top of page

Climate Change - Existential Crisis???



It has been interesting and frustrating to watch climate change skeptics (of which I'm one) be driven out of the discussion of climate.  i absolutely believe in climate change but I do not believe that it is caused by man.  It varies naturally on a global scale based on a lot of factors but man's release of carbon dioxide is not one of the major factors.  One does not have to look far to see lots of evidence that climate change is the same kind of science that COVID vaccinations and mandates are.  They are both driven by "political" science.  When the politicians are saying "Follow the Science" and leading the science (think Al Gore) they are referring to political science rather than real science that is based on open discussions of theories, data, and varying points of opinion.  Real science takes years for a consensus to result and even then there will be those that dissent.  Scientific theories take decades, if not centuries, to be proven, not a year or two.  When this scientific discussion/debate is constrained or eliminated you arrived at the 1500's when Galileo was put under house arrest for teaching the heresy that the earth rotated around the sun.  

Those that have not bought into the climate change paranoia have been called climate deniers and denied access to journals and public discussions.  Is this any different from history?  As they say, if you do not study history your are bound to repeat it.

Below are two graphs that show historical temperature averages.  The one on the top is the one that supports climate change where the methodology has never been released (not suspicious at all. . .) and the one on the bottom is the data where the methodology by which the data was developed is open and transparent.  The proponent of the top chart (Mann) recently lost a liable lawsuit against the one that developed the bottom chart (Ball) because he would never produce his methodology as to how he adjusted the data to show massive climate change that the world had never seen before.  The only problem was that the current "existential" climate crisis isn't anywhere near as warm as it was historically (according to the bottom chart) when the earth was still green & beautiful.  The current "existential" climate crisis is again political theater being used to bankrupt the United States by those would either get rich from it or gain power from the failure of the US economy.  The graphs below were presented as a part of a liable suit brought against Ball by Mann after Ball said that Mann should be in state pen rather in working at Penn State.  Mann would never produce his methodology as to how he went about developing the upper chart.  After 8 years the judge not only threw out his suit but awarded costs and attorney fees to Ball.  That usually means the judge found that Mann had not cooperated with the court and basically ticked off the judge in the British Columbia court where the case was filed.


















I would note that the graph below is not comparing apples to apples.  The top graph is how much did the average temperature vary from the average annual temperature from 1900-1990.  The bottom graph is the average temperature that has been determined for Europe during a slightly different time period (200 AD to 2,000 AD for Ball vs 1000 AD to 2000 AD for Mann).  The point is that if the European Continent was greater than 0.5 degrees centigrade warmer for about 100 years, you should see something show up in the Mann data but it doesn't.  If anything the Mann Data is showing global temperatures below normal for that period.  While neither data is conclusive (especially since Mann won't release his methodology), an honest discussion should follow rather than name calling and stonewalling.  Another problem is the adjustments to the temperature data used in climate modeling as shown below. 


Note how the more recent the data is lower the historical temperatures are for the GISS Global 5 Year Temperature Trends.  The latest version shown (GISS 2015) has been lowered by about 0.3 of a degree from the 1980 data and the warm period from 1940 has been reduced.  This tends to increase the rate of temperature change historically and supports increased climate change in modeling the future.  Remember the old computer "adage - garbage in = garbage out".  The temperatures had stabilized and were becoming more stable since about the year 2000.  A few years ago the calibration for the ocean surface temperatures on the satellites was changed as I remember and now temperatures are soaring again.  That is too convenient for a time when some in our nation aare calling for TRILLIONS or ever HUNDREDS OF TRILLIONS of dollars to fight man-made climate change is not even happening.  When the data is being manipulated how can you trust any of the modeling or predictions?  The alarmists have been spouting one world ending crisis after another for over 100 years.  When I was young back in the 1960's people were talking about the next ice age that was surely coming.  Now it is global warming but when that didn't happen for 15 years or so we had to call it climate change.
















In fact in 1785, Thomas Jefferson bemoaned the fact that rivers didn't freeze over like they used to and the fruit now froze in the spring because the snow wasn't as deep and didn't stay as long in the mountains.  It sounds like it could have been written this year rather than almost 250 years ago.  In 1922 the Washington Post contained an article that the Gulf Stream had warmed and the glaciers were all melting and it was likely the end of the world.  We need to look at history and note histrionics of the doomsday crowd and see it for what it is - an attempt to stir up mass hysteria to obtain a political goal rather than the end of the world.  If you visit Alaska you will find that in about 1910 there was a warm spell and glaciers retreated by a mile or more with one retreating about 2 1/2 miles in a single year.  Thus next time you read about a new climate crisis that is "existential" in scope (world ending), take heart, it's likely just the latest in a long line of existential crisis that has gone on for the last 100 years.  This is especially true when the proponents are caught changing the data to favor their preferred outcome and won't allow debate, start calling their detractors names and try to ban them from the pubic square.  Whether this is climate change, COVID19, or what ever the crisis is that sure to kill you soon - especially if it's a virus that is being treated early with over the counter medicines in some parts of the world - take a breath and figure out that the earth has withstood shocks from meteors, huge volcanic eruptions and the huge forest fires caused by the failure to harvest overgrown forests so it can likely survive this latest "existential" crisis as well.

The cost of "fighting climate change" is in the trillions of dollars - likely above $100 Trillion - that's $100,000,000.000.00.  Do we want to give that to the "elites" that want all of our money so they have it all and we "own (have) nothing and love it"?  I SUSPECT YOU DON'T EITHER!

bottom of page