Lowry: Meet the new climate deniers

posted at 7:21 pm on April 5, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Heh. I liked how Rich Lowry put this on Fox News this morning, following up on his column earlier this week — how often have people who, calmly and rationally, dare to question the notion that humanity is hurtling toward a man-made, imminent, and irreversible warming catastrophe been written off as heretical “climate-deniers” who “ignore/hate science”? As The Economist‘s recent reappraisal of the climate-change issue illustrated, however, there’s now more and more data piling up that the earth’s temperature has actually been pretty much stable over the past decade or so, despite the gobs of greenhouse gases we’ve been continuously adding to the atmosphere. All of the old favorite climate models are perilously close to completely falling apart, since it turns out that the planet might not be quite as sensitive to carbon emissions as they projected, and it appears that the scaremongers and doomsayers’ continuing insistence that we must put a halt on our economic activity to combat the problem makes them the real climate deniers and science haters. Oh, how the tables have turned!

None of this is to necessarily say that climate change is not an issue with which we should be concerned, but rather that the fact that all of that oh-so-very “settled science” actually isn’t settled science suggests that some of the determined alarm-peddlers just might have had ulterior motives in mind, hem hem.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Global warming. Protecting you from glacial ice for over 10,000 years.
Not Bishop.

S. D. on April 5, 2013 at 7:26 PM

None of this is to necessarily say that climate change is not an issue with which we should be concerned, but rather that the fact that all of that oh-so-very “settled science” actually isn’t settled science suggests that some of the determined alarm-peddlers just might have had ulterior motives in mind, hem hem.

Ericka dear, when you figure out a way to control the weather, then we can legitimately be concerned about “Climate Change” until then, sorry, nothing for us poor humans to do but adapt or die off.

SWalker on April 5, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Argue with climate zealots and you will be called a racist now…

RAGIN CAJUN on April 5, 2013 at 7:28 PM

I am amazed that they haven’t just let this die a quiet death.

Global warming responsible for increased Arctic ice?

Beat that dead horse.

davidk on April 5, 2013 at 7:31 PM

None of this is to necessarily say that climate change is not an issue with which we should be concerned.

Erikaaaa….you’re letting the media-left hive establish the baseline of the narrative.
.
An “issue” with which we should be concerned?
.
Climate entails centuries and millennium long processes that belie humans endeavors to understand, predict and ,least of all, affect it.
.
It’s not flavor of the month ,ribbon wearing ,fad issue that needs to be ‘addressed’ with concern, invariably by a useless and foolish government program.
.
Climate is there and always will be there and will go it’s own way.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on April 5, 2013 at 7:32 PM

Can we drill for our own oil now and bring back regular light bulbs…?

Seven Percent Solution on April 5, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Lets put it this way, if humans can’t survive a degree or two hotter planet, then we are done for as a species… because you can’t survive a degree or two hotter summer. Thus we didn’t survive the Medieval Warm Period.

You and I don’t exist, in other words.

ajacksonian on April 5, 2013 at 7:35 PM

None of this is to necessarily say that climate change is not an issue with which we should be concerned.

Next topic: Earth-shattering killer asteroids, and what the common citizen can do about it.

squint on April 5, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Sooner or later, the sun’s gonna go supernova. How should this be dealt with legislatively?

squint on April 5, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Our country is dying.

Because we’re killing ourselves.

Whether it’s out of control borders, entitlements exploding, embracing the progressive religion of controlling us, or a leadership in both parties destroying individual liberty it’s all leading to the same place.

PappyD61 on April 5, 2013 at 7:43 PM

Sooner or later, the sun’s gonna go supernova. How should this be dealt with legislatively?

squint on April 5, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Repeal the laws of physics.

Heck the Left is trying to repeal all the other laws of Nature as it is.

ajacksonian on April 5, 2013 at 7:46 PM

Sooner or later, the sun’s gonna go supernova. How should this be dealt with legislatively?

squint on April 5, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Revenue enhancingly.

davidk on April 5, 2013 at 7:48 PM

Sooner or later, the sun’s gonna go supernova. How should this be dealt with legislatively?

squint on April 5, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Repeal the laws of physics.

Heck the Left is trying to repeal all the other laws of Nature as it is.

ajacksonian on April 5, 2013 at 7:46 PM

And nature’s God.

davidk on April 5, 2013 at 7:49 PM

The statists will simply ignore the issue. Once enough time has past they will disavow their previous position and move on to a different topic, all designed to steal your wealth and liberty.

Think of Billy D. Williams saying, “Works every time”.

Mojave Mark on April 5, 2013 at 7:52 PM

None of this is to necessarily say that climate change is not an issue with which we should be concerned.

Next topic: Earth-shattering killer asteroids, and what the common citizen can do about it.

squint on April 5, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Don’t worry. NASA’s on it: http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_CAPTURING_ASTEROID?SITE=NDBIS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-04-05-18-45-29

davidk on April 5, 2013 at 7:53 PM

Repeal the laws of physics.

Heck the Left is trying to repeal all the other laws of Nature as it is.

ajacksonian on April 5, 2013 at 7:46 PM

They’re working on it. I’m sure there’s a commission studying black holes just to see how it’s done.

njrob on April 5, 2013 at 7:58 PM

there’s now more and more data piling up that the earth’s temperature has actually been pretty much stable over the past decade or so, despite the gobs of greenhouse gases we’ve been continuously adding to the atmosphere.

More than anything I’d love to see a prediction, an estimated x/y graph of % of CO2 in the air versus the average yearly temperature. We don’t even know THAT much. That’s basic for determining public policy, if that’s what we’re going to do. Is it a linear relationship? Does temperature stop increasing after a certain %? Or increase at a faster rate? This is so basic.

Paul-Cincy on April 5, 2013 at 8:00 PM

None of this is to necessarily say that climate change is not an issue with which we should be concerned…

Yes it is.

Curtiss on April 5, 2013 at 8:00 PM

Sooner or later, the sun’s gonna go supernova. How should this be dealt with legislatively?

squint on April 5, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Obviously, to preempt the brilliant flash and vaporization of a supernova we must address sunlight today. A tax on sunlight is the only solution. Tax something and you get less of it. If we start taxing sunlight now, then over the next billion years there won’t be enough of it to harm us in a supernova. Everything that receives sunlight should be taxed, that way people will find new ways of reflecting light from the sun, because it will eventually kill us!

milemarker2020 on April 5, 2013 at 8:01 PM

The calculus is simple: When an alleged problem’s solution is bigger government, then it’s something we must do something about. Otherwise it’s a complicated issue that we need more government studies on.

Socratease on April 5, 2013 at 8:01 PM

I am amazed that they haven’t just let this die a quiet death.

Global warming responsible for increased Arctic ice?

Beat that dead horse.

[davidk on April 5, 2013 at 7:31 PM]

You’re kidding, right? The sources won’t; it’s their bread and butter. They get paid for it or else they require it to gain the grants that keep food on their table. Michael Mann, et al, would be out of a job if he let CAGW Theory die. That’s not to mention the universities that depend on it as a source of income.

The parrot-ers, the choir, what have you, might, but they aren’t paying attention to the data, they’re paying attention to the sources.

Dusty on April 5, 2013 at 8:02 PM

More than anything I’d love to see a prediction, an estimated x/y graph of % of CO2 in the air versus the average yearly temperature. We don’t even know THAT much. That’s basic for determining public policy, if that’s what we’re going to do. Is it a linear relationship? Does temperature stop increasing after a certain %? Or increase at a faster rate? This is so basic.

Paul-Cincy on April 5, 2013 at 8:00 PM

That’s why you won’t see it.

Curtiss on April 5, 2013 at 8:03 PM

Erika writes very well. Very smart.

SparkPlug on April 5, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Sooner or later, the sun’s gonna go supernova. How should this be dealt with legislatively?

[squint on April 5, 2013 at 7:42 PM]

A trillion dollar program to make “Supernova Exclusion Zone” signs.

Dusty on April 5, 2013 at 8:05 PM

And nature’s God.

davidk on April 5, 2013 at 7:49 PM

Yup.

And everything they replace that being with falls flat on its face from Marx to Chavez with Lennin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao all wedged in there. It’s like they expect the mere application of power to change things for the better. I mean, really, if there isn’t such a guy you can’t replace him and if there is you can’t do anything about him.

They are next to that river in Egypt.

Unable to learn they repeat their mistakes.

ajacksonian on April 5, 2013 at 8:06 PM

I’ve always agreed with Michael Crichton on this, that it is the height of human arrogance to believe we have an impact on this planet.

John the Libertarian on April 5, 2013 at 8:06 PM

As The Economist‘s recent reappraisal of the climate-change issue illustrated, however, there’s now more and more data piling up that the earth’s temperature has actually been pretty much stable over the past decade or so, despite the gobs of greenhouse gases we’ve been continuously adding to the atmosphere

Let’s be honest- a single article in the Economist doesn’t qualify as a complete reassessment of global warming by its editorial team. So much wishful thinking and hyperbole from the right.

The polar ice caps can melt, inundating every major coastal city in the world, without a measurable increase in surface temperatures. The entire premise of what you’re saying is fundamentally flawed.

Scientists are not claiming that global warming is settled science, yet that doesn’t mean that the potential consequences of drastically transforming the composition of the earth’s atmosphere should be entirely ignored. Scientists can’t predict which parts of the Midwest will experience flooding over the next 5 years, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t own flood insurance or that atmospheric science is ‘junk science’.

bayam on April 5, 2013 at 8:09 PM

Let’s be honest-

considering the source, I quit reading right there.

tom daschle concerned on April 5, 2013 at 8:11 PM

Sooner or later, the sun’s gonna go supernova. How should this be dealt with legislatively?

squint on April 5, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Those who think that an exploding sun will have a detrimental impact on their lifestyle will be able to obtain a seat on a spacecraft to the next planet. Obviously this will require much R&D effort that will need funding and the trip itself will likely be costly.

All of this can be paid for very easily because the people who won’t be taking the trip to the next planet won’t be needing their wealth after the sun explodes so it is morally acceptable to take whatever they have and use it to develop the spaceship for those who will bear the burden of carrying human life and civilisation to its next cradle.

The people who won’t be taking the trip and who are therefore eligible to participate as wealth donors are easily identified because they are the ones who haven’t bought one of the (very expensive) tickets.

YiZhangZhe on April 5, 2013 at 8:11 PM

I’ve always agreed with Michael Crichton on this, that it is the height of human arrogance to believe we have an impact on this planet.

John the Libertarian on April 5, 2013 at 8:06 PM

And let’s not forget the late George Carlin. RIP. His take on it was funny as hell.

sage0925 on April 5, 2013 at 8:13 PM

Next topic: Earth-shattering killer asteroids, and what the common citizen can do about it.

squint on April 5, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Send a check to Al Gore.

That’ll solve everything (for Al, anyway).

AZCoyote on April 5, 2013 at 8:16 PM

.tom daschle concerned on April 5, 2013 at 8:11 PM

Lol.

S. D. on April 5, 2013 at 8:16 PM

Let’s be honest- a single article…can completly turn my boundless brainless braying around!

bayam on April 5, 2013 at 8:09 PM

…fixed it!

KOOLAID2 on April 5, 2013 at 8:16 PM

None of this is to necessarily say that climate change is not an issue with which we should be concerned,

i wouldn’t bother wringing your hands over leftist post-normal ‘science’ Erika. Leftists have a long history of using ‘science’ to further their ‘utopian’ dreams (which are of course total power for them, and slavery for you)

We could start with Lysenko, but let’s just look at the most recent agitprop action…the Marcot paper. As with all good agitprop the unlucky masses of people have no clue what they did, nor how culpable the leftist partisans in the ‘media’ are in furthering the agitprop cause

http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/02/were-not-screwed/#more-11430

Judith Curry has a very nice summary, along with links…making for lots of reading…and hard reading too.

But the point of agitprop is 1 to agitate, get people upset, nervous, to move to action…and having done that 2 to propagandize.

These are agitators.

Abbie Hoffman, David Fenton and Realclimate.org. Not many degrees of separation is there?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/31/AR2007053100127.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/a-disclaimer/

r keller on April 5, 2013 at 8:24 PM

When the last big study came out to “prove” global warming and it was clearly stated in the summary that the higher numbers they were reporting for the last century were not statistically valid according to their own model, and in effect that their new “hockey stick” diagram is as 100% phony as Michael Mann’s, it became obvious the jig was up.

I’ve got a bunch of issues of Nat Geo, Smithsonian, and Nature where they bring impending climate change into articles that have nothing to do with climate at all, as if it were about to affect everything we do and are. Next time one of those publications starts demanding to be taken seriously, I will refer them to their own phony nonsense.

Adjoran on April 5, 2013 at 8:25 PM

The sun will never go supernova. Only stars several times more massive than our sun go SN. Main sequence G dwarfs like the sun once they’ve burned their hydrogen eventually swell up into bigger and brighter red giants engulfing their inner planets, maybe out to the Earth and maybe not quite that far. The last of their nuclear fuel consumed, they shrink down to small white dwarfs the size of the Earth with their atoms so crushed that they’re so dense that a spoon full weighs a million tons.

The real global warming is that stars like the sun grow 10% brighter each billion years, so after a couple hundred million more years we’re in danger of losing our oceans. No problem because long before then we’ll be a space faring race and have fixes.

philw1776 on April 5, 2013 at 8:27 PM

The Climateers, fka Warmists, were simpletons in the first place. A branch of science that had little science and even less intellect behind it, in spite of the self-preening by the fellow Climateers. The Climateers were politicians and grant-parasites, first and foremost.

pat on April 5, 2013 at 8:30 PM

Let’s be honest- a single article in the Economist doesn’t qualify as a complete reassessment of global warming by its editorial team. So much wishful thinking and hyperbole from the right.

The polar ice caps can melt, inundating every major coastal city in the world, without a measurable increase in surface temperatures. The entire premise of what you’re saying is fundamentally flawed.

Scientists are not claiming that global warming is settled science, yet that doesn’t mean that the potential consequences of drastically transforming the composition of the earth’s atmosphere should be entirely ignored. Scientists can’t predict which parts of the Midwest will experience flooding over the next 5 years, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t own flood insurance or that atmospheric science is ‘junk science’.

bayam on April 5, 2013 at 8:09 PM

Oh Bayam. So much back pedaling.

Here, let me help. Mankind’s draining of the oil reservoirs beneath the oceans will decrease the natural oil leaks into the ocean. This will decrease the algae and plankton which will eventually kill off the ocean as well as destroy, what, 60% of the earths O2 production. Which will, by design, kill off the entire planet.

There. Feel Better?

WryTrvllr on April 5, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Scientists can’t predict which parts of the Midwest will experience flooding over the next 5 years, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t own flood insurance or that atmospheric science is ‘junk science’.

bayam on April 5, 2013 at 8:09 PM

No, but I can. I love to surf fish for flounder, so of course the heartland makes sense!

WryTrvllr on April 5, 2013 at 8:35 PM

The real global warming is that stars like the sun grow 10% brighter each billion years, so after a couple hundred million more years we’re in danger of losing our oceans. No problem because long before then we’ll be a space faring race and have fixes.

philw1776 on April 5, 2013 at 8:27 PM

Unless this really is the only habitable planet in the galaxy (or universe for that matter) as I believe it to be.

Othniel on April 5, 2013 at 8:36 PM

bayam on April 5, 2013 at 8:09 PM

Do the math on ice, volume, and density.

Melt both icecaps and then show your work on resulting sea water temperature and volumetric change due to both caps melting and take into account the density changes and volumetric changes from both.

Do you know why the inland seas of the late Cretaceous disappeared?

The position of Antarctica?

The rate of continental drift?

When did the isthmus between the Americas form?

Heck, why didn’t all this happen in the Medieval Warm Period if it was such a threat? Much hotter back then. Nothing like the mid Cretaceous, mind you… now that late Cretaceous… well just why was it getting colder?

If you don’t know the answers to these questions, which are quite pertinent to any model of global climate, then how can any prediction be made as to if we are any different than a null hypothesis projection of climate? Do you know what a null hypothesis is? Do you know what the model for the null hypothesis is for our current time which is an interglacial period?

I can’t get answers from other AGW proponents, in fact Mann, et. al. do anything BUT answer the questions. Do not place faith in those scientists who are unable to show their work. Science isn’t about faith, but showing your work and from the release of their emails, you can see quite clearly that they actually have destroyed their own work because they couldn’t keep track of it and since they didn’t publish their original lab material or their methodology they cannot repeat the work done in past papers. That is not the hallmark of science, but of fraud. Unable to answer basic questions, unable to show their work, unable to produce original material, all of that is a hallmark of fraud.

So maybe you can do better and start with the basics, eh?

So do the math on ice caps, size, volume, density, and demonstrate, just to YOURSELF by doing the math that what they say is true.

If you want the fun part, just do the arctic cap.

The results may not be what you expect. But you will be a lightyear ahead of where the fraudsters are. Because you have given up on faith in them and decided to do the work on your own.

ajacksonian on April 5, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Scientists are not claiming that global warming is settled science, yet that doesn’t mean that the potential consequences of drastically transforming the composition of the earth’s atmosphere should be entirely ignored. Scientists can’t predict which parts of the Midwest will experience flooding over the next 5 years, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t own flood insurance or that atmospheric science is ‘junk science’.

bayam on April 5, 2013 at 8:09 PM

Probably almost everybody hanging-out around here knows this.

The issue is that there is an endless supply of problems to be solved and only limited resources that need to be allocated in a way that matches the severity of the damage, the likelihood of the damage actually arising and the likelihood of preventing/containing it … but that hasn’t been done.

Instead, vast amounts of time and wealth of all kinds have been consumed, and legislative, liberty-destroying messes created, in order to take actions that cannot “prevent” nor even “control” something that is very unlikely to happen and that, if it did happen, could and would be addressed in other cheaper, simpler and more obvious ways.

Global warming / climate change has always been principally about ego, and secondly about money.

YiZhangZhe on April 5, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Let’s be honest- a single article in the Economist doesn’t qualify as a complete reassessment of global warming by its editorial team. So much wishful thinking and hyperbole from the right.

- I’m Bray-aming At The Moon on April 5, 2013 at 8:09 PM

Father of Gaia Theory Reverses Himself:

“I was ‘alarmist’ about climate change & so was Gore! The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear cut, but it hasn’t happened. The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world. [The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising – carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.”

- James Lovelock, creator of Gaia theory reversing himself, MSNBC 23 April 2012

The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added…Asked if he was now a climate skeptic, Lovelock told msnbc.com: “It depends what you mean by a skeptic. I’m not a denier.” He said human-caused carbon dioxide emissions were driving an increase in the global temperature, but added that the effect of the oceans was not well enough understood and could have a key role. “It (the sea) could make all the difference between a hot age and an ice age,” he said. ‘I made a mistake’ As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding.”

- MSNBC article excerpt

“I hate all this business about feeling guilty about what we’re doing. We’re not guilty’ — ‘We haven’t learned the lessons of the ozone-hole debate. It’s important to know just how much you have got to be careful.”

- James Lovelock, Lovelock: Man-made Carbon Emissions ‘Have Saved Us from A New Ice Age’

“A planet that is effectively alive can regulate itself and its composition and climate.”

- James Lovelock, Lovelock: Man-made Carbon Emissions ‘Have Saved Us from A New Ice Age’

“The skeptics have kept us sane…They have kept us from regarding climate science as a religion. It had gone too far that way.”

– James Lovelock, UK Times – 14 March 2010

“Effect of man-made carbon is unpredictable. Temperatures might go down at first, rather than up.”

- James Lovelock, 16 March 2010

“Peer-review process can be exceedingly prejudiced and exert censorship even.”

- James Lovelock, 11 July 2010

“Everybody might be wrong. Climate change may not happen as fast as we thought, and we may have 1,000 years to sort it out.”

– James Lovelock, 1 June 2010

“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad…Something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

– James Lovelock, 30 March 2010

“We haven’t got the physics worked out yet…I think the public are right. That’s why I’m soft on the sceptics. Science has got overblown.”

– James Lovelock, 29 March 2010

“The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet. One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models, but he said they hadn’t got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 50 years from now? They’ve employed scientists to tell them what they want to hear. The Germans and the Danes are making a fortune out of renewable energy. I’m puzzled why politicians are not a bit more pragmatic about all this.”

– James Lovelock, 29 March 2010

“We’re very tribal. You’re either a goodie or a baddie. I’ve got quite a few friends among the sceptics, as well as among the “angels” of climate science. I’ve got more angels as friends than sceptics, I have to say, but there are some sceptics that I fully respect. Nigel Lawson is one. He writes sensibly and well. He raises questions. I find him an interesting sceptic. What I like about sceptics is that in good science you need critics that make you think: “Crumbs, have I made a mistake here?” If you don’t have that continuously, you really are up the creek. The good sceptics have done a good service, but some of the mad ones I think have not done anyone any favours. Some of them, of course, are corrupted and employed by oil companies and things like that. Some even work for governments. For example, I wouldn’t put it past the Russians to be behind some of the disinformation to help further their energy interests. But you need sceptics especially when the science gets very big and monolithic.

I respect their right to be sceptics.

– James Lovelock, 29 March 2010

Now, in case you think that this is some “rightie” or something, not only has Dr Lovelock been a mentor to Al Gore, Dr Pauchauri, and Dr James Hansen, he also said this:

“Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change from radically … It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

– James Lovelock, 29 March 2010

Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Let the prosecutions begin. We need to “frogmarch” these so-called climate scientists off to prison for using fraudulent data to obtain federal funding.

Climate-mongers are to true science what Enron was to true business. Let’s start with Professor Mann and clink him the hoosegow pour encourager les autres.

tryptic on April 5, 2013 at 8:49 PM

“I feel duped on climate change.”

- Fritz Vehrenholt, a GIANT and EVANGELIST in the global warming movement

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,813814,00.html

“The climate catastrophe is not occurring.”

- Fritz Vehrenholt, in his book “Die Kalte Sonne” (The Cold Sun)

Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 8:50 PM

http://www.ClimateDepot.com

Akzed on April 5, 2013 at 8:53 PM

In my voluminous collection of crank literature, mainly inherited from my two UFO believer aunts, I just today ran across the June 1984 issue of Fate Magazine, one of the foremost kook periodicals from the Fifties on. They had a monthly news digest called “I See By The Papers”, then written by their editor, Curtis Fuller.

Browsing through it, in addition to the pondering of the “Neanderthal Problem” (where did they all go? Answer now known; about one-fourth of the present human race are descendants of theirs), was a section titled “Earth Changes”. It announced that the previous October (’83), two federal agencies (EPA and the National Academy of Sciences) had issued forecasts of “catastrophic levels of global warming” in the 1990s. Said catastrophes being inevitable unless we got rid of technology, abolished capitalism, returned to an agrarian socialist state, and etc., right now (1983-84).

This was 1984. Just six years earlier, those very same organizations (plus all their buddies at Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Club of Rome, etc.) were all screaming about a new Ice Age- we were all going to freeze to death. Unless, of course, we got rid of technology, abolished capitalism, returned to an agrarian socialist state, and etc.

Six years. They were predicting that the exact same data they claimed predicted a new Ice Age in 1978, predicted a heat death in 1984. And each time, they demanded exactly the same statist “solutions”.

It’s pretty obvious that if the same phenomenon is supposed to cause two diametrically-opposed results (a logical impossibility under the laws of physics), and if the same solutions are demanded to prevent those diametrically-opposed results, then logic tells us that the “threats” are very likely total bullsh!t; it’s the “solution” that is the primary disideratum.

Or to put it bluntly, they couldn’t scare people into giving them Absolute Power Forever with an Ice Age. So, they tried it with “Global Warming”.

It seems to have worked. The AGW scam has outlasted the last Ice Age scare by a factor of eight and a half. (1978-82; four years. 1983-2013; thirty years.)

BTW, there were similar “new Ice Age” scares in the 1920s, and before that in the 1880s. In-between them, and even before the “environmentalists” became the power brokers they are now, there were “warming” scares.

The one in the Fifties produced J.G. Ballard’s SF disaster novels, The Drowned World and The Burning World (US title; it was known as The Drought in the UK). BTW, they are the first, and less readable, half of his “Disaster Quartet”. The latter pair of novels, The Wind From Nowhere, and The Crystal World, are much better. The last one is in fact a “haircut” of Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, and a much better one than Francis Ford Coppola’s light trim of same, Apocalypse Now.

They keep recycling not just trash, but the same old propaganda scares, to frighten us into making them the gods they believe themselves to be.

Sorry. Recycled trash of this sort is still… trash.

clear ether

eon

eon on April 5, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Hansen: I was against coal-fired power plants before I was for them

BobMbx on April 5, 2013 at 9:04 PM

yet that doesn’t mean that the potential consequences of drastically transforming the composition of the earth’s atmosphere should be entirely ignored.

bayam on April 5, 2013 at 8:09 PM

Hmmm…methinks the lie you are promoting negates your entire argument. You have yet to prove that the atmosphere has been transformed in any way at all, much less drastically. And I hope your weren’t referring to the rise of CO2, since it is after all, a “trace gas” in the atmosphere, hence any rise would necessarily be miniscule in relation to the total volume of air.
Nitrogen – 78.08%
Oxygen – 20.95%
Argon – .93%
CO2 .036%

Oops! Looks like CO2 would have to triple in order to break one tenth of one percent. Still everybody needs to panic and relinquish their freedoms and their money in order to fight this dreaded apocalypse, especially while the “science” is still settled, and the Dom Perignon is still chilled.

ariel on April 5, 2013 at 9:15 PM

None of this is to necessarily say that climate change is not an issue with which we should be concerned,

Sorry, but qualifying introductory clauses like this just scream “Love me liberals! Please don’t hate me! Love me! And please do NOT call me a global warming denier!!!!!! I’d just die if you did!”

The “science” was phony, the data manufactured. There never was a “climate change issue.” Knowing that, why must we be “concerned” about it? It’s like saying “none of this is to necessarily say that the curriculum at Hogwarts is not an issue with which we should be concerned.” It’s fiction! Why “should” we be “concerned” about something that does not exist?!

Good grief. These global warming con artists are on their knees. Please don’t prop them back up with their own propaganda.

Rational Thought on April 5, 2013 at 9:33 PM

Good grief. These global warming con artists are on their knees. Please don’t prop them back up with their own propaganda.

Rational Thought on April 5, 2013 at 9:33 PM

Touche!

ariel on April 5, 2013 at 9:37 PM

New Steyn…

The ‘Vigilance’ Vigilantes

M2RB: ‘Til Tuesday

Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 9:48 PM

Liberals are just so incredibly stupid!

ultracon on April 5, 2013 at 9:50 PM

Sign of the times, really.

Climate Science nonsense is easy to accept as fact. All you have to do is be completely ignorant of anything having to do with chemistry, physics, statistics, proper procedures for data collection/verification, logic, and the entire scientific method. One must also have an unnatural lack of curiosity.

Which means politicians, school teachers and reporters will never let it go.

ROCnPhilly on April 5, 2013 at 10:21 PM

yet that doesn’t mean that the potential consequences of drastically transforming the composition of the earth’s atmosphere should be entirely ignored.

bayam on April 5, 2013 at 8:09 PM

Can you tell us when the climate was normal? Before I can accept that the climate is changing, I’d like to know what it should be. Maybe we’re headed (if it were actually changing) back to normal.

BobMbx on April 5, 2013 at 10:29 PM

Climate Science nonsense is easy to accept as fact. All you have to do is be completely ignorant of anything having to do with chemistry, physics, statistics, proper procedures for data collection/verification, logic, and the entire scientific method. One must also have an unnatural lack of curiosity.

ROCnPhilly on April 5, 2013 at 10:21 PM

Once you have all that in place, you need to do one more thing: Hide the decline.

BobMbx on April 5, 2013 at 10:36 PM

How about we point out that Asian rice production produces methane that keeps the world temperatures from being lower and call on them to stop food production instead of us having to stop using fossil fuels. They will call that impossible; as they should, and we should say the same about stopping fossil fuel use.

KW64 on April 5, 2013 at 10:54 PM

atmospheric science is ‘junk science’.

bayam on April 5, 2013 at 8:09 PM

Losing Your Religion.

The Economist is a bellwether death knoll. They’re just reacting to actual findings, not ginned-up prognostications.

John the Libertarian on April 5, 2013 at 10:57 PM

Sooner or later, the sun’s gonna go supernova. How should this be dealt with legislatively?

squint on April 5, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Change the laws of physics.

unclesmrgol on April 5, 2013 at 11:29 PM

drats — I guess that was way too obvious — someone beat me to it.

unclesmrgol on April 5, 2013 at 11:30 PM

Liberals are just so incredibly stupid!

ultracon on April 5, 2013 at 9:50 PM

Please be incredibly careful there. They most definitely are NOT stupid. They are young and gullible.

They have been indoctrinated by years of school to believe in authoritarianism and few (most people growing up in cities) realize it’s cooler, on a bright, sunny day, to stand on grass rather than blacktop.

The intelligent ones do eventually outgrow it.

WryTrvllr on April 5, 2013 at 11:41 PM

bayam lasted one comment…..

itsspideyman on April 6, 2013 at 12:31 AM

Global warming – OK, maybe it’s not as bad as we thought.

Killer asteroids??? — I have faith in NASA to build an anti-asteroid missile.

Our Sun turning supernova — remind me next year.

But for now we must concentrate on THIS YEAR’S PROBLEM:

STOP CONTINENTAL DRIFT!!

fred5678 on April 6, 2013 at 3:07 AM

I wonder when the left is going to figure out our planet’s temp is controlled by that big ball of fire in the sky. It becomes more active we warm up, it becomes less active we cool down. This isn’t rocket science. I wonder if the left ever looked up to the sky and saw the light.

Oh btw. When the sun becomes more active and it heats up the oceans; the seas release more CO2 into the atmosphere. Just like a soda releases CO2 if heated. Thus the hotter the planet becomes the more CO2 in the atmosphere. In other words CO2 is a lagging indicator of higher temps not the cause.

And since we are about 20,000 years give or take into a interglacial warming period and they last about 20,000 years give or take we should be more concerned with a new ice age coming in the near future (geologically speaking(next couple thousand years oh so)) then any type of warming. If the planet cools 100′s of millions will die.

unseen on April 6, 2013 at 6:35 AM

STOP CONTINENTAL DRIFT!!

fred5678 on April 6, 2013 at 3:07 AM

yes if we don’t stop it volcanoes all around the ring of fire will explode. We have the technology we can do it!!!!! /

unseen on April 6, 2013 at 6:37 AM

Let’s tally the cost of the left’s drive for global warming “debate”

90 million americans out of the work force.

An explosion of food stamps and disability

600,000 people left the work force last month alone.

Terrorism funded by middle east oil as the environmentalists refuse to allow us to pump our own oil.

So the left drives up the cost of energy to almost $4.00/gal back in the mid 2000′s the housing bubble bursts has people are unable to pay thier bills due to the increase in energy prices. the economy implodes, Obama is elected, his polices transform America with Obamacare, tax hikes, regulations out of this world, increase in electric rates……

Seems like the left won the “debate” on global warming.

unseen on April 6, 2013 at 6:43 AM

Global warming?
They say that like it’s a bad thing.
Personally I can’t wait till this part of the globe does its annual warm up, so that I can do some gardening and outdoor barbecuing.

justltl on April 6, 2013 at 7:26 AM

Global warming. Protecting you from glacial ice for over 10,000 years.

Not Bishop.

S. D. on April 5, 2013 at 7:26 PM

Heh.

Of course there’s global warming…Chicago once sat under a mile-thick mountain of ice. Was that better?

Jaibones on April 6, 2013 at 7:58 AM

Scientists are not claiming that global warming is settled science, yet that doesn’t mean that the potential consequences of drastically transforming the composition of the earth’s atmosphere should be entirely ignored. Scientists can’t predict which parts of the Midwest will experience flooding over the next 5 years, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t own flood insurance or that atmospheric science is ‘junk science’.

bayam on April 5, 2013 at 8:09 PM

Scientists are not claiming that an outbreak of mutant 50-foot high rabbits with laser eyes is settled science, yet that doesn’t mean that the potential consequences of an invasion of such rabbits should be entirely ignored. Scientists can’t predict which parts of the Midwest will be devastated by such an invasion over the next 5 years, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t own flame projectile weapons to fight them back or that my post when you really analyze it is ‘junk writing’.

PackerBronco on April 6, 2013 at 8:47 AM

Scientists are not claiming that an outbreak of mutant 50-foot high rabbits with laser eyes is settled science, yet that doesn’t mean that the potential consequences of an invasion of such rabbits should be entirely ignored. Scientists can’t predict which parts of the Midwest will be devastated by such an invasion over the next 5 years, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t own flame projectile weapons to fight them back or that my post when you really analyze it is ‘junk writing’.

PackerBronco on April 6, 2013 at 8:47 AM

That’s good science.

I have my own concerns about the rapid increase in wind farms springing up across our nation. I do not believe the earth can handle the wind shift this is causing in our atmosphere.. or the extra torque on our orbit and planetary rotation. I have my own research on this subject and have determined it to be true. I have projected that within 20 years time.. wind farms will have altered earth’s rotation to such an extent.. every living thing will be hurled from the planet into outer space. The planet’s orbit will shift and aided by the change in jet stream.. earth will be pulled directly into the sun. All life will end and the planet will melt.

The only way to prevent this, of course, is to immediately make me King.

JellyToast on April 6, 2013 at 9:21 AM

Scientists are not claiming that global warming is settled science,
bayam on April 5, 2013 at 8:09 PM

Well deary you better be talking to your ilk. The sure think it is.

*You friggin toady.

CW on April 6, 2013 at 9:22 AM

None of this BS is anything other than a long planned well-orchestrates weapon designed to destroy national soverignity and hand the one world power control over all things.

Over thelast few decades, the left has invested tons of big bucks, much of science education, and had their legal teams waiting to pounce when the whistle blew. The problem was the whistle blew on them and they were expse as the frauds and deceitful manipulaters that they re in their rotted souls.

Their political hoax is over–but they can’t afford not to give it a try, and since they’ve now hae comeout of the closet and exposed themselves as the anti-freedom freaks they are, they no longer give a hoot who knows it’s a hoax.

Don’t count on the complicit co-ruler GOP to stop them.

Don L on April 6, 2013 at 9:31 AM

There is this:

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has confidently announced ‘the science is settled’ on man-made Global Warming.

http://green-agenda.com/science.html

And this:

In testimony to Congress about global warming, Al Gore declared that “the science is settled” and he was right. The fact that CO₂ heats the atmosphere absolutely is settled science. The fact that the amount of CO₂ that humans have already emitted is causing warming at an unprecedented rate is also settled, and the longer we continue emitting CO₂ the worse it will get.

http://www.thescienceisstillsettled.com/

And I can find others. You should really try harder, Bammy.

gryphon202 on April 6, 2013 at 9:32 AM

STOP CONTINENTAL DRIFT!!

fred5678 on April 6, 2013 at 3:07 AM

Give me a trillion dollars to work with and I will develop large anchors off the East coast to prevent the US from CRASHING INTO CHINA WHERE THEY WILL BE ABLE TO INVADE US WITHOUT A NAVY! Our entire way of life is in danger from this dangerous Continental drift and only if we act now can we save ourselves!!! Give me money now to prevent this disaster.

Corsair on April 6, 2013 at 9:36 AM

The only way to prevent this, of course, is to immediately make me King.

JellyToast on April 6, 2013 at 9:21 AM

A King who paints beautifully?

I’m in. Where do we vote?

:-)

hawkdriver on April 6, 2013 at 9:48 AM

Maybe the little control freaks on the left watched too many disaster movies as kids and so are more accepting of any phony science that comes their way. They do seem able to accept all the hog wash rather easily. Why would anyone lament the retreating glaciers when they now live on the very land the ice has vacated? We know Algore is a crook since he is a failed politician. Gotta make a buck some how. How would the ice caps melt anyway. The lakes around here still have ice 2 feet thick. Seems they have decided 20 years is the optimal time needed to have hoaxes go down the memory hole. Would the little lefties be so accepting of environmental protection if they knew it was begun by Nazis? Probably so.

Kissmygrits on April 6, 2013 at 10:04 AM

Argue with climate zealots and you will be called a racist now…

RAGIN CAJUN on April 5, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Why would they switch away from “Nazi”, it’s the trump card of tar-brushes.

An AGW-denier is like a Holocaust Denier, and a Holocaust Denier is almost a Crypto-nazi, which face it, is a real Nazi.

Axeman on April 6, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Gore and Company have always ignored the archaeological record in regards to climate change. Take Greenland, for example. Like the name? The island is presently covered with permafrost. When the Norsemen settled there around 1,000 AD, they buried their dead in the ground. The burials became shalower as the temperature cooled until the settlements were abandoned because of the permafrost. The time period around 1,000 AD is known in archarology and geology as The Little Alto Thermal. Of course, Gore and Company would ignore such climate change heresy as a “Little Alto Thermal” that was warmer than today’s hypothetical, supposedly man-made, global warming. Can’t let the archaeological record get in the way of anti-warming government handouts.

polarglen on April 6, 2013 at 4:39 PM