The Climate Change Fundamentalists

end-is-nearClimate change fundamentalists are predicting an apocalypse. Human depredation in the form of unbridled materialism is the cause. Any dissent from the fundamentalists’ doomsday prophesies if their radical prescriptions to save humanity and Mother Earth are not followed is regarded as heresy. 

Charge the well-funded climate change “deniers” with committing “criminal negligence” for “their willful disregard for human life,” says Lawrence Torcello, a philosophy professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology. After all, heretics must be punished.

Stop job-creating energy independence initiatives such as the Keystone XL pipeline, says the former director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen, which he called the “fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet.” Hansen was arrested during the course of a civil disobedience protest against the pipeline as he sat in front of a banner proclaiming, “Witness for Climate and Creation.” Who knew that a pipeline transporting oil to the United States, which would otherwise travel by rail or be shipped elsewhere such as to China, the world’s largest emitter of carbon gases, would upset God’s plan of creation?

Hansen co-authored with other like-minded scientists and economist Jeffrey Sachs, director of Columbia’s Earth Institute and adviser to the United Nations, a scare-mongering paper entitled “Assessing ‘Dangerous Climate Change’: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature.” The paper, published in December 2013, predicted “mass extinctions” of species and demanded “urgent change to our energy and carbon pathway to avoid dangerous consequences for young people and other life on Earth.” The authors moralized that human-caused climate change is on par with the evil of slavery. It represented inter-generational injustice, they said, for which they recommended there be legal remedies.

James Gustave Speth, formerly dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality from 1979 to 1981, wrote an indignant letter to the New York Times on May 13, 2014 complaining that the “United States’ response to the climate crisis has been beyond pathetic. It is probably the greatest dereliction of civic responsibility in the history of the Republic.” What is Speth’s solution? Ideally, as he described in his book Red Sky at Morning, he would like to see “a world environment agency entrusted with setting international standards and enforcing them against laggard countries.”

Even some scientists who agree that human-induced greenhouse gas buildup is a real problem policymakers should address believe that the climate change fundamentalists are going too far. For example, Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science’s Department of Global Ecology, discussing his reaction to the Hansen-Sachs paper, said he was  “concerned about the presentation of such a prescriptive and value-laden work” in a piece that wasn’t marked as an opinion. Caldeira has also said, regarding the Keystone pipeline, that “I don’t believe that whether the pipeline is built or not will have any detectable climate effect.”

Rather than providing balanced scientific data and reasoned analysis to persuade lay people of the potential adverse environmental consequences of human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases with recommendations for practical incremental approaches to dealing with these consequences, the climate change fundamentalists reject any notion of a gradualist approach. As Robert Skidelsky, a member of the British House of Lords and professor emeritus of political economy at Warwick University, explained: “Climate change is a fact. But apocalyptic thinking distorts the scientific debate and makes it harder to explain the causes and consequences of this fact, which in turn makes it harder to know how to deal with it.  The danger is that we become so infected with the apocalyptic virus that we end up creating a real catastrophe — the meltdown of our economies and lifestyles — in order to avoid an imaginary one.”

The doom merchants aim to shove radical economy-wrecking prescriptions down our throats by parading before us their version of the plagues – draught, intense rain storms, floods, fires, pestilence, very warm temperatures and very cold temperatures, all of which they attribute to human-caused climate change. The idea that some natural events may be random occurrences in a universe that far transcends human activity is foreign to the climate change fundamentalists who believe that Mother Earth itself is anthropomorphic.

One problem that the climate change fundamentalists have in persuading the rest of us the sky is falling is that they keep changing their explanations.  For example, the catchphrase “global warming” was rebranded as “climate change” when their computer models could not account for the fact that average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998.

There are intellectually honest scientists in climatology who are willing to admit something is going on that the computer models may have missed.  “A few years ago you saw the hiatus, but it could be dismissed because it was well within the noise,” said Gabriel Vecchi, a climate scientist at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, New Jersey. “Now it’s something to explain.”

However, the climate change fundamentalists rationalize that looking at ten or fifteen year trend lines is a waste of time. “If you are interested in global climate change, your main focus ought to be on timescales of 50 to 100 years,” said Susan Solomon, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. Nevertheless, the fundamentalists want it both ways.  Now they tell us that every unusual day-to-day weather phenomenon is a result of human-caused climate change.

Another problem for the climate change fundamentalists is that many of their prior doomsday predictions have not come true. In 1972, for example, Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen was reported in the Christian Science Monitor as predicting that a general warming trend over the North Pole “may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2,000.”

Al Gore, one of the original climate change prophets of doom, predicted in 2008 that the entire North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years.

While the Arctic Sea ice extent has declined, it has far from disappeared. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, “Arctic sea ice extent for April 2014 was 14.14 million square kilometers (5.46 million square miles). This is 610,000 square kilometers (236,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent, and 270,000 square kilometers (104,000 square miles) above the record April monthly low, which occurred in 2007.”

Here is another dire prediction that did not quite come to pass. Michael Oppenheimer, the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School and the Department of Geosciences at Princeton University, predicted in a book of his published in 1990: “[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots … [By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.”

The Platte River in Nebraska has not dried up, and the continent-wide black blizzard and computer shut downs have not materialized.

Moreover, the hyperbolic rhetoric we hear from climate change fundamentalists does not correspond with what we observe around us ourselves, nor with some relevant empirical data.

For example, the Obama administration recently released its National Climate Assessment. It gave several examples of what it claimed to be the drastically worsening effects of human- caused climate change during the last fifty years, stating that “Americans are noticing changes all around them.” Two such examples we are purportedly seeing play out in extreme weather aberrations right now according to the Obama administration’s Assessment:  “Winters are generally shorter and warmer. Rain comes in heavier downpours…large increases in heavy precipitation have occurred in the Northeast, Midwest, and Great Plains where heavy downpours have frequently led to runoff that exceeded the capacity of storm drains and levees, and caused flooding events and accelerated erosion.”

People who shivered in Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri, during one of the ten coldest winters in those states since records were kept, would probably not agree with the Obama administration’s description of shorter, warmer winters. Indeed, large parts of the United States just experienced one of the longest and coldest winters in forty years. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported that overall, for the winter period from December 2013 through February 2014, the “contiguous U.S. experienced much drier and colder than average winter that ranked ninth driest and 34th coldest on record.”  Those records go back to 1895.

As for rainfall, we are certainly experiencing heavy downpours of rain. But this is not a phenomenon that has sprung up only in the last fifty years.

Anecdotally, the most destructive river flood in the history of the United States, which began with extremely heavy rains in the central basin of the Mississippi in the summer of 1926, was the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927. This occurred more than seventy-five years ago, well outside the most recent fifty year period in which human activity supposedly created the weather conditions of very heavy precipitation and floods cited by the Obama administration’s National Climate Assessment as evidence of accelerating human-caused climate change here and now.  If the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 is not considered far enough back in time to put the Obama administration’s Assessment findings in perspective, then consider the Johnstown Flood Of 1889. More than eight inches of rain fell in less than a one day period, resulting in a flood that took more than 2000 lives.

As for empirical data, the following is a chart prepared by NOAA which shows the percentage of the land area of the contiguous 48 states that experienced much greater than normal precipitation in any given year starting with 1895, which means it scored 2.0 or above on the annual Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI). The thicker orange line shows a nine-year weighted average that smoothes out some of the year-to-year fluctuations.

The biggest spike was in 1940. The years 1910 and 2000 were nearly equal in terms of the percentage of land area of the contiguous 48 states that experienced much greater than normal precipitation. There is no discernible accelerating upward trend line in the last fifty years.

figure2

Data source: NOAA, 2013

None of this is to deny that human activity worldwide contributes to climate change via the cumulative impact of human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. The questions to be debated are the extent and imminence of the problem, as well as the best measures to deal with the problem without wrecking our economy in the process. This is where the climate change fundamentalists become unglued. They do not want a policy debate. They want immediate action on their terms. Anyone questioning their dogma is blackballed.

For example, a paper written by an eminent climate change researcher Professor Lennart Bengtsson and four other scientists, which challenged the basis for predictions regarding the speed of global warming, was recently rejected for publication in a scientific journal because it was said to be “less than helpful.” Professor Bengtsson, an author of over 200 papers and former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology which has contributed to United Nations reports on climate change, was harassed for daring to question the received dogma. He said: “I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy.”

Through their excommunication of serious-minded scientists who dare to raise questions and their increasingly strident and dogmatic proclamations, the climate change fundamentalists are turning into Cassandras whose prophesies are being tuned out by the public. Sadly, they drown out more reasonable voices who can contribute positively to the public’s understanding of the multiple dimensions of climate change and sensible solutions.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • Abel Adamski

    Enjoy your future, Mother Earth ain’t listening and doesn’t care about our opinions, she reacts to physical factors.
    The good thing with life and health extending Medical science and breakthroughs is we can all enjoy living that future with our children and grandchildren.
    Enjoy

  • Gamal

    A far greater threat than the possibility that carbon dioxide may increase the planetary temperature by a hundredth of a degree is the ever increasing debt. Notice how the leftists are so worried about the effect of climate change on our children but think nothing of increasing the debt that our children will be saddled with. One step to reducing that debt would be allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built but of course they won’t do that.

    • CB

      I think debt is something to be concerned about, but I’m pretty sure climate change is more serious.

      If we haven’t set the Earth on a course toward complete polar meltdown, 246 feet of sea level rise and the drowning of the homes and businesses of 3 billion people, just with the CO₂ already in the air, why isn’t there a single previous example in Earth’s history of polar ice caps being able to withstand CO₂ so high?

      How could a few trillion dollars in debt possibly compare to the permanent loss of half the Earth’s economic productivity?

      • Gamal

        Debt and money printing will lead to hyperinflation if it’s not stopped and no one is stopping it. Anytime a Republican tries Obama tells them that their budget is mean and ignores it. Germany had hyperinflation before it turned to Hitler. People burned suitcases full of money for heat because they couldn’t afford heat and their money was worthless. The supermarket shelves were empty, there was nothing to eat. People get very nasty under those conditions and that was the birth of Nazi Germany. Regarding global warming have you noticed how cool last winter was? The global warming alarmists tell us that the poles are warming but the ice at both poles has been expanding. They are lying. Creation of Global warming hysteria is a way to redistribute the wealth by taxing industries that produce carbon dioxide. It’s one big like.

        • CB

          “ice at both poles has been expanding”

          Really?

          NASA says ice on both poles is rapidly declining:

          “The new estimates, which are more than twice as accurate because of the inclusion of more satellite data, confirm both Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice.”

          http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/grace20121129.html

          Which space agency informs you otherwise?

          • Gamal

            Obama appointed a radical leftists to head NASA. Notice how many space missions NASA has launched since he was appointed? None. That’s because in the leftist world launching rockets is a waste of time. The job of the head of NASA has become reaching out to Muslims and promoting climate alarmism. If you read the news you would know about the ships that got frozen in, in the Antartica due to increasing ice and about the crews that had to be rescued. Look at the facts, not just the propaganda. Here is a map of the Antartica ice, is it increasing or decreasing? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/

          • CB

            Antarctic ice is decreasing, as I just said.

            Dishonest, Climate Denier propaganda outlets have seized on the fact that Antarctic sea ice area is increasing, because they think you’re too stupid to understand ice spreads out when it melts.

            Are you too stupid to understand that?

            How do you think it makes you look when you claim NASA is unreliable and then link to pictures taken by NASA?

            Do you think that makes you look like a mentally stable individual and a trustworthy source of information?

          • S Graves

            Has it decreased in the last 10ky? How high was CO2?

          • Gamal

            Yeah I’m too stupid to understand that the Antartica ice is increasing because it’s melting. I admit it. I’m too stupid. Only geniuses like you could understand such absurdities.

          • CB

            Why would you think ice increases when it melts?

            The reason why there is more sea ice around Antarctica is because the continent is melting down. Ice is moving from the land to the sea.

            How could you possibly be too stupid to understand that?

            Why are you only talking about sea ice in the southern hemisphere and ignoring the massive crash in sea ice in the northern hemisphere?

            “Monthly averaged ice volume for September 2013 was 5,500 km³. This value is 52% lower than the mean over this period, 67% lower than the maximum in 1979, and 0.6 standard deviations below the 1979-2013 trend.”

            psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

          • Michael Stone

            (“How could you possibly be too stupid to understand that?”).

            That is obviously an excellent question but it is very doubtful that Gamal could answer it because he or she is clearly too stupid to know how.

            Graves could not answer it either.

          • S Graves

            Well Stoner…where is most of the ice in the AIS? What is happening, according to Zwally, with the EAIS? Demonstrate science that the EAIS is melting down.
            CB mentions SI at the poles. The global sea ice anomaly currently stands at 0.635mm sq. km above the average since 1979. What was the SI extent and volume in 1936?
            I do have to give you credit for not buying TJ’s BS about spotting 200′ thick sea ice near Greenland. What nonsense.

          • Michael Stone

            You didn’t answer the question YSDF.

            Consider the CSD on the OPAH are interconnected and that drives the 120 KVOA at a constant and steady rate no matter what the air or LAAT speed is.

          • S Graves

            No…I didn’t. But I gave you enough hints so that you could do some homework and answer it yourself.
            TJ? He’s clearly demonstrated he’s out of his depth…200′ of SI?? Did you mean I should contact him if I need a laugh?

          • Gamal

            The ocean froze around those ships because of the cold. It wasn’t icebergs falling off the Antartica it was cold freezing ocean that hasn’t been frozen for a long time. Regarding the artic artic ice is increasing at a rapid rate. See http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/arctic_ice_increasing_rapidly/
            Comparing to 1979 is very deceptive. In the 70s there was widespread panic about global cooling. Climate goes in cycles. The earth has warmed since that very cold period but now it’s cooling again. Climate oscillates back and forth. There is so much more to worry about than that.

          • CB

            How in the world did you clowns get a .us domain!?!?

            Unbelievable…

            I thought that was just for US government sites… anyway, they’re funded by fossil fuel interests… obviously:

            http://www.toxicworldbook.com/?p=110

            The University of Washington and NASA say that ice is decreasing on both poles… so why would you think citing a dishonest Climate Denier propaganda outlet would be a good way to prove them wrong?

            Is that what a mentally stable person does?

          • Gamal

            There are plenty of people who have nothing to do with the oil industry who say that man made global warming is a fraud. There are plenty of people who get grants from a government anxious to perpetrate the global warming fraud who make global warming propaganda. You keep trying to imply that people who don’t agree with you are unstable as you insist that the freezing ice in the water around the Antartica land mass is the result of melting. If you want to see mental instability look in the mirror. Richard Lindzen is a climatologist form MIT who explains clearly what is wrong with the global warmists climate models. There have been plenty of excellent books written about the global warming fraud by people who have nothing to do with oil.
            The real deniers are the global warming fanatics who like you minimize the very real threat of economic collapse that we all face and that is exacerbated by pouring money into solar boondoggles.

          • CB

            Right, but if you think humans are not warming the planet, do you think humans are not producing CO₂ or that CO₂ does not warm planets?

            …because these facts have been known for over 100 years:

            earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall

            Are you saying every scientist who has measured and observed the infrared absorption bands of CO₂ since John Tyndall first did so in 1859 has been engaging in fraud?

            Is it more likely that the greenhouse effect is a global conspiracy centuries old?

            …or that you’re mentally ill?

          • Gamal

            Your reasoning or lack thereof is missing the quantitative aspect of all this. The question is not does increased Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lead to global warming but how much global warming does it lead to? According to all the climate models the earth should have been heating at an exponential rate these last 15 years but the temperature has not changed in the last 15 years. I believe the data not what hysterical government paid climate alarmists say especially when what they say contradicts the data. One sign of mental illness is exaggerating information which is what you’re doing.

          • gray_man

            Petroleum products cause Carbon Dioxide.
            Then here is my question to you.

            Why are you still driving a car?
            Why are you still using electricity?
            Why are you eating foods that are fertilized, watered, harvested, and shipped using petroleum products?
            Why are you wearing clothes made with petroleum products?

            Stop being a hypocrite.

          • CB

            That’s true! Burning fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide.

            Your questions assume things not in evidence.

            Why should someone have to drop out of society completely in order to challenge Climate Denier dishonesty?

            Why would you pretend a first world lifestyle is incompatible with a carbon negative energy economy?

            What do you get out of it?

          • gray_man

            “Why would you pretend a first world lifestyle is incompatible with a carbon negative energy economy?”

            It’s not pretend. You cannot have a first world lifestyle and be carbon negative.
            Like I said you live in a fantasy world.

          • CB

            “You cannot have a first world lifestyle and be carbon negative.”

            Uh huh, and why are you pretending that? What do you get out of it?

            How might it change the fact that we have set the stage for catastrophic polar meltdown and untold climate chaos, just with the CO₂ we’ve already emitted?

          • gray_man

            Apparently, “first world lifestyle” doesn’t mean what you think it means.

            I say again, like any other thinking person would. You live in a fantasy world.

            Just name one “first world” country that does not use carbon based energy to get there.

            Your understanding of history and technology are as flawed as your ridiculous argument.

          • CB

            Right, and you’re pretending it’s not possible to live a first world lifestyle without emitting carbon simply because it’s never been done before. If people like you had their way, we’d all be scrabbling around in the dirt like we did in paleolithic times…

            Unfortunately, our therapy session for this thread is at an end.

            Please let me know if I can help you find mental health resources in your area. If you don’t get my attention at first, be persistent. I deal with a huge number of mentally ill Climate Deniers out here.

            Remember, there’s no reason to struggle with self-destructive feelings alone and nothing wrong with asking for help if you need it.

          • gray_man

            “Right, and you’re pretending it’s not possible to live a first world lifestyle without emitting carbon simply because it’s never been done before. If people like you had their way, we’d all be scrabbling around in the dirt like we did in paleolithic times…”

            Idiot, the reason we ARE NOT “scrabbling around in the dirt” is because we ARE using carbon based energy.

            Stop trying to deflect, libtard, and answer the question.
            Which “first world country” has become so without the use of carbon based energy.

            And again, you phony hypocrite – why are YOU still contributing to the destruction of the earth by using carbon based energy?
            Stop preaching and start doing.

          • gray_man

            Then here is my question to you.

            Why are you still driving a car?
            Why are you still using electricity?
            Why are you eating foods that are fertilized, watered, harvested, and shipped using petroleum products?
            Why are you wearing clothes made with petroleum products?

            Stop being a hypocrite.

          • CB

            Your questions assume things not in evidence.

            Why should someone have to drop out of society completely in order to challenge Climate Denier dishonesty?

          • gray_man

            “Your questions assume things not in evidence.”

            Asinine nonsense.
            First world lifestyle is only available by using and producing carbon energy.

          • kikorikid

            Obama, with his phone and pen, “ordered”
            NASA to cease many aspects of “Space”
            it was involved in and, instead, focus on the
            “Islamic influence of space science”.
            I nearly cried when I heard this.

          • CB

            That’s nice.

            What in the world does it have to do with climate science?

            o_O

          • Michael Stone

            NASA gets their polar ice data from CDIAC and the scientists who conduct year round research at the Arctic and Dr. Peter Wadham’s annual studies of the polar ice caps. So it doesn’t matter if NASA has launched any space missions since Obama was elected to the presidency or that Mike Tyson is writing a book.

          • Gamal

            After all the scandals regarding left wing ideologues forging of climate data I don’t trust left wing ideologues in charge of NASA no matter where they say they get their data from.

          • Michael Stone

            Okay whose data do you trust, Anthony Watts?

            Could you provide a link for an article or paper that states, scientists from NSIDC, CDOIAC or DR. Wadhams provided forged data to NASA?

          • Gamal
          • Michael Stone

            That article does not answer my question.

          • Gamal

            I sent you a google search with a list of articles about fraud and climate change research. The specific people you mention may not have been caught yet.

          • Michael Stone

            Yes you did post a link for some article written by the same type of deniers you are and they do not answer the question I asked.

            When any believe the articles you do, they won’t learn the turths of global warming. GA-bye. .

          • Gamal

            Any time someone disagrees with you they are a “denier” and therefore wrong. That’s how you hold on to your delusions.

          • Michael Stone

            It depends entirely about what issue they are disagreeing . If they are GW denier such as you are, I term the deniers. GW or AGW deniers don’t trust the climate scientists of NASA.

            For example you wrote, > (“After all the scandals regarding left wing ideologues forging of climate data There were no scandals or forging climate data, that isn’t true but is one of the lies posted by GW deniers.

            You aren’t a GW denier? Stop acting like one.

      • Gamal

        Your statement that there isn’t a single previous example in Earth’s history of polar ice caps being able to withstand CO2 so high is just plain wrong. See http://www.iloveco2.com/2009/01/co2-climate-facts.html
        Climate alarmists lie. They make up facts. There have been public scandals about this already and there’s probably a lot more fact fudging that people don’t know about.

        • CB

          “Your statement that there isn’t a single previous example in Earth’s history of polar ice caps being able to withstand CO2 so high is just plain wrong.”

          Really?

          Name a single previous point in Earth’s history polar ice caps were able to withstand CO₂ so high.

          If such a point existed, why hasn’t a single person been able to name it?

          • MacH

            If I name it, will it change your mind about AGW?

          • CB

            Of course not. The fact that humans are warming the planet through emission of CO₂ is a scientific fact that’s been understood for over a century:

            earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall

            If you showed me a driver of planetary temperature that matches observed measurements better than CO₂, I would certainly change my mind! You do realise you’ve given yourself quite a challenge… right?

          • MacH

            My question was rhetorical, CB. I was drawing you deeper into a trap of your own making. Followers of the Church of Global Warming (Algoreism) never change their minds. That would amount to apostasy. I see you’ve fallen for for Reverend Al’s “nature trick” from “An Inconvenient Truth”, where he sermonizes that atmospheric CO2 levels correlate exactly with global temperatures on geologic time scales. Any competent geologist knows that CO2 lags temperatures by about 800 years or more. Any competent chemist knows that cold water absorbs atmospheric CO2, while warn water releases it back to the atmosphere. It takes hundreds of years for the vast oceans to warm and cool enough for these dynamics to take effect. Finally, any competent physicist knows that the laws of thermodynamics trump the greenhouse effect hypothesis. You can’t count the same energy twice, and the earth’s surface cannot be made warmer by the reflection of its own radiant energy back upon itself. Sadly, NASA doesn’t do real science any more.

          • CB

            lol! Tricky!

            It’s a well-known scientific fact that temperature drives CO₂, just as it is a well-known scientific fact that CO₂ drives temperature… so why would you think it matters which came first?

            If there is a stronger driver of planetary temperature than CO₂, name a single previous point in Earth’s history this driver caused polar ice caps to form with CO₂ as high as we have today.

            If such a point existed, why hasn’t a single person been able to name it?

          • MacH

            Sophistry will get you nowhere. A driver must precede and correlate with that which it is alleged to drive It cannot both drive and follow. Crawl back under your bridge, troll. You’re a waste of time and space.

          • CB

            Right, temperature drives CO₂ and CO₂ drives temperature.

            …so why would you think it matters which came first?

            If it’s so likely that polar ice caps will be able to persist with CO₂ so high, why have they never done so before in Earth’s history?

          • S Graves

            Why don’t you tell us what that driver might be? After all, you recently stated elsewhere in your own words;

            “You can see it took no more than 4 million years for CO₂ to drop lower than 450PPM, so I would suggest 4 million years is the maximum amount of time some polar ice was able to persist with CO₂ above 450PPM.”

            So…CB, if you aren’t a pathetic fool, give us the answer because obviously there are such drivers…according to you.

          • MacH

            Watch, listen, and learn, CB.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94BeCbh80EQ

          • CB

            Uh huh, and where in the good professor’s speech did he name a point in Earth’s history when the sun’s output dropped low enough for polar ice caps to form with levels of CO₂ as high as we have today?

            If you understand he did no such thing, what was the point in posting the video?

          • MacH

            Your argument is a red herring. CO2 levels today are near a historic low on geologic time scales. CO2 does not drive global temperatures. If it did, the first ice age would never have ended. CO2 would have stayed sequestered in the oceans. What starts and ends an ice age? For an explanation of glacial and interglacial periods, look to solar cycles, modulated by Milankovich cycles and solar wind, and consequent albedo changes due to cloud cover.

          • CB

            ” What starts and ends an ice age?”

            CO₂. CO₂ is the strongest driver of planetary temperature.

            If you think solar cycles, Milankovitch cycles, solar wind and albedo changes are driving planetary temperature more strongly than CO₂, name a single previous point in Earth’s history some combination of these factors caused polar ice caps to form and persist with CO₂ as high as we have today.

            If such a point existed, why haven’t you named it already?

          • MacH

            You couldn’t possibly be more wrong, CB. The only thing CO2 drives is green vegetation growth via photosynthesis. CO2 isn’t even a very good “greenhouse gas”. Water vapor is far stronger (although the so-called “greenhouse effect” is a false hypothesis). As for naming previous points in Earth’s history when CO2 didn’t cause polar ice caps to form, I’ll designate every ice age including the current one, as demonstrated by this chart, where you will see no correlation between CO2 and global temperatures. No correlation means no causation.

            http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

            You might find this paper interesting, although it certainly doesn’t support your view:

            http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1002/1002.0597.pdf

          • CB

            Yes, the graph is a well-known Climate Denier prop intentionally designed to mislead people about the climate history.

            It contains a CO₂ proxy too coarse to match the glaciations graphed.

            Pick a single point in the history when the graph makes it look like polar ice caps were able to withstand CO₂ higher than we have today and we can go through the actual science… if you dare. ;)

            If you’re too cowardly to discuss the actual science, explain why you’re posting anything at all. Who is going to believe a person like that?

          • MacH

            We’ve reached the end of the road, CB. I’ve been discussing the actual science all along. You’ve been replying with pseudo-science and political group-think.

          • CB

            You’ve reached the end of the road… because you’ve been replying with pseudo-science and political group-think.

            Pay attention to what you’re telling yourself.

            If you haven’t, name a single previous point in Earth’s history that polar ice caps were able to withstand CO₂ as high as we have today.

            If you didn’t already know what you believe is incorrect, why are you running from the challenge like a coward instead of meeting it?

          • MacH

            hahahahahaha. Look at all that ice on Lake Superior withstanding all that CO2 as high as we have today. And it’s almost June already!

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2641861/Ice-weather-Sunbathers-flock-banks-Lake-Superior-despite-FROZEN.html

          • CB

            Right, but looking out your window is not how to gauge global climate.

            How could you possibly be that stupid?

            If you understand the cold winter we just had was actually caused by a warming Arctic, why would a frozen Lake Superior surprise you?

            http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2014/01/08/polar-vortex-explained-2-minutes

          • S Graves

            You are pathetic, CB.

            Why don’t you tell us what that driver might be? After all, you recently stated elsewhere in your own words;

            “You can see it took no more than 4 million years for CO₂ to drop lower than 450PPM, so I would suggest 4 million years is the maximum amount of time some polar ice was able to persist with CO₂ above 450PPM.”

            So…CB, if you aren’t a pathetic fool, give us the answer because obviously there are such drivers…according to you.

          • S Graves

            Why don’t you tell us what that driver might be? After all, you recently stated elsewhere in your own words;

            “You can see it took no more than 4 million years for CO₂ to drop lower than 450PPM, so I would suggest 4 million years is the maximum amount of time some polar ice was able to persist with CO₂ above 450PPM.”

            So…CB, if you aren’t a pathetic fool, give us the answer because obviously there are such drivers…according to you. Why are you wasting our time with your insipid question?

          • S Graves

            Yes…temperature lead CO2 by a few hundred years.

          • CB

            Does CO₂ warm planets?

            Because you have a habit of attempting to hijack threads about climate science with non sequitur and unsupported claims, if you cannot clearly answer yes, or no, you will be ignored.

          • S Graves

            Oh…CB. More of your silly lies. You recently stated elsewhere in your own words;

            “You can see it took no more than 4 million years for CO₂ to drop lower than 450PPM, so I would suggest 4 million years is the maximum amount of time some polar ice was able to persist with CO₂ above 450PPM.”

            So…CB, if you aren’t a pathetic dunce, why are you asking a question here…and then claiming no one has answered it…when you have answered it in your very own words? Are you just a dunce…or some sort of devious manipulator? I vote for dunce.

      • S Graves

        Naw…more CB scary stuff. But you won’t cite for us a single peer reviewed work that actually predicts what you inanely claim will happen any time soon…like thousands of years. You know I’ve asked you this question dozens of times and no answer.

        Are you just a dunce? After all, you recently stated elsewhere in your own words;

        “You can see it took no more than 4 million years for CO₂ to drop lower than 450PPM, so I would suggest 4 million years is the maximum amount of time some polar ice was able to persist with CO₂ above 450PPM.”

        So…CB, why are you wasting our time here with vacuous questions when you have already answered them elsewhere in your own words?

      • gray_man

        You live in a fantasy world.

        • CB

          Yes, you live in a fantasy world. Pay attention to what you’re telling yourself.

  • tagalog

    Hansen and Sachs are seeking legal remedies for atmospheric warming wrongs?

    When I first read that, I thought, “what nonsense! These people are idiots!”

    Then I reconsidered, and I’ve decided that I am in favor of imposing legal sanctions for such things.

    My reasoning is that in order to have a legal remedy, you have to establish that there is a wrong that NEEDS a remedy. That’s fine, since the Hansens/Sachses of the world must prove that there’s something wrong with denying that there’s a catastrophe in the offing with the warming of the atmosphere; let them establish that principle according to the applicable legal standard of proof. Let anti-warming advocates make their arguments in opposition. Let’s have not just a scientific debate, but also a legal one.

    So come on, Hansen and Sachs: out with your proofs and your arguments. Overcome the opposition with facts, not just name-calling.

    • gwsmith

      That’s it, they no longer supply facts. It’s all about name calling now. Remember, the facts are settled…. even though we never saw them, at least none that made any sense.

    • Lightbringer

      The upcoming Mann v. Steyn case, in which the hockey-spewing Michael Mann is attempting to sue Mark Steyn for hurting his feelings, should be interesting. But if the court finds in Mann’s favor, we are in serious trouble as a rational society.

      • tagalog

        With a little luck and some good sense, the court will tell Mr. Mann to try to grow a little backbone and man up.

        • Lightbringer

          One hopes so. Otherwise, the First Amendment is in even more peril than it already was.

  • thebobbob

    Such a large pile of bizarre polemic. “balanced scientific data and reasoned analysis”? Really? From the Carbon-fuel industry-sponsored parrots? Equal time to the 1% who disagree is NOT balanced.

    Spew your distortions, Physics doesn’t negotiate. Chemistry doesn’t care. Atmospheric CO2 above 360ppm (now 400) changes the pH of the oceans and alters the biochemistry of entire biospheres. Will life survive? Yup. Will it be the life we’ve known? A chance, a small chance.

    So nice to hear the laughable paranoid ranting from the far right.

    • redleg

      “Such a large pile of bizarre polemic”. Nice cutdown. Oh and I read that 97% Cook-Nuccitelli consensus canard. Your rhetoric describes it perfectly. Good news though, it seems you warmistas are in the 3%, whilst the “more reasoned” are in the 97%. Yet “the sky-is-falling” computer modeling remains the “polemic” despite actual observation that shows clearly that the warmistas are full of themselves. Ah but there’s grant-monies to be had in the “acedemic” circlefest that is AGW or CAGW isn’t there? Indeed, lots of tricks to “hide the decline”; and a hockey-schtick for every rube. LOL.

    • cxt

      “Spew your distortions, Physics doesn’t negotiate. Chemistry doesn’t care.”
      Of course that applies BOTH direction. ;)

    • tagalog

      By how much does it change the pH of the oceans? What specifically can we expect from such a change?

    • AndyNY

      “Atmospheric CO2 above 360ppm (now 400) changes the pH of the oceans and alters the biochemistry of entire biospheres.”

      According to whom?

    • UCSPanther

      And yet you want your own version of the Catholic Inquisition for those who disagree with your dogma?

      Hypocrite.

    • Habbgun

      Okay…we’ll all die. Got it. On your way.

    • Joseph Klein

      Apparently one of the climate change fundamentalists has shown up on this thread. The issue is not whether there is human-induced heat-trapping gases in the universe. The issue is the alarmist rhetoric by prophets of doom whom have been proven wrong before and are trying to scare the public into acquiescing in economy-wrecking solutions.

    • truebearing

      “Such a large pile of bizarre polemic?”

      That was exceedingly poorly written and bordering on incoherent.

      Atmospheric Co2 was higher than it is now and so were the temps millions of years ago when dinosuars roamed wild and free. Life flourished all over the planet, including in the oceans. Clearly, you fervently believe in science but just don’t know anything about it.

      Paranoid ranting from the right? You idiots are the chicken-littles running around crying about the world melting.

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      “Atmospheric CO2 above 360ppm (now 400) changes the pH of the oceans and alters the biochemistry of entire biospheres.”

      Prove it, then tell it to the Chinese and Indians …

  • cxt

    For a group of people so hostile to religion in any form but Islam, the Left certainly seems to take a “religious” view of many issues.

    • kikorikid

      Islamist and Progressives are “True Believers”.
      They both consider themselves as “Vanguards”
      of the “Global Jihad, Revolution, respectively.
      Both will kill you if you disagree.

  • Consider

    Good.
    The climate change fundamentalists were wrong in predicting that the climate catastophe shall come in 30 years, we are now consoled that this will happen in 60 years time frame.

  • Constitution First

    You don’t use a Geologist to tell you which way the wind blows.
    When the debate is over, the science is too, it’s becomes a cult.

    • http://ak4mc.us/ McGehee

      Indeed. When belief is the issue, it ain’t science.

  • Digli

    Your statement regarding the Johnstown Flood Of 1889 is slightly misleading.
    The deaths in fact were not caused by the rainfall per se but by the collapse of the
    South Fork Dam. If the dam were stronger the deaths would not have happened.
    I understand that rainfall has been more and less etc. over the years.
    These climate extremist morons are nothing but fanatics.
    Al Gore recently said that he was wrong about Ethanol. Why should we believe him about anything? He’s an idiot!

  • CDM

    James Hansen is the godfather of the biggest, most expensive hoax in history, one that makes Piltdown Man look like an April Fool’s prank. This whole thing was kicked off by Hansen himself back in 1988, which I well remember was an unusually hot summer, at least for us on the east coast of the US. Hansen chose the historically hottest day in DC to testify to Congress that the planet was out of control and that humans were responsible. He then claimed that the government was”muzzling” him and he recounted that in countless interviews he gave at the time. If there actually was anyone trying to muzzle him, that person should have been fired for incompetence.

    The press, then as now, loved the “We’re all doomed!” aspect. Just like death is always the top story of the day. The rest is all history.

  • Jason

    I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
    “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
    “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” –Miichael Crichton

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      At the beginning of the 20th Century, there was a consensus that space and time were unchangeable and fixed. Then, along came Prof. Einstein and upset the “consensus” …

  • http://www.durangobill.com/ Bill Butler

    The reason that the phrase “Global Warming Deniers” is used is that the “Deniers” ignore demonstrable evidence, and fabricate stories and “facts” that are not true.

    For example, the statement
    “the fact that average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998.”
    is NOT true.

    Despite the fantasies of Global Warming Deniers, the earth continues to warm at the rate of 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second – running 24/7 – including the years from 1998 to present.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/4-Hiroshima-bombs-worth-of-heat-per-second.html
    Earth’s Rate Of Global Warming Is 400,000 Hiroshima Bombs A Day
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/22/3089711/global-warming-hiroshima-bombs/#
    Four Hiroshima bombs a second: How we imagine climate change
    http://phys.org/news/2013-08-hiroshima-climate.html
    This measured/observed warming rate is via the Argo buoy system. http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/About_Argo.html

    2005 was warmer than any previous year. Then 2010 broke the 2005 record. Data at:
    NOAA/National Climate Data Center
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

    2012 was the warmest year on record for the United States.
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/ncdc-announces-warmest-year-record-contiguous-us

    Sea level continues to rise due to thermal expansion and glacial melting. The rate of sea level rise has quadrupled since the 1870 to 1924 period.
    Columbia University
    http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/SeaLevel/

    Glaciers continue to melt, and the rate of melting has accelerated since 1998.
    World Glacier Monitoring Service
    http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/sum12.html

    Ocean heating has accelerated sharply since 1998. (Note: Over 90% of Global Warming ends up heating the oceans.)
    Graph at:
    http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/GwdOceanHeat.jpg
    Full peer reviewed paper at:
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full
    Up to date info at:
    NOAA/National Oceanographic Data Center
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ (click on “2”)

    Finally, November 2013 just set a record for the warmest November in history, and April 2014 tied for the warmest April.
    NOAA/National Climate Data Center
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

    More at:
    http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/GwdGlobalWarmingStoppedIn1998.html

  • truebearing

    As we all know, global warming-climate-change-disruption is the religious wing of the Left. They areostensibly on a mission to save us by scaring us into submitting to their draconian “solutions.” If we don’t all become Climate Disruption Dhimmis, the world will drown, bake, and starve us. It’s for our own good, so they say, but aren’t their solutions going to starve, bake, and freeze us? And isn’t this essentially the same ideology that has been enamored with eugenics — negative eugenics being their favorite — for a hundred years? And didn’t their leftist predecessors murder over 100,000,000 fellow citizens in the 20th Century for things like dissenting?

    It seems that “saving us” isn’t really what they want. They want to acquire enough power to eliminate modern farming, thereby starving the world’s population down to what they deem ideal. They want to end the use of carbon-based fuels, which necessarily means peoplewill freeze to death. They want to force people into mandatory birth control, de-industrialize, and take our guns. They want to create a situation where we will die, en masse, of “natural causes.” But they want us to agree to it first.

  • Roger

    Here’s a funny thing, the world has converted untold trillions of tons of carbon base substances into CO2 and other oxides in the last hundred years and yet the atmospheric oxygen % remains the same. There seems to be a balancing mechanism for this and others.

  • Roger

    In any case, I myself am always suspicious, when scientists say they ” absolutely know” something. Especially when its to do with complex mechanisms such as global weather systems.

  • mememine

    Why do remaining and determined “believers” so eagerly exaggerate science’s 32 years of “95%” certainty to your own personal “belief” and hope that it will actually be a crisis?

    You climate blamers are the new fear mongering neocons you hate so much. Nice work girls.

  • George B from Maine

    Same old doomsday mongering. These charlatans live off the grants that’s it! What happened to the ozone holes on the poles? In 1990′s we were fed with this BS every night on the news. “The ozone layers are catastrophically shrinking, we have 3-4 more years, before the life on Earth is destroyed by the ultraviolet beams”… What happened to those ozone holes, you clowns, you charlatans you?

  • kevinstroup

    12,000 years ago Manhattan was covered under 1 mile of ice. Chicago was covered under 2 MILES of ice. We have been warming up for 12,000 years. The oceans have risen hundreds of feet in that time. What about this is so damn new? Perhaps we are accelerating the rate, but we are not making something happen that was not already occurring. In addition, action by the U.S.A. alone will not change anything. Until you get India and China to change what they are doing, you are crying in the rain.

  • MacH

    “None
    of this is to deny that human activity worldwide contributes to climate
    change via the cumulative impact of human-induced emissions of
    heat-trapping gases. The questions to be debated
    are the extent and imminence of the problem, as well as the best
    measures to deal with the problem without wrecking our economy in the
    process.”

    The
    logic of this admission in an otherwise very good article escapes me. The author is suggesting that we
    should argue with the climate alarmists about how much human actions
    contribute to a NON-PROBLEM. It is a self-contradictory, self-defeating
    position! It cedes the central point of the issue to the alarmists,
    namely that human actions are filling the atmosphere with “heat-trapping
    gases”.

    The real debate must be about whether there is any scientific
    basis for believing in an “atmospheric greenhouse effect”. After all,
    it is merely a hypothesis. It has never been witnessed or demonstrated
    in the real world. In fact, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics rule
    out any possibility of global warming or “climate disruption” caused by so-called “greenhouse gases”.

    The climate alarmists want us to believe that incoming solar energy can multiply itself in the atmosphere and thus be counted twice without additional work being performed, and that an object — in this case the earth’s surface — can be made warmer by the reflection (back-radiation) of its own radiant energy. This is simply a physical impossibility. The “greenhouse effect” is not real, and the AGW hypothesis is falsified. Human-caused global warming/climate change is pseudo-scientific sophistry.

  • WarmingItIs

    Just read the funniest thing ever. A denialist claiming.
    “We’ve reached the end of the road, CB. I’ve been discussing the actual science all along. You’ve been replying with pseudo-science and political group-think.”

    Wow!!! Unable to respond to a valid question on CO2 and warming so brings on the deriding slander. What a great science method of arguing a point.
    And in the article the detail on arctic ice extent is so silly. Let’s see if any
    person would like those same stat’s on their health. Umm… after crashing into
    the emergency ward you are now almost running at 40% less than average with the prognosis of continuing failure of your system. Don’t think so then look at the trend line of arctic ice extent – only going one way and that down & out.
    Antarctic ice is not evenly distributed. Now if no warming impact then ice woudl be extending at all points around the southern pole in a roughly even manner. But it is not, instead it is concentrated in one location where ice flow is restricted by a land peninsular, and we now driven there by changed polar winds. This is just another proof of global warming driving climate change.
    Your choice to put your head in the sand.

  • Mike435

    People interested in the science of climate change should read this:

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/

    There are conservative organizations that respect mainstream science and favor market based mechanisms to reduce ghg emissions. See:

    http://energyandenterprise.com/

    http://conservamerica.org/