Rob Chrisman: Five reasons it’s not a climate emergency
Virtually all the Democratic presidential candidates have signed on to the “existential threat” model for warming due to climate change. Here are some reasons to think otherwise.
No. 1: Actual data for warming shows extremely modest changes, if any, in recent years. Those who yell emergency base their case not on recent data, but on computer models extending far into the future, which, frankly, are flawed. The main flaw is the models’ failure to properly deal with by far the most potent “greenhouse gas,” water vapor. See discussions by eminent climatologists like Richard Lindzen, among others.
No. 2: The data that the public sees to support warming has been routinely manipulated (called “lying with statistics”) to give false impressions. The best way to understand this is to view the YouTube work of one Tony Heller, starting with the recent presentation “My Gift to Climate Alarmists,” which showcases how the government creates graphics designed to deceive which are then disseminated to policy makers. A prime example is the deliberate choice of data sets which arbitrarily start in certain years to convey the impression that temperatures are trending upward when precisely the opposite is the case. Example: virtually all the major U.S. heat waves from 1900 to date occurred prior to the 1950s, despite what you may have heard.
No. 3: Speaking of using weather events as evidence of global warming, we must repeat what every meteorologist knows — weather is not climate. Historical data on hurricanes, tornadoes, prevalence of wildfires, and other such weather-related events do not show trends that support the notion that they are worsening over time. That the dollar value of damage has increased over time is due to the increasingly built-up nature of vulnerable, especially coastal, areas.
The existential threat advocates are committing a fallacy by simply holding up a recent event as evidence of their contention. Recency is not proof — you need to examine the whole data set. They won’t do that. Guess why.
No. 4: Do I need to remind you that the existence of some majority in favor of a policy is not tantamount to evidence of its wisdom or validity. The oft-repeated nonsense about 97% of all scientists accepting the emergency thesis is meaningless — the only scientists whose opinions are really relevant are specialists in climatology, and they have mixed opinions.
No. 5: This notion of a climate emergency with a very limited (e.g. 12 year) time span to avoid absolute calamity should arouse your suspicion when you read the actual text of such documents as the Green New Deal and its variants. Doing so reveals that the scope of the program is vast, addressing all of the favorite Progressive issues of the day, including many areas having nothing whatsoever to do with imminent global warming, i.e. they are exploiting this one issue to promote themselves to positions of political power — over you.
This power will be used to deprive you of the comforts and advantages of modern life. Just the zero tolerance attitude toward fossil fuels and the promotion of the idea of their easy replacement by so-called “renewables” demonstrates the extreme naivete of these candidates for our highest office. There is a limit to what legislated mandates can accomplish if they fly in the face of logic and nature itself. Try setting an automobile mileage goal of 200 miles per gallon and see how far you get. Technology has limits these people simply do not understand.
Now there are websites that hold that some of the above are “myths” propagated by climate “deniers.” For each such contention there are abundant comments to the contrary on the sites themselves by critics who are clearly knowledgeable. Also, I submit that anyone who says that the science, in this case or any case, is “settled” and hence, should not be questioned does not understand the workings of science at all. For an example of vitriol of this type, simply Google “Nye Carlson YouTube” and listen to an interview with Bill Nye, the Science Guy, then be sure to also search for “Nye Planet on Fire” (Warning: Explicit language!).
So, having listened to Richard Lindzen (or Judith Curry, or Willie Soon), having seen the antics of the Science Guy on YouTube, and having investigated Tony Heller’s YouTube channel, perhaps you could see yourself rejecting the PC notion of an “existential threat” and instead adopt the more intellectually respectable idea that the jury is, in fact, still out on so-called climate change.
Rob Chrisman lives in Nevada City.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.