For many years now, there has been a spirited debate about whether climate change is science, religion, or even perhaps a secret route to socialism.
That question remains unanswered, but we’ve now discovered with certainty that climate change is a political albatross around the neck of the Democratic Party.
The Left’s spiritual devotion to climate change has been speeding the Democrats over a political cliff this fall with likely unprecedented losses this November.
The zero fossil fuels suicide pact was always an economic and political loser. More than 70% of all the energy we produce and consume in America derives from oil, gas, and coal.
President Joe Biden’s war on these fuel sources was sure to cause severe shortages and $5 a gallon gasoline at the pump.
Didn’t Democrats learn their lesson in 1980 when Ronald Reagan won a landslide election against Jimmy Carter that surging inflation and gas prices is a surefire way to infuriate voters?
While Biden keeps saying he is doing “everything I can to lower gas prices,” he’s speaking out of both sides of his mouth — because if your goal is to get people to stop using something, raising its price is a pretty good way to accomplish that.
If prices go to $10 or $15 a gallon, you can clear the highways of trucks and cars altogether, and what a wonderful world it will be.
Democrats were so enamored with their “Green New Deal” delusion that they failed to understand that most people aren’t as hyper-obsessed with climate change as they are.
A new poll sponsored by my group, Committee to Unleash Prosperity, found that people are much more concerned about inflation and high gas prices than climate change.
Moreover, the poll found that respondents’ average amount they would be willing to pay for the climate change agenda was $55 a year. Sorry, that’s the extra cost we are already spending with two fill-ups at the gas station.
Then there is the increasingly unavoidable reality that the green energy sources they fantasize about are decades away from being technologically feasible to replace old-fashioned oil, gas, and coal.
Even the Energy Department predicts that even with the trend toward renewable energy, by 2035, we will still be heavily reliant on oil, gas, and coal for electricity production, home heating, and transportation fuels.
Elon Musk, the leading champion of electric cars, reminded Biden in a recent tweet that in the real world rather than in la-la land, we are going to need oil and gas for many years to come. Today 3% of cars on the road are electric, and 95% use gas or diesel.
This brings us to yet another fatal flaw of the climate change movement. The Biden administration and its radical green allies can’t explain why getting our energy from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia makes more sense than Texas, Oklahoma, and Alaska.
This strategy is especially pinheaded because the war on oil, gas, and coal production is a big loser for the environment and increases global greenhouse gas emissions.
That is because America has the strictest environmental standards. Shifting oil and gas production to Russia or Iran and shifting coal production to China and India is causing far more air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
Chinese President Xi Jinping is busy trying to take over the world economy, and the last thing he or the ruling class in Beijing cares about is climate change.
Finally, Democrats should have learned from the green energy catastrophe of Western Europe. A decade ago, the French, Germans, Italians, and others in the European Union moved to a renewable energy future.
They slashed much of their oil, gas, and coal production, shut down nuclear plants (why?), and subsidized the building of wind turbines and solar panels.
It nearly bankrupted Germany as energy prices soared and factories left Europe for America and Asia. A decade later, France is back to building nuclear plants, and Germany is burning more coal than ever before and importing natural gas from Russia.
Europe recently redefined natural gas and nuclear power as “clean energy.”
Going green wrecked their economies and submerged these countries deeper into the red. Unfortunately, Americans weren’t paying any attention to that failed experiment.
So now Biden is repeating it. The result is likely to be the same. The Democrats’ radical climate change agenda isn’t greening the planet, and it is bankrupting our country. Voters know exactly whom to blame.
Read more at Examiner
Gator says I ignore “actual evidence” but in 10 years, Gator, like everyone else on this blog, has never provided any.
But please prove me wrong and post some. BTW, PEER-REVIEWED studies, SCIENTIFIC authors, data, etc. is what I call evidence NOT opinion pieces by Tony Heller and Marc Moron Oh – they do not qualify.
I have been waiting a long lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng time.
There is a set precedence Drewski. It’s called natural variability, and in order to put forth a new explanation for climate change, one must first disprove NV. So…
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This is the set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
I’ve waited for over a decade for you to produce ANYTHING from the request above, and you never have because you cannot. Keep the faith brother, it is all you have.
The scientifically illiterate love to quote “scientists” while ignoring the actual science. This is because they do not understand, or do not want to understand, the actual science. There is not a single peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes. Period.
My, my, What a spirited discussion ! Love it !!! At least Drewski has the gits to face the enlightened.
Hello David Lewis
Please ask me to supply ANY support material you want and I will do so. You know ACTUAL studies with citations and everything. What you provided was an absolute joke – no underlying studies cited, no attributions as to whete the graphs came from. You know – EVIDENCE.
And if you had read my comments, you would have noticed that I mentioned models ARE NOT what climate science is based on but OBSERVATIONS are. And I also mentioned that models are not expected to be perfect but are still used in virtually every industry and science field on earth – from fish farming to how black holes work. Models evolve by showing what data is missing then when new data is added, the models improve
That is exactly the case with climate models – pre2000, the volume of ice and the temperature of the oceans were missing data but after 2010, that data was included and consequently, those newer climate models have been spot on.
Regardless, they are still a tool however speaking of OBSERVATIONS, the warmest 22 years in the instrumental record have occurred in the past 24 with the last 7 the hottest of all.
Finally!
Someone on this pathetic site for losers has “REAL SCIENCE” to disprove the “Hollywood science” of Marxists.
Where is it?
The HUMAN-INDUCED Climate Change ideology has three sources/three components:
1.) The re-born Neo-Marxist ideology to impose the Government Control/dictatorship (up to TOTAL) on FREE citizens by brainwashing them, “It’s only to save the PLANET.”
Let’s yell together, POWER TO THE GOVERNMENT.
2.) Corrupt sycophants from the Academia and pseudo-science.
“Don’t blame us. We, the scientists(?), really need money, grants, etc….
By promoting that questionable (at least) Human/Cow-induced Climate Change “Hollywood” story, sometimes(!) we could venture into REAL SCIENCE, plus, the money pays bills and allows us to read the New York Times bestsellers.”
“We sacrifice the TRUTH for the sake of SCIENCE.”
3.) Immature young people. Human-induced Climate Change religion gives them a POWERFUL CAUSE TO REBEL without any need to work hard and succeed.
Once upon a time, I used to comment on Yahoo. Before the 2020 election, the Democratic Party Propaganda apparatus has ordered to ban Yahoo comments in order to elect that Brandon.
Recently, Yahoo has opened its (extremely-limited/totally-censored) comment section for very specific articles.
While commenting about oil prices, I’ve posted a question,
“Do you remember Al Gore’s 2001 prediction that by 2020 we were going to burn in Hell?”
My comment was rejected and I was banned (at least for now) from commenting on Yahoo.
I think it’s the best example what that “scientific consensus” on the Human-Flatulence based Climate Change means.
The “Great Hunt” of Global Climate Change “scientific consensus” is from the same barrel of the Witch Trials.
There is nothing scientific about that corrupt (morally and financially) “scientific consensus.”
Shame on those “scientists” who reject SCIENCE for 30 pieces of silver.
Perhaps if you didn’t lie like you just did with that absurd Al Gore “quote” you wouldn’t get banned?
Just a thought.
Hello Drewski,
It’s nice to meet a representative from the flatulent “scientific consensus.”
P.S. By the way, a sequel to the film, titled An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, was released on July 28, 2017.
I would highly recommend for you to watch that sequel. It could strengthen your “scientific” bond.
To sum up.
“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are
presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new
evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is
extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it
is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,
ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.”
― Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks
What “evidence” would that be?
Ocean levels rise is NOT accelerating?
Global temperatures are NOT rising?
Glaciers are NOT disappearing on every continent?
Please provide SOMETHING that can be considered evidence to the contrary of global warmingtheory (as well as the studies they base their conclusions on, of course).
Gore wrote the book earth in the Balance with his Thumb on the scale
Actually, the last earth-based science organization that conducts original research to join the bandwagon was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2006.
You will no longer find a single organization anywhere in the world that has any connection at all to climate change and does original research that disagrees.
The article mentions the Democrats not learning from the 1980 election or the green energy catastrophe of Western Europe. We need to remember that liberals are incapable of learning from the mistakes of others if doing so is contrary to one of their narratives.
Back in the 1970’s it was Global Cooling a New Ice Age was coming that same liberal rags like Time and Newsweek was giving it top coverage as they were doing with Global arming back in the 1990’s and its fake front covers of their liberal news rags
Actually, in the 70s when climate science was in its infancy, about 1 in 7 papers predicted global cooling.
About 3 times that predicted warming and the rest of the studies were ambivalent.
Nowadays, there are hundreds more papers written every year but the number of those who expect cooling are fewer than the number of fingers of an epileptic butcher.
You might want to check out a letter written December 3, 1972 from the Department of Geological Sciences at Brown University written to President Nixon warning of coming cold and resultant food shortages and bad weather caused by cold. I have watched numerous times an episode of Leonard Nimoy’s show, “In search of” where numerous professionals spoke of the coming cold. I LIVED through the 1970’s so I know first hand how the scientists of numerous countries were warning of coming cold. To say otherwise is an outright LIE, otherwise known as HISTORICAL REVISIONISM.
Here is a link for you that actually provides links to peer-reviewed studies included on their site:
“Despite the MAJORITY OF STUDIES PROJECTING WARMING, one common myth today misrepresents climate science in the 1970s by saying that the general understanding was of an imminent ice age. The small fraction of studies predicting cooling received a lot of media attention in the 1970s. The idea of a forthcoming ice age made for great headlines. The effect of this disproportionate media coverage persists today, as some people and organizations continue to perpetuate the idea that an ice age was predicted in the 1970s.”
__https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
ALL (as in every single one) of the world’s earth, space, atmospheric and oceanographic science organizations support the man-made global warming theory.
That is science
Climate Change Dispatch is religion
You are SO deluded.
Am I?
Please find me a single earth, space, atmospheric or oceanographic science organization that does NOT support man-made global warming theory. And they must conduct original research – don’t want some group like the Climate Change Dispatch Organization of Moronic Idiots to claim they are a legitimate science organization.
You need to no further than look at every prediction climate alarmists have made over the last 50 years. It is a 100% failure. They careened from a new ice age to global warming then to climate change, making predictions that never came to pass. Since the globe started warming around 1850 life expectancy is up, climate-related deaths have plummeted, crop production is through the roof, tornadoes & hurricanes are in decline, wildfires since the turn of the 20th century have plummeted. Go to Tony Hellers’ blog and look at his historical research and see just how bad humanity suffered in the past. History was my major back in college so I can smell historical revisionism a mile off. Tony does solid research. Climate-wise humanity hasn’t had it so good since the Medieval Warm Period or the Roman Warm Period, to name two such periods. Humanity has always thrived during warm periods and suffered during cold periods. You should research how humanity suffered during the little Ice Age that occurred roughly between 1250 to 1850. Check out the cold George Washington’s troops suffered at Valley Forge. Climate alarmists are historical idiots. Bring on the warm!
Well, I know that climate scientists vastly underestimated the sea ice melt in the Arctic.
But Tony Heller? Seriously? The guy who was so dishonest that Anthony Watts of WUWT kicked off his site and the guy who “publishes” hundreds of his own studies and refuses to have any of them peer-reviewed?
That guy?
And here you are reading and commenting. But no, you are wrong. The organizations who are funded fully by governments and left-wing organizations that demand they all toe the “green” line.
Actually, the last earth-based science organization that conducts original research to join the bandwagon was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2006.
You will no longer find a single organization anywhere in the world that has any connection at all to climate change and does original research that disagrees.
My freshman chemistry professor told us that science is not a democracy. What matters is data. The basic scientific process is to form a theory, check the theory against the data, and if it doesn’t match modify or scrap the theory. The climate models of the IPCC are clearly predicting more warming than we have experienced. If the scientific process was being followed, these models would be scrapped or modified. This isn’t done because the models support the political agendas. The climate change theory is not science; it is politics no matter how many organizations support it.
One climate model matches real world data more closely than any other, INMCM5. This model predicts 1.4 degrees of warming by 2100. It is ignored because it is useless for those who want to use climate change to push various political agendas.
Climate Science, like all earth sciences, is based on observations NOT models. Models are only a tool and never perfect, however, that does not mean they are not useful. In fact, they often highlight areas of missing data that require new tools to be created.
Pre2000 models realised that ice volume in the cryoshere was not known or the temperatures and salinity of the oceans at multiple depths was not known. So Argo Buoys and GRACE satelittes were created in the early 2000s.
Temperature models since 2010 have been all within one standard deviation of the actual temperature records.
Models are the only thing that the climate change movement has to base its agenda on. Observations do not support their movement. The warming of the earth to date has not been alarming, and extreme weather events are not increasing. Based on the predictions of these imperfect models, the world is spending over a trillion a year on renewable energy and adversely impacting the economic wellbeing of hundreds of millions of people.
The small difference between the reality and the initial model predictions are significant. In 2012, the difference between reality and the average climate model was 0.4 degrees. Projecting the models that most closely match reality to 2050, the predicted increase in temperature is 0.4 degrees. The prediction of the average IPCC model is 1.2 degrees. The prediction of the most extreme models is 2.1 degrees. It is these extreme models that the climate change movement and the politicians have used to justify their political action.
The most convincing evidence how the climate change theory is invalid comes from its supporters. NOAA, NASA, and foreign organizations have altered historical data to support the theory. Records before 1950 where adjusted to be cooler and later records were adjusted to be warmer. The excuse was there was a bias that needed to be corrected, but these records stood for decades and they were only adjusted when it was obvious they didn’t support the climate change movement. The men who altered the records really understand what is happening the fact that they saw a need to change the records is significant.
The “ALL” organizations that support the climate change narrative is based on funding and enforcement. No one who works for NASA deviates from supporting the narrative. Yet, there are many NASA retirees who do oppose it. They don’t have to fear for their jobs.
Congratulations!
You packed more misinformation and moronic utterances into 4 paragraphs than anyone I have ever met online and that is saying something. BTW, you seem to have left off any links supporting your claims. An oversight I am sure.
But just tell me one thing: Who are these people that pay off Bolivian Glaciologists, Norwegian Marine Biologists and Chinese Astrophysicists to make up bogus studies? While you are at it, why do they do it and how do they profit? Just one name and EVIDENCE is all you need to expose this scam.
Got one?
From Drewski “BTW, you seem to have left off any links supporting your claims.” Drewski, you have posted 12 times on this article and have only included a single link. An oversight I’m sure. You said that I presented miss information. Not only in climate change, but in other fields as well, liberals immediately label anything contrary to their narrative as miss information. You mentioned Bolivian Glaciologists and others. In the social sciences who wrote an article might be important, but in real science it is the content, not the author the counts.
One “miss information” you may have been referring to is that the climate models are running hot compared to the real world. If you haven’t encountered this in your own reading then you haven’t read that much on this subject.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/02/24/latest-climate-models-still-running-far-too-hot/
Even some climate activists acknowledge that they are running hot.
https://www.climatedepot.com/2020/05/15/climate-alarmist-rahmstorf-quietly-concedes-models-are-crap-running-way-too-hot/
Another “miss information” may have been my statement that NASA and NOAA have altered historical data to support the climate change movement. This is a matter of public record and is undeniable. Read about NASA altering the data at:
My Climate Forecast From Three Years Ago | Real Climate Science
Even some climate activists acknowledge the practice. Sorry, I don’t have a link to that. Since 2002 I have read many thousands of articles from all over the world and from every point of view. I can’t come up with a link to them all.
And here is hoping it proves bad luck for the Democrats/Globalists
There has to be an uninhabited island out there where the greenies can fan each other to keep cool and hug each other to keep warm. The taxpayers would be ahead of the game if we bought it for them.