The end is near.
That’s what we’ve been told since the beginning. The doomsayers have cited a variety of cataclysms that will do us in, from asteroids to resource exhaustion to a dying sun. [emphasis, links added]
But they all have one thing in common: So far, they’ve all been wrong. Same with the climate alarmists. And the public is catching on.
A study, published by the Stanford University School of Sustainability, no less, found that “resistance to climate action has become a global movement that strengthens after governments implement climate-related policies.”
“We found that counter-climate change organizations tend to emerge after pro-environmental policies are institutionalized in government,” said the study’s senior author.
Of course, they do.
As our friends at the Committee to Unleash Prosperity observed, this has happened “maybe because the war on fossil fuels has deindustrialized Germany and many other European nations. Maybe it’s because green energy is so much more expensive to produce. Maybe because the biggest polluters like China have done nothing.”
Let’s add another “maybe.”
The resistance is likely also based on a growing skepticism. We have been bombarded by global warming scare stories for more than three decades and yet we’re still here.
No matter how much the alarmists cheat, lie, obfuscate, and bully, it’s obvious that the entire narrative is based on assumptions, speculation, and political ideology. Every claim they make can be easily refuted. To name a few, which we’ll call the big three:
We just lived through the hottest year/month/week/day on record.
This is meaningless. Hottest compared to what? The only reliable measure we have is from satellite readings that go back to only 1979 and they show nothing to get worked up about.
All other data are entirely unreliable.
Mixing tree rings, mercury thermometer records that are “adjusted,” numbers from nonexistent and compromised weather stations, and modern equipment to whip up widespread fear is scientific malpractice.
Let us muddy the climate waters even more by mentioning that the concept of a “global temperature” is “thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility.”
The experts, using their climate models, tell us that we’re headed toward disaster.
Steve Koonin, who is no Republican operative nor corporate shill but a Massachusetts Institute of Technology- and CalTech-educated physicist and Obama appointee, has pointed out that results produced by models “generally don’t much look like the climate system we observe.”
To keep the fearmongering hot, the “modelers then adjust (‘tune’) these parameters to get a better match with some features of the real climate system.”
“Climate models overheat,” is another way to say it.
There’s a scientific consensus that man is overheating his planet. Science does not work by consensus. The idea was invented.
There are skeptics in the climate science field, and not just 3% (as is often claimed, based on spurious data), and their work is important, even though they’ve been professionally and socially shunned, vilified, and attacked for daring to buck the narrative.
We expect the alarmists, if any of them read this, will accuse us of being paid off by the oil industry. If only. We could use the cash.
Read rest at Issues & Insights
Why do we even talk about climate policy, when it’s as absurd a term as, say, sunshine policy? It’s only because we’ve allowed alarmists to tailor the language, relying on the pseudo-scientific notion that reducing CO2 emissions will keep the planet from overheating. Science has been corrupted into a political tool by alarmism turned totalitarian.
97% of “Climate Scientists” () agree that increasing “global” temperatures will result in catastrophic climate change, rising sea levels, etc. Yeah, right. In order to determine 97% of anything, one needs to know the what value represents 100%. So, how many “climate scientists” are there existing in the world? Don’t know? So 97% of don’t know is…..?!?
This proposition fails mathematically and is therefore inadmissible as fact.
() There is no such qualification as “Climate Scientist” other than, I believe, UCLA invented such in about 2018. (I stand to be corrected on this statement).
There were two bogus studies that concluded 97% climate scientists support the climate change narrative. For one of these the abstracts of large number, I believe over a thousand, of articles published in journals were reviewed. If the published article opposed the idea of global warming, it was counted as against. If it supported the narrative, it was counted as for. If the article didn’t mention global warming/climate change, which was the vast majority of them, then it was counted as supporting the narrative.
People don’t want their Lives Control by Big Green Brother and the Backlash against Green Imperialisms is getting started