,” he said. “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”
          Think about that one. Mr. Buffett says it makes no economic sense to build wind farms without a tax credit, which he gladly uses to reduce his company’s tax payments to the Treasury. So political favors for the wind industry induce a leading U.S. company to misallocate its scarce investment dollars for an uneconomic purpose. Berkshire and its billionaire shareholder get a tax break and the feds get less revenue, which must be made up by raising tax rates on millions of other Americans who are much less well-heeled than Mr. Buffett.
          This is precisely the kind of tax favoritism for the wealthy that Mr. Romney’s tax reform would have reduced, and that other tax reformers want to stop. Too bad Mr. Buffett didn’t share this rule with voters in 2012.

          • Tom Halla May 29, 2017 at 3:17 PM


          • jreb57 May 30, 2017 at 11:17 PM

            Pass the “Fair Tax”. Eliminate taxes on productivity, only tax consumption. Buffet is happy. Wage earners are happy. Every one pays some tax. The IRS loses it’s political power.

  10. Denis Ables May 24, 2017 at 5:50 PM

    “warming in fits and starts since the end of the LIA in the middle 1800s….”

    Actually, our current warming (such as it is) began not in the mid 1800s, but at the first low temperature during the LIA, by definition. That pushes the start date back to about 1630. The end date of the LIA is not relevant. This also indicates that we had two centuries of warming before co2 level began increasing in the mid 1800s. co2 rate of annual increase back then was about 2 ppmv per year, so it would have taken a few decades, at a minimum, before co2 would have reached a level where there would have been any impact on temperatures. Also, it’s unrealistic to assume that natural warming came to a dead stop just as co2 level began to rise.

    There were also some brief cooling periods after that, the most recent being from about 1945 to 1975. The only period of warming of interest then are the two decades from 1975 to 1998. But that’s been followed by two decades of no further additional warming; this in spite of the fact that co2 continues to rise and is now at its highest level in hundreds of thousands of years. By some counts the alarmists have come up with more than two dozen speculative reasons to defend their computer model predictions.

    Settled science? Hardly.

    • BWMorlan May 25, 2017 at 1:46 AM

      Actually, all of these terms (LIA, etc) are, for lack of a better term, “marketing labels” designed to sell papers and get pub credits for the scientists who create the labels.

      The real science is not in making up these names (I tried to publish a paper pointing to the time yesterday when it was 20 degrees cooler than expected, I called it “The Really Itssy-Bitsy Ice Day, (RIBID)”. I needed the pub to get tenure.

      Meanwhile, the more scientific question is … irrelevant.

      The political question, however, is relevant. And that political question is, what is the least damaging way to assuage the voters by putting up something that will shut them the heck up, so we can focus on the real problems that government should be focused on. Like, what the heck is going on in 2052?

  11. Ian MacDonald May 24, 2017 at 7:06 PM

    I honestly thought this would have died out faster than this after the climategate pretty much revealed everything wrong with the so called science…and peer reviewed crap. This is taking longer, but I guess it is a huge train ( gravy ) which resists stopping despite lack of evidence to justify the total waste of time money and sacrifice.

    • Immortal600 May 24, 2017 at 7:18 PM

      You would be surprised how many people believe in this garbage and insist that the science supports AGW even though it doesn’t.

      • John September 17, 2017 at 9:57 PM

        Except that it does.

        • Immortal600 September 18, 2017 at 11:36 AM

          No it doesn’t. You can claim that it does all day long. There is no experimental proof that CO2 is driving climate change. FACT

          • John September 19, 2017 at 8:12 PM

            Actually there is. There have been numerous experiments conducted to demonstrate how adding CO2 to a closed system increases temperature. What else do ya got?

            • Immortal600 September 19, 2017 at 8:39 PM

              BS. You are delusional. what else you got?

              • John September 19, 2017 at 9:19 PM

                BS is all you got? I knew that already. So you deny physics as well as climate science. You’re a moron.

                • Immortal600 September 20, 2017 at 8:58 AM

                  Go look in the mirror pal. There are no experiments that replicate the Earth’s climate. The Earth’s system is not closed when it comes to HEAT, MORON.

                  • John September 20, 2017 at 9:19 AM

                    It’s closed in terms of the gases in the atmosphere, moron. The more CO2 you add to a closed system, the more heat gets trapped. That’s physics 101. If you have trouble with that then you have trouble with basic science which makes you an IDIOT!

                    • Immortal600 September 20, 2017 at 9:47 AM

                      You are an asshole plain and simple. F Off

                    • John September 20, 2017 at 10:52 AM

                      Name one and provide the link. Otherwise, you’re just another bullshit artist.

                    • Immortal600 September 20, 2017 at 11:10 AM

                      Do your own research, fool. You are the one thinking you know everything when you really haven’t a clue. I said HEAT is not constrained by the closed system. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of climate dynamics would know that. You apparently don’t. Therefore, all you are is a blowhard who thinks he understands something he obviously doesn’t.

                    • John September 20, 2017 at 12:41 PM

                      That’s the typical response of right wingers who have no evidence to backup their bullshit. You’re just one of many uneducated tea baggers without a clue.

                      ” I said HEAT is not constrained by the closed system”
                      Your response does not relate to your initial challenge. You originally said, “There is no experimental proof that CO2 is driving climate change” to which I listed a series of experiements proving exactly this concept. You lost the argument so you reframed the statement. That’s how you Trump supporting, “never went to college” idiots debate.

                    • Immortal600 September 20, 2017 at 12:45 PM

                      Your experiments don’t prove any what you claim. You are unhinged with your anger. Seek help.

                    • John September 20, 2017 at 2:15 PM
                    • Immortal600 September 20, 2017 at 2:22 PM

                      That doesn’t prove anything PERIOD. The Earth’s climate is very complex and chaotic, something no experiment can duplicate. So how can you say CO2 is doing anything? Is your intellect that shallow to be sucked in by a lame youtube video? must be, I guess.

                    • John September 20, 2017 at 2:16 PM

                      This experiment was led by a climate scientist at UC Berkeley. This proves you’re full of shit. What else do ya got?

  12. ja_1410 May 27, 2017 at 11:16 AM

    The idiot on the picture obviously never lived in the socialist country.

  13. jreb57 May 30, 2017 at 11:11 PM

    What the left won’t admit about their climate agenda: “A useful lie is better than a harmful truth”

  14. Manfred July 13, 2017 at 3:28 AM

    “Can we discuss the climate without the hysteria?”
    In short, no. The Climatism Cult is a UN political construct and a purposed Trojan horse for the eco-Marxist politics of Globalism. Founded on faux-science, the UN (UNFCCC) provided the a priori definition of “climate change” (1999/2000 – after global warming inconveniently failed to oblige). “Climate Change” arises as the consequence of direct and indirect anthropogenic influence on atmospheric composition and land usage. “Climate variability” was defined at the same time by the UNFCCC as natural variation. Note that any “Climate change” observed is always deemed adverse. To end “climate change,” by definition one impossibly needs to zero sum humanity. Thus, the rationale behind any “climate change” derived policy can never go away, be fulfilled or simply end. The definition remains as unfalsifiable as the political credo behind it. It is toxic to liberty and prosperity and as meaningful as a rabid dog.

Comments are closed.